Syed Hussein Alatas

The Myth of the Lazy Native is Syed Hussein Alatas’ widely acknowledged critique of the colonial construction of Malay, Filipino and Javanese natives from the 16th to the 20th century. Drawing on the work of Karl Mannheim and the sociology of knowledge, Alatas analyses the origins and functions of such myths in the creation and reinforcement of colonial ideology and capitalism. The book constitutes in his own words: ‘an effort to correct a one-sided colonial view of the Asian native and his society’ and will be of interest to students and scholars of colonialism, post-colonialism, sociology and South East Asian Studies.

A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and Its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism

The Myth of the Lazy Native

fareez

Had there been no colonialism, by the end of the 19th century there would have been Malay and Javanese trading houses in the West. There would have been an independent, influential trading class in Indonesia and Malaysia, and possibly the Philippines, to spearhead the cultural contact. More elements of modern civilization would have been assimilated through this class. 

Exploitation through forced labour and oppressive taxation, characteristics of Dutch rule in Java, was strongly condemned by Raffles. Of this he noted the following: "The baneful influence of this system was but too clearly developed in the debasement of the popular mind and in that listless and apathetic feeling which appeared to characterize the Javanese nation. Whilst the rich and powerful were living in pampered luxury, the poor provincials laboured under all the horrors of penury and want; but blessed with a fruitful soil and an humble submissive mind, they were enabled to bear up under all these accumulated deprivations and misfortunes."

By portraying natives as inherently indolent and incapable, colonial powers could rationalize their conquest and exploitation as a benevolent act of civilizing and developing supposedly backward societies.

If the Malays preferred to be independent cultivators, did this make them indolent? Did not the Europeans in the colonies avoid manual labour? Did they not avoid coolie labour? Why were they not called indolent? It is clear through available records that industriousness meant working at sub-human level in colonial capitalist setting.

One would look in vain for any operational proof of Malay indolence. Nothing concrete and empirical has been brought forward to illustrate the concept of Malay indolence. If we apply our definition of "little love for work, lack of activity" to the Malays as a whole, this has never been the case. However if we apply the definition to the Malay attitude towards colonial capitalist plantation activity, it fits. Amongst the Malays there was little love for work in colonial European plantations.

The Myth of the Lazy Native quotes

Join the club