RP4: Reflections

Our discussions in class Thursday about our personal research question made me realize something. As my group members each attempted to identify their own obsessions and interests in order to create their own question, I was busy questioning the question. In order to know what my personal research question is, I have to know myself. Who am I? I found the discussion difficult in that there is a paradox that blocks us from receiving a simple answer. We need to know ourselves to establish a question, but how can we possibly know ourselves when we as individuals are constantly changing? We are under a constant barrage of media and educational topics, and the more we explore the more we expand ourselves. The self is indefinite, so how can we, so early in our lives, be expected to establish a question to pursue? It came to me that we can establish a question as long as we do not expect to receive a definite answer. Over time the question will change, as will the answer. It will adjust to our changing selves. It, like us, will be fluid.

Who am I? I feel like most of us in the class were, in one way or another, asking ourselves the same question. In the past few weeks, I have become so focused on Rabasa's concept of Elsewheres, and that every individual person is different, that I had forgotten that we as a collective humanity are still capable of having commonalities. All of us at this point are still on a mission of self-discovery. We are all learning more and more about topics that interest us in hopes that we might better understand ourselves. We share the common journey of self-discovery, searching for a sense of personal enlightenment. What are we here for? What can we do? It seems to me that we in this class are all searching for the answers to these questions. And although it may be frustrating when we cannot find a definite answer, it is only natural to work through that stress and continue on.

I wanted to write this to remind everyone in our class that even as we knock down social binaries, break through borders of race and culture, and establish that every individual is indeed an individual, that we are not alone. We are all on this journey of self-discovery together, and I have been very pleased to have shared my journey with you for the past 9 weeks. I look forward to seeing what answers we do find, and how our questions all change in the future. Thank you, and always remember you do not journey alone.

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. 

RP4: Tense Matters

"Although critical theory has focused much attention on the role of frontiers and Manifest Destiny in the creation and rise of U.S. empire, American Indians and other indigenous peoples have often been evoked in such theorizations as past tense presences. Indians are typically spectral, implied and felt, but remain as lamentable casualties of national progress who haunt the United States on the cusp of empire and are destined to disappear with the frontier itself. Or American Indians are rendered as melancholic citizens dissatisfied with the conditions of inclusion" (Byrd xx).

I’ve been thinking about this quote a lot this week—especially in conjunction with what Dr. Gómez asked us to talk about on Tuesday: How might the terms of the current academic and political debates change  if the responsibilities of the very real, lived conditions of colonialism was prioritized? To help me think about this question, I had to think about the ways in which the real and lived conditions of colonialism are not prioritized—a clear, succinct, direct idea was necessary, not just rhetorical and broad statements of frustration. This idea was well described in the quote above.  The lived conditions of colonialism have been so pushed aside, not prioritized, that the groups who have lived and live in those conditions are evoked in the past tense and as “lamentable casualties of national progress.” The most common reference to indigenous communities is though stereotype—specifically a historical stereotype: The ‘Noble Savage” with long dark hair, acting as one with the universe, the image of the stoic yet dangerous man wearing little clothing, a feathered headdress , and war paint. These are dominant images of a group of people lumped into the easy title of Native Americans. These images are everywhere from advertisement to children’s entertainment.

The popular Disney movie, Peter Pan, begins in the orderly, civilized, real world that seems to include only wealthy white people. It then moves into a fantasy world that includes boys who have no parents, pirates, and Indians who sing “What makes the Red man Red.” The characters enjoy their stay in this fantasy world, but in the end, the children have to return to the real world…where apparently these groups don’t exist? No, actually orphans, piracy, and Indians do exist in the real world—they simply do not have the same levity as portrayed in Peter Pan’s Neverland. The simplification of what is means to be Indian, both in the film and in the broader portrayal of Indians, is firmly placed in a historical stereotype and as a past tense presence. It relies on the already-stereotypical and simplifying image of how Europeans viewed Indians when white man first “discovered” the Americas. It does not recognize the current presence of indigenous communities and how they might be different from that historical image. It does not acknowledge the history of genocide and imperialism of indigenous communities and how that might have forced them to change and adapt in order to survive.

Maintaining a single narrative and image that originated six hundred years ago removes the effects of colonialism on this country and the people who have lived here and been subjected to this coloniality. What does recognizing this lived condition look like? Because for me, before I can think about what effects that might have on academia and politics, I need to think about what form prioritizing the lived conditions of colonialism would take. I think it would take changing norms; it would take changing what we see as standard and normal for “Indian.” The best way to do this is through art and media. Change the way we talk about Indian-ness and the way indigenous people are portrayed and talked about. Distinguish between different groups, recognize the land we stand on, strive to understand the current condition of colonialism rather than naming it as past lamentable casualties. Stop talking about people in the past tense when they are here. Speak in present tense.

RP4: Tongues

On Tuesday, Dr. Reid Gomez brought up the idea of language and its role in colonization. I can't stop thinking about it.

For years I've been into languages, not just the spoken ones, but that's where I've been living for the last few years.

I grew up speaking both Spanish and English and started learning German about five years ago.

For years, I've admired the power of language, of words. How much little scribbles can mean and how much  can convey -- everything from love to hate and desire and even who has power.

I'm breaking from the "don't bring in too much outside knowledge to the class" thing we sometimes have going.

I'm used to making connections from class to class and bringing in everything together and I gained a lot from sticking to single texts but I was in another class where the role of language was brought up. I guess I've been trying to link language to ethnic studies in a more direct way than what we have kind of touched up on in class, as evidenced in my last post also being about language.

In this other class, we discuseed the role of language in society and identity formation.

I line up closest with the idea that the original telos of language is to facilitate communication -- but that it has been used in it's parasitic forms to facilitate subjugation.

I'm bilingual. Two tongues. Both brought to this land chunk centuries ago by colonizers.

I can't speak either language "properly." I have an accent when speaking English, when speaking Spanish.

Which tongue holds more power? I have no idea. I don't know if that is a valid question, at least I wish for it to not be. But I guess that is why I'm so interested in this and have made it a point to read Mignolo again and to get my hands on some Jose Medina books and understand language more.

RP4: Challenge all that is given...

The work does not end here. The process of decolonizing our thinking does not cease with the termination of a course, nor does it cease with the end of a school year. We have been conditioned to believe so, but we must look beyond the confines of the grade and search outside of our comfort levels to find true exaltation. This past week has left me to reflect on the class and where I have come as an intro to ethnic studies student. Here is what I have found.

Do not give up. Because so many times I wanted to in this course. I wanted to pull my hair out actually because I did not have the proper understanding of what it means to argue with the given in certain ways. I reside in a hegemonic understanding that what knowledge is given to me is right and to question it is questioning its authenticity and its validity. But what I have understood in this class it that in order to fully understand the knowledge of something, we must questions its authenticity and its validity in order to perfect our own work as scholars. In order to solidify our own knowledge we must challenge everything and think critically about what is believed to be self-evident and true.

Mignolo’s understanding of “Latin” America helped me grasp this and ground my understanding in the questioning of all that is given and believed true, obviously prior to me taking this course. I understand the implications that come out of labeling me as a “Latina.” And how simply changing the label, which are created arbitrarily by hegemonic colonial forces, is simply changing a name on a subject that is a product of a racial project, but its implications do not change. Just like changing multicultural to intercultural, as Mignolo states, does nothing so as much to change the name and label of the same work that is being done. This class has taught me to question why things are labeled as they are and why we believe them to be true. Question the authority that makes these labels powerful and who has the agency to shift a name and create racial projects that will be followed by imperial forces for years and years to come.

My frustration comes from an unwillingness to face that so much in my realm of knowledge has been given to me by colonial thinkers that now to decolonize my ways of thinking seems daunting, but it will happen. I have to make strides to make that happen, outside of academia and beyond the classroom. I am so very ready for this challenge. I only question where this will continue. 

RP4

Thursday, May 22, 2014
Post-class diary entry

(post-post class. Turns out my post was not published on the day I wrote it, rather it remained as a draft for the blog. Oops.)

I am very enthralled with the way class went today. Not only were we engaged physically in the lesson but also mentally, as we were able to draw conclusions based on our readings and apply them to our present life here at K.
Upon reading Mignolo's Indigenous People are Not Necessarily "Latin" and Perhaps not Entirely "Americans" Either, I was captivated by the points that he made regarding western education systems, and the imperial power that they hold. In his critique of corporate universities and their aim to teach "expertise and efficiency", Mignolo reminded me of our education received here at K (pg 121). The supposed "expertise and efficiency" obtained through our college education, though, is completely within the Western paradigm of understanding, perpetuated through curriculum, professors, and even classmates. I would argue that the concept of "interculturalidad"is barely present here at K, as much as we believe we promote diversity and inclusion. My experience of notions of 'interculturalidad' are primarily in this Ethnic Studies class, where Dr. G includes words from other languages and circles of thought into our lessons.
I am particularly stuck on a comment that Anya made in class today, regarding her parent's reaction to her switch of majors. I experienced similar reactions from my own parents when I told them that I am a prospective Art History major. Seeing as they are both liberal school teachers, one would think that they would be accepting and understanding of my decision, yet my mother's first reaction was a gasp and an exclamation of "Where do you plan on working?". The majority of beliefs here at K seem to be paralleled with that of my parents, an they are that if you aren't studying science, you aren't studying anything substantial enough to gain you a job. These perspectives seem aligned with the coloniality experienced in education: that not only is our system geared toward the greco-abrahamic curriculum style, but the studies that are most valued and revered are those that are in line with these methods of thought, as well as those that contain 'promises' of employment, thus perpetuating instances of capitalism in education.

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.

RP4: The Myth is the Biggest Lie

“They told us that we would get more money, but they never told us that we were going to spend so much.” – Rosita. The myth of “El Norte” has blinded people to see the hardships that undocumented people face once arriving in the United States. The godmother used media as a source of an idea of what life in “El Norte” is like. The telenovelas are not the ideal common life experience that people have, and people are only misled. This is shown when Enrique and Rosita are looking for jobs. In the present, jobs are a lot more difficult to come by, especially in a time of recession and immigration policies (ex. SB 1070).

I understand and agree that the standard of living has “improved” compared to the living conditions people may have had back home. Looking at my experience, I acknowledge and am grateful of my parents’ risk of migrating into this country. They have given me more opportunities to an education and social/economic mobility (or even just stability). But the myth is still there, my parents have not had/seen a direct economic or social mobility (a.k.a American Dream), since we are still stuck in poverty (even though they work their butts off, but of course it’s the system working against them and our family. But that’s a different conversation). I don’t think they will directly see that; hopefully they will be able to enjoy some kind of economic mobility/stability through my (OUR) academic achievements.

Making Hegemony and Dominance not mutually exclusive

Making Hegemony and Dominance not mutually exclusive

             

            The fact that hegemony and dominance are not mutually exclusive is a concept that I believe can only be fully understood when colonization is considered.  When researching the definition of hegemony the term dominance is often used within the definition and in colloquial speech they quite often used interchangeable. This truth points to the ever-impressive power of language as a tool of oppression, which is often only combated in intellectual settings. That is why it is so influential that as Mignolo points out “with the Afro-Caribbean and Afro-Andean movements, knowledge is increasingly the key site of struggle.” (Mignolo, 115) Those fighting must use the tools of language to combat misunderstandings and re-evaluate our definitions of words whose meaning has the power to misconstrue the freedom and governance of a nation. “The awareness, however, that what is dominant is not necessarily hegemonic is awakening; and hegemony like the stock market, is becoming diversified.” So much of how colonization is able to survive is based off of misplaced understandings of hegemonic control.  Numbers twisted and spun in order to calculate an understanding of “the majority group” when the definitions that divide are being constructed by those in the dominant position of control.  Until we fully separate hegemony and dominance, colonization will continue to be the narrative of governance in most of the world. 

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.

RP4: You Haven't Done Nothing

Mignolo talks about how difficult it is for societies that do not have adequate power or the finances to pass, maintain and spread their knowledge. He highlights the fact that knowledge is accumulated from everywhere but it is usually the knowledge of those that have the power and the money that are able to pass down their knowledge. Reading the words “what is dominant is not necessarily hegemonic,” (Mignolo, 116) takes me back to my grandparents' house. My grandfather often expressed distress at the fact that our education system discouraged children from speaking their native tongue (Shona). He told me that in colonial times, it was against the rules to speak Shona within the school grounds unless one was in an actual Shona lesson, and at the end of the year, they would give an English prize but never a Shona prize. They learned European history, read story books with British characters like Jane and William and sang Anglican, Methodist and Catholic hymns. In a country where the Shona were the dominant group, the British education system was hegemonic, because they had the money and the power, so they decided what was worth knowing and what was not. They made speaking one’s own language and singing traditional songs seem like inferior and banal pastimes that would not be beneficial in the “real world”. Paying homage to one’s ancestors, which was done to ask for rain, protection, good luck or to give thanks was put on the same level as demon worship. Even after colonial times, when I was born, I remember being asked if I could speak English, and being looked at differently because I spoke it so well.

Stevie Wonders, in many ways echoes Mignolo, as his song critiques modernity and the difference between interculturalidad and multicultural. He critiques that idea of hegemony when he sings “Though much concerned but not involved/ With decisions that are made by you.” He is highlighting the fact that although the decisions made by the powers that be affect every single person in America greatly, not every American has a say on this decision, only those with the power and the money to have their decisions passed. “The world is tired of pacifiers/ We want the truth and nothing else,” addresses the idea of the knowledge that it not hegemonic disappearing because it is not seen as relevant enough to be passed on, but also the concept of multicultural that allows indigenous societies’ knowledge to be spread only if it is in accordance with Western knowledge, thus discrediting any knowledge that is otherwise and acting as a pacifier. This is not the whole truth, but just the parts of the truth that are “safe” enough to be shared. I also interpreted pacifiers as “the things you say that you'll do” (Stevie Wonder), as the promises of change that the Western powers continually make to indigenous people, while, as Mignolo points out, only small changes are made in an attempt to keep things the same, so at the end of the day, “You Haven’t Done Nothing”.