This is so good. I'm curious to learn along with you guys.
I'm specifically thinking about this in the context of Yuen Yuen Ang's "market creating" versus "market sustaining" institutions. It looks like some form of markets already emerged with the slave trade and remained with the transition away from it. I'm kinda of curious to see what market-sustaining institutions we managed to build or not build.😬
It would be interesting to see where and how Hopkins' book diverges from the points raised by Kristin Mann in her book regarding Slavery and the Birth of an African colony.
And some of the points that Feyi Fawehinmi makes here contradicts what he has said in times past.
"First, the natural advantages. Lagos had an island nestled between the Atlantic Ocean and the mainland, perfectly positioned at a break in the region's network of waterways. Rivers connected this island to the rest of the country. But here's the thing about geography: a single feature doesn’t usually make a place unique—rivers, islands, and coastlines exist all over the world. What set Lagos apart in West Africa was the way these common features came together in combination. Nowhere else in the region had this same blend."
The author actually leans more on what the reviewer calls the "unnatural advantages" of Lagos than on the "natural advantages", I don't know why the reviewer chose this narrative, but Hopkins clearly supports the the former. He describes "Port Cities in History" as;
"...bridgeheads (or nodal points) connecting two or more worlds. The fostered informal relations with the interior and with external trading partners. They also served as launching points for conquests that paired political subordination with the 'liberating' power of commerce."
On the choice of colonial port city, the author explains that;
"Larger ships required large harbours; the cost of improvements concentrated on a small number of key ports " -- this is the reviewer's "natural advantages.
The reviewer fails to mention that the author re-iterates the reason for the choice is based on these "unnatural advantages". According to the author; despite its "natural" advantages, "the harbour at Lagos had shallow waters and was obstructed by a formidable sandbar...". Before this section, he also expressly states;
"Nevertheless, colonial ports were selected for the potential of their hinterlands rather than the quality of their natural harbours." Not sure why the reviewer is choosing to downplay this as fact.
My comment's on Tobi's review;
Because the reviewer went into a bit more details, he seems to have missed a bit more details covered in the second chapter as the summary below does not fully capture what "unique position" means in the context of the book.
"The Saro - liberated Africans and their descendants - occupied a unique position in Lagos society. They were often well-educated and Christian, with strong ties to British officials and missionaries. Hopkins explores how the Saro established themselves as an elite group in Lagos, using their education and connections to gain influence in commerce and politics. However, their status was not uncontested, as they faced resistance from other local groups, including indigenous elites who viewed them as outsiders."
According to the author, the Lagos merchants were unique;
"...however, in having dual connections with their regions of origin in the interior as well as with the European mercantile houses and officials who represented the colonial presence in Lagos...The colonial authorities had a stake in the success of the Saro as agents of the civilizing mission and as valuable sources of local knowledge. States in the interior regarded them as key representatives in their dealings with the colonial government. The familiarity of the Saro with Yoruba culture, added to their family connections in the hinterland, gave them a competitive edge over the European firms in the areas of trade that required local knowledge of market potential."
The section below also does not suffice in summarizing one of the main themes of the second chapter;
"When the slave trade ended, and Lagos transitioned to legitimate commerce, it was evident that this new form of trade required more than just political changes—it needed structural and institutional changes to provide economic stability. One of the key developments was the creation of freehold tenure, which allowed for the formalization of land ownership and the policing of debt."
The second chapter also focuses on which aspects of economic activity, so-called legitimate commerce, in 2 issues; "...dealing with debt and providing security for commercial credit." The author explains that the introduction of "impersonal forms of security", i.e: land, to underpin credit, can be called "revolutionary". Not sure I agree; indigenous land was expropriated by European mercantile interests via the "Crown grants", the same grants the author claims is "revolutionary" - yes I know he means economically.
The reviewer also fails to mention that eventual annexation in 1861 was encouraged primarily due to possible intrigues with the French, the need to secure alternative sources of raw cotton per the civil war in the US, and more importantly, the Ijaye War, the author has a whole footnote on it in page 47, frequently closing the roads to Lagos Island by belligerents, provided pretext for eventual annexation.
This is so good. I'm curious to learn along with you guys.
I'm specifically thinking about this in the context of Yuen Yuen Ang's "market creating" versus "market sustaining" institutions. It looks like some form of markets already emerged with the slave trade and remained with the transition away from it. I'm kinda of curious to see what market-sustaining institutions we managed to build or not build.😬
It would be interesting to see where and how Hopkins' book diverges from the points raised by Kristin Mann in her book regarding Slavery and the Birth of an African colony.
And some of the points that Feyi Fawehinmi makes here contradicts what he has said in times past.
My comments of Feyi's review;
"First, the natural advantages. Lagos had an island nestled between the Atlantic Ocean and the mainland, perfectly positioned at a break in the region's network of waterways. Rivers connected this island to the rest of the country. But here's the thing about geography: a single feature doesn’t usually make a place unique—rivers, islands, and coastlines exist all over the world. What set Lagos apart in West Africa was the way these common features came together in combination. Nowhere else in the region had this same blend."
The author actually leans more on what the reviewer calls the "unnatural advantages" of Lagos than on the "natural advantages", I don't know why the reviewer chose this narrative, but Hopkins clearly supports the the former. He describes "Port Cities in History" as;
"...bridgeheads (or nodal points) connecting two or more worlds. The fostered informal relations with the interior and with external trading partners. They also served as launching points for conquests that paired political subordination with the 'liberating' power of commerce."
On the choice of colonial port city, the author explains that;
"Larger ships required large harbours; the cost of improvements concentrated on a small number of key ports " -- this is the reviewer's "natural advantages.
The reviewer fails to mention that the author re-iterates the reason for the choice is based on these "unnatural advantages". According to the author; despite its "natural" advantages, "the harbour at Lagos had shallow waters and was obstructed by a formidable sandbar...". Before this section, he also expressly states;
"Nevertheless, colonial ports were selected for the potential of their hinterlands rather than the quality of their natural harbours." Not sure why the reviewer is choosing to downplay this as fact.
My comment's on Tobi's review;
Because the reviewer went into a bit more details, he seems to have missed a bit more details covered in the second chapter as the summary below does not fully capture what "unique position" means in the context of the book.
"The Saro - liberated Africans and their descendants - occupied a unique position in Lagos society. They were often well-educated and Christian, with strong ties to British officials and missionaries. Hopkins explores how the Saro established themselves as an elite group in Lagos, using their education and connections to gain influence in commerce and politics. However, their status was not uncontested, as they faced resistance from other local groups, including indigenous elites who viewed them as outsiders."
According to the author, the Lagos merchants were unique;
"...however, in having dual connections with their regions of origin in the interior as well as with the European mercantile houses and officials who represented the colonial presence in Lagos...The colonial authorities had a stake in the success of the Saro as agents of the civilizing mission and as valuable sources of local knowledge. States in the interior regarded them as key representatives in their dealings with the colonial government. The familiarity of the Saro with Yoruba culture, added to their family connections in the hinterland, gave them a competitive edge over the European firms in the areas of trade that required local knowledge of market potential."
The section below also does not suffice in summarizing one of the main themes of the second chapter;
"When the slave trade ended, and Lagos transitioned to legitimate commerce, it was evident that this new form of trade required more than just political changes—it needed structural and institutional changes to provide economic stability. One of the key developments was the creation of freehold tenure, which allowed for the formalization of land ownership and the policing of debt."
The second chapter also focuses on which aspects of economic activity, so-called legitimate commerce, in 2 issues; "...dealing with debt and providing security for commercial credit." The author explains that the introduction of "impersonal forms of security", i.e: land, to underpin credit, can be called "revolutionary". Not sure I agree; indigenous land was expropriated by European mercantile interests via the "Crown grants", the same grants the author claims is "revolutionary" - yes I know he means economically.
The reviewer also fails to mention that eventual annexation in 1861 was encouraged primarily due to possible intrigues with the French, the need to secure alternative sources of raw cotton per the civil war in the US, and more importantly, the Ijaye War, the author has a whole footnote on it in page 47, frequently closing the roads to Lagos Island by belligerents, provided pretext for eventual annexation.
Thank you for mentioning all the things that the reviewers failed to mention.