ABSTRACT
Introduction Nigerian historiography and African historiography in general, from the 1960s through the 1980s, placed significant emphasis on labor protest as a method for nationalist movements to gain concessions and pressure European colonial governments for increased political rights and eventually independence.1 African historians have also noted that the origins of African nationalist movements can be traced to the interwar years.2 For Nigeria in particular, many historians have noted the importance of the Women’s War of 1929 as an early nationalist movement that transcended local ethnic differences in a common protest against British colonialism.3 Whereas resistance to child labor remained largely localized prior to the end of World War II, complaints regarding child labor and child labor laws constituted an important part of a growing movement in southern Nigeria that challenged colonial laws and circumvented unfavorable laws regarding child labor. In many ways, child labor issues eventually composed part of a larger protest platform in the post-World War II years that contributed to the ability of coastal educated elites to gain support of a broader national population to push for independence. Child labor resistance is best described from approximately 1911 to 1935 as an ill-defined and loosely organized protest from below without support from influential African leaders. The common narrative of Nigerian history explains child labor as a practice gradually abolished by the British colonial government, which began with abolishing slavery and then the colonial government extended prohibitions on child labor, forced labor, pawnship, and various types of street labor. When creating a balance sheet of the benefits and consequences of colonial rule in Africa, the end of servile institutions such as child pawnship is often among the list of the positive influences of British colonialism on Africa. Yet the archival material supports a different view. Across labor institutions including slavery, forced labor, pawnship, and other forms of child labor, in general, partly owing to limited colonial staff, the British colonial government inconsistently and unevenly enforced colonial child labor laws. When the British colonial government did enforce child labor laws it was most often due to local Africans who petitioned and complained to the colonial government. Therefore, discontented
Africans, who pressured the colonial government to enforce child labor legislation, were primarily responsible for legal changes and only when the British colonial government received these complaints did they take action. Furthermore, the fact that Africans expressed their discontent to the colonial administration in the form of letters and petitions demonstrates that African protest strategies varied throughout the period. During the early years of colonial rule, prior to the end of World War I, African children who wished to resist colonial legislation regarding child labor tended to do so through an authority structure of African adults males or the kinship group; however, by the early 1920s, children began to express discontent directly to the colonial government. The shift in the ways by which children reported abuse and dissatisfaction with their living conditions corresponded to a general fracturing of the kinship group, as many children began to migrate out of rural areas and into cities in search of better opportunities for education and employment. These children, as a result of their distance from the kinship group, in part broke colonial laws by attempting to improve their position, but also used the colonial government as a way to report abuse and escape disadvantageous labor conditions. Therefore, children began to use the colonial government as a substitute for cultural forms of protection provided by the kinship group such as noblesse oblige and child fosterage practices.4 In order to outline the change over time and the methods by which children and parents protested about child labor, the argument is divided into three sections. The first section outlines early protests by children before World War I and how the British concept of the “civilizing mission” limited any changes in child labor. It offers a background to fully understand how children and parents eventually co-opted the colonial government into making adjustments to colonial policies. The second section addresses child pawnship in particular and illustrates how African children and parents actually spearheaded changes in child pawnship practices rather than the traditional narrative that places the British colonial officers as the primary agents in policy change. Finally, the last section addresses changes in the apprenticeship system, how African children and parents resisted a new form of child labor abuse, and the connection between child labor laws and the origins of a broader base for colonial resistance.
