Summary and Definitions



Download 343.92 Kb.
Page1/14
Date conversion03.05.2016
Size343.92 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14

Summary and Definitions


DISCLAMER: MOST OF THESE CARDS ARE TAKEN FROM MULTIPLE CASES FOUND IN THE OPEN EVIDENCE PROJECT WEBSITE. I HAVE EDITED THESE CARDS TO FIT MY NEED. ALL CREDIT TO THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE RESEARCH FOR THESE CARDS.

Summary: This file has some odd cards but mostly it focuses on the need to shift away from a colonialist mentality that the plan text willingly provides.

  1. The coloniality of power is a concept interrelating the practices and legacies of European colonialism in social orders and forms of knowledge, advanced in postcolonial studies and Latin American subaltern studies, most prominently by Anibal Quijano.

    • Wikipedia

Imperialism: a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

    • Dictionary.com


DECOLONIALITY

Contention 1: inherency

THE IMPERIALISTIC BEHAVIOR IN HOMO SAPIENS HAS BEEN HARD-WIRED INTO OUR GENES SINCE THE DAWN OF EVOLUTION. WITH THE OCEAN BEING THE NEW FRONTIER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, HUMAN INQUIRY IN OCEAN HAS EXEMPLIFIED A COLONIALIST APPROACH TOWARDS OCEANIC ENGAGEMENT BY POSITING THEM AS A STANDING RESERVE.


Steiner, 12Steiner, Richard. "On Columbus Day, It's Time to Rethink Our 'Manifest Destiny'."The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 24 June 2014. .

Today is Columbus Day, celebrating the "discovery of the New World." As this event set off a wave of conquest, environmental devastation, and empire building that continues today, this seems a good time to reflect on this history, and discuss a better way forward for 21st century humanity.



In today's clamor to develop our final frontiers -- the Arctic, the deep sea, and outer space -- it's easy to hear echoes of voices from centuries past calling for the westward expansion of "civilization" as a divinely ordained "Manifest Destiny." The only thing missing is the covered wagons.The term "Manifest Destiny" was first used by Journalist John Sullivan in 1845 writing that it was: "the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us." The phrase captured the expansionist fervor and messianic vision that had been in play for centuries, and was perhaps the first expression of the jingoistic "American exceptionalism" heard in American politics today.This imperialistic behavior in Homo sapiens had been hard-wired into our genes at the dawn of human evolution, and played out in the competitive replacement of Neanderthals by Cro Magnon 30,000 years ago. At that time, Cro Magnon's behavioral traits -- violence, aggression, competition, greed, and domination -- prevailed. But what may have been adaptive in the upper Paleolithic is clearly not today, as these same traits may be our ultimate undoing. Despite this troubled history, there have been glimmers of hope. Out of the ashes of WWII, the United Nations was born. Although there were pre-existing territorial claims in one of the last untouched regions of the world -- Antarctica -- the U.S. proposed to manage the area as a U.N. Trusteeship, as the "common heritage of mankind." The 1959 Antarctic Treaty reserved the region exclusively for peaceful, non-extractive, scientific purposes, a model for global cooperation. Unfortunately, this goodwill was short-lived as humanity looked toward its next frontiers. The next frontier today is the deep ocean. The vast abyssal plain, covering 60% of the Earth surface, is intersected by deep ocean trenches, the longest mountain range on Earth, and rare hydrothermal vent ecosystems. Marine ecologist Fred Grassle says that the deep-sea may rival tropical rainforests in terms of species present, with perhaps 10 million species. Presently, large hydrocarbon reservoirs are being developed in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, and West Africa. A dozen state/private consortia, interested in mining polymetallic (manganese) nodules, hold seabed exploration leases between Baja and Hawaii and the Indian Ocean. Companies are interested in mining cobalt-rich crusts on Pacific seamounts, and Nautilus Minerals is set to begin the first ever commercial mining of deep-sea hydrothermal vents off Papua New Guinea. And we now have the stampede to develop the Arctic, where global carbon emissions have caused a catastrophic loss of Arctic sea ice. Oil and gas projects are underway in Greenland, Norway, Russia, Canada, and Alaska, with many more planned. There are projects across the Arctic to mine uranium, coal, diamonds, gold, copper, nickel, zinc, and other minerals. Arctic shipping is steadily increasing as sea ice melts. Current U.S. Arctic policy, issued in the last week of the Bush administration, is essentially an industrial development manifesto, with only cursory mention of environmental protection. After asserting that "high levels of uncertainty remain concerning the effects of climate change and increased human activity in the Arctic," the policy states that "the United States may exercise its sovereign rights over natural resources such as oil, natural gas, methane hydrates, minerals, and living marine species" on the Arctic seabed. It calls for the U.S. to join the land grab for more continental shelf seabed, to "assert a more active and influential national presence to protect its arctic interests and project sea power throughout the region," and that an Arctic Treaty, similar to that for the Antarctic, is "not appropriate or necessary."Clearly, there is a better way to govern our last frontiers. The first thing we need is a "timeout." We need a lot more science, and more deliberate thinking about whether this frontier development will help, or hinder, our quest for a sustainable future. We need to rekindle that cooperative spirit with which the Antarctic was protected 50 years ago. To better manage development in outer space, the United Nations should establish a U.N. Outer Space Environment Commission to oversee all human activity in space, and a specific Environmental Protocol to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.For the deep sea, we need a moratorium on all mineral development, within national and international waters, until we have a better understanding of the risks and impacts; large protected areas of the deep ocean permanently free from any commercial development; and an Independent Environmental Commission to oversee all exploration and development. For the Arctic, we need an Arctic Treaty (similar to the Antarctic) protecting the region for peaceful, non-extractive purposes, and as the "common heritage of all humankind." All waters outside of current 200-mile jurisdictions of the coastal states should be protected as a global sanctuary, where oil and gas, mineral, and fishery development are prohibited. As well, many sensitive areas within national jurisdictions should be contributed to the Arctic sanctuary. The U.N. should convene an Arctic Council including not just the eight coastal states currently represented, but also Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic and other governments with interests in the Arctic as equal voting members. The Arctic is too important to global climate regulation and biodiversity to leave to the parochial whims of the coastal states or industrialists. And instead of exploiting the energy and mineral resources in these frontier areas, we can simply increase the efficiency with which we use energy and materials, and switch to sustainable alternatives, thereby eliminating the need to exploit these non-renewable, frontier resources altogether. Our 21st century challenge is whether we can transcend our aggressive, domineering Paleolithic programming, or not. In approaching our final frontiers, we should carefully consider our motivations, needs, and goals, and make sure we approach these frontiers in a cooperative, sustainable manner, or not at all.

WITHIN THE LAST TWO DECADES, U.S. EXPLORATION OF THE OCEAN HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY. THIS INCREASED INQUIRY OF THE OCEAN ALONG WITH OTHER HUMAN ACTIVITIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO EXPLOITATION OF THE OCEAN AND ITS NATURAL RESOURCES. THIS EXPLOITATION LEADS TO CLIMATE CHANGE, OCEAN ACIDIFICATION AND FURTHER ATMOSPHERIC DEPLETION.

Hermione ’12, HERMIONE is a Collaborative Project funded under the European Commission's Framework Seven Programme at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. Accessed 6/25/14 http://www.eu-hermione.net/learning

Deep-sea exploration over the last two decades has shown that the deep-sea environment has already been impacted by man. Resources from the deep are increasingly exploited and clear signs of direct and indirect anthropogenic impacts are now visible in many deep-sea ecosystems. Direct impacts of human activities relate to existing or future exploitation of deep-sea resources (e.g. fisheries, hydrocarbon extraction, mining, bioprospecting), to seabed uses (e.g., pipelines, cable laying, carbon sequestration) and to pollution (e.g. contamination from land-based sources/activities, waste disposal, dumping, noise, impacts of shipping and maritime accidents). Indirect impacts relate to climate change, ocean acidification and atmospheric ozone depletion. This raises a series of concerns because deep-sea processes and ecosystems are not only important for the marine web of life but they also fundamentally contribute to global biogeochemical patterns that support all life on Earth. Moreover they provide direct goods and services that are of growing economic significance. Most of today’s understanding of the deep oceans comes from the natural sciences, supplemented by data from industry. But socio-economic research in support of the sustainable use and conservation of deep-sea resources is lagging behind. There is a clear need to identify the societal and economic implications of human activities and impacts, and to investigate the key socioeconomic and governance issues related to the conservation, management and sustainable use of the deep-seas.


Harms


THE TOPIC IN IT OF ITSELF RE-CREATES THE HISTORICAL COLONIAL EPISTOMOLOGY BY DEPLOYING THE OCEAN AS A RESOURCE FOR HUMAN’S TO EXPLOIT AND BENEFIT.

Contention 2: Development is a form of colonialism. This will eventually lead to violence

THE LANGUAGE OF THE TOPIC, UNDER THE GUISE OF “EXPLORE AND DEVELOP” ENCOURAGES COLONIALISM. THESE EUROPEAN CONCEPTS OF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ENCOURAGES AND REQUIRES COLONIALISM.


Nayar, Jayan. "SYMPOSIUM: RE-FRAMING INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: Orders of Inhumanity." Hein Online SW 9.2 (1999): n. pag. Web. 26 June 2014. University of Warwick School of Law

Since the demise of the colonial legitimization of the "civilizing" mission, "development" has come to express the contemporary challenge of bringing the benefits of "civilization" and human progress to the populations of the world. It is, it appears, the primary purpose of human endeavor to be collectively undertaken by all and sundry within the context of a humanity-embracing, "new," post-colonial, "world-order"-- another "new beginning." Through many ups and downs, through many failures and too few successes, the spirit of development as a great human cause has been kept alive. Now we must do everything we can to 'turn that spirit into practical, visible progress for people in Africa, and people everywhere. Development is everyone's job. No more fundamental cause exists today. I believe that we stand at the start of a time of unique achievement.19 So many possible audiences stand to be identified by this appeal of the former Secretary-General of the United Nations for the "job" of "development." To the leaders of the world is made the plea to revitalize efforts toward the implementation of development initiatives. To the doubters of the "development" project is made the reassurance that now, despite the "many ups and downs," the spirit and vision of development still rings true and firm. To himself and his staff of the development-related institutions of the UN, perhaps the audience for which the statement is truly intended, is made the reassertion that this work of development is an important one. They, the development workers, have the historic role of ensuring the realization of this vision of human progress, and so much futility and even failure may be erased or forgotten through a renewed commitment to carry on persistently with their tasks. All this expression of angst and hope is, of course, nothing new. Like a social ritual played out with consistent regularity, we have become familiar with these gatherings of "developmentalists," at which they administer healthy measures of both admonishments for past failures and encouragements for future hope. And like in all rituals, processes of "remembering," which are the public face of proceedings, are accompanied by the equally important processes of "forgetting." Repeated and remembered are the "failures," the commitments to "humanity," the conditions of suffering that are deemed "intolerable," and the articulations of hope in future "action." Ignored and forgotten are the violence of the failures, the fraudulence of the commitments, the processes of inflicted suffering deemed necessary, and the articulations of despair about past actions. Still, the ritual performs a regenerative purpose. It recasts anew the project of development with all its civilizational importance and reassures its practitioners of their historic mission to "order" society. But what is the message given to the "victims" of development-those who, although intended as the beneficiaries of this universal project, have had to suffer the "many failures and too few successes" as these rituals are enacted? 20 To them is made a plea for patience and a rearticulation of a vision for tomorrow. For them, however, perhaps a different experience of developmental (mis)orderings persists, one which bears a striking resemblance to the earlier phase of colonial ordering. While once colonialism was blatant in its dehumanizing of social relationships, notwithstanding the claims of the "civilizing mission," now that same dehumanization takes place under the acceptable, if not desirable, guise of globalized development. The "poor" has come to replace the "savage/native;" the "expert consultant," the "missionary;" "training seminars," mass "baptizing;" the handphone in the pocket, the cross on the altar. But some things-the foreigner's degree, attire, consumer items, etc.- don't change. And what of the "comprador elites," that band of minority mercenaries who symbolized to the colonialist all that was good about what it meant to be the servile "civilized," who served as the faithful mouthpieces of the master? Today, many go by the names of "government functionaries" and "entrepreneurs." Regenerated by these contemporary ideological weapons of the desired human condition, the processes of ordering, of creating orders of inhumanity, carry on with violence intact. Contrary to assumptions of a lack of order and non-inclusion, many of the "conditions" of human suffering that justify developmental interventionsresult from a very considerable amount of ordering and forced inclusion. Processes of ordering, as coercive command, are visible in the perpetuation and exacerbation of food insecurity resulting from structures instituted during the colonial period and carried through to the globalizing practices of international agri-business (the globalization of hunger),21 the impact of the invasion of transnational corporations on the environmental and social fabricof communities (the globalization of ecocide),22 the societal disintegration¶ resulting from structural adjustment policies and the imperatives of the transnational economic system (the globalization of impoverishment),23 and the resulting destruction of social diversity through the homogenization of "pop" and consumer culture (the globalization of social alienation). These have all contributed to the marginalization of populations following half a century of (violent) "development."24 How many more "new beginnings" of "development" are necessary before the embodied "world" that is the result of¶ all this ordering is recognized as a familiar one from earlier times? After five decades of "development," the following description by Frantz Fanon of the colonial condition still rings true of the contemporary "post-colonial," "globalized" neighborhood, and of its inhabitants: The settler's town is a strongly-built town, all made of stone and steel. It is a brightly-lit town; the streets are covered with asphalt, and the garbage cans swallow all the leavings,¶ unseen, unknown and hardly thought about. The settler's feet are never visible, except perhaps in the sea; but there you're never close enough to see them. His feet are protected by¶ strong shoes although the streets of his town are clean and even, with no holes or stones. The settler's town is a well-fed town, an easy-going town; its belly is always full of good things.... The town belonging to the colonized people, or at least the native town, . . . is a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil repute. They are born there, it matters little where or how; they die there, it matters not where, nor how. It is a world without spaciousness; men live there on top of each other, and their huts are built one on top of the other. The native town is a hungry town, starved of bread, of meat, of shoes, of coal, of light. The native town is a crouching village, a town on its knees, a town wallowing in the mire. It is a town of niggers and dirty arabs. The look that the native turns on the settler's town is a look of lust, a look of envy; it expresses his dreams of possession-all manner of possession: to sit at the settler's table, to sleep in the settler's bed, with his wife if possible. The colonized man is an envious man. And this the settler knows very well; when their glances meet he ascertains bitterly, always on the defensive, "They want to take our place." It is true, for there is no native who does not dream at least once a day of setting himself up in the settler's place.25

Contention: 3 Environment

HISTORICALLY THE LANGUAGE OF DEVELOPMENT SETS THE PRECEDENT FOR COLONIAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ESSENTIAL TO REJECT COLONIAL IDEOLOGY BY INTERROGATING HOW DEVELOPMENT AND EXPLOITATION ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED.


Barker 1998[Dr. Drucilla Barker is the Women’s Studies Chair at Hollins University. “Dualisms, Discourse, and Development.” Hypatia 13.3]

The language of development economics reads like a chapter in the Enlightenment dream, a dream that promised an orderly progress from poverty and ignorance to prosperity and modernity. It is a discourse infused with the Enlightenment ideal of innocent knowledge, an ideal that masks the instrumental role that development has played in maintaining global structures of neocolonialism and dependency. Instead of progress and prosperity, much of the world has experienced profound poverty, growing income inequality, high debt burdens, and environmental degradation. By the 1980s, even the proponents of development had agreed that their policies had been largely unsuccessful. Policy interventions designed to foster economic growth and alleviate poverty were abandoned in favor of neoliberal orthodoxies (Escobar 1995, 73-94). Privatization, trade liberalization, and fiscal austerity were the new strategies that would enable free-market capitalism to work its magic. Missing from this analysis, however, was any awareness of the role that development rhetoric and policies played in producing underdevelopment, exploitation, and oppression.(1)

CHANGING LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICIES WILL NOT CHANGE OUR ORIENTATION TOWARDS OCEANS. WE MUST FIRST RE-EVALUATE AND CHANGE/DEVELOP OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OCEANS AND OTHER RESOURCES BEFORE WE CAN CREATE ANY PUBLIC POLICY THAT ENCOURAGES INTERACTIONS WITH THE OCEAN. BY PARTICIPATING IN EPISTEMIC DISOBEDIENCE


Mignolo 2006 [Walter D. Mignolo, Professor of Cultural Studies at Duke University, Citizenship, Knowledge, and the Limits of Humanity American Literary History 18.2 (2006) 312-331]

I will describe the veiled connections as the logi+c of coloniality, and the surface that covers it I will describe as the rhetoric of modernity. The rhetoric of modernity is that of salvation, whereas the logic of coloniality is a logic of imperial oppression. They go hand in hand, and you cannot have modernity without coloniality; the unfinished project of modernity carries over its shoulders the unfinished project of coloniality. I will conclude by suggesting the need to decolonize "knowledge" and "being" and advocating that the (decolonial) "humanities" shall have a fundamental role to play in this process. Truly, "global citizenship" implies overcoming the imperial and colonial differences that have mapped and continue to map global racism and global patriarchy. Changing the law and public policies won't be of much help in this process. What is needed is that those who change the law and public policy change themselves. The problem is how that may take place if we would like to avoid the missionary zeal for conversion; the liberal and neoliberal belief in the triumphal march of Western civilization and of market democracy; and the moral imperatives and forced behavior imposed by socialism. As I do not believe in a new abstract universal that will be good for the entire world, the question is how people can change their belief that the world today is like it is and that it will be only through the "honest" projects of Christians, liberals, and Marxist-socialists that the world could be better for all, and citizenship will be a benediction for all. The changes I am thinking about are radical transformations in the naturalized assumptions of the world order. The naturalized assumptions I am thinking about are imperial–colonial, and they have shaped the world in which we live in the past five hundred years when Christianity and capitalism came together and created the conditions for the self-fashioned narrative of "modernity." Hence, the transformations I am thinking about require an epistemic decolonial shift. Not a "new," a "post," or a "neo," which are all changes within the same modern colonial epistemology, but a decolonial (and not either a "deconstruction"), which means a delinking from the rules of the game (e.g., the decolonization of the mind, in Ngugi Wa Th'iongo's vocabulary) in which deconstruction itself and all the "posts-" for sure are caught. Delinking doesn't mean to be "outside" of either modernity or Christian, Liberal, Capitalist, and Marxist hegemony but to disengage from the naturalized assumptions that make of these four macronarratives "une pensee unique," to use Ignacio Ramonet's expression.2 The decolonial shift begins by unveiling the imperial presuppositions that maintain a universal idea of humanity and of human being that serves as a model and point of arrival and by constantly underscoring the fact that oppressed and racialized subjects do not care and are not fighting for "human rights" (based on an imperial idea of humanity) but to regain the "human dignity" (based on a decolonial idea of humanity) that has and continues to be taken away from them by the imperial rhetoric of modernity (e.g., white, Eurocentered, heterosexual, and Christian/secular).

PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY DEVELOP ITS EXPLORATION OF THE OCEAN



WE MUST EXPLORE EVERY INSTANCE OF COLONIAL EXPLORATION THROUGH HISTORICAL ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO ENGAGE IN A DE-COLONIAL THINKING THAT SHIFTS THE WAY WE ENGAGE WITH REAL WORLD ISSUES. THIS EPISTEMIC DISOBEDIENCE ALLOWS A REFRAIMING OF INTERACTION WITH THE OCEAN.


Mignolo (Professor of Literature in Duke University, Joint Appointments in Cultural Anthropology and Romance Studies) 2012

Walter, “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto,” Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 62-63, NDW //DDI13



We could continue the argument by including Mahatma Gandhi among the figures who are central to the decolonial turn. To mention him here is important for the following reason: Cugoano and Gandhi are united, at distinct points on the planet, by the British Empire. Waman Puma and Cugoano are united by the continuity of Western European imperialisms in America. We could continue with Frantz Fanon, and connect him to Cugoano through the imperial wound of the Africans and also through the imperial complicity between Spain, England, and France (in spite of their imperial conflicts). With this, I would like to highlight the following: the genealogy of decolonial thinking is structured in the planetary space of colonial/imperial expansion, contrary to the genealogy of European modernity that is structured in the temporal trajectory of a reduced space, from Greece to Rome, to Western Europe and to the United States. The common element between Waman Puma, Cugoano, Gandhi, and Fanon is the wound inflicted by the colonial difference (e.g., the colonial wound). The decolonial turn (i.e., the epistemic disobedience) of Waman Puma and of Cugoano took place on the horizon of monarchies, prior to the emergence of the modern (bourgeois) state and the emergence of the three secular imperial ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and socialism/Marxism.27 They opened up the decolonial option, and on the horizon of both, theology was the queen of knowledge. A second part of this manifesto (in progress) explores the decolonial horizon (Gandhi, Cabral, Du Bois, Fanon, Anzaldúa, Indigenous social movements in Bolivia and Ecuador, Afro social movements in Colombia and Ecuador, the World Social Forum and the Social Forum of the Americas, etc.) on the horizon of the imperial modern state. The genealogy of decolonial thinking is pluri-versal (not uni-versal). As such, each knot on the web of this genealogy is a point of de-linking and opening that re-introduces languages, memories, economies, social organizations, and at least double subjectivities: the splendor and the miseries of the imperial legacy, and the indelible footprint of what existed that has been converted into the colonial wound; in the degradation of humanity, in the inferiority of the pagans, the primitives, the under-developed, the non-democratic. Our present situation asks, demands a decolonial thinking that articulates genealogies scattered throughout the planet and offers “other” economic, political, social, subjective modalities. This process is in progress and we see it every day, in spite of the bad news that arrives from the Middle East, from Indonesia, from Katrina, and from the interior war in Washington.

ACTS OF SYSMETATIC DISOBEDIENCE UNCOVER THE INVISIBLE VIOLENCE OF MODERNITY AND CREATE SPACE FOR ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES AND ETHICAL ENGAGEMENT. BEFORE WE DIRECTLY ENGAGE WITH OCEANS WE MUST SITUATE OURSELVES ETHICALLY.

Mignolo (Professor of Literature in Duke University, Joint Appointments in Cultural Anthropology and Romance Studies Walter, “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto,” Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 45-46, NDW //DDI13) 2012

But the basic formulation of decolonial delinking (e.g., desprendimiento) was advanced by Aníbal Quijano in his ground-breaking article “Colonialidad y modernidad/racionalidad” (1991) [Coloniality and modernity/rationality]. The argument was that, on the one hand, an analytic of the limits of Eurocentrism (as a hegemonic structure of knowledge and beliefs) is needed. But that analytic was considered necessary rather than sufficient. It was necessary, Quijano asserted, “desprenderse de las vinculaciones de la racionalidad-modernidad con la colonialidad, en primer término, y en definitiva con todo poder no constituido en la decisión libre de gentes libres” “It is necessary to extricate oneself from the linkages between rationality/modernity and coloniality, first of all, and definitely from all power which is not constituted by free decisions made by free people”].4 “Desprenderse” means epistemic de-linking or, in other words, epistemic disobedience. Epistemic disobedience leads us to decolonial options as a set of projects that have in common the effects experienced by all the inhabitants of the globe that were at the receiving end of global designs to colonize the economy (appropriation of land and natural resources), authority (management by the Monarch, the State, or the Church), and police and military enforcement (coloniality of power), to colonize knowledges (languages, categories of thoughts, belief systems, etc.) and beings (subjectivity). Delinking” is then necessary because there is no way out of the coloniality of power from within Western (Greek and Latin) categories of thought. Consequently, de-linking implies epistemic disobedience rather than the constant search for “newness” (e.g., as if Michel Foucault’s concept of racism and power were “better” or more “appropriate” because they are “newer”—that is, post-modern—within the chronological history or archaeology of European ideas). Epistemic disobedience takes us to a different place, to a different “beginning” (not in Greece, but in the responses to the “conquest and colonization” of America and the massive trade of enslaved Africans), to spatial sites of struggles and building rather than to a new temporality within the same space (from Greece, to Rome, to Paris, to London, to Washington DC). I will explore the opening up of these spaces—the spatial paradigmatic breaks of epistemic disobedience—in Waman Puma de Ayala and Ottabah Cugoano. The basic argument (almost a syllogism) that I will develop here is the following: if coloniality is constitutive of modernity since the salvationist rhetoric of modernity presupposes the oppressive and condemnatory logic of coloniality (from there come the damnés of Fanon), then this oppressive logic produces an energy of discontent, of distrust, of release within those who react against imperial violence. This energy is translated into decolonial projects that, as a last resort, are also constitutive of modernity. Modernity is a three-headed hydra, even though it only reveals one head: the rhetoric of salvation and progress. Coloniality, one of whose facets is poverty and the propagation of AIDS in Africa, does not appear in the rhetoric of modernity as its necessary counterpart, but rather as something that emanates from it. For example, the Millennium Plan of the United Nations headed by Kofi Anan, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University headed by Jeffrey Sachs, work in collaboration to end poverty (as the title of Sach’s book announces).5 But, while they question the unfortunate consequences of modernity, never for a moment is the ideology of modernity or the black pits that hide its rhetoric ever questioned: the consequences of the very nature of the capitalist economy—by which such ideology is supported—in its various facets since the mercantilism of the sixteenth century, free trade of the following centuries, the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, and the technological revolution of the twentieth century. On the other hand, despite all the debate in the media about the war against terrorism, on one side, and all types of uprisings, of protests and social movements, it is never suggested that the logic of coloniality that hides beneath the rhetoric of modernity necessarily generates the irreducible energy of humiliated, vilified, forgotten, or marginalized human beings. Decoloniality is therefore the energy that does not allow the operation of the logic of coloniality nor believes the fairy tales of the rhetoric of modernity. Therefore, decoloniality has a varied range of manifestations—some undesirable, such as those that Washington today describes as “terrorists”—and decolonial thinking is, then, thinking that de-links and opens (de-linking and opening in the title come from here) to the possibilities hidden (colonized and discredited, such as the traditional, barbarian, primitive, mystic, etc.) by the modern rationality that is mounted and enclosed by categories of Greek, Latin, and the six modern imperial European languages.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page