1. How does the Sheppard reading complicate our understanding of anticolonial violence? There is a point at which he argues that atrocities committed by the OAS were a factor in mobilizing anticolonial sentiment within France itself. How does this relate to Razack's argument that atrocities by Canadian troops are often passed off as instances of individual mental trauma rather than as an institutional problem? How would Fanon respond to Sheppard? 2. In Saldana Portillo's relationship between development discourse and revolutionary movements, indigenous resistance movements are conceptualized as some of the "purest" types of revolution, in that they are not defined by Western/colonial notions of development or progress. Is there any room in her argument for expressions of solidarity between indigenous peoples and other groups? 3. Saldana Portillo makes her argument in the context of Latin America in which most of the modern revolutions have been carried out my the mestizo population against the white colonists, often marginalizing indigenous groups. If we transpose her analysis of revolution into a context (i.e. Africa, Asia) in which there is not this intermediary population (the mestizo as in between the colonist and the indigenous person), is her analysis still applicable?
Once again in this weeks readings, women’s bodies become the sites of national conflicts. The idea of the white women freeing the “Muslim” women, or saving them from “Muslim” men is still prevalent in present day discourse. In France today it is punishable by law for a Muslim woman to cover her face. Fines and prison terms face those who do not co-operate. How has the need for France to assimilate and create a French identity recreated itself in this historical moment?
What makes a national identity? Is it something that can be given or taken from another group of people? Was Algeria ever really French?
How does the invention of decolonization affect immigration and assimilation policies? Can the same be considered in the case of Canadian policies? How does the assimilation of France compare with Canada’s multicultural policy?
1. Portillo argues in the introduction that "revolutionary agency" was repeatedly "figured as leaving behind the feminized ethnos of indigenous, peasant or urban black cultural identity." (7) Are there any revolutionary movements that one can point to where it is evident that 'revolutionary agency' was not predicated upon the leaving behind of former identities?
2. Do we agree that the 'first world' established 'ethical control' over decolonized spaces through "development's discursive regime of subjection."? (43) Is 'ethical control' (as Portillo understands it) the same as 'practical control'? Following that, did 'first world' countries simply replace colonial powers following decolonization?
Since Becky picked up on the Portillo reading, I'll focus my half of the presenter-questions on the Shepherd reading :) Looking forward to dinner tomorrow, see you all there!
1. How important was the Cold War in determining the way that decolonization played out in Algeria or elsewhere, for those of you familiar with other national contexts? Did the bipolar nature of global politics in the period create a new sort of colonialism, as emerging states aligned themselves with one superpower or the other? What do we make of the way that decolonizing states sought assistance from the United States and/or the Soviet Union, and the idea that national wars of liberation were often just Cold War skirmishes by proxy?
2. How does the "current of history" logic employed by the French in response to the events in Algeria affect our understanding of the processes of imperialism more generally? Is decolonization a logical step that the colonizer should have seen coming all along?
1. Much of Sheppard's analysis considers national identity labels (in this case "Algerian" and "French"). Throughout her book, I couldn't help but recall Fanon from the first weeks of class and his discussion of racial negotiation (depending on the context, one takes on a specific identity). How can this be applied to the Algerian context? More broadly, what does the adoption of 'national identity' mean for a population? How did rejecting the identity of "French" alter the racial perception of Algeria and Algerians?
2. Portillo describes her methodology as a juxtaposition of incongruous objects of study and types of evidence, in contrast to usual academic divides. She combines ethnographic study of social movements with literary analyses of text. This unusual methodology has significant implications for her developed argument. What are some of the drawbacks of this methodology? On the other hand, what are some of the strengths in organizing a text using this method? How does this methodological choice affect the reader's perception of the text?
Sheppard makes use of the concept ‘the tide of history’ throughout his book. It is easy to place the process of decolonization within this framework- what other historical or contemporary events can be attributed to this concept? Can monumental historical events be simply relegated to ‘the tide of history’?
Why does Portillo view compromised masculinity as largely a 3rd world concern? What is it about the 1st world that makes masculinity a non-issue and what is it about the third world that causes masculinity to be such a contentious issue?
1. Sheppard presents a set of contradictory images: the Muslim woman in need of rescuing from Muslim men, and the Algerian effeminate man. What do these images of female helplessness - and also male impotence - tell us about the way we characterize the "other" (sorry for the overused term!) as a sexualized entity?
2. I was intrigued by the way Sheppard treats the scandal with the OAS and Brigitte Bardot. It makes me think of the way 'terrorist' (again, not the greatest word...) groups have made - and, I would argue, must make - use of media and publicity. What does this particular case tell us about this theme?
1. In Sheppard on Algeria, as well as in Pérez's On Becoming Cuban two weeks ago, we see how discourses of national liberation rely on the erasure of racial difference and inequality within the country that is being liberated. Is this always the case? Are all revolutionary nationalisms homogenizing? If so, what are the implications of this, considering the international impact of both of these particular stories of national liberation?
2. Revolutionaries rely on masculine language and rhetoric in part in response to their framing as effeminate by the colonizers' discourses. There are all sorts of paradoxes and contradictions at play here, as some of the questions above show. Does this have anything to do with actual men and women? Does a comparison between world domination and hegemonic masculinity have much to do with the experiences of men (or women) in the metropole or the colony? Can we separate conflicts that are about "masculinity" (aka freedom, modernity, etc.), and those that are about real gendered subjects?
(b) If not, and if gendered violence, for example, springs directly from colonial and anticolonial violence, is this correlation or causation? Is it really so complicated, or is the language of both Empire and anticolonial struggle simply masculine because both are run by men?
What is required for the reproducibility of national consciousness or identity? More to the point, is this an intentional, or directed effort? Why or why not?
In the past few weeks, we have seen how concerns of rescue are often conflated within terms of gender. Is this a cultural paradigm, or something that has been introduced from outside, hegemonic understandings of gender?
With regards to the OAS, has colonial violence remained, albeit with a veneer of civility? Cynically, could what was once regarded as "sorting out the colonies" in the past, now be considered "spreading democracy" at gunpoint? If so, how does this confuse our understandings of rescue?
The problem of posting last is that everyone else says something similar to what you wanted to say, which leaves you with saying something already said, and then you just look lame. Do we agree with this? Are they all psychic or something? Why or why not?
Saldana- Portillo’s analysis presents us with a similar conundrum to that of Razack in dark threats and white knights in that she leaves us wondering, what now? Can any discussion of providing aid or ‘development’ strategies to third world nations ever be free of colonial legacies of racialized and gendered rhetoric and ideology? Is Saldana-Portillo perhaps reacting to the lack of recognition on the part of these first world governments and organizations of their historical role in the ‘underdevelopment’ of the third world?
As we have discussed in previous classes, anti-colonial language and ideology is often defined, or at least significantly influenced, by the ideological framework of the colonial power which is being fought against. Knowing this, is it all that surprising that revolutionary movements would define their missions based on the notions of progress and civilization imposed by ‘former’ imperial nations? If first world nations are defining the terms of ‘civilization’ and ‘development’, then does it not make a great deal of sense that revolutionaries would seek to prove their ability to reach this end goal through their own means and by their own volition?
If decolonization is understood to be an inevitable moment in the march of progress, what is the role of the individual subject? Both works discuss a universalist notion of progress and development, while also focusing on the position of the subject but how can the two be reconciled?
1. How does the Sheppard reading complicate our understanding of anticolonial violence? There is a point at which he argues that atrocities committed by the OAS were a factor in mobilizing anticolonial sentiment within France itself. How does this relate to Razack's argument that atrocities by Canadian troops are often passed off as instances of individual mental trauma rather than as an institutional problem? How would Fanon respond to Sheppard?
ReplyDelete2. In Saldana Portillo's relationship between development discourse and revolutionary movements, indigenous resistance movements are conceptualized as some of the "purest" types of revolution, in that they are not defined by Western/colonial notions of development or progress. Is there any room in her argument for expressions of solidarity between indigenous peoples and other groups?
3. Saldana Portillo makes her argument in the context of Latin America in which most of the modern revolutions have been carried out my the mestizo population against the white colonists, often marginalizing indigenous groups. If we transpose her analysis of revolution into a context (i.e. Africa, Asia) in which there is not this intermediary population (the mestizo as in between the colonist and the indigenous person), is her analysis still applicable?
Once again in this weeks readings, women’s bodies become the sites of national conflicts. The idea of the white women freeing the “Muslim” women, or saving them from “Muslim” men is still prevalent in present day discourse. In France today it is punishable by law for a Muslim woman to cover her face. Fines and prison terms face those who do not co-operate. How has the need for France to assimilate and create a French identity recreated itself in this historical moment?
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a national identity? Is it something that can be given or taken from another group of people? Was Algeria ever really French?
How does the invention of decolonization affect immigration and assimilation policies? Can the same be considered in the case of Canadian policies? How does the assimilation of France compare with Canada’s multicultural policy?
1. Portillo argues in the introduction that "revolutionary agency" was repeatedly "figured as leaving behind the feminized ethnos of indigenous, peasant or urban black cultural identity." (7) Are there any revolutionary movements that one can point to where it is evident that 'revolutionary agency' was not predicated upon the leaving behind of former identities?
ReplyDelete2. Do we agree that the 'first world' established 'ethical control' over decolonized spaces through "development's discursive regime of subjection."? (43) Is 'ethical control' (as Portillo understands it) the same as 'practical control'? Following that, did 'first world' countries simply replace colonial powers following decolonization?
Since Becky picked up on the Portillo reading, I'll focus my half of the presenter-questions on the Shepherd reading :) Looking forward to dinner tomorrow, see you all there!
ReplyDelete1. How important was the Cold War in determining the way that decolonization played out in Algeria or elsewhere, for those of you familiar with other national contexts? Did the bipolar nature of global politics in the period create a new sort of colonialism, as emerging states aligned themselves with one superpower or the other? What do we make of the way that decolonizing states sought assistance from the United States and/or the Soviet Union, and the idea that national wars of liberation were often just Cold War skirmishes by proxy?
2. How does the "current of history" logic employed by the French in response to the events in Algeria affect our understanding of the processes of imperialism more generally? Is decolonization a logical step that the colonizer should have seen coming all along?
1. Much of Sheppard's analysis considers national identity labels (in this case "Algerian" and "French"). Throughout her book, I couldn't help but recall Fanon from the first weeks of class and his discussion of racial negotiation (depending on the context, one takes on a specific identity). How can this be applied to the Algerian context? More broadly, what does the adoption of 'national identity' mean for a population? How did rejecting the identity of "French" alter the racial perception of Algeria and Algerians?
ReplyDelete2. Portillo describes her methodology as a juxtaposition of incongruous objects of study and types of evidence, in contrast to usual academic divides. She combines ethnographic study of social movements with literary analyses of text. This unusual methodology has significant implications for her developed argument. What are some of the drawbacks of this methodology? On the other hand, what are some of the strengths in organizing a text using this method? How does this methodological choice affect the reader's perception of the text?
Sheppard makes use of the concept ‘the tide of history’ throughout his book. It is easy to place the process of decolonization within this framework- what other historical or contemporary events can be attributed to this concept? Can monumental historical events be simply relegated to ‘the tide of history’?
ReplyDeleteWhy does Portillo view compromised masculinity as largely a 3rd world concern? What is it about the 1st world that makes masculinity a non-issue and what is it about the third world that causes masculinity to be such a contentious issue?
1. Sheppard presents a set of contradictory images: the Muslim woman in need of rescuing from Muslim men, and the Algerian effeminate man. What do these images of female helplessness - and also male impotence - tell us about the way we characterize the "other" (sorry for the overused term!) as a sexualized entity?
ReplyDelete2. I was intrigued by the way Sheppard treats the scandal with the OAS and Brigitte Bardot. It makes me think of the way 'terrorist' (again, not the greatest word...) groups have made - and, I would argue, must make - use of media and publicity. What does this particular case tell us about this theme?
1. In Sheppard on Algeria, as well as in Pérez's On Becoming Cuban two weeks ago, we see how discourses of national liberation rely on the erasure of racial difference and inequality within the country that is being liberated. Is this always the case? Are all revolutionary nationalisms homogenizing? If so, what are the implications of this, considering the international impact of both of these particular stories of national liberation?
ReplyDelete2. Revolutionaries rely on masculine language and rhetoric in part in response to their framing as effeminate by the colonizers' discourses. There are all sorts of paradoxes and contradictions at play here, as some of the questions above show. Does this have anything to do with actual men and women? Does a comparison between world domination and hegemonic masculinity have much to do with the experiences of men (or women) in the metropole or the colony? Can we separate conflicts that are about "masculinity" (aka freedom, modernity, etc.), and those that are about real gendered subjects?
(b) If not, and if gendered violence, for example, springs directly from colonial and anticolonial violence, is this correlation or causation? Is it really so complicated, or is the language of both Empire and anticolonial struggle simply masculine because both are run by men?
What is required for the reproducibility of national consciousness or identity? More to the point, is this an intentional, or directed effort? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn the past few weeks, we have seen how concerns of rescue are often conflated within terms of gender. Is this a cultural paradigm, or something that has been introduced from outside, hegemonic understandings of gender?
With regards to the OAS, has colonial violence remained, albeit with a veneer of civility? Cynically, could what was once regarded as "sorting out the colonies" in the past, now be considered "spreading democracy" at gunpoint? If so, how does this confuse our understandings of rescue?
The problem of posting last is that everyone else says something similar to what you wanted to say, which leaves you with saying something already said, and then you just look lame. Do we agree with this? Are they all psychic or something? Why or why not?
Saldana- Portillo’s analysis presents us with a similar conundrum to that of Razack in dark threats and white knights in that she leaves us wondering, what now? Can any discussion of providing aid or ‘development’ strategies to third world nations ever be free of colonial legacies of racialized and gendered rhetoric and ideology? Is Saldana-Portillo perhaps reacting to the lack of recognition on the part of these first world governments and organizations of their historical role in the ‘underdevelopment’ of the third world?
ReplyDeleteAs we have discussed in previous classes, anti-colonial language and ideology is often defined, or at least significantly influenced, by the ideological framework of the colonial power which is being fought against. Knowing this, is it all that surprising that revolutionary movements would define their missions based on the notions of progress and civilization imposed by ‘former’ imperial nations? If first world nations are defining the terms of ‘civilization’ and ‘development’, then does it not make a great deal of sense that revolutionaries would seek to prove their ability to reach this end goal through their own means and by their own volition?
If decolonization is understood to be an inevitable moment in the march of progress, what is the role of the individual subject? Both works discuss a universalist notion of progress and development, while also focusing on the position of the subject but how can the two be reconciled?