Many people view colonialism as a part of history that we’ve moved away from. The reality is that the United States and Canada are settler colonial nation states that continuously participate in the colonization of Indigenous peoples through the establishment and enforcement of the heteropatriarchy. The assimilation of the heteropatriarchy as a traditional value of the West has morphed indigenous views of our bodies, souls, and connections to better fit the settler colonial nation. This has forced us to move away from our connections with the land, our kin, and the wisdom of our ancestors. The settler colonial state has changed indigenous meanings and expressions of love and connection, erasing their ancestral wisdom and simultaneously silencing and denying the existence of queer indigenous folks.
Within heteropatriarchal cultural contexts, like those imposed on Indigenous communities during the colonial era, it is a common theme to see women marked as subservient in relation to male counterparts, both socially and economically. The rise of this viewpoint in America is frequently referred to as the “Cult of Domesticity” or the “Cult of True Womanhood”. This was a 19th century value system that placed four virtues upon all women, claiming it was a part of their nature. These values were piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity (Welter, 1966). The nuclear family validates this concept and is seen as the ideal form of family, invalidating queer and non-traditional families and interactions. It is an incredibly misogynistic view that proves to be beneficial to the heteropatriarchal agenda. Many indigenous groups have internalized this heteropatriarchy into their ways of life, shaming those who do not fit within the “traditional” values set by the settler colonial state. This has led to the distortion and shaming of Native kinships, the rejection of indigenous spirituality, and disdain towards expressions of gender beyond the heteronormative binary.
As a two-spirit indigenous person, these issues are close to home for me. Although my blood is Cherokee and Choctaw, I have no official affiliations with my clan. My mother was placed into the foster care system as a child and the clan rejected her for being raised too much in the “white man’s way”. I practiced my spirituality briefly with the Ojibwe in the later parts of my teens but eventually that connection was removed as well. On my father’s side, I was blessed with Mayan blood. However, due to poor family relations, I was never able to explore that part of my indigeneity beyond my father. Even with this indigenous blood though, I only began to learn about non-binary genders and what kinship looks like outside of the Eurocentric normative within the past decade. Colonization made me feel isolated and for a long time, I felt that I wasn’t indigenous enough to engage in my culture. Not to mention, despite my Mexican heritage and indigenous blood, I am a very white-passing individual due to my pale complexion. This, along with being ⅓ indigenous, only ever translated to “you’re not indigenous enough”. Identifying as a nonbinary gender along with that created a very isolating experience for me mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. For me, colonization took my identity. That is why I am so passionate about the importance of decolonization. This is only the tip of the iceberg though. Colonialism still runs deep within the veins of America and will require a lot of time and dedication to even begin carving it out.
For the sake of specificity, I will be focusing on the experiences and expertise of indigenous folk within North America. This includes the United States of America, Canada, and Mexico. A note must be made that there are over 500 indigenous groups within the United States alone and there is great variance from group to group (Pyle, 2020). I do not seek to generalize indigenous culture in a way that erases this variance. Rather, I will be focusing on themes that repetitively appear across these indigenous groups. I encourage readers to further explore how far colonialism expands and the philosophies of varying indigenous groups, both in the West and the East though for a more thorough understanding. Countless indigenous societies have been oppressed or forced into isolation. Although Native Americans are not perceived as isolated to a majority of society, it is clear that there is still an overarching agenda of colonizing natives to assimilate, whitewash, and subject communities to oppressive, White supremacist values and beliefs. However, there is great wisdom within indigenous spirituality and although it varies from tribe to tribe, much of this spirituality and wisdom is intended to heal. The Western education system pushes this narrative that traditional indigenous knowledge has been lost due to elders dying or the instability of oral traditions (Simpson, 2004). Although these are contributors, the primary reason for the loss of traditional indigenous knowledge is colonialism. The colonial mission of “Kill the Indian, Save the Man” has been detrimental to the indigenous community, and my focus here is to uncover how this has been particularly damaging to indigenous values related to gender, sexuality, and kin.
Many communities that began as matrilineal systems have found their women being forced into positions supplementary to a male head. The heteropatriarchy has been enforced for decades through boarding schools with gendered education and misogynistic legislature. For example, The Indian Act was enacted in Canada in 1867 and had a goal of ‘civilizing’ Native Americans in order to assimilate them into Canadian society (Ladner, 2009). This piece of legislature stripped many indigenous women of their spiritual and political power. Women were no longer allowed to participate in voting, let alone run for any position of authority. They were also denied property rights to the lands they grew up on and nurtured. The land that they spoke through and which spoke through them. “Much of the self-hatred we carry around inside us is centuries old” (Driskill, 2004). In addition to having to live with the trauma passed down from generation to generation, indigenous communities have to face their oppressors and their systems daily. Native reserves are still considered federal lands and therefore are under federal ruling. They can be given and taken, mutilated and polluted, as the colonizer pleases. Recognizing the importance of the land and decolonizing our Native communities and their philosophies is the only way to begin healing the wounds of our Indigenous kin, the bare minimum that should be done in reparations.
Decolonization comes in many different forms, some more active than others, however every effort is valued and contributes to the indigenous path towards sovereignty and reclaiming their voice. When considering a feminist approach, the primary systems that must be decolonized are kinship, spirituality, and gender/sexuality. Part of decolonization is finding a place for indigenous knowledge within the Western society. A place where it is not scrutinized and shamed but instead explored and rejoiced over. Kinship is the basis of all human interaction and connection and ties in closely with spirituality for many indigenous groups. It also varies vastly from culture to culture. Although European influences in North America forced kinship to be culturally constructed as primarily blood relations and those derived from heterosexual relationships and marriage, it’s actually an umbrella term for a variety of relationships.
Native Americans have been stripped of their original ideas of kinship and instead been forced to follow the “traditional” American version. This “traditional” form of love and expression is usually forced to remain within the boundaries of the nuclear family and settler sexuality. The nuclear family is the stereotypical, hetero paternalistic family that consists of the husband as the leader and owner of his wife, bound by marriage and monogamy (Arvin, et. al, 2013). This is heavily enforced by the values of Christianity, the colonizer’s primary religion. Christianity is a patriarchal religion that was forced upon indigenous peoples and focuses on doing all things in the name of God. There is little to no focus on the relationship to the land and our universe. All was created by God and God should be that whom we worship. In contrast, a large portion of indigenous knowledge of the way of life centers around the idea of interconnectedness. All concepts of life are always connected. Humans, plants, animals, the land, the sea, spirituality, sexuality, etc. Everything in the universe is connected and importance is placed on nurturing and strengthening those connections, even those considered nonliving. There is kinship between all because there is energy and spirit within all. Another term for this way of thought is animism. This is why many indigenous groups worship and honor their land. Their “deities” are not perceived as human gods but instead as entirely separate forms of nature. The Lakota refer to their “deity” as The Great Spirit because it is not a man. It is a power. Jack D. Forbes explains it well through his writing:
“For us, truly, there are no “surroundings”
I can lose my hands and still live. I can lose my legs and still live. I can lose my eyes and still live…But if I lose the air I die. If I lose the sun I die. If I lose the earth I die. If I lose the water I die. If I lose the plants and animals I die. All of these things are more a part of me, more essential to my every breath, than is my so-called body. What is my real body?
We are not autonomous, self-sufficient beings as European mythology teaches…We are rooted just like the trees. But our roots come out of our nose and mouth, like an umbilical cord, forever connected with the rest of the world…
Nothing we do, do we do by ourselves. We do not see by ourselves. We do not hear by ourselves…We do not think, dream, invent, or procreate ourselves. We do not die ourselves…
I am a point of awareness, a circle of consciousness, in the midst of a series of circles. One circle is that which we call “the body”. It is a universe itself, full of millions of little living creatures living their own “separate” but dependent lives…But all of these “circles” are not really separate - they are all mutually dependent upon each other…”
Each individual is connected to the cosmos themselves and the energy of life flows through everything. Forbes brings forth the idea of their real body not being the physical, it is what flows within them and around them. We are made of cosmic energy that extends beyond the body and we thrive as a species that depends upon one another. A sense of community and belonging can do wonders for an individual’s health and well-being. With this particular approach, we are always a part of a larger community. Rather than the Eurocentric focus of life as an autonomous adventure with a focus on our physicalities, this approach focuses instead on the strength that we can gain from our surroundings.
Another theme within many native religions is gratitude for all that we are connected with and the nature surrounding us. There is no sense of superiority over the land, no entitlement in Native culture. The sky, the sea, the land and the animals upon it are a gift and must be respected as such. There is a sacredness to them and a shared ideal of nonexploitation of other living creatures. This is why ownership of their land is detrimental to the wellbeing of Native groups. When their land is taken and violated, it affects them far deeper than any non-Native could understand in the current neocolonial climate. Indigenous connections and wisdom are being actively severed with every piece of land that has been stolen and assaulted. These native concepts clash with the Eurocentric views of consumer and capitalist culture, which is why we see the colonizer continuously stealing our land and violating it for resources. Further research can be done into the ecological and environmental aspects of decolonization, as that is a large sector of the indigenous fight for sovereignty and respect right now. The colonizing nation’s continuous depletion of environmental resources actively harms this human-earth connection, which is detrimental to the health of many indigenous peoples. They are watching their kin be sliced down, drilled into, and deprived of nutrients.
That alone has never been enough to satiate the colonizer’s desire to control. Western explorers viewed these ways of spirituality as aberrant, romanticized, and savage nonsense which led to the erasure of this spirituality through the use of residential boarding schools, violence, and genocidal goals. Within the many categories entirely erased by the colonizer is ecosexuality. Ecosexuality refers to the perception of the Earth as a lover, rather than a mother or possession (Tallbear, 2019). There is an intimate energy exchange when the earth is loved. There is mutual respect rather than a rigid hierarchy. Most mention of this is immediately shamed by the colonized, Western mind because of the narrow viewpoints regarding sex and eroticism. While Eurocentric views see sex, spirituality, and sexuality as entirely separate concepts, the native viewpoint intertwines them all together by a thread (TallBear, 2018).
The English language is limited in what it can portray of these special connections and relationships. There are concepts within indigenous culture that do not have a direct translation and cannot be understood without living it. The basis of this argument though is that sexuality is not just physical acts of sex between humans. This is why many indigenous groups don’t have much regard for who their kin choose to engage intimately with and why there is such openness towards ecoeroticism. There is more sanctity and truth in your soul and your actions than there is in who you choose to have sex and exchange sexual energy with. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise then to find that many indigenous groups actively participated in polygamous relationships as well.
Polygamy is often viewed as a misogynistic, patriarchal system. However, polygamy does exist in a pure, natural form within indigenous culture. Following that concept of kinship and interconnectedness, some indigenous knowledge questions why we limit our love to monogamous relationships. When all other aspects of life are shared, such as “children, economic sustenance, and housing, why must sex be reserved for the monogamous couple, or for making babies?” (TallBear, 2018). This challenges the notion that love is a finite resource that is made for possession. Rather, many view it as a never ending resource that is made for sharing. The concept of polygamy as a misogynistic, patriarchal system only exists within nations that follow and enforce heteronormative, patriarchal values. The white savior complex of many white scholars and feminists has led to the immediate dismissal of polygamy as a toxic system due to predisposed views. However, with proper education and research, one will find that polygamy can be a far more healing system of love and spirituality. Many indigenous people are taught ethical love, which is “to be in a good way with all Creation and is something that is learned by feeling, doing, being, building, and even destroying…” (Nixon, 2020). Their ideas of love are imbued with their spirituality. Similarly, gender was also seen as a form of spirituality. The Western fixation on sexuality and sex defining a person does not exist in many indigenous spaces.
As continuously proven, the existence of queer indigenous people goes far back in history despite the attempt of European colonizers to eradicate them. In the current age, many of these individuals who reside in the United States and Canada self-identify or are referred to as “two-spirit”. Prior to this, the term berdache was used to refer to many North American indigenous people who did not fit within the gender binary. This was a name built from colonial violence. This was not a name chosen by the indigenous. It was a cruel term used to humiliate and shame those who expressed gender in a way that was outside of the binary or contrary to the nuclear family mode (Herdt, 1997). It was a term that completely disregarded the variance of gender expression across cultures. That is why the term “two-spirit” began to popularize itself in Native communities. It was a self-chosen term that didn’t have any racist connotations. It is a term that was created to try and convey a gender that doesn’t exist within the English language because there is so much variance, nothing can truly convey all indigenous gender identities. For example, Qwo-Li Driskill states, “To my knowledge as a non-fluent Cherokee speaker, there is currently no term in Cherokee to describe Two-Spirit people. We simply are.” (Driskill, 2004). The perceived necessity for distinct labels came from the European colonizers inability to understand the depth of native culture.
However, each culture varies, some have interchanging terms, unique terms, or no terms at all to represent those who walked between and outside of the gender binary. These terms almost never focus on the sexuality of the person like the Western mindset does. Instead, it is a focus on the spiritual essence and actions of an individual. The Zapotec indigenous culture in Oaxaca, Mexico uses the term ‘Muxes’ to refer to those who do not fit the gender binary. They were most often described as men who indulged in the feminine aspects of life. However, as individuals, muxes do not see themselves in a gendered way. The Zapotec language actually has no gender, there was originally only one term to describe all gender identities - “la-ave” (Bushell, 2021). In Navajo culture, there are five main gender categories but numerous terms that are used based on age, behavior, and roles. Asdzáán (female gender), hastiin (man), nádleeh (intersex/androgyne), the masculine female, and the feminine-male gender are the five main genders recognized by older Navajo people (Thomas, 1997). The existence of these categories is due to the variation in individual roles within the Navajo community. For example, those who fit within the masculine-female gender are considered different from those in the female category because they are not involved in reproduction and have different priorities than females. It is also noted that they often had specific ceremonial roles, however those were not expanded on because “knowledge of ceremonial roles is not to be divulged to persons who are not Navajo medicine people” (Thomas, 1997).
These distinct gender terms exist in many of the original indigenous languages. The Inuit use the word “sipiniq”, the Dakota use the word “Winkte”, the Ojibwe use the term “naawenangweyaabeg” (Fiola, 2020). Each and every culture is distinctly different but they all show evidence of queer identities in pre colonial times. In addition, many times those with queer identities were placed in roles of healing. Understanding and sharing this knowledge is the first step towards decolonizing these systems so that indigenous people can reconnect with themselves and their kin (both human and non, both living and nonliving). Colonialism has poisoned the systems of our native kin and although not as physically violent as perceived in the past, it still runs rampant within the world and prolongs generations of suffering. Decolonization is not an individualistic effort. One person is not enough. We must band together and share the wisdom of our ancestors, fight for our land, and fight for our sovereignty.
Bibliography
Arvin, Maile, et al. “Decolonizing feminism: Challenging connections between settler colonialism and Heteropatriarchy.” Feminist Formations, vol. 25, no. 1, 2013, pp. 8–34, https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2013.0006.
Barker, Joanne. Critically Sovereign: Indigenous Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies. Duke University Press, 2017.
Bushell, A. (2021, June 13). Los MuXes: Disrupting the colonial gender binary — Human Rights Pulse. Human Rights Pulse. https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/los-muxes-disrupting-the-colonial-gender-binary
Clarke, A. E., Haraway, D. J., & Tallbear, K. (2018). Making Love and Relations Beyond Settler Sex and Family. In Making kin not population (pp. 145–164). essay, Prickly Paradigm Press.
Driskill, Q. (2004). Stolen from our Bodies: First Nations Two-Spirits/Queers and the Journey to a Sovereign Erotic. Studies in American Indian Literatures, 16(2), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/ail.2004.0020
Fiona, C., Nickel, S., & Fehr, A. (2020). Naawenangweyaabeg Coming In: Intersections of Indigenous Sexuality and Spirituality. In In Good Relation (pp. 136–153). Univ. of Manitoba Press.
Forbes, Jack D. “Indigenous Americans: Spirituality and Ecos.” Daedalus, vol. 130, no. 4, 2001, pp. 283–300. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027728. Accessed 8 Dec. 2023.
Harrod, Howard L. The Animals Came Dancing: Native American Sacred Ecology and Animal Kinship. Univ. of Arizona Press, 2008.
Herdt, G., Jacobs, S., Thomas, W., & Lang, S. (1997). The Dilemmas of Desire: From Berdache to Two-Spirit. In Two-Spirit People (pp. 276–283). University of Illinois Press.
Ladner, K. L. (2009). GENDERING DECOLONISATION, DECOLONISING GENDER. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 13(1), 62–77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26423117
Morgensen, Scott Lauria. Spaces between Us: Queer Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Decolonization. University of Minnesota Press, 2011.
Nixon, L., Nickel, S., & Fehr, A. (2020). Toward an Indigenous Relational Aesthetics: Making Native Love, Still. In In Good Relation (pp. 195–206). Univ. of Manitoba Press.
Simpson, Leanne. “Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge.” American Indian Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 3/4, 2004, pp. 373–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4138923. Accessed 7 Dec. 2023.
Thomas, W., Jacobs, S., Thomas, W., & Lang, S. (1997). Navajo Cultural Constructions of Gender and Sexuality. In Two-Spirit People (pp. 156–173). University of Illinois Press.
TallBear, Kim, and Angela Willey. “Critical Relationality: Queer, Indigenous, and Multispecies Belonging beyond Settler Sex & Nature.” Imaginations, 31 Jan. 2020, imaginations.space/?p=11525.
Welter, B. (1966). The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860. American Quarterly, 18(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2711179
Comments