Africa was close to the West and mostly colonized from the nineteenth century. Because it was full of natural resources and skilled workers, the prospect of losing it alarmed Western officials and citizens. Nonetheless, for decades and increasingly since the economic depression of the 1930s, Europeans had not only upped their demands but involved Africans in their string of lethal twentieth-century wars. African calls for the ouster of the European powers and the creation of their own independent nations reached a climax after World War II. Decolonization became a hotly debated issue. By different means, Africans regained their independence.
1. Mau Mau Oath, 1950s
Secret societies of many kinds existed around the world. This one called Mau Mau, dedicated to protecting Kenyans from ongoing British encroachment on their territory and economic well-being, struck fear into the British.
The Warrior Oath
I swear before God and before the people who are here that I have today become a soldier of Gikuyu and Mumbi and I will from now onwards fight the real fight for the land and freedom of our country till we get it or till my last drop of blood. Today I have set my first step (stepping over a line of a goat’s small intestine) as a warrior and I will never retreat. And if I ever retreat May this soil and all its products be a curse upon me! If ever I am called to accompany a raid or bring in the head of an enemy, I shall obey and never give lame excuses. . . . I will never spy or inform on my people, and if ever sent to spy on our enemies I will always report the truth. . . .
I will never sell land to any white man. And if I sell: May this soil and all its products be a curse upon me!
Source: Donald L. Barnett and Karari Njama, Mau Mau from Within (New York: Modern Reader, 1966), 131–2.
2. A. L. Geyer, The Case for Apartheid, Speech before Rotary Club of London, 1953
In the early 1950s, the South African government instituted a legal system of strict segregation of whites and blacks. This involved pushing Africans into townships while taking the land that they were forced to leave. All this occurred amidst a growing call for an end to white rule in the country.
As one of the aftermaths of the last war, many people seem to suffer from a neurotic guiltcomplex with regard to colonies. This has led to a strident denunciation of the Black African's wrongs, real or imaginary, under the white man's rule in Africa. It is a denunciation, so shrill and emotional, that the vast debt owed by Black Africa to those same white men is lost sight of (and, incidentally, the Black African is encouraged to forget that debt). . . . This brings me to the question of the future. To me there seems to be two possible lines of development: Apartheid or Partnership. Partnership means Cooperation of the individual citizens within a single community, irrespective of race. . . . (It) demands that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever in trade and industry, in the professions and the Public Service. . . . (In effect) there must one day be black domination, in the sense that power must pass to the immense African majority. Need I say more to show that this policy of Partnership could, in South Africa, only mean the eventual disappearance of the white South African nation? And will you be greatly surprised if I tell you that this white nation is not prepared to commit national suicide, not even by slow poisoning? The only alternative is a policy of apartheid, the policy of separate development. . . . Apartheid is a policy of self preservation.
Source: Adapted from Union of South Africa Government: Information Pamphlet (New York, 1953), reprinted in Ruth E. Gordon and Clive Talbot, eds., From Dias to Vorster: Source Material on South African History 14881975 (Goodwood, S.A.: Nasou, n.d.), 409, 410. Fordham Modern History Sourcebook, http:/
3. Proclamation of the Algerian National Front, Liberation Front (FLN), November 1954
Simultaneous with the Kenyan struggle against the British in East Africa, local people in Algeria rose up against French occupiers of their region. The result was a horrific war lasting into the 1960s.
After decades of struggle, the National Movement has reached its final phase of fulfilment. At home, the people are united behind the watchwords of independence and action. Abroad, the atmosphere is favourable, especially with the diplomatic support of our Arab and Moslem brothers. Our National Movement, prostrated by years of immobility and routine, badly directed was disintegrating little by little. Faced with this situation, a youthful group, gathering about it the majority of wholesome and resolute elements, judged that the moment had come to take the National Movement out of the impasse into which it had been forced by the conflicts of persons and of influence and to launch it into the true revolutionary struggle at the side of the Moroccan and Tunisian brothers. . . .
GOAL. National independence through:
MEANS OF STRUGGLE: Struggle by every means until our goal is attained. Exertion at home and abroad through political and direct action, with a view to making the Algerian problem a reality for the entire world. The struggle will be long, but the outcome is certain. To limit the bloodshed, we propose an honorable platform for discussion with the French authorities:
Source: Historical Text Archive, http:/
4. René Massigli, French Intelligence Analysis of British Public Opinion on the Algerian Conflict, 1956
René Massigli produced this set of talking points for French foreign service officials to help them gain British support for the war against the Algerian National Front.
Algeria’s troubles are quite similar in their origins and in how they are playing out, to those the Mau Mau caused in Kenya. The same undefinable coming together of diverse agitators who launch bloody raids on villages, farms, even urban centers where they commit horrible crimes, marked by the most savage cruelty. . . .
Much like Cyprus, Algerian agitation is primarily inspired and encouraged by outsiders.
By making reference to religious and linguistic communities, they rely on pan-Islamism and pan-Arabism, which have no actual basis in history. They also act as if nothing has happened in 125 years, with their rejection of the immense economic, social, and cultural development that France has undeniable brought to Algeria. . . .
In Algeria, the vast majority of indigenous people hope only to live in peace and perfect harmony with the Europeans. The summons to hatred and revolt come from abroad. . . .
Source: Translated and quoted in Todd Shepard, ed., Voices of Decoloniztion: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2015), 107–8.
5. Gamal Abdel Nasser, Denouncement of the Proposal for a Canal Users' Association (1956)
In 1956, after being denied a loan from the United States at the urging of Britain to build the Aswan Dam, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Britain, France, and Israel attacked, calling Nasser a new Hitler and the Egyptians themselves incompetent to run the canal. The alliance did not succeed, and Nasser became a hero among Arabs.
Egypt nationalized the Egyptian Suez Canal company. When Egypt granted the concession to de Lesseps [Ferdinand de Lesseps was the French developer of the Suez Canal] it was stated in the concession between the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian company that the company of the Suez Canal is an Egyptian company subject to Egyptian authority. Egypt nationalized this Egyptian company and declared freedom of navigation will be preserved.
But the imperialists became angry. Britain and France said Egypt grabbed the Suez Canal as if it were part of France or Britain. The British Foreign Secretary forgot that only two years ago he signed an agreement stating the Suez Canal is an integral part of Egypt.
Egypt declared she was ready to negotiate. But as soon as negotiations began threats and intimidations started. . . .
Eden [Anthony Eden, British prime minister 1955-1957] stated in the House of Commons there shall be no discrimination between states using the canal. We on our part reaffirm that and declare there is no discrimination between canal users. He also said Egypt shall not be allowed to succeed because that would spell success for Arab nationalism and would be against their policy, which aims at the protection of Israel.
Today they are speaking of a new association whose main objective would be to rob Egypt of the canal and deprive her of rightful canal dues.. . . .
By stating that by succeeding, Abdel Nasser would weaken Britain’s stand against Arab nationalism, Eden is in fact admitting his real objective is not Abdel Nasser as such but rather to defeat Arab nationalism and crush its cause.
Source: From The Suez Canal Problem, 26 July–22 September 1956, U.S. Department of State Publication No. 6392 (Washington: G.P.O., 1956), 345–51. Bonnie G. Smith et al., Sources of Crossroads and Cultures, Vol. II (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012), 269–71.
6. United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960
The United Nations, formed in the aftermath of World War II as a replacement for the League of Nations, published the following resolution amidst the struggles for independence.
The General Assembly, Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence, Aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace, Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories, Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations, Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace, Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law, Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence, Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory, Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. . . .
Source: United Nations, General Assembly, Official Records, Fifteenth Session, Supplement No. 16, 66–7.
7. Kwame Nkrumah, I Speak of Freedom, 1961
Kwame Nkrumah was born in the British colony of Gold Coast but traveled to the United States and England to further his education. On his return to Gold Coast he was an activist for independence and became its leader when it gained independence as the nation of Ghana in 1957.
For centuries, Europeans dominated the African continent. The white man arrogated to himself the right to rule and to be obeyed by the non-white; his mission, he claimed, was to “civilize” Africa. Under this cloak, the Europeans robbed the continent of vast riches and inflicted unimaginable suffering on the African people. . . . All we ask of the former colonial powers is their goodwill and co-operation to remedy past mistakes and injustices and to grant independence to the colonies in Africa. . . . It is clear that we must find an African solution to our problems, and that this can only be found in African unity. Divided we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world. Although most Africans are poor, our continent is potentially extremely rich. Our mineral resources, which are being exploited with foreign capital only to enrich foreign investors, range from gold and diamonds to uranium and petroleum. Our forests contain some of the finest woods to be grown anywhere. Our cash crops include cocoa, coffee, rubber, tobacco and cotton. As for power, which is an important factor in any economic development, Africa contains over 40% of the potential water power of the world, as compared with about 10% in Europe and 13% in North America. Yet so far, less than 1% has been developed. This is one of the reasons why we have in Africa the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty, and scarcity in the midst of abundance. . . . Individually, the independent states of Africa, some of them potentially rich, others poor, can do little for their people. Together, by mutual help, they can achieve much. But the economic development of the continent must be planned and pursued as a whole.
Source: Kwame Nkrumah, I Speak of Freedom: A Statement of African Ideology (London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1961), xi–xiv.
Questions to Consider