On the Topic of Colonialism on a Global Scale...

As a general musing, I thought that it was fairly interesting to break down colonialism into subgroups based on tendencies and actions of specific instances of colonialism. In primary education and general information, we've come a long way as far as teaching about colonialism and its consequences for aboriginals goes, particularly with regards to how we acknowledge the horror which colonists inflicted in order for us contemporaries to enjoy the privileges we have today. Although our collective acknowledgements may not come close to perfectly encompassing the truth of history, it's still a great number of steps we've taken. That being said, I think that we're going a bit too far such that the goal is being distorted.

To elaborate a bit, I do not think there is an upper limit to the acknowledgements we can make, except until there is quite literally nothing more to elaborate upon. Rather than thinking that, what I believe is that some people are simplifying colonialism to a bare bones reflection of what it actually is. Unfortunately, I sometimes hear discourse on colonialism shut down with a simple "colonialism was bad." Certainly, the impact of colonialism unto aboriginals was atrocious, and that is a conclusion that nearly anyone would be able to arrive at if provided with a basic overview of what happened.

The problem with simplifying historical events within discourse is that it can create misunderstandings stemming from not having the full picture. To give an example of sorts, there's the whole "the Civil War was fought because of slavery." That statement is a simplification of tensions between the North and South that is taught in elementary school history classes; in reality, there were a series of socioeconomic factors of which slavery was component that had been stirring for a long while, coming to a head with the election of Lincoln. Now there are people who legitimately believe that the Civil War was fought solely for the freedom of slaves and act as though the Civil War was a fairy tale of good against evil. Was the North of better moral position than the South? Certainly, but to call them martyrs would be a stretch brought about from dumbing down events into a one-liner.

Hence, I think that simplifying colonialism into "colonialism was bad," while not false, mitigates events in a way that is unintentionally deceitful and counterintuitive to the intention that those who often say such things hold. It's one thing to stop and restate that colonialism had unfathomable effects, and that it was a gross violation of even the most basic, universal rights, but completely stopping discourse with such a statement is ignorant. So, I really enjoy that there are multiple authors like Kauanui, Wolfe, and Shoemaker that explore and represent different aspects and forms of colonialism, namely settler colonialism, the plantation-type colonialism, and genocidal colonialism.