How the Immigrant disrupts the Indigeneity VS Colonial-Settler Paternalistic Binary
Been thinking about the colonisation pattern of paternalistic binaries with one term being codependent on the other to define its existence and legitimacy.
Examples include the pre-70s Butch/Fem, the cisheteropatriarchy’s grip on the Woman/Man, and Child/Parent binaries. Always, the reinforced one-sidedness of autonomy and integrity in one’s identity, waiting for the other to legitimise it. To grant it license to exist, so that it may navigate the world as the forever-dependent.
Today I focus on Indigeneity and Colonial-Settler statuses, from the perspective of a Chinese immigrant who comes from traditionally nomadic clans, a recently explored Indigenous background, as well as a home country formed of migrant populations once colonised by the British.
“Indigeneity” depends on the first suffering of “Colonisation” to a debilitating extent. As the official UN definition states it is typically conceived as:
Indigenous peoples have in common a historical continuity with a given region prior to colonization and a strong link to their lands. They maintain, at least in part, distinct social, economic and political systems. They have distinct languages, cultures, beliefs and knowledge systems. They are determined to maintain and develop their identity and distinct institutions and they form a non-dominant sector of society.
This fundamentally denies ethnic or cultural majorities of a land, and instead presupposes that the traditional rights to a land relies on the mass erasure, genocide, weakening and destruction of its natives and their cultures first. They are made foreigners and guests in lands that were theirs, and the continued ecocides and forced relocations distances them from their nativity. Before they begin to recognise Indigeneity as a politically protected status enough to perform reparations—sometimes only as a ceremonial courtesy.
Additionally, the political participation of Indigenous persons states:
“Indigenous peoples often have much in common with other neglected segments of societies, i.e. lack of political representation and participation, economic marginalization and poverty, lack of access to social services and discrimination. Despite their cultural differences, the diverse indigenous peoples share common problems also related to the protection of their rights. They strive for recognition of their identities, their ways of life and their right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources.” [Source]
“Indigenous peoples face many challenges. These include:
a denial of their right to control their own development based on their own values, needs and priorities
a lack of - or very poor - political representation
a lack of access to social services
Often, indigenous peoples are excluded or poorly represented in decision-making processes on matters that directly affect them and are not consulted about projects affecting their lands or the adoption of administrative or legislative measures that may affect them. Also, they are often displaced from their ancestral lands as a result of ventures such as the exploitation of natural resources.” [Source]
Consequently, there is a lack of mainstream recognition of indigenous groups that aren’t tribal, are ethnic majorities and dominant to a region, and don’t “appear normatively Indigenous” because they possess qualities associated with the first world global north developments.
Similarly, Colonisation refuses to allow for BIPOC migrants to exceed ratios to white and European migrants, and the white-dominant population. Migrants regardless of their background or skillset are seen as a threat to the jobs and housing and basic human necessities to the dominant group. They are also criminalised and alienated without an anchor for belonging, and penalised heavily as ethnic minorities in a foreign land.
It seems to me that in this stage of Colonisation and Nationalism (as a nation-state identity), the notion of the Immigrant is at constant battle with the Colonial-Settler VS. Indigenous binary. Nomadic values and the once recognisable indigenisation of migrant populations create a fortress against Colonisation, which has been at risk of complete eradication ever since.
An example is the Nyonya Peranakan of Singapore and Malaysia, involving Chinese migrants partaking in active indigenisation to integrate with the ethnic natives of the land, forming interracial relationships and families and synthesising a new hybridised culture.
Another, involves the “Chinariginals” the Chinese-Aboriginal interracial families and communities in Australia which had been such a threat to white Australia. To the extent that the interracial children of such relations, were often threatened to be taken away and denied access to basic necessities and familial support services. [Source]
Historically, migration has been a natural process and a part of humanity’s patterns. While there have been conflicts, many of today’s societies are formed by migratory patterns and the formation of communities, new cultures and shared identities. These weren’t isolated to Neolithic eras, they are still occurring even till now.
The possibility of non-exploitative indigenisation is completely lost in the assumptions that Colonial-Settler societies project onto immigrants. This projection involves the intergenerational blood guilt beginning with their forefathers’ invasive violence, debauchery and robbery, going all the way to their continued disempowerment of ethnic communities and culture. They fear immigrants are prone to do unto them what they have done unto others—despite migrants having such little claim on nationalistic power. The Sword of Damocles’ hangs over their crowned heads.
Nomadic values, especially that which promotes indigenisation, undermines colonial monopolies. They had once established ‘Terra Nullius’ as a concept to deny the legitimacy and sovereignty of Indigenous communities. While it has been overturned at a court level, the anti-immigrant surge reveals that in their minds, they had never believed in the sovereignty of Indigenous communities.
There is much decolonisation potential in migrant communities forming respectful interracial communities with natives of a land via pooled resources, shared values, skill-building and mutual protection.
There is a reason why they took our children, destroyed our communities, enforced zoning policies to push for segregation, introduced divisive tactics and relegated resources from one marginalised community to another, so as to pit competition. Why they erased such prominent immigrant-native histories and even pre-colonial evidences of multicultural interactions, from the consciousness of all sides. Why they created naturalisation acts to preserve white supremacy. Why their continued enforced conditions and “character tests” for immigrants’ VISAs relies on loyalty to the state, and obedience to judiciary powers—which has long been governed by almost exclusively colonial-settlers, as opposed to the indigenous communities of the lands.
WHO does it benefit to argue over which of us had built these countries in the calculated gallons of blood, sweat and tears? Whether it were off the backs of indigenous peoples who already had their own thriving communities but were dehumanised by colonisers and massacred in the brave resistances they’ve been fighting against colonialism ever since? Or was it off the enslaved Black peoples, blackbirded Pacific Islanders, enslaved Latin American peoples and Filipinos? Or was it off the trafficking and fatalistic labours of Chinese and Indian coolies, multigenerationally indebted? Or was it the prisoners of colonial rule and wartime detainees?
Have our bones sufficiently calcified the infrastructure of this land, soaked the earth in all the bleeding colours of the world, backbreaking labour to make bang for buck in social currency and capital—enough to justify our belonging here? When do we stop proving our legitimacies? When do we finally earn our licenses to exist and reside on these lands? WHO decides any of this?
The possibility of non-exploitative Indigenisation of immigrants via hybridised communities and cultures, has always been a site of power and resistance that overwhelms and exposes the colonial system and mindset. Why shouldn’t we lean into this?
