COLONIZATION: PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED

I mentioned before that colonization and decolonization go hand in hand. They do, and the relationship between the two is quite complex. I'm a little bit stoked because in the following posts I'm going to get into some of the good stuff! In the various books we read there were often two characters, if you will, that portray the relationships that occur as a result of colonization: 

Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist born in Martinique, discusses two "protagonists": the colonist and the colonized, the outsider and the indigenous populations ("the others") (Wretched of the Earth, 1961).

Albert Memmi, a French writer born in Tunisia, discusses the colonizer and the colonized (The Colonizer and and Colonized, 1965).

Paulo Freire, Brazilian educator, discusses the oppressor and the oppressed (Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1968).

Edward Said, a Palestinian literary theorist born in Jerusalem, discusses the Occident and the Orient; the West and the East; the European and "the Other" (Orientalism, 1978).

You can also add the civilized and the uncivilized; the European and the savage; the American and the native.

What comes to mind when you look at these words? When I see these words I think of power: the power one holds over the other. That much is evident. But it is a lot more complex than that. There are also the notions of human and less human; to humanize and dehumanize; to lose or regain one's humanity; humanization and dehumanization. When we examine more closely Paulo Freire's concepts, there are also notions of exploitation, domination and transformation.

Freire, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, defines oppression as "any situation in which 'A' objectively exploits 'B' or hinders his pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person..." (40).  He also states that when the oppressor dehumanizes the oppressed, the oppressor also becomes dehumanized (42). Ahhhh...so the act of oppression dehumanizes both the oppressor and the oppressed. 

Freire continues by stating that for the oppressors,  the concept of "human beings" only applies to themselves; other people are not human but are "things" instead. He also adds that for the oppressor, humanity itself is just a thing and the oppressors possess it as their exclusive right (45).  And for the oppressors, there exists only one right: for the oppressors to live in peace (43). 

Freire brings up another aspect of colonization, that of exploitation. Freire states that the oppressor wishes to transform everything in its surroundings into an object of domination. This includes the earth, property, production, and humans themselves (p. 44). I know that there are often confrontations between Alaska Native hunters and government employees over hunting and fishing rights. I once had a conversation with a man from Kivalina who expressed this very idea of exploitation. He had had a confrontation with a government employee, probably a National Parks Service officer of some sort, who had told him that he could not be out hunting, to which he replied: "You want to control everything. You want to control the land, the animals, the ocean, everything. What's next? Do you want to control the air too?" 

Voila. Exploitation in a nutshell.  

I find it interesting that Freire uses "transform" in both a negative and positive light - that the oppressors wish to transform their surroundings via domination and that the oppressed must transform their reality (via praxis, but I'll get into that later). Freire's ideas provide a nice introduction to some of the underlying concepts of colonization, something I wanted to explore before I got into some of the other works! 

COLONIZATION: CONTINUED

In Thursday’s post I shared an experience in which a white male told me that American/Western/white culture were superior to Native cultures. American culture brought Western medicine and Western education and Native people should embrace American culture. In short, he was racist and made several racist statements that reminded me of the historical notion of the “uncivilized” or “savage” Natives. 

Alaska Natives, like many many other Indigenous groups worldwide, were considered “uncivilized” or “savages.” To be “civilized” meant to relinquish tribal affiliations and assimilate into mainstream American society. This meant that Indigenous people were to be re-named, "educated," and Christianized, among other things. You can see what Smith meant when she wrote that colonization brought “disorder” to Indigenous peoples’ worlds; how it fragmented our realities.

Some missionaries renamed several families in our region. My family surnames are Knox and Greene. Other common names to this day are “Washington,” “Lincoln,” "Cleveland," (presidential names...?) “Black,” “Brown,” etc. Though we still give Inupiaq names to our children, most of us have English first names.  My grandparents speak Inupiaq as their first language but most of the younger generations are English-only. Why? I’m sure that the fact that my aana was punished in school for speaking Inupiaq played a key role in that. The missionaries must have scared the heck out of our elders because in my family, we were not allowed to Inupiaq dance because the missionaries had deemed it “evil.”

In elementary school in Kotzebue, we had something akin to “Inupiaq week.” An Inupiaq teacher would come and teach us Inupiaq words. We also had Inupiaq dancers who would teach us dances - the teacher would stand in front of the class and show us the movements to various dances. I wanted to join so badly but I remember not participating because I knew that it would displease my aana. I wanted to learn but I didn’t want to go against her wishes. So I sat in the back and watched. 

Our languages, our names, our ways of being, all disordered.

COLONIZATION, IN A NUTSHELL

I'd like to elaborate on the process of colonization a bit. If you're unfamiliar with the notion of colonization as I understand it, perhaps you would think that the standard definition of "colonization" would be something like, "to establish a colony in" or "to send a group of settlers to another place to establish political control over it." You wouldn't be wrong. But these are rather vague and general definitions and I am thinking of something that isn't so innocent.

I can give you historical accounts of colonization but I'd rather not at this point. Instead, I will share something else. I once had a conversation with a fellow Alaskan that was so unpleasant, uncomfortable and upsetting that if I had to tell you what colonization meant to me in a nutshell, it would be this. This fellow Alaskan, a white male approximately 30 years old, said to me point blank that "white" ways (and he used "white," "American" and "Western" interchangeably) were literally much better than Native ways. The examples he gave?

1) Farming
2) Western Medicine
3) Education (including written form)
4) Western art, such as the Mona Lisa and Beethoven and Mozart, were much better than any Native art he had ever seen
5) Native people aren't as smart as Americans
6) Native people are too angry with Americans/Westerners, and cry too much of being exploited: "waa waa waa exploitation" (his words verbatim)
7) His ancestors, (i.e. farmers) were much smarter than any Native hunter/fisher/whaler
8) Native culture isn't going to survive because of "survival of the fittest"
9) Western culture is better because it brought astronomy, physics, mathematics, etc
10) Native people should embrace American culture because it is inevitable that American culture is going to win
11) Native people aren't "Native enough" because we use guns, motorized boats, and snowmachines (all introduced by white Americans)
12) Native people will eventually die out because there aren't any more "pure bloods"

YIKES. So you can see why it was such an upsetting experience! But look at this way, his attitudes and beliefs are colonization in a nutshell. I couldn't have defined it better myself.  Every point he made, every statement, are reflections of the attitudes and beliefs that many white Americans/Westerners/colonizers held, and continue to hold, about Indigenous people. These are the attitudes and beliefs that influenced and shaped policies and institutions and ideologies that so negatively affected Indigenous people worldwide. And they continue to affect Indigenous people.

And honestly, where do you even begin with this guy? Do you even bother trying to have a dialogue with him? Goodness knows, I tried. I have encountered these attitudes both formally and informally and it is an ongoing battle but I will say that I never experienced such a blatant onslaught of racist statements all at once. I was shaken up by it and it bothered me for days. But this is evidence that attitudes like these persist and that is still a battle. Some believe that colonization, colonialism, imperialism, what-have-you, is over and done with but I disagree. Statements like these only prove my point.

DECOLONIZATION AS A THEORY: INTRODUCTION

I’m going to continue talking about theory periodically from here on out. I took a class several semesters ago at University of Alaska Anchorage entitled Decolonizing Methodologies. Actually I had taken it several years ago while attending ASU and that was my very first introduction to these particular theories. We covered some heavy material in that first class, especially considering that it was an undergraduate course. But the instructor, Myla Vicenti Carpio, presented the material in a way that was accessible to her students. As I’d mentioned before, I had thought about these things before but this class really made it all come together. It was then that the wheels in my mind started turning and they haven’t stopped since.

Anyway, I took the course again recently because of two things: 1) I was really excited to see that decolonization as a methodology had made its way up to Alaska! 2) I wanted to see how the course would be taught, especially since I had developed the foundation for these theories at ASU. Well, I had an awesome instructor for that course too and I learned a lot. I was also pleased that we covered material that was related to Alaska. Having been introduced to the material years ago has allowed me to mull it over and form my own ideas and solidify them in this course. We had to write a final paper on the material we covered and I will include some of it here as a brief introduction to decolonization as a theory. I am going to be a nerd and cite my sources because I’d feel like I’d be plagiarizing if I didn’t (I had a very good undergrad advisor who taught us well).

Fact of the matter is, there are several definitions of decolonization. My definition draws from a common body of works that were introduced to me at ASU.  Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith, in her book Decolonizing Methodologies (2012), states that theory is important to Indigenous people. Why? Smith points out that theory helps us make sense of our realities and a good theory allows us to incorporate new information without having to create new theories (40). This is what I love about theory. A good theory is fluid and flexible and to use it requires creativity and reflection. Theory is important to Indigenous people because it is a tool that we can use in our struggles for resistance.

To quote Smith, “[d]ecolonization is a process which engages with imperialism and colonialism at multiple levels” (21). Before we discuss decolonization we must first define colonization, because the two go hand in hand. I defined colonization in a previous post but I will include here again. In For Indigenous Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook (Wilson and Yellow Bird, Eds, 2007), the authors define colonization as the:“formal and informal methods (behaviors, ideologies, institutions, policies, and economies) that maintain the subjugation or exploitation of Indigenous peoples, lands and resources” (2).

To me, this embodies the colonial structure.

That first definition is a bit vague but it covers a lot. But what does all that mean to Indigenous people? Smith describes colonization as a process that brought “disorder” to Indigenous peoples’ worlds. It fragmented our realities, histories, languages, and landscapes. Colonization disconnected us from our ways of thinking, feeling and interacting with the world (29). In addition to the formal methods of colonization, you see the presence of the colonial structure in the very personal and psychological lives of Indigenous people.

So what does “decolonization” mean in relation to colonization? What are its goals? Decolonization attempts to bring “order” to the colonized world. Smith mentioned that decolonization is a “process,” which implies that it happens at different levels. Decolonization means “undoing the shackles” of colonization. It means reclaiming our histories, our languages, our lands, and our humanity. Decolonization means understanding, challenging and ultimately destroying the colonial structure.

Some heavy stuff right? This is a very academic approach to decolonization I know but it serves as a brief introduction and I will try to relate these concepts to my own experiences in other posts.

"THIS HAS BEEN A MOST EXCELLENT ADVENTURE"

There are times when I feel the need to write and there are times when I feel the need to reflect, which would explain my long absences. As usual, much has happened since my last post.

One of my best friends, Rose Soza War Soldier, has completed her PhD in American Indian History from Arizona State University. Let me congratulate Dr. Rose Soza War Soldier here! I am proud of her and I am proud to call her my friend. AND - I am honored that she has acknowledged me in her “Acknowledgments” section in her dissertation!

Thinking about Rose makes me think about all the wonderful friends I met while attending Arizona State. They are all strong, intelligent, Indigenous women who encouraged, supported and challenged me in so many ways. I have learned and continue to learn a lot from them. They are my inspirations and I know that they have helped strengthen my identity as an Inupiaq woman.

Prior to attending ASU, I had thought about colonization, decolonization and the status of my people but I didn’t quite have a name for these thoughts. I knew that I had questions and I knew that I was looking for answers. I wanted to know why things were the way they were. I wanted to know how we got to where we are and what can we do about it? These are the reasons felt drawn to history - I thought that I would find some answers to my questions. And I did.

I would make a terrible historian because I have difficulty remember facts and events that aren’t relevant to me. I’m not as passionate as my friends about the profession as a whole but I learned what I needed to know. While attending ASU I was introduced to theory, namely theory about colonization and decolonization. I had thought about these things before but learning theory helped in my understanding of the world.

Theory is awesome. It provides a common language for everyone, which makes it easier to have a dialogue. It helps us make sense of the world. Theory helps me structure and organize my thoughts and express these thoughts in a constructive way.

To apply theory you must be creative. You must reflect on it and apply it to the world to change it. Brazilian educator Paulo Freire called this active engagement praxis.

I attribute much of my intellectual development to my friends and instructors at ASU. Although I have decided not to pursue history as a profession, I have learned a lot. It has been an awesome experience so far and I know that it is just the beginning. To quote Ted from Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, “This has been a most excellent adventure.”  I am excited to see where it takes me and how I can apply these theories in my next academic endeavor - social work.