The Caption: A Very Poor Understanding
” pic: Banksy.
Silly fools, silly fools
Got beaten by the bullies,
the bullies who rule.”
This one misses the point of global capitalism and the place of football in it. With Germany winning the world cup, after beating Brazil 7-1, "Silly fools" can only refer to the Brazilian people (and/or the young black kids who dream of making it as footballers) who made no decisions about this World Cup. Jokes apart - and I have been making lots of them about phone calls and selling parts of Brazil for a victory - the Brazilian state 'invested' a lot in this world cup, but it wasn't for its people’s but for it’s the sake of its economy (well, its global private and public investor), which will probably do even better after the games end. Angela Merkel is staying in Brazil - and India's prime minister is coming - for the BRICS meeting this week. Of course, this can only be bad news for most Brazilians (and Indians and Chinese and Russians) because, well ask Greeks, Italians, and the Portuguese and Spaniards ... but Europe's relationship with the BRICS is different that the one it has with its 'periphery'. Germany is a bully but so is the Brazilian state. Dilma Rousseff had an uncomfortable time before and during the World Cup. She entered Maracana after the game had started, due to fears of booing. Argentina's Christina Kirchner didn't even made it to Rio, even though (no, probably because) about a 100,000 Argentines basically occupied Rio this weekend. Yes, most Brazilians and Argentines were full of hope at the beginning of the world cup, even though their teams have only one decent player. I saw sad faces painted white & blue today; like the sad green and yellow I saw the yesterday. And I am pretty sure that they cried for their national teams but not for their nation-state, well not for the state. The security state here in my corner of the globe has been doing a really good job telling its people that the fantasy of the nation is over, done. Football is over! Again. I heard it back in 1974 when the Dutch mechanical orange seemed to rule the world cup but did not score (win the title). I heard it back in the 1980s, the era of the beautiful game, when Brazilian players became one of our dearest commodities, playing everywhere in Europe and still Brazil didn't win 1982, 1986, or 1990: three-times-loser in the era of the beautiful game. Brazil lost 7-1 to Germany and then 3-0 to Holland in 2014! Again, real football is over. Now it is all about teams that play like football apps. With few exceptions it is like you can replace any German or Dutch player with another and nothing will change. Unless, there is a piece that is a 'difference' - that is, a specialist, like the second or third Dutch goalie, who can defend penalty kicks. Seriously! Brazil lost 7-1 to Germany and then 3-0 to Holland and all the TV commentators can say - talking only about what is publishable - is that if we want to improve our football (progress?) we have to be organised (order?) like Germany. (Any similarity to the banner on our flag is not mere coincidence). As to everyone else I heard/read from and talked to, the main concern after yesterday's defeat seemed to be: (a) how to live with our hermanos Argentinos teasing us (which would last forever) for the 7-1 defeat if they beat Germany today and (b) how to live with the (very short-lived) choice between cheering for Argentine, which is ... you know ... Argentina or for Germany, which ... you know ... beat us 7-1. It didn't take much for football (the game I grew up loving) to become again what is: a game, which is about winning and losing in the field: one in which every match is lived intensely as long as it lasts, and once it is over all that matters is the next ... While the games where on, we didn’t miss how the global security apparatus was working well and hard before and after the world. Yesterday they arrested 19 people alleging that they were preparing violent actions in Rio and other cities for today. On the days just before the Brazil–Holland match, my father arrived in my neighbourhood and was met by the 'robocops' - heavily armed special police forces -, who were entering houses, every house on a street (even empty ones using master key) looking for drug dealers. During the two-day operation they also used a humvee – which moves very fast my nephew Lucas tells me – which is the as the one used in Iraq. From what my nephews and my father tell me the scene could have been a reply of many we saw on TV unfolding in Iraq. The image is beautiful and moving. The caption is very unfortunate. It belies very poor understanding of how capitalism works on the ground.
"Can't Truss it!" - Notes @ The Limits of Justice
Last Friday, 8 November 2013, I came across three posts friends of mine had added to our shared online scrapbook. My initial reaction was to comment on them directly. Had I done so, whatever in them reminded me of Facebook’s scrapbook quality would have been lost. Here is my attempt to bring it out also publicly. Post #1 - MI Police 'Pursue Charges' Against Homeowner Who Shot 19-Year-Old Black Woman Dead After She Knocked on His Door But in a 'stand-your-ground' state, will they stick? (see fulltext here)
“He shot her in the head, [and] for what? For knocking on his door,” McBride’s aunt, Bernita Spinks said to the Detroit Free Press. “If he felt scared or threatened, he should have called 911.” "Police also reportedly mislead the family about where McBride's body was found. According to Raw Story, they were first told that her body had been dumped near Warren Avenue, some blocks away, where it was later found by authorities. Police soon, however, recanted their prior statement, saying instead that the woman died on the home’s front porch" Here we go again! This time around the law enforcement arm of the state (which is a name for the public authority) does not even want to allow the killing of Miss Renisha McBride to go before the court. The message to its middle-class-suburban-white[Latino]-homeowners is: kill them on sight/site! This is not only a way a silent legalising of segregation, to make Black People afraid of going into white-middle class spaces' this not only a silent authorising of lynching. 'Stand-your-ground' laws are indeed loud legal-moral authorising of both! Post #2 - Interview with Lauren Berlant [LB] by David Seitz [DS] for Society and Space – Environment and Planning D (see full text here) The interview is about Berlant’s very interesting approach to citizenship, which addresses its institutional and intimate moments. I found it revealing of how urgent it is that critical theoretical contributions also theorise racial power; that they go beyond the liberal view of racial subjugation, which is that it indicates unfulfilled universality and freedom. In short, it reminds me that they need to be prefaced by critique of racial power, which is basically the disassembling the liberal (transparent) subject, the one implied in the figure of the citizen, the legal subject, and which resists even in most seductive descriptions of the desiring and the feeling thing. Basically my comments here are questions to the text. I in a way interview the interview, but my [DFS] questions are mostly to Berlant’s readers. "DS: We have this commonsense understanding of citizenship as legally, juridically endowed. You’re also interested in the murky, the intimate and the banal dimensions of citizenship. And they’re obviously not unrelated. What first oriented you in that direction? What got you so curious about intimate life as a scene of citizenship drama? LB: I was always interested in the relationship between law and subjectivity. As I was coming out, nobody was working on citizenship as a vehicle for world-building that had anything to do with sexuality, except allegorically. What really interested me was the relationship between conventional form and erotic attachment — people’s relation to the world, people’s need for the world to look a certain way. So I got interested in the history of the law’s orchestration of bodies, and I got interested in thinking about the ways that certain kinds of institutional forms held up the world, with respect to which people in everyday life were extremely incoherent. The same people can be authoritarian, libertarian, aggressive, passive, romantic, and unsentimental about citizenship: and then I realized that the same sentence could be written about love and attachment. I realized that the juridical object and the intimate object were more similar than they were different, because people want their objects to protect them, but they don’t want them too over-present. They want them to be transparent, but they want also to have them to be flexible and improvisatory. People make contradictory demands of the objects that hold up their world. That interests me. That’s the first thing." [DFS: Is the transparent subject presupposed; does it defines ‘people’ who ‘want’ – it is the desiring thing?] The second thing is I really do want to understand how to work with political incoherence, and I am irritated by the kinds of arguments that people use about certain kinds of voting blocs voting against their interests, since everyone has conflicting interests. For example, I could love the state because it delivers resources to a whole set of people not really caring about the specificities of who those people are, and I could hate the state because it tries to produce universal citizenship. Those two conflicting thoughts don’t make me psychotic: contradiction enables people to proceed wanting a whole set of things from their institution or from their object. [DFS: Is this the subject of interest, with conflicting interest – the desiring subject, ‘people’ who ‘want’, is the utilitarian subject?] "[LB:] Also, if you work on political emotions, one of the things you have to deal with all the time is the pedagogy of emotion. Aesthetics is one of the few places we learn to recognize our emotions as trained and not natural. Fear is natural, but the objects that make you afraid emerge historically. You get entrained by the world. When you’re born, all you want is food, and by the time you’re eight, or by the time you’ve been in primary school for awhile, or whatever, you have feelings about citizenship, you have feelings about race, you have feelings about gender and sexuality. You’ve been trained to take on those objects as world-sustaining perspectives. That interests me. So for you, what looked like a conflict between institutional attachment to the world and intimate models of attachment are not to me in conflict at all but are a part of the problem of imagining and living attachments to lifeworlds. (…)" [DFS: Here is where I became particularly worried about the lack of a theorizing of racial power. I am not saying that Berlant should have done it in this interview. What bothers me is her distinction between ‘natural’ emotions (fear in particular) and their ‘historical’ objects. Of course, I am biased towards continental philosophy, thus suspicious of a distinction between the ‘natural’ subject (non-rational interior thing) of emotions, the one Kant has placed outside the scene of morality and Herder at its centre and whatever is placed on the side of the (‘historical’) object. I am suspicious because here is precisely where the liberal account of racial power has placed the ‘problem of race relation’ and the solution to it. I really don’t care for ‘feelings about race’. I don’t care because these feelings are what defense lawyers work with in court cases to build their clients’ claim to self-defense when they kill unarmed black persons. The problem is this positing of race on the side of the object. For the subject who has ‘feelings about race’ is a racial subject; hence, race is constitutive of it and not a historical object towards which it has feelings.] “LB: A relation of cruel optimism is a double-bind in which your attachment to an object sustains you in life at the same time as that object is actually a threat to your flourishing. So you can’t say that there are objects that have the quality of cruelty or not cruelty, it’s how you have the relationship to them. Like it might be that being in a couple is not a relation of cruel optimism for you, because being in a couple actually makes you feel like you have a grounding in the world, whereas for other people, being in a couple might be, on the one hand, a relief from loneliness, and on he other hand, the overpresence of one person who has to bear the burden of satisfying all your needs. So it’s not the object that’s the problem, but how we learn to be in relation.” [DFS: But if the subject is only constituted as such in relation to an object – with Lacan, if the subject is indeed an effect of desire (which is a desire for an object) – then what is this learning “to be in relation”? What learns to be in relation? Does the subject precede the relation? Does the subject pre-exist the relation with the object (which is historical, sexual, whatever, but always exterior to it? Does the subject that learns (in whichever way it does) knows itself as such, and hence can learn to be in relation differently? Does this subject know itself without/before being in relation to an object, any object? If so then this subject is transparent, a natural thing with/of emotions, which it attaches to objects that it meets along the way? Isn’t this the liberal (transparent) subject, the first casualty of any critical understanding of racial subjugation? Post # 3 - Dud of the Week; 12 Years A Slave reviewed by Armond White for CityArts (see full text here) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQNjfhlREk “For commercial distributor Fox Searchlight, 12 Years a Slave appears at an opportune moment when film culture–five years into the Obama administration–indulges stories about Black victimization such as Precious, The Help, The Butler, Fruitvale Station and Blue Caprice. (What promoter Harvey Weinstein has called “The Obama Effect.”) This is not part of social or historical enlightenment–the too-knowing race-hustlers behind 12 Years a Slave, screenwriter John Ridley and historical advisor Henry Louis Gates, are not above profiting from the misfortunes of African-American history as part of their own career advancement. But McQueen is a different, apolitical, art-minded animal. The sociological aspect of 12 Years a Slave have as little significance for him as the political issues behind IRA prisoner Bobby Sands’ hunger strike amidst prison brutality visualized in Hunger, or the pervy tour of urban “sexual addiction” in Shame. McQueen takes on the slave system’s depravity as proof of human depravity. This is less a drama than an inhumane analysis–like the cross-sectional cut-up of a horse in Damien Hirst’s infamous 1996 museum installation “Some Comfort Gained From the Acceptance of the Inherent Lies in Everything,”” “Some of the most racist people I know are bowled over by this movie. They may have forgotten Roots, never seen Sankofa or Nightjohn, disliked Amistad, dismissed Beloved and even decried the violence in The Passion of the Christ, yet 12 Years a Slave lets them congratulate themselves for “being aghast at slavery.” This film has become a new, easy reproof to Holocaust deniers. But remember how in Public Enemy’s “Can’t Truss It,” pop culture’s most magnificent account of the Middle Passage, Chuck D warned against the appropriation of historical catastrophe for self-aggrandizement: “The Holocaust/ I’m talkin’ ‘bout the one still goin’ on!”” I haven’t seen the film. I will most probably not see it at the theater or on TV. From what I gather there seems to be some controversy out there about the film itself and about this review. I am not really interested in that. Though I share the question Armond White raises, which is about the significance of that stories of black suffering have become a choice of Hollywood’s profit-seekers in the wake of the media announcement (with Obama’s election) of a postracial moment. I wonder how they play – the signifying role they perform - when contrasted with news of ghetto violence in Chicago (see here John Marquez’s formulation of the concept) and legal decisions (in court in Trayvon Martin’s trial case, and in the streets by law enforcement agents as Dearborn Heights cops) that authorize and render just the killing of young Black people. With Saidyia Hartman, in her field-changing book Scenes of Subjection (see here), I find that tales of black suffering, which fail to situate it in the context racial (state or state-authorized) violence, in which it constitutes an effect of political violence, compound this very racial violence by presenting suffering as something that it intrinsic to Black folks’ trajectory and not one of the many ways the state (as a juridical and an administrative entity) works with capital. To the liberal subject for whom (Hegel has claimed) it is only the formal actualization of his/her freedom (self-determination), the state may be an object – of the kind theorized by Berlant, something exterior, that is a source of desire, something that can be used, appropriated, towards achieving one’s goals or satisfying needs. To Renisha McBride, her family, her friends, and millions of Black youth, the state has a different kind of exteriority; it is no object of intimate attachment because, before Black youth, it only presents itself as a deadly enemy – We “can’t truss it!” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 16 July 2013 The Thing about Blackness Fire engulfed streets of London and other cities in England two years ago, after a police officer killed Mark Duggan in Tottenham; fires have engulfed the streets of Los Angeles more than a few times in the past five decades - Watts in1965 and the whole of South Central LA in 1992, to mention two of them. Fires follow justice ... Obama says that the US is a nation of laws ... of laws and justice? Laws are justice? Law=Justice? For as long as I can remember black and brown people in Brazil - the whole of the Americas I say until someone proves otherwise - live and die with/because/in spite of racial violence (by which I mean the original incapacity of liberal administration of justice to address racial subjugation and its (the liberal structure, that is) mandate to fulfil, protect, and re-enact the logic of obliteration.) Back in 1999 I was paralised by the Diallo's case verdict. My dissertation became a book which is only, all, about his and all the other killings. I have no book to write now. I am trying to finish this piece on global affirmative action. I am trying to finish this piece and procrastinating as we all do, I check to facebook ... On Facebook I find the expected, my f-friends going at it, as paralized as I am ... they, you, I write ... respond, share, reply ... Fire engulfs us all ... Fire burns words ... theses, explanations, experiences, memories ... Fires clear the terrain and challenge us to think, to think differently, to think more and better ... otherwise; to think away the constraints of thinking, which always finds a reasonable explanation for why that Black person's killing was found just ... this time: What the is the problem? There are so many problems. But now I am concerned with how we think. Don't we know that justice fails the racial other in its realisation? Don't we know that a black family's loss will be explained away as its own failure because the killing of your father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister will always be explained away as self-defense? Don't we know that the Blacks and Brown folk (Chicano, Mexican, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Cuban, Brazilian, Colombian, or Venezuelan and also jamaican, Trinidadian or Haitian, or Indian, Pakistani ... no matter how many generations over born in the US or Europe) will be killed with the protection of the law - self-defence (as I argue in Nobodies: Law, Raciality and Violence) is the other term for racial violence. The state's ... the vigilant's ... Jury's ... justice ... self-preservation ... Zimmerman is Latino? White latino ... we have a whole country filled with them in Brazil ... and many of them are black too. His mother says they are Peruvians proud of their black heritage? The thing about blackness, one learns after living in Latin America, the US, Australia, and Europe, is that, as a racial signifier, it floats (Hall said it about race, the signifier), as an excuse and a defense for finding someone deserving or excused for killing ... it floats ... For those of us who are Black, the racial signifier blackness never floats beyond the reach of the logic of obliteration ... Not long ago, about two or three months ago I was chastised at a meeting of US black scholars because I sounded like I valued black male's life over women's - black and Muslim's - right to walk the streets unharmed whether they wear or do not wear the veil. I was never given a real chance to say that I do not, that my writings about racial violence do not disavowal violence against women. I could not say that, at that moment, in that room, I assumed a certain common view of the range and the particularities of racial subjugation. I had given myself permission to speak about blackness and to highlight racial violence and its patriarchal charge on black males. This is the thing about patriarchy, it has a plan and structures of violence for males and females. I was not given the chance of saying any of that ... but I don't apologise for not qualifying what I said then. I am still refusing to apologise now. I am writing as the friend and cousin of black and brown young men; I am writing as a daughter, sister, aunt, and (at times) sweetheart of young and older black men ... I am writing as a black woman who has been threatened by cops when a teenager ... who has spent my whole life - because of the times they arrested my father and when they killed my male relatives - with racial violence ... as a black woman who lives with the threat of just-ified killing over my male and female, old and young relatives, neighbours and friends ... who live lives fully determined by violence, specially, police violence, that is, racial violence. This is the thing about existing, living as a Black or Brown person. We live ... the thing about blackness, because of its being a construct of racial power, it mandates our obliteration. But blackness does not exhaust black people's lives, though it t does resolve how our deaths (and how we live) will be accounted for ... Viva black people's lives and may the fires revive Black people, my the fires burn and revive blackness. May the fires burn everything that only survives by betting on our end ... I am tired, pissed off, and giving a damn to contrived political speeches which stop short of the call. May the fires this time burn in our minds any illusions of justice from within the liberal text ... what is to come awaits our willingness to let it become. (16 June 2013) Pretérito Imperfeito … ou … é assim que o futuro acabou … Tanto a Candelária, a Cinelândia no Rio quanto a Avenida Paulista e a Praça da Sé em São Paulo, entre 30 e 25 anos atrás viram manifestações gigantescas e pacíficas pelas Diretas Já e comícios emocionates liderados por Lula e outros candidatos do PT e de outros partidos da esquerda. Hoje estes tradicionais palcos políticos do Sudeste do Brasil se tornaram campos de confronto entre a polícia e jovens manifestantes. O grito não é abaixo a ditadura! O que se houve é abaixo o aumento da tarifa de onibus. Porque seguem tão de perto protestos indígenas no centro oeste e sul do país, estes protestos sugerem que a frente urbana de batalha está aberta uma vez mais. Em 1987, quando eu tinha a mesma idade que meu sobrinho Daniel tem hoje – ele nasceu em 1989, o ano da queda do muro de Berlin, o ano em que nós não elegemos o Lula –nós não lamentávamos a morte de Tancredo Neves tanto quanto o fato de que José Sarney tinha se tornado o primeiro presidente civil, depois de mais de duas décadas de ditadura militar. Este lamento foi rapidamente substituído pelo futuro e suas promessas. As manifestações pelas Diretas Já foram substituidas por comicios de Lula, pela música tema da campanha que nos encorajava a não ter medo … de ser feliz. O ano de 1988 nos trouxe uma nova constituição, na qual dois artigos, o sobre titulação de terras indígenas e o sobre reconhecimento de terra quilombolas, foram incluidos graças à mobilização de movimentos sociais, academicos progressistas, e a ala progressista da Igreja Catolica. Foram vitórias minimas, mas foram vitórias. O melhor ainda estava por vir. O Brasil iria mudar. Em 1989, ainda que enfratássemos os efeitos de politicas monetárias de arroxo, que so iriam fortalecer o controle do capitalismo financeiro sobre a economia brasileira, a certeza de que nossos protestos tinham trazido o Estado de Direito bastava. Estávamos mobilizados e o futuro ia mudar o Brasil. Nem mesmo a derrota para Fernando Collor de Mello e o escandalo que se seguiu depois que os detalhes do Plano Collor começaram a vir a público causaram danos profundos ao futuro. Estudantes e outros grupos sociais retornaram às ruas em protestos que tornaram impossivel a continuação de seu governo. Eu assisti desde de longe a queda de Collor e os feitos do governo Itamar Franco e depois dos dois mandatos de Fernando Henrique Cardoso Em visitas ao Brazil nos últimos 20 e tantos anos, eu vi como as chacinas nas favelas e bairros da periferia do Rio começaram a aparecer nas manchetes de jornais de classe média, até se tornarem espetáculos que, em vez de sensibilizar politicamente a população, pareciam encorajar sua insistência em ignorar como a repressão continuava – de fato tinha piorado, dado o número, as gerações de jovens negros perdidas nos últimos 30 anos – sob a proteção das leis e direitos guarantidos pelo Estado de Direito. Eu percebia, pelas expressões faciais de meus interlocutors, diante de meus comentarios sobre as mortes causadas pelas politicas de segurança do governo do Estado do Rio de janeiro, que o acontencia/acontence nesses territories negros e a esse povo negro e dos ‘tão pobre que quase pretos’ (como canta Caetano) não era assunto para os bares e salas de jantar da classe media educada. Hoje em dia tudo mudou. A violência nas comunidades (o termo uma contribuição petista ao vocabulario nacional) e assunto para todos, embora poucos, muito poucos, parecem considerar o significado politico das ocupações, pacificações, ou abandono destes espaços negros pelos governos estaduais e municipais do Rio de Janeiro e outras regiões do pais. Poucos, muito pouco,s parecem apreciar como este momento de repressão evidencia o carater fundamentalmente politico (por que da ordem do estado) da violencia racial (pos-colonial). Na semana passada, outros eventos fundamentalmente politicos, em Sidrolandia, Mato Grosso do Sul, já tinham ocupado os telejornais do horario nobre. As batalhas anti-coloniais que vem desenrolando desde de 1500 in Brasil – e que ficaram um pouco mais evidentes para os urbanos com os protestos das populações indigenas afetadas contra a construcão da usina Belo Monte - agora são parte de conversas de bar e sala de jantar. Não saberia dizer se esta ‘publicidade’ esteja fazendo os Brasileiros se darem conta do significado politico destes protestos indigenas. Não sei se os urbanos se dão conta de que há um movimento politico amplo contra a politica economica do governo de Dilma, em particular a forma como este esta dependente da agribusiness, que inclui indios, quilombolas, sem terras, e populações ribeirinhas e pequenos agricultores. O que que sei e que nestes protestos nas cidades, no Rio, Sao Paulo, e Brasilia, destes ultimos dias, o futuro da minha geracão acabou quando os aliados do governo federal no Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo soltaram a policia, que atirou balas de borracha em manifestantes e jornalistas muitos, com certeza, apenas, talvez, um pouco mais velhos e um pouco mais jovens do que Daniel ... No campo e na cidade, indios e estudantes enfrentam as forças de (segurança) repressão nas fazendas e nas ruas do Brasil. Viva o futuro!! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (June 10 2013)Anti-Colonial Events In the colonial countries, on the contrary, the policeman and the soldier, by their immediate presence and their frequent and direct action maintain contact with the native and advise him by means of rifle butts and napalm not to budge. It is obvious here that the agents of government speak the language of pure force. The intermediary does not lighten the oppression, nor seek to hide the domination; he shows them up and puts them into practice with the clear conscience of an upholder of the peace; yet he is the bringer of violence into the home and into the mind of the native. - Frantz Fanon In the past week, our famous evening telenovelas lost appeal to the dramatic colonial battle unfolding in Sidrolândia, Mato Grosso do Sul. For a while now the most important political events in Brazil have been indigenous protests against the Dilma's administration economic policies and projects. After months of legal battles and repeated occupations of the site of the Belo Monte Dam, another mode of anti-colonial protest can no longer be ignored by the Brazilian State. Invasions (reclamation is perhaps a better term) of farms, in traditional indigenous land already in process of repatriation, in different parts of the country, suggest a country-wide political response to Brazil's economic development programme, and its demand that even more land be appropriated for agricultural production and exploitation of natural resources. The radical nature of these indigenous political actions was already evident even before the deadly confrontations in Fazenda Buriti, in Sidrolândia, in the past few days. The shootings that killed Oziel Gabriel and injured Josiel Gabriel were the latest on the over 500 years old-series of scenes of colonial violence, involving the Brazilian State and indigenous and runway slaves communities. A possibility the Terena leaders had already anticipated not long ago, as recalled the journalist Ruy Sposati: "On November 19, 2009 even with a favorable ruling tenure, indigenous people were forcibly evicted by about 30 farmers and 60 policemen [in Mato Grosso do Sul]. For fear that history might repeat itself, the Terena requested the presence of a delegation of foreign observers in order to restrain alleged violations by the apparatus of state repression" (Brasil de Fato, 6 June 2013). Last Wednesday, these recent political events playing in the Brazilian colonial stage became all the more dramatic as 110 troops of the Força de Segurança Nacional (National Security Force) were deployed in Mato Grosso do Sul. As of now, there is no indication or hope that the troops are there to protect the Terena protesters - the only ones affected by the deadly violence in Mato Grosso do Sul - who have invaded the farm, demanding immediate repatriation, 3 years since the Ministry of Justice had recognised their claim to traditional ownership of 17,200 hectares in Sidrolandia. Arriving with the Federal security troops, however, the representative of the Brazilian State said that its is time for talking: "We will dialogue, let the conversation, without exaltation, is the guidance of President Dilma. We came here to discuss and gather strength. There is so violent that resolve conflict situations. Rather, it undermines, disrupts" (The Minister for Justice, José Eduardo Cardozo, Folha de Sao Paulo. Dialogue, negotiation, compromise,and similar jewels of the liberal lexicon, as Fanon has suggested, have no meaning in the colonial text. Neither Cardozo's nor Dilma's obsessive repetition of the term ‘dialogue’ suggests a meaningful gesture - such as, to abide for the judicial decision and issue an an order for immediate repatriation - from the Brazilian State is forthcoming. The Brazilian State cannot deliver policies or measures able to prevent its own recourse to colonial violence, that is, the un-mediated political force supporting the expropriation of the productive capacity of indigenous land and of African and black labour. Why? Because in the newly refashioned State-Capital duo, States like Brazil have been assigned the task of implementing economic development programmes that rely primarily on the exploitation of natural resources and agricultural production for biofuel and food for export. What most watch unfold in mainstream media in Brazil are snippets of a live colonial plot, one which exceeds but it is not antithetical to (because it plays out alongside, because it is part of the same political theatre) the liberal text that servers in the State’s main task, which is attending to the needs of Global Capital.