h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is a fairly mind-numbingly boring question ... but here goes anyway:

I am after something to read on "post-colonial" theory. Does anyone out there know anything about it? Can anyone explain it to me in 20 words or less, or am I asking too much?

Any help greatfully received.
Bran.

Well, colonialism is a specific or distinct form of imperialism and includes the settlement of foreign lands, the separation of foreign and indigenous peoples by legal means and the growth of radicalism. Well, that's how my Dictionary of Sociology defines it.

I guess Post-Colonialism is really about the relationship between three groups of people, all of whom are trying to find new directions: Indigenous peoples (who want to regain some of the power and independance they've lost), the Colonials (who want to find a new identity, to distinguish themselves from their ancestral homeland) and the Colonisers (who after being stripped of their territories and power, have to find some way of regaining their former glory).

What a well-read fellow you are Mustapha! Thanks for that. This is a branch of historical theory that I have not really encountered much (don't see it a lot in medieval circles), but I was wondering if it might have any relevance fof the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain. Anglo-Saxons as colonials, Romano-Britons as indigenous people, though I'm not sure who the colonisers would necessarily be. Still ... interesting avenue.
Cheers
Bran.

Hmm, not sure if colonialism/imperialism applies to the Germanic settlement of Britain, since the term implies that an external head of state exists, and post-colonialism suggests that such forces no longer directly rule the colony. However you could try and prove that following the initial phase of colonisation, say by the semi-legendary Hengist and Horst, the authority of the old kings was challenged by new homegrown A-S warlords.

Post-colonialism might better refer to the plight of the Romano-Britons, both natives and colonials trying to come to terms with new trials, after being abandoned by their Roman colonisers (who had other things on their minds at the time).

Yes ... I think the post-colonial avenue might be worth a bash. What I am actually looking at is representations of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and how this has changed especially over the last 30 years. There was a time when books talked of the Invasion or Conquest (and other terms). Now, the titles tend to talk of the Settlements, and (some authors) of the friendly Britons welcoming the Anglo-Saxons, or the Britons giving up their culture to adopt that of the Anglo-Saxons so as to achieve greater upward social mobility. This all makes me a bit anxious ... it seems to be running counter to representations on the more recent British Imperial expansion. So I was wondering if there was anything in this line of thinking that might be of use for me.

A fairly theoretical debate, but there might be something in it. Any thoughts on the matter most welcome.

Thanks
Bran.

My mom is getting a graduate degree right now and says that all her history professors always refer to the words "Imperialism" and "Colonialism" on the same level as "Fascism" and the like... I don't think that either of the first two, while yes they had their weak points, were all that bad. America wouldn't be what it is today by a long shot if it weren't for Imperialism OR Colonialism. But I didn't think that the definition included the repression of indigenous people, I thought that was just a by-product. Just a few thoughts.

You're quite correct. The US would not be what it is today with out colonialism, and nor would a whole heap of other places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But then the indigenous peoples might not be where they are today either, marginalised, appearing high in crime and medical statistics, a minority in their own country. When two cultures clash, one usually ends up being the winner, and in almost every case (except pethaps when Britain took on China) the colonising force is that winner.

That's not an accidental by-product.

That makes sense.

Well, I was bound to make sense one of these days! Now I guess it's back to argle-bargle and foofarolla.

Thanks for this folks ... it has certainly given me some ideas to think about.
Ta
Bran.

Well, I've always enjoyed history. I think Hannibal Barca is someone everyone should read about (no, not a serial killer).