True African History

Colonial empires have long claimed to bring progress and civilisation to the societies they dominated, yet these lofty ideals often masked systems of exploitation and control. In Africa, British colonial officials stood at the crossroads of this contradiction. Tasked with imposing imperial rule, they were simultaneously architects of governance, enforcers of exploitation, and reluctant witnesses to the erosion of their moral ideals. This essay explores the motivations and perspectives of these officials, drawing from personal writings and regional case studies to uncover the complex interplay between ambition, ideology, and the brutal realities of colonial rule. By examining these narratives, we gain insight into the enduring impact of British colonialism on Africa and its modern implications.

The Paradox of Power and Progress

The idea of civilising through conquest is a recurring theme in history, where the supposed blessings of progress were imposed upon the vulnerable¹. This misguided hierarchy seeks to enforce rigid laws on lands its proponents barely comprehend². The result is a justice system built on violence and fear, with far-reaching consequences³. This narrative has played out repeatedly throughout history, from the fall of Carthage in North Africa in 146 BC to the vast expanse of the Roman Empire, which peaked at 1.7 million square miles in 177 AD⁴. By ignoring the unique complexities of diverse local societies, the heavy-handed imposition of external systems often neglected the cultural, political, and social complexities of these regions, reinforcing a cycle of instability and resistance.

The British Empire's own grandiose mission may not have reached the same heights, but its impact persists into the modern era⁵. The lofty ideals of progress, civilisation, and moral uplift starkly contrast the merciless engines of historic colonial coercion, extraction, and control⁶. Including contemporary debates on the persistence of colonial power structures in modern governance highlights the continuing relevance of this theme.

Beneath the Surface

British colonial officials were shaped by a paradoxical ideology that obscured the lines between good and evil. Steeped in the noble ideals of Queen Victoria's imperial legacy, they inherited a vision that uneasily paired high-minded principles with brutal pragmatism—epitomised by the monarch's infamous phrase, ‘Off with his head!’⁷. This paradoxical legacy entrenched a deep divide between the self-perception of officials as moral agents and their active roles in perpetuating systemic violence. This toxic blend of idealism and ruthlessness was deeply ingrained in their colonial heritage⁸. Meanwhile, despite Britain's own progress in social and economic reforms, its colonial agents in Africa wreaked havoc, rebuilding in the image of their imperial masters with impunity⁹.

As Queen Victoria's reign drew to a close and King Edward VII's brief tenure unfolded, a moral dilemma loomed over colonial officials¹⁰. The oppressive shadow of empire appeared to retreat, if only briefly, as the Second Boer War subsided. A new generation of British colonial officials emerged, grappling with the dark legacy of their predecessors¹¹. As they took the reins, a fundamental transformation in their motivations and perspectives began to unfold. Torn between the brutal demands of colonial rule and their own personal values, they faced an existential dilemma: how to reconcile the past's imperial transgressions with their own aspirations for a more just and enlightened empire¹².

This dilemma was particularly evident in private correspondences, where officials revealed their inner conflicts about balancing loyalty to the empire with growing awareness of its exploitative practices. This transformation paralleled the complex, often fraught, shifts in British imperial policy, particularly under King George V, who sought to reinvent the monarchy for the modern era¹³. The interplay between evolving colonial policies and the personal approaches of officials, marked by varying degrees of passion, principle, and pragmatism, was a defining feature of this period¹⁴. As colonial policy adapted to the shifting conceptions of empire, the distinct personalities and values of individual officials began to shape the governance of colonies, with some ruling with an authoritarian grip and others adopting a more enlightened approach¹⁵.

This new generation were not just functionaries of colonial rule. They were driven individuals with great ambitions who navigated isolation, moral complexity, and the relentless demands of imperial expectations. Their private writings—diaries, letters, and reports—reveal their struggles and dreams of greatness eroding into disillusionment and discontent¹⁶. By focusing on these private accounts, it becomes clear how the personal experiences of colonial administrators influenced broader imperial policies.

The Scramble for Africa

The spark that ignited the frenzy of colonial competition, as European powers voraciously carved up the continent, is infamously known as ‘The Scramble for Africa’. The Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 was the trigger for this new era, unleashing a frenzied rush for territory, resources, and influence¹⁷. The once-informal trade networks yielded to rigid control as British officials poured into Africa. They had a clear agenda to exploit Africa’s bounty of vast riches and transform it into a resource engine for Britain’s industrial economy¹⁸. Their mission was to build railways, collect taxes, and create their ideal of a civilised African society¹⁹.

For many, Africa represented more than an administrative posting. It was a tantalising opportunity to escape from Britain’s suffocating class system. The diverse challenges of governing and expanding trade networks often required innovative problem-solving, granting officials substantial autonomy in decision-making—a sharp contrast to the more hierarchical constraints in Britain²⁰. This autonomy often blurred accountability, as administrators wielded unchecked power over local populations, contributing to widespread abuses of authority.

As these officials ascended through the administrative ranks and built their empires, they were increasingly torn between conflicting demands and loyalties. Progress and control, conscience, and exploitation, were opposing forces vying for dominance. Their story is a tangled web of paradoxes: noble ideals undermined by brutal violence, moral missions compromised by insatiable greed, and promises of progress that yielded only devastation, despair, and a lasting legacy of suffering that persists to this day²¹. In West Africa, the use of indirect rule through African chiefs often created a veneer of continuity while masking the exploitation of local populations, whereas in East Africa, settler dominance imposed racial hierarchies that exacerbated tensions and undermined indigenous systems of governance. These regional dynamics highlight the diversity of colonial contradictions and their varied impact on African societies.

Ambition and Paternalism

Africa beckoned ambitious British officials as a promised land of opportunity. Back home, their ambition was suppressed by Britain’s suffocating class system, but in the colonies traditional social conventions no longer applied²². In Nigeria, for instance, colonial officers from humble beginnings could find themselves overseeing vast territories and exercising judicial and administrative powers, opportunities unimaginable in their homeland²³. Similarly, newly appointed officials in Northern Nigeria often described their responsibilities as transformative. For these individuals, colonial service represented not only a professional leap but a redefinition of their identity, as they embraced their newfound influence and autonomy in the vast colonial landscape²⁴.

The allure of colonial service extended beyond power; it also offered a path to personal reinvention. Africa beckoned for those who had been held back by Britain’s strict social order; it offered a second chance to start afresh. Officials who had failed to secure positions in prestigious colonies such as India often found redemption in Africa, where the absence of entrenched traditions allowed them greater freedom to shape their roles. These officers embraced the opportunity to rule with a level of autonomy and direct authority they could not have achieved elsewhere²⁵. This reinvention, however, often ignored the cost borne by local populations, whose traditional systems were uprooted to accommodate the ambitions of colonial administrators.

For many colonial officials, personal ambition was only part of the story. Many were driven by a genuine sense of moral purpose and saw themselves as heroes on a grand mission to bring civilisation to the world's ‘dark corners’²⁶. Elite British schools and universities, such as Oxbridge, instilled in them a strong belief in Britain's cultural superiority and a duty to ‘uplift’ less advanced societies. This mindset framed colonial governance as a moral responsibility, positioning British officials as ‘architects of progress’, responsible for bringing order and civilisation to what they viewed as chaotic societies²⁷. This paternalistic mindset, however, often led to policies that disregarded or actively suppressed local knowledge and governance practices.

Ambition and Paternalism

Africa beckoned ambitious British officials as a promised land of opportunity. Back home, their ambition was suppressed by Britain’s suffocating class system, but in the colonies traditional social conventions no longer applied²². In Nigeria, for instance, colonial officers from humble beginnings could find themselves overseeing vast territories and exercising judicial and administrative powers, opportunities unimaginable in their homeland²³. Similarly, newly appointed officials in Northern Nigeria often described their responsibilities as transformative. For these individuals, colonial service represented not only a professional leap but a redefinition of their identity, as they embraced their newfound influence and autonomy in the vast colonial landscape²⁴.

The allure of colonial service extended beyond power; it also offered a path to personal reinvention. Africa beckoned for those who had been held back by Britain’s strict social order; it offered a second chance to start afresh. Officials who had failed to secure positions in prestigious colonies such as India often found redemption in Africa, where the absence of entrenched traditions allowed them greater freedom to shape their roles. These officers embraced the opportunity to rule with a level of autonomy and direct authority they could not have achieved elsewhere²⁵. However, this autonomy often led to significant abuses of power. In some instances, colonial officers acted with impunity, prioritising personal ambitions over the well-being of the communities they governed, exacerbating local resentment.

For many colonial officials, personal ambition was only part of the story. Many were driven by a genuine sense of moral purpose and saw themselves as heroes on a grand mission to bring civilisation to the world's ‘dark corners’²⁶. Elite British schools and universities, such as Oxbridge, instilled in them a strong belief in Britain's cultural superiority and a duty to ‘uplift’ less advanced societies. This mindset framed colonial governance as a moral responsibility, positioning British officials as ‘architects of progress’, responsible for bringing order and civilisation to what they viewed as chaotic societies²⁷. Yet, these ideals were often challenged by African communities, who resisted cultural imposition and maintained their own vibrant traditions and governance systems. These moments of resistance exposed the limitations of the colonial project and the hubris of its administrators.

This belief system reinforced the imperial narrative that colonial rule was both benevolent and necessary, justifying the administrators’ work as part of a broader mission to reshape African societies in Britain’s image²⁸. However, beneath their proclaimed mission of progress, a more insidious evil lurked, as their actions frequently belied their ideals. British rule, touted as a civilising force, was in reality a system of ruthless exploitation²⁹. Taxation without representation, forced labour, and land seizures exposed the exploitative machinery of British rule³⁰. African labourers, coerced to work on infrastructure projects or plantations, bore the brunt of these exploitative practices, enduring back-breaking work under appalling conditions while reaping few, if any, benefits.

The infrastructure projects celebrated as symbols of progress—such as railways—primarily facilitated the extraction of African resources for British industries, rather than fostering local development³¹. The daily operations of colonial rule—plundering resources, extorting taxes, and crushing dissent—shattered the illusion of a ‘civilising mission’, revealing it as a euphemism for economic control³².

The Contradictions of the Civilising Mission

The ‘civilising mission’ was the ideological underpinning of British colonial rule. Officials such as William Brandford-Griffith viewed themselves as crusaders of progress, imposing justice, and stability on societies they deemed unruly³³. They saw their role as replacing violence and disorder with stability and governance, framing their work as both a moral duty and a necessity for advancing civilisation³⁴. However, African leaders and intellectuals increasingly questioned these justifications, highlighting the hypocrisy of colonial rulers who preached justice while perpetuating exploitation.

Similarly, in Uganda during the 1920s, colonial officials portrayed their efforts as replacing chaos with fairness and organisation, convinced that their interventions were vital for social improvement, even as they benefited from Britain’s imperial interests³⁵. However, the truth was that the civilising mission was replete with contradictions. The vaunted roads and railways, gleaming exemplars of progress, were in reality instruments of economic extraction. Far from enriching societies, they drained wealth from them, condemning African labourers to lives of unrelenting drudgery and enslavement, as the promise of ‘development’ proved a cruel illusion³⁶.

In Kenya during 1931, the precariousness of British control became evident. Officials recognised that their authority was often tenuous, resting on the maintenance of outward appearances rather than substantive legitimacy or authentic respect from African communities³⁷. These contradictions eroded the credibility of the civilising mission, as officials struggled to reconcile the empire’s lofty rhetoric with the exploitative realities of their work. The tension between British officials and African resistance movements, such as the Kikuyu Central Association, further highlighted the fragility of colonial rule and the declining acceptance of imperial narratives.

Today, the spectre of the civilising mission still casts a shadow over Africa's development trajectory. Just as colonial-era railways were constructed to serve British industrial interests, many modern infrastructures on the continent prioritise the interests of foreign investors over the needs of local communities³⁸. The copper mines of colonial Northern Rhodesia, notorious for their brutal treatment of African labourers, have their modern-day counterparts in multinational mining operations that ravage the land, extracting wealth that rarely benefits local development³⁹. Despite the altered rhetoric of ‘progress’, the fundamental dynamics of exploitation remain eerily intact, a haunting legacy of the civilising mission⁴⁰. The lessons of this legacy prompt a critical re-evaluation of development policies, emphasising the need to empower local communities rather than perpetuate extractive systems.

The Psychological Toll of Empire

For British officials responsible for enforcing colonial rule, the moral paradoxes of imperial rule became a profound source of conflict and personal torment. Isolated in distant postings, they grappled with the moral discomfort of implementing exploitative systems, all while professing a dedication to progress⁴¹. Many were consumed by the crushing weight of guilt and frustration. By the late 19th century, some officials began to reflect on the long-term implications of their administrative practices, acknowledging the enduring challenges of maintaining structures built on external imposition and local discontent⁴². These reflections, often recorded in private diaries, reveal officials wrestling with their complicity in a system that upheld exploitation under the guise of moral duty.

In the private confines of their diaries, officials confided in restless nights and strained silences. Some struggled with the crushing weight of a troubled moral conscience, while others succumbed to the numbing effects of the empire's relentless demands, which wore down their spirits, leaving them feeling hollow, drained, and emotionally depleted⁴³. One common theme in these writings was the internal conflict of justifying violence and forced labour as necessary tools for achieving imperial goals, often at the expense of their own humanity.

Their reflections often revealed the cyclical nature of their duties, where administrative tasks and development initiatives were geared toward sustaining imperial control⁴⁴. For example, in regions such as Kenya, officials frequently oscillated between the desire to create a 'civilised' society and the brutal reality of suppressing uprisings and dissent. This duality left many administrators emotionally fractured.

For some, the moral weight of accountability proved too crushing, precipitating a profound sense of disillusionment. Conversely, for others, this weight paradoxically fortified their faith, as they clung to paternalistic narratives that justified their complicity, enabling them to maintain the façade of moral superiority⁴⁵. These officials rationalised their actions by believing they were the necessary architects of order, dismissing African resistance as ignorance or chaos rather than legitimate opposition.

The psychological strain of empire was not just a personal burden—it exposed the inherent fragility of British rule itself. Officials were forced to operate in a mental state of ‘doublethink’, where the empire’s grandiose ideals clashed with brutal realities⁴⁶. As the empire's moral veneer began to crack and fracture, the ensuing chaos grew increasingly impossible to disregard or ignore⁴⁷. This mental conflict not only weakened the resolve of individual administrators but also eroded the collective confidence in the sustainability of imperial control, particularly as nationalist movements gained momentum.

Encounters with African Societies

Colonial administration thrust officials into the midst of Africa’s intricate and diverse societies, compelling them to confront their preconceived notions. Many had arrived with an absolute conviction in Britain’s cultural superiority, but their first-hand experiences on the ground often shattered these illusions⁴⁸. In areas such as Northern Nigeria, for example, British officials encountered highly sophisticated systems of governance and justice, challenging their assumptions about African societies as 'primitive.'

The complexity of indigenous governance and traditions forced British officials to realise that existing systems often exhibited a level of sophistication that required respect and adaptation rather than wholesale replacement. The recognition that effective governance necessitated an understanding and integration of local customs marked a critical turning point in how some officials approached their roles⁴⁹. This was particularly evident in West Africa, where indirect rule co-opted traditional authorities rather than imposing British norms directly, though this approach often distorted pre-existing systems to suit colonial objectives.

Exposure to African governance systems and cultures had a profoundly transformative impact on some officials, with some emerging as ardent champions of indigenous institutions and customs. Conversely, others remained entrenched in a paternalistic, condescending colonial mindset⁵⁰. This divergence in attitudes often influenced policy implementation, with more progressive administrators advocating for partnerships with local leaders, while others sought to undermine or marginalise indigenous authority.

The tension between their self-perception as mentors and the reality of being perceived as intruders starkly illuminated the contradictions of colonialism. The complexities of imposing external rule on diverse societies with deeply ingrained traditions frequently led to resistance, challenging the very legitimacy of British authority in the colonies⁵¹. This resistance took many forms, from subtle acts of defiance, such as refusal to pay taxes, to outright rebellion, as seen in the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya.

The Legacy of Empire

So, why does this matter today? The legacy of these officials continues to reverberate profoundly in modern global systems. Their personal narratives expose the complications and paradoxes of empire, helping to explain the roots of contemporary global power imbalances⁵². The paternalistic ideologies they embraced continue to shape the frameworks of international development, perpetuating the same colonial-era beliefs about progress and civilisation⁵³. For instance, international aid often mirrors the dynamics of colonial rule, with donor nations dictating the terms of development to recipient countries, sidelining local needs and priorities.

Just as colonial-era railways and infrastructure prioritised imperial economic interests over local well-being, modern development projects often replicate these dynamics, serving the interests of foreign investors more than local communities. These stories challenge us to critically evaluate the long-lasting effects of empire and recognise its persistent, pervasive impact on our world today⁵⁴. By addressing these legacies head-on, there is potential to move beyond extractive systems toward genuinely equitable partnerships between nations.

Early Colonial Period (1880s–1920s) – Foundations of Empire

The late 19th century marked a period of intense expansion for Britain during the Scramble for Africa, formalised by the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885. This transformation of informal trade networks into formalised colonial rule necessitated a new cadre of officials to govern vast, unfamiliar territories⁵⁵. For many British officials, colonial service offered not only professional duty but also a personal opportunity to rise above the rigid hierarchies of Victorian Britain and establish authority in foreign lands⁵⁶. The system incentivised young men, often from middle-class backgrounds, to seek social mobility by taking up positions of responsibility in the colonies, where they could wield power disproportionate to their age or experience.

The allure of upward mobility was particularly strong for Britain’s middle class, who often found limited opportunities for advancement in the stratified society at home. Colonial postings allowed talent and ambition to thrive in an environment less constrained by class or academic pedigree. For instance, in Nigeria, junior officials from modest educational backgrounds could quickly rise to positions of authority, tasked with administering vast territories and making significant decisions involving judicial, administrative, and developmental matters—often well beyond their age or formal qualifications⁵⁷. In one notable instance, young District Officers in Northern Nigeria oversaw populations numbering in the tens of thousands, exercising both executive and judicial powers.

These roles provided substantial responsibility, granting individuals a sense of professional fulfilment and social elevation. For many, such postings were transformative, reshaping not only their careers but also their sense of identity. In a colonial environment, adaptability, resourcefulness, and a willingness to shoulder immense responsibility often carried more weight than traditional markers of status such as elite schooling⁵⁸. However, the ideals of meritocracy promoted by British governance were frequently at odds with the exploitative practices that underpinned colonial administration, which often undermined these symbolic notions of rational order and justice⁵⁹. The emphasis on extraction rather than equitable development exposed the disconnect between the rhetoric of uplift and the actual policies implemented on the ground.

In Northern Nigeria, the flexibility of colonial governance enabled individuals from modest backgrounds to hold positions that afforded them autonomy and authority rarely available to their peers in Britain. These officials oversaw territories larger than many British counties, exercising influence over taxation, resource management, and infrastructure projects⁶⁰. This autonomy sometimes fostered a sense of creativity and innovation among administrators, but it also led to inconsistencies in governance, as policies varied greatly depending on the personal inclinations of individual officials.

For some, this autonomy provided a path to personal reinvention, allowing them to recover from professional disappointments or unrealised ambitions in Britain. Africa became a space where individuals could craft new identities and attain status unencumbered by the traditional constraints of class and privilege⁶¹. However, this reinvention often came at the expense of the colonised populations, who bore the brunt of experimental policies and unpredictable governance.

This narrative of opportunity, however, was deeply entwined with a paternalistic worldview. Many British officials carried with them the belief, instilled by elite institutions such as public schools and Oxbridge universities, that Britain was inherently superior and bore a moral duty to guide ‘less advanced’ societies. This ideology framed British officials as ‘architects of progress’, tasked with reconstructing what they perceived as morally or organisationally deficient communities⁶². Commissioner William Brandford-Griffith epitomised this mindset in 1889, describing the British as ‘not merely administrators, but architects of progress’, charged with uplifting and transforming colonised societies⁶³. Yet, as their administrative tasks increasingly centred on resource extraction and suppressing dissent, the gap between these lofty ideals and the realities of their actions widened.

However, the practical realities of administration often betrayed these lofty ideals. Infrastructure projects, such as railways and ports, were frequently hailed as instruments of modernisation and civilisation but were primarily designed to extract resources for imperial gain. For example, the construction of the Uganda Railway in East Africa, a symbol of British ingenuity, was primarily aimed at facilitating the export of cash crops and raw materials to British markets⁶⁴. Such projects, while celebrated as milestones of progress, imposed significant human and environmental costs, with thousands of labourers dying during their construction.

Such projects, alongside systems of tax collection and forced labour, underscored the exploitative priorities of colonial governance, where the rhetoric of uplift masked the stark realities of economic extraction and control⁶⁵. This dissonance between stated goals and outcomes created deep resentment among African communities, who saw infrastructure not as a tool for development but as a mechanism for their continued subjugation.

The Contradictions of the Civilising Mission

The ‘civilising mission’ was a central tenet of British colonial rule, serving as both its ideological justification and its moral veneer. Officials such as Commissioner William Brandford-Griffith framed their work as a crusade for progress, casting themselves as pioneers of justice and stability in regions they characterised as chaotic and unruly⁶⁷. This rhetoric positioned British rule as a benevolent force, supplanting violence and disorder with governance and development. In Uganda during the 1920s, British officials claimed that their interventions replaced chaos with fairness and organisation, reinforcing the image of empire as a moral project⁶⁸. However, this narrative was deeply flawed, as it ignored the structural violence inherent in colonial systems, including forced labour and land expropriation.

However, the reality of the civilising mission was rife with contradictions. The much-celebrated infrastructure projects, such as roads and railways, were not built to empower African communities but to facilitate resource extraction for Britain’s industrial economy. Far from enriching local societies, these ventures drained wealth from them, condemning African labourers to lives of hardship and subjugation. The promise of development, central to the colonial narrative, was often a cruel illusion⁶⁹. Moreover, these projects often disrupted traditional economic systems, creating dependency on colonial markets while marginalising indigenous industries.

The Uganda Railway, hailed as the ‘Lunatic Line’ for its massive cost and human toll, exemplified this duplicity. While touted as a gateway to modernity, the railway was designed primarily to serve British economic interests, enabling the transport of raw materials from Africa’s interior to coastal ports. Labourers, many of them conscripted or coerced, endured appalling conditions during its construction, with thousands losing their lives⁷⁰. These deaths, often unacknowledged in colonial records, highlight the dehumanisation inherent in the civilising mission.

In Kenya during the 1930s, British officials privately acknowledged the precariousness of their authority. One official noted that their power often rested more on maintaining appearances than on genuine legitimacy. African communities saw through the veneer of benevolence, recognising the exploitative nature of British rule. This disconnection between imperial ideals and lived realities highlighted the fragility of the civilising mission and the deep resentment it fostered among colonised populations⁷¹. Resistance to these contradictions grew steadily, as African leaders began to expose the gap between colonial rhetoric and reality, laying the groundwork for anti-colonial movements.

Today, the spectre of the civilising mission still looms over Africa’s development trajectory. Colonial-era infrastructure projects prioritised imperial needs over local interests, a pattern echoed in modern development initiatives that often favour foreign investors. The copper mines of colonial Northern Rhodesia, notorious for their harsh conditions and disregard for African labourers, have their modern counterparts in multinational mining operations that similarly prioritise profit over local welfare⁷². This enduring legacy underscores how the rhetoric of progress continues to mask the dynamics of exploitation, revealing the haunting continuity of colonial systems⁷³. By addressing these historical patterns, there is potential to reimagine development in ways that centre local agency and equitable partnerships.

Regional Variations of Governance

The governance strategies employed by British officials were deeply influenced by the unique political, social, and economic conditions of the regions they controlled. From the pragmatism of indirect rule in West Africa to the settler-driven policies of East Africa and the extractive economies of Central Africa, these variations exposed the adaptability—and contradictions—of British imperial rule⁷⁴. Despite the apparent flexibility, these strategies shared a common core: prioritising British economic and political interests while maintaining control through a mix of coercion and co-optation.

West Africa: Indirect Rule and Pragmatism

In West Africa, British officials adopted a system of indirect rule, prominently championed by Frederick Lugard, to govern through African chiefs and traditional structures. This approach was celebrated for its cost-effectiveness, enabling vast territories to be managed with minimal British personnel⁷⁵. By co-opting traditional rulers into the colonial framework, officials aimed to maintain a semblance of continuity while ensuring imperial control. However, this strategy often created tensions between British officials and African elites. Chiefs were reduced to intermediaries, forced to enforce policies that frequently alienated their communities. Over time, their authority was eroded, and they came to be seen as collaborators in the colonial project rather than genuine representatives of their people⁷⁶. The resentment this fostered laid the groundwork for anti-colonial movements, as traditional leaders lost credibility and legitimacy among their people.

The spread of Western education in the Gold Coast and Nigeria further complicated these dynamics. A new generation of educated Africans, often trained in mission schools, began to challenge the paternalism and inequities of British rule. By the early 20th century, this emerging elite articulated grievances against colonial policies, exposing the inherent contradictions of indirect rule⁷⁷. They argued that while British officials proclaimed ideals of progress, their actions undermined African autonomy by reshaping traditional institutions to serve imperial objectives. This intellectual resistance not only highlighted the inadequacies of indirect rule but also forced British officials to confront the growing political consciousness among Africans.

Such encounters forced British officials to confront the contradictions of their roles. While they claimed to promote progress and stability, they presided over a system designed to consolidate British control and economic exploitation. As educated Africans began to challenge the moral and practical legitimacy of the empire, the paternalistic façade of indirect rule began to crumble, exposing the fragility of British authority⁷⁹. For instance, early nationalist leaders in Nigeria and the Gold Coast drew on their Western education to demand political reforms, sparking a tension between the colonial government and emerging African elites.

East Africa: Settler Dominance and Racial Hierarchies

In East Africa, particularly in Kenya, the dominance of European settlers profoundly shaped colonial policy. Settlers, drawn to the fertile White Highlands, sought to recreate an idyllic version of rural Britain, often at the expense of local communities⁸⁰. Land alienation, labour exploitation, and the prioritisation of settler interests defined colonial governance in this region, exacerbating tensions between African populations and the colonial administration. Large-scale land seizures displaced African communities, disrupting traditional systems of land ownership and use, and fuelling widespread resentment⁸¹. This economic and social marginalisation deepened divisions between settlers and African communities, creating enduring inequalities.

For some British officials, these policies created significant moral dilemmas. While they enforced the directives of the British government and settlers, they were often acutely aware of the injustices inflicted on African populations. The dispossession of land, compounded by forced labour and exploitative agricultural practices, revealed the stark contradictions of the colonial narrative of progress and civilisation⁸². In private correspondence, some administrators expressed frustration at being complicit in what they saw as an unsustainable and unjust system.

The tensions between settlers’ demands and African grievances placed British officials in an untenable position. Some recognised that the so-called progress achieved through settler-driven development came at the direct expense of African livelihoods. These reflections highlighted the moral and psychological strain of serving a system that prioritised settler prosperity over African welfare, revealing the unsustainable nature of settler dominance in East Africa⁸³. The growing discontent among African populations would eventually erupt in uprisings such as the Mau Mau rebellion, challenging the colonial administration’s ability to maintain order.

Central Africa: Resource Extraction and Exploitation

In Central Africa, colonial governance was dominated by the extraction of resources, particularly in mining and agriculture. Northern Rhodesia’s copper mines and Nyasaland’s tobacco plantations exemplified the exploitative priorities of British rule. African labourers were subjected to harsh conditions, low wages, and limited rights, while the profits of these industries flowed back to Britain⁸⁴. This extractive focus often ignored the long-term development needs of the colonies, leaving local economies dependent and underdeveloped.

British officials tasked with managing these extractive systems often grappled with their moral implications. Some justified the exploitation as a necessary cost of empire, while others became disillusioned with the gap between the promises of development and the reality of systemic inequities⁸⁵. Strikes and protests by African workers revealed the growing political consciousness of labourers, challenging the paternalistic assumptions of colonial governance and exposing its inherent fragility⁸⁶. Labour movements in the Copperbelt region, for instance, highlighted the disparity between colonial economic priorities and the welfare of African workers, further undermining the legitimacy of British rule.

These regional variations underscore the adaptability of British colonial strategies but also highlight their underlying contradictions. Across West, East, and Central Africa, officials faced the tension between their professed ideals and the exploitative realities of empire. This tension not only shaped the policies of British rule but also influenced the motivations and perspectives of colonial administrators themselves⁸⁷. The growing pressures of resistance from African communities revealed the inherent instability of the colonial system, foreshadowing the challenges of decolonisation in the mid-20th century.

Fragile Foundations

The early colonial period reveals the complex and often contradictory motivations of British officials. While many entered service with high ideals and a belief in their duty to uplift African societies, their actions frequently betrayed the exploitative priorities of imperial rule. Across West Africa, East Africa, and Central Africa, officials navigated a precarious balance between ambition and duty, progress and control, idealism, and exploitation. These contradictions would only deepen in the middle colonial period, as nationalist movements and economic pressures began to challenge the foundations of British authority⁸⁸. The rise of African intellectuals, labour movements, and grassroots resistance would soon shift the balance of power, compelling British officials to reconsider their strategies and justifications for colonial governance.

Middle Colonial Period (1920s–1945) - The Rise of Development and Resistance

The middle colonial period marked a significant shift in the motivations and perspectives of British officials as they navigated the growing pressures of nationalism, economic challenges, and a newly emerging ideology of development. The aftermath of the First World War left Britain economically weakened, prompting calls to make its colonies more self-sufficient. This introduced a new phase of colonial governance, where officials increasingly framed their work as part of a developmental mission⁸⁹. Infrastructure, agricultural reform, and education became focal points of colonial policy. However, these efforts were often undermined by the exploitative systems they sought to sustain. Despite attempts to integrate development projects, colonial policies primarily served to reinforce British economic control and suppress African political aspirations.

Motivations: Development, Order, and Managing Resistance

The ideology of development became central to the justifications for British rule during this period. British officials increasingly cast themselves as modernisers, tasked with preparing African societies for advancement. Governor Frederick Lugard’s earlier dual mandate—combining economic exploitation with moral responsibility—was reinterpreted through the language of modernisation⁹¹. Infrastructure projects, agricultural schemes, and expanded education systems were presented as evidence of Britain’s benevolent stewardship, reinforcing the narrative of empire as a force for progress⁹². However, the practical implementation of these initiatives often excluded African voices, further entrenching inequalities and fostering discontent.

These aspirations were tempered by the practical demands of maintaining order amidst growing unrest. Labour strikes, rural revolts, and nationalist movements exposed the fragility of colonial control, forcing many officials to adopt repressive measures. In Northern Nigeria, for example, chiefs who had been instrumental to the system of indirect rule found themselves increasingly at odds with their communities, who viewed them as complicit in colonial exploitation. This erosion of trust underscored the tensions within the system, as British officials struggled to reconcile their developmental ambitions with the realities of sustaining imperial authority⁹³. The disillusionment among African intermediaries became a key factor in eroding the legitimacy of indirect rule, highlighting the challenges of implementing a coherent developmental agenda.

Regional Variations in Governance

The challenges of the middle colonial period varied significantly across regions, reflecting the diverse political, economic, and social landscapes of British Africa. While West Africa experienced the rise of nationalist movements and urban elite dissent, East Africa was shaped by settler demands and rural revolts. In Central Africa, colonial governance centred on labour control and resource extraction, creating significant industrial tensions⁹⁴. The interplay between local resistance and British administrative strategies revealed the uneven and fragmented nature of colonial authority during this period.

West Africa: The Rise of Nationalism

In West Africa, the interwar years saw the emergence of a politically conscious African elite, fuelled by the spread of Western education and the economic hardships of the Great Depression. Nationalist leaders, such as Herbert Macaulay in Nigeria and J.B. Danquah in the Gold Coast, began to mobilise urban elites and workers, challenging the paternalistic narratives of British rule⁹⁵. The growing influence of trade unions and political organisations signalled a shift in the balance of power, as educated Africans used colonial frameworks to advocate for reform and representation.

British officials who had previously relied on African chiefs as intermediaries began to question their effectiveness. By the mid-1930s, indirect rule was increasingly seen as inadequate in addressing the aspirations of a more politically aware population. Chiefs, once trusted by colonial authorities, were losing credibility with their communities, who criticised their collaboration with imperial powers. Labour strikes and tax protests further highlighted the growing discontent, exposing the systemic fragility of colonial governance and forcing British officials to confront the limitations of their approach⁹⁶. In Lagos, for example, protests over water rates and taxation became symbolic of broader dissatisfaction with colonial policies, underscoring the need for more inclusive governance.

The psychological impact of these changes on British officials was significant. Many struggled with feelings of inadequacy as the institutions they had relied on began to falter. Indirect rule, once celebrated as a model of governance, was now viewed by some as a barrier to progress rather than a means of preserving valuable traditions. Officials increasingly recognised that their authority was being eroded, as African communities demanded reforms that went beyond the constraints of the colonial system⁹⁷. The realisation that indirect rule no longer aligned with the evolving political realities of the colonies forced many officials to reconsider their roles and strategies.

East Africa: Settler Power and Rural Unrest

In East Africa, particularly in Kenya, the dominance of European settlers profoundly influenced colonial policy. Settlers, who had migrated in pursuit of land and opportunity, demanded preferential treatment, often at the expense of African communities. The fertile White Highlands became a focal point of this tension, as policies prioritising settler interests displaced African populations and disrupted traditional land-use systems⁹⁸. This created a volatile environment where economic grievances overlapped with growing demands for political representation, intensifying conflicts between settlers and African communities.

The dispossession of African communities created profound moral dilemmas for some British officials. While many enforced settler-driven policies, they privately expressed unease about the injustices these measures inflicted. Forced labour, exploitative agricultural practices, and land alienation starkly contradicted the rhetoric of progress and civilisation that underpinned colonial rule. For some officials, this tension between their personal values and the demands of imperial policy created significant psychological strain⁹⁹. Reports from administrators in Kenya revealed growing concerns about the long-term sustainability of settler dominance, with some recognising the inevitability of African resistance.

Despite their efforts to manage these challenges, British officials often found themselves in an untenable position. Settler dominance left little room for compromise, and attempts to mediate between settler interests and African grievances only deepened the contradictions of colonial governance. The resulting unrest, marked by strikes and protests, further exposed the limits of British authority in the region¹⁰⁰. In response, the colonial administration relied on increasingly repressive measures, exacerbating tensions and undermining their claims of benevolent governance.

Central Africa: Labour Strikes and Industrial Tensions

In Central Africa, resource extraction defined the colonial agenda. Industries such as copper mining in Northern Rhodesia and tobacco farming in Nyasaland relied heavily on African labour, often under exploitative conditions. Officials were tasked with recruiting and managing this workforce, using coercive measures such as taxation and forced labour to ensure a steady supply of workers. These practices ravaged traditional economies and sparked widespread discontent among African communities¹⁰¹. The imposition of colonial economic systems disrupted subsistence agriculture and deepened poverty, further fuelling resistance among workers.

The exploitative nature of these systems led to growing resistance from African labourers, who began organising strikes and protests to demand better wages and working conditions. In the Copperbelt, these actions exposed the fragility of the colonial labour system, as workers’ political consciousness challenged the paternalistic assumptions of British officials¹⁰². The growing militancy of trade unions in the 1930s signalled a shift in power dynamics, with African workers increasingly asserting their rights against colonial authorities.

By the 1930s, many officials recognised the unsustainability of these policies. Strikes and industrial tensions highlighted the systemic inequalities of colonial governance, forcing British officials to confront the moral and practical failures of the empire’s economic priorities. These challenges eroded their confidence in the viability of colonial rule, as resistance from African workers undermined the legitimacy of the imperial project¹⁰³. The inability to reconcile economic exploitation with the rhetoric of progress left colonial administrators struggling to maintain authority in the face of growing demands for reform.

The Psychological Impact of Resistance

The middle colonial period placed a significant psychological burden on British officials. Many found themselves increasingly caught between the ideals of development and the exploitative mechanisms of colonial rule. The rise of nationalist movements, labour strikes, and rural uprisings revealed the depth of dissatisfaction among African populations, challenging the narratives of progress that British officials had long espoused. The growing disconnect between colonial ideals and lived realities fostered disillusionment among many officials, with some questioning the ethical foundations of their roles.

For some, this dissonance prompted a profound sense of disillusionment. Officials who once saw themselves as agents of modernisation began to question the legitimacy of their roles, recognising the limitations of their authority and the contradictions of their mission. Others clung to paternalistic narratives, justifying their actions as necessary steps toward maintaining order and advancing progress. This internal conflict left many officials feeling isolated, as they struggled to reconcile their personal beliefs with the oppressive realities of imperial policy¹⁰⁴. Private correspondence from officials often revealed a sense of frustration and alienation, as they grappled with the mounting challenges of colonial governance.

Development and Disillusionment

The middle colonial period underscores the evolving motivations and perspectives of British officials as they confronted the changing realities of empire. While many embraced the ideology of development as a justification for their roles, the rise of African resistance exposed the contradictions inherent in their mission. Across West Africa, East Africa, and Central Africa, British officials faced growing tensions between their aspirations for progress and the exploitative systems they upheld. The challenges of implementing development while maintaining control revealed the unsustainability of the colonial framework, as African voices increasingly challenged its legitimacy. These contradictions would become even more pronounced in the late colonial period, as the forces of decolonisation began to dismantle the structures of empire itself¹⁰⁵.

Late Colonial Period (1945–1965) - Decolonisation and the Shifting Narratives of Colonial Rule

The late colonial period was defined by the accelerating forces of decolonisation. Britain, weakened economically and politically in the aftermath of the Second World War, faced mounting pressure from nationalist movements across Africa, which demanded independence and self-governance. These movements exposed the unsustainable nature of the colonial system, forcing British officials to adapt to an evolving political landscape. For many, this period marked a profound transformation in their self-perception. No longer empire-builders, officials began to see themselves as transitional figures tasked with facilitating an orderly transfer of power. This marked a shift in both policy and mindset, as officials sought to frame their role as that of preparing African societies for self-rule, despite resistance from certain settler groups and colonial administrations.

While outwardly embracing this shift, many British officials experienced internal conflict. Publicly, they aligned with the narrative of preparing African societies for independence, but privately they struggled to reconcile their roles with the imperial policies that delayed and resisted self-rule. This dissonance between rhetoric and reality became a hallmark of the late colonial period, as officials grappled with the psychological and political challenges of managing imperial decline¹⁰⁶. The disparity between their public responsibilities and private doubts further exacerbated feelings of frustration and disillusionment among many administrators.

Motivations: From Civilising Mission to Development and Independence

By the 1950s, the civilising mission of the early colonial period had evolved into the language of development. As nationalist movements gained momentum, this, too, gave way to a new focus on preparing colonies for independence. British officials increasingly portrayed themselves as mentors guiding African societies toward self-governance, framing the transition as a natural evolution rather than a concession to mounting pressure. This rhetorical shift sought to obscure the realities of colonial resistance, presenting decolonisation as a deliberate and orderly process¹⁰⁷. However, the inconsistencies between the stated goals of development and the continued exploitation of African resources undermined these narratives, exposing the fragility of British colonial authority.

Despite this outward narrative, many officials faced significant challenges in reconciling their actions with their evolving roles. Some experienced disillusionment, recognising that their earlier efforts to maintain colonial rule were now being reframed as steps toward independence. Others found a renewed sense of purpose in managing the transition, viewing themselves as facilitators of a new political order. These differing perspectives underscore the complex and often contradictory motivations that characterised British officials during the late colonial period¹⁰⁸. For example, while some administrators embraced the ideals of partnership and cooperation with emerging African leaders, others clung to outdated paternalistic attitudes, further complicating the process of decolonisation.

Regional Variations in Governance

As in earlier periods, the experiences of British officials during decolonisation varied significantly across regions, shaped by the pace of nationalist movements and the influence of local political dynamics. West Africa saw relatively peaceful transitions to independence, while East Africa and Central Africa were marked by settler resistance and deeply entrenched inequalities. These variations forced officials to adapt their strategies, exposing the contradictions of Britain’s imperial rhetoric and the challenges of navigating a rapidly changing political landscape¹⁰⁹. The regional differences highlighted the uneven nature of British colonial governance and the varying degrees of resistance and cooperation officials encountered.

West Africa: Negotiating Independence

West Africa experienced some of the earliest and most structured transitions to independence. Ghana became the first British colony in sub-Saharan Africa to achieve self-rule in 1957, followed by Nigeria in 1960. British officials played a leading role in negotiating constitutional reforms and overseeing the transfer of power to African leaders. For many officials, these transitions represented both professional fulfilment and personal unease. Having been trained in the empire-building mindset, they struggled with the reality of relinquishing control¹¹⁰. The rapid emergence of nationalist parties, such as the Convention People’s Party in Ghana, underscored the diminishing influence of colonial administrators as African leaders increasingly took centre stage.

The rise of nationalist leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana further challenged the paternalistic ideologies that had long underpinned colonial rule. British officials who once believed in their role as indispensable advisors now found themselves marginalised in the new political order. This realisation forced many to confront the limitations of their authority, as they came to terms with their diminishing relevance in the face of African self-determination¹¹¹. The shift in power dynamics was particularly evident in the growing assertiveness of African leaders during negotiations, highlighting the waning influence of British officials.

East Africa: Resistance and Repression

In East Africa, decolonisation was far more contentious, particularly in Kenya, where the Mau Mau rebellion (1952–1960) exposed the deep fractures within the colonial administration. For many British officials, the uprising marked a turning point, forcing them to confront the violent realities underpinning colonial rule. Efforts to suppress the rebellion—including detention camps and forced labour—inflicted a lasting psychological toll on those tasked with enforcing these policies¹¹². The brutality of these measures, often justified under the guise of maintaining order, further alienated African communities and deepened anti-colonial sentiment.

Officials who participated in these repressive measures often expressed feelings of frustration and futility. The more force they deployed, the more resistance intensified, revealing the inherent weaknesses of colonial control. By the mid-1950s, some British officials openly acknowledged that their efforts were no longer about building an empire but about managing its decline¹¹³. The acknowledgment of the unsustainability of British rule marked a significant shift in the attitudes of many administrators, who began to question the ethical and practical implications of their actions.

In Uganda, the transition to independence unfolded less violently but was fraught with political complexities. British officials worked closely with the Buganda Kingdom to facilitate the transfer of power, but this partnership often reinforced existing inequalities and divisions. The resulting fragmentation underscored the challenges of navigating decolonisation, as officials sought to balance competing demands while preserving stability¹¹⁴. The reliance on traditional elites in Uganda revealed the limitations of colonial reform efforts, as many policies perpetuated entrenched social hierarchies rather than addressing broader calls for equality.

Central Africa: Settler Power and Delayed Independence

In Central Africa, the entrenched presence of European settler communities complicated the decolonisation process. In territories such as Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia) and Nyasaland (modern Malawi), settlers resisted any moves toward African self-rule, clinging to their privileged status. British officials found themselves caught between the demands of settlers and the aspirations of nationalist leaders, creating an increasingly volatile political landscape¹¹⁵. The tensions in Central Africa highlighted the difficulties of reconciling settler interests with the broader goals of independence, forcing administrators to navigate a precarious balance.

The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953–1963), designed to consolidate British influence in the region, only deepened these tensions. Rather than fostering unity, the Federation became a flashpoint for unrest, as African workers and political movements challenged its legitimacy. Labour strikes, widespread protests, and the rise of nationalist movements further exposed the fragility of colonial governance. By the early 1960s, British officials in Central Africa were managing the disintegration of a system they had once championed as a stabilising force¹¹⁶. The collapse of the Federation underscored the inability of colonial administrators to address the growing demands for autonomy and justice from African populations.

The Psychological Toll of Decolonisation

The late colonial period placed a significant psychological strain on British officials, as they confronted the realities of imperial decline. Many found themselves grappling with a profound sense of loss, as their roles shifted from rulers to advisors. For some, this transition brought a sense of pride, allowing them to frame their contributions as part of a broader narrative of progress and self-determination. Others, however, experienced deep disillusionment, recognising the harm caused by the systems they had upheld¹¹⁷. The duality of these experiences reflected the conflicting pressures on officials who were caught between their imperial obligations and the rapid dismantling of colonial structures.

Personal reflections from this period often reveal a deep sense of regret. British officials acknowledged that while they had left behind tangible symbols of progress, such as roads and schools, these achievements were overshadowed by the enduring scars of exploitation and division. This realisation forced many to confront the uncomfortable truths about the empire they had served, challenging their long-held beliefs about its moral justification¹¹⁸. Such reflections illustrate the long-lasting psychological impact on individuals who were tasked with reconciling their roles in an exploitative system with their personal values.

The End of Empire

The late colonial period illustrates the deep contradictions of British rule as it neared its end. While officials publicly embraced the narrative of preparing Africa for independence, their private writings expose the psychological and political struggles of managing imperial decline. Across West Africa, East Africa, and Central Africa, British officials were forced to reconcile their roles as facilitators of independence with the legacies of exploitation and division they left behind¹¹⁹. This contradiction between rhetoric and reality was particularly evident in the ways colonial administrators sought to preserve their influence through delayed transitions, even as decolonisation became inevitable.

This period marked the final evolution of British colonial motivations, from the paternalistic civilising mission of the early years to the pragmatic developmentalism of the interwar period and, finally, to the reluctant acceptance of decolonisation. Yet, as these officials withdrew, they left behind systems of governance and control that continue to influence the modern world¹²⁰. The remnants of British colonial policies—such as administrative hierarchies and economic dependencies—continue to shape African nations, revealing the enduring impact of empire.

The Legacy of British Colonial Officials in Africa

The regional and temporal variations in British colonial administration reveal the complex and often contradictory motivations of colonial officials, shaped by the specific demands of their postings and the wider trajectory of empire. In West Africa, British officials functioned as pragmatic manipulators of local authority, rationalising their actions through the efficiency of indirect rule while contending with the growing resistance of a politically conscious African elite. In East Africa, they navigated the competing pressures of European settler dominance and African grievances, often torn between ambitions for stability and the harsh realities of racial inequality. Meanwhile, in Central Africa, officials operated as enforcers of resource extraction, managing exploitative labour systems while grappling with the moral weight of their roles¹²¹. The diverse regional strategies highlight the adaptability of colonial administrators but also expose the underlying exploitative logic that permeated British rule.

Across these regions, the contradictions of British colonial rule—between idealism and exploitation, progress and oppression—shaped both the policies of empire and the inner lives of its officials. Many entered service driven by ambitions of progress and moral responsibility. However, their day-to-day experiences often revealed the stark realities of coercion and economic domination that underpinned the imperial project. For some, this led to profound disillusionment and regret; for others, it reinforced paternalistic narratives that justified their actions and suppressed doubts about the empire’s legitimacy¹²². These internal struggles were emblematic of the broader ethical dilemmas faced by individuals attempting to reconcile their ideals with the realities of colonial administration.

The evolution of British colonial officials’ motivations and perspectives mirrored the shifting trajectory of the empire itself. In the early colonial period, officials were motivated by personal ambition and a belief in Britain’s moral duty to ‘civilise’ African societies. By the interwar years, the rhetoric of empire had shifted to a focus on development, with British officials casting themselves as modernisers preparing African societies for progress. However, the rise of nationalist movements and labour strikes during this period exposed the fragility of colonial authority, forcing officials to confront the inherent contradictions of their mission¹²³. The increasing resistance from African communities revealed the untenable nature of colonial control, marking a turning point in the trajectory of British rule.

By the late colonial period, as decolonisation gained momentum, many officials found themselves managing the empire’s decline rather than building its future. A District Officer in Kenya during the Mau Mau Uprising captured this sentiment in 1954, stating, "We are no longer building an empire; we are holding it together with fraying ropes." Such reflections highlight the shifting priorities and deepening anxieties of British officials as they navigated the complexities of imperial withdrawal¹²⁴. The acknowledgment of the inevitable decline of empire underscored the profound impact of decolonisation on both institutional and individual levels.

Personal writings from British officials further illustrate the psychological toll of their roles. Many operated in a state of ‘doublethink,’ attempting to reconcile their faith in the empire’s benevolent purpose with the violence and exploitation they witnessed and enforced. For some, this dissonance led to bitterness and disillusionment. A Commissioner in Uganda reflected in 1963 that they left behind not only roads and schools but also scars, acknowledging that the empire was far from the noble enterprise they had imagined. For others, narratives of progress and development became a way to rationalise their complicity and maintain a sense of purpose amidst the challenges of colonial governance¹²⁵. These reflections provide valuable insights into the complex legacies of colonialism, revealing both the personal struggles of officials and the enduring impact of their actions.

These stories matter because the legacy of British colonial officials continues to reverberate in modern global systems. The governance structures, economic policies, and social hierarchies they helped construct have shaped the political and economic landscapes of contemporary Africa. The paternalistic ideologies that justified colonial rule echo in the language of international development today, perpetuating unequal power dynamics under the guise of progress. By examining the motivations and perspectives of these officials, we gain a deeper understanding of the contradictions and complexities of empire—and the enduring impact of its legacy¹²⁶. This understanding challenges us to critically evaluate modern systems of global inequality that trace their origins to the colonial era.

References

1. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
2. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
3. Boahen, A.A. (1987). African Perspectives on Colonialism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
5. Pakenham, T. (1991). The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912. London: Abacus.
6. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
7. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
9. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
10. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
11. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
12. Gann, L.H. & Duignan, P. (1978). The Rulers of British Africa 1870–1914. London: Routledge.
13. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
15. Lugard, F.D. (1922). The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa. Edinburgh: Blackwood.
16. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
18. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
19. Ranger, T.O. (1968). The African Voice in Southern Rhodesia 1898–1930. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
20. Callahan, M.D. (1999). A Sacred Trust: The League of Nations and Africa 1929–1946. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.
21. Good, C. (1976). The Steamer Parish: The Rise and Fall of Missionary Medicine on an African Frontier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Lonsdale, J. (2000). ‘Moral Ethnicity and Political Tribalism’, in Berman, B., Eyoh, D. & Kymlicka, W. (eds.), Ethnicity and Democracy in Africa. Oxford: James Currey, pp. 73–94.
23. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
24. Iliffe, J. (1995). Africans: The History of a Continent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
26. Mitchell, T. (1988). ‘The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and Their Critics’, The American Political Science Review, 85(1), pp. 77–96.
27. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
28. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
29. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
30. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
31. Gann, L.H. & Duignan, P. (1978). The Rulers of British Africa 1870–1914. London: Routledge.
32. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
34. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
35. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
36. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
37. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
39. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
41. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
42. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
43. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
44. Gann, L.H. & Duignan, P. (1978). The Rulers of British Africa 1870–1914. London: Routledge.
45. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
46. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
47. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
48. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
50. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
52. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
53. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
54. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
55. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
56. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
57. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
59. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
61. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
62. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
63. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
64. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
65. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
66. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
67. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press
68. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
69. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
71. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
72. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
73. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
74. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
75. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
76. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
77. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
78. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
80. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
81. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
82. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
83. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
84. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
85. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
86. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
87. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
89. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
90. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
91. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
92. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
93. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
94. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
95. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
96. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
97. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
98. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
99. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
100. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
101. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
102. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
103. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
104. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
105. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
106. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
107. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
108. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
109. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
110. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
111. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
112. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
113. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
114. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
115. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
116. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
117. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
118. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
119. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
120. Anderson, D. & Killingray, D. (1991). Policing the Empire: Government, Authority and Control, 1830–1940. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
121. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
122. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
123. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.
124. Hyam, R. (2006). Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918–1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
125. Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. (1999). Imperial Sunset: Britain’s Colonial Administrators in Africa and the End of Empire. London: Macmillan.
126. Elkins, C. (2005). Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya. New York: Henry Holt.
127. Freund, B. (1998). The Making of Contemporary Africa: The Development of African Society Since 1800. London: Palgrave.
128. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919–1939. London: Heinemann.
129. Anderson, D. (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. New York: W.W. Norton.
130. Paice, E. (2007). Tip and Run: The Untold Tragedy of the Great War in Africa. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
131. Porter, A. (1990). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
132. Darwin, J. (1988). Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. London: Macmillan.