Theories of Internal Colonialism - Essay Example

Internal Colonialism and the formation of the United Kingdom Internal colonialism throughout history has greatly impacted cultures and shaped those societies involved in the process. Marxists such as Lenin and Gramsci explained the concept of internal colonialism as an disproportionate balance of existence between elite ruling class (at the core) and the ordinary folk which comprised the rest of society (at the pheriphery) within the nation. Political and economic inequalities between the different sections in the society that came as a result of state expansion and exploitation of minority groups were part of this internal colonization process (Wikipedia 2006). In addition, religion, language, ethnicity or another cultural factor may have set this internal colony apart and the members left out of government and other political processes. When the colonial period ended, the term was used for regions where sovereign government exploited the economically backward and ethnically unique. This paper examines the notion of internal colonialism, and how it brought about the creation of the United Kingdom. In his article ‘Internal colonialism and ghetto revolt’ Robert Blauner stated four factors which are consistent to both external and internal course of colonization: 1. The manner in which a racial group inserts itself into the domineering culture. History shows us that forced entry is usually the starting point of colonization. 2. The effects subjugated on the culture and society of the colonized members. This is quite apart from a result of natural mixing with the group. The colonizing group initiates a strategy to transform, constrain or obliterate native values, orientations, and the old way of life. 3. Successful colonization necessitates a relationship where people of the colonized group allow themselves, without continuous revolt, to be governed and supervised by the colonizers with regards to their ethnic position. 4. The practice of racism. It is a feature of social domination and exploitation by one group over another who is viewed as inferior or different with regards to certain biological features. Such a group is controlled, and oppressed socially and physically by the superior group Theories of internal colonialism are diverse and numerous attempts have been made to put them into perspective. In an effort to explain them, Robert J. Hind says that the theories give many reasons, descriptions and inferences and falsely assume a great deal of harmony among both the natives and colonizers. There is also a tendency to reduce the intricate social organization to simple terms. These theories overlook the fact that for capitalism to expand, colonialism is a necessary evil. Rodolfo Stavenhagen says that a certain degree of social polarization combined with disproportionate development is necessary for capitalism to further itself. Thus, internal colonialism that prevails in a number of nations is a result of unequal social structures that come from colonial history. This inequality plays a role in capitalism which benefits from domination over the lower social classes and ethnic groups. In his 1975 landmark book “Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development” Michael Hechter argues that Britain’s ‘Celtic fringe’ (Ireland, Scotland and Wales) were deprived of substantial industrial development due to a ‘cultural division of labour’ inside the United Kingdom. In an internal colony, the production hierarchy is ordered and Hechter argues that with regards to a cultural division of labour there exists a hierarchical system where cultural differences are applied to class lines. The advantage of this cultural division of labour is that it allows the colonised group to retain certain elements of its traditional customs and maintain its identity and political activism due to economic and social relations with the colonisers. He argues that the state tends to dominate the natives both culturally and politically by economic exploitation through unequal resource allocation. He states that ethnicity instead of social class is the primary way of identification of native groups. He recognised that ethnic identities were a key feature of internal colonialism and ethnic nationalism arises as a result of economic inequalities within the minor groups. There are three ways in which Hechter’s study examines the topic of internal colonialism, applicable to the formation of the United Kingdom. First, by extending the geographic scale, the study expands to encompass all regions mentioned. Secondly, including a historical perspective to the study ensures that ethnic ‘upbringing’ and the colonizer’s history of invasion and domination are also made relevant. Third, further studying the relationship between the British Empire and the Celtic fringes, their ethnicity and culture and the power play that existed between them would complete the study. The British Empire throughout their history of world colonisation has always tried reach into numerous territories and establish their identity. This was no different with the peripheral cultures of Wales, Scotland and Ireland which the kingdom attempted to encapsulate and make them characteristic of British national interests. These Celtic fringes become a kind of vehicle to inflate British political, social and economic strength. Hechter describes this as the ideal way to define internal colonialism. But there have been numerous critics of this view, one being John Lovering who cited Wales as an example. He says that Wales has seen an imbalance of capitalist development and that the theory of internal colonisation does not explain properly modern or historical Welsh development. Further, Hechter’s model of economic and social exploitation has no basis in reality. Another view that has been proposed is the examination of the effects of capitalism throughout history on Welsh development. When viewed in this context, it can be seen that the Welsh development has been stabilized due to the presence of the state which controls the economy. Another critic who expressed dissatisfaction with Hechter’s model was William N. Sloan. According to him, Hechter exaggerated the ethnic aspects of internal colonialism and failed to mention the effects of capitalism on society. The model and its characteristics has been used too broadly to a variety of colonial situations and as a result has come to offer a descriptive account of these situations rather than explaining them. The model has been over used in numerous regions of the globe to explain the ethno-economic inequalities prevailing there. Sloan points out that nationalistic emotion of ethnic groups come as a result of capitalism and imperialism and that imperialism doesn’t stand tall due to an inhibition of nationalistic feelings. It is this that Hechter’s model has missed. In 1965, two articles published by Pablo Gonzalez-Casanova and Rodolfo Stavenhagen, were the first set out to apply the theories of internal colonialism to the conditions of native people. They discarded dualist theories of development that were applied to native inhabitants. Since then, numerous literatures have surfaced that apply an assortment of ideas of internal colonialism to the conditions of native people. A conclusion drawn by Vic Satzewich and Terry Wotherspoon highlights the pros and cons of internal colonial model as applied to Canadian aboriginals. According to them, the model assumes that aboriginals and whites are homogeneous, thus narrowly categorizing them and ignoring their class interests. In other words, it assumes that all whites have the same interests with regards to the governing of the internal colonial relationship with the natives who in turn have common social, economic and political agendas that centre on opposing internal colonial rule. Satzewich and Wotherspoon argue that the notion that oppression of one group over another, benefits the domineering group must be discarded. Those who consider oppression of aboriginals by non-aboriginals is favourable must be challenged for the sake of human morals. The internal colonial model makes no mention of the form of social and economic organization which typifies a society and whether it impacts the colonized members. The model makes no reference to the nature of the organization or method of production and the relationships that some classes of people have with it. The application of internal colonialism models to aboriginals was discussed in two significant articles. The first was by Mervyn Hartwig in a chapter “Capitalism and Aborigines: The theory of internal colonialism and its rivals”. In it he applies Wolpe’s analysis of the South African Communist Party method to methods of internal colonialism in Australia. He disagrees with the idea of colonial exploitation and asks in what manner that type of exploitation is different from class exploitation existing in capitalist nations. He proposes a theory of internal colonialism that describes how the exact manner in which ideological and political domination over Aborigines relates to concrete forms of exploitation of Aboriginal societies. This is says is the best method to analyse the connections between class, race and ethnicity. He argues that this method satisfactorily explains the duality – class and nation, integration and separation – that has embodied Aboriginal ambitions. It also places the history of Aboriginal-White relationships within the history of race and ethnic relations. (Hartwig p.137, 138) Building on the theory proposed by Wolpe and Hartwig another critic David Drakakis Smith, attempted to develop the idea that internal colonialism benefits from conserving the native or non-capitalist production methods, whose continuation reaps benefits to the capitalist group. He studied the methods of exploitation by the superior culture in Australia over the ethnic minority, paying attention to their political, cultural and ethnic status and the distribution of benefits to the native class. Another theorist who proposed the theory of colonisation was Thomas Hobbes. He maintained that before the emergence of the civil society when people lived harmoniously with one another, there was a time when man lived with nature and all the dangers such an existence posed. It was a time when knowledge and information was scarce and people relied on brute force to drive away potential attackers and maintain their personal security and livelihoods. Farming was one ways of sustaining their lives. Social order and justice did not exist, and lives were always in peril. This haphazard existence was very troublesome and individuals joined to form groups or joined existing groups governed by lawful leaders who maintained a state of well being for all under their rule. This ensured the survival of the group as a whole and would be protected by others in the group to stave off invasion or other territorial infringements. Living under a sovereign meant peace and social order and compelled individuals in the group to obey and submit to the laws of the sovereign. This appears to be one of the reasons why the Celtic fringes, joined with the British Empire to form the United Kingdom as a way to be part of a larger body which could provide economic benefits and security. Hobbes states that if native groups are not large or ordered enough they could either face the possibility of fighting the enemy or surrendering to them. Deciding to fight would necessitate a large army and ample weaponry and plenty of brave hearts. Surrendering would mean the sovereign has gained through acquisition. Either way, should the sovereign succeed, it places itself in the midst of the colonised. Whatever the form of intrusion, the fate of the vanquished falls into the colonizer’s hands. However, the reign of the sovereign depends not on the mere conquest, but on the willingness of the natives to submit wholeheartedly to the new authority who gains politically. But Hobbes theory doesn’t account for the fact that except for mutual agreement that benefits the colonizer, the agreement is not a two way street, since the natives have very little say in the decision making process. The natives must follow whatever orders given to them. Once a sovereign hold the reins of power over a community or region, responsibilities increase manifold. Not only does the sovereign need to protect its newly acquired citizens, but it also needs to maintain their livelihoods by means of proper governance and equal distribution of resources, food, wealth and benefits. In other words, the function of the sovereign is to preserve peace in the society and defend it against external aggression and also to maintain law and order internally so that individuals may live in harmony. The economic stability of the society gains importance. People are advised to be self sufficient, to provide financial security for their families. The sovereign must promote its policies equally among all territories under it. If society cannot produce its own material resources or food, the sovereign must acquire them by the way of trade and commerce with neighbours or distant economies that can provide them. If supply decreases, and regular trade is not possible then an option the sovereign may consider is war – forcible take over of possessions through invasion. Throughout history, British colonialism set out to acquire as much global territory as possible and in this regard the governing heads sent out armies and leaders to inhabit foreign regions. Many regions they encountered faced dire poverty and the inhabitants were barely able to maintain their livelihoods. A sovereign body on another soil, with economic power, is duty bound to provide sustenance and offer land to cultivate their crops and build industry. A labour policy must be enforced which gives alternative forms of employment to those physically incapable of engaging in the rigors of work. The policy must also allow for a transfer of the work force should the number of poor grow to unmanageable proportions. One of the benefits that colonisation brings upon the native population is an introduction to new machinery or technology, new methods of sustenance and better practices that come from scientific knowledge that the natives may not previously had access to. The downside of colonisation is that the native population often find themselves distanced politically and may feel alienated due to sovereign dominance and unequal social standing. But this form of colonisation reveals one stark reality - dependence. A scholar named Andre Gunder Frank proposed dependency theory. According to this, economically stable capitalist nations, in an effort to maintain growth and political influence, become dependent on underdeveloped countries and minor communities. He talks of the impact overdeveloped nations have on the developing or lesser developed nations and the relationships that exist between the colonizer and the colonized. This theory can be seen at work with the British Empire’s expansion plans on the Celtic fringes. In an effort to increase the wealth of the state, and gain access to resources in order to maintain economic power, the empire would attempt to occupy neighbouring regions and exploit the local society. In this manner, internal colonialism played a major part in the formation of the United Kingdom which is a sovereign state that includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each of these territories has faced invasion and occupation in the past by outsiders beginning in 1066 with Normans led by Duke William of Normandy who conquered England in the Battle of Hastings. After invasion and a phase of revolt, the Normans managed to insert themselves into the existing population and hold the elite ruling class positions or power structure, displacing the Anglo-Saxons. Robert Blauner’s first point on the theory of internal colonialism is validated here. Although both groups intermingled and merged their languages and traditions, the Normans did not forcibly exercise a strategy of transforming or obliterating the native values. The two cultures borrowed from one another from the natural mixing of the populations. With this merging, the Normans increasingly saw themselves as Anglo-Normans. Their old Parisian French language altered and formed into the Anglo-Norman language which combined with the Anglo-Saxon language formed English. The Anglo-Norman aristocracy governed and supervised the people successfully but maintained their own elite class standing in an effort to exercise power and domination. Wales also experienced Norman intrusion and here too the Welsh language adopted some of the Norman vocabulary. Scotland became home to the Normans who established noble families. Kings of Scotland would further familiarize the Normans with Scottish culture and the Normans attempted to use their feudal system on the Scottish Lowlands with limited results. When the Normans entered Ireland, there was substantial intermixing and borrowing of language from both cultures. As the Normans embedded themselves into the native culture they affected the Irish culture and ethnicity in many ways and shaped Ireland to what it is today. In 1707, under Queen Anne, the Act of Union was drawn up to begin the phase to uniting England and Scotland under a United Kingdom instead of keeping them as separate regions. The plan was to maintain a single parliament headquartered in Westminster and dissolve the Scottish parliament. The result was that both England and Scotland could gain by free trade. Scotland was allowed to keep its identity, and many institutions were not combined into the British system. This internal colonisation by the British Empire ensured a stronger kingdom and better security to Britain’s borders. While it greatly increased contact Britain had with Europe, and transformed the English language, it also established a powerful monarchy and also created an advanced form of government (Wikipedia 2006). The Act of 1801 came into force which united Ireland with the United Kingdom, making it the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The end of Irish independence was brought about by certain internal conflicts in Ireland that demanded the end of British rule and also to the penal laws. In the early twentieth century Ireland was divided and separated from Northern Ireland which remained with the United Kingdom. This came about due to a nationalist movement that grew with the Irish’s desire to free themselves from British dominion. Nationalistic movements are a part of the native’s struggle against internal colonisation. The effectiveness of ethnic nationalist movement depends on how socially ‘awakened’ the members of the group are and also a recognition that the colonial situation they find themselves in is unlawful. Members of such groups may realise the shortcomings of belonging to a lower class group and may revolt against the conditions imposed upon them by the ruling state. Such uprisings only strengthen nationalistic movements which even in economic development or in an industrial society, may flourish and continue. The theory of internal colonialism was proposed to oppose the notion that economic development would lessen the significance of ethnicity and class consciousness. Conclusion Internal colonialism dates far back in history, over wide geographic areas, when dominant rulers exercised their power by invading, occupying and settling into regions and commencing a form of governance using new laws. As a result native cultures altered their social standings, languages and customs to accommodate the new power and even adopt some of the characteristics. What followed seemed like a lawful system of political governance where the colonized inhabitants relinquished their own laws in exchange for maintenance of their lives with obedience and consent to the rule of the sovereigns authority. There was also a recognition that it was sometimes beneficial to surrender to a central authority rather than rely on the local chiefs of the time. Applied to the Celtic fringes, this capitulation to sovereign rule eventually led to a sense of nationalism which in the case of Ireland (except the northern part) won over into independence. Internal colonialism and colonialism is a way of expansion at the expense of intruding on the native groups but as the example of the formation of the United Kingdom shows, the process can be put in motion peacefully provided there is mutual consent between all parties concerned. References Blauner, Robert. (1972) “Internal colonialism and ghetto revolt”, Social Problems 16 (1969), and, Racial Oppression in America (New York NY: Harper & Row). Bohmer, Peter (1998). African-Americans as an Interna Colony: The Theory of Internal Colonialism. [Accessed 16th Aug 06] Drakakis-Smith, “Internal colonialism and the geographical transfer of value”. pp 157. Gonzalez Casanova, Pablo. (1965). “Internal colonialism and national development”, Studies in Comparative International Development 1 pp. 27-37 Hartwig, Mervyn (1978). “Capitalism and Aborigines: The theory of internal colonialism and its rivals”, in: Ted Wheelwright and Ken Buckley (eds.), Essays in the Political Economy of Australian Capitalism (Sydney: Australia & New Zealand Book Company), pp. 119-41; Hartwig, Mervyn “Capitalism and Aborigines”. pp. 137-38. Hechter, Michael. (1975) Internal Colonialism The Celtic Fringe in British National Development (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Hobbes, Thomas (1997). Leviathan. Touchstone pp.247. Lovering, John. (1978) “The theory of the internal colony and the political economy of Wales”, Review of Radical Political Economics pp.55-67. Stavenhagen, Rodolfo. (1969) Ethnic Conflicts and the Nation State (New York NY: St. Martins Press. Webref (2006). Internal Colonialism [Accessed 17th Aug 06] Wikipedia (2006). History of the United Kingdom [Accessed 17th Aug 06] Wikipedia (2006). Internal Colonialism. [Accessed 16th Aug 06] Wikipedia (2006). United Kingdom. [Accessed 17th Aug 06] Wolpe, Harold. (1975) “The theory of internal colonialism: The South African case”, in: Ivar Oxaal, Tony Barnett and David Booth (eds.), Beyond the Sociology of Development: Economy and Society in Latin America and Africa (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Read More