[ilds] Po-co/poco

Pamela Francis albigensian at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 11 13:04:25 PDT 2007

>From Bill:
>Well, maybe the answer is that we are all of us imperialists and/or
>colonialists. Some would like to distinguish between imperialism and
>colonialism -- the Philippines for example which the US held as an
>imperial power, but which it did not colonize to a great extent. Perhaps
>there is no "post" about it. Imperialism and colonialism don't
>disappear. They just reappear in new forms, new "manifest
>destines," and new or old places.
Both Bill and Richard point out something I've tried to--that "colonialism" 
is not what we're really after, but "imperialism"-- a good portion of the 
history of Imperiums (Imperia?) never involved colonization (France and 
Britain in Egypt, for example).  I really prefer to call my field Empire 
Studies, but just like my move to rename travel/diaspora/migration studies 
Discourses of Movement, no one is buying it.

>Let's look at this from the
>po-co viewpoint, which I'm not really able to argue being a native
>Imperialist, indeed I was once an Imperialist soldier wrecking havoc on a
>"Third-World" country, but I sense what they're trying to say,
>namely, that we in the "First World" are not in the
>"Second" or "Third World" and cannot be by virtue of
>our policies over the last couple of hundred years.  It a matter of
>"us" vs. "them," and we are "them." It's far more complicated than this 
>since someone can undoubtedly cite
>examples of Third World colonialists (Vietnam in Cambodia, China in
>Tibet), but I'll accept the division for the sake of argument.  If
>so, don't the true and bonafide po-cos reject the ersatz and
>Johnny-come-lately po-cos?  Shouldn't one have to prove and show
>one's po-co bonafides before making a po-co argument?
>W. L.
>Godshalk         *
>Department of
>English         *
>University of
>Cincinnati           Stellar disorder  *
>Cincinnati OH 45221-0069      *

>ILDS mailing list
>ILDS at lists.uvic.ca

More information about the ILDS mailing list