Thomas King‘s “Godzilla vs Postcolonial” is a critique of the use of the term “post-colonial” for describing literature of the countries that formerly were colonies, particularly Indigenous literature in North America. In his typical style, King analises how this term leads to the diminution of rich cultural traditions into reactive political categories.
“Post-colonial” can serve as a cover up of the actual lived experience, narrative methods and history of Indigenous people. In this essay, King does not only criticise current academic practice, he also provides alternative models to better reflect Native writing and thought.
Godzilla vs Postcolonial Summary
Thomas King makes a valid argument that using the term “post-colonial” for Native literature makes the experiences and stories of Indigenous people too simple. According to his argument, Indigenous writing must not be viewed as the response to the colonialism but on its own terms.
Problem with the term “Post-Colonial”
King begins his argument by attacking the limitations of the term “post-colonial” because this term implies a clean break from colonialism. It misleadingly suggests that the colonial systems and its effects are now a thing of the past. But, according to King, colonisation is still not finished among Indigenous peoples in Canada and others. It is still persisting in legal, cultural, economic and social ways. Therefore, it is inaccurate and misleading to term Native literature as post-colonial.
Besides, the term presupposes that all the once colonised nations or people have had the same experiences, which King strongly denies. Colonial experience of the Canadian Indigenous people cannot be compared to the experience of Caribbean, African or Indian writers. The individuality of each tradition is leveled by putting them all in a single post-colonial basket.
The Problem of Oversimplification
Among the most important criticisms that King makes about post-colonialism is that it establishes a counterproductive dichotomy: coloniser vs colonised, i.e., the term creates a useless binary. This duality might seem simple but it oversimplifies centuries of rich complex cultural identities.
King’s fear is that there’s a danger of treating Native literature only as a response to colonialism, rather than as an independent body of knowledge, stories and values rooted in thousands of years of independent tradition.
This binary nature of reading has also the danger of portraying Indigenous people as victims, constantly in reaction, constantly in opposition. Their agency, self-expression and creative authority are narrowed down to how they respond to white settlers. By doing this, post-colonial readings can be used to reinforce the colonial power, despite the attempts to criticize it.
Post-Colonialism as an Academic Monster
One of the most memorable metaphors in the essay, King likens post-colonialism to Godzilla, a huge monster in a Japanese science-fiction movie that wipes out all that crosses its path. The post-colonial theory has turned into a overwhelming academic monster that consumes a variety of literatures and re-packages them into manageable institutional categories. This satirical analogy reveals King’s deep scepticism toward the rigidity and trendiness of critical theory in Western academia.
King is being humorous but critical here: “Godzilla stomps through the library, picks up a book of Native stories, flips through the pages, and then says, ‘Post-colonial.’” The thing he is ridiculing is the academic tendency to simplify complicated narratives through trendy jargon without engaging with the cultural implications of the stories.
King’s Alternative Classifications
Instead of agreeing with the post-colonial label, King suggests four terms to describe the Native literature that accurately represent the various facets of Indigenous storytelling:
1. Tribal Literature: This is literature which is firmly based in particular Indigenous cultural and community contexts. Oral traditions, tribal histories and language systems influence such writing. These narratives are not in response to colonialism but are based on tribal world views.
2. Polemical Literature: Literature which openly deal with the colonial injustice, land dispossession and political resistance. These texts are polemic, uncompromisingly political, and they face the reader with the facts of Native struggle and survival.
3. Inter-fusional Literature: Literature that combines the Indigenous forms of storytelling with Western forms of literature. These writings can be a blend of oral cultures and novelistic elements, or combine spiritual themes with contemporary settings – demonstrating a culture of accommodation instead of mere resistance.
4. Associational Literature: Literature that is based on relationships and connections as opposed to linear plot development. Such narratives may appear fragmented or cyclical, as they are in tune with the beats of memory, tradition and community bonds instead of Western conceptions of narrative closure.
Presenting these options, King encourages scholars and readers to approach Indigenous literature acknowledging its internal logic without imposing foreign structures on it.
Native Literature on its Own Terms
Throughout the essay, King claims that Indigenous literature must be understood and appreciated within its own cultural and philosophical context. He does not reject the fact that colonialism has influenced the lives of the Native people- but he claims that it ought not to be the only prism through which the Native stories are interpreted. Native literature is not just literature of protest; it is literature of creation, literature of endurance, literature of joy and spiritual vision.
Notably, King also disapproves the notion that Indigenous writing should be set against Western literature. Native writers are also experimental, imaginative and assertive, instead of being reactive all the time. They are writing to their communities as well as to general audiences. They tell stories that are not always neat and stories that can be easily translated into critical theory and this, according to King, has to be respected.
Individual Standpoint
King ends his essay with a solid statement regarding identity. He does not want to be termed post-colonial writer. Rather, he calls himself a Native writer. It is not just a matter of semantic preference, but it is a political and cultural position. In refusing to call himself post-colonial, King is not willing to characterize himself or his work in terms of its relation to colonialism.
He is also making a more general point: that true understanding of Indigenous literature comes only when we cease to think of the Native peoples as former subjects of empire, and start to think of them as nations, cultures, and voices with their own authority and narrative forms. Listening is the right way to see Native literature through a Native lens, not through a colonial one.
Conclusion
“Godzilla vs Postcolonial” is a critique and a proposal at the same time. Thomas King deconstructs the constraints of the term post-colonial humorously, clearly, and with academic precision. He reveals how the word lowers cultural diversity, enforces Eurocentric dichotomies, and does not recognize the concrete, living realities of Indigenous writers.
King’s alternative classifications: tribal, polemical, inter-fusional, and associational, suggest respectful ways to understand the diversity of Indigenous writing.
Finally, the essay urges both academia and readers to rethink not just categories, but the very act of reading itself. King asks: Are we listening to Native voices, or are we just labelling them?