"A History Of Complex Government In West African Kingdoms"

The invention of the dark continent trope really ran its course when we consider how it affected our perception of Africa. The continent was unfortunately advertised through the eyes of the ignorant. African kingdoms weren't understood in its proper context, and so discovering its complexity was simply outside of the Western world's scope. Today, I wanted to shine a light on what we do know about the political and governmental structure of West African kingdoms. What up African world, it's Home Team here and welcome back to another video of African History, Culture, and Worldview. By supporting this channel on Patreon, you're helping in the creation of these videos and supporting this content. If you'd like access to full courses and sources, or you simply want to show your support, you may do so by clicking the Patreon link in the description box below. To begin, this video is limited because its focus will be on African kingdoms of the 19th century. This is as far as most scholars go as it concerns comfort level, because we have much more tangible information from this time. This means that we have little information concerning how politics and governmental structures changed or evolved over time. But for the most part, the complex government of West African kingdoms during the 19th century certainly pulled from older models, and in general, governments naturally evolve over time for any nation or people. Also, throughout the video, you'll hear some references to slaves and even eunuchs, but it's important that we bury our 21st century understanding of a slave or eunuch and not apply it to these African kingdoms. The way these social categories functioned in West African society is oftentimes in stark contrast to how we understand the terms today. Many royal slaves or eunuchs in West African societies held considerable amounts of power, as you will see throughout this video, so please keep that in mind. This video takes largely from the research of Daryl Forde and Phyllis Cabury in their analysis of West African kingdoms. They provide great summaries concerning how certain West African kingdoms functioned politically that are extremely valuable for us in the diaspora. We will find that there was some cultural continuity between how West African kingdoms functioned. We'll also see its complexity challenging previous beliefs on African statehood. The West African kingdoms we'll be highlighting are Benin, Ashanti, Mossai, Maradi, Oyo, and Keir. Scholars have observed that like most places around the world, when West African kingdoms expanded, so too did its governmental structure and its politics. The system of distribution of power will be upset when new sources of power come into play via more enslaved people from wars, more tribute from conquest, and ultimately more land to control. Once these factors come in, then allocation of these new power sources must be administered, regulated, and distributed in a satisfactory manner. At times, officeholders in West African kingdoms have small competitions once these new power sources arrive, and this causes small shifts in politics and structure. One of the most striking differences between some West African kingdoms seemed to be based on the region they developed. The kingdoms in the northern savannah and those in the so-called forest zone differ considerably when it comes to the diversity of its citizens or the people they rule over. The savannah zone kingdoms were more diverse while the forest zone kingdoms were more homogenous, and so the savannah kingdoms mostly had a political system that was limited to who it was open to, and the so-called forest zone kingdoms were more open to different classes of people as it concerns political power. Also, the role of Islam in the savannah kingdoms played an important role as well. Sudanic Muslim powers would not share power with those of traditional African religion. Also, within the savannah kingdoms, trade and commerce with non-local Muslim populations actually could increase the power of a given ruler if they were allied with them, because his power could be reinforced by another power outside of local politics. The kingdoms further south did not necessarily have access to this. Anyway, let's see the brief breakdowns brilliantly put together by P.C. Lloyd concerning the complex political structure of Benin, Oyo, Maradi, Mossai, Lashanti, and Keir. In the kingdom of Benin, all freeborn belonged to one of three palace associations and might rise to high political office in them. The leading chiefs were the king's closest advisors. Senior members who usually had achieved wealth independently of the palace might be appointed to town chieftaincies and an association headed by the Iyase. These chiefs were seen as checking the power of the palace. The highest-ranking chiefs were the uzama. Now of more ceremonial than political importance, they were hereditary chiefs of semi-independent communities on the edge of Benin city. Possibly, they were once dissent group heads. Royals had no power, though one minor category of chieftaincy titles was bestowed on husbands of the king's daughters. In the kingdom of Oyo, the palace organization was recruited almost exclusively from slaves, together with the king's wives and near-ineligible kin. This was countered by the Oyo-Messi, a council of seven dissent group heads representing not only their own groups, but indirectly the Mogaji and members of other groups in their respective quarters. The Ogboni continued as an association of free men, in which the king and Oyo-Messi had minor offices. In the kingdom of Maradi, the king was advised by a council of four pair chiefs or rukimi, the kora, the army commander and a slave, with the yandarka, a nominal slave, the galadima, a eunuch, and the derbi, a descendant of an early ruler. Subordinate to the rukimi were the largely hereditary and pagan district heads. Secure in office, the rukimi were collectively much more powerful than the ruler, but each had his separate following. There was thus not only a contest of power between individual rukimi, but also between the rukimi and the king. In the kingdom of Mossai, the king was advised by four chiefs who came from non-royal dissent groups, though their mode of appointment is unclear. Individually, these men were not only responsible for the administration of the palace, but were also the overlords of designated segments of the population, including the royals, some of whom were hereditary district heads. In the kingdom of Ashanti, in the late 17th century, Ashanti and dynastically related neighboring kingdoms were founded, in each the But, as Ashanti itself grew more powerful, controlling not only its neighbors, but further territories too, its rulers appointed chiefs responsible for the many specific administrative tasks in the expanding kingdom, these titles becoming hereditary in the male line. In the kingdom of Khayyar, seven royal matrilineages competed for the Khayyar throne. The power of the ruler, derived from his kin, from women royals appointed overlords of certain villages, from an administrative cadre recruited from free-born and slaves, but not royals, and from the palace slaves themselves, the free-born peasants and even more so the castes professionals and craftsmen and the domestic slaves lacked direct representation in government. These descriptions, though brief, give us an idea about the complexity of West African kingdoms. Another interesting aspect of African statehood that can also be seen around the globe, is the idea of special forces, armies or bodyguards who may or may not exhibit loyalty to the ruler. Sometimes a king actually had little direct control over any military force, being reliant on appointed officials to raise armies. Some cavalry units, for example, in the savannah kingdoms could be subject to royal control or develop an entirely new identity and advance their own interests. Some kingdoms sought to deal with this complexity. In Marathi, the Mausai kingdoms in Oyo, the army commander-in-chief had to live at some distance from the capital so that he was excluded from much of the intriguing in and around the palace. This was likely done so that the commander could not be persuaded by any alternative political narrative or agenda, which could unravel the status quo. All in all, West African political systems and government were just as complex as anywhere else. This has been the case since ancient times, as 19th century African government no doubt borrowed from an ancient model. Well I'm all out guys, if you like these videos and want to help in this continued production, consider supporting the home team on patreon.com, the link is in the description box below. Know thyself, remember your ancestors, peace.