Dear Editor,
‘Not rooted in the colonial past’ (SN 5.12.08) cites the conclusions of the late Professor William McCord that only Asian nations have shown progress since independence.
I think if Mr Bisram were to go back further he would find similar conclusions by many ‘learned’ historians and others who opined that some groups were better off as slaves or second-class citizens than to be given dominion over their own circumstances.
Mr Bisram draws conclusions based on very shallow and surface examinations of history and the circumstances that shape it. A very strange conditioning from the countryman of a historian who answered most of the questions regarding the state in which much of the post-colonial world is, in his work, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.
Mr Bisram seemed to reflect the concerns of only one ethnic group in a remark to Ms Holder, ie,
“She seems to have forgotten that the inability to eat roti, channa, potatoes, dhal and other basic foods and to obtain paraphernalia associated with religious practices characterized life under independent rule.”
Isn’t it ironic in his chatisement of her that he remains oblivious to the fact that colonial rule is also associated with slavery, the inability to name yourself, to choose your spouse, or to live as a family? One man’s utopia can be another’s hell.
The circumstances of colonial history are much too nuanced to be simply summed up on the basis of whether nations were more developed before than after. I would prefer to live free in a cave and scrounge for my living every day, than as a slave in a mansion regularly eating what was handed to me under the table.
Yours faithfully,
Robin Williams
