"whatever you do in life will be insignificant. but it is very important that you do it anyway."

-Ghandi

This picture is courtesy of nienie you should follow her.

In discussions of Shakespeare's The Tempest, one controversial issue has been Colonialism in relation to Caliban. On the one hand, Aime Cesaire argues that Caliban was interpreted as in need of aid from Prospero. Prospero seems to provide Caliban with a saving grace, and without him Caliban would be a nasty savage. This is similar to how the Indians were portrayed by Americas first settlers. Though on the other hand, George Will may contend that this would be interpreting The Tempest more than it calls for. He would probably feel as if Cesaire was getting too political and straying from what the original text is saying. Others even maintain that both of these are true. Some may feel that though Cesaire has a good point, she may have been over analytical with the text..
Furthermore, my own view is that Cesaire is on the right track. I agree that colonialism is a common theme throughout the text. Caliban says himself that he would have been king if they had not come. He would have lived they way those who came before him had lived and he would have been successful in life. Caliban's lifestyle is much different from that of Prospero's lifestyle, and though Prospero may be more easily defined as civilized, it does not mean that Caliban is a savage. This seems to be a point that Shakespeare is attempting to make. Caliban also says that he has no other words to describe himself with besides the derogatory names that Prospero has thought him. This work of literature calls for interpretation and political arguments. I think that to not carry on conversations about this peace would be a disservice to the play and to Shakespeare himself. This is what makes his works of literature enjoyable to read.