Assignment of African Literature
Name :- Jagruti R. Vasani
Semester :- 4
Roll No. :- 15
Enrollment No.:- 2069108420180054
Batch :- 2017-2019
Paper :- The African Literature
Topic :- Conflict between Civilization And Barbarians
Email-Id :- jagrutivasani17@gmail.com
Submitted To :- Smt S. B. Gardi Department of English, MKBU
Introduction:-
Waiting for the Barbarians are written by J.M. Coetzee who is south African Writer. As we all know
that African writers can’t write with comfort and with peace because they themselves feel and
experience of agony and tourney of the society. We can’t except that these writer write
something new or which give some pleasure because it is not impossible because they have no
good memories. They know only pain and suffering atmosphere and the mostly class conflict
colour conflict or racism in which they are grown up.
The Nobel prize winner writer write waiting for the barbarians in which he describes the conflict
between two community and identity. The main conflict of the novel between civilization and
barbarians but first we have to discuss about what is civilization and what is barbarians.?
What is Civilized.?
Civilized is the modern concept in which people have some of sophistication in each things means it is
developed by urban people who believe themselves civilized with culture and some technical
and urban development.
What is Barbarians.?
*According to civilized
*Barbarians are brutal, uncultured who have no sense of behaviour
*Barbarians behaves like savage like or similar to animal
*But question is who decide, who is civilized or who is barbarians..?
Conflict between Civilization and Barbarians
The march of “civilization” against “barbarism” is a late-19th-century construct that cast imperialist wars
as moral crusades. Driven by competition with each other and pressures at home, the world’s major
powers ventured to ever-distant lands to spread their religion, culture, power, and sources of profits.
This unit examines cartoons from the turn-of-the-century visual record that reference civilization and its
nemesis—barbarism. In the United States Puck, Judge, and the first version of a pictorial magazine titled
Life; in France L’Assiette au Beurre; and in Germany the acerbic Simplicissimus published masterful
illustrations that ranged in opinion and style from partisan to thoughtful to gruesome. In the
“civilization” narrative, barbarians were commonly identified as the non-Western, non-white, nonChristian natives of the less-developed nations of the world. Three turn-of-the-century conflicts in
particular stirred the righteous rhetoric of the white imperialists. One was the second Boer War of
1899–1902 that pitted British forces against Dutch-speaking settlers in South Africa and their black
supporters. The second was the U.S. conquest and occupation of the Philippines that began in 1899. And
the third was the anti-foreign Boxer Uprising in China in 1899–1901, which led to military intervention
by no less than eight foreign nations including not only Tsarist Russia and the Western powers, but also
Japan.
Civilization and barbarism were vividly portrayed in the visual record. The word "Civilization" (with a
capital “C”), alongside “Progress,” was counter posed against the goddess figures and other national
symbols were over written with the message on their clothing and the flags they carried.
The archetypal dominance of “Civilization” over “Barbarism” is conveyed in a 1902 Puck graphic with the
sweeping white figure of Britannia leading British soldiers and colonists in the Boer War. A band of tribal
defenders, whose leader rides a white charger and wields the flag of “Barbarism,” fades in the face of
Civilization’s advance. The caption, “From the Cape to Cairo. Though the Process Be Costly, The Road of
Progress Must Be Cut,” states that progress must be pursued despite suffering on both sides. The
message suggests that the indigenous man will be brought out of ignorance through the inescapable
march of progress in the form of Western civilization.
Such avowed paternalism towards other cultures recast the invasion of their lands as altruistic service to
humankind. The aggressors brought progress in the form of modern technology, communications, and
Western dress and culture. Christian missionaries often led the way, followed by politicians, troops,
and—bringing up the rear—businessmen. Education in the ways of the West completed the political and
commercial occupation. Cartoons endorsing imperialist expansion depicted a beneficent West as father,
teacher, even Santa Claus—bearing the gifts of progress to benefit poor, backward, and childlike nations
destined to become profitable new markets. In the United States, the Boer War, conquest of the
Philippines, and Boxer Uprising prompted large, detailed, sophisticated, full-colour cartoons in Puck and
Judge. Although these magazines were affiliated with different political parties—the Democratic Party
and Republican Party respectively—both generally supported pro-expansionist policies. Opposing
viewpoints usually found expression in simpler but no less powerful black-and-white graphics in other
publications. Periodicals like Life in the U.S. (predecessor to the later famous weekly of the same title),
as well as French and German publications, printed both poignant and outraged visual arguments
against the imperialist tide, often with acute sensitivity to its racist underpinnings.
These more critical graphics did not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, they reflected tense debates
about “civilization,” “progress,” and “the white man’s burden” that took place on both sides of the
Atlantic. It was the anti-imperialist cartoonists, however, who most starkly posed the question: who is
the real barbarian? The terms “barbarism,” “barbarians,” and “civilization” figure prominently in political
speeches, the media, historiography, cultural theory, and everyday language in the West.
This study intervenes in the rhetoric of “civilization versus barbarism,” which has been particularly
popular since the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern-bloc
Europe, and especially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The opposition between “us”
and “them” today is primarily established in moral and cultural terms. Global conflicts are no longer
perceived as a struggle between right and left, capitalism and communism, but rather in terms of what
Samuel Huntington has called “the clash of civilizations.” This purported clash is often translated as a
struggle of “right versus wrong” or “good versus evil.” In this context, tagging others as “barbarians”
enables their construction as enemies needing destruction rather than worthy adversaries with
legitimate standpoints. In this study, I take issue with the current rhetoric around barbarism and
civilization and interrogate contemporary as well as historical uses of the “barbarian” in the West.
Despite the long-standing history of the “barbarian,” and although a lot is being written and said these
days about “barbarism” and “civilization,” the meaning of these terms is often taken for granted and the
hierarchical opposition between “civilized” and “barbarians” remains fixed. In the face of this semantic
rigidity, I show how literature, art, and theory can mobilize the concept of barbarism in the cultural field.
Instead of reinforcing a discourse that divides the world into forces of good and evil, I contend that
barbarism can also challenge dominant discourses and engage in constructive operations. By dislodging
it from its conventional contexts, I rekindle the critical potential of this concept, propose it as an agent in
cultural critique, and steer it towards new fields of application.
In this study, issue with the current rhetoric around barbarism and civilization and interrogate
contemporary as well as historical uses of the “barbarian” in the West. Despite the long-standing history
of the “barbarian,” and although a lot is being written and said these days about “barbarism” and
“civilization,” the meaning of these terms is often taken for granted and the hierarchical opposition
between “civilized” and “barbarians” remains fixed. In the face of this semantic rigidity, I show how
literature, art, and theory can mobilize the concept of barbarism in the cultural field. Instead of
reinforcing a discourse that divides the world into forces of good and evil, I contend that barbarism can
also challenge dominant discourses and engage in constructive operations. By dislodging it from its
conventional contexts, I rekindle the critical potential of this concept, propose it as an agent in cultural
critique, and steer it towards new fields of application. Both “barbarism” and the “barbarian” are
accompanied by a seemingly inescapable negativity. Barbarism operates as the negative standard
against which civilization measures its virtue, humanity or level of sophistication. In this opposition,
barbarism and civilization are interdependent concepts. The “civilized” can conceive themselves as
sophisticated, mature, superior, humane, because they construct their “barbarians” as infantile, inferior,
or savage. In refusing to go along with this logic, I contend that the concept of barbarism oscillates
between two conflicting functions. On the one hand, it reinforces the discourse of civilization that needs
it as its antipode. On the other hand, barbarism also nurtures a disruptive, insurgent potential, which
can undermine the workings of the same discourse that constructs the “barbarian” for the sake of
civilization’s self-definition.
The struggle between civilization and barbarism over centuries is incredibly well documented. Walter
Benjamin declared that “there is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of
barbarism” and this essay will declare that he is correct. It is indeed true that there is a constant struggle
between these two social structures, and many of the struggles will be highlighted and analysed.
Moreover, the paper will then go one step further by offering a partially Marxist analysis of the question.
The relevance of this critique will be determined by applying it to modern historical events. Not only is
there a struggle between civilization and barbarism as two separate entities, for example ‘good’ and
‘evil’, but there is an inherent interconnectedness whereby “civilization reproduces barbarism within
itself”. This will be the basis of a paper that will conclude that the struggle between civilization and
barbarism is at the heart of world politics, but the self-destructive tendencies within civilization are
absolutely imperative to fully understanding this extraordinary struggle.
These days the conflict between civilisation and barbarism has taken an ominous turn. We face a
conflict between civilisation and culture, which used to be on the same side. Civilisation means rational
reflection, material wellbeing, individual autonomy and ironic self-doubt; culture means a form of life
that is customary, collective, passionate, spontaneous, unreflective and a rational. It is no surprise,
then, to find that we have civilisation whereas they have culture. Culture is the new barbarism.
Epilogue is that Thus the conflict between civilization and Barbarians remain there it is.
*Thank You*
Name :- Jagruti R. Vasani
Semester :- 4
Roll No. :- 15
Enrollment No.:- 2069108420180054
Batch :- 2017-2019
Paper :- The African Literature
Topic :- Conflict between Civilization And Barbarians
Email-Id :- jagrutivasani17@gmail.com
Submitted To :- Smt S. B. Gardi Department of English, MKBU
Introduction:-
Waiting for the Barbarians are written by J.M. Coetzee who is south African Writer. As we all know
that African writers can’t write with comfort and with peace because they themselves feel and
experience of agony and tourney of the society. We can’t except that these writer write
something new or which give some pleasure because it is not impossible because they have no
good memories. They know only pain and suffering atmosphere and the mostly class conflict
colour conflict or racism in which they are grown up.
The Nobel prize winner writer write waiting for the barbarians in which he describes the conflict
between two community and identity. The main conflict of the novel between civilization and
barbarians but first we have to discuss about what is civilization and what is barbarians.?
What is Civilized.?
Civilized is the modern concept in which people have some of sophistication in each things means it is
developed by urban people who believe themselves civilized with culture and some technical
and urban development.
What is Barbarians.?
*According to civilized
*Barbarians are brutal, uncultured who have no sense of behaviour
*Barbarians behaves like savage like or similar to animal
*But question is who decide, who is civilized or who is barbarians..?
Conflict between Civilization and Barbarians
The march of “civilization” against “barbarism” is a late-19th-century construct that cast imperialist wars
as moral crusades. Driven by competition with each other and pressures at home, the world’s major
powers ventured to ever-distant lands to spread their religion, culture, power, and sources of profits.
This unit examines cartoons from the turn-of-the-century visual record that reference civilization and its
nemesis—barbarism. In the United States Puck, Judge, and the first version of a pictorial magazine titled
Life; in France L’Assiette au Beurre; and in Germany the acerbic Simplicissimus published masterful
illustrations that ranged in opinion and style from partisan to thoughtful to gruesome. In the
“civilization” narrative, barbarians were commonly identified as the non-Western, non-white, nonChristian natives of the less-developed nations of the world. Three turn-of-the-century conflicts in
particular stirred the righteous rhetoric of the white imperialists. One was the second Boer War of
1899–1902 that pitted British forces against Dutch-speaking settlers in South Africa and their black
supporters. The second was the U.S. conquest and occupation of the Philippines that began in 1899. And
the third was the anti-foreign Boxer Uprising in China in 1899–1901, which led to military intervention
by no less than eight foreign nations including not only Tsarist Russia and the Western powers, but also
Japan.
Civilization and barbarism were vividly portrayed in the visual record. The word "Civilization" (with a
capital “C”), alongside “Progress,” was counter posed against the goddess figures and other national
symbols were over written with the message on their clothing and the flags they carried.
The archetypal dominance of “Civilization” over “Barbarism” is conveyed in a 1902 Puck graphic with the
sweeping white figure of Britannia leading British soldiers and colonists in the Boer War. A band of tribal
defenders, whose leader rides a white charger and wields the flag of “Barbarism,” fades in the face of
Civilization’s advance. The caption, “From the Cape to Cairo. Though the Process Be Costly, The Road of
Progress Must Be Cut,” states that progress must be pursued despite suffering on both sides. The
message suggests that the indigenous man will be brought out of ignorance through the inescapable
march of progress in the form of Western civilization.
Such avowed paternalism towards other cultures recast the invasion of their lands as altruistic service to
humankind. The aggressors brought progress in the form of modern technology, communications, and
Western dress and culture. Christian missionaries often led the way, followed by politicians, troops,
and—bringing up the rear—businessmen. Education in the ways of the West completed the political and
commercial occupation. Cartoons endorsing imperialist expansion depicted a beneficent West as father,
teacher, even Santa Claus—bearing the gifts of progress to benefit poor, backward, and childlike nations
destined to become profitable new markets. In the United States, the Boer War, conquest of the
Philippines, and Boxer Uprising prompted large, detailed, sophisticated, full-colour cartoons in Puck and
Judge. Although these magazines were affiliated with different political parties—the Democratic Party
and Republican Party respectively—both generally supported pro-expansionist policies. Opposing
viewpoints usually found expression in simpler but no less powerful black-and-white graphics in other
publications. Periodicals like Life in the U.S. (predecessor to the later famous weekly of the same title),
as well as French and German publications, printed both poignant and outraged visual arguments
against the imperialist tide, often with acute sensitivity to its racist underpinnings.
These more critical graphics did not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, they reflected tense debates
about “civilization,” “progress,” and “the white man’s burden” that took place on both sides of the
Atlantic. It was the anti-imperialist cartoonists, however, who most starkly posed the question: who is
the real barbarian? The terms “barbarism,” “barbarians,” and “civilization” figure prominently in political
speeches, the media, historiography, cultural theory, and everyday language in the West.
This study intervenes in the rhetoric of “civilization versus barbarism,” which has been particularly
popular since the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern-bloc
Europe, and especially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The opposition between “us”
and “them” today is primarily established in moral and cultural terms. Global conflicts are no longer
perceived as a struggle between right and left, capitalism and communism, but rather in terms of what
Samuel Huntington has called “the clash of civilizations.” This purported clash is often translated as a
struggle of “right versus wrong” or “good versus evil.” In this context, tagging others as “barbarians”
enables their construction as enemies needing destruction rather than worthy adversaries with
legitimate standpoints. In this study, I take issue with the current rhetoric around barbarism and
civilization and interrogate contemporary as well as historical uses of the “barbarian” in the West.
Despite the long-standing history of the “barbarian,” and although a lot is being written and said these
days about “barbarism” and “civilization,” the meaning of these terms is often taken for granted and the
hierarchical opposition between “civilized” and “barbarians” remains fixed. In the face of this semantic
rigidity, I show how literature, art, and theory can mobilize the concept of barbarism in the cultural field.
Instead of reinforcing a discourse that divides the world into forces of good and evil, I contend that
barbarism can also challenge dominant discourses and engage in constructive operations. By dislodging
it from its conventional contexts, I rekindle the critical potential of this concept, propose it as an agent in
cultural critique, and steer it towards new fields of application.
In this study, issue with the current rhetoric around barbarism and civilization and interrogate
contemporary as well as historical uses of the “barbarian” in the West. Despite the long-standing history
of the “barbarian,” and although a lot is being written and said these days about “barbarism” and
“civilization,” the meaning of these terms is often taken for granted and the hierarchical opposition
between “civilized” and “barbarians” remains fixed. In the face of this semantic rigidity, I show how
literature, art, and theory can mobilize the concept of barbarism in the cultural field. Instead of
reinforcing a discourse that divides the world into forces of good and evil, I contend that barbarism can
also challenge dominant discourses and engage in constructive operations. By dislodging it from its
conventional contexts, I rekindle the critical potential of this concept, propose it as an agent in cultural
critique, and steer it towards new fields of application. Both “barbarism” and the “barbarian” are
accompanied by a seemingly inescapable negativity. Barbarism operates as the negative standard
against which civilization measures its virtue, humanity or level of sophistication. In this opposition,
barbarism and civilization are interdependent concepts. The “civilized” can conceive themselves as
sophisticated, mature, superior, humane, because they construct their “barbarians” as infantile, inferior,
or savage. In refusing to go along with this logic, I contend that the concept of barbarism oscillates
between two conflicting functions. On the one hand, it reinforces the discourse of civilization that needs
it as its antipode. On the other hand, barbarism also nurtures a disruptive, insurgent potential, which
can undermine the workings of the same discourse that constructs the “barbarian” for the sake of
civilization’s self-definition.
The struggle between civilization and barbarism over centuries is incredibly well documented. Walter
Benjamin declared that “there is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of
barbarism” and this essay will declare that he is correct. It is indeed true that there is a constant struggle
between these two social structures, and many of the struggles will be highlighted and analysed.
Moreover, the paper will then go one step further by offering a partially Marxist analysis of the question.
The relevance of this critique will be determined by applying it to modern historical events. Not only is
there a struggle between civilization and barbarism as two separate entities, for example ‘good’ and
‘evil’, but there is an inherent interconnectedness whereby “civilization reproduces barbarism within
itself”. This will be the basis of a paper that will conclude that the struggle between civilization and
barbarism is at the heart of world politics, but the self-destructive tendencies within civilization are
absolutely imperative to fully understanding this extraordinary struggle.
These days the conflict between civilisation and barbarism has taken an ominous turn. We face a
conflict between civilisation and culture, which used to be on the same side. Civilisation means rational
reflection, material wellbeing, individual autonomy and ironic self-doubt; culture means a form of life
that is customary, collective, passionate, spontaneous, unreflective and a rational. It is no surprise,
then, to find that we have civilisation whereas they have culture. Culture is the new barbarism.
Epilogue is that Thus the conflict between civilization and Barbarians remain there it is.
*Thank You*
No comments:
Post a Comment