Robert Warrior
Native American Scholarship and the Transnational Turn


My own personal writing style is different than most academics, including Robert Warrior.

While most people prefer to take us on a journey of an individual's own thought processes and discoveries, my own preference is to write the most important substance up front. I think what Robert Warrior wants us to learn after taking us on his journey is this,

Native writing (and sometimes Indigenous studies scholarship) gives voice to that ungovern-ability and succeeds in unsettling a history that in the minds of many is already complete.  Irrespective of whether or not more of us adopt the language of transnationality our most successful work will always be reaching similarly toward ungovernability. (127)

These are the last two sentences of his article.  On its face, it may seem awkward to already know what an author will conclude.  But, the conclusion in my opinion is not the most important part; instead, I find the reasoning behind the conclusion is the most fascinating.  Now that you know what the destination (conclusion) is that Warrior wants us to reach, we can now enjoy the different places on the map that we will pass to get there.

The question raised by Warrior asks why Native American scholars have "steered clear of discourse on the transnational."

Transnationalism's Importance
Before answering this question, Warrior first cites to two scholars (Saldivar and Gross) to explain the importance of transnationalism.  Warrior describes Saldivar as stating that "the new questions that transnational analysis helps us formulate are valuable because they have supplied so much moral resonance to contemporary dissident movements and have helped to destabilize the seemingly unshakable fixity of culture, politics, and the marketplace."  According to Gross, "transnationalism captures a world of fluid borders, where goods, ideas, and people flow constantly across once-sovereign space."

Measuring the Absence of Native Scholars in Transnational Discourse
To demonstrate the apparent absence of Native scholar participation with transnational discourse, Warrior surveyed various post-1998 publications for use of the terms transnational, transnationality, or transnationalism.  One general area of work surveyed were publications where native scholars either authored or contributed.  There were no publications in literary studies after 1998 using the three terms.  However, much narrower searches yielded different results.  For instance in the field of native publications on Native Studies, Renya Ramirez, Andrea Smith, and Faye Ginsburg were identified as having used at least one of these terms.  Warrior also found more use of these terms in the field of international indigenous political organizing.

Post Colonial Precursors (Reasons Native Scholars Do Not Employ Transnational Analysis)
Warrior acknowledges that a major reason for Native absence in the transnational discourse is because there is "widespread rejection of postcolonial studies" simply due to the fact that Native Americans have not moved into a post-colonial era.  They are still colonized.

Warrior cites to Jace Weaver and Louis Owens to explain the rejection of postcolonial studies by native scholars.  Weaver identified that post-colonial history is often told from the one-sided view of the conqueror.  Owens explained that Native scholars will "chafe at the ignorance and erasure of Native American voices . . . within . . . postcolonial theory."

Sorting Out an Indigenous Position
While recognizing that native scholars do not frequently employ transnational analysis, Warrior acknowledge the unique way in which native scholars contribute to transnational discourse.  Warrior states, "what is clear to me is the extent to which Indigenous scholars have contributed to discussions of transnationality specifically by refusing to get with the program, failing to adopt its premises, and continuing to focus on the concerns that have fueled the agenda of their world."

Outlasting Colonialism
Here, Warrior, among other issues, briefly discusses the difference between nationalism and transnationalism.  Citing to Grewal and Kaplan, nationalism "is not addressed adequately with appeals to globalism, which they see as erasing and levelling the material differences of our contemporary world."  But, "[t]ransnational is a term that signals attention to uneven and dissimilar circuits of culture and capital.  Through such critical recognition, the links between patriarchies, colonialisms, racisms, and other forms of domination become more apparent and available for critique or appropriation."

In my opinion, Warrior's most concise explanation for why Native scholars do not venture into transnationalism is "[b]ecause Native peoples continue to have political status as nations, at least in the US and Canada, we as scholars remain committed to framing and developing our work as members of our respective nations."