💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › chris-kortright-colonization-and-identity.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:37:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Colonization and Identity Author: Chris Kortright Language: en Topics: colonialism, history, identity, indigenous Source: Retrieved 1 January 2003 from http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/feraltowardswildness/coiden.html
Those who discovered and conquered other lands were entitled to them,
their riches, and their spoils. The conquered people could be treated as
slaves, banished to other lands, or assimilated into the society and
institutions of the conquering people — Vine Deloria, Jr. (1983)
The present global stratification and make-up has been dictated in
totality by the colonization and conquest of European nations. Although
direct colonialism has largely ended, we can see that the ideology of
colonialism has lingered in the identity of people within the general
cultural sphere as well as the institutions of political, economic, and
social practices. Colonization or the “colonial complex” is: (1)
colonization begins with a forced, involuntary entry; (2) the colonizing
power alters basically or destroys the indigenous culture; (3) members
of the colonized group tends to be governed by representatives of the
dominate group; and (4) the system of dominant-subordinate relationship
is buttressed by a racist ideology. (Marger, 2000:132) This process has
created the identities of both the colonized and the colonizer with
pathological effects. It has destroyed both the lives and the cultures
of the colonized and implanted a culture of destruction upon all
inhabitants, both the colonized and the colonizer. There are two reasons
for exploring the pathology of colonization. First we must understand
the creation of the present social, political and economic dichotomy we
face, but more importantly we must understand the psychological problems
created by colonization, so we as humans can deconstruct the present
Leviathan we live in and create a world based on cultural diversity,
liberty, and mutual aid.
Colonization is based on the doctrine of cultural hierarchy and
supremacy. The theory of colonialism is the domination by a metropolitan
center which rules a distant territory through the implanting of
settlements. It is the establishment and control of a territory, for an
extended period of time, by a sovereign power over a subordinate and
“other” people which are segregated and separated from the ruling power.
Features of the colonial situation include political and legal
domination over the “other” society, relations of economic and political
dependance, and institutionalized racial and cultural inequalities. To
impose their dominance physical force through raids, expropriation of
labor and resources, imprisonment, and objective murders; enslavement of
both the indigenous people and their land is the primary objective of
colonization.
Another technique used to subdue the native population is the sacking of
cultural patterns; these cultural values are stripped, crushed and
emptied. The colonialists see their culture as a superior culture;
usually tied to either Cultural Evolutionary or Social Darwinist
theories. In an attempt to control, reap economic benefits, and
“civilize” the indigenous peoples the colonialist dismantle the native
cultures by imposing their own. There is a destruction of the cultural
values and ways of life. Languages, dress, techniques are defined and
constructed through the ideology and values of the colonialist. Setting
up the colonial system does not destroy the native culture in itself;
the culture once fluid, alive and open to the future becomes classified,
defined and confined through the interpretation, imposed oppression, and
values of the colonialist system. At this point the native culture turns
against its members and is used to devalue and define the identity of
the native population.
Their constant and very justified ambition is to escape from their
colonized condition, an additional burden in an already oppressive
status. To that end, they endeavor to resemble the colonizer in the
frank hope that he may cease to consider them different from him. Hence
their efforts to forget the past, to change collective habits, and their
enthusiastic adoption of Western language, culture and customs. (Memmi,
1965:15)
Human History is rooted in the earth, everything is centered around or
is connected to our use of land and territory. This has meant that much
of human activities has revolved around the territory they live in and
extract resources from. This has lead some cultures to desire more land
and obtain new territory; therefore they must deal with the indigenous
peoples of that land. At a very basic level colonialism is the desire
for, settling on, and controlling of land that a culture does not
posses; land that is lived on an owned by other people. Edward Said
points out the rate at which Europe acquired lands at the end of their
colonial reign.
Consider that in 1800 Western powers claimed 55 percent but actually
held approximately 35 percent of the earth’s surface, and that by 1878
the proportion was 67 percent, a rate of 83,000 square miles per year.
By 1914, the annual rate had risen to an astonishing 240,000 square
miles, and Europe held a grand total of roughly 85 percent of the earth
as colonies, protectorates, dependencies, dominions, and commonwealths.
(Said, 1993:8)
It was not only the acquisition of land that drove colonialism, but
there was also a desire for natural resources and labor. The colonialist
countries needed raw materials to support their growing economies.
Places such as the Americas and Africa offered natural resources they
could utilize for manufacturing — as well as opened up new markets to
sell their goods. Political structures of the colonial countries both
economically and militaristically backed the establishment and
maintenance of the colonies, but it can not be ignored that a high
percentage of the funding for the colonies were provided by emerging
capitalists; the Europeans extended their power by promoting merchant
houses and chartered companies. In settler colonies like Kenya and
Mozambique, there was a plantation-based export-commodity production of
products like cotton, tea, coffee and sugar. Places like South Africa
and Zaire were exploited for their gold and diamond mines. For the
economies of the colonialist states the resources were harvested by the
native populations (either through direct slavey or extreme
wage-slavery).
“The colonial situation manufactures colonialists, just as it
manufactures the colonized (Memmi, 1965:56).” If we are to look at how
colonization created the identities of both the colonized and the
colonizer, we must recognize that historical situations are created by
people, but people are in turn created by these situations. The way a
person sees the world, both geographically and culturally, is dictated
by their abstract understanding of the world. Although culture does
exist as a tangible entity, it is the abstract ideologies of comparison
between cultures that create cultural identities situated in social,
economic, and political hierarchies. It is in this abstract world of
ideas that the colonizer, by creating the “other” which was to be
colonized, created his own identity in opposition to that of the
colonized. (Said, 2000:71–74)
The colonist who was either born in the colony or traveled there to
better himself economically (often those who traveled and established
themselves in a colony were from poor or working class backgrounds; only
in the colony did they have a chance to make something of themselves)
and embraces the colonial structure in which he was, in his eyes,
entitled to was obviously the majority of the colonists. By accepting
the role of the colonizer, he accepted the responsibility and identity
of both himself and the colonized. Although the colonized are an
interracial and necessary economic part of the colony, the colonizer
must disown the colonized and defend his identity both intellectually
and physically. He must accept the violence and poverty he sees daily;
it is his job to rationalize the actions of himself and fellow
colonialists because he needs to absolve himself of the atrocities
committed in the name of economic and cultural superiority.
This man, perhaps a warm friend and affectionate father, who in his
native country (by his social condition, his family environment, his
natural friendships) could have been a democrat, will surely be
transformed into a conservative, reactionary, or even colonial fascist.
He cannot help but approve discrimination and codification of injustice,
he will be delighted at police tortures and, if the necessity arises,
will become convinced of the necessity of massacres. (Memmi, 1965:55–56)
The contradiction of his lifestyle, even with the economic benefits and
cultural justifications, takes a tool on his psyche. Deep down inside
himself he lives with the knowledge of his actions, and no matter how
much he justifies or rationalizes his behavior the colonist pleads
guilty. But a person cannot live with such contradictions, and thus the
colonist creates an identity to defend his actions. It is at this point
that he creates the image of the colonist as a humanitarian, who just
happens to gain economic benefit. In his eyes he is bringing
“civilization” to the “savages.” As Social Evolutionary Theory teaches
the colonialist; all cultures evolve into centralized industrial
nations. He is helping these “backward’ countries reach their
evolutionary goal. He is bringing high civilization to them, and yes
there is some hardship, but evolution is rough; if the natives would
just stop resisting this natural process and abandon their traditional
ways, they could learn to live the right way.
At the core of the colonizer is his privilege, some individuals born or
traveled to the colonies felt overt guilt for this privilege. At first
they deny such privilege, but when it is in their face daily it can no
longer be ignored; at this point they try to resist, but to do so would
be to give up their privilege. He finds himself on the other side of the
scale from the colonized. If his living standards are high, it is only
because the colonized live in poverty. He has positions of authority
because these positions are reserved for him. To refuse means to either
withdraw physically from the colonial condition or remain there and
fight to change them.
The choice to stay and fight puts the colonizer into a life of
contradiction; he is now at odds with his country men, and cannot easily
escape mentally from the concrete situations and ideology that make up
the actual relationships of the colony. This contradiction deprives him
of all coherence and tranquillity of his identity. He finds that it is
one thing to refuse colonization, but it is quite another to accept the
colonized and be accepted by them because who can completely rid
themselves of bigotry in a country and system founded on such a
principle. No matter how genuine he is, there remains a fundamental
difference between himself and the colonized. “In other words, either he
no longer recognizes the colonized, or he no longer recognizes himself
(Memmi, 1965:32).” In resisting he is aiding the birth of a social order
which may not have room for him.
He dreams of a new social order were the colonized stop being colonized,
but he does not see a transformation of his own situation and identity.
In the new harmonious social order he will continue being who he is,
with his language intact and his cultural traditions dominating because
though he hates the oppression of colonization he too buys the theories
of Social Evolution. In other words, he hopes to continue his identity
within the abstract concepts of the dominate culture with a situation
where the dominate culture would not exist. He calls for a revolution,
but refuses to conceive that this revolution would result in the
overthrow of his situation and identity. It is hard to imagine or
visualize one’s own end, even if it’s to be reborn as another;
especially if like the colonized, one can hardly evaluate such a
rebirth.
To justify the colonization of a people, images need to be created so
that the subjugation makes sense. These images become the identity of
the colonized. There are many images used, but one universal image that
has been put on native people is laziness. This image is a good example
of how the colonizer justifies his actions. This image becomes the
excuse for the colonial situation because without such images the
actions of the colonialist would appear shocking. The image of the lazy
native is a useful myth on many levels; it raises the colonizer and
humbles the colonized. It becomes a beautiful justification for the
colonizer’s privilege. The image is that the colonized are unbearably
lazy; in contrast the colonizer is always in action. It implies that the
employment of the colonized is not very profitable, therefore justifying
the unbearable wages paid to them. The logical assertion would be that
colonization would profit more by employing experienced workers, but
this is not the case. The qualified worker, then comes from the
colonizer’s class; they then earn three to four times that of the
colonized. It is more profitable to use the labor of three of the
colonized and pay them less than what would be paid to one colonialist.
Therefore the colonialist becomes the specialist, and the colonized
become the laborers.
Dependancy Theory is when the colonizing states exploit their colonizing
regions that enhance their own development and accumulation of capital.
When wealth and resources are extracted from the colony, colonist stunts
the development or undo past development. This lack of development or
modernization is placed on the colonized as their failure to be able to
compete with the colonial state. What development that does occur is
then distorted by a dependancy relationship and creates both internal
and external problems to the local communities, thus creating an image
of inadequacy upon the colonized. The colonial states manipulate the
industrialization process in order to increase their profits, by
undermining the local autonomy of the native population. Often they
control supplies and resources available to the colonized community,
forcing them to produce cash-crops instead of food, then sell food at an
inflated price to the native population. This not only makes the
colonized dependent psychologically, but also dependent on the colonial
system for basic resources. If one adds that many Europeans go to the
colonies because it is possible for them to grow rich quickly there,
that with rare exceptions the colonial is a merchant, or rather a
trafficker, one will have grasped the psychology of the man who arouses
in the autochthonous population “the feeling of inferiority.” (Fanon,
1967:108)
The image of the settler and native village, although a physical reality
of habitation; there is a psychological distinction between the two, and
when we see this physical and mental connection, there is an
understanding of identity. The colonial world is really a Manichean
world, there is that of the native village and that of the settler’s
village. Between these two worlds are the policeman and the soldier,
they are the true officials and liaisons of the colonial system. The
dividing lines between these two separate worlds are the barricades,
barbed wire and police stations.
The settler town is strong; it is made of stone and steel, and the
streets are covered in asphalt. The town is brightly lit. The streets
are clean and the people are clean. They are all well clothed and well
feed. Education is a given in this world. “The settler’s town is
well-fed town, an easygoing town; its belly is always full of good
things. The settlers’ town is a town of white people, of foreigners.
(Fanon, 1963:39)
The native village, otherwise known as the shanty-town, getto, or
reservation, is an infamous place throughout the colony. The colonized
are born there, and die there with no notice or thought given to them.
It is rarely open, the space is cramped and stifling (both mentally and
physically.) The people live on top of each other, hungry, malnourished,
barely clothed. There are next to no streetlights and darkness is not
only a physical but psychological reality. The walls that are built to
keep the natives out of the settler town, in fact keep them in the
squaller of the native town. There is no way out of this village. The
barbed wire and lack of education, hand in hand with skin color, makes
sure the doors are closed and the colonized stay in their village. “The
native town is a crouching village, a town on its knees, a town
wallowing in the mire.” (Fanon, 1963:39)
“The crux of the matter rests, not merely in the resistance to the
predatory nature of the present Eurocentric status quo, but in
conceiving viable sociocultural alternatives (Churchill, 1996:31).”
Most decolonization theory is solely focused on the decolonization of
the colonized. There is a necessary reason for this. The issue of
colonization and the atrocities committed by the colonists towards the
colonized is no less than cultural and physical genocide, but as Frantz
Fanon discusses in The Wrenched of the Earth, there is no way to return
to a pristine/pre-colonial time, so the only way to change the
stratification of the post-colonial world is through decolonization. But
this decolonization cannot just be of the colonized, this process must
be also of the colonizer. White people need to deconstruct their culture
and ideologies because the stratification is founded and maintained in
our hegemony in regards of this culture of colonization.
The new relationships are not the result of one barbarism replacing
another barbarism, of one crushing of man replacing another crushing of
man. What we Algerians want is to discover the man behind the colonizer;
this man who is both the organizer and the victim of a system that has
chocked him and and reduced him to silence. As for us, we have long
sense rehabilitated the Algerian colonized man. We have wrenched the
Algerian man from a centuries-old and implacable oppression. We have
risen to our feet and we are now moving forward. Who can settle us back
in servitude? (Fanon, 1965:32)
The key to decolonization is a conscious act of cultural revitalization.
There needs to be a rebirth of cultures dismantled during colonialism.
The cultures of colonized and traditional people need to teach this
culture lessons of the past. In this I don’t mean teach the Eurocentric
power structure the mistakes of their past, but the teaching of
traditional knowledge, values and lifestyles. This also means returning
stolen lands and creating relations that are not based on white
privilege. In a very real sense, we need to overthrow our own existence
to be reborn, in the sense that Memmi speaks of. “Only in that way can
we transcend the half millennium of culture shock brought about by the
confrontation with Western civilization. When we leave the culture shock
behind we will be masters of our own fate again and be able to determine
for ourselves what kind of lives we will lead.” (Deloria, 1999:153)
With understanding of political, economic and cultural knowledge of
traditional culture, white people can break away from the pathology
created with colonization and live in a culturally diverse society; one
in which we live under a new cultural understanding in solidarity with
those living within their traditional cultural ways. “I may say that I
believe such an agenda, which I call ‘indigents,’ can and will attract
real friends, real allies, and offer real alternatives to both marxism
and capitalism. What will result, in my view, is the emergence of a
movement predicated on the principles of what are termed ‘deep ecology,’
‘soft-path technology,’ ‘anarchism,’ and global ‘balkanization.’”
(Churchill, 1996:480) This traditional knowledge offers us a way out of
the stratification and poverty, both economically and psychological,
that we face to day. It is a starting point to destroying the structures
established by colonial ideologies, and creating a society based on
equality, liberty, and mutual aid.
Justice. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983
Woadsworth, 2000
1965
books, 1987
Press, 1983
1995
Lights Books, 1998
1967 Glendinning, Chellis Off the Map. Boston: Shambala, 1999
1997
Book, 1966
anti-copyright