The Colonizability of Africa
by zunguzungu
At Subabat’s tumblr, we find this 1899 map by cartographer John George Bartholomew:

With the explanatory note helpfully transcribed by Hi-C:
The pink: Healthy colonizable Africa, where European races may be expected to become in time the prevailing type, where essentially European states may be formed.
The yellow: Fairly healthy Africa: but where unfavourable conditions of soil or water supply, or the prior establishment of warlike or enlightened native races or other causes, may effectually prevent European colonization.
The gray: Unhealthy but exploitable Africa: impossible for European colonizaiton but for the most part of the great commercial value and inhabited by fairly docile, governable races; the Africa of the trader and planter and of despotic European control
The brown: Extremely unhealthy Africa
Sort of speaks for itself really. But to give the thing some context, it occurs in Harry Johnston’s A History of the Colonization of Africa by Alien Races, which has all the kinds of staggering 1899 racisms that you’d expect it to (this, for example, is Harry Johnston’s stern “Word of Warning to the Negro” on their post-emancipation duties). That said, the thing I noticed this time that I never had before was the fact that the Arabian peninsula was considered part of Africa (see how it’s also shaded yellow?). Which makes as much sense as saying it isn’t, I suppose, and it was certainly just as much a heart of darkness to Europe in 1899 as the continent itself was. But still, so thoroughly have I incorporated the myth of continents that I take for granted Egypt’s “Africanness” as much as I take for granted the Arabian peninsula’s non-Africanness.
But I really take note of this just to pull from my own archives my favorite bit of Harry Johnston weirdness. In his later book, The Rise of the Native, he observes that “the world of the twenty-first century be divided into two camps: a cream-coloured Mediterranean type of white man, and a brown-skinned negroid.” But that’s just the set-up. The next bit is where it gets real: after speculating that “these two types— perhaps then of equal political standing—” will probably not mix genetically any further, he decides that it won’t matter because we’ll all be wearing our robot suits:
“The godlike heads of our descendants may be shaved all over or electrically depilated; and with hair completely out of fashion we may have ceased to care about its colour or its undulations. Eyes may be screened with lenses for the telescopic or microscopic development of sight; body and limbs be so perpetually protected from heat and cold, germs and bruises, by some closely-fitting, antiseptic garment that only the beauty of its shape be visible and nothing of its skin-colour. In 2100 A.D. there may be no physical or mental reason why negroid and Caucasian should not become one flesh.”

[...] things never change: The gray: Unhealthy but exploitable Africa: impossible for European colonization but for [...]
Is your last quote notable for its craziness, or is it perhaps its prescience? I’ve always been puzzled by ‘post-colonial studies’, in as much as it subscribes to the same kind of heuristics that thinkers like Johnston deployed: his distinctions seem to carry the same relevance to today’s theorists as they did for hopeful colonists of yesteryear.
I will be the first to admit that I am a philistine, and probably unqualified in many other ways besides to talk about this ugly but nonetheless profoundly influential period of European and World history. But Edward Said (especially ‘Orientalism’) always rang a little false for me: the enlightened scholars who invented the very critiques that Said argues we must deploy against so-called “orientalist” thought patterns were also the ones who were justifying and often themselves doing the colonization that Said argues could only have happened through the irrational ‘orientalization’ of the east.
There’s my rant. Normally I’d keep it to myself but I’ve enjoyed your blog, reading lists, and miscellaneous thoughts, so I felt a comment was worth my (and hopefully your) while.
I’m so amazed by this Harry Johnston dude and this particular quote. It’s like Friedman-meets-Lady-Gaga-meets-Donna-Haraway, but with a shot of pure, undistilled WTF.
(Thanks for the contextual framing – included a link to this in my original Tumblr post.)
It does not surprise me that the area of Accra is listed as extremely unhealthy. I had to get a lot of shots plus a year’s supply of antibiotics to ward off malaria before I came here. I am convinced that the Gold Coast did not become a settler colony like South Africa because of yellow fever and other tropical diseases. On the bright side due to modern medicine I have not gotten sick at all in the six months I have been here.
I have seen Arabia classified as African before and it makes sense if you think about it. There are more Arabs in Africa than the Arabian penninsula. While Africa as a continent seems to be more cut and dried than Asia or Europe the lines are still arbitrary. The definition of African does have some fuzzy lines. For instance are members of the Black diaspora African?
On the continental identity of Arab people, I’ve often argued that Palestinians are Asian, but to no avail. It seems that the entire world’s people’s get continents of their own, but the “Middle East” is floating several hundred feet above the world’s land masses in the mind’s of most people. I find it interesting–I don’t know of any other group which cause such geographic confusion.
http://www.facebook.com/muslimpoorgirls
As salamu aleykum. Every human must go to http://www.facebook.com/muslimpoorgirls