How Can One Tolerate Portraying Past Colonialism as NOT Evil?
For many countries that have some colonial past, the national identity is often supplemented, and in many cases, defined by struggle for freedom and throwing off colonial rule. That of the US is a great example. The cherished principles of freedom is evidenced by the early rebels' personal sacrifices in battlefields against the British. And their struggles are epitomized as heroic in places like the lyrics of the national anthem. The US is often not the exception but the norm in post-colonial countries, many of which systematically link the idea of nation with pain of colonialism.
In fact,celebrating independence from colonial masters is done, by these countries, as matter-of-fact knowledge for the general populace, national holidays and regular, significant parts of academia curriculum for students. Conversely, if throwing off the yoke of colonialism is to be celebrated as positive events, there necessitates some form of denigration of the colonial masters. On this front, post-colonial societies have diverged in approaches due to internal political needs, but always highlighting how important the colonial experience shaped contemporary society.
On one extreme end, the likes of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe have capitalized on hatred for white colonialists by launching populist land grabs that wrecked the country's economy. On the other hands, the likes of Taiwan use "diversity of culture" stemming from colonial experiences to create separate national identities. Many others are in the middle, choosing to inherit what they think are positives from the colonists (such as political system, economic structures, and technological knowledge) while denouncing any potential resurgence of some vague "neo-colonial" concept.
All in all, it is extremely difficult to find any truly unbiased portrayal of the colonial experience that does not automatically limit the narrative and the ensuing discussion on whether colonialism is good or bad. The closest the author has previously seen was Japan's portrayal of how American Admiral Perry helped to open the country from isolation and bring it up to speed on economic development. But honestly, given the special relationship between Japan and the US on the political front, and a true lack of colonial experience by the Japanese at any point in time, this is an isolated case.
Among the countries that did have true colonial experiences, though, Malaysia may surprisingly be the place with least incentive for bias. Unlike parts of Africa where the French presence is strong, or the Philippines where US military commitment and cultural products are still highly sought after, Malaysia's geopolitical ties to the UK is non-existent, and the cultural hold Britain still has on the Muslim-majority nation is strictly limited to soccer, language, and post-secondary education. The legacy of British governance is gradually disappearing in the uninterrupted Muslim--majority rule.
In this case, the government needs not to try hard in separating itself from a colonial master that already exists very little in the general populace's psyche. Thus, it has plenty of rooms to maneuver in factually narrating what the British (and other Europeans) have done in the country. This is well-illustrated by the displays in the various historical museums of Malaysia. The British period is presented as it is, a period where commodity-trading formed the backbone of the economy, the traditional royal power of regional Sultans waned, and the migrants from India and China arrived.
For the casual viewer, this does not spell "oppression" or "inequality" or any other words that usually conjure up in the mind of visitors to any government-sponsored display of colonial exhibits. Instead, it actually form some sort of nostalgia, not one where the viewer feels that s/he wants to go back to that time, but simply feel that the colonial time period is just so different from what the country is today. Heck, when presented side-by-side, the events of Malaysia post-colonialism (guerrilla war with the communists and confrontation with Indonesia) seem to affect current society more.
It might be a lesson for other post-colonial societies. The more a country gets fixated on the supposed impact of colonialism on current society, the more a narrow, negative narrative on the colonial experience will remain in both the minds of the people and the words of government propagandists. However, if the society choose to almost completely split its present with the colonial past, as Malaysia have done, then colonialism, as a subject, can be seen in much more factual, objective way. Only this way can any leftover scars from colonial tragedies be allowed to heal.
In fact,celebrating independence from colonial masters is done, by these countries, as matter-of-fact knowledge for the general populace, national holidays and regular, significant parts of academia curriculum for students. Conversely, if throwing off the yoke of colonialism is to be celebrated as positive events, there necessitates some form of denigration of the colonial masters. On this front, post-colonial societies have diverged in approaches due to internal political needs, but always highlighting how important the colonial experience shaped contemporary society.
On one extreme end, the likes of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe have capitalized on hatred for white colonialists by launching populist land grabs that wrecked the country's economy. On the other hands, the likes of Taiwan use "diversity of culture" stemming from colonial experiences to create separate national identities. Many others are in the middle, choosing to inherit what they think are positives from the colonists (such as political system, economic structures, and technological knowledge) while denouncing any potential resurgence of some vague "neo-colonial" concept.
All in all, it is extremely difficult to find any truly unbiased portrayal of the colonial experience that does not automatically limit the narrative and the ensuing discussion on whether colonialism is good or bad. The closest the author has previously seen was Japan's portrayal of how American Admiral Perry helped to open the country from isolation and bring it up to speed on economic development. But honestly, given the special relationship between Japan and the US on the political front, and a true lack of colonial experience by the Japanese at any point in time, this is an isolated case.
Among the countries that did have true colonial experiences, though, Malaysia may surprisingly be the place with least incentive for bias. Unlike parts of Africa where the French presence is strong, or the Philippines where US military commitment and cultural products are still highly sought after, Malaysia's geopolitical ties to the UK is non-existent, and the cultural hold Britain still has on the Muslim-majority nation is strictly limited to soccer, language, and post-secondary education. The legacy of British governance is gradually disappearing in the uninterrupted Muslim--majority rule.
In this case, the government needs not to try hard in separating itself from a colonial master that already exists very little in the general populace's psyche. Thus, it has plenty of rooms to maneuver in factually narrating what the British (and other Europeans) have done in the country. This is well-illustrated by the displays in the various historical museums of Malaysia. The British period is presented as it is, a period where commodity-trading formed the backbone of the economy, the traditional royal power of regional Sultans waned, and the migrants from India and China arrived.
For the casual viewer, this does not spell "oppression" or "inequality" or any other words that usually conjure up in the mind of visitors to any government-sponsored display of colonial exhibits. Instead, it actually form some sort of nostalgia, not one where the viewer feels that s/he wants to go back to that time, but simply feel that the colonial time period is just so different from what the country is today. Heck, when presented side-by-side, the events of Malaysia post-colonialism (guerrilla war with the communists and confrontation with Indonesia) seem to affect current society more.
It might be a lesson for other post-colonial societies. The more a country gets fixated on the supposed impact of colonialism on current society, the more a narrow, negative narrative on the colonial experience will remain in both the minds of the people and the words of government propagandists. However, if the society choose to almost completely split its present with the colonial past, as Malaysia have done, then colonialism, as a subject, can be seen in much more factual, objective way. Only this way can any leftover scars from colonial tragedies be allowed to heal.
Comments
Post a Comment