Crisis 22
The Global South
In the two upcoming sections (Cunning Plans and Puppet Masters) I use complex novels to explore complex political situations, and therefore these two sections tend to be the most involved. Puppet Masters is also the most unorthodox, since it has no obvious connection to the Ukraine Crisis — although I’ve already suggested several connections on the previous page. I’ll therefore explain my strategy in a bit more detail.
In Puppet Masters I use Koch’s The Year of Dangerously (as well as five other postcolonial novels) to A. compare the old Cold War of the 1960s to the new Cold War of the 2020s, B. illustrate the difficulty of seeing through the fog of war, C. explore how authoritarian and religious rhetoric can lead to mass violence, and D. examine political paradigms used in the global south.
The argument I make about D. southern paradigms may initially seem strange or out of context. Yet at its root it’s an old liberal argument: a deep understanding of different points of view enriches and empowers us. First, it enriches us in general and abstract ways: it expands our awareness culturally, aesthetically, intellectually, spiritually, etc. Second, it helps us in practical and transactional ways: it allows us to talk to and accommodate people who have backgrounds that are different in terms of culture, politics, history, geography, language, and religion. This understanding can enrich our own understanding about the scope and variety of human life, and it can also strengthen the arguments we make about the world — for instance, about why countries like Indonesia and India should side with the West in the Ukraine War.
One might object that economic, historical, and military reasons will always prevail over the kind of cultural argument I suggest. Yet it isn’t an either/or, zero-sum situation: one can add the cultural understanding to the other understandings. Also, economic and military circumstances change, and historical conditions that once favoured Russia may no longer apply. Whether or not those changes occur, one thing remains the same: the West continually underestimates the degree to which formerly colonized countries want their cultures to be viewed in their complexity.
Too often we fail to take into account the millennia of their histories, as well as the ambiguities and paradoxes of their societies. It’s fine for our politicians to don traditional dress or say a word or two in a different language, but it would advance our cases further if these politicians demonstrated a grasp of the complex points of view of other cultures. For example, if they appreciated the way Indonesians use Hindu narratives in their puppet theatre, the Wayang, and the way these narratives are mixed with Muslim and indigenous narratives to create a dramatic form of entertainment. This is more relevant than, say, knowing about narratives in an Indonesian TV show, since the Wayang theatre has served for centuries as a key arena of societal and political debate.
A simpler example of connecting to other cultures is when the American Secretary of State Anthony Blinken gives an interview in French, or when the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada Chrystia Freeland speaks in Russian or Ukrainian. Given past immigration patterns and the current cultural landscape, it would be surprising if Western leaders spoke in Bahasa Indonesia or Assamese. Yet if they showed some deeper form of awareness of southern cultures, it would counter the notion that we only think of ourselves. For instance, if we showed a familiarity with the Mahabharata, or with the way the Wayang borrows from that epic, then Indians and Indonesians would feel that we’re at least trying to understood them on their own terms, in their own context.
Coming through the Canadian university system in the 1990s, I was stunned to see postcolonial studies shift from an in-depth study of formerly colonized nations to a more politically correct criticism of European history and politics. Often the focus was on the bad Europeans and not on the cultural richness of recently independent nations. It seems to me a missed opportunity. The universities could have helped to bring nations together, to heal and fortify the connection that came about through a colonialism that was often high-handed, imperious, violent, and racist. This connection needed a balm and a careful dressing, not a self-righteous doctor ripping off the scab.
The reality is that, more than 75 years after Indian Independence, we live in a postcolonial world. The Hindu Rishi Sunak was recently the Prime Minister of England. The American Democratic nominee Kamala Harris is half-Black and half-Indian (I’m writing this page in August, 2024). The Canadian Minister of National Defence is presently Anita Anand, who follows Harjit Singh Sajjan, who held the position from 2015 to 2021. The third largest political party in Canada, the NDP, has been led by Jagmeet Singh since 2017.
Of course, we should acknowledge the shortcomings and atrocities of the past, yet if we keep going on about them, while at the same time ignoring the postcolonial situation today, we play into the narrative of the Kremlin. Putin and Lavrov will continue, unchallenged, saying that the West is still the same old colonizing, racist system of exploitation that the Kremlin has been saying it was since the days of Lenin. If university professors keep repeating this line, blasting whole societies with terms like systemic racism, without also including counter arguments about postcolonialism and liberal democracy, then we’re not likely to have a receptive audience in countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Cambodia, Nigeria, South Africa, and Indonesia.
In the early and mid 20th century, it was necessary to attack the West for its colonial system. Yet from about the year 1975 (the approximate end of European colonialism and the end of the Vietnam War) to the year 2022, this attack on Western colonialism becomes increasingly counter-productive. Now that the Kremlin uses it as a wedge between the West and the global south, it’s become a liability. It’s 50 years since the liberation of Saigon and 75 years since the independence of the Indian subcontinent. It’s time to stop framing the present in colonial terms, and it’s time to stop allowing Russia to define us in those terms.
Of course there are vestiges of colonialism that need to be targeted, just as there are vestiges of all kinds of past prejudice and injustice. Yet to transpose the colonial past en masse onto the present, and to attribute its sins more widely (instead of defining them more specifically) means that the entire West becomes the villain, and anyone who fights this villain can brand themselves a hero. Enter Vladímir P. Yet in the case of Putin’s Russia this is patently absurd, since it’s one of the few colonial powers left on Earth. And yet, Putin & Co. still make the case for the evil West ...
Next: Waking Up: ⏳ The Ghost of Crises Past