Race And Contemporary Imperialism

Introduction

Contemporary imperialism is explained in economic and cultural terms as continuing practices or processes of colonisation in a post colonial world. In the following annotated bibliography, three authors and their works are briefly discussed in the context of how they explain contemporary imperialism. The works chosen in this annotated bibliography represent literature that links race to imperialism as a relevant factor in the contemporary world. The theoretical concepts of exceptionalism, and globalisation are represented in these works in how these theoretical concepts explain the continuing forms of imperialism today.

Shenhav, 2012

Shenhav (2012) writes about the state of exceptionalism that is being used by western countries to justify contemporary forms of imperialism is actually a long established practice of the western countries with which these countries have justified their imperial goals and practices. Exceptionalism, which may be explained as the necessary condition for the survival of a state, is posited by Shenhav (2012) as the reason or justification for the actions of the certain modern European and Western states to take extreme action against the racialized others, such as, by Americans against Asian and African prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba or in Abu Ghraib, or by Israeli state against the Palestinians. Shenhav (2012) argues that what other contemporary writers on exceptionalism like Agamben have missed out is that they have not found the link between exceptionalism and imperialism. On the other hand, writers like Franz Fanon, who did significant critical work on race and imperialism have written about the link between the state of emergency and colonialism of the racialized others.

Shehnav (2012) gives examples from places like Egypt, where the “British founded their rule on the theological percept of divine providence bestowing ‘law and order and good governance upon its racialised subjects” (p. 25) and India, where again the notion of exceptionalism was used to justify the colonisation of another race. In all these examples and what links the past practices of colonisation and the contemporary forms of colonisation, Shehnav (2012) sees the link of exceptionalism of the Western states where subjects (Europeans) were distinguished from ‘subject races’. In the post colonial world, as Shehnav (2012) points out, the subject races have immigrated en masse into the metropole. Then, race has become an important distinguishing point within the metropole.

Shehnav (2012) writes about the factor of exceptionalism which may help explain the continuing indirect colonisation by the former imperial states. However, he does not expand on it. He does link race to the exceptionalism to provide a basis for explaining how western states continue to consider their rights or interests as predominant, thus, justifying their continuing acts of colonisation against the other races, but he does not delve deeply into it. He merely skims the surface with the discussion on prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Abu Ghraib and the Israeli practice of settlement in Palestinian territories as modern form of colonisation.

Bush, 2014

Bush raises the question as to whether modern globalisation is merely a postcolonial imperial project through which western democracy and capitalism is being transported into the global south in her chapter ‘Postcolonial perspectives: Imperialism or globalisation?’. She raises the question that the same techniques that were used to justify colonisation in an earlier period, these being shaming the countries in the global south for their lack of democracy, or development as a way for justifying the role of the global north in these countries, may be used in the contemporary period for the purposes of globalisation. Thus, using the concept of globalisation and of racism and imperialism, Bush (2014) explores the possibility of the globalisation project being a postcolonial imperial project. Bush argues that while globalisation may have some good effects, there is also a cultural hegemony of the west which is being perpetuated by the homogenization of culture in the global south or ‘glocalisation’, which is the result of the import of the desirable western qualities into the global south. In this context, there is a cultural oppression and racism that is continuing in the postcolonial globalisation process. At times, the cultural hegemony or homogeneity is coerced, which is why it is easier to link it to imperialism. Bush (2014) gives evidence from Central America, Caribbean, and Africa where one example of postcolonial cultural imperialism is seen in the spread of evangelism. More evidence is given from Iraq, where since the US invasion, satellite televisions have been used for the purpose of beaming American shows to the Arab world. The most persuasive evidence of the postcolonial imperialist project is seen in the rise of multinational companies, which are predominantly western. Bush provides evidence from literature to demonstrate that the power of the multinational companies has spread exponentially in the 21st century. Bush argues that race links to this new imperialism in the way that globalisation pushes the value of the superior western culture over the inferior political and social cultures in the global south for justifying the new imperialism in the postcolonial world where capitalist processes are justified for the value that they are seemingly importing to the global south. These processes lead to the exploitation of the labour, and homogenization of local culture on the basis of the western culture (Bush, 2014).

Prabhat, 2018

Prabhat (2018) uses the theoretical contexts of Lenin’s theory to explain how modern imperialism is a continuing process of unequal power relations based on (among other things) race. The focus of this chapter is to explore the contemporary phase of imperialism through the notion of hegemony of international finance capital. Prabhat (2014) argues that finance capital mutes the of interimperialist rivalry between nations because it requires an unrestricted arena of operations. There is a contradiction here because while finance capital remains international, nation remains focussed on the national, to resolve which contradiction, the benefits of finance are passed off as benefits of the state. In order to remain relevant in the finance capital of the world, the state has to allow the reduction of the wages, which entails inequalities. This affects the third world the most as it has seen an impoverishment of peasants and petty producers as the states in the third world continue to vie for a share in the finance capital by making themselves the most attractive to the world capitalists by reducing costs of production. In other words, the new imperialism works through capitalism by making the third world countries a part of the capitalist process in a way that the latter are required to provide cheap labour to the first world capitalists. Prabhat (2018) provides a crucial insight into how capitalism works to perpetuate imperialism in the post colonial world. Like Bush (2014), Prabhat (2018) too explores the ways in which globalisation has impacted the imperialism process and helped perpetuate it. The difference is that Prabhat (2018) uses Lenin’s theory to explain how imperialism is just as valid today through the power relations between the capitalists on one hand, and the workers and peasants on the other.

Conclusion

In the contemporary world, imperialism continues in different forms but contains some of the same contexts as were present in the traditional imperialist forms of an earlier period. Race is one of these relevant contexts that continues to inform and drive imperial practices and processes in the modern world. As Shenhav (2012) demonstrates, imperial practices of ab earlier period were defined or justified in terms of exceptionalism of the western imperial powers. In the same way, contemporary imperial practices, continue as the powers consider their exceptionalism as a justification for such practices. As such, Shehnav (2012) focusses on the political contexts of imperialism with an emphasis on exceptionalism. On the other hand, Bush (2014) uses a more economic and social contexts of globalisation theory to understand how in the contemporary world, powerful countries continue to control other territories through social and economic means using media and corporate power to do so. One of the aspects that she is able to shed more light on is cultural imperialism through homogenization of local cultures in Third World countries. Prabhat (2018) takes Lenin’s theory to explore the current relations between capitalists in the first world and the workers and peasants in the third world to argue that imperialism continues through the finance capital. Finance capital is organised in such a way that the third world countries are required to provide cheap labour and raw material, which continues the domination of the first world countries in the international finance capital system. This perpetuates the conditions of imperialism in the world even today. Prabhat (2018) therefore takes a purely economic analysis to understand the continuance of the imperialism in the contemporary world, which is different from the approach taken by the other two authors. This indicates that there are different approaches to understanding the prevailing notions of imperialism in the world today. It can be understood in a political sense, economic sense, or even cultural sense.

Bibliography

ARTICLES/JOURNALS

• Bush, B. (2014). Imperialism and postcolonialism. Oxon: Routledge.
• Patnaik, P. (2018). Reflections on Contemporary Imperialism. In S. Sen, & M. C. Marcuzzo, The Changing Face of Imperialism: Colonialism to Contemporary Capitalism (pp. 61-77). New York: Routledge.
• Shenhav, Y. (2012 ). Imperialism, exceptionalism and the contemporary world. In M. Svirsky, Agamben and colonialism (pp. 17-31). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.