2023 – Sovereignty – INDIGENOUS DREAMS

so-ve-reign-ty
supreme rule

The struggle for Indigenous sovereignty is a global phenomenon. But do Indigenous people mean the same thing when they fight for ‘sovereignty’ as the dictionary definition? As far as we know, Indigenous sovereignty is more about shaking off domination than dominating oneself; don’t climb the ladder but burn the ladder! Is the struggle for sovereignty a political metaphor for a cultural idea of harmonious coexistence? And what do we lose when sovereignty is only pursued by political bodies – such as the government – while the government of the nation state is the oppressor of the Indigenous people? Chihiro Geuzebroek was put on this path of questioning after reading the book Restructuring Relations – Indigenous Self-Determination, Governance, and gender by Sapmi writer Rauna Kuokkanen. She writes in her article INDIGENOUS WESTPHALIAN SOVEREIGNTY? Decolonization, secession, and Indigenous rights in Greenland:

Divergent interpretations of the content of self-determination derive from differ-ent conceptions of sovereignty, which are highly contested and historically contingent(Barker 2005). The concept of self-determination as statehood within geographicallyseparate territories and jurisdictions is rooted in the Westphalian concept of sover-eignty and the related doctrine of non-interference in the domestic affairs of a state.The interpretation of self-determination as political independence, however, hasbeen considered a misconception originating in the post-World War II decolonization framework, which “involved the transformation of colonial territories into newstates under the normative aegis of self-determination” (Anaya 1996, 80). Further,state sovereignty conceptualized as non-interference and ultimate authority is beingundermined by global capitalism and international law (Lapidoth 1992; Held 1995)and as a result, sovereignty is reconstructed at various levels, ranging from globaland regional to sub-state settings (Sassen 1996). Some scholars even suggest that sov-ereignty may never have existed to the degree normally associated with the concept(Philpott 1995).

Kuokkanen then explores how Indigenous struggles in various nation states, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, often see sovereignty of the body of the earth (the land from which all food comes) and sovereignty of women (where we all come from) as separate battles. Where land theft and the struggle for land rights are presented as a ‘general political matter of self-determination’, while murder and rape of Indigenous women are presented as a ‘social issue or a crime committed by individuals’. Rauna Kuokkanen explains how both are a matter of self-determination and warns against a strategy that focuses solely on (own) government: “I especially have a problem when shared administrative domination is mistaken for, or misrepresented as, an exercise of self-government” (p23) Kuokkanen conducts a relational analysis and sees conflict areas for violation of the land and violation of Indigenous women both calling for relational system change: restructuring relations.
With this edition of Indigenous Dreams Chihiro Geuzebroek wanted to discuss with Indigenous dreamers in the Netherlands how each views sovereignty from an Indigenous perspective: Have we been influenced by the West in our conceptualization of sovereignty? When will we know if we are on the right path in our fight for sovereignty? Geuzebroek wanted to socialize the question, but that wasn’t easy. We heard several times: ‘To be honest, I don’t know. I am so concerned with the survival of our people that addressing the larger issues of freedom is something I don’t get around to’, or words to that effect. And that is a fundamental fact of long-term oppression, that the oppression exhausts you so much that you have no time and/or energy for quiet, slow, deep conversations about the long view of sovereignty or liberation. So we have met people where they are at and we bear witness that there is complexity and (apparent) contradiction that wIndigenous peoples all hate and fear the nation states as an oppressor who denies all the laws of the land and of the Indigenous societies, but at the same time many struggles for sovereignty also cooperate to some extent with the nation state government to alter laws or put energy in pushing for a measure in the oppressive nation state that can have a positive effect on the survival of Indigenous peoples.

In the interview with Ayesha, she notes that we may need a different word with regard to the concept of sovereignty. After all, it is not about supremacy, but the unraveling of a legal and political system that thinks that land is property, while Indigenous people know that the people belong to the land. And Shanthuru says that in Tamil they do not have a word for sovereignty, but they do speak of Iraiyamai. This concept means ‘collective truth’. And Juan talks about how Mapu not only means ‘country’ but also ‘reality’. Over and over again Geuzebroek was reminded of the analysis of Glen Sean Coulthard, Yellowknives Dene writer. In the book Red Skin, White Masks – Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition, Coulthard speaks about the ontological difference between Indigenous and Western worldviews that repeatedly appears in language and framing as incompatible: Vine Deloria Jr states that:

“[…] one of the most significant differences that exist between Indigenous and Western metaphysics revolves around the central importance of land to Indigenous modes of being, thought and ethics. When ideology is divided according to American Indian and Western European [traditions],” writes Deloria, this “fundamental is one of great philosophical importance. American Indians hold their lands – places – as having the highest possible meaning, and all their statements are made with this reference point in mind.” Most Western countries, by contrast, tend to derive meaning from the world in historical/developmental terms, thereby placing time as the narrative of central importance. Deloria then goes on to conclude: “When one group is concerned with the philosophical problems of space and the other with the philosophical problem of time, then the statements of either group do not make sense when transferred from one context to the other without proper consideration of what is taking place.”In drawing attention to the distinction between Indigenous place-based and Western time-oriented understandings of the world, Deloria does not simply intend to reiterate the rather obvious observation that most Indigenous societies hold a strong attachment to their homelands, but is instead attempting to explicate the position that land occupies as an ontological framework for understanding relationships. Seen in this light, it is a profound misunderstanding to think of land or place as simply some material object of profound importance to Indigenous cultures (though it is this too); instead, it ought to be understood as a field of “relationships of things to each other”

It is not a random fact that almost all the Indigenous Dreamers we have spoken to in 2022 and in 2023 have spoken about the trauma of brutally losing their language as this involves a restructuring of the relational fabric with each other and the land. We believe that language revitalization and being able to listen, receive and work the land in a serviceable manner on a daily basis without the threat of punishment or expropriation by a state, are paths of healing from which more self-determination can blossom. Between the elimination of national borders and border racism, which Shanthuru and Roberto talk about, and the restructuring of self-image and learned inferiority complex that Richard talks about, there are still many areas to delve into more deeply. Semuel challenges us to think about ownership as a form of responsibility.

This edition with special focus on Indigenous ideation of sovereignty provides space for polyphony, disagreement with the higher goal of broadening and deepening knowledge and practice and cooperation for Indigenous liberation based on diversity. Body- and gender sovereignty has not really been named in the conversations that have taken place. But what has not happened yet, may be yet come… We hope so.