The Global Impact of Colonialism: Past and Present Perspectives

Introduction

Over the centuries, countries have sought to expand their spheres of influence, whether politically, economically, or socially. With the advent of technological advances such as the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, colonial endeavors intensified as the world became increasingly interconnected. Countries were no longer confined to their neighboring territories as steam power reduced the distances to far-flung countries and increased their manufacturing output. In this essay, colonization would refer to the process of subjugation by European powers in other parts of the world, notably in Africa and Asia, occurring mainly between the 18th and 20th century. Although direct colonialism largely ended in the wake of nationalist uprisings post-World War Two, the legacy of colonialism lingers to this day for both colonizers and the colonized.

In this essay, I will refer to several authors who attempt to move away from viewing colonialization through political and economic frameworks, mainly Ashis Nandy, Mahmood Mamdani, and Frantz Fanon. I will delineate the ramifications of colonialism on identity, discuss the legal quandaries of colonialism on race and ethnicity, and finally debate the various means for colonies to dismantle these shackles of their colonial legacy.

Edward Said

In his seminal work Orientalism, Edward Said posits that “European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self” (Said 3). Said argues that this Otherisation occurred on the basis of “a relationship of European power, of domination, of varying degrees of a complex hegemony” (Said 5) and that Orientalist discourse has built its foundation from “nothing more than a structure of lies or of myths… that enables socio-economic and political institutions” (Said 6). Consequently, this allowed the colonizers to prescribe colonized communities with certain identities analogous to the outcasts or marginalized in Western society, such as “delinquents, the insane, women, the poor” (Said 207). By imagining the inhabitants of their colonies with these powerless characteristics, European powers were then able to justify their dominance.

Ashis Nandy

I believe that Ashis Nandy largely agrees with Said’s argument of Otherisation. Nandy also introduces a psychological lens to evaluate the relationships between colonized and colonizers, asserting in The Intimate Enemy that “colonialism is also a psychological state” (Nandy 2). According to Nandy, colonial ideology structured itself through relationships that privileged the colonizers along age and gendered lines – creating new identities for both colonized and colonizer. For Nandy, “political and socio-economic dominance symbolized the dominance of men and masculinity over women and femininity' (Nandy 4). Hence, the British delegitimized female power, as well as enforced binary ideas of gender in India, supplanting and erasing the concept of ‘hermaphrodite’ and ‘androgynous’ identities. (Nandy 8). He also argues that colonizers made “parallels between “primitivism and childhood”, which enabled them to justify their ‘civilizing mission’ of educating the savage, ignorant natives. These binary distinctions are also explored by Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth, where Fanon critiques colonialism as a “world compartmentalized, Manichaean, and petrified” in their inscribed identities (Fanon 15). However, Nandy appears to ignore existing discrimination in pre-colonial India. To what extent was sexism and ageism wholly imported from Europe? How did European perceptions of sex and age complicate prevailing prejudices?

Crucially, Nandy also contends that colonial relationships also negatively affected the identities of the colonizers. By portraying themselves as the hyper-masculine adult in the colonized relationship, this “brought into prominence … parts of the British political culture which were lest tender and humane” (Nandy 32). Nandy states that colonialism fostered a sense of feminine repression and a tacit acceptance of “violence and ruthless Social Darwinism” (Nandy 32) in British culture. Similarly, Aimé Césaire agrees that colonisation has “decivilized the colonizer”, awakening the “buried instincts…of covetousness, violence, race hatred, and moral relativism” (Césaire 2). He repeatedly refers to the hypocrisy of Western Enlightenment in advancing equality, but equality with a caveat – applicable only to ‘superior races’. Likewise, George Orwell details the inner struggle of a British officer stationed in Burma in fulfilling these expectations of strength and power in his in his essay “Shooting the Elephant”. I believe that Orwell criticises this performative aspect of colonisation, essentially concurring with Nandy that the British have internalised their colonial roles of domination to their own detriment – “When the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (Orwell 152).

Furthermore, Nandy also notes that colonialism promoted a “false sense of 'cultural homogeneity' and allowed the authorities to elide class and cultural differences within British society when positioned against the ‘Other’. Eventually, colonialism entrenched feelings of superiority outside of the British political sphere, evolving into “religious and ethical theory” that further justified their colonial agenda.

Mahmood Mamdani

While Said and Nandy focus on the legacy of colonialism in ‘imagined identities’ (based on personality traits and psychological viewpoints), Mahmood Mamdani proposes that colonialism and its harmful effects lives on in the remnant political institutions of past colonies. Mamdani particularly emphases the quandaries of legal rights that distinguish between ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ as “colonial law made a fundamental distinction between two types of persons: those indigenous and those not indigenous, in a word, native and nonnatives” (Mamdani 652). I think that Mamdani seems to accept Nandy’s argument that colonialism developed from sexism and ageism – he points out that the colonizers erased other pre-colonial ‘customary authorities’ such as “age groups, clans, women’s groups…”. By privileging the “authoritarian version of custom as ‘genuine’, Mamdani argues that colonizers reorganized native societies into an “unchanging and singular” despotic system (Mamdani 655), which further complicated race and ethnic relations in the colonies. In the same way, Césaire also defends pre-colonial “societies destroyed by imperialism” (Césaire 7).

Mamdani also critiques the collaborators of colonialism as “middleman” who enjoy “petty privileges economically and preferential treatment legally” (Mamdani 657). I believe that Mamdani makes a claim that colonizers accorded these privileges to select ethnic groups believed to be less ‘childlike’ and capable of administrative duties. Mamdani urges us to ponder the effects of inscribed identities in the post-colonial world, pointing out that mainstream postcolonial nationalism reproduces arbitrary legal definitions, merely substituting race for indigeneity. This has often led to tragic consequences as in the case of the Rwandan Genocide in 1994.

How then, should past colonies break from these shackles of colonialism? Mamdani argues that as violence emerged from political legal institutions, we should “challenge the idea that we must define political identity, political rights, and political justice… in relation to indigeneity” (Mamdani 664). For Mamdani, violence of post-colonial nationalism could be resisted through non-violent means by recognising the fluidity of what constitutes as ‘indigenous’. Césaire likewise advocates for peaceful measures to overcome the mental hold that colonialism has exacted on the colonies. He affirms that colonies should embrace their heritage as “worthy of respect” which possesses “values that could still make an important contribution to the world”. (Césaire 30). For him, it is ultimately “necessary to decolonise our minds, our inner life, at the same time that we decolonise society” (Césaire 31).

In contrast, Fanon appears to advocate for the use of violence. Fanon argues that since “colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking”, it was pointless to enact change through peaceful, rational measures/ Unlike Mamdani and Césaire who seems to draw upon pre-colonial ideals, Fanon urges for a third path forward. He seems to genuinely believe that colonialism can only be defeated when confronted with greater violence” (Fanon 23). For Fanon, non-violent compromises do not adequately dismantle the complexities of a compartmentalised colonial world. While I am not certain that Fanon recognised the full implications of his message of retributive violence – as Fanon’s work has often been blamed for emotionally instigating acts of terrorism by non-state actors – can we actually extend Fanon’s advocating of violence beyond the Algerian fight for independence?

Conclusion

In conclusion, we see that the although colonialization began from the European pursuit of domination politically, economically, and socially, the legacy of colonialism has had negative psychological effects for the involved parties. This has mostly played out in terms of how colonizers enforced imbalanced power relations that changed the way they saw themselves and ‘other’ cultures. While most political theorists acknowledge the complexities in untangling the legacies of colonialism in institutions and in thought, Fanon appears to justify the use of violence in the struggles of post-colonial liberation.