Imperialism has been a point of moral contention since its inception. The same arguments made by British imperialists in the twentieth century to justify their empire were used by the likes of Caesar and Pompey Magnus two thousand years prior. While these empires undoubtedly improved material wealth and social organization for some, the lessons of history have taught us that human suffering and oppression are as often the hallmarks of empire. The British colonization of Africa was no exception, with colonialists speaking in grand humanitarian terms that rarely mirrored reality. Niall Ferguson’s apology for British colonial rule in Africa identifies the positive influences of capitalism and liberalism as two reasons why imperialism benefited Africa; however, upon critical examination it is clear that British rule was very seldom capitalist or …show more content…
When the depression hit Africa in 1929 commodity prices collapsed, some falling sixty to seventy percent, driving wages down and increasing wide spread poverty. British economic policy exacerbated the crippling effects of the depression in Africa because it made African economies highly specialized and dependent on “export commodities,” which tied them inextricably to the collapsing international market. The British compounded this damage by insisting Africans pay their taxes in cash, which they believed provided “a moral benefit” and stimulated “industry and production.” However, in reality taxation prevented Africans from switching from paid labor to sustenance farming – which might have alleviated some of the suffering - because they would have been unable to get cash to pay taxes. Ultimately, the depression combined with the artificial hindrances that Britain imposed on African economies served to destabilize them, even forcing Africans to borrow at “exorbitant rates” or “pawn members of their