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.