Zusammenfassung
Das tropische Westafrika war wegen seines Klimas für britische Siedler nicht geeignet. Verwaltungsbeamte, Missionare und Geschäftsleute — die Mehrzahl davon Angestellte einiger großer Handelsgesellschaften — waren die einzigen Weißen in diesem riesigen Gebiet. Viele von ihnen sind jung nach Afrika gekommen und haben hier ihr Leben verbracht, jedoch immer nur als »Gast« des Landes, denn die Europäer blieben fast niemals ansässig; die Kinder wurden nach England auf die Schule geschickt, den Lebensabend verbrachten sie — bei sehr früher Pensionierung — in Europa. Die britische Verwaltung hat zudem anfangs den Bodenerwerb durch Europäer erschwert, später weitgehend unterbunden. Die Indirect Rule duldete weder Plantagenanbau noch Einzelsiedler. Kakao, Erdnüsse und Palmprodukte lieferten die afrikanischen Farmer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
Coleman, p. 153 f.
Some problems..., p. 204.
Elspeth Huxley, White man’s country. Lord Delamere and the making of Kenya, 2 vols., 1935, 2. ed., 1953.
Ausgezeichnet George Bennett, Kenya a political history, 1963.
Text im Anhang zu Lord Altrincham, Kenya’s opportunity (1955), p. 246. Über die Meinungsverschiedenheiten zwischen Siedlern und Colonial Office in Boden- und Arbeitsfragen jetzt Bennett, p. 12 f.
“In every direction the sphere of the Indian in this country is not complemental but competitive with those of the European and the African...” Die Inder seien unsauber, moralisch fragwürdig und leiteten die Afrikaner zu Verbrechen an. Die Inder in Afrika seien “quite obviously inimical to the moral and physical welfare and the economic advancement of the native”. London müsse entscheiden zwischen “the vital interest of the African and the ambition of India”. Zit. Huxley, p. 113 f.
Huxley, p. 130 f.
Ed. Wood (der spätere Vizekönig in Indien, Lord Irwin) vertritt als Unterstaatssekretär für Kolonien die britische, Lord Winterton die indische Regierung. Text u. a. in: Indians in Kenya, Memorandum Cmd. 1922 (1923), p. 7.
Indians in Kenya, p. 10–11. (Unsere Hervorhebungen).
Robert G. Gregory, Sidney Webb and East Africa. Labour’s experiment with the doctrine of Native Paramountcy, 1962, p. 22 f.
Roland Oliver, The Missionary factor in East Africa, 2. ed., 1963, p. 253 f.
Kenya belongs, as already stated, to tropical Africa. The existence of this White island has made complex what would otherwise have been a simple situation... The welfare of the native African, the original inhabitant of the country, must come first. This, then is the paramount principle. In its light difficulties do not disappear, but things fall more naturally into their place... It is, however, our trust here in Great Britain. We cannot hand it over to ten thousand white colonists or to 22 000 Indians, or to the two together ...” Kenya, in: Round Table, vol. 13, 1923, p. 523.
Nicholas Mansergh, South Africa 1906–1961, The price of magnanimity, 1962.
Z. B. E.D. Morel, Two african policies, in: Contemporary Review, Sept. 1923, West- und Ostafrika werden einander gegenübergestellt. Die Erklärung von 1923 sei höchst dringlich gewesen, da “the practices which have been allowed to grow up in Kenya during the past fifteen years are both repugnant to natural justice and a grave reflection upon our recent Tropical African record”. P. 310; Ähnlich John H. Harris, British justice and Native races, a.a.O., Okt. 1924.
Leys, p. 67, 144. 1934 verfügten 2027 Siedler über 5, 1 Mill, acres, jeder also ca. 1000 ha. Hailey, African Survey, p. 821. Nur etwas über 10 % war kultiviert!
Ross, p. 145 f.
Kritik an der Steuerpolitik auch im Unterhaus 1925, H. of C., vol. 187, S. 132.
“That heartcry of Kenya’s leading statesman, worthy to be inscribed in letters of brass on a tablet of mud in the Council-House: ‘If the policy was to be continued that every native was to be a landowner of a sufficient area on which to establish himself, then the question of obtaining a sufficient labour supply would never be settled.” Olivier, The European prob-blem in Africa, in: Contemporary Review, Okt. 1928, p. 458; “If the natives are induced to go in for cottongrowing in the reserves on a large scale, what is going to be the labour position in the European areas where millions of capital have been sunk? Our present labour difficulties will be intensified to such an extent that we should be ruined, as you may be sure that once the native had tasted comparative luxury from his cottongrowing he would not be prepared to come back to work on our farms at the present rate of wages when the boom was over and cotton was no longer what it is to-day.” Aus einer Siedler-Wahlrede, April 1924, zit. Leys, p. 380.
Argumente bei Huxley, p. 288 f.
“Nothing should be done or said to hurt the feelings of those white men who go out to these countries and extend the bounds of our Empire, or that would tend to hamper in any way their devotion to this country.” Royce im Unterhaus am 25. Februar 1924. H. of C., vol. 170, S. 210.
Alle Argumente finden sich wieder — nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg — im Briefwechsel zweier hervorragender Sachkennerinnen: Elspeth Huxley and Margery Perham, Race and politics in Kenya, 1944, 2. erw. Aufl. 1956.
Report of the East Africa Commission, Cmd.2387 (1925).
P 21.
Cmd. 2904.
“For these reasons (dünne Besiedlung u. a.) East Africa has already been committed to what is known as the Dual policy — that is, to a combination of non-native and native production.” Konferenz der Gouverneure in Nairobi 1926, zit. Gregory, p. 59. “The Dual policy of increasing the quality and quantity of production on the native lands pari passu with the development of European cultivation is accordingly necessary.” East Africa Report, p. 181.
Cmd. 2904, p. 5.
“I do not wish to exaggerate the dangers latent in one association (Kikuyu Central Association) of this kind; they are not serious, at present. But the existence of this tendency amongst the younger men shows that any promise of political advancement and influence outside the normal lines of tribal development is bound to prove a strong attraction and certain to increase the difficulties by which progress on tribal lines is already beset. Amongst the counter-attractions nothing can be more potent than the promise of adding native voters to a common electoral roll. It means that the abler young men will endeavour to qualify as voters and politicians under our institutions rather than the leaders of their tribes under the institutions which are natural to them. It means, that the influence of our institutions will permeate the tribal reserves or finally destroy all hope for evolution under the tribal system. Instead of educating the Africans to a better African, as we are now striving to do, it will turn all its natural leaders into inferior Europeans, with most of our faults and few of our virtues, a danger to themselves and all other communities.” Aus einem Dispatch Griggs an Lord Pass field am 11. 9. 1930, in: Papers relating to the Closer Union of Kenya, Uganda and the Tanganyika Territory, 1931 (Colonial Nr. 57), p. 14.
“Although in some places it may be many years before the native can take a direct part in the central Legislature...” Cmd. 1904, p. 5. “Bringing the African people, when fit for it, into the central Legislature of the Colony through their own institutions and in harmony with them rather than outside their own institutions and in conflict with them.” Dispatch Griggs, p. 15. Also wohl in ferner Zukunft einige Chiefs oder von Native Councils indirekt bestellte Vertreter im Legislative Council Kenyas, in dem die Siedler längst die Mehrheit haben!
“While these responsibilities for trusteeship must for some considerable time rest mainly (!) on the agents of the Imperial Government, HMG desires to associate more closely in this high and honorable task those who as colonists or residents have identified their interests with the prosperity of the country.” Cmd. 2904, p. 7. Diese Formulierung richtet sich eindeutig gegen das »alone« in der Erklärung von 1923!
Die Definition Amery’s sei hier zitiert: “By the Dual policy is meant a policy which recognizes our trusteeship towards the native population, whom we found on the spot and whom it is our duty to bring forward and develop in every possible way — but also our trusteeship to humanity at large for the fullest development of these territories and towards those in particular (!) of our own race who have undertaken the task of helping forward that development.” Zit. Huxley, p. 193.
“It needs more consideration than it has received.” Grigg, Dispatch, p. 17. “The first is that the white population should be either steadily reinforced or else removed and compensated.” (!) Grigg, The constitutional problem of Kenya, 1933, p. 17, H. of C., 25. Juli 1935, vol. 304, S. 2081.
Amery gibt selbst als Ziel an Responsible Government “on the basis of Rhodes’ principle.. “. Problem and development in Africa, in: Journal of the African Society, Juli 1929, p. 332; ähnlich auch Lord Lothian, The new Problem of Africa, in: Round Table, June 1927; Butler, Lord Lothian, p. 133 f.
Altrincham, Kenya’s Opportunity, p. 191. Grigg spricht von den Idealen Rhodes’ und Mil-ners, p. 214.
My political life, vol. II, 360.
Zit. Huxley y p. 220.
Bereits im Dez. 1926 heißt es in einem Manifest: “Consideration of any such scheme (Closer Union) is conditional on an elected majority having been granted and that the following essential safeguards are included...” Huxley, p. 215; “It is a vital necessity to any scheme of co-ordination based on the radiation of civilization from Kenya that we should have a free Council here.” Die Verfassung Süd-Rhodesiens erscheint als Vorbild, da sich die britischen Reservationen in der Eingeborenenpolitik als wenig wirksam erwiesen hätten ... Rede Delameres über die Verfassung Kenyas 1927, im Anhang zu: Altrincham, Kenya’s Opportunity, p. 258 f.; Delamere vor der Hilton-Young-Kommission, Huxley, p. 226 f.
The first thing, that we started to do, was to try and help to kill the spread of the West Coast policy in the East.” Zit. Huxley, p. 206.
Tanganyika Service, p. 225 f.; Altrincham, p. 211 f.
Perham, Lugard, vol. II, p. 679.
Altrincham, p. 211 f.
Report of the Commission on Closer Union of the Dependencies in Eastern and Central Africa, Cmd. 3234 (1929); dazu Gregory, p. 69 f., Bennett, p. 67 f.
Z. B. der Brief Lord Scotts (zweiter Mann in Kenya) an die Times, in dem es u. a. heißt: “One thing, however, must be clear, and that is that the Government of each country must be responsible for the administration of the native affairs in its own territory. This cannot be taken out of their hands, or else Government would be impossible.” Times, 14. 11. 1929; zudem: Altrincham, Anhang F., p. 271 f. Gregory, p. 73.
Altrincham, p. 217.
Philip Mitchel, Camerons Sekretär für Native Affairs spricht von einer “privy conspiracy”, African Afterthoughts, 1954, p. 117.
13. 3. 1929, H. of C., vol. 73, S. 458 f.
Times weekly ed., 31. 10. 1929.
Leitartikel “The future of East Africa” stimmt im wesentlichen dem Hilton-Young-Report zu und betont: “The power to define and interpret the term of trust — the principles of native policy — must remain with the Imperial Government.” So vage Begriffe wie Trusteeship und Dual Mandate müßten geklärt werden. Wie in Ceylon gehe es auch in Ostafrika darum, ein Regierungssystem für mehrrassische Gemeinschaften zu finden. Weekly ed., 24. 1. 1929; am 1. 8. 1929: “There is a particular need for taking great care that the protection of essential native interests is not handed over, in the interests of immediate harmony, to any hands but those of the Imperial Government.”
Der Economist vom 26. 1. 1929 spricht in einem Artikel: “The future of East Africa” von den “constructive proposals for dealing with the problem of two intermingled communities differing greatly ...” Das britische Empire sei auf dem Wege, wie es bereits die Ceylon-Kommission gezeigt habe, nach der »Erfindung« des Dominionstatuts eine entsprechende Lösung zu finden. Am 2. 3. 1929 wird der Aufruf Lugards u. a. zu einem Joint Select Committee begrüßt, am 23. 3. die Rede Lugards als “detached observer” im Oberhaus gelobt. Am 25. 10. 1930: “It is as natural for the settlers to cherish this desire (Änderung der Kenya-Verfassung) as it is impossible for the Imperial Government to satisfy it.”
Das Mißtrauen gegenüber den Siedlern sei gerechtfertigt, der Communal Roll abzulehnen, East Africa, in: Round Table, Bd. 19, 1928–1929, p. 506.
Report of Sir Samuel Wilson on his Visit to East Africa, 1929, Cmd. 3378 (1929); dazu Gregory, p. 105 f.
Statement of the conclusions of HMG as regards Closer Union in East Africa, Cmd. 3574 (1930).
Cmd. 3573 (1930).
P. 6.
Ein Telegramm Delameres an den Kolonialminister gibt nochmals ein gutes Bild von Konzeption, Argumentation und Forderungen der Siedler: “Attitude of Imperial Government as now expressed involves breach of previous pledges. East African colonists stand on principle that the white race is the only people which has proved its capacity to govern mixed races. We must challenge the doctrine of political and economic paramountcy of natives as interpreted in these documents, and claim the closer association in trusteeship foreshadowed in the 1927 white paper. White settlers permanently domiciled in East Africa cannot accept designation “immigrant community”, as applied to themselves, or the right of Indian immigrants to participate on same basis as Europeans in the government of East Africa. They regard Indian representation on local legislatures desirable only as a convenient method of enabling Indian sectional views to be voiced. They also consider it imperative that closer union should be accompanied by an unofficial majority in at least one territory. The principles of a common electoral roll and a racially mixed federal council cannot be accepted. Although closer Union involving constitutional changes is still considered desirable the conference regrets that the retrogressive spirit of the new proposals has definitely antagonised European opinion”. Zit. Huxley, p. 279–280.
Papers relating, p. 11. Eine scharfe Rede, auch im Legislative Council, Bennett, p. 73.
Zit. Gregory, p. 121.
Über die vorgetragenen Meinungen und Thesen ausführlich: Gregory, p. 127 f.
Dies wird eigenartigerweise von Gregory übersehen.
“... the Committee’s recommendations are conservative in the good sense and not in the bad. While they leave the door open for economic co-operation, within the limits that are at present practicable, between the several territories under British administration or control in East Africa, they do close the door — and this presumably for a long time to come -upon a very dangerous political vision. This vision was the prospect of a United East Africa enjoying dominion status as ‘a White man’s Country’. Those who dreamed this dream cherished the hope that, if East Africa were once united, the white settlers in the highlands of Kenya Colony would leaven the lump. The result would have been a latter-day reproduction of ‘the South’ of the United States as it was before the American Civil War. Indeed, it would have been far worse; for, even if the white settlers were to succeed in occupying the Highlands in Tanganyika as well as in Kenya, they would remain an infinitesimal minority in the total population of British East Africa; and to hand the government of this great region over to this dominant caste would have been equivalent to handing India over to a brahman raj. This possibility, which has never (we believe) come within the range of practical politics has been finally ruled out by the combined effect of common sense at Westminster and financial stringency in East Africa.” Common Sense on East Africa, 7. Nov. 1931, p. 854.
Bennett, p. 77 f.
Vgl. u. a. Wilhelm E. Mühlmann, Chiliasmus und Nativismus, 1961, p. 118 f.
Zit. Huxley, p. 115.
Brief Wilsons an Grigg vom 18. 2. 1930, zit. Perham, Lugard, vol. II, p. 691.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1966 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
von Albertini, R. (1966). Ostafrika: Kenya und »Closer Union«. In: Dekolonisation. Beiträge zur Kolonial- und Überseegeschichte, vol 1. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-98922-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-98922-2_9
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-322-98233-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-98922-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive