Unmasking Systemic Oppression:
The development and applications of Internal Colonialism
From 1957 to 1966, Eldridge Cleaver, black activist and future organizer of the Black Panther Party, was imprisoned for a racially-motivated murder. Cleaver used this time to become familiar with comparative theories of racial oppression in the United States, and writing his own manifestos for black autonomy. In one of these essays, “The Land Question and Black Liberation”, Cleaver offers an explanation as to how racial oppression functions in American society. According to Cleaver, the issue of racial oppression and powerlessness is based on the “colonial situation” of racialized minority groups in the United States. Cleaver writes, “Black People are a stolen people held in colonial status on stolen land, and any analysis which does not acknowledge the colonial status of black people cannot hope to deal with the real problem” (Scheer, 1969).
Internal colonialism attempts to uncover forms of institutional oppression, and reveal methods of structural, systemic, and internalized colonialism. The development of the theory was initially perpetuated by black activists in the early 1960s attempting to explain the decay of their communities, and to promote Black Nationalism. The theory was then articulated by the academic community, specifically sociologist Robert Blauner, and applied to a broad spectrum of contexts relating to colonized minority groups in the United States. The theory would then experience a major transition as scholars began applying its general themes of power and oppression to other contexts, specifically historical studies and the dynamics corporate American. And recently, scholars are beginning to revise the theory to accommodate a more homogenized and globalized American society of the 21st century. This essay will examine these topics, develop a framework for understanding the basic components of internal colonialism, and offer an explanation as to its importance in understanding race relations and power relations in American society. The development and applications of internal colonialism have attempted to uncover covert forms of racial oppression, and has provided a necessary framework for understanding the contemporary colonial situation faced by racialized minority groups in the United States, as well as around the world.
The emergence and maintenance of American civilization has been based, in part, on the expansion of social, political, and economic ideologies. This expansion has often meant the infiltration of minority communities by dominant forces attempting to spread the ideologies, and the success of expansion hinged on the ability of the dominant outside forces to acculturate and assimilate minority populations to the extent where minority populations on the periphery become representative of the dominate outsiders. This is the basis of the “colonizer” and “colonized” relationship. This has been performed both internationally and domestically. Racialized minority populations in the United States (Native Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Chicano/Latinos) have been subject to this relationship. Historically, the relationship was defined by external forms of colonization, which were attempts by social or political forces to confine and isolate minority populations, and make them subject to national ideologies or federal policies. But after external colonization had reached its limit, continued colonization of these groups moved internal, and the social or political forces of the “outsiders” began to infiltrate the institutions and functions of isolated minority populations in order to continue to the assimilation, acculturation, and colonization process. This is internal colonialism.
The early mentions to internal colonialism did not come from the academic community or social theorists, but from African-American leaders concerned about the social, political, and economic decay of their communities. The momentum of social change ignited by black activists in the Civil Rights Movement, inspired many blacks to become more aggressive in their efforts for social change. A significant division was made between black Civil Rights activists. This division was defined by those who were advocating civil rights in the form of racial integration, and those demanding racial segregation and black autonomy. James Baldwin, writer and black community activist, in his 1963 book The Fire Next Time wrote, “Do I really want to be integrated into a burning house?” (Baldwin, 1963) This statement captures the desire for many black community leaders to seek greater community cohesion and self-determination by promoting Black Nationalism, rather than racial integration.
The Black Panthers emerged at the forefront of aggressive civil rights activity aimed at racial segregation and autonomy. The Black Panthers were initially formed to protest the increasing mistreatment of blacks by local white law enforcement officers in Oakland, California. The Panthers were formed with the intention of enforcing racial equality by balancing the power of local law enforcement, and acting as an autonomous agency of Oakland’s black community. The Panthers concluded that white law enforcement officers were acting as “colonial agents” who were imposing racial superiority, and confining blacks as a subordinate people. Stokely Carmichael, former leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), became a spokesperson for radical black activity. In his book Black Power: the Politics of Liberation in America, Carmichael argues that black communities have become “internal colonies”, managed by outside political and economic elites. Carmichael details this argument by distinguishing between “individual” and “institutional” forms or racism and oppression (Carmichael, 1968). His model for the colonization of black communities by outside forces has a strong similarity to the models which would be developed by scholars.
Black Nationalist leaders like Stokely Carmichael, Eldridge Cleaver, and organizations like the Black Panthers were essentially arguing for the resistance of “white” colonization of black communities. Further, they were suggesting that the social, political, and economic forces operating within black communities were from outside powerholders, not acting in the best interest of their communities. And the call for racial segregation and black autonomy was meant to remove the internal grip on black communities by outside forces. The momentum of social change created by the Civil Rights movement, and the emergence of Black Nationalist agendas, created an alarming awareness as to the colonial situation black communities face as a racialized minority group in the United States. The emphasis of black communities as “internal colonies” was being articulated by black leaders, and it would be this concept that sociologists would soon adopt to make internal colonialism a scholarly study of race relations, oppression, and neo-colonialism.
In essence, the recognition of internal colonialism by black community leaders was a shift from hegemonic acculturation to active resistance. The theory of hegemony suggests that one nation exercises social and political control over another, to the extent that the subordinate group participates in their own domination by embracing and practicing social or political ideologies of the dominant group. Therefore, black communities, by unconsciously allowing outside power-holders to influence their communities, were participating in their own domination through hegemonic acculturation. But with the recognition by black community leaders of this epidemic, and their rejection of outside influence and promotion of Black Nationalism, they positioned themselves not as hegemonic pawns, but as active resisters to acculturation and colonialism.
Franz Schurmann, in his essay “System, Contradictions, and Revolution in America”, offers an interesting perspective as to the nature and emergence of Black Nationalism. Schurmann argues that the “institutional structure of the American system has generated revolutionary activism” (Aya and Miller, 1971). He continues to suggest that the institutional oppression of minority communities is so obvious and direct, that it has generated increased awareness by colonial subjects and has promoted increased actions against the system. Schurmann is suggesting that black communities are acknowledging, and have begun to actively resist forms of internal colonialism. Black social commentator Harold Cruse offers a similar explanation as to the response of black communities to internal colonialism. In his collection of essays Rebellion or Revolution?(1968), Cruse suggests that black people in America have always been subjects of colonialism, and therefore the emergence of Black Nationalism is a logical response of colonial oppression, and is nothing new in the African-American experience.
Robert Blauner, sociologist at University of California at Berkeley, became a significant figure in translating the social problems of black communities into the academic arena. Blauner was interested in the motivations for revolt in black communities, and the emergence of Black Nationalism. Blauner’s sociological interpretation of these occurrences illuminated the colonial relationship between racialized minority communities, specifically blacks, and the social, economic, and political elites. His findings would be published in an article called “Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt” (1969).
Blauner’s model of the “colonization complex” consists of four components. The first regards the mode of entry in which the “colonized” enter a colonial situation: “Colonization begins with a forced, involuntary entry.” The second reflects upon the impact of local culture as a result of colonialism: “The colonizing power carries out a policy that constrains, transforms, or destroys indigenous values, orientations, and ways of life.” The third addresses the relationship between the “colonized” and the “colonizers” governmental order or political elites: “The lives of the subordinate group are administered by representatives of the dominant power. The colonized have the experience of being managed and manipulated by outsiders who look down on them.” And finally, the fourth deconstructs the nature of individual and institutional relationship between colonial power and subordinate group: “Racism…a principle of social domination by which a group seen as inferior or different in alleged biological characteristics is exploited, controlled, and oppressed socially and physically by a superordinate group” (Blauner, 1969) The strength of Blauner’s “colonization complex” model is that it does not limit itself to understanding the colonial situation of black communities, but provides the basic premises for understanding other racialized minority groups.
The theory of internal colonialism has many connections to previous scholarship regarding the relationship between the “colonizer” and the “colonized”, and the issue of power-relations between nations and cultures. Scholar Andre Gunder Frank has elaborated on the complex relationship between colonized and colonizing nations. Frank was one of the founders of dependency theory, which suggests that wealthy capitalist nations become dependent on underdeveloped nations for continued economic growth and political expansion. In his famous article, The Development of Underdevelopment (1966), Frank expands on the colonial relationship between nations. His article discusses the influence of capitalist economies on third-world (“underdeveloped”) countries, specifically those in Latin America. The core of Frank’s work revolves around his discussion of “metropoles” and “satellites”. Metropoles refer to wealthy political and economic centers, and satellites refer to underdeveloped communities on the periphery of the metropole. His uses these terms to argue that large, wealthy, and powerful nations maintain this status by continued exploitation and colonization of “third-world” nations to economic or political gain. And therefore, the metropole stays dominant by the satellites rotating around it. The theoretical key of this relationship is the infiltration of isolated communities by larger social, political, or economic forces of capitalist nations. This is related to internal colonialism because Frank, like Blauner, is suggesting that isolated or internal communities become representative of the nation who infiltrates them. Further, that the relationship between “dominant” and “subordinate” communities is based on the manner in which the “dominant” nation established its own social, economic, and political institutions within the “subordinate” nation. This seems to be the economic interpretation of “internal colonialism”.
Another social theorist, Robert K Thomas, offered tools for further examining the issue of internal colonialism. In an article titled Colonialism: classic and internal (1967), Thomas moves internal colonialism beyond the scope of black communities as “internal colonies”, and uses American Indian reservations as his cases study. The most significant component of his study is his use of the phrase “hidden colonialism” to describe internal colonialism. Thomas does this in order to more adequately describe its basic function, which interprets as the infiltration and establishment of colonial tools in the sociopolitical fabric of “colonized” communities. A connection can also be made here between Thomas’ use of the phrase “hidden colonialism”, and Stokely Carmichael’s use of the phrase “institutional oppression”. Both seem to suggest forms of colonialism, racism, and oppression which operate in the social, economic, and political institutions established in “colonized” communities by the dominate nation. Thomas expands his discussion by describing the cultural effects of “hidden” or “internal” colonialism. Thomas uses the phrases “institutional decay” and “social isolation”. His use of these terms is based on the argument that when the internal functions of communities are manipulated by outside interests, in leads to the decay of the communities infrastructure, and causes isolation in the domestic arena.
Tomas Almaguer, a student of Robert Blauner at Berkeley, was one of the first to directly apply the theory of internal colonialism outside of the black community. Almaguer uses the model of internal colonialism in developing new strategies for understanding the colonial situation of Chicanos, specifically Chicano communities in southern California (1971). A major component of his work is identifying the shift from “classic” to “internal” colonialisms in the context of Chicano communities. His description of this shift contributes greatly to the understanding how internal colonialism fits into the larger function of colonialism as a whole. This is absent in Blauner’s original work. Almaguer argues that once overt and direct forms of colonialism have been established and the “colonized” communities are formed within the context of the larger nation, internal colonialism is an obvious extension because it continues acculturation and assimilation efforts within these communities. Essentially, physical removal and community isolation only does so much in the colonial model; further efforts toward the colonization of communities must go internal.
Recently, in the academic arenas of anthropology, sociology, and history, scholars interested in the colonial situation of Native Americans have adopted internal colonialism as an effective lens for the evaluation of colonialism, racism, and oppression. This is because, as many have suggested, there is no more obvious example of internal colonies than American Indian reservations. The issue of colonialism is even more evident in the current era of “tribal self-determination”, in which tribes are supposed to be exercising some form of national sovereignty. Therefore, the primary interest in using the internal colonialism model in regards to American Indian reservations is to evaluate to what extent tribes are capable of exercising national sovereignty in light of external political and economic forces exercising, what Blauner would call, “an outside control of culture”.
In “From Peripheral Domination to Internal Colonialism: Socio-Political Change of the Lakota on Standing Rock Reservation” (1997), anthropologist James Fenelon suggests that in the course of federal government relations with Indian tribes, the movement from external to internal colonialism is obvious. This is similar to the concept that Tomas Almaguer applied to the historical colonization of Chicano communities. Like Almaguer, Fenelon argues that external colonialism (the term he uses is “peripheral domination”) is sufficient in efforts to physically remove and isolate communities, as was the case during the treaty and reservation period of the 1800s. However, “peripheral domination” does little to continue the acculturation and assimilation of individuals once isolated communities have been established. Therefore, the relationship between the federal government and American Indian tribes has been the shift from “peripheral domination” (external colonialism) to internal colonialism. This is essentially the reason as to why American Indian reservations are primary example of internal colonies in contemporary American society.
Other scholars, in the process of their own studies regarding contemporary tribal governments, have uncovered social or political issues in American Indian communities which are arguably results of internal colonialism. In these cases, instead of internal colonialism being applied to racialized communities as a model for understanding the community, issues arise within the community that are best explained by internal colonialism. In Organizing the Lakota: the political economy of the New Deal on Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations (1992), anthropologist Thomas Biolsi argues that the Indian Reorganization Act of the early 1930s was a form of internal colonialism imposed on tribal governments by federal policymakers. The Indian Reorganization Act (part of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies) sought to formalize governments on American Indian reservations, however, instead of the form of these governments being determined by tribal members, federal agents organized tribal governments after the federal government model. Biolsi argues that this constitutes internal colonialism because it demonstrates the influence of “outside power-holders” determining local community affairs, and it installs a federal system of policy and procedure to further colonize individuals within the community.
American Indian communities face internal colonialism in many ways, each of which, is an example of external political, economic or social “power-holders” exercising control over internal functions of the reservation community. A primary example of this appears in tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians who reside on reservation land. Current law states that tribal police (a functioning component of the tribal government) only hold legal jurisdiction over tribal members living on the reservation, not over non-Indians living on the reservation. This has resulted in tribal police being unable to adequately enforce tribal law over non-Indians on reservations, and keeps the tribal government from being exercising national sovereignty. By non-Indians residing on reservations being only under the jurisdiction of the federal or state government, it reflects the federal control over supposedly “sovereign” tribal governments. This relates to internal colonialism because it suggests that an outside political power-holder maintains the jurisdictional authority over community affairs regarding non-Indians.
In addition to the expansion of internal colonialism to other racialized minority populations in the United States, scholars have used its basic framework to understand the issue of power relationships in general. Historian Michael Hechter has also contributed to the expansion of internal colonialism with his book, Internal Colonialism: the Celtic fringe in British National Development (1999). His study contributes in three ways: the first, expands the field of study by expanding its geographic scope; the second, placing it in a historical context; and third, further examining the complexities of ethnicity and culture in the historical relationship between the British Empire and other groups on the British Isles. Hechter suggests that internal colonialism is the best way to define the relationship between the emerging British Empire and Irish, Scottish, and Welsh nationalities (which he refers to as the “Celtic fringe”), because the British Empire “uses” these peripheral cultures to expand its own social, political, and economic power. In addition, the British Empire attempts to make these peripheral cultures representative of British national interests. Not only does this resemble the internal colonialism model, but it also fits with Andre Gunder Frank’s dependency theory. Hechter concludes by suggesting the international political and economic expansion of the British Empire was dependent on the exploitation, and internal colonization of the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh.
Perhaps the most significant expansion of internal colonialism has been it applications to issues beyond race and ethnicity. The general components of Blauner’s original “colonization complex” can be applied generally to the analysis of all relationships based on discrepancies in social, political, or economic power. In the article “The New Internal Colonialism” (1999), Susan Di Giacomo provides an example of how internal colonialism is present in other areas of American society, specifically, corporate America. Giacomo’s argument is that corporate America has an interest to internally colonize their own workers, to make them more dedicated to the company. Further, she suggests that the primary goal of corporate elites, is to appropriate their workers into the functions of the corporation, in order to make them representative of the corporation. Therefore, this case study has a direct parallel to studies of internal colonies and race relations. In Giacomo’s study, corporate workers resemble internal racialized communities, because both are manipulated by the larger sociopolitical or socioeconomic power to personify the interests of those powers. Of Blauner’s components, perhaps the most striking similarity between his study of race and Giacomo’s study of corporations is that in both scenarios, the decisions which will affect the individuals within the communities are being made by individuals of a different racial or economic class.
The theory of internal colonialism has been used as a model for understanding the colonial situation faced by racialized minority communities in the United States. However, the model does contain weaknesses which keep it from wholly uncovering the function and meaning of colonialism, racism, and oppression. The first is its lack of economic interpretations. According to Peter Bohmer at Evergreen University (1999), the theory seeks to uncover how internal and institutional racism work, but not why. Bohmer suggests that it is a necessary component of understanding the situation to analyze how white capitalists benefit from the racism and oppression of other groups. Bohmer argues, “The absence of an adequate economic analysis in the theory of internal colonialism has paralleled the absence of an adequate theory of racism in radical and Marxist economies”.
The second weakness of internal colonialism is its broad theory of nation, state, and the colonial power. The theory functions well within a clearly divided and obviously stratified social and political structure, but as “First-World” capitalist countries becomes increasingly globalized and internationalized, and as the divisions between race and ethnicity becomes less clear, the theory of internal colonialism will have to mold itself to accommodate a more homogenized society, in which economic and political differences based on race and ethnicity become are less definitive. Internal colonialism fits well with pre-1960s America, but perhaps not so well with 21st-century America.
Internal colonialism was originally developed as a framework for understanding the continued colonization of racialized minority populations in the United States, but at the end of the 20th century, has been applied to scenarios in which power and oppression are the functioning and systemic elements social, political or economic relationships. The theory will undoubtedly need to be revised to effectively interpret the changing dynamics of race, ethnicity, and institutional oppression in an increasing internationalized and neo-liberal American society. However, it is not accurate to suggest that the fundamental principles of internal colonialism are “out of date” or “obsolete”; on the contrary, they can still serve as indicators of social and political inequality in contemporary American foreign policy. With the continued political and economic expansion in Middle Eastern countries, internal colonialism is becoming increasingly evident as the primary tool used in American foreign policy to influence the internal affairs of these countries. Under the model that Carmichael, Cleaver, Blauner, Almaguer, Hechter, and Giacomo described, countries like Iraq are emerging as “internal colonies”. Internal colonialism may need to be revised to interpret the complexity of American society in the 21st century, but the original model is still effective in understanding the continued domestic and international expansion of American civilization.
Bibliography
Almaguer, Tomas. “Toward the study of Chicano colonialism”. Aztlan, 2 (1971): 7-21.
Tomas Alamguer, student of Robert Blauner at Berkeley, uses the model of internal colonialism in developing new strategies for understanding the colonial situation of Chicanos. Almaguer offers a brief discussion of Blauner’s work, and specifically how it examines systemic forms of institutional racism and oppression. A major component of his work is identifying the shift from “classic” to “internal” colonialisms in the context of Chicano communities. This is a primary example of an applied use of internal colonial theory, and gives examples of its theoretical applications that Blauner doesn’t discuss in his own work.
Almaguer, Tomas. “Class, race, and Chicano oppression”. Socialist Revolution. 25 (1975): 71-99.
Almaguer, Tomas. Racial fault lines: the historical origins of white supremacy in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994.
Aya, Roderick and Norman Miller, eds. The New American Revolution. New York: Free Press, 1971.
The only purpose for including this book is because it contains a chapter which was recommended to me, “System, Contradictions, and Revolution in America” by Franz Schurmann. This article does not mention internal colonialism, however, it argues that the “institutional structure of the American system has generated revolutionary activism.” In relation to black communities, Schurmann suggests that the oppressive and political close-mindedness of the American power structure is responsible for revolt in black communities. It seems that this expands on the notion of internal colonialism, in the sense that a system of colonial oppression cannot sustain itself without revolt.
Barrera, Mario, Carlos Munoz, and Carlos Ornelas. “The barrio as internal colony”. Urban Affairs Annual Review. 6 (1972): 465-498.
Berkeley in the 60s. Mark Kitchell, dir., Documentary. OPV Theatricals, 1990.
This very well done documentary includes a section on the emergence of the Black Panther Party, their intentions, and their influence on other political movements in the late 1960s.
Biolsi, Thomas. Organizing the Lakota: the political economy of the New Deal on Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations. Tuscon, UP of Arizona, 1992.
This book demonstrated a method of internal colonialism used by the federal government on Ridge Ridge and Rosebud reservations. In this case, the New Deal led way to the Indian Reorganization Act, which allowed formal governments to form on these reservations. However, they were molded to resemble the federal government. This is internal colonialism because it is limiting the political potential of the tribes by making them just like the federal government, and it was also meant to acculturate Indians to the functions of the federal government. This will be a good example of how internal colonialism can function.
Blauner, Robert. “Internal colonialism and ghetto revolt”. Social Problems. 16.4 (1969): 393-408.
This article is the original discussion of internal colonialism as a sociological theory, and as a method for understanding the colonial situation of racialized minority groups. Blauner is interested in understanding the motivations for revolt in black communities during the 1960s. He bases his understanding in the context of colonial forces infiltrating the social, political, and economic arenas of black communities. The suggestion by Blauner is that black communities were reacting to internal colonial forces operating within their community, which lead to Black Nationalism movements. This case study is applied by others as a way of interpreting contemporary colonialism or racialized groups.
Blauner, Robert. Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.
This is a compilation of sociological essays regarding contemporary black community oppression, with a specific focus on new perspectives of colonialism. This collection includes “Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt”. Most of the essays are not necessarily pertinent to internal colonialism, but he expands on these ideas in a few chapters, including “Whitewash over Watts” and “Race and the white professor”. In addition, Part I of the book deals with the theoretical perspectives related to internal colonialism, this will be a significant portion of the theory’s developmental section.
Bohmer, Peter (1998). African-Americans as an internal colony: the theory of internal colonialism. Evergreen University. 31 January 2005 <academic.evergreen.edu/b/bohmerp/internal_colony.htm>
The credibility of this essay may be in question, given that it seems to be a students webpage at Evergreen University. However, it does mention the essays future publication in an edited volume about black colonialism. Regardless, the author provides a very comprehensive overview of the internal colonialism theory, beginning with the commentary of early black leaders in the 1960s of black communities as “internal colonies”, to the benefits and disadvantages of its scope. The author makes a significant argument in suggesting the lack of possible economic applications of the theory, and thus limits its potential in understanding group dynamics.
Bonney, Norman. “The black ghetto and mainstream American”. Racial & Ethnic Studies. 19.1 (1996): 193-200.
Carmichael, Stokely and Charles Hamilton. Black Power: the Politics of Liberation in America. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.
This book served as a manifesto for the Black Power movement, as it is written by Stokely Carmichael, former leader of the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). It is one of the original texts which describes black communities as “internal colonies”. This first two chapters , “White Power” and “Black Power”, are most pertinent to the study of colonialism, and racialized communities as subjects of colonialism. Carmichael provides some of the larger , more general ideas of “internal colonies”, which Blauner details in his work “Internal colonialism and ghetto revolt”.
Carr, Robert. Black Nationalism in the New World: Reading the African-American and West Indian Experience. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2002.
Most of this book discusses issues that are beyond the scope of this research project, however, it contains one chapter, “The Masculinization of Mothering: The Oakland Black Panthers and the Black Body Politic”, which chronicles the emergence and intentions of the Black Panther Party. This was an important element for me to include in my research, because it is necessary to understand how conscious the Black Panthers were of social conditions that were related to internal colonialism. Basically, I find to important to determine whether they were a direct response to the colonial situation. Aside from this article, the book wont have much use.
Casanova, Pablo Gonzales. "Internal colonialism and national development." Studies in Comparative International Development, 1: 27-37.
Clark, Kenneth. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.
Published in 1965, prior to the Black Power movement and much of the sociological literature referring to black communities as “internal colonies”, this is a sociological explanation of the social/political dynamics of black communities. Much of the book elaborates on specific social conditions: homicide, drug abuse, educations etc. Attempting to uncover innuendos to internal colonialism may be difficult, but much of his generalizing explanations as to why specific social problems are occurring is permeated with mentions to the relationship between the “colonizer” and the “colonized”.
Cruse, Harold. Rebellion or Revolution? New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc, 1968.
Harold Cruse is a black activist and writer, and this is a collection of essays which range tremendously in scope, from theater reviews of Josephine Baker to critiques of black revolutionary nationalism. The most relevant essays included relating to internal colonialism and black responses to colonial forces are Chapters 7 through 9: “Revolutionary Nationalism and the Afro-American”, “Rebellion or Revolution? I” and “Rebellion or Revolution? II”. Each of these chapter discuss the idea that blacks have always faced colonial forces, and as a result, black nationalism is nothing new, but is part of the black experience.
Fenelon, James V. “From Peripheral Domination to Internal Colonialism: Socio-Political Change of the Lakota on Standing Rock”. Journal of World Systems Research. 3.2 (1997): 259-320.
This article shows the shift in federal Indian policy since the early 1800s, using the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation as a case study. Fenelon is arguing that the federal-Indian relations have shifted from “peripheral domination”, meaning external forms of colonialism and control, to internal colonialism, more invasive and systemic forms colonialism and control. Fenelon’s essay is very long, and not in a good way. He seems to discuss many ideas that don’t seem to fit into his primary argument. Nevertheless, his primary argument is significant, for it shows a shift from one form of colonialism, to another, as the relationship grows more complex over time. Even though this article could have been 15 pages instead of 60, he makes an important point as to why internal colonialism has become significant.
Frank, Andre Gunder. “The development of underdevelopment”. Monthly Review, 18 (1966): 17-31.
This article discusses the influence of capitalist economies on third-world (“underdeveloped”) countries, specifically those in Latin America. The theoretical key is the infiltration of isolated communities by social, political, or economic forces from larger, capitalist nations. Although this is not directly about internal colonialism, it articulates the relationship between “dominant” and “subordinate” communities. Further, Frank suggests that isolated communities become representative of the capitalist power who infiltrates them. This seems to be the economic interpretation of “internal colonialism”.
Giacomo, Susan M. Di. “The new internal colonialism”. International Journal of Quantitative Studies in Education. 12.3 (1999): 263-268.
This was a somewhat confusing article about a new application for internal colonialism. The author attempts to revise the theory, based on the fact that traditional internal colonialism studies the authority of the “dominant class” over minority individuals. Her revision is based on the argument that the “dominant class” is becoming fragmented within itself, and the “underprivileged” are emerging within the “dominant class”. The example she uses is the relationship between corporations and their workers.
Gutierrez, Ramon A. “Internal colonialism : an American theory of race”. Du Bois Review, 1.2 (1994): 281-295.
This article provides an explanation as to the origins of internal colonialism in his genealogy of internal colonial theory and its applications. Gutierrez suggests that the theory originally developed among scholars interested in “a larger Marxist critique of development ideologies”. He also makes an important parallel between the theory and the revolutionary agendas of Chicanos like Che Guevara and blacks like Malcolm X. This is the most comprehensive study of internal colonialism as a theory, its developments, applications, and contemporary significance to colonial theory.
Havens, A. Eugene and William L. Finn, eds. Internal colonialism and structural change in Colombia. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970.
Hechter, Michael. Internal Colonialism: the Celtic fringe in British National Development. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1999.
This book provided a unique and alternative interpretation to the theory of internal colonialism. Hechter traces the development of the British empire by examining their exploitation of Celtic fringe populations, specifically Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Hecter refers to these countries as “internal colonies” of the British empire. He also argues that this colonial relationship caused the formation of Scotch, Welsh, and Irish groups as “ethnic” fringe groups in opposition to the British empire. Hechter’s application of internal colonialism was interesting as it was a new way of applying the theory to understanding social dynamics in a historical context. And using populations never mentioned before in study of internal colonialism.
Hind, Robert J. “The internal colonial concept”. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26.3 (1984): 543-568.
Hughes, Ian. “Dependent autonomy: a new phase of internal colonialism”. Australian Journal of Social Sciences. 30.4 (1995): 369-388.
Hyman, Anthony. “Nationalism in Afghanistan”. International Journal of Middle East Studies. 34. 2 (2002): 299-315.
This article appeared in a general Academic Search Premier database under the topic internal colonialism. The article compares the oppression of Afghanistan’s ethnic minority groups from Pashtun ruling class to the occupation of the country by the soviets. It argues the internal colonialism case by suggesting that despite who was the installed government, the countries ethnic minorities faced internal colonialism by the ruling class. This application is one which shows the diversity of possible “colonizer” and “colonized” scenarios in which internal colonialism applies. This article also shows me that the theory, in recent years, is being used by scholars to understand colonialism internationally, rather than just in the United States.
Lujan, Carol Chiago and Gordon Adams. “US Colonization of Indian Justice Systems”. Wicazo Sa Review. 19.4 (2004): 9-23.
This article discusses federal control over American Indian political systems as a method of internal colonialism. The most beneficial element of this article is its discussion of tribal sovereignty, and how federal policy has decreased the independent nation status of American Indian tribes. This is interesting because of its application to my own research on Rosebud Reservation. In relates directly to the theory of internal colonialism because it argues that decisions being made on reservations are coming from outside power-holders, in this case, federal policy makers. This article serves as an example of internal colonialism in the form of federal-Indian relations.
Marx, Gary T. ed. Racial Conflict: Tension and change in American Society. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1971.
This is an enormous collection of about 60 article relating to five major ideas: Theoretical Perspectives on Conflict, Social Structure and Racial Conflict, Ideology and Strategy, The Dynamics of Conflict, and Consequences of Conflict. This may provide a further examination on specific issues I explore in my paper, but most of it is beyond the scope of this research project.
McEvoy, James and Abraham Miller, eds. Black Power and Student Rebellion. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1969.
This is a collection of articles relating social activism during the 1960s, specifically related to increasing student protest on university campuses and the rising tide of Black Nationalism. The book contains a few articles which illuminate the idea of social responses to the organized political power: the students arguing for more university involvement in outside social issues, and blacks arguing for autonomy as a racialized group. These articles may help in further examining responses to an “oppressive” force by “subordinate” groups., but they may be beyond the scope of my paper.
Meister, Richard J. The Black Ghetto: Promised land or colony? Lexington, MA: Heath, 1972.
Reilly, Kevin, ed. Racism: a global reader. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 2003.
This is an edited volume of articles regarding racism and racial oppression. Much of it didn’t necessarily fit into a project on internal colonialism, however, two articles seem to quite helpful. The first, “A Model of Racism: settler expansion and the ‘internal other’”, expands on the relationship between dominant nations and individuals within colonized nation, known as “others”. The other helpful chapter, “Racism against the “internal other’”, further discusses the relationship between the “colonizer” and the “colonized”.
Scheer, Robert, ed. Eldridge Cleaver: Post-prison writings and speeches. New York: Random House, 1969.
This book is a collection of short essays by black activist, Eldridge Cleaver. The most relevant essay to this research project is titled “The Land Question and Black Liberation”. This essay was used and cited in Blauner’s “Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt”. In the essay, Cleaver writes “Black People are a stolen people held in colonial status on stolen land, and any analysis which does not acknowledge the colonial status of black people cannot hope to deal with the real problem”. This essay, and this statement, in fundamental to the importance of internal colonialism as a way of interpreting the social , economic, and political problems of racialized minority groups.
Thomas, Robert K. “Colonialism: classic and internal”. New University Thought, 4.1 (1967): 37-43.
Thomas provides a brief description of comparative colonialisms, and quickly applies his definitions to American Indian reservations. The most interesting component of his theory descriptions is his use of the phrase “hidden colonialism” instead of internal colonialism”. Thomas does this in order to describe its basic function: the infiltration and establishment of colonial tools in the sociopolitical fabric of racialized minority communities. Thomas also offers an important contribution as to the basic effects of internal colonialism, which he calls “institutional decay and social isolation”.
Wallerstein, Immanuel, ed. Social Change: the Colonial Situation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966.
This is another enormous collection of 60 articles related to the idea of colonialism, and its effects on and responses to by “colonized” groups. This text will serve as a reference for dealing with the theoretical components of internal colonialism, but its too large in scope to incorporate into this research project.