It’s vital that we take risks in asserting our legal right to doubt and interrogate the ‘decolonising’ story, because what is at stake is so very important.
There is a lot of really cheap thought flying around today in academic, media, and government industries dealing with political history. One of the chief tenets is that of the intrinsically evil nature of European colonization of much of the world.
According to the BBC, 70% of the African-Caribbean community in the Netherlands believe an apology is important while only 38% of Dutch people as a whole think it is necessary.
Whatever its opinion concerning the Spanish empire, the Descolonícemonos initiative quickly betrayed its abject submission to prevailing ‘woke capitalism.’
Miguel de Cervantes presents us with the mirrored vices of savagery and civilization. Like Tacitus, he celebrates indigenous prerogative to resist foreign excess, even as he asserts the imperial principle.
Another use of the imperial past is possible: one that does not collapse empire into nationality, one that assumes overlapping rather than contradicting spheres.
Twice, the question had been put to Kanaks and French people living on the island. And twice, the result was clear-cut in favour of remaining in France. But that is not enough, and those in favour of independence want to force people to vote again to achieve their goal.
