Against National Sovereignty: The Postcolonial New World Order and the Containment of Decolonization
In this paper, I examine the growing reliance on discourses of autochthony in nationalisms throughout the world. Native-ness (or indigeneity) is increasingly being made a key criterion for claiming national sovereignty over territory, as well as the more amorphous – but no less consequential – clai...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Brock University
2021-01-01
|
Series: | Studies in Social Justice |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://journals.library.brocku.ca/index.php/SSJ/article/view/2286 |
id |
doaj-c9f6513d4e8c4feab3c57b2caeb69975 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-c9f6513d4e8c4feab3c57b2caeb699752021-01-26T07:00:07ZengBrock UniversityStudies in Social Justice1911-47882021-01-0114210.26522/ssj.v14i2.2286Against National Sovereignty: The Postcolonial New World Order and the Containment of DecolonizationNandita Sharma0University of Hawaii at Manoa In this paper, I examine the growing reliance on discourses of autochthony in nationalisms throughout the world. Native-ness (or indigeneity) is increasingly being made a key criterion for claiming national sovereignty over territory, as well as the more amorphous – but no less consequential – claim to national membership. By examining the crucial colonial genealogy of autochthonous discursive practices, I argue that claims to autochthony are metaphysical and, as such, deeply depoliticizing of the exclusions they produce. Drawing upon historical studies showing how imperial-states deployed autocthonous discourses to divide those they categorized as Natives and Migrants from one another in an effort to maintain their imperial rule, I show the continuities of such practices in the Postcolonial New World Order of nation-states. Despite their rhetoric, I argue that contemporary, nationalist discourses of autochthonies have not – and cannot – succeed in realizing decolonization, precisely because of their reliance on modes of political, economic, and social exclusion based on the separation of people categorized as either Native-Nationals or as Migrants. The material force of ideas of Native-Nationalism(s), because they are premised on territorial sovereignty and not on the end of practices of expropriation and exploitation across the planet, are part of the worldwide relations of ruling and not threats to it. https://journals.library.brocku.ca/index.php/SSJ/article/view/2286autochthonysettler-colonialismnational sovereigntypostcolonialism |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Nandita Sharma |
spellingShingle |
Nandita Sharma Against National Sovereignty: The Postcolonial New World Order and the Containment of Decolonization Studies in Social Justice autochthony settler-colonialism national sovereignty postcolonialism |
author_facet |
Nandita Sharma |
author_sort |
Nandita Sharma |
title |
Against National Sovereignty: The Postcolonial New World Order and the Containment of Decolonization |
title_short |
Against National Sovereignty: The Postcolonial New World Order and the Containment of Decolonization |
title_full |
Against National Sovereignty: The Postcolonial New World Order and the Containment of Decolonization |
title_fullStr |
Against National Sovereignty: The Postcolonial New World Order and the Containment of Decolonization |
title_full_unstemmed |
Against National Sovereignty: The Postcolonial New World Order and the Containment of Decolonization |
title_sort |
against national sovereignty: the postcolonial new world order and the containment of decolonization |
publisher |
Brock University |
series |
Studies in Social Justice |
issn |
1911-4788 |
publishDate |
2021-01-01 |
description |
In this paper, I examine the growing reliance on discourses of autochthony in nationalisms throughout the world. Native-ness (or indigeneity) is increasingly being made a key criterion for claiming national sovereignty over territory, as well as the more amorphous – but no less consequential – claim to national membership. By examining the crucial colonial genealogy of autochthonous discursive practices, I argue that claims to autochthony are metaphysical and, as such, deeply depoliticizing of the exclusions they produce. Drawing upon historical studies showing how imperial-states deployed autocthonous discourses to divide those they categorized as Natives and Migrants from one another in an effort to maintain their imperial rule, I show the continuities of such practices in the Postcolonial New World Order of nation-states. Despite their rhetoric, I argue that contemporary, nationalist discourses of autochthonies have not – and cannot – succeed in realizing decolonization, precisely because of their reliance on modes of political, economic, and social exclusion based on the separation of people categorized as either Native-Nationals or as Migrants. The material force of ideas of Native-Nationalism(s), because they are premised on territorial sovereignty and not on the end of practices of expropriation and exploitation across the planet, are part of the worldwide relations of ruling and not threats to it.
|
topic |
autochthony settler-colonialism national sovereignty postcolonialism |
url |
https://journals.library.brocku.ca/index.php/SSJ/article/view/2286 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT nanditasharma againstnationalsovereigntythepostcolonialnewworldorderandthecontainmentofdecolonization |
_version_ |
1724323393564573696 |