Sunday, October 17, 2010

In what sense does Edward Said refer to culture as a “sort of theatre”. Explain with reference to the literary forms the society that engages in colonial practices. (P.U 2005)

A series of lectures that Said delivered on the relationship between culture and empire in the universities in the United States, Canada and England shows that Said wants to expand the appeal of his arguments to the rest of the world. The arguments which he put forward in “Orientalism” were particularly focused on the Middle East but now through the subject matter of these lectures on culture and imperialism, he wants to describe a more general structure of relationship between the modern metropolitan West and its overseas territories.

It is worthy to note here that instead of doing so really by the cores of heart, the imperialists just did not care to apologize. There were their vanity, pride and feigned arrogance which did not allow them to bow before the people over whom they had ruled. As far as the matter of financial loss is concerned; those who suffered by the land and property, could have been compensated by the imperialists but they did not do so. Instead, they ironically bestowed independence on the natives as a favour which actually could not have been held back longer in the changed post-war situation. The African writer Franz Fanon rightly utters in this regard:
"Colonialism and imperialism did not pay their dues when they withdrew their flags and police forces from our territories".
Edward Said quotes another writer named Noam Chomsky who very aptly and clearly exposes the lame and feigned western claims of civilizing the uncivilized, brutal and ignorant people of Asia and Africa. Apparently Western idealogy was of ensuring human dignity, liberty, self-determination and self-sufficient economy for all the independant countries of the world but practically it served for fulfilling the interests of the western imperial powers. In fact, this idealogy or claim of the western countries has proved the cruel nature of the Englishmen. They want to keep under developing countries poor, ignorant and insufficient in modern technologies so that they may rule over them through the various money-lending agencies like the World Bank and I.M.F. Whatever Chomsky has pointed out by saying, is absolutely right in the present age. Western imperialists are holding the economies of the third world countries by lending loans through World Bank and I.M.F. and above all they proclaim that they are favouring these countries by helping them in their difficult time of poverty, lackage of technology and feeble economy. Noam Chomsky rightly points out in this connection and utters:
"It's an absolute requirement of the western system of ideology that the vast gulf be established between the civilized west, with its traditional commitment to human dignity, liberty and self-determination, and the barbaric brutality of those who, for some reason, perhaps defective genes, fail to appreciate the depth of this historical commitment".
In all aspects whether it is intervention or domination or interferance, one thing or reason is very much evident that it is unending thirst or greed for capturing and looting the raw materials of most of the countries of Asia and Africa. Said once again rightly refers to British and French imperialism which once had dominated and penetrated to the farthest territories of distant lands. It had been the practice of imperialistic Englishmen that wherever they found any sign of raw materials in any country, they went for capturing it without caring how many miles these distant territories might be. The subcontinent was one case in point; so was Congo. The history of these continents shows that Englishmen had once ruled over these lands by capturing all their natural resources of raw materials for fulfilling their industrial needs. They came in these lands under the feigned guise of professing an aim of developing the resources for the welfare of the natives, but their intervention was actually inspired by economic and strategic interests.
Their intervention and domination of a long period resulted in an interaction of cultures in the process.   Said   also takes  much interest of this interracial culture which has its possitive and negative results for the natives. Actually these developments and enlightenments did come through the interaction; as it still haunts the nations that remained under imperial rule. He takes too much interest in, the cultural impact of this interaction, and opines that the attitudes and feelings of the nations involved towards each other owe to their origin to the colonial experience of the past.
To conclude this above mentioned discussion, we can say that Said has very openly and clearly exposed the inner cruel nature of imperialistic society of Europe. He has very strictly rebuked and condemned the supreme authority of the United States. After the end of the cold war, America has been assigned a role of setting the things right in all the countries of the third world under the devised term of world's responsibility. USA has also introduced a new world order which is nothing more than a reproduction of the old imperial order. Said's lectures on the subject of culture and imperialism clearly and openly show the feigned supremacy and imperialistic attitude of the Englishmen of western countries. The appeal of his lectures not only affects the subjugated people of the dominated territories of the third world but also the rest of the people of the whole world. Whatever Said has said in his lectures, did absolutely happen in the history; and is still happening by the western countries under the feigned claim of civilizing the uncivilized nations of the third world countries.

People who read this post also read :


Post a Comment

Please leave your comments!