I see some angry arguments in the comments. The more interesting critique of Mignolo comes from Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui (2012), who calls out Mignolo and Anibal Quijano for epistemological extractivism by repackaging the ideas of Indigenous scholars and presenting them as their own. I enjoy reading Mignolo, but now I read with caution. We must remember that Latin America contains many worlds, and within Latin American academe, white privilege also exists.
Ricardo, mil gracias ¿a cuál trabajo de Rivera Cusicanqui te refieres? ¿Violencias (re) encubiertas en Bolivia? Me atrevo a pensar que más bien te refieres a Ch’ixinakax utxiwa que es del 2010.
this guy ignores so many historical facts... his speech is just propaganda without any real criticism. it's amazing that so many people think he is an intellectual, he is just a charlatán
he is only repeating the well-known lies of the black legend, he speaks of genocide and slavery in a way that they never existed in america. He does not differentiate between the many forms of imperialism that have dominated the world and conquered africa, asia, america and even europe! he compares two images tendentiously without noticing that only in the direction in which the thumbs point there is already a monstrous difference. he is just saying what the ignorants neo-marxists want to hear... it is not real history, is old propaganda already debunked
It's not propaganda or history, its IR Theory, which you clearly do not understand. He knows genocide and slavery happened in America he is just talking about how we understand these facts from a Eurocentric critical view of Eurocentrism (yeah, of itself) and that our knowledge (about history, that constructs our concepts) has a Coloniality to it. He is not a Neo-Marxist for he is not speaking about Classes not in people, not in states and not in institutions, I don't even know why you said this, I think you are just trying to use "big words". He is speaking about how the Coloniality (not the same thing as Colonization) of our knowledge is parallel to the epiphery, in practice, to that analyzed by a Post-Modernity framework from a World System view and how it differentiates from the Western Civilisation knowledge and how to decolonialize information (which of the "histories" helps understand and construct your concepts). Your right it's not real history, thats not what he is about, he is a theorist. So he is definitely not a "charlatàn" you just don't understand IR Theory nor what he was saying.
Una de las lecturas más importantes que he visto y oído, como artista y como latinoamericano.
😊qq111aaaqaa❤❤❤qqqqqaq❤q❤❤q❤❤qqqq1qqqqqqqq1❤1qqqqqq❤❤❤❤❤
I see some angry arguments in the comments. The more interesting critique of Mignolo comes from Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui (2012), who calls out Mignolo and Anibal Quijano for epistemological extractivism by repackaging the ideas of Indigenous scholars and presenting them as their own. I enjoy reading Mignolo, but now I read with caution. We must remember that Latin America contains many worlds, and within Latin American academe, white privilege also exists.
Ricardo, mil gracias ¿a cuál trabajo de Rivera Cusicanqui te refieres? ¿Violencias (re) encubiertas en Bolivia? Me atrevo a pensar que más bien te refieres a Ch’ixinakax utxiwa que es del 2010.
Indigenous scholars such as?
@@atharvbaghel2658 The Bolivian Philosopher, Juan José Bautista Segales is an Indigenous thinker to read.
Thanks that was helpful
Muito informativo. Obrigada
gracias! 🙌🏾 bout it!
2024, who else is watching ?
GOAT
sponsored by UBS though...
this guy ignores so many historical facts... his speech is just propaganda without any real criticism. it's amazing that so many people think he is an intellectual, he is just a charlatán
Do you have arguments to illustrate your words? (I'm not looking for a fight lol, just curious to understand you)
he is only repeating the well-known lies of the black legend, he speaks of genocide and slavery in a way that they never existed in america. He does not differentiate between the many forms of imperialism that have dominated the world and conquered africa, asia, america and even europe! he compares two images tendentiously without noticing that only in the direction in which the thumbs point there is already a monstrous difference. he is just saying what the ignorants neo-marxists want to hear... it is not real history, is old propaganda already debunked
Any academic sources on those points?
It's not propaganda or history, its IR Theory, which you clearly do not understand. He knows genocide and slavery happened in America he is just talking about how we understand these facts from a Eurocentric critical view of Eurocentrism (yeah, of itself) and that our knowledge (about history, that constructs our concepts) has a Coloniality to it. He is not a Neo-Marxist for he is not speaking about Classes not in people, not in states and not in institutions, I don't even know why you said this, I think you are just trying to use "big words". He is speaking about how the Coloniality (not the same thing as Colonization) of our knowledge is parallel to the epiphery, in practice, to that analyzed by a Post-Modernity framework from a World System view and how it differentiates from the Western Civilisation knowledge and how to decolonialize information (which of the "histories" helps understand and construct your concepts). Your right it's not real history, thats not what he is about, he is a theorist. So he is definitely not a "charlatàn" you just don't understand IR Theory nor what he was saying.
@@ginocvlli wow you explained decoloniality so great.