WSTB05 Abstract assignment 1<\/p>\n
Order Description<\/p>\n
Read the attachment “WSTB05 Abstract assignment instructions”for instructions and detail description. Also, “Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2008 (1999). \u201cColonizing Knowledges.”.<\/p>\n
WSTB05 Abstract assignment<\/p>\n
Choose an article to write up and submit in abstract form. You are also encouraged to adopt the process of writing abstracts
\nFormat:
\nThese abstracts should be 1\u20142 pages total (typed and double-spaced), regardless of the length of the reading. However, only the first 1\u20142 paragraphs will a conventional abstract; the rest will be critical reflection. For the abstract portion, you should summarize the major points of the reading, and then provide your own critical analysis of the article\u2019s major points or claims. Note that being critical does not require you to be negative about the author or article, but is about taking a questioning stance.
\nFor the abstract portion, you will be assessed on\u2022 how well you pull out the main ideas of each reading, \u2022 how clearly you present each idea in your writing
\nCritical analysismight include some of the following:\u2022 your thoughts on possible applications of the article;\u2022 questions you have about the author\u2019s\/authors\u2019 chosen approach to their topic; \u2022 connections you see to other course materials;\u2022 gaps between what the author(s) set out to do and what the article delivers;\u2022 oversights in the author\u2019s\/authors\u2019 analysis;\u2022 possible other directions for the author\u2019s\/authors\u2019 ideas.
\nPlease include specific citations in your abstracts, though for course readings, you only need to provide the author\u2019s\/authors\u2019 last names and page number in brackets. Though it is not necessary to draw on non-course materials for this assignment, if you do mention other articles, provide complete reference information. No cover page is required, but please put your name and student number, as well as the name of the author(s) and article you are abstracting, at the top of the page.<\/p>\n
F a i r D e a l i n g ( S h o r t E x c e r p t )
\nTitle: Colonizing Knowledges
\nAuthor: Smith, Linda Tuhiwai, 1950
\nCourse: Approches to Research in WGS
\nCourse Code: LEC01 Term:
\nDepartment: WST
\nThank you for using the University of Toronto Libraries Syllabus Service. We are pleased to be able to offer this
\nservice to interested faculty.
\nIt is important to note that the materials provided here are only to be made available on a password protected
\nplatform such as Blackboard, and only to students enrolled in the class. If you have any questions on whether your
\nuse of these materials is consistent with University Policy, please contact the Scholarly Communications and
\nCopyright Office at copyright@library.utoronto.ca.
\nPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
\nCHAPTER 3
\nColonizing Knowledges
\nWe have a history ofpeople putting Maori under a microscope in the same way a
\nscientist looks at an insect. The ones doing the looking are giving themselves the power
\nto define.
\nMerata Mita1
\nIn the previous chapter the metaphor of an archive was used to convey
\nthe sense by which the West drew upon a vast history of itself and
\nmultiple traditions of knowledge which incorporate cultural views of
\nreality, of time and space. This chapter argues that the form of
\nimperialism which indigenous peoples are confronting now emerged
\nfrom that period of European history known as the Enlightenment. The
\nEnlightenment provided the spirit, the impetus, the confidence, and the
\npolitical and economic structures that facilitated the search for new
\nknowledges. The project of the Enlightenment is often referred to as
\n‘modernity’ and it is that project which is claimed to have provided the
\nstimulus for the industrial revolution, the philosophy of liberalism, the
\ndevelopment of disciplines in the sciences and the development of
\npublic education. Imperialism underpinned and was critical to these
\ndevelopments. Whilst imperialism is often thought of as a system which
\ndrew everything back into the centre, it was also a system which
\ndistributed materials and ideas outwards. Said’s notion of ‘positional
\nsuperiority’ is useful here for conceptualizing the ways in which know
\nledge and culture were as muchpart of imperialism as raw materials and
\nmilitary strength. Knowledge was also there to be discovered, extracted,
\nappropriated and distributed. Processes for enabling these things to
\noccur became organized and systematic. They not only informed the
\nfield of study referred to by Said as ‘Orientalism’ but other disciplines
\nof knowledge and ‘regimes of truth’. It is through these disciplines that
\nthe indigenous world has been presented to the West and it is through
\nthese disciplines that indigenous peoples often research for the fragments
\n58
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 59
\nof ourselves which were taken, catalogued, studied and stored. It is not
\nthe intention of this chapter to tell the history of Western knowledge
\nbut rather to draw that history down into the colonized world, show the
\nrelationship between knowledge, research and imperialism, and then
\ndiscuss the ways in which it has come to structure our own ways of
\nknowing, through the development of academic disciplines and through
\nthe education of colonial elites and indigenous or ‘native’ intellectuals.
\nWestern knowledge and science are ‘beneficiaries’ of the colonization of
\nindigenous peoples. The knowledge gained through our colonization has
\nbeen used, in turn, to colonize us in what Ngugi wa Thiong’o calls the
\ncolonization ‘of the mind’.2
\nEstablishing the Positional Superiority of Western Knowledge
\nThe project of modernity signalled the end of feudalism and absolutist
\nauthority, legitimated by divine rule, and announced the beginning of
\nthe modern state. The new state formation had to meet the requirements
\nof an expanding economybased on major improvements in production.
\nThe industrial revolution changed and made new demands upon the
\nindividual and the political system. The modern state was wrested from
\nthe old regime of absolutist monarchs by the articulation of liberal
\npolitical and economic theories.3 Asa system of ideas, liberalism focuses
\non the individual, who has the capacity to reason, on a society which
\npromotes individual autonomy and self-interest, and on a state which
\nhas a rational rule of law which regulates a public sphere of life, but
\nwhich allows individuals to pursue their economic self-interest. Once it
\nwas accepted that humans had the capacity to reason and to attain this
\npotential through education, through a systematic form of organizing
\nknowledge, then it became possible to debate these ideas in rational and
\n‘scientific’ ways.
\nThe development of scientific thought, the exploration and
\n‘discovery’ by Europeans of other worlds, the expansion of trade, the
\nestablishment of colonies, and the systematic colonization of indigenous
\npeoples in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are all facets of the
\nmodernist project. Modernism is more than a re-presentation of
\nfragments from the cultural archive in new contexts. ‘Discoveries’ about
\nand from the ‘new’ world expanded and challenged ideas the West held
\nabout itself4 The production of knowledge, new knowledge and
\ntransformed ‘old’ knowledge, ideas about the nature of knowledge and
\nthe validity of specific forms of knowledge, became as much
\ncommodities of colonial exploitation as other natural resources.5
\nIndigenous peoples were classified alongside the flora and fauna;
\nhierarchical typologies of humanity and systems of representation were
\n60 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\nfuelled by new discoveries; and cultural maps were charted and
\nterritories claimed and contested by the major European powers. Hence
\nsome indigenous peoples were ranked above others in terms of such
\nthings as the belief that they were ‘nearly human’, ‘almost human’ or
\n‘sub-human’. This often depended on whether it was thought that the
\npeoples concerned possessed a ‘soul’ and could therefore be ‘offered’
\nsalvation and whether or not they were educable and could be offered
\nschooling. These systems for organizing, classifying and storing new
\nknowledge, and for theorizing the meanings of such discoveries,
\nconstituted research. In a colonial context, however, this research was
\nundeniably also about power and domination. The instruments or
\ntechnologies of research were also instruments of knowledge and
\ninstruments for legitimating various colonial practices.
\nThe imaginary line between ‘east’ and ‘west’, drawn in 1493 by a Papal
\nBull, allowed for the political division of the world and the struggle by
\ncompeting Western states to establish what Said has referred to as a
\n‘flexible positional superiority’ over the known, and yet to become
\nknown, world.6 This positional superioritywas contested at severallevels
\nby European powers. These imaginary boundaries were drawn again in
\nBerlin in 1934 when European powers sat around the table once more
\nto carve up Africa and other parts of ‘their’ empires. They continue to
\nbe redrawn. Imperialism and colonialism are the specific formations
\nthrough which the West came to ‘see’, to ‘name’ and to ‘know’
\nindigenous communities. The cultural archive with its systems of
\nrepresentation, codes for unlocking systems of classification, and
\nfragmented artefacts of knowledge enabled travellers and observers to
\nmake sense of what thev saw and to represent their new-found
\nknowledge back to the West through the authorship and authority of
\ntheir representations.
\nWhilst colonialism at an economic level, including its ultimate
\nexpression through slavery, opened up new materials for exploitation
\nand new markets for trade, at a cultural level, ideas, images and
\nexperiences about the Other helped to shape and delineate the essential
\ndifferences between Europe and the rest. Notions about the Other,
\nwhich already existed in the European imagination, were recast within
\nthe framework of Enlightenment philosophies, the industrial revolution
\nand the scientific ‘discoveries’ of the eighteenth and nineteenth
\ncenturies. When discussing the scientific foundations of Western
\nresearch, the indigenous contribution to these foundations is rarely
\nmentioned. To have acknowledged their contribution would, in terms
\nof the rules of research practice, be as legitimate as acknowledging the
\ncontribution of a variety of plant, a shard of pottery or a ‘preserved head
\nof a native’ to research. Furthermore, according to Bazin, ‘Europeans
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 61
\ncould not even imagine that other people could ever have done things
\nbefore or better than themselves’.7 The objects of research do not have
\na voice and do not contribute to research or science. In fact, the logic
\nof the argument would suggest that it is simply impossible, ridiculous
\neven, to suggest that the object of research can contribute to anything.
\nAn object has no life force, no humanity, no spirit of its own, so there
\nfore ‘it’ cannot make an active contribution. This perspective is not
\ndeliberately insensitive; it is simply that the rules did not allow such a
\nthought to enter the scene. Thus, indigenous Asian, American, Pacific
\nand African forms of knowledge, systems of classification, technologies
\nand codes of social life, which began to be recorded in some detail by
\nthe seventeenth century, were regarded as ‘new discoveries’ by Western
\nscience.8 These discoveries were commodified as property belonging to
\nthe cultural archive and body of knowledge ot the West.9
\nThe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also constituted an era of
\nhighly competitive ‘collecting’. Many indigenous people might call this
\n‘stealing’ rather than ‘collecting’. This included the collecting of terri
\ntories, of new species of flora and fauna, of mineral resources and of
\ncultures. James Clifford, for example, refers to ethnography as a science
\nwhich was
\nfa] form of culture collecting … |which] highlights the ways that diverse
\nexperiences and facts are selected, gathered, detached from their original
\ntemporal occasions, and given enduring value in a new arrangement.
\nCollecting – at least in the West, where time is generally thought to be
\nlinear and irreversible – implies a rescue of phenomena from inevitable
\nhistorical decay or loss.”1
\nThe idea that collectors were actually rescuing artefacts from decay and
\ndestruction, and from indigenous peoples themselves, legitimated
\npractices which also included commercial trade and plain and simple
\ntheft. Clearly, in terms of trade indigenous peoples were often active
\nparticipants, in some cases delivering ‘made to order’ goods. The
\ndifferent agendas and rivalries of indigenous groups were also known to
\nhave been incorporated into the commercial activities of Europeans.
\nHence, muskets could be traded and then used to pursue traditional
\nenemies or one group of people could be used to capture and assist in
\nthe enslavement of another group who were also their traditional rivals.
\nIndigenous property is still said to be housed in ‘collections’, which in
\nturn are housed either in museums or private galleries, and art and
\nartefacts are often grouped and classified in the name of their ‘collector’.
\nThese collections have become the focus of indigenous peoples’
\nattempts to reclaim ancestral remains and other cultural items (known
\nin the West as ‘artefacts’) belonging to their people.
\n62 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\nIt is important to remember, however, that colonialism was not just
\nabout collection. It was also about re-arrangement, re-presentation and
\nre-distribution. For example, plant species were taken by Joseph Banks
\nfor the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. Here they could be ‘grown,
\nstudied, and disbursed to the colonial stations, a centre of plant transfers
\non the scientific level, and of the generation and publication of know
\nledge about plants’.11 The British Empire became a global laboratory for
\nresearch and development. New species of plants and animals were
\nintroduced to the colonies to facilitate development and to ‘strengthen’
\nindigenous species. This point is worth remembering as it contrasts with
\nthe view, sometimes referred to as a diffusionist explanation, that
\nknowledge, people, flora and fauna simply disbursed themselves around
\nthe world. This botanical colonization had already been successfully
\ncarried out in other places: for example, maize, sweet potatoes, and
\ntobacco from South America had been widely distributed. In the centre
\nof this collection and distribution network was the imperial ‘home’
\ncountry. The colonies were peripheral satellites which gained access to
\nthese new knowledges and technologies through ‘recourse to the
\nwritings of authors in the centre’.12 One effect of this system of
\nredistribution was the interference caused by new species to the
\necologies of their new environments and the eventual extinction of
\nseveral species of bird and animal life.13 In the case of New Zealand,
\nCherryl Smith argues that, ecologically, the indigenous world was
\ncolonized by weeds.14
\nAmong the other significant consequences of ecological imperialism
\n\u2014carried by humans, as well as by plants and animals \u2014were the viral
\nand bacterial diseases which devastated indigenous populations. This
\ndevastation or genocide was, in the accounts of many indigenous
\npeoples, used deliberately as a weapon of war. Stories are told in Write my essay for me – CA Essay writer Canada,
\nfor example, of blankets used by smallpox victims being sent into First
\nNation communities while the soldiers and settlers camped outside
\nwaiting for the people to die. There were several ideologies which
\nlegitimated the Western impact on indigenous health and well-being.
\nThese supported racial views already in place but which in the later
\nnineteenth century became increasingly legitimated by the ‘scientific’
\nviews of social Darwinism. The concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’,
\nused to explain the evolution of species in the natural world, was applied
\nenthusiastically to the human world. It became a very powerful belief
\nthat indigenous peoples were inherently weak and therefore, at some
\npoint, would die out. There were debates about how this could be
\nprevented, for example, through miscegenation and cultural assimilation,
\nand whether this, in fact, was ‘desirable’. Judgements on these issues
\ncircled back or depended upon prior considerations as to whether the
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 63
\nindigenous group concerned had souls, could be saved, and also could
\nbe redeemed culturally. Influential debates on these matters by Catholic
\nscholars such as Bartolome de Las Casas took place during the sixteenth
\ncentury. In nineteenth-century New Zealand someof the debates delved
\nrightdown into the supposed fecundity rates of indigenous women and
\nthe better prospects for racial survival if miscegenation occurred. There
\nwere very serious scientific views put forward to account for the demise
\nof the indigenous populations. Some views included: sterility caused by
\nthe ‘licentiousness’ of the women, a vegetable diet, infanticide and
\nabortion. Other causes were put down to a sense of ‘hopelessness’ and
\nlack of spirit, which came about through contact with ‘civilization’.15
\nBut there were also state policies (federal, provincial and local) of
\n‘benign neglect’ which involved minimal intervention (the ‘infected
\nblanket’ strategy) while people suffered and died. There were also more
\nproactive policies based around such ideas as ‘Manifest Destiny’ which
\nsanctioned the taking of indigenous lands by any means.16 Ward
\nChurchill and other indigenous writers classify these actions as part of
\nthe Columbian legacy of genocide.17 In relation to the diseases and dis
\nease which the West is said to have introduced to indigenous peoples,
\nthe bigger question has always been the extent to which the impact of
\ndisease is an inevitable consequence of contactwith the West. The signifi
\ncance of the issues which this question raises emerges when we examine,
\nin a later chapter, the world-wide search currently being undertaken
\namongst indigenous populations for genetic solutions to Western dis
\neases. Aborigine activist Bobbi Sykes has an ‘acid test’ for the Western
\nimpact on indigenous health which consists of two lists: one a list of
\ndiseases introduced by Europeans to Aboriginal people, the other a list of
\ndiseases introduced by Aboriginal people to Europeans. There are no
\nitemslisted on the secondlist. That emptyspace tells a very potent story.18
\nThe globalization of knowledge and Western culture constantly
\nreaffirms the West’s view of itself as the centre of legitimate knowledge,
\nthe arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’
\nknowledge. This form of global knowledge is generally referred to as
\n‘universal’ knowledge, available to all and not really ‘owned’ by anyone,
\nthat is, until non-Western scholars make claims to it. When claims like
\nthat are made history is revised (again) so that the story of civilization
\nremains the story of the West. For this purpose, the Mediterranean
\nworld, the basin of \u0645\u0633\u0627\u0639\u062f\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u064a\u064a\u0646 – \u062e\u062f\u0645\u0629 \u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644\u0627\u062a \u0645\u0646 \u0642\u0628\u0644 \u0643\u0628\u0627\u0631 \u0627\u0644\u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0639\u0631\u0628, Arabic culture and the lands east of Constantinople
\nare conveniently appropriated as part of the story of Western civilization,
\nWestern philosophy and Western knowledge.1” Through imperialism,
\nhowever, these cultures, peoples and their nation states were re
\npositioned as ‘oriental’, or ‘outsider’ in order to legitimate the imposition
\nof colonial rule. For indigenous peoples from other places, the real
\n‘^
\n64 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\nlesson to be learned is that we have no claim whatsoever to civilization.
\nIt is something which has been introduced from the West, by the West,
\nto indigenous peoples, for our benefit and for which we should be duly
\ngrateful.
\nThe nexus between cultural ways of knowing, scientific discoveries,
\neconomic impulses and imperial power enabled the West to make
\nideological claims to having a superior civilization. The ‘idea’ of the West
\nbecame a reality when it was re-presented back to indigenous nations
\nthrough colonialism. By the nineteenth century colonialism not only
\nmeant the imposition of Western authority over indigenous lands,
\nindigenous modes of production and indigenous law and government,
\nbut the imposition of Western authority over all aspects of indigenous
\nknowledges, languages and cultures. This authority incorporated what
\nSaid refers to as alliances between the ideologies, ‘cliches’, general beliefs
\nand understandings held about the Orient and the views of ‘science’ and
\nphilosophical theories.2″
\nFor many indigenous peoples the major agency for imposing this
\npositional superiority over knowledge, language and culture was colonial
\neducation. Colonial education came in two basic forms: missionary or
\nreligious schooling (which was often residential) followed later by public
\nand secular schooling. Numerous accounts across nations now attest to
\nthe critical role played by schools in assimilating colonized peoples, and
\nin the systematic, frequently brutal, forms of denial of indigenous
\nlanguages, knowledges and cultures. Not all groups of indigenous
\npeoples, however, were permitted to attend school \u2014some groups being
\nalready defined in some way as ‘ineducable’ or just plain troublesome
\nand delinquent. Furthermore, in many examples the indigenous language
\nwas used as the medium of instruction and access to the colonizing
\nlanguage was denied specifically. This policy was designed to deny
\nopportunities to participate as citizens.
\nColonial education was also used as a mechanism for creating new
\nindigenous elites. It was not the only mechanism for producing elite
\ngroups, as the traditional hierarchies within an indigenous society who
\nconverted to the colonial ideology also formed part of the elite group.
\nSchooling helped identify talented students who were then groomed for
\nmore advanced education. Many of these students were sent away to
\nboarding schools while others were sent to the metropolitan centre in
\nEurope for their university studies. In these settings, and through their
\nlearning, students acquired the tastes, and sampled some of the benefits
\nand privileges, of living within the metropolitan culture. Their elite status
\ncame about through the alignment of their cultural and economic
\ninterests with those of the colonizing group rather than with those of
\ntheir own society.
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 65
\nSchool knowledge systems however, were informed by a much more
\ncomprehensive system of knowledge which linked universities, scholarly
\nsocieties and imperial views of culture. Hierarchies of knowledge and
\ntheories which had rapidly developed to account for the discoveries of
\nthe newworldwerelegitimated at the centre. Schools simply reproduced
\ndomesticated versions of that knowledge for uncritical consumption.
\nAlthough colonial universities saw themselves as being part of an
\ninternational community and inheritors of a legacy of Western know
\nledge, theywere also part of the historical processes of imperialism. They
\nwere established as an essential part of the colonizing process, a bastion
\nof civilization and a sign that a colony and its settlers had ‘grown up’.
\nAttempts to ‘indigenize’ colonial academic institutions and\/or individual
\ndisciplines within them have been fraught with major struggles over
\nwhat counts as knowledge, as language, as literature, as curriculum and
\nas the role of intellectuals, and over the critical function of the concept
\nof academic freedom.21
\nColonizing the Disciplines
\nAcademic knowledges are organized around the idea of disciplines and
\nfields of knowledge. Theseare deeply implicated in eachother and share
\ngenealogical foundations in various classical and Enlightenment philoso
\nphies. Most of the ‘traditional’ disciplines are grounded in cultural world
\nviews which are either antagonistic to other belief systems or have no
\nmethodology for dealing with other knowledge systems. Underpinning
\nall of what is taught at universities is the beliefin the concept of science
\nas the all-embracing method for gaining an understanding of the world.
\nSome of these disciplines, however, are more directly implicated in
\ncolonialism in that either they have derived their methods and under
\nstandings from the colonized world or they have tested their ideas in
\nthe colonies. How the colonized were governed, for example, was
\ndetermined by previous experiences in other colonies and by the
\nprevailing theories about race, gender, climate and other factors
\ngenerated by ‘scientific’ methods. Classification systems were developed
\nspecifically to cope with the mass of new knowledge generated by the
\ndiscoveries of the ‘new world’. New colonies were the laboratories of
\nWestern science. Theories generated from the exploration and exploita
\ntion of colonies, and of the people who had prior ownership of these
\nlands, formed the totalizing appropriation of the Other.
\nRobert Young argues that Hegel
\narticulates a philosophical structure of the appropriation of the other as
\na form of knowledge which uncannily simulates the project of nineteenth
\ncentury imperialism; the construction of knowledges which all operate
\n66 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\nthrough forms of expropriation and incorporation of the other mimics at
\na conceptual level the geographical and economic absorption of the non-
\nEuropean world by the West.22
\nDavid Goldberg claims that notions of the Other are more deeply
\nembedded in classical philosophy but became racialized within the
\nframework of liberalism and the ideas about people and society which
\ndeveloped as disciplines through liberalism.23 In an interesting discussion
\non the discourses which employ the word ‘civilization’, John Laffey
\nsuggests that the word ‘civilization’ entered Anglo-French usage in the
\nsecond part of the eighteenth century, enabling the distinction to be
\ndrawn between those who saw themselves as civilized and those who
\nthey then regarded as the ‘savages’ abroad and at home.24 As a standard
\nof judgement, according to Laffey, the word ‘civilized’ became more
\ndefined with the help of Freud and more specialized in the way different
\ndisciplines employed the concept. One such use was comparative and
\nallowed for comparisons between children and savages or children and
\nwomen, for example. This way of thinking was elaborated further into
\npsychological justifications for the distinctions between the civilized and
\nthe uncivilized. Freud’s influence on the way disciplines developed in
\nrelation to colonialism is further explored by Marianna Torgovnick, who
\nexamines the links between Freud and anthropology in her analysis of
\nMalinowski’s book ‘The Sexual Life of Savages’.25 According to
\nTurgovnick,
\nFreud’s explanation of the human psyche in terms of sexuality undergirded
\ntheir endeavors and influenced the structure of many ethnographic
\nenquiries at this stage of the discipline’s development even when those
\nenquiries suggested (as they often did) modifications of Freudian
\nparadigms, such as the Oedipus complex.26
\nOther key intellectuals have also been referred to as not so innocent
\nphilosophers of the truth. Henry Louis Gates Jr names Kant, Bacon,
\nHume, Jefferson and Hegel as ‘great intellectual racialists’ who have been
\ninfluential in defining the role of literature and its relationship to
\nhumanity, ‘The salient sign of the black person’s humanity … would be
\nthe mastering of the very essence of Western civilization, the very7
\nfoundation of the complex fiction upon which white Western culture
\nhas been constructed….’2″
\nOf all the disciplines, anthropology is the one most closely associated
\nwith the study of the Other and with the defining of primitivism.28 As
\nAdam Kuper argued, ‘The anthropologists took this primitive society as
\ntheir special subject, but in practice primitive society proved to be their
\nown society (as they understood it) seen in a distorting mirror.29 The
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 67
\nethnographic ‘gaze’ of anthropology has collected, classified and
\nrepresented other cultures to the extent that anthropologists are often
\nthe academics popularly perceived by the indigenous world as the
\nepitome of all that it is bad with academics. Haunani Kay Trask accuses
\nanthropologists of being ‘takers and users’ who ‘exploit the hospitality
\nand generosity of native people’.3″ Trinh T. Minh-ha makes similar
\nreferences to anthropology and anthropologists, including those whose
\nintent now is to train Third World anthropologists. ‘Gone out of date,’
\nshe says, ‘then revitalised, the mission of civilizing savages mutates into
\nthe imperative of “making equal”.’31 In writing a history of geography,
\nLivingstone refers to this discipline as the ‘science of imperialism par
\nexcellence’.32 His comment relates to geographical studies into such
\nthings as the mapping of racial difference, the links which were drawn
\nbetween climate and mental abilities, the use of map makers in French
\ncolonies for military intelligence and the development of acclimatization
\nsocieties.33 As suggested above in the Introduction, history is also
\nimplicated in the construction of totalizing master discourses which
\ncontrol the Other. The history of the colonies, from the perspective of
\nthe colonizers, has effectively denied other views of what happened and
\nwhat the significance of historical ‘facts’ may be to the colonized. ‘If
\nhistory is written by the victor,’ arguesJanet Abu-Lughod, ‘then it must,
\nalmost by definition, “deform” the history of the others.’34 Donna
\nAwatere claims that, ‘The process of recording what happened auto
\nmatically favours the white occupiers because they won. In such a way
\na whole past is “created” and then given the authority of truth.’3d These
\ncomments have been echoed wherever indigenous peoples have had the
\nopportunity to ‘talk back’ to the academic world.
\nWhile disciplines are implicated in each other, particularly in their
\nshared philosophical foundations, they are also insulated from each
\nother through the maintenance of what are known as disciplinary
\nboundaries. Basil Bernstein has shown how this works in his paper on
\nthe ‘classification and framing of knowledge’.36 Insulation enables
\ndisciplines to develop independently. Their histories are kept separate
\nand ‘pure’. Concepts of ‘academic freedom’, the ‘search for truth’ and
\n‘democracy’ underpin the notion of independence and are vigorously
\ndefended by intellectuals. Insularity protects a discipline from the ‘out
\nside’, enabling communities of scholars to distance themselves from
\nothers and, in the more extreme forms, to absolve themselves of
\nresponsibility for what occurs in other branches of their discipline, in
\nthe academy and in the world.
\nIn the context of research and at a very pragmatic level researchers
\nfrom different projects and different research teams can be in and out
\nof the same community (much in the way many government social
\n68 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\nservices are in and out of family homes), showing ‘as a collective’ little
\nresponsibility for the overall impact of their activities. At other levels
\ncriticism of individual researchers and their projects is deflected by the
\nargument that those researchers are different in some really significant
\n‘scientific’ way from others. How indigenous communities are supposed
\nto work this out is a mystery. There are formal organizations of
\ndisciplines, researchers and communities of scholars, many of which
\nhave ethical guidelines. These organizations are based on the idea that
\nscholars consent to participate within them as scholars, as professionals,
\nor as ethical human beings. Not all who carry out research in indigenous
\ncommunities belong to, or are bound by, such collegial self-discipline.
\nDisciplining the Colonized
\nThe concept of discipline is even more interesting when we think about
\nit not simply as a way of organizing systems of knowledge but also as
\na way of organizing people or bodies. Foucault has argued that discipline
\nin the eighteenth century became ‘formulas of domination’ which were
\nat work in schools, hospitals and military organizations.3″ Techniques of
\ndetail were developed to maintain discipline over the body. The
\ncolonizing of the Other through discipline has a number of different
\nmeanings. In terms of the way knowledge was used to discipline the
\ncolonized it worked in a variety of ways. The most obvious forms of
\ndiscipline were through exclusion, marginalization and denial. Indigenous
\nways of knowing were excluded and marginalized. This happened to
\nindigenous views about land, for example, through the forced imposition
\nof individualized title, through taking land away for ‘acts of rebellion’,
\nand through redefining land as ‘waste land’ or ’empty land’ and then
\ntaking it away. Foucault suggests that one waydiscipline was distributed
\nwas through enclosure. This is the other side of exclusion in that the
\nmargins are enclosures: reserved lands are enclosures, schools enclose,
\nbut in order to enclose they also exclude, there is something on the
\noutside. Discipline is also partitioned, individuals separated and space
\ncompartmentalized. This allowed for efficient supervision and for
\nsimultaneous distinctions to be made between individuals. This form of
\ndiscipline worked at the curriculum level, for example, as a mechanism
\nfor selecting out ‘native’ children and girls for domestic and manual
\nwork. It worked also at the assessment level, with normative tests
\ndesigned around the language and cultural capital of the white middle
\nclasses.
\nThe deepest memory of discipline, however, is of the sheer brutality
\nmeted out to generations of indigenous communities. Aborigine parents
\nin Australia had their children forcibly removed, sent away beyond reach
\n^
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 69
\nand ‘adopted’.38 Native children in Write my essay for me – CA Essay writer Canada were sent to residential
\nschools at an age designed to systematically destroy their language and
\nmemories of home. There is a growing body of testimony from First
\nNations people in Write my essay for me – CA Essay writer Canada which tells of years of abuse, neglect and
\nviciousness meted out to young children by teachers and staff in schools
\nrun by various religious denominations.39 These forms of discipline were
\nsupported by paternalistic and racist policies and legislation; they were
\naccepted by white communities as necessary conditions which had to be
\nmet if indigenouspeople wanted to become citizens (of their own lands).
\nThese forms of discipline affected people physically, emotionally,
\nlinguistically and culturally. They were designed to destroy every last
\nremnant of alternative ways of knowing and living, to obliterate
\ncollective identities and memories and to impose a new order. Even after
\nthe Second World War, when the post-colonial period was beginning
\naccording to some cultural studies theorists, many indigenous peoples
\naround the world were still not recognized as humans, let alone citizens.
\nThe effect of such discipline was to silence (for ever in some cases) or
\nto suppress the ways of knowing, and the languages for knowing, of
\nmany different indigenous peoples. Reclaiming a voice in this context
\nhas also been about reclaiming, reconnecting and reordering those ways
\nof knowing which were submerged, hidden or driven underground.
\nColonialism and ‘Native’ Intellectuals
\nThe position within their own societies of ‘native’ intellectuals who have
\nbeen trained in the West has been regarded by those involved in
\nnationalist movements as very’ problematic. Much of the discussion
\nabout intellectuals in social and cultural life, and their participation in
\nanti-colonial struggles, is heavily influenced by Marxist revolutionary’
\nthought, is framed in the language of oppositional discourse, and was
\nwritten during the post-war period when struggles for independence
\nwereunder way.40 Included within the rubric of ‘intellectual’ by liberation
\nwriters such as Frantz Fanon are also artists, writers, poets, teachers,
\nclerks, officials, the petit bourgeoisie and other professionals engaged in
\nproducing ‘culture’. Theirimportance in nationalist movements is related
\nto their abilities to reclaim, rehabilitate and articulate indigenous cultures,
\nand to their implicit leadership over ‘the people’ as voices which can
\nlegitimate a new nationalist consciousness.
\nAt the same time, however, these same producers and legitimators of
\nculture are the group most closely aligned to the colonizers in terms of
\ntheir class interests, their values and their ways of thinking. This view
\nwas restated in 1984 by Donna Awatere who wrote that ‘[Colonial
\nMaori] … are noticeable because they have succeeded as white in some
\n70 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\nsection of white culture; economically, through the arts, at sport,
\nthrough religion, the universities, the professions.’41 There were con
\ncerns that native intellectuals may have become estranged from their
\nown cultural values to the point of being embarrassed by, and hostile
\ntowards, all that those values represented. In his introduction to
\nCesaire’s Return to My Native I^and Mazisi Kunene wrote that, ‘those
\n[students] who returned despised and felt ashamed of their semi-literate
\nor illiterate parents who spoke inelegant patois’.42 In New Zealand the
\nfew Maori who were trained at universities in the last part of the
\nnineteenth century are generally viewed positively as individuals who
\nretained a love for their culture and language and who were committed
\nin the context of the times to the survival of indigenous people. What
\nis problematic is that this group of men have been named by the
\ndominant non-indigenous population as individuals who represent ‘real’
\nleadership. They have been idealized as the ‘saviours of the people’ and
\ntheir example remains as a ‘measure’ of real leadership.
\nAs Fanon has argued, the problem of creating and legitimating a
\nnational culture ‘represents a special battlefield’43 and intellectuals are
\nimportant to this battle in a number of different ways. In recognizing
\nthat intellectuals were trained and enculturated in the West, Fanon
\nidentifies three levels through which ‘native’ intellectuals can progress in
\ntheir journey ‘back over the line’.44 First there is a phase of proving that
\nintellectuals have been assimilated into the culture of the occupying
\npower. Second comes a period of disturbance and the need for the
\nintellectuals to remember who they actually are, a time for remembering
\nthe past. In the third phase the intellectuals seek to awaken the people,
\nto realign themselves with the people and to produce a revolutionary
\nand national literature.45 In this phase the ‘native writer progressively
\ntakes on the habit of addressing his [sic] own people’.46
\nFanon was writing about Algeria and the structure of French
\ncolonialism in Africa. He himself was trained in France as a psychiatrist
\nand was influenced by European philosophies. One of the problems of
\nconnecting colonialism in New Zealand with its formations elsewhere is
\nthat New Zealand, like Write my essay for me – CA Essay writer Canada and Australia, was already privileged as
\na white dominion within the British Empire and Commonwealth, with
\nthe indigenous populations being minorities. Whilst geographically on
\nthe margins of Europe, they were economically and culturally closely
\nattached to Britain. Within these states the indigenous people were
\nabsolute minorities. The settlers who came arrived as permanent
\nmigrants. For indigenous peoples in these places this meant a different
\nkind of experience with colonialism and different possibilities for
\ndecolonization. What it also points to is that indigenous intellectuals
\nhave emerged from different colonial and indigenous systems. In the
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 71
\nPacific Islands, for example, scholars come from majority cultures and
\nindependent island nations but they have also been incorporated at a
\nregional level into the metropolitan cultures of Australia and New
\nZealand.47 Hau’ofa argues that ‘the ruling classes of the South Pacific
\nare increasingly culturally homogeneous. They speak the same language,
\nwhich is English; they share the same ideologies and the same material
\nlife styles….’48
\nCurrently the role of the ‘native’ intellectual has been reformulated
\nnot in relation to nationalist or liberationary discourses but in relation
\nto the ‘post-colonial’ intellectual. Many intellectuals who position
\nthemselves as ‘post-colonial’ move across the boundaries of indigenous
\nand metropolitan, institution and community, politics and scholarship.
\nTheir place in the academy is still highly problematic. Gayatri Spivak,
\nwho writes as a post-colonial Asian\/lndian intellectual working in the
\nUnited States, argues that Third World intellectuals have to position
\nthemselves strategically as intellectuals within the academy, within the
\nThird World or indigenous world, and within the Western world in
\nwhich many intellectuals actually work. The problem, she argues, for
\nThird World intellectuals remains the problem of being taken seriously.
\nFor me, the question ‘Who should speak’ is less crucial than “Who will
\nlisten’. ‘I will speak for myself as a Third World person’ is an important
\nposition for political mobilisation today. But the real demand is that,when
\nI speak from that position, I shouldbe listened to seriously; not with that
\nkind of benevolent imperialism….49
\nSpivak acknowledges that the task of changing the academy is difficult:
\n‘I would say that if one begins to take a whack at shaking the structure
\nup, one sees how much more consolidated the opposition is.'”‘”
\nThe role of intellectuals, teachers, artists and writers in relation to
\nindigenous communities is still problematic, and the rhetoric of libera
\ntion still forms part of indigenous discourses. Indigenous communities
\ncontinue to view education in its Western, modern, sense as being
\ncritical to development and self-determination. While criticizing indige
\nnous people who have been educated at universities, on one hand, many
\nindigenous communities will struggle and save to send their children to
\nuniversity on the other. There is a very real ambivalence in indigenous
\ncommunities towards the role of Western education and those who have
\nbeen educated in universities. This is reflected in many contexts in
\nstruggles over leadership, representation and voice between those
\nperceived as ‘traditional’ and those seen either as the ‘radicals’ or simply
\nas having Western credentials. In Australia, the term ‘flash blacks’
\nencompasses both those who are well educated and those who have
\nhigh-flying jobs. In NewZealand one struggle over the value of Western
\n72 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\neducation was played out in the 1980s through a process of reprivileging
\nof ‘elders’ and a reification of elders as the holders of all traditional
\nknowledge and a parallel deprivileging of the younger, frequently much
\nbetter educated members (in a Western sense) of an iwi (tribe). Maori
\nacademics who work away from their tribal territories can easily be
\ncriticised because they live awayfrom home, and are perceived therefore
\nas being distanced from the people. At the same time they are drawn
\ninto tribal life whenever a crisis occurs or there are additional demands
\nfor specialist knowledge and skills. The bottom line, however, is that in
\nvery fundamental ways they still remain members of an iwi with close
\nrelations to families and other community ties.
\nThe ‘Authentic, Essentialist, Deeply Spiritual’ Other
\nAt a recent international conference held in New Zealand to discuss
\nissues related to indigenous intellectual and cultural property rights, the
\nlocal newspapers were informed and invited to interview some of the
\ndelegates. One news reporter thought it would be a good idea to have
\na group photograph, suggesting that it would be a very colourful feature
\nfor the newspaper to highlight. When she and the photographer turned
\nup at the local marae (cultural centre) they were so visibly disappointed
\nat the motley display of track suits, jeans and other items of ‘modern’
\ndress, that they chose not to take a photograph. ‘Oh, I forgot to come
\nas a native’, joked one of the delegates. ‘My feathers got confiscated at
\nthe airport when I arrived.’ ‘I suppose my eyes are too blue.’ ‘Are we
\nsupposed to dress naked’ As we have seen, the notion of ‘authentic’ is
\nhighly contested when applied to, or by, indigenous peoples.
\n‘Authorities’ and outside experts are often called in to verify, comment
\nupon, and give judgements about the validity of indigenous claims to
\ncultural beliefs, values, ways of knowing and historical accounts. Such
\nissues are often debated vigorously by the ‘public’, (a category which
\nusually means the dominant group), leading to an endless parading of
\n‘nineteenth century’ views of race and racial difference. Questions of
\nwho is a ‘real indigenous’ person, what counts as a ‘real indigenous
\nleader’, which person displays ‘real cultural values’ and the criteria used
\nto assess the characteristics of authenticity are frequently the topic of
\nconversation and political debate. These debates are designed to
\nfragment and marginalize those who speak for, or in support of,
\nindigenous issues. They frequently have the effect also of silencing and
\nmaking invisible the presence of other groups within the indigenous
\nsociety like women, the urban non-status tribal person and those whose
\nancestry or ‘blood quantam’ is ‘too white’.51 In Tasmania, where experts
\nhad already determined that Aborigines were ‘extinct’, the voices of
\n^
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 73
\nthose who still speak as Aboriginal Tasmanians are interpreted as some
\npolitical invention of a people who no longer exist and who therefore
\nno longer have claims.
\nRecent poststructural and psychoanalytical feminist theorists have
\nargued against the claims made by earlier generations of feminists that
\nwomen as a group were different, because their essence as women was
\nfundamentally, undeniably different, and that therefore their ‘sisterhood’
\nwould be a natural meeting place for all women. Pedagogically, essentialism
\nwas attacked because of its assumption that, because of this essence,
\nit was necessary to be a woman and to experience life as a woman before
\none could analyse or understand women’s oppression. Third World
\nwomen and women of colour also attacked this assumption because it
\ndenied the impact of imperialisms, racism and local histories on women,
\nwho were different from white women who lived in First World nations.
\nThe concept of authentic, which is related to essentialism, was also
\ndeconstructed but more so from psychoanalytic perspectives because the
\nconcept assumed that if we strip away the oppressions and psychological
\nconsequences of oppression we would find a ‘pure’ and authentic ‘self.
\nOne of the major problems with the way words are defined is that these
\ndebates are often held by academics in one context, within a specific
\nintellectual discourse, and then appropriated by the media and popular
\npress to serve a more blatant ideological and racist agenda.52 As Trinh
\nT. Minh-ha put it when writing of anthropologists in particular, ‘But
\nonce more they spoke. They decide who is “racism-free or anti-colonial”,
\nand they seriously think they can go on formulating criteria for us….’33
\nIn the colonized world, however, these terms are not necessarily
\nemployed in the same way that First World academics may have used
\nthem. The term ‘authentic’, for example, was an oppositional term used
\nin at least two different ways. First, it was used as a form of articulating
\nwhat it meant to be dehumanized by colonization; and, second, for
\nreorganizing ‘national consciousness’ in the struggles for decolonization.
\nThe belief in an authentic self is framed within humanism but has been
\npoliticized by the colonized world in ways which invoke simultaneous
\nmeanings; it does appeal to an idealized past when there was no
\ncolonizer, to our strengths in surviving thus far, to our language as an
\nuninterrupted link to our histories, to the ownership of our lands, to our
\nabilities to create and control our own life and death, to a sense of
\nbalance among ourselves and with the environment, to our authentic
\nselves as a people. Although this may seem overly idealized, these sym
\nbolic appeals remain strategically important in political struggles.
\nFurthermore the imputing of a Western psychological ‘self, which is a
\nhighly individualized notion, to group consciousness as it is centred in
\nmany colonized societies, is not a straightforward translation of the
\n74 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\nindividual to the group, although this is often the only way that
\nWesterners can come to understand what may constitute a group. The
\npurpose of commenting on such a concept is that what counts as
\n‘authentic’ is used by the West as one of the criteria to determine who
\nreally is indigenous, who is worth saving, who is still innocent and free
\nfrom Western contamination. There is a very powerful tendency in
\nresearch to take this argument back to a biological ‘essentialism’ related
\nto race, because the idea of culture is much more difficult to control.
\nAt the heart of such a view of authenticity is a belief that indigenous
\ncultures cannot change, cannot recreate themselves and still claim to be
\nindigenous. Nor can they be complicated, internally diverse or contra
\ndictory. Only the West has that privilege.
\nThe concept of essentialism is also discussed in different ways within
\nthe indigenous world. It is accepted as a term which is related to human
\nism and is seen therefore in the same way as the idea of authenticity. In
\nthis use of the word, claiming essential characteristics is as much
\nstrategic as anything else, because it has been about claiming human
\nrights and indigenous rights. But the essence of a person is also dis
\ncussed in relation to indigenous concepts of spirituality. In these views,
\nthe essence of a person has a genealogy which can be traced back to an
\nearth parent, usually glossed as an Earth Mother. A human person does
\nnot stand alone, but shares with other animate and, in the Western sense,
\n‘inanimate’ beings, a relationship based on a shared ‘essence’ of life. The
\nsignificance of place, of land, of landscape, of other things in the
\nuniverse, in defining the very essence of a people, makes for a very
\ndifferent rendering of the term essentialism as used by indigenous
\npeoples.
\nThe arguments of different indigenous peoples based on spiritual
\nrelationships to the universe, to the landscape and to stones, rocks,
\ninsects and other things, seen and unseen, have been difficult arguments
\nfor Western systems of knowledge to deal with or accept. These
\narguments give a partial indication of the different world views and
\nalternative ways of coming to know, and of being, which still endure
\nwithin the indigenous world. Concepts of spirituality which Christianity’
\nattempted to destroy, then to appropriate, and then to claim, are critical
\nsites of resistance for indigenous peoples. The values, attitudes, concepts
\nand language embedded in beliefs about spirituality represent, in many
\ncases, the clearest contrast and mark of difference between indigenous
\npeoples and the West. It is one of the few parts of ourselves which the
\nWest cannot decipher, cannot understand and cannot control … yet.
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES
\nNotes
\n75
\n1 Mita, M. (1989), ‘Merata Mita On…’, in the NewZealand Listener, 14 October, p. 30.
\n2 Ngugi Wa Thiong’o (1986), Decolonizing the Mind: the Politics ofLanguage inAfrican
\nLiterature, James Currey, London.
\n3 (aggar, A. (1983), Peminist Politics and Human Nature, Harvester Press, Sussex.
\n4 Hall, S. (1992), ‘The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power’, Chapter 6 of
\nFormations of Modernity, eds S. Hall and B. Gielben, Polity Press and Open
\nUniversity, Cambridge, pp. 276-320.
\n5 Goonatilake, S. (1982), ‘Colonies: Scientific Expansion (and Contraction)’, in
\nReview, Vol. 5, No. 3, Winter, pp. 413-36.
\n6 Said, E. (1978), Orientalism, Vintage Books, New York, p. 7.
\n7 Bazin, M. (1993), ‘Our Sciences, Their Science’, in Race and Class, Vol. 34, No. 2,
\npp. 35-6.
\n8 Goonatilake, ‘Colonies’.
\n9 Adas, M. (1989), Machines as the Measure ofMan. Science, Technology and Ideologies of
\nWestern Dominance, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
\n10 Clifford, J. (1988), The Predicament ofCulture, Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature,
\nand Art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p. 231. See also on the topic of
\ncollection, Ames, M. (1986), Museums, The Public and Anthropology, University of
\nColumbia Press, London.
\n11 Brockway, L. H. (1979), Science and Colonial Expansion. The Role ofthe British Royal
\nBotanical Gardens, Academic Press, New York, p. 187.
\n12 Goonatilake, ‘Colonies’, p. 432.
\n13 Crosby, A. W. (1986), ‘Biotic Change in Nineteenth Century New Zealand’, in
\nReview, Vol. 9, No. 3, Winter, pp. 325-37.
\n14 Smith, C. W. (1994), ‘Kimihia te Matauranga, Colonization and Iwi Development’,
\nMA thesis, University of Auckland, p. 23.
\n15 Pool, D. L. (WIT), The Maori Population of New Zealand 1769-1971, Auckland
\nUniversity Press and Oxford University Press, Auckland, pp. 75-105.
\n16 Churchill, W. (1994), Indians Are Us Culture and Genocide in Native North America,
\nCommon Courage Press, Maine.
\n17 Ibid., pp. 28-42\/
\n18 Sykes, R. B. (1989), Black Majority, Hudson Hawthorn, Victoria, p. 185.
\n19 Bernal,M. (1991), Black. Athena, The Afroasiatic Roots ofClassical Civilisation, Vintage,
\nLondon.
\n20 Said, E. Orientalism, pp. 205-6.
\n21 See, for examples of these debates in relation to indigenous issues, Ngugi wa
\nThiong’o (1986), Decolonizing the Mind. The Politics oflanguage in African Literature,
\nJames Currev, London, and Haunani Kay Trask (1993), From a Native Daughter,
\nCommon Courage Press, Maine.
\n22 Young, R. (1990), White Mythologies, Writing, History and the West, Routlcdge,
\nLondon, p. 3.
\n23 Goldberg, D. T. (1993), Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics ofMeaning, Blackwell,
\nOxford.
\n24 Laffey, J. F. (1993), Civilisation and its Discontented, Black Rose Books, New York.
\n25 Torgovnick, M. (1990), Cone Primitive: Savage Intellects, Modern Lives, University of
\nChicago Press, Chicago.
\n26 Ibid., p. 7.
\n27 Gates, H. L. (1994), ‘Authority (White) Power and the (Black) Critic: It’s All
\n76 DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
\nGreek to Me’, in Culture\/Power\/History, eds N. Dirks, G. Eley and S. B. Ortner,
\nPrinceton University Press, New Jersey.
\n28 Stocking, G. Jr (1987), Wictorian Anthropology, The Free Press, London.
\n29 Kuper, A. (1988), ‘The Invention of Primitive Society, Routledge, London, p. 5.
\n30 Trask, H. K. (1993), Trom a Native Daughter, Common Courage Press, Maine.
\n31 Minh-ha, Trinh T. (1989), Woman, Native, Other, Indiana University Press,
\nBloomington, p. 59.
\n32 Livingstone, D. (1992), The Geographical Tradition, Blackwell, Oxford.
\n33 Ibid., p. 216.
\n34 Abu-Lughod, J. (1989), ‘On the Remaking of History: How to Reinvent the Past’,
\nin Remaking History, Dia Art Foundation, Bay Press, Seattle, p. 118.
\n35 Awatere, D. (1983), ‘Awatere on Intellectuals: Academic Fragmentation or
\nVisionary Unity’, article in Craccum, Auckland University Students’ Association, 3
\nMay, Auckland, pp. 6-7.
\n36 Bernstein, B. (1971), ‘On the Classification and Framing of Knowledge’ in
\nKnowledge and Control: NewDirections for the Sociology ofEducation, ed. M. F. D. Young,
\nCollier Macmillan, London, pp. 47-69.
\n37 Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline andPunish: The Birth ofthe Prison, trans. A. Sheridan,
\nPenguin, London, p. 137.
\n38 This practice is known popularly as the ‘stolen childfen’ policy but an official
\ninquiry was conducted by the Australian government called ‘A National Inquiry
\ninto the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their
\nFamilies’. This was completed in 1997.
\n39.A government commission to investigate the abuses in the residential school
\nsystem for Indian children was recently completed by the Canadian government.
\nFor further background read Furness, E. (1995), ‘ictims of Benevolence: The Dark
\nLegay ofthe Williams Lake Residential School, Arsenal Pulp Press, Vancouver; Haig-
\nBrown, C. (1988), Resistance and Renewal: Surviving the Indian Residential School,
\nTillacum Library, Vancouver in L. Taine, ed. (1993), Residential Schools: the Stolen
\nYears, University of Saskatechewan Press, Saskatson.
\n40 Gramsci’s views on the intellectual have been influential, among other Marxist
\nviews. So too have the existentialist views of Jean Paul Sartre who wrote the
\nintroduction to Fanon’s book, ‘The Wretched of the Earth. A critique of these
\ninfluences on Fanon, in particular, can be read in Young, White Mythologies.
\n41 Awatere, D. (1984), Maori Sovereignty, Broadsheet, Auckland, p. 83.
\n42 Cesaire, A. (1969), Return to My Native Land, translated by |ohn Berger and Ana
\nBostock, introduction bv Mazisi Kunene, PenguinBooks, Harmondsworth, p. 24.
\n43 Fanon, F. (1990), The Wretched ofthe Earth, Penguin, London, p. 193.
\n44 Ibid., pp. 178-9.
\n45 Ibid., p. 179.
\n46 Ibid., p. 193.
\n47 Hau’ofa, E. (1987), ‘The New South Pacific Society: Integration and
\nIndependence’, in Class and Culture in the South Pacific, eds A. Hooper, S. Britton,
\nR. Crocombe, J. Fluntsman and C. Macpherson, Centre for Pacific Studies, Uni
\nversity of Auckland, Institute for Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific,
\npp. 1-15.
\n48 Ibid., p. 3.
\n49 Spivak, G. (1990), ‘Questions of Multiculturalism’, in The Post-Colonial Critic:
\nInterviews, Strategies, Dialogues, ed. S. Harasayam, Routledge, New York, pp. 59-60.
\n^
\nCOLONIZING KNOWLEDGES 77
\n50 Spivak, G. (1990), ‘Criticism, Feminism and the Institution’, in ‘The Post-Colonial
\nCritic, p. 6.
\n51 ‘Blood quantum’ refers to the ‘amount’ of native blood one has and is used in
\nplaces such as Flawai’i to determine eligibility access to Hawai’ian lands and
\nidentity. It is based on racial beliefs that the more indigenous peoples inter
\nmarried the more assimilated or ‘watered down’ they became. Conversely if they
\ndid not inter-mam’ thev remained ‘pure’.
\n52 Similar debates occur over a word such as ‘invention’, where anthropologists may
\ntalk to each other about the invention of culture; the media can then accuse
\nindigenous people of inventing culture to serve their own interests at the expense
\nof the dominant group. This occurred in New Zealand over an article written by A.
\nHanson (1991), ‘The Making of the Maori: Culture Invention and its Logic’, in
\n.American .Anthropologist, pp. 890\u2014902. One of the larger dailv newspapers took the
\narticle and turned it into the following headline: ‘LIS EXPERT SAYS MAORI
\nCULTURE INVENTED’, Dominion, Saturday 24 February.
\n53 Minh-ha, Trin T., Woman, Native, Other, p. 59.