My sentiments are the same why did he go to the conference, assuming he knew what the content of it would be. Naipaul is notorious for being anti a lot of postcolonial discourse so I am amazed he was a participant at all. I also agree that those of us who have been directly affected by colonialism have no wish to be solely identified by it, but for many of us myself included who have only recently had a history lesson other than that of the west, questions raised by conferences like the one we are discussing are a valid enlightening forum. Naipaul has made his feelings clear about how he regards his history some us are still learning about our history, therefore colonialism and its effects are still important. A need to know where you are from to make sense of where you are going to and of how you wish to be identified means that for some colonialism still needs to be discussed.
Last Modified: 13 March 2002