Colonized peoples struggle for permission to narrate, according to Edward Said.' That is, they battle to tell their own tale, to assert a reality distinct from that imposed by intrusive power.2 But Said's phrase applies most usefully to those peoples colonized by violence and with a clearly defined colonial presence against which to rebel. What if a people is not conventionally colonized? Will they still struggle to narrate? And if a people stand complicit in their own colonization, or if colonial narrative holds certain attractions for them, what tale, exactly, will they struggle to tell? Nineteenth-century Scotland provides some context-specific answers, for across that period and place, novelists from Scott to Stevenson joined literary battle with England, writing within and against a narrative determined by their neighboring power. But why did they need to? Scotland never was physically colonized by England. Although successive English armies swept over Scottish border, forces that conquered Scotland were often comprised of Englishmen allied with some local faction. And after battles, was local faction that implemented conquerors' shared policies, that oppressed some other Scottish group. Christopher Harvie notes, for instance, that after Charles Edward Stuart's defeat in battle of Culloden, the internal colonisers were Scots. He adds, More Scots had fought for Cumberland than for Charles Edward; more Scots than English soldiers thereafter wasted glens; was Scots landlords and factors, not Englishmen, who forced Highlanders on to emigrant ships.3 Yet Scots were colonized-if not by force, by culture. When in 1707 they willingly joined in Union with England, Scots imagined they would become equal partners with their sister kingdom-equal because separate. Had they not carefully set aside a space for difference and thus for equality rather than subservience within Union by retaining their own law and religion? But by beginning of nineteenth century, Scots began to realize that London parliament was encroaching on their legal and religious sovereignty. As N.T. Phillipson writes: it became increasingly clear ... that assimilation was
Read full abstract