Theory and Practice

Many indigenous scholars have diagnosed the reality. “Colonialism”,“settler colonialism”, “sovereignty” are just theories. Theories’ role is to recognize the reality accurately. Sometime, individuals feel frustrated because he/she don’t know what to do.  

According to Toward Sustainable Self-Determination: Rethinking the Contemporary Indigenous-Rights Discourse, Jeff Corntassel argues we “focus on individual, family and community responsibilities, regenerating local and regional indigenous economies, and recognizing the interconnection of social, spiritual, environmental and political aspects of self-determination.”

He proposes the concept of “sustainable self-determination.”

“ Rather than seeking recognition of our "human rights" from colonial institutions, our focus can be redirected towards local, indigenous-centered, responsibility-based movements. A responsibility-based movement enacts powers (versus rights) of sustainable self-determination and emphasizes diplomatic and trade relationships with other indigenous nations.” (Corntassel , p.122)

He take an example of Kanaka Maoli activists case.

“Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) activists challenged the patenting of three varieties of taro (Palehua, Paakala, and Pauakea) by the University of Hawai'i (UH) in January 2006. Kalo (taro) is a sacred plant and is considered an elder brother to the Kanaka Maoli people. After much pressure from students and taro farmers, the University of Hawai'i relinquished their patents for the three varieties of kalo on June 20, 2006. At a news conference, the UH interim chancellor, Denise Konan, handed copies of the three patents to a kalo farmer, Chris Kobayashi; the director of the Center for Hawaiian Studies, Jon Osorio; and Kanaka Maoli activist, Walter Ritte. "In unison, the three tore them in half."( Ibid., p.123).

Land and foods are the most important elements for indigenous people.

Noelani Goodyear-Ka‘ōpua also raises the questions about what to do.

“How can we build upon existing spaces of indigenous resurgence and autonomy? In what ways can we push the boundaries of the academy? How do we evolve protocols for interaction and solidarity across differences of race, gender, sexuality, class, nationality, and other forms of identification? How do we unsettle settler state authorities, without replicating the violences and exclusions we aim to stop? How can international conversations around “anarcha-indigenism” bring useful ideas and alliances to Kānaka engaged in movements for self-determination?” (Kuleana Lāhui: Collective Responsibility for Hawaiian Nationhood in

Activists’ Praxis, p.132)

In Wasase, Taiaiake Alfred is interested in “anarcho-indigenism”

“The two elements that come to my mind are indigenous, evoking cultural and spiritual rootedness in this land and the Onkwehonwe struggle for justice and freedom, and the political philosophy and movement that is fundamentally anti-institutional, radically democratic, and committed to taking action to force change: anarchism” (Wasase , p.45).

Why do they pay attention to anarchism? Is “anarcho-indigenism” an alternative to “post-imperialism”?

Taiaiake Alfred argues philosophical connection between indigenous and anarchist are “spirit of freedom” and “ideal of good society.” (Ibid., p.46).

In addition, “There are also important strategic commonalities between indigenous and anarchist ways of seeing and being in the world: a rejection of alliances with legalized systems of oppression, non-participation in the institutions that structure the colonial relationship, and a belief in bringing about change through direct action, physical resistance , and confrontations with state power.” (Ibid., p.46).

Anarchism is unrestricted theoretically, but strategic and concrete practically. Philosophical ideas are prerequisite of good planning practices. The ideas are as a guide of practice. Theory without practice will serve for nothing.

Indigenous Politics and Climate Change

Waziyatawin’s Indigenous Survival in the Coming Collapse offers an honest look at the state of environment politics within indigenous communities. Environmental politics is an issue that represents the challenges faced by indigenous communities surrounding the effects of colonialism, the influences of capitalism, and best paths to offer resistance. Changes due to colonialism have been so complete that as Waziyatawin states, the immobilization of communities in responding to development and other environmental forces is significant. The ubiquity of fossil fuels and the integration of capitalism has so strongly changed perceptions and daily habits that the impact of peak oil will be significant. Currently the heavy use of fossil fuels has generated such a precipitous buildup of waste products that the disastrous effects are happening now and may result in catastrophic effects in the future. If either one of these outcomes is likely, it means, that “the world as we know it is coming to an end” (11). Waziyatawin argues that indigenous peoples need to renew their role as land defenders, and this means not only confronting environmental destruction but also confronting the changes wrought by colonialism on indigenous peoples with regard to their view of the environment. For example the discussion: “What will be your legacy? What will you leave behind?...Will your legacy be a world who is healthier, stronger, more resilient, more diverse, than had you never lived?” When they pose these questions, they do not mean in a cultural, spiritual, or intellectual sense. In other words, they are not asking us if we have positively affected the lives of other human beings, through our love, kindness, charity, or whether we have made significant contributions to humankind through our benevolent actions. Rather, they are asking us, in a very physical sense, if we have left the world in a better condition because we lived. “If not,” they tell us, “then the world would have been better off without you. If not, then the world would have been better off had you never been born.” (19) Waziyatawin discuses means of resistance including building “lifeboats” to prepare for environmental collapse (clean water, seeds, food, preserving habitats, etc), instilling revolution among themselves, building a sufficient land base, dismantling existing structures, and other means of resistance. In short Waziyatawin states that “we must now live the meaning of indigeneity. We need no longer exist as if we are separate from the land, as if our fates are not intertwined” (38). Cheyfitz’s Balancing the Earth: Native American Philosophies and the Environmental Crisis focuses on deconstructing the formulations of colonialism including the development of the ethos infusing capitalism (control and limitation), and religious traditions fostering individualism and an alienation from nature. Contrasting these epistemologies with indigenous developed ones, Cheyfitz uses the relation of indigenous peoples as part of nature to reformulate the perception of the environment. When humans are as an integral part of nature and not separate from it, the “Native way of knowing” of nature is “as ceremonial, intended to strengthen kinship ties through the maintenance of balance” (151). Aligning indigenous critiques of capitalism to a degree with Marxist, Cheyfitz uses the example of the effects of NAFTA on Mexican farmers, seed corn, agricultural practices, and Zapatista resistance to show how capitalism has destabilized people and nature. In order to change the destruction of nature, Cheyfitz argues one must confront the true costs of individualism, capitalism, and the human/nature divide. Many of the authors this week have described how indigenous peoples can refocus and reshape conceptions of nature and resistance to environmental destruction. What are the benefits and costs of aligning indigenous resistance to other environmental movements? Many authors also advocated resistance using violence and arming oneself. Are these methods too polarizing to have effect or has non-violence been essentially disrupted by the structures and methods of environmental exploiters to be effective? Are there other means for indigenous people to reframe the minds of the non-indigenous to disrupt the human/nature dichotomy?