November 4, 2024
This day we learned about Postcolonialism historiography. It emerged to push back against Eurocentric history. This school of analysis is home to Edward Said and his book Orientalism. My professor then showed us a brief part from a documentary about Orientalism where Said talks about its definition. Orientalism is a discourse, a set of cultural ideas and stereotypes that the West developed to portray the East. A white Eurocentric view that is imposed. “History [is] a western style of dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the orient.” He then goes on to show a quote from Marx and Ranke, here is the Marx quote from “The British Rule in India” (1853):
“England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindustan [India], was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.”
How my professor and a fellow student understood this quote is that Marx says that history can only change if Europeans do something, if Europeans are somehow involved. So Marx was very Eurocentric. Do you agree with this interpretation?
We had to read a piece by Dipesh Chakrabarty called “Provincializing Europe” for this lecture. Chakrabarty is part of the Subaltern studies group and focuses on studying the past from the point of view of marginalized Indian peasants. In the piece he talks about how Europe is seen as a “sovereign subject” in history, no matter the topic there is always references to Europe. It’s is practically unavoidable when studying certain periods of time due to rampant and violent colonization. He also talks about this thing called “asymmetric ignorance” which means that EUrope historians can avoid other countries outright, but the same cannot be said for historians of other nations. My notes get a bit weird here and I think it is because class was ending:
India compared to a European benchmark
modernity means: go through revolution, from one idea to another (social/political revolutions). Is India modern?
hyperreal Europe?
And thats where it ends.
I did go to office hours to ask about the paper and my main question was for my topic. Since I want to do Queer historiography, and the only queer history we heard in class was from “Gay New York” I wondered if I could choose a book that was similar. Gay New York was about gay men in New York from the 1800s to the 1960s so I asked him if I could do the same but for a different place: something broad like “queerness in the DDR (GDR).” He said yes. That is not my actual topic, but it might be, I haven’t exactly settled on one yet. I then asked him about my field placement because I got it! It is a research based placement and I wanted to know why he put in the area he did, was it random or was there a reason? He said he does placements based on our skills and location, for me he thought I had good research skills and put me in a job that would reflect that. I obviously wont say where I am being placed next semester but the job is I have to do research for something and that research will be used for a pamphlet or plaque for the public to read. Anyway thank you for all the advice I was given for the placement interview and resume, I believe it helped me get it.
How my professor and a fellow student understood this quote is that Marx says that history can only change if Europeans do something, if Europeans are somehow involved. So Marx was very Eurocentric. Do you agree with this interpretation?
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Definitely not. Only an anticommunist whom somebody indoctrinated to interpret everything that we say in the worst light possible could arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion. The quote was not even talking about Europeans in general.
The British Empire imposed capitalism and colonialism on India, therefore, whether it intended it or not, that made revolution inevitable. The British Empire was certainly not the direct cause of revolution (which nobody argued), only the indirect one.
Okay, I’m glad I am not crazy for thinking the same. When the quote was read and that was the conclusion made by both professor and student, I thought there was something wrong with me because I did not read it that way at all. I figured he was talking about the importing of capitalism and therefore unintentionally sowed the conditions for revolution. I wish I was brave enough to say something in the moment.
“England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindustan [India], was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.”
How my professor and a fellow student understood this quote is that Marx says that history can only change if Europeans do something, if Europeans are somehow involved. So Marx was very Eurocentric. Do you agree with this interpretation?
I have no doubt Marx himself had some eurocentric bias, in fact i've definitely encountered eurocentrism is some of the works of his that i have read, but this quote to me is not an instance of that. I haven't read "The British Rule in India" yet though so maybe I'm missing some context, or perhaps his eurocentrism comes across clearer in other passages in that work, but i don't think that this particular passage is saying that "history can only change if Europeans do something".
Rather, the way i interpret this passage is simply that it points out that the British, inadvertently and as an unintended consequence of actions otherwise taken purely with malicious intent, caused an advance in the social state of India by awakening revolutionary consciousness, and that the process of decolonization that results from this may even be necessary to advance the revolutionary process in the imperial core itself.
It doesn't follow that India (and Asia more generally) could not have achieved this social progress without British intervention. In fact i would argue that the destruction of productive capacities as a result of the plundering of India by British imperialism greatly set back their material development, and therefore also delayed the social development which they would have experienced as a result of the natural development of productive forces.
I have never read it either but we can analyze the quote out of context here because thats what was done in class. I think we have a good excuse. I don't know why the quote was read in the way it was by the student and my professor, but it is talking about revolution. And yeah, I agree, colonization did set countries like India back.
I agree with other comments here. Marx was eurocentric but not in that quote. I dont know how its possible to read that quote and think that its about history moving because of Europeans. And congrats on the job placement!
Thanks! I do have you to thank for your advice, I did take it and I believe it really helped in getting me the placement.
