REQUEST FOR HELP: Colonialist Literature

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm going to school to be a a high school English teacher. In one of my current classes, we (it is a group project) have to construct a full, detailed unit of instruction. We decided to do ours on Colonialism (for a senior lit class). Our main piece of literature we will be using is Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart. But we need some other literature to supplement this, especially literature that portrays colonialism in a positive light since the final project will be a persuasive essay arguing for or against colonialism. We're looking mostly for short stories and poetry, but if there is a novel (a positive colonialist novel) that you feel must be included, we will look into it.

Thanks a lot for the help I know this awesome forum will provide!

(P.S. I didn't put this in the teaching section because I want it to get as much exposure as possible.)

[Modest Proposal]

Some people argue that some of Kipling's work defends colonialism, though the majority I would say does not, and I he wrote some great short stories and poetry.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Colonialism is an awfully general subject. It needs to be narrowed down. Narrow it down to a specific location; for example, Chinese colonialism, or British colonialism, or even American colonialism. You cannot possibly cover colonialism in one unit of instruction.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We're just introducing colonialism, not teaching a class on it. You could say that about any unit.

[Dinkleberry2010]

You're still going to have to narrow it down to give specific examples. You can't just say this: "Colonialism was bad--or good--because it blah blah blah." You're going to have to be specific about it; you're going to have to give examples. What examples will you choose to empasize? It's not going to work to just give out general statements about colonialism. You're going to have to define it, give specific examples of it, give specific effects of it, etc. It will not work to make general statements such as this: "Colonialism was bad because it exploited the native population of a certain area." That is too general. You're going to have to be specific--even in an introductory course.

[OrphanPip]

Um, Aphra Behn's Oroonoko is a pretty big one, and a short novel at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroonoko

It's not pro-colonialism, but it would probably fall into that genre of "noble savage" colonial literature. It centers around an African prince being taken as a slave to Surinam and leading a failed slave revolt. It is also a prominent example of an early English novel.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You're still going to have to narrow it down to give specific examples. You can't just say this: "Colonialism was bad--or good--because it blah blah blah." You're going to have to be specific about it; you're going to have to give examples. What examples will you choose to empasize? It's not going to work to just give out general statements about colonialism. You're going to have to define it, give specific examples of it, give specific effects of it, etc. It will not work to make general statements such as this: "Colonialism was bad because it exploited the native population of a certain area." That is too general. You're going to have to be specific--even in an introductory course.



We aren't going to just throw out general statements. We are going to present several different view points through different pieces of literature, if we can find them. We aren't going to tell them if it's good or bad, we let them argue a side in their papers. An estimate for the length of this unit will be about 6 weeks.

And thanks to those who made suggestions.

[Jeremydav]

You could always use some John Smith or William Bradford.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thanks. I'll check them out.

I know there has to be some more, and I know with the amount of knowledge the members of these boards have, there has to be some more ideas.

[mal4mac]

The Tempest - Shakespeare
Robinson Crusoe - Defoe

[PeterL]

The fun thing about concepts like colonialism is that they can be applied to anything, so you can just take anything at all and tell how it illustrates colonialism. Alice in Wonderland would work just fine.

[Il Penseroso]

Is it really appropriate to give them such a loaded question as "Has colonialism been good or bad?"?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Interesting idea, PeterL. May have to look into that one.

And, Il Penseroso, this is for seniors, not freshman, even though I don't think it would be too much of a loaded question for even them. I think we condescend to students way too much; in my opinion, not exposing students to ideas that have the possibility to question what they know, how they view the world, would ultimately be a disservice.

Now, if you just mean is the question "Is colonialism good or bad?" too vague, than yes, of course it is. I'm not going to hand out an assignment sheet to students, and that's all it says. It will be more like, "In your opinion, does colonialism produce more positive effects or more negative effects on the native land that is effected?" That is the roughest of rough drafts, and even that doesn't sound quite right. Plus, there would be guidance questions for them, as in what they should be thinking about when crafting their paper.

[Il Penseroso]

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? 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.

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. 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.

[Hank Stamper]

there is plenty of colonial literature that extolls the virtues of imperialism (one thinks of Kipling, Rider Haggard, etc) .. and in that sense they are 'positive', but only because they are written in the colonial era and from the colonialist perspective - however, it would be very difficult to read these texts today as a positive advert for colonialism and i would be very worried if you have any students arguing 'for' colonialism!

[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

[Modest Proposal]

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

To be fair, and for a while I've refrained from entering this argument, there is room for discussion though certainly not for reinstating colonialist agendas.

Rather than sarcastically linking any discussion to "savage" stereotyping, consider the issues of even a book as anti-colonialist as Things Fall Apart. Children are murdered to fulfill tribal responsibilities, women have little to no rights, twin babies are left in the forest because they are considered evil... there are lots of examples of things that Achebe attacks in his book that colonialists tried to change. Think about the classism that exists with the "untouchable" types that the church didn't distinguish between to the ire of the higher classes. This is not defending the WHOLE of colonialism or even suggesting that the good out-weighed the bad, but a discussion--again the important thing here is maturity without throwing around sarcastic phrases like "savages--. We on a literature website AT LEAST should believe in the good of discussing anything and not censoring.

For another good example read "Nervous Conditions". The book certainly denounces colonialism but does talk about many of the good things the colonials tried to do. Like Achebe, she was taught in a colonial school, if nothing else the literature we have from Africa, the voice given to the people in the global forum, is in many cases a result of colonialism.

Now if someone jumps in and says that "Modest is Racist" or "You think they're savages" there is no way to communicate. Lets try and be mature so we can discuss the complex nature of historical global politics in our world.

[Hank Stamper]

To be fair, and for a while I've refrained from entering this argument, there is room for discussion though certainly not for reinstating colonialist agendas.

Rather than sarcastically linking any discussion to "savage" stereotyping, consider the issues of even a book as anti-colonialist as Things Fall Apart. Children are murdered to fulfill tribal responsibilities, women have little to no rights, twin babies are left in the forest because they are considered evil... there are lots of examples of things that Achebe attacks in his book that colonialists tried to change. Think about the classism that exists with the "untouchable" types that the church didn't distinguish between to the ire of the higher classes. This is not defending the WHOLE of colonialism or even suggesting that the good out-weighed the bad, but a discussion--again the important thing here is maturity without throwing around sarcastic phrases like "savages--. We on a literature website AT LEAST should believe in the good of discussing anything and not censoring.

For another good example read "Nervous Conditions". The book certainly denounces colonialism but does talk about many of the good things the colonials tried to do. Like Achebe, she was taught in a colonial school, if nothing else the literature we have from Africa, the voice given to the people in the global forum, is in many cases a result of colonialism.

Now if someone jumps in and says that "Modest is Racist" or "You think they're savages" there is no way to communicate. Lets try and be mature so we can discuss the complex nature of historical global politics in our world.

you are free to discuss what you like, but to suggest that barbarism was ubiquitous prior to colonialism is wrong, and stinks of the kind of colonialist attitude that assumed all natives were 'savages', hence my response

however, i accept your charge of immaturity.. sarcasm is my burden

as for African literature (in the broadest sense) that 'we have' is indeed a result of colonialism, because most African writers 'we have' are writing in response to the colonial experience.. so should we give colonialism a pat on the back because it has produced some great African literature? that would suggest Africans would be incapable of producing great literature if colonialism hadn't come along with its bayonets and 'good' intentions and schools to teach them how to think like the colonialists (it's no coincidence that those African writers who have been given a voice, are those that have invariably received a Western education)

But you are right to point out Achebe's ambivalence towards tribalism, it is something that he is clearly uncomfortable with

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

To be fair, and for a while I've refrained from entering this argument, there is room for discussion though certainly not for reinstating colonialist agendas.

Rather than sarcastically linking any discussion to "savage" stereotyping, consider the issues of even a book as anti-colonialist as Things Fall Apart. Children are murdered to fulfill tribal responsibilities, women have little to no rights, twin babies are left in the forest because they are considered evil... there are lots of examples of things that Achebe attacks in his book that colonialists tried to change. Think about the classism that exists with the "untouchable" types that the church didn't distinguish between to the ire of the higher classes. This is not defending the WHOLE of colonialism or even suggesting that the good out-weighed the bad, but a discussion--again the important thing here is maturity without throwing around sarcastic phrases like "savages--. We on a literature website AT LEAST should believe in the good of discussing anything and not censoring.

For another good example read "Nervous Conditions". The book certainly denounces colonialism but does talk about many of the good things the colonials tried to do. Like Achebe, she was taught in a colonial school, if nothing else the literature we have from Africa, the voice given to the people in the global forum, is in many cases a result of colonialism.

Now if someone jumps in and says that "Modest is Racist" or "You think they're savages" there is no way to communicate. Lets try and be mature so we can discuss the complex nature of historical global politics in our world.

This is what I thought about Things Fall Apart. There is no doubt that overall, Achebe does not give a favorable view of colonialism, but he doesn't make the natives perfect by any stretch. Unlike the countless stories of natives being noble and without fault, he shows the bad side of them, too, as in the aspects you mentioned. Even the main character is not a good person; Okonkwo is a violent, misogynistic, and abusive person. That this is the symbol Achebe uses to to represent the ideologies and people of this native tribe does not speak for highly of said tribe.

And I will be reading Nervous Conditions later on in the semester, which I'm looking forward to.

[Il Penseroso]

Portraying native African tribes for what they were and defending the actual process of colonialism are vastly different. Yes, Achebe demonstrates a more complex understanding of his African heritage than the simplistic "noble savage" perspective, but that doesn't mean he viewed colonialism's exploitation favorably.

You could have them read the great French champion of modern liberalism, Ernest Renan:


Nature has made a race of workers, the Chinese race, who have wonderful manual dexterity and almost no sense of honor...A race of tillers of the soil, the Negro; treat him with kindness and humanity, and all will be as it should; a race of masters and soldiers, the European race. Reduce this noble race to working in the ergastulum like Negros and Chinese, and they rebel... But the life at which our workers rebel would make a Chinese or a fellah happy, as they are not military creatures in the least. Let each one do what he is made for, and all will be well.

[Modest Proposal]

Portraying native African tribes for what they were and defending the actual process of colonialism are vastly different. Yes, Achebe demonstrates a more complex understanding of his African heritage than the simplistic "noble savage" perspective, but that doesn't mean he viewed colonialism's exploitation favorably.

I agree with your perspective completely. I was under the impression that the students in the class spoken of would 'discuss' the complex issue of colonialism rather than just say: good or evil.

In my mind this is exactly the value of good literature, to discuss complex ideas, empowering a plurality of--even contradictory--ideas. It is ridiculous to act as if no colonized country ever received any advantage from a colonizer. Of course, everyone has agreed that colonization as a whole and even in every particular historical instance has been overall negative, but the exchanging of ideas and proliferation of sciences, practices, values and cultural ideas has been what has pushed forward human understanding of the universe. Ancient, ancient movements of conquering tribes in almost every continent has helped spread life extending and enriching practices since the agricultural age. Again, no one here is defending colonialism, I thought we were helping the students understand what it means to be mature thinkers and careful discerners, not just training a congregation.

I hope we all see the difference between applauding or even justifying historic events--and yes EVERY historical event has had its bad effects; think of the tens of thousands killed in the vacuum left when the Brits left India-and discussing their complicated effects.

As to the poster who again set up the straw man in implying that some of the posters were maintaining the "ubiquity" of "barbarousness", I did not initially respond because this is exactly the type of religious dogmatism that disables fruitful discussion rather than encourages it. However, I would like to say now that this is exactly what students do not need: namely, preaching. Teach students to think critically and read to eliminate ignorance. If you really believe your ideals are correct than someone taught to think will come to them naturally without having to just believe what they are trained to parrot.

[Il Penseroso]

I agree with your perspective completely. I was under the impression that the students in the class spoken of would 'discuss' the complex issue of colonialism rather than just say: good or evil.


Thank you for your agreement :)

The assignment as described above said that the students would argue, in their own opinion, essentially just this black and white approach as the final assessment of their learning. In order for students (who we must admit will not regularly provide rational responses integrating multifaceted viewpoints we all might like to see) to argue in favor of colonialism, they would have to disregard overwhelmingly negative aspects of colonialism's reality, such as the physical, mental, and spiritual torture inflicted on native populations.

I still maintain that, despite my fondness for complexity and aversion to oversimplification, colonialism was predominantly evil. Giving students the instructions to choose to argue in favor of that seems like a horrible way to teach global citizenry.

My idea for a more authentic and productive assessment practice would be to have students take lessons learned from their study and discussion of the literature of colonialism and apply them to current events, with recommendations for how to improve upon the past.

As Aime Cesaire wrote in his "Discourse on Colonialism," communication between groups of people is a wonderful thing, but in the case of colonialism as it was generally practiced, two-sided communication did not occur; instead, so much of what could have benefitted today's society from the colonized was forgotten or destroyed, at least temporarily.

[myrna22]

Try:

The Flame Trees of Thika: Memories of an African Childhood, by Elspeth Huxley

and

Out of Africa, by Isak Denison


Neither is fiction, but read as if they are. Very interesting and well written accounts of colonial culture in Africa.

I've read Things Fall Apart (Achebe). It is fiction. The above two non-fiction books are as readable and entertaining as Things Fall Apart, in fact, much more so, in my opinion. They are not favorable or unfavorable regarding colonialism, but they do depict if from the colonialist's point of view, people who don't see that what they are doing is exploiting or raping the continent. They see themselves as pioneers, homesteaders, essentially. Not unlike the American pioneers who spread out across North America.

[janesmith]

I have previously studied Achebe's novel from a post-colonial perspective at BA level but I suppose it might work from a colonial aspect as well.

I think it might be extremely difficult to find a text which represents colonialism in a positive light.

Good luck!

[wat??]

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.


Is this some sort of joke?

[Whifflingpin]

Whiff: "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. "

Wat?? "Is this some sort of joke?"

Not at all - It is perfectly legitimate to ask "What was the state of Xland before it was colonised? What was its state at the end of colonial rule? What is its state now?"
It is fair to question whether any of the changes that occurred during colonial rule were due to the colonial rule or whether they would have happened anyway. It is fair to consider whether colonial rule was not better for the majority of Xland's inhabitants than the home rule that replaced it.

The answers will be different, depending on the country.
Of course, to discuss it rationally, one would have to discard that racism which is the fundamental basis of anti-colonialism, i.e the notion that only an Xlander can possibly do anything good for Xland.

Where colonialism has advanced and stayed, the questions are slightly different - what would Banff, Canada, be if it had never been colonised?

[hellsapoppin]

The colonialist experience existed in every part of the Third World. Here's a blurb from Bharati Mukherjee's The Tree Bride which tells much about her views on British cultural imperialism:

Everything about my convent-school education ... trained me for one certainty: We could trust English models. Those models might be cranky and blustery, but they embodied a notion of fair play and scholarship we could well emulate. The British were the most reliable source of knowledge about ourselves, because they lifted us from the deep slumber of decadence, they injected us with the spirit of inquiry and reverence for art and culture and fair play ...

pp 48,49


To this day, cultural imperialists and racists continue to believe this horses**t.

[kelby_lake]

Although the course has already been taught by now, the question that I had when reading this thread is: "How are literature students qualified to say whether colonialism was good or bad?" It's a literature class, not a political history class. All they can do is discuss how colonialism is portrayed in literature.

Yes, their personal views on colonialism might be interesting, but their politics does not have anything to do with the portrayal of colonialism in literature.