REQUEST FOR HELP: Colonialist Literature

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What I meant by "loaded question" was can you support an argument for colonialism that matches those against it, put forth by intellectuals (such as Achebe, Cesaire, etc.) who argued its inhumanity?

That would be for the students to decide.

The argument is lopsided; those in favor of colonialism are the human factor and barbarity of most colonizers' attitudes toward "inferior" races. Even for seniors, I don't think this is a positive approach to teaching the material. It seems to me you're having your students argue in favor of racism.

You seem to think I would be promoting racism in the unit. I really don't see how you came to this conclusion. It would be up to the students which side to argue, how to do it, and do it effectively and rationally with rhe material given. I don't see how a possible argument of the modern world not existing as it does today being motivated by racism. Again, I think you underestimate students' and their capacity to think deeply and abstractly.

I am an educator in training like yourself, and in just over a month will be teaching a senior-level class on genocide. I would never intimate to students that the conduct of the nations under study was defensible.

Again, when did I ever say this is what I would do?

I hope to give assignments that ask them to understand the perspective of Nazi Germany, the Soviets under Stalin, and so on, but I would not ask them to try to persuade in favor of these brutal regimes.

As I may give the assignments to understand the perspective of colonialists. I could easily argue that you giving them assignments to help them understand the commiters of genocide is in it's way an endorsement of genocide, but I have enough faith in a modern teacher to assume that teacher has more common sense than that. I would hope the same courtesy would be extended to me.

Frankly, I just wanted to get some ideas on literature, not to debate the morale of the unit. I am working with three very capable, intelligent, and open-minded people on this. I can assure you we will not be indoctrinating them with ideas of white superiority.

[Il Penseroso]

What type of argument do you foresee your students advocating in favor of colonialism? Can you justify it without compromising your morals, or completely neglecting the barbarity of the actual practice? What do you really hope to teach by this particular assignment and how will it tie in with your overall goal?

Take these questions as you will; my point is that the students may be able to list off facts that "prove" colonialism provided necessary infrastructures and bureaucracy for the colonized to emerge in modern global economics and international relations, but is that really what students should take from such a class?

I can't know whether or not you promote racism, but my point is that you may be underestimating the prevalence of real racism and neglecting your duty as an educator to promote humanitarian values (yes, all educators are in the business of promoting values). You're the expert on the subject matter under question, and they are not. If you fail to successfully highlight how the colonizers' brutal actions were the result of educational measures (the pseudosciences of the time period) that taught that the "others" were less than human, and still have students who are willing to argue in favor of colonialism then you fail in teaching the subject matter, both in terms of its historical and literary significance.

[Il Penseroso]

Frankly, I just wanted to get some ideas on literature, not to debate the morale of the unit. I am working with three very capable, intelligent, and open-minded people on this. I can assure you we will not be indoctrinating them with ideas of white superiority.

Passivity is a form of culpability.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know what more I can say to passify you. I'm not going to be teaching racism, promoting colonialism or justifying what occured because of it. But I will let my students think for themselves. You're just going to have to trust me. I'm done trying to justify this to you, who will be giving assignments to your students so they can understand perspectives of the commiters of genocide.

If anyone else has any suggestions on literature, please let me know.

[Whifflingpin]

There are all sorts of options whereby one could make a positive case for colonialism.

A general perspective:
1) The whole of human history and pre-history is a tale of colonialism. It could be said that the drive to colonise is as much a human characteristic as speech, tool-making or self-reflection. The urge towards space-travel is just the most modern manifestation of this drive, and it has nothing to do with racism or barbarity in its origins.

2) The nations of Europe are the result of colonialism from somewhere in Asia, mostly prior to 1000A.D. Many other nations, including all of those in the American continents, are the result of European colonisation between 1500A.D. and the present.

3) The mix of motives that drove colonial expansion (even modern-period colonialism) was much the same as the mix that drives any significant human effort, and the people involved in colonialism were, and are, just the same mix of people that are involved in anything else that is worthwhile.

More specific to modern colonialism
4) On the whole, where colonialism has advanced and receded (rather than advanced and stayed) it left countries in a better state than it found them. Of course that is arguable, but it means you can consider what is a "good state" - stability, freedom from want, justice & fairness, education - whatever.
5) The barbarism before and after colonialism was (is) worse than the barbarism committed during colonialism. Again arguable, but refer to specifics - India, clearly, has not descended into barbarism since the British left, but would any say that British Rhodesia was a worse place to live in the fifty years before independence than it has been, as Zimbabwe, in the fifty years since?

[PeterL]

You seem to think I would be promoting racism in the unit. I really don't see how you came to this conclusion. It would be up to the students which side to argue, how to do it, and do it effectively and rationally with rhe material given. I don't see how a possible argument of the modern world not existing as it does today being motivated by racism. Again, I think you underestimate students' and their capacity to think deeply and abstractly.

The study of colonialism as thought up by Said is racist. To teach about colonialism is promotion of racism.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The study of colonialism as thought up by Said is racist. To teach about colonialism is promotion of racism.

If you're being serious, that is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. I guess we shouldn't teach slavery, either. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your statement.

And thank you, Whifflingpin. I really needed some backup here.

[bluosean]

Kipling is the only good author I can think of who wrote in a positive way about it. All the good books present colonialism in a negative light. One of my favorite is Maiba. It is a novel from Papua New Guinea. Search the title and it should come up (it is a very short and interesting read).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Cool.

And if we can't find enough positive literature, we will just rework the assignment, which was never set in stone to begin with.

[hellsapoppin]

"portrays colonialism in a positive light since the final project will be a persuasive essay arguing for or against colonialism"


It will be very difficult to defend colonialism as the arguments used to defend it in the past where precisely the same used by the Nazis to kill Jews and other minorities in Germany.

The biggest argument used by colonialism apologists was that killing, enslaving, and imposing depredations upon Blacks, Native Americans, or other indigenous peoples was that this led to their conversion to Christianity. That through these atrocities, many were converted and this insured salvation for their miserable souls. Further, that the exploitation of their lands and resources would be of greater benefit to the churches thereby glorifying the Christian god. For example, Europeans stole gold by the tons and used it to build up churches and religious icons. Thus, while destroying pagan gods and their icons, they created new graven images (ironically, in violation of bilbical law) for their own divinity. Such hypocrisy is without precedent in human history.


Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a good book to use to explore how writers from victimized societies discussed colonialism. In it Nwoye (the lead character's son), unlike others from the Igbo village, converts to Christianity. While the church offers "salvation" and a refuge from the ills of the world, the church pastor betrays him to the authorities. Instead of being a source of salvation, the colonialist church is a conspirator in the quest to enslave and exploit.


As Desmond Tutu said, "when colonialists came to Africa, we had the land, they had the Bible. When they left, they had the land, we had the Bible".

Achebe's book illustrates just that. Significantly, Hitler modeled his Nazi state from the Apartheid state which had preiously been enabled by Christian missionaries.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not into a teacher taking a pro-colonialist position either. However, that being said their is significant post-colonial literature that explores conflicting feelings about colonialism.

Solyinka's play Death and The King's Horseman explores the conflicting feelings of a Nigerian man who is the king's horseman and part of his duty after the king's death is to commit ritual suicide and die along with the king. However, the horseman in the play, set during British colonial rule, is conflicted about whether he wants to go through with the ceremony. Then the colonial forces decide to interfere with it as well. It is an interesting play for discussing the feelings of colonialized people about their older traditions in the face of new colonial cultural forces.

edit: This play requires a good deal of secondary study though because as a play produced for Nigerian audiences it assumes intimate knowledge of Nigerian culture.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thanks, I'll look into it.

And just to repeat, I wouldn't be advocating colnialism, if anyhing it would be the opposiite.

[Whifflingpin]

"Kipling is the only good author I can think of who wrote in a positive way about it. All the good books present colonialism in a negative light. One of my favorite is Maiba. It is a novel from Papua New Guinea. "

The good books about colonialism are probably not works of fiction, but government blue-books, or other factual accounts. "Road through Kurdistan" for instance, by A.M.Hamilton is a really good read describing the building of a road in the 1920s. It is not a tract for colonialism, just an account of a job well done.

I've not read Maiba, but I guess it might be quite interesting to compare and contrast it with "Some Experiences of a New Guinea Resident Magistrate," by Monckton.

[neilgee]

I've just been reading a Leonard Woolf biography. He was posted to Ceylon when it was a UK colony and his novel The Village in the Jungle is all about his experiences as a colonial administrator.

The strange thing is that the novel sold much better in Ceylon than it ever did in the UK. He was feted as a celebrity when he returned there for a nostalgic visit in his final years.

[Hank Stamper]

3) The mix of motives that drove colonial expansion (even modern-period colonialism) was much the same as the mix that drives any significant human effort, and the people involved in colonialism were, and are, just the same mix of people that are involved in anything else that is worthwhile.

More specific to modern colonialism
4) On the whole, where colonialism has advanced and receded (rather than advanced and stayed) it left countries in a better state than it found them. Of course that is arguable, but it means you can consider what is a "good state" - stability, freedom from want, justice & fairness, education - whatever.
5) The barbarism before and after colonialism was (is) worse than the barbarism committed during colonialism. Again arguable, but refer to specifics - India, clearly, has not descended into barbarism since the British left, but would any say that British Rhodesia was a worse place to live in the fifty years before independence than it has been, as Zimbabwe, in the fifty years since?

3. this statement is pretty contentious - 'modern' colonial expansion was driven by racist ideology (ie. the superiority of the colonisers) and the desire to exploit native land .. I fail to see how it is analogous to any human effort that can be considered 'worthwhile'

4. you're right, it is arguable - I wonder how many people who were victims of colonialism would agree that their country is in a better state now

5. "the barbarism before colonialism" - ah yes, weren't those savages lucky that we came along and civilised them