Weird invoking decolonial scholars as being exclusively indigenous and a monolithic ideological bloc.
Feels very tokenistic and like a strategy to silence discussion by invoking the concept of "decolonial indigenous scholars" as a sort of ward used to dispel "erroneous" thought rather than directly referencing them and engaging with the conversations that "need to be had".
Like, I get it - it's Twitter. In these sorts of slapfights online I'll either name-drop a theorist or two or I'll name drop a concept that I'm drawing directly from to provide the other person with a clear indication of the angle that I'm taking as shorthand and as a way of not being a condescending prick while also feeling out whether the other person has done the reading.
For example I'll mention that Saïd has already thoroughly skewered the notions that someone is relying upon or I'll just directly call their arguments Orientalist.
This is me signalling that we can take the discussion to the next level if they've done the reading and where they can cut to the chase and provide their rationale or their criticisms of Saïd but typically I find I get really naïve nonsense where a person will say something like "Some nobody Middle Eastern art critic has no relevance to the discussion of the CCP" (which is just a giant flashing sign telling me "I haven't done the reading, I only skimmed the Wikipedia entry just now") or "I fail to see how the representation of the Middle East has anything to do with my criticisms of the DPRK" (which just screams "I don't understand the concept of Orientalism, this is my first exposure to it, and I think I've got some peak-Redditeur slam dunk argument to dismiss this concept out of hand"). It's rare that someone actually gets on the level and continues a debate, even rarer when they do me the courtesy of assuming that I've done the reading by signalling their own ideological angle that they're approaching the discussion from because they'd rather soapbox and go to great lengths to typically do a poor job of regurgitating arguments from someone who wrote a book, usually leading me to tell them where they're getting their ideas from, how they are grossly misrepresenting them, and why they are wrong. It gets really fucking tedious.
But this person isn't doing that. They're just invoking the spectre of decolonial indigenous scholars.
I get it, settlers have a lot of work to do on decolonising both internally as individuals and externally in society. But I feel like this exchange is about 2 minutes away from this person making the vague accusation that the other person is a "coloniser" to shut them up. What's particularly frustrating about this is that they're pretending to adopt the guise of call-in culture to encourage accountability and self-reflection when they're actually just engaging in reflexively dismissing and shutting down the other person for holding a different opinion.
If you want to call people out and just assert your position as being incontrovertibly correct because you hold the position of Absolute Truth™ then do so.
If you want to actually have a discussion, educate, and foster dialogue and introspection then do so.
But don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining.
Weird invoking decolonial scholars as being exclusively indigenous and a monolithic ideological bloc.
Feels very tokenistic and like a strategy to silence discussion by invoking the concept of "decolonial indigenous scholars" as a sort of ward used to dispel "erroneous" thought rather than directly referencing them and engaging with the conversations that "need to be had".
Like, I get it - it's Twitter. In these sorts of slapfights online I'll either name-drop a theorist or two or I'll name drop a concept that I'm drawing directly from to provide the other person with a clear indication of the angle that I'm taking as shorthand and as a way of not being a condescending prick while also feeling out whether the other person has done the reading.
For example I'll mention that Saïd has already thoroughly skewered the notions that someone is relying upon or I'll just directly call their arguments Orientalist.
This is me signalling that we can take the discussion to the next level if they've done the reading and where they can cut to the chase and provide their rationale or their criticisms of Saïd but typically I find I get really naïve nonsense where a person will say something like "Some nobody Middle Eastern art critic has no relevance to the discussion of the CCP" (which is just a giant flashing sign telling me "I haven't done the reading, I only skimmed the Wikipedia entry just now") or "I fail to see how the representation of the Middle East has anything to do with my criticisms of the DPRK" (which just screams "I don't understand the concept of Orientalism, this is my first exposure to it, and I think I've got some peak-Redditeur slam dunk argument to dismiss this concept out of hand"). It's rare that someone actually gets on the level and continues a debate, even rarer when they do me the courtesy of assuming that I've done the reading by signalling their own ideological angle that they're approaching the discussion from because they'd rather soapbox and go to great lengths to typically do a poor job of regurgitating arguments from someone who wrote a book, usually leading me to tell them where they're getting their ideas from, how they are grossly misrepresenting them, and why they are wrong. It gets really fucking tedious.
But this person isn't doing that. They're just invoking the spectre of decolonial indigenous scholars.
I get it, settlers have a lot of work to do on decolonising both internally as individuals and externally in society. But I feel like this exchange is about 2 minutes away from this person making the vague accusation that the other person is a "coloniser" to shut them up. What's particularly frustrating about this is that they're pretending to adopt the guise of call-in culture to encourage accountability and self-reflection when they're actually just engaging in reflexively dismissing and shutting down the other person for holding a different opinion.
If you want to call people out and just assert your position as being incontrovertibly correct because you hold the position of Absolute Truth™ then do so.
If you want to actually have a discussion, educate, and foster dialogue and introspection then do so.
But don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining.
You wrote a lot.
However, well-versed decolonial Indigenous scholars disagree. I disagree.