Differences And Similarities Between Manjapra And Lowe

This week’s reading pieces contextualize how intrinsically connected colonial regimes and imperial forces are at the hands of Western political entities. Both Manjapra and Lowe dissect certain periods within colonial history that built the power of Western subjectivity towards other countries, peoples, and the land they encroached on. Given both authors wrote similarly about the principles of colonial power and imperial sentiment, their points of emphasis are distinctive in contrast. By tying together their arguments, I showcase the effectiveness of resistance through a deconstructive perspective of exploitative history. Understanding capitalism as the driving force of Western expansion provides insight into how European powers acted, as well
117), where she claims the White European rhetoric around Asian migrant workers throughout the 19th and 20th centuries actively sought to impose societal, political, and economic oppression (pg. 116-17). See the Supports section. Of course, other driving factors of colonial-influenced governance included criminalization, militarization, and often neglect. Lowe provides evidence as to how colonial rule situates itself by targeting local “vagrancy” within Hong Kong, and though British imperialism created this problem, it would not stop the settler government from criminalizing the marginalized by race, class, and gender (pg. 1). 124, 126. The settler government of the United States often answered “the Indian problem” by enforcing militarized raids, massacres, and encampments to fend against any possibility of a pan-Indian social movement. However, Manjapra examines the legal pursuit of liberation from the Cherokee in which they sought to be recognized as a legitimate, sovereign
We should continue to recognize the implications of colonial and imperial regimes throughout these times, but we must also characterize the methods of resistance these subjugated people pursued. I understand my proposal for this response is closely related to Lowe’s parallax approach as well as to Manjapra’s decolonial approach, but it is because it is immensely important to not come to terms with this history from a colonial or an outsider perspective. Means of survival should be prioritized when investigating methods of protests, and for what group are people trying to keep alive? Native nations utilized syncretism of religious views, implemented traditional practices within a modernizing world, occupied strongholds, and combated military presences, among many, many more modes of protest in which they fought for the inherent survival of indigenous peoples. I believe, though to varying degrees, that other exploited, marginalized groups, communities, and nations seek survival in environments (which could be either their’s domestically, or abroad through immigration) where global neoliberalist structures have everything put against