I need an academic writer for two 750 word short essays, a total of 1500 words.
The essays are theoretical overviews or summaries of some of the extant theory relating to each of the questions (provided below).
Each Question has texts (which I've provided) that need to be incorporated into the essay, and the writer should find at least 5 additional sources for each question.
The essays must be fully referenced in the Chicago style.
The Broad subject is Cultural Studies in Latin America..
Question 1 (750 words): (texts 1, 2, and 3)
In and interview, Walter Mignolo speaks about the “geo-politics of knowledge” and the importance of taking note of the local imprint that structures any form of knowledge, be it recognised with this term or not. He says:
[translation from Spanish]
"Not thinking in the first place, that what counts as knowledge is in certain languages and comes from certain places. And not thinking that the Zapatistas have been producing a theoretical, political and ethical revolution, such that, for example, I base myself in Bourdieu or in sociological methods to understand the Zapatistas, then what I do is reproduce the colonisation of knowledge, denying the possibility that knowledge produced by the Zapatistas about the socio-historic situation in Latin America is more relevant than that of Jurgen Habermas. One of the negative consequences of the geo-politics of knowledge is that thought is prevented from being generated by alternate sources, that it drinks from different waters. Gosh, how am I going to think about civil society and “inclusion” without Habermas or Taylor? How am I going to think about the Zapatistas or about Fanon, who produced knowledge based on different histories, the history of black slavery in the Atlantic and the history of the European colonisation of indigenous peoples in the Americas?"
What consequences do his observations have for those (of us) who produce knowledge in english (or another language whose dominance is due to a colonial history) and from the academy? What relation between theory, knowledge and practice is implied by his approach?
Question 2 (750 words): (texts 4, 5, and 6)
“Indigenous,” as a category of identification, is rooted in the colonial agenda and is an act of undifferentiated classification of a variety of communities and cultures. Connected to the creation of the “indio” as a recognisable subject, this category has undergone numerous semantic recyclings and political transformations, yet remains in use today as a mark of identification for a plurality of collective bodies, that, under its umbrella, demand both political autonomy and respect for cultural difference.
Some people(s) reject the term 'indigenous' for this homogenising potential, they consider it not to have cultural meaning beyond the concession of their existence as a juridical category, an indispensable cultural objectification in a world in which every political battle demands an agglutinated centre of identification.
In your opinion, is there something fundamentally cultural or material that allows distant and distinctive American (continent) groups to identify as indigenous? If so, what is the substratum of this identification that projects the category of “indigenous” today?
Does an indigenous culture exist? If so, What differentiates it from non-indigenous culture?