THIS write-up serves as a brief rebuttal to the points made by Bruce Gilley, an American lecturer who caused a recent brouhaha over his views on colonialism. Speaking at the University of Malaya at the end of last month, with the title ‘Will Malaysia Become an Active Middle Power’, Gilley took the opportunity to engage in a diatribe against the Malaysian government and her people, mentioning that “… a country whose political leaders advocate a second Holocaust against the Jewish people will never be a serious player in world affairs, and will certainly never be a friend or partner of the US.”. This is an interesting take, to say the least. It assumes that Malaysia is not a ‘serious player’ (whatever that means) at the moment, and that it wants ‘to be a friend or partner of the US’. On the first point on political leaders and the Holocaust, the less said the better. Gilley’s sense of American exceptionalism is strong here, but he would do well to realise that there is an economic and political implosion in his own backyard.

This should not come as a surprise as Gilley has repeatedly pointed out his stance as a defender of colonialism. This is how he puts bread on the table. He has appeared in podcasts to talk on the matter, and has written about how Western colonialism involves “reaffirming the primacy of human values, universal values, and shared responsibilities – the civilising mission without scare quotes – that led to the  improvements in living conditions for most Third World peoples.” (his own words in the problematic paper;
‘The Case for Colonialism’). Now, all seems fair and fine. The powers that encroached on the shores of the Third World were justified in their civilisational mission, as they had – what appeared to be – noble intentions of bringing people to a ‘higher standard of living’. To back up these claims, Gilley highlights how human rights were introduced, and how patriarchies in these far-flung places began to be questioned, and slowly dismantled. In a YouTube podcast titled ‘Uncancelled History with Douglas Murray’ (Ep. 2), Gilley, rather confidently points out, “Civilisation raises those that you conquer from the level of sub-human to being human. Because why would you civilise farm animals? There is no need to civilise farm animals. You
civilise people who you take to be your moral equals…”. We can break this argument by simply challenging the initial claim that those who are not from the Western hemisphere are sub-human. Who decides, and what are the rubrics of assessment?

This argument has been used, like a broken record, on the need for colonialism. However, anyone who has done their homework would know that the ‘civilisational mission’ brought with it utter chaos, and devastated the lives of many across the globe. Even on utilitarian grounds – that is for the greatest good of the greatest number – such attempts at justification fall short. More people suffered than they gained.

In the aforementioned podcast, Gilley does say something true. Human history is replete with examples of conquest, of expansion of empire, and the claiming of vast territories. This we do not deny. However, his glorification of Western colonialism as being beneficial to the colonised is not only condescending, but negates the lived experiences of those who have been subjugated. There is a nullification of other modes of being, a casting aside of other cultures and languages. Such civilisational missions also bring with it the assumed importance of technology and technique, which hides behind the taken-for-granted ‘objectivity’ of science. We would do well to remember the words of decolonial thinkers like Nokuthula Hlabangane, in her chapter in ‘Decolonising the human: Reflections from Africa on difference and oppression’ (2021); “the assertion by Western science that it is ‘objective’ and thus beyond contextual considerations masks its historical situatedness, its provincialism, and its complicity in universalising intersubjective relations.”. Even the individual’s relationship to time is affected as the notion of productivity is forced upon him/her, and the larger community which has been colonised.

It is the hope of this writer that ideas are contested with ideas. If Gilley thinks that there is a case for colonialism, it should be refuted on the basis of the case that is brought forward. If he wants to speak in academic jargon, he should also be refuted by the very tools that he uses. My only regret is that no one challenged his ideas there and then during the talk. This is write-up is a suggestion for us to be more engaged in such discussions so that we are not easily talked down to. May we continue to be proud Malaysians who are well versed in our history, and are aware of the impacts of colonialism on our ancestors.


Arief Subhan holds an MA (Religion in Political Science) from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. He is also former research assistant for the Political Futures Experts Group at the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC).

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.