What Does It Mean To Be Indigenous?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 มิ.ย. 2024
- There's some confusion about who should be considered "indigenous" and what that term signifies. When generations of marginalised groups have been struggling to retain their sovereignty and achieve justice, it is vital for us to understand the arena of that struggle. It is vital for us to understand what it means to be Indigenous.
Introduction - 0:00
Indigeneity via Colonial Relationship - 3:18
Indigeneity via Land Relationship - 8:57
Decolonisation & Social Revolution - 13:34
=
Support me on Patreon!
/ saintdrew
=
Follow me on Twitter!
/ _saintdrew
=
Music:
@ForeignManInAForeignLand
Sun (prod. salmon the ghost)
/ salmontheghost
outro music: Cedar Womb by joe zempel
TH-cam: / @joezempel
Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/3vVDn...
=
Sources & Resources:
Taiaiake Alfred and Jeff Corntassel - Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism
Robin Wall Kimmerer - Braiding Sweetgrass
It's tricky being Métis. We have to accept that we are both Indigenous and settler. Yes, our ancestors were the children of Anishnaabe, Cree, Saulteaux and Dene women who married Irish, Scottish and French fur traders but in the early days of the HBC and NWC we were little more than arms of the British Crown. Only when we joined our First Nations siblings did we become Indigenous too. We continue to be oppressed, even as we suffer the least from these colonial systems; many of us are very white-passing and we have a lot of colourism to address in our own communities. We should try to support our more oppressed siblings and to remain involved in anti-colonial efforts.
The paradox of being multi-ethnic/multicultural in the New World
@@couchgrouches7667 Yeah. Another way of putting it is that though we are Indigenous right now, we have been settlers in the past. It all just depends upon our relationship with the Anglo-Franco settler establishment.
That's interesting. You're basically me, but from the north. I am as far i know a light skinned meztiso (spanish for metis), i can pass too. But my connection too indigenous culture is a bit nebulous, i do know my roots but my identity lies in being latino which anyone can technically be as long as particular cultural traits are met although that doesn't mean the surplantation of another but rather it's incorporation such as what happened in meso-america. There are those who reject the identity, but that's fine. My people are diverse and far-reaching, not without its issues, but its influence can be felt all throughout the US aswell. If you want to get even more in depth technically if you lump in Portuguese and French with latin culture, then that technically means the Quebecois are also Latino, although im not sure how they'd feel about that description it may not be for everyone for political or personal reasons.
@@rogeliovaldez6594 The Québécois are so racist, I think they would hate that label. It's funny because I am actually very connected to my Indigenous heritage, but for a long time is was kept very hushed and all the traditions from the Métis lineage were labeled Irish so it was easier for us in school and so on. But the natives around us always knew. They called me "Indian Ken Doll" because my features were very noticeably Native but my skin looked bleached. Now I'm trying to reconnect with my community and go back home to educate some of the youth. If I could just get some of them through high school, I think I could forgive myself for benefiting so much from this racist colonial system. I don't know about Mestizaje, but you could probably do something similar if you wanted.
@@surgeland9084 we just have a different history. My dads side looks white with colored hair and eyes and moms side more mixed with otomi roots but we're just so mixed the most id get is guero which a description of complection not race. I recognize the diverse community as part of my own but to me, as a mexican raised in the US, my native tounge is Spanish and despite the terrible condition mexico and her people carries a big legacy. Im not gonna lie mexico wasn't good towards the native populations especially those that didn't want conform to the new identity in the south and far north now US southwest but its absolutely disgusting what the US did. All in all i don't identify with white, but i can't really either fully identify with natives as i only haves that ancestry nominally so im only left with Mexican and latino. Its kinda how the irish interact with their native ancestry in some regions its stronger in others acknowledged as the basis for the larger latino, which gets more complicated when factor in the rest of latin America which in some ways functions like pre unified Germany and Italy
I love the explanation, it's surprisingly quite simple. When it's said that a land belongs to an indigenous group, they didn't mean that in a capitalist's definition of private property sense. Indigenous people's relationship to the land is strongly about their livelihood rather than about an exclusive right to wantonly extract resources to make an excess. Generally speaking, everyone can forage off land inhabited by indigenous people, if you need to drink from the river because you're thirsty, so be it. But that is FAR from the same thing as laying claim to the natural resources, extract and make profit off of it.
So while indigenous people may not have the same conception of "ownership" of land as European capitalists, it doesn't mean that the land is allowed to be grabbed. They don't claim ownership of that land, and NEITHER should the outsiders be allowed to make that claim, nature offer its resources for free so that we can live, and we're suppose to establish a mutual relationship of take and give, not just take like capitalists do.
Native American tribes have developed and reformed advanced laws of property, ownership, trade, taxation and inheritance for thousands of years.
They are just as capable of enterprise and business and complex economics as any native European or African.
Illiterate European settlers and refugees were responsible for the myth of the "noble savage". These settlers and refugees were in direct competition with many native tribes.
Use your head.
@@AskTorin what you're saying doesn't oppose OPs statement. They're not claiming that indigenous people weren't capable of complex economics, they're pointing out their attitude towards the land was one of stewardship rather than contemporary ownership.
@@captainroberts6318 still worth keeping in mind, though! good observations all around, I say.
But... Prah-fit.
The earth speaks to US❤
As a Ñuu Savi (Mixteco) man from Oaxaca Mexico, I appreciate you making this video, not enough people make videos talking about what it truly means to be indigenous, A LOT of people think it means you have to be living in the middle of a jungle in a stick Hutt and naked to be indigenous 🤡 it's so much more than that! Thank You! Gracias! Taxa'vixiñ!
Oh, otro oaxaqueño, y Mixteco también, que bonito :)
Again the narrator bungled what it actually means. He merely talked about symbiotic paganism - which in some indigenous cultures is what is practiced but hardly all of them. Being factually indigenous is always ethno-genetic. Being culturally indigenous does not require any "indigenous" descent whatsoever on the other hand.
Hi, i just have a question. I notice some Mexican Americans identifying as “indigenous” but when asked if they practice indigenous cultures or if they speak indigenous languages, they don’t.
I believe that they are actually “mestizo” (stopped practicing indigenous identity and assimilated to colonial culture) instead of “indigenous”.
My question is: do you feel some mestizos are hijacking the indigenous identity?
@@karlos_infamous interesting point and definitely warranted. Generally speaking when populations mix and thus become mixed as is the case with Mestizo then ancestrally these people are not purely indigenous - semi-indigenous usually.
If they practice language and culture they can still be regarded as indigenous culturally, but if not then best case scenario they might still be native (but usually settled or colonist) but rarely indigenous.
It also depends on the changes, if the changes are somewhat natural - as in due to borrowings and progress (say loanwords or technologies) it may not "destroy" indigenous culture but merely grow it into something new yet old - a wonderful example are the Honshu Japanese who to proactively counter colonisation reformed themselves.
@@aniinnrchoque1861s someone from the U.S. diaspora, should we reverse mestizaje? And can we do it without stepping on indigenous identities as mentioned by the other comment?
A connected question, are we to be a new people, or can we take on the names of our most likely ancestors?
As a Black American from the South, I've been very confused as to where other Black Americans fit in. It's a strange place to be mentally. Tbh our place in society has always been strange anyway. Indigenous North Americans don't seem to know what to make of us either. I've received everything from welcome open arms to odd racism from Natives, depending on what part of the country I'm in. I've devoted myself to the care of the land because that's all that makes sense. I can do that. I can understand that.
I totally agree 👍 forced migration and the uprooting of one's identity lands any sensible person in a dilemma. Ethno-genetically you will never be indigenous - the barrier for that is way to high, but culturally and linguistically is another matter entirely - anyone can integrate into any culture.
Despite the forced migration you are still technically an outsider until you integrate.
The only problem being is that a fair share of indigenous communities have either closed themselves as a form of protection or are outright racist in that they don't want their bloodlines changed through immigration.
@@aniinnrchoque1861 yup I have seen this personally. some native people are dead set on the mentality of "keeping the race pure" and out right shun integration from any outside group and thus contribute to the eradication of the culture they are trying to preserve.
@@aniinnrchoque1861 I don't want to be anything other than black at this point, personally. Being an ally to the land is beyond any of the barriers that racism or cultural lines can draw, for me. If I am welcomed as an ally, that's great. If not? That's fine too. But I don't need the identity to fulfill a personal duty.
@@MechakittenX that depends, the duty to the land on its most basic level is to source food - otherwise no survival. Beyond that cultural development imposes history to a region which has to be respected and accurately told. After that it becomes a matter of human morality whether to integrate or not. But again as long as you don't make the situation worse everything is mostly fine.
@Spirit Sword #9 I don't really consider governmental declarations on who gets to be indigenous because most governments have a vested interest to either keep numbers low or not recognise people at all.
I'm Filipino. In the Philippines, the term "Indigenous Groups" pertains to groups that preserved the ways of our ancestors and weren't influenced by the colonizers like the Bangsamoro (Muslim people), Lumad (Mindanao Mountain people), Igorot (Luzon Mountain people) and Negritos ( Melanesian/Papuan Filipinos).
But in reality, majority of Filipinos are indigenous, most are of Austronesian and Negrito descent.
"[T]hrough resistance to... colonization" (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act [IPRA], 1997) maintained their _"connection to land, culture, and community"_ (21:57).
My father's family is Subanen from Northern Mindanao, but I was raised in Mindoro. My family was involved in social work with Mangyans and I spent many summers as a kid joining their celebrations and rituals. Heck, my sister's godfather is Benjamin Abadiano. However, I do not claim indigeneity because I was never truly raised within an indigenous community. My dad is an indigenous person(IP) but I am not. My current life, source of livelihood, and culture is so far disconnected from the land compared to the real IPs.
It is important to note that Filipino IPs mainly struggle with reclaiming their ancestral domains from other Filipinos, many of whom are migrants from other regions. Because the IPs were initially withheld the rights to their own lands by the Catholic church and the government in the past, much of the land has been sold to private landowners. At times, the land is illegally occupied by informal settlers.
In addition, discrimination against indigenous peoples by the majority non-IP Filipinos is very real. When I was in elementary school in the city, "Mangyan" was casually used as a derogatory term by my classmates. The discrimination is also systemic. For example, IP women have a higher risk of maternal mortality compared to non-IPs. Even when they are admitted to traditional healthcare systems in the kapatagan, indigenous women encounter much prejudice from healthcare providers across all levels. Also, the vast economic disparity between IP's and non IPs can't be dismissed.
Moreover, IPs have barely any representation in national politics. Excluding NCIP, where the staff are required to have IP blood, there are barely any IPs working for the government. In fact, the last two administrations have increasingly been hostile to the indigenous population of the country.
Definitely, most Filipinos can claim they have some indigenous blood in their veins. But no more than 20 million qualify as "Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines" out of the 113M+ Filipino population (as of the last census) under IPRA.
A korea-based professor named David Tizzard once quoted another scholar who said "Imagine if the Japanese had won the war, and was still occupying Korea to this day. Imagine how those Koreans would feel: THAT is what the Maori feel to this day."
Except the occupied Koreans would still be oppressed under a fascist imperial regime rather than a liberal democratic society where they are seen as equals. It's a deliberately dishonest framing in another attempt to tie ethnicity to some physical 3 dimensional space
The Japanese would have assimilate the Koreans to Japanese society. Koreans and Japanese are culturally similar.
@@LarryWater no they aren't wtf are you talking about 💀
@@LarryWater despite the *technically* close physical proximity both countries have to each other.
They're both wildly separate cultures, with cultures within cultures throughout each landmass.
Also idk if you're purposefully doing it, but you are perpetuating the misinformation that all of Asia is the same thing. I'm from Kazakhstan, and saying I'm the exact same ethnicity as someone from like Thailand or something. Look at a map, the countries are faaaar apart.
@@mikaroni_and_cheez You miss the point. It isn't about ''Asians being all the same''. The fact that Japanese and Koreans are East Asians with similar cultural backgrounds. It would be much easier for the Japanese to assimilate and absorb Korea and Koreaness. Akin to how the White American identity was able to absorb different European groups while ''anglicizing'' them into a pan-European American identity. How in the different ethnic groups in Anatolia Turkified under Ataturk. The dynamic would be different for example if Koreans were black or of different skin from the Japanese. The ''otherness'' would be pronounced.
Yay Andrewism!
The word for "indigenous" flora and fauna is actually endemic. That word is a social science one these days.
This comment is exactly right, much of what Andrewism went into completely distorted the narrative and was often flawed. There is a clear difference between indigenous descent, indigenous culture and symbiotic relationships with nature - last of which Andrewism strongly implied is synonymous with indigenous when that is not the case.
When he went through that definition my first tought was, that the humans themselves might not be indigenous, but their culture totally is, and it's what lives grow in their minds and why we should preserve and restitute these people.
Thank you, Andrew! You cleared up an aspect of indigeneity that has been troubling me. I couldn't figure out why Norwegians considered the Sami as the indigenous. Now, I get it!. Keep on sharing all that you have in that amazing brain of yours!!!
@@ZaryaTheLaika Thanks! I saw a news report on recent climate protests from the Saami, which Greta joined, and in that report they were called the indigenous and I got confused.
The bridge to let the unhappy citizens out of the cities and into rural communities is yet to be built, culturally. He here is indeed part of the bricks of that bridge
Saami are semi-indigenous, mostly because the regions they inhabit were settled by them relatively late as compared to their actual ancestral homeland coming from Finland and beyond. Undoubtedly they had a headstart in genetically adapting to the environment as the place they migrated from had many of the same conditions. Give it another 3.000 years and little ethnic intrusion and the Saami could be considered fully indigenous by that point - I doubt that will ever happen though because we are already seeing the ethnic composition of Norway and Sweden shift due to migration.
@@ZaryaTheLaika what is wrong with you. Saami are native just not fully indigenous in all parts of the territory. Wrap Ur head around it
@@ZaryaTheLaika totally uncalled for, why are you so bitter anyway? And don't be throwing insults now.. be the bigger person here for once
Dude, what a great video. Every day more enchanted with the channel and its contents.
Bringing a "superficial" Brazilian look at the thing: In Brazil we live with more than 700 different indigenous peoples, some unfortunately highly threatened with being lost, with few individuals alive. Last year the last native of a village died :-(
About peoples of African origin brought forcibly to the Americas, in Brazil the territories where these peoples settled are called "Quilombo" and their citizens are called Quilombolas. The quilombos were small settlements often hidden among the forests where escaped slaves and indigenous blacks and indigenous people lodged and constituted. The most famous of them, Quilombo de Palmares, was populated by more than 20,000 people.
vid was horrible
sometimes your videos are a little hard for me to follow because you have a much stronger understanding of the topics at hand and a more expansive vocabulary than i do, but i always walk away with having learned something very valuable. thank you ❣
Yeah, I literally check the dictionary from time to time haha... Even new words alone are very valuable and improve the ability to express and comprehend ideas, especially those that are normally outside mainstream discourse. Apropos "language is power"
He talked pretty much about symbiotic paganism and some elements of being culturally indigenous - however he distorted a lot of things too (pretty much first nation revanchist propaganda at some point).
Being truly indigenous is an ethno-genetic matter without exception. Being culturally indigenous means you follow or integrate the culture of truly indigenous peoples into yourself.
A Honshu Japanese is no less indigenous in descent than a Navajo at the end of the day.
@@aniinnrchoque1861The biggest issue is the redefinition to make it specific to the indigenous people conquered during the age of discovery and the Industrial Revolution.
Much like how Racism was redefined to specifically fit into the Antebellum, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow South.
It then becomes an ideological and political bludgeon instead of a usable definition.
@@Lobsterwithinternet hmm, to me the definition is timeless. Indigenous being the oldest, autochthonous in between and native somewhat recent.
The "age of discovery" reinvigorated the idea I like to call "cultural chauvinism" or the idea that some cultures/nations are inherently inferior to others and that said inferior peoples should be cast aside or worse and have to make way for the "superior" (the most commonly used justification for colonialism).
Inherently all nations have the same potential, however cultural norms, geographic circumstances and level of education can determine how much of that potential is realised.
This is why I believe educational and moral development does not run counter to being indigenous. People can organically grow and morally so, as can the nation and its culture.
Not sure if you've already done this but would love to hear a video hearing your thoughts on the relationships between maps and colonialism, how the idea that surveying and classifying a land makes it somethig you can own, how by drawing borders on a map they are made real and different decolonised ways to relate to space and land.
Awesome video as always🎉
if you're interested in that, you should look into the different projections (peters, mercator, etc) that exist (if you don't already know abt them!)
I once wrote that, "When we draw the borders of nation-states on our maps, that is an implicit acceptance of the authority and primacy of nation-states." This applies just as much to settler nation-states.
I really, really appreciate the way you use artwork in your videos so effectively. I probably wouldnt understand some of the artworks if i saw them just by themselves, but when you bring them into context they become very meaningful, whether its the intended meaning of the artwork or not. It works really well and I dont know many creators that use art in the same way. Thank you for showing us these beautiful pieces, you make me think differently about them and appreciate them more.
Thats a hell of a question to ask a Mexican!! I will be watching the video, because I too often wonder, what does it mean to be indigenous? Do I count? Does my grandmother? Do my friends count? Do we all count? Or none of us?
Hah, same here! Main reason I clicked on the video.
I’m Mexican too and with some research into indigenous peoples. I realized that we aren’t actually indigenous due to our people’s history. Being indigenous is more than the % of indigenous blood you have. We are still colonized people but the land belongs to indigenous nations.
@@123pancho7 I think that is the sad part, in a way. We are a colonized people that were once indigenous but that have been so assimilated we've become rootless. Is there a way for us to recover those roots? Are we doomed to be forever alienated from what was once our land and our people? I think that is a topic worth discussing and addressing.
@@lyxthen I agree that we need to discuss this more. And Well, that is the sad part. Spanish colonization was a special kind of cruelty; by implementing the casta system on our ancestors, to survive, our ancestors had to leave behind their indigenous cultures and nations so they can enter the Settler Society, and that how we develop, we became “mestizos”. With that title came with small advantages over indigenous people and black people. What the Spaniard did was basically turn the majority indigenous population into cultural settlers. That’s why is sometime almost impossible for us to truly reconnect hundreds of years ago.
@@lyxthen (And when I used the term “mestizo”, I use it as just a label, like how “white” is used for white people, mestizo is a colonial term but it does the job for labeling who we have been historically.) but that’s doesn’t mean we don’t have a people. It’s the mestizo who are our people. We mestizos need to be in solidarity with other mestizos from other Central America and first and foremost, we need make sure that what happened to our ancestors, does not happen to contemporary indigenous peoples and nations.
The quote at the end about naturalization was powerful. I personally do not have any indigenous ancestry, but like many people in Hawaiʻi my family is descended from foreign-born plantation laborers imported by US-aligned planters after their overthrow of the Hawaiian government, and have lived here for well over a century. Despite this, I have been drawn as strongly to Hawaiian culture as to my own ancestral ones both due to extended family members who do have indigenous ancestry and the general pluralism of Hawaiʻi’s society. Having witnessed the historical and ongoing effects of the US occupation firsthand, it would be a dereliction of my responsibility as someone who calls this place home not to oppose its continued destruction.
I think a people can absolutely be an important part of a places history without being indigenous or oppressors. Hawaiian culture is full of foreign influence and many peoples,just like anywhere.
I like you, you have understood what territorial responsibility is towards indigenous and native peoples without being entrapped by some of the flawed narratives Andrewism presented.
Yes you will never be indigenous but you can become culturally indigenous and responsibly naturalised.
"US occupation" ermm you're a US state who's people voted on statehood. Hawaii would be nothing more than a Japanese majority colony if not for the US
There are lightbulb moments of understanding--bright, energetic, clarifying, uncomplicated--and then there are those more akin to crossing a dark threshold and being blinded by the appearance of a dazzling new unfamiliar landscape; an apprehension of the vastness of the terrain left to be explored, and the daunting range of new skills and tools that will be required to survive it...
My feeling right now isn't quite as dramatic as all that (hehe, tricked ya), but it is somewhere between those poles. In other words: I've got plenty to chew on after this one.
Thanks, Andrew :)
i feel like Australia doesn't really get brought up much in topics like this, it normally get sidelined.
Based on every conversation that I’ve had with supposedly left-wing white Australians “well north america is worse…” That’s why Australia doesn’t get mentioned. This based one absolutely nothing, but projection and delusion. Sigh.
How do you always manage to be one book ahead of me on my reading list?
Marvelous work, once again!
Very good indeed sir, thank you. Braiding sweetgrass is such a stunning book, I can't recommend it enough to those that have not yet read it.
I have some minor critiques as an indigenous person (like Hawaiian is a nationality not ethnicity or race, the indigenous population is Kānaka Maoli or Native Hawaiian), but overall nice video. A good introduction to our identities
It's always interesting to learn about all the various indigenous cultures, I myself am not traditionally indigenous, my ancestors are sri lankan and I would technically count as south east asian but I was born in Canada. This meant I grew up learning about a lot of various indigenous cultures that we are thankful to share our land with. All various types are really beautiful and wise cultures that I wish to learn more about.
Such a great video. This is a really difficult topic to tackle and you did it with such clarity and nuance - I often don't know what to say in conversations about indigeneity or indigenous rights even though I am familiar with a lot of the scholarship - discussing this with fellow settler-Canadians (especially post-Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report) can still be very fraught. We need more of this kind of content out in the world. Thank you for your hard work on this!
ayyy it’s always cool when you post. i always find such important topic discussed nuanced and thoughtfully
Recently finding that my band includes me and how my mother only just dodged residential schools in canada because my native grandfather passed away when she was young.
Me and my brother are getting our status now and are re connecting to our community.
Thanks for the video, noah sent me hahaha
TBH I came into this thinking I'd still be confused and unsatisfied after, but I was 100% impressed and understanding of what you're saying. Liked and subscribed!
Genuinely one of your best videos yet. Your video's always make me proud to be alive in this time. We may not be born in the right generation to live before the unfortunate history of colonialism, or born after its fall, but we were certainly born in the right generation to be the leading warriors and revolutionaries against it in our time, and who will be remembered for our sacrifices for the next seven generations afterward who may be freed from its legacy.
this comment is so lovely
10:50 It's more than Settler Society Colonialism that is always a foreigner disconnected from the land, it's Capitalism itself, that when exported without invasion, like in Thailand, still produces all the problems of racism toward marginalized ethnic groups we are used to see in settler style Colonialism.
You’re right there are other forms of colonialism and too many of us don’t recognize what’s happening to people because it’s not the form of colonialism we are used to seeing.
I greatly appreciate the effort of research, respect, and thoroughness you put into this video. It is very well done and I strongly feel that indigenous is used way too loosely and manipulated.
I’m Maya K’iche’ from Guatemala and I think there’s a lot of false notions from the diaspora in the global north that all Guatemalans are “Mayan” or have some degree of maya blood which overlooks the ongoing oppression our pueblos face by the Guatemalan government and ladino society because our cultures are marginalized.
I always thought there should be a distinction between Native and Indigenous. Nearly all Guatemalans are native to the land (except for the few "pure" White Guatemalans), but only few are actually indigenous, aka living within the context of a person within a tribe rather than that of the mestizo majority which rejects indigeneity.
@@hardlo7146 even so ladinos are not “native” to this land and this statement is still problematic because it prioritizes ancestry by asserting that the sole aspect of ladinos being native is the fact that most of them have varying degrees of indigenous ancestry somewhere in their family tree’s past. what it doesn’t acknowledge is the societal aspects of how ladinos still retain immense leverage in society and they still are able to claim spanish descent and ties to latinidad when it conveniently protects them. and the indigenous peoples in guatemala are hardly a “few” considering we constitute over 7.5 million people out of a population of 17 million in total.
this needs to be noted because despite our large presence, positions in guatemalan government and society are still almost entirely filled by ladinos and white guatemalans who have ensured that indigenous communities stay systemically suppressed when it comes to voting, representation, and access to services like education and healthcare. we also do not use tribe as a word to describe our 24 indigenous groups in guatemala. community, group, nation, or pueblo are more appropriate regarding los pueblos indígenas.
@@andystartswitha5270 Well yeah I guess I didn't elaborate, but to me being native means jack. The mestizo majority is just another settler society, even if browner than those in the Anglosphere
I saw one of your comments where you tried to pass off the Métis culture as some sort of pre-European “organic indigenous” culture when in actuality the very WORD contradicts your idea.
The 2012 book “Contours of a People: Métis Family, mobility and history” the point is made that elements of European *and* Native American culture were *adopted* alongside the formation of new cultural customs and the use of a common language (French). Sounds a lot like the Hispanic Mestizo and Brazilian Mestiço.
Point is, Métis and mestizos are not CULTURALLY or LINGUISTICALLY the same. What is the same is the classification for people of MIXED European-Native American ancestry. The pattern. The formula is the same. Your just arguing Hispanic, Lusitanic and French versions of the same shit… period.
Are you aware that “Métis” is also used or was used through the former French Colonial Empire? Even for Black-French mixed folk?
I am 55% Spaniard, solid. 40% Native American. I consider métis people kinfolk as we share European and Native American blood.
WE are the legacy of all of YOU. WE are La Raza Cósmica. WE are products of the Union of Africans, Spaniards/Europeans, Native Americans.
Who knows why you have such disdain for Mestizos, it’s interesting to see honestly. Maybe cause of the Ladino atrocities against the Maya? 🤷🏽♂️
All I know is that your comment was full of shit.
@@thearyamehrrf6886 I got a notification that you replied to me but I don't see your comment. Did you delete it?
yo i was just about to go catch up on your old videos i haven't watched and i saw you just posted! cool!
Indigenousness is an interesting, yet difficult topic when applying it toward the Jewish community. I myself am both an Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jew, meaning my family was dispersed throughout Europe and the Middle East following the Roman Exile. They were never assimilated into their adopted homes, living in impoverished ghettos and extreme marginalization for generations on end; speaking tongues combining the memory of home and the reality of the present (such as with Yiddish and Hebraized Arabic) By nature of being a diaspora population, it feels impossible to grow roots anywhere, as our history is one of navigating social and political systems which didn’t want us present at all.
By all definitions presented in this video, ethnic Jews (including Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardic, Beta Israel, etc) are indigenous to Israel, yet, we haven’t lived in our native land for the better part of 2 millennia. That raises the difficult question of whether or not one can reclaim being indigenous to a land they were displaced from. How long must time march on for one to no longer be seen as native to the land of their ancestors? Since, the Palestinian people are native to the land of Israel as well, and became so in our time of displacement. But, who has given the Jewish people the right to displace them upon returning home?
The Jews of Europe had no where else to turn in the wake of the Holocaust, other than nations whose populous was built heavily upon (often colonial) immigration such as in North and South America. Following liberation from the camps, my family that didn’t move to America, Canada, or Israel settled in Colombia, but does that mean they’re lumped in with the rest of the white, settler population of the country? A similar Jewish exile which isn’t talked about much either is what happened to my Mizrahi family, when they were expelled from Syria in the years leading up to WW2. This displacement saw them end up in both Mandatory Palestine and America.
To live as a Jew is to constantly question one’s place in the world, as no matter where you go, there is no place that you can safely and concretely call “home.” Israel was supposed to be that, but the introduction of settler colonialist practices overseen by the British (and mostly with cooperation from the Ottomans as Jewish settlement helped remove governmental debt) twisted what was initially a socialist, emancipatory project into that of something no better than the colonial nations of centuries prior. An ethno-religious conflict between Jews and Palestinians was artificially mitigated by this mismanagement, a tactic that European powers seem all too familiar with. The UN wasn’t ever going to allow the declaration of a socialist, ethnically pluralist nation under its diplomatic guidance, and thus the Kibbutz (commune) system of the First and Second Aliyah were eventually abandoned, becoming a shell of its former self, morphing Israel into an apartheid, capitalist state.
I say all this simply to provide a Jewish prospective on belonging (or lack there of), as it is incredibly disheartening and upsetting to see my people, who have been oppressed for so long, execute and dish out similar forms of oppression to a group that has in many’s eyes “replaced” them in the birthplace of our people. I hope that this comment reads as coherent, and I wish nothing but love and respect to all members of both the Jewish and Muslim communities, especially those struggling in Palestine. I hope that one day we can both solve the question of what it means for a Jew to be indigenous, and more importantly bring about peace to the beautiful homeland of both our peoples🇮🇱❤️🇵🇸
The Zionists who settled in Palestine are as indigenous as the French who settled Algeria ( and both justified it based on the same claims of history)
The so-called "Palestinian Arabs" are Arab colonizers and are not indigenous to Israel. No matter how long a colonizing people may live on land they have conquered, they will never become indigenous to it.
People often underestimate how closely Jewish culture is tied to the land of Israel.
Our 3 most important and oldest holidays Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot are harvest holidays that align with the planting seasons in Israel. It's said to be a bad omen if it rains during Sukkot which only makes sense in Israel because it's the dry season. Raining anywhere else during Sukkot is normal. We have 7 native species which are holy to us because they are what our ancestors harvested in Israel. We have rules and rituals around the plants and land. Our culture is centered around when to plant, when to harvest, and when to let the land rest and is tied to Israel's climate.
So much of our culture is based around the plants and seasons that occur in Israel.
Great video! Found you through the latest Noah Samsen vid. Also a trini, recognized the accent immediately. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for introducing me to the concept of naturalisation as it has significantly helped in my understanding of Indigeneity and myself. I'm a white Australian that grew up in a predominately Indigenous community and got be involved in the culture of that area, but even there I still had privilege. I've always felt more connected to Indigenous culture than white culture, but I know I am not, and cannot become, Indigenous. I want to become naturalised. I want to be able to truly call this place where the red dirt meets the saltwater my home, not just the place I live.
Just because I'm more involved than many other white people certainly doesn't give me the right to consider myself naturalised though, and I don't think that should be up to me anyway. I don't think I will ever become naturalised, as I will never consider myself as such while I benefit from a system that hurts my friends. I unfortunately don't see that day coming in my lifetime, but I'll fight for it either until that day comes or to my deathbed.
I want to make it clear I'm not trying to brand myself as some morally superior person that's "not like the other white people" because while my experiences may not be standard, I'm still white at the end of the day. I also don't want to come off as a saviour type who thinks he knows better. Indigenous people don't need us to come in and save them, they need us to fucking listen to them and use the tens of thousands of years of knowledge at their disposal.
I understand where you're coming from, I think. I'm a white person in the US and I never would have been born if my mother and father's very different and distant European ancestries hadn't met here on this stolen land where I live. I wonder how to be responsible and respectful of the only home I know, but I also feel really aware of the violence in the history of how I even came to be. One thing that a lot of projects that cultural and language revitalization efforts in the US need (and I'm guessing may be true everywhere when it comes to Indigenous revitalization efforts globally) is funding. If you have means, buy Indigenous and donate where you can. Learn to write grants and help get funding going in the right direction. there are a lot of ways to help that involve listening and not being a "savior," but being a helper
Voice to Parliament is a good show of support
@@TheKrispyfort it's absolutely step forward, and I'll be voting yes for sure, but it won't be enough.
I’m going to comment as an immigrant to australia, as an “outsiders” perspective, on australia, the people and its history. I’ve observed that white colonial Australians begrudgingly do not accept the First Nations People as the owners of the land or the mistreatment they’ve been put through. In 2008, the Australian prime minister at the time, finally gave a “sorry” to the First Nations people, but the general public were not on board, at the time. Starting school in australia as a student at a high school in the suburbs, I noticed my HS did not educate their students on the full history, only the partial history. That history was mainly the “white man” side, by that I mean, we learned about Ned Kelly and his “heroism” against the government, and Captain Cook. You know, all the good fluffy stuff by white Australians and their ignorance and ego. We weren’t taught about the ‘White Australia Policy’ that aimed at segregating people, treating immigrants as lesser than, and separating First Nations children from their families in a push to remove their identity and culture. We weren’t taught about the ripple effect convicts had on the land, for example, the foreign diseases from cows/sheep/foxes/rabbits etc that killed off and impacted Australian wildlife and First Nations people. How the concept of “fences” was confusing to First Nations people who didn’t view land as something you buy an own by putting up a fence. As an outsider, learning about the history of Australia in my late 20s during a career change at TAFE, where one unit of the course was about Aboriginal and Torrest Strait Islander, it was eye opening for me but also made me realise how disconnected Australians are from each other. I’d almost compare the quality of Australian education to the North American education. It aims to tell a biased one side view, that paints one side in a better light, while leaving the other side in the shadows. I have met Australians around my age or younger, who grew up out in the country, and they did say that their school and education system did do a better job at teaching their students the real history, so perhaps my experience is exclusive to people who grow up in the city or in the suburbs. I completely understand the anger and frustration from the First Nations people. They’ve been gaslight, talked over, and controlled for so long, there’s nothing left but anger. Like you said, we need to let them talk, let their voices be heard, let them access the resources they need to rebuild. I’ll be an ally, but I won’t talk over them or take credit for anything. I’ll listen, and educate myself.
You're not just "white", you have an ancestry that connects to different lands. All peoples of the earth have a connection to some place. All cultures had their own way of honouring their own connection to the earth at one point in time. Including Europeans. The best way to meet other groups of people is be be secure in your own roots.
This is an amazing video. The first thing that comes to mind when land ownership is mentioned, many claim it implies land being taken away just like it was in the past when that is not the case because that is not what the teachings were. I am not indigenous, but I really love the various cultures, art and teachings and I try my best to integrate those teachings into my daily life. The descriptions you gave of what we could be gives me so much hope and joy but also sadness because I feel like it is never going to happen and is intense wishful dreaming. I want to be a part of that connection, but with the way things are I am doubtful and sad.
I love how Asia is largely glossed over in this because it not only doesn't fit the narrative, it breaks it. Where do groups like the Hmong fit in to this definition? Where does China's current economic colonization fit in this? Or the real colonization of Tibet? Or conflicts like in Kashmir? This is just anti-european.
China is criticized for the forced assimilation of Tibet and the Uyghurs, countries in South Africa are denounced for the displacement of the San peoples of Africa. Scandinavian Sami fight against the Swedish government to defend their culture
This is a very difficult question for my country and people, Sweden. We have several unique scandinavian languages, as well as several groups of Saami, who are all "indigenous" in the sense that their ancestors have been on the modern land of Sweden for over 1000 years. But these groups have faced varying degrees of discrimination and, in the case of Saami, outright genocide. Therefore it always annoys me a bit when some people and sources online refer to the Saami as the north's only indigenous peoples, as my Dalian ancestors have lived on this land since the stone age and have also experienced supression and assimilation of our languages to the point that they are functionally extinct, by early christians and the state. And even the "standard" Swedes are native to the land, as well Scanians, Gotlanders, Norwegians and Finns. To add to the confusion, different groups can be considered indigenous to different areas of Sweden. Obviously Scanians aren't native to Lappland, nor Saami to to Scania, but still are to the modern nation of Sweden. Then there's the question of descendants from immigrants. How long until they are indigenous? Are the many descendants of Netherlandic settlers from the 1600s native? How about even the royal family, who are ethnically french and german? It's all arbitrary in my opinion.
Great explanation Andrew! Really clear, good stuff! 👏
Excellent video essay, as usual. Gave me a lot to think about.
As always you present a great message with actionable steps where others only present problems with no solutions.
This is so important, thank you so much for this good Saint ❤️
Thank you for such a lovely video! I really like the naturalizing point and how important it is to protect indigenous people and learn from them for our future.
this is one of your best videos among a really good track record!! i really appreciate the distinction you made between the two definitions of indigeneity. that distinction between colonial subjectification and relationship to place has been helpful for me in navigating my relationship to the land and indigenous folks as a nonwhite settler. cuz we can and need to build relationships with the land, in addition to and in part by the colonial subjectification of indigenous people that's still happening
taiake alfred is a creep though haha
Great video, you covered so many broad subjects, thanks for the perspective!
Okay I HAVE TO KNOW where do you find all these artworks and artists? I'm an art teacher and I'm dumbfounded at how many of these I've never seen and I specifically go out of my way to find various kinds of arts and artists. I swear I keep coming back to your videos to reference the art and find new artists XD. Also great video!
I think another thing that bears noting is that in most situations where there is a colonizing society and a colonized society under it, the workforce and broader mass of the colonizing society includes people who were colonized and absorbed into that society; this is especially true of North American settler colonialism, in which white settlers include Irish people displaced by the British empire (including by Scots highland settlers who were themselves colonized), Sicilians fleeing the violence of the Risorgiemento, Jews fleeing persecution under the Tsar, Yugoslavians, Finns, and others on the peripheries or caught between larger empires in Europe, as well as refugees from political repression who were not necessarily colonized, such as British dissidents and German '48ers.
Israel is another example where the settler colonial class is constituted by people who were persecuted and oppressed elsewhere and so engaged in a colonial project in a bid to escape their subjugated position, while imposing one onto others.
None of which is to justify or excuse any of the actions of colonial forces, but to illustrate how deep colonialism goes.
All the good TH-camrs uploading today 💯
It’s ironic some Republicans talk about cultural integration when they themselves promote ideas of private ownership and capitalism, something rooted across the pond.
Yet another excellent critique on modern culture. It is imperative that those of us in the imperial core fight to allow other people's to govern themselves and reduce the extraction.
Powerful video. I'm gonna come back to this one every now and again
Thank you for this video, I hope it reaches many people.
Thank you for making this, your videos are always inspiring and hopeful, even while explaining topics that could make someone scared and give up, there’s still a sense of hope for the future and optimism I respect so deeply. I want to be like you in that regard because I am a cowardly and easily intimidated person. I feel like I do nothing to help people dealing with all the world’s problems, but you give me hope
This video puts so many of my thoughts into words. I am Zuni, Ashiwi, Indigenous American, whatever you wanna classify it as. In this way we are not only able to fit the definition of indigenous in the sense of the relationship to a colonial power (the US), but also in the way of relationship to place. Although what you stated about humans coming from Africa being largely true, contemporary history contributes to how societies interact. In this way, My people have occupied the same relative geographical area for over 7,000 years and crafted a very specific identity in various ways. We have a important give- take relationship to earth and I almost view it as my *duty* to spread that idea, along with others into the psyche of the colonized people who currently inhabit this same area. Thank you for making this, truly. This gives me the words to do that.
I always remember being in a Latin American lecture in Sweden when the teacher blurted out: 'Don't forget, Sweden has indigenous people; the Sami!'
I retorted: 'Are the Swedes not also indigenous to Sweden?? I am from Western England and so were my ancestors. I am indigenous.'
The teacher was gobsmacked and could not reply.
Fact is, people assume you must be from a perceived 'primitive' society in order to be indigenous. This is pure fantasy.
True. The Nordic people have lived in Scandinavia, in their current form, for ca 5000 years, without outside invasions or replacement.
That is quite a rare achievement, mostly thanks to living on such an isolated and harsh peninsula at the very northern edge of the world.
And if you somehow need to be colonized/conquered before being called "indigenous", how come e.g. the Skåningar are not counted? They used to be Danes since prehistory, at the southern tip of current day Sweden. They were taken over rather brutally 300 years ago, not that many generations ago. I am guessing people just disregard them because they think Swedes/Danes are too similar and interchangeable anyway.
I think there may be a difference between native and indigenous. As a Bantu South African I am native to South Africa but not indigenous as the Khoisan were here first, despite my people living here for at least 2000 years
@@MakhalanyaneMotaung it is very grey where we draw the lines on such things- I'd say 2000 years is ample time to be considered indigenous though.
For me in Britain this island has long been a melting pot of invaders, colonisation and switching prestige cultures- Roman, angle/Saxon/jute, nordic and then norman. This mix and constant assimilation would mean noone would be considered indigenous by a brutalist definition.
to be indigenious you literally have to be colonized
@@guyfauks2576 that's very much a grey area. Oxford dictionary cutes the definition of indigenous to be 'belonging to a particular place rather than coming to it from somewhere else'.
I would also like to point out Britain has been colonised at many points in its history. The very fact that upper class accent differs so greatly from regional 'working class' accents is literally a colonial legacy
thorough, approachable, important coverage. thanks
To understand the category of indigenous, we must understand Nations and Nation States. Nation is a community of people with shared culture, language, history etc. A state is a political organization and system that imposes rules over a group of people. Nation- states, or countries, share traits of both. The category of Indigenous has been falsely assigned by settler society and Nation-states as a cultural category, when it is a political one. Indigenous people are nations without an enforcing state and army to back them up or to desposses and etraxct at the magnitude of the countries of the world. Indegenous people exist because of colonialism, without it, they are simply nations. There are approximately 200 countries in the world but if we took every language in the world and assumed it as a nation, there would be around 7,000 nations in the world. To decolonize is to imagine a world that disregards borders, and the concept of nation states as a whole. Seems so far away from what is possible. But Id like to believe we can start planting seeds now. HIGHLY recomend checking out Mixe activist and writer, Yasnaya E Aguilar Gil's writing and videos. Most is in spanish but some has been translated. I take this knowledge from her.
By your definition, the US isn't a nation because it's not homogeneous. America has far too many people who came here from different countries, belong to different ethnic groups, with different languages, cultures & histories. Which may explain why "the world's greatest democracy" is failing. I can't think of another country that's as diverse as this one. And that diversity causes problems over time.
@@freedomfighter4990 or: there are many nations within the US, but the state exists only to represent settler colonial interests. The problem is not diversity; that's an abhorrent conclusion. he problem is a lack of autonomy for the indigenous people and a destructive, extractive, settler-colonial disposition of the power structure that dominates the land within its borders.
@@freedomfighter4990 then it shouldn’t exist at all
@@freedomfighter4990 except communities have had diversity within them for thousands of years now, and diverse communities generally flourish thanks to a multitude of ideas and perspectives. Think of the most successful civilizations throughout history, they were built on the ability to trade and interact with a variety of people.
@@freedomfighter4990I do think there is a culture that has formed around America and the US as a country. And it is desperately trying to hold on to homogeneity by erasing, appropriating and silencing all other cultures not stemmed from european, white supremacist, settler ways. And it's true it's extremely multicultural, but I don't think it is diverse, because to me personally, diversity implies thriving of variance and differences. Which is not the case: languages come here to die, cultural practices are forgotten, immigration is criminalized. So a true diverse nation would cherish and allow all cultures to thrive.
One of the best ways indigenous has been explored lately was at the United Nations because it was understood and examined by and for Indigenous peoples. It highlights that being indigenous is not defined by blood, but by community. So an indigenous person both defines themselves as indigenous and is seen as indigenous by their community. Highly recommend looking it up and reading the works written and collected in the United Nations Indigenous working group.
I am a unique example, I was adopted into my Indigenous family and raised in the traditions and teachings. It is something that doesn't really exist in my racialized identities, you cannot be adopted into the social construct of race but being indigenous is in the spirit and who your family is/who you are in community with.
What a thorough and clear explanation. This is excellent!
Hi, South African here. I've been learning a lot about the indigenous communities of the Americas and starting to understand how they have, and are still pushing and at the forefront of protecting the land against climate change, and how we can learn so much from them.
Its also important to me to relate it to my African identity and African indigenous communities, as native and indigenous identity on the continent are two different things. In my understanding, everyone who's born on the continent is native to Africa, but not everyone is indigenous. In South Africa, we have 9 native cultural tribes (Tswana, Pedi, Sotho, Zulu, Swati ,Xhosa, Ndebele, Tsonga and Venda), but the Khoi and the San are the indigenous first peoples of not only the country or Southern Africa (because them and similar tribes are sparsely spread out in neighboring countries like Namibia and Botswana), but they are the oldest living cultural group on Earth. They have largely preserved their culture, language and living habitat (because they are nomadic people) the same for thousands of years, but not all them are surviving. Our government, even after Apartheid was abolished has not done enough to preserve their culture or integrate them sustainably and let everyone learn from them after 30 years of democracy. Many of them stay in poor semi-arid, small desert towns and communities, but this could be because its closer their ancestral homes. They are not reservations, but maybe like protectorate areas. They at least can even move freely in the country, vote, live contemporarily like everyone else and treated with respect, but our government could've done better to boost them. The county motto thats on our coat of arms is " Unity in diversity" from the Khoi/San language, but that should be inclusive of indigenous culture and peoples too.
The conclusion is incredible!
Hey, I find your videos very interesting but I often struggle with understanding you. Not going to ask for captions cause it's a lot of work but could it be possible to have a link towards the script of your video in the description? That would make following along a lot easier for me.
At the moment I use youtube auto subtitles to help me follow along and they do help a bit but they're sometimes very innacurate (when they transform "relationship to a place" with "relationship to police" it's a bit hilarious tbh xD)
Thank you very much for your work though you always cover topics I'm not super knowledgeable about so it helps a lot
Hey, for this reason, all of my videos have captions that I've uploaded, but it looks like this one didn't upload correctly. Will rectify!
@@Andrewism Oh, I wasn't remembering if you usually had captions, great then perfect =p thanks for your work ^^
@@Andrewism i am grateful for the captions
An important and complex topic that once again you make accessible and understandable. The definitions here really just broadened my understanding of Indigenous identity and Indigeneity. Of how the social struggle is advanced by decolonization, and what is necessary of a revolutionary society’s relationship to nature. Amazing how tradition can offer a spark for revolutionary progress, in a sense of worldviews more organic and in harmony with natural development as part of the ecosystem rather than “aliens” to the native life. This requires conscious sustainable and nondestructive efforts in living with the environment. A eco/bio-anarchism focused on bio-regional and bio-dome social organization and self-sufficient autonomy, as well as coordinated cooperation across biospheres.
First time hearing of Braiding Sweetgrass by Kimmerer. Very important book, thanks for sharing 🙏
"You always have family and your family always has Tribe"-Joshua Graham
Love the videos, as always, good job
🎉Another Andrewism video🎉
ever deadly
Dr Umar just dropped another video today as well.🙃
as someone caught in between both an invasive & indigenous family, I have a very former induced frame of reference for the latter, the indigenous side of my family has only been a curiosity a fascination to think about in brief. Not even a quarter of the life I could've had is truly visible in the corner of my eyes. I'll never be perceived as "native" which from what I've heard is rather fortunate.
"invasive" lmfao
I don't think indigenous is a term that is able to be recuperated. As you noted the process of decolonization would lead to abolition and destruction of indigenous as a category. My point of departure however would be that there is no conception of indigeneity that is outside of colonial logics. Even the conception of indigeneity as a relationship to place still centers land claims (and the capacity to make land claims) albeit those land claims are much more generative and inclusive than those made under capitalism. However what is lost in these conversations is the slave and their "descendants." You mention it breifly but your resolution is one that brings conflict between Black and Native Thought. If the way of producing indigeneity for the slave is to be assimilated to indigenous communities amd modes of existence, then the solution posed is essentially a reenslavement by a new master. Subordination is inherent to that dynamic. If land is life then the slave who is no longer indigenous to Africa but not quite indigenous to the Americas must simply be dead. Which i agree, slave (descendants) occupy a social death. But under the reign if indigenous societies this social death would be maintained as the same centering of land-based identity, and thus land claims, remains present. The same goes for language. This assimilation would still breed subordination. But this is not to say that the knowledge of the land is not vital to its preservation. However this knowledge is the real marker as opposed to indigeneity and notions of land ownership no matter how lenient. I mean there are plenty of people who are "indigenous" but still without the knowledge of upkeeping nature. This is why i say indigeneity actually must be lost as it only arises in colonial and enslaving logic.
My point of departure from your point of departure is that I don't advocate for assimilation. I consider it neither possible nor desirable. I'm not sure how that particular framing came about. To further clarify my (albeit brief) mention of the relationship between Black folks and Indigeneity, my argument would be that displacement is displacement, regardless of whether it is across land or ocean. I did say that Black folks are not indigenous to the Americas, but they are still a displaced Indigenous people. Some of the nations occupying the current reservations in the US, for example, are not technically "indigenous" to that particular corner of the continent, but under a settler colonial society, they still retain that categorisation.
But that tension/debate regarding the status of enslaved Africans in a settler society aside, returning to the conclusion of the video, I advocate for decolonisation, social revolution, and zones of refuge. None of that, to me, involves competition between Black and Indigenous people (not to mention, there are people who are both!). My resolution entails overturning acts of enclosure by building new commons, overturning acts of possession by reclaiming our spaces and identities, overturning acts of administration through social revolution, and developing "indigenous" relationships to land. My settler society specific recommendation was uprooting individualist capitalism, receiving and honouring the knowledge in the land, caring for its keepers, passing on that knowledge to the next generation, and elevating Indigenous voices, knowledges, and pedagogical approaches.
I only mentioned land claims twice in the script, once in reference to Indigenous groups in Africa and once in order to criticise the approaches to decolonisation that center mimicking the practices of the dominant non-Indigenous legal-political institutions through land claims and self-government processes. Land claims aren't central to my personal vision of decolonisation, creating shared commons are. I don't believe anything I spoke about implies assimilation or subordination to a new dominant Indigenous regime, but if that implication was read, please accept my clarification. Thanks for taking the time to comment! We do both agree that the endgoal is the abolition of Indigeneity (similarly to how the endgoal of anti-capitalist revolution is the abolition of the working class).
@@Andrewism I see now clearer where our difference is in terms of our level of abstraction and how we interpret the conditions of the slave vs. the colonial subject/colonized person. As many Black theorists would argue, I posit that the slave is not simply displaced in their indigeneity, but through the middle passage and deracination is stripped of indigeneity altogether (the capacity to claim a land-based identity). Meaning that if returned to Africa, freed slaves in the Americas would not become indigenous again but would either remain foreign to native Africans or be assimilated.
I also think in my interpretation I read land-claims to be inherent to the formation of indigenous identities. By claiming oneself or group as indigenous the implication is that everyone else is foreign thus symbolically and discursively subordinating them as other. And I would also push back on the interpretation of the split between Black and Native people as competition. The split is much deeper in that the ontologies of Black and Native peoples are not the same though we constantly make analogy. People often treat slavery as if it is an extreme form of capitalist exploitation and colonization but its dynamics are not actually dependent on economic exploitation that is merely one of the ways slaveowners decided to utilize their slaves.
And when brought to claim that people can be both Black and Indigenous I am also concerned.
Yes of course in America for example there are biracial people (Black and Indigenous particularly). But those that live on reservations (who are often descendants of slaves held there) are often treated as second class citizens in order to conserve resources for taking care of the "real" indigenous population so they may pass on the knowledge we seek the proliferation of. This goes as far as putting blood quantum on ID cards to differentiate them. This is the reason I fear the use of indigeneity in describing our liberation tactics. Who becomes the "real" indigenous and who becomes the imposter. In the instance of indigenous Africans, I think the point I'm interested in making still is what happens to the "Africans" who are no longer indigenous to Africa.
We agree on the end goal. My addendum is just that there is a dearth or crises of language that makes it difficult to discuss the level of imagination required to deconstruct society as we know it. Under my interpretation, the language of "indigenousness" will always exclude the Millions of freed slaves in South and North America as indigeneity is not actually a possibility for all.
Some readings I think can make this clearer are "The vel of slavery" and "the curtain in the sky" by Jared Sexton.
I appreciate your perspective. I don't hold to your definition of indigeneity as simply the capacity to claim a land-based identity. The land is a very major part of it, I agree, but I don't believe it's the entirety of it, again because of displacement. I also don't think a connection to the land is necessarily exclusive or exclusionary, as many Indigenous groups also hold overlapping claims to connection to particular areas. For that reason, I also disagree with the notion that a group claiming indigeneity implies every other group is foreign because various Indigenous groups co-exist. While it may be the case that the categorisation of "other" can lead to subordination, I disagree that it necessarily leads to subordination. True, nations both define themselves in comparison and in contrast to other nations around them, but the idea that the only way of viewing the other has been through subordination is not something I agree with. I don't want to nitpick the choice of the word subordination, perhaps that's not what you meant by the term, but if it is, I disagree.
Some people do treat slavery as if it is an extreme form of capitalist exploitation, but you're right to argue to the contrary. Slavery predates capitalism (not to say that slavery under capitalism has not evolved) and any analysis of it that doesn't account for that is flawed.
Please don't take my passing mention of Black Indigenous people as ignorance of their reality. They go through a lot of shit. The Black Indigenous people in the USA aren't the only Black Indigenous people I talk about, I also mention the Garifuna in the video and there are also Black Indigenous groups across Latin America, but yes, it is true that there has been significant mistreatment. I'm aware of their history.
I hope you don't misunderstand, Black liberation is still central to my politics. I do believe Indigenous liberation is also necessary, but considering the definition I use in this video, the end goal of that struggle as a component in decolonisation is the abolition of indigeneity as a status. For me, it's not about making Indigeneity in a colonial sense a possibility for all. Maybe in a land relationship sense it's a possibility post-fall-of-capitalism. Perhaps these tools, these words, these definitions are limited in their use. Which is why we need a whole toolbox of analysis, I don't think any one lens is going to work for all situations.
For the sake of dialogue, adopting your definition, I agree that freed slaves returning to Africa do not become indigenous by virtue of returning to the land of their ancestors. It is true that they either assimilate or, in the case of Liberia, perpetuate their foreign status. For me, what happens to the Africans who are no longer indigenous to Africa, the African Diaspora, is still engagement with social revolution with the aim of our autonomy as peoples, wherever we find ourselves.
I will be sure to add your recommendations to my list, thanks for the conversation.
That's an excellent analysis and explanation!
Thank you for this. Concise, clear and thoughtful. I question one of your quotes though: "To become naturalized is to know your ancestors lie in this ground. Here you will give your gifts and meet your responsibilities". One interpretation of this is that we only have to care for land which has nurtured us for more than a generation or that we consider our homeland, but that interpretation doesn't feel good. Without claiming it makes all of us indigenous or even naturalized, isn't there a way to state that we *should* give our gifts and meet our responsibilities wherever we are by learning from and assimilating to the land we live in?
Personal context: my parents were part of a diaspora, and one thing I respect them for is that they immediately attempted to form ties to the land. They're the people who showed me what gift giving looks like in practice. They also learned and practice the culture and traditions of the place they settled in. None of us are indigenous, and their ancestors lie thousands of miles away. Hope I'm not acting out of turn by asking those questions.
Hi Andrew, Basque here.
I don't think we really fit the first definition of indigenous since relationships between the Basques and the Spanish have mostly been cooperative and friendly. Yes, there was oppression during franquism, but there's never been a full blown invasion with Spain taking ahold of Basque land and pushing the natives out or anything remotely similar.
The political issue is more about if we should consider the Basques as also being Spanish or not, but that's not the same as what native Americans or aboriginal Australians are going through.
here in the Caribbean you were spaniards alright
Thank you for this infornative video and great recommendationto plant a garden ❤ it really is all you say it is and that is beautiful
this video is so important, thank you
"are French people indigenous to France" Once upon a time the celts and proto-celts of western Europe probably counted but I don't think it's really applicable to the current political discussion.
we still have several ethnic groups recognised as Indigenous: the Bretons in Brittany, and the Basques in Euskal Herria. Not to mention those inhabiting our occupied territories in Kanaky, French Guiana, or Polynesia.
@@babymilksnatcherwhy the Bretons and Basques, when they live no differently to the other French regions? That sounds like saying Cornwall is indigenous when its almost indistinguishable from the rest of western England
It would be cool to see Twin Rabbit team up with you
This was an absolutely amazing video.
I went into it absolutely nervous and by the end want to give it a standing ovation.
Thank you
It's a great vid. I grew up in what's essentially a modern colony under a different label. The consequences of colonialism on my land is insane yet it has never been acknowledged by the settlers. There's hardly any indigenous self identity or community, especially in bigger towns. Never even realized I was indigenous until I really got into history a few years ago. Wasn't really taught the native language as a child even though it is severely endangered. I'm doing my best to learn and preserve it now but it takes much, much longer with the limited amount of resources if you compare it to more common languages. History of colonialism in my area has been distorted and watered down to "Oh you guys just figured we should stick together to be stronger so it was your decision
Where are you from if you don’t mind me asking?
Sounds like Wales
@@ifsey wales ain’t indigenous. Some not all welsh want a ticket to the oppression olymics. Also the welsh murdered and oppressed Native American and indigenous people wholeheartedly.
This is a very good educative video on this topic. As a mestizo of Latin American descent I know how much Spain changed the lives of indigenous peoples from the Americas & Caribbean to the Philippines and also in turned changed the lives of Spaniards now blended with most of the Indigenous peoples to create a new hybrid race and culture. It’s very interesting to relate to 2 or more cultures from around the world for blended people everywhere. Being that I’m dominant in Spanish though it is a very tough and interesting question to ask how do I as a colonizer decolonize myself from that whole way of thinking and living? Thank you again for the great video!
How to ddecolonize yourself: Stop using the wheel lmao
The bridge to let the unhappy citizens out of the cities and into rural communities is yet to be built, culturally. Ye here are part of the bricks of that bridge, thank you for the videos!
Another great video!!
Another great contribution, family 🏴
What do you mean Indonesian government isn't recognizing indigenous people?
We've censused over hundreds of tribes, I had difficulty memorize all of them in school. I myself a Javanese, a native of my own island.
I don't understand how you think of indigenous-ness in SEA. Most of the natives are the majority of their population. Sure we have Chinese, Indians, and Arabs among us, but their discrimination is very minimal. If you're talking about how left behind they are in society and technology, it's their decision to isolate and the government respects that.
We also don't colonize Papuan (in a way). They're minorities outside their island, yes, but they're pretty much thriving in their own lands... So they're not like Australian and American natives.
Jawa😂
Awesome video! Thank you!
Great video and love ur accent. I got a little confused around the nature part but regardless it was a great reminder (hawaiian)
I love your videos so so much!!
Very informative and much needed
Edit: Based on the replies this is getting, I feel like I should clarify.
I don't feel guilty for harm I took no part in causing. That was more a comment on white guilt in general being unproductive. This was meant to be hopeful - I didn't choose to be part of an exploitative system, and I have very little individual power to change it. But I *do* have the power to find (or build!) a community who collectively works to have a more cooperative and less exploitative relationship to the land, and I just think that's nice. Felt like I needed to express my gratitude for such a lovely and emotionally resonant video on such a complex topic. That's all I really meant, and I'm sorry if in getting there I came off as wallowing in self-pity. Love and peace to everyone who reads this ❤️
I've always sorta struggled to reconcile this stuff in my head. On paper I'm a white USAmerican, with all the privelege that comes with that, but on the other hand my family comes from marginalized immigrant populations, my parents being the first to escape that generational poverty. And it feels weird to say that because of my current position. Because I've always felt so utterly rootless, culturally. No connection to community or to place. And I think you've helped me better understand why that is, by helping me understand what indigenous peoples have.
And ngl, that stuff about becoming naturalized? It made me a lil misty. It feels like an answer to a question I didn't realize I had. White people here have such a strange relationship with guilt but it doesn't have to be this way. I have no home, really, but I can start growing my own roots. Maybe they won't be strong and maybe that's ok, you know? I can start to understand this land that sustains me.
Beautiful video.h
Forgive me, but I find that mystifying. This is going to be a challenging comment to you. If you come from marginalized immigrant populations, you are not privileged, regardless of your race. Why even consider yourself "privileged?" Obviously, being American is more privileged than being say, Palestinian in the West Bank, but the largest possible macrocosm isn't what we're measuring against, generally speaking. It's also dumbfounding you'd feel rootless. As someone of white European descent, you have literally millennia of cultural capital, i.e. roots, to marinate yourself within. Everything from the ancient myths to the philosophers to Mozart to the Magna Carta to the history of the United States, of this country and its founders, its story, its achievements, they are yours, an everlasting wellspring for you to drink from. Thousands and thousands of years, of lands, of stories, of narratives, of science, of knowledge, of Western Civilization, and then centuries of American history. Your connection is to all of that. Indigenous peoples do not have more than you. Your roots are ever there, in the writings of Marcus Aurelius, of Socrates, in the songs of Bede, in the waters beneath Yggdrasil and in the meadows of Asphodel, in the musical notes of Bach and the lamentations of Joyce and Wordsworth, in the space under the dome of the Pantheon and in the homes designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. You absolutely have a home. White people ought not have any guilt if they didn't do anything guilty. By your own account, your ancestors were in poverty and not even from here. They couldn't have taken part in the sins committed by other white people in America's past.
@@Fear_the_Nog I see where you're coming from here. I do. But I wholeheartedly disagree. I'm white, I'm American, I have financial security I didn't have to work very hard for. None of those things do I feel guilty about - they simply weren't my choice. But they are privilege. They allow me access to things everyone should have access to, but so many don't. I don't have to fear the police, regardless of my opinion of them. That's privilege.
Side note:
You seem to be under the impression that privilege is a binary but it's not. It's highly contextual, based on the situation you're in and the various aspects you have relative to the majority population. I have some very important privileges - whiteness, the most immediately visible and important to physical safety. Maleness, where I'm assumed competent in many business interactions. I lack others, though. Disability makes it harder to find a job and colors other people's view of my intelligence. Queerness puts an asterisk on that same maleness and makes talking about my love life risky. It's complicated. It's all in the intersections of how privilege and oppression interact. Like for example how a Black man has male privilege in some contexts, such as being assumed to be competent before a Black woman would. But in, say, sexual relationships he's much more likely to be characterized as a rapist than a white man would. If he flirts with a white girl, he may be in danger because of racial prejudice, as he'll now be seen as a threat to her purity, because in that context he isn't *just* male, he's a Black man. I'm hardly qualified to be an educator on this subject, but "intersectionality" is the word of the day.
As for culture, there are cultural things, sure. But there is no White Culture in the US, at least none I care to be part of. There's White Supremacy (yikes no), Capitalism and Consumerism (yuck), or at best there's the crowd that does cultural festivals celebrating countries of origin. But as someone who's never been to my great-grandparents' home countries, from a family who fully assimilated generations ago, what connection do I have there? It's a lovely culture, I'm sure, but it isn't mine. I feel no connection to it.
There's no community dedicated to preserving my ancestors' traditions and relationship to place and native languages here. What is here is shallow trappings - a few garments divorced from historical and cultural context, mass produced and sold for a profit. Maybe some folk dances. It's, as Andrewism put in the video, all very extractive in nature. Meant to squeeze value out of people and places. Not to sustain a community.
You've listed off some cool stuff from history, from one interpretation of what the word "culture" means. And it isn't an incorrect one, but it's not the one I'm using. What I was talking about, the thing I lack, is the "indigeneity" as described in the video. Traditions and rituals and art and community, rooted to and inextricable from the land. The Magna Carta is cool but it could've theoretically happened anywhere, given the right conditions. I don't want the Magna Carta. I want the ritual of gathering everyone together by the riverside to watch with joy and melancholy as the salmon migrate to their breeding grounds, as a long-standing celebration of this place's changing seasons. That can only happen with the roots I don't have. At least, not yet.
All the best to you. Have a good day
@@scobeymeister1 " I'm white, I'm American, I have financial security I didn't have to work very hard for. None of those things do I feel guilty about - they simply weren't my choice. But they are privilege."
I guarantee you that your so-called privilege would evaporate instantly in the projects in the inner city. You'd in fact be lucky if you don't get mugged or stabbed or suffer a gun injury.
I am not white. I am American. I have financial security that I also didn't have to work very hard for (all I needed to do was to get A's in my classes), but I did come from an immigrant family who left a kind of Communist authoritarian poverty to pursue a better life in the States, so I was not born into financial security. That security was largely earned by me as a result of the aforementioned straight A's. I too have privilege. But it has nothing to do with skin color. Neither does yours. There are plenty of white Americans with zero financial security, also not by their choice. Race is not relevant here.
"They allow me access to things everyone should have access to, but so many don't. "
Everyone has the access you have. I did. I'm not white. I see where you are coming from, but your privilege hasn't been demonstrably related to race. A black politician would have more privilege than either you or me if all three of us happen to walk down E 47th and MLK Dr. in Southside Chicago.
"I don't have to fear the police, regardless of my opinion of them. That's privilege."
That depends on what news you've been consuming. Statistically, more white men are killed by police annually than any other race. It also depends which municipality you live in. As an Asian, I never had to fear cops either. But that has nothing to do with my skin color. Do cops profile people? Sure. But that has more to do with the demographics of crime rates than race. Asians as a group barely commit any crime. You can say we are more privileged than whites in that regard. In fact, you are wrong that I think privilege is binary (that wouldn't even make sense). Privilege is not a meaningful term unless it is contextualized. But your original post's context SEEMS to fall prey to the silly framing that "being white = privilege" as a universal, which is what I disagree with.
"I have some very important privileges - whiteness, the most immediately visible and important to physical safety."
There is no such thing as whiteness. You guys are not a collective or a monolith, and people in fact wouldn't give you physical safety in some places, specifically BECAUSE you are white. This is a false narrative peddled by the mainstream media and certain elements in academia that couldn't be further from the truth.
"Maleness, where I'm assumed competent in many business interactions"
Strangely arbitrary and particular angle to assess privilege, picking business interactions. I'm Asian, I'm even MORE assumed competent in business and finance by people. And a black man would be assumed physically more able and masculine and powerful. I can think of a dozen other angles where maleness affords you a disadvantage. You get drafted to war. You get to stay in a burning building when the women, elderly and children get to leave first. You get completely dismissed and ignored as soon as you show one iota of slowness or incompetence. You can get your life destroyed if you so much makes one false move against a female coworker. Women have their privileges. They're always believed. They're always treated nicely and politely. They're much less likely to be killed on the street. Being male has privilege in only CERTAIN arenas in society. It has a great any disadvantages in many other arenas.
"But in, say, sexual relationships he's much more likely to be characterized as a rapist than a white man would. If he flirts with a white girl, he may be in danger because of racial prejudice"
Do you live in 1950s? Nowhere in any major US city does any modern human think a black man is particularly more likely to be a r*pist than say, a bunch of white AF college frat boys..... There is literally NO ONE who thinks if a black man flirts with a white girl, there is anything untoward about that in 2023. In fact, it's the opposite, black men are largely viewed as sexually more successful, desirable, and white girls all flock to them.
I feel like you are simply repeating classic talking points of the Left, but not actually making any real world observations to see if these assumptions are even true.
"I'm hardly qualified to be an educator on this subject, but "intersectionality" is the word of the day."
Not sure what intersectionality has to do with anything. In fact, my personal view ever since I've encountered the idea, is that Intersectionality is the singular most useless, meaningless, banal, and illogical idea to have ever existed. I don't even consider it a valid concept. Time for it and all of its thumb-twiddling academic proponents to go the way of the dinosaurs (insert evil laugh). Jokes aside, it's a thoroughly stupid concept. Anyone is qualified as an educator on any subject, as long as they study it enough. One's background is utterly irrelevant.
@@scobeymeister1 The term "white culture" doesn't really make sense, and is only something that would be invented in a place like America. The more meaningful concept would be Western culture....But, I'll indulge in the concept of "white culture" for the sake of argument. White culture is literally everywhere in the US.
"But there is no White Culture in the US, at least none I care to be part of. There's White Supremacy (yikes no), Capitalism and Consumerism (yuck)"
A) It's a self-limiting perspective to create a scope where "white" is reduced to only these things.
B) None of these things are culture. They are politics, or societal, and aren't particularly unique to white people.
C) For example, the Chinese have Han Supremacy, Capitalism (ancient and modern), and also Consumerism, which are also politics and social trends, not culture. In fact, they are even more Consumerist and Materialist than the West. It would be inappropriate to reduce Chinese culture to these things.
D) literally the entirety of the US is full of what can be called "white culture." From our (speaking as an American) music, our literature, our way of thinking, our American spirit, American philosophy, our artforms, our architecture, our innovations in almost all aspects of all disciplines, our food and the way we prepare our food, they way we greet people on the street, American hospitality. Everything from Rock n Roll to Mark Twain, to Art Deco architecture, to Neoclassicism, to Jazz, to the artform of film itself....and That's just the modern era stuff. Go into the library and you find a treasure trove of millennia's worth of "White culture" from the epics of Homer to the the 19th Century Romantic paintings of Caspar David Friedrich. It's up to you to choose to see these things as worthy and to connect with them or not.
"It's a lovely culture, I'm sure, but it isn't mine. I feel no connection to it. "
Connections are forged, not inborn. What is yours is there as birthright of inheritance, as the works of Confucius are to me. But if I do not care to find out about it, or about, say, the Hundred Schools of Thought in Ancient China, or the philosophy of Musashi, and make myself see value in these cultural properties, to read them, to see how my forefathers thought about the world, to make a conscious effort to make that connection, then I'd be similarly adrift like so many second or third generation immigrants suffering identity crises. The problem isn't a lack of culture, but a lack of a self-motivated initiation into what are vast vaults of culture wherein lies our inheritance. It's there, always, even if you don't care for it. And it absolutely IS culture.
"You've listed off some cool stuff from history, from one interpretation of what the word "culture" means. And it isn't an incorrect one, but it's not the one I'm using. What I was talking about, the thing I lack, is the "indigeneity" as described in the video. "
I disagree. Indigeneity as described here is a romanticized notion. It's nice, but not particularly meaningful. If you want more romanticism, I can indulge too: We are ALL indigenous, ultimately, to Earth. Hence, ALL our forefathers everywhere have always been everywhere. There is no need to separate, really, one group from another, if you merely want to connect with culture, however you want to define it. Culture and home is where the heart is. Where the mind is. I don't believe you lack any indigeneity, nor is indigeneity as described in this video any particularly more worthy a thing to seek than the vast cultural capital inherited unto you by nature of your blood's connection to the grand Civilization that birthed that capital, in my view.
The idea that connection to a land must somehow be ancient is arbitrary. You have community here, you have other white people who came centuries before here who have established culture here, it is largely an Anglo-Saxon based cultural base, with sprinklings of all other groups that season it. You have current communities. It's literally all shining around you. And yes, you do have traditions and rituals and art and community, rooted to and inextricable from the land, literally we are all part of it. That it is more recent than the Pueblo doesn't make it any less inextricable. But that being said, I see no particular value in the idea of inextricableness to land, as that idea has a certain nationalist and blood and soil slant to it. It's what the Germans used to boost themselves up around the time of WWII, and how the Japanese propagandized their campaign against East Asia at the same time, and we all know how that went.
"I want the ritual of gathering everyone together by the riverside to watch with joy and melancholy as the salmon migrate to their breeding grounds, as a long-standing celebration of this place's changing seasons. That can only happen with the roots I don't have. At least, not yet."
Romantic notions are powerful, but not particularly cogent. You have countless rituals where everyone gathers in a cathedral or a street burst out in song during Christmas Eve, or you can have a cook out when friends family gather and feast every November, or you can go to a Jazz club in NYC, it's 9pm and the band just starts to play. These are all culture, all connected, rooted in the place called America. You just want a specific "other" flavor, a romanticized notion of some agrarian ritual about mother nature.... let me tell you, most human societies past the Bronze Age, mine in Asia included, no longer have that sort of thing; we haven't had that sort of thing since the Bronze Age, actually.... We do light lanterns during the Autumn Festival, but it's to ward off ghosts, like you lot do for Halloween, it's got nothing to do with any particular "land" per se. Again, wanting that "flavor" of stuff, that is fine, and there are "White" cultural practices today that are kind of similar to that sort of thing still, but you might need to join Asatru or become Wiccan....
Point is, one isn't more inherently "cultural" or "indigenous" than the other.
@@scobeymeister1 my replies disappeared, maybe someone flagged them. I'm reposting, trying to remove as many potentially problematic words as I can. Here goes:
(I'm white, I'm American, I have financial security I didn't have to work very hard for. None of those things do I feel guilty about - they simply weren't my choice. But they are privilege.)
I guarantee you that your so-called privilege would evaporate instantly in the projects in the inner city. You'd in fact be lucky if you don't get mugged or stabbed.
I am not white. I am American. I have financial security that I also didn't have to work very hard for (all I needed to do was to get A's in my classes), but I did come from an immigrant family from poverty to pursue a better life in the States, so I was not born into financial security. That security was largely earned by me as a result of the aforementioned straight A's. I too have privilege. But it has nothing to do with skin color. Neither does yours. There are plenty of white Americans with zero financial security, also not by their choice. Race is not relevant here.
(They allow me access to things everyone should have access to, but so many don't.)
Everyone has the access you have. I did. I'm not white. I see where you are coming from, but your privilege hasn't been demonstrably related to race. A black politician would have more privilege than either you or me if all three of us happen to walk down E 47th in Southside Chicago.
(I don't have to fear the police, regardless of my opinion of them. That's privilege.)
That depends on what news you've been consuming. Statistically, more white men are killed by police annually than any other race. It also depends which municipality you live in. As an Asian, I never had to fear cops either. But that has nothing to do with my skin color. Do cops profile people? Sure. But that has more to do with the demographics of crime rates than race. Asians as a group barely commit any crime. You can say we are more privileged than whites in that regard. In fact, you are wrong that I think privilege is binary. Privilege is not a meaningful term unless it is contextualized. But your original post's context SEEMS to be saying that "being white = privilege" is a given, which is what I disagree with.
(I have some very important privileges - whiteness, the most immediately visible and important to physical safety.)
There is no such thing as whiteness. You guys are not a collective or a monolith, and people in fact wouldn't give you physical safety in some places, specifically BECAUSE you are white. This is a false narrative peddled by the media and certain elements in academia that couldn't be further from the truth.
(Maleness, where I'm assumed competent in many business interactions)
Strangely arbitrary and particular angle to assess privilege, picking business interactions. I'm Asian, I'm even MORE assumed competent in business and finance by people. And a black man would be assumed physically more able and masculine and powerful. I can think of a dozen other angles where maleness affords you a disadvantage. You get drafted to war. You get to stay in a burning building when the women, elderly and children get to leave first. You get completely dismissed and ignored as soon as you show one iota of slowness or incompetence. You can get your life destroyed if you so much makes one false move against a female coworker. Women have their privileges. They're always believed. They're always treated nicely and politely relatively compared to men. They're much less likely to be killed on the street. Being male has privilege in only CERTAIN arenas in society. It has a great many disadvantages in many other arenas.
9But in, say, sexual relationships he's much more likely to be characterized as a rapist than a white man would. If he flirts with a white girl, he may be in danger because of racial prejudice)
This is not the 1950s. Nowhere in any major US city does any modern human think a black man is particularly more likely to be a r*pist than say, a bunch of white AF college frat boys..... There is literally no one who thinks if a black man flirts with a white girl, there is anything untoward about that in 2023. In fact, it's the opposite, black men are largely viewed as sexually more successful, desirable, and white girls all flock to them.
I feel like you are simply repeating classic talking points of the Left, but not actually making any real world observations to see if these assumptions are even true.
(I'm hardly qualified to be an educator on this subject, but "intersectionality" is the word of the day.)
Not sure what intersectionality has to do with anything. In fact, my personal view ever since I've encountered the idea, is that Intersectionality is the singular most useless, meaningless, banal, and illogical idea to have ever existed. I don't even consider it a valid concept. Time for it and all of its thumb-twiddling academic proponents to go the way of the dinosaurs (insert evil laugh). Jokes aside, it's a thoroughly useless concept. Anyone is qualified as an educator on any subject, as long as they study it enough. One's background is utterly irrelevant.
As an Anishnaabe and two spirit person
Miigwetch
Super inspiring!!
I stopped using the word "indigenous" for my people or my family, and instead use the terms "first nations" or "anishnaabe"
that's amazing, "indigenous" really understates the diversity of the first Nations across the americas
im still unsure about first nations. my peoples are ALREADY gathered around some thing cultural and spiritual denoting our very identity as the humans amongst a greater group of indigenous beings. to add a nation or government onto it seems contradictory or complicating to our very identity. "people of the land and sea nation" or "people of the safe harbor government" just sounds conflicting
i still like indigeneity cause we cant predict what species or places the natural world will produce if we intend on living in balance with it - so i personally cant assume indigeneity flattens diverse groups into fewer distinctions
@@meowcholos it is but also it is using language that people who can't conceive of that CAN (mostly) understand. it is a bit like bridging a gap
I stopped using the teen First Nations a couple decades ago and use Indigenous or Lakota. We are Indigenous it fits our world view of relationship to land and it’s something settlers still want to take from us with their made up stories of ancient ancestors
Dear Andrew, that is a seriously well made video, you have earned yourself a subscriber.
If I may ask, what is your opinion on European peoples rejecting Multiculturalism and wanting their countries to be for themselves?
I'm pretty sure you know.
I heard the accent and went "It's giving, Trini". Glad to be right
This was a really good video.
Brilliant fucking video, thank you so so much for this one.
Reading Rec on Indigenous NA Culture: Gerald Vizenor - Manifest Manners
Finally! A source I can use for homeschooling that makes sense about indigenousness and post colonislism without beig overwhelming! Thank you for a clear path forward! Ending with naturalization is fantastic. Many thanks. I will be also sharing this video with my homeschool colleagues.
Ugh. The Stonetoss argument. Thank you for this piece.
he didn't go onto disprove it as far as i've seen
As a Hokkien this topic has always interested me, but brought me more questions than answers about my own identity. We are the hybridized descendants of the indigenous (now extinct) Minyue peoples and the Han who conquered the region. As such we were forcefully assimilated as Han people but due to incomplete assimilation, our culture and language retains elements of the extinct Minyue culture and is mutually unintelligible with Mandarin.
We are considered part of the majority ethnic group of China in name, but not treated as such - most of my southern friends and I are rarely seen as Chinese as we look different from Northern Han people and as such are also the target of racist phrenology conspiracy theories from race purists who now want to claim that we aren't Han at all. When I learnt of our hidden history of the Minyue, and of the reality that our language has been deliberately minimised to a "dialect", I felt intense mourning for these ancestors who's names have been scrubbed out from our tablet, where my prayers would never reach.
Further complicating matters is that my great-grandparents had to flee fascists during the Chinese civil war and ended up in Singapore, which is now a Chinese supremacist state; and the settler status of Hokkiens in Taiwan due to European colonists. With our culture and language quickly dying out, is it right for me to ask if any aspect of us can be considered indigenous in any way - or if this is misplaced cultural grief taking place?
amazing video! i’m really interested in native plants. not only are there so many beautiful endemic plants in california but they are also great food sources! i would encourage anyone to look into growing native plants in your area as a form of sustainable agriculture instead of only thinking of the grocery store veggies and fruit that require a lot more inputs. that is one way to help heal the land and decolonize your diet.
I think robin wall kimmerer said that to be indigenous is to care about the land your grandchildren will inherit
Thank you. I was confused about the difference between 'native' and 'Indigenous.'
My people have been living where we do, for about 4500 years. We didn't take the land from anyone, and we have been in power here all that time.
Following the definitions you mention:
1. a) We are the dominant people of the country, and b) we have never been subjects of colonialisation.
2. We as a society places capitalist use of nature above respect for nature.
We do have a lot of ancient traditions, linked to the land, but they are fragmented by 1000 years of Christianity.
So that is why my people, along with many other European peoples, might be *native* to their country or region, but we are not Indigenous.
And so when some people of dominant cultures claim that they are Indigenous too (mainly in an attempt to refuse to respect ethnic groups who are in minority), they use the botanical and zoological definition of it only. And they conveniently overlook the important anthropological elements of having been colonialised and/or being a culture not part of the dominant culture, and the element of living in balance with nature, not as master.
Have I understood it correctly?
Andrew, can you please do a video on direct/liquid democracy and your ideals of government?
In think the concept of indigeneity can also have an evolving relevance. I'm thinking about the Finns who were colonized during centuries by Sweden and then Russia. Today, Finland has been independent for 100 years and its language and culture have flourished. At the same time, Finland has installed a form of colonial relationship in its relationships with the Sami peoples.
The inhabitants of Finland before the Finns were the Sámi. Before the Sámi were a unknown people. There were likely people before them as well. Indigenous is a made up term that makes zero sense and is generally applied to people before the Europeans
@@lumethecrow2632 I think the video argues pretty well that the term makes at least some sense
@@xrissdood The term only makes sense when used in reference to being colonized.
He tries to tie it into economics later on in the video which ends up being even more worthless and incoherent. Indigenous means people who love the land? Indigenous means people who love nature? Complete horseshit LOL. Go tell that to the North American megafauna, go tell that to the Mammoths and Sabre-Tooths. Indigenous people are not a single monolithic culture, one tribe might revere nature, another might hunt species into extinction and burn down forests.
Then he goes on to claim capitalism is a form of colonization which is just totally incoherent, as if a consensual exchange of wealth and culture is the same as an active invasion... He says these things assuming you won't ask "why" or "how". He says them and you are meant to eat it up and ignore the glaring lies.
@@lumethecrow2632 the earliest inhabitants of Finland arrived at 9000 bc. The sami migrated from the Urals around 1600 bc.
Finnish is a dialectical continuum that branches off from Saami languages, Karelian is anyother sets of dialects that branched off and has an earlier written record than Finnish. The Finns are just the only one of those three groups that has a nation state.