Albert+Memmi+-+book+review

A review of the book entitled: the colonizer and the colonized by (1991).    ** Introduction ** // In this book, // Memmi (1991) provide a deeper analysis of the process of colonization and decolonization through a presentation of the portraits of both the colinizer and the colonized. The overarching theme which is recurrent throughout the book is that: “colonization materially kills the colonized. It must be added that it kills him spiritually. Colonization distorts relationships, destroys or    petrifies institutions, and corrupts men, both colonizers and colonized. (Memmi    1991 p.151) The contension of the above statement is that colonization is a very negative and destructive force. Its impact on humanity is equally devastating on both the colonizer and the colonized. Memmi (1991) enables the reader to deconstruct the dynamic colonial and corrosive relationships that bedevil the colonizers and the colonized. This also include the individual internal conflicts. ** Does a colonial exist ** Memmi (1991) discusses at length the mythical conceptualization of the term colonial which is used to describe the colonizers who did not directly participated in the actual conquering of the natives. These kinds of colonizers consists mostly of immigrants originating from Europe who do not have direct role in the colonization process. Such colonizers fall into the category of //colonial whose definition is:// “a European living in a colony but having no priviliges whose living condition are not higher than those of colonized person of equivalent economic and social status. By temperament or ethical convention, a colonial is a benevolent European who does not have the colonizer’s attitude towards the colonized. (Memmi 1991 p 10) This is an attempt by the Europeans who were not directly involved in the acquisition of land for colonization to distance themselves from the brute force of colonization. Some of them were brought in as workers by colonialist. Such people do not look upon themselves as part of the system. While acknowledges that a number of common Europeans did not directly participate in the exploitation of the local communities through land acquisition he believes that by virtue of their relationship to the colonial masters they automatically assumed a priviliged position. According to Memmi (1991) “A colonial so defined does not exist, for all Europeans in the colonies are priviliged the distinction between deed and intent has no great significance in the colonial situation.” (p10). For example, they support colonial institutions by working as law enforcement agents. They are recruited as police officers and soldiers in order to suppress the natives. It is also important to note that, these new arivals undergo a traumatic process when confronting the horrors of colonialism. There reaction to this kind of impoverishment and ill-treatment of the colonized produces two kind of colonizers. That is the colonizers who refuse and the colonizers who accepts the colonial statusquo. ** The colonizer who refuse **. The colonizer who refuess face enormous challenges as he leads an internally conflicted life. As defined by Memmi (1991): “refuse means either withdrawing physically from those conditions or remaining to fight and change them.” (p19 ). This situation present itself to mostly new arivals who are horrified by the harsh conditions as experienced by the local natives. They are mostly confronted with two choices either to go back to Europe or stay and fight. For example new arival who feels “revolted by the cynicism of his own fellow citizens ("pay no attention to poverty! you'll see: you soon get used to it!"), immediately thinks of going home. Being compelled to wait until the end of his contract, he is liable to get used to the poverty and the rest. But it may happen that this man, whose only wish was to be a colonial, finds himself unfit for this role, and soon leaves.” (Memmi 1991 p19) Thus, a colonizer who feels strongly about the impoverished and marginalized colonized may choose to go back home instead of confronting the system. Moreover, “It can also happen that he does not leave. Having discovered the economic, political and moral scandal of colonization, he can no longer agree to become what his fellow citizens have become; he decides to remain, vowing not to accept colonization. Oh, this vow is not necessarily a rigid one! Such indignation is not always accompanied by desire for a policy of action. It is rather a position of principle.” (Memmi 1991 p19) Such kind of colonizer on one hand enjoys the privilige of his status and on the other hand feels sorry for the colonized. As it relates to what acts upon the colonizer when trying to refuse: “He may openly protest, or sign a petition, or join a group which is not automatically hostile toward the colonized. This already suffices for him to recognize that he has simply changed difficulties and discomfort. It is not easy to escape mentally from a concrete situation, to refuse its ideology while continuing to live with its actual relationships.” (Memmi 1991 p20) This kind of a colonizer find himself held hostage by this situation. Thereby becoming a prisoner of choice.  In terms of effects on the colonizer when attempting to refuse ; “from now on, he lives his life under the sign of a contradiction which looms at every step, depriving him of all coherence and all tranquillity. What he is actually renouncing is part of himself, and what he slowly becomes as soon as he accepts a life in a colony. He participates in and benefits from those privileges which he half-heartedly denounces. “ (Memmi 1991 p20) This kind of a colonizer lead a life of hypocrisy. He is never at peace with himself or herself. **// The colonizer who accepts. //**   When it comes to what the colonizer accept he: “accept colonization and to travel the whole length of the road leading from colonial to colonialist. A colonialist is, after all, only a colonizer who agrees to be a    colonizer. By making his position explicit, he seeks to legitimize colonization.” (Memmi 1991 p45) Under this approach, the colonialist accept his priviliged position and does not worry about the debilitating impact of his actions on the local communities. He becomes entitled to his privileges. As it relates to how the colonizers defend their position: the new colonizer “ justifies everything—the system and the officials in it. He obstinately pretends to have seen nothing of poverty and injustice which are right under his nose; he is interested only in creating a position for himself, in obtaining his share.” (memmi 1991 p45) In this case the colonialist project himself as a superior person and feels he is entitled to the priviliges. The colonizers attempt to absolve themselves by attempting to “ falsify history, he rewrites laws, he would extinguish memories —anything to succeed in transforming his usurpation into legitimacy.” (Memmi 1991 p52) As suggested by the above statement This kind of a colonizer engages in self deluding activities through the reconstruction of history to appese his guilty conscience. He also develop a disdainful attitude toward the colonized and at times entertain the idea of committing genocide to serve himself from this dilemma. In regards to how the colonizers sees the colonized: “His disquiet and resulting thirst for justification require the usurper to extol himself to the skies and to drive the usurped below the ground at the same time.” (Memmi 1991 p53) Under this approach, the colonized isobjectified and looked upon as less than a human. The colonizer convinces himself that the colonized is inferior and does not deserve equal treatment.  In terms of how racism fit in the colonization process ; Racism is the cornerstone of colonization. It provides a narrative for the justification of the establishment of a colony. For example: “Colonial racism  is built from three major ideological components: one, the gulf between the culture of the colonialist and the colonized; two, the exploitation of these differences for the benefit of the colonialist; three, the use of these supposed differences as standards of absolute fact. (Memmi 1991 p71) Thus, it is from the platform of racism from whence the colony is illegitimately built. **// Mythical portrait of the colonized //** For colonialism to succeed it requires the dehumanization of the colonized through the adverse portrait of the colonized. The colonized are portrait as lazy, stupid unmotivated uncivilized savages who need to be protected from themselves. Moreover, “The colonized's devaluation .. extends to everything that concerns him: to his land, which is ugly, unbearably hot, amazingly cold, evil smelling; such discouraging geography that it condemns him to contempt and poverty, to eternal dependence.” (Memmi 1991 p67) This kind of depiction definitely suits the interest of the colonizers who then see themselves as serviors of this brutes including the use of harsh treatments. In regards to the meaning and the effect on the colonizer; the fact that the colonizer does not see himself as part of the colony, he does not develop it rather he only exploit it to benefit himself and the motherland. For example: “The colonialist does not plan his future in terms of the colony, for he is there only temporarily and invests only what will bear fruit in his time. The true reason, the principal reason for most deficiencies is that the colonialist never planned to transform the colony into the image of his homeland, nor to remake the colonized in his own image!” (Memmi 1991 p 69). Therefore, to prove his point he continuously underdevelop the colony. In terms of What the portrait means to and what effect it have on the colonized: “this mythical and degrading portrait ends up by being accepted and live d with to a certain extent by the colonized.” (Memmi 1991 p87) This kind of portrait may force the colonized to engage in a self blame exercise. This may falsely convince them they are responsible for their predicament. ** Situation of the colonized. **   In colonial set up, the colonized are confronted with a number of uncomfortable situations from different angles. For example, historically: “The most serious blow suffered by the colonized is being removed from history and from the community.” (Memmi 1991 p91) That is the colonized do not participate in making decisions that affect their destiny. This is the most dehumanizing aspect of colonialism. Under the colonial set up, the colonized lose their history and the history they are told is not their own. Nobody writes their history because it is not recognized. The colonized are just objects of history.  When it comes to the Ability to govern: Under the colonial set up all power to govern is invested in the colonial masters that is: “The fact is that the colonized does not  govern. Being kept away from power, he ends up by losing both interest and feeling for control.” (Memmi 1991 p95) It from these lack of experience in governing from which the colonizers derive their assertion that the colonized are incapable of governing themselves and create a myth out of it.  In terms of Family dynamics; interestingly, colonialism can act as an impetus for retaining and maintaining a cohesive family but mostly for wrong reasons. For example: “The colonial superstructure has real value as a refuge. It saves the colonized from the despair of total defeat and, in return, it finds confirmation in a constant inflow of new blood. The young man will marry, will become a devoted father, reliable brother , responsible uncle and, until he takes his father's place, a respectful son. Everything has gone back into the order of things.” Memmi 1991 p99) This kind of family retention is very regress and emasculates the young people from advancing and having refuge in the old traditions.   As it regards to language; this is one of the most painful adverse impact of colonialism which will be very difficult if ever to correct. The reason being that the languages of the colonized are “neither written nor read, permitting only uncertain and poor oral development   . Granted, small groups of academicians persist in developing the language of their people, perpetuating it through scholarly pursuits into the splendors of the past. But its subtle forms bear no relationship to everyday life and have become obscure to the man on the street.” (Memmi 1991 p106) The language of the colonized just becomes part of the archaeves since they are not applied in governing or providing any meaningful instruction for anything. As it relates to education; education can be very effective tool in disempowering and degrading the colonized. For example: “Obviously, there is likewise nothing in his school education , in which references to the community and nation are always in terms of the colonizing nation.) This educational void, a result of social inadequacy, thus perpetuates that same inadequacy, damaging one of the essential dimensions of the colonized individual.” Memmi 1991 p97) The education designed and implemented by the colonialists general makes references to their mother countries and they hardly develop any local content. **// Two answers of the colonized //** The basic two answers of the colonized in response to their marginalization are as follows: first, the emergence of indigenous nationalism which is predicated upon “rejecting all the colonizers The distinction between deed and intent has no great significance in the colonial situation.” (Memmi 1991 p130). This will be followed by a revolution. In the process of the revolution the indigenous nationalists in effort to cleanse themselves from the adverse influences of colonialism they will go as far as changing the names of the streets, buildings including signs even if it inconveniences them. Second, the colonizer turn to religion in reaction to colonization that is: “He then discovers that religion is not simply an attempt to communicate with the invisible, but also an extraordinary place of communion for the whole group. The colonized, his leaders and intellectuals, his traditionalists and liberals, all classes of society, can meet there, reinforce their bonds, verify and re-create their unity.” (Memmi 1991 p133). In this situation, religion plays an important role in uniting the community and protecting themselves from colonialism. The role of racism as it relates to both the colonized's and the colonizer's actions As noted earlier, racism play an important role in the justification of the establishment of colonialism. It provides a moral framework through which the colonialists used to subjugate the colonizers. At the same time racism can also play an important role in emuncipation of the colonized. It provides the colonized with a clearly identified common enemy. But unlike the racism of the colonialists the colonized’s racism**:** “is not based on a belief in the inferiority of the detested group but on the conviction, and in large measure on the observation, that this group is truly an aggressor and dangerous.” (Memmi 1991 p131) In other words this kind of racism is a positive force and it is based on a quest for self defense and liberation. **// Conclusion. //**    In his concluding remarks (Memmi 1991) noted that, in order To mitigate the adverse impact of colonialism on one hand: “the colonized needs to do away with colonization. To become a man, he must do away with the colonized being that he has become.” (Memmi 1991 p151 ) What it means is that the colonized need to reclaim his or her humanity. On the other hand, “if the European must annihilate the colonizer within himself, the colonized must rise above his colonized being. (Memmi 1991 p151 ) Thereby becoming a dual process of redemption for both the colonized and the colonizer. This process of redemption is based on self introspection and actualization. For example: “In order to free himself from colonization, the colonized must start with his oppression, the deficiencies of his group. In order that his liberation may be complete, he must free himself from those inevitable conditions of his struggle.” (Memmi 1991 p152) That is the colonized should emancipate himself or herself from the destructive and short sightedness tendencies of decolonization. For example in the initial stages of the revolution the colonized had to become “A nationalist, because he had to fight for the emergence and dignity of his nation,” (Memmi 1991 p152) Evoking the spirit of nationalism was an essential step in the liberation but it should not be an end in itself. The colonized: “must conquer himself and be free in relation to that nation. He can, of course, assert himself as a nationalist. But it is indispensable that he have a free choice and not that he exist only through his nation. He must conquer himself and be free in relation to the religion of his group, which he can retain or reject, but he must stop existing only through it. The same applies to the past, tradition, ethnic characteristics, etc.” (Memmi 1991 p152) In this regard the colonized must not be hold hostage to his nationalism, religion, traditions and ethnicity which may pose as a significant impediments to progress. “Finally, he must cease defining himself through the categories of colonizers.” (Memmi 1991 p152). His future must not be shaped by his colonial experiences only. The colonized needs to get rid himself or herself of the adverse effects of both colonial and precolonial adverse experiences. Reference: Memmi A (1991) The Colonizer and the Colonized Beacon Press Boston Massachusetts USA. ||