The 18th and 19th centuries can be characterized as the colonial and racial domination of European powers. This period initiated the start of capitalist modernity in Europe. One of the key features of capitalist modernity was the expansion of European societies, leading to the start of colonialism. Colonialism can be defined as the practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. Colonialism was designed with keeping the concept of power being designated to the few in mind. The European colonial powers were the ones with the upper hand. Due to the fact that Europe’s economy and trading relations were dependent upon connections with other civilizations, the success of the European colonial powers was directly reliant upon other nations. Therefore, the European colonial powers took it upon themselves to exploit the indigenous peoples living in places such as the African Congo. However, it is important to note that colonization occurred without the consent of the colonized people. Colonialism in Africa had occurred by 1914. A map adopted from A History of the African People, entitled “The Partition of Africa by 1914” seems to describe this process perfectly. From that point forward, the continent of Africa would be broken into pieces and divided among some of the largest European colonial powers at that time, most especially Brittain. The largest amount of territory was stolen by the British and the French. Due to the legacy of colonialism, various authors that we have read such as Maria Mies, argue that it is impossible for developing nations to “catch up”. It is my contention that authors Jerry Kloby and Walter Rodney seem to agree with Mies.
In her article entitled “The Myth of Catching-up Development”, Mies claims that the idea of developing nations being able to “catch-up” is a “myth”. Mies most likely makes this claim due to the fact that she believes this idea to be very “linear”. The argument is made that just because Europe, Japan, and the United States were successfully able to industrialize and make significant technological advancements, does not mean that the same path of development can be implemented in other countries, such as Africa. Affluent societies such as these are successful due to their capability in terms of making scientific, technological, industrial, and economical advancements. However, all of these advancements are made at the expense of “the underdeveloped societies of the south” (Mies 152). As Mies argues, “…the poverty of the underdeveloped nations is not as a result of “natural” lagging behind but the direct consequence of the overdevelopment of the rich industrial countries who exploit the so-called periphery in Africa, South America, and Asia” (Mies 151). In other words, Affluent societies remain this way because they continue to exploit other nations. This is mainly due to the North and their constant desire to advance. While affluent societies are aware of all the “negative impacts on their quality of life”, “they fail to act on this knowledge by changing their lifestyles, ”thus further enabling the underdeveloped societies to remain that way (Mies 152). All of the practices and policies implemented by the North on the South led to the South automatically being at a disadvantage. If one looks at the African Congo for example, 1870 marked the beginning of European colonization in Africa. European colonialism converted the continent of Africa into “a hell hole of torture, abuse, and murder”(King Leopold’s Ghost). Unfortunately, these events seemed to set a negative tone for the future, in the sense that colonialism inhibited the Africans from advancing in their own country. They were intentionally oppressed and forced to lag behind as a result of Britain’s insecurities in terms of the Africans potentially being able to get ahead, or catch up. One of Mies’ main arguments is that “the myth of catching-up development, therefore, eventually leads to further destruction of the environment, further exploitation of the “Third World”, further violence against women and further militarization of men” (157). In other words, in an attempt to industrialize, people will continue to take advantage of the resources around them. While they are abundant, they certainly are limited. Additionally, Mies argues that “…people expect science and technology to provide a solution…rather than taking steps to limit their own consumption and production …” (152). However, before this happens, it could potentially be too late, in the sense that the extreme overdevelopment of the North will create too large of a disparity between more affluent countries and less affluent ones.
In the article “The Legacy of Colonialism”, author Jerry Kloby argues that “one of the major reasons for the development problems that exist … today is the destruction of indigenous social relationships and productive economic practices, as well as the evolution of various patterns of relationships that were established during the era of colonialism” (Kloby 99). Based on this argument, it is safe to say that Kloby would most likely agree with Mies. Here, Kloby is arguing that the deterioration of old practices as well as the evolution of new ones are clashing together, thus causing disruptions in terms of development. As opposed to allowing “indigenous social relationships and productive economic practices” to naturally evolve on their own, their forced development by European colonial powers is what ultimately led to problems. A perfect example of this can be seen in “King Leopold’s Congo”(100). Kloby defines colonialism as “the formal political domination of one country by another in which the relationship between the two nations is always one of economic exploitation, although the dominant nation may pretend otherwise” (100). There are several examples that come to mind in terms of supporting this idea. The first, being Europeans educating Africans for their own benefit. In order for the colonialist powers to expand their empires, they needed to convert the lives of the natives living in that society. In Africa, the colonists trained low-level administrators, teachers, NCO’s railroad booking clerks, “for the preservation of colonial relations” (Rodney 125). This is essential in terms of emphasizing how the Africans were forced to succumb to systematic oppression due to the way that their institutions were set up. It further illustrates the point that colonialism was designed solely to favor and benefit the Europeans. Secondly, the rights of natives were restricted by European colonial powers. Increased European demand for rubber, among other goods and natural resources, led to the rights of natives being restricted. Once Leopold began his reign in the African Congo, the Africans no longer had access to the land they used for hunting, their economies weakened, they were forbidden to trade, and their resources were exploited by other Europeans.
Furthermore, in the article “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” by Walter Rodney, the key argument is made that there are no “two sides” to colonialism. Despite there being a common sentiment that exists that there must be two sides to every story, Rodney believes this was not the case in terms of colonialism. A common misconception exists that “on the one hand, there was exploitation and oppression, but on the other hand, colonial governments did much for the benefit of Africans and they developed Africa. It is our contention that this is completely false. Colonialism had only one hand- it was a one-armed bandit” (108). This is critical because there are often negative stigmas attached to Africa in the sense that many believed that the Africans needed help from other European nations to become “civilized”. However, this is far from true. According to Rodney, “… colonialism was a system which functioned well in the interests of the metropoles” (Rodney 107). Metropoles can be defined as the parent state of a colony, such as the European colonial powers who freely exploited the natives. A prime example can be seen in looking at the types of practices implemented by the Europeans. In terms of medical services, “there were 34 beds for the half-million blacks”. However, for the 4,000 Europeans in the country in the 1930s had 12 modern hospitals, while the African population of at least 40 million had 52 hospitals (109).This is quite a shocking revelation. Even in their own country, the Africans remained oppressed. They were treated as sub-human and denied access to basic necessities. This is because “… the medical, maternity, and sanitation services were all geared towards the well-being of the settlers” (109). In terms of living situations, shanty towns were home to Africa’s working class. Shanty towns were settlements of improvised housing which were shacks made of plywood, corrugated metal, sheets of plastic, and cardboard boxes. These towns were home to slum conditions and were in no way suitable living conditions. . The Africans living in these areas were deprived of common luxuries such as sanitation, electricity, piped water, paved roads, medical services, and schools that most others enjoyed. The fact that there were no roads is key here. Roads were the connecting pathways to other civilizations. This hindered them in terms of their development and ability to make advancements. “All roads and highways. … were built to make business possible” (110). The Europeans were operating out of the continent of Africa and tried to do their best to remove the Africans simply because they posed a barrier to the Europeans in terms of affecting them and their ability to conduct business. So, in order to ensure that they stayed out of the way, the Europeans used the Africans as tools to conduct their business.
Personally, I agree with Mies’s argument. This is due to the fact that even if developing nations were in fact able to “catch up”, this idea can be seen as ineffective for the following reason. By the time a country such as Africa would be able to overcome all the barriers imposed upon them by other European nations, the “affluent nations” would already be so much further ahead. “Affluent societies” are so successful due to their capability in terms of making scientific, technological, industrial, and economical advancements. Furthermore, people are adding to the problem of keeping certain nations oppressed by engaging in activities that continue to exploit “developing nations”. In terms of how we make this problem worse, three specific examples come to mind. First off, our phones are all made from materials that are extracted from natural resources that are not reusable, yet the average person upgrades to a new phone every 2 years, or as soon as their cell phone provider allows them to. Our phones contain the raw materials cobalt, zinc, cadmium, copper, lithium, metallic oxide and other carbon-based materials extracted from the earth in places like the African Congo.
Secondly, Nike sneakers are produced in sweatshop like working conditions where workers are severely underpaid, yet that doesn't stop anyone from wearing their products.
Nike’s main headquarters are located in Beaverton, Oregon. However, “the athletic shoes that Nike provides to consumers worldwide are produced in hundreds of factories around the world, and have never been produced in factories in the United States. The largest producers of Nike shoes are the factories located in China, Vietnam and Indonesia, although dozens of other countries also contain Nike factories; these countries include Malaysia, Pakistan, India and Thailand” (Michelle Kerns, Author of How are Nike Shoes Produced?). Furthermore, this also reveals that Nike is heavily reliant on outsourcing, because it allows them to hire cheap labor, compared to manufacturing the products in the United States. Lastly, developed nations are under the impression that "a high material living standard is tantamount to a good or high quality of life…" (152) So long as this sentiment continues, the rich will continue to exploit the poor. The poor will continue to remain impoverished. And the ruthless cycle of exploitation will continue. In order for colonialism to be put to a stop,