The Trap of the Refusing Colonizer#
The “colonizer who refuses” attempts to remain in the colony while fighting the colonial apparatus. This individual soon discovers they are living under a contradiction that deprives them of tranquility. They continue to participate in and benefit from the privileges they denounce, such as high wages and administrative facilities. Their fellow citizens view this “humanitarian romanticism” as a serious illness and treat the dissenter as a traitor.
The Barriers to Assimilation#
For the colonized, the first attempt at liberation is often the “tempting model” of assimilation—trying to “change skin” to resemble the colonizer. However, the colonial framework makes assimilation impossible. The colonizer rejects the candidate for assimilation, viewing their efforts as ridiculous or identifying them as an “ape”. Even if the colonized agrees to everything, they are not saved because the system requires the “colonizer-colonized” distinction to maintain its economic logic.
The Impotence of Benevolence#
The “benevolent” colonizer’s role is characterized by political ineffectiveness. Their demands are not supported by the solid weight of the masses or the moneyed interests of the status quo. They cannot identify their future with the colonized, nor do they belong with their fellow colonizers. This results in a “solitude, bewilderment and ineffectiveness” that eventually forces them into silence or departure.
The Crucible of Linguistic Dualism#
The colonized intellectual is often “saved from illiteracy only to fall into linguistic dualism”. They must use the colonizer’s language to succeed in the community, yet this language holds the conflict of two psychical and cultural realms. Their mother tongue is crushed and devalued, yet it is the only language that can find the “shortest path to its soul”. Writing for the conquerors of one’s own people creates an acrimonious malaise that reinforces the writer’s isolation.
The Cascade of Inevitable Rupture#
Because the system cannot accommodate assimilation without putting an end to itself, the only outcome is rupture. The colonized realizes that their condition is “absolute” and requires an absolute solution: a break, not a compromise. The colonial situation, by its internal inevitability, brings on revolt because the “iron collar” cannot be adjusted; it can only be broken.
The Structural Denial of Reform#
The failure of the “refusal” and “assimilation” pathways demonstrates that the system determines the range of possible behaviors. One cannot act upon the colonizer or the colonized without affecting the colonial relationship itself. The colonizer cannot promote emancipation without putting an end to themselves as a colonizer. Consequently, the colonial situation is inherently transitory, condemned by its own egotism to remain foreign and eventually die.
