Wednesday, October 18, 2017

[naming ourselves: who defines Indigenous identity? article]

Indian Act (2002) artwork by Nadia Myre. Image from Walrus article. Artwork is a page from the Indian Act, taped onto a background, with white beadwork on red covering the left portion of the page.

About identity and names and power....
Recent identifiers such as “Native American,” “Aboriginal,” and “Indigenous” are deceptively vague, attempting to contain all of the complexities and differences of each individual tribe under one umbrella term. The problem with such terms, of course, is that the bigger the group they attempt to represent, the more they erase complexities and differences and encourage homogenization. While grouping all Indigenous tribes and nations together can be convenient, the reason these terms became necessary in the first place is colonialism. Settler governments needed a term to differentiate us from the settler population (i.e., not indigenous to or claimed by a tribe indigenous to Turtle Island) to figure out how to exactly describe the problem we posed to their burgeoning nation-states. We could not be “The Hopitu-Oceti-Sakowin-Kanien’kehá:ka-Powhatan-Chahta-Annishnawbe-Beothuk, etc. problem.” We must be, simply, “The Indian problem.” Bearing that in mind, the question of how to define Native identity should always be split in two: how the government defines us and how we define ourselves.

Read the rest of the article at: https://thewalrus.ca/we-didnt-choose-to-be-called-indigenous/

No comments:

Post a Comment