Examine the relevance of DOAG policy to the outbreak of coastal resistances in the summer of 1880s

Between August 1888 and March 1891 the Germany Empire struggled to asset its rule over the coastal of Tanganyika. Although the Germans were ultimately successful, their task was far more difficult than anyone in Berlin could have anticipated. The initial thrust of their invasion thrown by hastily assembled Africa forces probably more than a hundred thousand who remained visual complete control of the coast over six months. In his return to Berlin Peters worked to form a new organization which was to function out the activities of colonial development under imperial protection of the Germany East African Company (Deutsch-Ostafrikanische Gesellschaft. Carl Peter’s -DOAG).  

The coastal people of Tanganyika organized their resistance under the leadership of Abushiri and Bwanaheri. Socially, the coast of Tanganyika had been dominated for centuries by Swahili and Islamic culture. Here a mixed population of Arabs and Africans intermarried freely and carried out local trade. In the 19th century coastal Arabs increased their activities in the interior because of the demand for ivory and slaves. The result of this growth of trade was the establishment of numerous new towns along the coast. The coming of the Germans threatened this trade as they sought to replace it with their own trade. The local populations provoked this and organized a resistance. 

The great demand of the Germany to obtain the resources which were found in the coast area highly stimulated the rise of resistance. DOAG policies came up with different aims to feed the interest of Germany. Implementation of the DOAG policies threatened the East African coastal people due to their impolite treatment and exploitative means. 

Protectorate treaties that were signed by the agents of the Germany east African company (DOAG) which was the results of the society for the Germany colonization negotiated many more treaties with the people of the interior and the coast at large. It has often been asserted that the Jumbe had little knowledge of the full aims of their signing of these treaties, that they were confused with alcohol, and that, in any case, they were not the legal holders of the land rights that they transferred to the Germany agents.  For instance, “Sultan Khalifa leased the coastal strip to the DOAG. Arguably, this step posed a serious threat to the economic and political structure on the coast. More precisely, it endangered the position of Swahili notables in coastal towns.” 

Sharing of power between sultanate, Swahili elites and the Germany was seen as a threat to coastal Swahili elites. Sultanate was not the only political authority of the coastal towns, there was also urban chiefs and Zanzibar representatives who shared political control of the coastal areas. Whatever it may have been led to the rise of tension to the notable, the system maintained their commercial and political status and benefits of the long distance trade. For example, they still had a right to collect taxes (ada) and the duties paid by caravans’ traders. The Germany administration destroyed hopes of the coastal leaders who carried such positions.  For instance, Bwana Heri at Saadani chooses to resist because he feared that German intrusion might endanger his commercial and political influence in the caravan trade. This motive could also have played a role for Swahili caravan traders in Pangani.  

German brutality should not be ignored either. The conduct of the Germans who operated plantation and particularly the tobacco plantation at Lewa, near Pangani were 300 contract labors (slaves) were treated so badly that the contracting Arabs began to complain of the workers returning home exhausted and even crippled. Such actions made it clear that the Germans were not willing to compromise or negotiate. Many of the notables thus chose the option of armed resistance. They regarded the Sultan and the Germans as allies who acted at their expense. 

Taxes were introduced not much aiming at raising the revenue but forcing Africans away from their homes into plantation, settler and public works like railway and road construction. The Germany policy insisted the revenue driving primarily from head taxes to each person along the East Africa coastal so that to ensure the Germany colonial government and its company be self supporting in running within their colonies. But the conditions in which African worked were harsh hence resistance. 

Exploitation of resources along the coast, before and after built of railway from Dar es salaam Tanga and up to Moshi in 1893 especially agricultural products, that Germany established European owned plantations and introduced crops like sisal, coconuts, coffee, cotton, and tea plantation, which were situated on alienated lands near the railway in hinterlands of Tanga and Dar es salaam. Make people of coast very annoyed and start to resist over export of the resources to Europe. Also the Germany power in the coast area ensure intensive exploitation in potential areas such as mines, rivers and forests, this is due to the fact that they want to meet their economic prosperity. 

Therefore, the East Africa coast resistance in 1888s had much significant impact along the coast against the Germany administration, due to influence of leaders like Abushiri bin Salim and Bwana Heri who were protecting their areas for commercial purposes which the Germany power invaded in 1880s. Sultan discovers that the German protectorate threatened their political and commercial equilibrium in the region. So far most of the towns found in coastal areas lay under the influence of the Sultan, and that DOAG priorities made a conflict with Said Bargash inevitable.

REFERENCES

Atieno E.S. O, et al. A History of East Africa, United Kingdom: Longman, 1997.

Boahen A. A, General History of Africa, vol.7: Africa under colonial domination 1880-1935, USA: University of California Press, 1985.

Perras A, Germany Imperialism, 1856-1918: A Political Biography, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.

Roteberg R. I and Mazrui A. A, Protest and Power in Black Africa, New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.