Cal Berkeley Spurlock Muppalla Neg Harvard Round4

8/18/2019 Cal Berkeley Spurlock Muppalla Neg Harvard Round4

1/18

1NC

Thesis statement – Indigenity must be theorized as a ghostly‘thing,’ which requires a rejection o a!’s lens o bodily

identity that is measurable through the meta"hysics oabsence and "resence – there is no question o the lin#, alldiscourses can only e$er "ossibly name the intransiti$eshadows o IndiannessCornellier 1% && Centre or 'lobalization and Cultural (tudies )* o +anitoba(Bruno, “The ‘Indian thing’: on representation and reality in the liberal settlercolony,” Settler Colonial Studies, Volu e !, Issue ", pp# $%&'$

)e*ertheless, i+ in this case it is indeed Canada that a es the Indian its ‘thing’, this does not a e Canada theIndian-s undisputed aster# .or a ing the Indian its ‘thing’ eans ha*ing to adhere to its la/# )ot the la/ that

go*erns or regulates the order o+ things, but the la/ dictated by the ‘thing’ ‘as an im"lacablecommand -or. an insatiable demand’ #!0 .or while discourse, by ma#ingthe Indian its ‘thing’, is not limited by the materiality, cor"orality, ore/istence o the Indian , it is always in the Indian0s name that it hearsitsel s"ea# o the Indian23 It is, in a /ord, because discourse has no other choicebut to name the Indian and to gi*e the Indian to ‘oursel*es’ as a ‘thing’ that the ‘Indian thing’ i posesits la/# 4s (cott 5auria +orgensen e/"lains6 ‘ settler subjects normati$elyrecall and "er orm indigeneity as a history they at once incor"orate andtranscend, inhabit and de er # (ettlers thus are ine/"licable a"art romtheir relationality to Indigenous "eo"les #’!! 5en 7indlay insists , in a si ilar *ein,

that within the colonial settler state, ‘ all communities li$e as, or inrelation to , Indigenes 3 -T.here is no hors&Indigene, no geo"olitical or "sychicsetting , no real or imagined terra nullius ree rom the satis+actions and unsettlements o Indigene "re2occu"ation’ #!$ 8iscourse "ursuessomething that it cannot (or /ill not touch , while at the same time remainingunable e*er to ree itsel co pletely rom the ob1ect o+ this "ursuit # So that e$en i the‘thing’ always sli"s rom the gras" o the discourse or desire that see#s its"resence, it still as#s to be "ursued incessantly and unsuccess ully3 9 )o/this ‘thing’, although it has ade this re2uest, says nothing and means nothing # This

eans that nothing and no&one can e*er guarantee the accuracy or the truth o+ /hat is said about it# :ecauseit neither s"ea#s to us2 nor as#s us2 or anything at all, the ‘thing’ can

be re"resented only by a desire that cannot not answer, that cannot nots"ea# or it and in its name , that cannot not command it, ore$erunsuccess ully, to ‘e/ist’ or to signi y someone or something #The silenceo that ‘Indian thing’ commands speech# 3r, i+ not speech, a reaction or a sel &"ositioning that sometimes commands that we remain silent # So that it is

possible to a4r that the ‘thing’ does not e5ist or that the act o its e/istence is , at the *ery least,not "ertinent 6 yet, spea ing up in its na e al/ays produces so ething# 7nd because the ‘thing’, e erging


2/18

+ro the inter*al born out o+ the colonial encounter, de ands to be spo en o+, these speech acts can ne*er beunderstood as ere solipsis or pure relati*is # .or to analyse these state ents (or these representations is alsoto analyse a relation o+ po/er in /hich /e spea 8 not an act o+ spea ing up +or Indians or in one-s capacity as anIndian, but in the na e o+ that ‘Indian thing’# Thus, it is through inciting that ‘Indian thing’ to say so ething,although it is +ore*er aphasic, that it beco es possible to produce and *isualise Indian (and Canadian di9erencesand realities and, conse2uently, identities# In this /ay, settlers and Indigenous peoples see to signi+y andappropriate +or the sel*es, /ithin a particular racial colonial relation o+ po/er, the Indianness that e5erts theperple5ity o+ the identities interpellated by settler colonialis # ; This e5plains e in*ites us, rather, toobser*e ‘the eyes and hands in +ugiti*e poses to see the otion o+ nati*es, and hear the apophatic narrati*es o+ acontinuous presence’#!? I reiterate, then, that it is due to the intransigent presence and the elo2uent silences o+those /ho are designated as ‘Indians’ that the colonial pro1ect has to a e the Indian its ‘thing’# 3r rather, thecolonial pro1ect-s ‘thing’, its substance, its challenge, and its outco e are this Indianness 8 the Indianness o+ theseabsolutely other bodies and territories o*er /hich @urope +olds itsel+# It is no longer the truth , then,or the reality o the re"resentation or the re"resented2 that is at "layhere #7or reality no longer constitutes the measure o the re"resentation,but rather its e!ect3 It will be necessary , then, to sto" concei$ing o areal Indian in the ;esh2 by $irtue o the degree o his or her "resence orabsence in re"resentation whether this re"resentation is colonial,mainstream, nati$e, or other2 or indeed by *irtue o+ a gradient o+ reality# estern meta"hysics that enables the sign andthe re"resentation to e/ist beyond the o""osition o "resence andabsence, and there ore beyond any and all guarantees o identity #!A?therness , hence+orth pro1ected outside the sel+, no longer belongs to either the substance or

the body o the other, but rather to the im"ossible e/"ectation that isborn rom the meeting o bodies and subjecti$ities that share a certain propin2uity#

7nd i+ there is indeed a body or substance that e5ceeds or precedes the representation, this body is only inso+ar asit is gi*en the gi+t o+ a presence# This is /hy I suggest that Indians , /ho also co pete in the colonial struggle todesignate that /hich is truly ‘Indian’, can ne$er be constrained by the body that girdsthem3 7or it is not bodies but indeed that ‘Indian thing’ that constitutesthe sta#es , the 2uest, o the racial@colonial relation o "ower in u bec and Canada 8and this, e$en though it is the bodies that, in the end, are mar#ed , trod upon, and obilised bythe "hysical and e"istemic $iolence o colonialism #; This said, /hile /e ay be obligedto ac no/ledge, /ith Veracini, that it is indeed a characteristic o+ settler colonialism that it $eils itsown conditions o "roduction by continuously atte pting to /hite out the indelible line separatingthe Indian +ro the settler (or Indianness +ro nationality , /e /ill ha*e to ad it that the ost colossal di4culty 8the ost pessi istic /ill call it an i possibility 8 that a/aits the process o+ decolonisation in Canada /ill hence+orthbe to con2uer and preser*e the po/er, hereto+ore reser*ed +or the So*ereign, to dra/, signi+y, represent, andde+end this boundary that a es it possible to deDne Indianness in the +ace o+ its e5teriority# In other /ords, thespace that as s to be con2uered in the decolonisation e9ort is this ‘*antage point’ +ro /hich it is possible to layclai to a certain authority or so*ereignty in pointing one-s Dnger at that ‘thing’ that truly aligns /ith Indianness# ; In such a conte5t, what will be "rimarily at sta#e in the "olitics o indigenousre"resentation , /ithin our liberal odernity, will be this $antage "oint rom whichthe (o$ereign see#s to regulate and limit access, ore o+ten than not, in the na e o+de+ending and preser*ing de ocracy and ‘hu an rights’# By presenting itsel+ as a de+ender o+ the uni*ersal right to


3/18

+ree e5pression o+ dissidence and di9erences, the liberal state generally anages to consolidate its so*ereignpo/er in the +ace o+ the actions per+or ed by the dissident bodies that threaten its integrity and its borders# In sodoing, liberalism , sanctioned by the uni*ersalist and hu anist rhetoric that is its li+eblood, see#s toreduce re"resentational wor# in a conte/t o decolonisation or resistance to asim"le e/ercise o "oetic and symbolic e/"ression , i not a "oliticale/ercise o "ure +or or ‘ to#enism’ , at the edges o+ or alongside (either /ay, out o+ reach o+ thenor ati*e authorities o+ political po/er# This is /hy I a a4r ing that, +aced /ith the insur ountable tas o+decolonising settler colonial states, critical studies o+ Dl , edia, and literary representations o+ )ati*es, i+ they areto be acti*e participants in the resistance against colonial *iolence, /ill hence+orth need to a e it their duty tore+use to subscribe to any critical position that /ould a e recognition o+ the true Indian in an ‘accurate’ (orre*ised, docu ented representation a /ay o+ better apprehending ‘togetherness’ across the racial colonial di*ide#

To that e9ect, we must constantly be reminded that one o the $ery conditionso "ossibility or togetherness , in our liberal de ocracies, is to "re$ent Nati$es rome/tir"ating themsel$es rom the ascendancy and the "ower o death o the(o$ereign 3 9 I portantly, in the past "? years, signiDcant scholarly contributions in Dl and edia studiesha*e e erged that +ocus on processes o+ production andEor cultural ediation in Indigenous cine a, thusco plicating such colonial and intercultural narrati*es o+ correction, isrepresentation, and liberal reconciliation#!FGore recently, other scholars, /hile not indi9erent to 2uestions o+ appropriate or responsible representation, ha*ealso o*ed a/ay +ro discourses that /ould turn Indigenous edia andEor )ati*e sel+&representation into possibleto ens +or transracial discourses o+ recognition that /ould a e indigenous nationhood co ensurate /ith theliberal settler state-s ulticultural econo y o+ presence, identity, and sel+hood# .or instance, Corinn Colu par-s

/or +ocuses instead on a deDnition o+ .ourth Cine a understood as an intersub1ecti*e ne5us in /hich constantcultural and econo ic tensions, as /ell as the political (and not 1ust cultural identity o+ Indigenous co unities,e erge as part o+ a struggle /ith the syste atic nature o+ settler colonialis #!% In an analogous anner, Gichelle># Hahe1a-s recent boo describes tactical strategies o+ reading and a ing Dl s that are ‘engaging anddeconstructing /hite&generated representations o+ indigenous people’ as part o+ larger dialogues about )ati*e7 erican so*ereignty#$ 7nd yet, despite such ground&brea ing acade ic contributions, one /ould be ill&ad*ised tounderesti ate the continuous political, cultural, and popular resilience and inJuence, /ithin 1ournalistic, policy&

a ing, and acade ic institutions, as /ell as /ithin the docu entary and indigenous Dl +esti*al circuits, o+ suchliberal philosophical intuition about the sel+ as presence, absence, andEor re&e ergence in representation 8 anintuition /hich is also con+or ing to the ).B-s liberal de ocratic andate o+ gi*ing a *oice to underrepresented

inorities, thus ‘ a ing Kthe L +eel part o+ this great country’#$" ; To/ards this end, the criticaluse ulness o the ‘Indian thing’, as a theoretical conce"t, is to remo$e us

rom an understanding o Indianness that was amalgamated with certaindichotomous o""ositions – absence and "resence , i aginary and re+erentiality,alienation and identity3 >o/e*er, it /ill also be i portant to recall that the ‘Indian thing’ doesnot belong to the e5teriority o+ such dichoto ous oppositions# Hather, it is born in the inter*al o+ these oppositions#It is that which is designated /hen, on either side o the racial@colonialboundary, an attem"t is made to identi y that which is Indian and thatwhich is not3 Canada and u bec, because their so*ereignty rests on the oral and so*ereign guaranteethat ‘/e’ are indeed at ho e in the territory o+ the ‘other’, ha*e no other choice but to constantly a e Indiannesssay ‘so ething’ that a es ‘us’ possible# The sa e /ill hold true +or )ati*es /ho, in a colonial conte5t as /ell as ina conte5t o+ resistance *is&M&*is the state, cannot not also ta e a stand in regard to their Indianness, or, in other/ords, in regard to this designation that is born out o+ the colonial encounter 8 this or that ‘thing’ that I a in regardto you /ho are not that# ; .aced /ith the im"ossibility o Anding a way out o that‘Indian thing’ , I there+ore aintain that such cultural and political predica ent calls oralternati$e strategies o resistance, as "art o which, we will no longersee# to restore an Indian reality that could be a""rehended through themeta"hysics o absence and "resence su""orting the moral and so*ereignarchitecture o the liberal settler colony 3


4/18

settler colonialism see#s to render in$isible , will we thus contribute todenaturalising the so$ereign, humanist discourse o the liberal state # 7s a

result, we might perhaps be allo/ed to ho"e that such a ru"ture in the relationship bet/eenthe nation and that ‘Indian thing’ might ha$e the "otential to orce our liberalde ocracies to co e into a "ro ound , concrete, and conse2uential awareness o that which

theconte poraneousness o+ the racial and colonial

oundations o ‘our’ so$ereigntyrequires in the relationshi"s between the (tate, Nati$e "eo"les, and non&Nati$e racialised minorities 8 and this +ro both political and institutional standpoints# In the

eanti e, antiracist and anticolonial e!orts must ta#e on the tas# o #ee"ingardent, li#e an ine/tinguishable Are, the demands o con;ict,incommunicability, racture, and o""osition i we ho"e to eschew theultimate trium"h o settler colonialism6 its sel &su"ersession3

(ettlement is an e$eryday "rocess, constituted not only by theinitial clearing o the land but the ideological reiteration o thegeo"olitical and s"atial sel &e$idence o the terrain on which

"olitical struggle occurs – disorientation is necessary, a"olitical strategy that ma#es this s"ace alien to us'( ) *NC&'reensboro(Gar , “Settler co on sense,” Settler Colonial Studies , Volu e !, Issue !, pp# !00&!$7s opposed to the sense o+ /ithdra/al into a space di*orced +ro conte porary political econo y, the te5t alsoproposes a re+ra ing o+ perspecti*e, altering the physical sense o+ relation to one-s surroundings *ia a suspensiono+ their gi*enness# In this *ein, 4hmed suggests, E I orientation is about ma#ing thestrange amiliar through the e/tension o bodies into s"ace, thendisorientation occurs when that e/tension ails F ("" # These o ents in the te5t

suggest ho/ the sel can become the site or an imaginati$e brea# withroutine that "roduces a sensuous reorientation (getting “turned round” # Thecritical "roject o+ the te5t a""ears here less as locating a s"ace apart in which todisco$er the ullness o the sel than as the ma#ing alien o+ an alreadyoccu"ied "lace , such that Ewe should not recognizeF it # The act o+ turning round, o+shi ting one0s orientation and redirecting the o entu by /hich one pre*iously /as i pelled,o!ers "ossibilities or "ercei$ing di!erently, or seeing and engaging inways that less ta#e or granted the jurisdictional matri/ o the state and in/hich conte porary )ati*e peoples can be ac no/ledged as the sel*es i portant “inhabitants o+ )e/ @ngland”

/hose indigeneity co pels a reconceptuali=ation o+ the ter s o+ occupancy +or e*eryone# ; :ecomingconscious o the e$eryday enactment o settlement in$ol$es

relinquishing the notion o an autonomous, e/tra&"olitical sel hoode/isting in a "lace a"art, instead o"ening onto a recognition not only oenduring Nati$e "resence within contem"orary "olitical economy but othe e!aced history o im"erial su"erintendence and dis"lacement that"ro$ides the continuing condition o "ossibility or the sense o+ settler escape

into the /ilderness# To be clear, the absence o a declared set o im"erialcommitments does not suggest non&Nati$es0 e/oneration rom continuing


5/18

histories o $iolence "er"etrated and "er"etuated by the settler&state3 Heturning +ro a di9erent direction to )icoll-s criti2ue discussed earlier, there may be an absence osentiments hostile to Nati$e "eo"les in non&Nati$es0 s"eech or writing, ornon&Nati$es may ado"t a "articular $iew"oint su""orti$e o Indigenousso$ereignty on delimited "lots o land /hen considering )ati*e peoples as such# Gowe$er,that absence o malice or declaration o su""ort does not address theways quotidian e/"eriences o s"ace (/ith respect to 1urisdiction, occupancy, and o/nership and subjecti$ity (as odular, sel+&identical, and e5tralegal a!ecti$ely register anditerate settler so$ereignty in ways that sha"e the generation o , +or e5a ple,

ethics, ideals, and "olitical "rojects that do not ta#e Nati$e nations, $oices, andlands as their direct object # Nhile argu ents about the structural 2uality o+ settler colonialis 8 itsscale, density, duration, and centrality to OS li+e 8 re ain i portant, their *ery insistence on its per*asi*e andsyste ic operation can create the i pression o+ an integrated /hole# >o/e*er, as Patour obser*es, i+ “the bodypolitic” is ta en “to be *irtual, total, and al/ays already there”, then “the practical eans to co pose it are nolonger traceable6 i+ it-s total, the practical eans to totali=e it are no longer *isible6 i+ it-s *irtual, the practical eansto reali=e, *isuali=e, and collect it ha*e disappeared +ro *ie/” ("'08! # Gow is the settler body"olitic com"osed, collected, and realized in e$eryday ways through the

e/"eriences, "erce"tions, associations, em"lacements, and trajectories onon&Nati$e bodiesH >o/ do settler 1urisdiction and go*ern entality shape the aterial possibilitiesa*ailable to non&)ati*es in scenes and sites apparently disconnected +ro )ati*e peoples and Indian policy, andhow do non&Nati$es in their quotidian eelings and interactions (and the culturalproductions +or /hich ordinary sensation ser*es as bac ground actualize the "olitical and legalgeogra"hies o the settler&stateH 7ttending to settler common sense in this /aydoes not so uch brac et Indigenous sel+&deter ination as dra/ on it as ethical inspiration to in*estigate the /aysit is de+erred through ordinary action whose aim is not such but whose e!ect isto reiterate the sel &e$idence o settler geo"olitics # Heciprocally, such analysisalso see#s to suggest how non&Nati$es might disorient and reorientthemsel$es, how they might come to understand not only that Indigenous peoples

re ain part o+ the social landscape o+ li+e in the OS but that the $ery terrain non&Nati$esinhabit as gi$en has ne$er ceased to be a site o "olitical struggle3

Indigenity cannot be theorized through the a rmati$e’s lenso racial identity – geo"olitics, not bio"olitics, is the critical

actor that grounds the meta"olitical authority o the settlerstate to determine what counts as a "olitical issue and what issel &e$idently natural – settler colonialism transcends racial$iolence o indi$idual bare li$es and osters a generalized stateo bare habitance'( ) *NC&'reensboro(Gar , “Indigeni=ing 7ga ben: Hethin ing So*ereignty in Pight o+ the ‘Qeculiar’Status o+ )ati*e Qeoples,” Cultural Criti2ue, )u ber A!, pp# FF&"0$In using 7ga ben’s /or to address O#S# Indian policy, though, it needs to be re/or ed# In particular, his

em"hasis on bio"olitics tends to come at the e/"ense o a discussion ogeo"olitics, the "roduction o race su""lanting the "roduction o s"ace asa way o en$isioning the wor# o the so$ereignty he criti2ues, and /hile his concept o+


6/18

the e5ception has been i ensely inJuential in conte porary scholar& ship and cultural criticis , suchaccounts largely ha$e le t aside discussion o Indigenous "eo"les34ttending to Nati$e "eo"les’ "osition within settler&state so$ereigntiesrequires in$estigating and adjusting three as"ects o 7ga ben’s thin#ing : thepersistent insideEoutside tropology he uses to address the e5ception, speciDcally the /ays it ser*es as a etaphor

di*orced +ro territoriality6 the notion o Ebare li eF as the basis o+ the e5ception, es"eciallythe indi$idualizing /ays that he uses that conce"t 6 and the i plicit depiction o+ so*ereignty as asel+&conDdent e5ercise o+ authority +ree +ro an5iety o*er the legiti acy o+ state actions#? (uch re$isionallows or a reconsideration o the “=one o+ indistinction” produced by and /ithinso$ereignty, o"ening u" analysis o the ways settler&states regulate notonly "ro"er #inds o embodiment Ebare li eF2 but also legitimate modeso collecti$ity and occu"ancy K what I will call bare habitance 3 9 I+ the “o*erridingso*ereignty” o+ the Onited States is predicated on the creation o+ a state o+ e5ception, then the struggle orso$ereignty by Nati$e "eo"les can be en$isioned as less about control o"articular "olicy domains than o meta"olitical authority K the ability to

deAne the content and sco"e o ElawF and E"olitics3F (uch a shi t drawsattention away rom critiques o the "articular rhetorics used to justi ythe state’s plenary "ower and toward a macrological e!ort to contest theEo$erridingF assertion o a right to e/ert control o$er Nati$e "olities3 +yargument , then, e/"lores the limits o orms o analysis organized aroundthe critique o the settler&state’s e ploy ent o+ racialized discourses osa$agery and the em"hasis on cultural distinctions bet/een @ura erican andIndigenous odes o+ go*ernance# :oth o these strategies /ithin Indigenous political theory treatso$ereignty as a "articular #ind o "olitical content that can be ju/ta"osedwith a substanti$ely di!erentKmore Nati$e& riendly or Indigenous&centeredKcontent , but by contrast, I suggest that discourses o racialdi!erence and e2uality as /ell as o+ cultural recognition are deployed by the state in /ays that rea rm its geo"olitical sel &e$idence and its authority to determine whatissues, "rocesses, and statuses will count as meaning ul within the"olitical system3 >hile arguments about uramerican racism and the dis1unctionsbe& t/een )ati*e traditions and i posed structures o+ go*ernance can be quite "ower ul inchalleng ing as"ects o settler&state "olicy, they cannot account or thestructuring $iolence "er ormed by the Agure o so$ereignty # Rra/ing on

7ga ben, I /ill argue that “so*ereignty” +unctions as a placeholder that has no deter inate content#' Thestate has been described as an entity that e5ercises a onopoly on the legiti ate e5ercise o+ *iolence, and /hatI a suggesting is that the state o+ e5ception produced through Indian "olicy creates a

mono"oly on the legitimate e/ercise o legitimacy, an e/clusi$euncontestable right to deAne what will count as a $iable legal or "oliticalorm ul2ation #That undamentally circular and sel &$alidating , as /ell as an5ious

and +raught, "er ormance grounds the legitimacy o state rule on nothing morethan the a/iomatic negation o Nati$e "eo"les ’ authority to deter ine or ad1udicate +orthe sel*es the nor ati*e principles by /hich they /ill be go*erned# Through 7ga ben’s theory o+ the e5ception,then, I /ill e5plore ho/ the su""osedly underlying so$ereignty o the *3(3 settler&state is a retros"ecti$e "rojection generated by, and de"endent on , the“peculiar”&i=ation o+ Nati$e "eo"les #


7/18

(ettler colonialism is integral to the ormation o sla$ery andits a terli eKanti&blac# racism is an inadequate rame absentunderstanding the role o colonialismLing 1%K0 "!, Ti9any eannette ing, “I) T>@ CP@7HI)hile sla$ery and anti&:lac# racism should be acti$e and robust analytic rames that guide Blac Studies andhelp us understand Blac sub1ecti*ity in the Nestern >e isphere, settler colonialism also structures:lac# li e3 The genocide o Nati$e "eo"les , the "er"etual ma#ing o (ettlers"ace and (ettler subjecti$ity Uas un+ettered sel+ actuali=ationU do not immediately sto"e/isting as orms o "ower when they run into :lac# bodies #The way thatsettler colonial "ower loo#s and mani ests itsel just changesM it does notsto"3 (ettler colonialism , as a sub1ectless discourse, is a orm o "roducti$e "ower that

touches all that li$e in the *( and (ettler colonial nations #! Though it touches andshapes e*eryone’s li+e it does so in *ery di9erent /ays# .or the purposes o+ y o/n research I a arguing that settlercolonialism ’s normalizing "ower enacts genocide against Nati$e "eo"les (disappears )ati*e people but it also sha"es and structures anti:lac# racism3 Theontological "ositions that were created by sla$ery, speciDcally the Sla*e are stillali$e and well ho/e*er, settler colonial "ower intersects with, wor#s throughand structures the re"ressi$e and "roducti$e "ower that ma#es the :lac#ca"ti$e ungible and socially dead # Throughout, In the Clearing poses the 2uestion, in /hat /ays does

settler colonial po/er help structure sla*ery and anti&Blac racis This pro1ect ulti ately argues that sla$ery andanti&:lac# racism are not adequate to ully understand the material and

discursi$e "rocesses that create :lac#ness in all o its embodied genresin North 4merica # (la$ery and anti&:lac# racism are also not the onlyre"ressi$e "owers that ma#e the :lac# body abject, ungible and situatedat the outer limits o being&ness # :oth sla$ery and settler colonialismstructure modernity and need to be ully conce"tualized as orms o"ower that hel" constitute :lac#ness 3 Conce"tualizing the ways thatsettler colonialism and sla$ery co&constitute one another is an essential com"onent o this dissertation3


8/18

Thus, a methodological brac#eting o the dominant centralityo the blac#=white binary is necessary in order to gra""le withsettler colonialism – the binary reduces indigenity to merelyracial identity, erasing the originary and ongoing moment odis"lacement – instead o the traditional rame o race ascultural or bodily identity, we must theorize settler colonialismthrough the social structures by which "ossession oindigenous lands is made ordinary'( ) *NC&'reensboro(Gar , ‘Settler Co on Sense: ueerness and @*eryday Colonialis in the7 erican Henaissance,’ pp# "%&0??$er the "ast twenty years, scholars ha$e gi$en greater "rominence tosla$ery and its legacies and the intert/ined processes o+ (re producing blac#ness andwhiteness as ubi2uitous +eatures o+ O#S# history, politics, and culture, understanding these dyna ics as"er$ading all as"ects o national li e # In Qlaying in the Rar ("%%0 , Toni Gorrison as s theland ar 2ues& tion o+ ho/ the presence o+ blac people and the practices and legacies o+ ensla*e ent ight beregistered in te5ts that do not +oreground either, pro& *iding “the *ery anner by /hich 7 erican literaturedistinguishes itsel+ as a coherent entity” (' # She de onstrates ho/ te5ts illustrate “the i pact o+ racis on those/ho perpetuate it” ("" , “e*en, and especially, /hen 7 erican te5ts are not ‘about’ 7+ricanist presences orcharacters or narra& ti*e or idio ” ($' #0' This conceptual and ethodological turn helps pro& pel the e ergence o+ i ensely rich and i portant de*elop ents /ithin nineteenth&century 7 ericanist scholarship, enabling acentering o+ sla*ery and its legacies, blac ness as a ode o+ raciali=ation and anti&blac racis , and 7+rican7 erican e5perience /ithin the Deld as a /hole by indicating their rele*ance across the entire spectru o+ O#S#political econo y, cultural production, and social li+e# >hile Settler Common Sense owes animmeasur& able debt to this set o conce"tual and methodologicalinno$ations, these salutary de$elo"ments also ha$e had the e!ect orea rm ing /hat has been characteri=ed as the Eblac#=white binary 3F 0A $en morethan ta#ing the s"eciAcs o one $ector o racialization and the odes o+ oppressionthat sustain it (and that it sustains and potentially generalizing them to all orms oracialization in ways that may ill&At other histories, the blac#=white binarytends to +oreground citi=enship, rights, and belonging to the nation, miscast ing Indigenous sel &re"resentations and "olitical aims in ways that ma#e them illegible 3 0F ; 7rom a "ers"ecti$e organized around bondage, emanci"ation, labor , polit& icalparticipation, and +or al *ersus substanti*e reedom, Nati$e articulations o "eo"lehood,so$ereignty, and collecti$e landedness can a""ear con using at best and at/orst are ta#en as indicati$e o an in$estment in a orm o reactionaryethnic nationalism 3 4s :yrd argues in The Transit o+ @ pire, “ The generallyacce"ted theorizations o racialization in the *nited (tates ha$e , in the pursuito+ e2ual rights and en+ranchise ents, tended to be sited along the a/is oinclusion=e/clusion3 # # # Nhen the re ediation o+ the coloni=a& tion o+ 7 erican Indians is +ra ed throughdiscourses o+ raciali=ation that can be redressed by +urther inclusion into the nation&state, there is asigniAcant ailure to gra""le with the act that such discourses urtherreinscribe the original colonial injuryF (55iii # +ore than sim"ly lea$ing out Indigenous "olitical aims, the substitution o racialization or colonization

Emas#s the territoriality o conquest by assigning colonization to theracialized body # # # K6Lland rights disa""ear into O#S# territoriality as indigenous


9/18

identity becomes a racial identity and citizens o colonized indigenousnations become internal ethnic minorities /ithin the coloni=ing nation&state” (55i* , aprocess “o+ a ing racial /hat is international” ("0? #0% (uch Econ;ation,F con usion,ob uscation results in a tendency in 7 erican studies to treat Nati$e "resence

and $iolence against Nati$e "eo"les as a ind o+ originary sin o whitesu"remacy that can be quic#ly noted on the way to a discussion o othera""arently more signiAcant and enduring modes o racial domination 3 Byrd

obser*es that 7 erican studies o+ten “sees it as enough to challenge the /ilderness as anything but *acant” /hilethen “relegatKingL 7 erican Indians to the site o+ the already&doneness that begins to linger as un/elco e gueststo the +uture” (0 # She suggests that a critical and historical lens de$elo"ed to e/aminemodes o racialization Ua +or o+ study itsel+ o$erdetermined by the blac#=whitebinary K not only cannot gras" the contours and sta#es o indigeneity buttranslates it in ways that redouble colonial incor"oration #! ; (cholarshi"

/ithin nineteenth&century 7 erican literary studies that has sought to consider bothsettlement and sla$ery o ten dis"laces the ormer on the way to thelatter in ways that lea$e aside the question o the sel & determination o+Indigenous peoples, as well as the "rocess by which the occu"ation o Nati$e landscomes to be li$ed and re"resented as the Eready madeF o e$erydaynonnati$e "ossibility # In Capti*ity and Senti ent, Gichelle Burnha suggests that the popularity o+

narrati*es o+ capti*ity +ro the se*enteenth through the nineteenth centuries (including sla*e narrati*es can beunderstood in ter s o+ the /ays they /or ed to anage the “resis& tant and unrecuperable surplus o+ culturaldi9erence al/ays le+t o*er by the process o+ cultural e5change” (% : “The e5perience o+ capti*ity across cul& turalboundaries transports the Kcapti*es, the te5ts produced by and about the , and the readers o+ such narrati*esL tointerstitial =ones o+ contact, /here do inant *alues, standards, and odes o+ representation +ail, alter, or arebrought to crisis” ("A # Characterizing EboundariesF as cultural ma#es Es"aceFand EzoneF almost entirely meta"horical, delin#ed rom actual "laces,land claims, and modes o occu"ancy , abstracting +ro the particular inds o+ sociopoliticalappings at play in di9erent instances in order to place the in the sa e analytic +ra e# ECultureFcomes to mar# the di!erence o nonwhiteness per se rather than inde/ingthe normalization o s"eciAc ormations o residence , land tenure, and"olitical belonging # @=ra Ta/il’s The Ga ing o+ Hacial Senti ent si ilarly en+olds 7 erican Indians into a

critical narrati*e that de+ers 2uestions o+ )ati*e so*ereignty, reading rep& resentations o+ settler8Indigenous conJictas a coded /ay o+ addressing sla*ery# >e e5plores “the attribution o+ certain 2ualities o+ character and e otion torace,” /hich he characteri=es as “racial senti ent” ("" : “In the ost general ter s, it stands to reason that theIndian and the sla*e could operate at ti es as analogous Dgures in 7nglo&7 erican political discourse# Both couldbe represented as e bers o+ alien populations that *e5ed the s ooth operation o+ 7nglo&7 erican po/er on thecontinent” (?% # >e later indicates that “the the atics o+ Indian dispossession /as one aspect o+ a conte porarydiscussion about property conJict in /hich the politics o+ sla*ery, no less than Indian land o/nership, /as at sta e”(F' , na ing )ati*e “dispossession” as a struggle around “property” in /ays that allo/ the contested geopolitics o+so*ereignty to be cast as si ilar in ind (“analo& gous” to “the sla*ery debate#” In .ugiti*e @ pire, 7ndy Roolenobser*es that the boo ’s title “in*o es the hereto+ore hidden i perialis # # # that shaped our culture andinstitutions in 7 erica’s +or ati*e years” /hile then indicating that he see s to attend “to the histories o+ sla*esand the insti& tutions o+ sla*ery” (5iii # .or Roolen, O#S# i perialis re+ers to a “logic o+ racial do ination” thatshapes “the 7 erican rhetoric o+ e2uality” (5*i , as opposed to indicating a territorial pro1ect o+e5pansionEincorporation in /hich go*ern ental and 1urisdictional authority is e5erted o*er non e & ber polities/ho do not see such belonging, and +ro this perspecti*e, )ati*e political pro1ects (such as that o+ Gashpees inthe "F! s, /hich I discuss in chapter ! appear as the pursuit o+ “cultural autono y” /ithin the broaderachie*e ent o+ “ci*il rights” ("'08'F # ; I an e/isting analytics o race "roducesdistortion, what is the alternati$eH 3r, approached +ro a slightly di9erent angle, in addressingthe i plicit operation and reproduction o+ settler legalities in 2uotidian geographies o+ li*ed nonnati*e e5perience,/hat happens to the notion o+ /hiteness Nor /ithin Indigenous studies co ing out o+ 7nglophone settler&states


10/18

other than the Onited States has +oregrounded the role o+ /hiteness as a principal ode through /hich settle entis reali=ed and naturali=ed#!" In “Nhite& ness, @piste ology, and Indigenous Hepresentation,” Goreton&Hobinsondistinguishes “bet/een a racialised sub1ect position and the po/er and no/ledge e9ects o+ racialised discourse,”positioning whiteness not sim"ly as a "articular embodied social location butas a means o naming the structure through which Indigenous territorycomes to be understood as "ossessable by nonnati$es and by which that

logic o+ e5propriationEo/nership by the settler nation comes to be e/"erienced asgi$en (F$ # >o/e*er, in the conte5t o+ the Onited States, in /hich the de +acto racial di*ide is not /hiteE )ati*e

but /hiteEblac , can /hiteness pro*ide the principal eans o+ na ing the operation o+ e*eryday +or ations andsensations o+ settle ent Goreton& Hobinson suggests as uch in “Nriting o9 Treaties,” /hich addresses ho//hiteness studies in the Onited States ta es the blac E/hite binary as gi*en in /ays that e9ace settler colonialisand Indigenous dislocation: “The OS7 as a /hite nation state cannot e5ist /ithout land and clearly deDned borders,it is the legally deDned and asserted territorial so*ereignty that pro*ides the conte5t +or national identiDcations o+/hiteness# In this /ay I argue Nati$e 4merican dis"ossession indelibly mar#sconAgurations o white national identity ” (F? # I+ raciali=ing attributions o+ Indianness /or asa /ay o+ displacing indigeneity, does that dyna ic a e settle ent e2ui*& alent to /hiteness or identiDcation /ithit Goreton&Hobinson obser*es that “the so*ereignty clai s” o+ Indigenous peoples “are di9erent +ro other

inority rights at the center o+ the struggle +or racial e2uality,” because “their so*ereignty is not episte ologicallyand ontologically grounded in the citi=enship o+ the /hite liberal sub1ect o+ odernity” (FA # Rescribing )ati*e“dispossession” as ar ing “/hite national identity,” though, need not be the sa e as characteri=ing /hiteness asthe pri ary *ehicle through /hich Indigenous “so*ereignty clai s” are diso/ned# ; In other /ords, whitenessin the Onited States con$entionally has signiAed in ter s o+ a racial hierarchy throughwhich "o"ulations’ access to citi=enship rights and social wealth are managed,but gi$en that all "ositions in that hierarchy are "redicated on thecontinued e/istence o the settler& state , settlement may beconce"tualized less as a unction o whiteness than /hiteness ay be understood ase/"ressing a "articular "ri$ileged "osition within the allocation o Nati$elands and resources a ong nonnati*es# 7s Scott Gorgensen suggests, “Haciali=ation under /hite

supre acy /ill grant non&)ati*es distinct, o+ten utually e5clusi*e, abilities to represent or enact settler colonialpo/er# But all non&)ati*es still /ill di9er in their e5periences o+ settler colonialis +ro the e5periences o+ )ati*epeoples” (0" #!0 Qut a little di9erently, i whiteness names the mechanisms by whichsettler land tenure and jurisdiction are legitimized, it may not be thesame whiteness as that o the blac#=white binary, e$en i both are li$ed inthe same body , such that "eo"le o color may enact and as"ire to whiteness&as&settlement while still contesting whiteness &as&allocation&o &entitlements&within&citizenshi"3 !! Goreo*er, settlement may itsel not de"endon a routing through whiteness # In Creole Indigeneity, Shona Oac#son addresses thedynamics o belonging in


11/18

articulations o+ national identity co e +ro a1ority non& /hite populations, largely o+ 7+rican descent# 7orthese reasons, it may analytically be more "roducti$e to re er to the"rocess o settlement in other terms than as Ewhiteness,F es"ecially inthe *3(3 conte/t in which the latter de acto is understood as re erring to astruggle within the nation&state rather than as one o$er the nation&

state’s domestication o Indigenous "eo"les and territories3 !$ ; Theo"eration o the *nited (tates as a settler&state cannot be under& stood inisolation rom the naturali=ation o+ racial identities and raciali=ed access to resources, particularlyinas uch as the pri*ileging o+ /hiteness shapes nonnati*es’ e5perience o+ possession and personhood#

Gowe$er , or the reasons s#etched abo$e, I do not oreground race as the"rimary modality through which to conce"tualize "rocesses o settlementand the dyna ics o+ settler "henomenology , e$en as I address the racial2 coding o+ )ati*e people(s as Indians as "art o how nonnati$es edit out indigeneity andsettler occu"ation rom their sensation o+ the ordinary3 !? I see to address the /ays that thelegalities o the settler&state sha"e e$eryday e/"eriences o gi$enness

or all nonnati$es , such that antiracist "rojects along with otherarticulations o o""osition , as in the te5ts I address can recycle those li$ed gridso intelligibility as a basis or their alternati$e imaginings # In addition,

brac#eting the methodological centrality o race , while still engaging withdynamics o racialization, wor#s as a way o orestalling the gra$itational"ull o citi=enship and analogy with 4 rican 4mericans as the means ora""roaching settler colonialism , /hile also potentially opening up y analyses to a co parati*e

+ra e that addresses settler&states in /hich /hites are not predo inant#

(ettlement is not an e$ent, but a structuring ontological logico elimination constantly mani est in e$eryday reiteration othe $ery modes o s"atial inhabitance and subjecti$e modes obeing – distinct rom racial $iolences'( ) *NC&'reensboro(Gar , ‘Settler Co on Sense: ueerness and @*eryday Colonialis in the7 erican Henaissance,’ pp# A&"I+ nineteenth&century 7 erican literary studies tends to +ocus on the /ays Indians enter the narrati*e +ra e and the

inds o+ eanings and associa& tions they bear, recent attem"ts to theorize settlercolonialism ha$e sought to shi t attention rom its e!ects on Indigenoussubjects to its im"lications or nonnati$e "olitical attachments, orms oinhabitance, and modes o being , illu inating and trac#ing the "er$asi$eo"eration o settlement as a system # In Settler Colonialis and the Trans+or ation o+

7nthropology, Qatric Nol+e argues, “Settler colonies /ere (are pre ised on the eli ination o+ nati*e societies# The

split tensing reJects a deter inate +eature o+ settler coloni=ation# The coloni=ers co e to stayU in$asion isa structure not an e$ent ” (0 #' >e suggests that a Elogic o eliminationF dri$essettler go$ernance and sociality , describing “ the settler&colonial will ” as “a historical+orce that ultimately deri$es rom the "rimal dri$e to e/"ansion that is generally


12/18

glossed as capitalis ” ("'A , and in “Settler Colonialis and the @li ination o+ the )ati*e,” he obser*es that

“elimination is an organizing "rinci"le o settler&colonial society ratherthan a one&o! and su"erceded2 occurrence ” (!FF # Hather than being superseded a+ter aninitial o entE period o+ con2uest, coloni=ation persists since “ the logic o elimination mar#s areturn whereby the nati$e re"ressed continues to structure settler&

colonial society ” (!% # In 7ileen Goreton&Hobinson’s /or , /hiteness +unc& tions as the central /ay o+understanding the do ination and displace ent o+ Indigenous peoples by nonnati*es#A In “Nriting 39 IndigenousSo*er& eignty,” she argues, “7s a regi e o+ po/er, patriarchal /hite so*ereignty operates ideologically, ateriallyand discursi*ely to reproduce and ain& tain its in*est ent in the nation as a /hite possession” (FF , and in “Nrit&

ing 39 Treaties,” she suggests, “ 4t an ontological le$el the structure o subjecti$e"ossession occurs through the im"osition o one’s will&to&be on the thingwhich is "ercei$ed to lac# will, thus it is o"en to being "ossessed ,” such that“"ossession 3 3 3 orms part o+ the ontological structure o white subjecti$ity ”(F!8F$ # .or odi Byrd, the deploy ent o+ Indianness as a obile Dgure /or s as the principal ode o+ O#S# settler

colonialis # She obser*es that “ colonization and racialization 3 3 3 ha$e o ten beencon;ated ,F in ways that “tend to be sited along the a5is o+ inclusionEe5clusion” and that

“ misdirect and cloud attention rom the underlying structures o settlercolonialism ” (55iii, 5*ii # She argues that settlement wor#s through the translationo indigeneity as Indianness , casting place&based political collec& ti*ities as (raciali=ed populationssub1ect to O#S# 1urisdiction and anage& ent: “ the Indian is le t nowhere and e$erywherewithin the ontological "remises through which *3(3 em"ire orients , i agines,and criti2ues itsel ”6 “ideas o Indians and Indianness ha$e ser$ed as theontological ground through which *3(3 settler colonialism enacts itsel ”

(5i5 #

the negati$e’s alternati$e is criticism o the a! through settlercolonial theory, a strategy that re$eals settlers’ in$estments inthe ongoing "roject o settlement – as settlers, we cannotdelude oursel$es with the colonial antasy that we can ullycom"rehend and thus control our relationshi"s withIndigenous "eo"les – it is necessary to instead un#now thesettler "osition, unwor# settler colonial rames o re erencethat create the naturalized teleology o settlement(tra#osch D +acoun 1% – researcher ) Indigenous (tudies


13/18

relationshi"s 3 5i#e us, most settlers /ho use the theoretical ramewor# areconcerned to disturb rather than re&enact colonial hierarchies, and see# tocontribute to Indigenous "olitical struggles3 Gowe$er, Indigenous scholarsh a$e not always embraced the theory and it has been met with sce"ticism by so e engaged in challenging colonialis #$ This article see#s to a e e5plicit (CT’s

current location as a pri arily settler +ra e/or , and to e5plore its strengthsand li itations in this conte5t 3 >hile we do not suggest that (CT can onlye$er be used by settlers , we rame our discussion in relation to thecurrent "olitical and theoretical dynamics o its use #; In the 7ustralian conte5t, SCT isan appealing interpreti*e +ra e/or +or acade ics see ing to understand the state’s increasingly coerci*eapproach to Indigenous people# It has had a particularly signiDcant presence in 7ustralian acade ic debates o*erthe Co on/ealth go*ern ent’s )orthern Territory ()T @ ergency Hesponse (/idely no/n as ‘the inter*ention’ #7dopted /ith bipartisan support in 0 A +ollo/ing allegations o+ /idespread abuse o+ children in re ote 7boriginalco unities, the inter*ention in*ol*es the i position o+ contro*ersial and coerci*e easures such as racially based/el+are 2uarantining, alcohol and pornography bans, and the i position o+ co pulsory leases o*er 7boriginal land#

The policy essentially understands 7boriginal co unities as ‘insu4ciently colonised =ones’,? and its introductionre2uired the suspension o+ the Hacial Riscri ination 7ct "%A?# This pathologi=ing o+ 7boriginal co unities lin s7boriginality to child abuse, prescribes additional interaction /ith the state and ainstrea econo y, andestablishes a political debate about the nature and +uture o+ 7boriginality in /hich Indigenous perspecti*es are

proble ati=ed#' 'i$en the policy’s articulation through language o+ ‘stabili=ing’ and ‘nor ali=ing’ 7boriginalco unities,A as /ell as ob*ious resonances /ith pre*ious "olicies o segregation andassimilation, it is not sur"rising that a range o scholars ha$e oundsettler colonialism to be a com"elling ramewor# or analysis #F Theinter$ention has also s"ar#ed debate about the role o+ non&Indigenousacade ics , and the ethical and "olitical im"lications o contributions by‘outsiders ’ to 2uestions concerning the e5periences and +utures o+ 7boriginal people#% ; In this paper, /e dra/on recent 7ustralian acade ic debates surrounding the )T inter*ention to assess the contributions o+ SCT and toin*estigate so e o+ the ethical and political i plications o+ its use# ; Ne contend that (CT ma#es majorcontributions to current mainstream scholarshi", but that its analytic ande/"lanatory "ower also "resents a range o "olitical and ethical ris#s #

/"osing colonization as ‘a structure not an e$ent ’" con ronts settlerswith an account o contem"orary colonialism that is di4cult to a*oid , e5posingunderlying si ilarities bet/een conser*ati*e and progressi*e approaches to conte porary Indigenous policy and

re$ealing inti ate connections between settler e otions, practices, no/ledgesand institutions 3 Gowe$er, em"hasizing continuities in colonial relationships between

the "ast and the "resent can tend to construct e/isting "olitical relationshi"sas ine$itable and unchanging3 Nhen deployed /ith a neutral descripti*eauthority , (CT can also re&inscribe settler acade ics’ political authority and reYenact the+oundational settler +antasy that we constitute, co prehend and control thewhole "olitical s"ace o our relationshi"s with Indigenous "eo"le3 In orderto counter this "otential, we suggest that while settler ways o thin#ingstructure and dominate uch o+ our conte porary reality, they are not equi$alentto it3 (CT a es *isible our o/n +ra es o+ re+erence , thus re*ealing possibilitiesand political *isions that lie outside them # .ro this standpoint, the act that settlercolonialism struggles to narrate its own ending does not ean that it cannotend #*ltimately, /e contend that this a""roach has the "otential to acilitatenew con$ersations and relationshi"s with Indigenous "eo"le but, in orderto unloc# this trans ormati$e "otential, settler scholars ust re ain attenti*e


14/18

to our o/n positions /ithin colonial relationships 3 9 The strengths o+ SCT ; 7ustralian debatesabout the )T inter*ention de onstrate the strength and potential o+ SCT# >ighlighting the conte porary nature o+colonialis disrupts +a iliar te poral political narrati*es and e phasi=es the partisan nature o+ settler institutions,and this is a crucial contribution in the conte5t o+ the )T inter*ention# The inter*ention policy +ra e/or depends+or its coherence on +ra ings o+ the settler state as innocent, benign and neutral, /ith Indigenous peoples’perspecti*es constructed as o*ertly politici=ed and illegiti ate#"" Scholars ha*e used SCT to critically unra*el thisdiscourse and raise broader 2uestions about so*ereignty and Indigenous8 settler relations#"0 ; In this section /e

argue that SCT e*idences a range o+ other i portant analytical and political strengths in the conte porary7ustralian conte5t# It re*eals the state to be part o+ a broader settler per+or ance o+ so*ereign legiti acy, and thisinsight has the potential to proble ati=e both conser*ati*e and progressi*e policy approaches# In

oregrounding the "artiality o the state, (CT supple ents other criticalapproaches to race by analytically integrating the structural and personal nature o settler domination 3 *ltimately, in identi ying the underlyinglogics o settler colonial $entures – and the way that these are e/"ressedat all le$els o settler societies – SCT re*eals the ent/ine ent o+ settlerinstitutions, no/ledges, e otions and sel*es#

(ettler colonial theory "ro$ides settlers with a challenging

unsettling account o our own structural subject "ositionality –this demand or disoccu"ation o the settler’s ontologicalso$ereignty creates s"ace or the wor# o imagining imaginingand thus ma#ing "ossible alternati$e Indigenous uturescommitted to a radical reorientation o the status quo’s $iolentcohabitation(tra#osch D +acoun 1% – researcher ) Indigenous (tudies


15/18

"ro$ed es"ecially challenging 3’SJ Gowe$er, we do not need to imagine this"rocess on our own3 (CT can show us our own rames o re erence – and thisby im"lication assists us to understand and engage with what lies outside them 3 (ettlercolonialism "osits that two "olitical societies cannot e/ist in one "lace through time, and that one must necessarily re"lace the other –either by settlers e/tinguishing 4boriginal di!erence or by 4boriginal "eo"le e/"elling settlers an o"tion rarely countenanced23 Itimagines that two societies remaining together must always be an inherently "roblematic state, leading those within it to see# an end3

(ettler colonialism assumes the ine$itability o its own colonizing actions in such a

circumstance3 :ut e$en within >estern traditions, it is "ossible to imagine other ways that twosocieties might beha$e and be in one "lace 3 I+ /e decide to loo outside our o/n +ra e/or s, and engage

/ith Indigenous people and ideas, /e ight Dnd e*en richer political possibilities#; (CT "ro$ides us with a number o insights and resourcesthat enable us to use it well3 It re$eals our own "artiality and in$estments , and tracesconnections between our indi$idual identities as scholars and broadercolonial "rocesses 3 (CT cannot substitute +or an engage ent /ith Indigenous people or +or an a/areness o+ our o/n

co plicities, but it can help us to/ards these goals# It e/"lains and e/"oses the o"eration o colonialdynamics and "rocesses where these are routinely obscured or denied 3 Inidenti ying and naming these systems, (CT "ro$ides us with a range o im"ortanto""ortunities – including the ca"acity to name and contest settlerinterests , challenge the "roblematization o Indigenous "eo"les, and identi y "ros"ects or di!erent#inds o resistance 3 The moment that (CT re$eals colonization as ongoing is not necessarily the moment we must gi$e u"ho"e o change3 It could, in act, be the moment that settler colonialism is re$ealed as one, $ery limited, way o understanding andorganizing our reality3


16/18

QNC

The a rmati$e’s "ositing o sla$ery as the contradictionthrough which humanism a rms itsel colla"se indigeneity

into sla$ery and turns settler colonialism into the $ery groundby which their analytic gains orce:yrd Q 11 K odi, Qro+essor o+ @nglish at the Oni*ersity o+ Illinois, The Transit ofEmpire: Indigenous Critique of Colonialism L

But what seems to e to be urther disa$owed , e*en in 5owe’s im"ortantAguration o the history o labor in “the inti acies o+ +our continents,” is the settlercolonialism that such labor underwrites 3 4sia, 4 rica, and uro"e all meetin the 4mericas to labor o$er the dialectics o ree and un ree , but what othe 4mericas themsel$es and the "rior "eo"les u"on whom that labor too# "lace H 5owe includes Enati$e "eo"lesF in her Dgurations as an addendum whenshe writes that she ho"es Eto e$o#e the "olitical economic logics throughwhich men and women rom 4 rica and 7sia were orcibly trans"orted to the4mericas, who with nati$e, mi/ed, and creole "eo"les constituted sla$esocieties, the "roAts o which ga$e rise to bourgeois re"ublican states in

uro"e and North 4merica #”0! :y "ositioning the conditions o sla$ery andindentureshi" in the 4mericas as coe$al contradictions through which>estern reedom a rms and resol$es itsel , and then by colla"sing theindigenous 4mericas into sla$ery , the ourth continent o settlercolonialism through which such intimacy is made to labor is not just

orgotten or elided M it becomes the $ery ground through which the otherthree continents struggle intimately or reedom, justice, and equality 3Nithin Po/e’s +or ulation, the nati$e "eo"les o the 4mericas are colla"sed intosla$ery 6 their only role within the disa$owed intimacies o racialization iseither one equi$alent to that o 4 rican sla$es or their ability to die soim"orted labor can ma#e use o their lands 3 Thus, within the Eintimacies o

our continents,F indigenous "eo"les in the new world cannot , in this syste ,gi$e rise to any historical agency or status within the Eeconomy oa rmation and orgetting,F because they are the transit through whichthe dialectic o subject and object occurs 3 In any /ays, then, this boo argues +or a criticalree*aluation o+ the elaboration o+ these historical processes o+ oppression /ithin postcolonial, critical race, 2ueer,and 7 erican studies at the beginning o+ the t/enty&Drst century# By +oundationally accepting the general pre isethat raciali=ation (along /ith the conco itant interloc ing oppressions o+ class, gender, and se5uality causes thepri ary *iolences o+ O#S# politics in national and international arenas, ulticultural liberalis has a ligned itsel+ /ithsettler colonialis despite pro+essing the goal to disrupt and inter*ene in global +or s o+ do inance throughin*est ents in colorblind e2uality# Si ply put, "re$ailing understandings o race andracialization /ithin O#S# post&colonial, area, and 2ueer studies de"end u"on an historicala"hasia o the conquest o indigenous "eo"les # .urther, these ramings ha$e

orgotten , as Goreton&Hobinson has argued, that Ethe question o how anyone came tobe white or blac# in the *nited (tates is ine/tricably tied to thedis"ossession o the original owners and the assum"tion o white"ossession 3F 0$ Calls to social justice +or O#S# raciali=ed, se5uali=ed, i igrant, and diasporic2ueer co unities that include indigenous peoples, i+ they are not attuned to the ongoing


17/18

conditions o settler colonialism o+ indigenous peoples, ris# deeming colonialism inNorth 4merica resol$e d, i+ not redressed, two cents or 1 billion dollars #

ma""ing and understanding structures o settler colonialismim"ortant:rown 1 – "ro o 4merican Indian (tudies ) * Illinois *rbana&Cham"aign()icholas, ‘The logic o+ settler accu ulation in a landscape o+ perpetual *anishing,’Settler Colonial Studies , Volu e $, Issue ", pp# "&0'He+erencing Qart @ight o+ arl Gar5-s Capital, Volu e 3ne, entitled “So&called Qri iti*e 7ccu ulation”, geographer

i


18/18

o+ the +or er (/ithin political econo ic theory is odiDed by the latter# 7nd it is odiDed, I suggest, in /ays thata e political econo y ore rele*ant to anti&colonial struggle# Indigenous critical theory , in other

/ords, allows us to consider the s"eciAc means by which "rimiti$eaccumulation unctions within settler&colonial conte/ts # 7s geographer Cole >arrisnotes, “ It is im"ortant to identi y the "owers in the settler colonial arsenal,

ma" their "ositions, and sort out some o their lin#ages ”# “The geography o+dispossession”, he continues, “is e5plained ore precisely /hen the po/ers that e9ected it are disaggregated”#0$3ne o+ y goals, there+ore, in e5a ining this relationship is to disaggregate processes that are o+ten conJated orsubsu ed#0?

Cal Berkeley Spurlock Muppalla Neg Harvard Round4

Documents