still present, disparities

  <script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-6077932889256660"      crossorigin="anonymous"></script> “Postcolonial scholarship (particularly in post-structuralist approaches) not only contextualizes present colonial conditions within their historical precedents and patterns, it also situates post-colonial (and anti- colonial) critique itself, including self-reflexively engaging the complicity of intellectuals in reproducing harm” (Stein and Andreotti) This is quite difficult to conceive of because one would think that shedding light on a problem would elucidate it, making it more accessible to those who wish to see change. This approach is always open for rebuff, “one of the post-colonial studies’ most valuable gifts is its commitment to put itself, and many other foundational concepts, up for ‘dispute and debate’” (Loomba 2007: 173). A commitment to change comes at the expense to change. Stein and Andreotti press that “Mignolo (2011) suggests that while post-colonial and de-colonial studies have different origins, they are both invested in unveiling the ongoing significance of colonial logics.” As long as the investigatory impulse is available to expose ongoing iterations and lasting effects of colonization, it seems that these logics will continue to be around and help notice disparities between, for example, white and black diasporic peoples.