What do you think?
Rate this book
Colonialism in Global Perspective
Kris Manjapra weaves together the study of colonialism over the past 500 years, across the globe's continents and seas. This captivating work vividly evokes living human histories, introducing the reader to manifestations of colonialism as expressed through war, militarization, extractive economies, migrations and diasporas, racialization, biopolitical management, and unruly and creative responses and resistances by colonized peoples. This book describes some of the most salient political, social, and cultural constellations of our present times across the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Europe. By exploring the dissimilar, yet entwined, histories of conquest, settler colonialism, racial slavery, and empire, Manjapra exposes the enduring role of colonial force and freedom struggle in the making of our modern world.
- GenresSchoolHistoryNonfiction
288 pages, Hardcover
Published June 18, 2020
7 people are currently reading
151 people want to read
About the author
Kris Manjapra
7 books37 followersKris Manjapra is Professor of History and Director of Colonialism Studies at Tufts University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 7, 2020
I had to read this book for a history master's course and am compelled to write this review due to the nearly overwhelming, uncritical praise it received as well as my own contrarian spirit. First, I will discuss its merit. The parallactic view of a bottom-up history is interesting. Simply put, it is the examination of the interconnected, yet unique experience of the victims of colonialism. Of the limited literature I have consumed related to colonialism, up until this book, I had not encountered such an analysis of history. Essentially, what this parallax study seeks to do is uncover truths that may not have been evident at first, such as the deterritorializing effects the colonial system had on its subjects beyond simply person and geography as well as what it means for the present.
This is where my praise ends. To preface my criticism, let me say that I understand that in works that span several hundred years there will be generalizations and simplifications. However, such general statements should indicate the existence of complexities that don't necessarily undermine one's argument but instead compel the reader to do more research into the subject which surrounds the statement. For instance, if I said, "Fabius was a dictator." and ended the statement there, it removes any nuance that could be investigated further or open a channel for discussion. Now, if I stated, "Fabius was a dictator.¹" and explained what dictator meant within the historical context in the footnote, that would be, what may be called, "doing history".
In this book, the author presents historical claims that are oversimplified or overgeneralized to the point that it makes it seem disingenuous. For example, in Chapter 5, he makes the claim "Africans were identified as among the 'lowest savage races,' according to European Afrophobic descriptions going all the way back to the time of Aristotle." The context surrounding this claim relates to Linnaeus' description of different human groups. Without going into too much detail, I will just say that the latter half of the claim relating to Antiquity is simply irresponsible. The Greek (and even Roman) descriptions of Africans (North Africans or Subsaharan? He does not specify. We'll assume Subsaharan) were based on geography and observation. Yes, Aristotle described Ethiopians in a manner that we, today, would consider racist but, in the context of the times, this description was not anywhere near the scientific racialism that was prevalent in the modern world. Such crude descriptions were believed to be suggestive of one's character. Historical context matters. What the author does is presentism.
Another claim is that "Muslims, with their different practices of self and sovereignty, were presented in British fantasy as fanatics and terrorists." Another oversimplification. The perception of Muslims being "fanatics and terrorists" is a 19th-century development. The British Empire's initial attitude to Muslims in India, after encountering them in the 18th century, was rather accommodating. Let it be known that I am not defending British colonial rule nor am I engaging in any argument that revolves around "colonialism wasn't that bad." my point here is that this oversimplified claim is bereft of any nuance that illuminates the complexities of history.
Sometimes, the author makes a claim that is factually incorrect. He states, "British imperialists developed plans to undermine Ottoman, Safavid, and Qajar sovereignty." This is simply not true. The British were interested in maintaining the Ottoman and Persian Empires in order to secure British India. Their interest was primarily in using these Empires as buffers against Russian expansionism. During the Crimean War, the British Empire intervened on the side of the Ottomans in response to the Russian invasion of the Balkans, ultimately, to maintain Ottoman territorial integrity.
To write a work such as this which comprises hundreds of years of history leaves very little room for nuance and, inevitably, leads one down the path of essentialism. (Perhaps all works of world history are destined to this fate.) In this work, the author critically examines the Orientalism of the West, yet, through his own overgeneralizations, engages in reverse Orientalism and essentializes the West. The grand question is if one is critical of the essentialization of the East by the West, can one do the reverse without one's argument collapsing into contradiction? I'd say no.
My criticism of this book was challenged, politely I might add, but really did not address anything I noted, but instead took the banal route of, "It covers so much history, of course, there's not going to be a lot of detail. Lack of detail doesn't invalidate the argument." Like, I said, I get it and I would agree with the latter half. What really bothered me was not so much the praise this book got; if others think it deserves praise, fine, it's their opinion. But the uncritical praise it garnered is what bothers me. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that this book received the praise that it did from my seminar; decolonization has gone beyond a macro-historical process to being baked into the zeitgeist. That decolonization is the "flavour of the month" in academic institutions and that such oversimplified works are accepted is maybe a sign of the decline of academia. Colonialism is an important part of the world's history, no doubt, and its effects are still felt (to what extent is something that can and should be debated). Any attempts to portray Empire in a glowingly positive light is as unwelcome as simply centring a thesis around "Europeans bad" (by the way, the number of statements that portrayed the Europeans in a neutral or positive light (can't really blame him here) were few and far between). There are good works of colonial history out there, but this is not one of them.
This is where my praise ends. To preface my criticism, let me say that I understand that in works that span several hundred years there will be generalizations and simplifications. However, such general statements should indicate the existence of complexities that don't necessarily undermine one's argument but instead compel the reader to do more research into the subject which surrounds the statement. For instance, if I said, "Fabius was a dictator." and ended the statement there, it removes any nuance that could be investigated further or open a channel for discussion. Now, if I stated, "Fabius was a dictator.¹" and explained what dictator meant within the historical context in the footnote, that would be, what may be called, "doing history".
In this book, the author presents historical claims that are oversimplified or overgeneralized to the point that it makes it seem disingenuous. For example, in Chapter 5, he makes the claim "Africans were identified as among the 'lowest savage races,' according to European Afrophobic descriptions going all the way back to the time of Aristotle." The context surrounding this claim relates to Linnaeus' description of different human groups. Without going into too much detail, I will just say that the latter half of the claim relating to Antiquity is simply irresponsible. The Greek (and even Roman) descriptions of Africans (North Africans or Subsaharan? He does not specify. We'll assume Subsaharan) were based on geography and observation. Yes, Aristotle described Ethiopians in a manner that we, today, would consider racist but, in the context of the times, this description was not anywhere near the scientific racialism that was prevalent in the modern world. Such crude descriptions were believed to be suggestive of one's character. Historical context matters. What the author does is presentism.
Another claim is that "Muslims, with their different practices of self and sovereignty, were presented in British fantasy as fanatics and terrorists." Another oversimplification. The perception of Muslims being "fanatics and terrorists" is a 19th-century development. The British Empire's initial attitude to Muslims in India, after encountering them in the 18th century, was rather accommodating. Let it be known that I am not defending British colonial rule nor am I engaging in any argument that revolves around "colonialism wasn't that bad." my point here is that this oversimplified claim is bereft of any nuance that illuminates the complexities of history.
Sometimes, the author makes a claim that is factually incorrect. He states, "British imperialists developed plans to undermine Ottoman, Safavid, and Qajar sovereignty." This is simply not true. The British were interested in maintaining the Ottoman and Persian Empires in order to secure British India. Their interest was primarily in using these Empires as buffers against Russian expansionism. During the Crimean War, the British Empire intervened on the side of the Ottomans in response to the Russian invasion of the Balkans, ultimately, to maintain Ottoman territorial integrity.
To write a work such as this which comprises hundreds of years of history leaves very little room for nuance and, inevitably, leads one down the path of essentialism. (Perhaps all works of world history are destined to this fate.) In this work, the author critically examines the Orientalism of the West, yet, through his own overgeneralizations, engages in reverse Orientalism and essentializes the West. The grand question is if one is critical of the essentialization of the East by the West, can one do the reverse without one's argument collapsing into contradiction? I'd say no.
My criticism of this book was challenged, politely I might add, but really did not address anything I noted, but instead took the banal route of, "It covers so much history, of course, there's not going to be a lot of detail. Lack of detail doesn't invalidate the argument." Like, I said, I get it and I would agree with the latter half. What really bothered me was not so much the praise this book got; if others think it deserves praise, fine, it's their opinion. But the uncritical praise it garnered is what bothers me. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that this book received the praise that it did from my seminar; decolonization has gone beyond a macro-historical process to being baked into the zeitgeist. That decolonization is the "flavour of the month" in academic institutions and that such oversimplified works are accepted is maybe a sign of the decline of academia. Colonialism is an important part of the world's history, no doubt, and its effects are still felt (to what extent is something that can and should be debated). Any attempts to portray Empire in a glowingly positive light is as unwelcome as simply centring a thesis around "Europeans bad" (by the way, the number of statements that portrayed the Europeans in a neutral or positive light (can't really blame him here) were few and far between). There are good works of colonial history out there, but this is not one of them.
July 18, 2024
I am tentative to criticize this book too heavily, as the task of writing such an expansive text on colonialism as a broader topic is no simple task. I am also hesitant to criticize the text too heavily as a student of colonialism, but nowhere near as much of an expert as Manjapra is on the subject.
I'll begin with my praises for Manjapra's work. First, I believe he has filled a gap in writing an easily understandable work on colonialism for undergraduates. Rather than jumping into difficult theories that might lead to confusion/misinterpretation, Manjapra has done an excellent job of making an approachable text. He also does important work in linking this discussion of colonialism to the present-day discussions of social justice.
My issues with the text are as follows. I believe that the organization of the text makes it difficult to use this work as a "reference." The inherently overlapping aspects of colonialism, of course, make categorical division difficult. However, I found that separations such as including coolies in "Port" but not "Plantation" was questionable. Perhaps theoretical separations such as that which Manjapra uses in this text are difficult to write around by nature. I would have perhaps liked a different set of theories to use as chapter framings.
Furthermore, in seeking to explore such a wide range of topics, times, and places in one singular book, there is often simplification to fit Manjapra's narrative. For instance, sections of the book include examples where many details are skipped over, like Chapter 2's generalization of Indigenous forms of understanding of nature. While important for setting up the narrative and argument of the chapter, I felt uncomfortable with the simplification.
My praise for this book and its role outweigh my issues with its organization and (sometimes) its content. I would recommend this strongly for students seeking an introduction to colonialism as a concept. For those who are more well-versed in histories of colonialism, it might not be the most vital read.
I'll begin with my praises for Manjapra's work. First, I believe he has filled a gap in writing an easily understandable work on colonialism for undergraduates. Rather than jumping into difficult theories that might lead to confusion/misinterpretation, Manjapra has done an excellent job of making an approachable text. He also does important work in linking this discussion of colonialism to the present-day discussions of social justice.
My issues with the text are as follows. I believe that the organization of the text makes it difficult to use this work as a "reference." The inherently overlapping aspects of colonialism, of course, make categorical division difficult. However, I found that separations such as including coolies in "Port" but not "Plantation" was questionable. Perhaps theoretical separations such as that which Manjapra uses in this text are difficult to write around by nature. I would have perhaps liked a different set of theories to use as chapter framings.
Furthermore, in seeking to explore such a wide range of topics, times, and places in one singular book, there is often simplification to fit Manjapra's narrative. For instance, sections of the book include examples where many details are skipped over, like Chapter 2's generalization of Indigenous forms of understanding of nature. While important for setting up the narrative and argument of the chapter, I felt uncomfortable with the simplification.
My praise for this book and its role outweigh my issues with its organization and (sometimes) its content. I would recommend this strongly for students seeking an introduction to colonialism as a concept. For those who are more well-versed in histories of colonialism, it might not be the most vital read.
June 6, 2021
Super interesting read about the various forms of colonialism—and the resulting movements of resistance—throughout history, sectioned neatly by chapter and time
September 2, 2023
Filled with interesting material, but oddly organized at the expense of real coherence
April 21, 2024
Actually fairly interesting, doesn't run into the problem of becoming too dry.
November 17, 2024
read this for my history class this semester and was pretty fire ngl
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews