Common Features of Colonialism


Chapter V

In order to gain insight into the quintessential nature of colonial systems, this chapter will give a general overview of the ways in which colonies have been (and are) established, administered and maintained.


5.1 The Establishment of Colonial Regimes

5.1.1 Military Invasion and Annexation

Most colonies are established by military conquest followed by occupation and annexation. In the case of conquest, soldiers are the first to arrive in 'the new world', followed by civilian settlers. Both during the actual conquest and the subsequent annexation, military presence tends to be considerable and permanent. Unlike gradual colonisation by settlement, colonisation by conquest is a rather sudden, instant affair. Once military control has been established, the more gradual process of gaining comprehensive economic, cultural and political control of the territory starts to evolve. During this process control by military means tends to decrease and to a large extent gives way to the more subtle maintenance of control by the civilian and often indigenous police.


5.1.2 Settlement

In many European colonies the first visitors from the metropolitan state were missionaries, venturing out into the wilderness in order to convert and 'civilise' the natives. The mission stations established by these missionaries often started as small communities consisting of a church, a school and some houses. Most of these communities gradually developed into villages and towns which subsequently started to attract more and more settlers from the metropolitan state.

Some colonies started as a collection of planters' estates or trading posts. Capitalist enterprises from rich and technologically advanced countries set up new businesses in territories which were rich in natural resources, but lacked the technical expertise to exploit these resources. Most of these commercial settlements were initially isolated islands of a handful of foreign surveyors in charge of a large work force of natives, who provided cheap labor. These islands tended to grow into bigger settlements, and paved the way for colonial administrators who exercised effective rule over the territory.

Colonial officials typically arrived in the 'new world' when a certain metropolitan presence had already been established by missionaries, merchants or soldiers. They tended to be temporary residents, who rarely spent more than a few years in the alien territory. They were generally appointed by their metropolitan governments, which kept track of their whereabouts, activities and numbers. Some of these officials stayed on after their term of duty had expired and settled down permanently as planters, merchants or farmers.
In colonies which were not established by military conquest, soldiers tended to arrive along with administrators, or soon afterwards. In most cases their primary task was to protect the settler minority in the 'alien' territory. In some cases soldiers were directly involved in the establishment of commercial enterprises and institutions, in other cases soldiers merely protected the settler community.

Some imperialist powers sent scientific missions into uncharted territories in order to plant the first colonial seeds. In some cases these scientific missionaries primarily explored whether these territories were of potential economic interest, e.g. for the presence of (mineral) resources or fertile land. In other cases it was a purely imperialist exercise, motivated by reasons of prestige and political power.

Technical experts were often recruited from the metropolitan state in order to set up and maintain economic, industrial or agricultural development projects. As these projects tended to be based on metropolitan concepts of development and were tailored to metropolitan needs, the expertise required for these projects had to come from the metropolitan states. In most colonies this expertise was imported rather than developed locally. The industrial and agricultural development projects set up by these experts subsequently attracted more workers from the metropolitan state.

Most colonial pioneers who settled down as farmers in colonial territories were driven by a scarcity of (fertile) land at home. As they invested much time and effort into setting up a new farming enterprises and gave up their home bases in their own countries, they tended to settle down permanently and gradually became the new locals. They were a particularly significant category of settlers as they were closely linked to the land. After one or two generations, most of them had no home and/or land other than the farms they had established in the colony. Like farmers and merchants, metropolitan workers who migrated to the satellite region were often driven by economic motives. Lack of work and/or economic opportunities at home prompted them to trek to the 'new world', in search of a better life. Unlike farmers, they tended to flock to urban centers or industrial sites, such as mines or factories. Their presence was contingent on the availability of lucrative work.

In a limited number of cases, the first metropolitan settlers were criminals exiled to distant and 'barbarous' lands in order to be punished and 'reformed' through arduous labor.62 The criminal origin of this community wore off with the arrival of the next generation(s), but few of these settlers and their offspring returned to their motherland.


5.1.3 Treaty/Contract

Many colonies are established on the basis of a treaty. In most cases these treaties are concluded after military invasion. They constitute so-called 'unequal treaties' imposed by (the threat of) military force. In other cases these treaties establish a protectorate regime63 in which a dependent territory surrenders (part of) its sovereignty in exchange for military protection by a powerful metropolitan state. There are examples of territories which voluntarily concluded these treaties, on the basis of the principle of mutual benefit. Most of these treaties contain clauses guaranteeing a certain, if limited, degree of autonomy to the dependent territories, but more often than not, these autonomy clauses are violated by the more powerful party to the treaty.

Some colonies are established after the conclusion of a lease or a contract of purchase.64 In these cases, it is the conclusion of such contracts which set in motion the settlement process by which effective rule is established over the region.


5.2 Colonial Administration

Once a colony has been established, the nature of the colonial regime will vary according to the style of colonial government adopted by the metropolitan state. The one overriding common aspect in these different colonial regimes is the element of 'domination' of the satellite territory by the metropolitan state. This 'domination' has various different and inter-connected aspects.


5.2.1 Political Representation

The political representation of the population of the colonised areas in the local and central administration tends to be limited to the lower administrative levels or to symbolic, 'rubber stamp' positions which involve little or no effective decision making power. The system of 'indirect rule', such as the style of government employed in some British and Dutch colonies, theoretically constitutes an exception in this respect, but in practice this system often amounts to the attribution of power to a small, carefully selected group of locals who are loyal to the colonial regime and exercise power on behalf of this regime. These figure heads are selected, instructed and often co-opted by the metropolitan rulers and do not represent the local population at large. Their power is largely contingent on their loyalty to the regime and therefore their positions cannot be said to constitute actual political participation of the local population. Moreover, the system of indirect rule often attempts to secure the loyalty of 'natural rulers'65 such as state chiefs, religious leaders or members of the old elite, as intermediaries. These 'natural rulers' are in a unique position to function as vehicles of indirect colonial rule, provided they are willing to do so. In order to gain their support, colonial rulers tend to grant them considerable concessions.

Most systems of indirect rule are based on the idea that local 'chiefs' are responsible for the administration of small rural units or 'chieftancies'. This system of localised auto-administration holds an important political advantage for colonial powers. It provides colonised subjects with an important outlet for their political ambitions, while it does not threaten the central government's monopoly on the overall power.

In the system of 'direct rule', the process of co-option plays a relatively minor role. The system of direct rule does not attempt to put a 'native face' on the colonial administration and colonial rule is exercised without local intermediaries. In both systems, the central decision making power rests with the metropolitan power.

As stated earlier, colonised peoples perceive colonial rule as foreign. Similarly, colonial administrations tend to regard indigenous representatives from their colonial territories as 'outsiders', who may at best have a (limited) say in policies affecting their own region but who should not be granted any power on the level of national decision making.
The political justification which has often been used is that colonies are not capable of governing themselves and that they are better off with their colonial rulers than they would be with their own, natural leaders. The British High Commissioner in Egypt, Lord Lloyd, used this very argument when he maintained that what people wanted was 'not independence, but good administration'.66 It was 'the white man's burden' to protect the backward, politically immature people from the exploitation, tyranny and corruption of their natural leaders.

Colonial powers often argue that their dependencies are politically immature and incapable of defining their own interests and governing themselves:

In democracy the people really do take an active part in government, and the fact that one can find twenty [native] university graduates capable of forming a cabinet does not imply that the responsibility for governing their country can forthwith be handed over to them.67

This argument was used by progressive colonial rulers who genuinely intended to assist their colonial subjects in the process of their political emancipation as well as by conservative colonial governments who used it to justify their refusal to let go of their colonial territories.


5.2.2 Colonial Borders

Colonial borders often divide local communities in ways which reflect the political interests and spheres of influence of the colonial powers rather than the natural population patterns and political history of the territory.68 Similarly, the administrative borders within one colony are often drawn with total disregard to the original community structures. Whatever the reasons behind this policy, it has often disrupted the social fabric of the local population and imposed artificial, arbitrary community structures. Emerson analyses this phenomenon as follows:

Over the centuries the national heritage of many peoples has been diverted into new channels by the colonial experience which they have undergone. Indeed, the creation of nations themselves is in some instances (...) to be attributed primarily to the bringing together of diverse stocks under a single imperial roof. In this fashion inner unity has often been promoted by colonial rule, while at the same time the multiplicity of colonial systems has emphasised the diversities between peoples by forcing them into disparate colonial patterns.69

After decolonisation, the principle of 'uti possidetis'70 generally precludes restoration of precolonial borders. While it is beyond the scope and focus of the present report to discuss the problems arising from these inherited colonial borders in detail, it should be noted that this inheritance often contains the potential for violent territorial conflicts. At the same time, the restoration of pre-colonial borders is not necessarily the best solution in such cases, as this could create other, equally serious tensions in societies inevitably and permanently transformed by colonial rule.


5.2.3 Economic Aspects

Colonial powers often legitimise their presence in and their rule over their satellite areas in economic terms. They claim that it is the metropolitan state which brings development and progress to the dependent and underdeveloped colonies. Quoting the Covenant of the League of Nations and later the UN Charter, colonial powers consider it to be part of their 'sacred trust' to 'promote to the utmost, (...) the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories,'71 who were 'not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world'.72In addition, it has been argued that the exploitation of mineral resources was not only a right but even a duty of colonial powers. The French writer Sarraut elaborates on this idea:

Nature has distributed unequally across our planet a wealth and variety of raw materials; and while she has located in this continental extremity which is called Europe, the inventive genius of the white races and the technical expertise with which to exploit natural resources, she has concentrated the most abundant reserves of these materials in Africa, tropical Asia and equatorial Oceanea, towards which the developed countries in their need to live and to create, are directing their impetus and their drive (...) Must these immense expanses of land, which could produce so great a variety of foodstuffs, be allowed to lie fallow, abandoned to the thickets of indifference, ignorance and incompetence?73

It is the metropolitan state which represents modernity vis-a-vis the 'backward' populations of the colonies. At the same time, colonial rulers tend to exploit and export the mineral resources within their colonies at the expense of the local population. In the case of mineral resources, the processing of the resources mined in colonised territories often takes place in the metropolitan states. The economic spin-off from the mining of these resources is often low, whereas the processing of these resources creates a job-market for (semi) skilled metropolitan labourers and yields lucrative final products.

This pattern is basically the same in the case of other types of natural resources, such as cotton, rice, tea and coffee. 'Although the extent to which this exchange of natural resources for (professed) development benefits the metropolitan state at the expense of the colonised territory differs widely in each particular situation, the element of exploitation or the attempt to exploit is consistent.

The use of cheap labor in colonised territories by the metropolitan state in order to maximise national economic growth falls within this same pattern of exploitation: the local population needs the income, even if it is minimal, while the colonial powers need the cheap labor. Although there is mutual benefit in absolute terms, the colonial labourers are forced into a position of relative deprivation. Once this relationship has been consolidated, very few individuals let alone communities manage to break away from this position of structural dependence unless the entire political and economic system changes dramatically.

As has been noted in the previous paragraphs, development in colonies is generally planned and executed by the metropolitan state and responds to the needs of the latter rather than the former. It requires skills which are often new to the local population, which had no need for these skills until the arrival of the colonial settlers. Therefore skilled labor tends to be performed by experts recruited from the metropolitan state, whereas the unskilled labor is performed by locals. The practice of employing outsiders to plan, co-ordinate and supervise development has important economic implications, such as the difference in the salary level of skilled and unskilled labour and increased competition on the local job market.

The assumption underlying the patterns identified in this section is that the metropolitan state is in a better position to define and fulfil local needs in its 'backward' and underdeveloped colonies than the local population itself. Protest against the imposition of colonial economic policies and exploitative development is often portrayed by colonial powers as backward, short-sighted resistance to modernity.


5.2.4 Cultural Aspects

The cultural counterpart of economic development rhetoric, is the concept of the mission civilisatrice, the civilising mission. This idea was most prevalent in the French colonial policy, which encouraged the inhabitants of the colonised territories to become 'perfect Frenchmen'. At the heart of this policy is the paternalist idea that the 'backward', undeveloped inhabitants of the colonised areas need to be educated and brought up to the level of the superior culture and life-style of the colonising power. This ideology is reflected in the Covenant of the League of Nations, which distinguishes between 'the peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world' and 'the advanced nations', whom, 'by reason of their resources, their experience and their geographical position' should be entrusted with 'the tutelage of such peoples.'74
The fact that the Covenant merely takes note of the 'strenuous conditions of the modern world' imposed on colonised territories without addressing its root causes, clearly demonstrates the unquestioning, self-righteous attitude of those in charge of the 'mission civilisatrice'.

An important aspect of the mission civilisatrice is the colonial power's language and education policy in its colonies. Whereas some colonial powers deliberately choose to restrict the teaching of the language of the metropolitan state to the elite75, most colonial powers try to impose their own language on the local population at large.

All the colonial peoples have been brought into the modern world under the aegis of an imperialism which superimposed a European language on the native tongue. This imperial language served three principal purposes which have an obvious bearing on the effort to secure national cultural identity. It was the language of instruction at least for higher education, it was the instrument through which intercourse of all varieties could be maintained with the advanced European and European descended peoples, and it was frequently the lingua franca within each of the several nations and between them (....) The white man (...) generally learned the local languages only as an act of grace or better to rule or trade with the subordinate peoples, whereas it was assumed that the natives who wanted to advance must rise to the level of the foreign language.76

It is the language of the metropolitan state which is associated with modernity, sophistication and social status, whereas oral and written fluency of the local language tends to be a useless asset for those in search of social advancement.

In most if not all colonies the language of the colonial power is used as the language of administration. For this reason, the education system needs to produce people who know this language well and who are capable of 'mediating linguistically between the metropolitan nation and the colonised peoples'.77 In many cases these 'mediators' receive their education in the metropolitan state, which offers better educational facilities and more exposure to the language and culture of the colonial power. Colonial civilising missions often produced the so-called évoloué , the 'developed native' who had benefited from an education at a metropolitan school or university.78

The concept of the 'civilising mission' is in fact intertwined with the colonial concept of economic development and has often been invoked in order to justify the exploitation of the natural resources located in colonial territories:

To colonise is to establish contact with new countries in order to benefit from their total range of resources, to develop these resources for the benefit of national interest and at the same time bring to the native peoples the intellectual, social, scientific, moral, cultural, literary, commercial and industrial benefits of which they are deprived and which are the prerogatives of the superior races. To colonise therefore, is to establish an advanced form of civilisation in a new country in order to achieve the twin aims we have just mentioned.79

In the Unites States of America the missionary zeal of the early puritan settlers played a formative role in the colonisation process and later found its secular counterpart in the concept of Manifest Destiny: the United States was endowed with a historical duty to spread democracy and civilisation, up to the Pacific Ocean in the West and the Rio Grande in the South.


5.2.5 Geo-political Designs

Frequently, the geo-political and/or strategic significance of colonial possessions is equally if not more important to the metropolitan state than their economic profit. Obvious examples in this respect are the Polynesian and Melanesian islands in the Pacific, which are still French colonies. Gibraltar is another well known example of a small colony which is of little economic significance but of great strategic importance to the United Kingdom. The same holds true for the Pacific islands which are administrated by the United States.

A related but different element of the geo-political motives underlying colonial rule is the international power which the possession of colonies entails. Imperial prestige is particularly important for small states which would be rather insignificant without colonial possessions. This importance manifested itself particularly clearly in the European power struggle in Africa during the latter half of the nineteenth century. This struggle was fuelled mostly by the need for imperial status rather than for actual territorial expansion or economic profit.

Colonial powers often make use of geo-political and strategic arguments in justifying their colonial rule to their own citizens as well as to the international community. During the first decades of the Cold War, the preservation of African and Asian colonies was often equated with resistance to the 'communist menace'. Moreover, following the Second World War, European colonial powers felt that they needed 'to develop ..[their] own power and influence equal to that of the United States of America and the USSR'80 and to show that they were not subservient to the two superpowers. Interestingly enough, geo-political considerations which have nothing to do with the interests of the local population and much to do with the maintenance of the global balance of power by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, were codified in the UN Charter, which states that:

There may be designated, in any trusteeship agreement, a strategic area or area which may include part or all of the trust territory to which the agreement applies (...). All functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the Security Council.81

The fact that the Charter states that the interests of the inhabitants of these 'strategic areas' are subservient to those of the Security Council, which is effectively dominated by the United States., the Soviet Union (now Russian Federation), China, the United Kingdom and France, appears to run counter to the 'paramountcy of interests' codified in Article 73 of the Charter.


5.3 The Maintenance of the Colonial Authority

All colonial regimes face challenges to their rule by their colonial subjects. While the reactions of colonial powers to these challenges range from the bloody suppression of dissent to the (partial) accommodation of the grievances of the colonised subjects without relinquishing political control, these reactions share certain common elements.


5.3.1 Curtailment of Civil Rights

Colonial powers tend to curtail or violate the civil rights of colonial subjects who protest against colonial rule. In such cases, the violation of individual rights is a symptom of the more deep-rooted political problem of imposing and maintaining a colonial regime against the wishes of the local population. Some colonial powers have justified these violations by claiming that the colonised territory was not yet ready for self-government and that allowing individuals to voice their protest against colonial rule freely, would result in chaos and bloodshed. Other colonial regimes claim that the suppression of dissent is necessary to protect the population at large against a handful of irresponsible and ignorant elements who do not truly represent the people.82 How could they represent the people, if the colonial rulers know best how to serve the 'paramount interests' of these people, how to bring them greater prosperity, development and civilisation?


5.3.2 Military Presence

The maintenance of colonial control often involves permanent military presence. This military presence should be distinguished from the military forces employed in colonies which are established by military conquest. The soldiers may be the same individuals but their mission is essentially different. In the case of military conquest, the metropolitan soldiers are pioneers, conquering a new territory, while soldiers who are in charge of protecting and maintaining colonial authority supplement the efforts of authorities whenever civilian means to subjugate the local prove insufficient. In some cases, the army plays an active role in crushing challenges to the colonial regime. In other cases, military presence may be a mere symbolic show of force, while the civilian police is in charge of maintaining public order on a day-to-day basis. Whereas the police force often consists entirely or partly of locals, soldiers are typically nationals of the metropolitan state. Among the lower military ranks there may be a handful of local soldiers, operating under the command of metropolitan superiors.


5.3.3 Mission

n some colonies, the civilising mission has strong religious dimensions and colonial powers claim that they have the 'divine right' to colonial authority. Missionaries set out to convert the 'natives' and save them from eternal damnation. It is here that the 'sacred trust of civilisation' codified in the Covenant of the League of Nations becomes truly sacred. In many cases this 'colonisation of the mind' has important political implications. Replacing a traditional belief system of a people by an alternative frame of reference often amounts to changing the entire identity of this people. As this distinct identity is often a vehicle of nationalist aspirations, the modification of this identity may be a means of diminishing (potential) political resistance to colonial rule.


5.4 Perceptions and Attitudes

5.4.1 The Alien Concept

In the first place it should be noted that the phrase 'alien domination' has been coined by colonial peoples themselves. It is their own experience of colonial rule which inspired the member states of the Non-Aligned Movement to use the phrase 'alien subjugation, domination and exploitation' at the Bandung Conference. This phrase was subsequently repeated in a number of key documents, such as the Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples and Countries. The fact that countries under colonial rule agreed on this definition of colonialism, provides an important insight into the nature of colonialism itself. It is the element of 'alien-ness' which distinguishes colonialism from other non-representative systems of government, in which one group of people controls and represses another group of people.

Interestingly enough, not only colonised peoples but also most colonial powers agree that their colonial subjects are foreigners from a foreign territory, who can never be entirely assimilated and always remain a separate class of citizens. Even the French government, which at some point seriously undertook to assimilate its colonial subjects and make them into perfect Frenchmen, never ceased to distinguish between native Frenchmen and those originating from their 'provinces outre mer'.

It is this element of 'alien domination' which has often been automatically interpreted as involving geographical distance,. That, as has been shown in paragraph 2.2, has no valid basis in international law and does not do justice to the multiple ways in which 'alien-ness' might manifest itself. Cultural, ethnic, linguistic and historical factors may be of equal or even more importance in determining whether or not the rule exercised by a metropolitan state over a satellite region is 'alien'.


5.4.2 Paternalism

Colonial rhetoric often refers to 'the interests' of the local population. This rhetoric found its way into the Covenant of the League of Nations as the principle of 'sacred trust' and later into the UN Charter, which recognises the principle that 'the interests of the inhabitants of these [non-self-governing] territories are paramount'.83 Yet, colonial powers seldom or never clarify who is to determine the nature or the contents of these interests. Typically, it is the government of the metropolitan state which defines the interests of the inhabitants of the satellite state (i.e. the colony). This practice often finds its justification in the argument that the native population of the colony lacks the education and expertise which is required for the adequate determination and articulation of its own interests.

The observations of the famous explorer and colonial officer in British India, Sir Francis Younghusband, are typical in this respect. He wrote:

The Chitrasis [indigenous population of a mountain area in northern Pakistan] are children. But the people who treat children best are English nurses. (...) These people will know quite well when they deserve a good sound smacking, and if it is given with no ill-feeling behind it, they will, like children, take it in good part and respect us.84

Colonial powers often refer to the original population as infants or children, who need strong authoritarian parents who can help them to grow up to be responsible adults.


5.5 Possible Outcomes of the Colonisation Process

Colonisation may result in a number of different situations. At one extreme end of the spectrum we find decolonisation: the colonial power withdraws and the original population (re)installs its own government. At the other end of the spectrum we find territories which have been completely taken over by the colonial settlers or integration within the metropolitan state. In the latter case, the original population has been reduced to a marginal minority and the pre-colonial identity of these territories has been replaced by the identity of the settler society, which is dominant in every respect. In the case of integration within a metropolitan state, no new state is established, but the process of assimilation and/or marginalisation of the original population is similar. Between these two extremes of decolonisation and take-over or integration, there is a multitude of intermediate forms, such as the continuation of colonial rule over a territory which preserves a certain national identity of its own, as in New Caledonia or Samoa. There are also cases in which one colonial regime has been replaced by another colonial regime, such as in the case of East Timor, Western Sahara or Namibia.85
In some former colonies, the former colonising power retains considerable economic, cultural, political or military influence. This phenomenon is generally referred to as 'neo-colonialism': the continuation of a colonial relationship after formal decolonisation. In other decolonised territories the links with the former colonising powers have been completely severed.

The various possible outcomes of the colonisation process may be determined by external factors, such as political pressure by the international community on colonial powers to grant independence to their colonies as well as by internal factors, such as the attitude of the original population and/or of the metropolitan electorate, the size of the metropolitan settler community and the nature of the colonial regime.


5.6 Conclusion to Part I

Having now established what the essential characteristics of colonialism are and how they manifest themselves, we now need to ask ourselves what the relevance of this effort is with respect to the two basic questions asked in the introduction of this report: what is colonialism and to what extent can Tibet be classified as territory under colonial rule?
As has been stated before, the terms 'colonialism', 'colonial' or 'colonies' are used frequently as if they need no further clarification. Moreover, it is often assumed that colonialism was abolished several decades ago. These assumptions are based on the idea that the term colonialism applies to a limited set of territories, most of which have gained independence by now. Yet, as the preceding chapters have shown, colonialism is in fact a complex phenomenon with many political, cultural, economic and social facets. In order to understand this phenomenon in all its complexity, this report seeks to look beyond the well-known cases and types of colonialism and identify the essence of colonialist systems of government. The elements enumerated in the following section do not only offer us insight into the system of colonialism, but also provide us with a diagnostic instrument which can be used to determine whether territories which prima facie display colonial features can in fact be classified as colonies.

The situation in Tibet is increasingly often described as 'colonial'. If Tibet is indeed a colony of the People's Republic of China, it will have to contain at least some of the following key elements.


5.6.1 Establishment

* Colonial rule is established in one or more of the following ways: military conquest and subsequent annexation, the conclusion of a treaty or contract, merchant enclaves and subsequent settlement. Colonialism always involves the settlement of people from a metropolitan state in a satellite region.


5.6.2 Administration

* The original population is not, or poorly, represented in the central government. The interests of the original inhabitants are largely determined by the metropolitan, colonial power.

* Colonial rule often superimposes national borders which do not correspond to the local community structure(s) or the political history of the colonised territories. In most cases these territories were not organized as nation states before the advent of the colonial power.

* Economic development is planned and imposed by the colonial power and often benefits the metropolitan state at the expense of the satellite region. Resources located in colonies are transferred to the metropolitan state for further processing and marketing.

* Civilising mission: the colonial power undertakes to 'civilise' the original inhabitants of a colony. The underlying presumption is that the colonial power possesses a culture which is superior in relation to the culture/civilisation of the colonised population(s).

In addition, colonial powers often claim that the original population of the colonised territory is unable to rule itself for reasons of political immaturity and economic underdevelopment.

* Cultural exchange between settlers/representatives from the metropolitan state and the original inhabitants of the colony is asymmetrical. The latter adopt more aspects of the culture of the former than vice versa.


5.6.3 Maintenance of Colonial Authority:

* Reactions of colonial powers to colonial resistance are based on strategies to eliminate dissent. The strategies may vary from the suppression of dissent to accommodating the grievances of the colonised population without relinquishing political control.

* The maintenance of colonial authority involves permanent military presence, consisting of soldiers from the metropolitan state or local soldiers under the command of officers from the metropolitan state.


5.6.4 Perceptions:

Colonised people(s) experience colonial rule as alien domination. Similarly citizens from the metropolitan state continue to make a distinction between themselves and the original inhabitants of the colony.


5.6.5 Outcome of the Colonisation Process:

Colonisation may result in one or more of the following situations: decolonisation, complete take-over of the colony by the metropolitan settlement community, the continuation of colonial rule over a territory which retains most of its pre-colonial identity, or integration into the metropolitan state.

[ Homepage ] [ Present Situation in Tibet ] [Tibet Mission Report ]



This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 3-Oct-97