From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <nestor-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar>
Date: 	Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:54:36 +0000
Subject: Re: The trouble with nations WAS Re: Is the US postcolonial


El  9 Apr 98 a las 18:16, Kimberly A. Nance nos dice(n):

> 
> Certainly an argument against the US as postcolonial--and in terms
> of postcolonial classification, where would this leave Argentina, or
> some of the other places in Latin America where one might substitute
> "espaņoles" for Englishmen and indigenous peoples for "blacks" in
> the above formulation? The situation is complicated, of course, by
> the rapid replacement of Spanish imperialism by the US version.  


This is an interesting thread, indeed!  Can the substitution be made? 
Is it correct in countries such as Argentina?

The espaņoles mixed with indigenous peoples here. The mean Argentine 
type (both somatically and culturally) is half-caste.  A lot of other 
stock downpoured on this basically half-caste country by the last 
years of the 19th century and first quarter of the 20th (my 
grandparents, for instance).  But even these are mixing up.

As Trevelyan said, "the British race has a stronger feeling of skin 
color than others"  (that is, they seem to be more racist).  The 
situation is complicated further, in the case of Argentina, not by 
the rapid replacement of Spanish imperialism (a characterization that 
may be contested in itself), but by the slow replacement of national 
Spanish American unity by fragmentation and subjection to British 
imperialism (there are a couple of wonderful lines of George Canning 
on this), and, then, by American imperialism. Argentina did not 
become an American colony before 1965...

Well, I hope I am sparking some debate.


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---