HSY2602 PORTFOLIO 2026
DUE 13 MAY 2026
MY TOPIC
Acculturation was the only response by Africans to imperial domination. Do you
agree with this statement? Substantiate your answer with examples drawn from
various territories in Africa that came under European rule.
The statement that “acculturation was the only response by Africans to imperial
domination” is far too simple. Acculturation the process of adopting the culture and
values of a dominant power certainly did happen among some Africans, but it was
neither the only nor the most important reaction. Colonial rule in Africa, which took
shape rapidly between the 1880s and the early 1900s, was a deeply unequal and often
brutal system. Africans responded in many different ways, depending on their local
circumstances, their precolonial political structures, and their own human choices.
These responses ranged from active armed resistance, to political accommodation
through traditional leaders, to religious movements blending old and new, and to
economic adaptation by peasant farmers. This essay will argue that to say acculturation
was the only response is to ignore the rich variety of African agency during the colonial
period. The discussion will focus on examples drawn from West, East, and Central
Africa.
,Accommodation through Traditional Structures
One major way Africans responded was through accommodation, but this was not the
same as simply accepting European culture. Under the British system of “indirect rule,”
traditional chiefs and kings were used to govern on behalf of the colonial power. This
allowed African societies to keep many of their own institutions, while the colonial state
gathered taxes and maintained order. In Northern Nigeria, for example, Lord Lugard
preserved the Sokoto Caliphate’s emirs and their Islamic courts.¹ From the outside, life
appeared to continue largely unchanged. However, this was a political choice by the
emirs and their followers, not a wholesale adoption of European ways. They kept their
religion, their language, and their social hierarchy, and used the British to secure their
own power against rivals. This is accommodation, but not acculturation.
In the kingdom of Buganda, a different kind of accommodation took place. Here, after
the religious wars of the 1880s and 1890s, the Protestant elite, led by Sir Apollo Kagwa,
became enthusiastic allies of the British.² The Buganda Agreement of 1900 gave the
kingdom a special status within the Uganda Protectorate and handed large amounts of
land to a new class of chiefly landowners. The Ganda elite eagerly adopted English-
style education, Christianity, and even aspects of British political culture. This looks
more like acculturation, but it was a calculated strategy from the top, designed to
preserve and enhance Ganda power within a new colonial context. Significantly, this
acculturation was limited to a small elite and did not represent the whole population.
1
HSY2602 Study Guide, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 2010, pp. 259–260.
2
Study Guide, pp. 254–255.
, Active Resistance to Colonial Rule
Far more dramatic was the widespread tradition of armed and religious resistance.
Many Africans saw colonial rule as an alien domination that had to be challenged
directly. One of the most famous cases is the Maji Maji rebellion in German East Africa
(present-day Tanzania) between 1905 and 1907. The Germans had forced Africans to
grow cotton for export and ruled through harsh coastal agents known as akidas.³ The
rebellion was sparked by the prophet Kinjikitile, who spread a sacred water (maji)
believed to protect fighters from German bullets. Even though the water did not stop
bullets, the movement united over twenty different ethnic groups often stateless
societies that had never before acted together. The Maji Maji war was a clear, violent
rejection of colonial rule, rooted in traditional religious beliefs, not in European
acculturation.
The Tiv people of central Nigeria provide a different example of resistance. A fiercely
egalitarian, stateless society, the Tiv simply refused to accept the chiefs appointed by
the British. They associated personal power with witchcraft (tsav) and, in 1929 and
again in 1939, witch‑finding movements swept through Tivland, forcing the appointed
“warrant chiefs” to resign.⁴ The British administration collapsed each time. The Tiv did
not fight a conventional war, but their cultural values made colonial indirect rule
unworkable. Only in 1946 did they themselves create the office of Tor Tiv to deal with
the British. This was an indigenous solution, not an imported one.
3 Study Guide, pp. 295–296.
4 Study Guide, p. 296
DUE 13 MAY 2026
MY TOPIC
Acculturation was the only response by Africans to imperial domination. Do you
agree with this statement? Substantiate your answer with examples drawn from
various territories in Africa that came under European rule.
The statement that “acculturation was the only response by Africans to imperial
domination” is far too simple. Acculturation the process of adopting the culture and
values of a dominant power certainly did happen among some Africans, but it was
neither the only nor the most important reaction. Colonial rule in Africa, which took
shape rapidly between the 1880s and the early 1900s, was a deeply unequal and often
brutal system. Africans responded in many different ways, depending on their local
circumstances, their precolonial political structures, and their own human choices.
These responses ranged from active armed resistance, to political accommodation
through traditional leaders, to religious movements blending old and new, and to
economic adaptation by peasant farmers. This essay will argue that to say acculturation
was the only response is to ignore the rich variety of African agency during the colonial
period. The discussion will focus on examples drawn from West, East, and Central
Africa.
,Accommodation through Traditional Structures
One major way Africans responded was through accommodation, but this was not the
same as simply accepting European culture. Under the British system of “indirect rule,”
traditional chiefs and kings were used to govern on behalf of the colonial power. This
allowed African societies to keep many of their own institutions, while the colonial state
gathered taxes and maintained order. In Northern Nigeria, for example, Lord Lugard
preserved the Sokoto Caliphate’s emirs and their Islamic courts.¹ From the outside, life
appeared to continue largely unchanged. However, this was a political choice by the
emirs and their followers, not a wholesale adoption of European ways. They kept their
religion, their language, and their social hierarchy, and used the British to secure their
own power against rivals. This is accommodation, but not acculturation.
In the kingdom of Buganda, a different kind of accommodation took place. Here, after
the religious wars of the 1880s and 1890s, the Protestant elite, led by Sir Apollo Kagwa,
became enthusiastic allies of the British.² The Buganda Agreement of 1900 gave the
kingdom a special status within the Uganda Protectorate and handed large amounts of
land to a new class of chiefly landowners. The Ganda elite eagerly adopted English-
style education, Christianity, and even aspects of British political culture. This looks
more like acculturation, but it was a calculated strategy from the top, designed to
preserve and enhance Ganda power within a new colonial context. Significantly, this
acculturation was limited to a small elite and did not represent the whole population.
1
HSY2602 Study Guide, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 2010, pp. 259–260.
2
Study Guide, pp. 254–255.
, Active Resistance to Colonial Rule
Far more dramatic was the widespread tradition of armed and religious resistance.
Many Africans saw colonial rule as an alien domination that had to be challenged
directly. One of the most famous cases is the Maji Maji rebellion in German East Africa
(present-day Tanzania) between 1905 and 1907. The Germans had forced Africans to
grow cotton for export and ruled through harsh coastal agents known as akidas.³ The
rebellion was sparked by the prophet Kinjikitile, who spread a sacred water (maji)
believed to protect fighters from German bullets. Even though the water did not stop
bullets, the movement united over twenty different ethnic groups often stateless
societies that had never before acted together. The Maji Maji war was a clear, violent
rejection of colonial rule, rooted in traditional religious beliefs, not in European
acculturation.
The Tiv people of central Nigeria provide a different example of resistance. A fiercely
egalitarian, stateless society, the Tiv simply refused to accept the chiefs appointed by
the British. They associated personal power with witchcraft (tsav) and, in 1929 and
again in 1939, witch‑finding movements swept through Tivland, forcing the appointed
“warrant chiefs” to resign.⁴ The British administration collapsed each time. The Tiv did
not fight a conventional war, but their cultural values made colonial indirect rule
unworkable. Only in 1946 did they themselves create the office of Tor Tiv to deal with
the British. This was an indigenous solution, not an imported one.
3 Study Guide, pp. 295–296.
4 Study Guide, p. 296
