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. 

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.

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