View the h-amindian Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-amindian's February 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-amindian's February 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-amindian home page.
 Date: Tuesday, February 21 2006 11:23 am From: Bill Cooke <Bill.Cooke@manchester.ac.uk>  Subject: RE: Query: query on post-colonial theory query As I understand it, there are two ways of understanding post-colonial. One, means after colonial, and is sometimes applied to the nations of sub-saharan Africa which achieved independence from Britain. It that sense the question is right. The other is to do with: ". ways of perceiving, organizing, representing and acting upon the world which we designate as 'modern' [which] owed as much to the colonial encounter as they did to the industrial revolution, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment" (Seth, Gandhi & Dutton, 1998:7). So in this sense, while the colonial encounter itself might be seen as ongoing, it is possible to see how these encounters have framed ways of knowing and acting in the world (eg anthropology), and of shaping identities felt and attributed. From my marginal, to this list, Business School setting, a small, but pertinent example of this, is the research methodology called action research, which I have argued was informed by and developed through BIA Commissioner John Collier's adherence to a form of British Colonial Administration called Indirect Rule. While a lot of the reevaluations of Collier and the New Deal are not couched as post-colonial (eg Biolsi), they might be seen in that light. Hope this helps. Bill Cooke  Date: Tuesday, February 21 2006 11:26 am From: Craig Proulx <email@example.com>  Subject: Reply on query on post-colonial theory query One issue that is a quite old one in PC theory is that idea that the "post" somehow means an "after" colonialism. (See Shohat, Ella. 1992. "Notes on the "Post-Colonial." In Social Text. No 31/32. and McClintock, Anne. 1992. "The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls in the Term Post-Colonialism." In Social Text. No 31/32) Aboriginal peoples in N. America and indigenous peoples around the world still suffer from neo-colonial projects of domination. There is no post for them as in after. Ashcroft et al. (1995) define postcolonialism as: ".both the material [and symbolic] effects of colonization and the huge diversity of everyday and sometimes hidden responses to it throughout the world. We use the term 'postcolonial' to represent the CONTINUING PROCESS[ES] OF imperial suppressions and exchanges throughout the diverse range of societies, their institutions and their discursive practices. Because the imperial process[es] work through as well as upon individuals and societies 'post-colonial' theory rejects the egregious classification of 'First' and 'Third' world and contests the lingering fallacy that the post-colonial is somehow synonymous with the economically 'underdeveloped' (3). .Moreover, postcolonialism is not simply a kind of post-modernism with politics ---IT IS A SUSTAINED ATTENTION TO THE IMPERIAL PROCESS[ES] IN COLONIAL AND NEO-COLONIAL SOCIETIES, an examination of the strategies to subvert the actual material and discursive effects of that process" (ibid.: 117). (my capitals) In this latter sense one could see Aboriginal peoples as having a post-colonial theory but I think this is better encapsulated under a neocolonialist label. Another very useful text is Tuhiwai-Smith, Linda. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books I am not sure why you would want a published analysis showing "that Indians of the Americas (or Maori or Australian Aboriginals) are no longer colonized". Is it that you want to critique this position? If so, I apologize for being so dense. Certainly Tom Flanagan's book First Nations, Second Thoughts should be critiqued as are some of Adam Kuper's views in Kuper, Adam (and the various Anthros who review Kuper's article.) 2003. "The Return of the Native." In Current Anthropology. Vol. 44. No. 3. June. Pp 389 - 402. (I am in disagreement with almost all of Flanagan and 99% of Kuper.)I do not think either of these authors would maintain that Aboriginal peoples are "no longer colonized" but would suggest that there needs to be a re-thinking of how both aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples see themselves with regard to colonialism of the past and the newer neo-colonial projects that flow from them. C  Date: Tuesday, February 21 2006 11:27 am From: Lisa J. Poirier <firstname.lastname@example.org>  Subject: Re: Query: query on post-colonial theory query Your query immediately put me in mind of this passage from Linda Tuhiwai Smith's Decolonizing Methodologies: "... post-colonial discussions have also stirred some indigenous resistance, not so much to the reimagining of culture as being centred in what were once conceived of as the colonial margins, but to the idea that colonialism is over, finished business. This is best articulated by Aborigine activist Bobbi Sykes, who asked at an academic conference on post-colonialism, 'What? Post-Colonialism? Have they left?' " Having cited that, I'd like to add that post-colonial theory is about, as Smith puts it, decolonizing methodologies. Colonialism, of course, persists. Best, Lisa Poirier  Date: Tuesday, February 21 2006 11:53 am From: Pauline Wakeham <email@example.com>  Subject: Re: Query: query on post-colonial theory query Hello, I think your point about the "fit" between postcolonial theory and its relation to indigenous peoples of the Americas (or Maori or Australian Aboriginals) is well taken. That said, the status and meanings of the "post" in "postcolonial theory" (a heterogeneous body of theoretical interventions aimed at thinking through the mechanisms of colonial power as well as counter-hegemonic strategies of resistance) is very much still under debate. Arnold Krupat explicitly addresses the debates surrounding the rubric of "postcolonial theory" and its implications for Native American politics in his essay ‚¨SPostcolonialism, Ideology, and Native American Literature‚ (published in Postcolonial Theory and the United States: Race, Ethnicity, and Literature, edited by Amritjit Singh and Peter Schmidt, 73-94. Jackson, Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi, 2000). For earlier, more general critiques of the rubric of "postcolonial theory," a special issue of the journal Social Text is key. This issue published Anne McClintock's ‚¨SThe Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term ‚¨‹Post-Colonialism‚¨Ě (10.2 (1992): 84-98) and Ella Shohat's "Notes on the 'Post-Colonial'." I think it is important for scholars, activists, and other interested parties to continue to consider the ways in which "postcolonial theory" might be generative for thinking through the political circumstances of indigenous peoples of the Americas. At the same time, it is crucial to also remain vigilant about not generalizing or effacing the geopolitical and cultural specificities contouring politics in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, or elsewhere. P.S. Another source I would like recommend to the person who initially started the query around sources for thinking about colonial performance is Diana Taylor's The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas (Duke UP, 2003). This theoretically rich text might be really helpful for thinking about methodological considerations for the project. Best wishes, Pauline Wakeham SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow Institute for Comparative Studies in Literature, Art, and Culture Carleton University Ottawa, Canada