Reading Jegathesan’s work with Hill Country Tamils in Sri Lanka reminds me a lot of the history between the Spanish colonizers and indigenous peoples in Latin America, especially in relation to coffee plantations. I was specifically reminded of the book, Mayalogue: An Interactionist Theory of Indigenous Cultures by Victor Montejo. In his book, Montejo emphasizes how indigenous persons were perceived as “primitive,” “ignorant” and “half humans” (the horrific list goes on). I thought of Montejo’s work as I read the description of “coolie” as a “beast to be tamed” and “subhuman.” (12) As the indigenous were in Latin America, the Hill Country Tamils were made out to be less human as a justification for their slavery, and what is now “gentle slavery” continues today. (13)
Additionally, I was surprised that the word “coolie” actually comes from a Tamil word referring to the “payment for menial labor,” utilizing Tamil to establish what I believe Jegathesan refers to when she says, “the language of oppression.” (65) It is not Tamil itself of course, but the way in which it has been used by colonizers and outsiders to control the Hill Country Tamils. Looking at the language that the English superintendents learned in order to give commands is shocking because it is not far from the commands one might give a dog in terms of its brevity and simplicity with no respect for cultural nuances; instead, it is an extremely direct translation from English to Tamil. This once again reminds me of the history of colonization that Montejo describes in his book because he speaks to the study of Maya culture and language by missionaries in accordance with the king’s wishes and tells how many of them ultimately used this against them; Bishop Diego de Lanka was so shocked by what he learned about the Mayas that he actually burned down their library.
Furthermore, I appreciated Jegathesan discussion of language in her book, almost dissecting the word “coolie” as a cultural artifact itself. However, I did feel that this chapter was lacking in terms of vignettes; I really wanted to learn more about the perspectives of the individuals she worked with and their thoughts on Tamil and its use by British colonizers/superintendents. Having known very little about Sri Lanka before this reading, it was very enlightening to learn about the Hill Country Tamils and Sri Lanka’s history.
Hi Madi,
I really loved how you brought linguistic anthropology into this response and could definitely relate to the connections you made between this ethnography and Spanish colonialism. Oppression and colonization of indigenous groups are things that leave us with linguistic markers that show this history, and the example of the word “coolie” along with its roots in colonization are clear examples of this. Bringing this into modern society within the United States, I wonder what some examples of words influenced by colonization are and how they have changed meaning over time or potentially kept the same meaning?
I’m struck by your words of “Looking at the language that the English superintendents learned in order to give commands is shocking because it is not far from the commands one might give a dog in terms of its brevity and simplicity with no respect for cultural nuances”. Interestingly, the words coolie has its own version in Vietnamese (written as culi since “u” in Vietnamese is pronounced similarly as “oo” and “i” as “ie” or “ee”). The word is often used to refer to people doing labor work with a status of less than a human being as well.
This also makes me come to view language as not only the words and phrases that we use to communicate to each other in our daily lives but also how we construct our identities and those of others. This is also evident in my projects, where participants’ use of language speaks to where they see themselves belong to.
In this sense, similar to Jegathesan’s “the language of oppression”, language can be a tool to perpetuate colonialism. As demonstrated above by how coolie’s multiple versions exist in countries from Sri Lanka to Vietnam, the fact that language is a cultural product easily transferred across countries allows oppressive language to create a vicious cycle with colonialism-both support and is supported by the transnationality of colonialism. Could language itself be a form of violence?
Another thing I notice from reading this book is how similar it is to other ethnographies in class we read. Most writing focuses on the dynamics between a dominant group and a marginalized group and details the different forms of oppression used. Is it another feature characteristic of ethnography or is it simply a coincidence?