At first glance, European imperialism and thus colonialism seems ridden with atrocity and demise for those upon whom it is imposed while serving the pride and prejudice of those who have imposed it. The question that this paper seeks to answer, however, is one that is layered and cannot be superficially analyzed based on popular views and discourse. For the findings of this paper to prove academically valuable and sound, one must aim to consider with as little (if any at all) bias as possible. Therein lies credibility. Cases for the value of colonialism have been presented amidst an ocean of cases that plead otherwise in both historical as well as modern context. General consensus is that all colonialism grossly ravaged and crippled the
…show more content…
Nigel Biggar analyses and brings to the foreground of his argument, Bruce Gilley’s “The case for colonialism”. Biggar echoes the case presented by Gilley about Zimbabwe and the words of renowned African writer, Chinua Achebe. It can be said though, that both Biggar and Gilley seem to have founded their cases for colonialism on sandy land because historians all over the world have not only rejected, but also rebuked what they had to say on the matter. It is important to note, that Biggar recognizes Gilley to be an imperialist himself. Therefore, it can be assumed that his assertions would be biased accordingly. An example of this can be seen in the case he presents for Zimbabwe. According to Biggar (2017) Gilley suggests that because atrocities -such as the killing of 20 000 Ndebele under Robert Mugabe’s leadership -occurred both prior and post British occupation, that it amounts to grounds for excusing all that occurred during the period of occupation or at least that the two can be placed on the same …show more content…
However work done by the likes of Jeff Guy suggests otherwise. “The Maphumulo Uprising” (Guy 2005) as well as “Remembering the Rebellion” (Guy 2006) provide accounts of a colonial legal system that intently starved and stripped people of resources, land and any means for them to flourish. If anything at all, it was a legal system that was ill-fated for the colonized
Nigel Biggar analyses and brings to the foreground of his argument, Bruce Gilley’s “The case for colonialism”. Biggar echoes the case presented by Gilley about Zimbabwe and the words of renowned African writer, Chinua Achebe. It can be said though, that both Biggar and Gilley seem to have founded their cases for colonialism on sandy land because historians all over the world have not only rejected, but also rebuked what they had to say on the matter. It is important to note, that Biggar recognizes Gilley to be an imperialist himself. Therefore, it can be assumed that his assertions would be biased accordingly. An example of this can be seen in the case he presents for Zimbabwe. According to Biggar (2017) Gilley suggests that because atrocities -such as the killing of 20 000 Ndebele under Robert Mugabe’s leadership -occurred both prior and post British occupation, that it amounts to grounds for excusing all that occurred during the period of occupation or at least that the two can be placed on the same …show more content…
However work done by the likes of Jeff Guy suggests otherwise. “The Maphumulo Uprising” (Guy 2005) as well as “Remembering the Rebellion” (Guy 2006) provide accounts of a colonial legal system that intently starved and stripped people of resources, land and any means for them to flourish. If anything at all, it was a legal system that was ill-fated for the colonized