actual colonies is one of thedominant characteristics of European colonialism. In Cesaire, Achebe or Thiong'o, one readingthat can be gotten is that these authors understood the power of nationalistdiscourses, but at the same time had a very critical relationship to thoseforms. They, as many other authors readin class, see the formation of nation-states as in many ways a continuation ofcolonialism, while also being a form of liberation from it. In my opinion, their critical relationship tonationalist discourses, and their very clever responses to those many forms literature, film, science, politics, the writing of history that shapenationalism, may provide both nationalist and anti-nationalistinterpretations of themselves. Postcolonial literature, as always responding to colonization, has actedboth as critical reflection of colonial power and of the always-presentresistance. In this sense, it asks us tobe continually critical of any claim to unquestionable authority. Hybridityis the name used by Bhabha to describe the presence of a space of otherness within the processof colonization. It is an ever-presentdifference. For its author, resistancecannot be reduced to an oppositional act of political intention. Actually, for Bhabha, hybridity is alwaysalready present in any form of relation of domination that involves culturaldiscourses. It is thus that modificationand multiplicity of cultural discourses always operate. In conditions where thestory that tells this land belonged to us was passed from generation to generation,the white settlers could not have hoped that their story of colonization wouldbe normalized, scripted into the history of the place as the one andonly story. If the violence ofcolonialism was in part the telling of stories around land and belonging,texts of colonial resistance, such as novels and forms of social analysis intexts, have also responded to those stories with their own. It is the colonized writing in part asresponse to the colonizer. How dodifferent discourses operate with regards to the possession of the land inAfrican colonization? This question wasa critical perspective on history that both Chinua Achebe and Ngugi Wa Thing'ocontributed to in the making of African postcolonial literature.[1] Bothauthors construct stories that are contesting the very essentialisms that areused by colonization to enforce itself. To me, they contest essentialist theories of the colonizer as much asthe colonized, showing through the lives of many besides the main characters,the myriad ways in which colonialism impacts different people based ondivisions of race, class, gender, religion, and political affiliations. However, similarly, there is a struggle forland ownership, because of colonialism, that links both books. In this sense, of contesting the identity ofthe owner of land, and of the colonial regime more broadly, both authors bringus very close to the critique of the representation of colonization as aunitary Truth. Clearly, though, as withany text, the critique can be obscured and in its place a Truth be constructed in the space of colonization,by an interpretation that understands colonialism as inevitably linked to thefailure of the colonized to liberate itself. The danger of this interpretation, of the role of liberation being thatof the oppressed themselves, is part of the contradiction inherent in manydiscourses, including Western forms of Marxism, that abide to the ideology thatit is the role of the