Jim wrote:
> I think strictly speaking the absence of foreign troops does mean that
> it was not colonised, just as the presence of foreign troops may
> indicate that is has been colonised.
i'm pretty sure the definition of whether troops are 'foreign' or not is a highly contested issue in a lot of places. troops acting as civil guards are generally seen as an occupying force by most populations, not least because it transforms the space into one in which rules of war apply, in which the enemy is regarded as akin to being 'foreign' and in which the external border 'comes home'. the troops on the streets in LA after the riots, being an example perhaps.
Angela _________