Decolonization

by Jack Stark

Colonization is intergenerational and continues to keep a grip on societies that are often viewed as less significant or valuable than other groups of people. Across the world, marginalized communities and groups have been embracing and supporting decolonization efforts to restore their sense of belonging and identity. In a colonized world where many indigenous communities are striving to regain and restore what is rightfully theirs, these communities have begun the process of decolonization to reverse and halt the continual cycle of colonialism. Unfortunately, decolonization efforts are not widely known, and therefore, participation in decolonization has not been as widespread or successful as desired. Decolonization has many different meanings, and determining what it means and how it can be implemented successfully will take input and commitment from those who have experienced colonization firsthand in their daily lives. Those who want to see change for the better know that it is not a process that produces results overnight, and it is difficult to measure the success and progress of decolonization. Communities need to consistently and continually strive to find ways to push the decolonization agenda further.

Indigenous evangelical leaders have been working to further the decolonization agenda through their dissection of Christianity. The idea of religion is seen as something that was introduced to indigenous communities and used as a tool in the colonial process to help overtake these communities. Christianity has its fair share of criticism from Native people, as many view it as an escape for white people to continue acting as though there was no wrongdoing in the labor theft or the theft of the land because this was how God had intended the situation to unfold (Smith, 2010). However, in an effort to respect that Christianity may be an important part of indigenous communities yet also support decolonization efforts, indigenous evangelical leaders have taken the stance that encourages indigenous people to continue to worship as a Christian, but in a way that is not supportive of colonial traditions. Indigenous evangelicals have begun dissecting Christianity, an intrinsically colonial avenue for colonization, by starting to “decolonize the process of theologizing itself” through the process of disidentification (Smith, 2010, p. 9). Disidentification is a way for indigenous evangelicals to distance themselves from traditional norms as it “challenges the dichotomy of positioning native peoples as either complicit with or resistant to imperialism” (Smith, 2010, p. 10), which is similar to the idea of mentioning the societal positions and social status of Native people that makes them marginalized. However, if the idea is not discussed, it raises the question of how to eliminate these stereotypes and positions without discussing them. A more formative and holistic approach suggests that for Native people to follow Jesus, the best thing they can do is not become Christian but follow their traditional mannerisms through a “project of decolonization” (Smith, 2010, p. 9), a total denouncement and refusal to participate in colonial structures. If this is to be followed, Native people’s interactions with colonial structures should be regarded as a constant battle never to be lost, as they must demonstrate their decolonization.

African colonies have dealt with imperialism and colonialism brought on by the British Empire. The British Empire framed decolonization in Africa as making decisions for and taking care of African people. Instead, decolonization was overtaken by “the rising political consciousness of the colonial subjects, and intensifying protest movements in the colonies” (Babou, 2010, p.42). For decolonization to thrive, those working toward it must be knowledgeable about those involved and prevent other parties’ interests from prevailing. The British were falsely decolonizing African colonies by colonizing them and requiring them to work for them, in turn providing the Africans with what they needed to know about decolonization and how to fight back. What the British presented as policies dedicated to decolonization were actually efforts to anticipate African demands, contain demands that were not anticipated, and, most importantly, preserve British interests when they could no longer hold decolonization from emerging. The failure of the United Nations to implement stipulations from a charter onto Britain did not enforce protection and action for colonies it oversaw but instead, from a political standpoint, gave Britain maneuvering power when it came to colonies under United Nation’s supervision. Countries like the United States and the Soviet Union also put extra pressure on anticolonial sentiments that were reflected in Africans as both countries appeared “initially as natural allies of the people in Africa and Asia struggling to overthrow the yoke of European imperialism” (Babou, 2010, p.43). The anticolonial sentiments, especially from the United States, are hypocritical and ironic because of their involvement in colonizing Native American tribes for their own gain while pretending that they wanted to assist the tribes. However, apart from outside influences on anticolonialism for Africans, the process of ending colonial rule in Africa was most significantly impacted by the “political, economic, and cultural changes that were taking place on the African continent before, during, and after the war” (Babou, 2010, p.43). World War Two dramatically affected the relationship between Africans and the colonial British. Many colonies became detached from metropolitan areas, which required and created an emphasis on enhancing local work and allowed for economic growth and mobility, but this was for a select few; the rest were put into forced labor, which produced plentiful harvests. However, the immense pressure on farmers to produce cash crops and enough food for the local population and soldiers “created famines and anger throughout Africa” (Babou, 2010, p.44). These adversities became the symbol of colonialism and even reached people living in rural areas who had not been directly affected by British rule. Many Africans were forced to serve in the British Army and, from these experiences, gained valuable insights into their social situation. They realized that European power was not nearly as solid and glorious as it had been made out to be and had its share of misery similar to their situation. Their involvement in the war led to the Africans “expanding their worldview and forcing them to question their subject status and the professed benevolence of their overlords” (Babou, 2010, p.45). These realizations made them more confident in their ability to be autonomous, which would only happen “if they were willing to take action, make sacrifices, and struggle for what they wanted” (Babou, 2010, p.45). A core component of decolonization is participation and activism, and the Africans continued this road through their demands for better education, sending a strong signal to the British that they ought to change the colonial system to preserve it. Once Africans seemed to be fighting back, the British realized that instead of working to contain them, they needed to join them and modernize Africa through equitably suitable but regulated economic development. Most new policymakers were Europeans, and there was a new emphasis on developing an “efficient and democratic system” to incorporate African views into bodies of administration within colonies. However, this was not the sole intention of the new reform, as colonial policymakers used it to satisfy their personal goals and enjoy the benefits of the modernization of Africa. This showed “clearly to the public the deep-seated contradictions that lay at the heart of the colonial project” (Babou, 2010, p.46). The underlying goal was to preserve the empire, but it soon became apparent that doing so would only lead to more outrage from the African colonies. The African colonies of World War Two are strikingly similar to Native American communities within the United States today, which is also an empire. The United States only decided how it wanted to behave when Native Americans could no longer be ignored within their own society. The only way to contain the Native Americans was to create sneaky treaties with them, offering to provide assistance and set boundaries, which had all been broken in an effort to preserve the United States empire. 

The histories of empires and their aftermaths provide a new lens for decolonization as “not a discrete process that marked a shift from empire to national independence but a multi-layered, multifaceted phenomenon” (Collins, 2017, p.17). Within Africa, decolonization was shaped by the political and economic structures of the British empire and meant to be viewed as a positive initiative through “emancipatory narratives of anticolonial freedom” (Collins, 2017, p.17). Scholars have many differing perspectives on decolonization, contrasting old and new views of what decolonization means. Older accounts view decisions being made in high politics within overarching empires, while newer accounts, referred to as “the newer postcolonial approaches” (Collins, 2017, p.17), situate Europeans as the center “to the exercise of power, control, change, and continuity” (Collins, 2017, p.17). In both scenarios, Europeans are in control, bringing up the notion of independence among African nations and how it needs to be re-examined because of its failure. British imperialism, like many other empires, including the United States, hid behind the notion of colonization as a “civilizing mission.” Challenges to the idea reinforced and justified the need for an empire to fight back, limiting the inherent value and right of independence for African colonies. For the Africans, independence was not something they would already be granted but something to be “negotiated and given when they proved themselves ready” (Collins, 2017, p.19). However, this contradicts the idea of independence and further exemplifies the refusal to give full autonomy to preserve the British empire. Independence cannot be taken away or given as it is an inherent right belonging to each individual; therefore, the independence given by the British Empire is still controlled by them, hinting that decolonization can never indeed happen if an empire or controlling power is always involved and looking for a way to preserve the culture they had created to oppressive the Africans.

Defining when or where decolonization takes place is difficult. When European nations transferred their sovereignty to the African colonies after colonization, “this seemed to invite the view on both sides that the process had always been inevitable” (Smith & Jeppesen, 2017, p.2). The powerful had to conquer and reshape the powerless into a form that was suitable for the powerful to remain in control, making the powerful versus powerless conflict inevitable. The new African colonies celebrated a victory of independence through nationalism, but “rather than focusing on shallow flag independence, explorations of deep decolonization range far beyond questions of territorial sovereignty” (Smith & Jeppesen, 2017, p.3), suggesting that the most important thing to do was first learn how to decolonize their minds. For Senegalese poet and politician Léopold Senghor, it is the idea of the “abolition of all prejudice, of any superiority complex in the minds of the colonizer, and also of any inferiority complex in the mind of the colonized.” However, it should be noted that although the colonies were now independent, to what degree would they be able to function independently, and were they genuinely independent if they had already been affected by colonialism? It seems that decolonizing one’s mind depends on one’s ability to decide they want to be the better person and work towards a solution although they have been treated horrendously. It may also be easier for colonizers to decolonize their minds as opposed to the colonized, as the colonizers have not experienced a loss of culture and humanity that has made the colonized despise them. They instead despise the colonized because they stand in the way of what they are trying to accomplish. As a result, both battles to decolonize one’s mind are not the same in severity, and therefore, it is arguably more difficult for the colonized to be the better person in resolving the conflict as they have suffered more tragedy and loss. Other scholars and activists have ideas similar to Senghor’s that seem to go further than decolonizing one’s mind by discussing decolonizing one’s consciousness (Steinman, 2016). They have helped lead individuals and their communities to dive deeper into decolonization, analyzing how it affects everyday life and to what extent it impacts decisions. The process of decolonizing one’s consciousness involves ridding oneself of “the effects of Eurocentric cultural impositions” and developing indigenous understandings and contexts, and by doing so, people are engaging “deep cultural premises—underlying logics, epistemologies, and rationalities” (Steinman, 2016) which all require immense and critical self-reflection. Indigenous advocates express that for the process to take place, there must be a fundamental understanding of the necessity of “relationality—to ancestors, the natural world, other species, and more,” which must be fully embraced to remove ideas of “illusory individualizing, atomizing, and autonomous conceptions of selfhood and agency” (Steinman, 2016). Colonialism created a specific type of individualism containing a false sense of individuality that colonizers can manipulate, and to prevent that, communities must come together to protect each other through revitalization. Indigenous communities have developed “culturally based and holistic restorative practices, which commonly use “healing circles” for addressing issues” (Steinman, 2016) such as intergenerational trauma, drug dependency, or violence. A combination of both efforts may be used to proceed with decolonization, which many indigenous communities are looking for, especially those dealing with indigenous youth suicide. Communities understand these suicides as “an expression of societal, historical, cultural and familial trauma” (Barker et al., 2017, p.1). They are investing in cultural revitalization and holistic efforts to prevent suicide and promote treatment and wellness. In fact, “culture as treatment” is a literal approach and framework that communities are adapting to “emphasize the significance of interconnectedness in healing and the revitalization of traditional values to reclaim community wellness” (Barker et al., 2017, p.2).

Throughout history and today, the decolonization process involves indigenous and tribal communities taking the initiative to gather and work together to revitalize their culture. Decolonization requires active participation and current knowledge about tribal situations and how to deal with them in a manner that cultivates positive change toward preservation. Persistent challenges to colonialism and efforts for decolonization throughout history show that it is something worth fighting for, even if a defined solution has never existed. Indigenous and tribal communities may not achieve decolonization through long leaps of progress but rather through short incremental steps, as short steps allow progress to be tracked and degrees of success and failure to be measured.

Works Cited

Babou, C. A. (2010). Decolonization or National Liberation: Debating the End of British Colonial Rule in Africa. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 632, 41–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27895947

Barker, B., Goodman, A., & DeBeck, K. (2017). Reclaiming Indigenous identities: Culture as strength against suicide among Indigenous youth in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique, 108(2), e208–e210. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90010682

Collins, M. (2017). Nation, state and agency: evolving historiographies of African decolonization. In A. W. M. Smith & C. Jeppesen (Eds.), Britain, France and the Decolonization of Africa: Future Imperfect? (pp. 17–42). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1mtz521.6

Smith, A. (2010). Decolonization in Unexpected Places: Native Evangelicalism and the Rearticulation of Mission. American Quarterly, 62(3), 569–590. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40983420

Smith, A. W. M., & Jeppesen, C. (2017). Introduction: development, contingency and entanglement: decolonization in the conditional. In C. Jeppesen & A. W. M. Smith (Eds.), Britain, France and the Decolonization of Africa: Future Imperfect? (pp. 1–14). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1mtz521.5

Steinman, E. W. (2016). Decolonization Not Inclusion: Indigenous Resistance to American Settler Colonialism. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 2(2), 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649215615889