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.

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: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?

Week Eight: Mignolo: The Idea of Latin America pp. 82-88

1.     Colonialism:  p. 83

2.     “explicit [colonial] projects described in positive terms, like civilization, development and democracy” p. 84  NB:  remember the Maggot Brain (and think, think, it ain’t illegal yet, especially in terms of language, and shows like “democracy now”)

3.     Eurocentrism:  p. 84

4.     Modernity:  p. 84

5.     Colonization of Time:  p. 84

6.     Colonialism (Fanon):  p. 84

7.     “The simple difference was how global designs were received—not conceived—by people imbued with other histories and speaking different languages.”  p. 85

8.     Decolonization:  political not epistemic, p. 85, post Césaire, Fanon, and 1990s, and “independence” p. 86

9.     “Conceiving of themselves as a ‘Latin’ race”  p. 86 and independence and nation-state building p. 86

10.  Class and Europe p. 87

11.  Race and the Americas p. 87-88

12.  Pay special attention to note 33 on page 172-3 in relation to the rhetoric of modernity and the logic of coloniality