This is a reflection on the close relations of the writing of postcolonial histories and recent decolonial critiques, and on the tensions between them. Postcolonial historical analysis often has been preoccupied with hybridity and mixture, conjugation and adaptation, exchange and interaction—with subversions of sovereignty in contact zones, borderlands, and on the beach. As a structuralist formulation, decolonial historical binarism in contrast echoes Indigenous politics of self‐determination, even suggesting at times an ontological decoupling of settler and Indigenous histories and practices. Stringent decolonization of historical inquiry—implying the sabotage and superseding of settler colonial linguistic, narrative, and temporal conventions and the disturbing of standardized assumptions about evidence, agency, and authorship—would give us an epistemic assemblage perhaps not recognizable as “history.” Even if desirable, is that imaginable now except as metaphor or ideal?

中文翻译：

---

8.在后殖民历史中寻找殖民元气

这反映了后殖民历史与最近的非殖民批评之间的紧密联系，以及它们之间的紧张关系。殖民后的历史分析通常集中在混杂与混合，共轭与适应，交流与互动上，包括在接触区，边境地区和海滩上的主权颠覆。相反，作为殖民主义的历史二元主义则呼应了土著人民的自决政治，甚至暗示了定居者与土著历史和实践的本体论脱钩。对历史探究的严格非殖民化-这意味着对定居者的殖民地语言，叙事和时间惯例的破坏和取代，以及对证据，代理机构，和作者身份-将给我们带来认识上的集合，也许无法识别为“历史”。即使是理想的，除了隐喻或理想之外，现在是否可以想象得到？