Colonization : Benefits and Servitude
Colonization is inexcusable. Moreover, it does not seek to apologize (1). It's first and foremost an imbalance: the exercise of strength over weakness.
Setting aside ancient colonizations, which were supposed to occur on virgin territory through the creation of a city in relation to the metropolis. This model may be just a legend. It assumes a world that is incredibly less dense than ours.
The colonization of a space results from the expansion of a species on that space. Is it empty ?
To stay within the human world, if Greek colonies were among Greeks, modern colonization confirms a separation between the civilized and the barbarians..
The Romans opposed foreigners, and this could go as far as slavery. Yet there was a possibility of going from slave to free man, and that was emancipation. The Romans believed that it took three generations to assimilate a conquered country. Assimilation is the opposite of colonization.
The Romans, as opposed to the Greeks, often practiced emancipation, such as adoption. Roman citizenship was extended to all peoples of the empire, and the colonies were integrated into the empire.
Colonization is not just any domination. It is a victory that keeps the vanquished as the vanquished. When it wants to eliminate him, it becomes genocide. The disappearance of the old people then deprives the colonizer of his superiority. He remains alone, cursed by history, a pariah of humanity, hoping only for forgetfulness.
Colonialism was the ideology of this separation, which no longer has a platform anywhere. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore. It simply no longer has the same appearance.
The ostracism of the idea, however, does not help to understand the phenomenon, which is natural to human societies. Like crime, it is something that is impregnable, but relative. The critique of violence will never eliminate it. The colonizing domination can degenerate into exploitation, even oppression, but it is not mandatory. Let us remember the Greek colonization by the Romans, for example...
Colonization must be distinguished from war, which can precede it, and which we hope to see disappear. To submit is not to fight.
We must also dispel the bias of lateralization : colonization is not exclusive to the modern West. There has been, and still is, Muslim colonization, which produced its finest fruits in Spain, in contrast to the stagnation in many other countries. If we talk about Africa, for example, there was much more slave trading by the Arabs on the eastern coast than by the triangular trade on the western coast or through internal wars. Slavery itself is an extreme case of colonization and a crime in itself. The European colonization of the interior of Africa also argued for ending slavery. Finally, new colonizations are taking place outside of Western influence.
Colonization should be seen in relation to domestication. It has been noted that domesticated animals remain in an infantile state and live longer than wild animals. But humans are also domesticated animals: there are no longer any wild humans anywhere, if there ever were. This domestication is inseparable from civilization as a whole, and it is easy to highlight the lingering childish aspects present in the modern citizen.
Moreover, infantilism can masquerade as the image of the savage, as if the unbridled play of powers were an effect of civilization.
The colonized sometimes demand colonization, even under threat. We can observe the tendency for voluntary servitude, as shown by La Boétie, and especially this desire to be governed, as studied by Wilhelm Reich. This pathological aspect has its healthy counterpart in the ability to admire, learn, esteem, and consciously follow. A fruitful critique of colonization will distinguish a fair appreciation of its contributions and promote acculturation that surpasses it.
Even though it may seem scandalous, there can be a positive colonization, a path towards improvement. The first criticism that can be made is that this direction does not come from within oneself. Having an idea of what one can become is a powerful driving force that should not rely on others. There must be a path towards emancipation.
The colonized are divided into two parties : defining themselves against the colonizer or appropriating their culture. Thus, France is the result of Roman colonization.
Is modern Europe an American colony ? In any case, Eastern countries prefer it to Russian colonization.
Emancipation can only be achieved through transcendence. Pretending that influence does not exist is a sterile dead end. Colonization is the ideology that considers identities as fixed monads that can only compete with each other. The ideology that overturns rivalry, "decolonialism," only challenges the image of domination. This reversal is nothing but a false opposition.
Therefore, it is necessary to dissociate influence, which should not be feared, from its institutionalization, actual colonization. Criticism should address the fixation of relationships and "identities," not the free interplay of cultures, which happily interpenetrate. Colonization should not be confused with transmission. It is a matter of strength: understanding the other without fearing them. The colonized must free themselves from the idea of being besieged, and the colonizers from the idea of independence.
If it is a flaw of the colonized, it is above all a fault of the colonizers, who refuse to see the colonized as equals. The problem stems from cultural differences: not all cultures are equal, but their interactions should not be dictated. No culture is complete. The colonized and the colonizer do not truly share the same space. Their distribution depends on power, if not reason: the only way out is through movement.
Colonization encompasses its metropolis within an empire, which can be contrasted with the unity of a nation. The nation is limited to its territory and its people. It recognizes the existence of other nations. The empire, on the other hand, only neighbors territories it seeks to dominate.
Every era has its empire. The Romans and the Ottomans created independent states with their populations. The English and the French sought to civilize. The Americans influence. The Russians deport. The strength or weakness of an empire lies in its alignment with the zeitgeist, and it always stands in opposition to the people.
Domination does not always imply colonization, but colonization is often accompanied by the justification of domination (2). The colonized is then stigmatized as naturally inferior. This can easily lead to racism, which can develop on both sides.
There is colonization when a foreign group imposes its culture on an entire population. This is not the case when a "native" general culture predominates. A colonized state is a multicultural state in which some have the possibility of preserving their culture and organizing exchanges with others based on that culture. This then carries the risk of competition between these civilizations, as in Samuel Huntington's sense.
Systematic error (or systemic if you prefer) is to place all cultures on the same scale. In the 19th century, German music could be juxtaposed with French painting, English garden art, and Italian dolce vita without reducing these differences to antagonism or a single dimension. (3)
This hierarchical view of culture condemns colonization, and we have seen how it led many decolonizations in the following century to identity regressions.
If France has become an American colony, it is primarily due to itself and its weakness, which results from European wars. The USA has brought us a lot, starting with liberation.
Historically, colonization corresponds to the establishment of a displaced population. The Greek colonies maintained a link with their metropolis but could break away from it.
Therefore, it seems more interesting to study the reciprocal influences of civilizations on each other. While there may not be equality, there can be influence without colonization. The "clash of civilizations" is the thesis of their fixity, the rigidity of identity, which does not take into account their exchanges.
A rehabilitation of the principle could be considered within a limited-time contract. Indeed, several recent wars (such as Iraq or Libya) have not been followed by reconstruction like the one initiated by the Americans in 1947 in Germany or Japan. It would be necessary to admit that a devastated country needs to be "taken in hand," but while respecting its dignity and temporarily. This obviously requires respect for the population, its empowerment, questioning centralizing principles, as well as involvement (largely disappeared) of powerful countries that are not afraid to establish competition.
(1) If colonization does not offer excuses, it always presents itself with a justification. Clearly, this justification is dubious. Historical examples are striking, with the benefit of hindsight. The Russian intervention in Ukraine in 2022 claims to fight neo-Nazis using the very methods of Hitler's regime: the annexation of Crimea resembles the Anschluss of 1936, the defense of Donbass echoes the defense of the Sudetenland in 1938, and the invasion mirrors the invasion of Poland in 1939. Each time, it is the very existence of the colonized state that is refuted.
(2) In the face of this alleged justification, consider the magnificent response of Aimé Césaire :
"I hear the storm. They speak to me of progress, of 'achievements,' of diseases cured, of living standards raised above themselves.
As for me, I speak of societies emptied of themselves, of trampled cultures, of undermined institutions, of confiscated lands, of murdered religions, of annihilated artistic magnificence, of extraordinary possibilities suppressed.
They throw facts, statistics, kilometers of roads, canals, railways in my face.
As for me, I speak of thousands of men sacrificed for the Congo-Ocean. I speak of those who, as I write, are digging the port of Abidjan by hand. I speak of millions of men torn from their gods, from their land, from their customs, from their lives, from life, from dance, from wisdom.
I speak of millions of men who have been skillfully instilled with fear, with the complex of inferiority, with trembling, with kneeling, with despair, with servility..."
(3) The Christian magazine "Esprit" by Emmanuel Mounier clearly expressed its stance against colonization :
"Civilization is an abstract notion, and in reality, there are only concrete civilizations."
"This does not mean that all civilizations are equal, but it means that no concrete civilization can claim to have achieved all of civilization or forcefully impose its mold on others." 1933