Anyway, when it comes to postcolonial studies, I think the key point — and it is an interesting one — is the likelihood of projective identification. (Klein)
Various elements of the dominant society do not label elements of society evil without that forming a feedback loop that has further effects. The recognition of 19th (and earlier) colonial society as evil does not complete the end of the line in terms of cause and effect. And this is why I said the postcolonialist theory, in general, seems to have a blind spot, because there seems to be the assumption that once something is labeled then it is dealt with.
Yet the labeling of 19th (and earlier) colonial society as evil has further run-on effects that are far from being uninteresting. One of these effects is, as I have mentioned before, to create a distraction (projecting evil firmly into the past) so that present day aspects of dominance and submission, moreover, imperialist invasions of other countries do not seem so comparatively evil as the evil which “we have dealt with”.
Another way that types of postcolonial discourse which condemn the past but doesn’t focus on the present create a distraction is by overtly reprimanding attitudes identified as “colonial” whilst pursuing a neo-liberal or neocolonial agenda in the ex-colonies.
And so on.
The reason I consider that projective identification — the projection of one’s “evil” or waste matter on to another — is involved is that I have generally been treated with poisonous contempt by first world whites who are themselves beneficiaries of colonialism. But I do not recall an instance of a black person making a similar assumption about me that I am evil. Therefore the treatment I get from most whites is indicative of the fact that I serve a purpose for them — they can use me to convince themselves that they are pure, despite their agitating self-doubts.