In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

111 seven Discursive Positioning A Comparative Study of Postcolonialism in Native Studies Across the US–Canada Border Maggie Ann Bowers IT MAY SEEM OBVIOUS that understandings of postcolonialism will differ between nation-states with different histories of colonialism. So we can assume that postcolonialism is viewed differently on either side of the Canada–US border . The contrasting idea that a tribal group split by the border may well have a sense of solidarity and union with people of the same tribal group on the other side of the border also seems self-evident. This idea has been applied widely in a political manoeuvre by the American Indian Movement since the 1970s to create a shared sense of purposeful resistance to colonialism among First Nations and Native American people in both nation-states.Thomas Biolsi reiterates this attitude in his new edition of Deadliest Enemies: Law and Race Relations On and Off Rosebud Reservation (2007), in which he indicates that in order to examine localized racial inequalities, one must consider the broader national context (xvi). I suggest that the broader context for examination could usefully include comparative postcolonial studies from other parts of the globe. This chapter reveals that the complexities created by the border, which has divided North America’s Native peoples between separate nation-states, and thus between different experiences of colonialism, has also created a conflict over the appropriateness of postcolonial theory in a Native North American context.With this in mind, this chapter considers the First Nations of southern Canada and the Native Americans of the geographical area of the United States along the 49th parallel, which divides the nation-states. This is part of a larger project that demands we also consider the Inuit and the Métis. The terminology this chapter employs deliberately avoids identifying Indigenous writers as either Canadian or American, misleading as that may be when discussing Indigenous sovereignty. This chapter brings together consideration of the ontological plurality that is created by the colonial imposition of the US–Canada border with various attempts by critics to find a discursive position for Native North American Studies to express the complexities of the Indigenous situation on the continent . I do not examine the specific details of these differences, for that would 112 Maggie Ann Bowers demand research detail that is not available to me here, but I do propose to assert a broader point: that the different histories of postcolonialism in the distinct nation-states of Canada and the United States have influenced the debates about the acceptance or rejection of postcolonial theory in Native North American Studies. By bringing together the reactions of critics regarding Native North American cultural issues on both sides of the border in order to consider the reasons for rejecting or adopting postcolonialism, this chapter reveals the significant influence of the location of the critic in relation to the US–Canada border. This, I argue, has more influence over the acceptance or rejection of postcolonialism than whether the author/critic is Native North American and/or whether that author/critic is part of the Western academy. The analysis suggests that the complexities of Canada’s postcolonial status have generated a marked resistance among some First Nations writers when it comes to engaging with postcolonial theory. This is not to say that the adoption of postcolonial theory in Native Studies is unproblematic on either side of the border. The questions concerning its appropriateness are compounded by the complexities of “postcolonialism” as a term. I concur with Jace Weaver and Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, who conceive postcolonialism is applicable in Native American Studies in the United States when it refers to resistance to colonialism and to issues of transnationalism. Both Cook-Lynn (New Indians 215) andWeaver (That the People Might Live 43), although wary of postcolonial theory, find inspiration in the work of Edward Said and Homi K. Bhabha. Said’s work as a commentator on Palestine is noted by both Cook-Lynn (New Indians 20) andWeaver (295), especially regarding the applicability of postcolonial ideas to issues of Indigeneity. Weaver, along with Kevin Bruyneel and Stuart Christie, is also interested in Bhabha’s theories of transnationalism, through which Bhabha provides a framework for identifying elements of possible resistance in the spaces between categories, nations, and identities. Weaver’s approach stands in contrast to the rejection of postcolonial theory and its terms by American-born Cherokee Canadian writer and critic Thomas King in his 1990 essay “Godzilla vs...

Share