Tag: decolonization

The Legacy of White Supremacy on Indigeneity

antunezy on

Colorism is an issue prevalent within Latin American society that affects many darker-skinned folk living in the region. Specifically, colorism is a prevalent issue within Indigenous communities. In efforts to deconstruct and solidify the definition or requirements of indigeneity, we must first define the impact of colonialism on anti-blackness in Indigenous communities. Societal systems in the Americas have been forced with anti-blackness mindsets since the implementation of extractive and settler colonialism types. As a group that had to give up their autonomy in order to exist, Indigenous peoples were also subject to such mindsets. To subject indigeneity as an exclusive group is to erase that identity to non-standard groups such as Black people. However, this raises the question about how indigeneity should be measured in order to remain authentic and legitimate.
In the chapter titled “Dangerous Decolonizing: Indians and Blacks and the Legacy of Jim Crow,” Brian Klopotek  discusses the main points of reshaping the Indian methodologies that present indigeneity as a heterogenous group rather than an entity whose boundaries are blurred. Also, they argue that race must be included more broadly in Indian studies, as one legacy of white supremacy within the Indigenous premise is anti blackness and need to seperate themselves from other minorities, but especially any blackness.
The focus groups of this chapter was based on the Tunica-Biloxi group, the Choctaw Indians, and especially the Clifton-Choctaw who are the only group among the three that are not federally-recognized. In terms of the Clifton-Choctaw, the anti blackness is especially prevalent when discussing their modes of strategy for trying to get federal approval of their group legitimacy. This case is especially concerning when taking into account their geographical location, Louisiana, which is known to have a large Black population. Given that Indigenous groups had to constantly advocate for themselves to garner rights and some autonomy apart from being a minority, in context, it is not surprising that they tried to distance themselves as having any relationship to Black people.
As the Jim Crow Era made it so people had to abide by the clear and set distinction of Black and white people, it left other minorities, like the Indigenous communities, to adopt both silent and loud anti-blackness in order to be seperated from Black people and survive within white superiority. In order to send their children to better schools, be eligible for better jobs, and be taken seriously among their decolonization efforts, Indigenous people denied any blackness within their communities. Although a survival tactic, Indigenous people were complicit in the oppression of Black people, as they maintained the belief that being Black was being at the bottom.
In bringing forth the issue to the public, the writer hopes to decolonize the indian methodologies that try to seperate themselves from blackness. It is an attribute of indigeneity to be able to encompass multiple ethnicities, meaning Indigenous people may be light or dark and still identify through that native label. Therefore, indigeneity, although broad, is one step closer to defining itself once measuring their inclusion of Black people, or Black ancestry.
Written by the Government of Bolivia in 1900, “The Slow and Gradual Disappearance of the Indigenous Race” classifies four races and their attributes. The Bolivian government distinguishes the races as white, mestizo, black, and Indian. The white race is seen as the superior race, which the government includes Bolivians as part of this group. Therefore, true Bolivians are apparently white, while mestizos include those like cholos. The government states that cholos are still superior to Indigenous people, but below Bolivians due to their respectability. The Black race is then formed by former ancestral slaves or people from countries like Brazil who make up a very “insignificant” amount of the population and are in competition with mulattos. The system places mulattos above Black people, although both groups are on the bottom of the privilege scale. These chapter excerpts detail the labeling of race that Indigenous peoples were subject to and therefore had to navigate in order to obtain rights and better means of life. As the white race, or the civilians of that nation, compared Black people with Indigenous people, it was dangerous to them to accept such relationship because it would mean a permanent bottom order in society, which is what Black people have historically suffered. Although white supremacy and racism made it hard for Indigenous groups to navigate their way through a better societal order, one cannot deny their role in practicing and helping cement the belief that Black people are the bottom of society and therefore one must distinguish themselves from them and any blackness among them.
Similar because it shows a perspective of the elitist group trying to change the requirements to be labeled as Indigenous in order to erase their legitimacy, This threat has possibly made it so indians are more likely to hold their methodology of race consolidation more firmly to legitimize their group
https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-bolivia-reader
https://muse-jhu-edu.ezproxy.carleton.edu/book/16159/

Native anthropology and Native historiography

abesse on

Alongside with political under-representation, denied social rights, and sometimes deprivation from their lands, indigenous in Latin America have often been excluded from the academic sphere. To overcome this lack, some scholars have recently advocated for a Native anthropology and historiography. 
Native anthropology
Native anthropology would develop “a set of theories based on non-Western precepts and assumptions in the same sense that modern anthropology is based on has supported Western beliefs and values” [1]. Indeed, most ethnographic works are written by academics who use a particular frame and a Western conceptualization of indigeneity. Indigenous theorizing then results from a combination of the appropriation of academic anthropology and indigenous patterns of narration. 
On this matter, one issue is translation. Translating the Colombian Constitution of 1991 from Spanish into Nasa Yuwe, the language spoken by the Nasa people in Colombia, is a way to liberate the Spanish version from its original limitations. Nevertheless, it is no more the translation than the process itself that is important here: translating the Constitution needed the collaboration of a team gathering authorities of Mosoco indigenous community, bilingual teachers, indigenous and national linguists, and professionals from the national society. This collaborative work leads to autoethnography, which Rappaport and Ramos define as “[the appropriation of] external concepts within an indigenous political matrix with the aim of introducing new strategies for cultural survival.”[2] The dialogue between indigenous activists and academics takes the form of interculturalism, as opposed to multiculturalism, which promotes a simple tolerance of ethnic minorities, instead of integrating them in the national discourse. 
Native historiography and the example of the Nasa
Joanne Rappaport gives a formidable overview of Nasa history — a community in the Colombian Andes — from the point of view of Nasa historians. Native history has been ignored for many years because it was not considered academic by Western or Western-oriented scholars; Rappaport highlights its legitimacy and offers to read it as a tool to understand political events in a different way. Rather than truth, she emphasizes the presence of a particular point of view when historians write history. In other words, history is a subjective construct.[3]
Conveying the work of three Nasa historians — Don Juan Tama y Calambás, Manuel Quintín Lame, and Julio Niquinás — Rappaport highltights the incorporative character of native histories.[4] Nasa historians’ goals were not to deconstruct the history they were taught, but to incorporate their own stories to it. In other words, creating a new native history meant to create a mix of interpretations, that did not exclude each other. 
Considering the telling of history as a series of choices allows Rappaport to consider history in terms of power. When the Spaniards conquered what is now Colombia, one of the way to take control over the Nasa was to deprive them from their own history.[5] This situation lasted for centuries, before indigenous activists like Juan Tama started to access the academic sphere and began to write indigenous history in their own terms. Nevertheless, rather than a complete rejection of Western historical methods, Tama’s, Lame’s, and Niquiná’s works are a syncretism between Western historiography and Nasa storytelling. This methodology falls into what Rappaport and Ramos call “autoethnography” and allows indigenous historians to talk about the past without separating it from the present. In The Politics of Memory, Rappaport successfully highlights the work of indigenous historians/storytellers, and guarantees them posterity. Citing the work of Juan Tama, Quintín Lame, and Julio Niquinás, she contextualizes the voices of indigenous people that continuously rose up since the Spanish colonization. Rappaport’s work falls into a recent consideration of indigenous perspectives on history, and especially the way indigenous communities conceptualize history. 
Native Americans have been excluded from academic dialogue for years, but their discourse is now brought into it. Native historians, scholars, anthropologists, are now blurring the Western line between past and present, the line between the actual and the mythical.Their work not only acknowledges the interest of Native history and methods, it empowers our own understanding of history by adding — but not replacing — another perspective to it.
[1] Ramos Pacho, Abelardo and Rappaport, Joanne. “Collaboration and Historical Writing: Challenges for the Indigenous-Academic Dialogue”, in Mallon, Florencia, ed. Decolonizing Native Histories: Collaboration, Knowledge, and Language in the Americas. Durham: Duke University Press, 2012, 122.
[2] Ramos Pacho and Rappaport, 126.
[3] Rappaport, Joanne. The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian Andes. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998, 13.
[4] Rappaport, 168.
[5] Rappaport, 1.
https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/515055

Decolonize Democracy in Bolivia and Canada

delgadoe on

The article “How to Decolonize Democracy: Indigenous Governance Innovation in Bolivia and Nunavut, Canada”, by Roberta Rice, is explicitly about the experiments of decolonization that are taking place in Bolivia and Canada. Decolonization is defined as “the revalorization, recognition and re-establishment of indigenous cultures, traditions and values within the institutions, rules and arrangements that govern society”. The overall goal of decolonization in Bolivia and Canada is to create a “national indigenous culture with new political subjects and forms of citizenship”.
Bolivia and Canada are the first “large-scale tests of indigenous governance in the Americas”. The Indigenous peoples came into power through a conventional democratic path. However, there seems to be “social, economic and institutional problems” that impede the Indigenous groups in the area to have the full power granted to them by the democratic system to incorporate their values into the government.
In Bolivia, the presidency of Evo Morales have given the Indigenous population hope and a way to change the government and improve the position of Indigenous peoples. The presidency of Evo Morales and the 2009 Constitution are considered to be two important factors that will help the installation of Indigenous values into the government. According to the Morales administration, the government bureaucracy is the greatest obstacle to creating a more inclusive government.
In Nunavut, instead of seeking power through an Inuit-specific government system, the Indigenous peoples seek a more public government system. Although similar, there are some differences between the two process of decolonization. Rice claims that the case of Bolivia is considered to be that of “participatory governance” while Nunavut is considered to be that of “resource governance”. The large amount of land gained prompted the creation of a new unique government.
Canada and Bolivia are examples of Indigenous communities creating change that will benefit their communities and hopefully spark other countries to do the same.
 
Article source:
Rice, Roberta. “How to Decolonize Democracy: Indigenous Governance Innovation in Bolivia and Nunavut, Canada.” Bolivian Studies Journal/Revista de Estudios Bolivianos 22, no. 0 (2016): 220–42.
https://doi.org/10.5195/bsj.2016.169.

The Coloniality of Gender

becerraa on

In the Western world, discussions on the struggles produced by colonialism tend to be myopic. For example, the application of western feminists theories in non-western societies falls shorts of fully demonstrating the complexities of the subjugation of people based on gender within the colonial state. In general, western feminist thought lacks an understanding of how gender became a tool to oppress people. Maria Lugones writes “The Coloniality of Gender” to offer more insight on the confluence of gender and colonialism. She critiques the discussion on the coloniality of power concept by Anibal Quijano with the help of feminist theoretical frameworks by Women of Color feminists. Her essay explores her interest in the intersection of “race, class, gender, and sexuality” within the colonial power structure to highlight the shortsighted discussions of liberation and struggle by men, and in particular, men of color.
The coloniality of power describes the concept of how modernity resulted from the legacies of colonialism through the domination, exploitation, and oppression of people under the Eurocentric capitalism and from racialization in the Americas [1].  Lugones criticized this model for being too narrow because it “veil[s] the ways in which non-’white’ colonized women were subjected and disempowered. She explains that she understands how Quijano sees the subjugation of people through the “axis of the coloniality of power,” and how he sees gender within this restrictive framework. However, his shortcomings demonstrate how women of color are overlooked even in academic discussions. Lugones then lists examples of the coloniality of gender.
Lugones describes the inconsistencies within gender assignation and its relation to understanding biological sex. For example, intersex people are 1 in 4 globally, and depending on which genitalia they were born with, they would be assigned a sex identity. However, even within this assignation, Lugones explains, notions of subordination based on gender are imposed. This ties with what Oyéronké Oyewùmí explains about the implementation of gender in the colonization of the Yoruba people. With colonization, gender subordination and race inferiorization were imposed on the Yoruba thus stripping their social structures. Paula Gunn Allen also explains how many North American indigenous communities were gynocratic and their belief systems revolved around female deities, yet that changed with colonization. Subordination of women came through the “the decimation of populations through starvation, disease, and disruption of all social, spiritual, and economic structures,” Gunn Allen adds that indigenous men were complicit in the restructuring of their social order especially after many were taken to England to learn the “way of the English.” This demonstrates the extent which sex, gender, and sexuality were colonized by the Euro-centric capitalist power. Lugones then describes how the feminist movements of the twentieth century were not designed for the use of women of color. The feminism of white women, bourgeois white women, only focused on their subordination and did not so because they did not see themselves in the “intersection of race, gender and other forceful marks of subjection or domination.” Stereotypes about women and men of color emphasize the importance of seeing this because it manifested how the norm for gender expectations and relations were centered around white men and women, first the bourgeois and later middle class. Likewise, heterosexuality is a construction that arose and marked the appropriate relations between people as they aligned with the colonial/modern gender system.
These examples demonstrate how gender is also a tool for establishing domination over colonized places. Because gender is not always investigated separately, it can be missed in conversations about the struggles of decolonization. In this article, Lugones demonstrated how colonization created a new gender system, and how it affected the social structures that people and made them more susceptible to exploitation from Europeans. Within these examples, Women of Color feminists demonstrated the depth of change necessary to leave societies vulnerable to oppression and how these become overlooked.
These insights are helpful within our Latin American context because we have read on examples of how gender affects Indigenous Peoples. We read on about the Muxe of Oaxaca, and how indigenous women are seen as more indigenous than men, to list some examples. Colonization profoundly transformed people and societies. It is easy however to dismiss the impacts of it when discussions about it are dominated by men, and men of color, who do not perceive gender to be influential topics. Within our class, it was helpful to read about women’s experiences because they launched conversations on the role gender plays in history the indigenous people of Latin America.
 
Lugones, Maria. “The Coloniality of Gender.” Worlds & Knowledges Otherwise 2, no. 2 (2008): 1–17. https://globalstudies.trinity.duke.edu/projects/wko-gender.
[1] Quijano, Anibal, and Michael Ennis. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” Nepantla: Views from South 1, no. 3 (November 1, 2000): 533–80. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/23906.

Decolonizing History: Past, Present, Power

brimn on

Historiography is the study of history itself. It is a systematic study of what history is, how people have “done” history, and what role history plays in social systems. In other words, historiography is looking at the forces that determine how history has been told, what is told, and who gets to tell it. So, why is it important to think about historiography? How does it relate to decolonizing history? To Indigenous rights?
When we study history itself, we see its relationship to power and politics. History is a dynamic and subjective system by which communities remember the past and relate it to the present; history can serve to either enforce or dismantle systemic inequality. This is because, as scholar Joanne Rappaport writes, “Knowledge of the past is a fundamental component of land disputes, political agreements and arguments over inheritance. It is also central to efforts at strengthening a communal identity’ [1]. Here, Rappaport points out the inherently political aspect of history that is often made invisible. Many people tend to think of history as a fixed and objective account of the past that, because of these qualities, exists outside of socio political structures.
However, material and immaterial concerns are inextricable from history both in its production and its effects. What I mean is that material resources — such as money and access to formal education — impact who gets to be part of history telling processes. Similarly, immaterial concerns — like societal attitudes — play a role in who is included in telling history. This is the production side of things. In terms of history’s effects, materially, how history is told may impact the way that land and resource disputes are settled; immaterially, how we understand the past has an effect on forming identities and ideologies.
What does this all have to do with colonialism and decolonization? When we think of colonialism, we often think specifically of the political rule of one community over another. Colonialism, in this view, is a political and economic structure that terminates with the material “liberation” of the subaltern. However, when we consider the intimate social and ideological legacies of colonialism — how it fundamentally disrupts native conceptions of gender, of ethnicity, of history — we see coloniality as an ongoing problem.
One colonial legacy is the disruption and erasure of native-storytelling in favor of European tellings of history. When history is colonized in this way, it often throws a veil over the systemic violence that Indigenous people have faced. It also deprives Indigenous communities of the power to tell history in a way that accurately reflects their identities, experiences, and values.  
However, history can be transformed from a colonial legacy into a tool of resistance. Knowledge of the past can be “indispensable in the maintenance of autonomy in the face of European domination” [2]. When Indigenous people have the space to tell their own history, it can become an important means of forming and strengthening identities, making claims to land, and unlearning the European histories which often diminish Indigenous experience. What might this look like in practice? How might Indigenous knowledge systems differ from European ones?
For the Nasa (also called the Paez) people in Colombia, history is “difficult to locate […] in time and space” [3]. Nasa storytelling is non-linear, it includes mythic elements, and is episodic. This is not out of an inability to tell history in a European mode — “It is not that indigenous peoples have no sense of the flow of time, nor that they are unable to distinguish fact from fiction, […], but that fictive and fantastic images may help them to reflect more fully upon the real” [4].
This all might demonstrate why historiography and decolonizing history are so important when it comes to indigenous rights. If we do not study how history has been made, we cannot understand how history has been used to perpetuate inequality — or how it can be used to challenge that inequality.
Notes
[1] Rappaport, Joanne, The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian Andes. (Chapel Hill: Duke University Press, 1998), 11-12.
[2] Rappaport, Joanne. The Politics of Memory, 11-12.
[3] Rappaport, Joanne. The Politics of Memory, 11.
[4] Rappaport, Joanne. The Politics of Memory, 18.
Works Cited
Rappaport, Joanne. The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian Andes. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press, 1998.