 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alhassan
Sweden
813 Posts |
 Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 11:24:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
quote:
Originally posted by Alhassan
Banjul was sold by a man called Toumani Bojang. Banjul was under the dueristriction of king Demba Sonko of Essau or Numi.
Kondorong , thanks for the brief history. many people sadly dont visit the archieves to read about these facts.Someone should do a history of colonial housing. Some KRINTING houses are still standing more than 100yrs. A building made of Bricks and Concrete collapsed in Pipeline some years back half way through construction.!!!!
Alhassan, i think Banjul was from Kombo not Niumi. this is what the evidence points to. Cpt. Alexandra Grant bought it and established a settlement in 1816 as Kondorong said.
there is more on Momodou's website on Gambia. the home of this bantaba.
The most important development before the birth of colonialism was the establishment of the British settlement in what is now known as Banjul, Kombo Saint Mary.
Captain Grant who established the settlement 185 years ago in 1816 stated that a treaty was signed with the King of Kombo to get the permission to settle. They paid him 103 bars of iron annually. This shows that up to 1816 the kings had effective control over their territories. They accepted the settlement to promote trade. The British merchants provided iron, tobacco, guns gunpowder, rum, spices, corals, etc. in exchange for elephant tusks, bees wax, hides, timber, bullock horns and gold. It was a mutually beneficial trade. As a treaty between the acting Governor and the king of Kantalikunda stated, the people of England and the people of Kantalikunda agreed to trade together "innocently, justly, kindly and usefully." [http://www.gambia.dk/gam.html]
a point to note is that ivory was still traded, showing that elephants were still abundant!
Njucks,
Banjul was under the dueristriction of Demba Sonko. There is no evidence of the kombos. Remember the island did not belong to the kombos at any time of history. Even Toumani was representing Demba Sonko of Barra. Gambia was even administrated from Goreé island with a govenor in Goreé and a leutinant governor on St. Andrews Island(James Island). This was under the colony of SeneGambia. Eve some of the people we call the AKUs, have some origin from Il de Göreé. I lived and visited Maison de esclav often when the film Roots was being flimed in the early 1970s. I hope ther are Senegalese to conferm this.Banjul and Isl de Goreé share som common things like buildings from the Portugese ect. It is intresting that we have not had teachers who were realy wel informed of our history in SeneGambia. There is a lot of unwritten history that most of us are not awear of. Thanks to the Jelis that we still here them. |
 |
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 17:58:31
|
You are right alhassan.
There was an official period infact called the Colony of Senegambia. I did some research on this. The period was from May 25th 1765 to February 11, 1779. |
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 18:03:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
You are right alhassan.
There was an official period infact called the Colony of Senegambia. I did some research on this. The period was from May 25th 1765 to February 11, 1779.
Ok good to know. we must get the sequence of events in order. i was/am slightly confused by these dates.
a colony in 1765?? but established by Cpt. grant in 1816???
|
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 18:23:54
|
Well the topics perhaps need to be joined for an easy flow. The Colony of Senegambia was a period in our history coined from May 25 1765 to Feb. 11 1779 when parts of both countries were under the British. The second time it happened was in 1815, when Goree and banjul were under the British. The colony of Senegambia is different from the Colony of the Gambia. The former was a terminology rather than an adminstrative reality. The colony of Senegambia only covered the islands of St. Andrews(james Island), and Juffreh. Banjul was not part of it. It was not a real colony.
The term is more recent in cognisance of the current realities of Senegambia. Infact there was nothing like Senegambia then. So, if you like its a modern terminology. Some call the period Btitish Senegambia whilst others call these two periods Colony of Senegambia. It was not a colony in its true meaning because they did not establish genuine rule on these lands where formal adminstrative structures were fully functioning.
I hope this clears the air. |
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 18:59:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
...... It was not a colony in its true meaning because they did not establish genuine rule on these lands where formal adminstrative structures were fully functioning.
I hope this clears the air.
it does. its very important to undersatnd what colonialism was. in many cases, during the early period the europeans could be said to be merely traders and had absolutley no effective control over what happened in the interior, even though they had trading posts there. For example, during this 'colony of senegambia' the people of Wulli or TambaKunda or Bintang were not under British rule.
the chronology is important especially the migration. thats what confused me earlier. for example Maba's wars as mentioned were in the 1860 (he died 1865/7). almost half a century later and you mentioned 1765 almost half a century earlier.
this is important, in another thread on the Bantaba, Gambia was errorneously mentioned to be a colony of Latvia. this is incorrect considering that James Island, was under portugese,Dutch, French,etc rule at different times. it was simply a trading post. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 19:09:12
|
| Well from the perspective of the Latvians, it was a colony. We have to define the meaning of colony from the occupiers. If it was not a colony, they would not have formally ceceded these lands to the British on November 17, 1664. The fact that this official handing over did take place, means, in their eyes it was a colony. |
Edited by - kondorong on 31 Oct 2006 19:09:35 |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2006 : 19:03:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
You are right alhassan.
There was an official period infact called the Colony of Senegambia. I did some research on this. The period was from May 25th 1765 to February 11, 1779.
Ok good to know. we must get the sequence of events in order. i was/am slightly confused by these dates.
a colony in 1765?? but established by Cpt. grant in 1816???
Njuks
Njuks
Contrary to the belief, the colony of Senegambia did exist. I just unearthed evidence at the archives that in 1765, the forts and settlements in Gambia were placed under the control of the crown and for 18 years the Gambia formed part of the British colony of Senegambia with headquarters at Saint-Louis. Unfortunately, there are no records of the names of the governors during the colony of Senegambia as the head office was in Senegal (St. Louis). It would be interesting to visit the Senegalese archives and dig into this.
In fact in 1783, the greater part of this land was handed back to the French whilst the Gambia section ceased to be a British colony and was returned to the Royal African Company. These were merchants who had royal grants to do business. The British then just gave up on colonizing.
Between 1783, when merchants oversaw the lands and 1815 when Alexander Grant became commandant, there was no Governor or administrator for Gambia. The land was sublet to British merchants.
So it’s safe to say that Gambia was a British colony twice and not as we have been made to believe that it started in 1815 with the founding of Banjul. The issue is what constitutes the Gambia. Certainly the British only ruled the interior in 1901 after the defeat of Foday Kaba Dumbuya, the religious warrior. The term protectorate then emerged. Under British law, protected territories were considered part of Britain and therefore could claim British citizenship. The same principle did not follow in the case of colonies.
In fact to be more explicit, please follow the topic on important historical dates in the Gambia and i will give you the names of all the British administrators for the Gambia from 1661 to 1765(the first colonization). To be more exact, from May 25, 1765 to February 11, 1779, Gambia was part of British Senegambia and we were ruled from Saint Louis in Senegal and from February 11, 1779 to September 3, 1783, it was part of French Senegal. From September 3, 1783 to 1815 when Alexander Grant came and founded Banjul, there was a lapse in authority and no administrator was appointed for Gambia.
The second colonization started in 1815 up till independence in 1970. Real independence was in 1970 and not 1965. From 1965 to 1970, we only had internal self-rule and our foreign policy was done by the Crown's representative through her Governor Generals (Two). The last was farimang Singhateh.
I now understand why the British wanted to hand us over to Senegal just before independence. Senegambia is nothing new and never came into effect after the taxi drivers’ coup of 1981. Please read this book: ENTER GAMBIA: THE BIRTH OF AN IMPROBABLE NATION (1967) BY RICE BERKLEY.
Also read: Dilemmas of Senegambian Integration a PHD Thesis from the University of Tennessee (1990).
|
|
|
|
Alhassan
Sweden
813 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 14:43:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
You are right alhassan.
There was an official period infact called the Colony of Senegambia. I did some research on this. The period was from May 25th 1765 to February 11, 1779.
Ok good to know. we must get the sequence of events in order. i was/am slightly confused by these dates.
a colony in 1765?? but established by Cpt. grant in 1816???
Njuks
Njuks
Contrary to the belief, the colony of Senegambia did exist. I just unearthed evidence at the archives that in 1765, the forts and settlements in Gambia were placed under the control of the crown and for 18 years the Gambia formed part of the British colony of Senegambia with headquarters at Saint-Louis. Unfortunately, there are no records of the names of the governors during the colony of Senegambia as the head office was in Senegal (St. Louis). It would be interesting to visit the Senegalese archives and dig into this.
In fact in 1783, the greater part of this land was handed back to the French whilst the Gambia section ceased to be a British colony and was returned to the Royal African Company. These were merchants who had royal grants to do business. The British then just gave up on colonizing.
Between 1783, when merchants oversaw the lands and 1815 when Alexander Grant became commandant, there was no Governor or administrator for Gambia. The land was sublet to British merchants.
So it’s safe to say that Gambia was a British colony twice and not as we have been made to believe that it started in 1815 with the founding of Banjul. The issue is what constitutes the Gambia. Certainly the British only ruled the interior in 1901 after the defeat of Foday Kaba Dumbuya, the religious warrior. The term protectorate then emerged. Under British law, protected territories were considered part of Britain and therefore could claim British citizenship. The same principle did not follow in the case of colonies.
In fact to be more explicit, please follow the topic on important historical dates in the Gambia and i will give you the names of all the British administrators for the Gambia from 1661 to 1765(the first colonization). To be more exact, from May 25, 1765 to February 11, 1779, Gambia was part of British Senegambia and we were ruled from Saint Louis in Senegal and from February 11, 1779 to September 3, 1783, it was part of French Senegal. From September 3, 1783 to 1815 when Alexander Grant came and founded Banjul, there was a lapse in authority and no administrator was appointed for Gambia.
The second colonization started in 1815 up till independence in 1970. Real independence was in 1970 and not 1965. From 1965 to 1970, we only had internal self-rule and our foreign policy was done by the Crown's representative through her Governor Generals (Two). The last was farimang Singhateh.
I now understand why the British wanted to hand us over to Senegal just before independence. Senegambia is nothing new and never came into effect after the taxi drivers’ coup of 1981. Please read this book: ENTER GAMBIA: THE BIRTH OF AN IMPROBABLE NATION (1967) BY RICE BERKLEY.
Also read: Dilemmas of Senegambian Integration a PHD Thesis from the University of Tennessee (1990).
Kondorong,
ENTER GAMBIA: THE BIRTH OF AN IMPROBABLE NATION (1967) BY RICE BERKLEY was an unwanted book by the Jawara government. I red it as a teenager from my brother's libery in London. I remembered when the book was published the Gambia Embassy in London bought over 1000 copies just to be burnt. The book was prohibited in the Gambia at that time. My father, together with many other Gambian digitaries were ridiculed by the said Berkley Rice. I even forgot that the book existed. I doubt if many members on the forum remember it.
|
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 17:55:30
|
Alhassan
Did you see kondorong burning the books? |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
|
|
Alhassan
Sweden
813 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 20:20:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
Alhassan
Did you see kondorong burning the books?
The first publication was in the late 60s. Where you working at the Embassy then? This happened before UP died. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 20:22:48
|
| You never know. Kondorong could have been at the embassy. The actual publication was 1967. |
|
|
|
Alhassan
Sweden
813 Posts |
Posted - 05 Nov 2006 : 20:11:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
You never know. Kondorong could have been at the embassy. The actual publication was 1967.
Then you know that you could not have bought all the copies. I did not mean the embassy bought all the copies. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 06 Nov 2006 : 17:58:55
|
| I should have said the publication date was 1967. Since i left out the word date, it may have distorted the meaning. |
|
|
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
556 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2008 : 17:08:52
|
| I sincerely apologise for bringing this issue back after two years. Just visiting old postings when I came upon it. But hey! it is our history, so I hope you dont mind. Alhassan is right, about Demba Sonko and the british govern. I have in my family's archive a copy of that contract, signed by the british gov, the king and princes. This confirms exactly what Alhassan said. Their names were given and each one put a cross next to their name [their signature, as they were iliterates]. Having said that, some of the elders [witnesses] could write in Arabic and they have signed their names accordingly. Those who are quick at criticising Alhassan should eat their words. Njucks is also correct as far as what was traded is concern - [the contract list all goods to be given to the king by the british in addition to the financial sum]. |
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
Edited by - tamsier on 29 Apr 2008 17:18:26 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
