From a Native Daughter, Part II, Chapter 6, Neocolonialism and Indigenous Structures

In Neocolonialism and Indigenous Structures, Dr. Haunani-Kay Trask addresses a conference of indigenous women leaders about the common issues indigenous peoples around the word face despite their differences. While she highlighted several large problems such as: “environmental poisoning, nuclear radiation, and high infant mortality to land dispossession . . .” to name a few, Dr. Trask focused on neocolonialism and co-optation.

NEOCOLONIALISM
Dr. Trask defines neocolonialism as “the experience of oppression at a stage that is nominally identified as independent or autonomous.” Dr. Trask also discusses the nuances of actual neocolonialism explaining that independent/autonomy may not be practical due to economics. A more concrete example of neocolonialism offered by Dr. Trask however, is the situation where there is an appearance of decolonization or where the effects of colonization have been remedied, but actually still exists (or that decolonization has not happened). Trask summarizes this issue succinctly describing indigenous peoples as “dependent and subjugated” which has resulted in an “unequal relationship to our numerous colonizers.” For practical purposes, Natives cannot be independent because they have been made economically dependent.

CO-OPTATION
Trask next discussed areas of co-optation: definitions of indigenous peoples, families becoming mere consumer units, cultural degradation, so-called complicitous natives, and political co-optation. Of the two parts, I considered this one more interesting because it requires readers, especially Native Hawaiian readers, to engage in self-reflection; we must examine whether and to what degree we may be what Trask describes as “complicitous” natives. The discussion of definition and self-definition of natives is well-known with the Native Hawaiian community. The “n”ative Hawaiian definition imposed on the community has effectively divided the community where some Natives with 50% or more blood quantum have argued in court that they, rather than those with less than 50% blood quantum, are entitled to monies managed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The co-optation of Native Hawaiian identity through a legal identity has negatively impacted the community even though a Hawaii federal court recognized that monies for native Hawaiians, as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), still benefits the native Hawaiians when used on programs for Native Hawaiians. Although I do not personally feel comfortable committing (or requiring) Native Hawaiians to more traditional ways of living, it is impossible to ignore the effect of capitalism on Native Hawaiian families; primarily removing them as providers and producers within their families.

DISCUSSION
Dr. Trask briefly mentions “complicitous natives” without giving any real examination to any moral or cultural dilemmas such natives might have before complying with colonial programs and objectives. 

With this in mind, I’m wondering, if there are two natives who have the same moral or cultural dilemma, to which a decision in one direction may result in that native person becoming a so-called complicitous native, if both natives experience the same painful feelings of making such a decision, can either be considered complicitous if they make two different decisions?

Would the answer be different if one of the natives completely casted aside his cultural and moral beliefs and community in reaching a decision? I cannot help but to perceive Trask's description of so-called complicitous Natives as suggesting that there is only one Native Hawaiian identity and that you're either one of us, or you're complying with the colonizer.

Is there more to Native Hawaiian identity than Trask indicates? Is it not possible for individuals to be Native Hawaiian in different contexts.  For instance, a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner would obviously be a Native Hawaiian under a cultural context.  But if that Native Hawaiian chose not to engage in political activities on behalf and for the Native Hawaiian community, they may instead have an identity where they are Native Hawaiian for cultural purposes, but not for political purposes.  In the alternative, you could have someone who is a native Hawaiian for HHCA and living on the homestead, but neither participates in civic or political Native Hawaiian activities, nor does s/he participate in cultural activities.

Can a Native Hawaiian belong to the collective and larger group of Native Hawaiians while also maintaining an individual identity separate from the collective group?