News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
A group of experts and scholars with wide-ranging expertise came to Cambridge yesterday to participate in a two-day conference at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study on post colonial war.
Day one of the conference, which was yesterday, focused on the relationship between the nature of the colonial regime and the wars that followed.
Three panels explored cultural differences and colonial objectives that led to violent uprisings and eventual resolutions. Each speaker presented a specific conflict ranging from the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya to the adoption of Aryan nationalism in Sri Lanka.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute professor S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole summed up the general consensus of the conference, saying, “colonialism was not a cause of conflict, but a result of it.”
Panelist presented their viewpoints from their own publications or from life-experiences.
“My main goal here today is I want you to understand the violence during the emergency in Kenya as a part of the colonial movement not a paradox,” said Caroline Elkins, a professor of history at Harvard and a former Radcliffe Institute fellow.
The wide-ranging group of experts hail from esteemed positions in academia, nongovernmental organizations, and the military. The diverse nature of each panel gave rise to an exciting debate on the origins of colonial uprising and violence.
“Its all about escalation, these grassroots movements escalate into something much bigger and more violent,” Thomas A. Marks of the National Defense University said while discussing the difference between colonial violence and tribal conflict.
“It’s not simply about escalation, but about the notion of citizenship,” Elkins responded. “The idea that there were good things that the British did and bad things the British did and that we add them up and decide whether it’s good or bad is silly. It’s about political identity.”
But the panelists agreed as to why each conflict is ignored in the reporting of history.
“These conflicts are still going on, we are still feeling the effects of them,” Marks said. “So history has not had time to judge.
Day two of the conference will highlight the relationship between the conduct of these wars and the postcolonial landscape.
Four more panels today will present on conflicts in Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Algeria, Rwanda and the Congo.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.