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?

Final mappings and committee assignments

Everyone needs to submit a near final draft of your mappings to me and to your two committee members (listed below) by email no later than Monday, Dec 10 at 8am. This will give us time to review before your formal presentation on Dec 12.

As committee members, you are expected to: 1) review the document(s) in advance; 2) listen carefully to the presentations and take notes; and 3) give your colleague constructive feedback. Tell your colleague what you think is strong about his/her mapping, then ask at least one question that is meant to push her/him and help develop the mapping further. What are the blind spots? What analyses might s/he consider that s/he is not already? What texts have we read that fit in with his/her mapping but are not included in it? Are there connections you see that s/he is not seeing? Are there points that are unclear, or where more elaboration is necessary?

COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

For Aaron: Sammy & Niko
For Kameha'iku: Derek & Aaron
For Ku'ulei: Hilina (and I am working on bringing one more in from outside our class)
For Derek: Chris & Hilina
For Nioi: Megumi & Niko
For Sammy: Kameha'iku & Aaron
For Chris: Woongbae, Ku'ulei & Derek
For Uili: Heather & Ku'ulei
For Niko: Uili & Chris
For Woongbae: Uili & Nioi
For Hilina: Kameha'iku & Megumi
For Heather: Sammy & Woongbae
For Megumi: Nioi & Heather

Cheyfitz, Goodyear-Kaopua Baker, and a little bit of Waziyatwin

Cheyfitz
While reading the Cheyfitz article I felt immediately depressed because natural democracy, as embraced by indigenous peoples, I can't help but feel, will be gone because of neoliberal capitalism.  I don't know how natural democracy can continue far into the future.

I appreciated the use of Silko's story excerpts from Ceremony of Rocky trending toward slowly disassociating himself from his tribe and their cultural and traditional values.  This moving away was linked to his apparently off-reservation education where he developed a taste for individual victory and competition for profit.  This excerpt really allowed us an opportunity to observe a few topics such as the role of education in either maintaining cultural traditions or ending these traditions.

It was fascinating to the see dichotomy of traditional indigenous values and western values embodied in a single person and see that person's struggle with two conflicting value sets.  It was very relatable.

Having never read Ceremony however, the only one potential flaw I found with the story is that Rocky is still only a teenager.  Adolescence is such an awkward period for generally everyone.  This is the time when people are often forging their own identity.  But, finding one's self is a rather long experience, and it wouldn't surprise me if Rocky eventually returned to this traditional indigenous values.

The emphasis and description of kinship is what made me sad about this the most.  I see us, not just indigenous people, but everyone losing this sense of kinship.

On another some-what related note, the discussion on the relationship of people with the Earth and animals reminded me of what we saw in Avatar.  Referring to my earlier post, Jake Sully participated in a hunting ceremony/ritual also after he killed that space animal on Pandora.

Goodyear-Kaopua and Baker

Lehua Kauhane

I was excited to see the reference to Lehua Kauhane, who "has made renewable energy policy recommendations that include shifting the state's focus from large-scale industrial energy 'farms' to locally controlled small-scale renewable energy projects."  Lehua is one of our Post-J.D. Fellows this year and she's been awesome to work with.

Reading about Moloka'i's community based planning was also awesome and I was reminded about the awesome resources we have available to us.  At Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law where I work, we hired Malia Akutagawa this past summer.  Malia is from Moloka'i and has played an integral role in Moloka'i's community based planning.

The connection between Hawaiian well-being and oil independence is clear, but I've never really thought about it much before this article.  Recognizing the themes in the Cheyfitz article and its relevance to Goodyear-Kaopua and Baker's article, it was even more so depressing.  Neoliberal capitalism seems to be like a steam-roller that is likely to result in Native Hawaiian people ceasing to actively see themselves as part of a collective identity/community.

Waziyatwin
Although I generally enjoyed reading the Waziyatwin article, the references to violence was a little disturbing to me.  In particular was, "[o]bviously, everyone who decides to act will need to make the moral decision about whether they are willing to take human lives directly or put human lives at risk in our efforts to facilitate the break-up of colonial society." (35).  I understand that this extreme may be within the context of the collapse, but it just seems disturbing to me that the above quoted phrase wasn't worded differently.

As the video in one the posts below shows, this type of violence is taken very well by others.  When collapse happens, the last thing any indigenous community needs is an unnecessarily paranoid surrounding community.  I think the suggestions offered, in preparation for a future collapse where indigenous communities are under physical threat for their resources, are the types of confidential suggestions given to tribal councils.

Peak Oil and Collapse

 

“Indigenous Survival in the Coming Collapse” Waziyatawin

“The Great Shift: Moving a Fossil Fueled-Based Economy” Noelani Goodyear-Ka’opua and Mary Tuti Baker

                Both articles talk about a collapse scenario involving “peak oil” and how indigenous peoples and communities should revive and practice some of their traditional ways of caring for the land. They also highlight the need to break away from the neo-liberal capitalist way of thinking; otherwise it is only a continuation of the exploitive capitalist system at work under a new name like “clean renewable energy”.

Goodyear-Ka’opua and Baker suggest a Plurality of economies and futures, not just a singular economy or future and balancing of three economies: natural, sustenance, and market. They also emphasize a more community and indigenous based approach to issues like renewable energy that has power relations behind it. They highlight this by showing the tensions GUOCO Group Limited, a transnational corporation and MEC a community based organization. They also raise important questions about how community groups can and should approach this Shift.

                Waziyatawin takes a more revolutionary but effective approach in his article. However, it poses a lot of questions about one’s indigeneity and responsibilities and invokes activism among the indigenous communities and allows them to start thinking about regaining and defending their lands in the event of global collapse.

                Here’s a video of a collapse scenario I remember watching for a futures class, I think it portrays a collapse scenario but with a neo-liberal capitalist context. It would be interesting to create an indigenous one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmUlAQ8rIC0

Waziyatawin

Waziyatawin Speaks to Occupy Oakland

 Bio from her website (http://waziyatawin.net/commentary/):

"Waziyatawin is a Dakota writer, teacher, and activist from the Pezihutazizi Otunwe (Yellow Medicine Village) in southwestern Minnesota. After receiving her Ph.D. in American history from Cornell University in 2000, she earned tenure and an associate professorship in the history department at Arizona State University where she taught for seven years. Waziyatawin currently holds the Indigenous Peoples Research Chair in the Indigenous Governance Program at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. Her interests include projects centering on Indigenous decolonization strategies such as truth-telling and reparative justice, Indigenous women and resistance, the recovery of Indigenous knowledge, and the development of liberation ideology in Indigenous communities. "

Here are a couple other video examples of her activism and scholarship:

You can also see and here more of her work on a number of sites, including:

Unsettling america

Goodyear/Baker & Waziyatawin

"Outside of massive repentance and a society turned completely around, there appears to be no solution to modern problems" (Vine Deloria, Jr.,  Indigenous Survival, pg. 8).

"The American way of life is not negotiable" (Bush, George H.W. at the Earth Summit in 1992, Indigenous Survival, pg.11).

"Solar electric and wind power therefore might be viewed as accessories of the fossil fuel economy" (James Kuntsler, Indigenous Survival, pg. 13).

"There is no technological fix the will allow industrialized civilization to continue. We haved been a part of the mos rapacious and destructive human era in history." (Waziyatawin, Indigenous Survival, pg.14).

What are Kanaka `Oiwi obligations in the malama of the `aina? Waziyatawin tells us to prepare by anchoring our ancestral, spiritual, and cultural foundations not only within our families, but within the communities we live in. Even further, to prepare for armed resistance upon the oncoming collapse of industrialized captialism, defending the land at all costs. Taking the quotes above, the ramifications of "Omega Point" or downturn of the peak oil crisis, has far reaching implications that must be wrested from the comfortable complacency, or belief in the indestructable monolith called the empire. His activity worksheets provide a valuable tool in assessing the survivability of your own family/community, and the most difficult prospect would be in the acceptance that such preparations are necessary, inspite of what is going on in the Middle East.

Goodyear & Baker show us what happens in a contentious community where self-sustainability is not just a practice but a critical means of provision of food for one's family. In spite of what appears to be benefits for the community, those benefits are derived through a industrialized capatalistic agenda, hence violence to the land no matter what the benefit to the community. If we were to take Waziyatawin's premise, cmmunity meetings would not have occured simply because violence would be done to the land (development, resource depletion, etc.) in exchange for benefits (no matter how much needed, i.e. cash/job) `aina.  We keep saying our kupuna did not do that, but collective, firm, strong voices and presence is needed. We saw that Moloka`i was successsful, but ruptures occured in the community. Are those part of the process of malama `aina as a collective obligation to the `aina? To self-determined reclamation of our ancestress...Papahanaumoku. If we are the land and the land is us...what is our individual and collective obligation to the `aina and community as we look toward the future?

I like the idea of a collective community. While serious consideration of Waziyatawin's preparations for the collapse of the contemporary industrialized system in which we live, should be given, there are projects happening now in the return to the aina for the planting of food. Perhaps what Cuba did when all of their acces to imported oil stopped, is a very good example of what can be done now, BEFORE major events occur. We need to plant food and medicine plants. We need to reclaim our survival kits, the means and ways in which the provision of food, water, medicine are self-sustained. This requires skill and knowledge...those must be learned.

As LaDuke (Indigenous Survival, pg. 25), points out, a inventory of resources in the community, food, la`au lapa`au or grown medicines, water sources, and building self-sufficiency and capacity, is a very good idea. Getting to know your immediate community.  Everyone at this point should begin to grow food where ever you can. As to land base, that is more complicated, but not impossible. The maka`ainana need to realize the prophecy of rising when everthing else shall fall, it is inevitable and is what our ancestral wisdom provides for us as that time approaches...the means to survival
 that require a natural or land based reciprocal relationship with that land.

I suppose in the end of my mana`o, it sounds like those Doomsday prepper shows, but the reality is...we know its coming so...are we going to stand in the way of the wave or ride it in?

Kamehaiku

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES

My first reaction to this anthology left me irritated at the fact that, once again, Hawaiians have been systematically excluded from yet another major discourse on Indigeneity – this time, however, from the Climate Change and Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations Project along with its aim to create an “Indigenous Nations Treaty – an independent compact among sovereign Native governments around the Pacific Rim” (17).  Last week’s Corntassel reading discussed the politics of perception, and I wonder how/why the so-called Indigenous people of the Pacific Rim do not recognize the Hawaiian people as belonging to that group.  This is problematic because the continued non-recognition of Hawaiian Indigeneity by other Indigenous governments severs us from international Indigenous solidarity – which I believe is necessary for an effective countermovement against the colonial Settler-State of Hawai‘i.  Am I just being pessimistic, or are others concerned about exclusionist discourses on Pacific Indigeneity? Does it matter that this book doesn’t concern the Hawaiian people?

Some of you have read Hegel, and it seems as if this anthology promotes that philosophy.  In the introduction we read, “The actions of Indigenous nations should create integrated, holistic solutions” (16).  It also promotes the goal of “politically unifying the representation of Indigenous nation concerns [on climate change]” (18).  In Jeannette Armstong’s Sharing One Skin, the underlying theme of Okanagan philosophy is “oneness,” “wholeness,” “reverting back to a larger self,” and, of course, the sharing of “one skin.”  This is Hegelian in that the Whole is more significant than the constituent parts.  The dialectic posits that “progress” is a unification or a forging of difference.  When applied to Indigenous studies, this means that assimilation and compromises give rise to progress.  Internalizing certain colonial aspects while discarding certain Native ones, then, is necessary to move forward.  I disagree with the Hegelian solution to the Indigenous/colonial dialectic and agree more with the Nietzschian perspective – where life is essentially irreconcilable difference.  Unfortunately, over the semester we haven’t encountered too many writers of that sort.  However, when applied to Indigenous identity, it means that assimilationist policies are destructive.  The inherent dichotomies that create Indigeneity apart from colonialism cannot be merged into the whole.  Those aspects of Indigeneity that assert its difference ought to be promulgated.  I think we need to move past the fairy tale ideal that the colonizer and colonized can live in harmony through assimilation.  The current socio/political/economic status of Hawaiians today indicate that the policy of assimilation has failed miserably.  Indigenous people ought to affirm their differences as that which makes them as such.  A compromise with the colonizer, then, isn’t an option because it’s simultaneously a compromise with identity.                               

Peak Oil, Alternative future

According to The Basics of a Sustainable Economy, “An economy is the creation and distribution of wealth in a community” (p.3). However, capitalist economic system is destructive. The Great Shift: Moving Beyond a Fossil Fuel–Based Economy points out the nature of capitalist economic system. “The capitalist economic system is based on profit. What does profit mean? One takes more than one gives. That’s what profit is” (Coll & Bain, 1994). (The Great Shift, p.157~158). The system has a strong influence on nature, too. Peak oil is a typical example. “The term Peak Oil is an extension of American geologist M. King Hubbert’s peak theory….the rate of production is directly related to the total amount of undeveloped oil in any particular field and in the world, following a bell curve.”(Ibid, p. 141).

“Peak Oil” is typically capitalistic phenomenon. Regardless of whether oil existence, oil production is determined by profit-and-loss incentives. Nevertheless, we have lived leaning on the cheap oil. Oil has been the most important source of energy. Without oil, we cannot use electricity, transportations, and even foods.

“Hawaii has remained almost completely dependent on oil as our primary source of energy —85% of our energy usage comes from oil, and another 5% from coal, the second largest source of energy.” (Coffman, 2010; Curtis, 2010) (Ibid, p. 147).

Oil - dependent economy brings on an economic crisis as well as destruction of nature .

“The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heattrapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.” (The Basics of a Sustainable Economy, p. 9).

Human economic activities have to be sustainable. “Sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Ibid, p. 61).

It all comes down to “sustainability” in the end. We have to find renewable energy. Renewable energy is “any naturally occurring, theoretically inexhaustible source of energy, such as biomass, solar, wind, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric power, and is not derived from fossil or nuclear fuel.” (Ibid, p. 61).

However, renewable energy is just an experimental state. Professor Fred K. Duennebier argued the “success will go to those who get ahead of the depletion curves, reducing their reliance on fossil fuels further than others, and by relying instead on human skills and sustainable low-intensity energy inputs.” (From 2012 Samsung press Future Workshop).

In the future, we might live in a different world. Imagine the different world. Energy is limited and priceless, we cannot use the fossil fuel freely. Consuming is not a virtue anymore. We cannot rely on the cheap energy. Moderation and self-sufficiency is a virtue. We can find the model from “traditional Hawaiian lifestyles.”

“Traditional Hawaiian lifestyles center the natural and sustenance economies.” (The Great Shift, p.158).

We don’t miss “good old days.” This is a possible future. This is an alternative to the corrupt capitalism.

“Re-localizing food and energy economies means taking responsibility for our future generations. This requires a paradigm shift back to our traditional knowledge systems. We cannot erase the process of economic colonization and the deliberate creation of dependency. But we can join with others and take action to reclaim our future.” (The Basics of a Sustainable Economy, p. 5).

Not related to readings, but an interesting article/video if you have time.

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8597/americas-native-prisoners-of-war

Waziyatawin & Cheyfitz – Viewpoints on the Environmental Crisis

It’s interesting to read these articles in light of the ongoing Doha climate conference.  From the little I’ve read about this conference, it seems that a large part of it is a blame game between the largest “developed” and “developing” polluters (U.S versus China) and the main proposed solutions to the problem is through monetary support and not national lifestyle changes.  It was refreshing to read the proposals laid out during the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change and the Anchorage Declaration; the transcendence of sovereigns and focus on Indigenous communities shifts focus to human survival and cooperation and not merely the developed versus developing sovereign  discourse that’s playing out in the Doha talks.

Waziyatawin has no illusions about the urgency of climate change and the necessity to act by any means necessary.  In the paper, “Indigenous Survival in the Coming Collapse”, Waziyatawin calls for a seeking of spiritual and cultural foundations, developing a culture of resistance, dismantling colonial structures, defending land at all costs, and taking up arms, among others.  If we are to accept Vine Deloria Jr’s assertion that “there appears to be no solution to modern problems”, then Waziyatawin’s suggestions may indeed be viewed as prudent preparations to ensure survivance.   I especially agree with Waziyatawin’s observation that the capitalist-consumer driven society and the dogmatic culture of righteousness it creates seems to be the root of the problem.  Waziyatawin tells us that: “Americans, especially, are trained by politicians and corporate controlled media to believe in the righteousness of this way of life, because there is still too much money for companies and individuals to make in this capitalist, consumer-driven society.” This is especially evident by the continued denial on behalf of many Americans that climate change is happening (some which are congressman).   Therefore, prima facie Waziyatawin’s suggestions and viewpoints may strike some as unnecessarily apocalyptic or “radical”, but considering the facts laid out in his paper regarding climate change along with the constant refusal to alter the American way of life, Waziyatawin makes very valid points.

Similarly, Eric Cheyfitz’s article, “Balancing the Earth: Native American Philosophies and the Environmental Crisis”, delineates the problems with the Western philosophical system, primarily the split between nature and culture.   Cheyfitz claims there should be no divide between culture and nature and that this possible through a “natural democracy” defined as a kin-based order that extends rights throughout the universe which includes animals, plants, clouds, and all of nature, not just humans.   Again, like Waziyatawin, Cheyfitz believes that elements of the capitalist-consumer driven system are the root of the problem:  “At the center of this indigenous democracy is a community relationship to land as kin in contradistinction to its conceptualization as property.  While the institution of property treats land as alienable, a commodity and hence fungible, the kinship relation to land understands it as absolutely inalienable…” (157)  The underlying message from this weeks readings, for me, was that the root of the environmental crisis is systematic and subsequently cultural and that the response to this problem ought to be through resistance.    

Forced Federalism

I found the distinction between the Peoplehood/nationhood model and the “sovereignty” model quite useful when considering identity.  Rather than a colonial-style, static political/legal approach to defining indigeneity as such; the peoplehood model views indigenous identity as dynamic and malleable.  The Four aspects of the peoplehood model (sacred history, ceremonial cycles, language, and ancestral homelands) give a more holistic, interrelated understanding of indigenous identity than simply asserting a political right to self-determination.  My only concern with the peoplehood/nationhood argument is that, “no single aspect of the model is more or less important than the others.”  I struggle with this claim because isn’t language a transformative power in itself?  Can’t language literally construct knowledge of the world, or the way we understand ourselves and our cultures, better yet the way we perceive reality?  When it comes to indigenous identity, what good are the other aspects if the Native remains ignorant to his/her culture through its vernacular?  This is probably the most controversial issue (both personally and socially) that I’ve encountered this semester on identity.  What exactly is the role of Native languages in (re)creating indigenous identity?  I want to say that it’s absolutely necessary in decolonizing the subjectivity – and therefore a necessary crux in any authentic recreation of indigenous identity.         

        

Clearly, Hawaiians are not stereotyped like the racist image of the “rich Indian.”  However, I do wonder if there are stereotypes, concerning Hawaiians, that continue to influence State policy makers and their decisions.  Can you guys think of any?  The first thing that came to mind was the Board of Health, and how it cruelly treated Hawaiians with leprosy.  Indeed the discourse on leprosy at that time was grounded on the stereotyping of Hawaiians.  Medical, religious, and Euro-American political theories saw leprosy as the result of natives’ “poor hygiene, promiscuity, and fondness of touching one another.” Thus, the (legalized) large-scale displacement of native Hawaiians from their ancestral homelands and ‘ohana was influenced by negative perceptions of indigeneity.  What would constitute a modern politics of perception here in Hawai‘i? What socially constructed images of “Hawaiianess” need to be revisited in order to properly manage the Hawaiian politics of perception?  

Aaron C.

Avatar

Avatar is the salvaged ethnography of the future. An accounting of a distant future, replete with the ongoing contemporary geopolitical/environmental/military interplantetary regionalism, and a plot complementary to the contemporary happenings of today. It would seem then, that not much has changed in Cameron's technically "luminescent" story of the Navi (short for Native?) as juxtaposed against the issues for indigenous peoples today.

Starn's statement, "it takes the settler to make the native," is an interesting reflection on the politics of indigenous projects, i.e. Avatar, where the implications of historic disrespect for both environment and native is common place and the dominant structure is still historically colonial and imperialistic, and remains in place by agressive military might of the colonizer.

Avatar is entertaining. For the broader public, it is a wonderful movie about the triumph of, once again, the typical plot: heroism, love, courage against all the odds, sacrifice, and finally, survival. Yet again, another landscape destroyed, another native peoples almost rendered to oblivion...why do these stories continue?

Clifford sees the relationship between the anthros and natives as a way of establishing a new "relationship" between colonizer and native, a "postcolonial future negotiated pragmatically in relations of respect and collaboration." Really? Simpson takes on Starn's Here Comes the Anthros (Again) by wrapping up the new field of
Indigenous Studies in the ideas of spectacle, anthropology and sovereignty, and ends with noted excitement regarding the opportunity to "think with, teach with the works of and authored by those people (Non-Indigenous and Indigenous) who "take critical analysis seriously and in doing so position readers as witnesses to the painful and spectacular life of U.S. and Canadian settler colonialism." A new kind of political formation that would defy the norm or stereotypical relationship between anthros/settler and native/colonized in the goal of re-establshing native nationhood   and sovereignty.

As for Starn, he writes that "the best new ethnographies focus not on native people alone, but rather on what might be called "formations of indigeneity" that focuses on
relationships of power and clarifying what that means in terms of white, black, Indian or something else." Within the framework of capitalism, could Avatar been created, produced, and the story told, without all of "ism" structures in place and be economically successful?

Kmehaiku

Avatar.

As I read through this week's readings I was frankly surprised at how many of the authors viewed Avatar so positively. Typically for Hollywood blockbusters the approach to the film is to develop awe inspiring action scenes, limited and reductive dialogue with an element of humor, and most significantly avoid any controversial subjects, issues or discussions to ensure that the film appeals to the widest audience. In our more globalized world this makes Hollywood films even more "vanilla" so to speak to ensure that films can be released worldwide. The film being censored in China was particularly noteworthy since China presents such a large market for films these days. Avatar did meet the criteria of the objectives outlined above in its format, and I think that the contributors recognized that but still found redeeming qualities in the film. Certainly the film developed a believeable world that was nevertheless new and interesting to the audience including the authors we read this week. However, the film suffers from the requirement to present a simplified plot and character group. I do think that James Cameron worked to try and develop the Na'vi(s) based on examples from native American practices, and as Derek mentioned these practices have some solid basis. However, the film oversimplifies things in ways that ultimately serve to confirm common perceptions of indigenous people by Western culture and people. The indigenous science fiction reading from last week offers a good comparison showing the complexity of contact i.e. the contact example in which the indigenous population battles the invaders and obtains a no contact status except mentions the questions of how has a society now changed since contact occured. The complexity of life doesn't fulfill the desire for happy endings after a two and a half hour blockbuster movie. The audience isn't paying to leave the film grappling with the complexity of the experiences of indigenous people post-contact. The audience is there for entertainment. This doesn't mean there are no redeeming qualities to the movie. Certainly if the movie provokes interest by some to learn more about the effects of colonization on indigenous peoples or see what struggles indigenous groups are engaging in politically today, the movie has offered some benefit to the audience members. But as I have explained I think these cases are limited.

I never get tired of watching Avatar.

Before I get into my thoughts on the thoughts of other more scholarly people about Avatar, I first want to talk about two of my own experiences because it provides context for how I interpret the readings for today.

In both my current job and in my personal life, I've organized and hosted several events.  At a few of these events, volunteer attendees often feel free to give unsolicited (and unwanted) commentary.  For example, some friends and I in 2008 organized a few events in light of Governor Lingle's decision to take the "ceded" lands case to the U.S. Supreme Court for review after the Hawaii Supreme Court had ruled that the state could not sell "ceded" lands until it has resolved the unrelinquished claims of Native Hawaiians.  At one event in January 2009 we hosted two discussion panels at the law school.  The first discussion panel had the attorney representing the Hawaiian side and the attorney representing the Governor, (then-state attorney general Mark Bennett).

With the attorneys from the two opposing sides of the legal dispute talking on the same panel, a person could reasonably presume that the discussion is balanced, because it's definitely not one-sided.  Well, as our luck would turn out, one attorney made plans to come to our event (he showed up) and decided that he would repeatedly say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah" throughout the time that Mark Bennett would speak because he thought we shouldn't be giving him a so-called platform to speak.  Since we found out about his strategy moments before we were able to resolve that.  But later on, there were two other bruddahs who interrupted our event.  One actually took center-stage, had the microphone and said, "This is a waste of time, we shouldn't be talking about this case, we should be talking about nation-building!  This is a waste of time, I have four kids to take care of at home!.  The other said, "this is wrong!" and insisted we should have done things their way, and that our format did not include a bunch of other issues that they wanted us to cover.

Hello?!  We specifically narrowed the issue to the case at hand, the case that was going to the Supreme Court!  We weren't interested in discussing issues that the court would not take up!

More recently, I co-authored and published a law journal article.  I was approached by the Asian Pacific Law & Policy Journal to specifically respond to a journal article they previously published because they had concerns about the article.  They also thought a response from me, addressing specific areas of concern in the article would help further the dialogue and clarify both issues of fact and relevant issues of U.S. domestic law.  It was a horrible article that dehumanized Native Hawaiians by comparing them to Kona coffee (by likening blood quantum issues with determinations of whether Kona coffee beans are actually Kona coffee beans), and mis-stated U.S. domestic law among other things.

To my surprise, a small number of friends and colleagues expressed strong disappointment that I didn't cite to certain other people within our circle and/or that I didn't raise certain other issues in the article.

What I've learned in my short time on this planet is that some people would rather complain about what I was not doing, rather than simply doing it themselves.  Some will devote energy to complaining about what I am not doing while simultaneously ignoring some of the other things I have done.

I'm tempted to describe the three assigned readings as Native American-centric, but James Clifford apparently isn't Native American.  That doesn't mean the three assigned readings collectively cannot be Native American-centric, but I describe these as such anyway with some reservation.  This centric view may be indicated in Starn's review when he writes, "[m]any commentators have noted how the film recycles a set of shopworn tropes about indigeneity in general, and American Indians in particular."  (Emphasis mine).

I found the "American Indians in particular" comment to be problematic, because, I think there are strong elements of the film rooted in Native Hawaiian culture.  For instance, almost one hour and 5 minutes into the film (1:04:49) after Jake has hunted and killed an animal in the presence of Neytiri, he says in the Na'vi language, "Your spirit goes with Eywa."  Then he says, "Your body stays behind . . . to become part of The People."

In the Hawaiian language we have a similar saying, "ʻo ke aka kā ʻoukou, ʻo ka ʻiʻo kā mākou"  The translation is, "Yours the essence, ours the flesh."  I learned this as meaning the essence belongs to the gods, the substance is ours.   The essence here is the equivalent to spirit as used by Jake.  The flesh refers to the body.  I remember watching this movie back in 2009 and reading that caption on the screen and feeling like, "WOW!! That's us!"  I'm hesitant here or anywhere and anytime to take a strict Hawaiian-centric approach for critiquing this film for several reasons.  First, the director and screenwriter(s) have their own goals, intentions and inspirations for this particular film similar to how I have my own goals, intentions, and inspirations when organizing events or writing articles and commentary.  Second, I think it is more appropriate for critiquing this film in the broadest context possible rather than a narrow one.  Lastly, I think a critical analysis of the film should examine not only what the film supposedly did wrong, but also what the film did right.

STARN

Although his review begins with a discussion on Avatar and describing it as staying true "to the White Messiah formula" often seen in Hollywood films, the article is less of a review on the film and more of a discussion on the past, present and future of anthropology and the relationship of that discipline with Indigenous peoples.  In short, to the extent that Avatar means anything substantive to Starn's commentary, Starn focused more on what Avatar did not include in the story-telling.  This is made clear when Starn writes, "The darker sides of native life -- the old reservation problems of unemployment, alcoholism, tribal infighting, sexual and domestic violence, and now diabetes -- tend to be ignored in anthropology of late, or at least the most widely read recent ethnographies." Within the scope Avatar, I couldn't help but wonder, "is this what Starn wanted James Cameron to include in the film?"  He doesn't say so explicitly, but relevance of of Hollywood depictions of indigeneity and the reliance on anthropology by Hollywood giving rise to those depictions seems to suggest this is what he would like to see.

Unfortunately, we don't get to dictate what people, (film producers or scholars) write about.  Sure, we can complain about it and provide critiques when people to fail to address issues we think they should, but I think that's energy mis-spent.  In my POLS 600 class with Prof. Heyer, Professor Colin Moore came and spoke another week about the "State" and "policy"  While he cited to and spoke a lot about Skocpol.  In the Skocpol reading we had, Skocpol argued (in 1985) for an increased emphasis on the state as an actor in the development of public policy.  A lot has changed since 1985 and when I asked Prof. Moore about other potential "actors" in the development of public policy, he explained to me that his interest and focus did not lie on other actors.  His focus was narrowly on the state.  Prof. Heyer elaborated that when we begin writing our dissertations that we'll need to narrow our focus.

Anthros.
The first time I watched Avatar, I paid really no attention to the anthropologists in the film.  From this class alone, I've noticed that I pay more attention to the existence of anthropologists' narratives.  Anyway, when we consider the different methods of research, it's clear that Jake is a participant observer, although by neither trade nor education is he an anthropologists.  As a participant observer though among the Na'vi, Jake essentially acts as an anthropologists whose video logs serve as his field notes.

With Starn's focus on the relationship between anthropologists and American Indians, I can't meaningfully discuss Starn critique here without pointing out how Jake (as an anthropologist) is distinguishable from the type of anthropologists that Starn writes about.  Unlike the anthropologists that depended on Native Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries Jake is significantly different because, Jake had not one, but three conflicting forces relying on him:

• the corporate military leader
• Grace the lead anthropologist 
• the Na'vi leadership

This unique and destructive dynamic, I'm confident, is not the same dynamic that existed between American Indians and anthropologists (even if this latter dynamic was destructive nonetheless).  The corporate military presence on Pandora relied on Jake to gain acceptance by the Na'vi to help facilitate a removal policy (reminiscent of 19th century American removal policies designed to allow for westward expansion).  Grace the anthropologist used Jake to get back into the good graces of the Na'vi people; Jake became "one-of-them" and was the vehicle for her getting back to them.  Lastly, Neytiri's father, upon learning that Jake was a "warrior" Dreamwalker, unlike previous Dreamwalkers would allow them to learn more about the humans.  So, again, there was an unusual dynamic at play.

CLIFFORD

I had a hard time grappling with Clifford's article.  I remember reading the same David Brooks article on the film.  I could't believe that Clifford was willing to state that the Brooks article, "was pretty much what I might have written myself."  Brooks wrote about the White Messiah formula, but he used that only to promote the message he really wanted to convey.  Brooks is concerned about the perceived anti-military tone of the film.  This is evident when he wrote, "[t]he plotline gives global audiences a chance to see American troops get killed."  The problem with Brooks assessment is that it's not clear that these are real American troops.  First, Jake talks with an Australian accent and this is easily attributed to the fact that the actor playing the character of Jake, Sam Worthington, is Australian.  But, Jake is a former marine so it's implied that these troops are American.  However, at about 5-6 minutes into the film Jake mentions that back on Earth the troops fought for freedom.  He distinguished their past lives on Earth with the current presence on Pandora in which he described them as "hired guns" essentially mercenaries.  In other words, these are not American troops in the sense that they represent the U.S. government.  Instead, they're a private army furthering corporate interests.  So, it bothers me that Clifford would readily identify with Brooks.

I did however appreciate Clifford's summary of The Word for World is Forest.  It was helpful to learn more about a source that Cameron may have relied on in developing Avatar.  Clifford's article though also provides some meaningful insight into Starn's article on the interesting and troubled relationship between anthropologists and American Indians.  

SIMPSON

Audra Simpson seems to have written mostly on settler colonialism and its relevance to Avatar.  In the process however, I think she either ignores or misses other relevant and important parts of the film.  Early-on Simpson writes, "Avatar conflates Indigeneity with an endangered cultural purity, one that is about to be sequestered, removed, and possibly annihilated for territorial possession.  Because of Indigenous endangerment, there is a need for protection, preservation, and leadership by an outside force."

Respectfully, I disagree and I think this comment oversimplifies the complexities of the film and actually more closely speaks to legal issues that American Indian tribes have faced.  I don't think Avatar conflates indigeneity with cultural purity at all.  Instead, I think it better reflects how an indigenous people may respond and adapt to outside forces.  Second, there are some practical matters to consider as well.  Whether you're an individual or a group of people facing annihilation (or a near-annihilation attack) you don't care where your help for protection or preservation comes from, you take it, you appreciate it, and then later when you're safe you think about where that help comes from.

Returning to my first point in regards to Simpson.  The White Messiah formula is not wholly applicable here.  Neytiri saved Jake's life on multiple occasions throughout the film.  In fact, she almost killed him in the beginning with her bow and arrow, but ultimately did not.  She saved Jake from the pack of animals, then saved him again when the Na'vi warriors first encountered Jake, then she impliedly advocated for Jake's safety upon Jake being taken to her dad.  She saved him again when the bulldozer's came and she couldn't wake him up.  She also saved him again near the end of the film.  If it wasn't for Neytiri, Jake would not be alive.  Jake may appear to be the savior on the surface, but below the surface, it was really Neytiri.

Jake did not accept the Na'vi people; the Na'vi people accepted Jake only after a rigorous physical and cultural process.  He didn't just walk into the Na'vi community and became one of them.  He had to be accepted by them.  This is cultural sovereignty; cultural values manifesting themselves in decison-making and sovereignty.  This is also tribal membership.  Today, tribal membership is a big BIG issue among tribes and individual members.  Members are being dis-enrolled for a variety of reasons.  One iteration of the Akaka Bill required a social, civic, or cultural connection to the Hawaiian community.   Having Hawaiian ancestry, according to that one version, was not enough to become a "registered member" there needed to be a cultural or civic connection. In the film, Jake worked on having that cultural and civic connection.

Subsequently, Jake was "disowned" by the Na'vi and this is made clear when upon learning that Jake knew all along what the fate of the Na'vi was, Neytiri says, "You'll never be one of us."  I liken this to a statement made by Dr. Jon Osorio in his book, "Dismembering Lahui" where he conveys the idea that in the multi-ethnic citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom, non-aboriginal Hawaiians may have been "citizens" of the Kingdom with generally equal rights, they were not necessarily a part of the smaller Native Hawaiian community within that larger population.   In Jake's case, he was recognized as being a part of the community, but Neytiri made clear that he didn't necessarily share the kinship.  When he was "disowned" he was effectively banished (even if only momentarily).  Banishment is also a unique attribute of tribal communities.  Banishment is a big deal and is often reserved for gross violations of cultural customs.

Jake's membership may also be a jurisdictional issue as well.  In the 1970s, tribal sovereignty was dealt a devastating blow in the Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe case which held that tribes had no jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservation even if they commit crimes on reservation lands.  Here though, Jake an important part of the Na'vi and implicitly consented to their authority over him.  When tribal governments can exercise authority over non-Indians we are witnessing an expansion of Indigenous sovereignty.

I have to re-iterate my belief that Avatar did not simply "conflate indigeneity with an endangered cultural purity."  Instead, I think it touched on several contemporary and complex issues.

--

Avartar, looking for a new identity

While taking this course, my biggest concern is what my identity is. My identity is an Asian male and a foreigner.  In other words, my question is this: What is indigenous studies really about for me? At first, I’m trying to search for common denominators between Korean and indigenous people. Of course, Korean have a lot in common with indigenous people.  Korean was colonized by Japan. Koreans put stress on family value. However, owing to rapid industrialization and urbanization, Korean resemble American as time goes by. Avatar made me realized the fact that identity is not fixed, but formed by one’s own choice. Ethnicity is strong barriers to search for a new identity.  Racial traits are inherent, and language barrier seems to be inevitable.   

“Indigeneity is a matter of becoming, not a fixed state of being, a historically contingent and sometimes very powerful form of cultural identification and political organizing”

On the other hand, someone argued that individual choice has limitations. People are a product of their regime and culture. Human beings are autonomous but only have a limited autonomous.

Self-questioning and self-reflection are necessary to become another being. It means self-denial is needed before becoming new identity. It is very difficult to achieve by himself. If people around you help you, it is easier to achieve it. Indigenous movement is not individual activity but group activity. Self-denial and assistance of Neytiri make Jake become the “Na’vi.”

Therefore, share your vision, experience and ideas. That’s the way to become indigenous and be released from shackles.

Reflections on Avatar

I had been very hesitated to watch Avatar until this class assigned to watch it. I thought the story would be very predictable and would be another representation of “savage Natives.”   After watching the movie, my expectation was mostly right, but there were some parts that made me think more deeply about indigenous peoples and the world we live in. 

Avatar was another colonialistic representation of indigenous people in ways that portrayed the indigenous Na’vi people as uncivilized, animistic creatures, creating a white male character as a hero who save the indigenous community, and making the hero fall in love with a native heroine.  Compared to traditional western films and more contemporary films about American Indians such as Pocahontas, the narrative seemed to be a bit more considerate and try to acknowledge the indigenous ways of living and their traditional knowledge.  However, methodologies to convey indigenous messages in the story seemed to have been structured in predominant ways.  For example, why are there many binary characterizations in the story such as the Sky people (colonizer) vs. the indigenous Na’vi (colonized), male (chief/warrior) vs. female (heroine/shaman)?  Why having arms and fighting were depicted ass a legitimate way to save the community?  Why are there desires of being bigger, stronger, and powerful in the narrative?

Characterization of the hero, Jake Sully, was also interesting to analyze through the logic of settler colonialism.  The character definitely describes suffering from his loss of identity and desires to be back in a community.  Starn says, "Indigeneity is a matter of becoming, not a fixed state of being, a historically contingent and sometimes very powerful form of cultural identification and political organizing" (192). Then, Is Jake Sully trying to re-discover his indigeneity?  Is it something we can re-discover?

While the story sets on differences and emphasizes these “Otherness” of the indigenous people, the narrative of settlers’ “becoming indigenous” seem to claim that there are some ideologies shared by these different creatures.

The movie was surprisingly interesting to imagine indigenous science fiction.  The narrative successfully made me ponder our conception of time in a coil-like imagination.     

Avatar and the General Populace

All three authors for this week’s readings recognized Avatar’s shortcomings, like the fact that it took a white leader to successfully push out the colonizers.  I especially agree with Simpson’s assertion that Avatar tends to overshadow modern colonialism in a seemingly ‘post-colonial’ world; this is the biggest shortcoming of the movie in my opinion.   Simpson accurately points out that: “the narrative of the film, its form (3D), it’s the luminescence, its reorienting power, obscures the history of force, the recognition of that force, and the ongoing insurgency of force unfolding before us, the living history” (207).  On the other hand, the pragmatist in me feels that perhaps stunning luminescence (even better in 3D!) is necessary for communicating to a larger audience about the Indigenous perspective of settler-colonialism.  

We live in a nation where large chunks of the population still believe that Obama is a Muslim, that the former Iraqi regime had direct ties to 9/11 and so on while simultaneously not knowing the first thing about these issues etc.  I’m sure that similar disparities between belief and knowledge exist in relation to the U.S.’s history of settler colonialism.  So Avatar, at the very least, may have demonstrated to some people that land is an important thing for those who reside on it and that the colonization of another peoples land merits resistance.  Clifford makes a great point when questioning why the film was banned in most parts of China:  “Could it be that what makes this rather familiar romantic story of native virtue and civilized vice different (beyond the effects of its cinematic technique, which require a different discussion) is its lack of a tragic frame, the presumed disappearance of noble savages? (219).”  Therefore, in spite of its many shortcomings, I think that Avatar creates new spaces for dialogue regarding victorious Indigenous resistance and the validity of that resistance among the general populace.   

Finally, regarding Jean’s inquiry about other white vs. native movies, I liked the Spanish movie “Even the Rain” (click here to watch the trailer).  It’s concerning the production of a film about Columbus’s arrival to the America’s, which was shot during ongoing demonstrations by the native population against a government effort to privatize their water supplies.   Although it employs some of the romanticism we see in Avatar, I think it does a much better job of relating past histories of settler colonialism with a modern indigenous rebellion in Bolivia.

Avatar & "Otherness"

In Starn's article, I thought it was interesting that "some people had been so mesmerized by Pandora--'a wonderland peopled by noble beings'--that they indicate they'd rather DIE than return to Earth's gritty reality." (197) He noted that this conveys a longing for Otherness, which was also touched upon in Grace L. Dillon's Anthology of Indigenous Science Fiction, in Leslie Marmo Silko’s Almanac of the Dead, featuring a post-apocalyptic setting in which white people will pay the Indigenous descendents anything to heal themselves, "longing" for the Otherness, which Western society had for so long rejected. This concept of Otherness is an interesting one, because with it, Indigenous peoples find it difficult to escape from stereotypical anthropological viewpoints, but without it, the self-determination of Indigenous peoples is threatened because they are thrown into the melting pot, assuming the identity of "just another ethnic group that we all share this great country with." There is still the question of people of mixed background,who have a unique position to distort the boundary between otherness and what is familiar.


Regarding Avatar, I do disagree partially with the analysis of Neytiri, wondering what Starn's alternative proposal for her character would be. There's nothing wrong with women leads being sexy and owning it, but it seems that they always get thrown into either one of two categories, the Other "primitive exotic" or the conservative Westernized "Disney princess." Perhaps because the movie's plot is such familiar ground, Neytiri is unable to escape from either of those two Western tropes. I thought Avatar does make some leaps over previous movies of the same vein, because Jake does physically leave his own body and everything that is familiar to become his Avatar self fully. Perhaps where the movie could have lent some freshness to the tale is if Jake, instead of playing the "White Messiah," as Starn critiques, stepped back to let Neytiri lead the people, to learn from her and the rest of his adopted world. Either way, this movie was written for a certain kind of audience who is used to an action-oriented male lead, and I think throughout the decades it's interesting to see how these types of movies shift in their ways to convey messages. Was Avatar's success as a blockbuster, designed to reach the biggest mainstream audience possible, what hindered it from lending a Fourth World perspective to the world of Pandora?

Avatar Response

According to Starn, Native American (which he does not even attempt to define) or indigenous tropes used throughout the movie Avatar are exoticized through familiar settler perceptions of the “Other.” However, the basis of his argument explores how the movie informs the evolution of the field of American anthropology through a quasi-marital relationship between the indigenous and the anthropologist. Simpson, on the other hand, argues that this allegorical marriage is all together simplistic or disavows the complex understandings that the film illuminates. Simpson believes that Starn does not hold the logic of settler colonialism accountable, as he attempts to restore relations between a ruptured image of American Anthropology and the indigenous nations that they have attempted to invade through the logic of elimination. Through her analyzation, Simpson comments on a spectral existence of genocide as the “film offers a representative foil for the guilt, shame, horror, and hope that gets shuttled someplace else when the matters of settlement and genocide are contemplated.” (Simpson 206) In a sense, the film itself, does not fully come to grips with the systematic genocide of Native peoples, although it seems to still have a confounding presence within the narrative.

This analysis is extended by Simpson by a re-interpretation of the construction of the film itself as a moment, or spectacle that confronts manifestations of settler colonialism such as genocide and ecocide. She states, “Spectacles do all sorts of political work in every society but are especially useful in settler societies because they continue to redirect emotions, histories, and possibilites away from the means of societal and historical production- Indigenous dispossession, disenfranchisement, and containment.” (Simpson 207) Simpson then describes contemporary events such as a one year anniversary of a truce between Gaza and Israel one day before the release of the film and also one day before Obama declared a Apology resolution to Native Americans.” (Simpson 207) Simpson argues that the film obscures colonial violence that still occurs today by overshadowing the authenticity of the events mentioned above. These ideas made me think about the sf dimension of Native Apocalypse, where it is defined as “a state of imbalance, often perpetuated by ‘terminal creeds,’ the ideologies that Gerald Vizenor warns against in advocating survivance in the face of invisibility. Imbalance further implies a state of extremes, but within those extremes lies a middle ground and the seeds of bimaadiziwin, the state of balance, one of difference and provisionality, a condition of resistance and survival. Native apocalyptic storytelling, then, shows the ruptures, the scars, and the trauma in its effort ultimately to provide healing and a return to bimaadiziwin. This is the path to a sovereignty embedded in self-determination.” (Dillon 9) Does the film, made by a non-indigenous person, attempt to use this genre to inform the effects of settler colonialism through the Native apocalyse? If I understand right, Simpson is saying that this film illuminates the attempt of settler colonialism to sweep these issues of dispossession, disenfrachisement, and containment under the rug of invisibility.  Furthermore, she is highlighting a state of imbalance with the silencing of the Obama apology and the colonial violence that occured in Gaza, which the film’s narrative helps us to feel the historical production that ensues- Indigenous dispossession, disenfranchisement, and containment.