How postcolonial theories differ from earlier theorization of colonialism?
Answers
Miriam has succinctly said what I am about to take the liberty of expanding. Before an answer is attempted, it is pertinent to see the characteristics of 'postcolonial' and 'decolonial' models.
1. In the case of India, the coloniser saw himself as the part of the world of which the colony became 'the other'. The coloniser can not exist if the other did not exist. To prove the racial, cultural, linguistic superiority, the coloniser had to tacitly accept the existence of its equals in the oriental society. After accepting its existence, then he (coloniser) proceeded to negativise it so as to claim the superiority of his own. Evidence of this can be found abundantly in literary/historical and all such other works of the 17th to 19th century.
2. In the case of the decolonised world, the coloniser ab initio did not even consider the natives worthy of recognition as humans (however inferior) and proceeded to eliminate them from the face of the earth. There was nothing in their language, culture or practices that prompted them to consider the necessity of examining and declaring them inferior. Examples of such a thinking not only prevailed in South America but were also seen in the manner in which the European-Americans (pardon my categorisation) dealt with Red Indian natives. Till date, such prejudices continue to exist in North America as may be seen from occasional media reports.
3. To a large extent, the Church was also responsible for such attitudes since colonisers came to both the part of the Earth (Asia and Americas) from the same continent of Europe. The Papal Bull issued by Pope Nicholas in 1454 is significant because it believed that India was already subject to Christ and it just needed to be reclaimed!! Till now, in my readings I have not come across any such belief in Europe that considered the natives of Americas to considered worthy of any such reclamation.
Keeping the above in mind, we may draw an inference as to the difference between colonisation of the East (particularly India) and Americas. The existence of the first has always been acknowledged for centuries before and Europe simply could not live without the idea of India - cotton, silk, spices and the exotic tales of Inida by Arab merchants and the detailed accounts of Megasthenes and his predecessors/successors were close to European hearts and lives. The Second simply did not exist and when found was monopolised.
Trust this at least gives some answer to the question that merits volumes of exploration!!