The Reluctant Imperialist

Ok, I am a little sympathetic to the narrator. I see his inconsistencies, or hypocrisy at one level, and his reluctance in his role in the imperialist regime, as a human condition, not an imperialist one. What seems apparent in SAE and Chatterjee’s article, is that the disparity in theory and practice cannot be bridged easily especially in political history.

“Theoretically . . . I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British”.

In theory, the narrator bears “hatred of the empire” and is guilt ridden by the evils of imperialism. Yet at the practical level, he suffers “sneers”, “insults” and “hideous laughter” from the Burmese whom he, in theory, supported. The reality of the dislike and discrimination against the narrator by the Burmese flames his anger at them. Similarly in Chatterjee’s article, “that there should be one law alike for the European and Native is an excellent theory (21)” at best and cannot be practically realized in a period where racial and cultural differences are magnified by inequalities in power.

While one could argue that the narrator had a choice in his actions, it would also be oversimplifying a difficult issue such as colonialism. I think one problem with reading at a distance, is that it is easier to make moral judgments in hindsight because we do not experience the dilemmas or the full extent of political and emotional conflicts in a situation. I was just imagining if I was pressed with “two thousands wills” to act in a matter of minutes or seconds, what would I have done? While his inconsistencies between thought and action is problematic, since he is part of the imperialists, nonetheless we can empathize as he seems a more reluctant imperialist assuming a role placed upon him by both sides.

(300 words)