The set col file of mastery

from your favorite captain

Policing link
COLONIALITY MEANS A WORLD OF ABSOLUTE
DOMINATION AND TOTAL VIOLENCE. ECONOMIC
ENGAGEMENT IS JUST ANOTHER TOOL OF GENOCIDE
UNLESS WE FIRST ADDRESS THE BRUTALITY OF COLONIAL
RELATIONSHIPS

Cesaire 55 (Aim Csaire, politician from Martinique, 1955, Discourse on

Colonialism, Discours sur le colonialism)
I see clearly what colonization has destroyed: the wonderful Indian
civilizations - and neither Deterring nor Royal Dutch nor Standard Oil will
ever console me for the Aztecs and the Incas. I see clearly the
civilizations; condemned to perish at a future date, into which it has
introduced a principle of ruin: the South Sea islands, Nigeria, Nyasaland. I see
less clearly the contributions it has made. Security? Culture? The rule of
law? In the meantime, I look around and wherever there are colonizers and
colonized face to face, I see force, brutality, cruelty, sadism, conflict, and, in
a parody of education, the hasty manufacture of a few thousand
subordinate functionaries, "boys," artisans, office clerks, and interpreters
necessary for the smooth operation of business. I spoke of contact.
Between colonizer and colonized there is room only for forced labor,
intimidation, pressure, the police, taxation, theft, rape,
compulsory crops, contempt, mistrust, arrogance, selfcomplacency, swinishness, brainless elites, degraded masses. No
human contact, but relations of domination and submission which
turn the colonizing man into a class-room monitor, an army sergeant, a
prison guard, a slave driver, and the indigenous man into an instrument of
production. My turn to state an equation: colonization = "thing-ification." I
hear the storm. They talk to me about progress, about "achievements,"
diseases cured, improved standards of living. I am talking about societies
drained of their essence, cultures trampled underfoot, institutions
undermined, lands confiscated, religions smashed, magnificent artistic
creations destroyed, extraordinary possibilities wiped out. They throw facts
at my head, statistics, mileages of roads, canals, and railroad tracks. I am
talking about thousands of men sacrificed to the Congo-Ocean2 . I am talking
about those who, as I write this, are digging the harbor of Abidjan by hand. I
am talking about millions of men torn from their gods, their land, their
habits, their life-from life, from the dance, from wisdom. 2 A railroad line
connecting Brazzaville with the port of Pointe-Noire. (Trans.) - 6 - I am talking
about millions of men in whom fear has been cunningly instilled, who have
been taught to have an inferiority complex, to tremble, kneel, despair, and
behave like flunkeys. They dazzle me with the tonnage of cotton or cocoa
that has been exported, the acreage that has been planted with olive trees
or grapevines. I am talking about natural economies that have been

disrupted - harmonious and viable economies adapted to the indigenous

population - about food crops destroyed, malnutrition permanently
introduced, agricultural development oriented solely toward the benefit of
the metropolitan countries, about the looting of products, the looting of raw
materials.

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 Anbal 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 trmino, y en definitiva con todo poder no constituido en la decisin 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 Foucaults concept of racism and power were better
or more appropriate because they are newerthat is, post-modernwithin the chronological history or

Epistemic disobedience takes us to a different place,

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
archaeology of European ideas).
to a

(from Greece, to Rome, to Paris, to London, to Washington DC). I will explore the opening up of these
spacesthe spatial paradigmatic breaks of epistemic disobediencein 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 damns 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 Sachs 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 supportedin 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,

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
manifestationssome undesirable, such as those that Washington today describes as
terroristsand 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.
it is never suggested that

EPISTEMIC DISOBEDIENCE IS A DELINKING PARADIGM

THAT SEPERATES INDIVIDUALS FROM COLONIAL
EPISTOMOLOGY AND MODERNITY BY RE-EVALUTING
HEGEMONIC RELATIONSHIPS. DELINKING AS A MODE OF
THINKING, OPENS UP VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES TO
ETHICALLY ENGAGE WITH OCEANS.
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,
45-46, NDW //DDI13
But the basic formulation of decolonial delinking (e.g., desprendimiento) was
advanced by Anbal 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 trmino, y en definitiva
con todo poder no constituido en la decisin 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 Foucaults concept of
racism and power were better or more appropriate because they are
newerthat is, post-modernwithin 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 spacesthe spatial paradigmatic breaks of
epistemic disobediencein 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 damns 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 Sachs 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 economyby which such ideology is supportedin 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.

Set col apriori

1) The negative positioning is prerequisite we must
clear the academy for Native intellectualism before
we decide which pedagogy or approach to politics is
good. Their democratic modes of education
eradicate difference and are bankrupt games played
on stolen land
Grande 8
(Sandy, Associate Professor of Education at Connecticut College, Ph.D., Kent State University, Fellow in the
Holleran Center for Community Action and Public Policy, member of the EPAs National Environmental Justice
Advisory Councils Indigenous Peoples Work Group, Red Pedagogy in Handbook of Critical and Indigenous
Methodologies, pg. 242-3)

From the vantage point of the federal government, the very notion of tribes
as internal sovereigns or "domestic dependent nations" is destabilizing to
democracy, defying the principle of America as one people, one nation. Yet,
from the perspective of American Indians, "democracy" has been wielded
with impunity, as the first and most virulent weapon of mass destruction .
Resisting the tides of history, Red pedagogy operates on the assumption that
indigenous sovereignty does not oppose democracy. On the contrary, it views
sovereignty as democracy's only lifeline asking, Is it possible for democracy
to grow from the seeds of tyranny? Can the "good life" be built upon the
deaths of thousands? The playing field for this discussion is the terrain of
American education where "the production of democracy, the practice of
education, and the constitution of the nation-state" have been interminably
bound together (
Mitchell, 2001). Historically, liberal educators
have championed the notion of cultural pluralism as the pathway to
democracy, imbricating the constructs of national unity, multicultural
harmony, and inclusion as the guiding principles of American education.
Within this rhetoric, schools were to become an extension of the public
sphere, a place where citizens could participate in the democratic project by
coming together and transcending their racial, class, and gendered
differences to engage in "rational discourse". Though an improvement on
"traditional" models of schooling, progressive education still functioned as an
assimilationist pedagogy, designed to absorb cultural difference by
"including" marginalized groups in the universality of the nation-state,
advocating a kind of multicultural nationalism . As Mitchell (2001) notes, in the postwar
years, "the philosophy of American pluralism was framed as an extension of equality of opportunity to all
members of the national body, particularly those disenfranchised by racism" (p. 55). This ideology
informed educational theory and practice from the Progressive education movement in the 1930s and
1940s to the intergroup education movement of the 1950s, the multicultural education movement from
the 1960s onward, and liberal forms of critical pedagogy from the 1980s to the present.

Contemporary revolutionary scholars critique liberal forms of critical

pedagogy, naming their "politics of inclusion" as an accomplice to the
broader project of neoliberalism. Specifically, they argue that such models
ignore the historic, economic, and material conditions of "difference,"

conspicuously averting attention away from issues of power . Critical scholars

therefore maintain that while liberal theorists may invest in the "theoretical
idealism" of democracy, they remain "amnesiatic toward the continued lived
realities of democratically induced oppression" (Richardson & Villenas, 2000,
p. 260). In contrast to liberal conceptions of democratic education,
revolutionary scholars call attention to the "democratically induced"
oppression experienced by colonized peoples. In response, they work to reenvision
democratic education as a project "rooted in a radical and liberatory politics" replacing liberal
(precapitalist) conceptions of democracy with Marxist formulations of a socialist democracy (Richardson &
Villenas, 2000, p. 261). In so doing, they reconstitute democracy as a perpetually unfinished process,
explicitly recentering democratic education around issues of power, dominance, subordination, and
stratification. Within this context, "democratic pedagogies" are defined as those that motivate teachers,
students, schools, and communities to make choices with "the overarching purpose of contributing to
increased social justice, equality, and improvement in the quality of lite tor all constituencies within the
larger society" (Fischman & McLaren, 2000, p. 168). Giroux (2001) maintains that such pedagogies contest
the dominant views of democracy propagated by "neoliberal gurus" where profit making and material
accumulation are defined as the essence of the good life. With these directives in mind, McLaren and
Farahinandpur (2001) articulate two fundamental principles of a revolutionary critical pedagogy: (a) to
recognize the "class character"of education in capitalist schooling and (b) to advocate a "socialist
reorganization of capitalist society" (Krupskaya, 1985). Ultimately, they argue that education can never be
"free" or "equal" as long as social classes exist (McLaren & Farahmandpur,2001,p.298). While
revolutionary theorists help articulate a more genuine democracy than neoliberal forms, they still theorize
within a Western, linear political framework. For this reason, indigenous scholar Jose" Barreiro (1995) notes
that "in the context of jurisdiction and political autonomy, traditional Indigenous political processes are
characterized by the struggle to stay independent of both left and right wing ideologies, political parties
and their often sanguine hostilities"1' Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to convince the Miskitus, Suinus,
Ramas, Quechua, and Avmara Indians of Central and South America that leftist or specifically Marxistinspired regimes held any more promise for indigenous peoples than other Western formations of
governance (Richardson & Villenas,2000). Thus, while the Marxist, leftist, socialist politics of revolutionary
theorists expose important linkages between colonialist forces and capitalist greed, they do not, in and of

In particular, while
revolutionary scholars may have successfully troubled dominant definitions of
democracy, pluralism, and the nation-state by infusing the discourse with a
cogent critique of global capitalism, it is not clear that they give any greater
consideration to the pedagogical imperatives of indigenous sovereignty.
Therein lies the central tension between revolutionary visions of a socialist
democratic education and the indigenous project of education for sovereignty
and self-determination. Specifically, while it is possible that the core construct
of democracy can be sufficiently troubled and divested from its Western
capitalist desires, a Red pedagogy requires that it be decentered as the
primary struggle concept. This repositioning distinguishes the aim of
indigenous educationsovereignty from that of revolutionary critical
pedagogy liberation through socialist democracy. One of the most
significant ways this difference plays out is the quest for indigenous
sovereignty tied to issues of land. Western constructions of democracy are
tied to issues of property.'* This important distinction necessitates an
unpacking of critical assumptions regarding the relationship between labor,
property, citizenship, and nationhood, what Richardson and Villenas (2000,p.
268) identity as a critique of "assumed democracy." Moreover, given the
inexorable ties between land and sovereignty, sovereignty and citizenship,
and citizenship and the nation-state, one of the most glaring questions for
indigenous scholars is how a revolutionary socialist politics can imagine a
"new" social order unfolding upon (still) occupied land.
themselves, represent an emancipatory politics for indigenous people.

A compromise between theories of post-colonialism and

post-modernism only serves to prolong Indigenous
suffering
Bataille 01 (Gretchen M., Gretchen Bataille is a strategic partner with ROI
Consulting Group. As leader, author and speaker, she brings decades of
senior leadership experience to the ROI portfolio in higher education. Native
American Representations: First Encounters, Distorted Images, and Literary
Appropriations, The University of Nebraska Press, (p. 26-28), cDr)
At its most powerful, Seamus Deane writes, colonialism

is a process of radical
dispossession. While many in the academy attend to theories of
postcolonialism, the process of which Deane speaks relentlessly maneuvers
itself onward. In regard to American Indian cultures and histories, the implications of
the adjective radical, when attached to dispossession, are being felt in ever
expanding ways in the early twenty-first century ; so much so that it is difficult for a
Native critic to lay hold of a word such as postcolonialism. Deane goes on to say, A colonized
people is without a specific history and even , as in Ireland and other cases, without a
specific language (). I believe him, or at least believe that the attempt to destroy a
peoples history and language figures centrally in destroying or subduing that
people, in replacing one worldview with another if outright genocide is somehow
unpalatable or impractical. Yet what does it mean to be without a specific history
. . . without a specific language? In this context is specific a term of essentialist thinking? Does he
mean having a history apart from that of colonization? How long does a people survive without a specific

I argue here that we can identify neocolonial cultural

appropriations, thefts of cultural property, that expedite a peoples being
left without a specific history or language , and that such cultural
appropriations inextricably belong to overall totalization efforts, the
domination of indigenous peoples by the West, politically and ideologically. Whether seen as
lack or as voices in need of recognition, a colonized peoples history and language
must be heard in their own voices and terms. On the one hand, some theorists see
the postcolonial subject (whom we can identify no matter whether we can agree on terms) as
primarily related to a lack of exclusivity, a lack of possession, a loss. Thus, a denial of
history or language?

human wholeness results. On the other hand, some theorists recognize the postcolonial subject as
possessing a history and language unique to his or her experience but requiring public voices that can be
substantially heard that is, a full narrative range of what it means for that people to be and for a person

this is where academics engaged in literary criticism and

cultural studies can enter: to offer to be an audience and then to amplify those
voices barely heard, or not heard at all without a committed audience. Then again, perhaps we ask
to be of that people. Perhaps

theory to do something for us, to categorize and quantify in ways that its very language cannot reconcile
with itself, let alone with the breadth and depth of human suffering it seeks to know, describe, and dispel.

criticism and critical theory can invite indigenous peoples to the

discussion and can extend to them the microphone, but issues of domination persist, even or
If nothing else,

especially in such gestures that is the paradox of speaking from centers of intellectual traditions

The prefix post- matters here in

another way. Kwame Anthony Appiah, in his article Is the Post- in Postmodernism the Post- in
Postcolonial? speaks of postmodernism as a name for the rejection of that
claim of exclusivity, a rejection that is almost always more playful, though not necessarily less
and from the perspectives and privileges of writing cultures.1

serious, than the practice it aims to replace (342). Hardly a more crucial theoretical question can be
asked here than the one Appiah poses, since it is key to understanding the one world we inhabit together

or, as he terms it, the postmodern culture. He adds, contemporary culture is . . . transnational,
postmodern culture is global though that emphatically does not mean that it is the culture of every

Indigenous voices amid other voices in Appiahs

contemporary, postmodern culture (a perhaps useful illusion of media unity and global
citizenship) should not be mistaken for those ventriloquized ; Renato Rosaldos term
is useful here: imperialist nostalgia, which is defined as a pose of
innocent yearning [utilized] both to capture peoples imaginations and to
conceal its complicity with often brutal domination (70). Somewhere in the
timeless zone between the playful post- of postmodernism and the
dispossessed post- of postcolonialism, Indians are like Simon Ortizs handy
prisoners being shuffled between the jail and the uranium mines, as
their lands are being stripped and stripped away.
person in the world (343).

A2: Aff comes first

This creates the endless deferral of indigenous struggles to
fight for the universal good this only re-constitutes a violent
utopia that views indigenous struggle as secondary and only
strengthens the naturalization of white supremacy and settler
colonialism in this space.

Hardy 15 (Karl, Unsettling Hope: Settler Colonialism and Utopianism, pg.

3-6)

This centering of Indigenous communities in a re-articulation

of utopia may help interrupt what Chickasaw theorist Jodi Byrd has
described as the endless deferral of the concerns and
experiences of Indigenous peoples.5 It is my contention that attending to
contemporary Indigenous presence, including but not limited to expressions of Indigenous nationhood and

Indigenous futurisms, intervene in the ongoing naturalization

of white supremacy and settler colonialism within the tradition
of what Krishan Kumar has differentiated as modern utopia,
specifically that of white settlers.6 Moreover, I argue these utopian
traditions are themselves substantially co-constitutive with the
condition of settler colonialism insofar as they contributed to
the envisioning, sustaining, and naturalization of Indigenous
erasure or subjugation. White settler utopian narratives have
enabled the endless deferral of the concerns and experiences
of Indigenous peoples to the extent that their proposals for
desirable futures naturalize the condition of settler
colonialism, or otherwise constrain or instrumentalize
Indigenous peoples. Settler colonialism has re-emerged in recent years as a critical analytic
framework to address the specificities of invasion, occupation, and settlement of heretofore Indigenous
territories by exogenous others.7 Recent theoretical formulations of settler colonialism argue that

settler colonialism ought be understood as distinct from other

forms of colonialism. For example, it is argued that settler colonialism diverges
from what is variously described as external, exogenous, or
exploitation colonialism, which refer to situations in which an
Indigenous population is subjugated, primarily for the purpose
of extracting the surplus value of their labor and territorial
resources for the benefit of a remote political authority .8
Moreover, a differentiated analysis of the broad category of
imperialism that addresses the specificities of settler
colonialism as distinct from other experiences of colonialism
may be traced to the writings of Frantz Fanon, Vine Deloria Jr.,
and many others, including but not limited to analysts of what
are often referred to as apartheid South Africa and colonial
French Algeria. The emerging relative popularity of settler colonialism as an

analytic framework must be, therefore, situated within the

centuries-old historical and ongoing varying contexts of
Indigenous peoples resistances, including what Anishinaabe
scholar Gerald Vizenor has termed survivance, and Kanien'kehaka
(Mohawk) scholar Taiaiake Alfred describes as resurgence, in the face of
coercive assimilation, forced displacement, and outright
murder.

Their notion of aff choice sets the dominant terms of

debate and ensures the destruction of debate as a site for
meaningful resistance; leads to serial policy failure and
continuing destruction of indigenous peoples
Grande 4
(Sandy, Associate Professor of Education at Connecticut College, Red Pedagogy, Competing
Moral Visions: At the Crossroads of Democracy and Sovereignty, pg. 55-56)/Dhruv
However the question of sovereignty is resolved politically, there will be significant implications on the

Lyons (2000, 452)

views the history of colonization, in part, as the manifestation
of "rhetorical imperialism," that is, "the ability of dominant
powers to assert control of others by setting the terms of
debate." He cites, for example, Marshall's use of "rhetorical
imperialism" in the Worcester v. Georgia opinion: "'[T]reaty'
and 'nation' are words of our own language, selected in our
diplomatic and legislative proceedings . . . having each a definite
and well-understood meaning. We have applied them to
Indians, as we have applied them to other nations of the earth .
They are applied to all in the same sense" (Lyons 2000,452).
Indeed, throughout the history of federal Indian law terms and
definitions have continually changed over time. Indians have
gone from "sovereigns" to "wards" and from "nations" to
"tribes," while the practice of treaty making has given way to one of
agreements (Lyons 2000, 453). As each change served the needs
of the nation-state, Lyons argues that "the erosion of Indian
national sovereignty can be credited in part to a rhetorically
imperialist use of language by white powers" (2000, 453). Thus,
just as language was central to the colonialist project, it must
be central to the project of decolonization. Indigenous scholar Haunani-Kay
intellectual lives of indigenous peoples, particularly in terms of education.

Trask writes, "Thinking in one's own cultural referents leads to conceptualizing in one's own world view
which, in turn, leads to disagreement with and eventual opposition to the dominant ideology" (1993, 54).
Thus, where a revolutionary critical pedagogy compels students and educators to question how
"knowledge is related historically, culturally and institutionally to the processes of production and

a Red pedagogy compels students to question how

(whitestream) knowledge is related to the processes of colonization. Furthermore, it asks how traditional indigenous
consumption,"

knowledges can in- form the project of decolonization. In short, this

implies a threefold process for education. Specifically, a Red pedagogy necessitates:
(1) the subjection of the processes of whitestream schooling to critical pedagogical analyses;
(2)

the decoupling and dethinking of education from its

Western, colonialist con- texts; and, (3) the institution of
indigenous efforts to reground students and educators in
traditional knowledge and teachings. In short, a Red pedagogy
aims to create awareness of what Trask terms
"disagreements," helping to foster discontent about the
"inconsistencies between the world as it is and as it should be"
(Alfred 1999, 132). Though this process might state the obvious, it is important to recognize the value

the project of
decolonization demands students to acquire not only the
knowledge of "the oppressor" but also the skills to dismantle
and negotiate the implications of such knowledge.
Concurrently, traditional perspectives on power, justice, and
relationships are essential, both to defend against further cooptation and to build intellectual solidaritya collectivity of
indigenous knowledge. In short, "the time has come for people
who are from someplace Indian to take back the discourse on
Indians" (Alfred 1999,143).
and significance of each separate component. I wish to underscore that

Framework
The Role of the Ballot is to prioritize the most ethical
approach to education, which necessitates exposing and
challenging Eurocentrism
De Lissovoy 10 [Noah, Assistant Professor of Cultural Studies in Education at the University of
TexasAustin, Decolonial pedagogy and the ethics of the global, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics
of Education Vol. 31 No. 3, July 2010, http://uv7gq6an4y.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.882004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid
%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx
%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Decolonial+pedagogy+and+the+ethics+of+the+global&rft.jtitle=
DISCOURSE-STUDIES+IN+THE+CULTURAL+POLITICS+OF+EDUCATION&rft.au=De+Lissovoy
%2C+N&rft.date=2010&rft.pub=ROUTLEDGE+JOURNALS%2C+TAYLOR+
%26+FRANCIS+LTD&rft.issn=0159-6306&rft.eissn=14693739&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=279&rft.epage=293&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F0159630100
3786886&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=000286821300001&paramdict=en-US]JH

Although education has historically claimed an ethical mission , and has attempted
to articulate senses of pedagogical community that respond to social needs and dilemmas, posing the
question of ethics in the context of globality implies a basic challenge to
actually existing forms of teaching and learning. In the first place, the senses
of community and collaboration that are predominant in educational rhetoric
and methods conceal a consistent commitment to the individual. At a deeper
level, dominant and progressive approaches to education are generally
unreflective about the cultural and epistemological determination of their
own basic senses of what counts as authentic, democratic, and ethical
teaching and learning. An ethical approach to education in the present , if it is to
discover the complexly shared history described above, has to first expose and challenge the
historical and contemporary fact of Eurocentrism in social life, as well as in
the processes of curriculum and instruction themselves . My argument here responds
to the call in recent education research for an attention to the scale of the global, and for a complex

education scholarship needs to

be deparochialized beyond the boundaries of the nation-state, and that this
new focus needs to be sensitive to the complexities of globalization as a
space of ongoing neocolonial relationships and cultural hybridization. Indeed,
the disciplinary origin of much of the field of globalization studies in sociology
and political science has meant that considerations of culture and globality
have taken place under other headings in particular, anthropology and
postcolonial studies (e.g. Appadurai, 1996; Said, 1993). Educational research has been influenced
by this disciplinary division. By contrast, I believe that educational researchers
concerned with globalization should crucially attend to culture not as
separate from politics or economics, but as deeply interwoven with these
spheres. In addition to challenging the economistic idiom of much globalization discourse, such a
comprehensive attention can on the other hand have the salutary effect , as
Rizvi, Lingard, and Lavia (2006) argue, of making postcolonial theory itself more critical ,
inasmuch as it is articulated to a considera- tion of the ongoing material legacies of imperialism. My
foregrounding here of the notion of the decolonial is an effort in this direction.
In contrast to the postcolonial, the decolonial emphasizes the ongoing
process of resistance to colonialism, while also connoting a wider field of
application one which extends from material projects that challenge the
hegemony of capital to philosophical projects aimed at reconstructing
fundamental understandings of ethics and ontology. Capital itself , as Hall (1997)
understanding of globality. Thus, Lingard (2006) argues that

is after all not only a crude homogenizing force, but also a complex
dialectic that knows how to work with and through cultural difference as it
constructs the cosmopolitan consumerist spaces of the global postmodern.
Critical education, in this context, should recognize cultural and philosophical
questions about globalization as at once questions about power, domination,
and liberation (Smith, 1999), and should imagine pedagogies informed by an
understanding of the deep collaboration between capitalism and imperialism.
argues,