Center (Core) and periphery

In terms of my rough overview, the postcolonial terminology of "centre versus periphery" do not work for me.

These hazy terms which describe nothing and yet too much are a way of framing the ventures of 19th Century colonialism (and earlier) which puts the West firmly in the centre of the picture as the giver of core values. Those who have the core values are, of course, orthodox, and pure (even in their refusal to give up power, which of course makes them evil). Those on the fringe, on the 'periphery' are by comparison going to be heterodox transgressors, who derived what was core from their Western (although it is not permissable to say so) mother and then ran wild and messy. They are like Mr Kurtz (or Captain Kurtz, more aptly) whose methods have "become unsound". Thus the postcolonial "core" ombudsman calls them back into the fold to repent. "Come ye away from the periphery!" he pronounces, "But take ye not my job nor any bit of land from my core occupation. If needs be thou mayest live in the ocean."

Core and periphery: One is supposed to be able to move between them, becoming necessarily more radiant as one approaches the "core". Herein lie economic prosperity as well as ideological purity, for instance. On the periphery? Only incoherence, evil, and individuals crying out to be corrected (in a core way).

---And now, according to Lakoff, I have just reinforced the frame. Let us all have a good laugh at is as it floats before us.