it a priority to maintain harmony among seamen and reduce incidents of tribalism, corruption, and conflict. But the detailed document was largely focused on a long set of demands and ideological positions taken by the union toward the shipping companies. The Rules of the Union called for improved working conditions, salary increases, the payment of overtime, and the upgrade of accommodations on board ships. The issue of hiring and recruitment was also raised, with the union calling for the institution of a closed shop. This demand was totally unacceptable to officials at Elder Dempster, who insisted that shipping companies reserved the right to select seamen according to personal ability and availability, regardless of their union membership.79 The shipping companies were also strongly opposed to crews organizing representative bodies on ships. The union had proposed electing a “ship’s committee” on board each vessel that would “settle all minor matters or disputes between European crews and African crews on board ships; settle all minor matters or disputes between the representatives of the shipping companies and the African crews on board ships; and try to settle all minor matters or disputes between one African and another or one group of African crews and another group.”80 This proposition was preposterous to the officials at Elder Dempster, who argued that the hierarchy of the ship was based on an established chain of command, with the captain the ultimate commander, and this would not be compromised by the establishment of elected seamen’s committees.
The most fundamental point of contention between the shipping companies and the seamen’s union emerged around allegations of racism. The existence of racism on ships was clearly acknowledged in the union’s rules, which demanded that “the committee should see to it that the African crews are not misused or unduly insulted because of the colour of their skin, which is a common practice on board ships.”81 This was an issue of immense sensitivity among officials at Elder Dempster, and they categorically rejected any allegations of racism on board their ships. They refused to even engage in any dialogue around the subject, and consequently would take no steps to stop it. Thus, while the shipping company had begrudgingly recognized the union, the ways in which they dealt with the explosive issue of racism on board demonstrates that the shipping company still hoped to limit and frame the terms of debate between shipping company officials and union representatives. For Elder Dempster, the issue of racial discrimination or prejudice was completely off-limits, and officials went to great efforts to strike the allegations from the lists of complaints and demands made by the union.
For seamen and their representatives, racism was a pervasive and inescapable feature of life on board colonial vessels. One seaman interviewed said, “On the British ships, you may be lucky to meet a nonracist. Your right is recognized and is given to you, but they don’t mingle easily.”82 Time and again, the issue was raised by union leadership in meetings and correspondence with Elder Dempster officials. Thus, in a letter written by union officer Akpan Monday in 1958, it was reported that “Africans are ill-treated by the English seamen with whom they work and ‘their so-called superior officers.’” He described several incidents when African crewmen were beaten by gangs of English seamen, and claimed that these incidents were reported but nothing was done about them. “In each case, the culprits went free without even receiving a warning.” Akpan provided vivid descriptions of racial violence against black seamen on several voyages and the lack of response from officers on board:
On the Aureol’s last trip, an English sailor threw hot water on the back of Mr. S. Ikpi, an African greaser. When Ikpi turned around and asked why, he was attacked by five other English sailors. When he ran to the Engine room for help, the officer said he was busy and could not come. Another African seaman was called a “bastard nigger” by the chief store keeper. When he reported this to the chief steward, the chief steward defended the store keeper. . . . This goes to show that whatever the black man says, right or wrong, he is always wrong in the eyes of the white man who is always prepared to defend his white brothers.83
The shipping companies’ refusal to acknowledge racial discrimination on board ships infuriated the seamen’s union. They claimed that management’s denial of the problem allowed it to continue unabated, and this inaction was in fact at the root of the problem. This could be seen in an impassioned letter from General Secretary Sidi Khayam, submitted to Elder Dempster in 1959. Khayam claimed that white crews had made a hobby out of provoking African crews, but because of their close relations with the European captains, they were never punished for it. On the contrary, Khayam claimed, those black seamen who filed complaints against white seamen were blacklisted from further employment. He claimed that the situation was unbearable for African crews, “when they realize they have no possibility of defense before the shipping master.” Under these circumstances, Khayam charged that the shipping company must stop denying that racism existed on board ships, and take measures to put a stop to it. He wrote:
Our Union first of all, wants to express its concern for the continued denial that there is no discrimination whereas actual fact everyone realizes that it is there. If the shipping companies refuse to recognize that discrimination exists, then they cannot see the need to ask white crews to stop the habit. It will be very difficult for you to enjoy the confidence of African crews when you dismiss the reality of discrimination, which occurs almost in every ship, when many white crews are well known for their attitudes towards Africans. You must admit that we are not in a position to gain anything by manufacturing imaginary stories which have not happened, you will also agree that the situation must be so desperately disappointing that special emphasis is always placed by the Union about it whenever we approach you. This problem is daily becoming more complex. The treatment is so miserable that it is now psychologically resulting in conflict, quarrels, near-tension which finally are put in other forms as delinquency on part of African crews.84
These impassioned pleas made little impact on Elder Dempster officials. General Manager Glasier came to Lagos in late 1959 to demand that “all talk about racial hatred must cease.” According to notes from a meeting between the union and management, Glasier complained that over the last two months, difficulties had culminated with “certain letters.” The shipping company official rejected their contents, as the meeting notes read: “Mr. Glasier said that never in all the years of his experience with Trade Unions had he ever received or read such letters from a Union and he was very gravely disturbed as they created an atmosphere in which the Lines would find it very difficult to maintain their usual harmonious relations with the Union; he was quite sure that the letters did not express the feelings of the seamen.”85 Glasier claimed that disputes on board ships were routine affairs, both between crews and officers and among crews themselves, and these occurrences were not the result of racism, even if they erupted between whites and blacks. He threatened that continued allegations of racism would result in a change of Elder Dempster hiring practices, and he warned the union: “Seven years ago there were 400 Nigerian seamen, now the three lines employed 1700. We will continue to employ Nigerian seamen for preference at Lagos as a convenient port of changing crews, but if there was not an immediate cessation of the demonstration and other commotions which had been current in recent months, the Lines would be compelled to consider engagement of further Freetown crews.”86 The intimidation apparently worked, because at another meeting two days later, the union leadership backed down from their previous allegations. The notes from this meeting demonstrate the success of Glasier’s strong-arm tactics: “As Mr. Glasier had nothing further to add, Mr. Ekore went on to say that his Union wished to cooperate peacefully.” Mr. Glasier asked if what Mr. Ekore wanted to say was that the question of race hatred had been dropped for good. Mr. Ekore agreed and mentioned that at the first meeting he had said that race discrimination was not a company policy.87
POWER AND POLITICS IN THE NIGERIAN UNION OF SEAMEN IN THE COLONIAL ERA
The ineffective efforts of union officials to reshape the terms of the debate between seamen and shipping companies reveal the limits of power of the seamen’s union. Despite the rhetoric of demands, throughout the 1950s the Nigerian Union of Seamen did not pose a serious threat to the shipping companies’ designs of maintaining the status quo. This was partially because union leaders in Lagos were preoccupied primarily with internal political struggles
