Page images
PDF
EPUB

EMPIRE AND CHURCH IN UGANDA

AND KENYA

1. The Call from Africa. By MISSIONARY COUNCIL OF CHURCH Assembly. 1926.

2. Conference of Governors of the East African Protectorates. 1926. 3. The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law. By M. F. LINDLEY. Longmans, Green. 1926.

4. Kenya. By Dr. NORMAN LEYS. 3rd Edition, with new Preface. The Hogarth Press.

1926.

5. Some Problems of East Africa. By HILDEGARDE HINDE. Williams and Norgate. 1926.

6. The Golden Stool. By EDWIN SMITH.

1926.

Holborn Publishing House.

7. Slavery or "Sacred Trust." By J. H. HARRIS. Williams & Norgate. 1926.

FOR in the Kenya, Taninyika, Nyasaland,

the first time in the history of our Empire in East Africa,

the Governors of Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland, and Northern Rhodesia, with representatives from the Sudan Government and from the Protectorate of Zanzibar, have met together to consider common problems and to co-ordinate policy throughout the territories over which they rule. The scene of the conference was in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya Colony, and it took place during the month of January, 1926.

The meeting was the outcome of a suggestion in the Report of the Parliamentary Commission, which toured East Africa in the latter half of 1924. The Report was issued in 1925 and, following hard upon its publication, arrangements were made for this Conference of Governors. They, too, have issued a report of their proceedings, a report which deserves to be considered very carefully, for it is a milestone, marking-as all milestones dodefinite progress away from one position, while indicating how much ground remains to be covered before the end is reached.

This latter Report takes it for granted that we must make the natives of our East African territories produce for world markets, either as wage-earners on farms or plantations, or as peasant farmers tilling their own soil. To quote the words of the Report (p. 16):—

Steady progress cannot be secured in some areas unless every ablebodied native, who shows no tendency to work, is given to understand

that the Government expects him to do a reasonable amount of work, either in production in his own Reserve or in labour for wages outside it. . . . In areas where the first alternative is not within his reach, the native should be definitely encouraged to go out to labour. In others, where both alternatives are open to him, the Government is not concerned to impose either upon him, but simply to ensure, so far as it can, that he shall work in the cultivation of his own land, if he pleases, or else as a wage-earner on alienated land, if he prefers it. . . .

For years a controversy has existed in Kenya Colony as to which system secures the greater amount of production: (a) getting the male native to work as a wage-earner on the lands of European settlers, or (b) teaching native families to produce crops on their own holdings. It seemed to be taken for granted in many quarters that as the unit of African labour must be able to till a larger area of soil with modern ploughs and oxen on a settler's farm than could be done on his own holding with a primitive hoe, that therefore the case was made out fully for a policy which would bring the male native to work as a wage earner on the farms of European settlers.

But there were not wanting many administrative officers who had taken a pride in bringing the agricultural ability of the natives in their areas to a higher stage than before, and these men were by no means inclined to agree that one male unit with oxen and plough on a settler's farm could produce more than a unit in the Reserves, which consisted of a family.

So the controversy went on for years, and as in 1918, 1919, 1920, more and more settlers were granted lands in the colony, it became ever more and more acute, and the advocates of the policy of encouraging natives to grow economic crops, such as maize and ground nuts, for export, were being challenged constantly by European settlers, who wanted wage-earners. Colonel Ainsworth, the first Chief Native Commissioner of the Colony, who had been largely instrumental in encouraging the natives in the populous Kavirondo Reserve to grow produce for export, was especially the subject for attack, and it was really rather pathetic to see a good man forced to bolster up a policy which was perfectly sound in itself with the argument that the more the natives produced for export in their Reserves, the more the young male members of their community left the Reserves to become wage

earners.

On October 23, 1919, Col. Ainsworth issued his Labour

Circular (No. 1), which was followed by what is called the Bishops' Memorandum, controverting the policy of the Labour Circular on the grounds that, though the term "compulsory labour was avoided in the Circular, the thing itself was thereand there in a very indefinite, and therefore a very bad form.

Col. Ainsworth's position was a most unenviable one, and he received criticism from all sides. Shortly before he left the Colony, he published (on August 12, 1920) a long article, prompted by criticisms published in England of the Colony's labour policy. The following is an extract from this article: "The policy is to let them (the tribesmen) work in their own Reserves for their economic advancement, or if they so prefer, let them work outside on the non-native lands in return for wages." Col. Ainsworth left the colony a day or two after his article was published, and by the 28th of the same month, the policy he advocated was no longer the policy of the Government. That is, the former of the alternatives, i.e., to let the tribesmen work in their own Reserves for their economic advancement, was abandoned-but not abandoned for long.

As soon as it was known that this policy had been abandoned the Government was challenged, in the interests both of Africans and of the Missions, for it was the aim of Missions to build up self-supporting Native Christian communities in the Reserves. Such communities cannot evolve if their members are debarred from working in their own areas for their economic advancement. It is not possible for me to tell the story of how the Government was persuaded to return to Col. Ainsworth's policy, without in the telling arousing resentments which ought to be allowed to die; but I have felt it necessary to lift the veil a little, because it is not always realized how vitally economic decisions may affect the Church's task in Africa.

In effect the above quotation from the recent Governors' Conference is on the lines of Col. Ainsworth's policy, with a difference. Col. Ainsworth's contention was that "Africans. must be compelled to conform to civilized ideals, but only in such manner and to such an extent as the Government would impose on its own subjects." This seems a very sound contention, only it so happens that the five Governors apparently do not intend to follow it. They intend their Governments to say to the African what they would not (and could not) say to

their white subjects, that is that they are "to do a reasonable amount of work, either in production in their own Reserves or in labour for wages outside it."

Africans pay their taxes, support themselves on their holdings, and are no charge on the State. Poor relief and workhouses are unknown for Africans in these territories, and there is no dole. Yet the Governors are not satisfied with this situation, and demand that in areas where the native cannot produce for worldmarkets, he " should be definitely encouraged to go out to labour." This means leaving his home, wife and family. If this" encouragement" is carried out evil days indeed will blight the life of the African. The Governors are proposing to sow imperial wild oats in Africa, and our children will reap the harvest in the shape of embittered racial relationships. If Col. Ainsworth's contention is right, the Governors can only justify their proposal by substituting " British subject" for "native." It would then not be worth the paper on which it was written, save only in so far as it revealed the anti-British nature of their proposals.

The task which the Governors in East Africa have had committed to them is one which is of particular concern to the inhabitants of the British Isles, because it is related to the problem of unemployment in England. Their Report says: "There are, too (in East Africa), a soil and climate which may easily produce enough to give the raw material, and the markets necessary, to relieve and raise some part of the unemployed millions which constitute Europe's greatest problem." That the number of unemployed in England may be reduced, both soil and climate in Africa are to be exploited, so as to make available the raw products which England needs. But production from the African soil means African man-power, and the Governors' "problem is to arrive at a just and far-seeing method of harmonising the best progress and welfare of the native inhabitants with the maximum of production" (p. 14 of Report). This problem is also ours, and we must agree with the Governors that it cannot be solved "under any system which sacrifices the native human being to foreign exploitation of the soil." The sentiment is unimpeachable, provided we can agree as to what constitutes "sacrifice" of the native human being. It all turns on that, for what some would regard as sacrificing the native human being, others would regard as discipline or fair exploitation.

There are several lines of enquiry whereby we can seek to make clear to our minds what would constitute sacrificing the native human being to foreign exploitation of the soil:

(1) War.-During the last war, Africans (I purposely do not give numbers, lest numbers should obscure a search for a principle) were conscripted (some had to be roped by the neck) and many died of disease. They were conscripted and died that we—and not our enemies-might exploit the soil and climate of Africa. Does this constitute "sacrificing the native human being to foreign exploitation of the soil"? Africans (and, surely, they have a right to be heard) have said that their dead were taken forcibly by the white man. For years, literally years, the daily wailing of the homefolk, at the going down of the sun and at the rising of the same, were in my ears. Are we to bring Africans into our

next war?

(2) Breaking up the home-life.-Under the system in East Africa of contract labour, the age-long habit of husband and wife not being separated is being demolished in hundreds of thousands of homes. Under the old tribal life, the universal rule was for husband and wife to live their lives together. African home-life is being sacrificed that foreigners may exploit the soil. It may be possible to plead justification for breaking up African homes. Justifiable or not, it is being done.

(3) Wages.-Twelve to fourteen shillings a month of 30 days (Sundays do not count in the thirty days), with a food ration of maize meal and occasionally meat, speaks for itself. Someone is sacrificing the native human being in the matter of wages. Responsibility lies somewhere between the consumer and the employer of African labour. Employers say that they cannot pay more. Is the consumer exploiting both the employer and the native human being? It really looks as though African interests are being sacrificed by someone, when five weeks' work is rewarded with from 2s. 6d. to 3s. a week, plus maize meal.

(4) Death-rate among wage-earners.-Until it can be shown that the death-rate amongst wage-earners on the soil is no higher than that amongst the same class of men in the Reserves, uncertainty must remain in the minds of many as to whether Africans are being sacrificed to foreign exploiters of the soil. Conditions of labour are improving, but Africans are critical of those obtaining in some areas. Vital statistics are urgently needed.

« PreviousContinue »