|
aljazeerah.info Opinion Editorials |
|||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
|
|
America between the colonial and the postcolonial Ahmad Y. Majdoubeh Jordan Times, 4/4/03
THERE IS, naturally and obviously, a strong objection worldwide (at both governmental and popular levels) to America's present war against Iraq. The idea of war itself is objectionable, of course, but so is the way it is being handled. Different people give different, as well as similar, reasons for their condemnation of the war. One major, though less talked about, reason stems from the stark, old-fashioned colonialism. Some analysts talk about literal colonisation: the occupation of Iraq and perhaps even other countries in the region. America, being (or having become) a mighty empire, is repeating what other mighty, now defunct, empires (most recently, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Germany — not to mention all or most ancient empires) have done before it. Why should America be an exception? Why should President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and (very ironically) Secretary of State Colin Powell be any different from Joseph Conrad's Kurtz? In the case of the latter, it is ivory in the Congo enveloped in idealism; in the former, it is Middle Eastern oil wrapped in a lot of hocus pocus about freedom, democracy and ridding the region and the world of evil. All talk about “all men” being “equal” and about the “inalienable” rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all humans, is not to be taken seriously, it seems. It was a discourse and rhetoric belonging to a certain era, and surely neither Jefferson nor any of the founding fathers had anybody but themselves and the American situation in mind when they said what they said in the Declaration of Independence of 1776. Seeing how bold this American administration is, one cannot rule out literal occupation or colonisation. Equally important are the attitudes, ideas, ideologies, constructs, positions, psychologies, as well as policies, procedures, strategies and practices which lie behind and make up what is referred to as colonialism, and which apply to a variety of contexts today. When theorists speak of the “colonial” today, they speak of domination, oppression, hegemony, suppression, coercion, as well as all forms of imposition of will or ideas on the “other” in all kinds of situations. When we speak of the “colonial”, we speak, obviously, of one nation dominating another; the term itself stems from the literal, physical occupations that took place throughout human history, especially more recently. But we also use the term to refer to unhealthy power relations and unhealthy practices stemming from the abuse of power, in other contexts, sometimes within the same nation or society. For example, the relation between the so-called developed world and the so-called Third World is “colonial”. The former dominates, controls and abuses the latter, directly or indirectly. But we speak of the “colonial” also when members of one racial, ethnic, gender or age group dominate, repress, suppress, discriminate against or abuse members of another. Hence, the relationship between the so-called white and the so-called coloured (including the black, the red, the brown and the yellow) in America and in many Western countries is colonial. And so is the relation between the so-called “American” and the so-called African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian American, Arab-American. But the same notion applies also to the relation of men and women, seniors and juniors, adults and children, etc. A husband who dominates and abuses his wife is colonial, a male boss who harasses his female secretary is colonial, a father who abuses his son is colonial, a teacher who abuses a student is colonial, a pet owner who abuses his pet is colonial, an industrialist who abuses the environment is colonial. What is the postcolonial, then? The postcolonial, simply put, refers to the emergence of a culture, literature, writings, discourse, attitudes, positions, even ideologies, which deconstruct, expose, reject and condemn the colonial. Thus, a postcolonial novelist is one who portrays the domination or abuse that an individual (male or female) or group experiences as a result of unhealthy power relations. Under the postcolonial, you place advocates of human rights (including women's rights, children's rights, the rights of Third World nations, animal rights, etc.). From the very beginning, America was colonial. It was, essentially, the outcome of a capitalist European project, whose roots extend all the way back to Christopher Columbus. The early American colonies in the so-called new world epitomise literal colonialism. The “new world” was not new at all. It belonged to thousands of Native American nations and tribes. But America was, and continued to be so for a long time, colonial also in its thinking and practices. It was colonial in its enslavement of black people, in its prejudice against people of colour, in its denial of minority rights, in its discrimination against women (including white women), in its abuse of the environment. As time went by, America (especially as of the 1960s and primarily due to the Civil Rights Movement, the feminist movement and post-modernist thought in general) became increasingly post-colonial. Very important and dramatic changes happened with respect to race and minority rights and relations, women's rights, animal rights, environmental rights, pluralism, diversity, multiculturalism, etc. In many ways, America has become a model for the world, a “city upon a hill”: tolerance, respect of rights, equal opportunities, etc. One became very enthusiastic, in fact, about applying the American model in the rest of the world. The war against Iraq came to disrupt, blemish, distort and even annul all the advances America made in the direction of postcolonialism. The way it brought about this war, imposed it on the UN, the region, Iraq and the whole world, the way it is conducting it in utter cold-bloodedness is shamelessly colonial. In fact, it is colonialism at its worst, especially since the means of destruction it has at its disposal (all kinds of smart and dumb weaponry) are horrifying, even unprecedented in history. How come the “enlightened”, “liberal”, “advanced”, postcolonial America has become so colonial, so dictatorial, so abusive overnight — one thought it had learned a good lesson from Vietnam, which happened before (maybe even brought about) this new image of America? The answer is simple. Not all America is postcolonial or post-modern. Its ruling neoconservative ideology is mediaeval. Also, many of those who orchestrated the war against Vietnam are directly and indirectly involved in the war against Iraq. But America's conduct (misconduct, one should say) can be attributed to its double standards, to the discrepancy between what it does inside and what it does outside. It does care about human rights, its human rights, that is. It does care about minority rights, women's rights, children's rights, rights of the environment — its minorities, its women, its children, its environment, but not the Iraqis', the Middle Easterners', the Africans', the Asians' or (even) the Europeans'. America is postcolonial when it comes to anything belonging to it or to some of its allies, but it is colonial (and savagely so) when it comes to others. America should not think it is doing anything different from what other mighty, ruthless and defunct empires did before it. It is a very unfortunate, tragic and destructive repetition of history.
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.
|