A commentary by a Victoria writer who is the author of A Snake on the Heart: History, Mystery, and Truth – The Entangled Journeys of a Biographer and His Nazi Subject.
Upon reading emeritus professor Dennis Danielson’s commentary, “Tolerate me for what I am — a colonial” (Aug. 26), I had two quick thoughts.
First, his intent was humour. Second, I bet he provokes a storm of reaction.
And, boy oh boy, did he! Eleven of the 16 letters on the Aug. 29 Comment page were either strongly in favour or opposed to what he had to say. (Of the other five letters, four were on the equally contentious topic of lawn watering.)
The Comment page is a reflection of our community and its diversity. It provides regular snapshots of current hot topics and how we are responding to them.
It offers grist for the mill, whether that grist leads to a laugh or a harrumph, to reflection or formal response, creating the opportunity for all of us to be millers, living in and relating to the world around us.
As for the good professor’s comments about colonialism, they elicited observations about psychological baggage, colonialism’s connection to patriarchy, and the courage of gays who have proclaimed their identity and sought to take an equal place in our diverse society.
There was also insight into troublesome terminology and the challenge of communication relative to the evolving dialogue on subjects such as reconciliation, e.g., one person who finds the term “settler” to be “racist and offensive.” All of it, more grist for our mills.
It is worth noting that the same day the professor’s hot-button commentary ran, The Globe and Mail published an opinion piece by political economist John Rapley, “Does the world need more sa国际传媒?” in which he argues that as a British dominion and a U.S. ally, sa国际传媒 has had generations of wealth and comfort at the expense of the developing world.
“After slavery’s abolition in the British Empire,” Rapley writes, “India became the economic jewel in the imperial crown. It also quickly occupied an important role in sa国际传媒’s economic development. … Britain usually ran a surplus on its trade with India, but ran a deficit on its overall imperial balance of payments. In effect, it recirculated surpluses generated in its Indian colonies toward investment elsewhere in its empire, notably its ‘white dominions’ like sa国际传媒, among other things providing much of the capital that built the national railway.
“In this way, sa国际传媒 sat at the pinnacle of a web of global exploitation, able to secure most of the benefits of imperial domination while bearing few of its costs: colonial wars, expensive navies, imperial administrations. And so, as sa国际传媒 rose in the 19th century, India fell backward. From producing a fifth of the world’s industrial output in 1800, India’s share of global manufacturing fell to one-20th at the century’s end.”
Yet Rapley concludes by saying, “if there ever were a time that the world really could use more sa国际传媒, this is probably it.”
He maintains, “sa国际传媒 is today one of the planet’s rare countries able to claim it has created a harmonious political order out of disparate peoples.”
He adds that sa国际传媒 has “a distinctive attribute … an unusually good ability to see things from several sides.”
Comment pages like that of the sa国际传媒 contribute to this attribute and ability. They give us the opportunity to broaden our horizons.
So, let us continue to learn from the past. Let us put a priority on listening, reflecting and holding space for others. If we can’t all agree on what debts we should pay, I’d hope we can agree that we have a responsibility to one another, that we are our brother’s — or, more appropriately, our sibling’s — keeper.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
