Settler colonialism

The term that has been the hardest for me to understand throughout the term is indigenous. At the beginning of this course, I heavily attributed this term to the word native, meaning originating from, as I mostly commonly associate this term to plants and herbs. However, as the term has gone on I have noticed that the meaning of indigenous varies within different countries and peoples, especially in the case studies of Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, and Chile we have focused on.
The piece by Andrew Canessa, “Who Is Indigenous? Self-Identification, Indigeneity, And Claims to Justice in Contemporary Bolivia”, further explores the meaning of indigenous by analyzing the complexity of indigeneity in Bolivia in terms of identification of self and entire communities. Canessa describes how the term indigenous is heavily associated to the ideas of hunter-gatherers and nomads. Most notably the word indigenous is thought closely to stand for “primitive” in relation to the ancestors of humankind. Although this is the initial thought when discussing the term indigenous, Canessa acknowledges that who is indigenous and what it means to be indigenous throughout Latin America is complex and variable among different individuals and time.
An aspect of indigeneity could include language, specifically the language of Quechua in the case of Bolivia, but many indigenous languages throughout Latin America also contribute to this. Although language is an important factor to indigeneity, it is not a binding requirement since there are many individuals who do not speak Quechua, such as the president Evo Morales, and still identify as indigenous. Indigeneity can also be identified through jobs worked, such as that of farming and agriculture, that also reflect social class. Plus, geographical setting was a key role to some individuals who identify as indigenous through their ties to land pre- and post-colonialism. However, it is not always the case or required as seen through the cases of migrants who have been forced off their land. One of the biggest challenges that comes with self-identification when it comes to indigeneity is the relevant political issues that rise up, since many take the identity of indigenous as a political position. As Canessa points out in this article, this brings up the question of who gets a say when discussing indigenous needs and rights if those who identify as indigenous do it in varying ways.
Defining this term is also a bit subjective in many cases, as one may wonder if the term indigenous is meant to be an inclusive or vastly exclusive term. In some areas, this word is very exclusionary since it requires the individual to be, look, live, work, and identify a certain way in order to be able to identify or be accepted as indigenous. This may leave those who do not fit these standards exactly, or at all, to be unacknowledged.
The piece “Transnational Settler Colonial Formations and Global Capital: A Consideration of Indigenous Mexican Migrants” by Lourdes Gutiérrez Nájera and Korinta Maldonado attempts to describe and understand the relationship between the migration of indigenous communities into spaces influenced by settler-colonialism. The authors discuss the underlying question of how settler-colonialism influences indigeneity in terms of social order and relations to the land. The article mentions how the migration led to a sort of “Indigenous Resurgence” among the Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Mixes people from the state of Oaxaca, Mexico into the surrounding area of Los Angeles. Specifically, the Zapotec people have been noted to have left a big impact in the city of LA, in a space that has become known as “Oaxacalifornia”, through the formation of enclaves, restaurants, and stores. Also, they even formed local organizations such as bands, basketball teams, dance groups, and festivals or parades of cultural celebration. This specifically reflects how the indigenous communities of migrants from Oaxaca, Mexico were able to develop their indigeneity even in this transnational space they found themselves in. The article analyzes the question of indigeneity through migrants who are no longer in the land their culture and way of life contributes to. But despite this, the indigenous communities of the Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Mixes people show how their indigeneity can be lived, practiced, embraced, and supported despite the distance and space they live in today.
Also, this term can serve to be inclusive in other areas, as there is no exact definition of the word, leaving it to be more general including everyone who wishes to identify this way. However, there are even some homologous terms in other countries, such as our current case study of Peru where the people prefer the term campesino, which in a sense implies indigenous descent but more importantly acknowledges a socioeconomic status. Although, there is no straightforward or single definition for the term indigenous, the themes and complexities that its understanding entails is important in order to begin, or continue understanding indigeneity as a whole.

The crises of American states and indigenous struggles is that at their core they are relationships formed and reproduced by colonialism. Colonialism as a process establishes a complex hierarchical relationship and is founded and justified through a series of systems. The continuation and legacies of European colonialism beginning in the 15h century with the arrival of Columbus have profoundly transformed our world today. Settler colonialism is characterized by a logic of dispossession and elimination. The term is rooted on a problematic binary of the expropriation of land as opposed to the expropriation of labor that distinguishes it from extractive colonialism as popularized by Patrick Wolfe (Speed, 2017).
Recognizing Settler Colonial Strategies in Latin America
M. Bianet Castellanos points out the struggle of recognizing the settler colonial structures in Latin America because the term did not originally account for the Latin American case but was formulated as a way to differentiate British colonialism in North America from black slavery, and the lack of an appropriate translation of the term in Spanish (Castellanos, 2017; Speed, 2017). As a result, it can be difficult to conceptualize the term in within and about Latin America. Shannon Speed argues that in Latin America colonialism always operated with elements of both extractive and settler colonialism, and furthermore draws on studies that argue that settler colonialism emerges from the formation of the state in Latin America after independence (Speed, 2017). This argument negates the image of a general progression of liberties and rights over time, as it is with the end of traditional European colonial ties in Latin America that the new independent states began to dispossess and eliminate indigenous persons with a new fervor to create a homogenous state under certain economic systems. Juan Castro and Manuela Picq use the case study of indigenous land dispossession in Guatemala as a case study to highlight how settler colonial structures have evolved over time in the central American country. “Guatemala’s modern democratic state is anchored in the colonial state and operates under the logic of settler colonial states” (Castro, 2017: 799).
Mestisaje as a Tool of Colonialism
Castellanos argues that the myth of mestisaje as a racial ideology to consolidate national identity in Latin America functions in a settler colonial state to eliminate indigenous identities (Castellanos, 2017; Speed, 2017). The idea and language of mestisaje in the 20^th century is applauded by leftists for celebrating not only the European heritage of Latin Americans but also its African and indigenous historical roots. However, in this text we see that the formation of the idea of mestisaje comes around with formations of new forms of white nationalism in the global north. As a political project, the mestisaje concept takes a totalizing agenda by erasing the loving afro-Latinos and indigenous persons.
Reversing the “Irreversible”
Pineda addresses the dilemma of perceived irreversibility of settler colonialism that in the words of Patrick Wolfe aims to destroy and replace. The article concludes by offering the reader to reflect on the impact of settler colonialism in Latin America and in indigenous struggles working within state-centered systems. Ultimately, it is important to recognize the settler colonial tools used by Latin American states to dispossess, erase, and kill indigenous persons in order to take their lands and use them for neoliberal economic strategies of extraction. In these way, extractive and settler colonialism function together in the region. These texts challenge us to see beyond the seeming irreversibility of these powerful and totalizing systems of oppression.
References
Castellanos, M. Bianet. “Introduction: settler colonialism in Latin America.” American Quarterly 69.4 (2017): 777-781.
Castro, Juan, and Manuela Lavinas Picq. “Stateness as landgrab: A political history of Maya dispossession in Guatemala.” American Quarterly 69.4 (2017): 791-799.
Pineda, Baron. “Indigenous pan-Americanism: Contesting settler colonialism and the Doctrine of Discovery at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.” American Quarterly69.4 (2017): 823-832.
Speed, Shannon. “Structures of settler capitalism in Abya Yala.” American Quarterly 69.4 (2017): 783-790.

Tag: Settler colonialism

Who is Indigenous? A Question of Indigeneity Throughout Latin America