Processing Grudges Against Historical Grievances

How revisiting Aimé Césaire's "Discourse on Colonialism" helped me untangle my perception of History

Feb 26, 2022

Reading Aimé Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism for the first time felt like a revelation. The way he so eloquently exposed the hidden violence of colonialism and its harmful rhetoric blew my mind. I had to read this book for school, a Political Theory class on International Relations, and it was at a time when I was still grappling with my pro-Blackness and my belief in the historical narrative of colonialism. I felt like Discourse had the answers to all of my questions, and it was enough to keep me wrapped up in my previous beliefs (refer to my article “From Woke to Awakened” for context). I am currently dismantling my “racial belief system” and revisiting my understanding of History and colonialism got me thinking: is it fair to hold grudges against historical grievances?

Speedy Quick Synopsis — and I Mean Speedy Quick

In his essay Discourse on Colonialism, Martinican poet and politician Aimé Césaire denounces the malevolence of the European colonial agenda. Denouncing the brutal impacts of colonialism and capitalism on the “Third World” particularly Africa and the Caribbean, Césaire emphasizes the necessity for subjugated populations to rally around their Black identity and consciousness to break free from the shackles of colonialism.

I’m Upset

When I read Discourse for the first time, as I mentioned, it felt like a revelation to me. At a point in my life when I wanted to uncover every untold or hidden truth about colonialism, this book was the answer to every single one of my inquiries about History’s underdogs (colonized nations and such). After reading this book, something particular happened. I felt like I was entitled to be angry at the proverbial White man for every single thing wrong in this world because after all, the world we live in is a product of all of this colonial enterprise. It gave me the right to walk around with a chip on my shoulder, I dismissed everything and everyone that was a descendant of European imperialism, and as Césaire put it, I made “a systemic defence of the non-European civilizations1”. As a matter of fact, that systemic defence of non-European civilizations was what shaped my view on History as a whole. I proudly held a grudge against all who committed atrocities and placed the ones who suffered them on a pedestal. As such, it seems kind of natural to think that way; it’s somewhat normal to repudiate the party who’s done wrong and uplift the one who’s endured that said wrong. However, how constructive is that outrage when trying to comprehend historical facts? Why cloud our perspective with emotion and 21st-century bias when interpreting History?

Let Me Break It Down

I understand that everyone has their own relationship to History. Depending on your cultural heritage, certain historical events can have a strong significance in one’s life (think Holocaust, Slavery, Apartheid, etc.) because of the way they can still have real-time impacts. History can mean different things depending on who wrote it and who is interpreting it. Because there isn’t any omniscient narrator recording everything that happens since the dawn of time, and we are the own narrators and writers of our story, there are plot holes and inconsistencies, and piecing history together can be like putting together the pieces of a puzzle. Yet, as I’m writing this I realize that that’s the essence of History: the progress of human life as lived and told by us. So naturally, what happens in the past shapes the present and the present becomes the future’s past and so on. It’s a process filled with trial and error, and flaws, it’s filled with lessons, triumphs, and breakthroughs. However, we have come to a point where we interpret every historical event through the lens of outrage. Consequently, every historical grievance is taken personally, analyzed through a 21st-century microscope, and turned into a cornerstone of our identity.

I also understand that for some (or most), relating to History in that way is the way to go. I can understand that an important step in processing historical grievances is to do so emotionally, it's a reflex almost. It’s as though we have to go through the five stages of grief when dealing with certain historical events. Let’s take my example of colonization mentioned above:

Denial: At first, I felt shocked and confused that such a thing can happen. How can European nations have the audacity to invade, pillage, enslave entire civilizations?
Anger: Then comes the anger or the outrage. These people are evil incarnated, and none of their actions are redeemable.
Bargaining: I started thinking hypothetically, stating things such as “If Whiteness wasn’t the root of all evil, none of this would ever happen”. I would read everything as such, desperately looking for the meaning of it all.
Depression: At that point, the chip on my shoulder grew and all I could do was hold (White) people ransom for something they didn’t commit. At the same time, I felt helpless about all the historical wrongs committed, convinced that we are living in a world where colonial legacies prevail.

For most people, step four is the last resort. Yet, we can’t forget the fifth step. The last, but certainly not the least: Acceptance. Accepting that it is simply the way life goes. Moving on from the past, literally, while taking with you the lessons and understanding that everything happens for a reason, whatever that reason may be.

When it comes to interpreting History, acceptance is going back to my initial point: History is the sequence of human life, filled with flaws. Once the emotion fog has dispersed, rationality and critical thinking kick into gear and help us not only see things for what they are but accept them.

Final Thoughts…

I just started revisiting my relationship with History and untangling my past perspectives from my new ones, and it’s quite a process. This is why I thoroughly enjoyed re-visiting Discourse on Colonialism, an old favourite of mine (I will always strongly recommend this book). Even though I don’t agree with everything like I used to, it doesn’t stop me from appreciating this great piece of literature. If anything, I feel like I can appreciate it in a different way; I was able to read the text while being guided by my critical thinking instead of emotion. The point is not to value rationality over emotion. When something reaches you emotionally, it ignites passion and a strong sense of justice; especially when it comes to historical grievances. But we need to allow that step to be completed, take with us what we’ve learned, move on to the next, and learn to think critically about it. Let me be clear: that does not mean absolving any atrocity committed in the past. It means allowing ourselves to consider the complexities of History, and thus opening our minds up to deeper, and frankly more interesting, perspectives.

FYI

Césaire, Aimé. Discourse on Colonialism (Translated by Joan Pinkham). Monthly Review Press, 2001 (First published in 1950).