0

The Colonization/Decolonization Framework and American Indian Studies

Emi Mongeau

HST 597 Session 1

November 25, 2019

1

Introduction

Many contemporary developments in the discipline of history have involved borrowing.

The social historians borrowed methodology from sociology/anthropology, and the cultural historians borrowed the linguistic turn from philosophy/literature. American Indian scholarship of the 1960’s, was ripe for this type of borrowing. During this time, American Indian scholars and activists were attempting to re-write the stories of their past, present, and future through their own eyes, feeling that scholarship had been written by non-natives distorted their people and history. This desire to re-write American Indian history would evolve into the discipline that known today as American Indian studies/native studies/indigenous studies (simplified as AIS throughout the paper) in the late 1960’s early 1970’s (with elements of the discipline being conceptualized in the early 60’s).1 American Indian scholars would modify and borrow the colonization/decolonization framework from the works of French West African author and philosopher Fritz Fanon (most notably, his 1961 work The Wretched of the Earth).2 Utilizing colonization and decolonization as a framework of understanding the world, and for attempting to achieve social change within a society, American Indian scholars and activists would inspire and develop AIS. I will be utilizing Duane Champagne’s (Ojibwe) work “The Rise and Fall of

American Indian Studies in the United States” in American Indian Voices: A Reader for context on the development of AIS. I will also be using Eve Tuck (Unangax) and K. Wayne Yang’s

(non-native) work “Decolonization is Not a Metaphor” in the journal, Decolonization: Indignity

1 Duane Champagne “The Rise and Fall of American Indian Studies in the United States” in Native American Voices: A Reader, edited by Susan Lobo, Steve Talbot, and Traci L. Morris, (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall) 20 2 Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, “Decolonization is Not a Metaphor” Decolonization: Indigeneity Education and Society, 1, no. 1 (September 2012) 2 2

Education and Society as general context on the colonization/decolonization framework within

American Indian Studies.

Within the framework of AIS, colonization is not merely an action taken in the past, rather colonization is a method of control that a colonizing group places upon a colonized group in order to take over the land. These modes of control can be both external (destroying a native people through war) or internal (destroying a native people’s connection to their land).

Decolonization, meanwhile, is reversing the trajectory and damage of colonization in order to allow native peoples greater control of their identities, governments, and land.3 This decolonization process is an active process, combining the roles of activist and scholar.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how American Indian scholars used Fanon’s colonization/decolonization Framework, and how the conceptualization of that framework changed over time. Through this, we can also chart the development of American Indian Studies as a discipline. The first major intellectual work considered to be part of AIS was Vine Deloria’s

Custer Died for Your Sins, published in 1969, however, earlier works that helped develop the

AIS framework would be published before this. The framework remains significant within the present day.4 I argue that there are three main phases in AIS on colonization and decolonization.

The first is the scholarship before 1975, which develops a vision of what a decolonized world would look like in uncertain times. After 1975, a political avenue for decolonization was achieved with the 1975 Educational Assistance and Self-Determination Act, colonization and decolonization would be mainly viewed through that lens, but focusing on different issues.

3 Tuck and Wang “Decolonization” 4-5 4 Champagne “The Rise and Fall of American Indian Studies” 24 3

However, in recent years, not all individuals would follow this paradigm, and would apply colonization-decolonization framework in other mods and disciplines.

It would be impossible to include every resource that utilized the colonization/decolonization framework published since 1969. As a result, I have chosen representative examples which reflect the changes that the discipline has undergone up to this point. One final note I would like to make is that I will be using the term “American Indian,”

“Indigenous,” and “Native American” interchangeably throughout my essay. Both terms are utilized and considered acceptable by scholars. However, I will use preferred tribal names when applicable over a broader term.

History in A Time of Crisis: Decolonization and Indian Scholarship Before 1975

The 1950’s and 60’s was a perilous time in American Indian history. The federal government was determined to “terminate” their relationship Indian nations turning the reservations into state counties (which would destroy them culturally and financially). In addition, the federal government incentivized (and some would argue cohered) native peoples to move to urban areas. However, this period also fostered the growth of an Indian rights movement inspired by the urbanization, the African American civil rights movement, and the decolonization movements in Asia and Africa (which Fritz Fanon was involved in). This Indian rights movement would form the intellectual framework for American Indian Studies.

One such activist in the American Indian rights movement was the founder of the

National Indian Youth Council (NIYC), Clyde Warrior (Ponca). He would be one of the first of the new, university educated natives to theorize about American Indian rights and history from the new decolonization framework. He would present his argument in his 1964 call to arms for 4

native college youth, “Which One Are You?: The Five Types of Young Indians”. Within this article, he lists five different types of Indians, the slob/hood, Joker, a sellout/ “white-noser”, the ultra-pseudo Indian and the angry-nationalist. All five of these different groups are victims of social control exerted over native peoples, or colonization5. While Clyde Warrior, doesn’t emphasize what a decolonized world would look like, he does discuss who will lead decolonization efforts. He argues that it is university educated Indians, with understandings of modern politics and political theory as well as their own histories and cultures, will be at the forefront of decolonization process.6 He ends the article with a call to action for Indian people to reclaim their heritage saying, “How about it? Let’s Raise some hell!”, reemphasizing the fact that decolonization is an active process.7 While Clyde Warrior would die before his vision of an intellectual movement for decolonization would crystalize, his work would inspire the intellectual movement that would become American Indian Studies. Clyde Warrior would be one of the first activists to utilize the colonization/decolonization method, and he would be one of the first to foresee an intellectual movement against the colonization of the U.S. which would develop into American Indian Studies.

In his groundbreaking book, Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto, Vine

Deloria Jr (Lakota) would provide further synthesis and intellectual contextualization for Clyde

Warrior’s work and what the decolonization framework would look like for American Indians.

His work is widely considered to be the first piece of AIS scholarship, written by a university professor and applying the colonization/decolonization framework to the issues of the time. He

5 Clyde Warrior “14: Taking Control of Our Lives and Lands 1961-1980 Documents, 1: Clyde Warrior (Ponca) Delineates Five Types of Indians” in Major Problems in American Indian History: Documents and Essays. Edited by Albert L. Hurtado and Peter Iverson, 453-454 6 Warrior, “Five Types of Indians”454 7 Warrior, “Five Types of Indians” 454 5

serves as an answer to Clyde Warrior’s call for university educated native activists. While Vine

Deloria would not consider himself to be an AIS scholar (the discipline did not exist yet).

Despite the fact that Deloria considered himself as working within history and law, his work would serve as the cornerstone for the developing AIS discipline. Some would consider him to be a seminal (and almost paternal figure) for this reason.8

So, what exactly did Vine Deloria say on colonization and decolonization in the 1960’s?

Vine Deloria begins his work by describing the issues facing native people. To him, the biggest problems stem from non-native intrusion into native nations (most notably, missionaries and anthropologists), resulting in native peoples losing their identities.9 In addition to this, the federal government’s “disastrous policy” of termination during 1950’s and 60’s was an attempt to create a homogenous society without understanding that native peoples may not want the same things as the dominant society (or even the same things as other minorities). This policy was a systematic attack on successful native tribes. Even for tribes who weren’t directly “terminated”, it created an environment of fear among native peoples.10 Colonization is worked through both governmental forces, and from the forces of individuals who promoted the government’s actions.

The question Deloria then addresses is, how can Indian peoples face and push back against the colonization? Vine Deloria saw that the world moving towards corporatism and tribalism. Native reservations must take on elements of the corporations in order to survive. This was to gain legitimacy and to provide a method of effectively distributing tribal resources. This he called

Indian nation-building or nationalism.11 Deloria placed nation-building in contrast with rising

8 Champagne “The Rise and Fall of American Indian Studies” 20 9 Vine Deloria Jr., Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988) 85, 107 10 Deloria, Custer Died for Your Sins 62 11 Deloria, Custer Died for Your Sins 257 6

militarism or, as he defined it, the violent rejection of the current establishment and the use of violence to force governmental change. He argued that militarism did not have the ideological base necessary to enact meaningful change.12 To accomplish this vision of unity, Deloria promoted unity among native peoples with a closer link to their traditional cultures and native who were more knowledgeable in management and ways of governance.13 While not all of his visions would come to fruition (most notably, corporatization), his vision of decolonization through nation building would serve as a cornerstone of American Indian Studies.

Standardization: Decolonization and Indian Scholarship After 1975

Nineteen Seventy-Five would be a landmark year for American Indian history. After nearly a decade of activism, the federal government finally agreed to several native demands.

They would reverse their policy of termination and pass the “Indian Education and Self-

Determination Act” of 1975. This act allowed native tribes to create their own programs with money provided by the federal government, rather than federally funded and operated programs, allowing native nations to build their own programs (nation building). This shook native scholarship, as it provided legal mechanisms towards decolonization. Native scholarship took on legal elements. In addition, these scholars took the framework created by Vine Deloria which combined modern political development with traditional Indigenous knowledge as a way for decolonization.

One such activist/scholar was professor, journal editor, and activist James Riding In

(Pawnee), in his article “Decolonizing NAGPRA”, located within the activist guidebook, For

Native Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook. In his article, he discussed issues related to

12 Deloria, Custer Died for Your Sins, 239-241 13 Deloria, Custer Died for Your Sins, 254 7

repatriation of native artifacts and remains. Repatriation is the process of returning native remains and associated funeral items back to the tribes. His article serves as both a “guide” for decolonization, but, also as a history of how colonial actions taken by the federal government and archaeologists created issues native peoples face. Riding In’s work begins with a history of the issue, discussing how the colonial perspectives of archaeology (imperial archaeology), lead to native human remains (and funerary objects) being interned in non-native institutions.14 They view much of the resistance to repatriation as the imposition of the Western worldview on life, burial, and science. While a recent law, the Native American Graves Repatriation and Protection

Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990, it was imperfect. One example includes the fact that culturally unidentifiable remains, which cannot be related to a single tribe or ethnic group, do not need to be repatriated. These problems are a result of imperial archaeology.15 This is a common trend of AIS work. In addition to using the colonial actions of the past as context it also demonstrates the importance of decolonization. He also uses it to demonstrate that the only way to understand and resolve current issues facing native peoples is to understand their colonial origins. It is what combines the activist and the scholar. Riding In discusses three major methods of decolonizing NAGPRA, understanding traditional knowledge relating to burial and the dead, working with tribal authorities to develop a framework for repatriation and joining activist organizations to push for legal change.16 These aspects reflect three of the central tenants of AIS view of decolonization. The first, is the importance of using traditional knowledge as a base for change. The second is working on developing tribal institutions as a method for nation building

14 James Riding In, “Decolonizing NAGPRA,” in For Indigenous Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook, edited by Waziyatawin Angela Wilson and Michael Yellow Bird, (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 2005) 54 15 Riding In, “Decolonizing NAGPRA” 64-65 16 Riding In, “Decolonizing NAGPRA” 61 8

as a way to decolonize. The third and final aspect is working through the legal framework to achieve decolonization.

Another AIS author is, environmental activist and politician Winona LaDuke (Ojibwe) also discusses colonization and decolonization through her analysis of the loss of lands, ecosystems and traditional diets in “Buffalo Nations, Buffalo People” in her activist monograph,

All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Similar to Riding In, LaDuke begins her work by describing the history of a problem facing native people. She describes the physical colonization of a group who she referred to as “buffalo people”, or people whose diet was traditionally based on buffalo meat (great plains tribes such as the Lakota, Dakota and Northern

Cheyenne). This colonization involved the loss of their land base and the destruction of their food source. This forced “the buffalo peoples” to rely on federal aid for their survival.17 For

LaDuke, a major element of decolonization for these people include a reintroduction of buffalo as well as a restoration of their traditional land base.18 Unlike Riding in, LaDuke places a greater emphasis on the importance on a land base and diets, however, she also expresses several of the same core ideas on decolonization as Riding In does. Both emphasize the importance of traditional ways of understanding the world, with LaDuke discussing the buffalo peoples’ relationship to the buffalo.19 She also discusses the importance of nation building, through her discussion of the discussion of the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative. This organization is an inter- tribal organization working to restore buffalo population in their lands. This program is implemented by native peoples, a central tenant of decolonization through nation building.20

17 Winona LaDuke, “7. Buffalo Nations and Buffalo Peoples,” in All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life, (Cambridge MA: South End Press, 1999), 142 18 LaDuke, “Buffalo Nations and Buffalo People,” 160 19 LaDuke, “Buffalo Nations and Buffalo People,” 160 20 LaDuke, “Buffalo Nations and Buffalo People,” 158 9

While LaDuke seems a bit more skeptical than Riding In in regards to governmental assistance in decolonization but, she still emphasizes working within the current intellectual framework.

Other Native Perspectives on Decolonization

As time has gone on, AIS has undergone a form of fragmenting, where scholar/activists have used the tenants of AIS within other disciplines. One major development in AIS which breaks from the genre norms established by scholars has been a psychological application. This perspective was first developed by healthcare professionals Eduardo Duran (Pueblo and Apache) and Bonnie Duran (non-native) in their psychological work Native American Postcolonial

Psychology. Rather than viewing colonization and decolonization as purely a political idea,

Duran and Duran view it as deeper than that. Colonization has impacted the psyche of Native peoples, leading to g negative self-perceptions (internalized colonization). This has caused a number of problems for native peoples due to unresolved trauma which occurred in the past, such as alcoholism and suicide.21 This is described as the “Intergenerational Posttraumatic Stress

Disorder”, which they define as tragedies that occurred in the past but have negative psychological impacts as if they occurred in the present.22 To help treat with psychological issues caused by colonialism, native peoples need a new method of treatment, one which mixes modern psychological knowledge with an understanding of traditional native belief systems. Native rituals, should be a central component healing process.23 While Duran and Duran note the importance of non-native psychologists utilizing this knowledge, they also emphasize the importance of native nations developing their own mental health programs24 This combination of

21 Eduardo Duran and Bonnie Duran, “Part 1: Theory”, in Native American Postcolonial Psychology. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995) 29 22 Duran and Duran, “Theory” 30 23 Duran and Duran, “Theory” 65 24 Duran and Duran, “Theory” 50 10

traditional indigenous knowledge with modern medicine mirrors the culturally driven and university educated scholar/activist as outlined in the works of Warrior and Deloria.

Another major development in American Indian Studies, has been the “two-spirit” or native LBGT movement, which seeks the restoration of traditional methods for understanding gender and sexuality. “Two-Spirit” is a term used for LBGT native peoples and serves as an intersection between studies of gender/sexuality and AIS. This new movement still reflects several ideas of AIS. Queer native activist and professor Chris Finley demonstrates this new mode of analysis her work “Decolonizing the Native Body (and Recovering the Native Bull-

Dyke)” in the collection of essays, Queer Indigenous Studies: Critical Interventions in Theory,

Politics, and Literature. Her work asserts that the imposition of heteropatriarchy is a mode of colonialism, and promotes the return of traditional native ways of understanding gender as a method of decolonization. Heteropatriarchy is the idea that society is created to enforce an order where the straight male (who in this instance is also white and cis) serves as the dominant figure.

Anybody or society who does not conform to this trend is inferior, and should be controlled.25

European colonists used heteropatriarchy as justification when conquering native peoples. This perspective universally coded native women as wanting to have a heterosexual relationship with white men. Once a child was born, the indigeneity would disappear, ending the native race.

Native men, meanwhile were coded as effeminate or non-existent.26 The purpose of this not only is utilized to justify biocontrol (sexual assault and rape as a tool of control), but also to justify the destruction and conquest of native lands.27 This forms a unique method of understanding and

25 Chris Finley, “Decolonizing the Queer Native Body (and Recovering the Native Bull-Dyke): Bringing ‘Sexy Back’ and Out of Native Studies Closet,” in Queer Indigenous Studies: Critical Interventions in Theory Politics and Literature, edited by Qwo-Li Driskill, Chris Finley, Brian Joseph Gilley, and Scott Laura Morgenson, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2011) 33 26 Finley, “Decolonizing the Queer Native Body” 35-36 27 Finley, “Decolonizing the Queer Native Body” 37 11

adds additional dimensions to colonization. She argues that native peoples must return to traditional understandings of gender and sexuality in order to decolonize gender and sexuality within their native nations. She also pushes for a greater understanding (among AIS scholars) of the links between gender, sexuality and colonial control.28

Conclusion

AIS as a method for understanding colonization and decolonization has not been without criticism from native scholar/activists. One major critic was Russell Means (Oglala Lakota) who headed the militant Indian rights group American Indian Movement. In his 1980 article in the political magazine Mother Jones, “For the World to Live: Europe Must Die”, he rejected the idea of western educated Indians being at the forefront of decolonization efforts. Rather, he argued that European ideas and ideologies were what caused problems for indigenous peoples, and that uniquely Indian solutions will be the solution to them, not leaders and solutions tempered by

European ideas within universities (which forced upon native people European ways of thinking)29. American Indian studies, being an academic discipline within “European” universities was not part of the solution. Gaining a degree in AIS does nothing to help native people solve problems in their community or become leaders in their community, in fact, Means argues that American Indians Studies confuses them and drives them away from the true solutions for native peoples.30 Rather than merging certain European ways of understanding the world with native cultures, native peoples should completely reject European ideas and ideology.

European traditions defy the natural order, and seek to control and dominate which is

28 Finley, “Decolonizing the Queer Native Body” 40 29 Russel Means, “’I am not a leader’: Russel Means’ 1980 Mother Jones Cover Story”, Mother Jones, October 22, 2012. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/russell-means-mother-jones-interview-1980/

30 Means, “I am not a leader” 12

diametrically opposed to the American Indian worldview. He views the European impossible to rectify with the Indigenous. Therefore, AIS is at odds with itself, and is not the true path towards decolonization.31

With the words of Russell Means freshly on our minds, I would like to present one final question to the reader regarding American Indian Studies, what do you foresee to be the future of the discipline? One may argue that that is not a question for you and I, and should be determined by American Indian people, however, it is certainly worth considering, looking back upon its history. Admittingly, some scholars are skeptical. Tuck and Yang argue that some AIS writers are too scholarly and don’t put out enough change (not enough activist).32 Champagne, meanwhile claims that the field is too diverse to develop a solid paradigm, and is doomed to inevitably fall apart. His fear is that AIS would be absorbed by more established disciplines

(history, sociology, anthropology, etc.). However, other scholars argue that the AIS paradigm is still in development, and it must be broad, to account for the diverse series of problems facing indigenous peoples across the globe.33 Regardless of what happens to AIS as a discipline, I think that Fanon’s Decolonization framework and the framework envisioned by Warrior and Deloria won’t fade out. Rather, it will continue to inspire indigenous scholars working across disciplines in pushing for meaningful change for native peoples. The fire of the decolonization movement will not burn out. Rather, it has created its own fires across various disciplines, with indigenous scholars such as Duran/Duran and Finley pushing to decolonize their own disciplines, such as psychology and LBGT studies.

31 Means, “I am not a leader” 32 Tuck and Wang “Decolonization” 19 33 Champagne “The Rise and Fall of American Indian Studies” 24