Decolonization fundamentally consists of a questioning, a deconstruction of our thoughts, our reasoning, our imaginations to overcome the foundations of injustices and inequalities. Here is an example of this deconstruction.
“ Decolonization », For several months now, Belgium has been shaken by this term. We can observe it, whether in public debate or in discussions between loved ones: this question is emerging as a hot topic in our society. The Justice & Peace Commission, working on questions of reconciliation and memory, identified decolonization as the work of memories focused on the colonial question. The aim of decolonization is, among other things, to question the mutual relationships between human beings, in all areas and all sectors. Decolonization aims to highlight the injustices and inequalities perpetuated for years against formerly colonized populations in order to put an end to them. Question and reevaluate the social constructions with which we all grew up, but which are fundamentally unbalanced and maintain representations which lock certain human beings into a position of subordinate otherness. This re-evaluation requires us all to question ourselves or, in other words, to deconstruct our thinking and our reasoning.
This analysis will attempt to exemplify this approach by deconstructing three key arguments which can be deployed or even thought about when the destructive foundations of colonization are mentioned or when the latter is strongly criticized.
“Many former settlers had good intentions”
The different colonizing countries during the 19th and 20th centuries justified their colonial projects differently depending on their context, but one constant persisted within the justifying discourses: “ the desire to raise colonized peoples to the necessary level of civilization »[1] knowing that the standard of this civilization corresponded to the model of Western European societies (education, health care, urban development, etc.). Based on this principle, European countries considered themselves dedicated to showing the way to other peoples of the world, “ so that they tend to become like them, willingly or by force »[2]. This justification of the colonial powers is known as “ civilizing mission ". Many citizens of European countries, including the Belgians, set out across the world to participate in the conquest and the colonial enterprise, convinced of the merits of their actions. However, the Belgian professor emeritus, historian and anthropologist of Africa, Jan Vansina affirmed that, in this mission, “ violence was the norm. The Congo Free State meant pillaging of territories, ransacking, domination and oppression of the natives »[3]. It is obvious that several people who participated in the colonial enterprise had good intentions and were stimulated by "candid" motivations, nevertheless, despite this, we can affirm thanks to an objective analysis and a certain distance that they consciously or unconsciously contributed to a terrible system. This is how the Belgian writer and international activist, Ludo De Witte argued that “ the civilizing mission, regardless of the good intentions of certain individuals, was often no more than a justification, sometimes a happy by-product »[4].
“It’s a different era, we can’t judge them with today’s values”:
This argument is very often used to exonerate the colonial period from the many evils caused. Through this argument, we must understand that the historical action must be placed in its time and context (understand the moral context of the time in which it took place) to properly understand it. Very often, those who present this type of argument seem to want to legitimize the violence of this dark era by asserting that “ colonial policy and violence conformed to the political, ethical, and legal norms prevailing at the time »[5].
Referring to the work of Gillian Mathys & Sarah Van Beurden, here are two limits of this argument:
First of all, " he ignores the criticisms already expressed against the colonial project during the colonial period »[6]. Already at the time, several voices, opposed to the colonial project of the time of the EIC or the time of the Belgian Congo, were heard in Belgium and elsewhere in the world. We can cite a few Belgian names among many others such as the Jesuit Arthur Vermeersch, the socialist Emile Vandervelde or the French-speaking liberal deputy Georges Lorand and a few international names like the Congolese Paul Panda Farnana or even Albert Einstein and Jawharlal Nahru (who supported both the League against Imperialism and Colonial Oppression). This clearly demonstrates that “ colonial policy was therefore not at all considered universally legitimate from a political and ethical point of view »[7].
Second, it devotes “ a Eurocentric and colonial vision of history ". Very often, proponents of this argument also invoke the international legal system which, at the time, did not condemn colonialism. However, it is clear that “ this international legal system was a reflection and a pillar of the imperial power relations that prevailed at the time – and, within this framework, colonized peoples did not have the right to speak »[8]. We can then discuss the different types of resistance outside the legal system that colonized peoples attempted to take advantage of, such as revolts and other forms of opposition in Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and many others. territories. This demonstrates that colonialism as a system has always been contested.
“What about the positives of colonization? »
The balance-sheet approach is an approach in which “ THE “benefits » presumed that colonialism would have brought are weighed against its consequences considered negative. This approach is often promoted as a way to approach colonialism in a more “nuanced“ »[9].
Yet, according to Professors Gillian Mathys and Sarah Van Beurden, this approach is an unproductive way of thinking about colonialism and is methodologically problematic. They assert that “ the balance sheet approach is based on the hypothesis that the " progress » was only possible thanks to colonization. It is therefore based on a very negative – racist – image of Africa and on the superiority of Europe. It also often implies that negative consequences – notably violence – would have occurred anyway, even without colonization, and that they were even mitigated by colonization »[10].
We can present four limitations of this approach:
- A false presentation of colonialism
Mathys and Van Beurden demonstrate that “ the supposed benefits of colonialism, for example, were very unevenly distributed, and not at all structurally developed. They were often (sometimes unintentionally) by-products of colonial policies intended to protect the interests of the mother country and not the result of altruistic actions »[11]. For example, the construction of the road network or even health care; for the first, the roads were built for Belgian economic interests in the first place and not those of the natives who had to work for these constructions; for the second, Mathys and Van Beurden remind us that “ medical interventions were very specific and often carried out more with a view to maintaining a productive population than to ensuring the well-being of the Congolese »[12].
- Negative aspects as exceptions
However, as the aforementioned researchers argue, these “bad sides” were much more structural than the balance sheet approach indicates. This approach therefore minimizes the atrocities committed during this period.
- Too much emphasis on the measurable
The balance sheet approach pays too much attention to the measurable aspects of colonization, that is to say the economic and financial aspects, and " neglects its cultural, social and psychological repercussions – which are more difficult to weigh –, which is akin to reductionism »[13].
- Neglects post-independence elements
The balance sheet approach “ also limits the consequences of colonialism to the colonial period. However, his “assessment » doesn't stop in 1960 [during independence]. We often oppose the " peace » presumed from the colonial period to " chaos » who followed it without taking into account the Belgian interventions who undermined this stability and without paying attention to the dynamics that were at work during the colonial period and contributed to the appearance of " chaos » after independence »[14].
In conclusion, we wanted to clarify that by emphasizing that the legacies of colonialism have mortgaged the future of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, we do not want to deny the responsibility of postcolonial African leaders, but to qualify the remarks of the public debate which tends to “pathologize” or [To reduce] African states as “failed” states without taking into account the colonial period and resulting neocolonial relations »[15].
Then, this analysis is not intended to make anyone feel guilty, but rather to encourage the reader to dare to think, question or in other words, decolonize. Indeed, we can see that this questioning very often leads us to deconstruct our fallacious reasoning like the arguments mentioned in the title above. But this is only the beginning, everyone is strongly called to continue this work of decolonization by reading authors such as Frantz Fanon, Mireille-Tsheusi Robert or even Jérémie Piolat, by viewing numerous media sources addressing the subject and through discussion with friends or relatives who are aware of the subject. This work requires a lot of patience and humility, but it has incredible richness in that it is work that is eminently constitutive of the living together to which we aspire!
Emmanuel Tshimanga.
[1] Historical file, “ Belgian colonization in Central Africa », BELvue, 2020, p. 8.
[2] Ibid.
[3] De Witte, Ludo. “New imperialism, old colonialism, resurgent negationism. » The Marxist Notebooks. Vol.23, 2007,pp. 143-144.
[4] Ibid, p. 144.
[5] Special Commission responsible for examining the Congo Free State and the colonial past of Belgium in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, its consequences and the consequences that should be taken. 2021. Experts' report, p. 24.
[6] Ibid, p. 25.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid, p. 26.
[9] Ibid, p. 21.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Special Commission responsible for examining the Congo Free State and the colonial past of Belgium in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, its consequences and the consequences that should be taken. 2021. Experts' report, p. 21.
[12] Ibid, p. 22.
[13] Ibid, p. 24.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
