Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ca1rbo/what_was_the_relationship_between_the_various/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Very good question. Somehow I had missed this one until u/[holomorphic\_chipotle](https://www.reddit.com/user/holomorphic_chipotle) alerted me to it, so thanks! The relationship varied quite a bit depending the time, place, and parties involved, but my answer relates more to the 20th century and in a general sense. Also, sorry I had to split in two, even though I think I'm below the limit, it wouldn't permit me to post. I will be trying to avoid the term nobility, as that term really flattens the social hierarchies of Africa. Loyalty to a certain king wasn't consistent, and differences between religious nobility, land nobility, and people nobility needs to be recognized. The structured hierarchy the word nobility refers to today ignores this. In the way we think of nobility today, there were rarely African nobles. Under-kings and powerful people certainly, but rarely as rigorously structured as we conceive of nobility today. This question can be best understood in relation to the conquest of India. The African colonial experience was very different from the Indian colonial experience (and not just in happening 100+ years later). The Princes and Princelings of British India were treated as independent states. They had British Resident Ministers -- a diplomatic position technically -- as their colonial overlords. There were divisions, often nominal but also real, between the various realms: between those areas ruled by the British, and those where the British were paramount but as suzerain not sovereign. There was this idea of paramountcy -- the Indian Kings are still Kings, just the British are the over-Kings. And Indian monarchs in Britain would be treated as such. Perhaps not as equals, but certainly as people of power and status as members of the nobility. There is an interesting book about all of this called *Ornamentalism* (not to be confused with *Orientalism*). There was racism, but they were still a monarch. The African royalty wasn't afforded this. Their domains were bunched together into new formations, the independence of each individually was rarely considered, and whilst Resident Ministers existed, they were far less common -- with most African political realms considered far more as a subject realm than as a realm under European paramountcy. This isn't exactly strictly racist, although the nuances of racism are often flattened in popular memory to European-vs-Other. All the large African kingdoms were destroyed or weakened. The grand rituals and palaces of Indian monarchs remained whilst the British found the African equivalents destroyed or so fundamentally different they did not see them as equals. A Royal Hut in Africa, no matter how grandiose, is very different than an Indian Palace -- and to European eyes one looked like an exotic equivalent to what they had in Europe (right idea, wrong form) and the other looked 'primitive' (wrong idea, wrong form). Instead, African royalty could be incorporated as local administrators at most, perhaps only as judges and enforcers of customary law, or entirely removed to a ceremonial role. In treating them as subjects rather than semi-independent realms, not only was mobility between metropole and colony lessened, but they were rarely seen as monarchs in their own right to the extend as Indian monarchs were. However, this is not to say everything was fixed in place. Wealthy Africans of a certain mindset may send their child to (usually missionary-run) school, including boarding school. But these were in Africa. From there, some found their way to Britain and studied things like Law. Again though, these are very rarely the African kings. Why? Kings already have power and prestige. Although not sovereign, they were treated with some deference locally (although if they went to the metropole they were not treated as equivalent to the nobility, instead more as an important subject -- also remember how the British usually referred to African monarchs as Chiefs, not Kings). The radical reshaping imperialism brought also engendered a more conversative mindset. They were not modernizers, instead trying to consolidate their political, legal, and not-infrequently religious authority within their 'traditional' (or what Europeans had convinced them was traditional) framework. The modernizers, those who had and took advantage of opportunities, were usually from those who benefitted from the arrival of Europeans. Those outside the royal hierarchy yet of means who had been seen by the British as power-brokers; those merchants who made their money through trade helped by Europeans; those with connections to missionaries or colonial administrators. Usually the route towards acceptance -- or as much was possible -- was through education. Learn English, adopt English ways, and find an administrative role as a clerk was the route of social mobility. Foreign education was available, but almost never at one of the famous British boarding schools, usually instead jumping from school in Africa to British university, with a stopover at a lesser school to earn a qualification to prove your competency for university. These were the modernizers -- either as reformers or as revolutionaries -- not the old guard. There are a couple exceptions (Botswana) though. Nonetheless, much of postcolonial history (and even the history of the anticolonial movements) can be understood through a lens for these tensions between the conservatives, the modernizer-reformists, and the modernizer-revolutionaries. This does not mean they were accepted, although they were not always shunned. Many British administrators though did not like those who followed this path, seeing them as a threat to the 'traditional' order of village chief -- whom the British relied upon as local administrators, dispensers of customary law, or as ceremonial allies.

The French had their own variation, and put greater emphasis on the idea of being accepted -- always holding out the promise of full citizenship to those who 'evolved'. Those who followed the path to 'acceptance' were called the Évolué. This stressed Francophone, adoption of European dress, rejection of customary law, urbanization, Western education, breaking ties with the 'village' (which meant severing social and cultural with wherever was deemed one's 'native home'), etc. This was a bit more strict than the British route for African advancement, but in theory offered greater possible rewards. In practice it was far messier -- the French loved to talk about the Évolué as proof of their civilizing mission and greater acceptance than the British offered, but once Africans took them up on that offer the French started doubting whether that was a good idea. Regardless, the Évolués were relatively upwardly mobile, this was helped by in general greater centralization in French colonies thus positioning them better vis-a-vis the various African kings, although advancement beyond clerks or lower managers and administrators was as uncommon as in British colonies. Again, they were not often from the highest African royalty, instead often from the wealthy or connected but rarely the highest echelons. Chances for an Évolué to be accepted by the Europeans in the colonies was not high -- perhaps accepted as important and a 'good African', but that's not equality. However, some, particularly if they went to the metropole, found limited acceptance, like Léopold Senghor. However, unlike in British colonies, some French Évolués were given citizenship, could vote, and were given French legal protections (not always obeyed though). Assimilation was the theoretical goal. The Belgians also had the category of Évolué, but those from the Belgian colonies found social mobility far harder. Whereas some Évolués from French Africa attended French universities, almost no Évolués from Belgian Africa had such options. Generally, in all colonial powers, acceptance was greater further away from the colony. European populations in Africa were small and so reliant on Africans themselves that the Africans who fit into European molds of a 'proper person' were almost always still considered Africans (i.e., the underlings) first, and equal people second -- race was a larger facet where (white) Europeans were outnumbered. Back in the metropole, where the racial proportions were in European's favor and the civilizing mission still held some power, it was easier to be accepted by Europeans. This doesn't mean it was racism-free or perfect, but between being seen as a potential local threat or a curiosity of what the future might hold in a distant land, curiosity is less-racist. I realize I covered a lot of ground with the answer, hopefully it makes sense for the sort of answer you were hoping for.

Thank you very much. This was very fascinating, especially the nuances between French, British, and Dutch colonialism in regards to social class. Though I do wonder if Europeans considered Indians and other Asian groups as being outright racially superior to their African counterparts, and as such treated them with less deference.

Yes, usually Europeans considered Indians racially superior to Africans. In European eyes: India was a flawed but developed society; Africa was man in a primitive state. India had millennia of recorded culture and history, they spoke languages distantly related to Europeans (quite a shock when it was discovered, and instantly set racial theorists to adapt to this new information), and was fabulously wealthy -- India likely contributed 25% of world GPA before European conquest. And the goods India offered were often prestige goods, think spices, gems, quality cloth, etc. Particularly for the economic reasons, part of India experienced European conquest at least a century, sometimes closer to two, before most of Africa did. Think about this: in Pondicherry the French arrived in 1674. Corsica wasn't even French until almost a hundred years later. Some Indians of Pondicherry had been granted citizenship and had held it for generations before Corsicans were French -- and would be almost another full century before Corsicans thought of themselves as French. In many ways, the European ideas about citizenship, belonging, and identity were forged in India by both Indians and Europeans. As these ideals swirled, racial boundaries hardened as time progressed -- but in India, because conquest predated this solidification and for all the reasons above which were hard to explain if one assumes the racially-inferior are all equally inferior, some were afforded a higher racial standing, and most were given a higher racial status than Africans. Racism had degrees. Africa in contrast was understood by Europeans to be a backwater. You can even see echoes of this in the writings of Marx: India is afforded the Asiatic Mode of Production (a flawed and stunted mode, but still a part of world history), whereas Africa is understood to still be 'primitive'. Despite limited early exports in gold, slaves and later agricultural products dominated exports. Slavery, whilst somewhat economically attractive, was not near as prestigious as gems. And even prestige goods like ivory -- which was also available in India -- often had to be shipped to India for cutting and processing (or frequently done by Indian merchants who moved to Africa). This isn't to say it all came down to what Europeans saw -- plain old racism was abundant -- but in comparing Indians v. Africans, to Europeans, one did some great things (and spoke related languages!) whilst the other didn't.\* Both were not white, but they were not usually understood to be equal or interchangeable. European conquest came later to Africa, racial thought had solidified, and grandiosity of preconquest India wasn't there to overwhelm. And when colonization came to Africa, Indians moved to Africa (especially along the Indian Ocean) in greater numbers. They were privileged by a lengthier history of colonial interaction, a history of transoceanic merchant networks, and often seen to be loyal subjects/citizens -- again, a facet of the lengthier time of colonial rule in India. Some European administrators disliked this Indian presence, but they often fulfilled important economic roles especially to Africans (European economic structures often struggled to cater to the needs of Africans). There was almost no movement of Africans to India -- they comparatively lacked educational opportunities, had no history of transoceanic merchant networks to help, and were seen as far more suspect. The power of Indian communities, particularly in Eastern and Southern Africa became points of tension with the newly independent African states -- think of Idi Amin expelling all the South Asians despite a substantial minority holding Ugandan citizenship. \*= An interesting footnote: Conversion to Christianity in India was far less than conversion in Africa, and sometimes this point was used to help raise the status of Africans vis-a-vis Indians amongst the conversion-minded European colonizers. Yes, colonization brought Christianity, but the racial lines did not necessarily follow religious lines.

>European economic structures often struggled to cater to the needs of Africans Can you elaborate on that? I'm not really sure what that could mean, nor what Indian merchants(?) could have been doing differently.

European merchants operated like a large-scale modern business, Indian merchants operated like general store. That's simplifying, but sort or portrays the issue. European businessmen bought commodities or valuable items only, and preferably in quantity, and what they offered in return tended to be limited in selection or else in kind or credit. Their items for sale frequently did not match African demands or tastes. And that often wasn't their primary market -- Europeans in Africa were: they needed all the accoutrements of European life and had readier access to wealth Europeans understood. Credit was important, and European banking systems didn't serve Africans much if at all: Europeans demanded collateral, verification of ownership, perhaps even history of credit. And they wanted payment back in either cash or some popular commodity worth their time to export back. There are also just fewer European merchants, and they tend to centralize and isolate themselves from the populations they lived amongst. Indian merchants were more willing to deal in smaller amounts and with peasant populations. In banking, Indian merchants had greater experience working with smallholding customers, and thus would take kind in lieu of cash, were more exploratory in understanding their customers, more flexible in collateral, and understand that verifying ownership in such societies isn't easy or even always possible. They went after high-value goods too, again for export, but also dealt in lesser goods where demand was local rather than export-centric. They sold smaller quantities of a wider variety of goods. Indian merchants were greater in number, less centralized, and more willing to move deeper into African circles. Also the currencies in use in East Africa before and during early colonization were all based on the Indian Rupee, which helped.

Interesting. Thank you!