Applies To: John Comaroff

  • WSWS Editorial on Harvard Lawsuit

    WSWS Editorial on Harvard Lawsuit

    Cambridge – The WSWS Editorial Board has opined on the case of Czerwienski v. Harvard.

    Read the story here: 

  • Free Beacon reports on Harvard’s motions

    Free Beacon reports on Harvard’s motions

    Cambridge – The Washington Free Beacon weighs in on the latest developments in the case of Czerwienski v. Harvard.

    Read the story here: 

  • Free Beacon reports on petition

    Free Beacon reports on petition

    Reporter Aaron Sibarium covers higher education issues for The Washington Free Beacon. He reports on the petition being promoted by the Harvard Graduate Students Union to pressure the University.

    See the story here: 

  • Comaroff Attorneys Object to Union Petition

    Comaroff Attorneys Object to Union Petition

    Cambridge – John Comaroff’s attorneys object to a Harvard Graduate Student Union petition now circulating that demands sanctions and shunning, and threatens tenure revocation, on the basis of mere allegations. Attorney Ruth O’Meara-Costello expresses shock that HLS law students and a HLS law professor have joined in the witch-hunt tactics.

    See letter here:

    Statement from Ruth O’Meara-Costello protesting union petition

  • Harvard Files Response to Amended Complaint

    Harvard Files Response to Amended Complaint

    Cambridge – On July 19, 2022, Harvard University filed an amended motion to dismiss Counts 1 through 9 of the complaint in Czerwienski v. Harvard University, with supporting documents, including an amended Memorandum of Law stating its legal arguments in support of the motion. It also submitted an amended motion for partial summary judgment on Count 10 of the complaint, supported by a new Statement of Material Facts, a new Memorandum of Law, and Exhibits, including several that are now unsealed.

    See the documents here:

    Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Nine of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

    Defendant’s Memorandum of Law In Support of its Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Nine of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

    Defendants Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Attachments to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

    Harvard’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Counts Ten

    Amended Memorandum of Law In Support of Harvard’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As To Count Ten

    Harvard’s Amended Statement of Material Facts

    Affidavit of Ilissa Povich Dated 7-19-22

    Amended Index of Exhibits to Affidavit of Illisa Povich Dated 7-19-22

    Povich Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.

  • Harvard objects to motion to unseal Title IX documents

    Harvard objects to motion to unseal Title IX documents

    Cambridge – Harvard lawyers asked a federal court judge on Tuesday not to unseal, with redactions, certain documents related to a Title IX complaint, arguing that to do so would reveal sensitive information about third parties, identify individuals and subject them to possible retaliation, discourage parties and witnesses from cooperating with Harvard’s Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), and waste court resources.  Harvard called the plaintiffs’ proposed redactions “one-sided” and added: “For example, the redactions plaintiffs propose to ODR’s notes of its interview with Kilburn’s therapist include information containing information that is clearly not confidential, but which might undermine Kilburn’s credibility.”

    For more information, read the motions here:

    Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Redacted Versions of Sealed Exhibits Filed in Support of Harvard’s Motion to Dismiss and For Partial Summary Judgment


    Defendant’s Assented-To-Motion To Amend Scheduling Order

  • World Socialist Web Site coverage

    World Socialist Web Site coverage

    Reporter David Walsh continues his coverage of developments in Czerwienski v. Harvard University. 

    To read the story, click on the link:

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/06/27/kafp-j27.html

  • Harvard Files Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment

    Harvard Files Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment

    Cambridge, MA – Lawyers for Harvard University asked a U.S. District Court judge on May 31, 2022 to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by three graduate students last year. Harvard filed a motion for summary judgment on count 10 of the lawsuit, which claimed that the University had improperly obtained and released one plaintiff’s therapy records, and supported it with numerous affidavits and internal records. Harvard filed a motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the lawsuit, citing failure to state a claim and statute of limitations deficiencies.

    Please see the motions and supporting documents below:

     

    1.  Memorandum of Law in Support of Harvard’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement As To Count 10
      1.  Harvard’s Statement of Material Fact
      2. Affidavit of Illisa Povich
      3. Index of Exhibits to Affidavit of I. Povich
        1. Exhibits 1,  2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 
        2. Exhibits 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 sealed by the court
      4.  Affidavit of Alexandria Masud
      5.  Affidavit of Kwok W.Yu
    2. Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Nine of Plaintiff’s Complaint
    3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Nine of Plaintiffs’ Complaint
    4. Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
    5. Joint Motion for Protective Order
    6. Corporate Disclosure Statement 
    7. Defendant’s Motion For Leave to Exceed Page Limit

     

     

     

     

  • WSWS calls out identity politics at Harvard

    WSWS calls out identity politics at Harvard

    Writer David Walsh compares Harvard’s current campaign against Anthropologist John Comaroff to the communist witch hunts waged by former U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy’s during the 1950s in his article for the World Socialist web publication.

    “There are more than a few parallels between the McCarthyite witch-hunts of the late 1940s and early 1950s and the present-day sexual misconduct campaign,” Walsh writes. “The current process too is characterized by denunciations and reckless, unproven allegations; the use of anonymous informants; instantaneous conviction and punishment by media; the overnight destruction of reputations and careers; banning and blacklisting; public humiliation and disgrace; demands for repentance and mea culpas; a portion of the population seized by hysteria; the cowardice and treachery of liberalism; contempt for due process and the presumption of innocence; the undermining of elementary democratic rights; and the strengthening of the state and police powers.”

    To read the full article, click on the link:

  • Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff

    Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff

    Between 1976 and 2010,  Alan Macfarlane, a professor in the Department of Sociology at Cambridge University,  conducted a series of interviews with anthropologists from around the world. Two of those anthropologists included John and Jean Comaroff. They discussed their early lives, their work in the field, life under the Apartheid regime and anthropology, among other things.

  • Lawyers respond to civil suit

    Lawyers respond to civil suit

    Norman Zalkind, Janet Halley, and Ruth O’Meara-Costello issue the following statement, on behalf of
    their client, Professor John Comaroff, in response to the lawsuit filed today by plaintiffs Margaret
    Czerwienski, Amulya Mandava, and Lilia Kilburn. Professor Comaroff categorically denies ever harassing or retaliating against any student.

    To address the lawsuit’s specific allegations, Professor Comaroff was never the subject of any Title IX or other complaint at the University of Chicago. There, as at Harvard, he was a sincerely devoted mentor to countless students.

    Professor Comaroff denies the claim that he made advances on an unnamed second-year graduate
    student. No such student has ever sought an investigation of claims against him. The only students
    whose complaints Harvard has notified him of are the plaintiffs.

    Regarding the 2017 meeting between Ms. Mandava and Professor Comaroff, Ms. Mandava and
    Professor Comaroff met at her request in order to speak about a grant proposal she was considering
    submitting. The conversation turned to the topic of gossip, which was relevant to Ms. Mandava’s
    academic topic, and Professor Comaroff spoke generally about its dangers in professional academic
    settings. In doing so, he was repeating advice that he had given to countless students over the years, including while teaching a seminar on professionalization at the University of Chicago. He absolutely denies threatening Ms. Mandava or Ms. Czerwienski, during that meeting or at any other time. Harvard’s thorough Title IX investigation found that not only had he not retaliated against either
    student—he was not even aware, during that meeting, of the rumors that the two were spreading about him. The truth is that Professor Comaroff consistently made every effort to assist these students and to advance their careers, both before and after the 2017 meeting.

    Regarding Ms. Kilburn, Professor Comaroff did not kiss her or touch her inappropriately at any time.
    Harvard’s Title IX investigation, which lasted over a year and was extraordinarily thorough, concluded
    that the evidence simply did not support claims that he had kissed or touched Ms. Kilburn. Allegations that he forbade her from working with her other advisor are simply false.

    Professor Comaroff did speak with Ms. Kilburn, who proposed to conduct fieldwork in Cameroon while traveling openly with her same-sex partner, about the risks that could attend that plan, including the risk of sexual violence. This was a necessary conversation for her safety and numerous faculty witnesses in the Title IX process attested that his advice was appropriate. The Title IX investigation found that he was motivated only by concern for Ms. Kilburn’s well-being and had no romantic or sexual intention, but that the advice nonetheless constituted sexual harassment. Professor Comaroff vehemently disputes this conclusion, which would cripple faculty members’ ability to use their best academic judgment in advising students about essential safety issues.

    Professor Comaroff is not only a leading scholar in his field—he is a deeply caring person who has
    devoted his energy for decades to mentoring and advancing generations of students. Attacks on his
    career based on gossip and rumor rather than actual evidence are shameful.

  • Comaroff’s lawyers denounce Harvard discipline

    Comaroff’s lawyers denounce Harvard discipline

     

    Following Dean Claudine Gay’s announcement today of sanctions against Harvard Professor John Comaroff, his attorneys seek to inform the public of the full context of this matter.

    Following an exhaustive investigation lasting more than a year, involving allegations by three complainants, Title IX investigators found John Comaroff responsible solely for verbal sexual harassment arising from a brief conversation during an office hour advising session. The advice he gave concerned the student’s physical security in field research. He maintains that it was not only his right, but his moral duty, to so advise her, because her proposed plans were objectively physically dangerous to her. The investigators found that he had no sexual or romantic intention.

    The same student accused Professor Comaroff of repeatedly imposing unwanted sexual contact on her. The Title IX investigators found that the evidence did not support those accusations, and found him not responsible for any of the other two complainants’ allegations.

    Upon receipt of these results, Harvard opened a second, kangaroo court process – lacking the most elemental aspects of due process and artificially limited to a defective record – to reexamine conduct already thoroughly investigated in the Title IX process. This process resulted in an illegitimate finding that Professor Comaroff was responsible for alleged unprofessional (but entirely non-sexual) conduct in another office hours advising session.  Even in the latter proceedings, the factfinder concluded that the alleged harm “may not have been intended.”

    Professor Comaroff is represented by Harvard Law School professor Janet Halley and by Norman Zalkind and Ruth O’Meara-Costello of Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP.  Halley observed, “Harvard’s setting up a second, biased process because it did not like the results of its own Title IX investigation is a shocking demonstration of its willingness to set aside basic principles of fairness when under political pressure.”

    Both office-hours sessions involved brief exchanges in which students regrettably took offense at appropriate advice. Both were well within professional standards and   within Professor Comaroff’s right to academic freedom — and fully compliant with his obligations under Harvard’s sexual harassment policy. Halley commented, “What this boils down to: two students took offense at perfectly legitimate office-hours advice. Everyone who advises at Harvard should note this attack on academic freedom.”   

    Professor Comaroff said, “I categorically deny all the accusations against me and object strongly to the University’s failure to accord me a fair process and to respect my academic judgment.”

    Sanctions under these circumstances, much less the severe sanctions announced today, are entirely inappropriate.

    Contact: Norman Zalkind

    Zalkind, Duncan & Bernstein

    Nzalkind@zalkindlaw.com

  • Foreward: Everyday State and Democracy in Africa

    Foreward: Everyday State and Democracy in Africa

    Everyday State and Democracy in Africa: Ethnographic Encounters, notable for both its timeliness and breadth of vision, mobilizes the distinctive, decentering perspectives of ethnography to capture the living practices, the everyday vernaculars, of the state and democracy in contemporary Africa. It exemplifies the turn in African studies—perhaps, more accurately, return—to treating these phenomena, in the first instance, as ordinary activities of world-making rather than as formal institutions or enshrined sovereignties; although, to be sure, those ordinary activities animate the manifest architectures of governance, the concrete abstractions, that bear down on the human beings who create and inhabit them.

    The volume finds uncanny resonance in what, on the face of it, is a starkly different take on the enigmas of African politics today, politics at once mundane, material, mythic: William Kentridge’s haunting Shadow Procession (1999) and its sequel, More Sweetly Play the Dance (2015). These animated films depict a recurring progression of moving images, the relentless march of history across the African continent—embodied here in anonymous human forms tramping en masse across the dystopic landscape of Johannesburg, amid the detritus of abandoned mines, industrial ventures, im/possible futures (Maltz-Leca 2018, 178). Some figures stumble or limp on prosthetic limbs. Some drag their possessions or tote the master’s burden. Some wear robes, bearing aloft palm fronds. Others march in coordinated defiance, striving, it seems, to interrupt the inexorable flow. A jubilant female soldier, up high on a platform, pans the horizon with an oversized gun as an associate waves a mammoth flag. A third holds aloft what looks like an iron cage in which he appears entrapped. Max Weber’s modernity on the move— economy, society, state, democracy?—going who-knows-where. Then a giant megaphone strides by on legs of human scale, as if broadcasting in the “language of stateness” (Hansen and Stepputat 2001, 5).

    These visual metaphors trace the predatory, performative, self-inflating logics of power, the ostensibly immaculate authority of ruling hegemonies; what Kentridge, artfully, calls “concepts on legs.”1 But they also make poignantly plain that it is ordinary walkers—and how better to capture the distinctive, self-mobilizing quality of the human?—who, in their joy, inspiration, or vengeance, breathe life into the larger visions and vehicles, the ways and means, of political society. We have no idea where the interminable stream, a regiment of load-bearing walkers, comes from or where it is headed. But it presses ever onward, flowing over barriers and around obstacles, thus to trouble the integrity and fixity of established forms (Fischer 2018). All this renders manifest a democracy in, and of, practice: it enacts, for whoever may be watching or listening, the endless mystery of what it takes to make and unmake a conscience collective, to produce society, to conjure into being that other fetish-on-the-hoof, the state.

    William Kentridge’s relentless walkers reiterate what he terms the “fugitive nature of anything you might be tempted to think of as an essence.”2 All social forms, in sum, are artifacts, structures of longer or shorter duration, constructed by people on the move, migrants of one sort or another, as they traipse across time and space. This, he insists, is a general truth that is less escapable in Africa than elsewhere; in places, that is, where normative fictions appear more sustainable, more resolutely “factual.”3 Similarly, we suggest, with ethnographically grounded social analysis. The point of the ethnographic gaze, not least when it is directed toward settled concepts like democracy and the state, is to look behind surface forms, elective affinities, and narrated certainties in real time, on the ground. By these means may everyday social and cultural practices be made to reveal “how realities become real, how essences become essential, how materialities materialize.” And how they persist, or melt into air (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992, 20).

    The turn to the everyday, the handmade, the unfinished, the transient might seem especially apposite to the experience of our precarious, deregulated times; times in which performativity, impermanence, self-making, and “responsibilization” are leitmotifs of public discourse. But it also speaks to a more enduring truth about the variable, evanescent life span ofall social forms and conventions, past and present. And to their rootedness, however stable and structured they may appear, in the practical activity of sentient agents, existing in labile symbiosis with wider human and nonhuman worlds. While early functionalist anthropologists might have fashioned timeless, ideal-typical models of “traditional” African societies, these were self-consciously systematized renderings of colonized communities whose internal political arrangements were no less under constant construction, no less pragmatically constituted, than those of liberal-modernist, putatively democratic postcolonies; after all, over the centuries, Africa witnessed the birth, rise, fall, and demise of precolonial states, including empires and kingdoms.

    Of course, Africanist political anthropology has, from the first, challenged many of the Euro-normative axioms of political science—and done so in a manner directly relevant to the perspectives and objectives of the present volume. Recall that, in his preface to African Political Systems, Radcliffe-Brown (1940, xiii, xxiii) famously asserted that the empirical observation of “simpler societies” could not be accommodated by the received paradigms of Western political philosophers or economists. Scholars of comparative institutions, he observed, were wont to depict the state as “an entity over and above the human individuals who make up a society,” attributing to it “something called ‘sovereignty,’ and ‘will,’” But states do not “exist in the phenomenal world” in this form. What do exist are a “collection of [individuals] . . . connected by a complex system of relations,” who together seek to control and regulate the use of brute force.

    Radcliffe-Brown, it scarcely needs saying, was proudly structural-functionalist. Yet he was quite nuanced in his denunciation of naked positivism: without “new and fruitful ideas,” he wrote, “method in itself gives birth to nothing” (1940, xiii), a point well taken in the era of big data and neo-empiricism. In his insistence on deflating the phantasmic supremacy of the state as a “fiction” obscuring the actually existing substance of political life, he anticipated one of the genealogies to which this collection is heir: a rich seam of grounded theoretical writing in anthropology and beyond that has shown, in fastidious detail, how dispersed practices of governance and sovereignty generate the effects of the state as a reified, hegemonic form of “politically organized subjection” (Abrams 1988, 63; see also Sharma and Gupta 2006). Also, how rites of conviviality, consumption, even terror crank the handle that inflates images of stateness (Mbembe 1992)—much like the magic through which ritual and mimesis generate “society” as something sui generis, something metaphysical (Foucault 1991; Taussig 1997; Hansen and Stepputat 2005; Mazzarella 2017).

    But the charmed life of reified abstractions like “the” state or democracy—and the aspirations they inspire—are never above the socio-material forces of history. However much energy is given to the work of their everyday production, they remain vulnerable to discrepancies between the vision they articulate and the realities of life-as-lived: between, on one hand, the idyll of equality, rights, inclusion, security, well-being—the elemental components, these, of consociality—and, on the other, the disruption, disempowerment, immiseration, and necropolitics that render tenuous the legitimacy of their claim to be anything other than the self- serving rhetoric of plutocratic elites (Ake 2000, 7). The slippage between promise and realization has been all too evident since the end of the Cold War, a period, as we all know well, that has seen dramatic shifts in the global political-economic order; specifically, in the triangulation of state, democracy, and market, exacerbated by the planetary consolidation of financially founded corporate power. The implications of these transformations have been particularly acute in Africa. The impact here of liberalization, deregulation, and the outsourcing of the operations of state—ostensibly to decentralize authoritarian rule and to free economic enterprise from predatory accumulation—have opened up new modalities of “private indirect government” (Mbembe 1999), rogue accumulation, and the expropriation by capital of communal assets (Peters 2018). All of which has driven ever larger numbers of unwaged people into what Kentridge has called the recurring “procession of the dispossessed” (Maltz-Leca 2018, 176).

    Again, that Shadow Procession. Again, More Sweetly Play the Dance—an allusion to Paul Celan’s “Todesfuge” (“Death Fugue”), a poem from 1940s Germany—which speaks of “a way of living through violence and a way of dying by it.”4 The questions raised by the current moment, questions arising out of the rearticulation of state, democracy, and market, questions about whether the procession leads to new ways of living or hitherto unimaginable ways of dying, are these: With the state itself becoming ever more the institutional instrumentation of the market, ever more “captured” by capital, ever less bound by any sort of social contract, wherein lies the place of a politics of ordinary life? How, under these conditions, might everyday practices engage in making a democratic politics, and, even more, sustainable sociality? What sorts of statements might they, do they, make about the predicament of the present, a present in which the state and liberal-modernist democracy, far from having entered a new symbiosis at fin de siècle, may be caught up in their own danse macabre, a negative dialectic? Given that African Political Systems, the founding text of political anthropology, began by problematizing the state and the fictions hidden by its reification—given, also, that several studies contained in that volume addressed the richness of indigenous democratic practices—what does revisiting the nature of both, of both the state and democracy, eighty years on tell us about them? And about the kinds of quotidian activity that seek to address them, animate them, live them in the here- and-now? This is the clutch of questions toward which Everyday State and Democracy in Africa: Ethnographic Encounters leads us. It is an intellectual procession out of the shadows, less a danse macabre than a lively scholarly tournament of ideas, ethnographically choreographed, about the present and future of political life in Africa, and in the world in which it is situated.

  • Ethnicity, Inc., translated into Chinese

    Ethnicity, Inc., translated into Chinese

    CAMBRIDGE, MA – A Chinese translation of John L. and Jean Comaroff’s pathbreaking Ethnicity, Inc., is underway and expected to be issued later this year.  First published in 2009 by the University of Chicago Press in the USA and by the University of the Witwatersrand Press in South Africa, the book has been praised for charting a new field of research in the social sciences, and for having a field-altering effect on the study of ethnic identity. “The study of ethnicity and indeed of neoliberalism will never be the same after the publication of this book, ” anthropologist Keith Hart commented in the American Anthropologist.  Matti Bunzl, Director of the Wien Museum in Austria, noted, ““The Comaroffs are among the very finest anthropologists working anywhere in the world today. As genuine leaders of the discipline, every new book they publish is an event, and this one is no exception. Ethnicity, Inc. will be a watershed for anyone looking for new ways to explain our neoliberal world. This extraordinarily lucid book is one of the most ambitious, wide-ranging, and thought-provoking pieces of anthropological scholarship written over the past few decades…”

    Ethnicity, Inc. has already been translated into Spanish and Polish, and excerpted in a Czech publication. The University of Chicago Press has now issued a translation license to Rive Gauche Publishing House, via Andrew Nurnberg Associates International Ltd., for a “complex Chinese-language edition.”

  • Maxwell Owusu Array

    This is certainly a brilliant book.

  • Harry Basehart Array

    Rules and Processes is a complex but eminently successful excursion into the logic of dispute processes among two Tswana peoples of southern Africa and an innovative processual analysis that deserves to be ranked with the foremost studies in the processual mode in recent years. One of the rare collaborations of anthropologist (Comaroff) and lawyer (Roberts), the book may well become as influential as the pioneer research of Llewellyn and Hoebel. Unlike the latter, however, Comaroff and Roberts have eschewed a juristic approach, choosing instead to focus on process. The ensuing book attests a singular unity of thought, cast in anthropological rather than legal terminology…A stimulating, theoretically sophisticated, and subtle analysis, Rules and Processes deserves wide attention. The work is consonant with (while not derived from) nonpositivist approaches that have attracted contemporary sociocultural anthropologists, such as phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, and semantic analysis; perhaps, too, the seminal work of Weber may be cited. This is an exciting treatise.

  • Richard Abel Array

    This is the first collaborative book by an anthropologist and a lawyer since Karl Llewellyn and E. Adamson Hoebel wrote The Cheyenne Way forty years ago… It surpasses its illustrious predecessor in every way and immediately joins the select circle of indispensable anthropological studies of legal phenomena.

  • Ian Hamnett Array

    A work of impressive scholarship in which theoretical sophistication and ethnographic richness are convincingly matched.

  • Peter Geschiere Array

    This is an exciting but also frightening collection of articles. The central issue is how people in postcolonial Africa try to come to grips with ‘modernity’ – its premises and disappointments. The contributors come from the Africanist circle around Jean and John Comaroff at the University of Chicago, who have collaborated for some time…Together the essays give a powerful image of the creativity and dynamism with which African societies use their cultural heritage in order to deal with modern changes. The collection is all the more exciting since most contributions are based in recent fieldwork, using vivid scenes from the field. This makes them also quite frightening. Together they convey a forceful image of the depth of disappointment about modernity on the continent – of desperate struggles to participate at least to some degree in its dreams and the fierce internal tensions that follow from this.The introduction by the Comaroffs is overwhelming in the speed and riches of its ideas.

  • Alma Gottlieb Array

    …a magnificent assembly of essays in which each effectively tackles the symbolic, historical, political, social, and economic forces that have continued to give life meaning in sub-Saharan Africa over the past century. As such this book should quickly establish itself as a landmark volume that finds a place of the shelves of all who are interested in processes of postcolonial change and what they signify all over the globe…The eight essays, written by current and former students and colleagues of the editors, [explore] ‘the extent to which modernity – itself always an imaginary construction of the present in terms of the mythic past – has its own magicalities, its own enchantments.’ As such, the essays all evince the strong influence of the Comaroffs who…have long charted a path toward analyzing the many imaginative representations of colonialism and its disastrous aftermath.