I’m talking about taking it all down:Waziyatawin, on what “complete decolonization” demands

From the archives: selections from a 2010 interview from the Iconocast series, with hosts Mark Van Steenwyk and Sarah Lynne Gershon. Minor editing for clarity.

EDITOR'S NOTE:
In this interview Dakota activist and scholar Waziyatawin discusses what decolonization demands everywhere--but especially in an "American context", starting with Dakota Homeland and working outward. She raises many challenging issues for non-Indigenous folks (especially Christians) who wish to be allies in the struggle, specifically concerning the potential for compatibility between a truly decolonized, Indigenous future and some or any aspects of modern industrial/colonial/imperial society, and Christianity in general. We must take it all down. What does "all" mean, and how and why must it be taken down? The answers given will be difficult for many to accept.
Waziyatawin offers an inspiring and hopeful view of a beautiful future, suggesting that a return to a world marked by Indigenous sovereignty is not only morally just and ecologically necessary, it is the only way forward that offers peace and salvation (my word) to everyone. However, accepting and pursuing this "return" requires us to fully confront the institutional and ideological systems that dominate life and death in North America and around the world, and to uproot or tear down all that perpetuates colonialism and imperialism.

While meditating over the submissions for this 2020 edition of R!P!S!, I felt strongly that the challenges Waziyatawin presented in this interview with such moral force and clarity ten years ago, to all seeking "decolonization, incarnation, liberation" collectively and personally, made this selection an excellent introduction. May it jar minds and prepare hearts to hear deeply the conversation that follows in more recent essays, reflections, interviews, songs, poems and artwork from activists around the world. That this interview was originally conducted by Mark Van Steenwyk and Sarah Lynne Gershon in Minnesota, as part of a series that was, like R!P!S!, directly connected to, and a kind of outgrowth of, Jesus Radicals, made it all the more clear to me that the decision to start this Journal with Waziyatawin’s thoughts was right and good, and underscores how important and challenging the demands of decolonization have been to the Jesus Radicals' community for a long time. Lastly, that everything Waziyatawin discussed with Sarah and Mark a decade ago, transcribed below, could easily be mistaken for a conversation about several of the deepest and most serious struggles for justice currently raging in 2020 North America and around the globe should cause all of us to soberly ask ourselves: How well have we been listening? Are we willing to really do what we say we believe must be done? If not now, when?

-SM

Indigenous Peoples’ Day
October 12th, 2020



1. "All of the major institutions in American society are essentially icons of imperialism"

Mark (MVS): You know, destroying or levelling Fort Snelling would be a powerful symbol. Even though in itself it wouldn't necessarily change things on a deep level, it could have the potential to change things. We look at it in a V for Vendetta way, as an example of things like that. What are some of the other symbols that could be similarly looked at for levelling? The things that most clearly represent the sort of history of colonization--

Waziyatawin (WW): Right.

MVS: —of different Indigenous Peoples and the suppression of their rights?

WW: You mean across the United States? Or in the Minnesota context?

MVS: Maybe you could speak first to the Minnesota context, but if there are other examples that you can think of, that would be helpful too. Just to kind of give people an imagination.

WW: Right.

Sarah Lynne Gershon (SLG): The White House?

[Laughter]

WW: There you go! Great idea!

MVS: Wait, if Homeland Security's listening, um... shhhh!

[Laughing]
 
WW: You know, it's really interesting, because this society is laden with symbols of colonialism and imperialism. And most people, most Americans and certainly most Minnesotans, go about their daily business and never give them a second thought. And just to maybe start at the local level, and then work out, we can talk about Fort Snelling. For those people not familiar with Minnesota history, Fort Snelling was the first monumental icon of American imperialism in Dakota Homeland. It was the fort that was established at the juncture of the Minnesota and the Mississippi Rivers. It was a strategic location for military and economic purposes. The fort being located there allowed for an influx—an invasion, really—of Dakota Homeland. It allowed for soldiers to come in to establish military dominance in the region. And it allowed for the opening up the lands to white settlers, because now they had protection. Missionaries, traders, everyone now had increased access, and could literally flood into Minnesota Territory. So when we talk about a fort like that, or a structure like that, even by itself—even if you didn't have the other history associated with it—it's that symbol of domination, of the frontier subjugation, domination of the frontier. And the interesting thing about the fort: when we came up with the slogan, "Take Down the Fort, Icon of American Imperialism", there was a conscious recognition there, that there are forts all over the United States. And, in fact, all over the world. We have military bases as a way to establish domination over particular regions.

MVS: Almost 800 bases.

WW: Yes, exactly. So it's one of those symbols, I think, that's recognizable to anyone that has been under the thumb of American Imperialism. And whenever I go and speak to different Indigenous communities throughout the United States, it's very clear that everyone has their forts. Almost every Indigenous reservation had a fort near it, and there's a reason for that. And that's why I think it remains such a powerful symbol. But I think that if you look at the [basics]—all of the major institutions in American society are essentially icons of imperialism. And most Americans, I think, are unaccustomed to thinking about themselves [and their nation] as a colonial power, or even as an imperial power. I think there's a tendency to still resist that label, even though it's quite accurate. And so, you know, of course the United States, it doesn't have "colonies", we have "territories". And it's all this language game.
 
But the symbols are all around us. So I think all of the economic institutions, all of the political structures, all of the places that glorify or celebrate conquest and domination—we have statues, and towns, and counties, and schools--all of the ways that we choose to glorify specific individuals in American society, if you go through and you really examine the story behind the people who are glorified, it becomes very clear that the people we are choosing to glorify are oftentimes the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes against humanity in American history. They're the ones who built their fortunes at other people's expense, or who, because they perpetrated crimes, achieved a fame or status that sets them apart. And so, actually, if we overturned all those icons of colonialism or imperialism in the American context, we would be left with very few institutions.
 
2. "We're the Original People of this Land"
 
SLG: Yeah. Basically America as a country is a colonial power, was built on it. You brought up the other Indigenous Peoples that you've spoken to, and also the American people as a colonial power. I was wondering how you relate to other Indigenous Peoples? How do you work together, and how you have been able to work together, and how do you relate to or think about Liberation for all the people that have been subjugated by American colonialism? Because, I mean, clearly, we have Latin Americans who have immigrated here, who are escaping the effects of oppression. We have African Americans who are living here, who live here under that context. At the end of your book [What Does Justice Look Like] you write that, "Decolonization requires the creation of a new social order. But this would ideally be a social order in which non-Dakota would also live as liberated peoples, in a system that is just to everyone, including the Land and all the beings on Land." So I was just curious, how have you presented that vision to other people, or thought about that for yourself?
 
WW: Right.
Well it's one of those situations, because Indigenous populations all over the world have been affected by colonialism and imperialism. There's a certain, I guess, kind of kinship that we feel. There's a certain understanding, empathy, and respect that we generally feel towards one another. There's also a recognition that some people have been displaced because of those circumstances. But when they go into someone else's land, then they take on a different role. And certainly we've had that kind of experience in the Minnesota context. This is Dakota Homeland, and it's not to say that no other Indigenous Peoples ever shared the land with us, because certainly there were other Indigenous populations that lived here at various points. But we're the Original People of this Land. So when other Indigenous People come into this space, my hope is that they understand our profound relationship with place. And that they acknowledge that, and that they respect that. And that they give primacy to Dakota People when it comes to access to sacred sites, to the inherent right that we should have to gather food, to harvest medicines, to travel freely.
 
And unfortunately that's not always what has happened. And so, in the Minnesota context, for example, we have another Indigenous population, a large population. In fact they are much more numerous than Dakota People here today, and that's the Anishinaabe People.
And they pushed us out of our homeland, by conquest. They were armed by the French earlier than we were, and it led to very violent warfare. And as a consequence, we lost our northern homeland to them. And we can, you know, I can acknowledge that Anishanaabe People came into Minnesota because of what we might call push-and-pull factors. That obviously, their stories placed them further east, usually along the Saint Lawrence seaway, and they were forced out through much warfare. But they also had a pull factor, and that was their own prophecy, their own oral tradition, that told them, or that guided them, on this path westward. And eventually, I guess, [it] brought them to Minnesota.
 
[16:51]
3. "I'm on someone else's territory, and it's important for me to always pay respect to them"
 
So in the case of the Anishinaabe, there were clearly push-and-pull factors. And so we acknowledge that. And as Dakota People now today, I would recognize that we all live in Minnesota, and that if we want to achieve some kind of peaceful coexistence down the road, that we're going to have to find a way to live together.
 
The other issue, you know, there are a couple of points I want to make. The first is that when I　go into other people's territory, that one of the first things I do is acknowledge the Original People of the land. And so, I've been around people, Traditional People, elders, teachers, guests, people who have been taught that proper protocol. And whenever we go into someone else's territory, we acknowledge that. And so, for example, I teach at the University of Victoria in British Columbia right now, and I'm on Lkwungen land there, and we make a point of acknowledging that whenever we interact. Even though I'm another Indigenous person, I'm on someone else's territory, and it's important for me to always pay respect to them, and to listen to their concerns, their needs, their struggles, and if I can, to participate. And if there's ever a time when they say we need all invaders out of our land, then it's time for me to go home, too. Then, I respect them enough to make that kind of personal decision.
[18:31]

4. "Complete decolonization"
SLG: I was curious about what this place would look like if it was respected as Dakota Homeland? What would that look like and what would that mean for people who are here right now (though they shouldn't be)?
 
WW: The final vision that I talk about in the book [What Does Justice Look Like] is one of complete decolonization. And decolonization is a word that you hear a lot in Indigenous circles today. You know, we watched in the 20th century as whole countries decolonized, or theoretically decolonized. And we watched the chaos and the pain and the violence and the corruption and oppression that has ensued even after, even in their postcolonial decades, right? So in many ways we've seen the failure of decolonization. And I think the failure is based on the fact that when some of these countries, many—I'm thinking particularly of places like in Africa right now—when they went through their decolonization process, they didn't eradicate all of the [old] institutions and systems. They were on this trajectory, and they continued on the trajectory. But they put their own people in those roles, to serve the same functions. And as a consequence, that does tremendous harm.
 
So when I talk about decolonization, I'm not talking about kind of simply tweaking the existing systems and institutions. I'm talking about taking it all down. I'm talking about the eradication of cities, of industrial civilization. I'm talking about people returning to a way of life directly connected to the land. And even since writing this book, my attitude has shifted. I think, in the book, I talk about the possibility of building sustainable communities. You know, still using electric power, and, you know, wind turbines and geothermal and solar, as if that's the solution. And even now, when I go back and read that, I think, oh, it's not enough. It is simply not enough. You can't produce wind and solar power without mining, without manufacturing, without oil, without industry. And we need to take away industry. I feel an increased sense of urgency every day because of the violence that continues to be done to the planet. And we don't have the luxury of going into a mode, like, going into a "green mode" [laughs sadly] that's still based on trying to maintain this way of life. This way of life has to go. And we all need to return to what I would say is a preindustrial, precolonial form of existence. And that means fewer people. It means no cities, no industry, no mining, no manufacturing. And it means treating the land as though it's a Beloved Mother.
 
 
 
 
5. "When we came up against Christianity, or Christianity came against us"
 
MVS: [The future of non-Indigenous people here is] one of the questions I think still, hopefully we'll have the opportunity to have answered. Because if things continue on the way they are, we'll never have to ask the question, well, what place do non-Indigenous folks have in that? Because, you know, the non-Indigenous folks, especially the European descendants will just continue to have the land, in conquest. But when we think about this future, where justice exists, and this includes thinking about the place for non-Dakota people, I think about the challenges that this brings to me personally. For example, I'm mostly of Dutch descent, and the Dutch had a strong role in shaping what America has become. In addition, as a Christian, there's all these different stories throughout the Christian tradition. There are stories both of being complicit, maybe even more than complicit, driving that sort of conquest. But then also, there are the origin stories of Christianity being very anti-imperial, you know, you could argue. I'm thinking now about how, in your book, you mention sort of the intrinsic Judeo-Christian value of subduing the land as maybe being, you know, this deep conflictual thing between these two ways of life. I was wondering if you could talk about that. For those who find their story bound up in the Christian story, and see with pain everything that Christian story has wrought, but seeing glimmers of hope within that story for redemption and restoration and justice: what do you, as someone speaking into that tradition, and with a much more painful awareness of what it has brought, how do you speak into that? Maybe, prophetically, and challenge it? And bring out maybe the best things in that tradition?
 
SLG: Or not. [Laughter]
 
MVS: Or not! yeah, I know it's a lot, but I really am eager to hear your thoughts on that.
 
WW: So I guess what I'd like to do is to go back to my book, and to talk a little bit about what I say in the book and then take it from there. And I want to start with some quotes. Because there are several, major issues with Christianity, as far as I can tell, which lead me to believe that there's very little hope in terms of Christianity being able to exist in a different path or with a different trajectory. And hopefully that will be clear when I'm done.

MVS: Okay. Great.

WW: So in my book I use a couple of quotes from Genesis. And these are both in reference to the Genesis hierarchy of creation, which I think is one of the aspects of Christianity that fundamentally sets it against the traditions of Indigenous Peoples across the globe.

Genesis 1:26 states:

Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness. And let them rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

Genesis 1:28 states:

God blessed them, and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number. Fill the Earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves on the ground.

These are teachings that are repeated in the books of Psalms, Jeremiah, and Daniel. And in that context, it makes it very difficult to think about: how do you establish a different relationship with the rest of Creation? And, just in Dakota philosophy, for example, one of the phrases that we use—it's used really on a daily basis, it's used in our prayers, it's used in our ceremonies, it's used in our introductions when we greet people—is the phrase mitakuye owas’in, all my relations, all my relatives. And when we say those words, they aren't, you know, said in a kind of trite, casual way. They're part of a profound recognition that all of us are interconnected. That we're all relatives. And not just human beings, but all plants, all animals, and even things generally considered to be inanimate objects, such as rocks, from the Dakota perspective, are all imbued with a spiritual essence, and are sentient beings. They're beings with feelings, and with thought, and with conscious choice, with the capacity to make conscious choice. They are on an equal plane with us. And when we acknowledge that, it means that we have to interact with them, we're required to interact with them in a different way. It means that we can't believe in our own superiority.
 
But that sense of superiority is prevalent throughout the Bible, in part because of the teachings of Jesus Christ himself. And so in John 14:6, I think it is the clearest statement of that, when Jesus says I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Me. Now what that means is that Christians are setting themselves up as [having] the superior religion, that no other religion has access to God or a Creator, or Divine Being, except for Christians who've accepted Jesus Christ. That condemns everyone else to Hell.

That's violent.

MVS: Yeah.

WW: It's offensive. It's an assault on the humanity of all other peoples who pray in a different way. It's completely intolerant, extraordinarily jealous, and not respectful of diversity.

And if you counter that with Indigenous beliefs about our own spirituality, one of the things that we're taught from the time we're very little as Dakota People is that, first of all, you shouldn't be arguing about religion. That's a personal thing, and force should never be used as a way to make someone do something for religious reasons, or to pray in a certain way.

And there's this notion that we respect another person's vision. And we can't speak to what someone else's relationship with the Creator might look like. So we have to respect their vision. We have to inspect the instructions that they've been given. And if other peoples have other ways of praying, we're also taught to respect that.

But when we came up against Christianity, or Christianity came against us, it was a very different kind of situation. Because while we had interacted with Indigenous Peoples and other Indigenous populations for thousands of years, we had never had another people come in to proclaim their superiority. To proclaim their way of praying as better than ours, their God better than ours. And in fact not just better, but the only right way, the one way, the one truth. So I don't know how you interact with other peoples around the world, given that philosophy.

6. "Christianity makes it impossible for other spiritual traditions to co-exist with them"

The last point I want to make is really about--well it's not the last point I want to make but it's the third point I want to make—it has to do with the notion of the Great Commission and the idea that this is a religion that should be spread across the globe. And just to give you again a couple of verses from the Bible, in the New Testament, we have Matthew 28, verses 16 through 20:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. And when they saw Him they worshipped Him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in Heaven and on Earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

Mark 16, verses 15 and 16, also say:

And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. But he who does not believe will be condemned.

And that means that Christianity makes it impossible for other spiritual traditions to co-exist with them. That it has to be the one way, the only way, and everyone else is condemned. And it's hard even to have what I would say is a friendly relationship with someone who believes in the superiority of what they're doing and saying, or the way that they're praying, and is condemning you if you don't believe the same way. It's hard to have good relations under those circumstances.
So this is the last point that I want to make now. And this has to do with a quote from Elie Wiesel, who made this comment about the Holocaust. He said:

All the killers were Christian. The Nazi system was a consequence of a movement of ideas and followed a strict logic. It did not arise in a void but had its roots deep in a tradition that prophesied it, prepared for it, and brought it to maturity. The tradition was inseparable from the past of Christian Civilized Europe.

And [here is] David Stannard, who wrote a book called American Holocaust, which I would recommend to everyone because he outlines in detail, really this monumental genocide that occurred in the Western Hemisphere, killing probably close to one hundred million Indigenous people. He says:

Elie Wiesel is right. The road to Auschwitz was being paved in the earliest days of Christendom. But another conclusion now is equally evident. On the way to Auschwitz, the road's pathway led straight through the heart of the Indies, and of North and South America.
​
All the killers were Christian. And if we think about the American context in particular, we know that the whole philosophy of Manifest Destiny was based on this Christian belief in the superiority, and the right—not only the right, but the responsibility—to tame this wilderness, to claim Indigenous lands for good white Christians.
 
So, in that kind of history, or given that kind of history, and I think those kinds of ideological underpinnings, it's very difficult for me to see how Christians can proceed into the future while adhering to Christian principles, [to] proceed in a good way, in a peaceful way, in a just way.
 
 
-April 1st, 2010
 
Waziyatawin is a Wahpetunwan Dakota from the Pezihutazizi Otunwe (Yellow Medicine Village) in southwestern Minnesota. She is widely regarded as one of the leading Indigenous scholars today.
 
Waziyatawin held the Indigenous Peoples Research Chair in the Indigenous Governance Program at the University of Victoria (British Columbia). Her interests include projects centering on Indigenous decolonization strategies such as truth-telling and reparative justice, Indigenous women and resistance, the recovery of Indigenous knowledge, and the development of liberation ideology in Indigenous communities. 
 
She is the author or editor of: Remember This!: Dakota Decolonization and the Eli Taylor Narratives, Indigenizing the Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities, For Indigenous Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook,In the Footsteps of Our Ancestors: The Dakota Commemorative Marches of the 21st Century, and What Does Justice Look Like? The Struggle for Liberation in Dakota Homeland.
 
 



To listen to the full interview, see:
https://www.jesusradicals.com/iconocast/waziyatawin-part-1
and:
https://www.jesusradicals.com/iconocast/waziyatawin-part-2

---

Sarah Lynne Gershon

is Catholic Worker, mother, wife, Sacred Harp singer, and seminary student seeking ordination with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
 

Mark Van Steenwyk

is the Executive Director of the Center for Prophetic Imagination in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is also a spiritual director, frequent retreat leader and speaker, and the author of several books including A Wolf at the Gate, unKingdom, and That Holy Anarchist.