Steve brought up a very good counter-point to one of my comments on Wednesday and I want to talk about it for a bit. My comment was that I was amazed how legitimate and legal much of the trade in Southern Africa was during the colonial period. The Europeans and the Africans entered contracts to exchange goods and services. For the most part, this seemed to have been done out in the open. However, I feel that the Africans always got the short end of the stick. Had they known the true value of the goods they were trading (the gold, ivory, and diamonds) they would not have entered those contracts. In my opinion, this is exploitation.
Steve's comment was that it was not exploitation because neither party would have entered the exchange if they did not believe it would be for their benefit. That's how market exchanges work- both parties see some sort of advantage in the transaction, otherwise they would not do it.
I believe this is true. Perhaps the people of the Congo saw absolutely no need for ivory. It required comparatively little work for them to harvest. And all of the sudden these Europeans come along and are willing to give the people metals and horses for their elephant tusks! Perhaps they thought "You mean you're willing to pay me for something that I can just find on the ground? or simply kill an animal to retrieve?" Maybe they thought that they were ripping off the Europeans!
However, the fact remains that ivory fetched a pretty price back in Europe. Something that was purchased from Africa for pennies was sold in Europe for dollars. Had the Africans known the value of ivory to other Europeans, perhaps they would not have been so willing to sell it that cheap. Then again, maybe they wouldn't care.
I guess my question is about ethics. It's really easy for both parties to gain in an exchange when one of the parties is absolutely destitute. They may enter an agreement because it is mutually beneficial, but one of the parties clearly has the upper hand. And it won't be so difficult for that one party to keep the other in his service. While the poor party receives barely a living wage, the other increases his wealth consistently. Now, in a world of perfect competition this should correct itself. But what about when you're the Sovereign King of the Congo? When there are no other alternatives? That is where I see the need for information to be shared throughout the population. That's where I say that had Africans known the true price of ivory they may not have entered those contracts.
What say ye?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with the argument that the intitial market interests of both the Europeans and the Africans were valid. However, as colonialism continued and Africans were more exposed to the global market, they were no longer competing in the market...they were simply being exploited.
ReplyDeleteI can see how the idea of accountability to some degree would be valid, especially in the beginning stages of African colonialism. However, I think that we can all agree that the more knowledge a society has the better off they're going to be in every aspect, especially economically. And when one party has greater knowledge of the global market than the other party, especially in vital aspects such as how valued their commodity is, the colonizers had the absolute advantage and used it to buoy their exploitive practices. Had the Africans had the same knowledge of the global market as their European counterparts, they could have engaged in fair and equal trade, perhaps boosting their economy and bettering their livelihoods, as opposed to perpetuating the peripheral state we see today.
ReplyDeleteI think in this conversation we are having a hard time pinning down what is meant by exploitation.
ReplyDeleteWhen you buy a candy bar for one dollar? How much is that candy bar worth? Bryson used the term "true value" What is the true value of that candy bar? One dollar... wrong. The dollar is worth less then a dollar to you and the candy bar is worth less than a dollar to the candy store.
Now, if you turn around and sell that candy bar to someone for two dollars, what is the true value of the candy bar? It is worth less then two dollars to you and the two dollars are worth less then the value of a candy bar.
If this were not true no exchange would take place.
So if you turn around and sell your candy bar for double are you exploiting the person you originally purchased it from? If you are the only person in the whole world that is willing to buy that candy bar is that exploitation? What if you are willing to only buy that candy bar for one thousand dollars? At what point does exchange become exploitation? You see things have no arbitrary true value. Things only are assigned a value in the face of an exchange.
The issue of an unequal awareness of market information has been brought up. Was is it unethical for the colonist not to divulge all of their information. "Hey Mr. African we are going to turn around and sell this for a billion times as much!" Why would he care? Mr. African couldn't do anything about it, the colonist were the only access they had to those markets. If things had an arbitrary value there would be no value in exchange. If ivory had such a value and even if everybody in the world knew about there would be no point for any one to exchange. The Africans knew full well that it was a treasure that the Europeans valued and made them wealthy. Europeans had bad teeth but I don't think that there was that kind of demand for false teeth.
When it comes to exchange, knowledge of prices in other markets (or the values at which goods are traded in other exchanges) are irrelevant. Access to those markets is the real concern. Was it "unfair" that the Africans did not have access to those markets? Fairness much like the value of a good is relative now isn't it. Fairness is a judgment call. When we say that something is unfair because x,y,z, what we are really saying is according to my own internal judgment that is governed by my personal beliefs and patterns of thinking I deem that to be unfair.
Much like there is no arbitrary universal price for a good there is no universal fairness to an exchange.