Naipaul\u27s A Bend in the River and Neo-colonialism as a Comparative Context

In his article, Naipaul\u27s A Bend in the River and Neo-colonialism as a Comparative Context, Haidar Eid discusses the dialectical interplay between the political import and aesthetic qualities in Naipaul\u27s novel. It contests Naipaul\u27s conclusion that Third World peoples are not genuine and authentic human beings, like Westerners. Further, Naipaul\u27s implication that political and social disorder is the unavoidable product of contemporary liberation movements, and that Africans are nothing and with no place in the world, are challenged and deconstructed. The independence of Third World countries, according to Naipaul, eliminates the last hope of resistance to ignorance, as well as the last civilizing traces of Western influence. What remains in Naipaul\u27s Africa is only greedy, consumptive desire, and backward cultural identities. Eid argues that what Naipaul offers us is a condemned and fragmented society that lacks creative potential, a black society that cannot govern itself: a society that should be governed by an external power. Naipaul\u27s conclusion, therefore, is not different from the racist ideology of colonialism that justifies the occupation of other lands, and then defends the so-called human face of Western colonialism