I do not intend to diminish the cultural impact of Guaman Poma’s New Chronicle and Good Government, but I must say that the notion that an minority would suscribe and advocate to the colonial ideologies does nothing but prove the existence of internalized racism.
Hi Annie, I agree with your views and empathize with how challenging it can be to understand Guaman Poma's motivations in today's socio-political climate. Your insights into internalized racism and the complexities of indigenous identity are deep. To me, Guaman Poma’s actions reflect a subconscious survival strategy within a colonial system rather than a true embracement of colonial ideologies. Your personal experiences and historical context offer a nuanced perspective, emphasizing that only the Indigenous can define indigeneity. This recognition of collective identity over individual actions helps clarify the complex dynamics at play in Guaman Poma's narrative. Thank you for sharing you experience!
Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences in relation to Guaman Poma's text in this impactful post! Your lived experiences are so powerful in informing your understanding of what survival means within an institution that actively works to delegitimize and silence your identity and your voice. Growing up in a culture that values the individual and individual agency above all else, it can be difficult to see the necessity of understanding individual action through the community and the collective. I don't know how I feel about the idea of free will, but I do think that our decisions are very much impacted by the environment and the system that we exist within. Rather than us outsiders imposing the label of "Indigenous" and what it entails onto a group of people, who also may not feel they share this label with other groups placed under it, I agree that our definition of Indigeneity should come from Indigenous peoples themselves. Though this may not work logically, it seems to have worked fine in real life, though I am no philosopher (I'm not getting into real vs. unreal here).
"I must say that the notion that an minority would suscribe and advocate to the colonial ideologies does nothing but prove the existence of internalized racism."
I wonder if this is not a rather condescending thing to say? Not only does it, as I was trying to suggest in class the other day, portray "colonial ideologies" as monolithic, but it also seems to deny Indigenous agency. Indeed...
"I could name countless philosphers whos stress that the oppressed person does not truly have a choice in the matter"
I'm sure you could, but I'm not sure I'd count Hegel (to whom you allude in the previous sentence) among them. This is a very deterministic standpoint. I'd be more interested in turning to another philosopher of difference, if you're keen on such references: is Guaman Poma not a good example of what WEB Du Bois called "double consciousness"? Or what Fanon describes in terms of "black skins, white masks."
"only the Indigenous define who is Indigenous."
Yes, Steven said this in the morning class the other day. But as I pointed out: this is a logical paradox that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? In fact, it assumes that you know already who is Indigenous, and so it provides only the facade of delegating the power of identification.
I think we need to do better than that, and I suggest that reading Guaman Poma (and the other authors we are reading) might help us to do so. Or to put this another way: I think Guaman Poma is more interesting and complex than you seem to be allowing him to be.
I can't help but feel frustration that you find the idea that the lack of individual agency is something condescending. Again, I said in the first paragraph of my blog post that this wasn't meant to demean Guaman Poma's contributions, but to say that it very much may not complicate the relationships between colonial and Indigenous identity. While I am not a hardcore determinist, you should realize that a certain degree of it does allow for communities to deeply understand the pattern of actions that individuals have been led to take. And if anything, it is empowering as it allows for forgiveness within communities, as well as allowing communities to work collectively to confront systemic barriers. I think you should reflect on your statements, especially as a white man in a position of power, and realize that the acceptance of internalized racism is something so deeply vital to the healing of individuals and communities alike. Instead of focusing on which specific philosophers I quoted, maybe you should divert your attention to my own lived experiences as a person of colour, and what the denial of agency has done for myself and my community.
I feel regretful that I was unable to attend the class to witness Steven's comments, but it is very hypocritical of you to say that the Indigenous have a facade of defining their own Indigeneity. Now, you are denying an entire community’s self-determination and ability to define what binds them together. I highly disagree with the notion that it wouldn’t get us anywhere if only Indigenous people were able to articulate Indigeneity. When Indigenous people define their own Indigeneity it is to recognize their timeless claims to the land and their practices and separate themselves from the colonial settlers who have displaced them. I am just an undergrad, but I highly recommend you read another distinguished UBC professor of political science Glen Coulthard whose theories on Indigenous self-affirmation through their own defining of Indigeneity is exactly what will lead to decolonization. When settlers like us define what Indigeneity is we can only project a romanticized or dehumanizing definition, we only take away the voices of Indigenous people who do know what it means or at worst, further their dispossession.
I wanted to articulate through my blogpost that the emphasis on individuals when analyzing Indigeneity is an inherently Western and colonial viewpoint, as is the emphasis on individual agency. It deeply disappoints me that you still grapple with these viewpoints and you should consider how these assumptions have been impacting how you teach this course.
Thanks for this Annie. The conversation will continue, but just one thing quickly for now...
"I feel regretful that I was unable to attend the class to witness Steven's comments, but it is very hypocritical of you to say that the Indigenous have a facade of defining their own Indigeneity. Now, you are denying an entire community’s self-determination and ability to define what binds them together. I highly disagree with the notion that it wouldn’t get us anywhere if only Indigenous people were able to articulate Indigeneity."
You've misunderstood me here. I'm not talking about an Indigenous facade, but the facade of (as I say) "delegating the power of identification."
And as for your final point... I think that the question of representation and representativity is at the core of what I've been trying to get you all to think about. Which is very much about questioning the relationship between the individual and the community (among much else). Again, we will continue to talk about this!
I'm going to jump to Annie's defense here. I've got some qualms with the 'logical paradox' of us allowing Indigenous voices to define themselves. It's not that it's technically incorrect, because yes, it can be applied to pretty much any case of self-determination. But why does that matter? Why do we need to "get anywhere" farther regarding the definition of Indigeneity than the definition an Indigenous person may provide? The wording of that question makes me feel like we think we know better than they do, which is simply colonial!
Hi Annie, I agree with your views and empathize with how challenging it can be to understand Guaman Poma's motivations in today's socio-political climate. Your insights into internalized racism and the complexities of indigenous identity are deep. To me, Guaman Poma’s actions reflect a subconscious survival strategy within a colonial system rather than a true embracement of colonial ideologies. Your personal experiences and historical context offer a nuanced perspective, emphasizing that only the Indigenous can define indigeneity. This recognition of collective identity over individual actions helps clarify the complex dynamics at play in Guaman Poma's narrative. Thank you for sharing you experience!
Hi Annie,
Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences in relation to Guaman Poma's text in this impactful post! Your lived experiences are so powerful in informing your understanding of what survival means within an institution that actively works to delegitimize and silence your identity and your voice. Growing up in a culture that values the individual and individual agency above all else, it can be difficult to see the necessity of understanding individual action through the community and the collective. I don't know how I feel about the idea of free will, but I do think that our decisions are very much impacted by the environment and the system that we exist within. Rather than us outsiders imposing the label of "Indigenous" and what it entails onto a group of people, who also may not feel they share this label with other groups placed under it, I agree that our definition of Indigeneity should come from Indigenous peoples themselves. Though this may not work logically, it seems to have worked fine in real life, though I am no philosopher (I'm not getting into real vs. unreal here).
Much love,
Cissy <3
"I must say that the notion that an minority would suscribe and advocate to the colonial ideologies does nothing but prove the existence of internalized racism."
I wonder if this is not a rather condescending thing to say? Not only does it, as I was trying to suggest in class the other day, portray "colonial ideologies" as monolithic, but it also seems to deny Indigenous agency. Indeed...
"I could name countless philosphers whos stress that the oppressed person does not truly have a choice in the matter"
I'm sure you could, but I'm not sure I'd count Hegel (to whom you allude in the previous sentence) among them. This is a very deterministic standpoint. I'd be more interested in turning to another philosopher of difference, if you're keen on such references: is Guaman Poma not a good example of what WEB Du Bois called "double consciousness"? Or what Fanon describes in terms of "black skins, white masks."
"only the Indigenous define who is Indigenous."
Yes, Steven said this in the morning class the other day. But as I pointed out: this is a logical paradox that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? In fact, it assumes that you know already who is Indigenous, and so it provides only the facade of delegating the power of identification.
I think we need to do better than that, and I suggest that reading Guaman Poma (and the other authors we are reading) might help us to do so. Or to put this another way: I think Guaman Poma is more interesting and complex than you seem to be allowing him to be.
I can't help but feel frustration that you find the idea that the lack of individual agency is something condescending. Again, I said in the first paragraph of my blog post that this wasn't meant to demean Guaman Poma's contributions, but to say that it very much may not complicate the relationships between colonial and Indigenous identity. While I am not a hardcore determinist, you should realize that a certain degree of it does allow for communities to deeply understand the pattern of actions that individuals have been led to take. And if anything, it is empowering as it allows for forgiveness within communities, as well as allowing communities to work collectively to confront systemic barriers. I think you should reflect on your statements, especially as a white man in a position of power, and realize that the acceptance of internalized racism is something so deeply vital to the healing of individuals and communities alike. Instead of focusing on which specific philosophers I quoted, maybe you should divert your attention to my own lived experiences as a person of colour, and what the denial of agency has done for myself and my community.
I feel regretful that I was unable to attend the class to witness Steven's comments, but it is very hypocritical of you to say that the Indigenous have a facade of defining their own Indigeneity. Now, you are denying an entire community’s self-determination and ability to define what binds them together. I highly disagree with the notion that it wouldn’t get us anywhere if only Indigenous people were able to articulate Indigeneity. When Indigenous people define their own Indigeneity it is to recognize their timeless claims to the land and their practices and separate themselves from the colonial settlers who have displaced them. I am just an undergrad, but I highly recommend you read another distinguished UBC professor of political science Glen Coulthard whose theories on Indigenous self-affirmation through their own defining of Indigeneity is exactly what will lead to decolonization. When settlers like us define what Indigeneity is we can only project a romanticized or dehumanizing definition, we only take away the voices of Indigenous people who do know what it means or at worst, further their dispossession.
I wanted to articulate through my blogpost that the emphasis on individuals when analyzing Indigeneity is an inherently Western and colonial viewpoint, as is the emphasis on individual agency. It deeply disappoints me that you still grapple with these viewpoints and you should consider how these assumptions have been impacting how you teach this course.
Thanks for this Annie. The conversation will continue, but just one thing quickly for now...
"I feel regretful that I was unable to attend the class to witness Steven's comments, but it is very hypocritical of you to say that the Indigenous have a facade of defining their own Indigeneity. Now, you are denying an entire community’s self-determination and ability to define what binds them together. I highly disagree with the notion that it wouldn’t get us anywhere if only Indigenous people were able to articulate Indigeneity."
You've misunderstood me here. I'm not talking about an Indigenous facade, but the facade of (as I say) "delegating the power of identification."
And as for your final point... I think that the question of representation and representativity is at the core of what I've been trying to get you all to think about. Which is very much about questioning the relationship between the individual and the community (among much else). Again, we will continue to talk about this!
Hey Jon,
I'm going to jump to Annie's defense here. I've got some qualms with the 'logical paradox' of us allowing Indigenous voices to define themselves. It's not that it's technically incorrect, because yes, it can be applied to pretty much any case of self-determination. But why does that matter? Why do we need to "get anywhere" farther regarding the definition of Indigeneity than the definition an Indigenous person may provide? The wording of that question makes me feel like we think we know better than they do, which is simply colonial!