1 The Times , “Marines landed at Trinidad: disorders spreading” (23 June 1937), p. 15.
2 The Times , “Another warship at Trinidad, three strikers shot” (26 June 1937), p. 13.
3 Constantine, British Colonial Development Policy ; Havinden and Meredith, Colonialism and Development ; Morgan, Official History of Colonial Development ; Butler, Industrialisation .
4 Bolland, On the March
-acknowledged heterogeneity of
Britishness through history. And one way to do this is by opening up a
comparative mutually illuminating analysis of the languages and practices of British nationalism, colonialism and imperialism. Gilroy, in
focusing solely on the interaction of languages of race and nation, forecloses such analysis.
If materialism is useful for explaining and challenging exclusivist
types of nationalism, so is the notion of utopia. Gilroy is indeed a big fan
of utopianism, but his formulations align utopianism exclusively with
outer-national cultural impulses. The
confrontation with Western colonialism (such as ‘society’, ‘liberty’, ‘people’, ‘rights’ and ‘equality’), ‘civilisation’ was subject to inter-
cultural appropriation and reconstruction during this period.
A particularly interpretive part of the Meiji-era transformation was careful
observation of the world. Japan’s intelligentsia was well equipped with existing
learning processes, as it had for years deliberated on secularised neo-Confucian
principles of knowledge (Collins, 2000: 685–6). Universities quickly sprang up
with official support and patronage, once the German
through which the colonial project is conﬁgured, and into how women’s investment in anti-colonialism is therefore diﬀerent from men’s. Nationalism, he
perceives in the trenchant essay ‘Algeria Unveiled’, as elsewhere, invokes men
and women in contrasting ways, especially as, he writes, both the occupying
colons and the (male) ‘occupied’ enlist women as signiﬁers of culture.
Concomitantly, however, woman to Fanon becomes a subject of history only
through her part in the national resistance. She is uniquely politicised by
means of this involvement
peers are confident that they made the best of a bad situation, created
by the powers of global capitalism, colonialism and racist exploitation.
Though they had very few resources at their disposal, colonial
oppressions did not achieve total domination. They used their
creativity, the blessings that nature provided and the refuse others
discarded to transform material lack in the 1950s and 1960s into
‘grievous violations of the law of nature’. 31
According to Wilhelm Grewe’s reading of Grotius, his approach
is ‘nothing other than the doctrine of religious intervention expressed in
the language of natural law’. 32
The argument that saving people from maltreatment was a
justification for colonialism and imperialism is levelled mainly at Vitoria and
Grotius (see below).
Antiquity and the Middle Ages
Interestingly, Renaissance writers, notably
effective rebuttal, demonstrating the significance of colonial expansion
for metropolitan economic and cultural formations throughout the nineteenth century.
Jameson and Said both consider modernism a compensatory and
ultimately collusive reaction to empire. Discussing Howards End,
Jameson acknowledges Forster’s anti-imperial sentiments, but argues
that they are undermined by the sensory impact of expansionism on the
novelist. Such an impact is for Jameson an inevitable consequence of
adequacy of black American thought
for black America itself. We now need the notion of a critical, interrogative black Atlantic political culture, based on dialogue not emulation. The
peculiar density of this modern critical black Atlanticism is one that
Black Atlantic nationalism
allows African intellectuals both to instrumentalise African America as a
fictional space of self-actualisation and to demystify that construction; to
position slavery and colonialism as comparable yet incommensurable
historical experiences; to
desire to change the
domestic and/or international order, an order that seemed to need changing
in favour of one’s own nation. It took two major forms. One form of radical
nationalism was an essentially rightist form of politics; the other was the
mainstay of anti-colonialism.
Radical-right nationalism despised the
old order, the privileged classes and out-dated institutions, all of which
killjoy: the hurt of some gets in the way of the happiness of others.
Can we think about the politics of hurt differently? I have always taught
courses on racism and colonialism, ever since I have taught. I thus bring
difficult histories in the room, often difficulties that manifest as stuff (an
image, a written document, a thing). I think asking ourselves how we do this
is something we must always do. These histories are alive, they are not over.
Racism and colonialism are the present we are in. So how we bring these
histories into the room does matter. I