The Legacy of Colonial Investments and Their Impact on Our Future
What we invest in today shapes the world our children inherit. This idea of intertemporality—that our present choices echo across generations—is widely acknowledged. But how often do we admit that investments of the not-so-distant past shaped today’s markets, industries, and even the way we allocate resources?
And are we willing to confront the uncomfortable truth that colonial investments, often framed as adhering to “ethical standards,” created lasting structures that still influence economies today? Let’s dive into how our legacy can affect our investments and the planet’s future.
This content is proudly brought to you by Little Square Capital, an Authorised and Regulated Investment Firm (FCA FRN 942894), we specialise in equity research, corporate access, and capital raising solutions for SMEs.
A Complex Challenge
We’d like to build an appreciation for the complexities of our challenge. Today, there is a growing awareness of the importance of sustainability, biodiversity protection, and responsible investing, etc… but there’s also a fine line between providing active support and grabbing investment opportunities in underdeveloped territories.
Many businesses and organisations are now incorporating principles and sustainability practices into their operations to ensure a positive impact on the environment and the communities in which they operate.
The real question: But are the standards much different from what existed before? Will the standards be enough to ensure that development is done in a responsible and sustainable way? In the past, colonial-era ethical standards and regulations were supposed to structure and regulate the occupation of countries populated with indigenous peoples.
Formal Standards and the Legacy of Colonial Investments
The earliest formalisation of such standards was arguably done by the International African Association (IAA), formed in 1876, which published a set of standards and ideals in the form of a “Declaration and Resolutions”. Here is a summary of some of the key segments of the declaration:
Purpose: The declaration stated that the purpose of the IAA was to “develop trade and civilisation in Africa.” The Association sought to accomplish this through education, scientific research, and philanthropy.
Scope: The declaration identified specific customs that the IAA sought to abolish, including human sacrifice, cannibalism, and slavery. The IAA also opposed practices such as female genital mutilation, infanticide, and the killing of twins, which were common in some African and Asian societies.
Justification: The declaration argued that these customs were morally repugnant and hindered economic and social progress in affected societies. The IAA believed that ending these practices would enable societies to move toward prosperity, health, and enlightenment.
Approach: The IAA recognized that achieving its goals would require a multifaceted approach. It sought to educate the public, lobby governments, and work with local communities to promote alternative customs and practices. Education was seen as a key tool for promoting the IAA’s vision of “European Civilisation."
Sign me up to this
When reading the above, the “Declaration and Resolutions” of the IAA seems to represent a significant effort to promote human rights and social progress in the late 19th century.
The esteemed Royal Geographical Society (Britain) and the geographical societies of Austria, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Russia, and the United States all initially signed on.
Surprise? But do you know that the International African Association, also known as the International Association for the Exploration and Civilisation of Central Africa, had King Leopold II as President of the Executive Committee? Almost everyone is familiar with how the ambitions of the first project were quickly substituted with another to obtain territorial concessions on the territories explored…
… but not many know that King Leopold was well informed on African affairs. Leopold II publicly expressed intentions to ‘regenerate’ the Congo, but under his authority, the administration and private ventures he sanctioned committed widespread atrocities.
… or that the new Haut-Congo Study Committee (Comité d’Études du Haut-Congo), which contracted Henry Morton Stanley, had no political value and no legal powers to establish stations or claim occupation… and was dissolved as early as 1879.
Not many know of the role of a US "native land" speculator, and the US media (in particular the New York Herald, employer of Stanley), which led to broad-based European legitimisation of an essentially private venture.
The Legacy
Are we aware that Leopold II declared all grounds in the Congo not used by the indigenous population either as “vacant” or “state” property? Do we know that Leopold “gifted” these lands and many other rights to private companies he created in 1906, prior to the Congo Free State converting to a colony of Belgium?
Incredibly, despite the human rights atrocities committed by many participants in these companies (in their previous roles under King Leopold II), these rights were upheld — a critical moment in the legacy of colonial investments.
Are we aware that many people managing the brutal initial private ventures also later became managers of the Congo’s Colonial Administration?
These decisions to vend the private assets of King Leopold II into new private ventures, and to allow these 1906 companies to continue operating without adjusting their licenses, are a stark example of the legacy of colonial investments that continue to shape modern economic structures.
Are we aware that the commercial arrangements agreed before independence were sustained post independence? That specific companies continued to benefit from pre-independence market structures, or used economic influence (with government policy support) to perpetuate them.
There are many practices of others active in the partitioning and occupation phase of the ongoing exploitation of African indigenous peoples that were implemented under “ethical” standards, under banners of “moral capitalism”… This is less well known.
Next Steps
It is crucial that we learn more, so we can draw links between historical agreements—including geopolitical ones—and current practices. Only then can we, in the not-too-distant future, hold our heads high and say that a few didn’t just grab as much as they could at the expense of others… and be proud of the world our children inherit.
Looking to Grow Your Business?
Great investors don’t just read—they act. At Little Square Capital we combine rigorous equity research, capital raising advisory, and corporate access to help SMEs and investors achieve sustainable results.
Schedule an Introductory Call