Anthropological Attempts at Indigenous-Settler Relations

Kenzie Siobhan MacIntosh

Anthropology, similar to many social sciences, has been criticized for its coloniality, both historically and presently. Despite being 'well-informed' regarding Indigenous-settler relations, modern anthropologists often continue to (knowingly or unknowingly) exacerbate the unequal power structures of coloniality that make this method of research historically infamous. In this essay, I will attempt to demonstrate through varying examples by Simpson,¹ Noble,² and Liboiron,³ that while anthropologists do possess higher power when interacting with Indigenous communities and knowledge, there is a solution in sight. Using discussion of Indigenous-settler relations in micro and macro terms as well as examples from both Noble and Simpson’s work, I attempt to prove that Liboiron’s framework for anticolonial science is necessary for anthropology.

Noble begins his work by stating that most anthropologists are non-Indigenous settlers. While considering himself to be an ally and friend to the concept of Indigenous-settler relations, Noble says that despite this, most anthropological attempts at Indigenous relations are ‘caught up in coloniality.’⁴ Using two separate examples from his fieldwork as an anthropologist involved in Indigenous affairs, Noble describes Indigenous-settler relations in two separate categories; colonial milieu and opposing encounter.⁵ He explains the former as being the all-encompassing effect of colonialism; an 'apparatus of modernity' which dictates and directs our relations.⁶ The colonial milieu can be hard to identify with an untrained settler eye, and in my own anthropological experience, is easily taken advantage of. Noble then goes on to discuss the colonial milieu effect while working with a museum, which he says showed Indigenous-settler-colonial relations of ‘dinosaurian nature.’⁷ Tropes of conquering territory, ‘taming’ the people, and mapping and claiming were rampant. The colonial milieu depicted in this museum shows how colonial perspectives are embedded in not only our history but also our present. Simpson’s discussion on the threat of Western sciences on Indigenous Knowledge shows a similar theme, in which colonial infrastructure is the paternal force behind the persistent undermining of Indigeneity.⁸ But, while Simpson is speaking about Indigenous Knowledge solely in academia, Noble’s example was created for public eyes by anthropological researchers. Simpson’s ideas on colonial infrastructure go beyond the colonial milieu in society to focus primarily on researchers and scientists who should be held accountable for their use and perpetuation of Indigenous Knowledge. Examples from Simpson and Noble show how the colonial milieu both feeds into and is fed by colonial opposing encounters, a phenomenon that exists in a constant loop.⁹ Scientists shown in both Simpson and Noble’s examples lack anticolonial sentiments due to their presence in the colonial milieu and thus perpetuate these sentiments through their work with the Indigenous nation.

Moving to a micro level, Noble describes his theory on the second form of coloniality; opposing encounter. Rather than looking at the big picture, Noble instead focuses on anthropological and scientific attempts at Nation to Nation relations and uses of knowledge, as well as their frequent failure to exist harmoniously. Highlighting his personal experience working with a university team on Inuit driven “community-based coasted inventory projects,” Noble discusses clear misuse and disrespect for Inuit knowledge; Inuit Qaujj-majatu-gangit.¹⁰ Inuit Knowledge and experience are inseparable from identity and well-being, and therefore the misuse of this knowledge is not only an attack on the land but also the community. Noble quickly realized that the integrity of Inuit Knowledge was at risk when trying to work in conjunction with his teams’ form of Western science. Nobles situation of opposing encounter shows the challenges of two seemingly incompatible knowledge practices.¹¹ Simpson discusses the alleged 'practicality' of TEK from a colonial perspective, in which ecologists who practice Western science view it as a means to integrate into their framework of scientific knowledge to better manage the natural world because it "affords humans greater control over those environments."¹² I think this is a good way to explain what was happening during Nobles team research. Rather than understand the asymmetry of colonial power, Nobles’ fellow researchers would prefer to exacerbate it. Just as Simpson discusses social scientists who fail to acknowledge colonial past and present in conjunction with their use of Indigenous Knowledge, Noble’s situation shows how the failure to properly acknowledge this power leads to what Liboiron might call a ‘scalar mismatch’.¹³ Anchoring the ‘integration’ of Indigenous Knowledge into Western science frameworks takes the focal point away from the bigger problem, which is the colonial present that we live in today.

What’s the solution? Good question. Noble realizes that his anthropological work, which was mainly focused on inter-cultural relations, is essentially pointless without targeting the bigger picture; the colonial milieu.¹⁴ This will interrupt the cycle of the macro-level colonial milieu feeding into the micro-level colonial encounters which perpetuate macro-level colonial milieu and so on… Colonial practices will come with colonial results, seen in both Simpson and Noble, and Liboiron offers a solution. Rather than integrating Indigenous knowledge into pre-existing colonial systems of science, Liboirons feminists, anticolonial lab ‘CLEAR’ works outside of the colonial milieu through what they call ‘place-based science.’¹⁵ Liboiron explains that the beauty of place-based protocols is they ‘do not lend themselves to the universal view of dominant science.’¹⁶ Something that may work for one setting or community may not work for another. This form of science is not driven by the dominant colonial milieu and instead implements community involvement, land-based relationships with science, and respectful spaces for Indigenous Knowledge to be used by Indigenous researchers. An example of this can be seen in CLEAR labs’ dissection protocols- which restrict scientists from using earphones while performing dissection.¹⁷

Bibliography

Liboiron, Max. Pollution Is Colonialism. New York, USA: Duke University Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478021445

Lorde, Audre. The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. Penguin Modern. London, England: Penguin Classics, 2018

Noble, Brian. Tripped up by Coloniality: Anthropologists as Instruments or Agents in Indigenous–Settler Political Relations? Anthropologica, 2015. 57, no. 2: 427-443. muse.jhu.edu/article/609260.

Simpson, Leanne. Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge. American Indian Quarterly, 2004. 28, no 4: 373-384