Anti-Colonization and Dehumanization in Oroonoko

Anti-colonization and dehumanization in Oroonoko

In Oroonoko, Aphra Behn sheds light on the horrors of slavery and expansionism that Britain

was conducting while assembling its overseas empire. Behn paints the majority of the white colonists as unmitigated illustrations of greed, dishonesty, and brutality. Through these depraved individuals, Behn regularly articulates the barbarism innate in British nature as opposed to the African prince Oroonoko, whom is conveyed as the quintisential model of nobility, physical prowness, and honor. These reoccuring motifs apparent throughout the literary work reveal Behn’s intention of undermining the inhumane treatment of the colonized populice and the criticism of overseas expansion. Upon close examination of the literary work, one could conclusively view Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko as an assailment against the dehumanization of the colonized people and a subtle criticism of Britain

s external colonization.

The first account of Behn’s anti-colonization position begins with the introduction of the native Indians of Surinam, of whom have been tainted and stripped of their virtue due to the intrusion of the British. The natives of Surinam are depicted as living in perfect peace in a world enshrouded in beauty and innocense. The narrator of the tale stated that, “… these people represented to me an absolute idea of the first state of innocense, before man knew how to sin” (2184). Behn goes further to compare the natives to Adam and Eve when the narrator explains that the aprons the natives wear are similar to the “fig leaves” that Adam and Eve wore (2184). By establishing this description of the natives, one can begin to veiw the natives as innocent as Adam and Eve before the fall of man. This allusion to biblical scripture illustrates that just as Adam and Eve were corrupted by Satan, the natives innocense is corrupted by the Europeans. The narrator incontestably gives this implication when she states, “They have a native justice which knows no fraud, and they understand no vice or cunning, but when they are taught by the white men” (2185). The understanding that the Europeans have in fact, tainted the natives, is evident in the narrators words. In light of the fortitude in which the narrator takes in describing the purity of the native people, it can confidently be understanded that a metonymy is used substituting vice for evil. Thus, the implication is made that in terms of moral sensibility, the natives are far better than the European colonists. Such a distinction is made by Behn to exemplify the negative generalization and criticism of the Europeans in comparison to the “colonized other”. In this way, the idea of anti-colonization is conveyed.

Behn also incorporates dishonorable traits in the “white men” that Oroonko meets throughout the story to convey her anti-colonization position, implying that they are not suited to engage in colonialism due to their dishonest nature. The hypocrisy and treachery that Behn illustrates in these characters in contrast to the more “honorable” Oroonoko, gives the idea that the British possessed a general predisposition towards greed, violence, and betrayal. For instance, the British slave trading captain initially befriends Oroonoko, gaining his trust at first, but later betrays him, condemning him to the life of a slave. The narrator describes the Captians actions when he/she explains, “The same treachery was used to all the rest; and all in one instant, in several places of the ship, were lashed fast in irons, and betrayed to slavery” (2201). The dishonest nature Behn fears is inherent in British nature is apparent in the Captain. The narrator goes further to discriminate against the Captain by frequently commenting upon the positive traits of Oroonoko “whose honor was such as he never had violated a word in his life” (2202). This gives the Captain the persona of a villain, as well as makes obvious the distinction between “good” and “evil”. By doing so, we can see that the narrator undoubtedly views the actions of the captian as wrong in her use of the words “treachery” and “betrayal”. This reoccuring motif is seen again in the character of Byam. Byan similarly pretends friendship with Oroonoko and unscrupulously assures him of his eventual freedom, which in reality, will never come. Byam later then betrays Oroonoko, hunting him down, whipping him, and ordering him to death. The narrator recognizes Byam as “a fellow whose character is not fit to be mentioned with the worst of the slaves” (2218). Again, another high ranking European official betrays the prince, of whom is the epitome of honor. This sharp contrast in character again illustrates the notion that the British are “evil” and the colonized others are “good”.

Behn