Cory Owen

05/01/2008

Qualification of the Postcolonial

In the period following colonialism, dialogue began regarding the definition of such terms comes into play.  In the center of this discussion, the United States played a critical role of who could be categorized as a colonized people and who could not.  With a general definition that included characteristics such as being ruled by another country, having the native culture deemed uncultured, and the latent distrust from those subjected under the rule, the United States fits this mold nicely.  However, a more refined definition of colonization would also mention the differences between the ruling class and the natives more strictly and would focus on the differences between the cultures as being more overarching than quibbles over minor customs and verbal usages.  The argument that Native Americans of the United States could be considered a colonized group, is also fraught with discussion over their place within colonial and postcolonial texts.  In traditional colonized areas (i.e. India and Africa), the colonizers came into the countries and after a period, left which allowed the original inhabitants to regain control of their lands, government and culture.  Since the settlers of the United States were not the native people of the area, they do not qualify for such a title.  And since the Native Americans are still not in control of their lands and government, they also cannot qualify as a postcolonial people.  By looking at the circumstances of the United States, both the settlers and the Native Americans, it becomes apparent that lumping their situations together with that of typically accepted examples of colonization does not fit.
            Comparing the Europeans of the United States to the colonized people of Africa, India, and the Caribbean trivializes the strife and years of oppression that these truly colonized countries suffered.  The arguments for the idea that these colonists were actually colonized can be neatly summed by Lawrence Buell.  "Although the 13 colonies never experienced anything like the political/military domination colonial India did, the extend of cultural colonization by the mother country, from epistemology to aesthetics to dietetics, was on the whole much more comprehensive--and partly became the selfsame comparative benignity of the imperial regime" (415).  Though Buell's point that the European settlers were categorized as "the other" can be understood, the situations cannot be justified as nearly similar enough to India's treatment by England.  The settlers came to another country and were ruled by similar peers.  "During what is now called our literary renaissance, America remained for many commentators (especially the British), albeit diminishingly, the unvoiced "other"--with the predictable connotations of exoticism, barbarism, and unstructuredness"  (Buell 417).   Though these are classic symptoms of what would typically be considered classification of the colonized (especially in reference to the exoticism and barbarism), the divide between Europe and the US was much less significant, culturally, than the differences found between Europe and the standard colonized countries.
            The other main argument against the US being considered a colonized country lies in regards to the Native Americans who preceded the existence of these settlers.  By comparing the situation of the settlers to the situation of what Europe did to standard examples of colonized countries, "denies the previous and ongoing existence of indigenous cultures in America" (Mackenthun 35).  If anyone in the Americas is to be considered colonized, it should be the Native Americans who suffered under the rule (and disease) of the European settlers.  In light of this mindset, it would follow that the Native Americans would qualify as a postcolonial group.  However, some claim that "Native American literatures cannot be classified as postcolonial because ‘there is not yet a “post-“ to the colonial status of Native Americans’" (Rushdy 143).  In such a statement, light is being shed on the state of the unique situation that the Native Americans face.   As Gesa Mackenthun states, "The internal colonialism towards America’s indigenous population, in any case, has continued until today"  (38).  While other colonized countries were at least given the semblance of a freedom and reunification (even if that meant creating countries and boundaries arbitrarily), the Native Americans of the United States are still not allowed such treat.  Instead, their measly numbers are scattered in clusters around the US and labeled as a nuisance to society.
            By comparing the history of the Native Americans to that of Indians or Africans during colonization, it is evident that they are not the same situation.  While India and Africa suffered the presence of Europeans for a period of time that controlled their government and culture, by retreating from the main make up of the countries, they've allowed these postcolonial countries to remake their identities.  For the Native Americans, they were not given such a choice.  Their lands are still controlled by "the other" and their voices are still unheard.  Eric Cheyfitz feels that the roots of this problem can be even attributed to the European tendency to generalize "the other" in terms of their own understandings, irrespective of cultural differences.  "The very ascription of the term tribe, or nation, to Indian communities is itself a part of this colonizing process: the projection of European conceptions of centralized governance and hierarchical social structure onto various kinds of extended kinship-based communities, of which the clan might more accurately be understood as the fundamental social unit" (408).  By even creating these divisions for the Natives, the European force can be seen. 
            The term coined for this type of upheaval of the native communities by outsiders is often referred to as "internal colonialism".  This concept of colonizing within the country of residence can be seen with the way power has been delegated to the Native Americans.  As noted in Mackenthun's article, this internal colonialism is often characterized as "'Fourth World' for those ethnically distinct groups whose living conditions resemble those in the 'Third World' even though they inhabit highly industrialized countries" (40).  Such examples are not limited to that of the Native Americans, but include the aborigines of Australia and the Maoris in New Zealand.  In each of these cases, the white settlers took the country's native inhabitants and displaced them to the outskirts of civilization, all while accusing them of being uncultured and barbarous.  In the cases of traditional, postcolonial societies, the white influence has departed, or at least lowered their involvement, within the mainstream society, allowing these native cultures to try to find their own identity again.  The Native Americans (and the Australian aborigines and Maoris) still live in a position that lacks autonomy and a self-proclaimed identity.
       To claim that the United State is a product of colonialism is not generally an idea much supported by current educators.  With the closer look into the differences between the Native Americans and their experience with the white settlers versus what countries such as India dealt with when colonized, it becomes apparent that not even the Native Americans fit this idea of the colonized.  To categorize either the white settlers or the Native Americans as colonized in the same sense as the Indians or Africans greatly simplifies the notion of what colonialism stood for.  In looking at the different outcomes and prevailing understandings of how these groups are being treated (especially with the US having imperialistic tendencies), it becomes harder to categorize these groups along with the more traditionally defined colonized cultures.
    
 

Buell, Lawrence.  “American Literary Emergence as a Postcolonial Phenomenon.”  American Literary History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn 1992): 411-42.  JSTOR.  EBSCO.  U of Houston, Clear Lake Lib., Houston, TX.  28 April 2008.
< http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0896-7148(199223)4%3A3%3C411%3AALEAAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&cookieSet=1>