Coronil. 2008. Elephants in the Americas_ Latin American Postcolonial Studies and Global Decolonization

Publish in

Articles & News Stories


Please download to get full document.

View again

of 11
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Postcolonial Studies and Global Decolonization
   · . : ;~ , . , ~.t; ELEPHANTS IN THE AMERICAS ? ATIN AMERICAN POSTCOLONIAL STUDIES A   ~p 1 L.. O~~ D~COLON IZATIO , G iven the c _uriously. rapid rise w pro~inence ~f · · postcolonial studies as an .field m Western metropolitan centers since the late ;r9$osi it ~ to be expected that its further de~elopment would in~ volv:e efforts, like this one, to take stock of tS regional expressions. Yet, while the rubric La.tin American postcolonial studies suggests the existence of a regional body of knowledge under that name, in reality it points to a problem: there is no corpus of wo rk on Latin America commonly recognized as po .stcolonial. This problem is magnified by the multiple and 9ften diverg ing meanings attributed to the signifier postco lonial, y . e ete~ggeneiry of nations. and peoples encompassed by,the pr~blematic al term Larin Am erica, by the though t- ~ 1 .. : ;. ~ . . ful critiques that have questioned the relevance of post -colonial studies for Latin America, and by the diversity and ichn~~~ of eflection~   on Latin America's coloniaJ and postcolonial hfatory, many of which, like most na- ELE l' hA NTS IN . THE AM ERI C AS? 397 tlo?s ih thi~ rc~f ~ long. red~te ~   e fi eld of o~tco loni l studies as ;t was developed in the r98os. How, then, to identify and examine a body of \fO rk that in reaJity does not appear· to exist? ow to define it without arbittarily inventing or confo1ing'it? How to treat it as p o~tcolonial with· ~ ti t framing it in terms of he existin gpo stcolonial ca. non and thus inevitably coldilizing it? · . . · · · ·Tliese challenging questions do not yield easy answers, Yet they call atten tio~ · to the character of postcolonial studies as one among a diverse set or regional reflections on the fotms and legacies of colonialism or rather CQfoniaJiSJ' IS. fn . Jig9t Of the worldwide diversity of critical tlloug~t Oil colo~   niallsrn and its ongo ing aftermath, the absence of a corpus ofLadn Ameri can postcolonial srudies is a problem not o studies on Latin America, but between postcoloni;il and.Latin American studies. thus approach this disc us- sioii of Latin American ·postcolonial studies-or, as I prefer ~o see jt, ~ postcolonial studies in the Americas- by reflecting on the relationsh)p J? e 7 : tween these two bodies ofknowledge. · . · · . · _;1 , >.> While its indisputable achievements bave turned postcolonial tudi~ into an indispensable point of eference in discussions about old and new colo-. nialisms, this field can be seen as a general standard or canon only i ~e . ' for ge ts that it is a regional corpus of knowledge whose global inffoeni: e ~· cannot be separated from its grounding in powerful metropolitan univer- sities; difference, not defer.ence, onentS this discussion. Rather than sub · ordinating Latin American studies to postcolonial studies and selecting textS ·. and auth ors that may meet its standards and qualify as postcolonial, I seel( o establish a dialogue between them on the basis of heir sh ared concerns and dfsunctive con tributions. This dialogue, as ....1th :i11y genuine exchange even among unequal partners, should setve not just to add participantS to the postcolonial discussion but also to cl rify its assumptions and transform its tenns . . My discus.sion is divided into four sections: the for mation of he field of iiostciJlonia:J stu die;; the place of'iatiil America in postcoloni.aJ studies· responses to postcolonial studies from Latin Americanists; and open-ended suggestions for deep~ning the dialo~e between postcoloniaJ and Latin American studies .li y (ocusing on exchanges between these fields, I have traded t:lfo ~ption o(olte~ing close readings of se lected texts and problems foi''t:l.if optibri' 8 erigagfiig te.hs that have addressed the postcolonial debate ln terniS. · bf how they 'shape or define the fie lds of postcolonial and La.tin American studies. f· .  .... - PO~TCOLONIAL ; S~Ubi:ES : ~ ,.:· . s~ · · ·~·~ .... .. · · ... ... :- .~~~~·~· . ~~~~· ~ ·; . r/ ·~ ~~~.· .{~ ~ ·:~;;. · . x~ .~· . . P ·· tica~ ~f c; z5 iqus cm lJOd ..ã . . st and catonization ofili ottcoloniat- . t~m a,s a term and. as a oncep~al   catego~ srcinate~ in ~ Q,i~p,u~sio~s ' ?b,out ··. . ti~ de1= otqnization of Aftican and ~ian cqlonies aftet . W ot l 4f W4r n.. Atlhat . · time'; o.rtcplo~ialwas us eQ. mostly as av adjecti ye by .so · . · ' d.~{> itical · ' · · iracte;ii~   chang~~ : (ii . he . :tate's : ari:d ·  li fotmei: ~ t · hi~ dw6r1 a ... ; ~ate . gory that ai ' a1 ea at that time. ããã - : ·· ,. ã ã; ããã   N <, ã ,J. > o.cus. was al(e< -dy pre11ent in the French'· ociologist George j ~~ ~fysis o{ the ~oloniai ~ituation (i:9si f ~ : ~ell as. n later a b o~~ the ''colonial ~; anp po ~t coloniaJ state . {Afavi 1972; Chandra ; l~~ c~ionial mode of production (Alavi 1972), qrtl ie: artkitlation of · rµodes · of production (Wolpe 198(); I er ro om · kl~~ . Lo. · '99i). · ~ Lari~ Am .erica Wa.$ conside~~~J,~;~ , Q.( <:.~:'' ·· i ise m.o~t QOt~ . · · : .: '·''- ,,,, · .:., r )~ 'C.' .. ' ãã _, ' .· ,_ : .'- :._' .... n.ations hadac .ii~ · · ~quarter of h~ · . ·. '· v ·' e e~ t'i { ce ~ · ?: . . the~e discussion~ out deco1Qhiiatio,p 'tbat ly independent nations of i~a a i d A si ~: ~~),; li·r·t ~ : ~s a lab.eJ.f c;i r old.' ,P · . on1 nationa. development for a ong tin}e, the l<ey word in Latin American social . thought during thj~ per~od wr.s . not colonialism . or postcolonialism, but de11.en ~ . ,, dency. This term ideritlfred:, a foniiHTu . bl~ : body of ork ~ developed by leftis tt scholars ,in the ~ g6os, .designed w nde~tand Latin rneric~'s distinct . hi ~~ · · toricai p-ajeqocy · an.d to counter mbeicmization theocy. Ridiif.g atop the wave .. Rf~ , . ; ,, . ~ , tji~~ fbUo: v~d ~ 9r d W~i J I , ~ od   . , t~~q#; ~ £~ c · :; m as an alternative t.0 socjalism and con the achieve- ment ,of' odc~iry co overcoming obstacles inhe~i fg e ~O:ili'.>rn ies, · · £,~ ~ : an<; subjective motivations ?f the peb~l~~o f'i:   e tt~ d irlonal ' so ~ of the Third WorJd ,, Yf :.w. R.os~ow's Th ( Stane n:if ilcononiic Growth . 96oi, revealingly subtitled A on~Com~unist Manit~sto,'' was a particu-   .·· Iarly clear example of modernizatioi1 theory's uniline:ir historicism, ideo-logical investment in capitalism, and teleological view of progress. n sharp contrast, dependency theorists argued that development ancj underdevelopmenr are tlie ' muru.allr. ~ependent outcomes of capitalist as-' cumulation on a world scale, fu theit view, sln~e underdevelopment ls tl;e ,,. product of development, the periphery cannot be modernized by unregulated capitalism but through an alteratiqn of ts polarizing dynamics (see, Qll. ;, . this iSsu~, Grosfoguelin this.volU¢efThls basic insight about the mutual · · constitution ofcenters and pepphedes was rooted in the Argentinian econo-economy an.9. S.O<:;ie~ . l Ve~ to C':>ffi , ~ OUt of ,;i, J\m . ã.. 1hl:13ssigh ~ , , , .· , ;<i 1 .nn t1oa ·· un ,~ s~Amuctt1r ã 1ha,_ . re  .. .. prique Ca rdo~c { ': ' :J ci ~u jano,Theoi:onio :O ': ' Ma~ro Marini; ~4 .·. m ependency theoriStSj as Car oso l9 77 J ~ted, their wo~k was consumed in the United States .as '~dep~ndeilc.y theory assciciatei:I · ã · . with the work of Andre Gunder Frank, ã·ã· .· . . . · : · · The worldwide influence of dependency· aecli11ed after the 1970s~ :Oe. ã· pei1dency . heOi:y was criticized for)~ 0Q~ ~ dim ti  1sional stn.itt\Jra)js fu ': aj:if{ . ã f ,4i. ;   7 -, >1; ~--;~, . . ã . M M ããã : ãã, ã; ã : ãã · · l :(c ed by the postmodern e . tual, fragmentary; ' · .~1'\t.;, J ~ . . ,rãã·-· -- · ,ã ~~,,.{, .. ~ .,,,, . · -<' ··.: minate; its EurocentriC foe centered develcipment an td ofracfal ndetl1 11 ic; givfs ; i ~$ i ffi ' Latin Ainerican nations his been 'a · cus of a recent critique (GrosfogueI 2000). Despite its shortcomings, in · y view the dependency sch.Qol . r~presents one· of Latin A,piep~·~ rpqs~ significant contributions. o postcotonfal thought vithJn this ; i) · ei'i~d (a_ugw- · ing the postcolonial critique ofhistoricism and providing coriceptilal tools for a much-needed postcoio11ial critique of o1u~mponiry { 1i;iped~11rn: , As a fundanientaJ qjtlque ifE~~q ~e q tfic conceptions ofhisto' rY,;l:rr&oiP.~ plblist development, > ~ . · ll l~t)'. updennined Nsto~JG ~t ( ~~tf~tlV es of the tradi ti'tlh,iii, », a 1<l. 1 'modem, , making i t e, c ~~ $an/fo examine postco Hta n~ ations , in ' ~e1 ~tiJ:#i : r ~~ ;. ;~plj , ~ ther through .. . pecific situations bf ~~~hae   ricy . < ã n tlrreedecades after World War II, i:he second usage of he term postcolonial developed in the AngJQpfiqne wotlcl in connection. wf th . .· critic;a1 studies of colonialism and colonial literature under the i.nflue u ce of postmodern perspectives. This toqk place during a historical juncture formed by four intertwined worldwide processes: the increasingly evident shortc~mings ofThird World national-aevelopment prQjec:~s; · :he; ·breakdown of eaily e~isdng socialjsm; the ascendance of opserv~tive po f~ .· des in Britain ciha~ clierismJ arid the O.nlted States fReagartism); :irid ~he ~ve1whelmii1g a~pea r kde ;; qfneolil;ieral capitalism as the only visibie, or at. 'i ~i ~t se~nlingly ~ iabl~ .' historica l horizon. During this period, postcolonial 'studies acquired a distinctive ideatity as an academic field, marked. by the unusual in:d r diige ' ei:W € eii h~ metropolitan location of its praductfon and the antl-impedat's' tai:icb of its authors, many of whom were linked to the Third World by personal ties and political choice. In this second phase, while historical work has center.ed on British cola·  :( 400 fE R l ~J'.   CORONll . . ~ ~ . . nialism, literary crith:ism bas fd ~ used on.Anglophone ce.'lts,mcludmg those from Australia and the Bnglisb...speat<lng Caribbean. Tbe use of postmodern . ~d poststructurlilist etspe~ti~e . · n . th~se works became so. n'timately asso- . . <:: ; <:< :: ~ ~ ã ã ã ã ' . dai:ed with po , scco loniall's . . .'the post of postcolonial1sm has become : · ''°~ ', . ' , · ~~''t'i;m;~.r<-· ·. ã . . ã · ~ · Identified wjth the post cif postID.odem rsm and poststruct\lralism. For m- . . tati~e; :a maj~r postcofoni~l reader aigues that postcolonial studies is a decidedly new field ~f scholarship arising in Western uruversities. as the application of pb 'st-modern thought to the long history of colonising prac-tices (Henry Schwa rz 2000, 6 . -~~ · In my view, equ ally central to postcoJonialism has been the critical· p~ '~ ;:;:; ' plfoation of Marxism ro a b roa d speci:n:im of practices of ocial and c~ltuQJ · ~. ·ã - domination not reducible to the category of class. While .marked by idio- ·: ,; 1 ;;;.~;::· ~ y f ct t~ c tpces, its identify~rtg signarure has ~~e? the c: °l   ~e,t~~c~ ~Qf.N1 ; e.s~ . · · ~) A' lli ~orettcal currents-Maoost and postmodernlpoststt aj1 s~ ':}tt~ stud ,: ::. i:h;it address the complicity be tw'~en, t knowleag e ~ii . ' ~- W, ~.. . . aãs integration of Gtamscian anci . Poucaul\:lian perspectiv~s   Ji1 th ~ ~~ . 'tireak ng critique of0riental1sni (19§4a . [1978)) has been widely e~ogoized as '\ ~~? f'Oundational for· the field. A similar te'nsion between .Marxism and post--structuralism animates the evolving work of he South Asia.n group of his o · rians associated with subaltern srudies, the strongest historiographical cur rent of postco onia  l sruclies. Postcolonial critique now encompasses problems as diff:erent ' as the formation of minori ties in the United States or African philosophy. But while it has expanded to new te~§, k)l~~ from analyiing theh: relations within .a unin · ~a fi ~ 1d; l he [ fin~trt~nrfui i study of pa(ts h as taken precedence · \ier the S ys iefur C'krl'~ Jysi   bfwii.Sleims critique of the grand narratives of lrib.<lel:oify b~; te a tb skeptlel~fu. toward any grand narrative, not always ã ~ ã ~fsc n Irt:i ~.atlng between EuroceutrJc claims to universality and the necessary . ilruversaiism ari sing from struggles against worldw i de capitalist domina· tion (Amin 1989; Lazarus 1999). As the offspring of a tense marriage between anti-Jmp   critique and metropolitan privilege, postcolonial studies is permeated by tensions that also affect its reception, provoking sharply different evalu ations of ts signif. icance and political implicatibns: While some analysts seci)t as an academic commodity that serves the interests of gl6bal capital . ah4 ¢~e fits its privi leged practitioners (Di~liln(j9 4 , othefs re ·gard it as a ,~;gigrn atic inte liec· rual shift that redefines the relaticin$hip bet'We en· ~   owledge .and emancipa· tory politics (Robert Young 2001). This debate helps identifywhat in my view is the central intellecrual challenge postcolonial studies has raised: to de- ( ã ~. '_: ã x ~ l E l'p A iHS 1N Tt<E liMEll C,\S  -~ ~~ ;; . ~, _ .. ~Ji-:_~~ _ . ~-r~ ~ ~ ã e, the one band, to view colo- · · rmation of the modern world all-eo comp,asslrtg ~cl i t$ ' uro ae ptti~ fornis . ~¥ ~ Ji \ ',, ' '-~ · _, '-'~< . 1 oin ' 1 ' l- pr l\l ll i~e ~ ~pfstemo :f t ·. epistemolog ical sign to evoke the problem of producing knowledge of his- tory and society in the co ntext of mperial relations. POSTCOLONI L STUDIES ND L TIN   MERIC N STUDIES Given this genealogy, jt is remarkable but understan dab le that debates artd ·. texts on or from Latin America do n9t   ~qre significantly in the fid,Cl ~f postcolonial studies as it has been defiµed s nce the 1980s. As Pete~ H.i1ln\e . (1996) has noted, Said's canonical iJ~n and Imperialism (1993) is mQle~ ,.i ~ atic of this tendency: it cente rs on .British an.d;frencb im(le.rialism tom the Iate_ nm_eteeoth century to t he presept; ~ . geographical focus is l imited roan area . sne~chj ~g qom Algeria ~~ I :~ ~~ ~ ;i n.~ rgle, of the United States is reso;i.t,~~d~? ; ~qe no , s~ -: Wodd w ~ . ~ ~~t;J~~~ ; d~sregarding this nation's srcin . as , ~   $Ql~P,l~:Jl   eWe. ?eflli 9f , ~nta.Jq. Spa.II , and Prance, the processes of -internal colonialism through. which Native Americans were su bjected within its territory, and its imperial designs in the Americas and elsewhere from the nineteenth century to the present The major readers and discussions on postcolonial studies barely take Latin America into acco un t. One of the earliest attempts to discuss postcolonial literatures as a comprehens iv e field, The Empirt rites Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Li t eratures (Ashcr oft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 1989), ac· knowledges a focus on Anglophone literatures Even so, its extensi ve sixteenpage bibliography, including all the works cited in the text, ;md some additional useful p ublic a tions'.' (224), fails to mention even a single text writte~ . on ,Latin Am erica or by a. Latin American author. The book treats Anglophone l.iter atures~ including those produced in the .Caribbean, as i tl1ese lirerarures we re not cross-fertilized by tl1e travel of deas and authors across regions and cu l tures-o r at least as ifthe literatures resulting from the Iberian coloni za tion of he Americas had not participated in this exchange.  ,, 1- ( ~:,,.; . , .. ' . ~~~.. 'ã . .:.;,·.,:{; ··' , 40 2 FERl ,I AN ãD I> C©R: Qf'l)~ . ; Thfs ex clusion of Latin America was clearly refiected in the fi rst ~ a n th()l 9gy of postcolonial texts, cO onial Discourse attd os1c~l0niii(rfteor i (w~ : : ;i t~ms:~d ~r i s m 3:n 1994), Wh ose thiny-o ne articles in, c)H~fn9 ; ~ u ~ p~ ~or it \: ' . · 1J:>er() - f\mcifca. Published two years later, Tht Post '(;oloni 1 l tud   es:Rt ~dir'{A sh~ , . croft,''orl ffith s, and Tiffin' 199 5) rcpro<lti<: es-: the :A.nglo ~e i:itric perspective tha~ cha ra cteri ze s their earlier Th t' Empire Writf,S B~Ck .. u ·this time wi thout the justification of a topical focus on nglls~ lite ;~ tu i:is ? ; . rhe reader fe a-· ru res eighty-six· exts divided into fou.rteen .theniaric s~ttions, including topics-such as nationalism and hybridity, whkh have long concerned Latin .Am~tJ C'itr ' flilil i ~~'f ,.1 wfil1e s ome aumors a re repeated under <liffereni t op j   ; :,,1. ·' · C.Bh:i;B h\i ~P,Pears Tureeirme~; Spi~ fk . Mice), the only author associated w l - . ' l. llln ; ~m~Hc~ · ~< Jo's e, whose contribution is a ctiti<a1 readhig of .Mercator's Atlr:is, a topic relevant but not specific to La tin .America. ..... The marginalization of Latin America · s reproduced in most wo r ks on · po stcoloni ali sm published slnce then. Eor example, Lee la Gandhi's Post . colonilil Th eoni : A Critica[ Jn troductio,n Crn9$) does not discuss Latin . Ameri- ·. : . can critical reflec cion.s ~~ l nEi~dei : ~v~ t{ S-i ' ng i&reference to Latin American; ' '· ~\~~ · th in kers in its exte n s iv ~ · bib lio gra ~fl y . Wnile · R.'llocatiniJ Po;tc~lonialism (Gold- ·, berg and Quaysoh 200 2) rel~cate;;. the postcolonia thr~ g h'-i;:pe iodu sion of such tepi~s as the · cultural po litics of the French ra d fca. I d'   ahd· he · co nstruction of Korean-Ameri c: m identities, it maintai ns the exCtusion of · Lati n America by having no articles or a uch o rs associated with th is a rea . This :taken-for-granted excl usion appears as we ll in a dialogue between John Comaroff and Homi Bhabha that introdu ces the boo k. Following Com a · ~otf 's . sugg'estloii; they provide a historical fram e for po stcolonialicy - ~ . ln . termS. of two pe'riods: 'the de coloni:zation of the Third World marked by ã udia~ i ~ de.flencfen c~ · · m i947; and the hegemony of neo llbei:~ : capiW is~ . ' :S i gnm l ed bf the end of he Cold War in 1989 (ibid. 15 )' : Iri contrast, two recent works on po stco lonialis m include ilttin America · #\ vi tlun the postcolouial fi el d. yet their sharp ly diff ere nt criteria highlight th e probl em of discerning the boundaries ofthis field. In an article for a book on tbe postcolon ial deba te in Ll \fu America; 3ill:Ashcroft (whose coed ited book basic all y excludes Lati n Am e rica) presents La tin Am e rica as modernity's first born and thus as' a eglon that has participated sin ce its inception in the· p ro du ction of postcolonial discourses (1999). He de~n es postcqlonial d isc ourse compreh ensively as the. discourse f the · -colo~ed produced in · o i o~ial contexts; as such, it does not hav e to be a:nti -co1©uia l (ib id., 1 4- 15). He presents Men chu 's I, Ri9oberta Menchtl :andfuan R_ u fo's Pedro Paramo as examples that reveal chat the tr ansf ormativ e strategies of postcolon.ial ; .. ~\:-·· . ... ~:- . . ~JY· ~ s.} '.. ( . . EL E f:~A~ · N;~ T i-if AM F.R ICASI +ã J . .,,,.. dl$co urse, str~ teg ie , s wb.ich engage the .e~pest~isrup ti ons of modernity, are not limi tecl tci ,· i;ti , e : l~ S ~P  Y coio mml (i bid ., 2 8). Wh il .e bis. c;ompfeh ens ive defini tJ ,on ~$~ ~e'~ ~~u,,4es.J,:3 tinfmerican discourses fr 9in tfre conquest' onward;·I us elbiinph s - tgges t~ narro we r field de fined by iri, o : t disctiiliinat-· 1 ~g &J:\f j ~ne xl mine~ cr i t~,ria. , , . - ~'Ht . . . . .-k Tit~.secon   text is Ro bert You ng's Po   ~ lo : 4J1 Histo rica l Introducti on & ( ~bor J .; , While Yo ung (like As hc roft) had ~ *9~ , 4J. iw os$ ed Latin America in a pi;e:vi p us work (Whitt Mytho logies [1990)); in hls rtew book he g ives such t bunaa tional importance to Latin A x'neti ca n d ~ to the Th4'd Wo rl d that be . prefers to µ,~e ,W: ~~ $ ~b ~~~fn tinenta ii s m, after the ttjcon~ental conference held In Hatanidn i96 fb.o oi:, 57). Young re cognizes iliitposi'. col o· . nialism l\as h:n1g an4 ya i; ied genealogies, bu t he. inds)t, necessary to rest,rict it to anticalo~ial th ~ u;bt 'd eveloped after_ orm;tl p ~ l lrl~'ll t nd~pendenc~ h ~s .· been achie ved: Many of he problem~ rai~ e d .can be resolved if he posb ;g l o:.. ,,: nial is defin ed as corn ing a fte r £o o gJalis m and imperialism, in th ei r rf~oal . . . cYf\t, .\ ; ã - ~ ·: . .:,. .t v~ . · .. , meaning of direc t: '.Ule de ntin~:t:lon ' ~J 1bid,). Yet Yo un g d is tinguishes further between the an  ~ ni'al tho u' g1l ~ o €; ~b.e p~riph   ~ry and, h~ 1n ore theore tic al thought fa.lined at the heart of empires wben tlie>political and culrural exp e d~ , ce · gf ,he )Dargina  iz ed perip hery d~§Jo;pe~ J n.:O) . more gene ral , rj1eo~e~9ii l p~_sitio~ that. could be set gainst wes te~ political, intellectual .· aua academic hegemony and its protocols''df'oojecti ve knowl edge (ibid., .. 65). T hus, e ve n su~essful , an ticolonia mo vem ents did n ot fully esta.bli~p the equal val ue of h e, of the decolonised nations; To do 'tfuit,' 1 . . -. :-.t . Young argues, i t-_was ~~c ,,e s · s~ J   to , take the struggle into the heartlands of ,: the former q:il enJ. a LPQ , we~ (, Young's sugge s ~ve discussi on of Lati n Ame rican post.colonial thought leav es uncl e~i.tfae , ~ ~t e~i;, to which its. a.nticolop.ialism is also critical in the sense he ascribes to metropolitan ~ - ~ectid~~- .. ~mng discusses Latin Ameri can postcolon ial thought in two brj efch-;fr~,r$ ~ The fi rst, Latin America I: Mar iategui, Transculruration and Cujrur~ Dependency, is div ided into fou r ããI ãã ..:·.t . ' sections: M ar xis m in La tin Am e ritia, '' ab account of the d evel op me nt of communist par ties and Marxist th inkers in the tw entieth c e11 rury, leading to the Cuban R. e vofu tion; Mexico 19 1 0, a resen~tio~ of he tefexic;_an revolution as prec\irsor of tri .continenta insurrecrion,s ag ai nst colo nial or ne o col onial; ; ex,plo ~ itation; Mariare gui, a discussion ofMariategui's role as one of La tin Americ a's most ori gi nal thinkers, highlighting his inn ov ati ve _nter p.r e~ a tion of.Peruvian rea li ty; and Cu Jrura.l Depende ncy, an overview of he· i de as of some cultur al critics which, for brev ity's sak e, I will reduce to a few nam es an d to the key concepts as sociated with their work: t,he Brazi iian .. ã
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks