SETTLER 2NC 2.0
1.
ON CASE – the aff is bad, several reasons
a. Their brand of settler colonial theory over-invests in the
guilt and voice of the settlers rather than empowering
indigenous resistance. And their view of settler colonialism
as everyday structures makes it fatalistic and unable to be
transcended despite their calls for resistance.
Snelgrove et al 14
( Corey is a M A C andi date, Indig enous Governanc e & Grad Student F ellow, U ni v of British Col umbi a), Rita Kaur D hamoon (Assis t Prof of Pol Sci, U ni v of Vic toria) , J eff Cor ntass el (Cherokee Profess or in Indig enous Governance Mas ters Pr ogram @ Uni v of Vic tori a) May 26, 2014, “Uns ettling s ettl er c olonialis m: T he disc ours e and politic s of s ettlers, and s olidarity with Indigenous nations ,” Dec ol oniz ati on: Indigeneity, Educ ation & Society, Vol 3, No 2, pp. 1-32, decol oniz ati on.org/i ndex.php/des/articl e/download/21166/17970, KEL
The bourgeoning fiel d of s ettler c ol oni al studies has made several important contri butions, both theor etic all y and politic all y. First, settler col oni alis m is c onceptuall y distinct fr om other ki nds of col oni alis m, i n that i t is r ooted i n the eli mi nation of Indigenous peoples, politi es and rel ations hips fr om and with the l and ( Wol fe, 2006) . Buildi ng on this , the distincti veness of settl er c olonialis m wor ks to highlight the inc ommens urability between Indigenous struggles and, for i nstance, ci vil rights pr ojec ts (s ee Byr d, 2014; Tuc k & Yang, 2012). T his has led Grande ( 2013) , M acoun and Str akos ch (2013), and Morgens en (2011c) to note the c onvergenc e of c onser vati ve and progr essi ve goals by r eveali ng s ettler i nvestments i n the dis poss essi on of Indigenous lands. Second, c onc eptualizations of settler col oni alis m have provi ded ways to artic ulate its operati ons and effects. F or i nstanc e, s ettl er c olonialis m is being c onc eptualized i n ter ms of i ts everyday modaliti es, what Rifkin ( 2013) c alls ‘settl er c olonial c ommon sens e’. Adam Barker ( 2012) dr aws on Wolfe and
Ver acini’s defi nitions but also identifi es s ettl er c olonialis m as “a disti nct method of c olonizing” that i nvol ves “ the creati on and c onsumpti on of a whol e array of spac es by s ettler c ollecti ves that cl ai m and transform pl ac es thr ough the exercis e of their s over eign c apaci ty” (p. 1). Settlement, then, i s not led by elites alone (Bar ker, 2012, p. 1). T hird, critics of settl er col onialis m have sharp ened critiq ues of domi nant power . Mor eton-R obins on (2007, 2008), for ins tanc e, situates patriarc hal white sovereig nty as a constituti ve feature of s ettl er c olonialis m and the premis e of s ettler l ogics of proper ty; Byrd (2011) c entres the deployment of Indianness as a c onstituti ve feature of settl er col onialis m; M orgens en ( 2011b) centr es s ettler c oloni alism in theories of bi opower, s tate(s) of excepti on, and global governance; while J ac ks on (2014), Ki ng (2014), and Smith (2014) disc uss the c omplex rel ations hi p between anti-bl ac kness and s ettler c ol oni alism. F our th, studies of s ettl er c olonialis m have als o g enerated i ntellectual and politic al s ynergies between queer and
scholars of settler colonialism identified
several challenges or weaknesses of this field of study.
settler colonial theory “is primarily a settler framework” that is largely
about settler intentions to think through colonial relations
settler colonial
studies can re-empower non-Indigenous academic voices while marginalizing
Indigenous resistance
there is an underlying “colonial fatalism”
settler colonialism is unable to transcend itself because it is conceptualized
as a structure,
the framework of settler colonialism has fostered
over-characterizations of binary positions.
it affirms a binary of
Indigenous and non-Indigenous,
.
)
feminis t theori es, Indigenous studi es, and critiques of s ettler c ol oni alis m (Dris kill et al ., 201 1; M orgensen, 2010, 2011a, 2012; Smith, 2010; T uc k et al., 2013), illumi nati ng inters ecti ons and i nterac tions, while si mul taneousl y ac knowl edging the inc ommens urability of forc es of c olonial, gendered, and heteronormati ve power that Indigenous femi ni sts (Green, 2007; Bar ker, 2008; Si mps on, 2014) and postcol oni al feminis ts have long emphasiz ed. In the tradition of critical approaches,
(or engaging with
have also
Joanne Bar ker ( 2011) , on the blog Tequil a Sovereig n, q ues tioned the s pecificity of s ettl er c oloni alism. Drawi ng on the etymol ogical origins of “s ettl e” as ‘to r econcil e’, as well as in light of settl er state apologi es, Barker warns that s ettl er c olonialis m may signal a nati on-s tate that has moved “beyond its own tragicall y imperial
burgeoning
and c ol oni al his tor y to be something els e, s till al beit c olonial, but not q uite entir el y c olonial .” Sec ond, Mac oun and Strakosc h ( 2013) note that
(p. 427). This in its elf may not be a pr obl em, but as M ac oun and Strakosc h warn,
(2013, p. 436). Third, while settler col oni alis m is posited as both a c onditi on of pos sibility (Rifki n, 2013) and a site of potenti al hope (Bar ker, 2012),
(Macoun and Str akosc h, 2013, p. 435) that posi ts a str uctural inevitability to s ettl er c olonial
relati ons. M ac oun and Str akosch (2013) i n partic ular note that
precisel y
wher e the onl y polarizi ng choic es avail abl e to Indigenous peopl es are either to be coopted or hold a positi on of resistanc e/s overeign, while anti-col onial acti on by s ettl ers is for eclosed. Fourth,
Saranillio ( 2013), for i nstance, notes two c ommon c harges against s ettler c ol oni al studies : that
and that it leads to a neo-racis t for m of politic s that r equires non-N ati ves l eave Indigenous territories (arguments that Sarinillo r ejec ts). Mor eover, we note that this bi nar y, at times , has the effect of treati ng settl er col onialis m as a meta-structure, thus er asing both its conti ngenc y and the dynamic s that c oc onstitute racis t, patriarc hal, homonati onalist, abl est, and c apitalis t s ettl er c olonialis m
b. Turn— the Narrative celebrates the Western Man’s ideal of
the individual—this focus intellectually colonizes other
mentalities and reproduces the same structures that rely on
individual success—tanking any hope of collective social
solutions or change
Coughlin 95
(Anne M. C oug hlin, As soci ate Profess or of Law, Vander bilt Law Sc hool . “Reg ulat ing the Self: Autobiographical Perfor manc es in Outsider Schol arshi p.” Virginia Law Revi ew. Au- gus t 1995, KK)
Contrary to the outsiders' claim that their personalized
discourse infuses law with their distinctive experiences and political
perspectives, numerous historians and critics have insisted that those who
participate in autobiographical discourse speak not in a different voice, but in a
common voice that reflects their membership in a culture devoted to
American cultural ideals,
the practice of writing about
one's own self reflects a belief in the autonomous individual, which is "peculiar to
Western man, a concern that has been of good use in his systematic conquest of
other cultures;
the Western ideal of individualism, "which
places the self at the center of its world."
autobiographical discourse is a fallible, even co-opted, instrument for the
social reforms envisioned by the outsiders. By affirming the myths of individual
The outsi der narrati ves do not reflec t on another feature of autobiographic al disc ours e that is perhaps the most signific ant obs tacl e to their goal to bring to l aw an unders tanding of the human s elf that will s upers ede the li ber al i ndi vi dual.
of autobiography
liberal val ues. n206 As Sac van Bercovitch puts it,
including s pecific all y the mythic c onnecti on between the "heroic indi vidual ... [and] the val ues of free enter prise," ar e " epitomiz ed in autobi ography." n207 In hi s s eminal essay on the subject, Professor Georges Gus dorf makes an obser vati on that s ee ms li ke a pr escient war ning to outsi ders who would appr opri ate autobiography as their voic e. He remar ks that
the
[*1285] uni verse and that he has c ommunic ated to men of
but thos e men will ther eby have been annexed by a sort of i ntellectual c olonizing to a mentality that was not their own." n208 Si milarl y, Al bert Stone, a critic of American autobi ography, argues that autobiographic al perfor manc es cel ebr ate
n209 Stone begins to elucidate the pr escripti ve c har acter of autobiographical disc ourse as he notes with wonder "the tenacious social i deal whose persistenc e is all the more signific ant when found r epeated in personal his tori es of Afr o Americ ans , i mmigrants, penitentiar y pris oners, and others whos e clai ms to full indi viduality have often been denied by our s ociety." n210 Precis el y becaus e it appeals to r eaders' fascinati on with the s elf-suffici enc y, r esilienc y and uniqueness of the totemic indi vidual pri vil eged by liberal
politic al theor y, ther e is a ris k that
success in our culture, autobiography reproduces the political, economic, social
and psychological structures that attend such success. outsider
autobiographies unwittingly deflect attention from collective social responsibility
and thwart the development of collective solutions
[*1286]
n211 In this light, the
for the eradic ation of racis t and s exist har ms. Although we may suspect in some c as es that the author's own s ens e of sel f was s haped by a c ommunity whos e val ues oppose thos e of li ber al indi vi dualis m, her decisi on to register her experi enc e i n autobi ographic al disc ourse will have a signific ant effec t on the self s he r eproduc es.
c. Narratives are generated through normatively structured
performances— they just reproduce express the same
ideological effects and hegemonic assumptions by
reinforcing the SQ
Baron and Epstein 97
Jane B.
Julia
( Peter j. Liacouras Pr ofess or of Law, T empl e U ni versity sc hool of law, Barbara Riley Levin, Profess or of c ompar ati ve literat ure, H averfor d C ollege.Buffalo Law R evi ew, 45 Buffal o L. R ev. 141, Wi nter, 1997, KK)
, nothing
guarantees that any particular story or set of stories will create doubts about
what can be known. As Patrick Ewick and Susan Silbey have explained: Narratives are cultural
productions. Narratives are generated interactively through normatively
structured performances Because of the conventionalized character of
narrative, . . our stories are likely to express ideological effects and hegemonic
assumptions. We are as likely to be shackled by the stories we tell
it is not the case that a story will cause a rethinking of assumptions or a
recognition of perspectivism merely because it is a story. n138 stories
inadvertently--reinforce the status quo.
stories of the latter sort
may reasonably be deemed unsuccessful.
Again
and inter acti ons[.]
[*182]
(or that are c ultur all y avail abl e for our telling) as we ar e by the for m of oppr ession they might s eek to r eveal. n137 N otwi ths tanding s ome of the mor e exaggerated clai ms that have been made on
behalf of s tor ytelling,
Some
may be " subversi ve" and "liberator y" n139; others may-- advertentl y or
n140 T o the extent that [*183] narr ati ve s chol ars hip ai ms to r ais e questi ons about what is us uall y taken for granted, or to cr eate insight about the i nevi tabl y par tial (incomplete, bias ed) nature of any partic ular poi nt of view,
d. Their argument that making this argument in a debate
round actually changes something ignores the coordinates
of academic power/knowledge at play in the debate
tournament itself – this results in commodification of their
advocacy to justify the institutional structure of the activity
Occupied UC Berkeley ‘9.
http://antic apitalproj ects.wordpress .com/2009/11/19/the- necros ocial /, the necros ocial : ci vic life, social death, and the UC, nov. 19
In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in
reality translates to a value of domination
It should never
feel terrible to diagnose people as an expert, manage them as a bureaucrat, test
them as a professor, extract value from their capital as a businessman.
We know their values better than they do: life, liberty, the pursuit of
happiness.
The values create
popular images and ideals
while they mean in practice the selling of
commodified identities,
nothing has
. We s pend money and energ y tr ying to c onvince oursel ves we’re brighter than ever yone els e. Somehow, we thi nk, we poss ess some tr ait that means we des er ve mor e than ever yone els e. We have meas ured ours el ves and we have meas ured others. It s houl d never feel terrible or deri ng others ar ound, right?
It should feel good, gratifyi ng, c ompleti ng. It is our private wet dr eam for the futur e; ever ywher e, i n ever yone this s ame dr eam of
domi nation. After all, we ar e intelligent, studious, young. We wor ked hard to be here, we des er ve this
.
We are convi nc ed, owned, broken.
This triumvir ate of sacr ed values are ours of c ourse, and i n this moment of practic ed theater— the fight between the uni versity and its own s tudents— we have us ed their words on their stages: Save public education! When thos e values ar e vi olated by the ver y instituti ons whic h are created to protec t them, the veneer fades, the tired s et coll apses : and we c all it i njustic e, we get i ndignant. We demand j ustic e fr om them, for them to adhere to their val ues . What many have l ear ned agai n and agai n is that thes e i nstituti ons don’t c are for those val ues, not at all, not for all. And we are onl y beginni ng to understand that thos e values ar e not even our own.
(healthc are, democrac y, equality, happi nes s, i ndi vi duality, pulling yoursel f up by your boots traps, public education)
the s tate’s monopol y on viol enc e, the expansion of mar kets and capital accumulation, the r ule of property, the rul e of excl usi ons bas ed on r ac e, gender, class, and dominati on and humiliation i n gener al. They sell the prac tice through the image. We’re taught we’ll li ve the i mag es once we ac cept the practic e. In this crisis the C hanc ellors and Presidents, the R egents an d the Britis h Petrol eums , the politici ans and the managers, they all i ntend to be true to their values and capitalize on the uni versity ec onomic ally and s ociall y— whic h is to say,
changed , it is only an escalation, a provocation.
Each bulging institutional value longing to become more than its
sentiment through us, each of our empty gestures of feigned-anxiety to appear
under pressure, or of cool-ambivalence to appear accustomed to horror, every
moment of student life, is the management of our consent to social death. Social
death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of
meaning.
Their most r ec ent attempt to r eorganiz e wealth and capital is c alled a crisis so that we are more willing to accept their new ter ms as well as what was always dead in the uni versity, to see j ust how dead we are willing to play, how non-exis tent, how compliant, how desirous. Ever y i nstituti on has of cours e our best i nteres t in mind, so muc h s o that we’r e willing to pay, to enter debt c ontracts, to s trike a s ubmissi ve pos e i n the
classroom, in the l ab, i n the s eminar, i n the dor m, and eventuall y or si multaneo usl y in the wor kplac e to pay bac k those debts.
It’s
e. AND, Their “try or die” framing re-inscribes the status
quo’s limited scope of politics by maintaining the duality of
forced choices, characterizing the question always as
EITHER the aff OR the status quo, which is the same tactic
that the current political climate uses to keep dissidents
content but only on its own terms. Refuse the choices as
offered, demand a third option.
Halberstam 13
The path to the wil d beyond is paved with r efusal . In T he Undercom- mons if we begin anywhere,
. Jac k H alberstam, professor of English and Director of the C enter for Femi nist R es earc h at USC, “The Wild Beyond: Wi th and F or the Underc ommons ,” T he U nderc ommons : F ugitive Planning and Blac k Study, Minor C ompositi ons, pg. 8
we begin with the right to refuse
what has been r efused to you. Citing Gayatri Spi vak, M oten and H arney c all this r efusal the “first right” and it
is a game-changing kind of
refusal in that it signals the refusal of the choices as offered .
you only get to check “yes” or “no” and the no, in this case, could be more
damning than the yes. And so, you must refuse the choice as offered .
when we listen to music, we must refuse the
idea that music happens only when the musician enters and picks up an
instrument; music is also the anticipation of the performance and the noises of
appreciation it generates and the speaking that happens through and around it,
making it and loving it, being in it while lis- tening.
.
Our goal
– is not to end the troubles but to end the world
W e can und er- stand th is refu sal in ter ms that Ch and an R edd y lays out in Freedo m W ith Vio len ce (2011) – for Redd y, gay marriag e is the option that c an- not be oppos ed in the ballot box. While we c an circul ate mul tipl e cri- tiques of gay marriage in
ter ms of i ts i nstituti onalization of i nti mac y, when you arri ve at the ball ot box, pen i n hand,
Moten and H arney als o study what it would mean to refuse what they ter m “the c all to order.” And what woul d it mean, furtherm ore, to r efuse to
call others to or der, to refus e i nterpellation and the re- ins tanti ation of the law. When we refus e, Moten and Har ney sugg est, we create diss onance and mor e impo rtantly, we allow dis sonanc e to conti nue – when we enter a classroom and we r efuse to c all it to or der, we ar e allowing s tudy to conti nue, dis sonant study per haps, dis organ- ized study, but study that prec edes our c all and will c ontinue after we have l eft the room. Or,
And s o, when we r efus e the c all to order – the teac her pic k- ing up the book, the c onductor raisi ng his baton, the s peaker as ki ng for silenc e, the torturer tighteni ng the noose –
undercommons is not a real m wher e we rebel and we cr eate critique; it is not a pl ac e wher e we “take ar ms ag ains t a s ea of tr oubles /and by opposing end them.” The un- dercommons is a s pace and ti me which is al ways here.
we refus e order as the disti ncti on between noise and music, c hatter and knowledge, pai n and tr uth
– and the “ we” is al ways the right mode of address here
that created those particular troubles as the ones that must be opposed .
stalling r eal politics. Moten and Har ney t ell us to
Thes e ki nds of exampl es get to the heart of Moten and H arney’s world of the undercommons – the
Moten and H arney r efus e the logic that stages r efusal as inacti vi ty, as the absenc e of a plan and as a mode of
listen to the noise we make and to refuse the offers we receive to shape that
noise into “music.”
f. Decolonization serves as an alibi for colonial practices that
have become more intense than ever.
Miyoshi,
profes sor of Japanes e literature and c ulture at Uni versity of Californi a,
1993
(Masao Mi yos hi, Summer 1993 “In the Jour nal Critic al Inquir y: A Borderless Worl d? From C oloni alism to Trans nationalism and the Decline of the N ati on State” pp 727-730) C QF
. And yet freedom and self-rulefor which the colonized had struggled
were elusive. Decolonization neither
effected emancipation and equality
, suffering and misery continued
everywhere in an altered form, at the hands of different agencies. Old compradors
took over, and they went on to protect their old masters' interest in exchange
for compensation. the general population saw little improvement; in fact, in
recent years it has worsened in many old colonies
departing colonizers and the newly
freed to be a historically autonomous territory, that is to say, a modern nationstate,
The entity was, however, no more than a counterfeit
reproduction of, and by, its former conqueror
Once the
Europeans were gone, , the residents of a colonial territory were thrown back on
their old disrupted site that had in the precolonial days operated on a logic and
history altogether different. The liberated citizens of a colony now had to
renegotiate the conditions of a nation-state in which they were to reside
thereafter. Retroversion to nativism might have been an option, but the Third
. dec olonization thr ough a new world or der ( die neue Ordnung and sekai s hin c hits ujo i n Axis sl ogans)- was a total sham; the col oniz ed of the world that had si ded with their master states i n Worl d War II seiz ed the day and woul d not s ettl e for l ess than independence and autonomy.
Liberation was demanded and allowed to take plac e over s ever al s ubseq uent dec ades, al bei t under var yi ng circums tanc es. After World War II, i ndependenc e appear ed to have ended the humiliati ng and expl oiti ve c olonial dominati on that had l asted anywher e from decades to c enturies in c ountries c overi ng at leas t 85 percent of the earth's land s urface
bitterl y
often at the cos t of i mmens e s acrific e-
unexpec tedl y
nor pr ovided new wealth or peace. Instead
nearl y
it was far fr om rar e that
Thus the wel far e of
with the possi ble exc eptions of the East Asi an N ewl y Indus trialized Ec onomies (NIEs) and the Associati on of Southeas t Asian N ati ons (ASEAN).8 The " postc olonial" deteri orati on that Basil Davi ds on rec entl y c alled "the blac k man's bur den" was a r es ult of double pr oc esses of c ol oniz ati on and dec oloniz ation, whic h were inextric abl y inter meshed.9 We ar e all familiar with the earlier stag e. As the
coloniz ers dr ew bor ders at will, i nscribi ng their appr opri ation on a map, tribes were joi ned or fr agmented. T hos e who were encircled by a more or l ess arbitr ar y c art ographic for m were induc ted i nto s er vitude on behal f of the distant and unseen metropolis . Wester n c ulture was to be the norm ati ve ci vilizati on, and the i ndigenous c ultur es were banished as premodern and marginal. And although s ubaltern r esistance pr oved far more resili ent than anticipated, and col oni al programs wer e never r eall y ful filled anywher e, the vi ctor's presenc e was powerful enough i n most pl aces to maintai n a s embl ance of c ontr ol and order des pite unceasi ng resistanc e and opposition. With the remo val of formal c ol oni alism after Worl d War II, the car tographic unit that c ons tituted a col ony was now percei ved both by the 8. In many regions of the world, ther e were s ome i mpr ovements in g eneral welfare. As to starvati on, for i nstance, the rati o of the chr onic all y undernouris hed to the total popul ation i n the Mi ddl e Eas t, South Americ a, and Asia has been reduced to nearly one-
half between 1970 and 1990. In Africa, however, there is hardl y any change i n the s ame period. See Sekai o yomu kii waado (T okyo, 1 992), pp. 82-83. 9. See Basil D avidson, The Blac k Man's Bur den: Africa and the C urs e of the N ati on- State (New Yor k, 1992). An Africanist j our nalist, D avidson may be overl y i nfl uenc ed by his obs er vations of Afric a when he writes about the r est of the world. H e is, for ins tanc e, muc h too pes simis tic-and Orientalist! -as he predicts that aside fr om J apan no Thir d Worl d nation will bec ome industrializ ed.
with a national his tor y, nati onal l ang uag e, national c ultur e, national c oherenc e, and finall y a s tate appar atus of it s own as s ymboliz ed by a nati onal anthem, flag, mus eum, and map.
in many plac es , havi ng neither a discr ete histor y nor l ogic that woul d c onvi nc e the newl y independent citiz ens of its legiti mac y or authenticity. Earlier, whil e str uggling agai nst the oppr ess ors, s elf- definiti on was not di ffic ult to obtai n: opposi tion articul ated their i denti ty.
however
World was fraught with inequalities and contradictions among various religions,
tribes, regions, classes, genders, and ethnicities that had been thrown together in
any given colonial territory.
The hatred of the oppressors was
enough to mobilize toward liberation but was inadequate for the management of
an independent state.
Once absorbed into the "chronopolitics" of
the secular West, colonized space cannot reclaim autonomy and seclusion ;
And production and dis tribution were often horrendousl y inefficient. The g olden ag e of a nation-state's memor y proved to be neither pure norjus t, nor even avail abl e, but a utopian dream often turned into a bloody nightmare.
As F anon had predicted earl y i n the game, attempts at nati vis m indeed ended i n dis astrous corr upti on and s elf- des truc tion, and they ar e still ongoing events i n many parts of the worl d.
once dr agged out of their prec ol oni al state, the i ndigenes of peripheries have to
2.
FRAMEWORK
a. The Aff should have presented a concrete strategy for the
application of their advocacy outside of the debate
community.
b. Only a multifaceted approach to deconstruct colonialism
solves—the 1AC’s focus is insufficient to overcome the
larger societal narrative of colonialism
1AC Baloy 2014
(Nic ole J.K., B.A. H onours, Eastern Michigan U niversity, 2006 M .A., T he U ni versity of British Col umbi a, 2008; SPECT ACLE, SPECTR ALIT Y, AND TH E EVERYD AY: SETT LER C OLONIALISM, ABOR IGIN AL ALT ERIT Y, AND INCLU SION IN VANCOU VER , https://open.libr ar y.ubc .ca/cIRcl e/c ollections/ubctheses /24/i tems /1.0166915) ( 70- 71)(SP)
ethnography
cannot be understood only in terms of the conventional
single-site
processes are not concentrated in any single site,
but are produced through the court system, schools, media, laws, and other
broader social circuits and spaces.
Studying any of these sites in isolation would have
risked reifying the social relations within them or generalizing settler colonial
conditions that are in fact site- specific .49 Instead, by taking a locally multi-sited
approach, I can produce an analysis that is greater than the sum of its parts
Marcus (1995:99) writes that mul ti-sited ethnography “clai ms that any
of a c ultural for mation i n the world s ys tem is also an ethnography of the s ys tem, and therefore
mise-en-sc ene of ethnogr aphic r esearc h.” In my own wor k, I understood that to study non-Aboriginal peopl e’s encounters with Aboriginal people would entail studying the disc ours es, cul tur e, histor y, and pr actic es of moder n-day s ettler c ol oni alis m. T hese
I
thus
decided to s tudy s ettler c ol oni al proc ess es by foc usi ng on the emergent disc ourses of Abori ginal inclusi on
discours es are grounded i n s peci fic ethnographic sites (Marc us 1995; de Leeuw, Kobayashi , and C amer on 2011). M y sites allowed me to explor e how my non-Aboriginal partici pants unders tood and enacted s ettler c olonial social r elati ons and c onstr ucted Aboriginal alterity withi n and beyond the Aboriginal Pavili on, libr ar y, and constr ucti on pr ogra m and placement site (s ee Figure 5) .
. T o s tudy thes e discours es ethnographic all y, I s elected the thr ee sites of i nclusion I descri bed above. Marc us ( 1995:111) notes that, i n str ategicall y situated ethnogr aphic sites , “the cruci al iss ue c onc erns the detectable s ystem-awareness i n the ever yday c onsciousness and acti ons of s ubjec ts’ li ves.” By “str ategicall y si tuati ng” my fi eldwor k in mul tipl e sites, I was equi pped with a wi de- angle lens to anal yse settl er col onialis m thr ough dis courses of i nclusi on, and zoom i n on how these
three
. I can tr ace how spectac ular Aboriginality i nfor ms post- Ol y
c. The aff fails to bridge the divide between theory and praxis
and remains trapped on the bookshelf-
Sium et al 12
(Aman Si um, C handni Desai, Eric Ri ts kes, Ontari o Insti tute for Studies in Educ ati on, U ni versity of T oronto, Si um i dentifi es as being Tigrinya, i ndig enous, Afric an, and Eritrean, Rits kes is Z haganas h, T owards the ‘ tangible unknown’: Dec oloniz ati on and the Indigenous future, Dec olonization: Indigenei ty, Educ ati on & Soci ety ¶ Vol. 1, N o. 1, 2012, pp. I-XIII, J KS)
One of the greatest challenges in looking to understand decolonization in complex ways
is bridging the divide of action vs. theory.
knowledge we choose to produce has everything to do with who we are and how we
choose to act in the world. Transformative praxis can be measured by our ability to show
scholarly courage and imagination in taking our ideas off the bookshelf and acting on
them. Decolonization does not simply suggest that we refrain from becoming spectators
to the knowledge we produce; it demands it.
outlining in the “endgame
of empire,” asking what kind of world Indigenous resurgence hopes to bring about after
it is gone.
Colonialism may actively work to shape the world
but it can also be made malleable, forced to show the cracks in its walls, and forced to
retreat through struggle against it. As we witness the death throes of global capitalism
and its insatiable appetite for Indigenous land and resources, we must also understand
Eve T uc k and K. Wayne Yang (this iss ue) remind us that “settl er col onialis m and i ts decol oniz ati on implic ates and unsettles ever yone” ( p. 7). T hey g o on to expl ore how there is no r oom for settlers to cl aim innocenc e i n the ongoi ng c olonial vi olenc e and dis pos ses sion of Indigenous l and. Importantl y, however, we eac h also have the agenc y to participate i n this vi olenc e ( or resis t it) thr ough mor all y differentiated positions , levels of c omplicity, poi nts of i mpact, and c onseq uenc e. For this reason, what
As Fanon ¶ ( 1967) clearl y l aid out, “It’s no l ong er a questi on of knowi ng the worl d, but of transfor ming it” ( p. 1). ¶ It is this trans for mati ve action that Wazi yatawin (in this issue) displ ays gr eat i maginati on in
She enc our ages her readers to peek behind the c oloni al c urtai n to s ee that a c entral “fac et of the c olonial picture is an illusi on of per manenc y and i nevi tabi lity” ( p. 76). Importantl y, s he als o encourag es her r eaders to r ecog nize that there is life beyond c oloni alism; that a c ertain degree of hope, i n both theor y and practice, is nec essar y in defeating it.
that, like a cornered animal, it will fight until the last breath in defending the privileges of
colonial governments and extractive industry. According to Waziyatawin, this is the paradox of
Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire: “while we have an opportunity to realize its
emancipatory potential, if we do not succeed soon, the chances for the survival of all life
will severely diminish” (p. 82). For this reason both decolonization theory and action are
time sensitive.
d. Borders and settler colonialism are intertwined – to
challenge modern immigration restrictions is the best way
to challenge the settler state
Loewenstein 17
(Hannah, student focusi ng on Femi nist and Dec olonizing Pers pecti ves fr om the Loc al to the Global at the U ni versity of British Col umbi a, “N o Ban on Stol en Land: the inters ecti onality of globaliz ati on and i mmigration”, GRSJ 102, from the U ni versity of Britis h C olumbia, 5/12/17, https ://blogs.ubc.c a/102l ocalglobalfemi nist/2017/03/15/no-ban-on-stol en-land-the-i ntersec tionality-of-globalizati on-and-i mmigration/)//J SL
indigenous people did not consent to the acts of bordering
emplaced and enforced on their appropriated lands by settler colonial society
Both indigenous people and
immigrants have been framed as threats to the white settler nation, while
simultaneously being exploited for their resources, land, labor, and watered-down
to be consumable parts of their cultures
although immigrants do play an
innate role in settler colonialism through moving to colonized lands, it is as a
result of attacks on their homelands from the same white settler nation-states
which they are moving to, often in search of better opportunities and quality of
life.
borders and
migration are seen as something to be controlled by solely the white settler
nation-state, in ways that will most benefit it, and without addressing how this
actually affects indigenous and immigrant livelihoods (Walia, 2010).
Although ci tizens of the 6 M usli m- maj ority c ountri es now pr ohibited from entering the States are still all owed i n C an ada, the inters ecti onal “the bor der cr oss ed us” s enti ment captured i n this i mage is applicable to the curr ent events of both countries . T his c oncept that
has broug ht out a po werfu l unio n b et ween
groups, in whic h indig enou s com munities are reaching out to Mu slim imm igr ants as their sib ling s in shar ed experiences of mar gin aliz ation and displacement. Si multaneousl y, the pr ot est organizers made cl ear that the l and on which the event was occ urring was the occupied, traditional, ances tral, and unc ede d territori es of the C oast Salish people. N ati ons thems el ves are an ess entialist social c onstr uct, us ed to c ontrol raci alized and g endered demographics ali enated as ‘other’, s epar ate families and cul tur es, and pr ofit off of capitalist bor der and migrati on tactics in an i ncreasingl y gl obal economy (Yu, 2009).
(bell hooks) . T his cr eates a paradox in whic h,
Canada’s ec onomy relies heavil y on res ourc e extr acti on and agricultur e ( which destr oys i ndigenous l and), with migrant wor kers kept vulnerable and perfor ming a signi ficant portion of this intensi ve, dang erous wor k ( Wali a, 2010). In this situation, neither i ndig enous peoples nor migrant wor kers are benefitti ng- while Canada as a white s ettl er nation does. If this is C anada’ s ‘ multic ultural and welc oming’ appr oac h, then the U nited Stat es’ is to explicitl y make cl ear who their nati on is welc omi ng to and who it i s not. So while ther e is a vast popul ati on of i mmigrant wor kers i n the U.S. on whom the ec onomy relies as well, in this c as e their exploitati on is a r esul t of l ac k of doc umentati on in the first plac e and strict i mmigrati on pr oc ess es. Dis tur bing is that in th e context of b oth co untries,
e. Colonial borders imposed between the U.S. and Canada
disrupt cultural continuity between Native Peoples.
Smart, 7-1-18
[Amy, rep orter-e ditor, The Ca nadian Press; BA History, McGill University; MA, Journalis m, Ryers on U niversity; “Indig enous Profess or From B.C. -Alaska Bor der Nation F orce d To Leave Canada ;” H uffington Post, July 1, 20 18; https ://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ 2018/ 07/0 1/indige nous-profess or-for ced -to-leave -ca nada_a_ 2347 2142/ ]
The colonial border between the U.S. and Canada dissects Indigenous territories in ways that
sever the lifelines between First Nation families, communities, languages and ceremonies,"
she consi dered applying for I ndian status in Ca nada, but learned the two -year proces s hinge d on the baptis mal recor d of her great-great-great grandmother in Prince Rupert, B.C., i n the 1860 s. "So i f she deci ded not to convert to Christianity I woul d not be considere d an Indian under the I ndian A ct.
Dangeli's petition says. Dangeli says
The whole process is about one colonial institution affirming the
power of another. It has nothing to do with our inherent Indigenous rights that predate
colonial law,"
Dangeli said.
f. Their argument represents a Sophie’s Choice for
indigenous scholars—we have no choice but to use every
epistemological tool at our disposal
Grande 7
[Sandy, Ass oci ate Pr ofess or of Educ ation at Connec ticut C ollege, “Red Lake Woebegone: Pedagog y, D ec oloniz ation, and the Critical Pr ojec t,” Critical Pedagogy : W her e Ar e W e N ow?, eds . Peter Mc Laren and J oe L. Kinc heloe, p 330]
to create a dichotomy between the tools of the
colonizer and those of the colonized. leaves the indigenous scholar to grapple
Audre Lorde's ess ay, T he M aster's Tools Will N ot Dis mantle the Mas ter's H ouse, is one of the mos t quoted essays in academic his tor y and, I woul d also venture to s ay, one that needs rethi nking. Whil e it is sel f-evi dent that indigenous knowledge is ess enti al to the process of dec olonization, I woul d also argue that the Mas ter's tools are necessar y. Other wis e, to take Audr e Lor de seri ousl y means
Such a dic hotomy
with a kind of "Sophie's Choice" moment where one feels compelled to choose
between retaining their integrity (identity) as a Native scholar by employing only
indigenous knowledge or to "sell out" and employ the frames of Western
knowledge. What does it mean for indigenous scholars to engage Western
knowledge?
the colonial tax of
Native scholars not only requires a renegotiation of personal identity but also an
analysis of how whole nations get trans- or (dis)figured when articulated through
Western frames of knowing.
. In other
words, by virtue of living in this world and having to negotiate the forces of
colonization, indigenous scholars are given no choice but to know, understand,
and acquire the grammar of empire as well as develop the skills to contest it. The
relationship between the two is not some liberal dream of multicultural harmony
but rather the critical and dialogical tension between competing moral visions.
Does it signify a final s ubmis sion to the sir en's song, s educi ng us into the col oni alist abyss with pr omises of empowerment? Or is it the neces sar y first s tep i n r eclai ming and dec olonizing an intell ectual spac e-an i nquir y room-of our own? Suc h questi ons provoke beyond the bounds of ac ademic exercise, s uggesti ng ins tead the need for an ac ademic exorcis m. T he demon to be purged is the specter of c olonialis m. As indigenous schol ars, we li ve within, ag ains t, and outsi de of its cons tant company, witnessing its various manifestati ons as it shape-s hifts its way into ever ything fr om r esearc h and public polic y to textbooks and cl assr ooms . T hus,
As Edward Said obs erves , "institutions , vocabular y, sc hol arshi p, imager y, doc trines, even col onial bureaucr acies and c oloni al styl es" all s upport to the " Western disc ourse" ( Sai d, 1985, p. 2). In other wor ds, is it possibl e to engage the gr ammar of em pire without replicating its effects ? At the same ti me i ndigenous sc hol ars entertai n these ruminati ons, N ati ve c ommuniti es co nti nue to be i mpac ted and transfor med by the forc es of col oniz ati on, r enderi ng the "choic e" of whether to employ Wes ter n knowl edge i n the proc ess of defi ning i ndigenous pedag ogics essenti all y moot