If colonialism takes power in the name of history, it repeatedly exercises its authority through the figures of farce (669).
colonial mimicry is the desire for the reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject of a difference that is almost the same, but not quite (669).
the discourse of mimicry is constructed around an ambivalence (669).
Mimicry is, thus, the sign of a double-articulation; a complex strategy of reform, regulation, and discipline, which “appropriates” the Other as it visualizes power (669).
flawed colonial mimesis, in which to be Anglicized, is emphatically not to be English (670).
Mimicry . . . is the process of the fixation of the colonial as a form of cross-classificatory, discriminatory knowledge in the defiles of an interdictory discourse (673).
The ambivalence of colonial authority repeatedly turns from mimicry—a difference that is almost nothing but not quite—to menace—a difference that is almost total but not quite (674).