Africa
...k will be uniquely “African” relative to the prevailing European perspective. Already by page two Boahen has given a voice to an African directly involved in colonialism, Asante king Osei Bonsu. This allowance of “African voices” proves to be a consistent contrast between Boahen’s work and the preeminent European histories, namely Kevin Shillington’s History of Africa. Whereas Shillington often comes across as a distant observer who knows Africa only in words, Boahen’s writing is characteristic of someone firmly grounded in the African sphere. Although Boahen’s book is not a radical departure in facts from Shillington’s Eurocentric history, it is particularly African in its negative interpretation of colonialism and the methods, sources, organization, and perspective used for arriving at such an interpretation. The greatest difference between Boahen and Shillington is their interpretation of colonialism. Shillington is clearly sympathetic to the African players in colonialism, and at times, critical of European actions. His work is certainly not an extension of the ideologies of European colonialists of the era. For the most part, however, analysis and interpretation are absent from Shillington’s work. He takes a withdrawn, value-free, or so-called “scientific” approach to history, opting not to explicitly endorse or aggressively critique either “side” of the matter. His intent seems to be a thorough presentation of the facts and events of colonialism without commentating on the merit of those facts and events. (This is not to exonerate Shillington from possessing a Eurocentric perspective, as later elements of this paper will detail. Merely his explicit interpretations of colonialism are non-existent or value-free.) Boahen’s work is wholly different in this respect. This is most obviously manifested in Boahen’s occasional use of the first-person perspective (“I”) and Shillington’s strict allegiance to third-person narrative. If the two authors were operating in the realm of journalism, it would be said that Shillington wrote a hard news story, and Boahen wrote a well-supported editorial piece. Most of the book has an underlying pro-African tone, as it is oriented toward challenging certain Eurocentric analyses of colonialism. By the fourth chapter, Boahen departs from any pretense of neutrality, unabashedly outlining the negative effects of colonialism and challenging effects deemed positive by some European scholars. While acknowledging some positive impacts of colonialism, negative analysis such as this dominates the chapter: “The effects of colonial education were really unfortunate.” Boahen pays great attention to psychological and social ramifications, calling the psychological “the most serious negative impact of colonialism.” He laments the colonialism-ingrained belief that “government and all public property and finance belong, not to the people, but to the colonial government, and could and should therefore be taken advantage of at the least opportunity…” The result of this mentality – “reckless dissipation and misuse of public funds and property” – is exacerbated by African adoption of the Protestant work ethic, minus its characteristics of “frugality and very little consumption.” While Shillington’s book does include a brief heading on the psychological impact of colonialism on Africans, it does not nearly approach the depth and fervor of Boahen’s criticism, nor lend much importance to psychology in the larger frame of the book. On the whole, Boahen is very attentive to social and psychological factors and impacts, while Shillington tells more of military, political history. Shillington’s attention to military and political detail is Eurocentric considering European dominance of wars or politics in Africa during colonialism. Aside from obvious differences in perspective, Boahen and Shillington also diverge in their methods of telling history. While Boahen quotes an approximate balance of European and African primary sources, a cursory examination of Shillington’s chapters on pre-colonialism and colonialism found no African primary sources. Even a description of rubber collection in the Congo is left to a non-participant, Reverend J.B. Murphy. Boahen, conversely, quotes liberally from the writings and recorded speeches of African scholars, kings, historians, and social activists from the era, such as Mensah Sarbah, the king of Daboya, Blyden, and Menelik. Boahen pays more attention to African institutions, governments, and groups in ge...