Analysis Of Imperialist Nostalgia

Imperialist Nostalgia Masking a Claim of Colonizer Innocence

Clay Jenkinson, a writer for The Brismark Tribune, published a piece on February 27, 2011, regarding the reaction he received from a lecture he previously gave at Bemidji State College in Minnesota. His lecture pertained to “U.S government Indian policy since the time of Lewis and Clark” (Jenkinson 1). As he wrote in the official newspaper for the state of North Dakota, the audience began with only a few senior citizens, then filled to more than 200 people, “quite a few of them Ojibwe Indians” (1). Jenkinson’s writings about this event portray an underling sense of imperialist nostalgia, a concept explained by Renato Rosaldo in his piece, “Imperialist Nostalgia.” This mood of nostalgia

In regard to his lecture, Jenkinson says that the theme was “the remarkable resilience of Native Americans in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.” He continues that “against these seemingly impossible odds, with the weight of the world 's most powerful and acquisitive people saying, ‘assimilate or get out of my way,’ American Indians have somehow survived” (1). This statement not only claims the original helplessness of native people, but also asserts the overwhelming dominance of the Europeans. Even though he frames his claim in a way that should cause blame on the colonizers, he then calls them the “world’s most powerful and acquisitive people” (1). This is problematic through the lens of imperialistic nostalgia because, in assuming this adoptive paternity over a seemingly subordinate group, the nostalgic group may embody an attitude of “humanitarian imperialism” (Rosaldo 112). This justifies the colonizer’s intentions and pushes aside the consequences of their actions. Imperialist nostalgia, specifically through adoptive paternity causes the dominant group to embrace a sympathetic ruse, ignoring the fact that they instigated the

He says that he “did not in any way sugarcoat the effects of U.S. Indian policy, even on those occasions when it was well-intentioned” (1). This embraces the imperialistic nostalgia view of “attempting to establish one’s innocence and at the same time talk about what one has destroyed” (Rosaldo 108). Jenkinson seeks innocence by claiming that the European’s actions were well-intentioned; however, in “not sugar-coating anything,” he is also bragging about everything that Europeans did. After the lecture, he took questions from the audience and “was reprimanded, at different levels of vehemence, for understanding the evil intentions of the U.S government, for failing to admit that the ‘actual policy of the government has been genocide and extermination’” (Jenkinson 2). The audience members picked up on this imperialist nostalgia and attacked him for it. Even in defending himself, Jenkinson further perpetuates imperialist thoughts, which are dangerous because they mask the actual fault of the guilty