Colonialism - Emerson

8/6/2019 Colonialism - Emerson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/colonialism-emerson 1/15

ColonialismAuthor(s): Rupert EmersonSource: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 1, Colonialism and Decolonization (Jan.,1969), pp. 3-16Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259788

Accessed: 27/12/2009 05:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of

Contemporary History.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/259788?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/259788?origin=JSTOR-pdf



Colonialism

Rupert Emerson

It is difficultto decide which is to be accounted he more extra-

ordinaryevent: western Europe'sachievementof imperialpre-

dominanceover so much of the world in the lastfew centuries,orthe recentspectacular emiseof virtually he entirecolonial ystemas one of the major manifestationsof the decline of that pre-dominance.My inclination s to pressthe claim of the overthrowandabandonment f colonialism.Herewas a systemof world-widedimensionswhichonlya fewyearsearlier tillhada lookof solidityand permanence to it and which had ordered - or disrupted - the

affairsof very large segmentsof mankindfor centuriesin some

instances, or decades n manyothers.Is thereanyother occasion

on which so globalandcommanding schemeof thingswassweptawayin so briefa time?

That westerncolonialism in brief,as a workingdefinition, he

impositionof whiteruleonalienpeoples nhabitingandsseparatedby salt waterfrom the imperialcentre- shouldhave come to sosuddenan end is all the moreextraordinaryn that at least one ofthe principal circumstances nvolved in its coming into beingremained o some degreeintact. It is an obviousconditionof the

establishmentand maintenanceof colonialrule that there shouldbe a significantdisparity n powerbetweenthose who governandthose on whom alien rule is imposed, and this disparitywas in-

creasingly multiplied as Europe moved from the Renaissance

through the Enlightenment nto the IndustrialRevolution.Thesudden downfallof colonialismshould indicate a strikingchangein the powerrelationships.Such a changetherehas undoubtedlybeen in variousrespects,and yet it is notoriousthat the gap be-

tween the advancedand the backward

ifa

euphemisticallydis-carded term may be employed)has continued to widen ratherthan to contract. In science and technology, productivityandmaterialwell-being, transportand communications,armaments,and politicaland social organization, he advancedpeoples have

3



CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

been moving ahead more rapidlythan the developinghave been

catchingup with them. The disparity n powerhas in some senses

grown,but it no longercarries mperialpredominancewithit. Onesignalandpeculiar act, to be addedto the appalling ossesof twoworld wars on one side and the rise of nationalismon the other,isthat the possessionof increasingly ophisticatedweaponssystemshas by no means assuredeasy militarysuperiority o those whohavethem,as witnessMalaya,Kenya,Algeria,and firstthe Frenchand then the Americans n Vietnam.But at least as importantas

any other element is the sapping of the will to empire and the

changein the climateof domestic as

well as worldopinionfrom

acceptance o rejectionof colonialism, n which the rise of com-munism as a world force can be accordedas large a role as theobservermaybe inclined to allotit.

The repudiationof colonialism has been both swift and all-

embracing,even thoughit has not yet caughtup with the Portu-

guese, thus incidentallyraisingthe questionwhetherreadiness o

suppress ruthlessly can in appropriatecircumstanceshold back

for some indefiniteperiod what otherwiseseems the irresistibleforwardsweepof nationalism.

In the past,if colonialismwas notpraisedor at least ndifferentlyacceptedas a fact of nature,the attackwas not ordinarilydirected

against t as aninstitutionbutagainstparticular busesorpractices.Now the entire rangeof colonialism s condemnedout of hand.

Although many warning signalshad foretold what was to come,the most ardent enemies of colonialismopenedfirewith all their

batteries or the first time in their first international atheringontheir own, the Bandung Conferenceof 29 Asian and Africancountries n I955. Here it was flatly aid downthat 'colonialismnall its manifestationss an evil which shouldspeedilybe broughtto an end', and that the subjectionof peoples to alien rule and

exploitation s a denial of fundamentalhumanrights, contrary othe UN Charter,and an impedimentto world peace. Five yearslater these central tenets of the anti-colonialcreed were spelledout in furtherdetailin the UN GeneralAssemblyDeclarationon

the Grantingof Independence o ColonialCountriesandPeoples,1whichsummedup whatthe anti-colonialists ad beenworking o-wards romthe beginningand charted he courseto be followed n

1 Resolution I514 (XV).

4



COLONIALISM

the future. Reiteratingsome of the key phrasesof the Bandungfinalcommuniqud, his Declarationwent far beyond Bandung n

that it was unanimouslyadoptedby the GeneralAssembly,eventhoughthe United States,GreatBritain,France,and six otherill-assortedcountriesabstained.Solemnlyproclaimingthe necessityof bringing o a speedyand unconditional nd colonialism n allitsforms and manifestations', he Declarationproceededto affirmthe centralpositive propositionthat 'All peoples have the rightto self-determination',a phrase taken over intact in the firstarticleof each of the two Covenantson Human Rights, unani-

mously adoptedby the Assemblyin I966. A resolution of 1965went a step further than the Declaration n asserting n its pre-amble that the continuationof colonialrule and the practiceof

apartheidnot only threaten nternationalpeace and security,butalso 'constitutea crimeagainsthumanity'.

In similarvein the Charterof the Organization f AfricanUnityproclaims it as one of its purposes to eradicateall forms ofcolonialism romAfrica,and maintains the inalienable ightof all

people to controltheir own destiny'. In other times and placescolonialismhas beenpilloriedaspermanent ggressiono be right-fully attackedby all comers,and the communistpowers,howevermuchthey maydifferamong hemselves,givetheirsupport o warsof liberationon the groundthat they arejust wars.

It is, of course, evident that the radicallyanti-colonialpro-nouncementsof the UN and other internationalbodies have no

necessaryeffect on actual colonial situations- a state of affairswhichgeneratesa sense of bitterfrustration articularly mongthe

African leaders.2Portugalholds its colonies without appearingto be gravelyworriedby the UN challenge o its rule,andBritain,the United States,and the handfulof othersinvolvedin colonialaffairshold on to a dwindling ew of their overseaspossessionsortrustterritoriesand act towards hem in such fashion and at such

tempo as they themselves determine.The hostility of the UN

majorityto colonialism no doubt influences the policies of theremainingcolonialpowers,but they acceptneitherthe accusationof

beinginternational riminalsnor the

injunctionhat

theymust

2 The frustration of Africans in the directly colonial sphere is greatly ag-gravated by their inability to do anything drastic themselves about South Africa,Southwest Africa, and Rhodesia, or to persuade others who might achieve

significant results to swing into action.

5




takeimmediatesteps to grant ndependence.If a casechallengingthe rightof a colonialpowerto holdthe territories t controlswere

to be broughtbefore the InternationalCourt, the Court wouldpresumablysustain the right of the colonial power to rule, al-

thoughthe newmajorityon the Courtmightcall for a speedingupof steps taken to ensure completeindependenceand freedominaccordwith UN resolutions.

Taken at face value(whichtheimmediatelypreceding ommentsindicatethey need not be), the anti-colonialresolutionsadoptedby the GeneralAssemblyandby the Committeeof 24, establishedto

implement the 1960 Declaration, go far beyond both thelanguageof the Charterandthe apparentassumptionsof its prin-cipaldrafters.Whilethe Charter epresented substantial dvanceover the League Covenantwhich, apart from the inconclusivemandatessystem,virtually gnoredthe colonialproblem- as didthe League tself- it recognizedonlyaprincipleof self-determina-tion and in ChapterXI went no furtherthanto exact a pledgeofmovement owardsself-government.But it did openup a crackofinternational oncernwith colonial ssuesinto which in due course

the anti-colonialmajoritydrove a huge wedge of internationalaccountability,giving to the UN prerogativeswhich the colonial

powerswould neverhave dreamedof concedingat San Franciscoor for a decade and more thereafter.In the course of the anti-colonialdrive,the safeguarding f domesticjurisdictionn Article

2:7 was for allpracticalpurposesdeletedfromthe Charteras far ascolonial issues were concerned.An experiencedobserver freshfrom the San Franciscoconferencereportedthat independence

wasnot mentionedas a goalbecauseonlythe United Statesamongthe colonial powers saw it as the natural outcome of colonial

status,and he explicitlydeniedthatthe obligationof the powersto

provide informationconcerningtheir non-self-governingterri-tories gave the UN 'authority o meddle in colonialaffairs ...3But the 'meddling'has swollen to everlargerdimensions.

With the adoption of the I960 Declarationone of the most

important moral and theoretical bulwarks of colonialism was

3 Huntington Gilchrist, 'Colonial Questions at the San Francisco Conference',American Political Science Review, October 1945, 987-8. He conceded, however,that if there had not been a controversy over the use of the word 'independence',it would have been clear that the pledge to develop free political institutionsmust have included independence.

6



COLONIALISM

demolished. Under the Covenant tutelage had been overtly

acknowledgedas necessaryfor peoples not yet able to stand by

themselvesin a strenuousworld, and the advancedpowers hadtakenon the burdenof tutelageas the sacred rustof a civilization

presumably identified with themselves. Implicitly under theCharter he same doctrineheld, althoughthe clearidentificationof civilizationwas evaded,and for the trust territories he goal of

independence was now stated. In I960 the justification ofcolonialismon groundsof tutelagewas unambiguously emoved,sinceArticle3 of the Declaration f thatyearheld that'Inadequacyof

political,economic,social or educational

preparednesshould

never serve as a pretextfor delaying ndependence'.The colonial

powers, of course, did not accept the new standardwhich hadbeen laiddown,but henceforwardheirpleathata colonialpeoplewas not yet readyfor independencewouldbe met by citationof aUN resolutionunanimouslyadopted.

One of the most entertainingand hazardousof parlourgames is

speculationas to whatmight havehappened f therehad been no

colonialism, peculationwhich seemspeculiarly n order at a timewhenthe anti-colonialists avestripped he lastshredsof legitimacyfrom colonialismno matterwhatthe circumstances. t is possibleto come to at least tentativeconclusionsas to the effects whichcolonialrulein fact had on differentpeoples,but we haveonly themost dubious of clues as to the might-have-beens f the same

peopleshad entirelyescapedsubjection o such rule.Colonialandex-colonialpeopleshavefrom time to timefound it

tempting o assume hat if theyhadremained ree allkinds of goodthingswouldhavefallen to theirlot, enabling hem to advanceonthe pathto modernity,prosperity, trength,and nationalunityfarmorerapidly hanprovedpossibleunderaliencontrol.Muchmore

rarelydoes there appearto be a belief that it would have been

preferable o lingerundisturbedn the oldertraditional ociety,orto seek to return to it, sloughing off the alien intrusions of

modernity.It is manifestlyhighly consolingto believethat one's

presentwoes, weakness,poverty,and internaldivisionsderive,notfrom anything nherent n one's own race,society,or history,butfrom the woundsinflictedon an otherwisesound body by thosewho encroachedon it andexploited t for theirprofitandpleasure.In its simplest form this satisfying myth holds that the peoples

7




involvedwerejustaboutto launch hemselveson anautonomouslyinspireddrive towardscatchingup with the advancedcountries

whentheyweretakenoverbytheimperialists ndherdedback ntoa less developedway of life than they had alreadyachieved,orwere at leastdeniedthe advancementwhich wouldotherwisehavebeen theirs.

The majordifficultywith anysuch claim is that the evidence, f

any,on whichit mightbe based s highlyunconvincing.Thus it issometimes said that just as Europe'sdiverse ethnic groups were

forged into nations over the centuries,so Africa's tribes were in

processof beingamalgamatednto stablelarge-scalenationsat thetime when the slave trade and later the Scrambledisruptedall

hope of Africandevelopment, mposingan arbitrary et of Euro-

peanboundariesnsteadof thosewhich wouldhaveemerged roman unforced natural evolution of the continent. What actuallyappears o be the case is thatAfrican ribeswere,in an essentiallyhaphazardway,dividing,coalescing, ormingempiresandbreakingthemup again,asotherpeoplesaround he worldhavethroughouthistoryseen theirpoliticalcommunitieswax andwane.No generaltrend eitherof amalgamation r of disintegrations evidentin the

complex and inadequatelyrecorded history which is available.WhatpoliticalshapeAfricanpeoplesmight havetaken on if theyhad been left to themselvesis a mysteryto which only the most

speculativeand controversial nswerscan be given. What we doknow is that there was a multiplicityof tribesin manykinds ofrelationswith each other and that these tribes were forcedinto a

peculiarpatternof colonial states whose boundarieshave, in the

few brief and tempestuousyears since independence,held sur-prisinglyconstant,as have those of many ex-colonialterritories

elsewhere, such as Indonesia and the Philippines.Again, whatwould have been the fate of India if Britishrule had never beenestablished? Wouldit have been possibleto hold the entiresub-continenttogether,untroubledby an imperialistpolicyof divide-

and-rule,or, in reverse, acking he unity which Britain mposed,wouldit have brokenup on the Europeanmodelinto, say,a dozenor more

historicallyand

linguisticallydetermined tates?

If one wouldplaythis parlourgame,the prime necessity s thatthe rules be firmly and clearlyestablished in advance,becausevariousradicallydifferentassumptions an bemadewhichproducequite differentresults.To discuss the hypothetical ate of peoples

8



COLONIALISM

exempt from colonialismwithout having determinedwhat sub-stitute relationshipwith other peoples is to take its place as the

framework f theinquiry, s to openthe doortohopelessconfusion.To draw on Africaas an exampleagain:if the rules lay downthe

utterlyfancifulassumption hat no intercoursewhatever,directlyor through ntermediaries,ookplacebetweenAfricaand the newcivilizationgrowingup in westernEurope,then thereis no reasonto read back into the historythat never happenedthe belief thatAfricanswouldon their ownhavethen or in due courseproducedsome approximation f the unique Europeandevelopments.Such

a civilizationhad not in fact emergedanywhereelse in the world,therewereno significanthints thatit waslikelyto blossomforth n

Africa,and,when introducedprimarilyunder colonialauspices, ttook hold only tenuouslyand slowly.Whatkind of civilizationofits own Africamighthaveproduced f it had beenfencedoff fromthe restof theworld orthe last few centuries,andfor amillenniumor two ahead,can be guessed only by spinningidle cloudsin theair. The presumptionmust be that its peoples would have pre-served their traditional guise, subject of course to eccentric

eruptionswhich no one couldpredict.If total isolationbe abandonedas wholly unreal,a number of

kinds andgradations f intercoursewiththe increasinglydynamic,restless,andpowerfulpeoplesof westernEurope,anda little laterof the United States, Japan,the Soviet Union, and China comeinto the picture.The changes hat one canringon sucha theme inthe realmsof speculationare so diverse as to make it a fruitless

occupation o seekto pursuemorethantwo or three of them. For

the present purpose the heart of the matter is the ease or thesuffering,the speed or the slowness,the effectivenessor the in-

adequacyof the processof adaptation f traditional ocietiesto thecharacteristicormsandforces of modernitywhich haveindisput-ably demonstrated heir power and productivity,whatevertheevilswhichaccompanyhem. Peacemust in some fashionbe madewith them if there is to be any hope of extended independentsurvivaland of achievingsufficientwell-beingat home to escape

gravedisaffectionand

upheaval,perhapsplayed uponand

guidedfrom abroad.If contactwith the advancedcountries,but not colonialism,be

allowed,perhaps ts most utopianformwouldconfinethe contactto men of skill and benevolencewho, financedfrom outside and

9




able to draw on large capitalsums for such projectsas came toseem in order - roads, railroads,ports, dams, irrigationworks,

schools, hospitals,etc. - would disinterestedly ee to it that thetraditional ocietiesmade hemostpainless ransitionntomodernitycompatiblewith preserving he best of the old societyor the ele-ments most essentialto the maintenanceof its corporate ife and

spirit. But the questions which come immediatelyto mind are

legion. Would one include amongsuch men missionaries,one ofwhose majorpurposeswould be the introductionof Christianity,orperhapsIslamorsomeotherfaith,at the evidentcost of thereby

undermining neof the mainpillarsof the traditionalocial order?Would that old orderbe taken as the startingpoint both in termsof an indirectrulebased on the traditionalauthoritiesandin rela-tionto thedemographic-geographiccopeof thesocietyormusttheold order be swept awayto makeway for the new? So massiveascaleof benevolencehasnever been seen in this world,nor can wehaveanyassurance hat,even if the men andthe meansto practiseit could be found, the extraordinarily ifficultjob by which theywould be confrontedcould be done. Would the expatriatesen-

gagedin such an enterprisebe acceptedas benevolent nstructors

by those whose lives they soughtto change,or as intrudersto be

got ridof asspeedilyaspossible;and wouldtheybe tough-minded

enough to inflict the kind of blows which are usually needed to

break he cake of custom andto startthe flow of a new kindof life

andlabour?To ask suchquestions s to open up someof the majorcontroversieswhichhavein fact surrounded he practitioners nd

theoristsof colonialism.

At a next remove, coming uncomfortably,and indeed indis-tinguishably,close to historicalrealityexcept for the continuing

groundrules ban on colonialregimes,far the most likelyturn of

eventswould be that westerneconomic nterests traders, eekersafter raw materialsor labour, money lenders- would establish

themselves n what has now cometo be knownas the thirdworld.

Since only governmentsstrongerthan any the third worldcould

providewouldbe ableto barthem fromentryor effectivelyregu-late

them,such interests could not

only penetratedeeplyinto the

undevelopedcountries but often also dominatethem, and, as an

accidentalby-product for which they accept no responsibility,

profoundly disrupt them. Two possibilities appear: either the

economic nterests nvolvedwouldcalculate hatthey couldget by,

IO



COLONIALISM

despitedisruptionsanddisaffections,withno morethanoccasional

manipulationof the existing governmentof the country n which

they wereoperating,although ts ultimatecollapseor drasticover-haulingcould be foreseen;or, in orderto establishand maintainthe conditionsnecessary or carryingon profitable nterprise, heywould move to take over the governmentand reconstruct t tomeet their own needs.

Here, evidently,one begins to swing full circle. A governmentstemming from outside the society has been imposed, but, asthe game'sgroundrulesrequire, t is a governmentderiving rom

the economicenterprise tself andnot fromthe governmentof thecountry romwhich thatenterpriseoriginally et out. At this pointit is not irrelevanto go backto the dictumof AdamSmith thattheworst of all governments or a colonyis the governmentof a com-

pany.The arguments essentially he simpleone thata company'sprimaryconcern s to makea profit,while a governmenthas other

responsibilitieswhich, gravelyas it may neglect them, are likelyto have some positivebearingon its activities.At its by no meansunknownworst a colonial

governmentmayin fact be little more

than an agentproviding abourandotherfacilitiesfor commercialinterests,or itself exploitingthe manpowerand resourcesof the

countryfor the profitof the home government,as in the DutchEast Indies for much of the nineteenthcentury.The hope, how-ever,certainlynot withoutsomemeasureof justificationn colonialhistory,is that a colonialgovernmentwill come to acceptat leasta minimumof responsibility or the well-beingof its subjectsandtheir adaptationto the modern world. Although the altruistic

desire to promotewelfareand adaptation o modernityhas pre-sumablyneverbeen the rootreasonfor imperialistexpansion, heexistenceof a governmentand its civil servantsnonethelesspro-vides anotherchannelof contactwith the modernworld- some-times a quiteinadequateone, as in the caseof SpainandPortugalin recent times - and mayprovidea safeguardagainstthe worstabuses of exploitationand neglect. As the colonialpowers pro-gressed into the mid-twentiethcentury' hey increasingly endedto

acknowledge hat their responsibilitieswent beyondthe crudemaintenanceof law and order, harshlysummarized n the term'pacification',and beyond the provisionof the basic facilities re-quired by their businessmen,planters,and miners. At least therudiments of welfare, economic and social development, and

II




political advancementcame to be accepted by most colonial

governments as necessary features of contemporarycolonial

rule.It is, I trust, clear that I am not contendingthat colonialism

offeredanyidealmeans of accessto the modernworld.Indeed, Iam not at all surethatanyidealmeans of accessexists,althoughIam sure that colonialregimesdo not provideit. But when I playthe game of ruling out colonialism, leaving other conditions

realisticallyas they were, I find myself inexorablydriven to theconclusion hat,asaninterimandtransitionalmeasure,colonialism

is likelyto be the lesser of the evils in a predatoryworld. It has infact been the agency of diffusion through which hundreds ofmillionsof peoplehavebegunthe long andpainful ransition romtheir traditionalsocieties into the modern world createdby theWest andnowavailablen the alternative ackaging f communism.

Two furtherobservationsmaybe brieflyadded.The conditionofotherwise comparable countries, such as Liberia, Ethiopia,Afghanistan,andthe CentralAmericanstatesfor the last centuryand a half, all of whichescapedcolonialismor most of it, leads to

no optimisticconclusion hat all wouldhavebeen well if colonialismhadneverbeeninvented.Second,thatcolonialism s oddlyseen tohave its virtues was demonstratedby the earlier insistence ofAfrican spokesmenand men of good will in general that theColonialOfficeshouldretain control n Kenyaandthe Rhodesiasuntil the Africanscould takeover,rather hanallowwhite settlersto takeoverpredominantpoliticalcontrol.

Whateverits achievementsthroughout the ages as one of thechosen nstruments or the diffusionof civilization, hose on whomcolonialismhas been imposed detest it for its besetting sin of

arrogance.For a relativelybrief periodthere are a few who findthe colonialsituationmore thanbarelytolerable: he firstgenera-tion or two of the new western-educated lite who feel a greatdistance between themselves and their less fortunatetradition-bound countrymen, and set as their goal acceptanceby the

superiorbeingswhohave takencommandof their

society.As self-

governmentand independencecome nearer,others - the tradi-

tionallyprivilegedor otherhangers-onwho havebeen artificiallysustainedby the colonialauthorities,or ethnic groups who feelthreatenedby those who are cominginto power- may preferthe

I2



COLONIALISM

existingcolonialstatus to whatlies ahead.But the growingandin-

creasinglyuniversalsentimenthas been one of refusal to tolerate

the inherentarrogance f a systemin which aliensuperioritypre-sides over the inferior native'.

The issue is not at allnecessarily he arrogance f individualsna crudesense, althoughthat is also frequently nvolved and findsin colonialisman ideal breeding ground. Outside the colonial

relationshipndividualsand groups representing he two races orcommunitiesare often able to get along easilyand happily,as isdemonstratedby the surprisingreadiness of ex-colonialpeoples

to establish close and friendly relations with both the formerimperialpoweritself and with the manyexpatriatesn the newlyindependentcountries.

The arroganceof colonialism akesmanyforms. The simplest,most straightforwardorm, endowedwith the most ancientheri-

tage, is the principlethat the right of the stronger,the right of

conquest, puts the conqueredwholly at the disposalof the con-

queror.A more sophisticatedversion rests upon belief in someform of racial or culturalsuperioritywhich justifiescolonialrule

either on a permanentbasis, since the 'natives'are congenitallyincapable of overcomingtheir backwardness,or for as long a

period- seen, perhaps,as lastingmany generationsor even cen-turies - as they are regardedby their colonialmasters as beingincompetentto managetheir own affairs.At least in the moreor less contemporary cene the presumptionhas been that such

superioritycarrieswith it the white man's burden of seekingto

bringaboutthe advancement f the colonialwards,but it mayalso

servemerelyto establish he legitimacyof continuedcolonialrule.Basic tenets of the colonialismof the last centurieswerethe sole

sanctity of Christianityand the self-evident supremacyof thewhite man. The arroganceof the LeagueCovenant'sassumptionthatthe sacred rust of civilization n relation o the mandates,and

by implicationto all colonialpeoples, was vested in the colonial

powers has alreadybeen noted. It was an integralpart of the

arroganceof the colonialadministrator hat he honestlybelievedthat he

spokemore

authenticallyor the colonial

massesthan didthe new-stylenationalisteaders.No doubthe sometimesdid, butthe natureof the colonial ystemmadethenationalistheinevitableheir to power.

It mightbe contended hatthesupremearrogancewasdisplayed

I3



CONTEMPORARYHISTORY

by the devoted and unself-seeking colonial civil servant or

missionarywho set ashis goal onlythe transformationf the native

societyandits beliefs into a closerreplicaof his own.Thereis herein a senseanultimacyof arrogancewhichfarsurpasses hatof the

strongruler who exploitshis subjectsfor what he can get out of

them but is indifferent o their creeds and institutions,allowingthem to savetheir souls in their own fashion.

Rebelling againstthe inherentarroganceof the colonialsitua-

tion, the anti-colonialist indsthe appealto the dignityof manhismost passionately onvincingslogan.

It would be absurd to think that any definitive verdict oncolonialismcan be pronounced n this immediateaftermathof theera of western mperialistexpansion.It is far too variedand com-

plex a phenomenon o lend itself to an easy summingup, and its

effects, of which we have seen only the first manifestations,will

surelybe felt for generations o come. The climateof opinionatthe momentis peculiarlyconfusingbecause,while the dominanttrend is the condemnationof colonialism in all its forms and

manifestations,a renewedsense begins to creep in that perhapsall was not evil andthat,howeverclumsilyand ofteninadvertently,it madepositivecontributionswhicharenot to be ignored.4 n the

manner of their unexpectedly peaceful departurefrom many

dependentcountries, he colonialpowersmadepossiblea calmand

even friendlyreassessmentof whatthey had accomplished, ailed

in, and put on the agenda for future action. The ceremonial

speeches of good will and mutual congratulationswhich have

accompaniedhe loweringof imperial lagsand the raisingof thenew nationalbannerswere by no meanswholly insincere,as has

been shownby the close ties maintainedbetweenso manyof the

newly independentstatesand theirformeroverlords.It maybe, too, thatthe shortcomings f the new countriesmake

4 Professor Ali A. Mazrui of Makerere University College, Uganda, sees

colonialism as having helped to transform Africa's intellectual universe: 'In

fact, the most significant thing about the colonial experience for Africa is that

it was at once a political bondage and a mental liberation. We might even say

that the colonial fact was the most important liberating factor that theAfrican

mind has experienced in historical times.' 'Borrowed Theory and OriginalPractice in African Politics' in Herbert J. Spiro, ed., Patterns of African Develop-ment (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., I967), 92. A generally favourable estimate of the

colonial experience is made by Peter Duignan and L.H. Gann, Burden of Empire

(New York, I967).

14



COLONIALISM

the colonial nterlude ook better thanmight otherwisehavebeen

expected. The naive vision of oppressivecolonialismgiving way

to the freedomandprogressof liberationhas beensupplantedby amore grubby reality. One-partyone-manrule, militarydictator-

ships, corruption, nadequaciesand failuresin developmentand

modernization,and other deficienciesdim the lustre of indepen-dence and tend to turn what the anti-colonialists aintedall blackinto more neutralgrays.Exceptperhaps or a handfulof the olderAsianandAfricancivil servants,who lookbacknostalgicallyo the

daysof colonialbureaucracy, o one wantsto return o colonialism,but it canat least be assessedwith a

largermeasureof cool

dispas-sion. Or,of course,the other side of the coinmaybe thatpreciselycolonialisms heldresponsible orpresentshortcomingsbecause tfailedto educate,democratize, evelop,andmodernize,eaving he

underdeveloped eopleswhomit exploitedstill undeveloped.To the sins of colonialism n this latterversionmust be added

the accusationthat the former colonialpowers, and particularlythe United States,arefollowinga neo-colonialistpolicyof seekingto maintain he substanceof control over the nominally ndepen-dent new states through the acquisitionof economic predomi-nance.Neo-colonialism s a difficult ermof which to makemuchsensibleuse because it is usuallyemployedby the spokesmenofthe left who, discoveringmperialismn everyactionor inactionofthe non-communist countries, lump together everything from

monopolistic exploitation and armed intervention to technicalassistance and the Peace Corps. The general drift, however, isclear:the advancedcountriesarein variousways deeplyinvolved

in the formercolonies. Giventhe extent of the ties builtup undercolonialrule and the amount of debris it left behind, the grossdisparitiesin wealth and power which continue to divide the

world, and the demandof the new countriesfor aid in develop-ment, it would be incredible f there were not manyrelationshipswhich could be taggedwith the label of neo-colonialism.A more

importantquestionthan the invidious use of the label is whetherthe diverseactivities t embracesaremeetingsome of the urgentneeds of the new countries,

notablyn the

sphereof

development,andmeetingthem in waysboth moreeffectiveandmoretolerableto the peopleconcerned hanthe colonialregimeswhichprecededthem.

It is arguablethat what is extraordinarys not the extent of

I5



CONTEMPORARYHISTORY

imperialistyearningto restore the substance of colonialism,butrather the readinessto be rid of what have come to be seen as

imperialburdens. For profit, prestige, and political advantage,and from a sense of tasks left unaccomplished, he ex-colonial

powershave understandably ought to maintaina greateror less

degree of contact with their former dependencies.In some in-stances- Houphouet-Boigny's voryCoast is the most frequentlycitedexample expatriate conomic,political,and culturalcontroland influencehave undoubtedlygone beyond what is compatiblewith real independence, although the later recaptureof inde-

pendences

bynomeans excluded.The dilemma

confrontingpoorand ill-equippedcountrieswhich are strugglingboth to surviveand developand to cling to freedomis a very realone, and some

havesold out or come close to it. On the otherside, the recordof

such countriesas Burmaand Indonesia,Guinea and Mali, which

in their different ashions have sought to cut loose from the ad-

vancedWest,hasnotbeenvery mpressive.Withallthetemptations

open to them in this conditionof the world'saffairs, he erstwhile

imperialistsseem in large measure to have accepted the anti-

imperialistconvictionsof their opponents. Of a yearningfor arenewalof imperialistaggrandizementhere is little trace.

Throughouthistory, save at the rarest of intervals,men have

acted upon the assumptionthat expansion, conquest, and far-

flung rule over otherswerethe fruits and symbolsof virilityand

grandeur.Havewe now come to a turningpointin history,or will

the next throw of the global dice bring forth a new imperialismand a new colonialism

i6

Documents

Colonialism - Emerson