Kloby’s and Williams’ Colonialsim

Johann Cox

ID301

Dr. Wright

20 August 2009

Cox 1

Kloby’s and Williams’ Colonialsim

Tackling the topic of colonialism, Jerry Kloby and William Appleman Williams attempt

to define and reveal the cultural and social machine we call colonialism. By way of the Belgium

and France, Kloby sets up examples to support his simplified, but useful definition of

colonialism. Using the British Empire, Williams goes greater pains to give more dimension to

the idea of colonialism. In the end, both men are unified in that the outcome for those who are

colonized are usually quite negative.

Jerry Kloby and William Appleman Williams both set out to define and give rational to

the life and action around colonialism. Both acknowledge colonialism as the subjection of a

weaker group of people by a different group who is stronger militarily or financially with the

intent to exploit for resources or opportunities. Williams goes on to further define using

imperialism’s large scale transfer of its people and subsequent rule over them from its central

ruling area to the outlaying new colonies. This is done as process to rule not only over the native

people, but also to rule over the native resources for the imperial homeland. The subjection

need not to be bloody, but that option rarely is removed, even from the soft imperialists.

Unlike Kloby, Williams adds additional dimensions to the idea of colonialism by

dividing colonialism up into two groups. The first is the group that sends its people out to

basically obtain the resources (including land for settlers) in order to send them back to the

homeland of the empire. The second group performs the same function, except not only do they

take the resources, but they also subjugate the people. These oppressed people either follow or

face destruction at the hands of their new masters. Those that cooperate find that they have rules

forced upon them that dictate everyday activities that facilitate the expedient rape of the

Cox 2

resources around them for the benefit of the colonizing empire (Williams 81-83). Within

Williams’ definitions, he also takes into consideration that some colonials may be slightly

empathetic with the natives, and may even grant them basic civilized status, as long as they

continue to reap what they had come for in the beginning. These colonials would be considered

soft imperialists, but even at the heart of them beats the soul of colonialism; “…the soft

imperialists subverted their grand ideal. For it was impossible to preserve the Noble Savage and

at the same time bring him into the imperial world.” (Williams 87) In the end, even the soft

imperialist from Britain would bring disease and rot to the very people they may have timidly

reached out to. Yet, they still marched on for the empire. They would reach out to win the souls

of the lost natives or wonder at the wisdom these simple people held. Whether it is the

knowledge of proper husbandry of the land, providing feeding plots for deer, or the act of daily

washing for hygiene, the soft imperialists attempted to humanize the natives and give them

kudos for the knowledge the natives shared with them. Unlike the soft imperialists, the

hardliners usually were racist and devalued the natives so that they may do away with the

nagging guilt of doing harm to these slaves under their rule (Williams 86). Williams points out

that some of the most basic tools used to justify colonialism for the sake of gain is that of

creating division. Ethnocentric perceptions lead to racial divide, and by using the easily

discerned color differences, a people may be deemed inferior. This is typically done by using

imagery from the Bible showing the darkness of Satan, and directing that those with darker skin

must be akin to Satan’s evil or at least tainted by Satan’s darkness (Williams 84).

Where Williams takes the idea of colonialism and gives it additional degrees, Kloby

focuses more on the basic nuts and bolt of colonialism, provide a place to settle for people of the

mother country, and or provide resources for the motherland. Though the settlers usually do

Cox 3

make way for sending resources back to the mother country, the second is solely focused on

providing the resources to the motherland via political and economic domination over the people

and land of the colony (Kloby 99-100). Case in point, King Leopold saw value in the Congo.

With its rich resources, it was prime for the taking. After consolidating his rule over the region

he had access to an area eighty times the size of Belgium. With the growth of rubberized tires

for all sorts of vehicles, the prolific rubber trees of the Congo became very valuable. King

Leopold decreed that natives could maintain the areas very close to their villages, which left the

large areas around them free for the taking by Leopold. By forcing a tax on the villagers so they

could partake in commercial activity, he insured that they would be economically indebted to the

kingdom. Their only way out would be to harvest the rubber for Belgium, while forbidding them

to do any trade with other Europeans. Not only did the natives have to pay taxes, now they also

had to labor for their new masters. In order to protect the production of rubber, the natives

would not be allowed to maintain their own basic needs for food and domestic needs. They

would end up either worked to death, or starve because they would not be allowed to prepare

their grounds for crops. As it already seems the colonizers were brutish, even forgoing civilized

manners. As a tool to insure that the native labors complied with the tasks forced upon them, the

Belgians would detain or take hostage the women and children until the men could come up with

the amount of ransom required of them (Kloby 100-101). The Belgian rulers even were as evil

as to “requiring the native soldiers to bring in as “trophies” the hands and sexual organs of males,

as proof that they had performed their missions to punish villagers for noncooperation.” (Kloby

101) Eventually, this process took a disastrous toll and left the king without the native laborers

needed. “After twenty years of King Leopold’s rule, an estimated ten million inhabitants of the

Congo had died either directly at the hands of Belgian or Native soldiers, or from starvation and

Cox 4

disease brought about by colonial exploration.” (Kloby 101-102) Not only would the forsaking

of the husbandry of the land and the health lead to the starvation of these people, but it would

lead to deforestation of vast amounts of the area, further depleting the natural resources of the

Congo.

From Williams and Kloby’s accounts, a rather dire picture is painted of a people involved

in colonialism. There is always the oppressor, no matter how they try to dress their reasons up in

faith or even living for the empire, and those colonized always pay by losing their basic rights

and privileges or with their resources. Even Williams more detailed view of colonialism’s

degrees cannot seem to break away from the basic idea that the core part of colonialism is the act

of taking from another people something you want without fair trade, by economic or physical

force.

Cox 5

Works Cited

Kloby, Jerry. "Legacy of Colonialism." Beyond Borders: Thinking Critically About Global Issues. Compiled. Paula S. Rothenburg. New York: Worth Publishers, 2006. Print.

Williams, William Appleman . "Empire as a Way of Life." Beyond Borders: Thinking Critically About Global Issues. Compiled. Paula S. Rothenburg. New York: Worth Publishers, 2006. Print.

Cox 6

Compare and contrast the definition of colonialism offered by Jerry Kloby with that offered by

Willams.

What are the similarities?

What are the differences?

(HINT: Make sure that you've taken some good notes for these two questions! Note that

Williams is much more specific than Kloby with his definitions and reasons...hint, hint, hint...he

goes off on some *important* tangents that are relevant to this question)

Is one definition more adequate than the other?

Start your paper with an introduction and a thesis. Before you delve into your personal analysis

of these authors' writing, it is best to briefly explain each author's definition(s) of colonialism

and/or other related terms. Be sure to use SPECIFIC textual references to back up your personal

opinions.

And, double-check that you answered all of the questions asked of you in this prompt in your

editing! This paper should be typed in 12-point Times New Roman, one-inch margins all around

and should be no shorter than 2.5 pages.

Cox 7

Remember for citations to use the MLA method. For suggestions on how to start thinking about

writing an analytical paper such as this one, read the "How to Write an Analysis" attached to this

assignment. Your final grade will be attributed 80% to a succesful explanation of each author's

definition and comparison of them, and 20% to mechanics/grammar. Be sure to use proper

citations when necessary!

Cox 8

How to write an analysis

An analysis is a careful, systematic review of a work that gives your opinion on and

interpretation of it. An analysis can take many forms—a comparison and contrast paper is one

common way to analyze a piece of work.

We will use analysis “casually” on our discussion boards and in our chat rooms. Analysis should

be continually happening during this course—you will be thinking about conditions, influences,

causes and effects of situations presented in the readings. Other ways to analyze a text include

looking for bias and discussion of the work’s purpose and whether or not it was achieved. In

other words, analysis happens when you correlate your opinion/interpretation of the text to the

text.

1. Read the piece of work at hand for understanding. In your reading, you should not only

be able to summarize in your mind the work, but also have some ideas on the writer’s

Cox 9

style and ideas that they discuss. Examples of some common questions that would lead

you to write an analysis include: Do you disagree with the author’s main points? Do you

find “holes” in the work? Does the author draw conclusions on cause and effect that you

don’t agree with? What about the author’s word choices and writing style (i.e. tone,

metaphors, irony, sarcasm, etc.)? Do you want to make a prediction or guess at why

something happened—causes and effects—that were not discussed in the work?

2. Once you’ve centered in on some aspects of the piece of work you’d like to talk about,

create a thesis that address those points. Each body paragraph after the introduction

should focus on one main idea from that thesis. For this course and the length of papers

assigned, I would say that three main ideas would be a good “rule of thumb” to work

with.

3. Quote and/or paraphrase examples of the element you’re analyzing so your reader can

make an immediate connection between the piece of work and your paper. It is best to

provide the idea, quoted, before you discuss it. You need this to “knit” your opinion to

the work at hand in order to make your point effectively. In other words, your analysis

cannot be one, long, drawn-out opinion without textual support.

4. Edit and proofread your analysis as you would any piece of writing. The very last step

before you submit it to me is to check your analysis for misrepresentations of information

from the article. Compare your analysis side-by-side to the article as your very last step.

Cox 10