Background: I got here b/c I was looking at options for massage therapy continuing education and stumbled across this forum while researching the background of a workshop leader for a continuing ed session at a retreat center near me (Lewis Mehl Medrona). I appreciated the info, and joined b/c I wanted to share a couple academic/activist resources that I thought might be of help on certain topics. While I don’t have too much familiarity with “new age” sprirituality (at first it sounded like a quaint 60’s-era phrase to me, LOL), I do believe in racial justice and the right to self-determination.
As I said in my intro, looking over this site made me recall having read Rev Myke Johnson’s 1995 essay on spirituality and cultural theft, something I hadn’t thought of since the late 90’s. And at the time it seemed pretty right-on, but somehow I only thought of it as advice targeted at individuals (a small number, I assumed) and I never made the connection to seeing this cultural appropriation as systemic and a collective threat to indigenous identity and survival. It’s been eye-opening reading thru the boards, learning more about it. Also, on a related note, I hadn’t before perceived the phenomenon here called “persons of distant indian ancestry” displacing the authority of indigenous voices in the political and social arena as being widespread either. I am used to focusing on racism that takes the form of hostility – hate, discrimination, exclusion – rather than that which takes the form of trivialization – appropriation, misrepresentation. But it’s true that both are problems and both need to be attacked. Another thing I hadn’t realized before is the all the dimensions of the distinction between being racially, politically, and culturally native american.
So in that light I am trying to wrap my head around what, if anything, this means for US “latinos,” as we are the largest minority group in the US, and a group with potentially a lot of overlap with “native americans.” Hopefully it's not too much of a distraction from the purpose of the forum, but I was curious to pose a question to any members that care to weigh in, about relations between "latinos" and "indians." In my life up to now, I have always seen this as a false dichotomy, maybe because my latin american ancestry is bolivian and
Bolivia’s majority population (55%) is indigenous, with another 30%
mestizo, so that colors my view (pardon) of latino identity. As a mixed-race, bicultural woman I have had to embrace
“this bridge called my back” LOL, but I actually do try intentionally to be a bridge between latino and native american communities/organizations locally. There is a segment of the latino community (a lot of these are mexican-americans) who argue strongly for racially indigenous and mestizo latinos’ identification as native peoples -
here's a good example (actually I believe he’s bolivian).
That argument informs the immigration debate here in the US, ie “We didn’t cross your border; your border crossed us,”
“Who’s the illegal alien, Pilgrim?” etc. While this is based on the truth that the US government borders and immigration policies can be seen as illegitimate since they derive from colonialist legacy, I’m aware that it sidesteps the question of who has legitimate authority as to who lives here (would it be the tribes that were in the area before contact perhaps?) At this point in time, I think most immigration to the States is from countries affected by colonization; yet in our communities, I don’t see much critical interrogation of the “We’re a nation of immigrants” narrative and how it leaves out the who & why of today’s immigrants – not to mention the peoples indigenous to the area! Anyway, it’s a complex issue for sure – a book that really made sense of it to me is
Harvest of Empire.
It seems there may be varying views on this from the north american indian perspective – dunno if anybody here recognizes what kind of an organization this is that put out
this statement? (I hadn’t heard of them)
Not to get toooo sidetracked here...! So, what is most compelling to me about the views I’ve seen here, is that I am used to thinking that it
supports decolonization when people who are racially indigenous and mestizo, but no longer live in traditional communities, acknowledge and honor their roots rather than seeking to assimilate to and/or replicate eurocentric cultures. In fact I’ve always assumed the biggest dangers to indigenous survival in latin america & its diaspora are
state repression and
neoliberalism, and therefore people of indigenous descent – full-blood or mixed-blood – should resist succumbing to racist messages about their heritage being shameful and backwards, and should both hold onto/recover the language, cultural (and if applicable, spiritual) practices of the community to whom we are related; and commit ourselves as allies to that community, politically, socially, economically, etc. My dad has compared growing up in 1950’s Bolivia to modern-day South Africa with its categories of black, colored, asian, and white; rather than the US in terms of how race is lived. I was taught that my father’s family is – and therefore I am – mestizo, although my mom is white american of french canadian descent. I guess due to the white-supremacist ideology the US was founded on, here you’re not seen as white unless you’re about 100% white. Yet oddly, in my experience, there is pressure on many US immigrants including latinos to assimilate to/emulate the white culture - rather than preserve their own or try to integrate elements in a thoughtful way - and to adopt the white superiority attitude towards african-americans, rather than assimilating to their culture or seeing them as allies. Theoretically, the reward for this would be whites accepting our presence, allowing us to accumulate resources, etc. My feeling has been that for latinos, this “exchange” has meant forfeiting our connection with our ancestry and with our fellow native nations. And yet, not
calling ourselves native americans sure hasn’t stopped us from
being racially targeted! (*coughcough*
AZ SB1070).
But here, I’ve been introduced to the perspective that for people who are racially indigenous and mixed-blood, but no longer live in traditional communities, it could actually be
more damaging to indigenous cultural survival for us to see ourselves as still an extended part of that community. I know this post was written about the US and people of north american indian descent, but I find myself wondering about the relationship of the PODIA concept to mestizos and cholos (as urban indians are called in Bolivia), as alluded to by an
article linked in another thread. I’m not sure how to reconcile this for myself. Although in the case of many latin american countries, it is usually mixed people having children with mixed people, who are continuously racially and culturally mixed through generations, rather than assimilated. Nevertheless, now I am honestly wondering for the first time if my advocacy for latino-native solidarity could be a product of having absorbed white racist beliefs romanticizing native cultures, rather than the way I always saw it: a rejection of latin american and american anti-indian racism?
Like, I said in my intro how I’ve been ranting about the Census categories and how I feel they erase the reality of who latinos are. I’ve commented on this
facebook page and when I first saw the linked
article I was infuriated that it quoted latinos filling out their forms saying, "We're not black, so I guess we're white," and "Why isn't there at least a `Brown' box?" without once alluding to why many of us are brown. My view has been that the classification “latino” is a way for the US govt to not have to talk about our native (and in some cases african) roots and to help them go on pretending that the indians who originated on this continent have mostly disappeared and are an insignificant minority. I perceived the report that “in 2000, about 43 percent of the nation's 35.3 million Hispanics identified themselves that year as being of some other race” as a silencing and an erasure. But then I started thinking this past week, well, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to include ourselves with the native community – maybe we
should actually have a “brown” category? Or maybe just lobby for latino as a race? Or for mestizo to be recognized as a separate racial category, while say,
Mayans would be native american? Or should there be an understanding of a distinction between “native american” (cultural/racial) and “indigenous” (cultural/political)?
Because I definitely believe I owe it to my native ancestors and relatives, not to mention my european ones as well, to contribute to justice and cultural survival for aymaras, quechuas and the indigenous people of the americas. Up until now I have never questioned my belief that mestizo and disconnected or less-connected “indios” were a piece of how that heritage was going to be passed on, and as a community health worker and wannabe-scholar (*coughcough* dropout) I advocated that to the latino communities I belong to. But now I am reevaluating my stance with a critical eye, to make sure I’m not way off-track. Although at first sight it was hard to understand the usefulness in a philosophy of indigenous identity that
one poster described as “exclusive rather than inclusive,” I was struck by the tree/branch analogy in
this post and eventually I came to feel like I needed to take this argument very seriously. I guess this all seems so significant to me because I’m kind of at a crossroads in my life (collecting unemployment *coughcough*) where it’s not clear whether I’ll return to my studies and advocacy on cultural resources and community development for health promotion, or move in some other direction. And add to that the usual parenting angst... Well, if anyone has actually read all the way through this they deserve a medal! Again, if no one feels commenting is an appropriate use of time on the forum, I understand. Regardless, I’d like to say thanks because much of what you’ve shared on the NAFPS boards is very helpful for keeping people on track about native issues - ironically even those without identified experience with “new age” or “frauds”!
