OFF 2

Coloniality K

The affirmative’s will to improve through Indigenous populations being “forced” to

relocate frames climate vulnerability as a problem that demands Western
intervention. This is central to extending colonialism.
Emilie S. Cameron, 2012. - Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University
“Securing Indigenous Politics: A Critique of the Vulnerability and Adaptation Approach to the Human
Dimensions of Climate Change in the Canadian Arctic.” Global Environmental Change 22 (1): 103–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.004. Science Direct //DH
Prior to the settlement of comprehensive land claims in northern Canada (see Hicks and White, 2000 for an overview), the concept of
colonialism circulated widely in both academic and political spheres, and provided analytical traction for understanding the conditions under
which Indigenous peoples struggled to sustain their lives (e.g., Brody, 1973; Dene Nation, 1977; IndianEskimo Association, 1970; Inuit Tapirisat
of Canada, 1977; Scott, 2007). Today, although references are occasionally made to a ‘‘colonial past,’’ to speak of colonial relations as
persistently present in the North is to be accused, in some circles, of analytical, political, and ontological misrecognition: colonialism was; it is
no longer. And yet processes and practices that were understood, prior to the settlement of land claims, in relation to
colonization, remain persistently present in the region: poverty, loss of traditional culture, loss of
language, lack of control over resource development, suicide, addictions, and physical and mental health
disparities (Cameron, 2010; Hicks, 2007; Kral and Idlout, 2009; Tester and McNicoll, 2004). Their persistence, moreover, in a
place and for a people that is now supposed to be ‘‘after’’ or ‘‘beyond’’ colonization, still justifies a range of
interventions; it still demands ‘‘solutions’’. Northern Indigenous peoples are still understood to ‘‘have
problems’’ (indeed, as Smith (1999, p. 92) makes so clear, the equation of Indigeneity with ‘‘problems’’ is so deeply
rooted in Western knowledge systems that its persistence in a supposedly ‘‘post’’ colonial context
should not surprise us). And thus academic, governmental, and non-governmental institutions continue to intervene in the region in an
effort to improve the lives of Indigenous northerners.

It is precisely the framing of intervention into the lives of Indigenous peoples as well-meaning,
benevolent, pragmatic, and necessary that has been problematized by scholars in recent years. As Tester and
Kulchyski (1994, p. 4) observe, efforts to ‘‘improve’’ and ‘‘help’’ northern Indigenous peoples have been central
to colonial formations in the region. As a population targeted most extensively after World War II, ‘‘the central historical dynamic that
came to link Inuit to non-Inuit society politically was put in place during the period of high modernism. Unlike Indian affairs, where a pre-
welfare state employed largely coercive measures, in Inuit affairs it
was a liberal form of welfare state, which gave the
appearance of having a more benign face and which employed a greater reliance on ideology, that became the means
for attempting assimilation’’.

Processes and practices that are understood, today, as central to colonization in the North (including forced
relocation into settlements, the shooting of sled dogs, mass evacuation to southern sanatoria for tuberculosis treatment, residential schooling,
and the imposition of southern models of health and education; see Kulchyski and Tester, 2007; Stevenson, 2009, 2011; Tester and Kulchyski,
1994) were carried out under the auspices of a ‘‘well-meaning’’ liberal welfare state , a state concerned with
helping Inuit adapt to the modern world, saving Inuit bodies from disease, and teaching Inuit how to effectively operate in Western economic
and political spheres. The history of intensive colonial intervention into Inuit lives interweaves, then, with governmental benevolence,
improvement, and expertise, and as such recent work on the colonial ‘‘will to improve’’ (Li, 2007) and writings on colonial governmentality
more generally (e.g., Mitchell, 2006; Scott, 2005) are particularly helpful for understanding colonial and neocolonial processes in the North.

The will to improve, Li argues, is a hallmark of colonial relations; it is a form of ‘‘trusteeship’’ in which the
objective is not so much to dominate others but to enhance a target population’s ‘‘capacity for action,
and to direct it’’ (2007, p. 5). Drawing on Foucault’s understandings of government as a field of power but also on Gramsci, Li is interested
in the will to shape the ‘‘conduct of conduct’’, to ‘‘educate desires’’, and to configure peoples’ relations not only with each other, but with land,
wealth, resources, means of subsistence, and so on. Governmental power, she notes, targets the well-being of populations at large rather than
individuals, whether understood as the whole population or specific subgroups defined by gender, race, location, or other features, ‘‘each with
characteristic deficiencies that serve as points of entry for corrective interventions’’ (6). Li notes that the will to improve is marked by intentions
that are ‘‘benevolent, even utopian’’. Its practitioners desire to make the world better and they do so not through violence or force, but
through ‘‘schemes’’ that are made to seem like ‘‘the natural expression of the everyday interactions of individuals and groups’’ (5).
Governing Indigenous peoples in this mode, she argues, is no less significant than more coercive,
assimilative, or disciplinary modes of domination. It is an extension and modification, not a departure
from, colonial forms of power.

Colonialism turns case. The settler state won’t change and limits Native sovereignty in
practice.
Justine Wild, 2024 - Master’s Thesis, University of South-Eastern Norway Faculty of Humanities, Sports
and Educational Science Department of Culture, Religion and Social Studies “Indigenous Immobilities as
Coloniality: Indigenous Struggles in the Artic and the Representations of Climate Change Displacement in
State and Federal Policies in The United States” Spring,
https://openarchive.usn.no/usn-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3139788/no.usn%3Awiseflow
%3A7108259%3A59080392.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y //DH
In this analysis, I have considered policy documents from various government agencies in the US and how they represent the problem of
climate change displacement. The analysis began with a look at the problem representations present in the documents. These problem
representations frame the displacement of the communities in a few ways. For funding and categorization, the problems
are
represented to be purely financial constructions, that the ‘problem’ is lack of funding or accessibility of
funds for the community. For decision-making and data, the ‘problem’ is the need to collect information and then make an informed
decision about relocation. For these representations, the communities afflicted are implicated in the decision-making process, however most
call for the government to make decisions. The final category of vulnerability speaks to how the communities are in a position where they need
help, either related to climate change impacts or pre-existing vulnerabilities. What is clear in these problem representations
is that the ‘problem’ is not climate change, but how these communities are experiencing it. Specifically, while
there is explicit mention of erosion, there is little connection made to addressing the causes of erosion or broader climate change. Climate
change is not problematized as it would require the government to acknowledge and implicate its own
actions which has led to current environmental changes. Looking into community perspectives on the problematizations,
community members challenge the state’s conception of displacement and relocation through their lived experiences. While the communities
echo the problems of funding and decision-making, these are further problematized by the communities who challenge the structure of funding
mechanisms and the overstepping of government decision-makers. For problem representations of vulnerability, the communities challenge
how the government constructs vulnerability by pointing to the role of climate change specifically.

I now further reflect on the second research question: what do these problem representations, taken with their presuppositions and effects,
reveal about the nature of Indigenous sovereignty, autonomy, and the right to self-determination in the US? These problem representations
reveal that Indigenous
sovereignty and self-determination are powerful claims, and thus undesirable to the
state. The US claims to support the right to self-determination and ‘tribal’ sovereignty, as both are protected under
the federal trust responsibility, yet does not uphold either in practice. The state is willing to address
climate displacement to the extent which they remain in control of the process. This keeps the
communities dependent on the state and vulnerable to its decisions. As the state continues to exercise its authority
over the territory, despite Indigenous sovereignty claims, it bolsters its power and position which is rarely challenged internationally due to
American exceptionalism and global hegemony. Despite
this, the communities of Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref
continue to resist with the limited power they have inside the colonial system, using political and legal
tools at their disposal.

Given that the state has made the direness of current conditions abundantly clear in reports and policies
(e.g., GAO, 2003; GAO, 2009; GAO, 2022), it raises the question of why there has been such inaction to relocate the
communities. This research provides a possible explanation which situates the inaction in coloniality and
the interconnectedness of settler colonial land dispossession and capitalism. The control of land is the
“irreducible element” of the settler colonial project (Wolfe, 2006, p. 388); therefore, the ownership and
control of territory is a central concern in displacement and relocation . This study makes clear just how
important territoriality is in governing. One can draw a thread across time connecting the dispossession of Indigenous lands upon
contact through the dismemberment of collective land rights (e.g., ANCSA) through tools of land control such as sustainable development to
current cases of immobility. The
state operates and is restricted by the colonial system it is embedded in, and as
this research shows, even where self-determination is encouraged, the system of coloniality still constrains
the possibility of recognizing Indigenous sovereignty and autonomy. Resistance, therefore, needs to operate on
a level of systemic change, of independence from the colonial state, which is the daily and life’s work by the Yup’ik
and Iñupiat Peoples and Indigenous resurgence scholars (e.g., Corntassel, 2012; Simpson, 2016; Coulthard & Simpson, 2016; Palmer et al.,
2022).

The alternative is indigenous resurgence – it’s comparatively more effective than

policy. Reps first---they control how we shape policy.
Justine Wild, 2024 - Master’s Thesis, University of South-Eastern Norway Faculty of Humanities, Sports
and Educational Science Department of Culture, Religion and Social Studies “Indigenous Immobilities as
Coloniality: Indigenous Struggles in the Artic and the Representations of Climate Change Displacement in
State and Federal Policies in The United States” Spring,
https://openarchive.usn.no/usn-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3139788/no.usn%3Awiseflow
%3A7108259%3A59080392.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y //DH

Policy is a tool utilized by governments to maintain social order and control its population. Policies are what Foucault
(2007) refers to as technologies, or the mechanisms through which governing occurs. How governing transpires is the focus of Foucault’s (2007)
work on governmentality which seeks to understand how the state orders the relationship between itself and its citizens. The
settler
colonial and capitalist state structure (Wolfe, 2006; Quijano, 2000; Quijano, 2007), which marginalizes the Indigenous Peoples1, is
reproduced and enforced through policy. Policy has played a significant role in shaping current situations
from the assimilative policies which attempted to destroy the communities’ knowledge systems, to
educational policies which restricted the mobility of the communities , to policies of classification which defines how
the communities can access their rights, to the current relocation policies which restrict and define the possibility of movement for the
communities.

The Indigenous Peoples of these three villages, the Yup’ik (Newtok) and Iñupiat (Kivalina, Shishmaref), have lived on these territories from time
immemorial. Upon colonization, first by Russia and then The United States (US), these Indigenous communities were brought into a settler
colonial system where their bodies, lands, and ways of life were the target of appropriation and assimilation (Wolfe, 2006). Indigenous
resistance movements in the US including armed struggles, the occupation of Alcatraz by the American Indian
Movement, and the 2016 Standing Rock protests continue to challenge the settler-colonial state. Indigenous
resurgence is a form of resistance focused on regenerative nation-building. It is a philosophy which challenges
the hierarchical nature of a capitalist colonial world and encourages the use of Indigenous Knowledge (IK)
to build equitable communities and relations (Corntassel, 2012; Coulthard & Simpson, 2016; Palmer et al., 2022).