Vol. 7 No. 1 Mowery • 47 Eastern cultures, and the Occident, colonized Western cultures (Wilfong). After establishing this separation, colonizers would create “a series of derogatory stereotypes” such as “the murderous and violent Arab, the lazy Indian, the sexually obsessed African, [or] the inscrutable Chinese” (McLeod 53). These stereotypes fall under the label of the demonic other, a perception of colonized peoples as evil (Wilfong). Because of these stereotypes, “such peoples are glibly homogenised and robbed of their individuality” (McLeod 53). König explains how “colonized Others…are taught to see themselves in the distorted light of the colonizer’s perspective” (60). She also discusses how “no matter what the colonized subject looks like, he or she is an animal/monster to the colonizer simply by virtue of being Other” (60). Colonizers, therefore, created a wall of separation between themselves and supported the separation by grouping natives together based on derogatory stereotypes. König applies these discussions of the Other and the relationship between colonized and colonizers to explain the hostile relationship between Gup and Chup. König’s Postcolonial Analysis of the Text König turns from the censorship narrative because Rushdie began working on Haroun before The Satanic Verses and the fatwa, even though he published Haroun in 1990 (52). In addition, she points to aspects of the book that do not align with the censorship interpretation. For example, she points out that Rushdie does not fully support the Guppee perspective, which should represent free speech compared to the Chupwalas’ censorship, and that Rushdie does not demonize the Chupwalas as he likely would if their land represented the ayatollah’s dominion (54). Haroun’s wish also destroys both the mechanisms that halted the rotation and the opposition between the lands (54), pointing out Rushdie’s desire for reconciliation instead of the annihilation of Chup’s supposed censorship ideals. These inclusions in the novel weaken critics’ connection to the censorship pronounced upon The Satanic Verses and encourage scholars to consider other interpretations. Since Rushdie does not demonize the Chupwalas, König explores how the separation coincides with postcolonial conclusions about a colonizer and colonized relationship. She believes the geography of the separate lands, Gup in the North and Chup in the South, points to the geographic position of European countries compared to India, Africa, and Australia (König 57). The theme of light versus darkness in the book, then, would not refer to censorship but to the recurrent emphasis of light and darkness in colonial discourse that compared “the ‘enlightened’ colonial societies” to “the savage customs, pagan religions, and the ignorance of the dark peoples” (57). Thus, Gup would represent a colonizing nation and Chup would represent the colonized area. Through this comparison, König provides an explanation for the unanswered elements in the text and provides deeper meaning to the separation of Gup and Chup than an analogy for Rushdie and the ayatollah.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=