SUMMARY OF DR. WALTER RODNEY'S 'HOW EUROPE UNDERDEVELOPED AFRICA' (CHAPTERS 1-3)

Chapter one

What is development?  A significant event, occurrence, or change.[1]Chapter one of the book states that development is a many-sided process which appears in three distinctive forms: Individual development which is implies increased skill and capacity, greater freedom, creativity, self-discipline, responsibility, and material well-being. The achievement of these aspects of personal development ties in with the state of the society as a whole because man, from the earliest of times, found it convenient and necessary hence led to a new form of development which is, Community development according to Rodney is an increasing capacity to regulate both internal and external relationships because much of human history has been a fight for survival against natural hazards and against real and imagined human enemies. Development as a community speaks to what the entire group is able to accomplish[2] The need to make and use tools is a part of development as it takes less man hours to do the same thing. The task of survival was made easier and easier with new tools being developed. Man could thus gain more control over nature. Economic Development generally refers to the sustained, concerted actions of policymakers and communities that promote the standard of living and economic health of a specific area[3].A society develops economically as its members increase jointly their capacity for dealing with the environment. This capacity for dealing with the environment is dependent on the extent to which they understand the laws of nature (science), on the extent to which they put that understanding into practice by devising tools (technology), and on the manner in which work is organized. Taking a long-term view, it can be said that there has been constant economic development within human society since the origins of man, because man has multiplied enormously his capacity to win a living from nature. Examples of man’s economic development are as follows; firstly, the progress from crude stone tools to the use of metals; secondly, the changeover from hunting and gathering wild fruit to the domestication of animals and the growing of food crops; and thirdly, the improvement in the character of work from being an individualistic activity towards an activity which assumes a social character through the participation of many[4].

Rodney uses China as an example and states that Early man in China lived at the mercy of nature, and slowly discovered such basic things as the fact that fire can be man-made and that seeds of some grasses could be planted in the soil to meet food requirements, By the time of the Tang dynasty[5], China had expanded its economic capacity not only to grow more food but also to manufacture a wide variety of items such as silks, porcelain, ships and scientific devices. This of course represented a quantitative increase in the goods produced, and it was inter-related with qualitative changes in Chinese society. However, development cannot be seen purely as an economic affair, but rather as an overall social process which is dependent upon the outcome of man’s efforts to deal with his natural environment. In the natural sciences, it is well known that in many instances quantitative change becomes qualitative after a certain period. Similarly, in human society it has always been the case that the expansion of the economy leads eventually to a change in the form of social relations. Karl Marx[6] was the first writer to appreciate this, and he distinguished within European history several stages of development. The first major stage following after simple bands of hunters was Communalism where property was collectively owned, work was done in common, and goods were shared out equally. The second was Slavery, caused by the extension of domineering elements within the family and by some groups being overwhelmed by others. Slaves did a variety of tasks, but their main job was to produce food. The next was Feudalism where agriculture remained the principal means of making a livelihood, but the land which was necessary for that purpose was in the hands of the few, and they took the lion’s share of the wealth. The workers on the land (now called Serfs) were no longer the personal property of the masters, but they were tied to the land of a particular manor or estate. When the manor changed hands, the serfs had to remain there and provide goods for the landlord – just keeping enough to feed themselves. Just as the child of a slave was a slave, so the children of serfs were also serfs. Then came Capitalism, under which the greatest wealth in the society was produced not in agriculture but by machines – in factories and in mines. Like the preceding phase of feudalism, capitalism was characterized by the concentration in a few hands of ownership of the means of producing wealth and by unequal distribution of the products of human labour[7]. Underdevelopment, He points out that once development is understood one can best comprehend the concept of underdevelopment. "Obviously, underdevelopment is not the absence of development, because all people have developed in one way or another and to a greater or lesser extent. Underdevelopment makes sense only as means of comparing levels of development. It is very much tied to the fact that human social development has been uneven and from a strictly economic view point some human groups have advanced further by producing more and becoming wealthier.[8]He expounds on underdevelopment and maintains the necessity of comparative analysis in making an assessment of the underdevelopment of a country with economics as a determinist. Thus Rodney argues that if one is to maintain the realities of underdevelopment he must move from an economic analysis. Economic comparisons can be made by looking at statistical tables or indices of what goods and services are produced and used in the societies under discussion.[9] At all times, therefore, one of the ideas behind underdevelopment is a comparative one. It is possible to compare the economic conditions at two different periods for the same country and determine whether or not it had developed. A second and even more indispensable component of modern underdevelopment is that it expresses a particular relationship of exploitation: namely, the exploitation of one country by another. All of the countries named as ‘underdeveloped’ in the world are exploited by others; and the underdevelopment with which the world is now pre-occupied is a product of capitalist, imperialist and colonialist, exploitation. African and Asian societies were developing independently until they were taken over directly or indirectly by the capitalist powers. That is an integral part of underdevelopment in the contemporary sense, Actually, if ‘underdevelopment’ were related to anything other than comparing economies, then the most underdeveloped country in the world would be the U.S.A, which practices external oppression on a massive scale, while internally there is a blend of exploitation, brutality, and psychiatric disorder However, on the economic level, it is best to remain with the word ‘underdeveloped’ rather than ‘developing’, because the latter creates the impression that all the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America are escaping from a state of economic backwardness relative to the industrial nations of the world, and that they are emancipating themselves from the relationship of exploitation. That is certainly not true! If we can measure the national income and the income per capita of the super nations and the underdeveloped nations the results are saddening, for example As of 1968 the income per capita of U.S was 3578 whereas the income per capita of Kenya was 107 dollars. Developed economies have certain characteristics which contrast with underdeveloped ones. The developed countries are all industrialized. That is to say, the greater part of their working population is engaged in industry rather than agriculture, but it is also striking that the developed countries have a much more advanced agriculture than the rest of the world. Their agriculture has already become an industry, and the agricultural part of the economy produces more although it is small. They have a high output of labour per man in industry because of their advanced technology and skills. In Africa, the output of food per person has been falling in recent years. Because the developed countries have a stronger industrial and agricultural economy than the rest of the world, they produce far more goods than the poor nations-in the category of necessities as well as luxuries. The social services provided by a country are of importance equal to that of its material production in bringing about human well-being and happiness. It is universally accepted that the state has the responsibility to establish schools and hospitals, but whether these are provided by the government or by private agencies, their numbers can be established in relation to the size of the population. The extent to which basic goods and social services are available in a country can also be measured indirectly by looking at the life expectancy, the frequency of deaths among children, the amount of malnutrition, the occurrence of diseases which would be prevented by inoculation and public health services, and the proportion of illiterates. In all these respects, the comparison between the developed and underdeveloped countries shows huge and even frightening differences. For every 1,000 children who are born alive in Cameroon, 100 never live to see their first birthday, and out of every 1,000 African children born alive in rural Sierra Leone, 160 die before reaching one year. Yet the comparable figures for the U.K. and Holland are only 12 and 18, respectively. It takes a large number of skilled people to make an industrial economy function; while the countries of Africa have a woefully insufficient number of highly qualified personnel. Persons in developed capitalist and Socialist, countries consume twice as much protein food as those in underdeveloped countries. Such differences help to make it clear which countries are ‘developed’ and which are ‘underdeveloped’.

It has been noted with irony that the principal ‘industry’ of many underdeveloped countries is administration. Not long ago, 60%, of the internal revenue of Dahomey went into paying salaries of civil servants and government leaders. The salary given to the elected politicians is higher than that given to a British Member of Parliament and the number of parliamentarians in the underdeveloped African countries is also relatively high. The situation is that Africa has not yet come anywhere close to making the most of its natural wealth, and most of the wealth now being produced is not being retained within Africa for the benefit of Africans, Even the goods and services which are produced inside of Africa and which remain in Africa nevertheless fall into the hands of non-Africans. Thus, South Africa boasts of having the highest per capita income in Africa; but as an indication of how this is shared out, one should note that while the Apartheid regime assures that only 24 white babies die out of every 1,000 live births, they are quite happy to allow 128 African babies to die out of every 1,000 live births. Mistaken interpretations of the causes of underdevelopment usually stem either from prejudiced thinking or from the error of believing that one can learn the answers by looking inside the underdeveloped economy. The true explanation lies in seeking out the relationship between Africa and certain developed countries and in recognizing that it is a relationship of exploitation .The exploitation of nation by nation. One of the common means by which one nation exploits another and one that is relevant to Africa’s external relations is exploitation through trade. When the terms of trade are set by one country in a manner entirely advantageous to itself, then the trade is usually detrimental to the trading partner. To be specific, one can take the export of agricultural produce from Africa and the import of manufactured goods into Africa from Europe, North America and Japan. The big nations establish the price of the agricultural products and subject these prices to frequent reductions. At the same time the price of manufactured goods is also set by them, along with the freight rates necessary for trade in the ships of those nations. The minerals of Africa also fall into the same category as agricultural produce as far as pricing is concerned. The whole import/export relationship between Africa and its trading partners is one of unequal exchange and of exploitation. More far-reaching than just trade is the actual ownership of the means of production in one country by the citizens of another. When citizens of Europe own the land and the mines of Africa, this is the most direct way of sucking the African continent. . In other words, in the absence of direct political control; foreign investment ensures that the natural resources and the labour of Africa produce economic value which is lost to the continent. At the social and cultural level, there are many features which aid in keeping underdeveloped countries integrated into the capitalist system and at the same time hanging on to the apron strings of the metropolis. The Christian Church has always been a major instrument for cultural penetration and cultural dominance, in spite of the fact. That in many instances Africans sought to set up independent churches. Equally important has been the role of education in producing Africans to service the capitalist system and to subscribe to its values. Recently, the imperialists have been using new universities in Africa to keep themselves entrenched at the highest academic level. Something as basic as language has come to serve as one of the mechanisms of integration and dependence. The French and English that is so widely used in Africa is more for the purpose of African communicating with the exploiters rather than African with African.

Chapter 2

In Africa, before the 15th century, the predominant principle of social relations was that of family and kinship associated with communalism. Numerous examples could be brought forward to show the dominance of the family principle in the communal phase of African development. It affected the two principal factors of production, land and labour as well as the system of distributing goods. Thus under communalism there were no classes and there was equal access to land, and equality in distribution — at a low level¡ of technology and production. Feudalism involved great inequality in distribution of land and social products. The landlord class and its bureaucracy controlled the state and used it as an instrument for oppressing peasants, serfs, slaves and even craftsmen and merchants. The movement from communalism to feudalism in every continent took several centuries, and in some instances the interruption of internal evolution never allowed the process to mature. In Africa, there is no doubt that the societies which eventually reached feudalism were extremely few. By the 15th century, Africans everywhere had arrived at a considerable understanding of the total ecology — of the soils, climate, animals, plants and their multiple interrelationships. The practical application of this lay in the need to trap animals, to build houses, to make utensils, to find medicines, and above all to devise systems of agriculture, in the centuries before the contact with Europeans, the overwhelmingly dominant activity in Africa was agriculture. Development is very much determined by the social relations of production: i.e., those which have to do with people’s functions in producing wealth. Where a few people owned the land and the majority were tenants, this injustice at a particular stage of history allowed the few to concentrate on improving their land. In contrast, under communalism every African was assured of sufficient land to meet his own needs by virtue of being a member of a family or community. For that reason and because land was relatively abundant, there were few social pressures or incentives for technical changes to increase productivity. One way of judging the level of economic development in Africa five centuries ago is through the quality of the products, for example Through North Africa, Europeans became familiar with a superior brand of red leather from Africa which was termed ‘Moroccan leather’. In fact, it was tanned and dyed by Hausa and Mandinga specialists in northern Nigeria and Mali. When direct contact was established between Europeans and Africans on the East and West Coasts, many more impressive items were displayed. As soon as the Portuguese reached the old kingdom of Kongo, they sent back word on the superb local cloths made from bark and palm fibre and having a finish comparable to velvet. The Baganda were also expert bark-cloth makers. Yet, Africa had even better to offer in the form of cotton cloth, which was widely manufactured before the coming of the Europeans. Well into the present century, local cottons from the Guinea coast were stronger than Manchester cottons. Once European products reached Africa, Africans too were in a position to make comparisons between their commodities and those from outside. In Katanga and Zambia, the local copper continued to be preferred to the imported item, while the same held true for iron ‘in a place like Sierra Leone. It is obvious that some of the world’s development and civilization of today which Europe claim to be her handiwork actually started in Africa but was later improved upon my Europe after Africa had suffered greatly from the periods of slave trade and colonialism, which drew the continent backward. Various countries were considered so as to put emphasis to Africa’s position before Europeans came in and robbed it.

Egypt

 One of the first features of feudalism to arrive in Egypt was the military aspect. The Arabs, Turks and Circassia invaders were all militarily inclined. This was particularly true of the Mamluks who held power from the 13th century onwards. Political power in Egypt from the 7th century lay in the hands of a military oligarchy which delegated the actual government to bureaucrats, thereby creating a situation similar to that in places like China and Indo-China. Even more fundamental was the fact that land tenure relations were undergoing change in such a way that a true feudal class came on the scene. All the conquerors made land-grants to their followers and military captains. the ruling military elements also became a new class of landowners. By the 15th century, most of the land in Egypt was the property of the Sultan and his military lords.

If there was a small class which monopolized most of the land, it followed that there was a large class of landless. Peasant cultivators were soon converted into mere agricultural laborers, tied to the soil as tenants or vassals of the feudal landlords. These peasants with little or no land were known as the fellahin. Under the patronage of the Fatimid dynasty (969 A.D. to 1170 n.n.), science flourished and industry reached a new level in Egypt. Windmills and waterwheels were introduced from Persia in the 10th century. New industries were introduced-paper-making and sugar manufacturing.

Ethiopia

Ethiopia too, at the start of its history was a great power. It was ruled over by foreigners. The kingdom of Axum was one of the most important nuclei around which feudal Ethiopia eventually emerged, and Axum was founded near the Red Sea coast by a dynasty of Sabean origin from the other side of the Red Sea .It was Christianized within a few centuries. After that they moved inland and participated in the development of the Christian feudal Ethiopian state. The Ethiopian, Tigrean and Amharic ruling class was a proud one, tracing its descent to Solomon. In practice, however, the ‘Solomonic’ line was not unbroken. Most of the consolidation of the inland Ethiopian plateau was carried out in the 12th century by an intruding dynasty, the Zagwe, who made claims to descent from Moses. The Zagwe kings distinguished themselves by building several churches cut out of solid rock. The architectural achievements attest to the level of skill reached by Ethiopians as well as the capacity of the state to mobilize labour on a huge scale. Such tasks could not have been achieved by voluntary family labour but only through the labour of an exploited class

Nubia

Nubia was another Christian region in Africa, but one which is not as famous as Ethiopia. In the 6th century A.D., Christianity was introduced onto the middle Nile in the districts once ruled by the famous state of Kush or Meroe. The three small Nubian states which arose some time afterwards were to some extent the heirs of Kush, although after their conversion to Christianity it was this religion which dominated Nubian culture. Scholarly interest in Nubia has focused on the ruins of large red-brick churches and monasteries which had murals and frescoes of fine quality. Several conclusions can be drawn from that material evidence. In the first place, a great deal of labour was required to build those churches along with the stone fortifications which often surrounded them. As with the pyramids of Egypt or the feudal castles of Europe, the common builders were intensely exploited and probably coerced. Secondly, skilled labour was involved in the making of the bricks and m the architecture. The paintings indicate that the skills surpassed mere manual dexterity, and the same artistic merit is noticeable in fragments of painted pottery recovered from Nubia. Other countries that had grown industrially were the Maghreb, Western Sudan, The Inter Lacustrine zone and Zimbabwe. At this juncture one may ask, why did this not lead to a massive growth in the African industry? The answer to this question is not far fetch. At the period under study, Africa’s manufacturing industry was still on a subsistent-like or domestic level. It must be noted that a decisive factor in the growth of the European industry is the available new machinery and change-over from domestic production to the factory system and all these advances in Europe came after the period under review when Africa was already suffering from the slave trade and thereafter colonialism which cause massive brain drain. When Cecil Rhodes sent in his agents to rob and steal in Zimbabwe, they and other Europeans marveled at the surviving ruins of the Zimbabwe culture, and automatically assumed that it had been built by white people. Even today there is still a tendency to consider the achievements with a sense of wonder rather than with the calm acceptance that it was a perfectly logical outgrowth of human social development within Africa, as part of the universal process by which man’s labour opened up new horizons. Several historians of Africa have pointed out that after surveying the developed areas of the continent in the 15th century and those within Europe at the same date, the difference between the two was in no way to Africa’s discredit. Indeed, the first Europeans to reach West and East Africa by sea were the ones who indicated that in most respects African development was comparable to that which they knew. To take but one example, when the Dutch visited the city of Benin they described it thus: The town seems to be very great. When you enter into it, you go into a great broad street, not paved, which seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam. The king’s palace is a collection of buildings which occupy as much space as the town of Harlem, and which is enclosed with walls. There are numerous apartments for the Prince’s ministers and fine galleries, most of which are as big as those on the Exchange at Amsterdam. They are supported by wooden pillars encased with copper, where their victories are depicted, and which are carefully kept very clean. The town is composed of thirty main streets, very straight and 120 feet wide, apart from an infinity of small intersecting streets. The houses are close to one another, arranged in good order. These people are in no way inferior to the Dutch as regards cleanliness; they wash and scrub their houses so well that they are polished and shining like a looking-glass”. Yet, it would be self-delusion to imagine that all things are exactly equal in Benin and in Holland. European society was already more aggressive, more expansionist and more dynamic in producing new forms. so as at that time Europe and Africa were more or less at the same level of development this was of course before their sinister plan of under developing Africa had commenced,

Chapter 3.

Due to the many misconceptions that have come about in relation to the terms development and under development , it was emphasized that not only are they comparative terms but are also interrelated, in that they support each other, for there to be development one has to be under developed so that the developed one feeds of the underdeveloped one, it is an equilibrium in life that has to be satisfied that gives the world balance for example for there to be Good there has to be evil. Western Europe and Africa had a relationship which ensured the transfer of wealth from Africa to Europe. The transfer was possible only after trade became truly international[10] .International trade was nothing but an extension of the European interests overseas as it was the Europeans that had vessels that reached Africa and not vice versa, everything was fully in the Europeans hands. Europeans used the superiority of their ships and cannon to gain control of al] the world’s waterways, starting with the western Mediterranean and the Atlantic coast of North Africa.[11]For example the Portuguese infiltrated and eventually controlled the trade and became a forceful middle man, they captured Arab ports and fortified them .As a result of commerce Africa became a market for goods which were un- saleable in Europe, sub-standard goods because to them Africans deserved the sub-standard goods like old sheets, cast-off uniforms, technologically outdated firearms, and lots of odds and ends found guaranteed markets in Africa. Europe assumed the power to make decisions within the international trading system. An excellent illustration of that is the fact that the so-called international law which governed the conduct of nations on the high seas was nothing else but European law, Africans did not participate in its making, and in many instances African people were simply the victims, for the law recognized them only as transportable merchandise. If the African slave was thrown overboard at sea, the only legal problem that arose was whether or not the slave-ship could claim compensation from the insurers! Europe discovered the gold potential in Africa and the Americas but as at this time they were very few and this could not produce the labour required to tap this wealth so they turned to Africa where they could get human captives who would work for them for free. The fact that Europe was the first part of the world to move from feudalism towards capitalism gave Europeans a head start over humanity[12]  It has been emphasized that the fragmentation and disunity amongst the African community is white the white man used to gain control over Africans for example, in the small territory that the Portuguese later claimed as Guinea-Bissau, there were more than a dozen ethnic groups. It was so easy to set one off against another that Europeans called it a ‘slave trader’s paradise[13] Let it be known that the only time the Europeans used armed force to conquer an African land this was as a last resort because the economic weapons were sufficient enough. European scholars often treat or refer to the European trade as entirely independent whereas it was not because without the African labour the west Indies trade (refers to the trade between England, Africa and the West Indies) would not be accomplished. J.S. Mill, as spokesman for British capitalism, said that as .far as England was concerned, ‘the trade of the West Indies is hardly to be considered as external trade, but more resembles the traffic between town and country.’ By the phrase ‘trade of the West Indies’ Mill meant the commerce between Africa, England and the West Indies, because without African labour the West Indies were valueless[14] Karl Marx also commented on the way that European capitalists tied Africa, the West Indies and Latin America into the capitalist system; and (being the most bitter critic of capitalism) Marx went on to point out that what was good for Europeans was obtained at the expense of untold suffering by Africans and American Indians[15] A few capitalist scholars have tried lying to us that the slave trade was not that profitable whereas data suggests otherwise, A trader named Hawkins made trips to Africa to capture slave during the 14^th century after his first voyage he came back with so many slaves that the Queen wanted to do business with him, she made him a knight and Hawkins chose as his coat of arms the representation of an African in chains. They would have us believe that the same entrepreneurs whom they praise in other contexts as the heroes of capitalist development were so dumb with regard to slavery and slave trade, that for centuries they absorbed themselves in a non-profit venture. Europe’s trade with Africa gave numerous stimuli to Europe’s growth. Central and South American gold and silver — mined by Africans — played a crucial role in meeting the need for coin in the expanding capitalist money economy of Western Europe, Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, and for most o the 19th century, the exploitation of Africa and African labour continued to be a source for the accumulation o capital to be re-invested in Western Europe. The African contribution to European capitalist growth extended over such vital sectors as shipping, insurance, the formation companies, capitalist agriculture, technology and the manufacture of machinery. The profits that England gained from the slave trade are indisputable for instance in the book Capitalism and Slavery. The author Williams gives a clear picture of the numerous benefits which England derived from trading and exploiting slaves, and he identified by name several of the personalities and capitalist firms who were the beneficiaries. Outstanding examples are provided in the persons of David and Alexander Barclay, who were engaging in slave trade in 1756 and who later used the loot to set up Barclays’ Bank.

We can clearly conclude that African trade speeded up several aspects, including the integration of Western Europe, as noted above. That is why the African connection contributed not merely to economic growth (which relates to quantitative dimensions) but also to real development in the sense of increased capacity for further growth and independence. The profits from the slave trade were so much that an 1862 reported that the profits exceeded their powers of calculation. What was born out of this pregnant woman called slavery was not a bouncing baby but a dead foetus in the name of racism. It should be noted that the Europeans did not enslave us for racist reasons but for economic reasons. What’s to note is the hypocritical nature that the Europeans had for instance it was enshrined in the U.S.A constitution more than 200 years that all men are equal however they continued the enslavement of Africans this goes to show that even the mighty State can play a hand in crimes against humanity.

 

---

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/development, accessed on 10/5/2013

[2] http://groundingsmagazine.com/wordpress/development/book-review-how-europe-underdeveloped-africa-pt-1/, accessed on 10/5/2013

[3] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/economic+development

[4] Pg 8, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa , Walter Rodney

[5] 7^th century A.D

[6] Writing in the 19^th century

[7] Pg 12 ,How Europe underdeveloped Africa.

[8] Pg 13

[9] http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/open-forum/22775-critical-analysis-walter-rodney-how-europe-underdeveloped-africa.html

[10] Pg 116,How Europe Underdeveloped Africa

[11] Pg 117 ibid

[12] Pg 121 ibid

[13] Pg 123 ibid

[14] Pg 128 ibid

[15] ibid