Speaker 1: Media.
Speaker 2: The National Geographics Encyclopedia says that indigenous refers to people
Speaker 2: or objects that are native to a certain region or environment,
Speaker 2: whether they grow there, live there, or produced there, or
Speaker 2: occur naturally there. When it comes to flora and fauna,
Speaker 2: they are considered indigenous to an ecosystem when they haven't
Speaker 2: been introduced through human intervention or manipulated by human cultivation.
Speaker 2: Over millions of years, these living things have become well
Speaker 2: suited to their habitats, carefully adapted to the region's soil, climate,
Speaker 2: and food web. Or when it comes to people, there
Speaker 2: can make some confusion about what it means to be indigenous,
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to questions of land rights, autonomy,
Speaker 2: and reparations. Most people understand that Native American nations and
Speaker 2: Aboriginal Australians are indigenous, but some might then ask, well,
Speaker 2: if indigenous means originating from a place, then aren't all
Speaker 2: whole sapiens indigenous to Africa? Why should one group's claim
Speaker 2: of indigenas you take precedence over any other. This will
Speaker 2: be asked in more or less good faith, and so
Speaker 2: others may ask the question, well, if a group occupies
Speaker 2: a region for several generations, does that then make them indigenous?
Speaker 2: White Americans indigenous if their family has been there since
Speaker 2: they're found in the United States? A French people indigenous
Speaker 2: to France, and if so, does that somehow justify their
Speaker 2: xenophobia to water refugees. In some weird reactionary corruption of
Speaker 2: declonial rhetoric. Speaking of corruptions of de colonial rhetoric, some
Speaker 2: Zionists claim that Jewish people as a whole are indigenous
Speaker 2: to Palestine in some twisted perversion of land back. While
Speaker 2: Zionism itself has long understood itself as a colonial project
Speaker 2: meant to displace and eliminate the indigenous inhabitants of past
Speaker 2: died from its very beginning. Some white nationalists also argue
Speaker 2: that settler colunism was really no different than any other
Speaker 2: conflict between indigenous people, So what does it even matter?
Speaker 2: Might mix right and generations of marginalized groups have been
Speaker 2: struggling to retain their social, cultural, economic, and political sovereignty
Speaker 2: and achieve justice, reparations, liberation after centuries of oppression and
Speaker 2: attempted annihilation. We need to stand in informed solidarity. Thus,
Speaker 2: it is vital for us to understand what it means
Speaker 2: to be indigenous welcome, take it up in here. I'm
Speaker 2: Andrew Sage andrewism on YouTube, and I'm here again.
Speaker 1: With Miir Wong, the other host of this podcast.
Speaker 2: Yes, and we are here to discuss two approaches to
Speaker 2: understand in indignity. This is not the final word on
Speaker 2: the matter, but just one perspective that I've drawn primarily
Speaker 2: from the work of North American indigenous authors, namely Tayaki Alfred,
Speaker 2: Jeff Conticell, and Robin Wall Kimera. So you know, keep
Speaker 2: that in mind as we proceed. There may be other
Speaker 2: positions and perspectives and indigeneity coming from other groups the people.
Speaker 2: And so I believe there are two principle highly overlapping
Speaker 2: ways that indigenity can be defined or interpreted. One is
Speaker 2: as an identity formed as part of a colonial relationship,
Speaker 2: and two as an identity rooted in a relationship to police.
Speaker 2: I believe that each definition is incomplete without the other,
Speaker 2: but by understanding and synthesizing each notion of indigenousness, we
Speaker 2: can better ground our approach decolonization and social revolution. So
Speaker 2: let's start with indignity as identity rooted in a relationship place,
Speaker 2: whether it be physical as with land, social as with community,
Speaker 2: or cultural as with culture. As indigenous, relationship to the
Speaker 2: land must be reciprocal, with give and take, base on
Speaker 2: a view of the land and water as a gift,
Speaker 2: they must be cared for over generations. According to Dnotiony mythology,
Speaker 2: as recounted by Robin wild Chimera in Brilliant Sweet Grass,
Speaker 2: the mother goddess Skywoman came to the land as an
Speaker 2: immigrant from the heavens, but became indigenous by listening to
Speaker 2: the land, learning from other species to understand how to
Speaker 2: live on it, given as she received, and caring for
Speaker 2: the earth and its keepers for the sake of those
Speaker 2: who would inherit it when she passed on. Land is identity,
Speaker 2: it is ancestral connection, It is pharmacy, it is library,
Speaker 2: and it is home, the source of all the sustains
Speaker 2: and the sacred ground upon which those would observe their
Speaker 2: responsibility to the boot. So by this understanding it can
Speaker 2: be said that indignated is born out of land connection
Speaker 2: and established through observation and relationship. Indigenous peoples have historically
Speaker 2: been mobile, either by choice or by force, but regardless
Speaker 2: of where they might find themselves quote unquote, homeland or
Speaker 2: not even if there were other indigenous peoples in their
Speaker 2: new environments. As long as they observe the processes and
Speaker 2: ceremonies of generational relationship building based on mutual respect, understanding,
Speaker 2: and love for the land in common, there remained indigenous.
Speaker 2: So then the question may arise, why aren't settlers indigenous
Speaker 2: to place if their family has lived in the land
Speaker 2: for generations. The answer lies in relationship. Settler society as
Speaker 2: a whole is based on an extractivist capitalist relationship with
Speaker 2: the land, focus on exploiting the land and its natural resources.
Speaker 2: Without a relationship with the land that extends the reference
Speaker 2: to a deeper understanding of its comp likes interdependence, settler
Speaker 2: society can never become indigenous to place. Of course, it
Speaker 2: goes without saying that not every indigenous group or indigious
Speaker 2: practice is perfectly sustainable. Some have been rather destructive and
Speaker 2: even speciocidal, particularly when they have recently moved into a place,
Speaker 2: as we could see in North American prehistory. But if
Speaker 2: we are to work with this definition to conceive of
Speaker 2: being indigenous as something based and cultivating a long term
Speaker 2: relationship to place, then indigenity must be contingent on maintaining
Speaker 2: the health and longevity of that relationship. Without community, they
Speaker 2: cannot be indignity, much like the trees in a forest
Speaker 2: are interconnected via subterranean networks of microreze which enable them
Speaker 2: to share resources and survive as a whole. In order
Speaker 2: to be indigenous to place, community must exist sustain that
Speaker 2: web of reciprocity with the land so that all may flourish.
Speaker 2: Indigenacy to place extends to culture as well, which is
Speaker 2: deeply tied to the land it develops on. Such practices
Speaker 2: should be reciprocal, as ceremonies create communities, and communities create
Speaker 2: ceremonies as well as organic, not appropriating existing cultural celebrations
Speaker 2: or tending toward the commercial. Our social fabric has become
Speaker 2: withered and fragmented by the peace of modern life, leaving
Speaker 2: little room for ceremonies outside of religion or rights of
Speaker 2: personal transitions such as birth. These weddings and funerals, but
Speaker 2: ceremonies and the shared emotions they generate are part of
Speaker 2: what builds community. When we gather for graduations, for example,
Speaker 2: a sense of pride, relief, nostalgia, and excitement builds in
Speaker 2: the social atmosphere. Hopefully fueling the confidence and strength of
Speaker 2: those who are going on to pursue the rest of
Speaker 2: their lives. But Kimura wants us to imagine standing by
Speaker 2: a river flooded with those same feelings as the salmon
Speaker 2: march into the auditorium of the estuary. Being indigenous to
Speaker 2: police means cultivating cultural ceremonies that on other land and
Speaker 2: all the cycles and seasons of life within it. What
Speaker 2: are your thoughts on that interpretation or approach to indigenousity.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot there that's interesting. I think
Speaker 1: I'm getting a better sense of what you were saying
Speaker 1: at the beginning when you were like this probably needs
Speaker 1: to be synthesized with the definition that's also about like
Speaker 1: a relationship to colonialism. Yeah, but you know, there's some
Speaker 1: sort of fun question mark examples of like the Chinese
Speaker 1: Empire failing this where it's like like you do have
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff that's like, Okay, we're going to
Speaker 1: like build a relationship in nature, but the build a
Speaker 1: relationship to nature stuff is like we are going to
Speaker 1: clear this forest in order to build a temple that
Speaker 1: is like exactly set up on like a pentagram or whatever.
Speaker 1: And so it's like.
Speaker 3: Okay, hold on, old God, we have failed in creating
Speaker 3: a relationship to the land if we are in fact
Speaker 3: just making geometry shapes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think empires. By then nature are going to
Speaker 2: run into some difficulties. To put it mildly, they're going
Speaker 2: to run into some difficulties with actually maintaining a reciprocal
Speaker 2: relationship with that because empires are built on extraction of
Speaker 2: people and of resources, which you're absolutely right that there
Speaker 2: has to be a synthesis of this definition with the
Speaker 2: idea of indignity as a colonial relationship. According to Taiyaki
Speaker 2: Alfred and Jeff Quantusil, indigenousness is an identity constructed, shaped,
Speaker 2: and lived in the politicized context of contemporary colonialism. It
Speaker 2: is an experience oppositional to colonial societies and states, and
Speaker 2: a consciousness of struggle again and such forces of colonization.
Speaker 2: No two indigenous groups are exactly alike. Of course, there
Speaker 2: is a significant diversity in their cultures, contexts, and relationships
Speaker 2: with colonial forces, but they do share that struggle to
Speaker 2: survive as distinct peoples in an environment hostile to their existence.
Speaker 2: Efforts to marginalize and eradicate indigenous peoples may not always
Speaker 2: be as overt as they once were, but the historic
Speaker 2: and ongoing dispossession of Indigenous peoples, the erasure of Indigenous histories, geographies,
Speaker 2: and languages, and the current situation of deprivation persist. Nonetheless,
Speaker 2: even so called reconciliation efforts are tainted by the reality
Speaker 2: that Indigenous people remain, as in earlier colonial eras fundamentally
Speaker 2: occupied and disempowered peoples, stripped of autonomy in their own
Speaker 2: homelands and pressured into surrender and cooperation with an inherently
Speaker 2: unjust colonial order just in show their basic physical survival.
Speaker 2: By this understanding of indigenity, it can be said that
Speaker 2: without a colonizer, without systems in place and actions being
Speaker 2: taken to marginalize, disempower, and destroy their societies in fear
Speaker 2: of a colonial replacement, there is no indigenous. Without colonialism,
Speaker 2: there would be no status of indigenous to be imposed
Speaker 2: upon the groups of peoples whose very existence and claimed
Speaker 2: land is an obstacle to that colonial endeavor. The un
Speaker 2: Working Group on Indigenous Issues drew partially from this understanding
Speaker 2: when they attempted to define indigenous peoples in nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: six quote Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which
Speaker 2: having a historical continuity with pre invasion and pre colonial
Speaker 2: societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from
Speaker 2: other sectors other societies now prevailing on those territories or
Speaker 2: parts of them. They form at present non dominant sectors
Speaker 2: of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit
Speaker 2: to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity
Speaker 2: as the basis of their continued existence as peoples in
Speaker 2: accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions, and legal systems.
Speaker 2: And so by this definition, the Ammerindians in the Caribbean,
Speaker 2: Aboriginal Australians, Adivasis in India, Native North and South Americans, Siberians, Ainu,
Speaker 2: kurds Assyrians, Yazidi Palestinians, am Sikh Sambi, Basques, Hawaiians, Maori,
Speaker 2: san Wuti, Papuans, Charms, and many many more are all
Speaker 2: indigenous peoples layers of nuance yet to be highlighted. The
Speaker 2: colonial situation is not a simple binary of indigenous and colonizer.
Speaker 2: For example, in the Americas, we have the immigrant situation
Speaker 2: and the situation of slavery right where Africans are concerned
Speaker 2: they were indigenous to their own homelands but displaced and
Speaker 2: enslaved under the colonial regime. They may not be indigenous
Speaker 2: to the Americas, but they were not driving settled colonial
Speaker 2: society either. In fact, historically some were actually enslaved by
Speaker 2: indigenous people as well. And at the same time there
Speaker 2: were members of the African diaspora who would join existing
Speaker 2: indigenous societies and later create their own, such as the
Speaker 2: Garifuna of Saint Vincent Tranduras and belize it's very attractive,
Speaker 2: I would say, or mentally compelling to fall into these
Speaker 2: kinds of binaries colonizer and visions. But we should not
Speaker 2: allow these constructs to pendhula picture.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I mean this is you mentioned the Kurds earlier, right,
Speaker 1: And there's a couple of political principles that groups like
Speaker 1: the pew I d you know, and sort of like
Speaker 1: the Kurdish Freedom Movement have had to grapple, Like one
Speaker 1: of their things is grappling with like for example, there
Speaker 1: was like huge Curtish participation in the Armenian genocide. And
Speaker 1: if you look at the Kurdish regional government in a
Speaker 1: rock when I want to talk about the pew Id
Speaker 1: that's like like Curtish Freedom movement in Syria in a rock,
Speaker 1: there's like the Iraqi Kurdish Regional government, right, which is
Speaker 1: run by a different group, but those people, you know,
Speaker 1: and this is one of these things where like there
Speaker 1: are Kurtish people on both sides of this conflict. Like
Speaker 1: that group attempted to, for example, like prevent ezd people
Speaker 1: from returning to their homes after they were like genocided
Speaker 1: there from there by isis right. So it's this it's
Speaker 1: this thing where like all of this stuff gets kind
Speaker 1: of messy depending on like who has power in a
Speaker 1: given moment. And it's something that's to some extent fluid
Speaker 1: enough that you can on the one hand, like be
Speaker 1: experiencing a genocide and then also immediately turn around and
Speaker 1: you know, be be the Kurdish regional government and attempt
Speaker 1: to assist the genocide, to attempt to like do a
Speaker 1: genocide against the disease you can take more of their land.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But then on the other hand, you know, you have
Speaker 1: the PYD who was like backing was backing the Azids
Speaker 1: in that fight against like against the Curve regional government.
Speaker 1: So it's yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's very it's very easy to slip
Speaker 2: into this notion that the experience of oppression will necessarily
Speaker 2: cause you to develop a cojent or insistent critique of oppression. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but often what we see in history is it oppression
Speaker 2: results in that group perfetuating harm down the line in
Speaker 2: other ways, either within their own group or inflicting that
Speaker 2: harm and other groups. There's something intrinsic to any group
Speaker 2: that grants them immunity from falling into those same patterns
Speaker 2: of domination, abuse of pressure, and harm. People look at
Speaker 2: the example of Israel a lot, but a less similiar
Speaker 2: example for some would be the situation that established Liberia
Speaker 2: in Africa. You know, where you literally had the descendants
Speaker 2: of the slave people or formerly in slave of people
Speaker 2: going on to engage in settler clunalism in the territory
Speaker 2: that became Liberia, to oppress and disadvantage the indigenous populations
Speaker 2: that previously occupy those territories, and well continue to occupy
Speaker 2: those territories today. They created a stratifyed tociety that placed
Speaker 2: them on the top, mirroring the very system that they
Speaker 2: had fled.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this is the thing where it's like it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that, you know, people like swing around on
Speaker 1: the other end and be like, well, we actually have
Speaker 1: to like maintain the colonial relationship because like what if
Speaker 1: these people then did colonialism on us. It's like no, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's not no.
Speaker 2: Because you hear people making that argument with three gods
Speaker 2: to like three Palestine, right, yeah, people say, oh, well
Speaker 2: then the past inions we'll just spin around and do
Speaker 2: a genocide on us, so we have to do a genocide.
Speaker 1: On them, Like no, yeah, And this is actually one
Speaker 1: of the things. I think there's two angles of this.
Speaker 1: The one you see that in the US too, where
Speaker 1: people are like, well, what if we do if we
Speaker 1: do land back, then they're just going to like exterminate
Speaker 1: all the white people in the US, And it's like, no,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's what you did, like like.
Speaker 3: Hold on, hold time.
Speaker 1: So then you know, the second angle of this too
Speaker 1: is this becomes like a motivating factor for colonizers. And
Speaker 1: this is just something that's true historically if you look
Speaker 1: at the Bosnian genocide, right, the way that you get
Speaker 1: people to do with genocides by convincing them that the
Speaker 1: people they're doing a genocide against are about to do
Speaker 1: a gedocide against them. And you know, you see this
Speaker 1: in Bosnia, you see this Rwanda. This is a very
Speaker 1: very common sort of I don't even know what you
Speaker 1: call it, like trope feels like two weeks of a word.
Speaker 1: This is a very common step in the beginning of genocide,
Speaker 1: which I don't love. Uh So you're right, of ten
Speaker 1: Mia not pro genocide more news at ten.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, it's something I wanted to mention regarding I
Speaker 2: think the application of indigenoity as a concept in Asia.
Speaker 2: You know, you mentioned the situation with the zds and
Speaker 2: the kids, but you'll see the governments of places like
Speaker 2: Indonesia and India, in China and Vietnam and Bangladesh, Yeah,
Speaker 2: not recognizing the existence of indigenous peoples within their territories.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: And these countries, like most countries in the world, did
Speaker 2: not ratify the International Labor Organization Convention one sixty nine
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty nine, which was known as the Indigenous
Speaker 2: and Tribal People's Convention considering the Rights of Indigenous peoples.
Speaker 2: The UN's Declaration of the Rights and Indigenous Peoples, passed
Speaker 2: in two thousand and seven, would however, be voted on
Speaker 2: approvally by most of the world, including the same countries
Speaker 2: that haven't recognized indigenous peoples within their borders. All four
Speaker 2: of the countries that rejected the resolution, Canada, America, Australia
Speaker 2: and New Zealand will later changed their vote in favor
Speaker 2: of the declaration of course of their own tact on
Speaker 2: interpretations and embassies, and the declarations legally non binded nature
Speaker 2: as is to be expected from set the colonial societies.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: I'm very interested in, you know, because we do have
Speaker 2: the ethnic minorities we do have in in case India,
Speaker 2: you have the pre Indo European groups, the tribal groups.
Speaker 2: And if you go back to the definition of indigeneity
Speaker 2: according to the UN, it speaks of groups which form
Speaker 2: at present non dominant sectors of society that are determined
Speaker 2: to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations the ancestral
Speaker 2: territories and the ethnic identity at the basis of the
Speaker 2: continued exystems as people, et cetera, et cetera. You know,
Speaker 2: it speaks of those having historical continuancy with pre invasion
Speaker 2: pre codeal societies that developed in their territories. They speak
Speaker 2: of groups that consider themselves distinct from other sectors as
Speaker 2: societies and all prevailing on those territories. And so by
Speaker 2: this definition, I understand that people in these Asian countries
Speaker 2: maybe like, oh, we're all from this place, right, so
Speaker 2: why does that group get this desert nation and aditioners,
Speaker 2: So while we do not, And it goes back to
Speaker 2: again a colonial relationship. It goes back to the relationship
Speaker 2: between a group and the broader society. And so it's
Speaker 2: not necessarily stripping away the fact that a particular group
Speaker 2: may be from an area, but more so speaking about
Speaker 2: how another group relates to the states in that area
Speaker 2: and the group that dominates the state in that area.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like you like this in the Chinese context, and
Speaker 1: it's like okay, so like by the time you're like
Speaker 1: bulldozing masques and shinjuan, like, I think you've gotten too congratulations,
Speaker 1: you have like created a indigenous settler divide.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Also just just speaking like the context does not
Speaker 2: begin and end with European colonization and direct European administration
Speaker 2: and invasion and that kind of thing. You know, prior
Speaker 2: to these invasions, you did have the empires that were
Speaker 2: established in these areas. I mean China was an empire
Speaker 2: quite famously, Japan was an empire, India was the home
Speaker 2: of several empires. Indonesia was the home of several empires.
Speaker 2: So while it may not be that this relation of
Speaker 2: indignity is based on the Europeans at loclonialism, there is
Speaker 2: something to the history of empire in those areas, establish
Speaker 2: in those relationships, relationships that would later be elevated in
Speaker 2: some cases by those Europeans when they would come and
Speaker 2: they would for example, select one ethnic group and elevate
Speaker 2: one ethnic group over another ethnic group, make us in
Speaker 2: ethnic group administrators and put down another ethnic group, classify
Speaker 2: these kind of caste systems and ethnocratic divisions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Rwanda, it's like one of the literally literally yeah,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of cases where these sort of
Speaker 1: the indigenous colonizer divides become reflective of like the way
Speaker 1: that Europeans set up past systems. Sometimes that's not true though,
Speaker 1: And one of the I think most hideous examples of
Speaker 1: this is West Papua, which we very briefly mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: where West Papua and Indonesia are like not governed by
Speaker 1: the same colonial administration, but when Indonesia gains independence, like
Speaker 1: the government there and this is this is Sankara's government, right,
Speaker 1: This is like the nominally socialist one wants to take
Speaker 1: control of West Papua because West Papua has all of
Speaker 1: these resources, and the people in West Papua don't want that,
Speaker 1: like they want to be an independence entity. But the
Speaker 1: Indonesians just roll in and invade them and you know,
Speaker 1: continue from Sukara to Sukarno. Just a unbelievably hideous series
Speaker 1: of genocides. And one of the things that's really bleak
Speaker 1: about the sort of process of decolonization is like you
Speaker 1: can see this shift in the way that these post
Speaker 1: colonial societies are talking about what colonization is and we're
Speaker 1: resistance to it, where it ceases to become about the
Speaker 1: struggle of people against the colonizing forces that oppress them,
Speaker 1: and it turns into a something that's about like the
Speaker 1: continuity of national borders. You know, you get a really
Speaker 1: bleak example of this where like people talk about like
Speaker 1: the Bandung conference, right, which is the sort of like
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be, like this is like the big
Speaker 1: thing in like pan Asian and pan African like struggles
Speaker 1: coming together. We're like all these formally colonized nations like
Speaker 1: come together and like issue this issue a bunch of things,
Speaker 1: and it's supposed to be this big moment of like
Speaker 1: this is like the unity of post colonial societies. That's
Speaker 1: like still to this day look back on in terms
Speaker 1: of like Affrouasian solidarity, like this is the big one.
Speaker 1: But one of the things that they ratified at ban
Speaker 1: Dung was a very small session that no one pays
Speaker 1: any attention to, which is all of these countries put
Speaker 1: in their support for Indonesia's occupation of West Papua hum. Eventually,
Speaker 1: I'm going to do a long thing about this. It
Speaker 1: just is a really difficult subject that tackle on has
Speaker 1: to be done very carefully. But one of the things
Speaker 1: that happens is, you know, like the West Papua WANs
Speaker 1: go to the UN and all of the states that
Speaker 1: you would normally think of as like the anti colonial
Speaker 1: states are like no, fuck you, like you belong to Indonesia.
Speaker 1: And then you get all of these other countries who
Speaker 1: are like more neutral or more US aligned, but because
Speaker 1: they're not allied with Indonesia, their reaction is like wait,
Speaker 1: hold on, what do you mean there are black people
Speaker 1: in the Pacific A and be like, holy shit, this
Speaker 1: is fucked up. But it sets this precedent that kind
Speaker 1: of like rolls on through like pan Arabism and rolls
Speaker 1: on through a lot of these decolonial movements where once
Speaker 1: you've gotten your state, it's fine to just like do
Speaker 1: horrifying repression against any other sort of ethnic group that's there,
Speaker 1: because now that now that you have your post colonial state, like,
Speaker 1: any attempt to interfere with the sovereignty of the state
Speaker 1: and change the borders, even if it's like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: you're like the West Sahara, or you know, you're like
Speaker 1: shing Jan, or you're like the Kurds, right, and any
Speaker 1: attempt for those people to like get their freedom is
Speaker 1: seen as like a Western back like separatist thing instead
Speaker 1: of an anti colonial struggle. And I think that really
Speaker 1: was one of the things that was like the death
Speaker 1: knell for like the post colonial movements was their willingness
Speaker 1: to just walk in and machine gun people because we
Speaker 1: want the resources that these people's lands are on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, honestly, that brings us to the topic of decolonization. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, because let me think about these definitions of
Speaker 2: the indignity as a clonal relationship and indigenity as a
Speaker 2: relationship to land and to nature, to the environment. I
Speaker 2: think it begs the question of how we approach this
Speaker 2: process of decolonization. How do we go about abolishing the
Speaker 2: colonizer indigenous relationship. Is it that we seek to pursue
Speaker 2: a universalization of indigenity to the former and by that
Speaker 2: process accomplish the matter, or is it there's some other
Speaker 2: framework or approach by which we can take on this
Speaker 2: topic of Okay, do we proceed the with the with
Speaker 2: the concept of indigenity or does the concept of indigenity
Speaker 2: exist as a by products and a representation of the
Speaker 2: system that we are trying to get aware you're from, Yeah.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 2: Decoralization is commonly defined as the process of unsettain colonial
Speaker 2: power structures, whether that be through overtad and acts of
Speaker 2: enclosure by building new commons, overtad and acts of possession
Speaker 2: by reclaiming our spaces and identities, or overta in acts
Speaker 2: of administration through social revolution. Social revolution is a complete
Speaker 2: transformation for our society by economy, culture, philosophy, relationships, technology,
Speaker 2: so on. It is as anarchists would approach it, an
Speaker 2: ongoing and heterogenous change in people's powers, drives and consciousness
Speaker 2: through practical education, as well as a progressive breakdown and
Speaker 2: transformation of the existing systems and institutions, alongside the building
Speaker 2: of new systems institutions punctuated by major insurrections, ruptures, advances.
Speaker 2: That whole messy process with the aim of self liberation. Yeah,
Speaker 2: something that I've broken down as involved in confrontation with
Speaker 2: the powers that be, non cooperation with the established order
Speaker 2: of things, and the prefiguration of new social relations, institutions, infrastructure,
Speaker 2: and practices in the hered now. If we maintain the
Speaker 2: interpretation of indigeneity as based in one's position in a
Speaker 2: colonial relationship, then the decolonization process will until the abolition
Speaker 2: of that relationship as the premise of identity and therefore
Speaker 2: the abolition of indignity as a status. Colonial legacies have
Speaker 2: effectively left indigenous communities legally and politically compartmentalized and culturally,
Speaker 2: socially and spiritually weakened within the narrow parameters of the state,
Speaker 2: where they end up diverting the crucial energy necessary to
Speaker 2: confront state power and develop the process of deconalization toward
Speaker 2: mimicking the practices of the dominant non additional legal political
Speaker 2: institutions through the processes of land claims and self government,
Speaker 2: and by pursuing these strategies, I think what we notice
Speaker 2: is this tends toward a division rather than a solidarity
Speaker 2: building division both internally and between indigenous communities, where land claims,
Speaker 2: for example, clash, or where certain members of a society
Speaker 2: of a community utilize their position above others in that
Speaker 2: society community to gain certain advantages for themselves, sometimes to
Speaker 2: the detriment of the society or community. So I think
Speaker 2: any sort of appros deconization has to account for the
Speaker 2: way is that some approaches the de econalization can end
Speaker 2: up perhaps misdirecting from a subjective perspective, the work that
Speaker 2: is necessary to dismantle the clonal order, rather than merely
Speaker 2: assert a position was in it. But this idea of
Speaker 2: indigenity via colonization is just one understanding of the term,
Speaker 2: and my approach to it is of course one subjective
Speaker 2: interpretation of that definition, and where it might lead. We
Speaker 2: need to explore another approach, I think to deconization, and
Speaker 2: one that recognizes the power and potential of Indigenous relationships
Speaker 2: with the land. Now Globally, the UN recognizes that indigenous
Speaker 2: peoples protect eighty percent of the world's remain in bio diversity,
Speaker 2: and scientists have shown that indigenous management practices in Brazil, Canada,
Speaker 2: and Australia provides the same level of ecosystem support and
Speaker 2: protection as any imposed protected area, which makes it aboutly
Speaker 2: clear that the colonial approach of conservation via session removes
Speaker 2: the very people who take care of our most important ecosystems.
Speaker 2: I don't believe that merely building a connection with the
Speaker 2: land can make someone indigenous, but not being indigenous doesn't
Speaker 2: exclude us from aiden in the renewal of the indigenous world.
Speaker 2: Kimura uses the example of the broad leaf planter, also
Speaker 2: known as the white Man's footprint. Despite not being indigenous
Speaker 2: to the Americas, it has become an honored member of
Speaker 2: the plant community because it lives as a good neighbor
Speaker 2: instead of as a destructive invader. While other invasive species
Speaker 2: poison the soil over around the land outcompete indigenous species,
Speaker 2: the white Man's footprint took on a strategy of helpful
Speaker 2: co existence, even sharing some of its healing properties with
Speaker 2: those who ask of it. It is not indigenous, but
Speaker 2: it has become naturalized to code Chimera. Being naturalized a
Speaker 2: place means to live as if this is the land
Speaker 2: that feeds you, as if these are the streams from
Speaker 2: which you drink, that build your body and fill the spirit.
Speaker 2: To become naturalized is to know that your ancestors lie
Speaker 2: in this ground. Here you will give your gifts and
Speaker 2: meet your responsibilities. To become naturalized is to live as
Speaker 2: if your children's future matters. To take care of the
Speaker 2: land as if our lives and the lives of all
Speaker 2: of our relatives depend on it, because they do. End quote,
Speaker 2: Decolonization will require us to uproot invasive, capitalist settler societies
Speaker 2: in order to rebuild in a way that treats the
Speaker 2: land like the home that we share and are responsible for.
Speaker 2: It will require us to receive an honor knowledge in
Speaker 2: the land, to care for its keepers, and to pass
Speaker 2: on that knowledge to the next generation. As always, all
Speaker 2: power to all the people.
Speaker 1: Peace It could happen. Here is a production of cool
Speaker 1: Zone Media.
Speaker 3: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 3: coolzonmedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 3: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts you can
Speaker 3: now find sources for It could happen here, listed directly
Speaker 3: in episode descriptions.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.