What is Post-colonialism? PART I

Hello everyone,

I've been thinking that this is not a commonly mentioned subject on steem, so I decided to post my reviews on the books and articles about post-colonialism. I'm planning to cover a comprehensive scope of literature concerning this issue, so here we start with the first part.

In the article “Discourse on Colonialism” by Aimé Césaire we see a critical evaluation of the European colonization, through a very harsh occupation of language. He first identifies two problems that the Western civilization could not manage to deal with: the problem of proletariat and the colonial problem. He says that Europe intentionally misinterpreted the problem and always avoided facing what it did in its history. He holds that when two different society with their different cultures and backgrounds meet. the result is a condition of richness but this is not the case at all in the case of colonialism. The result is the destruction of any kind of diversity and a mass slaughter. Césaire claims that because of the violent and dehumanized activities of Europe, the Western civilization might be held to have moved from its alleged humanism to savagery and it chooses to stay blind to its condition for its interests seek to do all those kinds of barbarisms. What’s worse is that it hides its dehumanized and brutal activities under the guise of a discourse of humanism in which everybody is considered as equal and has the right of accessing the basic human rights. However, very strikingly, Césaire asserts that the Western humanist is a Hitler and he quotes from Hitler in order to show up the similarity between the racist discourse of Hitler and the European “humanist” elites. Next to humanism, theological ideas are also harvested with the colonial activities so as to justify the appropriation of the native land and the enslavement of the native society. He also translates this situation by saying that “no one colonizes innocently” (p. 39) and reveals that Europe, or specifically the European bourgeoisie, trying to conceal its true interests through varies discourses which show colonization to be after the purpose of the development of humanity as a whole does nothing other than to flog a dead horse. He defines the non-European civilizations as anti-capitalist, democratic and fraternal societies. This point actually irritated me because being democratic left aside, even to be “anti-capitalist” is a Western-based ideology and showing those societies to be “anti-capitalist and democratic” is not to accept them as they are in their own authenticity and it is a desire to show that “non-West is actually more Western than the West” which shows that there is a hidden presupposition that the nature of West is actually the most honorable one but only that the West could not manage to be “West” enough. Then, he continues to mention historical events that took place in the course of colonialism which are catastrophic for the indigenous peoples. After that, he further explains on the racist side of colonialism by giving examples from discriminations against “Negros”, Asians and Africans. He says the European bourgeoisie is very determined to stay blind to the happenings and it is not a matter of knowledge but a matter of “filtering”. With the part that starts on page 54, his language gets harsher. He makes very adamant comments about Nietzsche, psychoanalysis and existentialism to which I could not really give any credit. For me, blaming the whole Existentialist, Psychoanalytic or Nietzschean tradition for some racist discourses which somehow retain themselves under the names of those traditions is not different than blaming the whole black race for a black man killed someone. After that, he talks about the fact that in some discourses the foundations of nations are taken biological which means the justification and naturalization of racist assumptions. He says that the bourgeois Europe “extirpated ‘the root of diversity’” (p. 76). He thus concludes that it is in no way possible to forgive Europe for what it has been doing and Europe is already and still resistant to face with its actual historical roots.

In the text “The Intimate Enemy”, it is signaled that colonization process affected the colonized in a certain way and the aim is to reveal the continuities between personality and culture where the political and ethical issues are taken into consideration. What Césaire talks about through his term “thingification” is also mentioned here in another way by saying that “it is not an encounter between the self and the enemy. . . It is a battle between dehumanized self and the objectified enemy” (p. xvi). It is also held that the work is to be a study of the post-colonial consciousness. It is repeatedly maintained that the fundamental aim is no way to give a certain ground for cultural relativism to flourish but to show the possibility of an “alternative universality” (p. xix). In the text, it is asserted that both the Indians and the Westerns cannot be held in uniformity with themselves and they make schisms and diversities possible. The Indians, for instance, are not held as passive victims of colonial forces but as agents who are capable of making choices in any case. Therefore it is possible to sense a denunciation of the classical understanding of the active “master” and the passive “slave” understanding in the context of the relations in the colonization process and its after effects. In the text, it is asserted that the colonialism denotes a world view in which there is the idea of “the superiority of the human over nonhuman and the subhuman, the masculine over the feminine, the adult over the child, the historical over the ahistorical and the modern or progressive over the traditional or the savage” (p. x). It is a striking point because it enables the reader to see that colonialism is a very large-scale and deeply-rooted issue, working as the representative of a world view in which certain hierarchical thinking as the cause of the colonial activities is the core principle. It is called secular hierarchies in the text.

In the text “Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction”, at first we see a differentiation between colonialism and imperialism. In order to understand this definition, the writer unfolds the historical background of colonialism and maintains that technological developments were contributors to the colonial expansion. As a result, it was seen that empires do not have to be geographically coherent. Also, the differences between the terms empire, imperialism and colonial are maintained. It is held that the practice of colonialism is not a homogenous activity and they differed according to the purpose of settlement, administration of economic exploitation and maritime enclaves. Next to this, two major forms of imperialism are stated as the Roman, Ottoman or Spanish one and the late nineteenth century European imperialism. In addition to various types of colonialism, there are also different epochs which make it troublesome to theorize. However, in general there could some statements be stated such as that the French colonialism was systematic and the British was not. After discussing this issue, postcolonial understanding is defined as an identification with the anti-colonial activist and the indigenous peoples who suffered from those colonialist and imperialist activities. With regard to the issue of “Colonization and Domination”, first it is stated that colonization does not directly signify domination as the primary aim was sometimes only to settle. However, it is known that the settlers did not try to integrate with the local people but rather tried to differentiate themselves from the others. Also parallel to the population issue, it is said that the colony was regarded “as an outlet for surplus population” and the native lands was considered as an ideal place for the “practice of the transportation of criminals” (p. 22). Thus, the local modes of production and the indigenous culture was forced to be replaced with the Western ones and it was done through an implication of the Eurocentric ideologies. After that, the text starts to discuss imperialism. It is stated that the term “imperialism” has a vast number of meanings and uses. Examples are given from the first modern European empire created by the Spanish, the British Empire, and the changes after the First and the Second World Wars. Through an historical narration, it is shown in the text that colonialism and imperialism and different things and their interests may even be in conflict in some situations. However, according to the text, it is also possible to talk about the fact that the colonial structure is systematized into an imperialist ideology.

After that, the writer discusses the French, British and the U.S imperialisms in which again Eurocentric discourses are on the stage, such as civilizing the uncivilized, helping the unenlightened ones and more and more moral argumentation to give colonialism a legitimate ground. They claim that they are to bring egalitarianism to the “barbarous” societies and the diversities are to be respected in this context. However, they try to undermine whatever belongs to the native societies and this is called “the paradox of ethnocentric egalitarianism”. After discussing the specific historical situations and thus the differences between the imperialisms of Britain, France and the U.S, the writer starts to talk about “neocolonialism”. It is held that the old imperialist system was broken but it fed the ground for the new one. The break was due to the resistance of the colonized, support from the Soviet Union and the exhaustion caused by the wars. In this stage, the state is considered to be independent from the colonial forces but is in fact driven by the outside and invisible authority. Therefore, it may be interpreted as merely a different guise of colonialism. Then the text starts to mention the theories to explain the colonial structure, with which we are familiar as we read them repeatedly in other courses. At last, the text introduces the postcolonial critique as the intervention to oppressive circumstances. It is held that the stress is given to the circumstances that are experienced by the postcolonial subjects. Under the headline of state, it is held that there are lines and circumstances that remained from the previous colonial circumstances of the nations and they merely changed form. In this context, power is considered to change hand.

Next, it is stated that there is an ironical situation in relation to the location in which the postcolonial theory is produced because the related thoughts are articulated in Europe and the U.S which means it is a kind of reconsideration of its own history. Also, the fact that postcolonialism ends with an “ism” is problematized because it causes in a sense of a homogenized group of ideas and thoughts which is not the case at all for postcolonial theories. However, of course there are some visibly common and very general patterns to all. It is also the case that it has a vast vocabulary which may sometimes seem incredibly hard to embrace. At last, it is maintained that the condition of the postcolonial critique should be evaluated with respect to the fact that resistance and criticism against the West come from inside and outside of the West, and postcolonialism should be seen neither as an insider or an outsider but a mediator of the two fields which tries to show that those two fields are not mutually exclusive to each other.

We'll continue with the next part soon. I hope you enjoyed reading it and please don't hesitate to express your ideas in the comment section!