White Mythologies: Writing History and the West (Young, 1990)

The essence of the book is to assess the historical authenticity, specifically colonial and post colonial periods. Young provides a broad context using Marxist theory of History (influenced by Hegels Master/Slave dialectic), representing a contiguous phenomena characterised by production and class (with specific focus on the social position, perception, language and the revolutionary potential of the working class). The Marxist critique is howevee perceived as limited in relation to post-colonial theory on the basis that it fails to recognise marginalised groups, particularly the poor and ethnic minorities. Furthermore, this rational approach to history emerged from the enlightenment period centred in Europe and resulting in a Eurocentric view of science, scientific investigation and knowledge. In the sense that History has been defined from a specific perspective, it could be described as lop-sided and subjective or even, in the context of post-colonial theory, racist and oppressive. On this basis, Foucault denies the validity of a single definition of History and the authority of any single source, specifically Western cultures (through Historicism) claim to universal authority. The principal and defining characteristic of post-colonial theory is the neutralisation of the other (minority culture) by the dominant power and associated culture.

The post-structuralist approach to History questions western thought and its assumptions suggesting that all knowledge may be contaminated and that the associated ontology amounts to a philosophy of power. The deconstruction (Derrida) of European thought has no pretensions to the universal in the form of meta-narrative.

Alternatively, Jameson argues for a single history that can be characterised in terms of colonialism. In a unified Marxist critique, Jameson suggests that the Third World represents a dialectical opposite of a post-modern European thought and the potential centre of future resistance to existing orders of knowledge and power (Fanon)

.

The post-colonial critique questions the fundamental structures of Western knowledge on which the description of history is founded. The humanism promoted by the west ignores the reality for the other and ultimately provides justification for colonialism and the superiority of the white man as part of the process of civilisation. This was profoundly illustrated by Said () in the colonial definition of the Orient who illustrated the characterisation of the exotic and mysterious other through a range of social, economic and political instruments that ultimately justified the colonisation of the region. At this point Young, specifically addresses the problem of method in a critique of Saids work. Firstly, Young identifies the presumed difficulty of administering a colony when the scholarly representation of the Orient clashes so dramatically with reality. Secondly, Said has difficulty reconciling a singular account of history with the universal. Thirdly, Said appears to employ the meta-narrative with a paradoxical tendency to employ the Euro-centric approach to the analysis of power and knowledge (Bhabah). Despite the inherent difficulties associated with authentic research i.e. can a European white man ever understand racism without the experience, Spivak recommends an objective approach based on an unlearning of privileged whilst accepting and acknowledging the researchers personal complicity in the production of knowledge.