by Levin Low

            “Wanting to annex territory is indeed very natural and normal, and when capable men undertake it, they are always praised, or at least, not criticized.”

            So goes a quote from Niccolò Machiavelli’s most seminal work, The Prince. A former diplomat of the state of Florence, he wrote The Prince after his fall from grace, as a gift for the new ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de Medici, hoping to be reinstated. It is not certain if he ever read it; Machiavelli’s gift did not achieve its intended effect, and he never regained his lost power. However, Machiavelli’s Prince lives on as perhaps the most infamous political treatise ever written. The scandalous nature of The Prince comes from the matter-of-fact manner in which Machiavelli pragmatically describes what must be done to grasp power and keep hold of it. He takes for granted that we already know that life (particularly political life) is routinely, and oftentimes unspeakably cruel; and that once enthroned in a position of power, a ruler must resort to any means necessary to stay there.

            That Machiavelli quote, then, may perhaps be the best explanation of the colonial impulse to subjugate. Many reasons have been put forth in an attempt to explain how and why the colonizers colonized, but in the end, there isn’t but one answer. Machiavelli seems to have accepted the existence of this impulse; in The Prince, he puts before us, without any compunctions, many historical examples of things men have done in the process of conquering. This tradition was continued by the colonizers. In this essay, I aim to draw from The Prince lessons in statecraft, frame them with real-life colonial examples, and consider alternative interpretations of The Prince.

Machiavellianism in Real Life

            “… there are three ways of holding them: the first, to destroy their political institutions; the second, to go live there yourself; the third, to let them continue to live under their own laws, exacting tribute and setting up an oligarchical government that will keep the state friendly towards you…” is what Machiavelli had to say on “How one should govern cities or principalities that, before being conquered, used to live under their own laws”. And the colonizers took note.

            The first, destruction of political institutions. This is what Prince Leopold II did when he seized the Congo, making it his private colony. Leopold established the Congo Free State as his personal private property; he was essentially its supreme leader, and as such, was allowed to do as he pleased. He accomplished this via what Machiavelli might term “wicked means”; Leopold enlisted the explorer Henry Morton Stanley as his agent in Africa, and for five years Stanley travelled up and down the Congo River basin, persuading local chiefs to sign treaties with Leopold. Almost all of them were illiterate, so they didn’t know what exactly they were signing away – effectively agreeing to cede their land to the Belgian crown. Some of the treaties also appear to have been doctored according to Leopold’s specifications.  

            With proof on paper of his ownership of the Congo, Leopold was able to get the major power players of Europe to recognize that he, Prince Leopold II of Belgium, was the sole owner of the Congo. He called himself the “proprietor” of the Congo Free State, and thus began his efforts to make a fortune from it. In the beginning, ivory was the Congo’s most valuable resource. As they traversed the Congo killing elephants for their ivory, the hunters also severely ravaged the people. Societies fell into ruin because so many of them had been kidnapped to serve as servants and concubines, and to be sold as slaves. The destruction of the Congo was accelerated with the invention of the rubber tyre, creating an insatiable demand for rubber. Leopold’s colony, with its huge supply of rubber vines, was ripe for the picking. Thus began a system of terror in which the people of the Congo were forced into labour, or be executed by their Belgian overseers. Leopold would send dispatchments from his 19000-man private army, the Force Publique, to march into a village, take the women hostage, and send the men into the rainforests with a quota of rubber – or else (Hochschild 2023).

            Leopold’s finances grew immensely. Meanwhile the population of the Congo was halved; around 10 million people lost their lives (Cox 1999). Causes of death ranged from famine, to being shot as they attempted escape, to torture. Leopold’s reign over the Congo was rock-solid because the Congo had been so completely destroyed. “Destroying cities is the only certain way of holding them,” observed Machiavelli.

            The second, to go live there yourself. This is what the British did, to maintain their hold over India. And they were extremely successful: they held India as a colony for nearly 200 years. The period of British rule in India is termed the British Raj; “Raj” is derived from the Hindi word “raj” meaning “rule” or “reign”. They used the East India Company (EIC) as a means of establishing control. The EIC’s paramountcy became apparent when they overthrew the nawab of Bengal and installed a puppet ruler, gaining control of the Bengal region. From there onwards, the EIC’s power only grew, eventually leading to direct British rule over most of the Indian subcontinent.

The British were so successful in holding India for so long because they established a physical (and cultural) presence in India by living there. The British officials and administrators, along with their families, settled in India and created a British expatriate community that sought to replicate the British lifestyle in a foreign land. They built British-style homes, established clubs, schools, and churches, and adhered to British customs and social norms. This created a distinct social and cultural divide between the British and the Indian population, reinforcing the notion of British superiority and reinforcing their sense of entitlement to rule. During that period, the British assumed the attitude of (as Rudyard Kipling put it) “tak[ing] up the white man’s burden”. They utterly rejected any and all “native contamination” (Wolpert 2023).

By virtue of their being in India and reinforcing “British superiority” among the people, the British were able to maintain their position as rulers. They propagated the concept of British as “better”, while denigrating Indian culture, custom, and tradition. This cultural imposition allowed the British to establish cultural hegemony in India, proving Machiavelli’s second precept of holding power in a conquered nation-state.

The third, to let them continue to live under their own laws, exacting tribute and setting up an oligarchical government that will keep the state friendly towards you. I consider Malaya (now known as Malaysia) a notable example of this. As with India, the British subjugation of Malaya began with the East India Company, whose occupation of Penang is now notorious as the dawn of British colonization in Malaya. Politically, it was easy for the British to seize control due to the growing discord, but their initial attempts were unsuccessful (Encyclopedia Britannica 2023). Their aim was a policy of indirect rule through the installation of British residents (advisers) in each state, but the very first one was assassinated by the people. He had been overly aggressive in his reforms; his was a mistake that the British learnt from. The next British residents were comparatively more tolerant, allowing them to be governed according to their own laws. Indirect rule was successful because the Malayan people, so fiercely proud of their customs and traditions, were led into believing that their Malay sultans still wielded authority and sovereignty and were only being “advised” by the British residents. In reality, the sultans had been coerced into signing agreements that contained terms extremely favourable towards the British. Yet those agreements recognized the traditional authority of the sultans, granting them a semblance of authority while keeping them on a leash.

The British might have avoided all that trouble if they had just read The Prince a lot more closely the first time. Centuries before the Age of Imperialism, Machiavelli had already noted that “if one wants to preserve a city that is accustomed to being independent and having free institutions, it is more easily held by using its citizens to govern it than in any other way.” By allowing the sultans to retain their ceremonial roles and status as the symbol of sovereign authority, the British thus gained the support of the Malay (the most populous race in Malaya) people, for they deeply revered their traditional rulers. Other local institutions were also allowed to continue, such as the village councils known as the Penghulu (headman) system: they were appointed by their sultan and were therefore friendly towards the British administration.

As for the Chinese (who were the second most populous race), their secret societies known as triads—gangster organizations—were likewise permitted to go on. The triads functioned like the Mafia: they maintained the social order, acted as mediators of conflict, and did what needed to be done to keep the peace. Even if it was illegal. The triads operated massive clandestine networks that spanned Malaya and other countries, engaging in lucrative criminal networks that flooded their coffers. Recognizing the delicate power balances to be navigated, the British pragmatically allowed the triads to continue their operations, but under British supervision. Colonial administration had learnt the hard way that in this particular state, it would be prudent to grant its citizens right of governance.

Which of Machiavelli’s three methods of governing conquered states was the surest way of holding on to them? Machiavelli favoured the most Machiavellian option: the first. Total destruction.

“Anyone who becomes master of a city accustomed to a free way of life, and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it himself, because when it rebels, it will always be able to appeal to the spirit of freedom and its ancient institutions, which are never forgotten… if [the new ruler] does not foment internal divisions or scatter the inhabitants, they will never forget their lost liberties and their ancient institutions, and will immediately attempt to recover them whenever they have an opportunity…”

Alternative Readings of the Prince

            Machiavelli’s name has become synonymous with ruthlessness, realpolitik, political deceit, etc. Immoral acts committed in the name of power. To many, The Prince is a handbook of the evil one must do to in order to gain power. But to say that this is all The Prince is would be reductionist. As Rosseau saw it, The Prince itself was a Machiavellian ruse: while laying out examples for what must be done to rule, his real aim was to teach the people freedom, by showing them that power was no more than subterfuge. Gramsci shares this view. In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci draws upon Machiavelli’s politics extensively in his analysis of the politics of rule, offering his own interpretation of The Prince: that Machiavelli’s intended audience was in fact the common people. I concur. I think that Gramsci’s interpretation of Machiavelli was written with the intention of freeing us from hegemony.

As Gramsci theorized, hegemony is a process of “moral and intellectual leadership” through which subordinate classes consent to their domination by the ruling classes. To have hegemony is to have dominion over the people (Gramsci 1891-1937). It is a totalizing system of power that seeks to completely draw in the people materially, culturally, politically, ideologically (Middleton 2023); it involves the manipulation and control of ideas, values, beliefs, and norms to shape the perceptions, behaviours, and identities of the subjugated population. To achieve hegemony is to achieve total control of your subjects. Hegemony, the concept of, is regarded as the “locus of innovation” in Gramsci’s writings; before its significance as his “philosophical linchpin”, it had been commonly employed by Italian political philosophers to propose the gradual building of consent across the nation for a new Italian state—”making Italians”—instead of joining via force. In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci presents hegemony as a project the ruling class was working on: consensual domination granted by the people for its rule.

This is where Machiavelli’s Prince plays into the postcolonial development of the politics of recognition. The Prince exposes the “ideological power of the ruling class” (Townsend 2023) for what it truly is: a long, drawn-out conspiracy of pomp and pious circumstance. The French insisted on the notion that they were superior morally, politically, and intellectually; hence, they were duty-bound to civilize and educate the poor, primitive Algerians. Across the Americas, the Europeans enslaved and looted and slaughtered, all while preaching with a halo around their heads. They worked hard to appear religious and at all costs, uphold their faith, shrewdly discerning that religion would be the sword that strengthened their position and protected the mystery of their privileges.

The Prince was a threat. Perhaps it was so condemned by the authorities, like the church, who alleged that it was written by “Satan’s finger”, because it served as a reminder that there is no such thing as right to rule. Power is a farce, and can be won by anyone who is willing to resort to any means to take it. In fact, Machiavelli opined, “a shrewd ruler, therefore, must try to ensure that his citizens, whatever the situation may be, will always be dependent on the government and on him; and they will always be loyal to him.”

This is a prime example of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. Like so many other philosophers in the Existentialist tradition, Hegel posited that self-consciousness only arises out of being seen as an object of another’s perception. “Self-consciousness exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another; that is, it exists only in being acknowledged.”; through the gaze of another, we define our own shape and form (Hegel 1952). The way I understand it, the master-slave dialectic takes form when two selves meet. Upon meeting, they inevitably engage in a struggle, because the existence of an Other means they cannot see their Self as before. Their consciousness is now mediated by the Other’s perception, judgement and assessment, and now they must struggle to claim their identity. One Self emerges the victor, and thus, the master-slave dialectic is established. The master is seen as the dominant one, possessing control over the slave, who is reduced to a mere object. Interestingly enough, the master has mastery only insofar as the slave acknowledges them as the master: their Self-identity as the master rests upon the slave.

In his works “Black Skin, White Masks” and “The Wretched of the Earth”, Frantz Fanon reworked Hegel’s master-slave dialectic in the context of colonialism. Personally affected by his experiences as a black Algerian man living under French colonial rule, Fanon saw the colonizers as the master, and the colonized as the slaves, subject to systemic dehumanization, cultural erasure, and violence at the hands of the master. He argued that the colonizer’s identity is defined in opposition to the colonized people, and the colonized people are reduced to mere objects in the eyes of the colonizer. The colonizer maintains their power through violence and oppression, but this power is ultimately dependent on the colonized people’s acknowledgement of the colonizer’s authority. Therefore the colonized people must reject this power dynamic and assert their own identity and agency in order to shake off the yoke of oppression.

Conclusion

The true power, therefore, lies with the people. What Machiavelli teaches in The Prince is how to gain that power. He outlines clearly his doctrine of rule, but in doing so, Machiavelli exposes the fragile, farcical nature of power. The art of governance is nothing but the art of deception, and recognizing this grants us the people the knowledge of the absolute value of human freedom.

The French existentialist Simone de Beauvoir once remarked that “to will oneself free is to will others free.” Freedom is pointless unless we connect with others as free and equal human beings in fruitful interpersonal relationships; we find meaning in sharing connections with others whom we regard as free and equal. As I close The Prince, I find that I now think of it as a cautionary tale about the hollow nature of power; one whose purpose was to strip those who possess it of dignity and allure, and teach us how to fight it. With that knowledge in hand, think about where we are today. We say we live in the postcolonial era, but are we truly free? Are we being governed by the same Machiavellian principles that were enacted by the colonials?

“Wanting to annex territory is indeed very natural and normal, and when capable men undertake it, they are always praised, or at least, not criticized.”

I end this paper with the same quote I began it with. In the end, one must always remember that power is the ultimate goal of man, and that most are prepared to discard morals to acquire it. As we navigate this so-called postcolonial era, let Machiavelli’s Prince remind us of the nature of power, and that it lies with us.

---

References

Cox, Mary Lea. 1999. “Author Hochschild Recounts Lost History of Horror in the Belgian Congo.” Wilson Center. October 14, 1999. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/author-hochschild-recounts-lost-history-horror-the-belgian-congo.

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2023. “History of Malaysia.” Accessed April 25, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/place/Malaysia/History.

Fanon, Frantz. 1963. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.

Fanon, Frantz. 2008. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1891-1937. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1952. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hochschild, A.. “Leopold II.” Encyclopedia Britannica, April 5, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leopold-II-king-of-Belgium.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1988. The Prince. Edited by Quentin Skinner and Russel Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, James. 2023. “Antonio Gramsci.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, April 26, 2023.

Middleton, Townsend. 2023. “Class 7: Technologies of Rule.” PowerPoint presentation, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, January 31, 2023.

Wolpert, S. A.. “British raj.” Encyclopedia Britannica, March 31, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/event/British-raj.

by Safa Tonuzi

Introduction of the Author and Purpose

I envisioned myself partaking studying abroad while in college in since I was a freshman in high school. My intention derived from the fact of experiencing a culture, a movement, or a phenomenon that invoked a sense inspiration to propel me in certain direction for my studies and ultimately into life. So, this winter I determined that I would take the steps to lead me to the next steps One thing led to the next, and I ended up being accepted into King’s College in London. I plan to coincide my studies here at Chapel HiIl As a member of the Colonialism & Postcolonialism course, I feel a responsibility to further my studies as a sociocultural anthropologist and explore how the Brits intervened in internal diverse populations. More specifically, I wanted to take a closer look in. an area that is not too far from the college I plan to study at. I see this as a chance to develop a sort of preliminary research project to supplement a course I plan to take while abroad. In this paper I plan to explore postcolonial theories through the lens of postcolonial theorists and apply it. I will utilize a diachronic approach to explore Black Britain throughout three distinct time periods: The Windrush immigration, The Brixton Race Riots, and the Windrush Scandal to examine how colonial sentiments, master-slave dialectic, and recursitivity play in role in Black Britain’s attempt to break away from colonial structure.

First Look: 1948 The Arrival of the Windrush

The Windrush was a ship that sailed to the Caribbean and essentially shipped its citizens back over to Britain. After World War II, The United Kingdom needed laborers because of the labor shortages and the damage left as a result of war. It is worthy to note that from the start of the journey of Caribbean migrants, British officials did not fully disclose the type of labor they would require from the Windrush immigrants. British authority entertained the idea that the Caribbeans would have a better life in London or wherever the Windrush would take them. This ideology is harmful because it projects a dehumanized version onto the immigrants and their descendants. And what my research finds is that this projection resulted in forms of decolonization and wrongdoings by British authority that local activists revealed. Moreso, even if the British portrayed themselves as a coalition needing more members for workforce and looking toward their colonies who they knew they were stripping of wealth and opportunity. It is a form of enlightened self-interest. Enlightened self-interest, in my definition, means the act of doing something deemed as good with the motivation that it benefits you. In this case, the United Kingdom brought people from their colonies over to help the situation of the United Kingdom’s ruins from war, and it made it seem like they were granting opportunity to inhabitants of their colonies. Wrong.

For additional context, places like Jamaica – what majority of the Windrush generation consisted of – were British colonies and ruled by the Brits meaning they were not independent of their colonizers. This situation becomes wishy washy because when the Windrush generation immigrated to Britain for jobs they were never guaranteed nor granted citizenship. Many of the immigrants assumed or rather deceived into assuming that the process of immigrating included receiving citizenship. This was not the case. Nowadays, you cannot even work a job in a lot of countries without citizenship let alone in a developed country. Moreso, the journey to the United Kingdom was not free. Passengers were required to pay £28 for passage fees and then an additional £5 once the ship sailed (Royal Museums Greenwich, 2022). This really makes the intentions of British officials questionable, and makes the exchange seem more like indentured servitude rather than an act of compassion. The British did not mention that most of these job vacancies were not due to a lack of labor but rather a lack of want in certain that certain occupation. Most of the jobs that required occupation involved tedious, difficult, unpleasant work the locals did not want to partake in. The practice of exploiting people and their resources was not foreign to the British, but rather it sounds quite familiar. Much of the transportation system in the United Kingdom made possible by the Windrush generation.

Second Look: 1984 Brixton Race Riots –– The Heart

The Windrush generation and their respective descendants began to concentrate in an area in South London called Brixton. Brixton holds important context because it is home to Railton Road where the intense but – as we will examine with Fanon – necessary actions needed to hold the colonizers accountable. Most of Brixton’s population consisted of the second generation of Windrush, meaning the children of the original immigrants. Many of Windrush’s second generation were frustrated with British treatment toward them and their parents. The area of Brixton was heavily policed compared to other neighborhoods and the British deemed the Windrush’s immigration status as invaluable; therefore, many of the Windrush generation were considered illegal, leaving much of the Windrush generation either to fend for themselves or even homeless. As Windrush migrant Johnny Samuels says, “I was at work, and I was told that my work had to cease because I have no papers to show that I am a citizen of this country” (BBC, 2021). Samuels reveals that much of the generation suffered basic human rights stripped away from them with no notice by British officials. With no citizenship, many could not access housing, healthcare, and ironically – jobs. Unfortunately, but also revealingly, these actions show the true intentions of the Brits at the time.

The Brits exploited their colonies and had a proposition to take the people of the countries they were already exploiting and exploit their labor more directly under the guise of opportunity and a better life ­– or at least that was the impression of many migrants coming from the Caribbean. More chillingly, the Brits brought these Caribbean migrants over with no plan of granting citizenship which makes me question how the Brits planned on getting the migrants back. The Brits didn’t want the work to seem temporary because it would tamper their own reputation. I speculate that British officials intentionally disregarded the citizenship status because they knew they would get them to leave one way or another after they completed their role – another form of colonial exploitation.

While many of the Windrush generation remained complacent out of fear of deportation, their naturalized children had other prerogatives and less limitations. What happened on April 10, 1981, has many different points of views, but this paper focuses more closely on the context of the violence that ensued after the fuel of the initial stabbing as well as a closer examination of the response that followed by both parties – the rioters and the police. It must be known that no singular event led to up to the race riots, but rather the race riots reflected a boiling over of preexisting tensions and sentiments.

 I find it interesting and revealing that the Brixton race riots did not become from direct police or rather colonial violence – it was more implicit. Thinking back to the master-slave dialectic, the Brixton race riots stemmed from a culmination of emotion and being – to state it simply ­– fed up. Despite popular belief, participants in the race riots did not only consist of gang members, but also intellects. Hegel’s master-slave dialectic explains the relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor. One of the cory principles of this theory states that an individual’s perception of self-worth and self-consciousness inherently coincides with their status within a societal structure. The nuance in this theory lies at the line of when two individuals must interact with one another, but one individual must have the authority and power over the individual. The intellectual discussion conjures the following questions: Who truly holds the power? the oppressor or the oppressed? The master-slave dialectic questions in a situation where the oppressed disallows the oppressor to project his own authority – which is subjective to him and society, but not inherent to his person ­– who is truly the individual with more power? Well, the master-slave dialectic reveals that the oppressed beholds the power and the oppressor relies on the projection of the oppressed for their power. The same phenomenon occurred at Brixton during the 1980s.

Brixton was a hub for Black excellence, art, and literature and, much like Harlem, which was frightening to the British. They wanted members to assimilate to create hegemony as Gramsci would put it. When there is culture, there is solidarity, and solidarity allows marginalized groups to fight back from their oppressors.

The Windrush’s second generation rebelled because of the unfair treatment by the Brits toward their parents and toward themselves. Moreover, the lack of response and commitment to saving Michael Bailey’s life, a victim of a lethal stabbing invoked the riots. For a heavily policed area to not respond adequately to the community did not make sense. The Brit’s blatant intent to instill fear was the only thing that made sense. what I mentioned earlier about the dehumanized approach British officials had on the Windrush immigrants? We can correlate that to the lack of response and aid provided by British police in that moment. Referring to Fanon, who states, “decolonization is always a violent event,” and elaborates on the inherent cruel nature of colonialism and the language of colonialism being violence and the only way to communicate back is through violence.

In an article I found, it states, Railton Road was “crime ridden and run-down” (Guidetags, 2022). But this author fails to mention the rich culture in Railton Road. Black intellectuals like Linton Kwesi Johnson who used the race riots as anecdotes to reflect in his poetry and his overall experience as a Black man during this volatile time and beyond. The article also does not elaborate why Railton Road was considered a low-income area. The area, inhabited by the Windrush generation, was considered impoverished because their illegal immigrant status stripped the work away from them. This same article also makes it seem the reason the riots ensued because the residents had nothing better to do. It is important to call out the ignorance and lack of depth of these articles and really emphasize how the importance of subaltern studies. Subaltern studies allow us to view another vantage point to a given event and usually uplifts the voices of the marginalized groups who are severely underrepresented.

---

Third Look: 2018-present – The Windrush Scandal & Re-colonization

This section will most likely be the most frightening and unsettling. After years upon years of wrongdoings by British officials including but not limited to deportation and denial of basic human rights. A lot of issue stems from the broken promises attributed by the British. Many Caribbean immigrants were underwhelmed by the conditions provided by places like London. A lot of these immigrants were functioning members of society back home and lured into becoming indentured servants unbeknownst to them. Despite the number of deportations and broken families, the United Kingdom believed compensating victims or relatives of victims with £10,000 could repair the damages caused by them. Even more frustrating, a lot of the Windrush generation and their relatives are still in the queue to receiving reparative compensations (BBC, 2021). Some of the Windrush generation has even passed before even receiving a basic apology from British Parliament. Currently, activists are criticizing the slow nature of the compensation. Out of the fifth of the generation who was come forward for the compensation, only a fourth of that fifth has received some form of compensation. Although in words, parliament speaks as if they are passionate about making things right, their actions speak otherwise. This shows not only the performativism utilized by parliament, but it also shows colonial remnants still left over from directly after the post-war period. The Parliament is making it extremely difficult for the Windrush generation and their relatives to receive the proper compensations for the trauma inflicted upon them by British Parliament. These individuals must have adequate documentation to prove their status which is contradictory to the whole situation because a lot of these people never received adequate documentation.

To make matters even worse, an area that was so vibrant and filled with Caribbean culture is now starting to see the downward spiral of gentrification and white washing. If you look at Figure A in the Appendix, you can see a stark difference of what a marketplace in Brixton used to look during the 80s compared to what you might see now. Going back to a concept learned throughout the course, we can think about architecture as a slow, lurking form of violence and domination. Additionally, as you see in Figure B signs that celebrated the culture and proudly labeled the area as Brixton have been taken down to make the area more palatable to its new rising influx of younger white people. Not only is this a form of erasure it is a blatant yet sneaky form of hegemony which British officials attempted to execute when the Windrush generation first arrived in London. As more white people move into the area, the area becomes more expensive and pushes out the history. Although the violence is not as explicit as it was during the race riots, we must acknowledge and recognize the colonial recursivity at play here. During the race riots, British police officers felt a threat by the rich culture in Brixton. Many agree that Brixton has a vibrant atmosphere, so it is no surprise that people wanted to live there. So essentially, British officials were jealous that their attempts of hegemony did not work and as a result kicked the Windrush generation out their area by making their citizenship status illegal. This process allowed white people of Britain to begin their infiltration of the sacred area.

Some people do not understand the problem of white people infiltrating a minority place. A lot of media has led people into believing that processes like gentrification benefit communities because they make them safer and more trendy-looking. Moreso, at the surface-level it looks like integration and coexisting, but when we peel back these layers, gentrification is really a form of colonial recursivity. Taking a minority safe space and imposing white people, when there already have been racial tension, does not fix the coexisting issue, if anything it exacerbates it.  

---

The Conclusion

After using a diachronic approach to look at Black Britain, we can see the perpetual exploitation and inconsideration committed by the British onto the Black Population in Britain. From the start, the British had plans to continue to exploit their colonies at a closer proximity but guised their intentions as a white-savior complex which ultimately led to the dismay of coexistence in London. The dissonance was seen during the Brixton Race Riots when, referring to the master-slave dialectic and Fanon, the people of Brixton established their dominance and met law enforcement with their colonial language of violence. However, now British officials are taking a more insidious and subtle approach with the gentrification of an area that was so rich with Black culture and history. The recursivity of colonialism is prevalent in Black Britain and the response provided by Black Britain also plays a major role in their history.

Appendix

Figure A*

Figure B*

*Photo extracted from Metro online publishing, refer to bibliography

Bibliography

BBC. 2021. “Windrush Generation: Who Are They and Why Are They Facing Problems?” BBC. November 24, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43782241.

Black Cultural Archives. 2023. “Brixton Uprising 1981.” Google Arts & Culture. 2023. https://artsandculture.google.com/story/brixton-uprising-1981-black-cultural-archives/FgXBwW9BGSVDJQ?hl=en.

Guidetags. 2022. “Brixton Riots Railton Road.” 2022. https://www.guidetags.com/mindmaps/explore//3049-brixton-riots-railton-road.

King, Jordan . 2022. “‘Not Welcome in My Own Neighbourhood’: How Gentrification Is Segregating Brixton.” Metro. October 30, 2022. https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/30/not-welcome-in-my-own-area-how-gentrification-is-segregating-brixton-17587009/.

What Scotland’s Dual Experience as Colonized and Colonizer Tells Us About Residuals of Colonialism, Scotland’s Current Push for Independence, and the Application of Postcolonial and Decolonial Theory

By: Katelin Harmon

With a growing push to deconstruct the colonial past providing reparations where necessary, filling education gaps, and allowing the subaltern to speak, Scotland emerges as a case study that has been affected by both sides of colonialism (Chakravorty). Scotland has played roles as both colonized and colonizer and aided in colonization as they themselves were being colonized, creating a complicated loss of their own language and culture while simultaneously doing the same across the globe. This paper examines Scotland’s role as both colonized and colonizer from the 13th century to the present day to more completely understand Scotland’s place within the European Union and the likelihood of a second independence movement. Understanding Scotland’s place in contemporary society in contrast with its brutal history is formidable in nature but essential to further our collective understanding and application of postcolonial and decolonial thought. I will address why residues of colonialism persist in Scottish life today, what Scotland may look like through a decolonial and postcolonial lens, and whether a decolonial or postcolonial approach would best benefit Scotland when dealing with the pursuit of independence from the European Union as well as considering how to educate its citizens as a means to recognize Scotland’s past as a colonizer. 

Scotland as Colonized: A History of British Colonization 

Scotland has always been colonized, even as a colonizer. During the medieval period, in the early 13th and 14th centuries, Scotland was at odds with England as it began to cross geographic boundaries, treating Scottish land as feudal territory (Solly 2020). William Wallace, a prominent Scottish freedom fighter, became a popular image associated with the movement as a “blue paint-covered kilt wearer (Solly 2020).” Wallace experienced a period of great successes and calamitous shortcomings as the Scottish leader after winning a decisive battle at the Stirling Bridge in 1297 and shortly after suffering a devastating defeat at the Battle of Falkirk (Solly 2020). Such a great defeat caused William Wallace to abandon the Scots, he was eventually captured by the English and executed. Robert Bruce stepped up following Wallace’s death by seizing power after the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 and eventually securing Scotland’s independence by 1328 (Solly 2020). A second war for independence followed Bruce’s death, but it quickly ended when the English got involved in the Hundred Year’s War with France (Solly 2020). 

In 1603, Scotland’s independence was questioned again when childless Queen Elizabeth I of England died, leaving no direct successor to the throne. Her distant cousin James I, previously known as James VI of Scotland, took over the throne uniting England, Ireland, and Scotland under one Monarch (Solly 2020). Throughout James and his son Charles I, rule, civil war, and rebellion ran rampant due to the oppressive nature of their kingships (Solly 2020). During this period of unrest, Scotland went out on its own pursuit to try its hand yet again at establishing a previously-failed colony known as Nova Scotia, located in the Isthmus of Darien (Solly 2020). The opportunities in Nova Scotia were promising, as the widely successful Spanish conquistadors had planted colonies close by (Hopper 2014). The famous William Paterson, known for founding the Bank of England, developed a plan that would work to connect the East and West, allowing Scotland to have control over the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Johnson, n.d.). The people of Scotland were also convinced; about half of the available cash, equivalent to 500,000 pounds, in Scotland was raised for the project (Hopper 2014). However, the Scottish attempt to colonize failed as Nova Scotia was riddled with disease and crop failure and fell into what would become known as the Darien Disaster (Hopper 2014). Only one of the original sixteen ships that sailed to Darien returned, and all of the money that was put towards the colonial scheme had been squandered, making it evident to Scots that they were in economic shambles (Hopper 2014). Without means of supporting themselves, the Scottish people decided to enter a Union with England, dissolving their own parliament and becoming one political entity (Solly 2020). 

England quickly began to display its ownership over Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries viewing Scottish people as uncivilized and in need of modernization as England began to industrialize (Britannica, 2023). Scots faced forced removal from their land in the Highlands of Scotland as those living there were considered old-fashioned and out of touch (Stewart 2017). This period was known as the Highland Clearances, in which the Scottish people were not only disposed of their land but, in many ways, their culture as well. The English acted swiftly to dissolve the clan system and use the land for sheep farms (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023). The clan system posed a specific threat to England as the Scottish people continued to follow orders from their clan chief and were not allegiant to the king. In 1725 the process was not moving as England had planned and took it upon themselves to begin occupying parts of Scotland and the Highlands to remind Scots who held sovereign power. Naturally, the Scots felt betrayed by their government and pushed to employ a series of militant rebellions for the return to Scotland to be self-governed and free from any English influence. The Scots formed a small army of 6,000, the Jacobites, and faced the British redcoats up until 1745, when they inevitably lost to the powerful British army. Over 1,000 Jacobites were killed, several were taken to London as prisoners, and highlanders were still being forced out of their homes to relocate to the coast; some were not as lucky to relocate and became indentured servants after the war (Stewart 2017). The continued struggle for independence is a product of the long arms, weak fingers dichotomy and shows that colonization is never truly complete and that there will always be pushback from forcing new institutions and positions of power upon a body of people that don’t consent. 

Scotland as Colonizer

It is important to note that during the entirety of Scotland being colonized and their sovereignty as a kingdom being violated numerous times, they were an active colonizing force. They cannot be made out to be merely a victim of colonialism. Scots initially thrived as colonizers throughout the 16th century up until the beginning of the 18th century; they worked to establish various empires across the globe, each providing them access to new resources and riches. In the process of dismantling existing power structures as Scots worked to force their ideology, European diseases wreaked havoc on native colonized populations. William Patterson, who spearheaded the Darien Scheme and founded the Bank of England, promoted an especially damaging ideology of forced globalization, stating, “Trade will increase, and money will beget money, and the trading world shall need no more want work for their hands, but will rather want hands for their work (Hopper 2014).” Scotland’s drive for empire-building did not end after the Union of 1707, as they eagerly joined England in their pursuit of colonizing the new world. A disproportionate number of Scots participated as soldiers, merchants, agents, and sailors in aiding Britain’s colonial pursuits (Boyd 2017). They aided in forcing China to take opium, as well as suppressing the rights of indigenous people in Canada and Australia (Cameron, 2022). Additionally, Scots fought in two World Wars for the British Empire; it was not until the withering of the empire post-1945 that there was a collective revival of interest in Scottish identity and independence (Cameron 2022). Much of Scotland’s and the EU’s modern economic success can be attributed to their historical success as a dominant colonizing force. Today they consistently take the second ‘rank’ among the UK’s four nations in terms of GDP, and most people live positive, fulfilling lives with little economic struggle in comparison to other previously colonized countries (Barker 2021).

Contemporary Independence Movement

The first independence referendum occurred in 2014 and was described as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” with an 84.6% turnout (BBC News 2022). Scots viewed much of their economic well-being to be at stake, with fears stemming from creating their own welfare system and what trade ties would be broken; these apprehensions went unanswered from the Scottish parliament at the time, likely because there were no other countries that had pulled out of the EU prior to the first referendum (East Dunbartonshire Council 2014). The UK decided to allow the Scottish parliament to hold an election on independence likely because they did not believe parliament would win the independence vote (BBC News 2022).” The official vote came out to 55.3% of citizens voting no and 44.7% voting yes (UK Parliament 2016).

Shortly after the first referendum came to a close, discussions of Brexit arose. The United Kingdom officially withdrew from the European Union in 2020, but the referendum was first formally announced in 2017 to leave the union officially (BBC 2020; Sandford 2020). Brexit caused the EU to lose some of its relevance, cutting off the fifth largest economy in the world; it additionally served as a wake-up call to many Scottish citizens, with a new poll held in 2019 showing that 62% of Scots favor a second referendum (BBC News 2022). Professor Alf Baird, who taught at Edinburgh Napier University up until 2016, states in his work that “Brexit proved that the Scottish nation is treated more or less as a colony. (Baird, n.d.)” This language is a strong choice considering the role that Scotland played as a colonizer across the globe and has not done much to recognize its racist, colonial past. Statues, street names, and buildings pay homage to slavery, colonialism, and racism. In the center of Edinburgh stands Lord Melville, a slavery profiteer and facilitator of a patronage network that allowed Scotland citizens to take Indian jobs (Boyd 2017).

Nevertheless, Scotland is not an independent nation in any capacity, as evidence shows that Scots are continuously put on the back burner. The Scottish people are told they are “union equals” but have virtually no voting power within Westminster; their 9 percent is outvoted most of the time (Baird, n.d.). Even though the EU is relatively prosperous, half of the Scottish nation is living in or close to poverty despite Scotland being such a resource-rich nation as a result of England extracting resources from Scotland, paying Scottish workers low wages, and selling their products at a much higher cost to natives (Baird, n.d.).

 Baird, like many other Scottish people, viewed the Supreme Court case that decided Scotland could not legally hold a second referendum to reinforce its colonial status. Professor Baird follows closely with Coulthard’s call for the complete removal of the old recognition systems that perpetuate these one-way dynamics, in this case, favoring those in the EU that hold more voting power and call for a push for new systems that are mutually affirming. Modern-day Scotland reflects what Coulthard describes as a settler-colonial relationship in which “power has been structured into a relatively secure or sedimented set of hierarchical social relations” that systematically dispossess persons of “lands and self-determining authority (Coulthard 2015, 5).” Scotland has been the subject of population displacement in the past through more direct means, such as the Highland Clearances. Yet, this inability to govern their own land is a much less direct form of a settler-colonial relationship. As Coulthard describes, it can be easy for Scots to not entirely recognize their place within the EU as a colonial relationship as they are not being coerced into a power dynamic but have “rather endured an asymmetrical exchange of mediated forms of state recognition and accommodation” that has become the standard (Coulthard 2015, 10).

Another less-discussed way in which England maintains its grip on Scotland, suggested by Professor Alf Baird, is occupation from the “mother country (Baird, n.d.).” English people make up the largest in-migration to Scotland of any ethnic group. Most English people migrating to Scotland are associated with the professional and managerial class and are looking for jobs. These jobs are typically some of the highest paying in Scotland. They are advertised in the London Press with the only language requirement being English, further contributing to the decline of Scottish Gaelic. This is a clear representation of a higher value being placed on English values and heritage, and in a colonial environment, only the values of the colonizer are sovereign. In this case, Baird points out that there are truly only two options for the people of Scotland. Option one is securing “independence, which is decolonization and liberalization from oppression,” along with recovery of the native language, culture, and sovereignty (Baird, n.d.). Option two is what Baird views to be Scotland’s current trajectory in which cultural assimilation and oppression continue until the native language and culture perish, creating a homogenous social, cultural, and political entity.

Indyref2 and Potential for Success

The Scottish National Party (SNP) began pushing for independence once again in 2019, this time largely as a response to the Brexit referendum. The supreme court case denying Scotland’s autonomy to hold its independence movement highlighted how little Scottish citizens have in their own self-determination. This has fueled plans for an SNP party conference next year to discuss a sort of “de facto referendum” to agree on details of an independence plan. In the meantime, the SNP is continuing to work on, in the words of former parliament member Nicola Sturgeon, a “major campaign in defense of Scottish democracy (BBC News 2022). 

The next general election in 2025 is said to be an independence vote solely. However, many Scots are skeptical of the potential for success of a second independence movement and hold some of the same reservations that they did in 2014. A recent switch in power as Sturgeon resigned, too much of the country’s shock, has temporarily shifted union attention as finance secretary Kate Forbes, health secretary Humza Yousaf, and former community safety minister Ash Regan are all in the running to replace her (Carrell, Brooks, and Adu 2023). Nevertheless, the conversation of independence has not left Scottish politics as the three front runners believe they could lead Scotland to independence. If Scotland were to achieve independence, it would not likely be with Westminister’s approval. Scottish leaders would need to be clear on issues like currency and pension in order to be secure in an independence vote, as a lack of direction on some of these issues leave Scots hesitant to support the independence movement since they rely heavily on the decision-making power of the EU and their trade ties. 

Should Scotland Take a Postcolonial or Decolonial Approach?

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines postcolonialism as: “ the historical period or state of affairs representing the aftermath of Western colonialism; the term can also be used to describe the concurrent project to reclaim and rethink the history and agency of people subordinated under various forms of imperialism (Ivison 2022).” Postcolonial theory is used in hopes of a possible future of overcoming colonialism and “investigating the various trajectories of modernity(Ivison 2022).” Brexit highlighted the question of Scottish independence and its identity within the EU. Yet, some scholars are instead offering an alternative way of thinking about Scottish independence and believe that independence should not be achieved without Scotland confronting its very imperial past. It was very easy for Scotland to emphasize their past as a victim while suppressing its deeply flawed past as a strong colonial force up until 1707 and their collusion with the British Empire to colonize other parts of the world (Cameron 2022). As Scots readily bought into the union values of military power, racial superiority, Presbyterianism, and the British pretense of free trade, they eagerly helped England build empires that also benefited them (Cameron 2022). They profited from free labor without blinking an eye, owning 32 percent of slaves and 30 percent of slave estates in Jamaica. Today Scottish people are said only to be vaguely conscious of these links. With no equivalent to the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool, the “Scottish consciousness often feels totally removed from the violence that divided the world into rich and poor. (Boyd 2017)”

In an effort to address its colonial past, the Edinburgh city council launched a review to consider ways to acknowledge its historical connections with slavery and colonialism. This call to action has not gone without academic controversy, as a plaque was placed in St Andrew’s Square underneath a statue portraying Henry Dundas, a man who directly delayed the abolition of slavery. Additionally, universities such as Glasglow are looking into a form of reparations (Cameron 2022). Glasgow benefited greatly from the profits of slave traders and has, in recent years, “set up a £20m fund to engage in joint research with the University of West Indies (Cameron 2022).” These are steps to looking at Scotland through a postcolonial lens but are merely at the academic level, not directly contributing to Scottish citizens’ knowledge base of their past. Even though everyone can walk by and read plaques, without other methods of education and awareness, it is easy to continue to turn a blind eye to how Scotland established the success that it has today. Important steps Scotland can take to continue to push for increased awareness and education of Scotland’s past not only as colonized but as colonizer to facilitate understanding of just how important the opportunity for independence is. Working through Scotland’s colonial past in terms of postcoloniality should begin by spreading information and education, perhaps by continuing to place plaques at the foot of buildings, banks, and university buildings that benefited from stolen money and resources. This should not be where recognition of the past ends. The Scottish government should consider what reparations could look like and how education on their imperial past can be implemented into the education system, creating an enlightened body of Scots that will likely be more skeptical of indyref2, what independence means for Scotland, and native’s sovereignty that they violated hundreds of years prior. As Coulthard implies, Scots should consider going a step further by destroying old systems of recognition (statues) that perpetuate one-way dynamics. Scots should not give up on the prospect of independence but rather try to implement a critical lens into the current dialogue surrounding indyref2 and future independence movements that promote critical thinking and dialogue and do not reinforce traditional power dynamics (Coulthard 2014, 3). The Scottish government should acknowledge how they actively took away from other countries’ sovereignty, and the subsequently ironic opportunity for independent Scotland is now experiencing, even if the hope of success is in many ways up in the air.

Decoloniality separates itself from postcolonialism and postcolonial theory as decolonialism urges us to “re-learn the knowledge that has been pushed aside, forgotten, buried or discredited by the forces of modernity, settler-colonialism, and racial capitalism (William & Mary, n.d.).” Decoloniality is meant to reveal how modernity is “built on the backs of others” and that “modernity racializes, erases, and/or objectifies” and is not meant to be a singular method of restoration or reparation (William & Mary, n.d.). Professor Alf Baird discusses in his article “Scotlands Colonial Status” the first option for Scotland to begin to decolonize following independence from the European Union. Decolonial thinking in Scotland differs from other places in unworking Scotland’s own colonial past and the past in which Scots were suppressed, losing much of their own culture and sense of identity working to “extricate oneself from linkages between rationality/modernity” in both spaces as colonized and colonizer (Quijano 2007, 177). Steps for decolonization in an independent Scotland would look like addressing the formation of modern colonial order, identifying decolonial trajectories at work in Scotland and globally, and recognizing processes of re-emergence and re-existence. In this process of decolonization and introduction to decolonial thinking, Scots would likely initially grapple with questions suggested by Escobar, like: “How do we recreate and re-communalize our worlds? How do we develop forms of knowing that do not take words and beings and things out of the flow of life (Escobar 2018, 200)?” 

A decolonial Scotland is not at the forefront of many citizen’s minds but it opens up the option to consider Scotland as colonial and colonized through postcolonial theory but also to choose from a variety of various cultural orientations depending on how deep ties to English or Scottish culture may be for Scottish people residing in Scotland (Quijano 2007, 178). With decolonial consideration, Scots earn the “freedom to produce, criticize, change, and exchange culture and society (Quijano 2007, 178).” Scots’ current ties to their culture are rooted in the older generation of Scottish people; a beginning of decolonial thinking and learning of their language and culture would allow Scots to choose how they view independence and what culture, whether that be English or Scottish, they want to align themselves with. Quijano takes an even more radical approach, and the Scots also have this opportunity as identifying with one culture may be challenging but undoing colonialism and understanding why they have been subjected to forms of power is important to begin to understand the decolonial option. A decolonial lens applied would give the Scottish people the freedom of choice whether to remain a part of the EU or not, whether to govern themselves, and what pieces of culture they decide to reclaim. 

Ultimately I think that the application of a postcolonial lens could best fit Scotland’s current situation with the opportunity for independence. Postcolonial thinking provides for possible futures of overcoming colonialism but also acknowledges why aspects of it may linger. Education and understanding of why systems are the ways they can combat areas in society where colonialism is still present.  Separate from the prospect of independence, it will be especially important for Scotland to reckon with its racist and colonial past as awareness by universities is being spread and nongovernmental programs work to provide reparations to those affected negatively by colonialization will eventually trickle down to the knowledge of all Scottish citizens. The Scottish education system can get ahead of this by creating an all-encompassing curriculum that makes it explicit to Scottish learners at all levels how imperialism and colonialism have contributed to the loss of Scottish culture and the culture of other groups across the globe. Also, understanding that Scotland is responsible for much of the world’s colonialism as well will allow students to see the residues of colonialism and better understand how to address their Scottish heritage and place as citizens of the world. Leaders of indyref2 now and in the future could benefit from conversations on colonialism to get a better view of what they want the movement to achieve and how to address Scotland’s imperialistic past. In the meantime, Scots can look to confront their colonial past while dissecting what their relationship to the European Union means, how Scotland might have looked if it were not made to be a union with England, and what designs can be made for a pluriverse in which Scots can live in a sovereign nation, and consider Scotland as well as England’s roots in modernity, capitalism, and state domination.

References

Baird, Alf. n.d. “Scotland’s Colonial Status.” Salvo. Accessed April 24, 2023. https://salvo.scot/scotlands-colonial-status/.

Barker, Dan. 2021. “Survey finds that half of Scots feel ‘broadly positive’ – but where is Scotland’s ‘least happy’ city?” The Scotsman. https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/glasgow-is-least-happy-city-in-scotland-survey-finds-3463531.

BBC. 2020. “Brexit: What you need to know about the UK leaving the EU.” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887.

BBC News. 2022. “Scottish independence: Will there be a second referendum?” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50813510.

Boyd, Cat. 2017. “Cat Boyd: It’s about time Scotland confronted its own racist, colonial past.” The National. https://www.thenational.scot/politics/15486882.cat-boyd-its-about-time-scotland-confronted-its-own-racist-colonial-past/.

Cameron, Fraser. 2022. “Scotland must lead in confronting its imperial past.” Sceptical Scot. https://sceptical.scot/2022/01/scotland-must-lead-in-confronting-its-imperial-past/.

Carrell, Severin, Libby Brooks, and Aletha Adu. 2023. “Who will replace Nicola Sturgeon? Scottish leadership runners and riders.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/15/who-will-replace-nicola-sturgeon-scottish-leadership-john-swinney-kate-forbes-humza-yousaf.

Coulthard, Glen S. 2015. “Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the ColonialPolitics of Recognition.” Minnesota Scholarship Online, (August), 25. 10.5749/minnesota/9780816679645.001.0001.

East Dunbartonshire Council. 2014. “Scottish Independence Referendum 2014.” East Dunbartonshire Council. https://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/council/elections-voting/scottish-independence-referendum-2014.

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2023. “Highland Clearances | Scottish history | Britannica.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Highland-Clearances.

Escobar, Arturo. 2018. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. N.p.: Duke University Press.

Hopper, Tristin. 2014. “Why Scotland is part of Great Britain: Disastrous 17th century colony in Panama behind union with England.” National Post. https://nationalpost.com/news/why-scotland-is-part-of-great-britain-disastrous-17th-century-colony-in-panama-behind-union.

Morris, Rosalind C., ed. 2010. Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea. N.p.: Columbia University Press.

Solly, Meilan. 2020. “A Not-So-Brief History of Scottish Independence.” Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/brief-history-scottish-independence-180973928/.

Stewart, Terry. 2017. “The Highland Clearances.” Historic UK. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Highland-Clearances/.

UK Parliament. 2016. “Act of Union 1707: Contemporary context.” UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/contemporary-context/.