| Date | mid-19th century onward |
|---|---|
| Location | Sub-Saharan Africa (colonial territories) |
| Type | Colonial taxation policy |
| Cause | Colonial revenue generation and labor control |
| Participants | British Empire, German Empire, local African communities |
| Outcome | Resistance movements (e.g. Hut Tax War, First Chimurenga) |
The hut tax was a form of taxation introduced by European colonial powers in their African colonies on a "per hut" (or other forms of household) basis. Colonised peoples paid the tax variously in money, labour, grain or stock. This benefited the colonial authorities in four interconnected ways: [1] [ need quotation to verify ] [2]
Households in which people had primarily worked as rural ranchers or as farmers proceeded to send members to work in cities or on colonial government-sponsored construction projects to earn money to pay the tax. The new colonial economies in Africa were primarily reliant upon the construction of towns and infrastructure (such as railways), and in South Africa upon the rapidly expanding mining operations. [1] [ need quotation to verify ]
By 1908 the following hut taxes were introduced in the colony of South Africa:
In the colony of Mashonaland, now part of modern-day Zimbabwe, a hut tax was introduced at the rate of ten shillings per hut in 1894. [1] Although authorized by the Colonial Office in London, the tax was paid to the British South Africa Company (BSAC), acting on behalf of the British government in the area. Various events such as the introduction of the hut tax, disputes over cattle and a series of natural disasters contributed to the decision of the Shona to rebel against the company in 1896, which became known as the First Chimurenga or Second Matabele War. [1]
The tax was also used in Kenya, Uganda [5] and Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). [6] In Sierra Leone, it sparked the Hut Tax War of 1898 [7] in the Ronietta district, in which substantial damage was sustained to the establishments of the Home Missionary Society. The damage sustained by the Society led to an international tribunal regarding restitution for the damages suffered, brought by the American government on behalf of the Home Missionary Society. The society was compensated for damages done to them by Sierra Leonean rioters. [8]
Liberia also implemented a hut tax, which in one case led to a Kru revolt in 1915. [9] [10]
Above all, the imperial power relied on the hut tax. [...] Could revenue rise sufficiently unless Africans were forced into a commercialized and monetized economy that produced taxable goods and incomes to meet tax liabilities? And could crops be grown for the market, or mines developed, unless a waged labour force was created? Such considerations led to an increased reliance on the hut tax as a means of forcing economic and social change.