Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
General Christian
Religious Art
Applying A Decolonial Apologetic To Race, Culture, Tolerance

Applying A Decolonial Apologetic To Race, Culture, Tolerance

Last updated on: August 31, 2026 at 4:38 am by Alan Lechusza Aquallo

Applying A Decolonial Apologetic To Race, Culture, Tolerance 2026-08-31T04:38:42-07:00 Alan Lechusza Aquallo

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17 NIV).

Reading Pop Culture Through a Decolonial Philosophical Apologetic

This is the first article in a short series that undertakes a decolonial apologetic of pop culture. Being the first in the short series, this article presents the foundational arguments and nomenclature that will be used throughout the remaining two subsequent articles.

Reading the tenets of colonialism through an apologetic lens, the collected articles employ theomusicological methods and biblical knowledge/Scripture truth to analyze pop cultural elements, presenting a socio-religious, Kingdom Conscious/third conscious decolonial cultural identity.

Addressing the racial formations, coloniality, and tolerance, this article challenges three recent pop cultural events as examples of how these three socio-political agents can be unpacked to reveal alternative motives and intent assumed as cultural norms. A cursory investment of Scripture gives biblical emphasis to these three pop cultural events without overstepping the critical analysis.

In totality, the articles in this short series disturb pop cultural norms using sociological tools, theomusicological mechanics, and a dynamic philosophical apologetic reading.

The Instability of Racial Identity

Chanda Lynn Ft. Wenzday Atemz, “INFLUENCER,” February 11, 2022. Full video link.

Race. An unstable term. Anthropologically constructed, sociologically deconstructed, a luxury zone application, a xenophobic profile, verbiage of a subaltern, subcultural referential, hegemonically oppressessed/suppressed, and maintained through a genealogy of privilege.

Photo | I Have A Dream, March on Washington, 1963 | courtesy of Rowland Scherman/National Archives

Working Through The Vernacular

Harvard University Human Resources describes race as follows.

Ethnic Code Race/Ethnicity: White, Black, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.

Definitions:

White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Native American/Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands (Harvard University, Human Resources, April 2025).

The footnote on the definitions page from Harvard’s Human Resources page contextualizes these definitions to be consistent with the current U.S. Education Code.

National Center for Educational Statistics: Definitions for New Race and Ethnicity Categories (2025).

The US Census notes the following definitions of race.

“The U.S. Census Bureau must adhere to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race and ethnicity, which guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question” (updated March 28, 2024):

White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

Further, the US Census report provides the following details on racial classification,

“The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include racial and national origin or sociocultural groups. People may choose to report more than one race to indicate their racial mixture, such as ‘American Indian’ and ‘White.’ People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.

“OMB requires five minimum categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” (US Census, updated March 28, 2024).

Racial Formations (Omi and Winnant, 1996/2015/2022) have successfully argued that race is a social construct with a complicated colonial/settler history.

“Race consciousness, and its articulation in theories of race, is largely a modern phenomenon. When European explorers in the New World “discovered” people who looked different than themselves, these “natives” challenged then existing conceptions of the origins of the human species, and raised disturbing questions as to whether all could be considered in the same “family of man.” Religious debates flared over the attempt to reconcile the Bible with the existence of “racially distinct” people. Arguments took place over creation itself, as theories of polygenesis questioned whether God had made only one species of humanity (”monogenesis”). Europeans wondered if the natives of the New World were indeed human beings with redeemable souls. At stake were not only the prospects for conversion, but the types of treatment to be accorded them. The expropriation of property, the denial of political rights, the introduction of slavery and other forms of coercive labor, as well as outright extermination, all presupposed a worldview which distinguished Europeans—children of God, human beings, etc.—from “others.” Such a worldview was needed to explain why some should be “free” and others enslaved, why some had rights to land and property while others did not. Race, and the interpretation of racial differences, was a central factor in that worldview” (Ebsco, Racial Formations, 2022).

Further, “The social sciences have come to reject biologistic notions of race in favor of an approach which regards race as a social concept…Race is indeed a pre-eminently socio-historical concept. Racial categories and the meaning of race are given concrete expression by the specific social relations and historical context in which they are embedded. Racial meanings have varied tremendously over time and between different societies” (Omi and Winnant, 1996/2015/2022, Thought Co.).

Where race was originally held as a position of dominance, the creation of a luxury zone, a genealogy of privilege, and giving preference for an anthropological, scientific, colonial doctrine, sociology was capable of inverting this essentialized authentic misunderstanding. The oppression/suppression originally embedded in racial profiling may not have completely been erased, but the socio-political progress has invited the multiplicities of racial dynamics to resonate.

Regardless, race still cuts and mixes across fuzzy borders, influenced by social, political, educational, financial, environmental, artistic, religious/philosophical, and cultural traditions (appropriated, assimilated), witnessing race and expressing variations of racism through a constellation of profiling.

“I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:2 NIV).

Positioning Racism

Interpersonal/Internalized/Personal racism: Internalized racism refers to the beliefs, prejudices, and biases that individuals hold within themselves.

Intrapersonal/Interpersonal racism: Interpersonal racism occurs between individuals through actions, words, or behaviors.

Institutional racism: Institutional racism is embedded in the policies, practices, and procedures of organizations and institutions.

Systemic/Structural racism: Structural racism refers to the cumulative and compounding effects of societal systems working together to produce racial inequality (Paul, Shaun, Sociology Group, June 20, 2022).

Fitchburg State University’s Library (March 23, 2026) includes a breakdown of these different levels with associated content.

Race is not without the supporting structures of coloniality. These have been understood as mutually exclusive in the past. However, their entrenched relationship promotes contemporary realizations of each. Racism circumnavigates coloniality; colonialism employs the energy of racism. The push-and-pull tension between race and coloniality ebbs and flows throughout otherwise considered social norms.

“For we also received the good news just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, since they did not share the faith of those who comprehended it” (Hebrews 4:2 NIV).

The Language of Power

The four archetypal structures of colonialism through decoloniality are:

Colonialism, Post-coloniality, Anti-coloniality, and Decoloniality.

Mike Gravel World, a resource for history, culture, and global politics, includes a useful chart outlining four major colonial areas with historical and governmental assignments (Morgan, Jo, Four Levels of Colonialism, March 22, 2025).

An interesting argument for colonialism is stated in Colonialism and Postcolonial Development: Spanish America in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge University Press, pp.1-34, June 5, 2012/2010.

James Mahoney, the author of “Explaining Levels of Colonialism and Postcolonial Development,” writes,

“Colonialism was a great force of change in the modern era. From the Americas to the Asian and African continents, colonial expansion brought Europeans and their institutions around the world. It stirred nationalist sentiments and intensified competition within the European core; and the colonies provided an outlet for citizens who sought or were compelled to pursue a new life overseas. Moreover, by disseminating people and institutions, colonialism forever changed the structure of trade and production within what had been an almost exclusively European commercial system. Nothing less than a genuinely worldwide system of states and trade was born out of colonialism. In the judgment of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known’” (Cambridge University Press, 2010/2012).

This reading of colonialism focuses on the economic outcomes that ultimately underscore dominance, power, and privilege, expressed in classist divisions giving credible logic to discrimination. Taking this point, the argument becomes an outlier for colonial reality acting in capitalism.

Contextualize this against the other tentacles of colonialism. Extending the knowledge of postcoloniality and anti-coloniality segues to the processes of decoloniality.

“And without faith it is impossible to please God. For anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6 NIV).

Postcolonial Liberty, Luxury, and Livelihood

An ambitious reading of Postcoloniality includes the subtleties of anti-colonialism, tracing the history of this substitutional colonial dominant political corpus through social geopolitical realities.

The International Institute of Political Science (September 16, 2025) expands the concept of postcoloniality starting with a general point.

“This gap between formal independence and lived reality is exactly what post-colonialism seeks to explain. As an approach…it argues that the end of empire did not erase colonial power. Instead, that power simply changed shape, moving from soldiers and governors to ideas, culture, and economic structures that continue to organise the world into rulers and ruled” (PolSci.Institute, September 2025).

Further, the historical ramifications of postcolonial thought, practice, and ideology, starting in the 1960s from early “anti-colonial” (Fabian Hilfrich, January 11, 2016) academics and scholars, to the realization that, “Post-colonialism is the academic study of the cultural, political, and economic consequences of colonialism and imperialism. It does not treat colonialism as a closed chapter of history. Rather, it examines how the patterns of domination built over centuries continue to influence formerly colonised societies long after independence” (PolSci.Institute, September 2025).

As the discourse continued, Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) prompted shifts in thought that would lead to further architectural criticism and socio-political dissonance.

Edward Said pointed out that, “Western scholarship and writing built a distorted image of ‘the Orient’ as exotic, irrational, backward, and primitive. In contrast, the West imagined itself as rational, liberal, and civilised. This was not an innocent description. It was a system of knowledge that made colonial control seem natural and even necessary. If the East was incapable of governing itself, then Western rule could be framed as a gift rather than a theft…a sharp distinction between Western [read: hegemonic power and control] over Eastern [read: dependent on the West and inferior to the West] standards” (PolSci.Institute, September 2025).

Frantz Fanon, in his book “The Wretched of the Earth” (1961), explored what colonial domination did to the inner lives of the colonised, coming through his work as a psychiatrist, noting intellectual and physical limitations caused by the controlling factors of colonization.

“Fanon’s most lasting contribution to post-colonial thought is the idea of psychological and ideological dependency. Colonialism taught the colonised to see themselves through the coloniser’s eyes, producing what later scholars call internalised inferiority. The colonised intellectual, Fanon noted, absorbs the values of the coloniser, including individualism and a belief in Western superiority. Liberation, for Fanon, therefore required more than removing foreign rulers. It demanded a deep mental and cultural decolonisation as well” (PolSci.Institute, September 2025).

Moving the socio-political needle forward, two academic activists pushed the employment of postcoloniality in lived experiences.

“Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, in her influential essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988), examined whether the most marginalised people in post-colonial societies can ever truly express themselves within systems of knowledge built by elites. The subaltern, for Spivak, refers to those denied access to power, such as poor women, tribal communities, and the disenfranchised. She worries that even well-meaning attempts to ‘recover’ their voices often end up speaking for them and silencing them further.

“Homi K. Bhabha…introduced the ideas of hybridity and mimicry. He argued that colonial encounters do not simply impose one culture on another. Instead, they produce mixed, in-between identities. His concept of the ‘third space’ describes a site where new cultural forms emerge beyond the rigid binary of coloniser and colonised. Crucially, Bhabha showed that when the colonised mimic the coloniser, the imitation is never perfect, and that imperfection can quietly destabilise colonial authority and open room for resistance” (PolSci.Institute, September 2025).

Binding these pivotal theories with what was coined by Kwame Nkrumah (1960), “neocolonialism” (former colonial powers and wealthy nations continue to exercise over former colonies through indirect means, International Relations, 2025), it becomes more visible how attractive postcoloniality is for socio-political and geopolitical relationships.

Following the argued conclusion and support of post-coloniality, the fine point reads,

“Post-colonialism does more than criticise. It also works to recover and legitimise non-Western perspectives and knowledge systems that mainstream theory ignored. It asks whether ideas like sovereignty, security, and development might be understood differently across cultures, and whether the voices of formerly colonised peoples can finally shape the rules of global politics rather than merely live under them” (PolSci.Institute, September 2025).

Where colonialism functions on dominance through an imbalance of power accumulated by expressed hegemony, postcoloniality strives to liberate this practice. Postcoloniality works to position itself, ideologically, as a discipline of liberal luxury residing beyond the oppressive/suppressive reach of colonialism.

Holding onto the direct tenor of anti-colonialism (read: opposition to the system in which one country controls another; substituting the exercise of colonialism with another dominant force to oppose the legacies of colonialism), postcoloniality continues to mature since its first usage in the 1960s. Even with the growth in scholarship and activism, postcoloniality is intrinsically bound to the structures of colonialism. Contemporary global modes of discourse continue to challenge these areas (colonialism, postcolonialism, anti-colonialism) as a strong counterpoint with the potential to dismantle positions of power and the genealogy of privilege.

“And in Him, having heard and believed the word of truth—the gospel of your salvation—you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 1:13 NIV).

Disturbance By Decoloniality

The complexities of Decoloniality begin with understanding the construct of decoloniality.

“Decoloniality signifies a process of dismantling the enduring structures and systems of colonialism. These are not merely historical relics but actively shape our present world, influencing power dynamics, knowledge production, and resource distribution….The explanation of Decoloniality begins with acknowledging the profound and lasting impact of colonialism. Colonialism, historically, involved the domination and exploitation of territories and peoples, often driven by economic and political motives. This domination was not solely physical; it extended to cultural, intellectual, and epistemological realms.

“Decoloniality, therefore, seeks to reverse these imposed structures, aiming for a world where power is redistributed, diverse knowledges are valued, and equitable relationships prevail. In sustainability, this translates to questioning Western-centric approaches and recognizing the knowledge and rights of marginalized communities, particularly Indigenous peoples, who have often been at the forefront of environmental stewardship…The meaning of Decoloniality is deeply intertwined with justice and equity. It is not simply about historical redress but about creating a future where systems are inherently fair and inclusive. The significance of Decoloniality for sustainability is immense” (Sustainability, September 2, 2025).

Where postcoloniality and anti-coloniality cease, decolonality advances. Capturing dynamic influences from traditional environmental/economic knowledge (TEK), Native/Indigenous/First Nations/Aboriginal entities are the role models for decolonial thought and practice. Coming from a Southern school of application (read: South Africa, South America), decoloniality has, in so many words, been a consistent political ethic for Native/Indigenous/First Nations/Aboriginal Nations.

Historic apartheid and genocidal operations have kept decolonialism limited in applied expression. In the later part of the 20th century (1990s), decoloniality reached formidable recognition in the West. The currency of decoloniality continues its expansion, appropriating media forms as border-crossing agents, speaking to and pushing back against colonial luxury zones, and the genealogy of privilege.

“Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and every expression of evil, and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save your souls.

“Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves” (James 1:21-22 NJKV).

Practicing Limitations: Starbucks and Target

Tying together racist ideology through colonial discourse, the limitations of socio-political, traditional, economic, knowledge/educational, artistic, environmental, and socio-religious/philosophical/spiritual become firm. Where culture relies on the plastic dynamics of agency, racialised, discriminatory, colonial operations stagnate this fluidity for control, power, and dominance.

Language is one area where this practice can be heard. A July 23, 2026 article in The Conversation, “Starbucks’ big marketing blunder in South Korea shows how cultural blind spots can put global brands in a bind,” (Karen Stollznow) illustrates how the Starbucks company’s promotion of reusable tumblers called “tanks” with a “Tank Day” campaign on May 18, 2026, may be “seemed like a fun marketing idea,” but realistically “spiraled into a public relations crisis” (Stollznow, July 2026).

The historical context of “Tank Day” related to “May 18…coincid[ing] with the anniversary of the South Korean military’s deadly suppression of the 1980 Gwangju Uprising, a mass, pro-democracy protest against the country’s military government. Authorities used armored vehicles and helicopters to suppress the uprising and make widespread arrests. The official death toll was around 200, but some scholars and activists argue the true number may have reached 2,000.

“For this reason, Starbucks’ ‘Tank Day’ promotion immediately incited protests, calls to boycott the coffee chain and wall-to-wall news coverage in South Korea. The company was compelled to apologize, pull the campaign and launch historical awareness training for all employees” (Stollznow, July 2026).

A Western marketing error? A culturally insensitive isolated moment? An expression of Western cultural superiority? Each point could be argued. A subtext is the institutionalized colonial ethic, following a genealogy of privilege.

Karen Stollznow writes of how “slippery” language can be, with this Starbucks “Tank Day” as an apt illustration.

“Linguists have long known that meaning emerges from context. The same word can carry different associations in different places. A phrase that sounds clever in one country may sound confusing, offensive, or absurd in another.

“The Starbucks Korea controversy demonstrates this clearly. The problem was not a mistranslated slogan. Rather, a campaign built around an ordinary product name failed to account for how the phrase would resonate within a specific historical context. Consumers brought cultural knowledge to the campaign that marketers had apparently overlooked.

“Research in intercultural communication shows that successful communication depends not only on linguistic accuracy but also on cultural competence. In other words, knowing what words mean is only part of the challenge.

“It is equally important to understand what they mean to the people using them. This is why companies increasingly invest in ‘localization,’ which involves working with local experts, native speakers and in-country marketing teams. In doing so, a company can better adapt the language, imagery and branding to fit the expectations, values and experiences of a particular audience before launching a campaign” (Stollznow, July 2026).

Borrowing the term “Glocal” (global-local), this event could have had stronger negative ramifications. What is gleaned from this issue is the overarching self-promoting economic dominance, a financial capitalistic colonial maneuver, troping on an Orientalist (Edward Said) ideology.

Locally, this issue had a strong negative response from the Korean community. The response, interestingly enough, is not postcolonial or anti-colonial. Rather, the response is a decolonial expression.

Globally, this issue includes multiple positive and negative points of view ranging from a culturally insensitive racialised point of view, an economic capitalist colonial point of view, or an uninformed distorted media headline point of view. Each of these points of view entangles a racialized colonial ideology. The reality that this event reached a marginal audience in the West (read: America) further illustrates the powerful grip corporate colonialism maintains.

Photo | Target Store, Midtown Miami, Florida, May 15, 2015 | courtesy of Phillip Pessar, Wikimedia Creative Commons

On August 25, 2026, The Root published an article with a tagline destined to catch attention.

Target Responds to Claims of Racist Imagery in Halloween Costume, But Customers Want to Know How it Made it to the Shelves: A controversial Halloween costume is raising questions about how offensive imagery passes corporate review (The Root, August 2026).

What was at stake was a Halloween costume, glaringly associated with Minstrelsy, a widely popular American racist form of entertainment exploiting Black slaves in the 19th century and early 20th century, which had an African American child wearing the costume in near blackface (a practice of Minstrelsy where the Black entertainer put black charcoal on their face with accentuated large white lips).

The African American community raised another boycott against the Target Company. What was different with this boycott was a response from inside the Target Company that surfaced late, but was present.

“The costume, part of Target’s Halloween collection, featured a clown-inspired design with exaggerated facial features. Promotional photos showed the costume being worn by a Black child, which only added to the criticism online. For many people, the design and the way it was presented recalled racist stereotypes associated with blackface and minstrel shows.

“That history is important to understanding why the reaction was so strong. Blackface was used for generations to portray Black people through offensive and degrading stereotypes, while minstrel shows helped spread those images throughout American culture. Because of that, critics say this isn’t simply a case of a costume that some shoppers didn’t like. They are questioning how a design that could carry those associations made it through Target’s review and marketing process” (The Root, August 2026).

Cultural insensitivity is too low a bar to use as a political excuse.

“Target has since pulled the costume and apologized. The company acknowledged that it ‘got this wrong,’ saying the costume was offensive and should never have been sold. Target also recognized that the situation was especially hurtful to the Black community” (The Root, August 2026).

The temptation to label this as a neocolonial expression, the overarching racialised agenda positions this action squarely within a colonial language. Such a sophomoric attention to unethical detail leaves one speechless as to how this manner of structural racism can linger in the 21st century.

“The costume is offensive and should never have been part of our assortment. It is no longer available for sale,’ a statement from Target read. ‘We know this is especially hurtful for our Black guests, team members and partners. Removing the costume is an important first step, and the company is looking closely at how this happened and what needs to change to ensure this won’t happen again’” (qtd. in The Root, August 2026).

The Korean Starbucks issue is an insider economic colonial expression. The Target Company issue is an outsider cultural racist expression. Together, these events shed light on the activation of the four levels of racism and the genealogy of privilege showing itself in the walls of systemic racism and colonial ideology. In common, both issues stand out from a Western, economically first-world, geopolitically dominant country believing it’s a tolerant postmodern world.

“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14 NIV).

Reactions: Tolerance Taken, Tolerance Given

63 years after the historic “March on Washington” led by Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., brought thousands to the Washington Mall speaking out about voting rights.

The “Defend the Vote” march collected young and old activists, faith-based leaders, and politicians together to speak for what they deemed a national crisis. The nearly five-hour event ended with a solidarity march reminiscent of the one held in 1963.

The Root. August 28, 2026. ‘Our Ancestors Fought So Hard’: Why Thousands Came Back to the Lincoln Memorial: The Root spoke to March on Washington attendees about why they’re marching, what voting rights mean to them, and why they refuse to sit this fight out. Full Article Link.

Face the Nation. August 28, 2026. Thousands march in Washington for “Defend the Vote” rally. Full episode link.

“Sixty-three years after the March on Washington, thousands gathered Friday in the nation’s capital for a ‘Defend the Vote’ rally and warned that voting rights are under attack again. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it harder for people to challenge voting maps they argued were racially discriminatory” (Face the Nation, YouTube, August 2026).

MS NOW. ‘Flailing’ and ‘terrified’: Trump continues attacks on voting as thousands join March on Washington, August 28, 2026. Full episode video.

“63 years after Martin Luther King, Jr. led 250,000 people on the March on Washington, thousands of people gathered at the nation’s capital once again – this time to ‘Defend the Vote’” (MS NOW, YouTube, August 2026).

MS NOW. The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell. ‘Trump is afraid of the Black vote’: Rep. Meeks blasts Trump’s attacks on voting, August 28, 2026. Full episode link.

“Donald Trump’s DOJ filed an appeal today, asking a federal appeals court to overturn a ruling blocking key parts of his executive order targeting mail-in ballots—with ballots set to go out in just days. The legal fight comes as thousands marched in Washington, D.C. demanding stronger protections for voting rights. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) joins MS NOW’s Jonathan Capehart to discuss the fight over voting rights and why he believes Trump is afraid of Black voting power” (MS NOW, YouTube, August 2026).

These primary examples illustrate a condition of tolerance: an acceptance of multiple views related to a singular issue – voting rights. Framed as one charged against People of Color (BIPOC or BILPOC), the representative identity usurps a position of socio-political privilege. Mainstream politicians parrot stump verbiage. Faith-based leaders utilize the moment to boast socio-religious terminology extracted and situated to qualify the political moment. Emotionally charged participants phenomenologically assume a connective moment with a spectacle.

Photo | March for Voting Rights, December 10, 2011, Brooklyn, NYC | courtesy of Michael Fleshman, Wikimedia Creative Commons

Taking hold of the image expressed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 63 years earlier, does not equate to capturing the ideology, spirit, integrity, and representation of tolerance from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Tolerance, in this 2026 episode, as referenced by Marjoka van Doorn in a directly titled article “Tolerance” (2012), is a bare acceptance of those with varied opinions and livelihoods than another’s social norms (pp 1-4). The 2026 “Defend the Vote” march misses the mark of what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. intended for the original “March on Washington.”

The 2026 event contextualizes political tolerance as an unquestionable liberty gifted to intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination. The agency of tolerance, in the 2026 demonstration, assumes a hierarchical position of control over tolerance, where the commonality is an intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination in the current political positional discourse, in this case against voting rights.

What is vocally stated is masked as a postcolonial ideology favoring the attendees but identified through the lexicon of liberation by the event speakers and organizers. In reality, Homi Bhabha’s mimicry theory is being clearly expressed. Postcoloniality is a colonial identity, realized in the voices self-referencing as an oppressed/suppressed voice, not from those affected, but from those who are in a luxury zone to make decisions for those who are, in reality, affected by voting rights oppression/suppression.

Tolerance is subtextually voiced, but through a mimicry of colonial control, using institutionalized systemic racism as the trope. Those being the most affected by voting rights oppression/suppresion, and socio-political discrimination are being maneuvered into an icon/image spectacle profile by the archetypal control of the speakers and organizers. The more pluralistic voices, identities, and People of Color represented (read: seen through the voyeuristic gaze of reporting media outlets), the more control is existentially gained for the speakers and organizers of the “Defend the Vote” march.

Tolerance is extracted from the empirical desire to amplify equitable inclusion of counterpoints, and repositioned as a material location for distorted political language. Attendees assume a tolerable, inclusive acceptance. Speakers and organizers assume political gain and expansion of a personal socio-political luxury zone.

Counternarratives, those opposed to the “Defend the Vote” march, are abjectified; their silence speaks equally as loud. The mimicry of a current political posture from speakers and organizers speaks more for those opposed to the 2026 march event than if this political action collective had arranged a counter-rally. There is no need. If the speakers and organizers are actively broadcasting a postcolonial ideology (read: an assumed point of view of oppression/suppression which is actually a neocolonial point of view), the agency of mimicry satisfies the counternarrative.

Ironically, speakers and organizers gain personal socio-political justification, attendees gain an emotional spectacular moment, and the counternarrative gains equal attention without even a whisper.

Such a historic event as the “Defend the Vote” 2026 march should welcome a controversial response. However, as argued, there is no undue need for such an expressive element, given that the speakers and organizers of the 2026 “Defend the Vote” event constructed the totality of the moment.

Still, there were limited contradictory views published, aside from spectacle social media reels. One video, which captured over 1,000 views as of August 30, aimed squarely at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, humorously reads the August 2026 “Defend the Vote” event.

Creator Warp. AOC’s Speech FALLS APART Today at The March On Washington Rally! August 28, 2026. Full episode link.

“August 28, AOC is not well known as the best speaker in the world, and today once again proved that point. At the March on Washington Rally today, AOC made some bizarre claims and had a couple of funny gaffes!” (Creator Warp, YouTube, August 2026).

The low-brow, juvenile joking video need not do any more than jab at pop cultural bloopers. In full circle, this haphazard spoof-style video brings attention to the August 2026 event to an alternative audience who would otherwise not be interested. Ironically, the cheap-shot style of the video articulates tolerance more than the event being scrutinized.

The creator gives space and place to the event for an audience outside of the scripted narrative. A collective controversial point of view serves the misguided intent of the “Defend the Vote”; the importance of defending the vote is not to work along political lines but as humanitarian agents against oppression/suppression. Critically reading the Crator Warp video, as an actual postcolonial tool, the profile of coloniality sustained through internalized systemic racism begins to come into focus.

What was posted as a thwart against the political ideology of the speakers and organizers of the “Defend the Vote” march, critically analyzed, unveils the desired postcolonial intent of the event which, as a whole, missed what was the organic tenor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “March on Washington” (August 28, 1963), which was humanitarian in design, planning, integrity, and intent, not a political spectacle made for media consumption.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16 NIV).

“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God…” (Luke 8:11, 21 NKJV).

Race. A complicated arena dynamically influenced and influencing the pillars of colonialism. When race is subjectively and objectively tolerated, the subtextual realities of colonialism prevail.

To read more from Alan Lechusza Aquallo’s “The Sweatpant Sessions,” please consider subscribing for free and check out others on Patheos.

General Christian

Evangelical

pop culture criticism

About Alan Lechusza Aquallo

Dr. Alan Lechusza is a scholar whose name has become synonymous with critical thought and cultural discourse. He is a thinker and writer who explores popular culture with a critical eye. He holds a PhD and uses his deep, resource-rich understanding to question and redefine how we see art, power, and knowledge. His research covers various topics that aim to break down and rebuild our ideas about culture, artistry, and socio-political authority. Dr. Lechusza closely examines everyday cultural expressions in ways that challenge conventional thinking. His writings make people think and view culture in new ways. Dr. Alan Lechusza wants to create conversations to inspire change and challenge our understanding of how we experience the world. You can read more about the author here.

Previous Post

August 24, 2026

Wisdom Not Found: Christian Hip Hop Speaking Gospel Truth

Next Post

September 7, 2026 The Martyring of Saint Tupac Shakur: A Theological Reading

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category music criticism pop culture criticism Pop music criticism Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 December 2024 September 2024 June 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz