With this article, I explore the connections between blockchain technology, coloniality, and decolonial practices. Drawing on Sylvia Wynter’s thought on the interdependent systems of colonialism, capitalism, and knowledge, as well as more recent work on the coloniality of digital technologies, I argue that blockchain-based systems reproduce certain dynamics at work in historical colonialism. Additionally, Wynter’s decolonial propositions provide a generative framework to understand countercultural practices with. Inspired by Wynter, Patricia de Vries explores the notion of “plot work as artistic praxis” to ask how artistic work, implicated as it is in capitalist logics, can create space for relating dierently in the context of the exploitations of those dominant logics. I apply this notion to examine how Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs) in the countercultural blockchain space might contribute to this praxis.
MULTIFILE
This is a critique of how designers deal with contending histories and multiple presents in design to speculate about socio-technical futures. The paper unpacks how embedded definitions and assumptions of temporality in current design tools contribute to coloniality in designed futures. As design practice becomes implicated in how oppression extends from physical systems to global digital platforms, our critique rejects the notion that it is only AI that needs fixing and it dissects the Futures Cone used in speculative design to make these issues visible. As an alternative, we offer a hauntological vocabulary to aid designers in reorienting their speculative tools and accommodating pluriversality in anticipatory futures. To illustrate the benefits of the proposed metaphors, we highlight examples of coloniality in digital spaces and emphasize the failure of speculative design to decolonize future imaginaries. Using points of reference from hauntology, those that engage with uncertain states of lingering or spectrality, and notions of nostalgia, absence, and anticipation, this paper contributes to rethinking the role that design tools play in colonizing future imaginaries, especially those pertaining to potentially disruptive technologies.
DOCUMENT
European civic integration programmes claim to provide newcomers with necessary tools for successful participation. Simultaneously, these programmes have been criticised for being restrictive, market-driven and for working towards an implicit goal of limiting migration. Authors have questioned how these programmes discursively construct an offensive image of the Other and how colonial histories are reproduced in the constructions seen today. The Dutch civic integration programme is considered a leading example of a restrictive programme within Europe. Research has critically questioned the discourses within its policies, yet limited research has moved beyond policy to focus on discourse in texts in practice. This study presents a critical discourse analysis of texts used in the civic integration programme and demonstrates that they participate in multiple discursive constructions: the construction of the Dutch nation-state and its citizens as inherently modern, the construction of the Other as Unmodern and thus a threat, and the construction of the hierarchical relationship between the two. The civic integration programme has been left out of discussions on decolonisation to date, contributing to it remaining a core practice of othering. This study applies post-colonial theories to understand the impacts of current discourse, and forwards possibilities for consideration of decolonised alternatives.
DOCUMENT
A Manifesto The group of some 17 participants interrupted the UDHR text in real time, infusing it with inclusive terminology, queering its binary language and expanding its gaze to other lifebeings, making it a manifesto for a new world. The newly formulated Universal Declaration of Human and More-Than-Human Rights and Responsibility for a New World would be the manifesto for an alliance of those who insisted on an end to capitalist practices and their destructive effects on the planet.
MULTIFILE
Settler colonialism has been theorised as a form of oppression and domination distinct from other colonisation and imperialism processes. This paper aims to deconstruct settler colonialism domination by illuminating both the power of oppression and the power of resistance in Palestine and in the establishment by Israel of settler colonial tourismscapes. Building on Foucault’s examination of power and resistance, settler colonialism is theorised as a disciplinary, bio-power, and sovereign power, and the paper explores how different stakeholders resist the dominant settler discourse in a tourism context. Theoretically, this study contributes to understanding settler colonialism and tourism through the lens of power and resistance. The outcomes of the study find that Israel has contributed to the reorganisation of Palestine as a Jewish homeland and suppress stories of colonial brutality and oppression while selling imaginary geographies that normalise the presence of Jewish settlers in Palestine. Findings also shed some light on how Palestinian tourism initiatives, such as the Kairos Palestine in Bethlehem, produce spaces of constructed Palestinian visibility through tourism. This initiative highlights how alternative tours through the ‘Come and See’ experience might contribute to the re-articulation and reordering of venues, thereby forming a counter-discourse and resistance.
DOCUMENT
In this article, the preservation of the monumental built environment from the colonial period is related to and discussed within the perspective of heritage ownership. It contributes to a debate in which heritage resource preservation is approached and connected to several heritage ownership issues. It argues that an effective built environmental preservation policy for colonial heritage is strongly related to and dependent on issues such as legal property ownership, legislation on listed buildings, enforcement of such legislation, and the willingness among different categories of potential owners to participate and support such preservation. Especially, when it comes to built colonial heritage as an imported alien resource from a colonial past, these issues are particularly interesting and sensitive. A good illustration of these issues is the case of Paramaribo, Suriname. The national government policy following the inscription of the historic inner city of Paramaribo on the World Heritage List of UNESCO in 2002 clearly demonstrates an area of tension and difficulty between and within the interested parties. It shows that monumental preservation and heritage management and interpretation are strongly affected and determined by concepts such as ownership, affinity, interest, economic priorities, and political will. By referring to the actual problems encountered in the preservation efforts relating to the built colonial heritage in Paramaribo and subsequently explaining these problems in relation to specific ownership issues, this article throws light on a number of dilemmas. Conclusions are drawn widening the argument and contributing to the ongoing debate on heritage ownership issues and monument preservation policies especially as it relates to the global issue of managing the relics of now defunct empires. In recent years an increasing interest can be detected in issues concerning the legal property ownership of heritage. This growth in interest focuses in particular on the legislation in relationship to property ownership issues. An important aim of national governments is to use legislation to safeguard their cultural property by embedding it in law, especially, when this cultural property has a high monetary or identity value (as stressed by Fechner, 1998). Additionally, the growing awareness and recognition of heritage as a valuable economic, sociopsychological and environmental asset is receiving increasing international attention. For example, the international acknowledgment that heritage resources are under pressure from all kinds of processes and impacts has encouraged the need for an extension of international legal measures. Consequently, this international interest, often expressed in conventions, charters, and treaties, encourages national and local initiatives (Techera, 2011). An interesting complication to this issue is the question that arises where it involves the monumental built environment from the colonial period that is being preserved and restored, as it may be viewed as a heritage based on alien resources. In particular the acceptance, recognition, and role of what may be viewed as an imported colonial built environment in a multicultural and multiethnic context, may impact effective legislation. Although the discussion about the roles of heritage within a plural cultural and ethnic society has already begun (recently emphasized by Van Maanen, 2011; Ashworth, Graham, & Tunbridge, 2007), it is still an underresearched topic when it comes to legal property ownership as part of a management strategy for preserving built colonial heritage resources. This article examines in particular the effectiveness of policies and laws pursued in Suriname as an instrument for the preservation of resources. It highlights the legal and administrative challenges facing the implementation, management, and enforcement of these strategies and measures. The first part of this article examines the debate about the approach and strategy in using law in conservation and preservation policies. Then the article proceeds to introduce Suriname as an instructive case study. It describes the existing multiethnic context of Suriname and the evolution of legislative policy for the historic inner city of the capital, Paramaribo, with its monumental built environment from the colonial period. By using field data, the article continues with an analysis of the effectiveness and impacts of this administrative and legal framework established in Suriname. It examines in detail the main problems encountered and the extent to which this strategy is supported by the key stakeholders.
DOCUMENT
Scientific research from within and beyond academia continues to provide the justification and the knowledge for policy developments directed toward migration and integration governance. A proliferation of scholarship aims to study, pilot, and investigate the ‘best practices’ for facilitating integration, which is then taken up in advice to policy makers. Many authors have written about this science-policy nexus (Boswell 2009; Penninx, Garcés-Mascareñas, and Scholten 2005; Scholten et al. 2015; Verbeek, Entzinger, and Scholten 2015) These works have also engaged in critical reflection, problematizing this nexus and demonstrating how funding structures draw researchers not only into addressing short-term policy goals, but also into reproducing some of the essentialist worldviews that come with methodological nationalism (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) and the ‘national order of things’ (Malkki 1995). Yet, the colonial legacies and dis/continuities of these logics in integrationism have not received much attention so far.The paper takes a critical lens on the implications of the science-policy complicity in reproducing colonial logics of ‘cultural distance’, based on perspectives and empirical research from different national (Netherlands and Switzerland) and supra-national (EU) contexts. We analyse texts which shape the civic integration programme in the Netherlands, the genealogy of the integration requirement to respect the values of the constitution in Switzerland, and the EU framework on migrant integration. This combined analysis brings forth the role scientists and knowledge producers play in (re)producing the colonial logics within integrationism, and their contributions to the regime of truth within which integration discourse operates. Throughout this article, we draw on examples from these different contexts to display that integration and its migranticized (Dahinden 2016) subjects are constructed through practices deemed as scientific or objective expertise, building on important work by Schinkel (2018) on integration research as “neocolonial knowledge production” and Favell’s (2022) critical reflections on integration indicator frameworks. As we demonstrate, the “idea of integration as an issue of cultural distance is rendered imaginable in and through colonial legacies and scientific practices from which policy draws legitimacy. We show how cultural distance is produced in the scientification of migrants’ assimilability in a ‘Western work ethic’, in measurement of migrants’ adherence to liberal values, and through constructions of integration drawing on social imaginaries of national and European identity. Importantly, we argue that by presenting this cultural distance as a product of objective, scientific processes of empirical observation, the notion of cultural distance is normalised and depoliticized, which ultimately legitimizes integrationism as a mode of governance.The present study builds on important contributions (by Schinkel 2017; Favell 2022; Korteweg 2017; Bonjour and Duyvendak 2017, and others) in attempting to destabilize the normalization of integrationism as the widely accepted mode of governance of ‘immigrant’ or ‘ethnic’ populations and their inherent and problematic ‘distance’. The content and structure of this summer school in post-colonial Amsterdam would allow us to continue our critical reflexive discussions to better understand the colonial logics at play and how they operate in multiple contexts and at multiple levels of governance, in and beyond integration
LINK
During an interview at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service one student questioned Prime Minister Rutte about an official apology for slavery. The Dutch Prime Minister assured that each island-nation to whom the Kingdom apologized “has full power to decide to leave the Kingdom. They are not colonized. They are independent.” Rutte described the current role of The Netherlands as that of a “gateway” to bring their products to Europe. The emphasis on trade relationship smacks of neo-colonial interests. Rutte’s portrayal of The Netherlands acting as the “in” to the European market for the former colonies is far from the recovery that one would expect for the descendants of the enslaved. In fact, the Slavery Past Dialogue made a number of recommendations to the Dutch Kingdom, including “active prevention of discrimination and institutional racism throughout society” and “the establishment of a Kingdom Fund […] for structural and sustainable financing of recovery measures.” The Dutch Prime Minister’s comments belie a singular focus on trade with the Caribbean nations rather than a holistic approach, looking at non-pecuniary interests involving the well-being of the descendants and the societies in which they live today. The “republicanization” serves as a backdrop to the years-long journey during which the Dutch government (and the Dutch crown) seemingly dragged their feet, refusing to issue a formal apology for the trade of Africans by the Dutch West Indies corporation. That much-solicited apology was finally issued in December 2022, despite warnings that any gesture that excluded reparations would not be favorably received by the Dutch Caribbean nations.
MULTIFILE
African citizens are increasingly being surveilled, profiled, and targeted online in ways that violate their rights. African governments frequently use pandemic or terrorism-related security risks to grant themselves additional surveillance rights and significantly increase their collection of monitoring apparatus and technologies while spending billions of dollars to conduct surveillance (Roberts et al. 2023). Surveillance is a prominent strategy African governments use to limit civic space (Roberts and Mohamed Ali 2021). Digital technologies are not the root of surveillance in Africa because surveillance practices predate the digital age (Munoriyarwa and Mare 2023). Surveillance practices were first used by colonial governments, continued by post-colonial governments, and are currently being digitalized and accelerated by African countries. Throughout history, surveillance has been passed down from colonizers to liberators, and some African leaders have now automated it (Roberts et al. 2023). Many studies have been conducted on illegal state surveillance in the United States, China, and Europe (Feldstein 2019; Feldstein 2021). Less is known about the supply of surveillance technologies to Africa. With a population of almost 1.5 billion people, Africa is a continent where many citizens face surveillance with malicious intent. As mentioned in previous chapters, documenting the dimensions and drivers of digital surveillance in Africa is
MULTIFILE
Indigenous Papuans on the western half of the island of New Guinea, have experienced intersecting environmental, social, and political crises, within the context of a movement seeking self-determination. These ongoing crises are exacerbated by longstanding grievances over the Grasberg mine (which contains significant reserves of copper and gold), and environmental degradation caused by the mining and palm oil sectors, as well as the legacy of colonialism on the allocation of land and resources.
DOCUMENT
