Chief Roles

As we read in our past few books, Europeans forced a lot upon the African civilization. One word that was mentioned and comes to mind quite often is corruption. According to Princeton University and Dictionary.com, Corruption is defined as the following:

1. lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

2. decay of matter (as by rot or oxidation)
3. moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles;
4. destroying someone's (or some group's) honesty or loyalty; undermining moral integrity;

5. inducement (as of a public official) by improper means (as bribery) to violate duty (as by commiting a felony)

Well this definition definetly hits the nail on the head. The Europeans were causing the decay of morals and loyalty of the Africans and using it all for dishonest gain. One group in particular that the European colonizers corrupted were the chiefs. As we discussed in class most of the "chiefs" were not chiefs but appointed by their clan members or Europeans to be the delegate. Then the colonizers put them in places of power which were not meant for them. They would either misuse this power or become in a sense slaves to the Europeans above them. On page 162 of Ancestor Stones it states:

"Somehow new of the strike had reached the chief who sent his messenger to alert the Distict Commissioner. Bu the time the strikers arrived the next morning DC Silk was waiting in front of the compound with his soldiers, ready to arrest the ringleaders."

This quote puts in perspective the power and uselessness of the chiefs placed in charge by European powers. They were the snotty teachers pet in the back of the room telling the teacher when kids were chewing gum.

I found this article that I think explains the hardships and exactly what Europeans did to the African culture very well.
Colonialism and Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa:
"On the contrary, the practice of rewarding tax collectors became a principal
method for the accumulation of private property, a way of life that was hard to give
up which encouraged chiefs to abuse their office. As Leonard (1991: 29) put it,
colonial chiefs "were implicitly encouraged to use their positions to amass wealth
and demonstrate thereby that it paid to cooperate with Europeans".

"It was not the introduction of taxation per se, but the manner in which the tax
itself was collected, that encouraged corrupt behaviour. To collect taxes, the colonial governments mostly relied on local African leaders and especially chiefs.
Where chiefs did not exist or were unco-operative, new ones were appointed by the
colonial powers (Richards 1959; Crowder 1968). Above all, to motivate chiefs to
generate as much tax revenue as possible, and do so with zeal, the colonial
administrations allowed them to retain a part of it."

Jeffery Hanes (who I have been reading a lot of material from lately) wrote a review article about the power in Ghana from colonial times to the 1990's. His article is published in the journal, AFRICA.

"Although the two main colonial powers in the region, Britain and France, developed their own democratic systems during the 19th and 20th centuries, the political institutions they created in their African colonies were designed primarily as instruments of their domination and control. In most colonies, colonial administrative networks were grafted on to existing political institutions, and European hegemony and security were very closely linked. When they could be found, colonial administrations attempted to employ intermediaries, interlocutors- often known as "Chiefs"- to 'do their dirty work for them', that is, they were able to identify or, when neccessary, to create as authority figures the indigenous individuals who would be useful to the European goal of political and economic domination."

My point exactly.