Rethinking Border Crossing Mobility
Dr. Mohamed Nouhi
Ibn Zohr University – Agadir – Morocco
Abstract:
The ongoing process of cross-border movements becomes an inherent feature of the modern world order. This paper seeks to provide a critical scrutiny about the ontologies of border crossing from the ex-colonies to Europe. It attempts to spotlight the dynamics of the obsessive drive to cross the border to the North and to theorize the multifaceted ethics and politics of migration vis-à-vis the immigrant subject, the postcolonial state, and the West as the most preferable destination for border-crossers.
[ Keyswords: Rethinking, migration, Crossing Mobility, the North, the West].
ملخص:
إن العملية المتواصلة للحركات العابرة للحدود أضحت سمة متأصلة في النظام العالمي الحديث. وإذ تسعى هذه الورقة البحثية إلى بسط فحص نقذي دقيق لأنطولوجيات الهجرة من المستعمرات السابقة إلى أوروبا، فإنها تحاول أيضا تسليط الضوء على ديناميات الرغبة الجامحة للعبور نحو الشمال، وطرح إطار نظري لفهم أخلاقيات وسياسات الهجرة المتعددة الجوانب سواء ما تعلق منها بالذات المهاجرة، أو بدولة ما بعد الاستعمار الموطن الأصلي للمهاجرين، أو بالغرب باعتباره الوجهة المفضلة لملايين المهاجرين.
[الكلمات المفتاح: مراجعات، الهجرة، عبور الحدود، الشمال، الغرب]
Loading…
Reload document
Open in new tab In contemporary political and legal theory, borders are the signifying markers of political order and the exclusive surveillance regime of the state’s territorial, cultural, and institutional definitions. According to Thierry Baudet, “borders define jurisdictions”[1], claiming the right of the state to impose its regulating bio-power on its subjects and its territoriality. This paper argues that border crossing is a multi-dimensional phenomenon in scope and intensity. It is a powerful tool of subversion that profoundly disrupts the defining features of the long-standing spacio-political order of the post-independence state. Mobility across borders is an engagement with empowerment strategies. It signifies a perpetual quest for stability, freedom, and dignity beyond the shackles of geographical, historical, social, and cultural boundaries. It is an emancipatory project, which opens up a liberating outlet from the confines of subalternity, passivity, and marginalization towards change, empowerment, and better living conditions. It is deeply rooted in human agency and resistance. Since agency denotes people’s historical and political consciousness in making decisions and pursuing cultural «projects» they seek to accomplish, border crossing signals the immigrants’ strong resolution to overcome their crippling economic hardship and their audacious decision to escape the acute living conditions for a bright future horizon, full of promising possibilities and opportunities.
In this regard, the dynamics of oscillating between borders provides crucial insights for understanding migration as a new outlook of the postcolonial condition. As a process on the move and in permanent flux, migration constructs a new identity for the immigrant, imposes a great challenge to the stability of the self, and inflicts a fundamental threat to the organic fabric of cultural homogeneity. It forges the formation of a new subject who is in perpetual transit and transformation, seeking a redefinition of one’s position in his homeland and in the world. For Steven H. Clark, migration represents the instability of the subject, “a subject that belongs to no dialectic that eludes the logic of identity. It is a subject for whom the origin or (home) is from the beginning a displacement and cannot thus be fixed.” [2]
Crossing the border, or mobility to the other side of the fence, heralds the end of strong attachments to the place of origin, and transcends the underlying foundations of cultural and territorial boundaries. Moving across and beyond borderlands disturbs the ideological maneuvers of fixed identities and cultural boundedness. It is similar to what the Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai calls in his influential essay “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Political Economy” a process of “de-territorialization” involving a subjectivity of dynamic change, a post-territorial sensibility of multiple belongings and consciousnesses. In this interstitial zone, the subject is “neither here nor there,” but in the “beyond” inhabiting the position of liminality, in-betweeness, and cross-cultural inter-connectedness. Inhabiting this liminal space reveals that migration is not a physical movement from one place to another, but it is psychological move to the other side of difference as well. The transition between the inside and the outside, between the place of origin and the place of destination registers a new transformation of consciousness in which “neither the points of departure nor those of arrival are immutable or certain, [it] calls for a dwelling in language, in histories, in identities, that are constantly subject to mutation. Always in transit, the promise of homecoming… becomes an impossibility.”[3] In this context, the postcolonial Indian scholar Homi Bhabha identifies this situation as a “third space” of dis/identification demarcating new line-breaks through the crossing movement and a new mode of being in the world. He confirms that
the possibilities of being somehow, in between, of occupying an interstitial space that was not fully governed by the recognizable traditions from which you came. For the interaction or over-determination often produces another third space . . . a space that is skeptical of cultural totalization, of notions of identity which depend for their authority on being ‘originary’ or concepts of culture which depend for their value on being pure . . . a cultural identification which subverted authority.[4]
Such subjectivity creates not only conjunctions and disruptures in its mobility, but also a de-localization of cultural practices. It brings about endless transactions between sameness and alterity, and thus reshapes the making and remaking of geographical spheres and cultural trans/formations. As a result, it leads to the emergence of what Chandra Mohanty calls forms of “trans-border democratic citizenship”[5]. Likewise, Trinh T. Minh-ha strongly argues that
Every voyage can be said to involve a re-sitting of boundaries. The travelling self is here both the self that moves physically from one place to another, following ‘public routes and beaten tracks’ within a mapped movement; and the self that embarks on an undetermined journeying practice, having constantly to negotiate between home and abroad, native culture and adopted culture, or more creatively speaking, between here, there, and elsewhere.[6]
As a real postcolonial condition, crossing the border is associated with the semantics of hope, escape, and a search for self-fulfillment. It registers the liberation of the self from the constraints of national confinement and denotes the struggle of a huge exodus of oppressed people, persecuted victims, and political refugees longing for a safe asylum, because the homeland becomes a hazardous place and a threatening space for its inhabitants. From this perspective, James Clifford maintains that “physical mobility is the being of emancipatory practice, because it generates stasis-disrupting forms of cultural displacement.”[7]
What is more, this strong aspiration towards cross-border mobility makes the notion of loyalty to the nation-state a mere fantasy. It is another “force of fragmentation”[8] transcending the prevailing orthodoxy of territorial authority and power forces of the state. As an evidence, the majority of border movers reshape a new cultural identity for themselves: they identify themselves and are usually identified as the ‘Harragha’, the ‘illegal’, the ‘undocumented’, the ‘clandestine immigrants’, ‘les sans papiers’, and the ‘de-nationalized’ individuals. Such reconceptualization generates for them a new pattern of identity undermining the underlying bonds of belonging and deepening the belief, that attachment to state territoriality becomes an imagined concept leaving the ground for an ongoing process of the inextricable diaspora networks. In Moroccan dialect, the term ‘Harraga’ denotes “those who burn,” either their identity papers, their routes, their past, their lives, their futures, or those who relentlessly burn with passion and desire to reach Europe. Etymologically speaking, it is derived from “Lahrig” denoting an obsessive drive of ‘crossing’ (‘ubur, in Moroccan Arabic), of going beyond, even at the risk of being separated from oneself, from home or of dying. Semiotically, “to burn” means to pass through the hot flames of ordeals and distress for the purification of the soul, the mind and the body to attain liberation and social change. Gloria Anzaldua claims that social change and freedom cannot be achieved unless the essence of a person changes. She believes that “the struggle is inner…the struggle has always been inner… and is played out in outer terrains. Awareness of our situation must come before inner changes, which in turn come before changes in society. Nothing happens in the real world unless it first happens in the images in our heads.”[9] From Anzaldua’s perspective, one can contends that “Lahrig” is a significantly energizing driving force for self-transformation. It is the first step to block the fears of the soul, and to overcome the inner apprehensions before initiating action for change and before exploiting the possibilities for self-emancipation. It is the “fuel” for breaking out the prison of one’s instincts, emotions, and cognition, for the sake of undergoing a profound transformation, and for deepening one’s range of perceptions and visions.
Because of this inner and profound transformation, the person who previously lived as stigmatized and marginalized by the logic of domination no longer accepts to play that role. Rather, he “incinerates” the barriers that impede his movement to clear up his way, and to open up a new liberating space from the shackles of subalternity, dispossession, and oppression. “Lahrig” can be seen as the initial stage of the borderland process, which Anzaldua defines, as Nepantla states, where the self is going through the process of transiting inside the mind, the psyche, and the spirit simultaneously in order to achieve the “awakened dreams” revolving all around shifts. “Thought shifts, reality shifts. . . one-person metamorphoses into another in a world where people fly through the air, heal from mortal wounds. I am playing with my Self, I am playing with the world’s soul … I change myself, I change the world.”[10] Burning one’s identity papers means traveling through nepantla denoting the ability to challenge, to confront, and to reaffirm that there are various ways of knowing, that there are many possibilities of learning, of being and of conceiving the world outside the epistemologies of race, identity and nation. “Lahrig”, in this sense, is the passion to perceive reality in a different way. It is the inner urge to re-interpret one’s story of life, and to think otherwise. It is the moment when one stops to be caged in others’ boxes, and the wish to re-construct one’s self in a new place, in a new world, and in a new reality. Such situation reminds one of the pertinence of Michel Foucault’s quotation concerning self-definition: “do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order.”[11] He continues to argue that “the point is not to discover what we are, but to refuse what we are.” From this stance, ‘lahrig’ constitutes the channel for crossing through nepantla’s multiplicity of choices. As Anzaldua explains,
In Nepantla, you are exposed, open to other perspectives, more readily able to access knowledge derived from inner feelings, imaginal states, and outer events, and to see through them with a mindful, holistic awareness. Seeing through . . . allows you to examine the ways you construct knowledge, identity, and reality.
Moreover, the notion of ‘Lahrig’ finds a solid ground in the story of the historic figure of Tariq Ibn Ziyad the conqueror of Andalusia. In order to lift the spirits of his soldiers, and to boost their zealous determination for the war, he set fire to the fleet that had transported them, and addressed his troops with his famous rousing speech in which he told them there is no option for retreat:
I have now burnt the ships, and now there is no return for us and here we will conquer or die fighting. Oh my worriers, whither would you flee? The enemy is in front of you, and the sea is behind. Where is there to run? By Allah, there is no salvation for you but in your courage and your constancy. Here you are of this Island like so many orphans cast upon the world. You will soon be met by a powerful enemy surrounding you on all sides . . . But know that if you only suffer for a while, you will reap in the end an abundant harvest of pleasures and enjoyments.[12]
At the semiotic level, Tariq Ibn Ziyad’s decision to burn his fleet after journeying to the other shore destabilizes geopolitical borders and generates new cultural meanings, practices and identities. It can be an effective strategy for facing the cultural shock at the moment of cross-cultural transition and coping effectively with the demands of the situation in terms of the unfamiliarity with the climatic, physical, socio-political and linguistic difficulties. It is symbolically suggestive of charting new routes and novel directions instead of being caught in the confines of roots. Burning the fleet can also be read as a decisive resolution to erase the artificial dividing lines between the north and south banks of the Mediterranean, for the sake of creating a borderless world across which people can flow naturally and cross to the other shore transcending all kinds of enclosure within one’s territorial limits. Indeed, it is a mode of oscillating between “here” and “there”, of swinging back and forth between “Home” and “away”, between “inside” and “outside”. In this frontier-zone, stretching away and across from the border, people share to a greater and lesser extent, a sense of identity and culture that is both similar and different from that found on either sides of the divide. From this outlook, the notion of ‘burning’ either the fleet or one’s identity is an innovative way of dwelling between the multidimensional cultures of the Mediterranean seashores. It is the axiomatic process of feeding this contested cultural milieu with pluralistic acculturation, dynamic interaction, and complex networks leading to the emergence and the evolution of a transnational “new mestiza consciousness”[13] and therefore challenging not only the markers of statist claims of authority and territoriality, but also eroding the feelings of xenophobia, hostility, contemptuousness, and paranoia. According to Gupta and Ferguson, the mobile subjects, brings about a “profound sense of a loss of territorial roots” and an “erosion of the cultural distinctiveness of places.”[14]
Furthermore, movement across borders denotes an active act of disturbance and contestation as it foregrounds the complexity of the relationship between power and politics. It deeply interrogates the credibility of the post-colonial national state to curb the growing degradation of socio-economic conditions of its citizens. It radically questions the ability of the postcolonial state to fix the complex structural imbalances to improve the quality of living for its citizens. It spotlights the corruption of the postcolonial system that generates feelings of psychological discomfort, social injustice, and economic misery for its citizens pushing them to “burn” their lives for the sake of gaining a living elsewhere. It provides a feasible scope for blaming the postcolonial state of exacerbating the rising proportion of inequity, injustice, and impoverishment among its compatriots. In this context, the contention of George Ayittey is pertinent though he focuses on Africa in the postcolonial era. He maintains that
The African story is indeed a tragedy of one betrayal after another. When black Africa asked for its freedom and independence from white colonial rule, it did not ask black neocolonialists and military despots to impose another alien rule on Africa that would destroy its indigenous institutions and slaughter its people.[15]
In such deteriorating circumstances, the citizens have only few hard options for them: either to burn themselves in public as an act of bitter disappointment and a perplexing challenge of oppression as in the case of the street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi, the icon of the Tunisian revolution, whose self-immolation in 2010 sparked the winds of change in the whole region. The second choice is what we notice in the ongoing exodus of thousands of immigrants struggling every day to flee away from different markers of violence, torture, discrimination, persecution, marginalization, and exclusion in their homelands. By way of illustration, the post-independence states of Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Iraq have confronted the Arab Spring revolts and protests with horrific waves of genocide, massacres, mass-arrestations, and intense displacement of civilians. The ruling classes in these countries mainly in Syria and Egypt have expressed a vehement will to rule tyrannically regardless of the fact that the absolute power of those regimes leads to acute instability, the eruption of civil wars, economic depression, political unrest, human rights abuses, the tremendous increase in refugees’ numbers, or reducing the whole country to smoldering rubble. Similar atrocities, ethnic cleansing, mass-killing, and cataclysmic insecurities had been witnessed in different regions and different historical periods all over the world. For instance, Rwanda had been the battleground for terrific armed conflict. In Algeria, the memory of the civil war which broke up as a result of the cancellation of the elections results in the late eighties still heavily daunts Algerians. Myanmar where Rohingya Muslims minority are suffering deadly traumatic horrors. These examples explain the reason why millions of people are forcibly crossing the borders looking for a place of safety since their postcolonial states fails to protect them or become the major source transforming home into a site of brutality, bloodshed, danger, fear, and disturbance against its citizens. According to Jansen and Löfving (2007), there exists a strong relationship between “violence, displacement, and emplacement. They are the fundamental practices that (re)constitute conceptions, embodiments, and inhabitations of space.”[16]
In such conditions wherein the human lives are continually under threat or attack, a demand for freedom of cross-border movement for survival becomes an urgent necessity and a supreme goal though it creates a big loss of professionals, highly skilled experts, and talented intellectual elite. From this standpoint, migratory mobility strongly contributes to the eclipse of the raison d’état ideology of the postcolonial state and the disintegration of its integrity. It leads to the weakness of the underlying ties between the citizen/immigrant and his political affiliation with the state institutions at home, which becomes a mere utopian abstraction though it has been constructed in the statist rhetoric as “a place of harmony providing a homogeneous haven of refuge from external conflict.”[17] This movement across borders makes the mover a political dissident with new patters of longing and belonging who finds great relief and blessed satisfaction in exile or diaspora that might provide him with psychological solace and ontological escape from the traumatic memories and dreadful experiences in his old sacred mythical homeland. It deeply orchestrates with Shelley Mallet’s paradigm describing “home as journey”[18], emphasizing the conceptualization, that home-making is a continuous process/ practice and not a fixed act in temporality or spatiality. It is a form of dwelling in the transitional condition between the previous home and the future ideal home by defying the situation of “not being where one wants to be.” It is a quest for the normative value of safety that can be found beyond the reaches of the actual experience of ‘being-at-home’ in one’s own place of origin.
Moreover, migration provides a pertinent perspective on power relationship between Europe and its ex-colonies. It re-invokes the interrogation of the institutionalization of uneven development of global economy and unequal distribution of power between Europe and Africa. In Marxist thinking, the essence of uneven development is the simultaneous concentrations of wealth and capital for capitalists, on the one hand, and poverty and oppression for the subalterns on the other. The divided geographies of the affluent North and the impoverished South, and the connected processes of development and underdevelopment are grounded in what David Harvey calls the system of “accumulation by dispossession”[19] which has been crucial for the development of modern global capitalism. Harvey’s principle reveals that capital monopoly and concentration in Europe has been the ultimate result of colonizing and dispossessing the ex-colonies, of looting their natural resources, of draining their wealth, and of exploiting their labor for long decades. For the neo-Marxist critic Samir Amin, uneven development manifests itself in the ongoing economic and cultural dependency of the third world, especially African countries, on Europe. By framing migration as a by-product of unevenness between the center and the periphery, border-crossing ontologically transposes a profound interrogation of the legacy of colonialism that continues to bleed Africa to feed the privileged interests of the Empire. By way of illustration, Giorgio Spagnol demonstrates that France is living off the wealth of African countries by stealing their gold, diamonds, and other natural resources:
After World War II, the colonial pact maintained the French control over the economies of the African states; it took possession of their foreign currency reserves. It controlled the strategic raw materials of the country; it stationed troops in the country with the right of free passage; it demanded that all military equipment be acquired from France; it took over the training of the African police and army; it required that French businesses be allowed to maintain monopoly enterprises in key areas (water, electricity, ports, transport, energy, etc.). France not only set limits on the imports of a range of items from outside the franc zone but also set minimum quantities of imports from France. These treaties are still in force and operational. . . . Besides being forced to pay a “colonial debt”, 14 Western and Central African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville and Gabon) have their national reserves held by France into France’s Central Bank. It is estimated that France now holds nearly $500 billion every year of African countries’ money in its treasury and will do anything to keep it. Moreover, the African countries do not have access to this money. In fact, France forced its former colonies – CFA countries – to put 65% of their foreign currency reserves into the French Treasury, plus another 20% for financial liabilities, thus leaving them access to only 15% of their own money.[20]
What is more, cross-border mobility epistemologically provides a counter-discourse destabilizing the ideology of Western humanism. It forges a direct penetrating critique against the systematic coercive measures to police the border in front of waves of immigrants from the ex-colonies whose forefathers had successfully contributed to the liberation of colonial powers during the first and second World Wars. Instead of welcoming them as a sign of gratitude and acknowledgment, the European border becomes a space of prohibitions and inhibitions against «the wretched of the earth»[21]. It continually chronicles many facets of the traumatic experiences of countless immigrants from different nationalities who are subjected to displacement, victimization, torture, humiliation, loss, rape, death, captivity, deportation, and many other kinds of dehumanization, in radical contradiction to the West’s ideological presuppositions to defend the ethics of Enlightenment, Universalism, and Humanism. This perspective brings to the fore the pertinence of Gloria Anzaldua’s argument about the tragic fate involved in the process of border crossing: “do not enter; trespassers will be raped, maimed, strangled, gassed, shot. The only legitimate inhabitants are those in power, the whites and those who align themselves with the whites.”[22]
In short, border crossing is an empowering tool of self-fulfilment through which the oppressed subvert subordination, battle against historical omission, and inscribe their perspectives in history and politics in a powerful challenge to all kinds of pre-determined ethics and politics of the postcolonial state. As it draws attention to this double victimization of the immigrant inside the native country and in the process of transiting abroad, border crossing forges a counter-discourse for decolonizing the border. Such decolonization is a vital step to bridge the huge divide and unequal division between the margin and the center generated by the colonial heritage of the West obliging thousands of the ex-colonised to knock the doors of the Europeans to grant a living.
References
- Anzaldua, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987.
- Ayittey, George. Africa Betrayed. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1992.
- Baudet, Thierry. The Significance of Borders Why Representative Government and the Rule of Law Require Nation States. Boston: Brill, 2012.
- Clark, Steven H. Travel Writing and Empire: Postcolonial Theory in Transit. London: Zed, 1999.
- Demmers, J. Theories of Violent Conflict: An Introduction. London and New York: 2012.
- Giroux, Henry A. Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. New York: Routledge, 2005.
- Gupta, A., and Ferguson, J. “Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference”, Cultural Anthropology 1992 7(1):6-23.
- Hampshire, James. The Politics of Immigration Contradictions of the Liberal State.Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013.
- Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
- Jansen, S. and Löfving, S. “Introduction: Movement, Violence, and the Making of Home”, Focaal – European Journal of Anthropology (2007) 49:3-14.
- Mallett, S. “Understanding Home: a Critical Review of the Literature”, the Sociological Review 52(1):62-89. (2004)
- Mohanty, Chandra T. Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity.London: Duke, 2003.
- Olwig, K. “Contesting Homes: Home-Making and the Making of Anthropology” in Rapport,
- N. and Dawson, A. (ed.) Migrants of Identity: Perceptions of Home in a World in Movement. Oxford: Berg, 1998.
- Routledge. Dovey, K. “Homes and Homelessness”, in Altman, I., and Werner, C. (ed.) Home Environments. New York: Plenum Press, 1985.
- Sarah, Song. Immigration and Democracy. New York: Oxford, 2019.
- Young, Robert. White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. London: Routledge, 1990.
[1] Thierry Baudet, The Significance of Borders Why Representative Government and the Rule of Law Require Nation States (Boston: Brill, 2012) 4.
[2] Steven H. Clark, Travel Writing and Empire: Postcolonial Theory in Transit (London: Zed, 1999) 65.
[3] Ian Chamber, Migrancy, Culture, Identity (London: Routledge University Press, 1994) 5.
[4] Homi Bhabha, “Between Identities: Homi Bhabha Interviewed by Paul Thompson,” in Migration and Identity, ed. Rina Benmayor and Andor Skotnes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 190.
[5] Chandra T. Mohanty, Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity (London: Duke University Press, 2003) 248.
[6] Trinh T. Minh-ha, Elsewhere, within Here: Immigration, Refugeeism and the Boundary Event (London: Routledge, 2011) 27.
[7] James Clifford, Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1997) 297.
[8] See James N. Rosenau, “the governance of Fragmegration: Neither a World Republic nor a Global Interstate System”, the International Political Science Association, (Quebec City, 1990) 5.
[9] Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987) 87.
[10] Ibid., p. 71.
[11] Micheal Foucault, the Archaeology of Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1989) 17.
[12] Frederick Sayers, the History of Gibraltar and its Political Relation to Events in Europe: From the Commencement of Moorish Dynasty in Spain to the Last Morocco War (London: John Childs and Son, 1862) 101.
[13] Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands/La Frontera, 216.
[14] Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, “Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference”, Cultural Anthropology 7(1), 1992, 6-23:9.
[15] George Ayittey, Africa Betrayed (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1992) 12.
[16] Stef Jansen and Staffan Löfving, “Introduction: Movement, Violence, and the Making of Home”, Focaal – European Journal of Anthropology 49, 2007, 3-14.
[17] Karen Fog Olwig, “Contesting Homes: Home-Making and the Making of Anthropology” in Rapport, N. and Dawson, A. (ed.) Migrants of Identity: Perceptions of Home in a World in Movement (Oxford: Berg, 1998) 225-36.
[18] Shelley Mallett, “Understanding Home: a Critical Review of the Literature”, the Sociological Review vol. 52, n.1, 2004, pp. 62-89.
[19] David Harvey, the New Imperialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) 144.
[20] Giorgio Spagnol, “IS France Still Exploiting Africa?”, Institut Européen des Relations Internationales, February 2019. http://www.ieri.be/en/publications/wp/2019/f-vrier/france-still-exploiting-africa.
[21] This term is coined by Frantz Fanon to describe the colonized people who are doomed to live under colonial domination and economic exploitation.
[22] Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987) 7. XeltovoPrime