|
Student Midterm submissions 2015 (2015 midterm assignment) |
LITR 5831 World Literature |
 |
Ashlea Massie
Part
1: Web Highlights
“Colonial and Postcolonial Literature
and the Modern World: Recognizing and Preventing Bias”
Colonial and postcolonial literature can inform the reader of the dangers
of colonialism, nonchalantly hint at colonialism, or it can speak explicitly
about the erroneous ways of colonialism; either way presented, there always
seems to be some form of bias within each work that can be recognized and easily
prevented. From the reader’s interpretation we are able to learn about how the
reader thinks about life and what the reader feels should be learned from the
colonial and post-colonial writings. How the reader decides to interpret the
outcome based upon the writer’s work ultimately produces a bias. It is in the
mid-term assignment writings that we see the issue of bias arise from Lori
Arnold, Lisa Hacker, and Jacob McCleese’s papers, all which correlate to each
other in their regard for how they handle bias.
In Lori Arnold’s 2013 mid-term assignment, she begins by addressing the
issue of Christian schools glossing over the issues of imperialism when teaching
the students about Christian colonization throughout the world, in effect,
spreading post-colonialism. Lori further elaborates saying that she finds the
idea of treating the way this post-colonial literature is taught in Christian
schools to be “fascinating.” Although this is a very interesting way to view
Christian-based literature curriculums, it would be inaccurate to label the
literature as post-colonial in this way, as it would be favoring the colonized
viewpoint, thus creating bias. The inaccuracy to only provide curriculum that
placed colonialism in an extremely negative light from the viewpoint of the
colonized would be just as bad as placing colonialism in a good light. Both are
biased views and should be balanced out with both positive and negative
perspectives of the imperialists and those under their jurisdiction.
Lisa Hacker discusses the inaccuracy of Christian curriculum instruction,
commenting that it should portray the good and the bad together. But what
happens when a reading such as what we read in
Robinson Crusoe glosses over the
issue of colonialism? In the story, Crusoe at one point becomes enslaved, and he
grows to hate his position as slave; when Crusoe was freed from his oppressor,
he went off and put others under his subjection. The irony of this situation is
dismissed by Defoe. Are we ourselves promoting imperialism or bias for not
pointing out Daniel Defoe’s lack of remorse for being so nonchalant about this
incident? Must we always point out the evils of imperialism if the author did
not? Do we have to constantly mention the good qualities of a character such as
Christopher Columbus, as Lisa mentions, and then point out his bad qualities in
order to portray him accurately? Are we doing everyone an injustice by not
pointing out the accomplishments and the sins together? We create bias when we
purposefully leave out the negative aspects of colonialism, not solely because
we haven’t mentioned every minute detail of a person’s life.
Jacob McCleese uses an excerpt from another student’s assignment and
mentions “minority groups . . .
didn’t choose to come to America.” He says that the minorities were “forced from
their homelands.” All of these words portray a very negative picture of
colonialism, and yet at the same time, one of the students in class, mentioned
that she was very glad to be here in America and would not want to be in Africa.
I too am part of a minority and would never want to live in Mexico, my heritage.
I am glad things turned out the way they have. Should we really perceive the
minorities who were forced to come to America as less fortunate than us? What if
they could tell us that they preferred America over their native homeland? What
if “feeling sorry” for minorities in turn made them upset at the bias we had
created concerning their plight? Are we not creating bias when we surround this
process with such negativity?
In conclusion, the purpose of my essay is to draw the reader to see the
common biases or need to dispel bias that we have when discussing the topic of
colonialism or post-colonialism. As seen through Lori Arnold’s paper, we are
creating bias when we label texts. In Lisa Hacker’s paper we see the need to be
unbiased in everything to the point where we have to include the good and the
bad together and talk about every historian’s success and failures as a person,
to the point of exhaustion. In McCleese’s paper we see the unintended bias
surrounding the perception of minorities. We must be able to recognize bias and
prevent bias in very tangible ways by portraying the positive and negative
colonial and postcolonial literature.
Part
2: Essay
Colonial and Post
Colonial Obscurity and the Importance of the Genre
When I signed up for this course, I was confused as to what exactly
colonial and postcolonial literature were. I had never heard of such a genre.
The fact of the matter is that most people have not heard about this genre of
literature nor do they understand what it is. This is very unfortunate. As I
have studied and read Robinson Crusoe,
Lucy,
A Small Place, and other texts,
I have learned the importance of the colonial and postcolonial genre and
just how obscure it is in today’s culture. It is not something spoken of or
heard of, and I would like to address the importance of taking this genre out of
the darkness and bringing it into the forefront of literature programs all
across the United States and why this should be done.
Most students read
Robinson Crusoe as an adventure novel
or perhaps within their English literature class; many students would read
“Gunga Din” simply as a nice English
poem, but would any young adult realize these two pieces actually surpass these
basic genre boundaries? What if students were told that these works were steeped
in colonialism and therefore also identified more specifically with colonial
literature? How would that impact student views on the texts? Is a student
capable of fully appreciating or understanding colonialism when texts such as
Robinson Crusoe and “Gunga Din”
aren’t normally treated as such? This is the issue I faced as I read through
these texts, not merely for pleasure, but to educate myself about the impact of
colonialism upon the colonists and the colonizers. Both views are important to
the subject, and if I had just read
Robinson Crusoe, I might have thought Crusoe to be a very good man and
nothing more than that. Once I read Lucy
though, I was able to realize the pain and suffering that Lucy went through
at the hands of colonists. It was then, after comparing the two together, that I
was able to pick apart Robinson Crusoe
for what it really was- a colonial work of literature. The main issue of
how colonists poorly treated the colonized came to the forefront through
examining both books in an equal light, not treating one viewpoint as better
over the other, rather examining what each side had to say for themselves, as
each is important to understand.
Colonial and postcolonial allow for a concept important to the genre, a
concept not much discussed in other courses, that of intertexuality. Although
Kincaid’s works may seem to be a stark difference between Crusoe’s works,
intertexuality plays a large role between both. In a mid-term assignment from
2011, intertextuality between Lucy
and Robinson Crusoe is referenced and
can be seen as both main characters, Lucy and Crusoe, are transnational migrants
(Ramirez). Both are in countries that they do not particularly wish to be in,
regardless of migrating of their own volition or not, neither characters are
completely happy. In A
Small Place, Kincaid felt like the English people, the colonizers, tried to
make Antigua like England. In the same way, Crusoe tried to make Friday look
like an Englishman by dressing him up as one. Kincaid felt the English people
saw human beings as commodities and Robinson sees Friday as that as well.
Because colonial and postcolonial texts intertwine with each other,
intertexuality plays a large and important role in this type of literature.
One of the reasons colonial and post-colonial literature is so obscured
from most of the world comes from the fact that students do not read the
narrative in light of the genre. In the beginning of
Robinson Crusoe we see a story of a
man’s travels on the sea which ultimately leads to a shipwreck and abandonment
on an island. It isn’t until decades later that he comes into contact with other
humans. Because survival and adventure seems to be the premise of the story, the
details specific to colonial literature are ignored in the text, as the reader
isn’t specifically looking for that. Their mind is focused on one thing—reading
for pleasure. When the narrative is read in light of the colonial genre, it is
obvious that Robinson Crusoe has a
lot of colonial issues that come to light. In chapter fourteen, line fourteen,
Crusoe says, “It came
very warmly upon my thoughts, and indeed irresistibly, that now was the time to
get me a servant, and, perhaps, a companion or assistant; and that I was plainly
called by Providence to save this poor creature's life” (Defoe). Crusoe is
thinking upon the idea of being the colonizer and colonizing Friday, the young
many in the story. When reading narrative within this light, we are better able
to understand colonial and postcolonial literature.
Many readers read for pleasure, not paying attention to the importance of
dialogue, which can reveal many things vital to the aspects of colonial and
postcolonial literature. If one looks closely, it becomes very apparent that the
dialogue in Robinson Crusoe reveals
colonial tendencies. We see it when Friday says in chapter seventeen, line
eleven, “‘Master, master, they are come, they are come’” (Defoe). Friday refers
to Robinson as his lord, in subjection to Robinson. We also see this in “The Man
Who Would Be King,” in the dialogue of two adventurers, Carnehan and Dravot, and
the narrator, Kipling. Carnehan and Dravot decide to become king over a specific
Indian people group, and Kipling discourages them from doing so. Subtle
references from the three white men in the story to this Indian people group
reveal negative colonial tendencies, as seen in chapter one, line forty-eight,
“The people are utter brutes” (Kipling) and here in chapter one, line
fifty-seven “They’re an all-fired lot of heathens” (Kipling).
“ All of this would be overlooked by someone unfamiliar with colonial
literature.
When colonial and post-colonial literature is viewed side by side, the
reader is able to recognize that not all colonizers are oppressors and not all
of the colonized are oppressed. This concept can be seen in Daniel Defoe’s
Robinson Crusoe. When Friday becomes
Crusoe’s servant, we see a filial bond between the two. Although it may appear
that Friday is the oppressor because he has put Friday under subjection, the
opposite is revealed in chapter sixteen, line twenty-two, in Crusoe’s narrative,
“He would die when I bid die,” (Defoe) and again when Crusoe tells Friday to
leave, Friday says, “What you send Friday away for? Take kill Friday, no send
Friday away,” (16.14) and then Friday proceeds to cry at the thought of leaving
Crusoe. Through this discourse we can also see Crusoe’s plain kindness that such
a servant would want to stay by Crusoe’s side forever and that Crusoe would be
willing to release his servant also shows Crusoe’s loving-kindness as a master.
In “Shooting an Elephant,” we see the societal pressures of the colonized upon
the British colonizer, George Orwell. Orwell is supposed to be the oppressor of
the Burmese people, but in an ironic twist we see that it is the colonized, the
Burmese, who oppress the colonizer, Orwell, into shooting an elephant- an issue
in which he feels it is morally wrong to shoot this animal. His angst is seen
here, “ I
often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to
avoid looking a fool” (Orwell).
Would we be able to recognize these important ideas, which formulate the way we
perceive others to be, had we not studied these texts as colonial or
postcolonial literature?
The self and other dialogue and narrative are concepts recognized mainly
in this genre, unknown to many students, and are not only seen in novels, but
also through poetry. In particular this concept is seen in “Gunga Din.” In this
piece of poetry Kipling describes the Indians as different from himself. An
example of this is seen when Kipling says, “You ‘eathen, where the mischief ‘ave
you been?” (Kipling). Because the Indians did not have the same religious
beliefs as the English people, Kipling saw Gunga Din as a heathen. Kipling also
automatically labels Gunga Din as going to hell when he says, “An’ I’ll get a
swig in hell for Gunga Din,” (Kipling). for no other reason than the differences
in their cultures.
All of these tendencies to miss colonialism in literature lead me to
believe that America is in denial that colonialism and post-colonialism ever
existed. Although Lucy was written
recently, in the 90s, Kincaid clearly depicts a picture of American ignorance,
ignorance to the idea that the colonized people of the world suffered and
experienced pain. This idea is portrayed in the scene in
Lucy when Lucy tells Mariah about her
horrible experience with daffodils. Mariah sympathizes with Lucy at this
revelation but later on proceeds to take Lucy to go see daffodils, “These are
daffodils. I’m sorry about the poem, but I’m hoping you’ll find them lovely all
the same” (Kincaid 29). Mariah doesn’t seem to realize that negative feelings
from the past cannot simply be brushed aside and replaced with a new and
positive experience. Healing from the past is not as simple as that. Mariah’s
inability to understand Lucy’s past continues to become more evident when Lucy
describes her disappointment with the Bible story of Jesus feeding the multitude
with a few loaves and fish. Lucy is disappointed that the story does not
elaborate on how the fish was cooked. Mariah is speechless, unable to relate and
grasping at anything she can to try to identify with Mariah but instead sticks
her foot in her mouth and says, “I was looking forward to telling you that I
have Indian blood . . .” (Kincaid
39). This response confuses Lucy, as minorities in her country were seen as
something you would not want to be associated with, and here Mariah is saying
this “as if she were announcing her possession of a trophy” (Kincaid 40). Mariah
is trying to show Lucy that she accepts her despite Lucy’s ethnicity, but Lucy
sees this as a sort of callousness at the ignorance Mariah displays in her
knowledge of other cultures. This is exactly how America will continue to act,
like Mariah, if colonial and postcolonial literature continue to be hidden in
obscurity instead of becoming an accepted genre to learn from.
I firmly believe that colonial and postcolonial literature is important
for the American people to develop an understanding of the pros and cons of
colonialism. Americans have a right to be informed about the world and what is
going on outside of the United States. In order for the millennial generation to
better react to and comprehend the world around them, we as teachers must
instill principles of empathy, sympathy, and morality to our students through
introducing them to colonial and post-colonial texts, texts with self and other
views, and transnational migration literature. Students will always act like
Mariah from Lucy if they are not
taught about the hardships of others from around the world. They will always see
minorities as a means to their end, as Crusoe did when he discovered and saved
Friday. All of these issues of lack of empathy and ignorance will pervade our
culture unless we instruct our students on the importance of colonial and
post-colonial texts.
Part 3: Research Proposal
I am choosing to write a research essay on the theme of religion in
colonial and post-colonial literature and how that impacts the viewpoint of the
colonist or colonized. I plan on
using Defoe’s work, Robinson Crusoe
as the basis of my text and contrasting it with Kincaid’s
Lucy and the lack of religion within
the text.
Does religion have an impact on the way the colonist treats the
colonized? Does religion impact the way the colonized perceives the colonist?
Does a lack of religion impact the way the colonist treats the colonized? Does a
lack of religion impact the way the colonized reacts to the colonist? These are
the questions that will be answered in analyzing both texts.
