Language use changes over time. In Indigenous contexts, language alters to suit the shifting nature of cultural expression as this might fit with Indigenous peoples' preference or as a consequence of changes to outdated and colonial modes of expression. For students studying in the discipline of Indigenous Studies, learning to use appropriate terminology in written and oral expression can be a source of anxiety. In this paper, we consider how providing insight into the political nature of language can help students to be mindful and to understand that systems of naming have a political impact on those being named and those doing the naming. This paper reflects the views and experiences of teaching staff at the Indigenous Studies Unit (ISU) in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Wollongong. It comes from our teaching experience, and from discussions with staff and students over the past few years that have conveyed to us a continuing anxiety about language use.
Indigeneities are widely constructed as emanating not only from the experience of dispossession in the historical past, but as ways of being in the world which are grounded positively in dispossession, and which in being so offer themselves as antagonistic alternatives to Western ways of being, grounded aggressively as they are in possessiveness, of land, of self, and of others. This essay argues that the opposite is true; that the present condition is one of being governed by regimes of power the strategy of which depends on the production of dispossessed and non-possessive subjects. The task is to reject these discourses of entrapment and reclaim possession for ourselves. In doing so much can yet be learned from minor traditions of thought and practice among indigenous peoples, both mythic and real, which, in contrast to today's dominant discourses on indigeneity, insist on the integral importance of possession as a foundation for political subjectivity. Whether indigenous or non-indigenous, the task is the same; avoid being trapped by power, learn instead to hunt power, and cultivate the ultimate freedoms of autonomy and self-possession.
Salaita argues that the project of Indigenous Studies is inherently comparative, citing numerous examples of productive intercultural scholarship, he explores historical, cultural, and politicalrelationships among Native North Americans and Palestinian Arabs to illuminate some of the ways that comparison offers the potential for new directions in both scholarly and activist communities. He contextualizes this analysis with a broader discussion of the ethics of scholarship in Indigenous Studies, paying special attention to the relationship of nationalistic commitment to intercultural methodologies.
Indigeneities are widely constructed as emanating not only from the experience of dispossession in the historical past, but as ways of being in the world which are grounded positively in dispossession, and which in being so offer themselves as antagonistic alternatives to Western ways of being, grounded aggressively as they are in possessiveness, of land, of self, and of others. This essay argues that the opposite is true; that the present condition is one of being governed by regimes of power the strategy of which depends on the production of dispossessed and non-possessive subjects. The task is to reject these discourses of entrapment and reclaim possession for ourselves. In doing so much can yet be learned from minor traditions of thought and practice among indigenous peoples, both mythic and real, which, in contrast to today's dominant discourses on indigeneity, insist on the integral importance of possession as a foundation for political subjectivity. Whether indigenous or non-indigenous, the task is the same; avoid being trapped by power, learn instead to hunt power, and cultivate the ultimate freedoms of autonomy and self-possession.
Indigeneities are widely constructed as emanating not only from the experience of dispossession in the historical past, but as ways of being in the world which are grounded positively in dispossession, and which in being so offer themselves as an-tagonistic alternatives to Western ways of being, grounded aggressively as they are in possessiveness, of land, of self, and of others. This essay argues that the opposite is true; that the present condition is one of being governed by regimes of power the strategy of which depends on the production of dispossessed and non-possessive sub-jects. The task is to reject these discourses of entrapment and reclaim possession for ourselves. In doing so much can yet be learned from minor traditions of thought and practice among indigenous peoples, both mythic and real, which, in contrast to today's dominant discourses on indigeneity, insist on the integral importance of possession as a foundation for political subjectivity. Whether indigenous or non-indigenous, the task is the same; avoid being trapped by power, learn instead to hunt power, and cultivate the ultimate freedoms of autonomy and self-possession.
It is both a pleasure and a significant responsibility to review two field-shaping works in critical indigenous studies. The White Possessive showcases the unique intellectual contribution of Aileen Moreton-Robinson, both within Australia and internationally. Prising apart concepts of race, ethnicity and cultural difference, her book makes visible and accountable the patriarchal white subject of possession that subtends them. Mohawk Interruptus is a rigorous ethnographic account of the intra-subjective and intersubjective dimensions of academic disciplines and political practices that produce and police the 'authenticity' of Indigenous people. Both books should be read and studied by scholars across academic disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. In particular, they break new ground for researchers in law, sociology, women's studies, critical race and whiteness studies, postcolonial studies, anthropology, political theory and cultural studies.
Currently, few studies examine the learning and unlearning that takes place in Native American and Indigenous Studies (NAIS) courses with non-Native and predominately white undergraduate college students in the United States (US). Due to the unique history, political status, Native nationhood, and sovereignty of the United States' Indigenous Americans, there are unique issues associated with Native American studies content that differs from other diversity-focused courses. For many US-based college students, the opportunity to openly explore the historical and contemporary experiences of groups that are culturally and linguistically different from their own home culture often occurs when taking college courses (Chang 2002). The purpose of the current study was to understand how taking NAIS courses influences undergraduate college students' attitudes towards Indigenous people, their history, and contemporary experiences. This qualitative analysis focuses on NAIS courses as the site of inquiry and is part of a larger mixed methods research study.
This essay questions both the Special Forum's invitation to chart a "Transnational Native American Studies" and its assertion, in the call for papers, that issues "surrounding place and mobility, aesthetics and politics, identity and community, and the tribal and global indigenous" have "emerged" from within "the larger frameworks of transnational American Studies." Through a series of critical and interpretive engagements with examples of contemporary Indigenous arts and literature from the US, Canada, and Aotearoa/New Zealand, the author offers an alternative rubric of the "trans-Indigenous" for future work in global Indigenous Studies.
From the coloniality of power to the decolonial swerve, US-centered decolonial academics concur with the foundational points introduced by Peruvian sociologist Aníbal Quijano. Nevertheless, they seldom cite Latin American Indigenous or Native American intellectuals' decolonial perspectives, or examine specific bodies of critical thinking emerging in hemispheric Indigenous communities. In turn, a diversity of Indigenous paradigms and methods are appearing in the Americas, either as literary texts or critical works. Indigenous or Native American writers and theorists are often political actors, working within their respective grassroots movements, or writing to advance specific goals of their own communities. This article will emphasize Native American and Indigenous decolonial issues framed from a critique of contemporary Indigenous narratives. Their views both enrich and complicate Western decolonial theorists' assumptions. Examining their production provides continuity to the political and epistemological searches of both, while also contributing to breaking down those invisible walls separating them.De la colonialidad del poder al giro decolonial, los académicos decoloniales que trabajan en los Estados Unidos coinciden con los aspectos fundacionales introducidos por el sociólogo Aníbal Quijano. Sin embargo, rara vez citan las perspectivas descolonizadoras de intelectuales indígenas. Tampoco examinan las corrientes específicas de pensamiento crítico que están surgiendo en las comunidades indígenas del hemisferio. Toda una gran diversidad de paradigmas y métodos indígenas han aparecido en las Américas, sea como textos literarios, o como pensamiento crítico. Los escritores o teóricos indígenas suelen ser actores políticos, trabajando dentro de sus respectivos movimientos de base, o bien escribiendo para avanzar metas concretas de estas organizaciones. Este articulo enfatiza las problemáticas descolonizadoras indígenas enmarcadas desde una perspectiva de la crítica de narrativas indígenas contemporáneas. Sus puntos de vista enriquecen y complican las presuposiciones de muchos teóricos decoloniales occidentales. Examinando su producción provee continuidad a las búsquedas políticas y epistemológicas de ambos, y contribuye a romper los muros invisibles que los separan.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes Indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination and to maintain their distinct institutions. This article investigates how those rights are being exercised in Charagua, which became Bolivia's first "Indigenous autonomous government" when the municipality's Guaraní majority approved conversion in 2015. We explore the construction of novel institutions of self-government to assess how local Guaraní leaders are negotiating autonomy, both externally and internally. The result of those negotiations is a hybrid political system in which power is balanced between an executive organ (as required by Bolivian law) and a deliberative assembly (the Ñemboati Guasu, which operates according to Indigenous custom). The prominence of the assembly expresses a significant form of autonomy that promotes intercultural political participation and enacts Indigenous self-government in ways that are important to Guaraní people. Yet, because the new political unit does not control subsoil rights and thus cannot determine the sorts of development that take place in its territory, we cannot yet say the Guaranís are exercising full and robust autonomy as expressed by the UN Declaration's provisions for self-determination. ResumenLa Declaración sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas de la ONU reconoce que pueblos indígenas tienen el derecho de auto-determinación y mantención de sus instituciones propias. Este artículo investiga cómo se ejerce estos derechos en Charagua, que fue el primer "gobierno autónomo indígena" en Bolivia, después de que la mayoría de la población aprobó conversión en 2015. Exploramos la construcción de nuevas instituciones de auto-gobierno para evaluar como los líderes guaraníes están negociando autonomía, tanto externamente como internamente. El resultado de estas negociaciones es un sistema político híbrido en donde el poder es equilibrado entre un órgano ejecutivo (mandado por ley boliviana) y una asamblea deliberativa (el Ñemboati Guasu, que opera bajo normas indígenas). La prominencia de la asamblea expresa una forma significante de autonomía la cual promueve participación política intercultural y pone en práctica auto-gobierno indígena de manera importante para el pueblo guaraní. Sin embargo, porque el municipio no tiene control sobre los usos del subsuelo, and por eso no puede control las formas de desarrollo en su territorio, todavía no podemos decir que están ejercitando una autonomía tan plena y robusta como se entendió en la Declaración de la ONU.
The goal of this thesis project is to reveal a part of Canadian history that is not widely known to the general Canadian public, the history Canada"s residential schools. The study examines the Kamloops Indian Residential School (KIRS). This thesis examines a variety of government, Oblate, testimonial records, and newspaper articles which each give a glimpse of the Canadian government"s assimilative objective for residential schools and the effects it had on KIRS students. Both the Canadian government and Oblate school instructors believed that Indigenous cultures and languages were inferior to those of Euro-Canadians. Through a carefully designed school curriculum KIRS instructors aimed to modernize and assimilate Indigenous students by teaching manual skills and agriculture to male students, and by teaching female students home economic skills. Although the students gained skills to adapt to Euro-Canadian society at the KIRS, the process had negative effects on their languages, traditions, and communities. Only recently have scholars and government officials begun to address these acknowledged detrimental effects of residential schools. ; Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences (Okanagan) ; History and Sociology, Department of (Okanagan) ; Unreviewed ; Undergraduate
In this innovative collection, Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars from Australia and Europe reflect on how their life histories have impacted on their research in Indigenous Australian Studies. Drawing on Pierre Nora's concept of ego-histoire as an analytical tool to ask historians to apply their methods to themselves, contributors lay open their paths, personal commitments and passion involved in their research. Why are we researching in Indigenous Studies, what has driven our motivations? How have our biographical experiences influenced our research? And how has our research influenced us in our political and individual understanding as scholars and human beings? This collection tries to answer many of these complex questions, seeing them not as merely personal issues but highly relevant to the practice of Indigenous Studies.
Ilanaaq is the latest North American example of "playing Indian" (Deloria 1998), a practice with vast historical precedent. With ilanaaq, Canada joins a host of nations who have turned to symbols of local indigeneity to assert their national distinctiveness. Such appropriation presents indigenous artists with a dilemma. The current flowering of indigenous letters, art and cinema in North America is generally taken as evidence that Canada and the United States, as thriving multiculturalist democracies, have broken with an earlier history of the expropriation and displacement of the Americas' indigenous peoples. The art bears witness to a new historical period, in which respect for difference becomes the dominant logic of social and cultural relations. But this new historical period comes with a price of its own. Multiculturalism effectively demands that American Indians put their indigeneity on display. It prohibits Euroamericans from playing Indian—all such attempts are quickly denounced as cultural appropriation; ethnic frauds are regularly and ritually exposed these days. Instead, it requires that the Indians themselves play Indian to help legitimate the multiculturalist democracies they cannot help but inhabit.
Indigeneity has been a site of relationally produced knowledge deemed scientific and political. In this article, I offer an experimental description of Miskâ ; sowin&mdash ; an Ininiw/Cree theory of science, technology, and society. This methodological piece is part of an overall project that seeks to understand how changes in technoscience often correlate with changes in the relationships and biotechnologies that colonial nation-states and their citizenries, scientific fields and their researchers, and bioeconomies and their consumers use to form themselves through, in spite of, and (sometimes) as Indigenous peoples. Creating Indigenous theories of the technosciences that affect them is disruptive of colonial ontologies of knowledge and sovereignty. Miskâ ; sowin is part of an emergent subfield of Indigenous Studies: Indigenous Science, Technology, and Society (I-STS). I use this framework to map partial connections whereby Cree concepts of tapwewin (truth-telling), miskâ ; sowin (finding one&rsquo ; s core), and misewa (all that exists) resonate with relational academic theoretical frameworks including that of Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, and Aileen Moreton-Robinson. I do so in ways that are uniquely adapted to my (the researcher&rsquo ; s) relationships (and the genealogies that they are routed through) with genomic knowledge and indigeneity ; with the scientific and policy fields in Canada (and beyond) ; and with my own research/er integrity.
This thesis focuses on the significance of Sámi and indigenous vocal and musical expression in ethno and indigenous political mobilizing in the 1970s and particularly in June 1979. My point of departure is the Davvi Šuvva festival; the first Sámi and international indigenous culture and music festival after the establishing of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples. It took place on a hill in a Sámi and Swedish/Finnish border village in the north of Sweden and in the middle of Sápmi. My research is based on the interviews with people who organized the festival, artists and audience as well as written contemporary sources, a film about the event and 16 authentic tapes of recordings of the concerts at Davvi Šuvva. The oral sources of eye and ear witnesses represent insider views and experiences and the contemporary written sources of attending news paper journalists and writers from other magazines represent both insider and outsider perspective. "Davvi Šuvva 1979" also documents the ethno political background of the festival and discusses various perspectives on collective identity. While powwow dance and traditional native chanting expressed First Nation and Cree Indian identity and Inuit identity was expressed by traditional drum dance and drum singing Davvi Šuvva also demonstrated how yoik conveyed various Sámi identities. My intention is to show how and why vocal and musical expressions had, and still have, a particular significance in oral indigenous cultures as a means of struggle. The conclusions reached are that manifestations of Sámi and indigenous cultural expression and resistance like the Davvi Šuvva festival contributed to pride, recovery, dignity and positive self awareness and that the festival as such strengthened Sámi identity and indigenous togetherness and belonging.