Debunking myths and missteps: Settler-colonial mythologies v. Indigenous realities
We welcome you and appreciate you stepping in….
Engaging in respectful conversations and connections with those around us takes a conscious effort and is essential for making a good first impression and building trust. Sometimes it’s hard to recognize when you’ve made a misstep or contributed to a problematic stereotype (we’re learning and unlearning over here!), however leaning in and listening to feedback is key, as is doing your own learning. This is especially relevant across Indigenous communities where the mainstream norm is to tell stories about Indigenous Nations and Peoples, while simultaneously ignoring Indigenous scholarship, knowledges, and lived experiences–yet this is a symptom of a larger issue leading us to the need to learn our histories and debunk some myths and missteps (let’s do this #stoodis)!
Myth: Extinction
The myth of extinction persists and is promoted through several problematic habits. Here are a few that we really need to kick in particular:
Assumption that there are no Indigenous Peoples left in a particular area and therefore no need (or ability) to reach out and make connections (where is this assumption coming from? an outdated history book? did Google or Wikipedia say it’s so?? See our Historical Context blog to learn about the roots of erasure language)
Denial of Indigenous identity through blood quantum, thereby associating being Indigenous with blood “purity” (a concept invented by settlers in an attempt to erase Indigenous identities)
Erasure through “paper genocide” by only centering a settler-colonial narrative in place names, historical accounts, stories, etc. while marginalizing or neglecting Indigenous narratives (let’s be real, do people and places really just not exist until written about by so-called authorities??)
Misstep: “Columbusing” knowledge
“What are the implications of saying a research group is the first to have knowledge of something on Indigenous land?”
- Max Liboiron (Métis/Michif, 2021), Director of Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research (CLEAR)
Columbusing knowledge refers to “discovering” or “firsting” something that has already been known or in existence. This claim continues to show up across various textbooks, case studies, lectures, and websites in this field through language such as “exploring,” “identifying”, “pioneering,” “frontiers of-,” etc. However, we know most of these datasets to be false or heavily skewed as they fail to consider the vast, intergenerational studies conducted by Indigenous researchers and scientists since time immemorial, repeatedly uncredited co-opted by settler scholars.
Myth: Devaluing Indigenous knowledge systems
Alongside co-opting Indigenous knowledges that are deemed “suitable” to settler-colonial society (without credit), there is a prominent assumption that Indigenous knowledge systems and science are “less than.” We can see this in media, text, and conversations that draw artificial binaries between “Western” and Indigenous sciences as antagonistic/opposing sides of a coin, rather than mutually enriching bodies of knowledge in which Indigenous sciences more accurately represent vast bodies of knowledge. This assumption also claims “Western” (settler-colonial) science, a small subset of knowledge, as being the ultimate arbiter of truth – deciding which other knowledges are legitimate (or worthy of thievery…?), while devaluing or othering Indigenous knowledge systems as “folk-” or “ethno-” science. Lastly, regarding a persistent and unhelpful peeve on this topic we’d like to take a moment to disrupt the generalization of thousands (yes, thousands) of Indigenous knowledges and cultures as a singular pan-Indigenous thing (see “Indigenous culture,” “traditional ecological knowledge,” etc.—remember to keep it plural folks, and while we’re at it, to capitalize Indigenous!).
Misstep: Minority “stakeholders” v. rights-holders
Indigenous Peoples are often lumped into one ethnic or racial minority “stakeholder” group. This masks cultural diversity, inherent rights, and nationhood across the globe. These pre-existing rights have been reaffirmed internationally through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and through formal treaty agreements between governments, such as between the United States and sovereign Indigenous Nations (note we reference “nations” and not “groups” here—would you refer to a settler-colonial country as a “stakeholder group”? How might these terms reflect or misrepresent power and authority?).
Misstep: Perpetuating harmful or inaccurate data
“Aboriginal people have had almost no opportunity to correct misinformation or to challenge ethnocentric and racist interpretations.”
– Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Ethical Guidelines for Research, 1993
The vast majority of data about Indigenous Peoples are documented by so-called “experts” (self-appointed or appointed by colonial institutions as sources of authority) without long-term experience or ties of accountability to those communities. This can cause harm through perpetuating misinformation and racist tropes. To correct this, it is important to carefully evaluate your sources, including those assumed to be sources of authority (e.g., are your sources validated/approved by Indigenous community members or community approved authorities?) and provide proper authorship/credit to Indigenous knowledge-holders (also see David-Chavez & Gavin, 2018)
Misstep: “You don’t look Native”
Regardless of who is saying it, this is a problematic statement and worth unpacking here. Who really has the authority to define what a Native/Indigenous person should look like? (Hollywood? Non-Indigenous people? Where is this criteria coming from?) Indigenous Peoples have been and continue to be incredibly diverse, embodying generations of trade, travel, adaptation, and exchange. This is reflected in the myriad of hair texture, melanin, bone structure, fashion, language, ideas, dreams, etc. represented within, between, and across Indigenous Nations and Peoples (let’s be clear, it’s time to move beyond the shape of your grandma’s cheekbones everybody likes to talk about here). Indigenous Peoples also have varied journeys and experiences around colonization, such as through displacement, mixed heritage, adoption, and many other complexities and traumas forced upon their communities (e.g, colorism within their own communities or intentional removal from ancestral language or customs in the hopes of “staying safe” from colonial oppressions). To avoid placing an unfair and unreasonable burden onto individuals to define (or even justify) their very existence, we must be mindful and sensitive to these nuances and critically reflect on where these criteria are coming from.
Myth: Romanticization and cultural appropriation
The other side of determining who is or isn’t Native enough is deciding what a Native/Indigenous person is or isn’t by building a stereotypical and often romanticized image of “Native-ness.” This is problematic for several reasons… beyond the blaring issue of attempting to define Native identities, this narrative attempts to deduce (and reduce) individual lived experience and diverse identities into what is most suitable or interesting to the external gaze (i.e. Indigeneity transcends Tonto, Tigerlily, Disney Pocahontas, etc.). This also can perpetuate a simplified and positive Native-settler “union” (tip: may be best to refrain from telling all Native Peoples you meet about your Indian princess-grandma or DNA test results… this is not the brag you might think it is). Cultural appropriation stems from this romanticization and extractivist colonial culture by stealing and exploiting cultural elements, knowledges, practices etc. without credit, recognition, or reciprocation and without proper context.
A few resources for further learning
Did we miss anything important in this blog article? Are there any resources that you think should be added? We’d love to hear what you think using this form.
Suggested citation: David-Chavez, D. & Layden, T. (2023). Debunking myths and missteps: Settler-colonial mythologies v. Indigenous realities. Indigenous Land and Data Stewards Lab.