RP4: Coloniality, Colonialism, and Mignolo

Colonialism saddens me, and in a large scheme Mignolo does not support the idea that coloniality is permanent; however, when applying his theory to our daily lives, I have a hard time understanding the ways in which colonialism can be entirely dismantled.  I understand that there are methods which can be applied to anti-colonialism to render its effectiveness, but on a large scale I think that the demolition of colonialism is impossible.

Unfortunately, I am working from a limited perspective and I do not yet have the scope to conceive of the abolition of colonialism.  Considering the ways in which the land of The People has been historically* misused, it will be difficult to adjust all of the structures which were quickly assembled, but built to last and endure.  To an extent, colonial structures were built with a form of survivance in mind.  Once one group is colonized, it almost seems as though the quickest form of reconciliation or retribution is through the colonization of another group of people.  Now, is this to say that I am assuming colonization can only be dismantled in a matter of years?  No.  It is to say that I believe that coloniality will take decades to erase, and I do not see the lifespan of humanity occupying the same lengthy lifespan.

To reiterate, my perspective is limited.  I began reading with the idea that the lifespan of humanity after 2014 is waning.  This limited view constricted me and did not allow me to completely agree with Mignolo's theory.  Although I agree that colonialism is the the "hated little sister" which the family attempts to disguise as modernization, or progress, or development, and I partially agree that "the decolonization of knowledge and subjectivity through the imagination of alternatives to capitalism and alternatives to the modern state and its reliance on military power... is taking place" (Mignolo, 85); however, I do not believe it has garnered sufficient support to be considered ultimately successful.  I also do not believe there is a way for these movements to be greatly successful until all of colonialism is disbanded.

Now this post is not in any way a means to say that I have the answer to ending colonialism.  It is also not not an attempt to say that Mignolo's theory was not brilliant.  Instead it is to say I do not entirely agree with his theory.

*the use of the term historical is not to confine this text to the European, Greco Abrahamic linearity of time, but merely to contextualize my thoughts through a method that is familiar.

RP$: Mignolo and Modernity

Language is so important. Words carry a weight and a history that cannot be ignored for mere convenience. Mignolo explores the difference between “discovered” and “invented” that brings to light some of the many issues presented by colonization. By using the word “discovered” in reference to colonization, one invalidates the entire peoples that are being colonized. How can a land with multiple peoples, cultures, and systems be discovered when the intention of said “discovery” is to eliminate and change all those things which were already there? “America” was not “discovered”, the idea of America was invented and thrust upon a preexisting land which had not been and had not wanted to be America.

However, this word and many others, such as modernity, are still commonly used, because of their constructed positive connotations and the persisting and underlying belief that Europeans did in fact “earn” or “deserve” to essentially overtake and run the newly named Americas. This is what truly interests me. The persistence of our word usage and general understandings of history show the true and deeply rooted problem: that many Europeans and now Americans do not see colonization as the violent and devastating intrusion that it was and is. From the European perspective, “modernity refers to a period in world history that has been traced back either to the European Renaissance and the ‘discovery’ of America” (Mignolo 8) and is seen as, “the direction of history that had Europe as a model and goal.” What is not seen, what refuses to be seen, from the European perspective, is that “the achievements of modernity go hand in hand with the violence of coloniality” (Mignolo 8). The reluctance here, I think, comes from an inability to admit that the system is dirty. The system that one was born into and participates in every single day, the system that very possibly has created a seemingly wonderful, fulfilling, and satisfying life for someone, was built upon the destruction of another system, another people, by one’s own people.

I’m going to take a little leap here, and tie this into the idea behind my final project. This ^^^ what I just described as reluctance, but is truly so much more complex, is exactly what dying looks like. What Mignolo thinks our society needs to do and what we have been attempting to do in this class is to STRETCH. To not simply succumb to the ignorance of colonization, modernity, or discovery that is far too easy to obtain in our current educational and political structures. Having now read and analyzed Mignolo, we have more than enough tools that can enable us to stretch. More completely, we have the tools to help others who are on their death beds to begin stretching. Stretch or Die. It is a choice that everyone makes, but it is never too late to start reaching, to change one’s language, or to watch and truly understand one’s word choice. 

Interculturalidad

As this will be my last response paper for this class, I began thinking a lot about the class as a whole.  I was thinking about everything we have learned so far this quarter, and there was definitely a lot to think about.  Not just in the content of all the readings and other literature that we experienced, but how we looked at them.  I know that for me personally, at least, this class teaches and requires a completely different way of thinking and analyzing than what I’m used to.  That, however, doesn’t mean that it’s the wrong way to look at things.  Far from it!  As I was thinking about this, one word came to my mind: Interculturalidad.  I realized that a lot of Mignolo’s concepts and explanations about Interculturalidad are actually very similar to what we have been learning in this class.  

According to Mignolo, Interculturalidad “means that there are two distinct cosmologies at work” (118).  In contrast with his idea of multiculturalism, which is essentially one idea being “right” and the others merely being tolerated, Interculturalidad recognizes the complete coexistence of two truths.  One doesn’t have to be wrong for the other to be right.  This idea is relatively foreign to most people, or at least to Americans.  We are brought up taught that there is an absolute truth or fact to all things, and that every other answer or method is wrong.  As it relates to teaching and thinking, this class has in itself showcased the concept of Interculturalidad.  In many respects, the education I have received thus far in my life has not been wrong.  I am what most people would consider smart, and I am “good” at school (for lack of a better word.)  In addition to this, there are many other ways that I could have been taught, and infinite different ways of thinking that I haven’t been exposed to.  The way I’ve experienced is certainly not the only way, nor is it necessarily the best.  It’s just one form, or cosmology, or result of a certain world-- however you want to put it.

RP4:MIgnolo

Reading “The Americas, Christian Expansion, and the Modern/Colonial Foundation of Racism” an excerpt from The Idea of Latin America written by Walter Mignolo, it helped me get into more depth about colonialism and how its definition, or should I say, its change and concealment of the word by renaming it through another word: modernity. Modernity and what is now called democracy are the new terms that are now more recently used and constantly referred to but some people that use those terms are not familiar that they are actually using the definition of coloniality.

Colonialism is based off of inventions that are covered up as “discoveries” in order to make it seem that these colonists are superior to any other people since they were able to “discover”, or should I say, invent something that basically was already there. However, the only reason that they were able to get away with that was because they did the most horrific solution of destroying and reconstructing cultures and histories of those that they colonize.

Coloniality “enforces control, domination, and exploitation disguised in the language of salvation, progress, modernization, and being good for everyone.” (pg. 6) For me this definition is based on the similar concept of democracy and how democracy is seen as the only solution that is able to “save” everyone and able to make a country progress and develop further through peace, but is that really the case when it is enforcing control and domination disguised as modernization and salvation for the greater of everyone? How can a country be trying to fight colonialism when they are still embedded in the idea that the majority defines the future of everyone else? Democracy is the new colonialism.

The U.S. government is based on colonialism, although they fought against it in the American revolution, the colonialist mentality was still in practice although the colonizers were not present, their ideas were still deeply embedded into the political system of the government. The majority is still in power and the people that are seen as inferior are still being oppressed yet throughout the years the oppression has evolved. Just by looking back into U.S. history will you find evidence on how colonialism is still in effect and how the government makes excuses and lies and destroys only to escape the fact that what they were doing wrong was actually to just benefit the people when the contrary was in effect.

The word colonialism has evolved from modernity to democracy only to just make people blind on how colonialism is still in effect by disguising it through lies and excuses on how the decisions that are being made will only benefit the people, not oppress them.  Will we ever be able to end colonialism or is it a never-ending factor of life that may never be escaped?

RP4: Mignolo

I really enjoy reading Mignolo. The pieces we have read so far have are straightforward, readable and informative. In “Indigenous People are Not Necessarily ‘Latin’ and Perhaps Not Entirely ‘Americans Either,” Walter D. Mignolo contends that “knowledge is produced, accumulated, and critically used everywhere” in the world; however, since many countries do not have the resources to validate their knowledge the “imperial power knowledge” is the most endorsed which causes the most dominant body of knowledge to silence the less credible knowledge (115). He asserts the notion and use of “Latin America” points towards the silenced histories and knowledge of “Indigenous knowledge” that is not the same as German or French knowledge (116). Notably, Mignolo argues that an Indigenous intellectual has to be knowledgeable of the philosophers: Kant and Waman Puma- an intellectual he categorized alongside Kant, and further suggests that a German or French intellectual does not have to be informed oh Waman Puma and only of Kant (117).

Furthermore Mignolo describes the history of “interculturalidad” and the difference between those notions and “multicultural” notions. In order to assess how “decolonial delinking” works Mignolo describes that “interculturalidad” is two co-existing bodies (Western and Indigenous) where a reciprocal relationship allows, “collaborate conversation” for both sides. In contrast, “multicultural” suggests the principal knowledge acknowledged and controlled is held by the state; therefore people could have their “cultures” as long as they do not argue with that validated state knowledge. Leaning towards “interculturalidad” he writes, “Instead, “interculturalidad” would lead to a pluri-cultural state with more than one valid cosmology,” where he follows through to describe a world where people’s cultures co-exist and are all considered valid (120). Mignolo then describes the creation and transformation of “Latin America” going from the time where philosophy dominated over theology and culture within universities. Then towards the “corporate university” where people “purchase education” for “promotional” purposes, which emphasizes that “Latin America” was brought up within a Western world. He uses the knowledge to present how the use of “Latin America” has and will continue to be used as a way to show the silencing of the Indigenous people who were not part of “Latin America’s” creation.

I think Mignolo works towards suggesting a more incorporating form of system where all worlds’ part of the whole are validated, voiced, and considered which follows a very utopian ideal. How would his view of an all-encompassing body apply to the United States (considering specificities of the “country”)? Is implementation possible? Beneficial? Do I want it? I really enjoy reading Mignolo because the abstract ideas we have discussed and presented are more tangible now.

RP 4: What is knowledge? Why is it knowledge?

Who has the power to tell that a story is valid? Why is there suppose to be the power of who has the right to tell a story? Mignolo in his reading touches on this notion of the untold stories through Interculturalidad and Multicultural. In his article he talks about Interculturalidad being a notion of challenging what is in place already. It is about challenging those of who think and have dictated what is the correct way of thinking or who believes that is knowledge. It is acknowledging that there are two different logics and languages. Interculturalidad questions what is knowledge and why is that knowledge is placed in that way. This is very similar to Rabassa’s thinking in “Elsewheres.” It is necessary double think and question what has been in placed as knowledge and why that type of knowledge is the “correct” one. Who is it that wants us to think in that way and why? What is knowledge in the first place? Mignolo and Rabassa both want us to acknowledge that knowledge has been shaped by a higher power structure that needs and wants us to think that there is one way of thinking. Once one knows that there is another way of thinking that opens the opportunity to challenge those who have told us not to think in a different manner. Being able to think in an Interculturalidad manner is a form of thinking radically. This is viewed when Mignolo writes about Interculturalidad and the indigenous people. For indigenous people interculturalidad is a way of moving away from one way of thinking. Rabassa writes, “The difference is that an Indigenous intellectual still has to know Kant alongside Waman Puma to be conversant, while a German or French intellectual can dispense with Waman Puma and solve the problem of rights for all and for ever with Kant and Hegel” (117). Moreover, it was thinking in both manners and having to know both ways of thinking. It is mixture of both manners of knowing the way that has been taught to think of knowledge but also knowing that there is another way of thinking. Interculturalidad questions knowledge, which is a form of decolonization. In addition, it gives voice to the untold stories. Furthermore, to tell the stories that have been shut down for so many years and have been told that they are not valid stories. Multicultural on the other hand just accepts and does not challenge what is already set up. Decolonizing the form of knowledge is powerful because it honestly challenges one to reflect as to why one has been told to think in this way. Rabassa writes, “maintaining the power of imperial knowledge over all other kind of knowledge” (116). What is the power of knowledge that knowledge itself has to be controlled?

Discovery vs. Invention and Interpretation vs. Perspective

I remember that when I was little I learned on a children’s television show that Australia is the only continent that is just one country. Then relatively recently my sister and I began to discuss that Oceania is actually a more accurate term. Now I am questioning the legitimacy of any categories at all. The two points that I found to be the most mind boggling in the Mignolo reading were that of discovery vs. invention and interpretation vs. perspective. I had never fully considered the naming of places that seem so entrenched in our current world as inventions of coloniality and modernity. “America” was not a landmass just waiting to be found and sired by European powers as the areas already had names and peoples with traditions and epistemic matrices that did not conveniently fit into what Rabasa would call the “Greco-Abrahamic.” Also interesting to note is the current tendency to assume “America” refers only to the United States or North America. This disregard for Latin America, though that too is quite a problematic term, is still indicative of what Manalansan would consider unequal hegemonic power relations partly due to what Mignolo would deem U.S. imperialism.

 I have always been told that history depends on both interpretation and perspective with the terms used almost interchangeably but with, what I would argue, slightly more emphasis on interpretation. Now, however, I see that interpretation is founded on the implicit assumption that there is one linear historical narrative that can merely be articulated multiple ways. Also embedded is the notion that some of those interpretations carry more weight and legitimacy because some would be closer to the supposedly objective universal past than others simply by virtue of language, geography, ancestry, etc. Perspective on the other hand, like Interculturalidad, is based in a framework of many perspectives that do not all neatly collapse into one grand story but require translation and accommodation from all involved in order to come to an understanding. The idea of the double critique is crucial to this as it necessitates one to examine both another’s culture as well as one’s own. This symbolizes the more indigenous horizontal method of exchanging ideas and power as opposed to the vertical usually top-down system imposed by the West.

RP3: Explore Borders/Boundaries With Me (rhyme totally intended)

After reading Mignolo, I was really hung up on the idea of borders and boundaries. I mean, who makes them? Who has the authority to create a defined border that separates one thing from another? It's just such a strange concept in itself.

And then I really got thinking about areas that don't have truly defined borders. There are many spaces that are recognized, but are not actually agreed upon. In that sense, they exist, but also do not in that they are undefined.

This is especially true when it comes to my “home”. What is “the South”? Everyone you ask is going to have a different answer.

“It's everything below Michigan.”

“It's everything below the Mason-Dixon line. Well, except for Virginia, they're too liberal.”

“Does Missouri count? They had slaves.”

“It's where the republicans control the government, get elected and f*ck with our national politics.” “It's where the people are uneducated and where racism continues to control everything.”

“It is home, where the food is better and the people are friendlier.”

That was my thought process. At first, I started thinking only about physical spaces. The border defined by the Confederacy in the Civil War was a stark one. The Mason-Dixon line cut through the south-east, dividing not only the country, but also families and people. The line was not just dividing two warring states, but setting a boundary between citizens that believed in the economic benefits of slavery, and those that recognized the immorality of the practice itself. But even within those borders there were people who did not agree with the majority. There were southerners that opposed slavery on moral grounds, just as there were, undoubtedly, northerners who approved of it for economic reasons. There are countless stories about families in Missouri being torn apart as brothers went off to fight for opposing armies. Although it was a slave state, a citizen of Missouri could just as easily have ancestors that fought for the union. And, beyond that, a current citizen of Missouri may not even have ancestors that lived in “the South” during the war. They might also be a new immigrant, with no old ties to the country, let alone the state. But, if they live in Missouri, which used to be a slave state, does that not make them a southerner? I don't know. Does it? What even is “the South”, anyways?

Even today, everyone's perception of where “the South” begins and ends depends on where they grew up, how they were raised, and what they were taught to believe, morally and politically. From this, I quickly noted that it was greater than that. I realized that borders do not have to be physical. They do not have to outline actual spaces. They can outline peoples' view points and opinions. They can separate one group from another. These borders can be referring to peoples' Elsewheres. They do not have to be recognized by all people, or even by anyone person. They are created, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes unintentionally, to distinguish certain groups from one another. They define who is same and other, though not necessarily on a binary, as was described by Rabassa.

Essentially, I just got really excited with the idea that borders and boundaries are not always simply physical ones. In fact, none are truly physical. They are all ideologically created through some form of colonization, whether in a literal sense, or a metaphorical one. I thought it was cool, and wanted to share.