Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:41:04.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indigenous Resurgence: The Drive for Renewed Engagement and Reciprocity in the Turn Away from the State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2017

Michael Elliott
Michael Elliott*
Affiliation:
University of the Witwatersrand
*
University of the Witwatersrand, Department of Political Studies, Room 33, Robert Sobukwe Building, Ground Floor, East Campus, University of the Witwatersrand, RSA, email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

“Indigenous resurgence” centres on three contentions: (1) that colonialism is an active structure of domination premised, at base, on Indigenous elimination; (2) that the prevailing normative-discursive environment continues to reflect this imperative; and (3) that Indigenous peoples must therefore turn away from this hostile environment and pursue independent programmes of social and cultural rejuvenation. The principal movement advocated under the resurgence paradigm thus appears as one of disengagement with the settler order. I also argue, however, that there is an important secondary drive within the movement that presses in the opposite direction. It figures further engagement both as a longer term goal (in the form of renewed dialogue on decolonization) and as an immediate imperative (in order to expose and remove obstacles to reciprocal dialogue). I aim, here, to excavate this secondary drive and consider what it connotes in terms of settler engagement.

Résumé

La « résurgence autochtone » se fonde sur trois assertions : (1) que le colonialisme est une structure active de domination ayant pour prémisse l’élimination des Autochtones; (2) que l'environnement normatif-discursif qui règne continue de refléter cet impératif; et (3) que les peuples autochtones doivent, par conséquent, se détourner de cet environnement hostile et poursuivre des programmes autonomes de rajeunissement social et culturel. Le principal mouvement préconisé selon le paradigme de la résurgence prend la forme d'un désengagement de l'ordre du colonisateur. Je soutiens qu'il existe cependant au sein du mouvement un courant secondaire important qui va dans le sens contraire. Il comprend un engagement plus poussé à la fois en tant qu'objectif à plus long terme (sous la forme d'un dialogue renouvelé sur la décolonisation) qu'en tant qu'impératif immédiat (afin de mettre au jour et supprimer les obstacles qui s'opposent à un dialogue réciproque). Je me propose, ici, de fouiller ce courant secondaire et d'examiner ce qu'il implique du point de vue de l'engagement des colons.

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 61 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Research for this paper was conducted with the support of the NRF/British Academy Research Chair in Political Theory. Thanks are also due to three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft.

References

Alfred, Taiaiake. 2009a. Peace, Power, Righteousness: An indigenous manifesto. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alfred, Taiaiake. 2009b. Wasáse: indigenous pathways of action and freedom. North York ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Alfred, Taiaiake. 2009c. “Colonialism and State Dependency.” Journal of Aboriginal Health November: 42–60.Google Scholar
Alfred, Taiaiake. 2013. “Being and becoming Indigenous: Resurgence against contemporary colonialism.” 2013 Narrm Oration, The University of Melbourne. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwJNy-B3lPA (October 11, 2016).Google Scholar
Alfred, Taiaiake and Corntassel, Jeff. 2005. “Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism.” Government and Opposition 40 (4): 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, Carole. 2009. “Differentiating indigenous citizenship: Seeking multiplicity in rights, identity, and sovereignty in Canada.” American Ethnologist 36 (1): 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corntassel, Jeff. 2008. “Toward Sustainable Self-Determination: Rethinking the Contemporary Indigenous-Rights Discourse.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 33: 105–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corntassel, Jeff. 2012. “Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self-determination.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 86–101.Google Scholar
Corntassel, Jeff and Holder, Cindy. 2008. “Who's Sorry Now? Government Apologies, Truth Commissions, and Indigenous Self-Determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru.” Human Rights Review 9 (4): 465–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Glen. 2007. “Subjects of Empire: Indigenous Peoples and the ‘Politics of Recognition’ in Canada.” Contemporary Political Theory 6: 437–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Glen. 2014. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Glen. 2016. “Response.” Historical Materialism 24 (3): 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Glen and Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2016. “Grounded Normativity / Place-Based Solidarity.” American Quarterly 68 (2): 249–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irlbacher-Fox, Stephanie. 2009. Finding Dahshaa: Self-Government, Social Suffering, and Aboriginal Policy in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Short, Damien. 2005. “Reconciliation and the Problem of Internal Colonialism.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 26 (3): 267–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2011. Dancing on Our Turtle's Back. Winnipeg: ARP Books.Google Scholar
Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2014. “Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 3 (3): 1–25.Google Scholar
Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2016. “Indigenous Resurgence and Co-Resistance.” Journal of the Critical Ethnic Studies Association 2 (2): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snelgrove, Corey, Dhamoon, Rita Kaur and Corntassel, Jeff. 2014. “Unsettling settler colonialism: The discourse and politics of settlers, and solidarity with Indigenous nations.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 3 (2): 1–32.Google Scholar
Tuck, Eve and Yang, K. Wayne. 2012. “Decolonization is not a metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2000. “The Struggles of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom,” In Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. Ivison, Duncan, Patton, Paul and Sanders, Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key. vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waziyatawin, 2012. “The paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 68–85.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (4): 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar