REQUEST FOR HELP: Colonialist Literature

[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.