Uncoupling Native and Indigenous Liberation from the Work on Racism Targeting Global Majority People
After many Co-Counseling sessions and much thought, I have realized that it makes sense and will be useful to uncouple Native and Indigenous liberation work from the work on racism directed at Global Majority people. There are some essential differences between how the two groups have been and continue to be oppressed.
Native/Indigenous/Tribal people who are darker skinned are subject to racism in the Western world. In that sense, until racism is eliminated they are not “uncoupled” from the racism work and will continue to do that work as needed or wanted.
However, there are parts of the world where Indigenous people are targeted by genocide and where skin color is not the defining difference—places where people target other people of the same skin color with genocidal actions and policies. This is not racism. Rather, it is “same-skin-color” genocide. Some examples of this are the Chinese acting against the Tibetans; the Chinese against the Hmong, historically; various African tribes or nations against other African tribes or nations; and various white nations against Indigenous European peoples.
Genocide is the primary oppression directed at all Indigenous/Tribal/Native people around the world. It is the primary hurt that needs to be held up for discharge. Within Native liberation, we find ways to discharge the genocidal distress recordings and patterned ways of behaving. By looking at these, addressing them, and discharging on them, we gain new re-evaluations for our liberation. To just focus on the racism directed at us does not get at this key and primary hurt.
OUR SOVEREIGN STATUS IS KEY
Native liberation also requires that we understand our sovereign status. And it requires that all non-Native peoples understand it as well.
What does sovereign status mean?
All Native/Tribal/Indigenous groups around the world have a sovereign status as the original inhabitants of a specific place, a particular land base, that has been theirs since time immemorial. In international law, a sovereign state is defined as one that possesses a permanent population, a defined territory, a government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other sovereign states.1 [1 Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law. Cambridge University Press. page 178. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It notes that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: “(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.”]
The United States and Canada made treaties, recognized by international law, with Native American Tribes and First Nations of Canada—all sovereign states. Our sovereign status gives us a different legal status in the United States and Canada than other Global Majority people, one that is binding in international law.
The Mexican Constitution identifies Tribal nations in Mexico in a different way. In Australia, Aboriginal people are currently petitioning for their rights to be recognized. (By the time England invaded Australia, the English had learned not to make treaties with Indigenous peoples.2) [2 See <guides.slv.vic.gov.au/law/today> for a look at current Aboriginal and Torres Strait law.]
Does having a sovereign status constitute a privilege that other Global Majority people may not have? Strictly speaking, it gives us a different legal standing from which to attempt to right wrongs. But how has that operated in reality?
The United States has broken every treaty it has made with Native Nations. The genocidal warfare waged against Native peoples on the North American continent has left us without people resources, financial resources, or military resources to act as oppressor to any other group, so we have been left acting out these recordings only at each other.
Also, we do not get free food, free medical care, or free education. And it was the Indian Health Service, a U.S. federal agency, that in the 1950s and 1960s instituted the policy of sterilizing Native women—a genocide condoned and implemented by the government.
There are volumes written about the atrocities inflicted on Indigenous peoples on this continent and around the world—far too many to list here.
WE CAN IDENTIFY AND WORK THROUGH OUR DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES TO BUILD ALLIANCES
In Native liberation, we realized early on that just asking people to be our allies was not getting us very far and that we had to decide to be the best possible allies to others. So we do the discharge work. In our groups of Natives Raised Black, Natives Raised Asian, and Natives Raised Chicano/a-Latino/a, the question of how to be good allies is ongoing work.
At Native liberation workshops and in our support groups, we encourage ourselves and each other to discharge on the following directions:
- How can I be the best possible ally to people of African heritage? Asian heritage? Chicano/a-Latino/a heritage? Arab heritage?
- How can I be the best possible ally to white people?
Many of us in Native liberation consistently do this work.
We have asked our Global Majority allies to discharge on where they have agreed to assimilate and acculturate into dominant cultures that actively work to “disappear” Indigenous peoples.
Within Native liberation we also currently focus on collaborating and working with all peoples to address the climate crisis and economic collapse. These issues impact every life form, including all humans.
In a small group currently meeting on a regular basis, designated folks are counseling and thinking about me as International Liberation Reference Person for Native Americans. The group includes Chicanas, Asians, Black people, white people, Jews, and both men and women. I am not doing this work in isolation.
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
(Present Time 212, July 2023)