Imperialism, Colonialism And Identity In 20th Century Fiction
Essay Preview: Imperialism, Colonialism And Identity In 20th Century Fiction
Report this essay
In the mid-1800s, Imperialism began to emerge as a way for countries to expand their territories. It was viewed as a way of increasing land, resources, and power. Strong European powers, chiefly, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, France, Russia, and also the United States began their colonial campaigns to gain wealth, power, natural resources, a market to sell industrial goods, national prestige, or occasionally to improve the lives of the colonial people. European colonialism expanded to nearly all of the known world, and few were able to fight off the might of the new invading powers.
H. Rider Haggards novel “King Solomons Mines” depicted this colonial outbreak and clearly expressed certain racial prejudices that were dominant during the authors time. The fact that, like his creator, Quatermain admired and respected black Africans did not obscure his belief that blacks and whites must remain separate. Indeed, these very sentiments were spoken more often by the blacks in the story than by the whites. However, though “King Solomons Mines” did not envision true equality or unity among blacks and whites, it was important to note that Haggards work did affirm a sense of noble values inherent in both races. Though culturally different, he believed both races possessed people of honor and goodness just as both possessed people of treachery and evil. Haggards view that blacks and whites could inhabit the same moral world was more progressive than the views of many of his contemporaries, who believed that all native Africans were simply savages. An interesting passage in this regard occurred
in the first chapter of King Solomons Mines, when Allan decided to substitute the word “natives” for the more commonly used “niggers.” It is worth noting that, offensive as the word “niggers” may be to contemporary ears, Quatermain also saw it as a demeaning and reprehensible term. He objected specifically to its connotation of inferior moral character, and suggested that a black “native” could be just as much a “gentleman” as a white man. Thus, given the historical period in which the novel was written, it is noteworthy that Quatermain respected integrity, honesty, and bravery as much in black Africans as he did in his white associates. In fact, one of the novels major themes seemed to be that such virtues transcended race, and that heroism was heroism, no matter what the color of ones skin. Haggard came to respect native Africans through personal experience, but his high regard for them was seldom shared by his contemporaries, who tended to view colonial natives as scarcely human.
Rudyard Kiplings 1899 poem, the “White Mans Burden” also contained a strong message about colonialism and race. The White Mans Burden represented a very Eurocentric view of the world, and had been used to encourage powerful nations to adopt an imperial role. Non-European cultures were seen as child-like, as well as demonic, with people of European descent having an obligation to rule them; and encourage their development, until they could take their place in the world, by fully adopting Western ways. In modern times, the poem “White Mans Burden” is seen as racist and condescending, cultivating a sense of European ascendancy over other people, or of quantifying and evaluating the value of culture. However, some groups today still have sympathy for the idea of a White Mans Burden, although most explicitly remove the idea of race from the concept. They argue that it is a responsibility of richer countries to help less-developed countries. They point out that law and order are vital to the economic and cultural growth of a nation, and are sometimes difficult to achieve, without foreign intervention. Nation-building could be seen as an example of a modern-day White Mans Burden.
Within a historical context, the concept of “White Mans Burden” made clear the prevalent attitudes that allowed colonialism to proceed. Although a belief in the “virtues of empire” was wide-spread at the time, there were also many dissenters; and the publication of the poem caused a flurry of arguments from both sides, most notably from Mark Twain and Henry James. Much of Kiplings other writing did suggest that he genuinely believed in the “beneficent role” which the introduction of Western ideas could play in lifting non-Western peoples out of “poverty and ignorance”. Parts of the poem suggest that it is not just the native people who are enslaved; but also the “functionaries of empire”, who are caught in colonial service. This theme may also be contrasted with the Christian missionary movement, which was also quite active at the time; in Africa, India, and other English and European colonies (e.g. the Christian and Missionary Alliance).Thus, the poem showed that, to a large extent, colonial powers relied upon the argument that they were “civilizing” the indigenous peoples that they were colonizing.
Thirdly, George Orwells novel “Burmese Days” presents a bitter and satirical picture of the white mans rule in Upper Burma and addresses themes of colonialism and race. In the novel, the British regard the Indians as less than human, often giving them orders and forcing them to perform hazardous tasks. The Indians are plagued with stereotypes and are never fully allowed to enter into a society established in their own country by men from a native land. When it is suggested by a wealthy European character named Flory that a native of high stature be allowed to enter into their club, Ellis, another wealthy European, summarizes the basic attitude of all of the Europeans towards the natives by stating:
“You oily swine! You Niggers Nancy Boy! You crawling, sneaking, bloody bastard! Look at him, look at him! Letting us all down for the sake of a pot-bellied nigger! After all weve said to him! When weve only got to hang
together and we can keep the stink of garlic out of this club forever. My God, wouldnt it make you spew your guts up?” (Orwell 235).
Through his ignorant use of racist remarks and stereotypes,