Abstract
In accordance with critical reflective thinking on colonialisation, we respond to Dunlap’s critical remarks on our article by deconstructing some of the themes presented in the debate on internal colonialism in the context of large-scale wind energy developments in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. We return to a historical conceptualisation of internal colonialism as it pertains to a continuation of colonial-like dynamics – oppression, repression, violation and exploitation of vulnerable people – within a country, which is important for our discussion on energy justice, particularly cognitive justice, as the colonial-like dynamics of economic transactions between economically motivated indigenous people and private investors with the support of elite actors – which we term transactional colonialism – have repercussions for vulnerable people and indigenous livelihoods. We hope that our perspective will contribute to the global discussion of the socio-ecological impacts of large-scale wind energy developments and green transitions more generally.
Highlights
We respond to Alexander Dunlap’s commentary, entitled More Wind Energy Colonialism(s) in Oaxaca? Reasonable Findings, Unacceptable Development [1], which critiques our article on the colonial dynamics of economic transactions in wind energy in vestments in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico, published in the journal Energy Research and Social Science (ERSS) [2]
There fore, we engage with a historical perspective of internal colonialism in our article, such as that presented by Gonzalez Casanova [41], and the historical colonisation within the Isthmus [22,23,46]: Internal colonialism, which can be understood as a pattern of oppression, repression and violation within countries in the Global South, is both continuous and distinct from classic European colonialism
We combine the internal colonialism and energy justice frameworks to discuss the micro-historical dynamics in the Isthmus and the oppression, repression and subjugation of indigenous peoples’ rights
Summary
We respond to Alexander Dunlap’s commentary, entitled More Wind Energy Colonialism(s) in Oaxaca? Reasonable Findings, Unacceptable Development [1], which critiques our article on the colonial dynamics of economic transactions in wind energy in vestments in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico (termed ‘the Isthmus’ hereafter), published in the journal Energy Research and Social Science (ERSS) [2]. Dunlap’s critique suggests that we misuse the term colonialism, and that our research is somehow complicit in capitalist development. While this final claim is slightly bewildering, we express our sincere gratitude for Dunlap’s detailed and engaging perspective and its role in fostering further necessary debate on internal colonialism in energy and social science research, in the context of the Isthmus. We respond to Dunlap’s major critiques of our article: the lack of engagement with Dunlap’s own research, regarding infrastructural colonisation [7,8]; the alleged misuse of the term colo nialism; and that our research is somehow complicit in unfettered capitalist development. We hope that our perspective will contribute to the wider discussion on the socio-ecological implications of large-scale wind energy developments and so-called green transitions worldwide, in search of respect for the rights of others on the pathway to sustainability and peace
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
