my topic

As we've talked about on Wednesday, I'll be discussing Attack of the 50ft. Woman, reviewing it as a feminist would and comparing it to the reading of As Things Fall Apart in my report on feminism.

Most difficult blog ever produced ever!

I too, will be taking the feminist route. The center of this essay will be the film "Dogma", as there were some interesting ideas about the film that I have touched upon on the blog, but have not truly explored as of yet. I will be discussing this film in relation to what can be considered as "feminist" in relation to the general cultural capital of feminism and in relation to two of the feminist philosophy readings done in class.

Kasey's a douche for stealing my essay topic

I decided I want to take the feminist route and discuss two peices we have done in class as well as how they fit into the general ideas of mainstream society, and how men view women. Now that my topics been theifed (and no thats not a real word) this is my default Idea

Topic #2

For my topic I'm going to analyze Waiting for the Barbarians, through the theme of colonization found in the story. I will also talk about another major example of colonization in another country, that can be related and be useful in comparing it to the story. I will also include examples that are useful in Achebe's essay, hopefully these work out in order to write my essay.

Essay 2 Topic

I will be analyzing 'Waiting for the Barbarians' in a feminist perspective, in other words, analyzing the Magistrate's relationship with the barbarian girl. I'm planning on referring to the feminist criticism of Achebe's 'Things Fall Apart' and compare Woolf's 'The New Dress' to Carter's 'The Company of Wolves'.

Essay #2

For my Second Essay I plan to talk about Feminism and how two works we have discussed offer different representations of women. The two pieces I am going to focus on are, Luce Irigaray "Sexual Difference", and Aimee Bender "Mfer". I will show through each piece a different interpretation of how the author portrays the role of women in society. Then examine how one of their opinions compare to the viewpoint of another Feminist theorist that we have discussed in class, showing overall if all Feminist theorists have the same or a different perspective when talking about the role of women in society. Finally evaluating the benefits that one theorist could have over the other when talking about Feminism.

Does this mean I don't have to email it?

I'll be writing (hopefully, if you approve and all that) on how feminist views are represented in Sarah Cole and Waiting, with a focus on how both main characters idolize women, yet use them. I might even throw some Motherf*cker in there, I'm not sure yet.

11/07

In the interests of what alleviating a generalized fatigue, no response for class on Monday. Please post your topic for your next essay, however, so we all can see it.

And read at least to the beginning of Part V of Waiting, though the discussion will be much richer if you can finish the book.

Is he black?

The problem with both Conrad and Coetzee I have is that when they say he, they, women, prisoners, or boy, they don't specify whether the person is white or black, and I believe if they did, it would have helped. Coetzee thought Conrad is a racist based on the way Conrad portrayed the Africans as a group. It doesn't take Coetzee to realize that the main character is a kind, sympathetic, and conscious man. And yet, there's not much going on in the first chapter I just read. I remember the three women (I assume they're black) walking by, looking at the party curiously. And there's a boy who seemed to lost his grandfather, killed by interrogator. The main character is very kind to the boy. When he learns that the boy hadn't eaten anything that evening, his heart "grows heavy." Well I guess this might not be enough for Achebe to conclude that this person isn't a racist. I mean, even Marlow in Heart of Darkness gave a biscuit to one of the African who was finding a shelter from the explosioin under the tree? All I can say is, we do not seem to have enough stuff to judge him through Achebe's eyes (or any theorists). But I do know that when the main character says "barbarian", I know he is refering to an African.

Misrepresentation

As many people have stated already Coetzee does the same thing that Conrad did."The characters are not represented as individuals but as stereotypes." This is a short line from the Achebe/Conrad Controversy. If you have been reading the book you should have noticed that for some reason not much is known about the barbarians yet. We just know minor things and they aren't supported really by facts yet because we don't know if the barbarians are really like the way the author depicts them to be. Hopefully as we get further into the story the barbarians will appear so they can represent themselves. The barbarians have to appear in the book and do what they do. If they come pillage villages, rape women, and steal things then we will know that Coetzee was not just making up stereotypes.

It is not just with the barbarians either. There is also the fishermen and the other prisoners in chapter one. When they are first introduced they don’t seem like very pleasant people and they don’t speak because no one speaks their language. Then comes all of the bad things about that like they pick each others lice and they go to the bathroom in a corner. Also the people living in the frontier, they dream about barbarians doing horrible things but have they ever met a barbarian in person? Everything about the barbarians so far are just stereotypes. Achebe would probably be furious if he only read up to this point. Just like with the African people in Conrads novel, Achebe would feel that Coetzee is devaluing the barbarians.

A way Achebe would read it

The story of 'Waiting for the Barbarians', in my opinion connects to the known example of what Achebe wrote in his essay towards Conrad. I think that the narrator Achebe can be compared to the Magistrate in this story. THe way the Magistrate feels guilt of how the people, 'the barbarians', where treated by the colonell joll, as being a racist. The colonel treated these people as if they wheren't worth anything, although the Magistrate was also in a way racist by describing the people as "simple people",(4), who where separated from other classes. There was the people who live within the empire, and the other who lived along the river.

The way Achebe would read this story, is in a similar way he wrotew for 'Heart of Darkness', it focused on the meaning of racism, mistreatment, casualties. The way the Magistrate introduces the colonell, as being someone superior to everyone, afterwards the colonell discriminate the prisoners who where brought by interogating them in painful ways by torturing them,"Pain is truth; all else is subject to doubt." (5) A way of seeing the Magistrate as racist is when he compares the people captive as animals, "We stand watching them eat as though they are strange animals." (18) The prisoners as one could compare them to slaves where beaten, and at the end of the first chapter are compared to words said by Achebe as being "ugly people", "It would be best if this obscure chapter in the history of the world were terminated at once, if these ugly people were obliterated from the face of the earth and we swore to make a new start, to run an empire in which there would be no more injustice, no more pain." (24) Therefore, the magistrate refers to the prisoners as being ugly. although the words would have come by all the events that took place when the colonell interogated them. In the end, the Magistrate would have been also seen as a racist when he discriminates the girl he helped after she was in the streets begging, he would compare her as having "alien" characteristics, who where not attracted to him. The Magistrate resulted discriminating the girl, and also taken advantage of other girls who worked for him, as making him feel superior.

Waiting...for something to happen!

After reading up to page 70, I am still waiting for something to happen, or even a description of where this takes place and more information about the barbarians and why the Empire wants
them to move up towards the mountains. I keep trying to put myself in the place of Achebe or Hooks and read it maybe through their eyes. I believe that just like everything we discuss in class, there is most definitely two arguments that can be made. First of all, I don't even recall the name of the character who is the narrator. As a matter of fact, the only name that I do know is Colonel Joll, so I wish there would be more description in this book by Coetzee, however, I assume (without making an ass out of u and me, as they say) there is a reason for everything an author does, therefore, I try to stop myself from questioning too much and read it nevertheless.
Also, like Hook says himself, this type of literature, "excludes certain information."

I believe that the arguments could go as follows: maybe Achebe or another post colonialism theorist would say that Coetzee is a racist because he writes a story where the main character is fascinated with the barbarian women and completely takes advantage of them, almost as if that is how he gains his feeling of power by subjugating them, i.e. the barbarian girl he shares his bed with and the barbarian prostitute. The other argument could be that he is not racist at all, because there are many examples where he shows such concern and discernment for helping the barbarians that are taken to be prisoners and feels such pity for them, screaming at the guards when they take in a family of fishing people for prisoners, which is where the barbarian girl he shares his bed with came into play, although he doesn't remember her at all. All he remembers is a blank space next to her father.

I am looking foward to finishing this book to see where it goes because it is easy reading, but it leaves me with so many questions and wonderment, but I almost womnder if that's what Coetzee intended for his readers to feel.

Coetzee and hook = Radical Posmodernism ???

From the very perspective of bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins), Coetzee’s Waiting for Barbarians would definitely fit on the shelves with all the other postmodernist literature. Hooks argues that postmodernism ‘excludes certain information’. It is literature, by the voices of ‘academic elites who speak to and about one another with coded familiarity’. After reading Adams post, it became clear that the setting isn’t precisely mentioned (I haven’t read the entire book. I’ll take his word for it). Through our own fascinations we can predict a given setting, within the context of our class room, and having background information on Coetzee, we can assume (invalidly) that the setting takes place in Africa. Nevertheless, this information is not given to the readers. Under the scopes of postmodernism, the very notion of ambiguity is extremely present. In Waiting for the Barbarians, it is very clear that the audience is aware what a ‘barbarian’ is, but the narrator does not seem to really emphasize in detail what a barbarian is. After reading the posts of Leslie and Julia, who have equally demonstrated the dehumanizing elements as the pertain to women in the text, I also realized that Coetzee does not seem to put much thought into the detail of each, raped, or physically abused female. It is this unclearness that hooks would focus on. She argues that “Postmodernism does not focus on ‘otherness and difference’, or mentions very little with no emphasis” (p.362). Postmodernism hardly ever mentions black experience. It is books like Coetzee, that helped contribute to Black Movement, which has helped focus on the issue of ‘identity’. And Coetzee’s literature helps to create, what Hooks calls ‘hopelessness’, which in tern states that “this hopelessness creates longing for insight and strategies for change that can renew spirits and reconstruct grounds for collective black liberation.”

Achebe and the Unknown

One problem I have with Coetzee's waiting for the barbarians is that you don't really get a good description of anything. For instance we really don't know much about the narrator's people just as much as not knowing much about the barbarians. The only diffrence explained is that their ways of living seem to be different. But the way the narrator's people see the barbarians, is as those people who annually come by town to trade that are dirty and reek of all the time. This is where Achebe's arguement comes into play depending how far along in the book you been through, that you really don't get a good view of Africa and what their people are all about just what one town feels about a group with nothing good to say about them; just like we seen in Conrad. Also the way the narrator describes the "barbarian girl" he keeps in his room that he has pity for because his people tortured the Barbarians AKA Nomads is seen as a person to feel bad for and that is what the Megistrate(narrator) is getting at. He stands up for these Nomads knowing that their must be more to them than they know about. This arguement yet again brings up the arguement of seeing a story from one point of view, you really don't have a sense of everything going on especially in this case with the Barbarians.

is coetzee like conrad?

As we have seen ourselves in Heart of Darkness, Achebe criticized Conrad of being, without a doubt, racist as the man kept on using derogatory terms to describe the people of Africa, describing them as if they were wild, unkempt and, even diseased animals. Through the exploits of the main character (and all other characters) in his story, Conrad has descriptively treated the African people as inhuman savages. Does Coetzee do the same in Waiting for the Barbarians? From what I’ve read so far, I would have to say yes and no simultaneously. Though it is true we find a similar treatment of one group subjugating another, treating another as total dogs, we are not given any detail as to what two groups these are. They’re pretty much two generic social, political, racial or religious classes. And, as has been proven by history, with two different groups occupying the same space, whichever one’s in power will look down upon the other. In Conrad’s text, he, whether intentionally or not, makes it clear that he is a part of the “superior” race deriding the other “less superior” one. His character seems to be an extension of himself. Coetzee, on the other hand, seems to want to expose such ugly prejudice to the light. He to uses a lot of negative, insulting terms in his description of the poor fisher-people but it’s not in the same tone as Conrad. It’s more like he’s building up from such bigoted feelings in a way to understand why they are present in the first place.

Waiting on a feminist

When asked to use one of the Theories so far in combination with the reading, I thought it would be interesting to respond with a reading done from a feminist perspective, probably should have emailed to ask, but it is extremely late and I doubt I will get a response. First I would like to say I agree with Lesley's notion that there is alot of sexualized content in the novel. This is the main reason I decided to do the reading as a feminist. Besides the sexual mentions in the text there are also moments where the main character has Maternal moments or feelings that would be associated with a mother or woman in general. An example of this can be cited on (P7)

I cannot pretend to be any better than a a mother comforting a child between a fathers spells of rath. It has not escaped me that an interegator can wear two masks, speak with two voices, one harsh on seductive

Though he does exhibit some form of caring towards the boy this does not stop him from doing his job, he later on asks that after the boy has eaten his hands be bound, just not as tightly which struck me as a sort of 'rough him up but don't kill him yet" mentality. The author I chose to compare "Waiting" to in this case was I decided to use "To his Coy Mistress" to compare it to.I think that the argument can go back to when we talked about Misrepresentation of women in works of literature. First we are given a stereotype of what women are supposed to behave like when their children are threatened. Then later on though unintentionally done there is a child on (P9) that is described in a sexual manner, this was seen in

She sits in the snow with her hooded back to me working at the door of the Castle, her legs splayed, burrowing, patting, molding I stand behind her and watch. I try to Imagine the face between the petals of her peaked hood but cannot

Wheter women in the novel are being depicted as animals, helpless or maternal there is no definite way to identify women in the story that is positive, if a feminist were to read this, it could easily be said that objectification is present. Also the way the author first describes the children playing in the snow makes it seem like he is talking about animals or pygmies. Going back to the Novel, I was able to find much more when arguing the ideas that women are barely represented, represented in a negative light, and sexualized. Citing page thirteen, the main character is dreaming

I sleep, wake to another round of dance-music from the square, fall asleep again and dream of a body spread on its back, a wealth of pubic hair glistening liquid black and gold across the belly,up the loins, and down like an arrow into the furrow of the legs. When I stretch out a hand to brush the hair it begins to writhe it its not hair but bees clustered atop one another honey drenched sticky

In comparison to His Coy mistress, though each interpretation of women of female characters is different, I was still reminded of Marvell's use of isolating body parts of the woman in the poem and having the speaker identify them as separate entities, leaving the reader with the idea that the woman in the poem has no sense of identity, until the author choses to give her one

Waiting for the Barbarians and Achebe

Achebe claims that Conrad in his novel Heart of Darkness describes Africa as “a place where man’s vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant beastiality.” In the novel Conrad describes the people through animalistic characteristics. This idea can be observed, for example, by when he illustrate the thirsty man by the lake. Not only was the man drinking directly from the lake, but was also positioned on his four limbs. He even calls them “creatures”. The aspect of “triumphant beastiality” can also be observed in Waiting for the Barbarians.

The people of this book are also portrayed as beastly. They are abused, tortured, and neglected. This idea can be demonstrated through a number of examples. (Or what I have read so far). The narrator on page 34 states that “People say that I keep two wild animals in my rooms, a fox and a girl.” The girl is considered to be an animal. The people automatically compare her to a wild fox. They dehumanize her by bestowing animalistic traits upon her. Also on page 36, the narrator asked a few men about how and where the young girl was abused. One of the men replied by saying that “I do not know sir, most of the time I was not there.” “Some times there was screaming, I think they beat her.” Why did they beat her? How can a man abuse a woman? They accomplished these actions due to the fact that they did not consider her as a human or a woman with genuine feelings. An animal does not possess feelings.

After the narrator has a number of sexual encounters with the girl he states that “I can not imagine what ever drew me to that alien body”. Why did he specifically utilize the term “alien”? Did she physically appear different than non-African women or did his stereotype of African women cloud his judgment and eyes. By using the term “alien” he is practically describing her as an aspect that is non-existence in this world. This term is far worse than describing them as creatures.

Finally, the term Barbarian is a well illustration of degrading the natives. Why did the narrator and his colleagues utilize this repulsive word? If their purpose was simply to identify them, they could have used terms such as natives, the Africa people, or other non-discriminating names. Their main intention was to illustrate these people as non-humans.

11.7

One of the many racist undertones that I gathered from "Waiting" was the casual mention of many rampant sexual acts throughout the book. How the magistrate visited the same young lady at the inn (her name escapes me and I do not have my copy handy), forming almost a suedo-relationship with her, only to actually bear witness (sort of) to her conducting business with another man. The magistrate's odd sexual acts with the barbarian girl stuck out at me as well. As it was only until far later in the book did he actually "enter her." Instead choosing to rub oils on her and sleep (literally) with her while visiting the girl at the inn on the side. Even towards the end of the book, the magistrate describes his lack of self control, leading him to seek out the not-quite-so-satisfying cook to fulfill his sexual desires. This all serves to paint the picture that people out on the frontier (wherever that may be) have little to know control over their sexual desires, and seemingly go at it like wild dogs, not even bothering to cover it up, as the magistrate mentions several girls who were not kept secret. He even goes so far as to refer to the barbarian girl as the magistrate's slut (from the other men's perspective, that is). Not once is there mention of any form of birth control or protection, which means decease and pregnancy would run rampant. Is this the right message to be sending about the frontier (wherever it may be)? Not from the perspective of a racist reader, I imagine they would take much offense at the inclination that these people have no self control. Which, as the book goes, happens to be true in more ways than one, but that's a different argument.

Waiting For Hatred and Lies?

Given that Chiuna Achebe found the ideas and the author behind Heart of Darkness to be racist, he might also consider J.M. Coetzee’s Waiting For The Barbarians to be racist as well. One particular scene that stuck out to me was when the narrator was speaking to Colonial Joll early on in the book about how Joll can distinguish lies from the truth when trying to find information about his prisoners AKA “the barbarians” through torture. This scene represents and begins to delve into how judgmental the character of Joll truly is (as he is the antagonist of the book). There is a portion where the magistrate (the narrator) asks how Joll would know if a prisoner is telling the truth. In response, Joll says that there is a “certain tone” that can be heard through “training and experience”. That “training and experience” that Joll speaks of could possibly be a bias, as the magistrate asks him immediately if he is speaking the truth at that moment in time. Joll’s response is: “No, you misunderstand me. I am speaking of a special situation… in which I have to exert pressure to find it. [the truth]” If I were looking at it from Achebe’s point of view, I would have reason to believe that this whole “certain tone” business is quite flawed and is basically an excuse to persecute people that Joll does not favor, regardless of any necessity of information, as the torture is truly the “tone of truth” that Joll speaks of. It’s a small portion of the book, but this section is particularly important to the idea of Joll being against “barbarians” in torturing and imprisoning them.

COETZEE THE BARBARIAN !

Coetzee seems to fall into the same problem that Achebe has with Conrad and his portrayal of the natives. Coetzee portrays the natives as Barbarians, in image they may look like Barbarians old, haggard, dirty, and unkempt. In actuality they are not Barbarians, they are just surviving off the land. The attributes that the settlers consider Barbaric, the raiding of camps, raping of tribesmen, are all attempts of the nomads reciprocate against the those who have invaded on there land.

Colonel Joll considers them barbaric when in actuality his actions of torture are barbaric and inhumane; the abuse of a young child is not the actions of a civilized nature. The actions of the settlers over the past 100 years can also be Barbaric, they invaded a land that did not belong to them, they set up villages and settlements in regions usually used for grazing and hunting, in nomadic society life revolves around the lake. They rape the land barren forcing the livestock away with their unconventional ways of hunting; guns have made hunting more efficient drastically dwindling populations.

The settlers see everything opposite to their confirmed lifestyle as being Barbaric, though many of the village soldiers have been drunk, they seem to find drunken nomads as utterly disgusting they describe them as lazy and dirty. The introduction of alcohol, a substance that they nothing about, alters the way the settlers view the nomads. Not only are the “Barbarians” savage but they are drunks too.

I don’t think the problem is with the lack of an explanation of what a Barbarian is, it lies with the fact that the settlers do not realize that their own actions are Barbaric in itself.

11.7.07 Waiting For The Barbarians

When reading the first two chapters in story you can't help to picture what the scenery is like, where they're taking the "Barbarians" too and what they actually look like? You really don't find out in the early chapters why the Colonel goes after these people and why they are classified as "Barbarians" is it something they did wrong or are they just being taken at random? The real question throughout the first two chapters which was brought up in previous blogs was what classifies or who classifies what a 'Barbarian' is?
You don't really get to read about what a Barbarian is or what classifies the people he kidnaps as a 'Barbarian'. All you really know the people he kidnaps are women, men, older people, and young children. The only characteristics that describes a barbarian is telling the reader the imagery of broken limbs, cuts, and children standing on one leg. Going further and further into the story you begin to think are we ever going to find out who a 'Barbarian' is and what they actually look like? After thinking about all those questions while reading both chapters you then begin to question and analyze the main character, I'm guessing a member of the colonels crew? He is the one and only member of the group that is showing any sympathy for the 'Barbarians'. He cleans them and feeds them and he tries to protect them to some extent of being brutally beaten by anyone. He goes through a great deal of stress in order to try to do what he feels is right. When reading this story you can see how the theories of Achebe can be seen in this story through some extent. He will be impressed with the main character on how his will and strong mindedness to keep control in the place. Also not knowing what this term 'Barbarian' represents besides knowing there gender and physical injuries they posses.
Hopefully by the end of this story we will find out what a 'Barbarian' truly is and what physical qualities they might represent. Right now we are going on basic instincts on what we view them as, I'm sure we all have different opinions on what physical attributes make up a 'Barbarian'.

Barbarians

In the readings of J.M Coetzee Waiting for the Barbarians, I found myself back to square one of thinking the same thoughts I conveyed from Achebes analysis of " The Heart of Darkness" . Both stories to me have one of many things in common. One being the same level of ignorance when it comes to things they know nothing about. For example in both stories they Describe the people as aliens something other than being the human being they came into the world as.

In "Waiting for the barbarians" the Barbarians where thought to be savages and at any time they could attack you. For example, "There is no woman living along the frontier who has not dreamed of a dark Barbarian hand coming from under the bed to grip her ankle, no man who has not frightened himself with visions of the barbarians carousing in his home, breaking the plates, setting fire to the curtains , raping his daughters"( pg 9). The main idea I got just from reading this sentence was the very thing I said of people fearing something they don't know and instead of taking the time to know the person inside and out one rather make assumptions.

In the story of 'Heart of Darkness" the Africans where described as monsters with a numerous amount of other names they came up with. Just as, ' We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there you could look at a thing monstous and free" (pg 13). The Africans where treated like nothing as if only an object. In past times a fool was used as a form of entertainment and I believe that the Africans too are portrayed as the fool in the story.

A wise person always told me when you ASSume what you don't know you make an ASSume out of yourself.

'Waiting for the Barbarians'

In Chinua Achebe's criticism of 'Heart of Darkness', Achebe emphasized the fact that Conrad portrayed Africa to be "the other world" (para. 7), the geographical location where the Europeans, or colonizers in general, chose to settle and dominate and make of the civilians nothing but beasts, degrade them in a way that practically wiped them off of any existing map.

This can also be seen in the first two chapters of 'Waiting for the Barbarians'. Coetzee describes, through the Magistrate's eyes, a group of barbarians, which included men, women, elders, and children, that were sent to this undisclosed location and were held as prisoners. They were beaten and tortured; for example, the one girl that was left behind that the Magistrate took in as his companion had both her feet broken and was now blind. Some of these prisoners even died. Based on what Achebe wrote in his essay about 'Heart of Darkness', he would read this book and point out how these barbarians were treated as animals, without a legitimate reason; they were sent to that location by Colonel Joll to be interrogated but in the end, they had nothing prosecuting to say. Either way, they were treated as savages (with the exception of this one girl).

Adam took the easy one!

Just to agree with Adam I too thought the same thing about the barbarians and wondered about their actual existence being that we are given practically no information what so ever. From Achebe’s perspective I think she would admire the main character for his will and the amount of duress he endures (although self contrived). On page 44 of my text I found that the main character was trying to break out of this problem that we only see things from our reference point and cannot break form this. He says “What do I have to do to move you” and “Does no one move you.” The next paragraph the character comes to a self actualization that he is the only one putting conations and subtext into everything he is doing for her, even though they do seem rather odd for a non-intimate couple. He says that it his own vanity and his own seduction that he is getting caught up in this very awkward situation. He also refers to things as only being what they are: a bed only a bed and a woman’s body only a site of joy. He then talks about the Colonel and that he must not suffer his crimes as well as distancing himself as much as he can form him. After reading the first two chapters I find it unclear what the main character is doing concurrent to what the Colonel did.

What makes a "barbarian" a "barbarian"

Although the author’s bio includes details of his birth and upbringing in South Africa I think it is important to note that this novel is left deliberately without geography. This was probably done in order to preserve the allegorical nature of the story. The author would rather us look at the relationships between characters and the various themes rather than dwell on where’s and when’s.

That being said I can see Achebe reacting very similarly to “Waiting for the Barbarians” as he reacted to Heart of Darkness. His main complaint is still preserved. The fact is that as far as we’ve gotten we are given little to no details about the “barbarians”. I was starved for information to the point where early on in the novel I began to wonder if these “barbarians” really existed. If this entire story was going to culminate in some grand contagious mob mentality paranoia, inventing an aggressor that doesn’t exist at all except for in the delusions of the frightened wealthy.

But even as we get toward the end of chapter two we are still given almost nothing in terms of solid useful descriptions of the “barbarians”. Similar to Heart of Darkness the only time we see these “barbarians” is when the authorities of our citadel bring them in. And even then the only thing that seems to identify them as “barbarians” is their condition and appearance and perhaps the fact that they were found what would be considered “too close” to the citadel.

I wonder if we were forced to define a “barbarian” and describe one based on what the book gives us so far, what would we come up with? And perhaps more importantly how many of the features that we would ascribe to these “barbarians” would be inherently theirs as opposed to having been inflicted or assigned by the empire?

11/05

As most of you have seen, the prompt for the second essay is to the right. I'm willing to extend the topic deadline to Friday of this week, but not further (I want you to get to work on the essay early). I'll also be posting potential works for analysis here (mostly post-colonial--the feminism is pretty well covered by the woolf, bender, carter, etc.) so keep an eye out. Be sure you've read to at least the end of the second chapter in Waiting, though in fact you'll want to read more, as you'll need to be through most of the book by the end of the weekend.

When you've finished reading, write a response which brings an idea drawn from one of the theorists (at this point Achebe, Said and hooks) into relationship with a moment or scene from Waiting. Based on what you've read so far, how would that author 'read' this book?

Indonesia

During the 17^th century, the English and the Dutch had a fierce competition and the Dutch came out as the predominant power in Indonesia. The Dutch controlled the sea in the entire archipelago, and gained a great deal of success with the spice trading. By 1700, the Dutch, started to change the emphasis of their colonial activities. The Dutch wanted to make even more profit so they started cultivation of other valuable tropical plants, things like coffee, tea, and indigo. They concentrated their efforts on Java, an island very well placed in the trade routes and very fertile to boot. The majority of the population of Indonesia used to live on the single island of Java. The Dutch took control of many areas in Java and forced the people there to cultivate what the Dutch wanted produced. Their control was indirect. The Dutch ruled their part of java through Javanese nobles, so that Javanese peasants, despite the amount of control East India Company had over their lives, very seldom saw the Dutch. The Chinese had played a role in Indonesia as well. They did many intermediary, functions, including money lending and other middleman-type commences.

At the end of the 18^th century, the Dutch East India company went broke as an effect of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. The Dutch still managed to stay in power but they started something called the “cultivation” system. Instead of taxes, Javanese peasants has to set aside 1/5 of their land to grow specified crops by the government. At this time the Dutch began to annex larger and larger parts of Java to extend its operations. The people of Java were doing very well due to all of the agriculture. The population nearly increased by sevenfold in the 1900’s. By 1914 the Dutch had more or less control over the whole territory of Indonesia. The Dutch educated the Javanese people to European standards. Then WWII came around and the Dutch rule ended. The Netherlands tried to take over but failed, so at this time the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence.

So being under Dutch control at first really helped the Indonesian people advance. The Indonesian people did a lot of agriculture and were even educated. It was because of the Dutch that the Indonesian people grew in population and many other ways. The only price they had to pay was I guess something like slavery? The people of Indonesia had to do whatever they said and everything because the Dutch ruled over them. Since the Dutch educated them, Indonesia should be able to live prosperously by farming and trading. This was all just a short analysis of Indonesia.

Works cited: http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/2805/dutchind.htm

Colonial Mexico

Colonial Mexico, was based on what historians used to think when explaining the wealthy well organized government of New Spain. This occurred in the middle of the nineteenth century, when Mexico lost half its territory, which used to be parts of what is now the United States, this was California, New Mexico, parts of Texas, and more on the western territory. Although, according to the article 'Down From Colonialism: Mexico's 19th Century Crisis', "By the middle of the nineteenth century, the republic of Mexico not only had lost more than half its territory, nut also suffered from extreme political instability, severe economic depression, and both racial as well as class conflict." (1) Therefore, the problem of colonialization was the economy and territory, that was taken from Mexico.

New Spain was the most powerful empire in the Western Hemisphere during the 1800's, who controled the territories of present day Mexico, Central America, the Phillippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Florida, the coastal regions of Alabama and Mississippi, Alaska, and Western Canada. New S[ain was the most richest nation at the time, although New Spain provided two thirds of the revenue of the spanish empire, this was in 1799, for 20 million pesos, and 10 million pesos where used for their local administration and defense. Spain kept on growing in wealth power, but as a result in their colonization of the Mexican economy, where in 1806, Mexico raised 39 million pesos, sending 19 million to spain to help finance the wars in Europe,where conflicts started to arouse. The silver mines, where the main engines that made the econy grow in Mexico, "Mexico was the world's principle supplier of silver throught the colonial period." This explains how Mexico at the time was a great welathy nation, who was colonized by Spain in order to get as much welath and territory as they could, but in the end things eventually changed as Mexico was its own nation in the early 19th century. "Eighteenth century Mexico can be described as a wealthy, capitalist society whose economy was characterized by private ownership of the means of production." As a result, it was the most influential economy which contribute to the Spanish economy. In conclusion, Mexico was considered the most productive nation of the 18th century, with its exportation of silver, which helped many nations including the Europian nations when times of war, but the primary nation who colonized its economy was Spain, who controlled many nations at the time.


http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=528

My Homeland, Ukraine

The largest country wholly in Europe, and yet when I answer that I am Ukrainian when people ask what my ethniticity is, most of them say, "What? Where?" That is truly unbelievable to me.
Ukraine has culture stemming back from the 1st millenium BC and the first identifiable groups to populate what is now Ukraine were Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians and Goths. These peoples were all well know to colonists and traders of the ancient world, and they created trading posts which eventually became city states. The slavic tribes occupied central and eastern Ukraine and they had an important role in establishing Kyiv. Kyiv is still in this day, the capital of Ukriane. In the 14th century, Ukrainians began to fell a very distinct feeling of passion and pride for their culture and people and began to feel that they were a distinct people, something that still to this day, is felt throughout the country. Ukrainian peasants fled from Poland, who tried to force them into servitude in the 17th century, and these people came to be known as the Cossacks and they are known for their fierce spirit and love of freedom.

Now moving into the 20th century, Ukraine has suffered an unbelievable amount of toils and tribulations. Living under Communist domination was horrific and suffering from two artificial famines because of the Communists stripping Ukraine of all it's agricultural prosperity in wheats and potatoes and later the Nazis doing the same, about 16 million Ukrianians were killed in WWII between the famines and the crazy Nazis slaughtering anything and anyone in their path. Everyone is always sympathetic to the killing of the Jews, which they should be, I am Jewish by way of my mother, so I feel the pain, but what about my Ukrainian forefathers? People don't mention when they speak of the holocaust as the unbelievable demise of the Ukrainians and I feel that we should also be remembered in all the museums too.

Finally, after almost a century of being under the Communist rule and living throught the Nazi regime, Ukraine received it's independence from the USSR and finally became an independent state on August 24th, 1991 and was a co-founder of Commonwealth of Independent States. The government of Ukraine has a parliamentary-presidential system with seperate executive, judicial and legislative branches. There are currently many people who live under the povery line, actually about 29%, and yet the laborers of Ukraine are highly trained and skilled and there are about eighty colleges and universities in Ukraine. This difference is quite amazing to me. The people of Ukraine are still regaining their spirit, understandably, after living under severe oppression from the Soviet domination, which in a way is just like colonization and what they are living in now, is post colonialism.

Work Cited:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3211.htm#people

Haiti

It all started in 1492 when Christopher Columbus, in an attempt to reach India, landed on a small island in the Caribbean, which he later dubbed Hispaniola (little Spain). The natives, the Taino/ Arawaks, greeted him and his crew very hospitably. The Spanish sailors, seeing perfect servitude in the natives’ kindness, reported their findings to the people back home. Almost as soon as word broke out, more and more settlers from Spain began populating the isle. Abusing the peacefulness and cooperation of the Taino/ Arawaks, they enslaved them, forcing them to work the land and dig for gold. The invaders, however, had not foreseen that their diseases would be fatal to the natives, as the latter faction had never received protection from them. It was a sad fate for the Taino/ Arawaks as almost all of them succumbed to the sicknesses and died.

Having pretty much depleted most of their native slaves, the colonizers of Hispaniola had Africans shipped in to take up the load. Having been inoculated against the illnesses, the Africans were used as slaves by the Spaniards for the following century and a half. The colony was thriving most successfully… Then along came the pirates. The filibusters and the buccaneers, French pirates, began causing trouble for the Spanish invaders. Fearing future incursions, the latter willingly handed half the island over to France in 1697. From here came the great division of the isle, Spain occupying the east side (Santo Domingo) and the French owning the west (Saint Domingue).

By 1700, there were about 500,000 African slaves on the island, a number greatly superior to the invaders’. Some tried to rebel, attempting to escape or getting revenge on their “masters”. But it mattered little in the end. They were still being subjugated. One of them would go down in history as the most recognized and respected. His name was Toussaint Breda. Thought not originally from Africa, he heard many stories from his father, who used to be a free man over there. Listening to these, Toussaint was able to realize that he was more than just a slave, that he was a man with rights. Fortunate enough to have a liberal “master” who allowed him to learn to read and write on his own, Toussaint began reading books by enlightenment thinkers who wrote about equality of man. A defining point in his life was when he witnessed a slave being burnt alive as punishment for an escape attempt. After this, he would begin his road to becoming the leader of the revolution.

The last decade of the 16th century was where the sparks of upheaval really began to fly. In 1789, Boukman, a voodoo high priest, hosted a secret ceremony in the Caiman woods, to which Toussaint was attending, a ceremony that riled up the Africans to take up arms against their “masters”. They “moved as one body and put to the torch everything that belonged to the white people, at the same time killing every white person they could find.” The French Revolution was just about culminating around that time, resulting in a new government in France. The Rights of Man became a major issue for this new government. With that in mind, a proposition was made to abolish slavery in all French-owned territories, a proposition that was denied in 1791. Outraged, Toussaint, now known as L’Ouverture (the opening), led a group of slaves at war against the French colonists: a successful campaign. The abolition proposal was reintroduced in 1793, under the Jacobins’ rule, this time being accepted. The slaves were finally freed. They rejoiced. Toussaint ended up becoming an ally to the new French Government, using his skills as a brilliant general to help them out in many situations. This was not meant to last though. Napoleon Bonaparte soon replaced the Jacobins in power. He reinstated slavery in the French colonies, causing a civil war to erupt in Saint Domingue. In 1803, with the intention of ceasing the bloodshed, Toussaint agreed to meet up with Napoleon in order to sign a peace treaty that would simultaneously declare Saint Domingue, now called Haiti, as independent. Toussaint was betrayed. Napoleon had him captured and locked away. Toussaint eventually died while in captivity but his forces were stronger than ever as they carried on the war back in Haiti. In 1804, having forced the French government to surrender the territory, the former slaves had won. Haiti and its people were now finally independent.

WORKS CITED:
http://www.historywiz.com/toussaint.htm
http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Baker_00/2002-p4/baker_p4_12-01_db/index.htmhttp://www.pages.drexel.edu/~sd65/carib_history/arawaks.htm

Norway

As a result of the Napoleonic Wars, Norway, a part of the Danish Empire obtained in 1586, was lost to the Swedish empire, thus forming the Swedish-Norwegian union. This union lasted until 1905, when Norwegian sovereignty was recognized by the Swedes. There has always been some tension between Sweden and Norway, even in the post-colonial era of Europe. However, in recent years, the tension between the sovereign nation and it's former colonizer has basically ceased to be. According to an article from Afterposten.no, Sweden and Norway are combining forces as "Norwegian soldiers will... start serving under Swedish command." (Afterposten.no).
While it may seem like Norway might still be a colony of Sweden in the same sense that some see the United States attempting to make Iraq a colony, Norway has been able to establish their own form of government. Since their colonial days, Norway has taken a parliamentary form of democratic government, with a King as a respected figure head, much akin to England's democracy. In addition, their mark in world politics has been made, as Norway was one of the countries that signed the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 and helped found the United Nations. Despite heavy involvement on the part of their former colonizer, Norway's actions have helped them become an integral part in our world.

WORKS CITED:
http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/norway.html
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1054446.ece

Colonization

The 13 original colonies were Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusettes, NH, NJ, NY, NC, SC, PA, RH and VA. The first colonies were along the Eastern coast. Many settlers from differnt areas claimed land and disputes over control had then started. The first English colony was Jamestown which is now known as Virginia. Massachusettes was setup shortly after the Pilgrims followed, which was called Plymouth then. The more people arrived, the more disputes occured. There were many wars and the countries that were mostly present were England and France. They fought in the French Indian War in which England won control over Canada and the English colonies. Many people had their own rituals and wanted to keep them. They wanted to keep practicing their religion and keep their families together. The Pilgrims and Quakers had left their territory to continue practicing what they believed in. Because of all of the differences that arose, much conflict occurred. Many colonies wanted to isolate other colonies and single them out totally. The Revolutionary War was the outcome and the Americans got what they wanted.

Pennsylvania was a disputed territory since the early 1600's. People from England, Holland and Sweden claimed this land. Pennsylvania didn't actually get its name until 1681 in which William Penn was given the right to settle there and in his honor
was names after him. He started to buy land from people who lived to the west. The french claimed the west and the English claimed the east which caused the two cultures to clash. This resulted in the French and Indian War.

Even though William Penn was able to claim this land, he still had to fight for it because of the clashing in the west. There will always be some type of dispute between religion, belief systems, power, and money.

Hispanola and Colonization

Christopher Columbus came to Hispanola which at the time was calledAyiti during his first voyage to America in 1492. He returned a yearlater and made it a permanent European settlement in America.The island was inhabited by the Tainos indians.At first they were tolerant of Columbus and his crew, and helped him to construct FortNavidad which is now Saint-Nicolas, Haiti.. European colonizationof the island began in earnest the following year, when 1,300 menarrived from Spain under the watch of Bartolomeo Columbus. In 1496 thetown of Nueva Isabela was founded. It was destroyed by a hurricane then rebuilt on the opposite site of the Ozama River and named SantoDomingo. It is the oldest permanent European settlement in the Americas The Taino population was rapidly decimated, on most partbecause of a combination ofdisease and harsh treatment by Spanishoverlords. Around 1501, the colony began to import African slaves,believing them more capable of performing physical labor. AsSpain conquered new regions on the mainland of the Americas, its interest in Hispaniola declined and the colony's population grew slowly. By the early 17th century, the island and its neighbours became regular stopping points for Caribbean pirates. In 1606, the king of Spain ordered all inhabitants of Hispaniola to move close to Santo Domingo, to avoid interaction with pirates. Rather than secure
the island, however, this resulted in French, English and Dutch pirates establishing bases on the now-abandoned north and west coasts of the island.In 1665, French colonization of the island was officially recognized by Louis XIV. The French colony was given the name Saint-Domingue. In the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick, Spain formally ceded the western third of the island to France.n 1791, there was a major in Saint-Domingue, led by Toussaint
Louverture. In 1801, Toussaint Louverture unified the island It becamethe Dominican Republic which was given to France in 1795. Then and abolishing slavery He then unified French and Spanish Haiti. In 1804, following a failed attempt by Napoleonic troops to reestablish slavery on the island, the Republic of Haiti was proclaimed, with Jean-Jacques Dessalines its first head of state. Haiti is the second oldest country in the Americas after the United States and the oldest independent nation in Latin America. By 1808, after various degrees of instability, Santo Domingo reverted to Spanish rule. Two years later in 1810 the French finally left Santo Domingo.Spanish lieutenant governor Jose Nuerez de Ceceres declared the colony's independence as the state of Spanish Haiti (Haiti Espanol) on November 30, 1821, requesting admission to the Republic of Gran Colombia, but Haitian forces, led by Jean-Pierre Boyer, unified the entire island.In 1838 secret society was founded called La Trinitaria to fight for the rights of the Spanish, eastern side of the island to be independent. Ramon Mantas Mella and Francisco del Rosario Sanchez( mestizo, people who were both Spanish and Armenian went on to be decisive in the fightfor independence and are now hailed as the Founding Fathers of the Dominican Republic.On February 27, 1844, the Trinitarios declared independence from Haiti,it was backed by Pedro Santana, a wealthy cattle-rancher from El Seibo. The Dominican Republic's first Constitution was adopted on November 6, 1844 which was modeled after the US constitution In 1861, for numerous reasons, the Dominican Republic reverted back ta colonial state of Spain, the only Latin American nation to do so President Pedro Santana decided to return the Dominican Republic to Spain. Haitian authorities, fearful of the reestablishment of Spain ascolonial power, gave refuge and logistics to revolutionaries to re-establish the independent nation of the Dominican Republic, which they felt was the lesser of two evils.The civil war, called the War of Restoration, was led by two men.Ulises Heureaux, who was also a three-time President of the Dominican Republic, and Gen. Gregorio Luperen. After two years of fighting, Spanish troops abandoned the island. About a decade later the president of the Dominican Republic sought to sell the island to the United States and become a state they were declined by congress.

(sorry about the format,had to work on it in word pad and it looks to have transfered weird)

Workscited
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8487519

North America Colonization ?

In May of 1607 colonist landed in Virginia creating the first English colony in Jamestown. Like most colonies trading was the number one producer of revenue mostly Indian fur and gold. Another one of the colonies chief source of wealth was tobacco.
The American colonies helped Europe understand the world better, made them realize that the world extended past their normal understanding of the globe, forcing them to reshape maps. The new world also invited new enterprises new regions to explored, new conquest, also evolving trade and navigation techniques. The colonies made sugar, cotton, and rice more affordable by making them more accessible. Getting these products from the Mediterranean marked the price up enormously; now that they can be grown in the U.S. it lowered the price making it more accessible to the masses.
English rule on it’s colonizers was overbearing dealing with the reform of a new world and the Imperial rule of it’s mother country caused great discontent within the colonies. Heavy taxation on normal every day products made life in the colonies very hard. Growing upheaval resulted in the American Revolution allowing the colonies to succeed from England.
European/English colonization also had a negative effect on the Native Americans. Native Americans suffered a severe lost in land, increase in disease due to the lack of immunity against foreign sickness, and new law that conflicted with there normal way of life. Guns and horses changed the way these native hunted for food, making it easier and severely exhausting wildlife populations. Fights over land caused bloody battles as Native Americans were displaced from their original occupancies; Indians mainly from the Eastern Woodland region were ravished so badly by colonization that their history was extinguished.

http://www.funsocialstudies.learninghaven.com/articles/natives2.htm
http://www.rootsweb.com/~neresour/OLLibrary/Montgomery/mahp035.htm

The Colonization of South America

South America was populated by indigenous people until the seventeenth century when it was colonized by Spanish settlers. The Indians that already lived in South America were taken over by the Spanish settlers and forced into slavery and Chritianity. Many of the Indians suffered death as well from European disease.

"And Indians continued to die in appalling numbers, diseased from smallpox and brutalized by those who depended on their labor." (Colonial Latin America)
"And in these two sermons he insist on two additional slaveries, that of body and soul." (Colonial Latin America)
In this way the Spanish settlers enslaved the Indians with their body by forcing them into slave labor, and through their souls by forcing them into Christianity.

Update

The first chapter of Waiting for the Barbarians is now available to the right

South Africa

South Africa’s story of colonization starts with diamonds and metallurgy. Although it already existed as a British colony it was a diamond rush in 1870 that really, (sorry for the cliché), put them on the map. With interests now peaked we see the gathering of those seeking profits. People like Barnato and Cecil Rhodes, who founded DeBeers and Consolidated Gold Fields, established the mining companies that would dominate South Africa for the next hundred years or so.

Over the next century, and mostly in the last twenty years of that century, an interesting political shift took place. The largely subjugated African people began to revolt. The greatly oppressive system of Apartheid was exposed as unjust and crusaders against it emerged and were swiftly thrown in prison later to be released, elected president and given the Nobel Peace Prize using the very specific case of Nelson Mandela. But you gotta do your 30 years of unjust imprisonment first, presidencies and peace prizes aren’t given to just anyone you know.

One of the obvious consequences of colonialism is xenophobia. So consequently the residue of that fear, racism, is commonly a symptom of post-colonialism.

I’d imagine the social situation in South Africa is far from resolved, although I’d have to do more research to offer specific examples, but I wonder if there is a pattern in the societal upheaval of the nation that can be seen elsewhere. Is every situation of colonization and exploitation unique or does it follow some model. Being that the motives for colonization, no matter what the territory, are usually the same I wonder what other symptoms and residues can be similarly observed in the progression of subjugation to chaos to the always elusive sense of balance of power.

For my sources I used HUMAN RIGHTS Historical images of Apartheid in South Africa, from www.un.org and the introduction to Mining in Africa Today: Strategies and Prospects, a collection edited by Samir Amin.

The Philippines

The Philippines is the worlds 12th most populated country with a population close to 90 million people composed of 7,000 islands in the Pacific Ocean. The Philippines is known officially as the Republic of the Phillipines which is located in South Asia, and its capitial city is Manila. The Philippines was a Spanish colony in the 16th century, and later became a U.S. colony after the Spanish American war and the Philippine-American war. The Philippines is composed of many cultures from Spain, United States, and Latin America. They had many trade and cultural relations with many countries such as India and China. Two countries that are dominant throughout the world. The beginnings of colonization began when King Phiilip II ordered an expedition. Later an explorer from Mexico soon arrived in 1565 and began to form what was then the first Spanish settlements and established Manila as the capital of this new Spanish Colony. After the colonization of Philippines the country had seen great improvements throughout the country. There economy was developing at a fast pace there GDP was rising each year and was projected to continue to rise as each year passed. By 2004 the country experienced a 6% growth after the Asian Finacial Crisis. Although the economy was growing very rapidly there was still many problems the economy was suffering from. Income inequality was a factor in the country. Many people were living on $2 a day. The development was uneven through out the country, the only cities that were growing and producing econimically was the capital city and Luzon. So even though after their colonization from Spain the Philippines started off in a positive direction but continue to face economic problems. Hopefully the country will be able to improve their economic state and become a more stable country in the future.

Africa

In the late 19th century Europe began its act of colonization on Africa which lingered for about a 100 years. It intrusively controlled the political and social aspects of the country. Additionally, and most importantly, it invaded the cultural and economical aspects. When the era of colonization abated, Africa was left behind with major problems which prolong today.

During the era of colonization, the British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Belgian powers robbed Africa of its natural resources. They invaded the country, build roads, hospitals, schools, and other luxurious items. However, these massive improvements were only useful to the elite and colonial leaders. The African people were neglected and more or less forced to adapt to Western ideologies in order to survive. Once the colonial countries departed from the country, the African people were stripped of their identity, culture, and language. They had to, once again, strive to find their place in the world.

Some parts of Africa were severely more hurt by post colonization than others. The Belgian Congo, today known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was viciously wounded by King Leopold II. He made the people work intensively on the rubber resources of the country. The act of refusal was punished by amputation. The act of burning down villages and towns was also practiced quite often. These brutal acts decreased the population of Belgian Congo by 50%.

“Scramble for Africa” (Helium) began by the Europeans and continued once they departed from the country. Since the European countries divided Africa amongst themselves, later the African people were faced with boundary issues. They could never go back to the original formation of the country and how it was originally divided amongst the tribes that dwelled there. Some people were even forced to dwell in the land of their enemies.

Another major issue is the lack of superior economical infrastructure. Africa, even today, relies on outside aid and goods from Western countries. The people still suffer from hunger, poverty, and epidemic issues.

Cuba

Cuba first became a colony in 1511 when Don Diego Velazquez founded the first city. The Spaniards had sacrificed all the native Indians without even realizing it so were left with no other choice but to bring over African slaves to work for them. In 1762, the English realized how crucial of an island Cuba was to the Americas and attempted to hold the island, but were only successful for a year and returned it to Spain.

Cuba attempted to revolt against Spain many many times beginning in 1819 but only began to be somewhat triumphant in 1868 in a revolt that lasted 10 years and achieved them several deals: "Spain made some concessions. Slavery was abolished and some reforms were promised, (reforms that remained - as always - promises)" (RIUS 29). Later in 1895, Jose Marti (an exiled poet) led the most successful revolt, in which the U.S. took part of, primarily because they realized what a great source of sugar the island was, with the help of Maine, the battleship which later blew up resulting in the U.S. declaring war against Spain. The U.S. won and therefore proposed the Platt Amendment, which basically allowed them to take over Cuba without making it their formal colony. The following years, the U.S. repeatedly intervened and did as they pleased; "It's object? To put down strikes against the sugar mills...(American owned of course)" (RIUS 47). Eventually, the U.S. controlled everything in Cuba from banks, to mines, trains, cattle, tobacco, sugar, and most importantly the government.

Of course the Cubans were not content; they had revolted against Spain but were now stuck as American property. It was now time to revolt against the U.S. and in charge of this task was none other than Fidel Castro himself, at the time, a student. He got his friends killed and himself thrown into jail for 15 years. It was only in 1959 that his real revolt was successful, overthrowing then President Batista, even though everything was still controlled by the Americans. He was eventually named in charge of the government, and we can look at present day Cuba for any addtional information.

So, basically, Cuba has never really been a nation of its own; first dominated by the Spaniards, later by the Americans. Although many revolted, such as Marti and Castro, everything has always been controlled by the U.S. in one way or another, whether the Cubans wanted to be or not. Present day Cuba has been left with poor resources for themselves and are not as technologically advanced as they could be: "The so called 'importance' of the second television set, the latest model car or the latest style has been replaced by the collective and individual satisfaction of meaningful work benefiting everyone" (RIUS 153), all because the U.S. has taken all that, and more, away from them throughout the years.

Source: "Cuba for Beginners" by RIUS

Hong Kong returns to China Rule

For over 150 years, Hong Kong has been under British colonial rule. China regained its sovereignty over Hong Kong back in 1997.

"It was an event awaited with trepidation as well as excitement since 1984, when Britain and China agreed on terms for the transfer of power over this territory wrested from China in the 19th century wars over the opium trade. And it ushered in a time of uncertainty over whether China would honor its pledge to maintain Hong Kong's way of life largely unaltered for the next 50 years." (NY Times July 1, 1997, Edward A. Gargan)

The then Governor of Hong Kong , Patten, said in his ceremonial speech "Our own nation's contribution here," he said, "was to provide the scaffolding that enabled the people of Hong Kong to ascend: the rule of law, clean and light-handed government, the values of a free society. The beginnings of representative government and democratic accountability."( NY Times, July 1, 1997)

The epitome of the colonists' thinking is the attitude that "our way is right, and your way won't work". In "Modern Literary Theory", the introduction to Postcolonialism makes reference to a book by Edward Said, "Orientalism" (1978) and continues to state...The book drew on the Gramscian concept of hedgemony in order to demonstrate that Europe's construction of the Orient is a paradigm of all colonial and imperial structures. In each case, the mysterious and duplicitous 'other' which is the colonized culture functions as a means of stabilizing and affirming the identity of the imperialist power."

It was interesting to read some quotes from Hong Kong citizens..." It's a good thing we can finally get rid of the imperialists. We're all Chinese. I feel great. This land belongs to China." (NY Times, July 1, 1997). The man who said this was 72 years old and has lived his entire life under colonialist rule. He may be in for a surprise when he must now live under communist rule.

"China's red banner was raised, marking the transfer of this free-wheeling capitalist territory to communist control. A range of Hong Kong's civil liberties were rolled back as new constraints were placed on the right to protest and association, and any form of speech promoting the independence of Taiwan or Tibet was banned. "(NY Times, July 1, 1997)

Martin Lee, the leader of the pro-democracy forces stated ""If there is no democracy, there is no rule of law," he continued. "We want Hong Kong and China to advance together and not step back together. We are proud to be Chinese, more proud than ever before. But we ask: Why is it our leaders in China will not give us more democracy? Why must they take away the modest democracy we have fought so hard to win from the British government?"

After reading this article from the New York Times, It seemed to me that Hong Kong just traded one "master" for another, Imperialist to Communist. As Edward Said wrote " ...the main issue for contention was whether things in the third world hadn't declined after the colonies had been emancipated, but that their history of barbarities, tyrannies and degradations to their own native histories, histories that were pretty bad before colonialism and that reverted to that state after colonialism." (Culture and Imperialism (1993), pp.20-35).

Colonial Peru

Before spain conquered Peru, it was last recorded that they were 12 million indians inhabiting the land. In 45 years the census recorded figures of only 1,100,000 Indians living there, that is nine tenths of the population, killed. The reasons or causes for these deaths are the outcome of high taxes “impoverishing” the Indians, cruel punishment, hard slave labor and european diseases.

Peru had many of their values taken away from them. Peru used to be inhabited by Inca cultures where they worshiped gods such as the Sun and the Moon, then with violence they were forced to change their beliefs “This entire set of beliefs was attacked with blood and iron, and replaced by an invisible foreign god”(Colonial Peru). Spain robbed Peru of all their wealth, everything from food to minerals, such as in a 50 year period they stole 185,000 kilo’s of gold, and 16 million kilo’s of silver.

From the beginning Peruvian natives fought against the europeans to prevent colonialism. In the 18th century there were 14 uprisings led by Juan Santos Atahualpa and Tupac Amaru against the europeans. These uprisings led the Spaniards to get rid of “all traditions and manifestations of Inca identity”. But today in Peru you call see that some traditions survived in Peru.