First of all, thank you to Sarah, Esha, Omolola, and Stanton for their presentation on Memmi's book. A few of the points made during the presentation caught my attention and I thought that the blog would be a good place to reflect on that.
Obviously, one of the more controversial points that Memmi makes (and that the group articulated so well on Thursday) is that which depicts both colonizers and the colonized as dehumanized. Specifically I recall one group member stating that "the colonizer is in tune to what humanity is. He cannot destroy it unless he removes himself from it." I have not read Memmi's book, so this thought may be something that can be shot down quite easily from something in one of the chapters, but I don't necessarily see why the colonizer has to remove himself from his own humanity in order to destroy the humanity of a colonized person.
Does the colonizer understand humanity in a way that is inclusive to the colonized? Because I can imagine one person being born and growing up in a colonialist society that does not recognize colonized people as possessing the same type of humanity. In that case, it would seem as if the colonizer would retain his own sense of self-worth and humanity while excluding the colonized from the same group-in his mind, he is not destroying their humanity; there would be nothing to destroy to begin with.
Another facet of the presentation that stood out was the triangle of roles that a colonizer can possess (colonial, colonialist, colonizer), for which the group provided definitions and one of Memmi's conclusions: that the role of the colonial does not exist. I am confused about the position of the colonialist; how is it possible that this is a group on its own? If a colonizer is one who acknowledges the system and reaps its benefits, wouldn't he first have to have been a colonialist? The decision to choose to reap the benefits must have been made, and at that point, he is fulfilling the role of the colonialist-one who acknowledges the system and is at odds in choosing whether or not to accept or deny the privileges. What is the significance of dividing these two into a group? Are there not simply two types of colonizers: ignorant and self-aware? These are a few of the questions I had about that diagram, I hope that they are not made because I missed a valuable point.
I thought that your first point was interesting. It seems true that it would be impossible to dehumanize someone that isn't viewed as human. But if I was arguing for the position held in the text, I would say that failing to acknowledge a group's humanity is a part of dehumanization instead of something completely different. I'm still not entirely sure which view I agree with, but they both seem plausible.
ReplyDeleteSorry if there was any confusion within our presentation, but I believe I can clarify the points we were trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteIn the introduction J.P. Sartre claims that the act of dehumanization towards another human is not a natural function of humans. The colonizer must first acknowledge the humanity within the colonized in order to destroy it. And, through the process of striping away this humanity, the colonized humanity is lowered as well. In other words, if a man is constantly trying to break down another human, he is not allowing himself to grow.
I will attempt to clarify your second question about the colonialist as well. The colonialist is only a temporary state of mind to mark the period in the colonial man’s life where he truly understands his situation. And during this period he is left to make the decision of whether to be a “colonizer” or not. It was meant to portray that thought process, not to be a group all on its own.
I hope this helps.
Yes, that clarification about the colonialist seems to fit. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stanton in that it is imposible for the colonizer to truly understand what it means to be human and free when he believes in taking away another human's freedom. Whether the colonizer likes it or not the term humanity applies to all humans. It doesn't matter how the colonizer was raised. To believe that you can take away someones humanity and strip them down to an object, is to reject the idea of humanity itself. Also from my understanding, it seems that all colonizers are colonialists but not all colonialists are colonizers if that helps to understand the difference between the two.
ReplyDelete