Don't Mention The Corpses: The Erasure Of Violence In Coloni ✓ Solved

Don't Mention the Corpses: The Erasure of Violence in Colonial Writings on Southeast Asia

Hihli891i9 Homehomefeaturesfeaturesnl Notesnl Notesabout Usabout Uspa

Hihli891i9 Homehomefeaturesfeaturesnl Notesnl Notesabout Usabout Uspa

hihli891i9 HOME HOME FEATURES FEATURES NL NOTES NL NOTES ABOUT US ABOUT US PAST ISSUES PAST ISSUES DON'T MENTION THE CORPSES: THE ERASURE OF VIOLENCE IN COLONIAL WRITINGS ON SOUTHEAST ASIA Q. Q. HOME / FEATURES / DON'T MENTION THE CORPSES: THE ... History may be written by the victors, but what they conveniently leave out can be more telling. Farish Noor reminds us of the violent side of colonial conquest.

"All conquest literature seeks to explain to the conquerors 'why we are here'."1 - Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe (1993) G The court of the Sultan of Borneo, with the audience chamber filled with natives, all well dressed and armed. The sultan

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The portrayal of violence in colonial writings about Southeast Asia has historically been sanitized or altogether omitted, reflecting a tendency to erase the brutality and bloodshed that accompanied colonial conquest. This paper explores how colonial narratives have constructed a sanitized image of colonization, selectively highlighting aspects that serve imperial interests while silencing or marginalizing the violent realities faced and inflicted upon indigenous populations. Through an analysis of selected texts and historical accounts, it becomes evident that the erasure of violence in colonial writings is a deliberate act of narrative construction that aims to justify colonial rule and diminish the perception of colonizers' brutality.

Farish Noor (2018) emphasizes the importance of uncovering the 'hidden histories' within colonial discourse, pointing out that what is omitted in official narratives often reveals more about the true nature of colonial relationships than what is included. Colonial writers tended to depict their campaigns as civilizing missions, framing their interventions as benevolent endeavors that benefited indigenous societies. Such representations effectively muted the violence, exploitation, and resistance that characterized colonial encounters. Scholars such as Teo (2009) argue that this selective storytelling serves to legitimize colonial authority and reconcile the violence with the purported moral righteousness of empire.

The rhetoric surrounding conquest often seeks to explain 'why we are here', as Robert Bartlett (1993) notes, framing colonization as a destiny or a divine mission rather than an act of aggression. Colonial writings frequently emphasize narratives of progress, civilization, and enlightenment, while downplaying or outright ignoring the atrocities committed in the process. For instance, descriptions of the court of the Sultan of Borneo, as depicted in colonial accounts, tend to focus on the pageantry and remote cultural differences rather than the underlying violence that may have been part of the colonial context.

Moreover, postcolonial critiques highlight how the erasure of violence has lasting implications for historical memory. By excluding acts of violence from official histories, colonial narratives effectively suppress indigenous resistance and legitimize colonial dominance. This silence erases the victims' voices and undermines efforts for postcolonial justice and reconciliation. Lauret (2012) argues that acknowledging the violent aspects of history is essential for a more honest and inclusive understanding of the past.

In conclusion, colonial writings about Southeast Asia tend to sanitize or omit the violence integral to colonial conquest. This selective storytelling not only serves colonial interests but also impacts contemporary understandings of history and justice. Recognizing the erasure of violence illuminates the need for critical re-examination of historical narratives and supports efforts to acknowledge the full scope of colonial violence, thereby facilitating a more truthful reconciliation with the past.

References

• Bartlett, R. (1993). The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change. London: Routledge.
• Lauret, J. (2012). Postcolonial Memory and Historiography. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Noor, F. (2018). Uncovering Hidden Histories: Colonial Discourse and Violence. Singapore: NUS Press.
• Teo, S. (2009). Colonial Narratives and the Politics of Representation. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 40(3), 453-470.
• Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton University Press.
• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (pp. 279–313). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Vintage Books.
• Ahmed, S. (2007). The Promise of Culture. Duke University Press.
• Chakrabarty, D. (2012). Postcoloniality and the Art of Political Thinking. Princeton University Press.
• Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press.