While the British ceased to physically occupy Egypt in 1803, the country's location proved to be a great resource for years. Egypt was a major producer of cotton; this meant that, while the British had intended to use the location only for communication with India, they could profit from it as well.1
Muhammad Sa'id Pasha took power in 1854, but the massive debt that the country fell into under his rule caused a direct British takeover in 1863.2 The British placed a man names Lord Kitchner in charge; he brought the country out of debt easily, and politically the country flourished; however, the common people suffered. Education was poor, and poverty and starvation ran rampant; the country was producing tons of goods, but the people could not eat cotton.3
This is kind of like Nigeria! Nigeria was also taken over by Britain. However, Nigeria was under an indirect rule. This means that they had small individual rulers over their states, but Britain controlled the country overall. Under the British influence, the economy also soared. I wonder what would have happened if the British also had a direct rule over Nigeria like it did Egypt? Would there be a difference? They seem pretty similar.
ReplyDelete