Abstract: Despite the general view of Robinson Crusoe as a manifesto for colonial empowerment this paper in the German language shows that the text in fact exposes the paradigmatic self-affirming colonial subject as inherently instable. It does so not only by the initial perforation of Crusoe’s name, but also by failing pro-imperialist apology - according to Edward Said’s idea of contrapuntal reading - aimed at legitimizing Crusoe’s supremacy over his island, and his power over the main non-Western protagonists, Xury and Friday. Both these parallel cases of subjugation are ridden by almost absurd logical, or economic contradictions exposing the futility at the heart of their mechanics. Also, the presentation of Crusoe’s superiority by means of the construction of religious alterity is inconsistent as traces of hybridization within the Christian creed show. Moreover Crusoe’s will to establish his Western language usage as superior backfires when Creolization enters the protagonist’s own discourse, and his self-aggrandizing declaration of being master of his island is subverted by antagonistic elements, which he - unsuccessfully - tries to exclude from the realm of humankind - by unconvincingly depicting their cannibal eating habits. Further, anti-imperialist resistance according to Said becomes obvious within the text when the visual contrast between Crusoe and colonized peoples - one of the markers of alterity - collapses as Friday acquires phenotypical Western traits and Crusoe devel-ops non-Western features. But it is Friday who symbolically resists colonial power most potently. Far from being only the obedient servant desired by his master he stubbornly refuses to speak Eng-lish adequately, thus exposing Crusoe’s deficiency of authority. But most of all, after years of subjugation, he stages a revolt not only against Crusoe, but - in the name of all colonized peoples - against Western colonists.