Introduction
The calls for repatriations for the breach of collective and individual rights have awakened vigorous debate on the much-ignored history of human rights within different social and ethical contexts. According to Alfred and Corntassel (2005), the interest to revisit deeply rooted injustices amongst the indigenous populations has re-ignited the need to understand the connection between the national and international ideals of rights. It is evident that the structures and legacies inherited from a prolonged period of colonization by the European tyranny settled on a compromise between imperial elites and nationalist shelving denying the original inhabitants their social, economic, and political freedoms. Crossen (2014) argues that following the process of decolonization, the origins of human rights were largely considered as a birthright of universal humanity and the guarantee of national sovereignty. However, the failure of the newly independent colonies to guarantee equal rights to their populations in the 1970s following the failures of the national emancipation agenda highlighted heightened tensions within postwar human rights practices and languages consequently resulting in disproportionate levels of inequalities. The discourse will deconstruct the ethical dimensions of decolonization and anti-colonial struggle and whether any significant benefits have accrued to indigenous groups. The paper will draw on the discourse on indigenous Canadian politics, Rastafarianism, and the Vietnamese revolutionaries.
Deconstruct the Ethical Dimensions of Decolonization
Indigenous is a concept that commonly resurges in the debate of neo-colonialism and anti-colonial struggle debate. According to Moses et al. (2020), indigenousness as a concept is recognized as an identity that has undergone several stages of reconstruction and is shaped through lived experiences of the public. Nations, communities, and tribes considered indigenous are considered the original inhabitants of the lands to which they have relinquished their ownership rights following the spread of neo-colonialism from Europe. However, the indigenous populations constantly face the challenge of existence since their survival is predicated on the freedoms bestowed to them by the ruling elite class despite the attachment to their unique heritages that includes their natural lifestyles and attachment to their homelands. The imperial elites and colonizers seem to aspire to eradicate them physically, politically, and culturally. According to Temin (2023), the social movement that is perceived to have advocated for decolonization are just mere vehicles for oppression and domination thus they must be resisted, opposed and the underlying structure redesigned.
Although the majority of the world’s economies are considered to have attained independence owing to the efforts and the input of social movements, the perception is nothing more than a fallacy as colonization does not constitute historic relationships but rather a continuous process of domination and subjugation (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005). The emergence of social activism through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to advocate for the right of ethnic minorities is one of the approaches through which anti-colonial ethics can bring about significant change for the population. However, post-modern imperialism still emphasizes and encourages the settler gimmick where selective colonization is practiced although subtly. According to Alfred & Corntassel (2005), the imperial forefathers set the stage and stipulated the mandate for contemporary settlers that retains the physical signs of the indigenous population in terms of preservation of their dignity as humans although they practice other dubious approaches to eliminating their existence by eradicating their existence. For instance, Ahmad (2023) noted that the majority of the contemporary indigenous population is unaware of their geographies and histories that missing the foundations of themselves and their cultural identities. In Canada, the indigenous population has willingly been conditioned to shelve their right to repatriation by accepting the government-constructed fallacy that postcolonial justice has been awarded to the population. Additionally, the population has embraced the ‘aboriginal’ tag bestowed onto them by the government (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005). Moses et al. (2020) argue that the label of ‘aboriginal’ is meant to absorb the existence of the population into the confines of the Canadian constitution a process that has begun in the 1950s following amendments to the constitution. Ahmad (2023) further noted that by being labeled aboriginals, the indigenous population has amicably surrendered their identity even with the injustices directed to them by the colonial state openly evident. The label that serves a cultural, political, and legal purpose has managed to accomplish its intended purpose despite numerous calls to address historic injustices.
An account by Bernard Nietschmann emphasizes the need for critiquing state-mediated identities to decipher and translate accurate information as opposed to that which is imposed during the neo-colonialism process. According to Crossen (2014), the period of colonization was marred with intensive efforts to redefine the efforts of war heroes by placing new identities to elicit biases. This case was prevalent in Vietnam, especially in the altering of the image of one of its ruthless ambitious leaders of the Vietnamese Independence League, Ho Chi Minh. Lewis (2012) noted that propaganda dispelled by the colonial regime played a significant role in altering the image of Ho as a public figure in the struggle for independence and neo-colonialism ideals brought by the French and the United States. For example, the details surrounding the 1954 land reform program showed that a sizable population was executed following his orders casting doubt on his effectiveness as a leader.
During the land reform program that began in 1954, atrocities were carried out in the name of Ho’s regime and thousands of people were executed, many of them wrongfully so. Ho’s legacy is a complicated one but his effectiveness as a leader is difficult to disagree with. This highlights the construed indigenous identity owing to the influence of propaganda mediated by the state that seeks to alter the perception of future generations using their language and culture. Johnson (2019) argued that the common approach is social movements’ moves away from the basic tenets underpinning the principles of justice and inclusion.
Conclusion
The discourse has deconstructed the ethical dimensions of decolonization and the role of colonial rhetoric in social movements. The indigenous populations constantly face the challenge of existence since their survival is predicated on the freedoms bestowed to them by the ruling elite class despite the attachment to their unique heritages that includes their natural lifestyles and attachment to their homelands. In the case of the Canadian indigenous population, the adoption of the aboriginal label into the constitution has led to the group relinquishing their identity and basic guarantees of fundamental freedom and rights. This highlights the role of social movements in the subjugation. The perception that social movements advocated for decolonization is misconstrued as they are just mere vehicles for oppression and domination thus they must be resisted, opposed and the underlying structure redesigned. The process of colonialism is still ongoing and deeply ingrained in the form of a domineering relationship between the imperial elites and the indigenous population.
References
Ahmad, M. (2023). Movement texts as anti-colonial theory. Sociology, 57(1), 54-71.
Alfred, T., & Corntassel, J. (2005). Being Indigenous: Resurgences against contemporary colonialism. Government and opposition, 40(4), 597-614.
Crossen, J. (2014). Decolonization, indigenous internationalism, and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples.
Johnson, N. (2019). Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Struggle for Independence: A Historiographical and Instructional Capstone Project.
Moses, A. D., Duranti, M., & Burke, R. (Eds.). (2020). Decolonization, Self-determination, and the rise of global human rights politics. Cambridge University Press.
Temin, D. M. (2023). Development in Decolonization: Walter Rodney, Third World Developmentalism, and “Decolonizing Political Theory”. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 235-248.
write