Global Music History Decolonializes Western Music History

Following on my previous post, I disagree with the use of the term “decentering” to refer to global music history’s impact on Western music history. In fact, the lack of specificity in “decentering” is precisely what I would refer as a “move to innocence,” to borrow Tuck and Yang’s term, indicating vagueness about what precisely is being resisted. The centrality of indigenous voices in decolonization in settler colonies is indisputable, and the viewpoints in Eve Tuck’s article “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor” (coauthored with K. Wayne Yang) should therefore be given full consideration in settler colonial contexts. However, I have only ever heard that argument from settler colonizers, who focus all their attention on that term. One side effect of the exclusive focus on the (in)appropriate use of “decolonial” is the foreclosing of a fuller discussion of colonialism and the countering of it. Colonization does not only refer to the occupation of land. It also refers to cultural and psychological occupation, in the form of 100% Western music history courses even up to the early twenty-first century in Singapore (although the British left in 1959), and a rising gap in contemporary China between growing populations of students of Western music, versus falling numbers of students of Chinese music. Western music history as propagated by Western universities and academic societies is a colonial form, and thus global music history counters colonialism—if only inadequately and partially—in the retelling of music history from the viewpoints of myriad geographies. The countering of colonialism through global music history is partial because of the depth of colonialism in universities and academic societies that occupy indigenous lands, propagate Eurocentrism, conduct imperial surveys of global geographies and cultures, have historical links to slavery and the profitable opium trade that was forced by the West onto unwilling global partners, and mine BIPOC counterhegemonic knowledge, with elite universities commodifying it into DEI courses. However, focusing exclusively on the incompleteness of countercolonial actions such as global music history, and restricting the conversation to land only, results in the reduction of multiple colonialisms into settler colonialism (in the Americas and Australasia), thereby erasing other (Asian, African) geographies and colonialisms from the conversation. Western universities and academic societies occupy indigenous lands, AND also propagate colonial forms such as Western music history that projects purported Western superiority, which is the core justification for expansionist imperialism in Asia and Africa. The teaching of global (including Asian, African, and Afro Asian) music history therefore counters the colonialism of Western music history. The point is to counter the specific colonial aspect of Western music history by targeting the way in which it has excluded other histories, rather than Western music history per se (in its totality), which is one among many histories that should be studied.

Criticizing the Misuse of “Decolonization” Is Important—But Having a Full Conversation About Colonialism and Ways to Counter It Is Just as Important

Following Tuck and Yang’s influential article “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor,” the emerging consensus in Euro-North America and Australasia (the “West”) is that decolonization must pertain to the return of land. In that sense, universities and academic societies can never decolonize unless they return lands which they occupy. “Decentering” has therefore become a preferred term for curricular changes that attempt to be more inclusive. Certainly, “decolonization” can and has been misused. Student-centering pedagogies, for example, are important but do not necessarily counter coloniality.

The centrality of Indigenous voices in decolonization in the West is indisputable, and the viewpoints in Eve Tuck’s article coauthored with K. Wayne Yang should therefore be prioritized in Western, especially settler colonial contexts. However, what is less often appreciated is that the focus on replacing “decolonial” with “decentering” can result in a simplified conversation. What the stringency of use of “decolonial” should point to is not just the issue of land, but the depth and complexity of universities’ colonialism that should always be referenced. 

There are three main points to be made about universities’ and academic societies’ colonialism. 

1. Universities and academic societies occupy indigenous lands. 

2. Universities and academic societies have maintained and exported Eurocentrism, conducted imperial surveys of global geographies and cultures, and have historical links to slavery and the profitable opium trade that was forced by the West onto unwilling global partners. 

3. Universities and academic societies mine BIPOC counterhegemonic knowledge, with elite universities commodifying it into DEI courses.

Restricting the use of “decolonial” should always be accompanied by a fuller discussion of universities’ and academic societies’ colonialism—the point is not just to berate those who misuse the term “decolonial,” however justified it may be. Furthermore, a map for how to counter universities’ and academic societies’ colonialism should always be provided; otherwise, universities and academic societies are simply allowed to maintain the colonial status quo. Granted, the depth and complexity of universities’ and academic societies’ colonialism means that any action taken to counter their colonialism is always partial, inadequate, and entangled with their colonial legacy. However, the alternative is to just maintain universities’ and academic societies’ colonial status quo, as oppose to the entanglement of attempts at countering their colonialism, alongside their colonial legacy. Here, then, are some partial and inadequate ways in which universities and academic societies can counter their colonialism, in relation to Indigenous peoples whose lands were stolen, and black people whose labor was stolen.

1. Return indigenous lands. 

2. Partner with indigenous/black businesses

3. Incorporate indigenous/black topics in music curricula

4. Increase the proportion of indigenous/black students and faculty

In addition, universities and academic societies have to come to terms with their imperial legacy which is projected externally towards the world. Universities and academic societies are the corollaries of Western imperialism that has touched all geographies, resulting in 100% Western music history courses even up to the early twenty-first century in Singapore (although the British left in 1959), and a rising gap in contemporary China between growing populations of students of Western music, versus falling numbers of students of Chinese music. Calling the countering of Western music history “decentering” misses the point that Western music history is a colonial cultural form cultivated by Western universities and academic societies and projected globally. Calling it decentering leaves Western music history unaccountable for the part it plays in colonialism. Cultural and epistemic colonialization is colonialization. Cultural colonization is how "subjects that are socially located in the oppressed side of the colonial difference [are made] to think epistemically like the ones on the dominant positions" (to quote Ramón Grosfoguel in "The Epistemic Decolonial Turn"). Cultural colonization is the reason for Rishi Sunard and Clarence Thomas. It applies equally in contexts of historical and continuing settler colonization and minoritization (in the West), as well as historical and continuing exploitation colonization (beyond the West). Here, then, are some partial and inadequate ways in which universities and academic societies can counter their colonialism.

1. Return formerly and currently colonized lands outside the West which are still occupied.

2. Partner with businesses owned by peoples, usually BIPOCs, from formerly and currently colonized lands outside the West 

3. Incorporate topics in music curricula (including global music history curricula) on peoples, usually BIPOCs, from formerly and currently colonized lands outside the West. The point is to counter the specific colonial aspect of Western music history by targeting the way in which it has excluded other histories, rather than Western music history per se (in its totality), which is one among many histories that should be studied.

4. Increase the proportion of peoples, usually BIPOCs, from formerly and currently colonized lands outside the West, among students and faculty

The three groups of points above move the conversation to the depth and complexity of universities’ and academic societies’ colonialism, as well as ways of countering it in partial and inadequate ways, as opposed to concluding the conversation with berating those who use “decolonial” inappropriately. It is just as important to explicate how universities and academic societies are colonial, and point to ways of countering it.