An Indigenous Understanding of Allyship in North America ______
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of World Philosophies Articles/30 Empowering Relations: An Indigenous Understanding of Allyship in North America _______________________________________ ANDREA SULLIVAN-CLARKE University of Windsor, Canada ([email protected]) Colonization is still present in the lives of Indigenous people in North America, and the threats it underwrites—the possibility of losing federal recognition, the failure to investigate the cases of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, and the constant challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act (to name a few)—comprise the day-to-day demands in Indian Country. While allies in the fight against modern-day colonialism would be welcome, the previous failings and insincerities of putative allies and the existence of an ally industrial complex make it difficult to be a contemporary ally to Indigenous people. In this paper, I address the difficulties associated with allyship and discuss why being an active bystander is not sufficient for the needs of Indigenous people in North America. Taking the lessons learned from the actions of Veterans Stand for Standing Rock and Black Lives Matter during #NODAPL, I present some features of a decolonial ally. A decolonial ally is willing to stand in a relationship with Indigenous people, will seek out this relation while recognizing their privilege and affirming the sovereignty of those they seek to serve, and above all, will learn about the people independently, without imposing a burden on marginalized communities. Given that Indigenous people worldwide face similar colonial threats, I conclude by offering some points for future research regarding global Indigenous allyship. Key words: Indigenous; allyship; relations; #BLM; colonialism; #NODAPL Many non-Indigenous people in North America naively assume that living in a post-conquest society entails living in a post-colonial one as well. Colonization, however, is an encompassing presence in Indian Country.1 The effects of colonization linger, creating what Kyle Whyte describes as “Our Ancestors’ Dystopia Now.”2 Federal policies, motivated by a settler colonial agenda, have comprehensively damaged the myriad of relationships (cultural, epistemic, familial, etc.) originating within the ancestral lands of Indigenous people. What most non-Indigenous people fail to realize is that “colonization is war” (Scott 2012: 99).3 As Whyte points out, the colonial drive to settle Indigenous land was “sustained, strategic, and militaristic” (Whyte 2017: 208). The colonizing strategies invoked against the Indigenous people include[d] both war-like violence and the tactics for suppressing populations that are used alongside belligerence, from assimilative institutions (e.g. boarding schools) to containment practices (e.g. reservations) to the creation of dependency (e.g. commodity foods) (Whyte 2017: 3). While many may claim that the policies of assimilation and the removal of Indigenous communities to reservations/reserves only occurred as part of our unenlightened past, we need not look far to find contemporary acts of aggression and examples of Indigenous sovereignty being met with threats of violence from militarized police and private security forces. In the fall of 2016, the _______________ Journal of World Philosophies 5 (Summer 2020): 30-42 Copyright © 2020 Andrea Sullivan-Clarke. e-ISSN: 2474-1795 • http://scholarworks.iu.edu/iupjournals/index.php/jwp • doi: 10.2979/jourworlphil.5.1.02 Journal of World Philosophies Articles/31 #NODAPL (No Dakota Access Pipeline) water protectors faced threats of violence from the local police and security forces, evoking images of previous conflicts, such as the Oka Crisis, Burnt Church Crisis, Idle No More, Ipperwash Crisis, Gustafsen Lake Standoff, and Wounded Knee (1973).4 Earlier this year (2019), headlines in the media reported a raid on the unceded lands of the Wet’suwet’en people in British Columbia by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.5 One disturbing feature—at least when one considers the Canadian government’s supposed commitment to Truth and Reconciliation—was the creation of “exclusion zones,” which prevented access to the media as RCMP officers dismantled two camps of Indigenous people protesting the placement of the LNG Coastal GasLink pipeline by Coastal GasLink, a subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation (APTN 2019). Police actions and militarized responses in Indian Country are so numerous that forward progress regarding relations with one’s colonizers seems virtually impossible. How are Indigenous people to make sense of governments that espouse truth and reconciliation or self-determination given the current assaults on Indigenous people? Other pernicious threats—such as revoking tribal recognition, contesting foster-care placement laws, proposed reductions in treaty obligations, the failure to pursue cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and the taking of Indigenous land—loom daily, profoundly affecting the lives of Indigenous people in North America.6 In order to eradicate the institutions of systemic oppression, contemporary Indigenous communities require long-term advocacy; I refer to this sustained support as allyship or being an ally. Recently, however, the concepts of “ally” and “allyship” have come under scrutiny, and rightly so.7 Historically, the term, as it applies to the First Nations and Native American communities in North America, has been misused. The ability to purchase social credibility has introduced several worries, and each has the potential to harm Indigenous people. Given that the need for allies is great, how we define “allyship” for Indian Country is of critical import. In this paper, I discuss why being an active bystander is not sufficient for the needs in Indian Country and I present the failings of the current understandings of “ally” and “allyship.” As a solution, I introduce the lessons learned from #NODAPL as possible features of a decolonial concept of “allyship” that is suitable for the needs of the Indigenous people of North America. Lastly, I identify some points to consider when thinking about allyship with a global perspective. 1 Allies and Bystanders An individual who wishes to support the Indigenous people of North America might act in a variety of ways. They might address an immediate need, and depending upon the circumstances, a response may be an isolated act, or it may be of short duration. For example, one might provide a coordinated response to a threat of violence, such as the individuals who inserted themselves between the private security forces and the water protectors at Standing Rock. I refer to this type of support as being an active bystander. Unlike a bystander, who witnesses a situation but does not act, an active bystander “witnesses a situation [and] takes steps to speak up or step in to keep a situation from escalating or to disrupt a problematic situation.”8 When Wesley Clark, Jr., the organizer of Veterans Stand for Standing Rock (VSSR), heard about the mistreatment of the water protectors at the Dakota Access Pipeline, he was inspired to organize and act on behalf of the water protectors. He did not have any special relation to the Sioux people prior to this deployment; rather, he believed the assaults on the _______________ Journal of World Philosophies 5 (Summer 2020): 30-42 Copyright © 2020 Andrea Sullivan-Clarke. e-ISSN: 2474-1795 • http://scholarworks.iu.edu/iupjournals/index.php/jwp • doi: 10.2979/jourworlphil.5.1.02 Journal of World Philosophies Articles/32 water protectors violated human rights as well as harmed a population of people noted for producing a significant number of military veterans. Active bystanders are positively motivated to prevent or address bias, prejudice, and threats of violence. They need not have an acquaintance or be on familiar terms with the injured party beforehand. In addition, the actions of active bystanders may not necessarily be immediate; their response may take place after an incident, such as when an individual provides the victim with medical care.9 The actions of active bystanders are critical to the goals of social justice, and given the context, active bystanders may serve Indigenous communities. Yet, the actions of an active bystander do not seem to have the sustained commitment to be sufficient for being an ally, nor do they necessarily have the investment (i.e., a dedicated relationship with a particular individual or group).10 In other words, active bystanders are not committed to act beyond the moment and once completed, it seems their work is done. An additional worry is that active bystanders may not always be present and/or aware of oppressive situations—such as when the assaults to Indigenous sovereignty are kept private (through restricted media presence or behind doors of political committees/courtrooms). To overcome systemic oppression, Indigenous people would benefit from both active bystanders and allies. For example, active bystanders may appeal to their government representatives in support of a particular piece of legislation involving Indigenous people, such as writing their senator concerning the challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, whereas allies could build a relationship with a particular community and work toward solving a particular problem identified by the community, such as when researchers embark on collaborative research.11 2 Allyship: Uses and Abuses The concepts of ally and allyship, however, are problematic. The terms are overused. A quick search at the library will reveal such