Decolonisation – From Ending Empires to Erasing Traditions
The Word That Changed Its Meaning
Decolonisation once meant a clear, historic process: nations gaining independence from colonial rule. Today, the term has been reinvented.
In activist and academic circles, decolonisation no longer refers to ending empires. It means dismantling anything seen as rooted in “colonial values” — from school curricula to museums, from national holidays to science itself.
What began as liberation from foreign powers has become a political project to rewrite culture, history, and even knowledge.
Table of contents
What Is Decolonisation Today?
The modern usage frames decolonisation as:
- Cultural: Removing “colonial influence” from literature, art, and education.
- Historical: Recasting national histories as primarily stories of oppression.
- Political: Demanding reparations, renaming streets, toppling statues.
- Scientific: Questioning whether concepts like objectivity or merit are “Eurocentric.”
In short, anything tied to Western traditions or global capitalism can be branded as needing decolonisation.
Buzzwords of Decolonisation
The concept is reinforced through a familiar activist lexicon:
- “Epistemic violence” – The claim that Western knowledge systems silence others.
- “Decentring” – Shifting attention away from European or Western perspectives.
- “Reparative justice” – Demands for financial or cultural compensation.
- “Indigenous knowledge” – Elevated as an alternative to Western science.
These terms make decolonisation less about history and more about reshaping today’s institutions.
How Decolonisation Shows Up in Practice
- In Universities: Calls to “decolonise the curriculum” by removing classic texts or reframing them as oppressive.
- In Museums: Campaigns to return artefacts or reinterpret them as symbols of exploitation.
- In Politics: Reparations debates and symbolic renaming of streets, buildings, or holidays.
- In Activism: Protests targeting statues, flags, and cultural icons tied to colonial history.
Instead of debating ideas, decolonisation often turns into cultural erasure.
Why Institutions Embrace It
- Academia gains endless projects, funding, and relevance by rewriting syllabi.
- Activists build movements around decolonisation campaigns, from statues to reparations.
- Corporations adopt the language in branding, linking themselves to “global justice.”
- Politicians score easy virtue points by backing symbolic changes.
The more broadly decolonisation is defined, the more opportunities it creates for signalling and profit.
Consequences of the Decolonisation Framework
- Erasure: Traditions, literature, and history sidelined or removed entirely.
- Division: Nations reframed as oppressors versus victims, fuelling resentment.
- Confusion: Science and education destabilised by endless ideological battles.
- Distraction: Real development issues (jobs, poverty, infrastructure) buried under symbolic campaigns.
What started as a demand for freedom often produces new forms of cultural control.
Why It Matters
Decolonisation has become less about independence and more about ideology. It reshapes how societies teach, govern, and even think — often by tearing down instead of building up.
By framing the past entirely as guilt, the present becomes a permanent battleground of reparations, identity politics, and symbolic gestures.
From Liberation to Cultural Revolution
Decolonisation was once a historic victory — nations reclaiming sovereignty. Today, it’s a political slogan used to dismantle traditions, rewrite curricula, and reshape culture through guilt and erasure.
The irony? A word once tied to freedom is now used to justify new restrictions on what can be taught, celebrated, or even thought.
FAQ: Decolonisation
What did decolonisation originally mean?
It referred to nations gaining independence from colonial rule in the 20th century.
What does it mean today?
Dismantling cultural, educational, and political systems labelled as “colonial.”
Where do we see decolonisation in practice?
In universities, museums, politics, and activism targeting curricula, artefacts, and symbols.
Why is it controversial?
Because it often erases history, fuels resentment, and distracts from real issues.
Who benefits from it?
Academics, activists, politicians, and corporations that gain influence or credibility through symbolic gestures.
