What do you think?
Rate this book
The Colonizer and the Colonized
First published in English in 1965, this timeless classic explores the psychological effects of colonialism on colonized and colonizers alike.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1957
214 people are currently reading
7930 people want to read
About the author
Albert Memmi
66 books136 followersTunisian Jewish writer and essayist who migrated to France.
Born in Tunisia under French protectorate, from a Tunisian Jewish mother, Marguerite Sarfati, and a Tunisian-Italian Jewish father, François Memmi, he speaks French and Tunisian-Judeo-Arabic. He claims to be of Berber ancestry. He was educated in French primary schools, and continued on to the Carnot high school in Tunis, the University of Algiers where he studied philosophy, and finally the Sorbonne in Paris. Albert Memmi found himself at the crossroads of three cultures, and based his work on the difficulty of finding a balance between the East and the West.
His best-known nonfiction work is "The Colonizer and the Colonized", about the interdependent relationship of the two groups. It was published in 1957, a time when many national liberation movements were active. Jean-Paul Sartre wrote the preface. The work is often read in conjunction with Frantz Fanon's "Les damnés de la Terre" ("The Wretched of the Earth") and "Peau noire, masques blancs" ("Black Skin, White Masks") and Aimé Césaire's "Discourse on Colonialism." In October 2006, Memmi's follow-up to this work, titled "Decolonization and the Decolonized," was published. In this book, Memmi suggests that in the wake of global decolonization, the suffering of former colonies cannot be attributed to the former colonizers, but to the corrupt leaders and governments that control these states.
Born in Tunisia under French protectorate, from a Tunisian Jewish mother, Marguerite Sarfati, and a Tunisian-Italian Jewish father, François Memmi, he speaks French and Tunisian-Judeo-Arabic. He claims to be of Berber ancestry. He was educated in French primary schools, and continued on to the Carnot high school in Tunis, the University of Algiers where he studied philosophy, and finally the Sorbonne in Paris. Albert Memmi found himself at the crossroads of three cultures, and based his work on the difficulty of finding a balance between the East and the West.
His best-known nonfiction work is "The Colonizer and the Colonized", about the interdependent relationship of the two groups. It was published in 1957, a time when many national liberation movements were active. Jean-Paul Sartre wrote the preface. The work is often read in conjunction with Frantz Fanon's "Les damnés de la Terre" ("The Wretched of the Earth") and "Peau noire, masques blancs" ("Black Skin, White Masks") and Aimé Césaire's "Discourse on Colonialism." In October 2006, Memmi's follow-up to this work, titled "Decolonization and the Decolonized," was published. In this book, Memmi suggests that in the wake of global decolonization, the suffering of former colonies cannot be attributed to the former colonizers, but to the corrupt leaders and governments that control these states.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 176 reviews
October 30, 2015
The title of this book suggests something dated, describing both a situation and a mindset that has either ceased to exist or become discredited with time. As such, I hesitated to pick it up initially. But now having read it, I have to say its one of the profound books I've read in recent memory. In timeless detail Memmi describes not just the psychologies of the oppressed and the oppressor, but also the predicament of the "leftist" in the oppressing group who at once is attracted to and recoils from the way in which the oppressed tries to liberate themselves, as well as from their end goals, in which they would "likely find no place."
Memmi is not just a pontificating observer. He was a Tunisian living as a native under the colonial regime, but straddling both worlds as a relatively more privileged Jewish member of the colonized class; thus able to interact with and experience both perspectives. He describes the self-destructive and somewhat self-loathing tyranny of the colonizer, who ossifies the society he colonizes, the inherent fascism, and the way in which the mediocre at home can become the grandiose in the colony, and how jealously they defend that privilege. As well, Memmi catalogues as the psychological effects of colonization; destroying the institutions and thus the memory of the colonized, cutting them off from their language and debasing it, preventing its growth and the practice of its higher forms and finally the eventual belief action upon the worst myths about themselves.
The best part I thought was about the leftist who hates colonialism, but also ends up hating and fearing the means and goals of those he seeks to defend from its ravages. This is still an absolutely timely and relevant predicament, right up to the War on Terror. The comparison is not as apocalyptically stark because these people don't have to live in the same societies, only to agree not to harm one another (and, in the common perception, not feed an imperial complex that benefits from such conflict), but many of the same dynamics apply. There really is a clash, and a dissonance; even applicable in movements such as the Black radical struggle in the United States, many of whose white supporters, both half-hearted and zealous, would lose something, even perhaps much, through the victory of. It is best to acknowledge this predicament and offer an appreciation of it, than to simply ignore it and leave one open to accusations of ignorance or foolhardiness.
Throughout the book I was able to picture the circumstances he described in multiple settings, from Black Lives Matter to the War on Terror, and they almost always seemed both moving, urgent and relevant. Memmi later recoiled from many of his views about the decolonized, in light of the ugliness that much of decolonization brought to the fore, but ironically the seeds of that ugliness seem explicitly predicted and accounted for in this book. If anything, that historical experience should count against the irrational optimism about human nature that progressives tend to uncritically project onto the world. I recommend this book unreservedly, I couldn't put it down, and will certainly refer back to it in future.
Memmi is not just a pontificating observer. He was a Tunisian living as a native under the colonial regime, but straddling both worlds as a relatively more privileged Jewish member of the colonized class; thus able to interact with and experience both perspectives. He describes the self-destructive and somewhat self-loathing tyranny of the colonizer, who ossifies the society he colonizes, the inherent fascism, and the way in which the mediocre at home can become the grandiose in the colony, and how jealously they defend that privilege. As well, Memmi catalogues as the psychological effects of colonization; destroying the institutions and thus the memory of the colonized, cutting them off from their language and debasing it, preventing its growth and the practice of its higher forms and finally the eventual belief action upon the worst myths about themselves.
The best part I thought was about the leftist who hates colonialism, but also ends up hating and fearing the means and goals of those he seeks to defend from its ravages. This is still an absolutely timely and relevant predicament, right up to the War on Terror. The comparison is not as apocalyptically stark because these people don't have to live in the same societies, only to agree not to harm one another (and, in the common perception, not feed an imperial complex that benefits from such conflict), but many of the same dynamics apply. There really is a clash, and a dissonance; even applicable in movements such as the Black radical struggle in the United States, many of whose white supporters, both half-hearted and zealous, would lose something, even perhaps much, through the victory of. It is best to acknowledge this predicament and offer an appreciation of it, than to simply ignore it and leave one open to accusations of ignorance or foolhardiness.
Throughout the book I was able to picture the circumstances he described in multiple settings, from Black Lives Matter to the War on Terror, and they almost always seemed both moving, urgent and relevant. Memmi later recoiled from many of his views about the decolonized, in light of the ugliness that much of decolonization brought to the fore, but ironically the seeds of that ugliness seem explicitly predicted and accounted for in this book. If anything, that historical experience should count against the irrational optimism about human nature that progressives tend to uncritically project onto the world. I recommend this book unreservedly, I couldn't put it down, and will certainly refer back to it in future.
January 2, 2022
Not gonna lie ... this book put me in a bit of a reading slump, even though it was still very interesting! Reading Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth and Césaire's Discourse on Colonialism seems like the next logical step. So, I'll definitely up these two on my reading list for this year!
Albert Memmi was born on December 15, 1920 in Tunis, at a time where Tunisia was colonized by the French. He was a writer and essayist of Tunisian-Jewish origins, with a Tunisian Jewish Berber mother and a Tunisian-Italian Jewish father. He grew up speaking French and Tunisian-Judeo-Arabic. He was educated in French schools and studied philosophy at the University of Algiers, and finally at the Sorbonne in Paris. Parallel with his literary work, he also pursued a career as a teacher.
During the Nazi occupation of Tunisia, Memmi was imprisoned in a forced labor camp from which he later escaped. Although he supported the independence movement in Tunisia, he was not able to find a place in the new Muslim state both because of his French education and his Jewish faith, and following independence he "was asked to leave", which he did. He spent the rest of his life in France.
Another note-worthy non-fiction work of his is Racisme, in which he, somewhat ahead of his time, defined racism as a social construct, countering and refuting the popular argument of scientific racism and the idea of biological races of his time. He refuted that "pure" and "distinct" races exist, and that some races are superior to others. In the work, he pointed out that no evidence existed in support of the idea of racial purity – beliefs which are widespread nowadays but were considered radical back in the 60s.
In his "Portrait of the Colonizer", Memmi says that any colonizer through their positions as "usurper", no matter of his/her status in the colonies (since there was also a hierarchy amongst colonizers^^), must be a privileged person, however, since that privilege isn't earned, and all colonizers know this, these non-legitimate privileges influence their psyche and weigh on their conscience.
The colonized, deprived of all rights, are constantly subjected, humiliated and in a permanent state of deficiency, which often leads them to conform to the mirror that is held up to them. Some try to assimilate, and thus to "alienate themselves culturally", but that's a dead end in itself, since assimilation is refused by the colonized, it is only an illusion. Revolt thus becomes inevitable. To ensure the cohesion of the revolt movement, the elite of the colonized often comes to affirm the "refuge values", regressive, that are the tradition, the family and, even more, the religion, which is fraught with dangers, once the independence obtained.
The Colonizer and the Colonized is an incredibly dense book that I definitely have to reread some day. Upon a first read, I didn't understand its full scope and/or all of Memmi's arguments, but I'm still glad that I read it. My main take away from this book is the interdependent relationship of colonizer and colonized (which can be applied to white people and BIPOC in regards to racism as well): The colonizer, in all their power, needs the colonized (as a concept and as real people), their existence is indispensable to his own. He defines himself through this relation. Similarly, white people define themselves through the other, they are white because other people aren't.
Memmi does a great job at dissecting this vicious cycle by showcasing how difficult it is to break out of it: even if the colonizer becomes aware of this unjust relationship, it costs a great effort to try to dismantle it, because one would have to dismantle one's own identity. If we "solved" the problem of racism, white people would no longer exist, and neither would BIPOC. There would be no need for any distinction. For most people, especially those in power, but also marginalised groups, that's a scary thought, since a lot of us define our identities, amongst other things, with the labels of race, if we want to or not.
On top of that, it was very interesting to see that Memmi, back in 1957, already dissected the mechanisms of oppressions to a T by highlighting how the colonized are denied their individuality and are only seen as a collective, how the colonized are consciously mystified by the colonizer as “wicked, backward people with evil, thievish, somewhat sadistic instincts etc.”, how their culture, language, religion, and traditions are seen deficient and unworthy of being cherished – basically describing the mechanism of depersonalisation and its effects on both the colonizer (who profits from it) and the colonized (especially the brutal effects on their mental states, e.g. death of the spirit). Memmi also stresses that systemic problems need systemic solutions – and I couldn’t help but nod along!
Colonialism denies human rights to human beings whom it has subdued by violence, and keeps them by force in a state of misery and ignorance that Marx would rightly call a subhuman condition.I was aware of Albert Memmi since he is one of Tunisia's most well known thinkers and writers. It took me a while to decide whether or not I wanted to read his work in the original (French) but ultimately decided against it, since the subject matter (colonialism) is quite dense and complicated, and I really wanted to make sure that I understood all of his arguments. Also, totally unrelated, but it totally blew my mind that Memmi only died last year, seven months short of becoming a fucking 100 years old. Like, what?
Albert Memmi was born on December 15, 1920 in Tunis, at a time where Tunisia was colonized by the French. He was a writer and essayist of Tunisian-Jewish origins, with a Tunisian Jewish Berber mother and a Tunisian-Italian Jewish father. He grew up speaking French and Tunisian-Judeo-Arabic. He was educated in French schools and studied philosophy at the University of Algiers, and finally at the Sorbonne in Paris. Parallel with his literary work, he also pursued a career as a teacher.
During the Nazi occupation of Tunisia, Memmi was imprisoned in a forced labor camp from which he later escaped. Although he supported the independence movement in Tunisia, he was not able to find a place in the new Muslim state both because of his French education and his Jewish faith, and following independence he "was asked to leave", which he did. He spent the rest of his life in France.
Every colonial nation carries the seeds of a fascist temptation in its bosom. What is fascism if not a regime of oppression for the benefit of a few.His best-known work is The Colonizer and the Colonized, a revealing portrait of the two groups and their interdependent relationship with one another. Published in 1957, it was followed up by another book of his in 2006, Decolonization and the Decolonized, in which he suggests that in the wake of global decolonization, the suffering of former colonies cannot be attributed to the former colonizers, but to the corrupt leaders and governments that control these states.
Another note-worthy non-fiction work of his is Racisme, in which he, somewhat ahead of his time, defined racism as a social construct, countering and refuting the popular argument of scientific racism and the idea of biological races of his time. He refuted that "pure" and "distinct" races exist, and that some races are superior to others. In the work, he pointed out that no evidence existed in support of the idea of racial purity – beliefs which are widespread nowadays but were considered radical back in the 60s.
It is significant that racism is part of colonialism throughout the world; and it is no coincidence. Racism sums up and symbolizes the fundamental relation which unites colonialist and colonized.For The Colonizer and the Colonized, Memmi drew upon his experiences as a Tunisian Jew. He claimed that he therefore knew both the colonizer's psyche (since Jewish people were seen as more "racially pure" than Muslim people, and therefore had certain privileges), which he dissected in his "Portrait of the Colonizer", as well as the colonizer's psyche (since Jewish people were still seen as less "racially pure" than the Christian French colonizers, which he analysed in his "Portrait of the Colonized". By linking both perspectives to the colonial system as a whole, Memmi showed how both groups are stuck in a perpetual interdependence, and can only define themselves in relation to each other.
In his "Portrait of the Colonizer", Memmi says that any colonizer through their positions as "usurper", no matter of his/her status in the colonies (since there was also a hierarchy amongst colonizers^^), must be a privileged person, however, since that privilege isn't earned, and all colonizers know this, these non-legitimate privileges influence their psyche and weigh on their conscience.
It is not easy to escape mentally from a concrete situation, to refuse its ideology while continuing to live with its actual relationships.Colonizers are either torn by their own contradictions, since they are, for example, uncomfortable in relation to the nationalist claims of the colonized (whilst being nationalists themselves), and even some might think the colonized's call for independence justified, they know that they, as colonizers, will no longer have a place in that country after independence; or colonizers carry self-contempt, knowing of their own mediocrity and unjustified privileges, which incites them to rely on patriotism and the prestige of the mother country to justify their existence in their own eyes, which leads the colonizer to resort to all racist stereotypes, that mystify and naturalise oppression, erecting inflexible barriers between "races". Memmi says, "Political and social regulations reinforce one another. Since the native is [defined as] subhuman, the Declaration of Human Rights does not apply to him; inversely, since he has no rights, he is abandoned without protection to inhuman forces."
The colonized, deprived of all rights, are constantly subjected, humiliated and in a permanent state of deficiency, which often leads them to conform to the mirror that is held up to them. Some try to assimilate, and thus to "alienate themselves culturally", but that's a dead end in itself, since assimilation is refused by the colonized, it is only an illusion. Revolt thus becomes inevitable. To ensure the cohesion of the revolt movement, the elite of the colonized often comes to affirm the "refuge values", regressive, that are the tradition, the family and, even more, the religion, which is fraught with dangers, once the independence obtained.
Revolt is the only way out of the colonial situation, and the colonized realizes it sooner or later. His condition is absolute and cries for an absolute solution; a break and not a compromise. He has been torn away from his past and cut off from his future, his traditions are dying and he loses the hope of acquiring a new culture. He has neither language, nor flag, nor technical knowledge, nor national or international existence, nor rights, nor duties. He possesses nothing, is no longer anything and no longer hopes for anything. Moreover, the solution becomes more urgent every day.It is very interesting how Memmi dissects the dynamics behind oppression, and how oppression always inevitably leads to resistance and revolt: "The colonial situation, by its own internal inevitability, brings on revolt. For the colonial condition cannot be adjusted to; like an iron collar, it can only be broken."
The Colonizer and the Colonized is an incredibly dense book that I definitely have to reread some day. Upon a first read, I didn't understand its full scope and/or all of Memmi's arguments, but I'm still glad that I read it. My main take away from this book is the interdependent relationship of colonizer and colonized (which can be applied to white people and BIPOC in regards to racism as well): The colonizer, in all their power, needs the colonized (as a concept and as real people), their existence is indispensable to his own. He defines himself through this relation. Similarly, white people define themselves through the other, they are white because other people aren't.
Memmi does a great job at dissecting this vicious cycle by showcasing how difficult it is to break out of it: even if the colonizer becomes aware of this unjust relationship, it costs a great effort to try to dismantle it, because one would have to dismantle one's own identity. If we "solved" the problem of racism, white people would no longer exist, and neither would BIPOC. There would be no need for any distinction. For most people, especially those in power, but also marginalised groups, that's a scary thought, since a lot of us define our identities, amongst other things, with the labels of race, if we want to or not.
On top of that, it was very interesting to see that Memmi, back in 1957, already dissected the mechanisms of oppressions to a T by highlighting how the colonized are denied their individuality and are only seen as a collective, how the colonized are consciously mystified by the colonizer as “wicked, backward people with evil, thievish, somewhat sadistic instincts etc.”, how their culture, language, religion, and traditions are seen deficient and unworthy of being cherished – basically describing the mechanism of depersonalisation and its effects on both the colonizer (who profits from it) and the colonized (especially the brutal effects on their mental states, e.g. death of the spirit). Memmi also stresses that systemic problems need systemic solutions – and I couldn’t help but nod along!
How can one dare to compare the advantages and disadvantages of colonization? What advantages, even if a thousand times more important, could make such internal and external catastrophes acceptable?Despite being written in 1957, Memmi’s work (not in all points but in its general and core messages) definitely holds up, and can offer some interesting and eye-opening lessons for a 21st-century reader! I totally understand why it's considered a classic and one of the most important texts on colonisation.
Read
February 7, 2022Another great piece analyzing the dynamics of colonialism. A few thoughts:
-Explains the way that the "small" colonizer still benefits from the colonial system, and hypothesizes on the mediocrity of colonizers as a distinguishing trait. They are unremarkable in their home country so they turn to a life of exploitation in the colonies.
-Defines the Usurper's Complex: "to possess victory completely he needs to absolve himself of it and the conditions under which it was attained." The colonizer is desperate to transform his crimes to legitimacy, eliminating the moral crisis that comes from his role. The more atrocities he commits, the more he loathes the colonial subject that he blames for the atrocities.
-Describes the fundamental conflict at the heart of colonialism: "with all his power he must disown the colonized while their existence is indispensable to his own."
-The colonizers substitutes his needs for logic when creating the colonized subject: for example, the colonized is a *natural* weakling so he needs "protection." As has been pointed out in previous works I've read, assigning these characteristics to the realm of the inherent and biological means that the colonizer's position is forever justified.
-Speaks to the complexities of the colonized person's knowledge of language, having to choose between a denigrated native tongue and the imposition of the colonizer's tongue, which is necessary for the colony's societal institutions.
-Says that assimilation has worked on a few occasions, and that colonialism is the antithesis of assimilation because it requires the maintenance of difference between the colonizer and the colonized.
-Explains the way that the "small" colonizer still benefits from the colonial system, and hypothesizes on the mediocrity of colonizers as a distinguishing trait. They are unremarkable in their home country so they turn to a life of exploitation in the colonies.
-Defines the Usurper's Complex: "to possess victory completely he needs to absolve himself of it and the conditions under which it was attained." The colonizer is desperate to transform his crimes to legitimacy, eliminating the moral crisis that comes from his role. The more atrocities he commits, the more he loathes the colonial subject that he blames for the atrocities.
-Describes the fundamental conflict at the heart of colonialism: "with all his power he must disown the colonized while their existence is indispensable to his own."
-The colonizers substitutes his needs for logic when creating the colonized subject: for example, the colonized is a *natural* weakling so he needs "protection." As has been pointed out in previous works I've read, assigning these characteristics to the realm of the inherent and biological means that the colonizer's position is forever justified.
-Speaks to the complexities of the colonized person's knowledge of language, having to choose between a denigrated native tongue and the imposition of the colonizer's tongue, which is necessary for the colony's societal institutions.
-Says that assimilation has worked on a few occasions, and that colonialism is the antithesis of assimilation because it requires the maintenance of difference between the colonizer and the colonized.
December 2, 2016
This is a classic book up there with The Wretched of the Earth by Franz Fanon about colonialism told by a doctor in French-Colonised Algeria during the civil war. It is brutal and honest and should be more widely known than it is. It is not for the weak-stomached as there is description of torture and genocidal tactics used by the French in their failed attempt to crush the uprising against their occupation. The two portraits - first of the French colonist and second of the colonised Algerian - are incredibly lucid. The subject of this book is universal and can be applied to any colonised land or situation and should be read by anyone who wants the truth behind colonisation in this époque when many populists are trying to romanticise colonisation as benign which it was absolutely not.
June 18, 2008
Memmi is a contemporary of Frantz Fanon and similarly explores the psychological and social consequences of the colonial relationship on both the colonizer and the colonized.
I think the second part of the first chapter, "The colonizer who refuses," would make good reading for financially comfortable folks in the U.S. today (especially whites who consider themselves moderate or liberal types, but don't yet perceive the need for their own involvement in dealing with issues of class or race).
I think the second part of the first chapter, "The colonizer who refuses," would make good reading for financially comfortable folks in the U.S. today (especially whites who consider themselves moderate or liberal types, but don't yet perceive the need for their own involvement in dealing with issues of class or race).
May 16, 2020
Excellent essai indispensable à tout.e colonisé.e et colonisateur.
February 17, 2020
Albert Memmi, author of "The Colonizer and the Colonized" wrote in his conclusion "I did not conceive of this book as a work of protest" but that he only wanted to show "completely and authentically, the portraits of" the colonizer and the colonized and the relationship that binds them.
Sometimes describing a situation truthfully and honestly is the highest form of protest in my opinion. Especially when you live in an upside down world, where the oppressor dresses in a hero costume and his victims become the villains.
In a world where racism continues to be a tool used by the privileged, to excuse the injustice they have created, this book is more important now than ever. It opens the readers eyes to a truth, that even though colonialism works differently today, the relationship between the protagonists remains just as unequal and unjust. They just colonize us from afar now, so they dont have to face their victims everyday and live amongst them, that way they can live their privileged lives and claim ignorance on who pays the price for it.
I can't begin to explain how great this book is, I wish I could buy hundreds of copies in arabic and give them out on the streets in our countries.
Sometimes describing a situation truthfully and honestly is the highest form of protest in my opinion. Especially when you live in an upside down world, where the oppressor dresses in a hero costume and his victims become the villains.
In a world where racism continues to be a tool used by the privileged, to excuse the injustice they have created, this book is more important now than ever. It opens the readers eyes to a truth, that even though colonialism works differently today, the relationship between the protagonists remains just as unequal and unjust. They just colonize us from afar now, so they dont have to face their victims everyday and live amongst them, that way they can live their privileged lives and claim ignorance on who pays the price for it.
I can't begin to explain how great this book is, I wish I could buy hundreds of copies in arabic and give them out on the streets in our countries.
August 6, 2007
Two chapters: one from the point of view of the colonizer, the other from the colonized. Totally compelling and beautifully written.
It demonstrates the human capacity to regard the life of the slave AND the life of the master. (Consider my favorite line from the film Bladerunner: "If only you had seen what I have seen with your eyes.") Memmi sees with all eyes and spares us no acid in our wounds. And yet precisely because he is so even tempered, so evenhanded, the small judgments he does make are not the splashes of pebbles in a pond, but the sound of oceans sucking in cosmic debris. (what ever that means.)
It demonstrates the human capacity to regard the life of the slave AND the life of the master. (Consider my favorite line from the film Bladerunner: "If only you had seen what I have seen with your eyes.") Memmi sees with all eyes and spares us no acid in our wounds. And yet precisely because he is so even tempered, so evenhanded, the small judgments he does make are not the splashes of pebbles in a pond, but the sound of oceans sucking in cosmic debris. (what ever that means.)
August 15, 2024
منذ الصفحات الأولى لهذا الكتاب، ضمن مقدماته الكثيرة، أعلن الكتاب نقصه. فالجميع يعلم أن الكاتب يهودي تونسي متجنس فرنسي عهد الإستعمار، و قد كتب ثلاث صور و هي "بورتريه المستعمر" (بفتح الميم) و "بورتريه المستعمر" (بكسر الميم) و أخيرا "بورتريه اليهودي". فهل يمكن أن نجزم بمصداقية الصور التي رسمها من دون النظر إلى الصورة اليهودية؟ (أنا متأكدة أنه سيتحدث عن اليهودي المظلوم أبد الدهر).
(نظرا لعدم تمكني من الشكل:
كسر = مستعمر بكسر الميم
فتح = مستعمر بفتح الميم)
من الجميل جدا في هذا الكتاب ملاحظة التناقض المبهر للصيغ و العبارات المستعملة بين "الكسر" و "الفتح".
مثلا عندما تحدث عن "الكسر" فالظلم و الاحتقار و اللامسلواة التي يقوم بها تجاه شعب كامل، هي نتيجة طبيعية انسانية للحالة التي وضع فيها ذلك الإنسان الوديع. أما بالنسبة "للفتح" فرفضه للانسان الأوروبي و مقاطعه اقتصاديا و فكريا هي عنصرية لا مبرر لها. "يجب أن نفهم معاداة المستعمر(فتح) لكل ما هو اجنبي و ما يعتريها من نوازع لا تخلو من العنصورية".
و للتوضيح حتى عندما تحدث عن عنصرية الكسر و بوبها تحت عنوان العنصرية فهو يبحث عن أعذار طبيعية لهذه العنصرية. "هذا الضرب من الميز العنصري ليس عقائديا.إذ أن الاستعمار لا يحب النظريات و المنظرين.... و مقارنة بالميز العنصوري عند الاستعماريين، تبد عنصرية المنظرين الاروبيين جامدة، أسيرة الفكر لا حياة فيها تقريبا."
ماهي عقدة نيرون؟ عقدة "الكسر". باختصار الكسر مجبر على تقبل دور المغتصب و هو غير راض، و نتيجة لذلك يمعن في الظلم لكي يمحو ظلمه و ذلك بالتخلص من وجود "الفتح".
"ثمة طريقتان ممكنتان، تتمثل الأولى في إبراز الخصال التي تزكي المغتصب(كسر الصاد)، أما الثانية فتكمن في إذلال المغتصب(فتح الصاد) و تحقيره. إنهما تمشيان معقدان و مترابطان، فبقدر ما يشتد سحق المغتصب(فتح)، بقدر ما يتأكد انتصار المغتصب(كسر) الساحق، بالتالي يعمق إحساسه بالخطيئة و تشتد عليه إدانته لنفسه، فيحرص على أن يخلو المشهد من الضحية حتى لا يكون وجودها تذكيرا له بحقيقته."
عندما نصل إلى باب "الفتح" نلاحظ التغير في أسلوب الكتابة فبعد ما كان متأسسا على التحليل أصبح الآن واقعا و حقيقة مطلقة و ذلك باستخدام مختلف الصيغ و التعابير، و كل ذلك لإظهار تخلف "الفتح" كحقيقة و اجبار القارئ لا إرادي على تقبل ذلك، من دون أن يصرح به الكاتب جرا.
في ما يلي استعمل اسلوب التشكيك:
_"إن صفة الكسل الملازمة لشخصية المستعمر(الفتح)، سولء كانت حقيقة او ادعاء، لا تغضب المستعمر(الكسر)."
_"هكذا يبلغ الميز العنصري أقصاه، و إلا فكيف نفسر استغلال صفة، حقيقية كانت أو وهمية، في شخصية المستعمر(فتح) للفائدة المستعمر(كسر) لتبرير تفوقه؟"
إضافة إلى استعمال "إن" للتأكيد و "ف" و "و هي" و "يجب" كنتيجة و حقيقة مطلقة غير قابلة للنقاش و الأمثلة على ذلك كثيرة.
و ضمن التلاعب بالألفاظ نذكر ما يلي: "فالعلاقة بين طرفي الصراع يحكمها التجاذب بين الهدم و الإحياء، هي رابطة تدمر، لكنها تعيد تشكيل ملامح المستعمر(كسر) و ملامح المستعمر(فتح). الأول وقع تصنيفه، قسرا، في صورة الظالم غير المتحضر و الغشاش الذي لا يهتم إلا بامتيازاته و الدفاع عنها مهما كان الثمن. أما الثاني فقد وقع تنميط صورته على أساس أنه مظلوم، محطم في نموه، متكيف مع إذلاله. فكما ينسجم الأول مع وضعه فيقبله، يجد الثاني نفسه مضطرا إلى التأقلم مع حالته كي تتواصل حياته."
نلاحظ أن الأول وقع تصنيفه قسرا بينما الثاني وقع تنميطه، و في شرح للتنميط نذكر ما يلي:
- تنميط : مصدر نَمَّطَ، وهو في علم النفس يعني بأنه الحكم الصادر عن وجود فكرة مُسبقة عن فئة معيّنة، حيث يقوم الفرد بإلباس صفة العمومية على كلّ الأفراد الذي ينتمون لمجموعة ما بناءً على فكرة أو ذاكرة أو تجربة سابقة معيّنة.
- الشَّخصيَّة النَّمطيَّة: (آداب) شخصيّة تظهر دائمًا لتمثيل دور معيَّن ناسبها وعُرفت به كالخادم المخلص. (مصطلحات آداب)
و لمزيد من التوضيح دور المظلوم هو تمثيل و ليس حقيقة.
كما نجد في الكتاب احتقار كبير للعداتنا و التقاليدنا و الديننا و اللغتنا فمثلا يقول:"فإذا ما أنقذ نفسه من الأمية و حالفه الحظ بالدخول إلى المدرسة، وقع في تمزق رهيب ناتج عن ازدواجية اللغة و اعتبر محظوظا، مقارنة بأغلبية المستعمرين(فتح) ممن بقوا أسيرين للغتهم الأم، و هي لغة شفوية عقيمة غير مقننة".
وبما أن الكاتب يهودي فهو لا يستطيع أن يمر بدون أن يذكر الظلم الذي عاناه اليهود على مر السنين، لذلك يضعهم في نفس الخانة مع المظلومين "المستعمرين" بالفتح و "الزنوج".
اخير أنوه لعنصرية الكاتب تجاه السود، و هو ما بدا لي جليا حين أكد على لون بشرتهم للتعبير عن أرائهم السلبية، فقد كان يمكن أن يقول "كاتب" فقط و ليس "كاتب اسود". و ذلك في ما يلي : "لقد أصر أحد الكتاب السود على إقناعنا بكل فخر بأن طبيعة قومه لا تتوافق مع الحضارة التقنية". و أيضا " 'آه! إنهم مرضى، كلهم مرضى!' هكذا هتف أحد الكتاب السود."
و من المضحك جدا في خاتمة الكتاب دعوة الكاتب لقراءة الكتاب دون فرضيات و أفكار مسبقة.
(نظرا لعدم تمكني من الشكل:
كسر = مستعمر بكسر الميم
فتح = مستعمر بفتح الميم)
من الجميل جدا في هذا الكتاب ملاحظة التناقض المبهر للصيغ و العبارات المستعملة بين "الكسر" و "الفتح".
مثلا عندما تحدث عن "الكسر" فالظلم و الاحتقار و اللامسلواة التي يقوم بها تجاه شعب كامل، هي نتيجة طبيعية انسانية للحالة التي وضع فيها ذلك الإنسان الوديع. أما بالنسبة "للفتح" فرفضه للانسان الأوروبي و مقاطعه اقتصاديا و فكريا هي عنصرية لا مبرر لها. "يجب أن نفهم معاداة المستعمر(فتح) لكل ما هو اجنبي و ما يعتريها من نوازع لا تخلو من العنصورية".
و للتوضيح حتى عندما تحدث عن عنصرية الكسر و بوبها تحت عنوان العنصرية فهو يبحث عن أعذار طبيعية لهذه العنصرية. "هذا الضرب من الميز العنصري ليس عقائديا.إذ أن الاستعمار لا يحب النظريات و المنظرين.... و مقارنة بالميز العنصوري عند الاستعماريين، تبد عنصرية المنظرين الاروبيين جامدة، أسيرة الفكر لا حياة فيها تقريبا."
ماهي عقدة نيرون؟ عقدة "الكسر". باختصار الكسر مجبر على تقبل دور المغتصب و هو غير راض، و نتيجة لذلك يمعن في الظلم لكي يمحو ظلمه و ذلك بالتخلص من وجود "الفتح".
"ثمة طريقتان ممكنتان، تتمثل الأولى في إبراز الخصال التي تزكي المغتصب(كسر الصاد)، أما الثانية فتكمن في إذلال المغتصب(فتح الصاد) و تحقيره. إنهما تمشيان معقدان و مترابطان، فبقدر ما يشتد سحق المغتصب(فتح)، بقدر ما يتأكد انتصار المغتصب(كسر) الساحق، بالتالي يعمق إحساسه بالخطيئة و تشتد عليه إدانته لنفسه، فيحرص على أن يخلو المشهد من الضحية حتى لا يكون وجودها تذكيرا له بحقيقته."
عندما نصل إلى باب "الفتح" نلاحظ التغير في أسلوب الكتابة فبعد ما كان متأسسا على التحليل أصبح الآن واقعا و حقيقة مطلقة و ذلك باستخدام مختلف الصيغ و التعابير، و كل ذلك لإظهار تخلف "الفتح" كحقيقة و اجبار القارئ لا إرادي على تقبل ذلك، من دون أن يصرح به الكاتب جرا.
في ما يلي استعمل اسلوب التشكيك:
_"إن صفة الكسل الملازمة لشخصية المستعمر(الفتح)، سولء كانت حقيقة او ادعاء، لا تغضب المستعمر(الكسر)."
_"هكذا يبلغ الميز العنصري أقصاه، و إلا فكيف نفسر استغلال صفة، حقيقية كانت أو وهمية، في شخصية المستعمر(فتح) للفائدة المستعمر(كسر) لتبرير تفوقه؟"
إضافة إلى استعمال "إن" للتأكيد و "ف" و "و هي" و "يجب" كنتيجة و حقيقة مطلقة غير قابلة للنقاش و الأمثلة على ذلك كثيرة.
و ضمن التلاعب بالألفاظ نذكر ما يلي: "فالعلاقة بين طرفي الصراع يحكمها التجاذب بين الهدم و الإحياء، هي رابطة تدمر، لكنها تعيد تشكيل ملامح المستعمر(كسر) و ملامح المستعمر(فتح). الأول وقع تصنيفه، قسرا، في صورة الظالم غير المتحضر و الغشاش الذي لا يهتم إلا بامتيازاته و الدفاع عنها مهما كان الثمن. أما الثاني فقد وقع تنميط صورته على أساس أنه مظلوم، محطم في نموه، متكيف مع إذلاله. فكما ينسجم الأول مع وضعه فيقبله، يجد الثاني نفسه مضطرا إلى التأقلم مع حالته كي تتواصل حياته."
نلاحظ أن الأول وقع تصنيفه قسرا بينما الثاني وقع تنميطه، و في شرح للتنميط نذكر ما يلي:
- تنميط : مصدر نَمَّطَ، وهو في علم النفس يعني بأنه الحكم الصادر عن وجود فكرة مُسبقة عن فئة معيّنة، حيث يقوم الفرد بإلباس صفة العمومية على كلّ الأفراد الذي ينتمون لمجموعة ما بناءً على فكرة أو ذاكرة أو تجربة سابقة معيّنة.
- الشَّخصيَّة النَّمطيَّة: (آداب) شخصيّة تظهر دائمًا لتمثيل دور معيَّن ناسبها وعُرفت به كالخادم المخلص. (مصطلحات آداب)
و لمزيد من التوضيح دور المظلوم هو تمثيل و ليس حقيقة.
كما نجد في الكتاب احتقار كبير للعداتنا و التقاليدنا و الديننا و اللغتنا فمثلا يقول:"فإذا ما أنقذ نفسه من الأمية و حالفه الحظ بالدخول إلى المدرسة، وقع في تمزق رهيب ناتج عن ازدواجية اللغة و اعتبر محظوظا، مقارنة بأغلبية المستعمرين(فتح) ممن بقوا أسيرين للغتهم الأم، و هي لغة شفوية عقيمة غير مقننة".
وبما أن الكاتب يهودي فهو لا يستطيع أن يمر بدون أن يذكر الظلم الذي عاناه اليهود على مر السنين، لذلك يضعهم في نفس الخانة مع المظلومين "المستعمرين" بالفتح و "الزنوج".
اخير أنوه لعنصرية الكاتب تجاه السود، و هو ما بدا لي جليا حين أكد على لون بشرتهم للتعبير عن أرائهم السلبية، فقد كان يمكن أن يقول "كاتب" فقط و ليس "كاتب اسود". و ذلك في ما يلي : "لقد أصر أحد الكتاب السود على إقناعنا بكل فخر بأن طبيعة قومه لا تتوافق مع الحضارة التقنية". و أيضا " 'آه! إنهم مرضى، كلهم مرضى!' هكذا هتف أحد الكتاب السود."
و من المضحك جدا في خاتمة الكتاب دعوة الكاتب لقراءة الكتاب دون فرضيات و أفكار مسبقة.
January 30, 2020
There is only a particle of truth in the fashionable notions of "dependency complex," "colonizability," etc. There undoubtly exists -at some point in its evolution- a certain adherence of the colonized to colonization. However, this adherence is the result of colonization and not its cause. It arises after and not before colonial occupation. In order for the colonizer to be the complete master, it is not enough for him to be so in actual fact, but he must also believe in its legitimacy. In order to that legitimacy to be complete, it is not enough for the colonized to be a slave, he must accept this role. The bond between colonizer and colonized is thus destructive and creative. It destroys and re-creates the two partness of colonization into colonizer and colonized. One is disfigured into an oppressor, a partial, unpatriotic and treacherous being, worrying only about his privileges and their defense; the other, into an oppressed creature, whose development is broken and who compromises by his defeat.
Just as the colonizer is tempted to accept his part, the colonized is forced to accept to being colonized.
Written in 1957, you might think that this subject is already a thing of the past, overcame a long time ago, but, unfortunately, I have to say that it is still as valid as when it was written, it seems that some attitudes are very difficult to eradicate or they are just intrinsic to the human race.
January 10, 2021
The book most people mention when trying to understand the psyche of the colonizer and the colonized. I used to ask myself, why did my ancestors take it? How could such a small group control such a large country? Why didn’t they fight back sooner? This book helped me understand a few reasons as to how the colonized became so mentally weak, post-colonization. The relationship between the two groups is interdependent, the colonized have to accept being enslaved for the colonizer to continue enslaving him.
“For the colonizer, the colonized is a nobody.”
“Who can rid himself of bigotry, when everyone in the country in tainted with it?”
Future readings on this subject include: Edward Said’s Orientalism, and Professor Salman Sayyid’s Fundamental Fear and Recalling the Caliphate.
“For the colonizer, the colonized is a nobody.”
“Who can rid himself of bigotry, when everyone in the country in tainted with it?”
Future readings on this subject include: Edward Said’s Orientalism, and Professor Salman Sayyid’s Fundamental Fear and Recalling the Caliphate.
January 22, 2018
Memmi's clear thinking on the differences between a colonizer and colonized includes his observations on motives, rewards and behaviours and impacts. It must have made quite an impact in it's day. His arguments seem relevant to any country which is oppressed as well as to many of the current day ex-pats who reside live in developing countries.
July 28, 2024
Disagree with his approach to:
- Language
- Internationalism
+ maintains a relatively rigid (clearly Europeanised) stance on human development when talking about non-colonial alternative histories- apart from admission that “what the colonised will do with their freedom concerns them only”
But reeeeally liked the descriptions of attempted assimilation + the moral burden of the coloniser 😝
- Language
- Internationalism
+ maintains a relatively rigid (clearly Europeanised) stance on human development when talking about non-colonial alternative histories- apart from admission that “what the colonised will do with their freedom concerns them only”
But reeeeally liked the descriptions of attempted assimilation + the moral burden of the coloniser 😝
December 4, 2023
Essential reading for anyone looking for a concise breakdown of the colonial experience. All that needs to be understood in order to see the disease of the colonizer and the path to humanity for the colonized.
June 1, 2024
The book is good but I especially loved the honest evaluation in the afterword on the gender blind nature of the argument although it starts off from family/marriage dynamics.
November 16, 2023
It was alright… Again, I didn’t read this by choice, it was for class haha
March 1, 2021
"Colonization is, above all, economic and political exploitation. If the colonized is eliminated, thecolony becomes a country like any other, and who then will be exploited?"
I had really high expectations for this book, but I found it hard to understand what the author wanted to convey. He talks about the colonizer and the colonized. The colonizer, who refuses colonization, but lives in eternal ambiguity, and the colonizer, who accepts colonization, but becomes angry with the motherland. Then there's the colonized who tends to turn into a racist himself as he accepts colonization. I don't know if I even understood this book correctly. Maybe because this book was released in the late fifties when French colonies were about to become independent, it was a complete different era and time which I can't relate to. I sadly think that colonialism was simply replaced by neo-colonialism and corporatism. I can't even start talking about communism here.
"All the efforts of the colonialist are directed toward maintaining this social immobility, and racism is the surest weapon for this aim. In effect, change becomes impossible, and any revolt would be absurd."
"To be sure, the church has greatly assisted the colonialist; backing his ventures, helping his conscience, contributing to the acceptance of colonization - even by the colonized. But this profitable alliance was only an accident for the church. When colonialism proved to be a deadly, damaging scheme, the church washed its hands of it everywhere. Today the church hardly defends the colonial situations and is actually beginning to attack them. In other words, the church used it as it used itself, but the latter always held to its own objective."
I had really high expectations for this book, but I found it hard to understand what the author wanted to convey. He talks about the colonizer and the colonized. The colonizer, who refuses colonization, but lives in eternal ambiguity, and the colonizer, who accepts colonization, but becomes angry with the motherland. Then there's the colonized who tends to turn into a racist himself as he accepts colonization. I don't know if I even understood this book correctly. Maybe because this book was released in the late fifties when French colonies were about to become independent, it was a complete different era and time which I can't relate to. I sadly think that colonialism was simply replaced by neo-colonialism and corporatism. I can't even start talking about communism here.
"All the efforts of the colonialist are directed toward maintaining this social immobility, and racism is the surest weapon for this aim. In effect, change becomes impossible, and any revolt would be absurd."
"To be sure, the church has greatly assisted the colonialist; backing his ventures, helping his conscience, contributing to the acceptance of colonization - even by the colonized. But this profitable alliance was only an accident for the church. When colonialism proved to be a deadly, damaging scheme, the church washed its hands of it everywhere. Today the church hardly defends the colonial situations and is actually beginning to attack them. In other words, the church used it as it used itself, but the latter always held to its own objective."
May 12, 2015
"Oppression is the greatest calamity of humanity. It diverts and pollutes the best energies of man-of oppressed and oppressor alike."
As a Tunisian Jew in the French colonial era, Memmi held a unique position in order to reflexively critique the relationship between the colonizer and colonized. His take on the psychology of the colonizer is that itself is a poisonous position, both for those who accept and those who refuse the role of oppressor. For those who refuse, Memmi says, any activity to resist is fruitless and they either accept the role or give up and head back to their home country. For those who accept, the continued dehumanization and injustice they are profiting from eventually becomes unbearable. Although it was explicitly not the intent of the author, this book is still widely applicable with the power imbalances present in the global society of today.
As a Tunisian Jew in the French colonial era, Memmi held a unique position in order to reflexively critique the relationship between the colonizer and colonized. His take on the psychology of the colonizer is that itself is a poisonous position, both for those who accept and those who refuse the role of oppressor. For those who refuse, Memmi says, any activity to resist is fruitless and they either accept the role or give up and head back to their home country. For those who accept, the continued dehumanization and injustice they are profiting from eventually becomes unbearable. Although it was explicitly not the intent of the author, this book is still widely applicable with the power imbalances present in the global society of today.
December 23, 2016
This is the book that became a blueprint for anti-colonial action when it was published in the 1957. Memmi came from Tunisia, where first-hand he learned exclusion by the elites. In 1956, he moved to France in permanent exile and began writing. The colonizer denies liberty. “The more freely he breathes, the more the colonized are choked.” “The colonial situation manufactures colonialists, just as it manufactures the colonized.” Charitable racism is where the colonizer can live benevolently. But he denies the courage to die. “Colonization can only disfigure the colonizer…Assimilation is the opposite of colonization…The colonial condition can’t be adjusted to: like an iron collar, it can only be broken.” All colonizers are usurpers… on he went, you get the idea, and so did the colonial governments…
June 19, 2014
One of the things that endeared this book to me was Memmi's placement of himself, in this book, as a colonized person who identifies with the colonizer. It takes the judgement out of it. The fact that he intended this book to be psychological examination of the parties involved in the colonial relationship, not a revolutionary work, only serves to increase the sense of integrity the author carries. I will say that, as someone who would self identify as a "colonizer who refuses," it certainly gives a pretty harsh reality check and not a whole lot of immediate hope for my position. Having said that, this was a crucial starting point in my own journey of deconstructing my colonial identity and history. I recommend it to anyone who comes from a colonizing community/culture.
October 17, 2021
“We have seen that colonization materially kills the colonized. It must be added that it kills him spiritually. Colonization distorts relationships, destroys or petrifies institutions, and corrupts men, both colonizers and colonized. (…) If the European must annihilate the colonizer within himself, the colonized must rise above his colonized being.”
September 23, 2008
Memmi gives general observations on what characterizes the colonized and the colonizer. I thought the first part on the colonizer was a bit repetitive and harder to get thru--but the second section on the colonized is excellent.
The characterizations are still highly relevant today.
The characterizations are still highly relevant today.
April 10, 2021
Colonialism has simply morphed into neocolonialism and pure racism, which is why this book is as relevant as ever. To be honest, the only thing I didn't like about it is the introduction by Susan Gilson. A must read
January 28, 2023
The part here about the leftist colonizer was so incredibly interesting, I'm gonna need weeks to process that.
Review to come!
Review to come!
July 15, 2022
Such an interesting read, and so to the point. I found myself wanting to just quite the entire thing here… Memmi’s ‘The Colonizer and the Colonized” continues to remain largely relevant to 21st century readers. Written just prior to Tunisia’s independence from France in 1956, this work compares two colonial portraits; that of the coloniser and the colonised. While the work comes heavily from Memmi’s own experience growing up as a Tunisian Jew in French Tunisia, the ideas are widened to colonization as a whole.
The first half, Portrait of the Colonizer deals with the European’s relation to those in the colony. One aspect that I found particularly spot on was his critique of left- wing colonizers, something that in my opinion holds true to an extent with modern left wing movements, especially today even in Australia.
I mean…… while written in the 50s there are elements that hold a certain universality to them hah.
I highly enjoyed the second part, Portrait of the Colonized. As with the first part, I couldn’t help but notice parallels to our own colonization here, and the effects of it that are still very much in force.
Definitely an area that I want to continue reading more from, and glad that this work is still being talked about.
The first half, Portrait of the Colonizer deals with the European’s relation to those in the colony. One aspect that I found particularly spot on was his critique of left- wing colonizers, something that in my opinion holds true to an extent with modern left wing movements, especially today even in Australia.
“One now understands a dangerously deceptive trait of the leftist colonizer, his political ineffectiveness. It results from the nature of his position in the colony. His demands, compared to those of the colonized, or even those of a right-wing colonizer, are not solid. Besides, has one ever seen a serious political demand- one which is not a delusion or fantasy- which does not rest upon concrete solid supports, whether it be the masses of power, money or force?”
I mean…… while written in the 50s there are elements that hold a certain universality to them hah.
I highly enjoyed the second part, Portrait of the Colonized. As with the first part, I couldn’t help but notice parallels to our own colonization here, and the effects of it that are still very much in force.
Definitely an area that I want to continue reading more from, and glad that this work is still being talked about.
September 19, 2020
Damn. This blew my tits off. Over five decades later, this still has resonance and reflects many current racial and repressive systems happening on this continent (and others, I'm sure). An excellent translation and put words to many of the internalized conflicts that hover inside of me. The few academic papers I have skimmed on colonialism approach from economic/resource extraction as motives, political gain and a certain banal historical/anthropological point of view. Albert Memmi not only adds a "human condition" perspective, but also a very personal lens, reflecting on his own roles in society and the role language plays in class and (self-induced?) subjugation. This book made me wish I was in academics and/or chain smoking with philosophers in mid-twentieth century France.
So good I'll do that thing where you put a quote from the book in the review:
... The Colonizer guards against them in many ways: by continuous incapacitation of the leaders and periodic destruction of those who, despite everything, manage to come forward; by corruption or police oppression, aborting all popular movements and causing their brutal and rapid destruction.
So good I'll do that thing where you put a quote from the book in the review:
... The Colonizer guards against them in many ways: by continuous incapacitation of the leaders and periodic destruction of those who, despite everything, manage to come forward; by corruption or police oppression, aborting all popular movements and causing their brutal and rapid destruction.
April 29, 2022
Memmi examines how colonization effects both the minds and being of the colonized and the colonizer. It’s a really interesting sociohistorical, psychological commentary that still feels contemporary especially as many of us are still grappling with cultural, mental decolonization, post colonial exploitation, occupation of Hawaii etc.
This book has provided a lot of clarity and challenges for me as someone who is both descended from colonized and colonizer peoples. I highly recommend for anyone who wonders what are the thoughts of people in a period of history and who wants to decolonize today. I only knocked off a star because of some sexism but otherwise an excellent read.
This book has provided a lot of clarity and challenges for me as someone who is both descended from colonized and colonizer peoples. I highly recommend for anyone who wonders what are the thoughts of people in a period of history and who wants to decolonize today. I only knocked off a star because of some sexism but otherwise an excellent read.
April 28, 2021
Essential and brilliant
October 18, 2021
Really liked the dialectical approach to the subject, especially in Portrait du colonisateur.
May 27, 2024
A good book about relationship between the colonizers and colonized.
It sets the tone for freedom of colonised.
Good read.
It sets the tone for freedom of colonised.
Good read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 176 reviews