Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Indigenous response to colonialism" in English language version.
Last modified:
For a comprehensive list of Non-european rebellions, revolts and resistance movements, see pages 62–63.
The rights to land and resources are key goals of the world's indigenous peoples, and they are enshrined in the only international human rights instrument that is binding on states, the International Labor Organization's Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.
Indigenous people thus not only confronted the European expansion, but also participated in a complex and contested colonial encounter... Rather than simply bloody rivals from the outset, Indians and Euro-Americans frequently were trade and alliance partners, neighbors, wives, employers, and co-religionists.
If disease could have done the job, it is not clear why the European colonizers in America found it necessary to carry out unrelenting wars against Indigenous communities in order to gain every inch of land they took from them-nearly three hundred years of colonial warfare, followed by continued wars waged by the independent republics of the hemisphere.
Colonists quickly lost control of them. Indians woke up to find free-range cows and horses romping through their fields, trampling the harvest. If they killed the beasts, gun-waving colonists demanded payment. Animal numbers boomed for decades. The worst may have been the pigs...
Of the estimated 2,500 Pequots who survived the war, at least 30 male captives were executed, and 180 other prisoners were given as slaves to the colonists' native allies. Colonial officials sold many other Pequots into slavery in the West Indies, and some women and children became household slaves in Massachusetts....The terms prohibited the Pequots from returning to their lands, speaking their tribal language, or even referring to themselves as Pequots.
Recent scholars, however, have shown that virgin soil epidemics were far less universal and had less deadly consequences than has generally been assumed. Depopulation from disease more often resulted from conditions created by colonialism—in California, loss of land, destruction of resources and food stores, lack of clean water, captive taking, sexual violence, and massacre—that encouraged the spread of pathogens and increased communities' vulnerability through malnutrition, exposure, social stress, and destruction of sources of medicine and capacities for palliative care.
Variations of the Modoc ordeal occurred elsewhere during the conquest and colonization of Africa, Asia, Australia, and North and South America. Indigenous civilizations repeatedly resisted invaders seeking to physically annihilate them in whole or in part. Many of these catastrophes are known as wars. Yet by carefully examining the intentions and actions of colonizers and their advocates it is possible to reinterpret some of these cataclysms as both genocides and wars of resistance. The Modoc case is one of them (p120).
Many scholars, including myself, believe that war, especially its colonial variety with its eliminationist logic against the native that seeks to remove all physical and cultural traces of indigenous peoples from the land, carries with it genocidal capacity that our existing legal frameworks enable. Terms like "civil war," "conflict," and even "counterinsurgency" frequently serve as legal cover for genocide, and in its wake, form the repertoire of genocide denial. This includes the world's ongoing demand for a "perfect victim," one that does not resist oppression whether through violence or non-violence though other instances of resistance are valorized. Historians know that in every case of genocide, victims resisted and that resistance was always framed as a criminal provocation for mass killing.
Mulataje or mestizaje, particularly in its culturalist rendition, was central to the politicized assimilationist, monoculturalist rhetoric that surfaced in Latin America during the 1920s and thereafter as a means to neutralize the cultural (and racial) pluralism typical of virtually all Latin American countries -a pluralism considered by many politically counterproductive in the face of Latin America's move toward refurbishing the nation-state.
Moreover, the term mestizo is associated with the assimilationist movement in Ecuador, where to be mestizo is to be Ecuadorian, to identify with the nation-state.
Three major strategies have been used by modern colonial powers to maintain control of their far-flung empires. The first involves colonization- the settlement of large numbers of Europeans among the subject peoples, as in southern Africa and Algeria. The second consists of co-opting the native elite through assimilation or bribery; there are many examples of this in Africa and the West Indies. The third strategy is "divide and rule" a policy that has played a crucial part in ensuring the stability -indeed, the viability- of nearly every major colonial system.
For them, indigenous sovereignty is linked with identity and right to self determination. Self determination should be understood as power of peoples to control their own destiny. Therefore for indigenous peoples, right to self determination is instrumental in the protection of their human rights and struggle for self-governance.
For more than five years, I have continuously gathered supplemental data regarding non-state-oriented indigenous actions, including primary documents (community publications and documents) and written notes from informal participant observation of scores of American Indian and Canadian First Nation gatherings, conversations, presentations, institutions, and formal meetings. (See page 5 for a table of entries on Native American resistance to colonial domination: Table 2. North American Settler colonialism and contemporary Indigenous Resistance: Nonpolity Domination and Decolonization)
In Africa, the Middle East, South America, and much of the rest of the world, decolonization often meant the expulsion or departure of most colonial settlers. In contrast, in settler colonial states like Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States, settlers have not left, even as independence from the metropole was gained...
However, there is a long, if often hidden and denied, history of resistance by Indigenous peoples to colonization and its enduring impacts. pp 228. More important is that we understand as state crime the ongoing, normative endeavours of the Australian state to dispossess, control and disempower the original inhabitants of the land, who still resist the colonization of country that was never ceded. pp 246.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Recent scholars, however, have shown that virgin soil epidemics were far less universal and had less deadly consequences than has generally been assumed. Depopulation from disease more often resulted from conditions created by colonialism—in California, loss of land, destruction of resources and food stores, lack of clean water, captive taking, sexual violence, and massacre—that encouraged the spread of pathogens and increased communities' vulnerability through malnutrition, exposure, social stress, and destruction of sources of medicine and capacities for palliative care.
Some of the worst examples of escalating death by sickness and disease occurred on the Spanish Christian missions in Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, and New Mexico in the period 1690–1845. After the military delivered captive Indians to the missions, they were expected to perform arduous agricultural labour while being provided with no more than 1400 calories per day in low-nutrient foods, with some missions supplying as little as 715 calories per day. Amongst the survivors, stress, anxiety, trauma, depression, demoralisation and despair led not only to vulnerability to physical and psychological illnesses but also to a plummeting of birth rates.
Variations of the Modoc ordeal occurred elsewhere during the conquest and colonization of Africa, Asia, Australia, and North and South America. Indigenous civilizations repeatedly resisted invaders seeking to physically annihilate them in whole or in part. Many of these catastrophes are known as wars. Yet by carefully examining the intentions and actions of colonizers and their advocates it is possible to reinterpret some of these cataclysms as both genocides and wars of resistance. The Modoc case is one of them (p120).
Mulataje or mestizaje, particularly in its culturalist rendition, was central to the politicized assimilationist, monoculturalist rhetoric that surfaced in Latin America during the 1920s and thereafter as a means to neutralize the cultural (and racial) pluralism typical of virtually all Latin American countries -a pluralism considered by many politically counterproductive in the face of Latin America's move toward refurbishing the nation-state.
Moreover, the term mestizo is associated with the assimilationist movement in Ecuador, where to be mestizo is to be Ecuadorian, to identify with the nation-state.
Three major strategies have been used by modern colonial powers to maintain control of their far-flung empires. The first involves colonization- the settlement of large numbers of Europeans among the subject peoples, as in southern Africa and Algeria. The second consists of co-opting the native elite through assimilation or bribery; there are many examples of this in Africa and the West Indies. The third strategy is "divide and rule" a policy that has played a crucial part in ensuring the stability -indeed, the viability- of nearly every major colonial system.
However, there is a long, if often hidden and denied, history of resistance by Indigenous peoples to colonization and its enduring impacts. pp 228. More important is that we understand as state crime the ongoing, normative endeavours of the Australian state to dispossess, control and disempower the original inhabitants of the land, who still resist the colonization of country that was never ceded. pp 246.
Native Americans (and other indigenous peoples) have criticized the role that anthropologists, archaeologists, and museums have played in portraying Indians to the societies that surround them.
of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group.
For more than five years, I have continuously gathered supplemental data regarding non-state-oriented indigenous actions, including primary documents (community publications and documents) and written notes from informal participant observation of scores of American Indian and Canadian First Nation gatherings, conversations, presentations, institutions, and formal meetings. (See page 5 for a table of entries on Native American resistance to colonial domination: Table 2. North American Settler colonialism and contemporary Indigenous Resistance: Nonpolity Domination and Decolonization)
The first challenges, however, did not come from the museums, but from the previous colonies where Indigenous peoples could claim a right to be included in the national narrative. Indigenous leaders challenged museum authorities, calling into question the veracity of the stories within their walls...In fact, the objects were not the subject of much direct commentary by the elders, who had their own agenda for the meeting. They referred to the regalia with appreciation and respect, but they seemed only to use them as aide-mémoires, occasions for the telling of stories and the singing of songs.
Mulataje or mestizaje, particularly in its culturalist rendition, was central to the politicized assimilationist, monoculturalist rhetoric that surfaced in Latin America during the 1920s and thereafter as a means to neutralize the cultural (and racial) pluralism typical of virtually all Latin American countries -a pluralism considered by many politically counterproductive in the face of Latin America's move toward refurbishing the nation-state.
For them, indigenous sovereignty is linked with identity and right to self determination. Self determination should be understood as power of peoples to control their own destiny. Therefore for indigenous peoples, right to self determination is instrumental in the protection of their human rights and struggle for self-governance.
For more than five years, I have continuously gathered supplemental data regarding non-state-oriented indigenous actions, including primary documents (community publications and documents) and written notes from informal participant observation of scores of American Indian and Canadian First Nation gatherings, conversations, presentations, institutions, and formal meetings. (See page 5 for a table of entries on Native American resistance to colonial domination: Table 2. North American Settler colonialism and contemporary Indigenous Resistance: Nonpolity Domination and Decolonization)
In Africa, the Middle East, South America, and much of the rest of the world, decolonization often meant the expulsion or departure of most colonial settlers. In contrast, in settler colonial states like Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States, settlers have not left, even as independence from the metropole was gained...
Many scholars, including myself, believe that war, especially its colonial variety with its eliminationist logic against the native that seeks to remove all physical and cultural traces of indigenous peoples from the land, carries with it genocidal capacity that our existing legal frameworks enable. Terms like "civil war," "conflict," and even "counterinsurgency" frequently serve as legal cover for genocide, and in its wake, form the repertoire of genocide denial. This includes the world's ongoing demand for a "perfect victim," one that does not resist oppression whether through violence or non-violence though other instances of resistance are valorized. Historians know that in every case of genocide, victims resisted and that resistance was always framed as a criminal provocation for mass killing.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link); "Belgium comes to terms with 'human zoos' of its colonial past". The Guardian. 16 Apr 2018. Archived from the original on 17 Apr 2023.A limited but real process of colonial (racial) homogenization, as in the Southern Cone (Chile, Uruguay, Argentina), by means of a massive genocide of the aboriginal population. An always frustrated attempt at cultural homogenization through the cultural genocide of American Indians, blacks, and mestizos, as in Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Central America, and Bolivia.
of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group.
A limited but real process of colonial (racial) homogenization, as in the Southern Cone (Chile, Uruguay, Argentina), by means of a massive genocide of the aboriginal population. An always frustrated attempt at cultural homogenization through the cultural genocide of American Indians, blacks, and mestizos, as in Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Central America, and Bolivia.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link); "Belgium comes to terms with 'human zoos' of its colonial past". The Guardian. 16 Apr 2018. Archived from the original on 17 Apr 2023.Some of the worst examples of escalating death by sickness and disease occurred on the Spanish Christian missions in Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, and New Mexico in the period 1690–1845. After the military delivered captive Indians to the missions, they were expected to perform arduous agricultural labour while being provided with no more than 1400 calories per day in low-nutrient foods, with some missions supplying as little as 715 calories per day. Amongst the survivors, stress, anxiety, trauma, depression, demoralisation and despair led not only to vulnerability to physical and psychological illnesses but also to a plummeting of birth rates.
Recent scholars, however, have shown that virgin soil epidemics were far less universal and had less deadly consequences than has generally been assumed. Depopulation from disease more often resulted from conditions created by colonialism—in California, loss of land, destruction of resources and food stores, lack of clean water, captive taking, sexual violence, and massacre—that encouraged the spread of pathogens and increased communities' vulnerability through malnutrition, exposure, social stress, and destruction of sources of medicine and capacities for palliative care.
Many scholars, including myself, believe that war, especially its colonial variety with its eliminationist logic against the native that seeks to remove all physical and cultural traces of indigenous peoples from the land, carries with it genocidal capacity that our existing legal frameworks enable. Terms like "civil war," "conflict," and even "counterinsurgency" frequently serve as legal cover for genocide, and in its wake, form the repertoire of genocide denial. This includes the world's ongoing demand for a "perfect victim," one that does not resist oppression whether through violence or non-violence though other instances of resistance are valorized. Historians know that in every case of genocide, victims resisted and that resistance was always framed as a criminal provocation for mass killing.
Mulataje or mestizaje, particularly in its culturalist rendition, was central to the politicized assimilationist, monoculturalist rhetoric that surfaced in Latin America during the 1920s and thereafter as a means to neutralize the cultural (and racial) pluralism typical of virtually all Latin American countries -a pluralism considered by many politically counterproductive in the face of Latin America's move toward refurbishing the nation-state.
Moreover, the term mestizo is associated with the assimilationist movement in Ecuador, where to be mestizo is to be Ecuadorian, to identify with the nation-state.
Three major strategies have been used by modern colonial powers to maintain control of their far-flung empires. The first involves colonization- the settlement of large numbers of Europeans among the subject peoples, as in southern Africa and Algeria. The second consists of co-opting the native elite through assimilation or bribery; there are many examples of this in Africa and the West Indies. The third strategy is "divide and rule" a policy that has played a crucial part in ensuring the stability -indeed, the viability- of nearly every major colonial system.
For them, indigenous sovereignty is linked with identity and right to self determination. Self determination should be understood as power of peoples to control their own destiny. Therefore for indigenous peoples, right to self determination is instrumental in the protection of their human rights and struggle for self-governance.
For more than five years, I have continuously gathered supplemental data regarding non-state-oriented indigenous actions, including primary documents (community publications and documents) and written notes from informal participant observation of scores of American Indian and Canadian First Nation gatherings, conversations, presentations, institutions, and formal meetings. (See page 5 for a table of entries on Native American resistance to colonial domination: Table 2. North American Settler colonialism and contemporary Indigenous Resistance: Nonpolity Domination and Decolonization)
In Africa, the Middle East, South America, and much of the rest of the world, decolonization often meant the expulsion or departure of most colonial settlers. In contrast, in settler colonial states like Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States, settlers have not left, even as independence from the metropole was gained...
However, there is a long, if often hidden and denied, history of resistance by Indigenous peoples to colonization and its enduring impacts. pp 228. More important is that we understand as state crime the ongoing, normative endeavours of the Australian state to dispossess, control and disempower the original inhabitants of the land, who still resist the colonization of country that was never ceded. pp 246.
Native Americans (and other indigenous peoples) have criticized the role that anthropologists, archaeologists, and museums have played in portraying Indians to the societies that surround them.
The first challenges, however, did not come from the museums, but from the previous colonies where Indigenous peoples could claim a right to be included in the national narrative. Indigenous leaders challenged museum authorities, calling into question the veracity of the stories within their walls...In fact, the objects were not the subject of much direct commentary by the elders, who had their own agenda for the meeting. They referred to the regalia with appreciation and respect, but they seemed only to use them as aide-mémoires, occasions for the telling of stories and the singing of songs.