Dismantling the fallacies of colonial discourse: teaching logic as a tool for developing critical consciousness

When we want to conduct a session on arguments within a non-formal logic course, the examples chosen are usually about the debate on abortion, gay marriage or free consumption of drugs. However, it would be more interesting to have a dynamic that allows classes to deal with the situation of coloniality in which Latin American reality is immersed. In this sense, our objective is to question, from the point of view of non-formal logic, the colonialist arguments so that they can be used within a class session. In fact, such a session could be turned into an opportunity to debate the following motion: “This house considers that the Spanish invasion of America brought more harm than good.” To help the student body, it could be proposed to analyze the situation provoked by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador when he wrote a letter to the king demanding that he apologize for the barbarism committed during Spain’s invasion of America (BBC News Mundo, 2019, March 25). Evidently, this fact encouraged several groups of Hispanists, among them Mario Vargas Llosa, to demonstrate against the president of Mexico and to overvalue the so-called “Hispanic heritage” which, according to the Nobel Prize winner, at a cultural level, notably influences the identity of today’s America.

Having stated the above, the problem would be the following: In what way can we refute the arguments sustained by the colonialists, making use of non-formal logic and in such a way that this refutation activity is a didactic resource to be used in a session on argumentation and fallacies?

From the point of view of the present work, it is considered that the best way to exercise critical thinking is to challenge the positions normally accepted by the established order. In that sense, a session of non-formal logic will be more interesting if it seeks to counter-argue the standard basic colonial position. In this way, students will not only know how to refute or detect fallacies but will also develop awareness by understanding the situation of subjugation to which they are exposed as a society. It is really surprising to learn that many students are unaware that, for example, October 12 is celebrated as Columbus Day in America, while Spain itself commemorates Columbus Day. Likewise, many do not know that the first language spoken, for example, in the capital of Peru, is not Spanish, as many proud Hispanists think. In Lima, the most spoken language is Quechua because it is inhabited by many migrants who leave their native area (the provinces) in order to obtain some of the wealth that exists in that city (Alarcón La Torre, 2023, May 26). Moreover, there are still people who believe that the war posed by the Spanish invasion was won by the Europeans because they were more cunning, stronger or even too many in numbers for the entire Inca Empire. When, in reality, what happened was a political game of unfulfilled promises and betrayals whose consequences were not calculated.

Knowing how to confront colonialist positions is very important today. There are currents of thought that affirm, for example, that Spanish colonization, despite all the bad things, brought progress to America. Thanks to the Spaniards, it is said, America was able to connect with the Romans and the Greeks and was able to get to know a little of that civilizing culture that was so lacking. This is known as the pink legend of the conquest. Today many defend this position and believe that denying the good of this process is not correct, because it is mean.

Today, the world is polarized. It is clear that the solution to defeat the pink legend is not to oppose it with the black legend that exists about the Spanish conquest, according to which Westerners only brought plagues, problems, confusion, bad habits, etc. We must avoid falling into extremist discourses in order to have a more diverse world with more alternative proposals that encourage dialogue, conversation and free thought. In fact, rather than seeking to win a debate, what should be done is to collaborate mutually in order to reach a healthy consensus, as Habermas (1987) proposes.

In this article, we have read and consulted texts on the subject of decoloniality, fallacies, non-formal logic, Freire’s (1985) critical pedagogy, among others. In this sense, it follows a qualitative methodology that, first, collects knowledge from reliable sources and, then, interprets and organizes this knowledge to, finally, structure convincing and persuasive arguments about the subject raised.

It is important to clarify at this point that the pedagogical approach proposed here, which adapts informal logic to address colonial discourse, is not intended to indoctrinate students. Rather, it seeks to cultivate critical thinking skills that allow students to engage with complex ideas, question dominant narratives, and think independently. The goal is to empower students with the tools to critically analyze and deconstruct arguments, enabling them to challenge not only colonialist ideologies but also any other form of ideological manipulation. This approach is firmly rooted in the belief that critical thinking, rather than dogmatic adherence to a single viewpoint, is the cornerstone of true education.

This pedagogical approach aims to connect formal logic, traditionally considered a dominant Western construct, with decolonial education. While informal logic stems from Western philosophical systems, we can critically examine its application and potential biases. This is possible because the assumption that logic originated in the West and is therefore a product of colonization is a fallacy. This is known as a genetic fallacy, which occurs when an argument is dismissed solely based on its questionable origin, rather than its merits. Law is also a Roman product, but this does not prevent it from being used to defend Indigenous peoples.

This allows us to use Western colonial logic against itself, questioning the assumptions of superiority that have shaped dominant discourses. In doing so, our goal is not only to dismantle colonialist arguments, but also to foster a deeper understanding of how these frameworks have been imposed, while creating space for alternative, non-colonial perspectives.

To begin, the theoretical framework of critical pedagogy is presented, followed by an examination of the main ideas of Maldonado-Torres’s (2022) decolonial proposal. Next, typical arguments posed by colonialist groups are reviewed. Then, applying non-formal logic, fallacies, counterexamples or premises will be sought in order to refute such arguments. In this way, the fallacies of colonialism will be dismantled and, at the same time, a critical conscience will be formed about the situation of ideological subjugation to which this part of the world is subjected.

According to Apple (1997), eating cheap French fries can simply be interpreted as an individual activity consisting of eating certain crunchy and salty foods. But, from another point of view, eating cheap French fries represents the last link in a long chain of events involving an impoverished country, an abusive ruler, greedy companies and farmers condemned to produce food that will not provide them with enough economic sustenance to progress out of this situation. However, it is evident that students are not educated to see things this way. No one understands that when one buys a fancy smartphone, one is indirectly supporting the labor exploitation that some poor children are forced to endure when they have to work in cobalt mines, exposing themselves to all the imminent health risks. One usually sees only the shiny device with its technological functions, but beyond that, because it is not advertised and is not a matter of public debate, such a precarious issue is not problematized. Current education is responsible for this situation.

Apple is one of the representatives of the so-called critical pedagogy, of which the thinker Freire (1985) is also a member. The idea is that education has a frankly revolutionary aspect. Education is not only a tool that seeks to train future workers, but it may also wish to awaken interest in seeking the truth, criticize the current state of affairs and transform the situation of poverty, domination and subjugation of the most affected regions of the world. Freire’s (1985) proposal seeks to encourage dialogue as a means of education, rather than the learner being considered as a merely passive being and receiver. Likewise, one of the primary objectives of education must be the search for freedom, that is, one must not replicate the injustice that dominates the social order, one must understand that one has more options and that it is not simply a matter of adapting to an environment in crisis, but rather, to overcome those difficulties and find the means to be able to liberate everyone else as well.

It is important to consider that, in order to learn well the content of a class session, examples are fundamental, especially if we are dealing with humanities courses. To effectively understand the content of any class, examples play a crucial role, especially in humanities courses. These subjects often delve into abstract theories, historical narratives, or complex philosophical ideas that can be difficult to understand without concrete, easily identifiable examples. Examples serve as a bridge between theory and real-world application, allowing students to relate the content to their own experiences or situations they can easily understand.

This is especially true in logic classes, where concepts can seem very abstract or even purely descriptive. Logic often involves understanding the relationships between different statements, deductions and logical forms. Without concrete examples, these concepts can seem dry or disconnected from everyday thinking. By integrating examples that illustrate how logical principles work in real-life contexts, students can see how abstract principles are applied in decision-making, argumentation, or even basic reasoning processes.

This practical approach allows for deeper understanding and retention, ensuring that students are not only prepared for exams but also able to apply logical reasoning in real-life situations.

Education must be duly accompanied by instructive examples so that the nature of the knowledge imparted is understood. And what is important for education in philosophy is also important for education in logic, especially in its aspect where debate and discussion are more feasible. In this case, it is a matter of complementing the teachings of non-formal logic with examples that represent fallacies against which one could wield counterexamples, counterarguments or reasonable debates.

Logic in its non-formal aspect has been considered ideal for developing critical thinking in students. As is known, logic is divided into formal and non-formal (Mora, 2019). Formal logic is proper to science and mathematics since it uses axiomatic and deductive systems for its analysis (Díez, 2013). On the other hand, non-formal logic studies reasoning and arguments that, in the context of an exchange of ideas, can be valid and contribute something constructive to the subject in question (Perelman, 2007).

Specifically, the chapter referred to, called “Fallacies” (Copi & Cohen, 2013), can be very useful to teach how to recognize those proposition structures that, because they are elaborated with a failed strategy to attack a position, do not constitute a cognitive contribution that can be validated in a rational debate.

According to Copi and Cohen (2013), there are four types of fallacies: relevance, deficient induction, presupposition and ambiguity. As cases of the first type, there are six subtypes: ad populum, straw man, ad hominem, red herring, ad baculum and ignoratio elenchi. As cases of the second type, there are four subtypes: ad ignorantiam, ad verecundiam, non causa pro causa and hasty generalization. As cases of the third type, there are three subtypes: accident, complex question and petitio principii. As cases of the fourth type, there are five subtypes: equivocation, amphibology, emphasis, division and composition. It should be noted that, despite the classification presented, there are other fallacies that will be mentioned later in the section analyzing colonial discourse.

Faced with this list, teachers often give uncoordinated and diverse examples, for example, they may mention the following examples of ad populum, ad verecundiam, accident and amphibology: “This government is adequate because most of the citizens support it,” “This treatment is effective because the famous doctor Albela recommends it,” “It is illegal to carry guns, therefore, policemen should not carry them” and “It was a regrettable event because the thieves robbed the old lady with the cane.”

While teachers fulfill the task of making knowledge meaningful through a precise and clear example, it is obvious that, if a discourse containing many fallacies could be articulated, this topic could be better taught. First of all, the student may believe that there are fallacies when talking about weapons, but not when talking about books. In this case, there is also the fallacy of accident: “The reading of books should be celebrated, therefore, if someone in a store, in order to read it, takes a book from a shelf and does not pay for it, that should be celebrated.” Secondly, the fact of detecting multiple fallacies within the same discourse would make the teaching of fallacy detection systematic. In this sense, it would be interesting to reconstruct the ideas that are handled with respect to colonialist discourse and then analyze its fallacies, within the context of a logic class. In the following sections, I will present examples and apply non-formal logic to deconstruct these colonialist arguments, providing a critical perspective on the fallacies that sustain them.

Decoloniality seeks to question the structures of knowledge and power that have been established since modernity (Maldonado-Torres, 2022). The idea is that the anti-colonial activism that has been at the center of the history of recent years has sought to question the assumption of superiority of a certain part of the world over another.

According to Maldonado-Torres (2022), decolonial philosophy seeks to create new ways of being and thinking that are not at the mercy of national concepts proper to European philosophy. Thus, the decolonial turn consists of revaluing the experiences and knowledge coming from alternative spaces historically displaced.

In association with the decolonial turn, postcontinental philosophy seeks to prioritize ethics, politics and the theoretical framework of decolonialism itself. Thus, greater inclusivity and diversity will be achieved in order to recognize the lived reality of colonized subjects. It also seeks to raise awareness of the fact that spatial and temporal imaginaries have been dominated by Eurocentric thought.

In another work, Maldonado-Torres (2014) states that any ethical analysis must consider the categories of race and religion as the delineators of subjectivity and otherness in today’s world. Based on Quijano’s (2014) concept of “coloniality of power,” it should be understood that coloniality and modernity are deeply intertwined. Therefore, decolonization must seek to challenge and transform the power structures imposed since the advent of modernity.

It is not only a matter of dismantling colonial structures but also of creating new forms of knowledge in accordance with the lived reality in this part of the world. The important thing is to promote interconnection and solidarity among the peoples of humanity.

Bernardino, Maldonado-Torres and Grosfoguel (2018) argue that it is necessary to value alternative epistemologies, above all, those that are native to colonized territories, since knowledge is not universal, but rather is situated and governed by a certain context. It should be understood that decoloniality is not only a political struggle but also a struggle against the logics of coloniality and its effects.

It is necessary to combat the arguments that suggest that being colonized represents an advantage and something that ensures the progress of nations. The subject role played by the knowledge of subordinate peoples must be recognized.

Maldonado-Torres (2007) affirms that the colonial self has modeled the way in which individuals conceive themselves. Thus, the identity of colonized peoples has been constructed in opposition to the figure of the imperial man, which refers to the European or the American. This implies that there is no authentic affirmation of the identity of the colonized. Rather, the essence of the colonized is defined in relation to its opposite, rendering it dependent and devoid of original substance.

There is a coloniality of knowledge. From Lévinas (1969) we can rescue his philosophy of the other that at an ethical level considers the existence and value of the others (the outcasts, the marginalized, those who are not like us, the outsiders, the foreigners, the foreigners, the uncontacted, the pariahs, those who lack an identity of their own) who are not like ourselves. From Fanon (1968), we find his interpretation of the relationship between master and slave, as well as his ontology that considers coloniality to be central.

It is interesting to note how the relationship of master and slave finds comparison with the relationship of colonizer and colonized. The colonized has no choice but to see himself as something negative, as a nuisance to the oppressor. The way out of all this lies in proclaiming the recovery of the denied humanity and making one’s own the identity of someone who, despite his situation of subjugation, has been able to fulfill himself.

Maldonado-Torres (2012) argues that the colonial relationship also includes dimensions of phobia, hatred and homicidal tendencies that manifest themselves between the colonizer and the colonized. For example, colonial societies often dehumanize colonized peoples by presenting them as dangerous others or even “terrorists” or enemies of the established order. In addition, the issue of the original crime of primitive accumulation that explains the wealth of the colonizing countries must be considered. Let us remember that, were it not for the misnamed “discovery of America,” Europe would not have emerged from its crisis situation. Thus, decolonization must address issues of power, knowledge and being that have been constructed in the midst of coloniality.

Maldonado-Torres (2011) also mentions the ideas of Dussel (1995) and Grosfoguel (2011). Maldonado considers that the unfinished project of decolonization is parallel to the unfinished project of the Enlightenment as proposed by Habermas. For, in the same way that the Enlightenment promised ideals that it could not fulfill (liberty, equality and fraternity), decolonization must avoid becoming a mere discourse selling souvenirs, books and campaign pins. Dussel has insisted on the urgent theme of liberation and greater attention to the questions emerging from South America. Grosfoguel has addressed the decolonial turn and expresses the need for epistemic diversity that transcends the approaches of global capitalism.

There are narratives that have been used to justify and maintain the colonial status of certain groups. However, from a critical thinking point of view, it can be affirmed that these narratives contain fallacies, that is, arguments that are logically invalid, but psychologically persuasive (Copi & Cohen, 2013). In what follows, these argumentative discourses will be presented and then, based on the theoretical framework developed by Maldonado-Torres (2022), we will question them and show their flaws and weaknesses.

It should be mentioned that the ideas that will be presented below are not specifically held by any particular intellectual. And, even if they were, the purpose of this section is not to attack the point of view of that intellectual. In fact, the aim is to find out how students in a classroom where they are learning to argue, reply, counter-reply, refute, etc., can confront any common person who, for whatever reason, begins to disseminate this type of discourse. Thus, with this training, students will know how to stand up to a candidate or politician when their followers want to reinforce the questionable views held by their leader. The truth is that sometimes the evil individual does not triumph because the weak man has been defeated, but because no one dares to confront him, even to find out if he is tolerant of criticism. It is this latter capacity that every democracy should foster.

European culture is superior to Indigenous and South American culture both culturally and racially. This is so because Europe has achieved progress and development while, before its annexation, the colonies were primitive, savage and backward. Therefore, Europe has earned the right to dominate other peoples.

It is the moral duty of Europeans to civilize other inferior peoples, for this represents an act of benevolence that shows concern for others. Before the arrival of the colonizers, the native peoples lived in a state of barbarism. Colonization brought education and religion and, in that sense, was an act of charity. If you want a good omelet, you have to break some eggs; in the same way, to achieve civilization, it was necessary to subdue the peoples of this region of the world and impose order on them.

With the support of colonization, it has been achieved that all peoples are constituted by the same type of society and have the same needs and desires. Colonization, in fact, unified and pacified the peoples of South America under a common seal. Today’s South America is proof of this: beyond small conflicts, there are no major wars. Therefore, cultural, historical and social diversity only represents a burden to be avoided. If the South American peoples are allowed to feel proud of their roots and try to impose their particular worldviews, soon everyone will want to separate and chaos will reign again.

South America does not seem to understand the concept of “progress” adequately. After years of becoming independent states, they have not been able to surpass Europe and North America. Instead, the latter have found the most reliable type of growth model in terms of progress and economic development, and any people who want to call themselves civilized and advanced will have to imitate this model if they want to improve the standard of living of their inhabitants.

The acts carried out by the European nations to colonize other people respond to a natural, neutral and objective model of proceeding. There is no real negative impact, since this is the way things should have been done. These events were part of the natural and global evolution of the world. It must be remembered that the strong always dominate the weak. The violence of war was necessary to maintain order and peace in this part of the world.

The European regime has allowed the development of an efficient way of managing resources. Colonization has implied economic development for the colonies. The Indigenous peoples are not capable of governing themselves or adapting to the dynamics of the modern economy. Even the peoples of South America today, years after achieving their independence, are not capable of achieving the status of world powers. There is no real understanding of how the economy works and, rather, there is much longing for what the original peoples were. Precisely, these peoples are not capable of developing the technology so necessary for the advancement of humanity. In addition, the low level of education has led to the belief that corruption of the authorities is normal and acceptable, thus harming their own development.

Those who oppose colonialism only seek either to damage the image of Europeans or, even worse, to eliminate all European influence. Moreover, anyone who opposes this discourse is against progress. European civilization has authority and this is based on facts. At bottom, Indigenous rights activists are just extremists. To deny colonialism is to deny part of history. Likewise, many people believe that colonialism was a good thing because of the progress it brought.

In order to be able to analyze these positions, we must proceed as follows:

1. Identification of the fallacy

It is necessary to know how to distinguish between the different fallacies that exist: ad misericordiam, ad baculum, ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi, ad ignorantiam, vicious circle, request of principle, equivocation, amphibology, emphasis, division, composition, false dilemma, accident, inverse accident, ad antiquitatem, ad novitatem, etc.

1. Questioning the premises

It is not always the case that the starting points accepted by the arguer turn out to be reliable or clearly true. It is necessary to review them and see whether or not there is consistency with the data that can be found.

1. Search for counterexamples

A basic refutation strategy is the search for counterexamples. Thus, if it is claimed that since all poor and indigenous couples have poor and indigenous children, then they should not reproduce, this can be countered by arguing that, if that were true, successful European couples would only have successful European children, and the latter is not true.

1. Consider the context

One must also be aware of the social, cultural, political and even historical circumstances surrounding the debate or argument. With that in mind, one can better examine the argument. It is not the same to argue against colonial discourse when it is election time as when there is a direct conflict with the government of the day. The repression to which the Indigenous or South American is a victim could reinforce the decolonial position.

1. Promote alternative points of view

Once critical thinking has been employed to unravel the biases and half-truths introduced in the discourses, it must be stressed that there are different points of view on the same issue that have the same right to be exposed as well as to be criticized.

1. Encourage critical dialogue

Finally, dialogue should always be conducted with respect, considering that we are all human and can make mistakes as we seek continuous improvement. There is no need to argue to know who is right and who is wrong.

In this part of the article, we seek to question the previous arguments, identifying some fallacies in which the discourse in question falls into.

The argument of cultural and racial superiority is refuted by considering that it is an ad hominem attack. This happens if the South American is accused of being a people in a state of savagery and barbarism. The culture of these peoples is rich. Thus, it is known that Indigenous communities have developed sustainable resource management practices. To claim that European culture is superior because it has been considered so for a long time is to fall into the fallacy ad antiquitatem. Finally, it is not enough to mention science, technological achievements or economic development as sufficient reasons to believe that a culture is superior. Believing the above is considered fallacy of composition since it is assumed that since certain cultural products are superior to those of such a society, then the former enjoys superiority over all cultures. There is no such thing as racial superiority. It has no biological basis. To believe so is to fall into social Darwinism. Differences between human communities are superficial and do not provide a basis for oppression of one against another.

A fallacy occurs when the white man’s authority is posited as a point of reference for what is and is not good in relation to considering something as civilized or not. The white man’s responsibility is supposed to be to take care of the Indigenous South American people. However, the colonizers rather destroyed all forms of organization, knowledge and spirituality proper to the native culture. This indicates that the idea of civilization is subjective and prejudiced. Moreover, it is not true that one must choose between civilization and barbarism. This proposal falls into a fallacy of false dichotomy. Civilization should imply the respect and value of indigenous cultures, not their elimination. The fallacy of false analogy is also detected since it is not feasible to compare people with eggs. This is a fallacy, since it is not correct, for example, to compare people with stones and then deduce a dehumanizing consequence. Finally, there is the fallacy of false cause, which states that civilizing Indigenous peoples has as a necessary consequence the elimination of their own cultural practices. The latter is incorrect because it assumes that the only way to achieve social welfare is through the imposition of Western.

To believe that colonization succeeded in making the colonized society unique to the point of seeking to satisfy the same needs is to fall into a fallacy of hasty generalization, since it does not consider that colonized peoples maintain strong cultural and social differences among themselves, as is the case between America and Africa. Colonization caused the fragmentation of communities and the loss of particular cultural identities. Cultural diversity is valuable in itself. Diversity enriches societies. For example, the prosperity of today’s United States is due in large part to the migration of racial minorities to those lands. Likewise, to assert that “either colonization or barbarism” is to pose, once again, a false dilemma since there are intermediate points. Finally, to suggest that giving total freedom to Indigenous peoples would lead to chaos is to fall into a slippery slope fallacy.

To believe that, if such a territory is colonized, then it will prosper is a form of false cause fallacy. There may be certain structural developments, but these will always benefit the colony and never the locals. The colonial economy was based on exploitation and not on the sustainable development of local communities. In that sense, progress was only for the colonizers. By the way, the use of the term “progress” is controversial. In this case, it would be a fallacy of equivocation because the concept of progress may not be the same for everyone in all cases. For example, to some it may seem that progress is given by the accumulation of wealth, while, for others, by the care of nature. It is the same word, but not the same idea. Benjamin (1973) argued that the idea of progress is an illusion and, to use a metaphor, we do not know if the modern train of history is perhaps leading us into an abyss.

Violence is not natural because it can be avoided. And it can be avoided because it is a human act that depends on freedom. It is not like an earthquake or a tsunami. Violence has always generated trauma and dehumanization. It is wrong to assume that because something is natural, it is acceptable. The latter is known as the naturalistic fallacy. Moreover, Indigenous peoples had ways of resolving conflicts that did not resort to violence. Therefore, it does not hold that violence is necessary. Colonization was not a natural process. It can be argued that it falls into a vicious circle fallacy to maintain that domination is good because it is part of natural evolution and, at the same time, that domination is part of natural evolution because it is good. The evolution of societies must be understood in the context of relations of power and resistance.

There is an ad hominem fallacy when Indigenous peoples are disqualified for supposedly not being able to govern themselves, without considering that colonization prevented their development. At the same time, it is concluded that all Indigenous peoples cannot and will not be able to govern themselves, ignoring exceptions and cases of evident success such as, for example, the Indigenous peoples of Bolivia, Mexico and Colombia. Efficiency is achieved through exploitation and oppression, but the Indigenous communities (who were exploited) did not manage to enjoy this efficiency. In that sense, the external administrative system was inefficient for them and caused their destabilization.

Claiming that the critics want the image of Europeans to be tarnished so that they leave this part of the world distorts what the opponents were really questioning. This is a scarecrow fallacy because, in fact, instead of expelling foreigners, what is being sought is recognition of the historical debt owed by countries that today enjoy a certain stability.

Furthermore, when colonialism is justified because it is part of history, we fall into an ad antiquitatem fallacy that consists in believing that something is good because it is old. Likewise, stating that many people believe that colonialism was good for the region falls into an ad populum fallacy as long as the reasons behind it are not specified. In fact, Mario Vargas Llosa (whose ideas are very reminiscent of those of the Peruvian conservative Bartolomé Herrera) believes this and uses as an argument the idea that the Spanish language achieved contact between civilizations. Vargas Llosa (2018, October 28) stated, “Thanks to the arrival of the Spanish, Latin America became part of Western culture and heir to Greece, Rome, the Renaissance and the Golden Age.” However, this, of course, is debatable.

Detecting and eliminating fallacies requires a talent that is very sensitive to this type of error or bias. However, many people do not usually feel persuaded when they hear that such a person’s speech fell into a fallacy. They even feel that there is no fallacy at all, but rather that they are absolutely right. This is especially true in the case of the ad hominem argument. This implies that, although one may have a very high ability to identify fallacies, if the rest of the people in the audience are not well educated, they will not understand what it means for a person to commit fallacies.

Moreover, it is possible that whoever tries to detect fallacies in discourses can easily be accused of being ideologically committed to such and such positions. Thus, if someone claims that the colonizing discourse is based on fallacies, it could be deduced from this that such discourse is false. And whoever would be pointed out as someone who accuses the colonizing discourse of being false, would be labeled as a “decolonialist” by default. However, even to assert that such an idea, because it is based on fallacies, is false is another fallacy known as fallacy ad logicam or fallacy of fallacies (Bordes, 2011).

On the other hand, although fallacies are interesting from the point of view of critical thinking, it would also be desirable to carry out studies on paradoxes. Detecting fallacies is undoubtedly an activity that exercises our ability to understand language, as well as to correct, in case there are flaws. However, it is usually more complex to analyze paradoxes. For example, let’s think about the paradox of world hunger (BBC News World, 2019, October 16).

According to this paradox, curiously, the peasants, responsible for the world’s food, are so poor that with their salary, they are not even able to buy what they themselves produce. This unjust situation occurs because of the situation of subjugation and abandonment in which a large part of the world’s Indigenous population finds itself, the very ones who dedicate themselves to agriculture as their only form of subsistence.

And the worst thing is the unconsciousness of a certain sector of the population that believes that food is obtained fundamentally in supermarkets, without considering that everything, in reality, everything comes from the countryside, or rural areas. But the countryside, precisely, has been the object of attacks, of neglect, of indifference, for example, when nature is not taken care of, or is not protected against forest fires. Many people who love the city do not usually make sense of the countryside if it is not only for tourist trips. And, as they say, what is essential is invisible to the eye.

It is possible to reconstruct the colonialist position in such a way that it is refutable and that such an activity can be used during a non-formal logic class session to teach some concepts about argumentation and fallacies.

The argument of cultural superiority is refuted by taking into account that it is an ad hominem attack. The alleged cultural superiority judges people by external characteristics rather than by looking at the real arguments or their specific cultural merits, diverting attention from a reasoned debate.

The ad antiquitatem fallacy is committed when it is judged that European culture has long been superior to others. Appealing to the antiquity of a culture as proof of its superiority ignores contemporary values and the diverse progress of other civilizations.

One falls into the fallacy of composition when one assumes that because European culture has had some great techno-scientific breakthroughs, then European culture itself is superior to all others. Not all aspects of a culture derive from its specific advances, and assuming so is an unwarranted generalization.

As for the white man’s responsibility, the ad verecundiam fallacy is committed by assuming that everything that comes from Europe is acceptable just because it is from Europe. This reasoning ignores critical evaluation of European actions and perpetuates an uncritical bias toward their legacy.

When a choice is made between barbarism or civilization, the fallacy of false dichotomy is committed. This approach excludes alternatives and simplifies the historical and cultural complexity of human societies.

The fallacy of false cause occurs when it is argued that, due to violence established during the invasion, all possible development of America has been achieved. It assumes an inevitable causal relationship between the use of force and progress, which ignores other possible historical paths.

In relation to homogeneity, the fallacy of hasty generalization is committed by assuming that since there are cases where Indigenous people do not know how to organize themselves, then no Indigenous society can self-organize. This type of reasoning simplifies the differences between groups and dismisses historical examples of indigenous self-government.

The linear progress argument that considers that, if such territory is colonized, then it will prosper, is a form of false cause fallacy. Prosperity depends on multiple factors and not just on the imposition of an external system, which demonstrates the fallacy of the argument.

When discussing progress, it is possible to have different concepts of progress, which would be evidence of the existence of the fallacy of equivocation. Progress does not have a universal meaning, and its equivocal use leads to incorrect conclusions about what constitutes true progress.

In relation to naturalness, when it is said that since violence is natural among different societies, then it is something historically acceptable, we fall into the naturalistic fallacy. What occurs in a “natural” way does not imply that it is morally correct or justifiable from an ethical perspective.

When domination is explained as being natural and therefore good, and when it is said that domination is good and therefore natural, we fall into the fallacy of the vicious circle. This tautological reasoning reinforces a prejudice without offering valid logical or historical evidence.

As for administrative efficiency, there is an ad hominem fallacy when Indigenous people are accused of being ignorant or incapable when they do not know how to produce wealth in the same way as Westerners. This criticism ignores the differences in economic systems and the effects of colonial oppression that shaped their capabilities.

In relation to the criticism of anti-colonialists, we fall into a scarecrow fallacy when it is stated that those who oppose or question the colony, as a historical reality, would like to tarnish the image of all Westerners so that they will leave. This argument distorts the intentions of critics, invalidating a genuine debate about the historical effects of colonialism.

When it is said that the colony, for a long time, has been a way of spreading the achievements of Europeans, one falls into the fallacy ad antiquitatem. Appealing to historical continuity does not justify the damage colonialism caused, nor explain the diversity of its consequences.