I found “Introduction” by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Eve Tuck, and K. Wayne Yang to be the most thought- provoking reading from this unit.
The concept of decolonization is new to me, but from our in-class discussion it seemed to me that this should be a team effort. That is, both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples need to work on it together. However, I found Yang and Tuck’s text confusing. Some of the points made seemed to contradict each other. Firstly, the authors set the tone by explaining how decolonization efforts have been one-sided, with only indigenous scholars being proactive while “white settler scholars can only imagine decolonization as philosophical and theoretical” (Tuck 10). By saying this they seem to be encouraging white settlers to start pulling their weight and get to work. A couple pages after this they go on to say that after white settler scholars read indigenous works and start asking questions, “they drain the energy and imagination of indigenous scholarship- they pester, they think are unique, and they are boring” (Tuck 16)
How encouraging is that?
One of the main take-aways I got from reading Yang and Tuck’s intro was the idea that indigenous and non-indigenous peoples think very differently, and that this is the reason we haven’t successfully tackled decolonization: “Again, something being purportedly too theoretical is often the reason that Indigenous work is discarded or disregarded, whereas that ‘too theoretical’ idea may be entirely practical, life- sustaining, and life-promoting for an Indigenous reader” (Tuck 15). This text portrayed one way of thinking as being superior to the other. Who is to say which is better? Furthermore, Tuck adds that “being an Indigenous scholar in the settler academy is like listening to someone go on and on about the dilemmas of cab rides while knowing that the subway system is just beneath the surface.” Seeing things this way will not get us very far.
Hi Camila!
I completely understand where you’re coming from, it was really hard for me at first to understand the Introduction text. I think that Yang and Tuck aren’t necessarily suggesting that one way of thinking is superior to the other, bur that they were merely different. Something that helped me grasp the concept of decolonization was reading about the insider/outsider concept explained by Smith, who states that though Westerners may attempt to engage in decolonization “one can never fully immerse oneself into a community” but can definitely collaborate with them. That being said, I believe that the main message that the three authors are trying to convey is the fact that decolonization isn’t necessarily one-sided, but each perspective has a different task to work on.
Hey Camila! I have quickly read through other peoples’ thoughts on the article, and I think we all came to a similar conclusion. It took me a really long time to get through the text, because I wasn’t really sure what I was reading at first and I found it aggressive and unpleasant in places. I think that not only would it be hard to want to work with people that outright write off people as “boring” whilst criticizing the very thing they are doing, but completely irritating. In order to construct a space where more positive dialogue and concrete decolonization can take place, more non-Indigenous people need to be included in order to see where they are going wrong. Of course, they should not be prioritized over Indigenous peoples in that particular discussion and movement, but as Valentina mentioned, different perspectives need to be valued in order to achieve a common goal.