Looking Both Ways Before Crossing Your Opinions!

In discussions of The Tempest there has been a major controversy over whether or not imperialism and colonialism are condemned or exalted. And whether Shakespeare meant for that to be so. On one hand Aime Cesaire argues in his rewrite of The Tempest as A Tempest that Shakespeare was trying to make a jab at imperialism. In his rewriting of the play Cesaire adds a comedic touch to the whole situation and emphasizes the captivity of both Ariel and Caliban. In his version the dialogue between Caliban and Prospero is much less serious as Caliban feels comfortable enough to provide come backs and insults towards Prospero after almost every comment and order. Without the influence of magic. And Ariel seems much more reluctant to work for Prospero and even conspires with Caliban to get their freedom. Both Caliban and Ariel are much more passionate about their freedom, and it shows how actual slaves may act instead of 'people' or spirits under a magical spell, for the magic is less noticeable in this version of the play. Cesaire plays up the desire for freedom, the reluctance to follow orders, and the plotting against Prospero to highlight all of the faults of imperialism. He also gives the enslaved characters much stronger personalities, helping the audience side with them easily and root for freedom instead of colonialism. On the other hand, in "The Figuration of Caliban In The Constellation of Postcolonial Theory", a thesis submitted by the graduate faculty of the Louisiana State University, all sides are argued, but very persuasively was one in particular. A quote from Baker and Hulme who contend "Caliban’s clownish conspiracy and repentance cannot help but reinforce a colonial discourse. Besides, there is no evidence in the play indicating that Prospero deliberately incites Caliban’s rebellion. Caliban’s sensibility, appearance and actions inevitably work within the limits of a European ethnocentric paradigm of the Other" (Page 17). Ethnocentrism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own. And paradigm means concept. So this simply states that colonialism is praised in this text mainly because all of Caliban's actions, thoughts, and dialogue are almost meaningless in comparison to European actions, thoughts, and dialogues. His race, whatever it may be, is looked down upon simply because it is not European, and in Baker and Hulme's opinions, Shakespeare was advocating imperialism.
From reading and understanding both positions we can come to understand, that although we will never know which one for sure Shakespeare was going for, because he is not here to tell us, there is one that makes more sense in its context. Although it is very nice to assume that he was arguing against colonialism, in his day and age imperialism was the rage. Elizabeth I was just starting to search for new worlds and the majority view was that "The Others" were below Europeans, in every way. So from Baker and Hulme's interpretation of The Tempest and from social context from that era, we can only assume that Shakespeare was promoting imperialism.