Colonial consent was fictional because subjects could not understand the terms

Evidence

The irony, of course, is that voluntary submission was not even a real option, because this was a document read in Spanish to non-Spanish-speaking peoples. Even if they could have accessed a limited translation, they probably would not have understood the legal and theological concepts by which they were suddenly and forcefully dispossessed of their property, or even understood “property” in the same way as did the invaders. The quick annexation of resources was justified by means of these abstract rationalizations that needed to make some sort of sense only to the colonizer. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 303

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Parallels the grievance mode in ‘On Sacrifice: The Real Kind, with Corpses’ — the ritual/legal document that justifies dispossession through abstraction.
• XREF: The point that rationalizations ‘needed to make sense only to the colonizer’ maps to contemporary data consent — users agree to terms they cannot meaningfully parse. Stronger still: it connects to the debate over whether data consent is even conceptually coherent. — connects to: Colonial powers justified intervention by portraying colonized subjects as incapable of self-understanding — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 694; Colonial officials used language hierarchy to justify claims of Indigenous mental inferiority

Broader Connections

• Colonial powers justified intervention by portraying colonized subjects as incapable of self-understanding #corroborates (0.85) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 694
• Colonial officials used language hierarchy to justify claims of Indigenous mental inferiority #expands (0.80)