Colonialism

It sounds like an old-fashioned concept to most of us in the Western world, something that we use to define attitudes of the 19th or early 20th century, without much relevance to our lives today.  However, the discussion made it clear that this is a belief blinded by lack of experience and perhaps privilege.

The Professional first gave us the very broad understanding of the word, disconnected from its cultural and political connotations, saying that it simply means something new establishing itself. "I want to be colonized by new ideas," he said.  In contrast, the brutal act of overpowering and causing the disappearance of peoples and cultures is better described as imperialism than colonialism.  However, he admitted, the usage of the word does highlight the common understanding that the process involves invasion and occupation, whether there are other people in the area or not.

The revelation of the continued existence of colonialism, even in our global and tolerant society, came from our Participant from the east.  He agreed with the previous contribution on the question of economic involvement or support in the act of colonization, and explained to us that it goes even farther than that; in his own country a (secretly) colonial power continues to "vet" presidential candidates even today, weeding out those who would upset the power balance and probably give the country more separation from its former "protector".  He mentioned other examples from the geographical area where foreign ideas have been adopted and assimilated into native cultures, but the results are not colonialism since the acceptance of these ideas was done freely and not imposed, at least not much, by outsiders.  Generally, the Participant writes a quick overview of his thoughts on the subject to be discussed, but this time he recycled an article he had previously written.  Later in the discussion, this was criticized by another speaker, who did not appreciate the analogy presented and was almost offended at the focus of the article, snorting that it was off-topic and we as a group should be more careful to keep to the question at hand.  I rather think this person just did not understand the analogy and was showing his frustration, since there have been uncountable instances of off-topic contributions throughout the life of the group, and he has not seen fit to complain so bitterly before.

The Professional, the Organizer, and I as well agreed that the keys to colonialism are the physical occupation of land and the financial reasons for doing so.  The colonists are there to claim resources that will bring them economic success, and if they can bend the natives to their way of thinking it will be easier to deal with them.  A group that is merely looking for a space to practice its own religion or way of life that does not attempt to assimilate or eliminate people they run into is not practicing colonialism; aggression is also a necessary component of the act.  The Organizer touched on his favorite topic, China, saying that today the Chinese are in the middle of a new colonization of Africa, building cities and moving Chinese people there, with the goal of extracting the resources as cheaply as they can.  It is possible that they are not engaging in the typical cultural colonization that one expects of European (or American) settlers and explorers, but they definitely and purposely affect and attempt to control the behavior of the people they come across with prior claim to the land and resources.  An Islander concurred and stated explicitly that the goal of colonialism is to enrich the colonizing country, along with eliminating the native culture and replacing it with the colonizers' own, although the financial benefits of this activity might not be obvious.  It seems to me almost a disorder.  The colonizer has ridiculously high self-regard, and believes that the "sharing" of culture is practically an act of charity and kindness to the poor, benighted natives who need some "civilizing" influence.  Speaking from his own history, he warned that colonialism and colonization inevitably lead to rebellion.

A Newcomer made the remark that foreign investment should not be confused with colonialism, as it benefits the community or country that receives the investment as much as the country that makes it.  He also gave us the old canard of "choice", stating firmly his belief that people choose to support whatever seems best to them and we should therefore not worry about multinational corporations or foreign companies replacing local business only to leave the area with nothing when their financial goals have been met.  The problem, I think, is that many people do not have a real choice at all.  They might choose between the cheap product and the ecologically or socially responsible product, but they are also choosing between the product and the rent, or food next week, or one pair of work shoes versus three.  Money cannot be ignored when we make choices, and it is naive to imagine we make all our decisions based on our personal codes of ethics.  Mostly, we follow the "ethics" of surviving in the best way we can.  The Professional also made it clear that we as individuals are mostly controlled by money.  The powerful and influential will do whatever they want without asking if anybody minds, and anyone who protests had better have some power of their own to back up the complaint.  Otherwise, it will disappear in the swirling hurricane of information and opinions that we have today in the age of communication.

In the end, the Essay Writer balanced the talk with a mention of the benefits of colonialism, saying that although there is an unavoidable damage to the colonized culture, there is also the benefit of being introduced to a more powerful one that can be appropriated to one's own advantage.  He speaks English because of colonialism, not because of his own coincidental interest or random chance.

Our economy makes colonialism a necessity, simply because of the ease with which it can be accomplished.  New resources are constantly needed, as well as new markets.  We do our best to focus on "individual freedom of choice", but as the Organizer said in closing, any contact has influence and mostly contact is not quiet but propagandist.  Everybody wants to control information and the opinions of others, "colonizing" them with our own.