Class Notes (808,229)
Canada (493,092)
POL201Y1 (221)
C Jung (55)


7 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Political Science
C Jung

Tuesdays October 1 2012 – polisci201y1-y lecture #4 Colonialism Last week: theory of modernization and the industrial revolution- try to make the connection arch of the class. Experience of the revolution – start off not because it’s the first moment historically of theories of development and economic development but also because it becomes the inspiration of how other theories of development happen. Most theories of Modernization- believes economic development will happen the same why it happened in Britain-how they became democratic Industrialization: factory employment, production of surplus – economic specialization -Produced urbanization – literacy and media participation- Produced union organization , political organization, demands for universal suffrage * *(refer to the graph from traditional to modern we saw last week) – imagined that the process of modernization that was taken place in Britain will happen to the rest of the world- in a way they were wrong. Some parts of it show to be right, but in general there are more countries who have not followed this pattern. Not that it never happened anywhere. What’s going to make more countries into allies and democratic- they come up with this model • The dominant question; what explain persistent wide disparities in wealth? • Today we will focus on colonialism – and its impact on present levels of development- what effect does colonialism have on the industrial revolution? Not focusing on the experience of colonialism on the home countries but instead on the countries that were colonized • Among the 196 countries in the world, 64 are former colonies- many of which are the poorest countries of the world today- almost all of the global south is colonized • Many of them are the poorest of the world today. Connection between present status and of colonialism in the past • Social scientist go out and find social correlations- they start to develop causation – why did this happen • Once you establish the correlation then people go out and try to produce a causal theory. We have two ways of looking at this. Readings; one gets down into the details of the former colony; Nigeria – explains present obstacles towards development – you get to see what colonialism looks like. Second reading makes a general argument – you get statistical data that explains the impact of colonialism over time. If you were a political scientist and you wanted to produce a causal theory you could does this by 2 ways; go to the country and look for the impact or you can look at the world and find statistical data- this class is instructive of methodology • First; Nigeria. – does not become Nigeria until it gets colonized in the 1900s. in the so called – scramble for Africa (Europeans diving into Africa) the colonial powers craved countries – arbitrary put together different groups and excluded like groups- took away and understanding of togetherness for the locals. These boundaries have not changed since then. The boundaries are based on the colonial boundaries not any organic sense • The first part of the reading focus on the conditions of Nigeria prior to colonization The people who blame the fault on the colonial powers usually start this way- focusing on the condition prior to colonialism – this argument can create a moral obligation- focus on the responsibilities of colonialism and the production of these bad impacts of the current countries that were once colonies- back to patterns of development and corruption-no moral obligation – the west has no moral obligation and is blameless and therefore no obligation to extend aid. These arguments refer to present day politics. This arguments are not just historical accounts of truth- a lot of present day political factors • This article is unusual in the sense that it tells both the pre colonial and post colonial view. A very balanced view here- normative perspective of who is to blame. Starts with the period prior to colonialism. Argument; not all colonization if the same- its different based on what the pre-conditions were- you can look at different pre-conditions of the countries- this is why the impacts are all different- not because the colonial powers have a different agenda in the colony • Important he says to be incentive of starting conditions. Not so practical to compare how Chile and Nigeria are so different based on GNP • Pre-colonial starting point that had lasting impact on Nigeria; political system, slave trade and technological capacity • Political System; looks different in the south than the north. In the south it looks like kingdoms that were notable because each one had very little political power-the kings actually shared power with the chiefs and very diffused authority patterns- much more egalititarn than you would think. Both king and the chief depend on each other to keep their position. And second, because they were never a single hierarchy-there were multiple one. The kingdoms themselves have very little extractive capacity- they do not course labor from their own populations- they are not wealthy, secondly they are fairly easy for the colonial powers to penetrate (Britain) when British tried to expand they took over Yoruba very easily. In the north; we have the sokoto caliphate- they are large stable and heavily centralized- political units shared a single religion (Islam) – they were much weather, some economic development. And course labor from its own population- in a position to offer more resistant to the colonial powers. Lasting impact on these differences between the north and the south • Slave Trade; this region was heavily involved in the international slave trade. This part of the world essentially loses the most effectively working production segment of the population. They are taking the most important people of Nigeria (de-populating Africa). Today large parts of Africa are under populated-people argue this is one of the reasons why Africa is so poor-reason for this can go back to the slave trade. Impacts productivity in the market arena. Slave trade as an important component of the cause of economic underdevelopment • Technological capacity; the main economic activity is food production. The hand hoe was the primary tool. This type of manufacturing for pom oil doesn’t depend on any type of technological use. The would instead sell luxury cloth. Nothing compared to Britain’s primary export of textile. What is in fact the effect of the colonial state? Indirect rule, minimal state, extractive economy, regional fragmentation and conflict 1) Indirect Rule: The colonial practice of ruling through chiefs. Almost all colonies are ruled like this. They ruled the colony through those indigenous leaders. Used the chiefs to extract the taxes, to increase production, loyalty and laws/ruling. The chiefs are acting as agents of the colonial power. Basically you could you use customary law, as long as you keep control over your population as long you could guarantee loyalty towards the colonial power (Britain) but you can use your own methods of production and taxes- they were allowed to use their traditional method but with interference of the powers to ensure that the colonies worked for the power. The whole idea of indirect rule is that this is colonialism of the chief. They don’t have the interest in actually governing or creating citizens (everything that they are doing back home) they just want to be able to extract resources and keep everything under their favor and make sure there is no rebelism. When chiefs refused to perform these roles- they would rebel. They were suddenly told what to do (which is not what they are used to) thus many chiefs rebelled. When they rebelled they were removed and replaced with another chief – this practice was very common. The whole chief system (although very traditional) gets penetrated by the colonial powers-those rebelled were removed. One lasting impact of indirect rule was tribalism- they ways in which colonialism created tribalism in Africa. General argument is that it changed the nature of chiefly power so that chief relied history on the legitimacy of the subjects – their people had to give them the power to become chiefs. The idea of chief is to serve his people. The colonial power changes that into its head- they are now in power in so long that the powers keep him in power. His subjects do not have any control in the power of the chief- transformed by colonialism, they use the chief as the vehicles of indirect rule 2) Minimal State The reason t
More Less

Related notes for POL201Y1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.