Thursday, March 1, 2007
Discourse on Colonialism - Appreciation of Humanities
After reading Aime Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism, reflect on the following question or paradox that will thus guide your comments: how it is that Western ideas about universal humanity (which eventually led to modern ideas of human rights) emerged historically alongside Western imperialism, racism, and the like? How Western imperial powers, and the peoples they colonized, conceptualized the nature of humanity and human difference, and second, how these ideas took shape in structuring colonial societies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
First let us identify what universal humanity truly is. Universal means characteristic of all or the whole and humanity means all human beings collectively. So if we put these two terms together we get human beings as a whole. So what are these “Western ideas” of this universal humanity? Take one of the founding documents of our country, the Declaration of Independence. It stands for some of the universal rights that we, the “western world”, hold to be true. These are the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This basically says that everyone is equal and can do what he or she likes. Of course at the time it was written, it did not include all people. But now we have applied these rights universally. They are considered a right of birth. These are just some of the standards we as the western world expect, but may not always apply.
Now as I stated these rights were only endowed to the “western world” not given to all. The start of western imperialism and racism was the European race for who could discover and claim the most land. This starts the feeling of superiority of “white man” and white man’s burden. The white man’s burden was to “civilize” the natives of their territories. There were only two choices. Either give in to the white man and be lower or to become westernized as Japan did to protect it from becoming the white man’s burden.
Alyssa, you make a very good point about the Declaration establishing some universal rights. There's also a document by the U.N. that establishes other universal rights. I can't remember the name of it but I'll look it up later. I think it is important to make it clear that these documents only affect some countries. For example, we don't seem all that concerned with supporting the Declaration when it comes to the war in Iraq. What the “Discourse on Colonialism” wants to get across on the subject of the paradox is unclear. Historically, we know that the reason why a society that gave birth to democracy could also be racist is because they viewed non-Christians as less than human. While this is an awful belief, it is sadly true. African slaves in America were only counted as one third of a human in the census. Some African slaves converted to Christianity with hopes that their owners would free them because the Bible (apparently) says that Christians can not own another Christian. When people first went to Africa, they had never seen anyone with such dark skin before and were probably confused by the difference. Seeing someone who is different from you for the first time can be quite shocking. Admittedly, the culture of Africa was incredibly different that European culture. It can be argued that Africans actually were more civilized than Europeans. It is probably that great difference in complexion, as well as the language barrier, that lead the Europeans to have a belief that Africans were not human. And as we all know, most humans are incredibly stubborn by nature and refuse to admit their mistakes. So by the time Europeans realized that the Africans were human, they owned too many of them to change their mind. It would have crushed most economies. I once saw a documentary about how America would never have become a country, much less the country it is today, without the work of the African slaves. This in no way justifies slavery; however it needs to be said. The society that began democracy could also have racism because humans are naturally hypocrites. Every human says some idea that they can not support by action. For example, the parents in Guess Who’s Coming for Dinner had obviously taught their daughter that race doesn’t matter, however when their daughter brought home a black fiancé, they panicked. This does not mean that you should always assume that people are lying about their beliefs, it just means that you should take everything with a healthy bit of skepticism. By the way, I refuse to believe that the only reason that we are outraged by the Holocaust is because we were “embarrassed” about it happening in our “backyard.” I believe that we are outraged that so many people died before we tried to stop it.
It is very weird that the western world believes in human rights but somehow does not apply them to their territories. The real thing is cause and effect. If you are a nation and you have a majority of people protesting because of their rights are being encroached upon. It is more of an immediate concern for a people to settle disputes in its own country then in its territories. Also, if all the people in the territory came together and protested, did not work and rioted, they would have over thrown the “landlords”. They have the power in their hands to change the situation. I understand it was a new experience but they out numbered the landlords, they could have easily put the landlord back in their place or at least make a compromise.
There are choices that have to be made, the western world can not make it for everyone. There is a relationship between countries that they will help but if you just hand over what ever the country wants they never learn how to do it them selves. It is like you can give a man a fish he will eat for a day but if you teach a man to fish he will have food for his whole life. We are trying to make countries more self-dependent that way if the build up them selves they will prove themselves as something to contend with.
Throughout history, matters have been unfair. In this case the unfair matter is colonialism. The idea is not only unfair but also every ironic and hypocritical when put into perspective. European powers believed that that they had the right to takeover another country, yet if it was the other around, they saw it wrong. To a certain extent I agree with Aime Cesaire and what he writes in his Discourse on Colonialism.
As “Cheryl” stated before me, Europeans went against almost all of their own rules and colonized much of the rest of the world. Despite having thought up all those Humanist and “Enlightment” ideas, the Europeans virtually spit on their own philosophy. However, many might argue that colonization went right in arm with the new ideas.
A big part of the European philosophy was that people should try to improve society. Thus, one justification for colonization was that the Europeans came there to “improve” the lives of the “uncivilized” people. Missionaries were sent out first, in order to put the people on the right track of faith. Along with Christianity came industry. This was either part of a very blind and idealistic plan to make the world into what they wanted it to be or just a lie covering up the truth. The idea that one can change the world to fit their view is stupid. Most of the people in charge of the Europeans powers, I believe, were too educated and smart to believe in this. Therefore, I believe, the real ideas behind colonialism are plainly greed for money and power.
No matter how sad it may seem, there is a lot of evil in the world. Colonialism was part of this evil. If one thinks about what colonialism was really about, they will notice that it was all about making a profit. Converting people to Christianity made them easier to control and the harsh treatment that many received kept the people in fear (another way to control someone.) After gaining control of someone, one can do almost anything with them. The Europeans put them to work. The work was very unfair itself, in many cases it came in the form of slavery, if not slavery, than close to it.
More support for my opinion is the way the current world is set up. Despite all the “work” that the West did to “civilize” their colonies, most former colonies still lag behind in development. Is this not obvious proof that European powers exploited their colonies? In fact, many former colonies, now dubbed as developing countries, still depend on their former colonizer for survival.
Colonialism was an evil misuse and mistreatment of humans, and the result of human greed. Its effects can still be felt today and it will be long before the harm brought upon from colonialism is corrected.
Even though the Europeans imperialized and colonized other nations, they still had an enormous impact on these cultures. During slavery, when the colonists invaded Africa, they also introduced new ideas and influences to the Africans. In “Sankofa,” Joe, an African slave, was introduced to the Catholicism and had to decide between staying loyal to his culture and becoming westernized. The Catholic pastor that offered advice to Joe throughout the movie told him that since, his mother, Nunu did not appreciate “their” God and was possessed by the devil, he must fight against her. The pastor even told him that the Africans that did not believe in Catholicism were “savages,” causing him to create assumptions and misconceptions of his own culture. Joe drank a potion that was given to him and walked to the river and almost drowned, yet when Nunu came to him, he remembered that the priest told him that she was trying to corrupt his mind, and he then killed her. Once he drowned his mother, Joe walked to the church with his mother’s dead body and killed the priest because he realized that he was wrong. Even though many people received negative influences from the Europeans, the colonists still affected the viewpoints and ideas of other nations and cultures, which resulted in universal humanity and human rights.
Throughout history, Europeans have imperialized many colonies that they believed were “uncivilized” and “primitive”. According to their point of view, they wanted to help other cultures that were otherwise suffering as an “unorganized” society. Yet, Europeans would often force their own laws and regulations on the colonies and harm and kill those who did not follow their way of a civilized culture. When Adolf Hitler reigned over Germany throughout the 1900s, he killed many Jews, Christians, and African Americans. The Europeans believed that it was crude and evil to harm one another, since they were not affected by the cruelty. However, when the Europeans imperialized and colonized other nations, they believed that they were benefiting these cultures with the regulations of a civilized society, instead of harming them.
Although Europeans imperialized other nations and forced regulations upon them, other cultures would often gain influence from these laws. Since they were learning about European viewpoints, they gained knowledge of human rights and universal humanity. Many philosophers, such as, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, influenced the idea of inalienable human rights, which included, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the United States Constitution was ratified, human rights, also known as the Bill of Rights, was introduced and spread throughout the country. Even though other cultures were imperialized by the Europeans, these nations learned about their natural rights and other ideas that would influence their own views on society and how they should function.
Western ideas about universal humanity arrived alongside Western imperialism and racism in the same way imperialism and racism came to be. The Western civilization went about constructing this idea of universal humanity based on one thing; paternalism. Although Western civilizations would never admit that they acted in paternalistic ways when colonizing, that is how it worked. Western societies say, they went to certain countries in order to give the people a better understanding of life, the life that Westerners accepted. Paternalism was the “humanitarian” reason for colonization. The Western civilization viewed themselves as superior to all others. To me, this contradicts the idea of universal humanity. Alyssa provided an excellent definition of universal humanity and for one civilization to think that they are superior to others and still have teachings on universal humanity is quite the paradox.
Western imperialists and those they colonized did not really conceptualize in the sense that those who were colonized, had someone else’s concept of humanity thrust upon them. In From Discourse on Colonialism, Césaire refers to a book by Renan titled La Réforme intellectuelle et morale in which Renan basically states even those who are not infamous or influential believed that everyone has a set place in society. I think what both Renan and Césaire were trying to say is that the imperial powers thrust the idea of themselves being superior on those they had colonized and the colonized has no choice but to go along with it because that’s what nature of humanity was to them. Because the imperialists were the supreme power, whatever they said went and because they said that the colonized were to believe in what the superiors believed in, that is was the colonized had to do.
The idea of colonizers being the supreme power next to God shaped the structure of colonial societies. The imperialists believed that although they had conquered and colonized the lands; the lands were still places of violent activity. Imperialists began to look at colonies as a “safety valve”, a place to throw all the criminals from the their country while still having them be subjects of whatever crown they are under. England and Australia is a great example of an imperialist nation and a safety valve colony. England shipped all their criminals and wrongdoers over to Australia, which was, at the time an English colony. Césaire believes that the colonial consists not of culture or security. He believes that the colonial society is and will always be a face off between colonizers and colonized. He believes that there will always be “relations of domination and submission which turn the colonizing man into a classroom monitor, an army sergeant, a prison guard, a slave driver, and the indigenous man into an instrument of production” (177). Basically, there is no room nor tolerance for equality between the colonizer and the colonized in the colonial society.
If we, the students, are operating under the assumption that the idea of human rights began in the “west”, with people like Locke, during the time of rampant colonialism and utter disregard for humanity, I’m sorry to say, but we are brainwashed.
As most people believe, humanity started in Africa. Then, these early humans migrated north following their Mammoths, and commenced to populate the Earth. So, as most of us know, before Europe was the big powerhouse that it’s been for so long, it was nothing. And, around that time, when Europe was nothing, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia were BIG. They were huge! Remember Mesopotamia? Bantu? Zimbabwe? Sumer? Ur? Gilgamesh and Humbaba? Egypt? China? India? I could go on all night. All these guys (and girls) were innovators. They started human rights. Buddha! He was big on human rights. Hamurabi! He had a code of conduct which laid groundwork for many modern humanitarian laws. Asoka? His whole kingdom was based on compassion for all living beings (so he not only started human rights, but also PETA, and arguably, veganism).
Yet, we still, strangely associate all this stuff to Europeans. You see the link? Europe was only able to get to its current state of power by climbing on the backs of the giants that were Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas. While Europe climbed on the backs of these continents, replete with people being squashed by Europe’s unhealthy weight, the once proud and intimidating civilizations that stood tall, barely stood; and the people, barely survived.
I like Aimé Césaire, he’s a smart guy. He knows history, and he knows how to frame an argument. In response to Cheryl, I believe his comparison between the holocaust and colonialism was well thought out. Now, I understand your point, and you could be right. Maybe, the only reason most people are more outraged about the holocaust than the millions slaughtered in the Americas between 1492-1500 by Columbus, is because there is actual film, and photographical representations of the atrocities of genocide. We don’t get those anywhere else. Nowhere else in the world, will you find an extermination of a people documented with footage and photography. Or, maybe Césaire is right, and the European on European slavery, genocide, and de-humanization really gave the Europeans a shock.
If u spin a globe, then try and stop it with your finger, any place you land on (except Antarctica) has had some sort of genocide happen. That’s pretty sickening. Australia, for example, Aborigines were all wiped out, except for four young women, who were brutally raped, and to whom, all surviving Aborigines are related! True story! The English colonizers would stick infants in the ground, with their heads sticking out, and have contest to see who could kick a babies head the furthest. How inhuman can people be! The America’s, millions killed, civilizations destroyed, people fooled. Africa, millions dead and counting, thanks to imperialism. When will it end! I’m officially outraged!
PS: Read “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, it will blow your mind. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel, another mind blower. ALEX! YES! I agree with you response! YES! Whitney, yes.
Post a Comment