African Examples

In northeast Africa, the nation of Ethiopia was led by Emperor Menelik II. Menelik had very close relations with foreign nations, especially with Italy. The relationship between Italy and Ethiopia began as a friendly one, but it deteriorated after the Treaty of Wuchale was signed between them in 1889. The Italians saw an opportunity to conquer the vast, fertile territory of Ethiopia and had already occupied some territory along the coast. They hoped both to build their national reputation and to use Ethiopia as a place to resettle poor, landless Italians. Never mind the fact that Ethiopia was already fully populated by a vast and multicultural state.

The cause of the conflict was Article XVII of the Wuchale Treaty, which was written differently in Amharic (the main language of Ethiopia) than in Italian. The Amharic version says that Ethiopia could use the services of Italy in her foreign relations with Europe. The Italian version bound Menelik to make all his foreign decisions through Italy. This is a type of relationship typically known as a “protectorate,” suggesting that the non-dominant country is in need of guidance and protection. Menelik asked Italy to change the Italian version of Article XVII. Italy refused. As a result, Menelik rejected the entire treaty. The Italians also tried to divide Ethiopians with promises that appealed to ethnic minorities such as the Oromo people. When this failed, however, they sent an army to conquer Ethiopia. In 1895, they invaded Ethiopia in the north along with their Eritrean allies. 

Emperor Menelik was helped immensely by his wife, the Empress Taytu, who was both strongly suspicious of the Italians and had relatives among the Oromo. Taytu reportedly stated that “we will slaughter those who come to invade us. There is no Ethiopian who will not plant his feet in the sand and face death to save his country.”

Together, Menelik and Taytu managed to mobilize the entire nation. They brought together an army of 100,000 men from all of the ethnic and religious groups of Ethiopia and all of the regions. Menelik and Taytu marched their army north to meet the Italians. Meanwhile, Ethiopian peasants melted into the forests and harassed the approaching Italian army. On March 1, 1896, the two armies met at Adwa. The Italians were divided into three groups, each of which was surrounded and attacked by Ethiopian cavalry, artillery, and finally infantry. By 9:30 in the morning, the Italian force had been defeated.

Italy did manage to conquer Ethiopia in the lead up to World War II. In October 1935 Italian troops invaded Ethiopia, forcing the country's Emperor, Haile Selassie, into exile. This was part of Italy and it’s ally Germany’s attempts to expand their empires and diminish the power of other European empires. The Italians committed countless atrocities on the independent African state. Poisonous gas, aerial bombardment, flame throwers, and concentration camps were all employed. Black outrage throughout the world was unified. From Kingston to Johannesburg, from Detroit to Ghana, from Port-of-Spain to Paris, Black men and women offered to go fight in defense of Ethiopia. Medical supplies and other equipment were sent to Ethiopia to aid in its defense and places like Harlem, New York City, held marches drawing as many as 25,000 people. 

Italy only briefly maintained control of Ethiopia. In 1941, British forces made up of, in part, Indian and other British colonial soldiers, forced the withdrawal of Italy and safeguarded the return of the Emperor.

Conflicts among African societies hindered the effectiveness of their resistance. In the 1880s, for example, in what is today Zimbabwe, the British South Africa Company used existing disputes between the Ndebele and neighboring communities to foment a conflict. Ultimately, and by design, the British would have to intervene and would use this to claim control over Ndebele land. 

In 1893, Cecil Rhodes (British mining magnate and politician) and King Lobengula Khumalo of Ndebele disagreed about the terms of the treaty signed in 1888. Lobengula believed that he had given only mineral rights to Rhodes’ British South Africa Company; Rhodes argued that the entire territory had become his personal fiefdom, and gave his name to the territory: Rhodesia.

The Ndebele resisted British movement into their land and in 1893, the British South Africa Company attacked in defense of their claimed territorial rights. In 1894 the Ndebele, outnumbered, surrendered. The British imposed Africans from a different territory to police the Ndebele.

Ndansi Kumalo, a Ndebele chief described how those those British-supported Africans treated the Ndebele:

… We were treated like slaves. They came and were overbearing and we were ordered to carry their clothes and bundles. They interfered with our wives and our daughters and molested them. In fact, the treatment was intolerable. We thought it best to fight and die rather than bear it.

There was much bitterness because so many of our cattle were branded and taken away from us; we had no property, nothing we could call our own. We said, "It is not good living under such conditions; death would be better—let us fight."

We knew that we had very little chance because their weapons were so much superior to ours. But we meant to fight to the last, feeling that even if we could not beat them we might at least kill a few of them and so have some sort of revenge.(Ndansi Kumalo)

In response to this and other ill-treatment, the Ndebele fought against the troops of the British South Africa Company again in 1896. With each charge, British Maxim guns mowed down the Ndebele fighters, but they pressed on. The Ndebele fought so tenaciously that they managed to kill enough British soldiers to force them to retreat. Kumalo, again: "We made many charges but each time we were beaten off, until at last the white men packed up and retreated. But for the Maxims, it would have been different." 

Although the rebellion was ultimately unsuccessful, it still presented a serious and expensive threat to the BSAC and was put down only by the intervention of British imperial troops.

In 1914, British colonial rulers put in place a new political system in Nigeria. The British organized Igboland, home to the Igbo people, into Native Court areas governed by a Warrant Chief, who was an Igbo representative chosen by the British. This was starkly different from the Igbo political system:  Traditionally, a large group of elders, often including women, made most decisions and women had had a significant role in political life. Over the years, Warrant Chiefs became increasingly oppressive, and women suffered in particular, as Warrant Chiefs often confiscated women’s animals and their profit from market sales and forced some into marriage. 

In the late 1920s, the British levied a high tax and did not lessen this tax even in the face of the 1929 global Great Depression. While only men were taxed, the tax was so high women had to contribute to their family’s payment. Rumors also began to spread in October 1929 that the British were going to institute a second tax for women. The women’s network in the city of Oloko began  sending out palm leaves, a traditional symbol of invitation among women, to neighboring villages asking them to come to a protest in Oloko. 

In early November, over 10,000 women congregated outside the district administration office, and demanded that the Warrant Chief of Oloko give them a written assurance that they would not be taxed. After three days, the British ordered the Warrant Chief to acquiesce. The Warrant Chief, however, after handing over the written assurance, re-asserted his power by taking several women protesters hostage and harassing them. News of the harassment spread, and the protest swelled. The campaigners now demanded that the Warrant Chief be removed. After two days, the British again acquiesced and sentenced him to two years imprisonment.  

News of both the written tax assurance and the removal of the Warrant Chief spread, and soon, women all across Igboland - over six thousand square miles - were organizing to make the same demands. The women called their campaign the ogu umunwanye, or, “the Women’s War,” referring to the fact that women were sanctioning men who had been disrespectful, which was a traditional form of protest among Igbo women. Women gathered to demand a written no-tax guarantee and the removal of the Warrant Chief and followed a similar pattern of behavior: they came dressed in traditional warrior clothes and carried sticks with leaves of young palms wrapped around them, meant to invoke the power of their ancestors. They would chant traditional war songs, participate in dances, and follow the Warrant Chiefs everywhere, day and night, singing loudly and effectively disrupting their daily routines. The campaigners also burned down several district offices, as an extension of the traditional practice of burning down a sanctioned man’s hut.

As the protests grew, British officers became more agitated. By mid-December, police officers and troops were called in to deal with the situation. Police were ordered to shoot into crowds, resulting in the deaths of 50 women and wounding of 50 more. The British administrators made it clear that they would not hesitate to use more violence if the protests did not disperse, so the campaign was forced to come to a halt. 

Yet the women had still managed to gain significant victories: During the month-long protest, several Warrant Chiefs stepped down or were removed and most campaigns had managed to receive written assurances that they would not be taxed. Perhaps more importantly, the women had forced the British administration to take them into account for the first time. The women’s war also forced the British to reconsider the Warrant Chief system, and in 1933 a new political system was put in place. Under the new system, Warrant Chiefs were replaced by ‘massed benches’, with several judges, chosen by the people, who convened to make decisions. This meant that the Igbo people had regained some of their power to self-govern. The Women’s War in addition to sparking this change brought about other protests around taxes and economic production in the future.

The Golden Stool (full title, Sika Dwa Kofi) has been the symbol of power in the Ashanti Kingdom since the 17th century. According to oral tradition, descended from heaven in a cloud of white dust and landed in the lap of the first Ashanti king, Osei Tutu, in the late 1600s. Since then, the Ashanti have believed that the Golden Stool houses the soul of the Ashanti nation and used it in ceremonies crowning new kings. The Ashanti became an immensely powerful empire and attributed their success to the golden stool. 

By the 19th Century, the Ashanti began a series of clashes with the British Empire which had established effective control of the coastal region of what is now Ghana. They fought three Anglo-Ashanti Wars between 1824 and 1874, with the British and their African allies gaining more control over Ashanti Territory.  During the fourth Anglo-Ashanti War, the British and their Indian and African allies defeated Asantehene Agyeman Prempeh, eventually capturing him and sending him into exile in the Seychelles Islands.

The final war (1900) was prompted by the demand by Sir Frederick Mitchell Hodgson, the British Governor of the Gold Coast to sit on the Golden Stool:

Where is the Golden Stool? I am the representative of the Paramount Power. Why have you relegated me to this ordinary chair? Why did you not take the opportunity of my coming to Kumasi to bring the Golden Stool for me to sit upon? However, you may be quite sure that though the Government has not received the Golden Stool at his hands it will rule over you with the same impartiality and fairness as if you had produced it.

The speech was received in silence by the assembly, and the chiefs that were present began war preparations upon their return to their homes. However, since the king had been exiled, there was confusion and apprehension about going to war once again with the British. Yaa Asantewaa, the queen mother of the Ashanti Empire and Gate Keeper of the Golden Stool, had this to say in response to this hesitation:

Now I have seen that some of you fear to go forward to fight for our king. If it were in the brave days, the days of Osei Tutu, Okomfo Anokye, and Opoku Ware, chiefs would not sit down to see their king taken away without firing a shot. No foreigner could have dared to speak to a chief of the Ashanti in the way the Governor spoke to you chiefs this morning. Is it true that the bravery of the Ashanti is no more? I cannot believe it. It cannot be! I must say this, if you, the men of Ashanti, will not go forward, then we will. We, the women, will. I shall call upon my fellow women. We will fight! We will fight till the last of us falls in the battlefields.

And so, Yaa Asantewaa shamed the men into responding and led a rebellion against the British from March - September 1900.  The intense fighting led to the death of more than 2,000 Ashanti and 1,000 British and Allied troops.  Both totals were higher than the deaths from all previous Anglo-Ashanti wars combined.

Yaa Asantewaa was captured by the British in 1901 and quickly exiled to the Seychelles, where she died in 1921, but the British  never captured the Golden Stool. Ashanti was annexed into the British Empire; however, the Ashanti still largely governed themselves. The Golden Stool continues to be used in rituals crowning the Asantehene, although he is now considered a traditional ruler without political power or influence.  Nonetheless, the Golden Stool remains a cherished symbol of the former Ashanti Empire.