For instance, Chandler and Reid (2020, p. Above all, land has to be given back and colonial property relations dismantled.Īlthough Tuck and Yang’s intervention is specific to a settler-colonial context, and thus should not be generalized, it resonates with broader critiques raised against recent trends in decolonial and ontopolitical scholarship. In a settler-colonial context, decolonization thus must go beyond the usual critique of epistemology and beyond calls for decolonizing knowledge and methodologies. Writing from a settler-colonial context, the authors suggest that “ntil stolen land is relinquished, critical consciousness does not translate into action that disrupts settler colonialism” ( Tuck & Yang, 2012, p.
Here, I am inspired by the influential critique of decolonial scholarship by Tuck and Yang (2012), who insist that “decolonization is not a metaphor.” Tuck and Yang (2012) maintain that while the decolonization of academic and educational institutions through the recognition and integration of alternative knowledges is important, this is not the central objective of decolonization. Ultimately, I suggest that by not engaging this question head on, debates about “transformation” risk rendering it a metaphor. More still, I argue that some perspectives in this forum may even distract our attention from a more direct engagement with this – in my view – most urgent question of our time. 1) – the dismantling of fossil capitalism.
In this intervention I highlight an element that has been overlooked in this important debate about “progressive environmental futures” ( Robbins, 2019, p.
0 kommentar(er)
