Young, Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction.
Thursday, 17 November 2011
Leave a comment ?
11 Comments.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Young, Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I know that this isn’t the spot for the Iggers reading assignment, but there wasn’t a spot to respond so I will put it here too. Surprisingly, the second half of Iggers, chapter 6 was enjoyable to read. It was probably the most clear and easily understood part of the book that we have read so far. I especially liked the last section: “Postmodernism and the linguistic turn.” It broke down the differences in postmodernism, poststructuralism, and structuralism and told how all of them related and differed from each other. Can I just say, I wish that all professors were postmodernists. Students could never be wrong then because we could just say that we read the language of assignments differently than the professor did.
Young suggests throughout his book that a fundamental aspect of post-colonialism is approaching the world through the eyes of the oppressed. The numerous examples that he gives demonstrate the value of this approach. Young also possesses obvious concerns regarding what constitutes modernity and how the west often sees their actions as mostly benevolent.
Overall, I think that this book was tough to navigate because he jumped from topic to topic so frequently. However, he did warn the reader of the approach in the intro. Regardless, Young makes a strong case that post-colonialism is a legitimate and often necessary lens through which to view the world.
I absolutely loved this book. I liked how Young allowed us to connect with the experience of the “subaltern” through interesting (but mostly very heartbreaking) stories. The stories also were great because we were not just learning about postcolonialism, but also the histories of different peoples. Through the stories Young demonstrated what postcolonialists aim to examine and challenge. I especially liked the part about the veils in the second part of chapter four. Many times we assume veils are symbols of male dominance over females. Young says that countries such as France or the United States often sees this as a threat to westernization. However, many of the women choose and fight to wear the veils as a display of their own power and status.
This one was of the most interesting books I’ve read this semester. Young’s method of using examples of ‘subaltern’ experinces provide evidience for his arguements. I was impressed by the way he used his Iraqi associate’s opinion of bombing raids and Rai music as a tool to present the components and beliefs of post-colonialsim thought.
The goal of postcolonialism writing is to change the way people think and behave toward all the different people people of the world. They try and accomplish this by giving the “oppressed” a voice. I thought that organizing the book as collection of stories and examples demonstrating postcolonialism, was an interesting and effective to teach the topic. I agree with Ryan that at times the reading was difficult because he jumped around. But I wonder, at least in my case, if it was difficult to grasp at times because we exist in the western culture that postcolonialism is countering? I was very intrigued by the book burning section. The act was used by “subaltern” to free themselves of oppressive knowledge. But it has also been used by the oppressors to keep “dangerous” counter knowledge out.
In addition to emphasizing the goal of postcolonialism that Alan mentioned, Young explains that the experience of colonialism causes irreparable damage and inner conflict to those colonized as well as those who inhabit the culture post-colonization. In my opinion Young’s best explanation of this is his analysis of Jean Rhy’s allegorical story of Mr. Sawyer. Young believes that postcolonial approaches to history do not make up for such damage, but argues that they are nevertheless important in preserving the otherwise neglected history of those colonized and providing a voice that they can identify with.
It was refreshing to read Young’s book and Iggers. They compliment much of the non history literature I have read. Young offers a taste of what is out in the world to be learned and to learn from.
After reading Young, I found myself very opposed to postcolonialism as a school of study. I will save most of this for class discussion. I found a lot of Young’s arguments to be disingenuous. The most egregious of which was in reference to Salman Rushdie and Harry Potter on p.24. As I recall, J.K. Rowlings did not have a Fatwa issued calling for her execution as did Rushdie.
I am posting a couple of brief comments about History on Trial. The first six chapters were interesting and informative. The information about the National History Standards was thought-provoking, but the explanation of the controversy surrounding the Standards seemed a bit long-winded, simply due to the fact that it was very thorough. It is amazing how political certain topics become. The text is obviously biased, but provides a unique perspective to view the controversial nature of public history and education.
As I was reading History on Trial I realized that this was my experience in school. I remember learning about the Mayflower, and that slavery was not that “bad”. Then when I entered college and took my first history college what a difference. The atrocities experienced by slaves, immigrants, Indians and the poor throughout American history. I remember every year for black history month the only noteworthy blacks were former slaves such as a Harriet Tubman. So as one of the only blacks you could imagine how I felt. I believe that this book brings to light how influential history is to the socialization of American children considering their attitudes concerning “other” Americans. Also in their perception of who is an American hero.
Opps I should clarify. When I am speaking of black history month, I am referring to my junior and high school career in Hudson.