Kim TallBear | University of Alberta (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Kim TallBear
… -NEW YORK THEN …, 2007
At least two dozen companies now market “genetic ancestry tests” to help consumers reconstruct th... more At least two dozen companies now market “genetic ancestry tests” to help consumers reconstruct their family histories and determine the geo- graphic origins of their ancestors. More than 460,000 people have purchased these tests over the past 6 years (1), and public interest is still ...
This research note is part of the thematic section, Giving Back in Solidarity, in the special iss... more This research note is part of the thematic section, Giving Back in Solidarity, in the special issue titled “Giving Back in Field Research,” published The Journal of Research Practice 10(2). LINK TO PAPER: http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/405/371
Science, Technology, & Human Values, Jun 25, 2013
The authors assess the collaboration between the University of California, Berkeley’s Community A... more The authors assess the collaboration between the University of California, Berkeley’s Community Assessment of Renewable Energy and Sustainability program and the Pinoleville Pomo Nation, a small Native American tribal nation in northern California. The collaboration focused on creating culturally inspired, environmentally sustainable housing for tribal citizens using a codesign methodology developed at the university. The housing design process is evaluated in terms of both its contribution to Native American “cultural sovereignty,” as elaborated by Coffey and Tsosie, and as a potential example of the democratization of scientific practice.
Social Studies of Science, May 30, 2013
Indigenous peoples’ and genome scientists’ respective definitions and practices of making ‘indige... more Indigenous peoples’ and genome scientists’ respective definitions and practices of making ‘indigeneity’ illustrate their competing notions of identity, origins, and futures. This article explores these genomic and indigenous ‘articulations’ of indigeneity, both their similarities and profound differences. Scientists who study ancient global human migrations and human genome diversity draw on an understanding of ‘indigeneity’ that appears to overlap with, but fundamentally contradicts, the use of this concept by the global indigenous movement. Genomic articulations privilege genetic ancestry as defining indigenous ‘populations’. In contrast, indigenous articulations of indigeneity emphasize political status and biological and cultural kinship constituted in dynamic, long-standing relations with each other and with living landscapes. To demonstrate how differences in definitions matter, I draw examples from several scientific and indigenous projects that entangle DNA knowledge with judgments about indigenous identities, and I note resulting policy implications. I first examine two key narratives of indigeneity and race that underlie the genomic articulation of indigeneity: ‘indigenous peoples are vanishing’ and ‘we are all related/all African’. I then explore two cases where genomic and indigenous articulations clash and overlap – the ‘Kennewick Man’ case and the use of DNA testing for tribal enrollment. Yet genomic articulations, with their greater truth-governing power, may inadvertently reconfigure indigeneity in ways that can undermine tribal and First Nations’ self-determination and the global indigenous anticolonial movement. Indeed, some indigenous peoples have recently adopted genomic articulations of identity, perhaps to their own detriment.
Current Anthropology, Apr 2012
During the nineteenth century, the American School of Anthropology enfolded Native peoples into t... more During the nineteenth century, the American School of Anthropology enfolded Native peoples into their histories, claiming knowledge about and artifacts of these cultures as their rightful inheritance and property. Drawing both on the Genographic Project and the recent struggles between Arizona State University and the Havasupai Tribe over the use of Havasupai DNA, in this essay we describe how similar enfoldments continue today—despite most contemporary human scientists’ explicit rejection of hierarchical ideas of race. We seek to bring greater clarity and visibility to these constitutive links between whiteness, property, and the human sciences in order that the fields of biological anthropology and population genetics might work to move toward their stated commitments to antiracism (a goal, we argue, that the fields’ antiracialism impedes). Specifically, we reflect on how these links can inform extralegal strategies to address tensions between U.S. and other indigenous peoples and genome scientists and their facilitators (ethicists, lawyers, and policy makers). We conclude by suggesting changes to scientific education and professional standards that might improve relations between indigenous peoples and those who study them, and we introduce mechanisms for networking between indigenous peoples, scholars, and policy makers concerned with expanding indigenous governance of science and technology.
Aboriginal Policy Studies, 2011
International Journal of Cultural Property, May 2009
Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, 2008
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 2007
In its quest to sample 100,000 “indigenous and traditional peoples,” the Genographic Project depl... more In its quest to sample 100,000 “indigenous and traditional peoples,” the Genographic Project deploys five problematic narratives: (1) that “we are all African”; (2) that “genetic science can end racism”; (3) that “indigenous peoples are vanishing”; (4) that “we are all related”; and (5) that Genographic “collaborates” with indigenous peoples. In so doing, Genographic perpetuates much critiqued, yet longstanding notions of race and colonial scientific practice.
Books by Kim TallBear
Book Reviews by Kim TallBear
Popular articles by Kim TallBear
The fight for an ancient skeleton shows how science undermines and exploits Native-American ident... more The fight for an ancient skeleton shows how science undermines and exploits Native-American identity. It’s just one reason we need more of us in the lab.
… -NEW YORK THEN …, 2007
At least two dozen companies now market “genetic ancestry tests” to help consumers reconstruct th... more At least two dozen companies now market “genetic ancestry tests” to help consumers reconstruct their family histories and determine the geo- graphic origins of their ancestors. More than 460,000 people have purchased these tests over the past 6 years (1), and public interest is still ...
This research note is part of the thematic section, Giving Back in Solidarity, in the special iss... more This research note is part of the thematic section, Giving Back in Solidarity, in the special issue titled “Giving Back in Field Research,” published The Journal of Research Practice 10(2). LINK TO PAPER: http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/405/371
Science, Technology, & Human Values, Jun 25, 2013
The authors assess the collaboration between the University of California, Berkeley’s Community A... more The authors assess the collaboration between the University of California, Berkeley’s Community Assessment of Renewable Energy and Sustainability program and the Pinoleville Pomo Nation, a small Native American tribal nation in northern California. The collaboration focused on creating culturally inspired, environmentally sustainable housing for tribal citizens using a codesign methodology developed at the university. The housing design process is evaluated in terms of both its contribution to Native American “cultural sovereignty,” as elaborated by Coffey and Tsosie, and as a potential example of the democratization of scientific practice.
Social Studies of Science, May 30, 2013
Indigenous peoples’ and genome scientists’ respective definitions and practices of making ‘indige... more Indigenous peoples’ and genome scientists’ respective definitions and practices of making ‘indigeneity’ illustrate their competing notions of identity, origins, and futures. This article explores these genomic and indigenous ‘articulations’ of indigeneity, both their similarities and profound differences. Scientists who study ancient global human migrations and human genome diversity draw on an understanding of ‘indigeneity’ that appears to overlap with, but fundamentally contradicts, the use of this concept by the global indigenous movement. Genomic articulations privilege genetic ancestry as defining indigenous ‘populations’. In contrast, indigenous articulations of indigeneity emphasize political status and biological and cultural kinship constituted in dynamic, long-standing relations with each other and with living landscapes. To demonstrate how differences in definitions matter, I draw examples from several scientific and indigenous projects that entangle DNA knowledge with judgments about indigenous identities, and I note resulting policy implications. I first examine two key narratives of indigeneity and race that underlie the genomic articulation of indigeneity: ‘indigenous peoples are vanishing’ and ‘we are all related/all African’. I then explore two cases where genomic and indigenous articulations clash and overlap – the ‘Kennewick Man’ case and the use of DNA testing for tribal enrollment. Yet genomic articulations, with their greater truth-governing power, may inadvertently reconfigure indigeneity in ways that can undermine tribal and First Nations’ self-determination and the global indigenous anticolonial movement. Indeed, some indigenous peoples have recently adopted genomic articulations of identity, perhaps to their own detriment.
Current Anthropology, Apr 2012
During the nineteenth century, the American School of Anthropology enfolded Native peoples into t... more During the nineteenth century, the American School of Anthropology enfolded Native peoples into their histories, claiming knowledge about and artifacts of these cultures as their rightful inheritance and property. Drawing both on the Genographic Project and the recent struggles between Arizona State University and the Havasupai Tribe over the use of Havasupai DNA, in this essay we describe how similar enfoldments continue today—despite most contemporary human scientists’ explicit rejection of hierarchical ideas of race. We seek to bring greater clarity and visibility to these constitutive links between whiteness, property, and the human sciences in order that the fields of biological anthropology and population genetics might work to move toward their stated commitments to antiracism (a goal, we argue, that the fields’ antiracialism impedes). Specifically, we reflect on how these links can inform extralegal strategies to address tensions between U.S. and other indigenous peoples and genome scientists and their facilitators (ethicists, lawyers, and policy makers). We conclude by suggesting changes to scientific education and professional standards that might improve relations between indigenous peoples and those who study them, and we introduce mechanisms for networking between indigenous peoples, scholars, and policy makers concerned with expanding indigenous governance of science and technology.
Aboriginal Policy Studies, 2011
International Journal of Cultural Property, May 2009
Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, 2008
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 2007
In its quest to sample 100,000 “indigenous and traditional peoples,” the Genographic Project depl... more In its quest to sample 100,000 “indigenous and traditional peoples,” the Genographic Project deploys five problematic narratives: (1) that “we are all African”; (2) that “genetic science can end racism”; (3) that “indigenous peoples are vanishing”; (4) that “we are all related”; and (5) that Genographic “collaborates” with indigenous peoples. In so doing, Genographic perpetuates much critiqued, yet longstanding notions of race and colonial scientific practice.
The fight for an ancient skeleton shows how science undermines and exploits Native-American ident... more The fight for an ancient skeleton shows how science undermines and exploits Native-American identity. It’s just one reason we need more of us in the lab.