Here is the prompt:
So far in the course, settler colonialism has been explored from a variety of perspectives and disciplinary positions. Those perspectives shift depending on who is doing the theorizing, their racial-ethnic identity, gender, geographic location, and disciplinary expertise, for example. It’s crucial to know who is doing the theorizing when approaching the texts. For this assignment, the first step is to research the background info of the authors we’ve covered thus far (including Fanon) and examine how their varying identities and geographies have shaped their conceptualization of settler colonialism. How might Fanon’s paradigm of settler colonialism challenge the framework of Wolfe, for instance? What makes Fanon’s perspective distinct? What makes them similar? And to what extent should those similarities and differences (make sure to identify those similarities and differences) be acknowledged in terms of how we make sense of settler colonial violence? Do you think that despite those differences, that there should be a shared framework for which to situate all contexts of settler colonial violence? Or do you think that we should be more mindful of the contextual differences and that there should be context-specific definitions? This is a prompt that requires you to do a comparative study of the various perspectives we’ve covered in the class so far and in response, to draw your own thoughts and ideas about how one should approach definining settler colonialism given that there are many factors at play that shape the narratives and theoretical formulations of settler colonial violence. There is no right or wrong answer, but your own thoughts must be anchored in support from the readings (in other words, back up your statements and have a clear thesis statement that articulates your position).
