Introduction 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. I am not the first to study these kinds of migrations. For other examples, see Puri (2003), Grosfoguel (1994–1995), as well as the scholarship on négropolitans in the case of the French Caribbean (Delsham 2000, Dibango and Rouard 1989, Burton 1995) and Nuyorícans in the case of Puerto Rico (Flores 2008, Duany 2002). My contribution is to focus on these kinds of intracolonial displacements as a key component to rethink postcolonial cultural productions in the insular Caribbean. 2. We should keep in mind that most countries of the Anglo-Caribbean became nations between 1962 and 1983 and that British colonialism followed a differ- ent model than French and Spanish colonialism. As such, postcolonial theory produced from an Anglo perspective cannot be easily applied to the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America. 3. I review some of the main debates and limitations in postcolonial theory in Martínez-San Miguel (2009c). 4. This marginalization of the Caribbean is also noticeable in recent anthologies that do not engage with the Caribbean as a central region to interrogate Latin American postcolonial studies. For example, in Moraña, Dussel and Jáuregui (2008), the Caribbean is the central theme in only one of the 23 essays included. 5. I exclude jibarismo from the list of notions used to allude to hybridity in the Caribbean since, in the case of Puerto Rico, this term was frequently used to refer to the white peasant sectors at the expense of the mestizo or mulatto populations, as such displacing cultural or racial mixing from identity discourses in the island. 6. One of the main problems in the application of postcolonial studies to the Caribbean case is that none of the existing definitions takes into account the particular condition of countries that are not yet in a political situation that can be conceived as beyond colonialism. In the case of those countries, the study of the modes of resistance against colonialism (the alternative definition proposed by Ashcroft et al. 1995, 7) would imply the inclusion of their whole historical development under one single period, instead of referring to a particular period of time in which colonialism has been inflected differently. This lack of specificity of the postcolonial is what makes the revision proposed here useful, so we can apply this framework to the Caribbean context. 198 ● Notes 7. For a critical reflection on the limitations of Mignolo’s epistemology of coloniality, see Martín Alcoff (2007). 8. I am referring specifically to the fact that in the Caribbean the political model of colonialism-nationalism is articulated in a very different manner. First, we should keep in mind that the key dates for the decolonization processes take place much later than the first three decades of the nineteenth century—as is the case in most of Central and South America. Second, it is important to note that the consti- tution of national states is not the predominant paradigm for many islands in the Caribbean, and in the cases in which sovereign states were formed, the dates of formal independence are much later than the ones of other Latin American countries. These key differences between Caribbean and Latin American histori- cal and political processes, as well as the differences in how Caribbean and Latin American studies are conceived in the United States vs. Latin America and the Caribbean, has been the source of a heated debate among historians, social scien- tists, and cultural critics during the past two decades. For a summary of the main arguments and positions of these debate, see Escobar (2006). 9. I want to acknowledge my debt to Vicente Rafael’s scholarship on the Philippines, especially his books Contracting Colonialism (1993) and The Promise of the Foreign (2005), because in both of these texts Rafael points to the specific structure and inflection of the extended colonial experience in the Philippines. It was by reading his work that I realized that the Caribbean and the Philippines shared a similar colonial experience and that perhaps focusing on some common structures and manifestations of colonialism and coloniality could be fruitful in my own work. I shared some of my ideas with Professor Rafael during his visit to Rutgers in the Spring of 2009, when he offered a one-week graduate workshop on the case of the Philippines as part of my graduate course entitled precisely “Extended Postcolonialities.” 10. I am adopting US American to refer to the United States from Maldonado- Torres (2008). Yarimar Bonilla is researching the issue of the sovereignty in the Caribbean as part of her current book project entitled “Non-Sovereign Futures.” She has already published an article in which she describes this new project, and notes, for example, that from the 45 countries that constitute the insular and con- tinental Caribbean, only 12 are sovereign and independent states, while 12 are independent states within the British Commonwealth of Nations, 6 are overseas territories of UK, 3 are overseas departments of France, 4 are unincorporated ter- ritories of the United States, 3 are “constituent countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands,” 3 are special municipalities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and 2 are overseas collectivities of France (2013, 209–212). 11. Glissant defines relation as “Rhizomatic thought ...in which each and every identity is extended through a relationship with the Other” (1997a, 11) and “archipelic thinking” as “it means, precisely, to be in harmony with whatever in the world is scattered through archipelagoes, these kind of diversity of extent that join shores and horizons together” (original in French in1997b, 31, translation to English in Hiepko 2003, 237). Notes ● 199 12. Grosfoguel first developed this theoretical interrogation of the exhaustion of the binary opposition between colonialism and nationalism to study the case of Puerto Rico in collaboration with Frances Negrón Muntaner, in Negrón Muntaner and Grosfoguel, eds. (1997). Ramón E. Soto-Crespo takes this same idea as the point of departure of his book Mainland Passage (2009). 13. This is the case of the radical statehood manifesto (estadidad radical), that was advanced by a group of Puerto Rican critics and scholars as a decolonizing option for Puerto Rico. The idea behind radical statehood was to transform the island into an Afro-Latino and Caribbean state of the United States, to solve the political status of the island and to achieve political equality within the United States. On radical statehood, please see the original text of the manifesto Duchesne, Juan, et al. 2007, translated into English by James Seale Collazo (Duchesne, Juan et al. 2008). 14. Buscaglia uses mulataje as the Caribbean counterpoint to the Latin American paradigm of mestizaje, because in the Caribbean, miscegenation is mostly imag- ined as taking place between European whites and African blacks, while in Mexico this same process usually refers to the offspring produced from interracial relationships between European whites and indigenous subjects. The first use of mulataje that I know of is in Gabriela Mistral’s essay entitled “El tipo del indio americano” in 1932 (Fiol-Matta 2002, 18, 25, 24–28) that she uses to differentiate the Mexican and Brazilian racial imaginaries. 15. Buscaglia-Salgado’s proposal here is similar to José Luis González’s definition of the first Puerto Rican as a black subject in “El país de cuatro pisos” (1976). 16. Klor de Alva (1992, 1995) questions the postcolonial process in Latin America, since criollos cannot be considered foreigners in these countries. 17. For more information see Roberts and Stephens (2013) and Martínez-San Miguel (2012a). Chapter 1 1. See the Introduction for a more detailed definition of extended colonialism. 2. http://www.etymonline.com/ 3. Chapters 1 and 2 share a common argument, since they explore a similar question in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries: the place of piracy and filibusterismo in the foundation of a form of intracolonial displacement that is not necessarily protonationalist. From now on, I will refer to these two texts as Infortunios and Nouveau vogage, respectively. 4. I include a definition of “coloniality of diaspora” in the section entitled “Key- words and Debates” in the Introduction of this book. 5. Ramírez’s representation of his escape from Puerto Rico to avoid his father’s pro- fession is quite eloquent. Not only does it signal a literal lack of opportunity for the protagonist if he were to follow the tradition to learn his father’s trade, but it also points to an interesting colonial interpretation of the foundational psycho- analytical “death of the father/death of the name of the father” that serves as the 200 ● Notes point of departure for this implicit testimony of a colonial vassal that becomes a pirate to be transformed into an imperial vassal upon his return to the New Spain. This narrative is not exceptional, as we know that Captain Henry Morgan was also a pirate who raided the insular Caribbean and was later appointed as Lieutenant Governor of Jamaica (1664–1665) in recognition for all the goods he claimed for the English crown. So as we can see, in the late seventeenth century, the frontier between hero and pirate was very permeable, and as such, Ramírez represents another liminal subject that questions the logics of inclusion and exclusion of the Spanish empire during the second half of the seventeenth century. 6. For a reading of the Infortunios as a complicit text between creoles Ramírez, Sigüenza and Ayerra de Santa María, the censor and editor of the text respec- tively, that protects Ramirez’s integrity as a loyal Spanish vassal and questions the imperial motive behind the Conde de Galve’s interest in publishing this text, see Buscaglia-Salgado 2011, 77–84.