“Quisqueya,” “Borinquen,” “México de afuera,” “Aztlán,” “Greater Cuba”: these richly evocative names describe and collate familiar topos and draw together felt affinities, carefully harbored histories, and methods of knowing that shift between institutional abstractions and more intimate articulations. These names and concepts produce territoriality—which is to say they provide opportunities to ascribe forms  of  belonging that reach across and away from national and imperial claims to a monopoly on violent control of a geospatial arena. These are terms that circulate with the currents of nationalism, but that also try to plumb the decolonial depths in order to undo the work that territoriality typically does in an imperial register.

“Territoriality” names a way of thinking about the world, space, ownership, and belonging. An old word, derived from the Latin for terra (tierra, earth), it suggests ontologically the condition of being a territory and also a stance, a practice of …

This essay may be found on page 224 of the printed volume.

Works Cited
Permanent Link to this Essay

Leave a Comment