Talk:Postcolonialism

message: Hey! The images used in this article are super Eurocentric. To start with, I'd like to propose that the images of Achebe and Spivak be moved to the start of the article.
I intend to do this tomorrow absent any objections.
132.181.220.190 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurocentrism of images

message: this page really needs work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.215.148 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 October 2005
:I have started a rejigged edition at Post-colonialism/temp and would value help in getting it up to scratch. --Nick Boalch ?!? 14:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added much of that to the present article, since the work over there seems to have been done now. --FlammingoHey 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I envisage the article ultimately containing in-depth sections on the various aspects of post-colonial theory, so a more developed section on the literary aspects would be helpful. If you can't go far beyond Said, I nevertheless reckon something is better than nothing. :) --Nick Boalch ?!? 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 2006 (settled)

message: there would be no such thing as postcolonialism if gayatri spivak and ranajit guha never defined a field of work under that moniker in the 1980s.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.220.83 (talk) 
:NB: Meanwhile, they have been added --FlammingoHey 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spivak and postcolonialism (settled)

message: I'm aware of (but not an expert in) some other traditions that study post-colonial societies but aren't generally called "post-colonial theory", being generally less tied to critical theory. Are they described elsewhere on Wikipedia, and if so should we link to that article (or if not, start one)?  I'm thinking of sociologists like John Goldthorpe (in particular his Sociology of Post-Colonial Societies); economists ranging across the political spectrum who debate the effects of colonialism on modern-day economies (M. Shahid Alam being a notable anti-colonialist in this vein); political scientists who debate the effects of the same on modern-day political systems; and so on. --Delirium 13:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  other traditions that study post-colonial societies 

message: You might want to see this article, please help improve it.  Thanks. --Strothra 06:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it'll get more attention in the see-also-section. FlammingoHey 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Inversion in postcolonial theory]] (settled)

message: There was much content on Talk:Post-colonialism/temp, which is now inserted, since it will get a lot more attention. The literature topic should rather go to postcolonial literature, which is to my experience the most active field of postcolonialism...-FlammingoHey 21:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's on the way, I still feel like talking to myself, though.--FlammingoHey 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  still needs rewrite (settled; not as badly now)

message: For rewriters: add something about the arbitrary borders of 1886 (Berlin), the use of 'paramount chiefs' for local control, the kleptocratic shambles seen after 40 years of decolonisation (e.g. Mugabe),and  the missionary schools input. Were the missionary schools abetters of colonialism or did they help some Africans to vocalise against colonialism? A bit of both, doubtless. A highly subjective area, as 'identity' is constantly shifting, but there is one core certainty - it allows academics to write books.Red Hurley 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please, please join! There is a whole chapter waiting for that! --FlammingoHey 10:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something on Africa?

message: sebuah wacana yang menyeset kan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.48.150 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pos kolonial 

message: The article lists a number of books, among them:
"Leela Gandhi Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. Columbia University Press:1998 ."
and:
"Dhawan, Nikita: "Postkolonial Theorie. Eine kritische Einführung" (2005"
The latter one probably being a German version of the first one. I don't think they should both be listed.
D(r)ead End (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Booklist 

message: Could someone explain how globalisation fits into Postcolonialism? There are obvious overlaps but I'm not clever enough to say where the boundaries lie. Anyone?Red Hurley (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: globalisation

message: Why has nobody written about the effect of Russia on its former colonies such as Armenia and Kazakhstan? Don't tell me it's because they didn't speak English; or are some post-colonial theorists still a little bit pro-Soviet? Nothing on China and Tibet?Red Hurley (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian / Soviet empires

message: I find the introduction of the article very misleading. "Postcolonialism (also Post-colonial theory, Postcolonial studies, Post-colonialism) is a post-modern method of intellectual discourse". What was the source of such definition? Post colonialism relies on many post-modern terms, methods and way of thinking, but on many Marxists point of view as well. Fanon was influenced by marxist theory of class struggle and he had nothing to do with post modernism. The idea of 'hegemony' and 'sub-altern' has marxists roots. I am not saying that post-colonialism is a marxist method, it is not. Its not a post modern method either. Just because post colonial theorists like Edward Said made use of Michel Foucaults theory of power-knowledge binary relation doesn't make post colonialism a post modern mathod. Post colonialism has its own agenda, which is not just being critic of 'modernity'. Its not just a method of intellectual discourse either, it has deep political agenda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stparvez (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it a post-modern method?  

message: I disagree with the recent edit pointing out that postcolonialism tends only to analyze European & American imperialism. Or rather, I think that it's mostly true, but deserves more of an explanation than that little aside. This article has sections on Africa and the Middle East, so I propose the addition of a section with a title something like "The European World." This would discuss the idea that poscolonialism tends mainly to analyze the effects of the British, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Belgian, Russian, and US empires only. It would also point out that the US is a white settler colony according to postcolonial theory, and thus in some ways an extension of Europe, as are Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and (pre-Mandela) South Africa. This could be used to explain why postcolonial theory considers US imperialism to be of special note, among all the empires originating outside of Europe in history.
The concept of the white settler colony also serves as a bridge between the idea of empires originating in Europe and those modelled on Europe - most notably Japan's.
Perhaps the other thing that would be needed to fully inform the readers would be mention of so-called "internal colonialism:" the metropole-frontier theories of Franz Fanon's applied to relations between a state's urban center(s) and its "less civilized" regions. This also, of course, is the biggest reason why it isn't true that postcolonialists only talk about Europe & the US, and why this section is needed instead of an overgeneralizing aside. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of a "European World" Section 

message: A. Madhavan has some poignant things to say about Said's Orientalism. I think the insertion is relevant and adds to the dimension of this section. The review is a third-person POV to Said's ideas and enriches this part. I've quoted A. Madhavan here. Thank you.Scifilover386 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A. Madhavan

message: I'm inclined to remove the Conrad quotation, even though it's so prominently displayed. It isn't about post-colonialism, but maybe about colonialism. It gets more complicated if you read the couple of sentences before, where Conrad says that he's not talking about colonialism: They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force—nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind—as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea—something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . .. It gets even more complicated if you bother to read the couple of paragraphs before and discover that he's not (directly) talking about colonization of Africa, but about the conquering of Britain by the Romans. And if you dig further you'll realize that most historians would classify the Romans as colonists rather than conquerors in Conrad's terminology (or maybe Marlow's since this is, after all, a work of fiction). Dingo1729 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart of Darkness quotation: remove? 

message: (insert new section)
: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. It appears that you are actually trying to start a discussion to obtain a consensus to request a page move here.  Please do establish that consensus and then use the appropriate procedure listed at WP:RM to get the job done. —  (e • t • c) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015 

message: Hyphenating the term (Postcolonialism) as one word or hyphenated (post-colonialism) is acceptable. However, an analysis of the hyphenation represents theoretical ambivalence. It alludes to the historical accounts associated with ‘colonialisms’ imposed by way of the British Empire, rather than the countries now known as ‘post/colonial countries’. The temporal use of the hyphen following colonialism hints an utter disregard of previous accounts and ‘isms’; (colonial precedes post/colonial).  A literary critique and objective analysis elucidates a transcendence of the subject, thus, the term ‘literature’ is replaced by ‘studies’ in association with a (non-hyphenated) Postcolonialism,  introduced in Bill Ashcroft’s The Post-Colonial Studies Reader (1995); comparatively argued with  Ellede Boehemer’s title, Colonial and Postcolonial Literature (1995). This original theory of literature to analysis by way of studies follows in the footsteps of Edward Said’s “Orientalism”,(1978) and much later works “Culture and Imperialism”(1993).  Following the phenomenon, Ania Loomba’s Colonialism/Postcolonialism (1998) contests the word ‘and’ by replacing it with punctuation, (/).  The hyphen was permanently removed in Robert Young’s disambiguation of the term in his works titled: Postcolonialism: An Historical introduction (2001) and Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction (2003):  
: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation 

message: Hyphenating the term (Postcolonialism) as one word or hyphenated (post-colonialism) is acceptable. However, an analysis of the hyphenation represents theoretical ambivalence. It alludes to the historical accounts associated with ‘colonialisms’ imposed by way of the British Empire, rather than the countries now known as ‘post/colonial countries’. The temporal use of the hyphen following colonialism hints an utter disregard of previous accounts and ‘isms’; (colonial precedes post/colonial).  A literary critique and objective analysis elucidates a transcendence of the subject, thus, the term ‘literature’ is replaced by ‘studies’ in association with a (non-hyphenated) Postcolonialism,  introduced in Bill Ashcroft’s The Post-Colonial Studies Reader (1995); comparatively argued with  Ellede Boehemer’s title, Colonial and Postcolonial Literature (1995). This original theory of literature to analysis by way of studies follows in the footsteps of Edward Said’s “Orientalism”,(1978) and much later works “Culture and Imperialism”(1993).  Following the phenomenon, Ania Loomba’s Colonialism/Postcolonialism (1998) contests the word ‘and’ by replacing it with punctuation, (/).  The hyphen was permanently removed in Robert Young’s disambiguation of the term in his works titled: Postcolonialism: An Historical introduction (2001) and Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction (2003):  
"Postcolonialism refers to a heterogeneous field of study in which even its spelling provides several alternatives: post-colonialism, postcolonialism, or post/colonial. When spelled with a hyphen (post-colonialism), the term implies a chronological order—that is, a change from a colonial to a post colonial state. When spelled without the hyphen (postcolonialism), the term refers “to writing that sets out in one way or another to resist colonialist perspectives,”both before and after the period of colonization. According to some critics, the nonhyphenated spelling covers a wider critical field,including literature of former British colonies, than does the hyphenated spelling."The before and after timeline approach discourages the resistance of said subject to criticism.  The dominant shaping of objectivity by a singular European path in the hyphenated form lends itself to an upheaving of contaminated assumptions and critique in scholarly postcolonialism studies. See Decoloniality. Post-colonial works are constructed as a writing which demonstrates a society whose power is derived from and archived to European ownership. The discourse of Post/colonial theory digresses from this “otherness” in post-colonialisms of which idealize, contemporize and modernize the deconstruction of the Third Space,  by “endorsing difference yet creatively undermining biases”.(Harris 1992 [1967]: 20) "What of the individual who has been colonized? On the one hand, the colonized observes two somewhat distinct views of the world: that of the colonizer (the conqueror) and that of himself or herself, the colonized (the one who has been conquered). To what culture does this person belong? Seemingly, neither culture feels like home."[1] The incongruous cross examinations This conundrum of literary hermeneutic alludes to the dissensus “—however mixed in its material and cultural presuppositions - has struck, continues to strike, a chord in literature departments which, as Young has noted, constitute the ‘solitary space within academic institutions where subjective forms of knowledge were taken seriously’.  Young. (2001: 64)http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/60039
Vernonwashere (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation/Syllabification  

message: Does anyone think that an inclusion of Aimé Césaire is worthwhile?  Primarily because of his involvement as one of the central theorists of the Negritude movement.  I think the Negritude has some important affinities with existentialist philosophy, which seems rather prevalent in a lot of postcolonial dialogues.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipdaace (talk • contribs) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Theoreticians 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Postcolonialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120105154619/http://www.maldura.unipd.it:80/dllags/docentianglo/materiali_oboe_lm/2581_001.pdf to http://www.maldura.unipd.it/dllags/docentianglo/materiali_oboe_lm/2581_001.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This particular section needs citations. Furthermore, it does not appear to be neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninakp (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights or culture - criticisms 

message: Digital humanities projects are scholarly and current. Reorganized and added new header to fiction/nonfiction works of postcolonial fiction as they were confusing. 
Anadeja (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added digital humanities projects & added new heading 

message: Hello, my name is Zoe! My partner Kim and I are currently in an MLIS program, and we are evaluating the postcolonialism Wikipedia page for our final project (in our digital humanities class). We noticed that the list of fiction and nonfiction works was getting a little long on this page, and thus we decided to create a new “List of postcolonial books” article (which currently does not include any of the articles or chapters in the non-fiction works section). We will also be adding works from the Postcolonial Literature page as well.  The list also has some additional data, including nationality and geographic focus within the fiction section, and theme/topic in the nonfiction section. 
A draft of the page can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_postcolonial_books
Kim and I are not postcolonialism scholars, and so we welcome and feedback or advice. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoemayhook (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Postcolonial Books  

message: — Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02

message: — Assignment last updated by Lbatesro (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: SSC198

message: — Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

message: — Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

message: I’m concerned about the neutrality and representativeness of the sources in the "Middle East" section, particularly the references to the   "Is Jordan Palestine?" by Raphael Israeli (the same author as ‘Hatred, Lies, and Violence in the World of Islam’ and  ‘Dangers of a Palestinian State’).
Raphael Israeli's viewpoints and the use of his work as a primary reference in this context does not align with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy [WP:NPOV], considering his controversial stances and they certainly have no place on an encyclopaedic page on Post-colonialism in the Middle East, of all places. It’s like citing a Boer as an authoritative source on South African apartheid. Even his own Wikipedia page states that “In 2017, Israeli published a book in Hebrew titled The Arab Minority in Israel, Open and Hidden Processes, in which he calls the Arab minority a "fifth column", who receive more from the state than they contribute and expresses regret that they are not confined to camps like Japanese Americans were in WWII”. Here he talks about solution to ‘The Palestinian problem’ and argues that “Israel should keep the heights of Judea and Samaria because without them the army cannot defend the country”, among other colonial rhetoric. 
The cited article "Is Jordan Palestine?" is published in the ‘Israeli Affairs’ Journal and reads like an opinion piece, with only one citation throughout the entire article, and promotes a narrative of interchangeability and relocation within the Arab population. This is all notwithstanding that the article, as I’ve read it, has nothing to do with post colonialism whatever, which makes it even more baffling why it is cited here. I cannot overstate how absurd and ironic it is to cite an Islamophobic Zionist as an authoritative source in this context. 
I had to write this post because my previous attempts at addressing this have all been reverted. Catofminerva (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raphael Israeli