Post Colonialism

This past Wednesday in class we discussed the idea that in BT the author presents this idea that we are meant to reject eurocentric ideas and the universalism created by colonists. Yet, as our "guest speaker" reminded the class he goes on to categorize post colonialism into the adopt, adapt, adept stages (if I recall). Would this not contradict the original statements made earlier in the chapter? 

I feel however, that you are who you are, although the author is supposedly contradicting himself, because he most likely is using a eurocentric view, he can't change that. One aspect of this criticism was the idea of duality in persons. It seems that most people whether they are a "colonist" or one who was "colonized", may have a little bit of both. Where is that boundary? Where does it end? How can one person not have influences from their ancestors or the people who colonized them? Is that not history as well? 

But maybe I am also just thinking way too much into this theory. I feel that in most of these chapters I don't agree with the theory or I find something wrong about it, whether I feel it is not realistic or not plausible, etc. Perhaps I just can't truly except just one "theory" or a categorized theory to interpret literature. I think that one theory will never be able to fully help readers understand literature and even labeling them, may not help. 

It also could be that after reading so many chapters of different theories I am completely turned around in each different direction. Or most likely, because it is April and so close to the end.