The Intersection of Colonialism and Disability

Colonization has never ended. In fact, the effects of imperial rule and colonization are still visible today. For about a century now, critical theorists have aimed to view the world through a non-white hegemonic lens, one that examines the lives of those who do not possess social power and are inherently discriminated against due to race, gender, and socioeconomic background. White hegemony is the idea that the world was built for white people and their experiences, thus meaning that social, political, and economic structures only really benefit white people. In Western disability studies, white hegemony exists and because of this, global South epistemologies and voices are rarely if not ever included in research and discussion (Grech). The global South refers to the countries that were victims of colonization and are far less developed economically, socially, and politically than global North or Western democratic capitalistic countries. It is important to note that Galton’s original concept of eugenics thrived under the desire for European imperialism and power (Presley). This hurts Southern — in reference to the global South — disabled people that have different interpretations of disability and their needs. This traces back to the key component of colonialism and the hegemonic discourses used to justify exploiting indigenous people and foreign land/resources. There are different hemispheric approaches to disability and disability studies due to the division between the global North and South. So, the questions to be answered are:

· Why are the experiences of disabled people from the global South important to disability studies?

· How does colonialism connect to disability?

· Why is the global South important to disability rights?

Throughout the 1500–1800s, one of the many things that were traded between the Old and New Worlds was disease (Grech). Colonizers brought diseases and illness, such as smallpox, to the indigenous populations of the Americas. This could have introduced forms of disability. Additionally, the violence of slavery most definitely contributed to visual and mental impairments (Grech). On Caribbean plantations, slave punishments ranged from mutilation to dismembering limbs to breaking bones (Grech). Normativity has strong colonial roots, as slave traders devalued bodies that were not completely fit for hard physical labor due to some disability or impairment (Grech). Interestingly, slave traders would attempt to hide their slaves’ illnesses and/or impairments in order to maintain a certain value on the market (Grech). These ideas paved the way for the ongoing normal/abnormal/able/disabled dichotomies that create stigma around disability. It is also disturbing to note that slave traders would fetishize “ideal” body types for slave labor (Grech).

Not only did colonizers exploit the natural resources and riches of foreign territories, they also dumped their toxic waste there (Presley). This also contributed to the increase of cognitive and physical impairments in global South communities. Aside from this, disability already existed during colonial times, but this is a neglected idea. Many residents of the global South today, including indigenous populations, view disability as a concept. These people are unable to realize that they are disabled due to the extreme poverty, cultural deprivation, and loss of land that centuries of colonization brought to the global South (Meekosha and Soldatic 1389). The creation of a Eurocentric — centered around Western democratic capitalistic ideals­ — conceptualization of disability as a social identity rather than a social condition contributes to a lack of disability vocabulary within present day indigenous communities (Presley).

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) exemplifies a massive milestone towards disability rights. As more countries support the convention, disability rights will likely become a global reality (Meekosha and Soldatic 1385). However, human rights discourse is directly linked to colonialism and the hegemonic North. Their decisions do not consider the cultures, lives, and practices of the global South. Also, disability rights movements have largely been dominated by Northern actors. For instance, the idea that rights come with duties is a Western/northern belief that can hurt disabled people’s rights by forcing disability support recipients to work (Meekosha and Soldatic 1387). In order to have universal recognition of disability as a human status and to truly possess disability rights, there needs to be more cooperation between the global North and the global South. It is absurd that as disability is experienced worldwide, Western nations have continually excluded Southern ideas and experiences.

Global South nations have demonstrated their contribution to achieving global disability rights. Mexico, a global South country, initiated the UNCRPD in 2001. In fact, many other Southern countries supported the convention, especially South American and African countries (Meekosha and Soldatic 1384). Although Northern actors possess more prominence in disability studies and disability rights movements, the persistence of disability rights activism from the global South has led to the recognition and realization of disability rights within international human rights institutions and frameworks (Meekosha and Soldatic 1384). This is a testament to how important the global South is in achieving worldwide disability rights and recognition. In Argentina, India, and Sierra Leone, the global North has worked to resource disability rights NGOs that fund local-level campaigns to accelerate the ratification and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (Meekosha and Soldatic 1385). It is vital that the global North and South continue to work together like in these countries in order to achieve the most rights for disabled people.

Like back in the era of colonization, human rights discourse today is instilled with the idea that the liberal capitalist North is “modern” and “civilized,” whereas the global South is “traditional” and “uncivilized” (Meekosha and Soldatic 1388). Global South communities are mainly still based on agriculture and farming, which reflect more traditional values. Yet human rights originated from the West and thus creates a division between the colonizer and the colonized. The Eurocentric disposition of human rights is made up of three main metaphors: savages (normally a non-western state), victims, and saviors (western governments and the United Nations (Meekosha and Soldatic 1389). This Northern way of thinking perpetuates the inequality between the disabled communities of global North and South. Southern countries are more than capable of achieving more disability rights, but the global North must begin to recognize the importance of Southern disability experiences and histories.

Works Cited

Grech, Shaun. “Decolonizing Eurocentric Disability Studies: Why Colonialism Matters in the Disability and Global South Debate.” Social Identities 21, no. 1, 2015, pp. 6–21., http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=cbf96f53-c11c-47b0-9b69-25db4e7b5874%40pdc-v-sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=101869774&db=aph

Meekosha, Helen, and Karen Soldatic. “Human Rights and the Global South: the Case of Disability.” Third World Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 8, 2011, pp. 1383–1398., www.jstor.org/stable/41300291. Accessed 18 Apr. 2020.

Presley, Rachel. “Decolonizing the Body: Indigenizing Our Approach to Disability Studies.” The Activist History Review, 2019. https://activisthistory.com/2019/10/29/decolonizing-the-body-indigenizing-our-approach-to-disability-studies/