Project Proposal

This paper examines David Livingstone’s role in British imperialism in the nineteenth century. Some historians have portrayed Livingstone as a major cause of European expansion into Africa. This group tends to view Livingstone as paternalistic and colonialist, which was consistent with Europe’s approach to Africa. Current historians have suggested that Livingstone was different from other explorers and missionaries. They cite many examples where Livingstone has sided with the native Africans. These arguments will be studied using Livingstone’s published journals and letters. The primary documents reveal Livingstone’s thoughts on aspects of African life, such as the slave trade and its affects on the people. These documents can be studied to determine what role Livingstone played in Britain’s expansion into Africa. The primary sources will help determine the accuracy of the current perspective of Livingstone. The representation of Livingstone in literature can complex due to the dynamic character of the man. Many books have a difficult time presenting Livingstone with a unified set of characteristics. The intention of this paper is to use Livingstone’s letters and journals to better understand how he felt about issues in Africa, specifically the slave trade. The essay will also examine how he would deal with the problems in Africa, as opposed to the British.
Historians argue that Livingstone wanted to extend white men’s benefits to the Africans, but he did not intend on granting them actual freedom. Northcott has argued that Livingstone was “no crusader, or freedom fighter for the black man’s rights in isolation from the white man (74). Northcott’s account portrays Livingstone as a paternalist due to his treatment of the Africans. Her argument suggests Livingstone took on the role of a mentor to the black population due to the fact that they could not govern themselves.
Historians have suggested that Livingstone’s intention to introduce commerce to Africa was motivated by his imperial ambitions. The industry in Africa would be closely tied to the economy of Great Britain. The new economy would bring the end to the slave trade, but it would also open markets in Africa to Great Britain (Helly, 15). This interpretation creates doubt about Livingstone’s spiritual reasons for introducing commerce and ending the slave trade. These portrayals of his actions are more consistent with the popular ideas of imperialism of the time. British imperialism was motivated by certain individual’s desire to wealth and Livingstone was not an exception.
Modern historians have accused of Livingstone being a spy for the British government. Timothy Holmes falls in this camp and believes that Livingstone helped open Africa up to British involvement (191). This is supported by the rapid expansion of Europe into Africa after the explorations of Livingstone. This account emphasizes Livingstone’s role as an explorer and not a missionary. This supports the idea that he was a colonist due to his desire for exploration and discovery. The British Empire would not have made such great gains without the discoveries of Livingstone.
Livingstone’s discoveries have been debated by many modern historians due to the presence of other explorers. Other European powers, such as Portugal had already explored areas where Livingstone traveled. Buxton believes that Lake Bangweolo was Livingstone’s only “undisputed discoveries.” Other historians concede that “he was probably the first to complete the crossing of the continent” (191). This helps establish Livingstone’s role of missionary over his role of explorer. This changes his motivation for his encounters with the African population. Livingstone intended to introduce commerce as a way to civilize the Africans and not to make them vulnerable to foreign intervention.
Contemporary historians have pointed to his attempt to introduce cotton in Africa as proof that he intended to end the slave trade. Nichols writes that Livingstone’s recognition of the importance of cotton “encouraged him to view the planting of cotton on highlands in Africa as a prerequisite for the establishment of legitimate trade” (97). The introduction of cotton would disrupt the slave trade in Africa as well as the United States. The tribes that depended on the slave trade for money would have a more legitimate industry to profit from. The value of cotton on the world market would place Africa on the international stage. This would make the cotton industry more profitable than the slave trade. The growth of cotton would take away the need for cotton grown by slaves in the United States (97). This helps support the assertion that Livingstone’s policies in Africa were intended to help Africans more than the Europeans.
Contemporary scholars have created a broader portrayal of Livingstone and his actions in Africa. Livingston had many successes and failures in Africa, which gives an uneven impression of his work. Ross writes Livingstone’s ultimate goal was to bring Christianity and commerce to African for their own development (243). The past portrayals of Livingstone are distorted due to their use for justification of European expansion. European powers seized upon Livingstone’s ideas of civilization to penetrate deeper into Africa (241). Their actions could always be dismissed as attempts to make the African into the image of a white man, which was legitimate at the time. This essay will mostly focus on Ross’ description of Livingstone due to the thorough nature of the book. It gives a complete account of his time in African and it also discusses the misconceptions of the man.
This paper will primarily focus on Livingstone journals, specifically the ones that dealt with ending the slave trade and introduction of commerce. In a collection of his journals Livingstone discusses his desire to introduce trade in order to end the slave trade. During his travels in Zambesi he observes the importance of the slave trade on the local economy. He suggests that slave traders deal in materials native to Africa to improve trade with European merchants (43-44). This shows his intentions of improving the lives of Africans through different methods of commerce. He does not make any references to Great Britain in this passage, which suggests that his actions were to only benefit the Africans.
Another journal entry describes the horrors perpetrated by the slave trade that Livingstone encountered. He describes seeing dead individuals who were tied up and either shot or stabbed. He then suggests to a local man that they switch to a more agricultural based system (64). This ensures that the local communities are profiting from a legitimate industry. The new industries would civilize the African people, which would prevent further murdered slaves. Livingstone does not mention the benefits that commerce would bring to Europe, instead he focused on the local community.
The primary sources have revealed that Livingstone genuinely believed that Christianity and commerce would help with the problems associated with slavery in Africa. Some of his ideas were consistent with the imperial attitudes, such as the need to open Africa to European markets. However, commerce was mostly to benefit the Africans through its ability to civilize people. Africans would finally evolve beyond their primitive actions, which were usually sexual in nature. The findings are more consistent with the position of contemporary scholars. This helps enforce the assertion that Livingstone was a great humanitarian and not a colonist or paternalist. Livingstone’s actions do closely resemble that of other imperialists, which makes it difficult to distinguish him from others. Livingstone can be seemed to have encompassed many roles, however, his role of missionary stands out the most. The criticism of the man is justified, but it is not always accurate. His actions need to be viewed through his own written perspective and not through the popular thought of the time. I also want to understand why Livingstone deviate some much from the established policy in Africa.