Empire's Haunted Logics: Comparative Colonialisms and the Challenges of Incorporating Indigeneity (Journal of Critical Ethnic Studies, 2015) (original) (raw)

"Ethnic" Assimilates "Indigenous": A Study in Intellectual Neocolonialism

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indigenous peoples: Indigeneity, indigeny or indigenism?

In: Christoph Antons (ed.), "Routledge Handbook of Asian Law", pp. 362–377, 2017

The terms ‘indigenous people(s)’ and ‘indigeneity’ are multiply ambiguous. Their use without further qualification obscures key differences between the various real-world circumstances that they are typically applied to. This leads to confusion when the label ‘indigenous’ is employed in formal deliberations over political, cultural and land rights. To achieve clarity, some further distinctions need to be observed, most importantly between ‘indigeny’ and ‘indigenism’, between ‘tribal’ and ‘indigenous’, and between ‘indigeny’ and ‘exogeny’. Indigeny (the continued habitation of the same specific places that one’s familial ancestors always lived in) differs qualitatively in its cultural, economic and psychological consequences from all other circumstances that are labelled ‘indigenous’. Most of the latter arise within the tacitly exogenous context that underpins modernity, which is made possible by not living continuously where one’s ancestors lived. These usages are examples of ‘indigenism’ in its several varieties, rather than indigeny. The exogenous framework emphasises formal rationality and codified legal systems, which makes it difficult for the ‘native-title’ concerns of truly place-linked indigenous people to be argued for and judged fairly in court. Without due care, therefore, indigenist arguments may sometimes act against the interests of true place-linked indigenes. Further confusion results from the conventional use of ‘indigenous’ as a synonym of ‘tribal’, which brings together two distinct and sometimes antithetical social circumstances under a single label, since it is also authentically applicable to many peasant populations. Treating both tribespeople and peasants in an undifferentiated manner as simply ‘indigenous’ peoples misrepresents their distinct life-circumstances, especially with regard to matters of religion, language and mode of attachment to land. Examples drawn from several different Asian countries demonstrate the varying and sometimes antithetical ways in which the idea of ‘indigenous peoples’ has been applied – or ignored – and hence the necessity to employ it with more care than has usually been the case.

Indigeneity and Indigenous Politics: Ground-breaking Resources

Revista de Estudios Sociales, 2023

The purpose of this article is to relate the very important question of the autonomy of indigenous peoples to freely make decisions about their life with the notion of indigeneity, reconceptualised as a socially constructed and deeply contested resource. Resources are more than mere static assets or quantities of matter waiting to be measured, explored or protected. Something becomes a resource through joint processes of quantification, valuation, and normalisation. Along these lines, indigeneity is not just the ascertainment of something or someone in relation to ‘somewhat else’, but a nexus of indigenous peoples’ self-realisation and political intervention. To be indigenous is to exist politically in space and in relation to antagonist forces and processes that constantly downgrade their ethnic and social condition. Indigeneity is, thus, a resource that presupposes the value and the fight for their rights and for other (so-called) indigenous resources found in their lands. The main contribution here is the claim that indigeneity is a ground-breaking resource and a reaction formulated in the interstices of the old and new machineries of market-oriented coloniality. Indigeneity is reinterpreted as a special, highly politicised resource that directly and indirectly opposes processes of world grabbing and the appropriation of other territorialised resources from indigenous areas. It is concluded that indigeneity, as a resourceful resource, has become a key factor in the process of external and internal recognition, which galvanises political mobilisation and instigates novel forms of interaction. What makes indigenous peoples more and more unique is also what makes them share a socio-political struggle with allied, subaltern social groups. ----- El propósito de este artículo es relacionar la importante cuestión de la autonomía de los pueblos indígenas, en términos de tomar decisiones sobre su vida libremente, con la noción de indigeneidad, reconceptualizada como un recurso socialmente construido y profundamente cuestionado. Los recursos son más que simples activos estáticos o cantidades de materia a la espera de ser medidos, explorados o protegidos. Algo se convierte en recurso a través de procesos conjuntos de cuantificación, valoración y normalización. En este orden de ideas, indigeneidad no es solo la constatación de algo o alguien en relación con “algo más”, sino un nexo de autorrealización e intervención política de los pueblos indígenas. Ser indígena es existir políticamente en el espacio y vinculado con fuerzas y procesos antagonistas que degradan constantemente la condición étnica y social. Por lo tanto, la indigeneidad es un recurso que presupone el valor y la lucha por los derechos y por otros recursos (llamados) indígenas que se encuentran en sus tierras. La principal contribución de este artículo es la afirmación de que la indigeneidad es un recurso innovador y una reacción formulada en los intersticios de las viejas y nuevas maquinarias de la colonialidad orientada al mercado. Se reinterpreta como especial y altamente politizado, y opuesto directa e indirectamente a los procesos de acaparamiento del mundo y a la apropiación de otros recursos territorializados de las zonas indígenas. Se concluye que la indigeneidad, como recurso innovador, se ha convertido en un factor clave en el proceso de reconocimiento externo e interno, que galvaniza la movilización política y propicia formas novedosas de interacción. Lo que hace que los pueblos indígenas sean cada vez más únicos es también lo que los hace compartir una lucha sociopolítica con grupos sociales aliados y subalternos. ----- O objetivo deste artigo é relacionar a importante questão da autonomia dos povos indígenas, em termos de tomar livremente decisões sobre sua vida, com a noção de indigeneidade, reconceituada como um recurso socialmente construído e profundamente questionado. Os recursos são mais do que simples ativos estáticos ou quantidades de matéria à espera de ser avaliados, explorados ou protegidos. Algo se converte em recurso por meio de processos conjuntos de quantificação, valorização e normalização. Nessa ordem de ideias, indigeneidade não é somente a constatação de algo ou alguém com relação a “algo mais”, mas também de autorrealização e intervenção política dos povos indígenas. Ser indígena é existir politicamente no espaço e vinculado com forças e processos antagonistas que degradam constantemente a condição ética e social. Portanto, a indigeneidade é um recurso que pressupõe o valor e a luta pelos direitos e por outros recursos (chamados) indígenas que se encontram em suas terras. A principal contribuição deste artigo é a afirmação de que a indigeneidade é um recurso inovador e uma reação formulada nos interstícios das velhas e novas maquinarias da colonialidade orientada ao mercado. É reinterpretado como especial e altamente politizado, e oposto direta e indiretamente aos processos de acumulação do mundo e à apropriação de outros recursos territorializados das áreas indígenas. Conclui-se que a indigeneidade, como recurso inovador, é convertido em um fator-chave no processo de reconhecimento externo e interno, que estimula a mobilização política e propicia novas formas de interação. O que faz com que os povos indígenas sejam cada vez mais únicos é também o que os faz compartilhar uma luta sociopolítica com grupos sociais aliados e subalternos.

Indigeneity and US Settler Colonialism

2016. In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race. Edited by N. Zack, 91-101. Oxford University Press. Written for the field of philosophy, Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Race: In the US context, Indigenous identity presents many difficulties, ranging from problematic understandings of blood degree to peculiar census definitions to accusations of identity fraud. I will discuss in this essay a brief outline of my view that these difficulties are oppressive dilemmas and disappearances that are built into those structures of US settler colonialism that seek to erase us in our own homelands. Looking forward, I will appeal to Kim TallBear’s work, which I will interpret in relation to my own work on environmental justice, to suggest at least one possible alternative for addressing issues associated with Indigeneity and settler erasure.

The New Challenge to Native Identity: An Essay on “Indigeneity” and “Whiteness”

2005

This Essay builds upon Cheryl Harris’s claim that “whiteness” is a form of “property” and suggests that the current challenges to Native “indigeneity” to the racial and cultural identity of Native peoples in recent years through various “special” legal rights. This Essay suggests that, with respect to indigenous peoples, the discourse of “whiteness” requires analysis within a global, as well

Indigeneity : Making and contesting the concept

The Routledge Handbook of Law and Society , 2021

The identities and identification of Indigenous peoples can encompass racial ideas and notions of biological inheritance or difference – and therefore be grounds for racist discourse – though indigeneity is not itself an exclusively racial discourse. However, while a modern discourse of indigeneity is often used to protest state and corporate incursions onto Indigenous soil and build transnational solidarity, it can also be used by states and political parties to exclude others and outsiders. But today, the discourse, of indigeneity emphasizes the survival and continuity of distinct identities despite colonial attempts to eliminate and dispossess Indigenous peoples. The contested politics of indigeneity demonstrate how deeply felt as well as indeterminate such a discourse is, one that is both 'other' to the west and also profoundly entangled within western thought.

Introduction: Natives and Settlers - now and then. Refractions of the Colonial Past in the Present

Canadian Review of Comparative Literature Revue Canadienne De Litterature Comparee, 2011

Venne, recipient of numerous awards and author of influential studies in the area of oral traditions and Indigenous rights. I was honoured to have been invited to help organize this event. I had recently completed my doctoral studies in English at the University of Alberta, with a focus on representations of Aboriginal peoples in early-modern European colonial writings. As a student of early colonialism and a person of Aboriginal ancestry, I had often been struck by the ways in which the historical past continues to exert pressure on the lives of present-day Aboriginal peoples. It had often seemed to me that the historical, political, and legal issues surrounding North America's colonial past and neocolonial present were not often discussed at the post-secondary level, not in the humanities, even though these issues are of increasing relevance to many of us whose work crosses various disciplines and borders. So the idea of an interdisciplinary event that drew attention to historical XV and contemporary issues of continuing relevance to Aboriginal peoples struck me as exciting and innovative. The conference was dynamic, charged with ideas, enjoyed by and of benefit to students and faculty from various departments and to members of the larger community. Addressing such subjects as treaties, treaty-making, Aboriginal rights and title, land claims, identity, representations, education, and nation-building in the Canadian context, the event had an international scope as well, through Sharon Venne's years of experience at the United Nations and Patricia Seed's comparative studies of European colonialism and of treaties in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. These presentations and discussions, first recorded and transcribed, and now revised, updated, and printed here for the first time, seem even more relevant today than they did when first delivered. It is clear that, while there have been several developments at the political and legal levels in recent years, the majority of Aboriginal peoples are still unable to access the benefits, rights, and privileges enjoyed by other Canadian citizens. The codes and texts through which racism and xenophobia are perpetuated may have shifted, but there is little evidence that most Native peoples are not still bound by old and familiar patterns of perception. Talk of the "postcolonial" in this country, as in other formerly colonized countries, is academic: on the few occasions when the term "postcolonial" is employed by Indigenous thinkers, it is used either to denounce the terminology of an ill-fitting Western theoretical discourse or to describe a hypothetical route to an imaginary future. As Mi'kmaq educator Marie Battiste writes in Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, the Indigenous scholars in her collection use the term "postcolonial" to describe a symbolic strategy for shaping a desirable future, not an existing reality. The term is an aspirational practice, goal, or idea...used to imagine a new form of society that they desired to create. Yet we recognized that postcolonial societies do not exist. Rather, we acknowledged the colonial mentality and structures that still exist in all societies and nations and the neocolonial tendencies that resist decolonization in the contemporary world, (xix) Battiste's words convey a hopeful skepticism shared by many Aboriginal peoples, who critique the postcolonial on the grounds that its theoretical discourses fail to describe adequately the experience and reality of those who continue to be subject to colonialist processes and strategies here in Canada.