Does “decolonization” need decolonizing?
Reflections on a month of events on the theme of “Decolonizing Empire and Decolonization.”
As part of the Lepage Center’s 2020–21 six-part event series on “Decolonizing History,” we explored the complex theme of “Decolonizing Decolonization and Empire” during the month of February. We began with a conversation about Black Internationalism with Dr. Adom Getachew, Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Political Science and the College at the University of Chicago. We continued with a roundtable on “Decolonizing Nationalism, Anti-Colonialism, and Anti-Westernism in the ‘Rest’ of the World.” The panel discussion featured Dr. Cemil Aydin, Professor of International/Global History at UNC Chapel Hill; Dr. Stella Krepp, Assistant Professor of Latin America and Iberian History at Bern University, and Dr. Andrew Liu, Assistant Professor of History at Villanova University. Our last event of the month was a discussion of what it means to decolonize post-colonialism, with Dr. Nitasha Kaul who is Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster (UK).
Does the project of “decolonization” need decolonizing?
The Lepage Center took a step back from some of the previous events of our “Decolonizing History” series to question whether, in fact, vestiges of empire remain in the process of decolonization. Though the term describes efforts to re-center knowledges and narratives of historically colonized peoples, this process can sometimes subversively enable new projects of imperialism.
It was a complicated topic to digest, but our speakers broke it down with specific examples from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Throughout our three events, they highlighted how governments and leaders can use concepts like nationalism, internationalism, and anti-Westernism to excuse abuses of power. These are a lot of terms to keep track of, which, along with decolonization, can have contested meanings. This flexibility in the language of decolonization, our speakers argued, can sometimes allow it to be used for imperialist aims.
What are the historical roots of this question?
Each of our speakers traced the complex legacy of colonialism in their area of interest, as well as the developments of decolonization and anti-Western movements.
For example, though their histories are greatly intertwined, Dr. Krepp described the “often antagonistic relationship between the US and Latin America,” due to historical imperialist ventures by the former. “From a Latin American perspective, the history of anti-colonialism is actually the history of anti-imperialism and the US has a central place in it,” she said.
Animosity developed in other parts of the world as well, often as a result of feelings of exclusion. Dr. Liu pointed out that China at one time admired Western values, but described the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I as a “radicalizing moment.” After the treaty signers negotiated over China without its input, China developed “a complaint with what they viewed as the problems of Western liberalism” that influenced its political trajectory.
Such rejection led many oppressed groups to seek solidarity internationally. Liu and Dr. Aydin discussed the pan-Asian movement, and Dr. Getachew noted that Black Internationalism, a movement which fosters a sense of common cause among African-descended people across the world, rose at the height of colonialism in an attempt to “center the story that Black thinkers tell in the origins of the modern world.” In her book, Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination, she traces how, as more African countries became independent in the twentieth century, leaders like Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana advocated for the formation of an Africa-wide union.
Pan-nationalism also emerged in the late-nineteenth century to address a racist colonial climate. At times, however, governments in in newly-formed nations used internationalist movements as alternatives means to power when other imperial schemes failed. Aydin, whose book The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia: Visions of World Order in Pan-Islamic and Pan-Asian Thought compares Japan and Turkey, argued that “These two non-European empires were actually trying to be part of the European Imperial club,” and when they were excluded from the “club,” employed idealistic and anti-colonial rhetoric to justify their participation in the ensuing world wars and to preserve their empires.
Even if these governments “instrumentalized” the language of decolonization for imperial ends, Aydin believes that some of their efforts inevitably made some contribution to the goals they vocalized: “What Turkey and Japan did in terms of their ideas of decolonization is not really different from what America and Britain did… but because they were underdogs and they were racialized, their strategies contributed to decolonization.”
What does this mean in the present day?
In some instances, countries that gained independence in the 20th century continue to impose imperial structures within the borders they inherited. For example, Dr. Nitasha Kaul’s research compares human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang, China, with those against Kashmiri Muslims in India, where the government has opened “de-radicalization camps.”
“These structures of oppression are accompanied by the discourse of legitimization,” she said, because “Colonial power is seen as something that the West can have…and the non-West cannot.”
This “you can’t tell us what to do” rhetoric, as Liu puts it, is used to deflect legitimate criticisms of governments behaving badly. Kaul believes the danger of this language goes even further; India is not economically non-Western, so it becomes deeply problematic when “non-Western” begins to mean not caring about Human Rights. She argued that it is key for foreign governments and diasporic peoples to speak up, so as not to legitimize the harmful actions of governments.
The attitudes of the Hindu nationalist government also raised debate among our speakers over whether there is such a thing as “good” or “bad” decolonization, and whether internationalist or nationalist frameworks could help more in navigating this conversation.
Getachew pushed back against the idea that all nationalists are the same or solely self-interested. Rather, some national independence has required nationalists to be embedded in internationalism. “I think many people think nationalism is a bad thing,” she said, and hopes her research can “complicate our knee-jerk reaction to nationalism as such.”
Krepp agreed there’s nothing wrong with putting forth a nationalist agenda in and of itself, and that both international and national movements can have positive or negative impacts, but argued that in cases where “national interest trumps international solidarity, so often it’s not a very uplifting story.”
Kaul, however, cited her case studies in India and China as examples of atrocities that can be carried out in the name of “progress.” Regressive and progressive, she said, are too conveniently “mapped into a neat binary.”
Is this the “moment” for decolonization?
All our speakers seemed to agree that the original project of decolonization is far from over. Yet Getachew observed that “The fact that the language of decolonization persists in this period is not a sign that it’s the same project.” There has been an international movement to decolonize, but will this lead to any significant changes in political, economic, cultural or other facets of life?
Aydin believes the world order built after World War II is unlikely to change anytime soon, and in that regard said, “I don’t see much of a hope in anywhere.”
Krepp, is disappointed in human rights abuses in places like Mexico, where citizens are being “disappeared.” There have been times in the past when she thought changes could be made, only to see such negative power structures persist. “I find it sad and frustrating,” she said. “Is that the moment? I don’t know, I’m a historian, ask me in 10 years.”
Getachew, however, believes historians are implicated in the failure or success of decolonization. “There is an anxiety among historians about acknowledging the deeply political character of history writing… we must ask ourselves — why write this history now?”
Resources:
· The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia: Visions of World Order in Pan-Islamic and Pan-Asian Thought by Cemil Aydin
· “What is the Muslim World?” by Cemil Aydin
· Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination by Adom Getachew
· “China : Xinjiang :: India : Kashmir” by Nitasha Kaul
· Imagining Economics Otherwise: encounters with Identity/Difference by Nitasha Kaul
· Residue by Nitasha Kaul
· The Decline of the Western Hemisphere: A History of Inter-American Relations from 1941 to 1990 by Stella Krepp
