Chapter

“What’s Past Is Prologue”: Black Native Refusal and the Colonial Archive

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
This article addresses the relationship between anti-racism and decolonization in the North American context. It argues that the logic of decolonization movements for indigenous sovereignty and against the settler states of Canada and the USA overlap the discursive field of contemporary post-racialism in ways that circumvent the challenges and possibilities offered by black radicalism in the historic instance. After engaging recent theoretical literature on settler colonialism, it is suggested that the freedom drive that abolishes slavery unsettles both colonial and decolonial forms of sovereign determination.
Article
In taking up the profound and necessary challenge of Afro-pessimism, scholars engaged in black study must not only attend to the relation between blackness and nothingness that Frank B. Wilderson III and Jared Sexton elaborate in their encounter with the work of Frantz Fanon but must also investigate the resonance, presence, and topography of blackness in and as nothingness that is manifest at the intersection of mysticism and logic in black study. This essay is an attempt to contribute to that investigation.
Article
Refugees are the keenest dialecticians. They are refugees as a result of changes and their sole object of study is change. Refugees study change not only because they’ve been put through changes but also because changes are what they want and what they play and what they are. Refugees study a mode of study—the contrapuntal intersection of a set of interstitial fields, dislocation in a hole or a hold or a whole or a crawlspace. Such study is inhabitation that moves: by way of—but also in apposition to—injury, which is irreducible in the refugee though she is irreducible to it. There is, in turn, passage in acknowledging the theoretical practice of the one who emerges as if from nowhere, rooted in having been routed, digging, tilling, working, sounding, the memorial future of a grave, undercommon cell. She is the commodity, the impossible domestic, the interdicted/contradictive mother. Dangerously embedded in the home from which she is excluded, she is more and less than one. The question of where and when she enters—where entrance is reduced to some necessarily tepid mixture of naturalization and coronation, which is an already failed solution that is ever more emphatically diluted in its abstract and infinite replication—is always shaded by the option to refuse what has been refused, by the preferential option not for a place but rather for radical displacement, not for the same but for its change. Blackness is given in the refusal2 of the refugee. Cosmopolitanism has more often than not been thought to be an overview of the underground to which blackness is supposed to have been relegated. Overseeing and overlooking are crucial elements of this particular interplay of blindness and insight. The necessary detachment that links and animates these elements becomes even more important as the various officially sanctioned modes of Euro-American cosmopolitanisms, and their Afro-diasporic critical variants, emerge. Perhaps detachment within that diverse set of cosmopolitanist theories is necessary to the illumination of the federated universality of a cosmopolitan drive. Detachment helps to enact a kind of meta-cosmopolitanism to the extent that it redoubles a certain constitution of cosmopolitanism as the “womb in which all original predispositions of the human species will be developed,” a tendency whose subjunctivity persists as we await “the achievement of a civil society universally administering right,” whose own precondition is “a lawful external relation between states.” Immanuel Kant tries to tell us why we have to wait for what he calls cosmopolitanism, noting that the safety and sanctity of this womb and its generative capacity is always threatened with deferral by states; and Gilles Deleuze, reading himself into and out of Kant’s conceptual framework, cautions us against state thought such as the paradoxically static and statist conceptions of cosmopolitanism that turn out to ground and sanction those antagonistic external relations that Kant posits both as a natural order and as that which nature drives peoples to transcend. Are lawful external relations between states just as dangerous to the universal administration of right as their unlawful counterparts? What if cosmopolitanism, which is, of necessity, national is, precisely because of this necessity, its own most absolute and eternal deferral? What if cosmopolitanism is not just national, but also racial, as well. Consider that both lawful and unlawful relations between states operate, as it were, in the medium of statelessness—which is also to say upon stateless flesh or, both more generally and more precisely, earthly materiality that is posited as unembodied and figured as unanimated. Racialized and sexualized, but also given in the general distinction between man and dominion, statelessness is interdicted materiality. This is to say that statelessness ought not in any case be seen simply as the field marked out by the difference between the citizen and the noncitizen. On the one hand, statelessness is the field of their convergence and coalescence and its modern determination and adjudication (even and especially as what can rightly and all but generally be called the lived statelessness of the citizen) is enacted in and by ascriptions and impositions of state-sanctioned or naturalized difference; on the other hand, and in the first place...
Article
Nowhere are the interrelated logics of property and the claiming of land, identity, and culture more discernable, and nowhere are indigenous people required to be more discernable than in their contemporary struggles for political recognition. It is as if indigenous peoples have to say of themselves and their cultures: How are we to render ourselves as a thing, a thing that may be owned by us, but whose intrinsic value and worth may be determined by others? How may we be most like a thing so that our rights may be exercised and/or protected? Or more scopically, how may we prove that we are a thing that has been seen through time? This is the struggle for indigenous claims to identity and the struggle, as well, of claims to culture—two seemingly constructed and yet grounded formations that require, in settler societies, that they be fixed, claimed, and then adjudicated—much in the manner of disputes over property. This logic of property formation and the practice of claiming are the stuff of political recognition. Political recognition is a problem, writ large, of modern, democratic, state forms of governance and finds its home in the lives and lands of indigenous peoples, who in some cases must now claim the land that they issue from. In order to access their land and, some would then argue, to retain their culture, they must then prove themselves at the level of themselves. Eva Garroutte's Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America and Michael Brown's Who Owns Native Culture? are studies in claiming identity and culture. The claims of identity that Eva Garroutte deals with are also claims for rights and access to resources and so have the shadow of property upon them. Such is the case with the claims to cultural heritage that Michael Brown is examining in Who Owns Native Culture? Brown's book has as its central problem that of an originary moment of authorship, of discerning a beginning, of locating at what point cultural "heritage" begins and at what point it can be alienated or protected as property. The work of Garroutte and Brown converge on the constraints to identity and cultural claiming, in Brown's cases, the "juridicalization" of those claims as they are sieved through the courts and in Garroutte's cases, the deliberation of those claims in institutional and conversational spaces. Brown's study is international and juridical, dealing with cultural property rights cases across the globe. Garroutte's is focused on identity claims and cases in North America. Who Owns Native Culture? and Real Indians deal with these issues in different territorial and discursive arenas, but both offer us reformulations of old debates around these issues. I will examine the central arguments in these books and discuss their methods as well as their findings and embed them within their family resemblance, the question of how the claiming practices detailed in these books enunciate this logic of property, the implications that these books have for related fields, and how they suggest avenues for further research. Eva Garroutte's book, Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America is concerned with forms of identity making and recognition among Native peoples in the United States and, in some moments in the text, Canada. Her data is drawn from secondary source material from the literature of Native American studies, sociology, anthropology, and history, as well as primary documents such as historical records, census data, and her own interviews, which were framed by the theoretical project and attendant methodology, "Radical Indigenism." In its concern with contemporary indigenous identity, this book articulates thematically to the recent single-nation ethnography of intranational recognition practices by Circe Sturm, Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. And in its treatment of the definitional modalities of identity expectation, Real Indians speaks to Elizabeth Povinelli's ethnography of state logics in Australia, The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism. Garroutte's study also articulates to Bruce Granville Miller's study of internationally nonrecognized cases of indigenous claimants, Invisible Indigenes: The Politics of Nonrecognition. Garroutte's book departs from these others in its...
Article
Federal Indian policy during the allotment era intersected with the segregated society of the Jim Crow South to create a market for Indian identity; the discourse of Indian blood was the currency of this realm. For the Mississippi Choctaws, heirs to the failed promises of allotments for Choctaws remaining in Mississippi granted by the 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, a policy known as the “full-blood rule of evidence” legitimized their enrollment with the Choctaw Nation of Indian Territory following the Dawes Act. This paper analyzes how the Mississippi Choctaws negotiated ideologies of “Indian blood” during their campaign for inclusion on the Choctaw Nation rolls. Appropriating the racial language of “full-blood” as defined by the Dawes Commission, they claimed citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by virtue of their “unadulterated” ancestry, their ethnicity, their historic role as military allies of the United States, and their treaty rights. Moreover, as thousands of people clamored for enrollment, the Mississippi Choctaws asserted their status as full-bloods to distinguish themselves from those claimants whom they viewed as pretenders. The Choctaws' use of racial language thus reflected multifaceted meanings that obscured the boundaries between racial and cultural delineations of ethnic identity. It was strategic to the political moment and did not reflect significant changes in the Choctaws' cultural practices; moreover, it did not become the basis for future political divisions based on “blood.” Rather, Choctaws' racial identity as full-blood Indians was a form of political capital in their drive for tribal resurgence in the early twentieth century.
The Applications for Enrollment of the Commision to The Five Civilized Tribes, 1898–1914
  • National Archives
Mississippi Runaway Slaves: 1800–1860
  • Chambers
Rec ords Administration. “A Short History of the National Archives Building
  • National Archives
Resources for Genealogists and Family Historians
  • National Archives
  • Byrd
Becoming a Citizen: Reconstruction Era Regulation of African American Marriages
  • Franke
The Question of Recovery: Slavery, Freedom, and the Archive
  • Helton
  • Osburn
The Colonialism That Is Settled and the Colonialism That Never Happened
  • Andrea Smith