Super interesting readings! I personally found the “Introduction” by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Eve Tuck, and K. Wayne Yang, quite thought provoking.
This reading made me think about our first lecture and how we were asked about how to implement decolonization into our lives/class. There seemed to be a general theme, that we all didn’t really know how to implement it and felt confused/lost in how to answer. In fact, some thought that it was completely impossible at this point, or that many acts of decolonization could be seen as performative. This same question was also addressed in this introduction; the answer being that “decolonization is not the endgame, not the final outcome of a long process, but the next now, the now that is chasing at our heels” (Tuck 16). This really made me think about how decolonization is constantly happening and evolving. However, it needs to be seen by everyone as something that is happening constantly (as “the next now”) in order to stop thinking about it as something metaphorical, or as something that will eventually happen and have a nice outcome if we just follow a certain amount of steps.
With that being said, I think that the acts of decolonization are still blurred for many and are still not completely understood. Many settlers question how they can begin to decolonize their spaces, themselves and where they live – in a way that can benefit Indigenous people and their communities. However, this reading really emphasizes that: expecting Indigenous people to give you all these answers, is not their responsibility either. Many Indigenous scholars are coming from the perspective of consistently being dismissed in these fields of education or constantly questioned; which can be exhausting and frustrating when you are at the fore-front of these conversations. Colonization is aggressive and that can turn into frustration when having to deal with it constantly. This can create a tough balance, since the education from Indigenous people is extremely important and valuable, however Indigenous people should not feel forced to answer what a decolonization process would look like for settlers. As Tuck mentions “decolonization is not obliged to answer questions concerned with settler futures” (15). I think it then becomes a loop of frustration for Indigenous people, as well as non-Indigenous people who are looking to help. Because I do think it is important for there to be a balance between the exchange of knowledge between the two, to come together and make some change.
After all this rambling, I am still left with the question of how we can decolonize our course, ourselves, and our lives in a meaningful way. It’s a much more complicated conversation with many aspects that intersect, that (sadly) can’t be improved overnight. I think by starting to recognize these issues, acknowledging the structures/hierarchies + their affect on Indigenous people, and our own personal role in these structures, is at least a good place to start.
These are very productive and thoughtful comments, Emma. One of the elements that stuck with me was the concept of “rematriation,” which, ironically enough, my spelling autocorrect just tried to change to repatriation (13, 15). Rematriation is an Indigenous concept that refers to “reclaiming of ancestral remains, spirituality, culture, knowledge and resources, instead of the more Patriarchally associated Repatriation. It simply means back to Mother Earth, a return to our origins, to life and co-creation, rather than Patriarchal destruction and colonisation” (Muthien). That term (and your post!) made me think about how the difficulty of decolonization relates, in many ways, to how ingrained our ways of thinking and acting are. If we are steeped in patriarchal, Western, settler structures and mindframes, how can we ever hope to change those patterns? I think you’re right that consistent steps, no matter the difficulty, is where we have to begin. Tuhiwai Smith, Tuck, and Yang model that by making the small step of selecting a different word (exchanging “repatriation” for “rematriation”), which signals a complicated paradigm shift.
Yes, definitely!! I hadn’t heard of the word “rematriation” before this reading, but I think it’s really important – and I really love the meaning behind it. I think some of the feelings of being “stuck” when it comes to decolonization, absolutely comes from being so ingrained in our ways of thinking, and the complex structures we are apart of – that it can be hard to think outside of them! So I really like the idea of going back to mother earth (our origins!), and reclaiming what was once there, such as spirituality, culture, etc!
Hi Emma!
I agree with you in the sense that after all the reading, there never seemed to be a conclusion on how to decolonize. But, I do disagree in the sense that the text says Indigenous people shouldn’t be obliged to give all the answers. I don’t believe they are obliged to, but I do believe that we need their help as much as possible. It is of everyone’s benefit if they provided any knowledge they thought valuable. How can we understand what they are experiencing and what they desire without their feedback? Even in the reading it said that an “outsider” could never be an “insider”, so how can we learn about their communities if not for their feedback? In my opinion, the process of decolonization is 100% bipartisan, and help is needed from both sides before anything is to change.
Hey Andrea!
Thanks so much for the comment, and sharing your thoughts! I totally agree with you, and think that a decolonization process absolutely does involve Indigenous and non-Indigenous people! As I mentioned in my post, I think Indigenous people have extremely valuable information and deserve a space to educate! I think its important to ask them questions in order to learn, just like you mentioned – but I also think its really important to make sure that they are still given the agency to choose if, when or how they wish to (potentially) share any knowledge, experiences or ideas they have! The frustrations of the authors experiences with “self-serving” researchers/academics over the decades coming into their communities and being harmful, is where I don’t think they have an obligation to answer everything. But I do agree that I think if there is a mutual understanding of both wanting to make meaningful change, then that would be different! Anyways, totally rambling again haha!!! Thank you again for sharing your thoughts – I appreciate it and think you make some good points! 🙂
Emma, you do a solid job of dialoguing with your blog commentators. Thanks for putting so much time and effort into these blog reflections and conversations!