Internal colonialism is the uneven effects ofeconomic development on a regional basis, otherwise known as "uneven development" as a result of the exploitation ofminority groups within a wider society which leads topolitical andeconomic inequalities betweenregions within astate. This is held to be similar to the relationship between ametropole and acolony, incolonialism proper. The phenomenon leads to the distinct separation of the dominant core from the periphery in anempire.[1]
Robert Blauner is regarded as the developer of the theory of internal colonialism.[2] The term was coined to highlight the "blurred" lines between geographically close locations that are clearly different in terms ofculture.[3] Some other factors that separate the core from the periphery arelanguage,religion,physical appearance, types and levels oftechnology, andsexual behavior.[4] The cultural and integrative nature of internal colonialism is understood as a project ofmodernity and it has been explored by Robert Peckham in relation to the formation of a national modernGreek culture during the nineteenth century, whenGreece gained its independence from theOttoman Empire.[5]
The main difference betweenneocolonialism and internal colonialism is the source of the exploitation. In the former, the control comes from outside the nation-state, while in the latter it comes from within.
The first known use of the concept of internal colonialism was byMarquard (1957) regardingSouth Africa. However, the concept became popularized following the publication of an article onMexico byGonzalez Casanova (1965). Gonzalez Casanova was both critiqued by, and influencedAndre Gunder Frank, who further theorised internal colonialism as a form of "uneven development".Sergio Salvi, a poet, essayist, and historian of minority languages, used the term "internal colonies" in the cultural sense inLe nazioni proibite: Guida a dieci colonie interne dell'Europa occidentale ("The forbidden nations: Guide to ten internal colonies of western Europe") (1973), among which he includedCatalonia,Scotland,Brittany andOccitania. Other pivotal works on the subject were published during the mid-1970s byHarold Wolpe andMichael Hechter.
A common topic amongstpostcolonial writers was their description of feelings, such as schizophrenia,[6] being torn between local tradition and global modernity.[1]
Afghanistan is an example of internal colonialism affecting state-building, asNazif Shahrani argues "the incessantly centralizing state policies and practices of internal colonialism, generally aided and abetted by old colonialist powers... produced a cumulatively negative impact on state-building efforts in Afghanistan."[7] The international security scholar, Dipali Mukhopadhyay, considers the presence of warlordism in the Afghan periphery to be a concern for the development of the political economy, with the 2007 World Bank Report highlighting weak institutional links between provincial offices and relationships with the central government poorly defined.[8]
One of the exceptions of internal colonialism as the subsistence of 'blurred lines' between the core and periphery is French Algeria. There were clearly distinct features separating the core from the periphery. "The core was Christian, French-speaking, light-skinned, and comparatively prosperous".[4] The other side was Muslim, Arabic- or Berber-speaking, and significantly poorer.[1] The grey area of French Algeria was the large Jewish population, which did not belong in either the core or periphery in terms of common cultural factors.[1]
Austro-Hungarian Empire exhibited characteristics of internal colonialism, where certain regions and ethnic groups within the empire (like Hungary and Transylvania) were systematically disadvantaged compared to the dominant German-speaking core.[9]
In the mid of twenty century, the Soviet-annexed countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania had a colonial relationship with the rest of the Soviet Union, similar to the one that existed between the old tsarist empire and its far-flung territories.[10] Although the countries were gradually being Sovietized after their period of initial resistance, the newly established economic, cultural, and social circumstances were colonial, as the reconstruction of the economy in the region served the interests of the colonizers, identities became shaped in relation to the increasing Soviet presence, the experience of oppression became an increasingly important part of the local culture, and local historical and cultural heritage was revalued and rewritten.[11] When the Soviet Union dissolved and the Baltic states became independent once again, they had to deal with problems similar to other postcolonial nations: polluted landscapes, damaged economies, ethnic tensions, and determining the national narrative of the past, present and future.[12]
Conway (2014) documents the internal colonialism of Western Canadian Provinces by Central Canada, citing issues with theNational Energy Program, theCrow Rate, andEqualization payments in Canada amongst others.
Since thebeginning of the Chinese administration in Tibet, China's government has been accused of committing bothgenocide andcultural genocide against theTibetan people by theTGIE, various Tibetan emigres, and their supporters. Tibet, having been a self-governed province of China, has been completely annexed by China since 1951 with the Tibetan Government in Exile (TGIE) claiming that 1.2 million Tibetans died from the actions of the Chinese administration from 1951 to 1984. Supporters of the claim that the actions of the Chinese administration in Tibet constitutes genocide and colonialism challenge the Chinese government's claim that Tibet has been considered an integral part ofChina for centuries, arguing that historical correspondences make it clear thatTibet was not considered a part of China until recent times.[13] However, the nature of Chinese administration in the region has been the subject of fierce debate with many detractors, such as Hong Kong-based Tibet expertBarry Sautman, challenging the notion that Chinese practices in Tibet can be characterized as genocidal or colonial and arguing that the political and legal equality of Tibetans under the current administration undermines the notion of colonialism in the region.
An example of internal colonialism is Ireland.[1] Ireland was formerly a part of the United Kingdom and "...was far more common and apparently easier, to think of oneself as Britishand Irish".[6] It was increasingly more difficult to choose between the two.[1]
In thePhilippines,non-Manilans have often expressed that the affairs of the country—whetherpolitical,economic but most importantlycultural includinglinguistic—are imposed from the Manilan core on the peripheral rest of the country due to Tagalist nationalism.[14] This has been articulated in aCebuano saying, which goes, "Walay dahong mahulog sa atong nasod nga dili mananghid saMalakanyang," translated as "Not a leaf may fall in our country without Malacañang's permission."[a] It is also ominous that certain personalities have called for the political isolation, overthrow and outright assassination of those who are opposed to the current core–periphery relationship.[b][16]
Mindanao, with its favorable location below the typhoon belt and its rich mineral resources, naturally attracted foreign capital to the area. This prompted thenPresident Ramon Magsaysay since the mid-1950s and subsequentlyPresident Ferdinand Marcos (1966–1986) to systematically resettle people into Mindanao. This led to the proportion of indigenous peoples in Mindanao to shrink from majority in 1913 to minority by 1976.[17] The best lands in Mindanao were given to settlers and owners of corporate agriculture, while most development investments and government services were offered to the Christian population. This caused the Muslim population to be backward and rank among the poorest in their own country.[18] The resettlement programme was not entirely peaceful as some settlers managed to obtain land from the native Muslims through harassment and other violent efforts which drove the Muslims out of their own lands.[19]
The Muslims were alienated by the Philippines government and felt threatened by Christian economic and political domination in their own homeland. This resorted in some Muslim groups to turn to extortion and violence to protect their own land and refrain from being displaced. Such efforts of “integration” had led to the crystallisation of the Moro identity as the Muslims’ identity with the Filipino nation declined rapidly due to the threat in economic and social Muslim life.[20]
As an effect of the resettlement, traditional Muslim leaders (also referred asdatu) were also voted out during the polls as Christians, who made up a significant majority of the voters, preferred the Christian politicians over them. These localdatus suffered a loss in prestige as they could no longer control the Muslim lands.[21] These politicians lost much of the capabilities they had possessed initially to manage the Muslim populace.[22]
International Dimensions of the Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka, Prof John P. Neelsen (Tuebingen University, Germany), 20th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies, 8–11 July 2008:A shortcoming in international law as to internal colonialism and the right toself-determination renders the current types of international intervention not just inadequate to contribute to a negotiated solution of ethnic conflicts, but tends to inflame them.
Power Sharing as Peace Structure: The Case of Sri Lanka, IICP Working Paper, No. 2, 2005,Johan Galtung, Professor of Peace Studies: ‘’External Colonialism: Democracy :: Internal Colonialism: Human Rights’’
National Liberation Movements in Global Context, Dr. Jeff Sluka, Massey University, New Zealand Proceedings of the Conference on 'Tamils in New Zealand', July 1996 - Wellington, New Zealand. This situation, where a state exploits and oppresses peoples and regions within their own boundaries much the way the European colonial powers used to exploit and oppress foreign colonies, has been described as "internal colonialism".[23] Sri Lanka is an example of this. Many Third World peoples found that after "independence" they had simply traded one set of oppressors (white) for another (brown and black). The result is that today many Third World states, most of them the direct or indirect result of national liberation wars themselves, are now fighting against national liberation movements within their borders.
Fourth World Colonialism, Indigenous Minorities And Tamil Separatism In Sri Lanka, Bryan Pfaffenberger (Virginia University), Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 16, 1984:Despite the withdrawal of colonial power from Third World countries, forms of oppression that might well be termed "colonial" still persist in many of them — the oppression wrought by nationalist Third World governments whose regimes fail to respect the rights of indigenous minorities. For ethnic and regional minorities in many Third World countries, the arrogance and injustice of these governments matches — and often exceeds — those of the departed European colonial regime. The island nation Sri Lanka presents a case in point. Little public investment appears to reach the Tamil lands….
During the early 20th century, the Siamese Empire which was amandala empire consisted of several vassal states such as principalities of the formerLan Na Kingdom to the north and theSultanate of Patani to the south under the tightening suzerainty of the Siamese Kingdom was transformed in to a unitary modern nation-state by abolishing the vassal status of the vassal states, incorporating them into an integral part of Siam, and assimilating the cultures of the vassals via the process of Thaifcation. For internal colonization in the kingdom ofThailand, refer to articles onMonthon and onThaification. There is a posited link between internal colonialism and ethnic rebellion in Thailand.[24]
The internal colonization of the Eastern Provinces was outlined during the Government ofMustafa Kemal Atatürk.[25]Cemil Uyabdin saw theReport for Reform in the East as a guideline to the internal colonization of the Eastern Provinces through which theKurdish population should beturkified.[26] In a report delivered to theRepublican Peoples Party (CHP) following the defeat of theDersim Rebellion, theResettlement Law issued in 1934 was also described as an effective vehicle for the internal colonization of the eastern provinces.[27]
The relationship betweenAppalachia and the rest of the United States, historically characterized by mineral extraction, the destruction of the natural environment, and the exploitation of the miner class - at one time paid only incompany scrip and policed by private armies, as led to deep-rooted poverty and health issues in the region. In 1963, historianHarry M. Caudill characterized Central Appalachia as "a colonial appendage of the industrial East and Middle West."[28]
[W]e've left sacred and untouched, spotless and unsullied, the same centralist authority where near-absolute political power continues to reside: Imperial Manila. My father spoke the truth when he used to lament in Cebuano,"Wa y dahong mahulog sa atong nasud nga di mananghid sa Malacañang" (Not a leaf can fall in our country without Malacañang's permission)[15]
