Tutor profile: Jericko T.
Respond to an analyse “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America” by Aníbal Quijano
En “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America” de Aníbal Quijano ella posicione su argumento sobre la manera sistemática en la cual los europeos aseguraba su poder y hegemonía en América Latina en la ‘época de la colonización y las reverberaciones en las estructuras sociales y pensamiento en esa región. La construcción de la categoría de raza que ubicaba biológicamente a los conquistadores en una posición superior a la de los conquistados. Según Quijano, anteriormente, la raza simplemente describía diferencias fenotípicas pero con el “descubrimiento” de América las colonizadores crearon una supuesta estructura racial, una jerarquía. La explotación de la fuerza de trabajo y de los recursos naturales de las Américas fueron estrategias para monetizar esta dominación europea. Quijano explica que eso facilitaba el control sobre las materias primas y las exportaciones de las países en América Latina. Quijano explica algunas estrategias que usó Europa Occidental para convertirse en el “patrón de poder mundial.” Me gusta cómo Quijano explicaba el impacto de la identidad geográfica y de la re-construcción de esa identidad de un modo eurocéntrica. Quijano mencionaba la teoría “Centro-Periferia” de Raúl Prebisch que también explica que vemos el mundo viendo Europa primero y después el resto en relación. Antes de las etiquetas de ‘África’, ‘Asia’ y ‘Oceanía’ el mundo no-Europeo, el mundo nuevo, no descubierto, y poco explorado ten’ia poblaciones con sus propios palabras para su identidad, tierra, y lenguaje. Las etiquetas y geografía que usamos hoy en día es una reflexión de ese hegemonía y colonialidad de poder que utilizaba Europa Occidental para subyugar y mantener una posición de superioridad sobre América Latina. También los europeos crearon una nueva perspectiva temporal de América. Me encantó su crítica de la modernidad como un resultado de la idea eurocéntrica de que la Europa Occidental fue la culminación de una trayectoria de civilización desde un tiempo de caos y naturaleza salvaje. Quijano argumenta que la esclavitud y el racismo fue un parte clave de la economía colonial. Esto sí es cierto, pero en mi opinión Quijano no toca el tema de genocidio de la población indígena en México, y es importante incluir un contra-ejemplo en un argumento. Algunos colonistas decidieron no utilizar la población nativa como una fuerza de trabajo y mercancía sino ellos priorizar tomando el control sobre la tierra. Quijano habla de la hubris de los europeos en su imposición de las categorías raciales, pero ella no elabora en el sentido de superioridad, falta de compasión por la vida, y el racismo que fue un fuente para estos sistemas. No fueron simplemente estrategias sino pensamientos sociales. Quijano puede explorar m’as las orígenes del racismo en Europa, porque el pensamiento de la raza fue completamente diferente en los tiempos heleno-románicos. En su sección sobre el eurocentrismo, Quijano desarrolla el papel que el juega en la “cuestión nacional” de la historia latinoamericana. Quijano habla del establecimiento de la sistema del estado-nación, ella describe ese sistema como una imposición estructural para la sociedad. Es una manera de colonización externa y otra vez de controlar la narrativa de la historia conocida y de la historia ya no escrito.
Provide a convincing argument, utilizing text-based evidence, for St. Francis of Assisi’s role as a Paradigm of the New Testament Revival of the 12th and 13th centuries.
The New Testament revival of the 12th and 13th centuries put an emphasis on the humanity and suffering of Christ, a change from the previous focus on his divinity. The movement also stressed the piety of the apostolic life of poverty and charity led by Christ, one Francis of Assisi modelled through his life of devotion. In leading such a life, he imitated Christ to such an extent that he was able to experience ecstasies and emotionally empathize with the sufferings of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Francis received the stigmata the ultimate symbol of Francis’s emulation- a physical manifestation of Christ’s suffering and an invitation to share in it. Through constant aid to the poor and sick, Francis embodied the charitable and kind spirit of the vita apostolica. He did not become fearful when a leper reached for him, his bravery credited to the loving influence of Christ. Francis was said to have “put on the spirit of poverty, the feeling of humility, and the love of inward godliness.” His previous “violent loathing” for lepers transformed into selfless compassion for those most ostracized by society, displayed through his kissing of their faces and his acts of charity. Francis went further in his charity by bathing the feet of lepers, binding their sores, and kissing their ulcerated wounds. In addition to his unfailing tenderness for lepers, he helped the poor by offering up his own garments and giving alms. This charity was an act of loving Christ, and of emulating Christ’s own love for the people he died for. In his charity, he further emulates Jesus by miraculously healing the diseased. In the New Testament book of Matthew we can find proof that St. Francis’s actions reflected the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ: “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.” Matthew 4: 23 As part of the vita apostolica, Francis embraced absolute poverty and a life of begging. Francis began by giving away his father’s wealth and relinquished all material wealth belonging to him. Voluntary poverty- the kind Francis experienced- was seen as the most admirable form of poverty. In a dramatic scene with an audience including his father, the Bishop, and a crowd full of people, Francis was seen stripping down naked and welcoming a life of wandering and absolute poverty. In an explanation for Francis’s abandonment of his family, the author of his life characterizes the Saint: “For none was ever so greedy of gold as he of poverty, nor did any man ever guard treasure more anxiously than he this Gospel pearl.” Francis desired to live poor just as Jesus was born and died. In his love for poverty, he told his disciples “that they should possess neither gold, nor silver, nor money in their purses,” demanding they shed all material wealth. Franciscan monks saw poverty as the “queen of virtues” and money as the gateway to corruption, thus, they lived to be communally poor. Furthermore, Francis allowed laymen to participate in the apostolic movement by giving alms and shelter to travelling friars, as he emphasized a life of begging. Francis demonstrated his beliefs in his ascetic practices such as sleeping on a hard stone, naked and cold. He felt the devil’s influence in any kind of luxury, even a simple luxury such as a feathered pillow, in his life money is painted as evil, and poverty is glorified. On a trip through Apulia, Francis and his companion came across a purse seemingly filled with coins. When the companion wanted to distribute its contents among the poor, Francis refused and declared it a trick of the devil. Upon returning to the purse, a serpent leapt out, proving that Francis had been right, that money was a tool of temptation by the devil. Francis lived his life with the spiritual and physical emulation of Christ, rejecting material wealth and replacing it with spiritual wealth. Francis’s reception of the stigmata strengthened his identification with the physical emulation of Christ and the sufferings he endured for the salvation of humanity. St. Francis was the first Saint recorded to have received such a key element of the imitation of Christ. As part of his reception of the stigmata, he felt the crucifixion pierce his soul as he stood with wonder at a vision that was unfathomable and miraculous. His reaction to receiving the stigmata was emotional, he was described to experience both joy and sorrow and “a yet more burning flame of heavenly longings.” This vivid emotional response is characteristic of the New Testament revival’s emphasis on Christ’s humanity. In addition to this emotional experience that left Francis’s heart aglow, he received the marks of Christ upon Crucifixion, he was even able to make out “the heads of the nails shewing in the palms of the hands, and upper side of the feet.” His marks were not just for show, Francis felt the pain of nails piercing his flesh and he bled through constantly open wounds. Despite these magnificent symbols of Francis’s closeness to Christ, he steadfastly remained humble, vigilantly attempting to conceal the pains he suffered from his fellow Brothers. In his emotional ecstasies and outbursts, St. Francis demonstrated the new emotional intimacy with God inspired by the New Testament revival’s focus on personal prayer. Overcome by the presence of the Lord and with “eyes full of tears” he was called by God to repair the church of San Damiano, and after his command, he fell into an ecstasy. After that time, Francis experienced ecstasies so often that onlookers might have said that he lived “an angelic rather than a mortal life.” While a transcendent relationship with God was not uncommon among Saints, there was a new element to the experience that involved the senses, such an outpouring of emotions was part of the more personal relationship individuals were encouraged to have with God, proof of which we can see in the individual prayer books, or Book of Hours. In addition to ecstasies, Francis would weep for those being defiled by the stain of sin with such extreme compassion he can be described as motherly. Furthermore, Francis insisted that in order to honour God it was better to do so with tearful prayer rather than with eloquent speech. Both Benedictine and Franciscan monks took the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. In the Benedictine order, the most important vow was that of obedience, representative of a more rigid religious sentiment and of the judgement of God. Franciscan monks held the vow of poverty in the highest regard, as Francis believed poverty was the way of salvation because it is the food of humility and the root of perfection. Francis renounced his personal wealth, shared with his brethren, lived in a community, and preached the message of personal salvation- exemplifying the apostolic life popularized by the New Testament revival.
Subject: Art History
What are the differences between a postcolonial and a decolonial paradigm in art history?
Postcolonial theory in art history is a twentieth-century theory critical of the ‘hegemonic imperatives of imperial discourses’. Okwui Enwezor notes that one of the legacies of postcolonial theory was its delineation between imperial and postcolonial discourses in art history. Imperial discourses in art history justify the expansion of Western power into non-Western regions by fabricating an ‘us versus them’ narrative. Radical change in the field could not be possible without the initial recognition and reframing of the former imperial narrative of art history done by postcolonial discourses. Nor could it be possible without those in the field internally pushing for an acknowledgement of the limited voices that constructed the narrative of art history. The issue of narrative in the art historical canon will be discussed later on in this essay. Decolonial practice, however, is a twentieth-century paradigm that centres around more recent discussion about ‘what is to be done’ following the revelations of postcolonial discourses, specifically as it concerns modernity. Decolonial practice necessitates action and implies urgency, it calls for sweeping changes to how the field of art history operates. It can be seen as a natural result of the calls to restructure the discipline posed by Marxism, Feminism, Queer Studies, and Postcolonial theory. Regardless of initial intentions, the postcolonial paradigm today is largely implemented as a theory and placed in comparison to other modern art historical theories which aimed to restructure but not dismantle the foundations of the discipline.