In the course of it, I realised that the modern perception of imperialism is very odious. This is especially true if you are coming from European countries. A mere mention of the word 'colonies' would afflict a westerner with an uncomfortable silence. Understandable. After World War II, the once noble notion of empire building had by then tasted poorly in everyone's mouth. So predictably, when people read it, comments came back asking 'why are you glorifying something so distasteful?'
The answer is simple; imperialism and colonialism was not all bad.
It's an action story of a fictional native hero who killed the evil colonialist. Would have been fun if I did not know where Sarawak is.
I may have reached that personal conclusion philosophically. I wanted to portray truthfully how the people were back in the days and truthfully, the colonised did not all loath the idea of being governed by a foreign power. The image of the native colonies giving the British Empire the middle finger and rejoicing to be finally rid of their evil overlords as the empire crumbled was not all true. Case in point, a passage from the first prime minister of Malaysia's independence speech:
"For many years past our fortunes have been linked with those of Great Britain and we recall in particular the comradeship of two world wars. We remember too the products of our association; justice before the law, the legacy of an efficient public service and the highest standard of living in Asia. We shall therefore always remember with gratitude the assistance which we have received from Great Britain down our long path to nationhood; an assistance which culminated today with the proclamation of Malaya’s Independence."
-Tunku Abdul Rahman
Even from old manuscripts and journals in Penang during 1800s, the voices of old did not seem disgruntled to be ruled by a foreign power. To make it easier to explain, I will list out common perceptions of how would the colonised react to being colonised and then provide some of my input.
1) The people would have been very unhappy that their ruler is foreign.
True, but only in the later time period. In the 1800s, nationalism was unheard of. The natives' understanding of politics was very simple, the king protects and the people serve. It did not matter what colour the king's skin was and the East India Company was a fair king. True, the laws were unfair but it installed order; their laws were clearer and they had the manpower and money to enforce it.
2) The colonialists brought slavery and indentured labour. The people suffered.
Yes, slavery was bad and it was older than feudalism. Even before Europeans set foot in the East Indies, slavery was a common practice; imperialism just expanded the market. Ironically, it was the British Empire who brought a empire-wide abolishment of slavery. We have Wilberforce to thank for it.
Indentured labour however was a morally grey area. But to put it into a native's perspective, a choice between starving to death and working for low wages in a far away land was not a hard choice to make for most.
3) The people were poor, because the colonialists sucked all the wealth.
It would seem that taxes and the conspiring to keep native's labour pay low damages a nation's wealth. However, being a colony means the people had access to technology, capital, and a law system conducive to business. One could still be wealthy beyond what they could have achieved before colonialism if they worked really hard and the people knew it.
4) The people resented being bullied by the colonialists and their cannons and ships.
If you were a local ruler, yes you would. But to the common lay man, it was either being bullied by European muskets or the local ruler's home-grown spears.
It may sound like I am praising colonialism but I assure you the opposite; colonialism is grey. Colonialism has its bad sides, though to discuss it is to beat an already dead horse. Thus my characters all had differing view points of colonialism to show readers that in those days, the people had a love-hate relationship with the British Empire.
I'd like to know what your evidence base for these claims is. You mention old manuscripts and journals, but weren't most ordinary people illiterate back then? So the manuscripts and journals would be written by and for the elite - who are the most likely to benefit from colonialism. Secondly, didn't the colonial power exercise censorship over what could be written and published? Wouldn't people be careful not to say anything 'seditious' in public? In which case they might hide their true feelings.
ReplyDeleteDo we have a clear record of what ordinary (non-elite) people, either Malay or indentured labourers from abroad, felt about the situation? I've seen parallel research on India (Ranajit Guha and the Subaltern Studies school) and it's pretty hard to reconstruct, but the general impression in that case is that the peasants were seriously hostile to colonialism from very early on, though it rarely appears in the public record for various reasons (illiteracy, risk and hidden transcript, and nobody caring what peasants thought). What do you think of James Scott's work with Malay peasants? It's far more recent than your period, but basically confirms the idea that peasants pretend to be a lot happier than they are (while quietly resisting on the side).
Second point. Didn't the colonisers basically reorient the Malay economy to mass production of rubber and palm oil for export? Isn't this why they were bringing in indentured workers and enslaving people? The profits went back to Britain, the land for commodity production was taken from the poor, and the situation locked Malaysia into a dependent economic production niche focused on low-value-added primary production for western markets.
Thirdly, you say the colonisers brought law and order, and people thanked them for this, but did the colonial power really enforce the law if a white person or a corporate operative committed a crime against the people? Didn't the colonisers also make it illegal for people to speak out when they were treated badly, and make it legal for the colonisers to take people's lands?
ReplyDeleteYes, I get it, people accept indentured labour (or today, work in sweatshops) rather than starving. But the real question is: why were they starving to begin with?
Finally... "to beat an already dead horse"... I am not sure that colonialism is dead. Firstly, the economic order imposed by colonialism, where the non-white countries produce primary and middle-range goods in a situation of uneven trade which benefits the rich white countries, is still very much alive. The IMF, WTO, World Bank and financial system are doing today what the colonial powers used to do, through the mediation of complicit national governments. Secondly, people are still being driven off their lands, enslaved, killed and so on, to extract resources for the Northern powers, in many places today (Niger Delta, Colombian Pacific Coast, Xingu region of Brazil, the Bushmen's lands, the Serengeti, slums in Delhi and Rio, etc). Thirdly, there is an active project to recolonise the world under the remit of ideas such as failed states, rogue states, black holes, responsibility to protect/prevent, etc. People are openly talking about UN trusteeships, a revival of the empire and the like. Scholars like Michael Ignatieff and Niall Ferguson are trying to whitewash colonial crimes so as to justify new imperial projects. French troops have reoccupied Mali, Niger, CAR; America is occupying Afghanistan seemingly indefinitely, back in Iraq now, and bombing Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen; there are still UN troops running Kosovo and Bosnia. Australia has threatened to bomb Indonesia, and sent troops to several Pacific Island countries on various pretexts. Malaysia is being threatened with sanctions by the G20 over banking reform, and the US has contingency plans to block the Strait of Malacca. There are dangerous political interests which will benefit from whitewashing colonialism!
I appreciate your point that the situation is grey, that some locals benefited from colonialism (particularly those involved in the export trade), and people expected all kinds of economic and security benefits - much as there are people today who expect development and freedom from neoliberalism (they rarely get it). But isn't it a bit dangerous to play up the supposed positive aspects, when arguments for the superiority of white western power are creating real violence in the present?
Firstly, thank you for leaving a comment. I always appreciate engaging ones like yours.
DeleteLet's get down to business. I will reply to your points one by one.
1) Yes you are right, there were very little records of what other non-Europeans felt in that time period. However, one memoir 'Some Glimpse Into Life in the Far East' by John Turnbull Thompson painted a good picture. You are right to believe that written documents those days would be biased but this memoir stood out because a) It was written after he retired in England b) He was a surveyor, not a governing officer so his work required him to be very close to locals and C) His works showed he had empathy to people of all races. Sure, it may not be as scientific as researches. But when you are writing stories, it's human interactions counts. As I said, it was a love-hate relationship. I acknowledge that were plenty of assassinations and rebellions caused by locals. Even so, some still willingly serve. Perhaps, in my future book I will introduce more characters so I can portray a more balanced view. In the mean time, this book had a 25,000 word limit and that was as far as I could touch on this subject.
2) Yes, you are right. That's mercantilism. But one could argue that without European capital, technology, and imposed order, the plantation economy (although primary) and in extension, the region's entire economy itself would not be as vibrant. It is a hard point to argue because we are comparing current economy against a theoretical economy if Malaysia was not colonised. So I will give a shrug and say "It depends on how you see it."
3) Well, you are right too. The society than was unjust and corrupted, But there was still order in a basic sense. One can start a shop and be sure it will not be robbed 3 times a month as compared to a land ruled by locals. Land grabs were common. But under law, it was actually illegal. It was just that the victims were poor peasants and the Governor and Court would not entertain their pleas. Of course, that led to a generation of native lawyers. So I'd say in that time, order: yes, justice: no.
4) Concerning why they were starving. Well, I'm not saying all people who came here were starving laborers. Some came willingly in search of opportunity. Now most of them came from either China or India. China was not under colonial rule but you brought up a interesting point. Was it possible that colonial powers was involved indirectly with suppressing Qing Dynasty's economy? I will have to think about it. But in the meantime. I will have to ask you back, are there any destitute people from where you are now and why?
5) Whoa! I'm not saying colonialism is now dead. Actually in a direct sense yes, but I admit it now comes in different forms. When I said 'beat a dead horse' I meant, everyone knows why colonialism is bad. It is your textbooks, movies, activism movements, and so forth. I was just too lazy to type it all out again.
So there you have it! Hope you are happy with my response. As to why I making Imperialism and Colonialism look good? I'll be honest, I did it for artistic purposes. Any philosophy included in my book was purely accidental.