Things Fall Apart and the Debate on Colonialism

By Broadside Opinion Columnist Michael Gryboski

This week is Fall for the Book at George Mason University. Writers visit our campus to receive honors, talk of their knowledge and, of course, sign books. For Monday, the visiting writer will be Chinua Achebe, author of the tragedy "Things Fall Apart." The book is famous in our circles, as just about every student at Mason who was educated in the U.S. since high school has had it assigned to them. In addition to being good literature, "Things Fall Apart" delivers an interesting perspective on colonialism.

The historical debate over colonialism has an emotional and political component, especially as those who did not benefit from the initiative are increasingly getting a voice. Whether colonialism was a benevolent effort to advance civilization or a malevolent entity advancing white supremacy varies not only from person to person, but political climate to political climate. Some people, even in the developing world, want colonialism to return, at least in some form, while others blame the time period for instability and pervasive ethnic conflict. Some refer to American foreign policy as colonialist, and mean so in a negative context.

Then there is Achebe, whose best selling novel advances a surprisingly positive image of colonialism. Everyone will have his or her interpretations of the work and far be it from me to act like mine is inherently better, but throughout the text Achebe sets up a contrast of the Ibo villages, where women are second class citizens, twins are abandoned for being seen as a curse and aggression is a chief means of societal advancement with the Europeans, who arrive with Christianity and institutes like schools and hospitals. The only one who truly loses out from the arrival and establishment of “Christianity, commerce, and civilization” is Okonkwo, the novel’s main character. A product of his environment, he refuses to accept these new ways, which are viewed almost as inevitable.

Like all famous writers, Achebe had his critics. Some doubt his interpretation of modern African history, in particular regarding gender roles in Ibo culture. Yet have these critics stood the test of time any better than the rebuttals by American loyalists to Thomas Paine’s pamphlet “Common Sense”? How many of them are mentioned in high schools across this country, whereas Achebe’s appellation appears on many a syllabus given by English and History teachers? In the same way few have heard of “Plain Truth” by James Chalmers, an equally small number can call to mind Male Daughters, Female Husbands by Ifi Amadiume.

While Achebe prevailed, having been invited to Mason nearly 50 years after his novel’s first printing, colonialism is dead. Not only has it been removed via passive resistance and violent upheaval, it now barely maintains a positive reputation in the very countries that once instituted it. Anti-colonialism is a popular perspective whose message contradicts the old perspective: colonialism was repression, intolerance and did nothing but create the instability found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East today.

But is this perspective any better than its opposite? The Eurocentric perspective on colonialism was fundamentally flawed because it ignored many problems with the institute, namely the subliminal racism, ethnocentrism, and oftentimes, violent subjugation perpetrated by colonialists. Yet could the anti-colonialism perspective be equally flawed for ignoring the positive impacts of colonialism, including the advancements in medicine, technology and standard of living?

There were bad things that came from colonialism, but to just end there leaves many unanswered questions. The colonialism period lasted roughly eighty years. If it was such an obvious evil, why were so many native populations across the continents willing to have it? Why are there populations today in the developing world who want it to return for at least a limited extent of time? Why did Achebe paint it as something that only hardliners like Okonkwo rejected? Maybe colonialism offered positive and negative side-effects.

We should never forget the nightmarishly brutal rule of the Netherlands’ King Leopold in the Congo, the British’s antagonizing of groups against each other in the Indian subcontinent, and the ethnocentric notion of “civilizing” people. But we should also never forget the dramatic increase of primary and secondary schools built, the vaccinations that significantly lowered infant mortality, and the rapid increase in industrialization.

Achebe’s classic has an interesting interpretation of colonialism, one somewhat at odds with the modern perspective. Debates will always rage as to how good or bad colonialism was for the developing world, and some will take hard-line positions one way or the other. In truth, both sides could find plenty of examples to vindicate their stances. So maybe the middle ground is better: acknowledging both the pluses and shortcomings of a foreign policy that in the current global climate may never return again.