I have a presentation titled "Colonial Representation of Colonised People: A Case Study of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh" which is scheduled to be held in the University of Hull, September 11, 2009, organised by the Department of Politics and International Studies at Hull. I am going to discuss that colonialism is conventionally defined as occupation of weakers’ territory by stronger nation or state for political domination, economic exploitation, and ‘civilising’ mission. Some radical scholars view colonialism as a cultural practice and relations between unequal powers. My study critically examines this established epistemology of colonialism arguing that colonisers did not only exploit the economic resources of, and exert political dominance upon, occupied territory but also represent the colonised people in texts and textures as ‘uncivilised’ category to substantiate colonialists’ claims of being civilised. I will prove it with the evidences referring to the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh which was colonised from 1860 to 1947 by the British as part of British Bengal. My theoretical framework is related to the anthropology of colonialism. I do welcome remarks on it and any substantial comment from group members (Anthropology of Colonialism and Empire) will be appreciated.
I am so sorry that no one has replied to your thread. However, I would love to read an excerpt or even the entire paper before I make any crucial remarks. I do agree that the plight of colonisation was to justify their own actions through the reform of the "uncivilised". However, in much of the colonial texts of the Americas one finds the use of the "uncanny" (if we can call it that) to mask what colonists themselves saw as inhumane or wrong during their quest for power.