Speaking of H.G. Wells’ novel The War of the Worlds, as many threads here are, many claim Wells meant the novel as a metaphor for imperialism. For example, from Wikipedia:
I’ve read the novel twice, but I just don’t see it. British and European colonialism occurred as lengthy interactions between the natives and the imperialists, and it virtually always hinged on either enslavement, or trade of raw materials. In The War of the Worlds however, there is no interaction with the Martians. No enslavement, no trade, no puppet government, etc., or any of the hallmarks of the colonial relationship.
Can anyone identify anything within the novel itself that would convince me otherwise?
The metaphor is established pretty much from the opening paragraph. Imperialism is presented as a recursive process.
Wells wasn’t being too coy about what he was getting at:
Old World: “Europe, Asia, and Africa, regarded collectively as the part of the world known before the discovery of the Americas.” The idea of recursive empire is presented, and in the very next line, the invaders are described as coming from an older world.
Before the “discovery” of the New World, native Americans went serenely about their little affairs, struggling for dominion of their corner of the world. Then colonialists, armed with more advanced technology, came from across an unimaginable gulf and took over.
And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species was wrought not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?