Deconstructing Colonial Myths (or Fuck the Colonial Myths) - Part One: Roads, Railways & Civilization

We continue to hear it – apologies for colonialism, justifications for colonialism, legitimations for colonialism.

Fuck it all.  

Some – like providing civilization, infrastructure and technology – are contemporary justifications that propagandize colonial history and legitimate the consequences of that history; while others are historic justifications that legitimated colonialism’s brutality in the first place – from funding further Crusades, to narratives about combating Arab slavers in Africa, or the “civilizing mission” - which the author of The Jungle Book Rudyard Kipling called “the White Man’s Burden” - the civilizing mission thrust upon the culturally superior race of Europe and the West.  

Importantly, these mythologies are not only popular amongst the far-right in Europe and the West but have established a global footprint; some have even been spread amongst colonized populations and groups who claim to be ideologically to the left. This is how persuasive some of these arguments can appear to be; replete with supporting sub-narratives and sub-mythologies that complete a grander meta-narrative.  

King Leopold II of Belgium

The colonial period lasted around five hundred years, its consequences are not so easily washed over. Apartheid South Africa ended only 30 years ago. Israel is an ongoing settler colonial entity – yet the attitude towards colonialism is often one of an ancient history as far back as Ancient Greece, when it is in fact frighteningly recent. To put it in perspective, Manchester United (then Newton Heath) and Liverpool were playing football while Leopold II of Belgium was chopping off people’s hands in the Congo Free State, murdering an estimated 12-15 million people.  

This series of papers confronts and violently deconstructs these myths and their supporting sub-narratives, beginning with the myth that colonialism benefited colonized populations by spreading civilization.

Note: some of the images are troubling and difficult for sensitive readers. This series dispenses with some of the academic attitudes towards writing in favour of a more critically aggressive tone, while maintaining the academic approach to research, history, rigor and validity.  

Civilization, 'Civilizing' & Civilizational Thinking  

Before addressing this however, we must consider the term ‘civilization’ itself, which initially emerged as a catch-all term encompassing various empires and powers as representing ‘civilization’ - for example, Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley Civilization all represented a state of civilization. The term focused more on the development of arts, the progression of technologies (from writing to agricultural systems), and a shift away from earlier modes of survival to modes of communal living – from providing security (from the elements, from wild animals, as well as food security through stockpiling surplus grain) to the development of governance and administrative systems. The term civilization initially encompassed these varying elements, whether describing basic developing urban settlements, to complex societies like Ancient Mesopotamia – both were forms of civilization.  

Later, as the colonial period began, the term became coopted into nationalist ideologies and saw its usage evolve from a catch-all term to one that more specifically referred to particular forms of civilization – example, Western civilization or the Roman Empire as an ideal of civilization distinct from other forms – represented in classical works like the Aeneid, which had a revival during the renaissance; a time of Western ideological development around enlightenment era thinking.  

Nationalist ideologies emphasized their civilization as being superior to others. Colonial ideologies justified their domination of other peoples and populations by virtue of their superior civilization. 

This evolution of the term also saw the term also evolve from a noun to a verb – from civilization to civilizing, imparting a superior cultural tradition onto a lesser people whose culture is constructed as existing outside of civilization.

This evolution of the term has been charted by Josephine Quinn in her stellar book How the World Built the West. Quinn uses everything from case studies of ancient empires, their trade routes and cultural exchanges, more recent colonial records to dismantle the myth of the West as the fountainhead of civilization, the necessary force for 'civilizing' the world. Quinn calls this "civilizational thinking".

It is this "civilizational thinking', which has become so popular today when considering the history and impacts of colonialism, that this series of papers challenges and deconstructs.

Contemporary Myth 1:  

Colonialism Provided Civilization through Infrastructure: Roads, Railways & Bridges 

The construction of roads, bridges and railways, as well as the provision of educational systems and schools, have long been cited as clear and distinct examples of the ways in which colonialism spread civilization, benefitting the populations it colonized. 

This is a narrative borne from the “civilizing mission” narrative, one that has been central to colonial propaganda and ideology compelled by a sense of religious obligation – that God had selected them to spread His word and to spread the superior culture of Christian Europe and the West; to develop infrastructure and civilize these populations. This narrative has a long tradition in the West, dating back to Ancient Rome.

While the civilizing mission may have been a historic myth that drove the colonial period (to seek out the tribes of darkest Africa and bring to them science and technology), the myth of ‘providing civilization’ – through roads, railways, bridges, and other infrastructural elements – is a contemporary one used by the pundits and propagandists to wash over the brutality of colonialism and justify the consequences it left behind by claiming that it benefited the locals by providing civilization and religion.  

However, this is simply just not the case. Extractive infrastructure does not equal civilization. I will repeat that: extractive infrastructure does not equal civilization. 

Building roads and railways that lead to ports and harbours does not equate with the development of infrastructure connecting the varying regions and communities of a population in meaningful and beneficial ways. This is extractive infrastructure. Intended to facilitate passage of resources and valuables from the region by sending them to ports to be shipped off to Europe or to other colonies; from food and agricultural produce to slaves. This shatters the mythology of providing civilization through roads, bridges and railways.  

Effective roadworks should connect towns, villages and communities together - not just colonial hubs with ports, which is what colonial infrastructure sought to emphasize. In the instances that these elements did become used by the locals, they were a side-effect rather than the result of any deliberate intention. Furthermore, these ‘side effects’ had consequences: from disrupting traditional social and economic activities, to centralizing travel and trade around colonial hubs.  

Moreover, contrasting these instances with the scale of death, dispossession, displacement, and destruction, paints a very different and darker picture. Genocides and holocausts litter the landscape of colonial history; a landscape of ghosts whose memory has itself become a phantom, eclipsed by the propaganda of their murderers. Their places filled with imported slave populations, themselves the victims of death and displacement. All of their histories becoming gradually lost to time, clouded by bias, denied by ideology.  

From the Spiceries of Indonesia – where the genocide of the natives cleared the way for the Dutch to settle imported slaves to work their nutmeg plantations – to the genocides of the Americas, beginning with the massacring and enslavement of the Taino and the Carib by the Spanish, followed by the genocides of indigenous Americans by European settlers and then by the US government. More recent holocausts and genocides like Leopold’s in the Congo, or the German genocide in Namibia, further add to these ghosts. The holocausts of the British in India – fueled by famine – killed millions and millions AND millions; affecting the very physiology of the population group with recent research into the high rate of type II diabetes amongst Indians (six times higher than other ethnic groups) has revealed that repeated famine and starvation over hundreds of years may have contributed to a greater insulin sensitivity in the population group.  

Frequent famines play havoc on the human body via a process called the “thrifty genotype hypothesis.”This hypothesis suggests that populations exposed to frequent food shortages and famines develop genetic adaptations that enable them to store and use energy more efficiently when food is available. However, when these populations transition to more food-abundant environments, their genetic predisposition to store energy becomes a liability, potentially leading to obesity and related conditions like diabetes. 

Economic historian Mike Davis records 31 major famines in the 190 years of British colonial rule – a famine every six years. In comparison, there were only 17 famines in India over the previous 2,000 years. 

Evidence of Extractive Intent

To make clear the logic at the heart of colonialist intentions, we have surviving records, diaries, reports, and even “how to” instructional books – like James William Bayley Money’s book, Java: How to Manage A Colony. A favourite during colonial times, it was read by colonial leaders and soldiers alike, even figures like the devil’s bedfellow King Leopold II of Belgium.  

When Money published Java: How to Manage a Colony, the Dutch had already been controlling Java for over two hundred and fifty years.

In Money’s book, he says of the Dutch infrastructure in the Spiceries, “The Dutch have succeeded in establishing a system of roads and communications which, though simple, admirably serve the purpose of transporting produce from the interior to the coast” (Money, 1861).

The extract demonstrates the logic: railways for the extraction of produce. Between 1830’s and the 1870’s, the Dutch had extracted approximately 823 million guilders – roughly 12 billion US dollars. The sum was so influential in Dutch colonial history that it was enough to settle the past debts incurred against the Dutch by the then bankrupt VOC. As we shall explore, this logic extended beyond the Dutch colonial enterprise and was a theme consistent with colonial expansion and extraction around the world. 

By making railways, by creating new estates, and by extending the present culture system to the waste parts of the island, the Dutch Government has an almost indefinite financial prospect in Java ; the produce of the island would be largely increased, the private trade benefited, and the European proprietor would gradually spread the influence of his civilization over the whole of its variegated surface.  

“Culture system” does not mean culture as in a people’s way of life but refers to agricultural systems put in place – like the Dutch Cultuurstelsel – which was employed in Java. This was a system for producing export crop in which 20% of a villager’s agriculture is to be committed towards growing these export crops. If the villager did not own any land, they had to work for 66 days in a ‘corvee’ system (unpaid labour).

However, the actual application of the system saw anywhere from 20% to 100% being used; so much so that the system damaged local food security by harming the soil through monoculturalism – planting only one crop to meet demand and grow revenue – resulting in famine and death.  

At the same time, the passage also mentions the phrase “waste parts of the island”. While this may seem to talk about areas of the island used for waste disposal, it instead refers to areas of the island currently not used for agricultural produce – hence, waste. This is deeply telling of the attitude towards the islands: economic assets from which revenue must be extracted expediently. This attitude shows no concern for native land, for land that may be sacred or have some cultural or spiritual significance.   

But besides these material advantages secured to the European in Java, the Dutch Government gives him a social and moral pre-eminence and prestige over the Native, which the Dutch assert to be necessary to the good government of a large Native population 

This demonstrates a sinister purpose to providing the natives with ‘civilization’, one which clashes with the supposed nobility of the civilizing mission narrative. Rather, this reflects a deliberate ploy to gain their gratitude, deemed necessary to govern “a large native population”. Propagandizing that these aspects were for their benefit, when they were instead used to exploit them. Bear in mind, prior to Java, in the nearby Banda Islands, the Dutch had committed a genocide of the natives - considered a "disturbing population"

(To learn more about Money's book, see our upcoming feature article)

Similarly, in India, reports on the railways testify to the extractive intent behind their development; one example is the Report to the Secretary of State in Council on Railways in India 1868–69 by Juland Danvers. Its reporting reflects an emphasis on the extractive objectives of the railways: to connect the interior districts with the ports, so that the produce of the country may be exported efficiently (Danvers, 1869). 

However, beyond simply extracting resources, these infrastructural elements were also used to deindustrialize India.  

The ports, built and controlled by the British, forcibly funneled Indian raw materials through them only – at fixed prices determined by the British. Undercutting local producers and killing local markets. These materials were used to manufacture finished goods in Britain – wielding the new power of industrial machinery and child labour – then sold back into Indian markets at cheaper prices (though poorer quality) than local Indian manufacturers, killing their economy.  

The Koh-I-Noor Diamond (which means "Mountain of Light"), now the centerpiece of the British Crown Jewels.

At the same time, finished Indian goods were sold into British markets with heightened tariffs, making them too expensive for British consumers. The ports were not simply a gift of civilization, they were the exit point for India’s futures. From raw materials like indigo, to legendary diamonds like the Koh-I-Noor.  

These same logics nurtured the violent forms of colonial infrastructure in other colonies. The Uganda Railway was also built to secure colonial interests in the region rather than for the benefit of the natives. It cut off German colonial expansion in Africa and secured critical interests for the British. It transformed the transit time of goods in the region from many months to less than a single week. It formed the basis for projecting colonial control into the interior of the continent, while connecting the interior to exterior ports.  

These colonial interests in the area were also obscured by propaganda: claiming that the railway was necessary for Europe to combat Arab slavery in Africa. Ironic, being that the railway was built by indentured labourers taken from aforementioned British India, some of whom became victims in the infamous tale of the Tsavo Lions – a pair of man-eating lions that hunted labourers during the construction of the railway.  

This effort – to expand into the African interior to disrupt the Arab slave trade – was determined at the Brussels Anti-Slavery Conference, which was a big fat joke. The conference was meant to be a humanitarian diplomatic meeting between representatives of the various European powers, regarding managing Africa and the threats facing its natives...  

The conference was held by King Leopold II of Belgium. He killed between 10-15 million people in Africa, in what he called, The Congo Free State. 

His destruction of the Congo, which violated his promise to Europe, of being a benevolent civilizing force, rather than resulting in outcry, resulted in the scramble for Africa instead - in which all the European powers decided to claim their piece and colonize the interior of Africa. The profits he made from rubber outweighed the moral sins of barbarism and genocide.

Natives of "Leopold's" Congo, with their hands cut off. Severed hands were used as a form of currency during the reign of Leopold, they were traded for ammunition, rations, and other needs. (credit artimage.club)

The ‘Other’ Purpose of Extractive Infrastructure  

The Ugandan Railway, and similar extractive systems, served another purpose: facilitating the movement of troops and weaponry into the region so that rebellions could be put down efficiently or so that troops garrisoned at outposts and villages could be supported and resupplied.  

Before the railways, troop movement could take weeks, while also making them vulnerable. This could potentially allow rebel activity to foment, without any ability to quickly repress it and shut it down before gaining momentum. Certain key areas became prime regions for rebel activity, and ensuring a link from the ports to these regions meant a rapid response to rebellion was now possible. 

The 1857 Rebellion in British India – also known as the Sepoy Mutiny (local Indians conscripted into the British military were known as Sepoys) – provides one such example of a rebel movement that had developed significant momentum. From civilians to sepoys and even local rulers, the collective resistance threatened British imperial control. The rebellion led to the transfer of ownership of India from the British East India Company to the British crown.

This infrastructure became critical for the survival of the colonial enterprise. These railways helped the British to coordinate counter operations and claim cities held by the rebels. Troops were rushed from Calcutta – the base of operations for the company in India – to the north via railways and steam-powered ships. Reinforcements were sent from Britain, arriving at the ports and moved inland quickly through the railways.

Additionally, infrastructural elements like the telegraph network allowed for British units to coordinate and communicate in order to suppress the rebellion. So critical was its role, that the British constructed a memorial to it, immortalizing it as an act of mutiny by the sepoys rather than an act of resistance against colonial rule. “Sir Robert Montgomery, a British administrator in colonial India, had remarked after the mutiny of 1857, “The electric telegraph has saved India.”  

By that he meant, British India. Their domination of India was so complete that the quote is inscribed on an obelisk at "Mutiny Telegraph Memorial" in Delhi as a testament and souvenir of that event for the colonial public.

The Submythology of European Benevolence 

One of the subnarratives that support the mythology of colonialism spreading civilization, is the concept of ‘Colonial Benevolence’; a superior race nobly imparting its knowledge and technologies towards developing the infrastructure of its colonies. This ‘civilizing mission’ frames these aspects of civilization as a ‘gift’, given nobly by the colonizers.  

Examining the fiscal architecture of colonialism shatters such supporting mythologies. These aspects of so-called “civilization” (from roads and railways to schools and educational institutions) were not the result of a noble and benevolent race taking from its own coffers and resources to provide infrastructure to the “lesser” colonized races.  

Instead, many of these road and rail networks were funded through taxes levied on colonized populations, and built through systems of forced labour, indentured servitude, and slavery. In many instances, the inability to pay taxes resulted in said forced labour, servitude and slavery to pay those taxes.

Before colonial rule, many African households survived on cattle ranching. These families stored their wealth in cattle and used them to pay taxes and other expenses. However, colonial rule changed the economic landscape of Africa. The colonialists required African labour to build new towns, railways, and mines. As a result, many African households were forced to send members to work for the colonialists to raise the cash they needed to pay the new taxes. This dependence on African labour helped to develop the colonial economy but at the expense of the traditional African way of life.

Hut Tax of the British South Africa Company, intended to discourage "idleness" amongst the locals, but instead forced many of them outside of traditional subsistence roles into a market of coerced wage labour.

Furthermore, from India to Africa, taxation as labour became institutionalized through systems like corvée labor. This was a system of taxation in which taxes were paid in the form of forced labor. Usually lasting a temporary period, often till a project was completed. Sometimes these were annual periods of forced labour that locals were subjected to.

This connection between taxation and forced labour is so severe, that researches and historians regard it as the greatest source of revenue acquired in colonized regions - a "hidden" revenue, the labour value taken from these workers as opposed to monetary revenues. Research by Marlous van Waijenburg documents and analyzes the fiscal histories of the colonies and describes these forced labour systems as forms of "invisible revenue" - revenue that often goes underlooked in terms of the value it provided to the colonial enterprise (Van Weijenburg, 2018).

According to Van Weijenburg:

"The rapidly expanding literature on historical tax systems has largely overlooked the “invisible” revenue from forced labor practices."

"...the labor tax component of African colonial budgets was often as large as the total cash contributions during the early stages of colonial rule. These pioneering findings underline the central place of forced labor in the fiscal development of colonial Africa."  

"Not only did labor contributions immediately relax colonial budget constraints, they also helped colonial governments pursue their longer-term fiscal capacity objectives."

(Van Weijenburg, 2018)

In many cases, these tax systems were so brutal they supported the effects of famine and desperation as taxes could be paid in grain. Meaning that even though the famines were already the result of food produce being diverted at scale to Britain, whatever remaining food stores survived were taken as tax. Famines in British controlled India – under both the reign of the British East India company and the reign of the British Raj – killed between 100 million people to 165 million people, depending on how the role of the British on the decline of healthcare and other infrastructural elements is considered. 

Through the work of early photographers like Willoughby Wallace Hooper, we have photographic records of the Madras famine - including images of bags of grain being prepared for export to Britain while the locals starved to death in the millions. We are fortunate for Hooper's documentation of these colonial crimes, however his motivation seemed to glorify them rather than as a journalist documenting crimes against a people. Accordingly, Hooper would have starving individuals sent to him to be photographed - he had no interest in helping them.

Photo taken by Willoughby Wallace Hooper, February 1877. The image was later printed as a lithograph (below) (credit: onthisdateinphotography.com)

A cruel and haunting image of two starving children from Willoughby Wallace Hooper's photography in India (credit: onthisdateinphotography.com)

In those few instances where funds for colonial projects came from private investors, these investments were intended only for returns on those investments. This money was not spent in any way that resembled developing local infrastructure or economies. Furthermore, tariffs and duties were placed on locally grown produce to profit of local traders using the railways while forcing them to sell at higher prices, while simultaneously promoting the sales of crops grown from colonial plantations coming in at a lower cost.  

In India, the British railway network was funded from land taxes, salt taxes (resulting in Gandhi’s famous Salt March), and opium revenues extracted from Indian peasants. The colonial government used revenue from existing Zamindari land systems – which taxed local populations – to fund irrigation canals and roads that primarily served export agriculture.  

Additionally, Opium cultivation was forced onto Indian farmers by the British including systems of opium quotas; in some instances, the production of any subsistence crops was also prevented.  

Opium had become a popular British "export" to China (it was being taken from India), resulting in a devastating effect on the Chinese population through opium addiction. Opium had been introduced into China almost a millennia prior. Its addictive effects on the locals led to the Emperor banning its trade - though its populartiy resulted in the trade surviving. Recognizing it's populartiy in China, the British cultivated poppy in India, giving them leverage in their trade war with China – resulting in the devastating Opium Wars, the crumbling of China’s sovereignty, and the ceding of Hong Kong to the British. This completely reversed the trade imbalance that had existed between the two. India and China were the richest regions in the world, the British exploited one to get leverage to exploit the other. There was no gift of civilization. 

Illustration of an opium den in China (credit: Brittanica)

In Indonesia, indigenous farmers were forced to grow cash crops like sugar and coffee for export. Profits funded Dutch infrastructure, including roads and ports. The Dutch imposed land taxes and tribute systems on Javanese peasants, which were used to finance colonial administration and transport networks. Built to move goods from plantations to ports, not to connect local communities, and funded by colonial revenues, not Dutch capital. Furthermore, Indonesia’s Banda Islands, where colonialism truly began, saw its native population killed in a genocide by the Dutch and replaced with an imported slave population who were more compliant.  

Forced cultivation in Java (credit JavaPrivateTour)

In The Philippines, which endured 300-plus years of Spanish rule, the Encomienda System empowered Spanish colonists to extract tribute and forced labor from local Filipinos. This was used to construct roads and churches, to labour on plantations, and to build ships for the Spanish fleet. During the American period, infrastructure like roads and schools was often funded by internal revenue taxes, including cedula taxes (personal identity tax) and municipal levies.  

In Vietnam, aka French Indochina, railways and roads were built to extract rice and minerals, funded by indirect taxes (salt, alcohol, opium) and direct taxes on Vietnamese households. The French used forced corvée labor for infrastructure projects, especially in Tonkin and Annam, under brutal conditions. A disproportionate share of colonial budgets went to military and export infrastructure, not local development. 

In Nigeria, British colonial authorities established Native Authorities that collected taxes from local populations. These funds were used to build feeder roads and maintain rail links that served export zones, especially for palm oil and groundnuts. These taxes were primarily for funding extractive infrastructure and paying salaries of European colonial officials. A fraction was retained by the Native Authorities, but this was far from enough for meaningful local development.  

Elmina Castle - Built by the Portuguese, it was the first European trading post in sub-Saharan Africa. Its name comes from the word 'Mina", which was the initial name given to what is now known as Ghana - Mina means "mine", so named after the ease with which gold was found in the area. Later, the British colonists would call it "the Gold Coast" (credit Brittanica)

In the Gold Coast – now Ghana – the construction of roads and railways connecting cocoa-producing regions to ports was funded by direct taxation of African farmers, as well as through compulsory labour. Infrastructure was designed to move goods to the coast, not to connect local communities or improve internal mobility. Moreover, road networks had existed prior to the British – the Ashanti Empire had constructed road networks which connected outer regions with urban centres. However, these existing networks did not suit the colonial imperative – extraction, transporting resources from the interior to ports on the exterior. The colonial government imposed head taxes and export duties upon the locals, which were then funneled into transport projects that served British commercial interests. 

Thus, these elements of 'civilization’ had very little to do with developing local infrastructure and supporting local populations. Rather they were intended for the efficient control and subjugation of these populations; these routes allowed local resources – including slaves – to be taken from the land while providing passage for troops and military resources inland – to subjugate the locals.  

Conclusion 

To sum up, the construction of roads and ports were not done for the benefit of the people, nor has the existing infrastructure or agriculture left behind constitute the gift of civilization. In many instances, these infrastructural elements were used to passage troops around to further the domination of the locals; while simultaneously being used to deindustrialize existing economies and funnel trade through colonial ports and hubs.

Furthermore, the funding of these construction efforts were not provided through benevolent Europeans, they were the result of taxes on the people - often paid in forced labour - or in some instances, private investors seeking ownership shares and profits - not nobly motivated benefactors.   

As this series of papers continues, we deconstruct other colonial myths and ideologies (from "terra nullius" to cannibalism) while also critiquing moments in colonial history that are ignored today - like the Brussel's Anti-Slavery Conference.

Importantly, covering material like this is necessary to spreading a critical understanding of history that digs through the misinformation and narrative propaganda. However, these learnings are not to inspire any hate towards our fellow human beings, but a rallying cry against systems of propaganda which exploit them; against corporations – like the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company – which claim the world for themselves; and against the social media juggernauts manufacturing of consent and manufacturing of divisiveness online, tearing offline real-world communities apart. 

Bear in mind, during the colonial era, regular working-class citizens of the empire also lived lives of servitude and squalor - it was not them who raked in the profits of colonial enterprise. Though many of them conscripted into the ranks of the mercenary armies of these corporate juggernauts, they were themselves victims of propaganda and an exploitative imperial regime that sought to wield them as tools and weapons.

Additionally, during these periods, the works of early European journalists, whistleblowers, travel writers, and activists helped shed light on the horrors of the period, while preserving these horrors in their writings or even in their photography. The journalism (and essentially whistleblowing) of Edmund Dene Morel (ED Morel) shed light on Leopold II's business practices in the Congo - as did the work of George Washington Williams a decade prior. It was Williams himself who coined the term "crimes against humanity" in his Open Letter to King Leopold II.

Mary Kingsley (pictured) was an early adventurer, ethnographer, and travel writer who was an activist of sorts and campaigned for the equal and humane treatment of native populations. Her writings inspired the likes of the aforementioned Morel and encouraged a humane shift in public opinion regarding African societies. Kingsley's writings were sometimes censored owing to their anti-imperial nature (though she herself was not entirely anti-imperialist).

The journey to healing resolutions requires that we be open to the truths of the past, but not further existing divisions into the future.

References 

Bach, D., & Braun, C. (2009). Taxes, institutions and local governance. Yale University Press. 

Clayton, A., & Savage, D. C. (n.d.). Uganda Railway. In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 3, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Railway 

Danvers, J. (1869). Report to the Secretary of State in Council on Railways in India, 1868–69. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. 

Dickson, K. B. (1961). The development of road transport in Southern Ghana and Ashanti since about 1850. Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana, 5(1), 33–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41405736 

History Rise. (2024). The Kenya-Uganda Railway: Colonial infrastructure and resistance explained. Retrieved from https://historyrise.com/the-kenya-uganda-railway-colonial-infrastructure-and-resistance/ 

McArdle, J. (2017). April 21: Conscience. On This Date in Photography. Retrieved October 25, 2025, from https://onthisdateinphotography.com/2017/04/21/april-21/

Money, J. W. B. (1861). Java: How to manage a colony. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 

Ntewusu, S. A. (2018). The Great North Road in the Gold Coast: Transport infrastructure and the shaping of northern Ghana. African Journal of History and Archaeology, 4(1), 1–15. https://www.iiardjournals.org/get/AJHA/VOL.%204%20NO.%201 

Prasad, A. (n.d.). Britain’s biological warfare: How colonial famines made India the world’s diabetes capital. Stop Hindu Dvesha. https://stophindudvesha.org/britains-biological-warfare-how-colonial-famines-made-india-the-worlds-diabetes-capital/ 

Reid, R. (2009). How Africans shaped British colonial institutions: Evidence from local taxation. Cambridge University Press. 

Ruchman, S. G. (n.d.). Colonial construction: Labor practices and precedents along the Uganda Railway, 1893–1903. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44723449.pdf  

Van Waijenburg, M. (2018). Financing the African colonial state: Fiscal capacity building and forced labor. African Economic History Network. Retrieved October 25, 2025, from https://www.aehnetwork.org/blog/financing-the-african-colonial-state-fiscal-capacity-building-and-forced-labor/