User:Athunder/sandbox

Tribal Critical Race Theory

Tribal Critical Race Theory is an offshoot of Critical Race Theory (CRT), itself descended from Critical Legal Studies, developed in the late 1970s-1980s in an attempt to identify and reveal the embeddedness of race and racism in formulating law and policy in social institutions and within the social fabric of American society .

Tribal Critical Race Theory evolved from experiences of liminality of Native Americans, including those of its author, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy.  This experience was documented by Arthur C. Parker, who, in 1916, presented a list of “charges” again the U.S. government for the “spiritual, physical, and intellectual dislocation experienced by Indigenous peoples at the hands of forcibly imposed Western colonial notions of jurisprudence and religions civilizing missions” .  The seven charges included the rights of Indigenous peoples to their “..identit[ies], economic freedom, land, and a[n]..intellectual life based on their own worldviews” that Parker noted would result in “physical and cognitive dissonance that arises from forcefully imposed political, legal and social liminality and exclusionary practices levied against Indigenous societies in their own homelands” .  TribalCrit’s focus on colonization brings to the fore challenges to Indigenous peoples’ identities, their place in American society and its political life, and their ability to exist and determine their own future.

The work of CRT scholars offered Brayboy an opportunity to think about the experiences of indigenous peoples “in education and in their relationship to the U.S. government” and offered “new ways to examine the concepts of theory, culture, knowledge, and power from the perspective of American Indian people and their communities” .  TribalCrit seeks to build upon CRT’s strong foundation, addressing the “multiple, nuanced, and historically located experiences” of Indigenous peoples today.

Definition of TribalCrit

Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCrit) is “rooted in the multiple, nuanced, and historically- and geographically-located epistemologies and ontologies found in Indigenous communities”. Where Critical Race Theory is centered on racism being endemic in society, TribalCrit is centered on colonization as endemic. It emphasizes Indigenous peoples’ existence and participation in American society from a liminal position as racial and legal/political groups and individuals, due to their unique relationships with the federal government.

CRT was meant to reveal “conceptions of racism and racial subordination as understood by traditional legal discourse are neither neutral nor sufficient to overcome the effects of centuries of racial oppression” and to “develop the understandings that would change it”.  In  Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribalCrit), Brayboy added to and reworked tenets from CRT  to address the issues specific to Indigenous peoples and their knowledge and experiences, particularly around power, autonomy, and self-determination.  In the case of TribalCrit, it was intended as a way to account for the effects of colonization on the lived experiences of American Indian peoples.

Tenets of TribalCrit

1.       Colonization is endemic to society.

This tenet describes European American thought, knowledge, and power structures as dominant in present-day society in the United States, and the ongoing and explicit, sometimes implicit, goal of colonizing or civilizing Indigenous peoples to assimilate to the dominant paradigms.  Brayboy cites Lomawaima & McCarty’s (2002) description of the colonizing function in American Indian education:

The goal has been the “civilization” of American Indian peoples…[which] assumes that what is required is the complete and utter transformation of native nations and individuals:  replace heritage languages with English, replace “paganism” with Christianity, replace economic, political, social, legal, and aesthetic institutions (Lomawaima & McCarty in Brayboy, 2005, p. 430).

This process has been so thorough and complete, even the Indigenous peoples themselves do not recognize when they are taking on the “dominant society’s ideas about who and what they are” (431).  Colonization is the root idea in TribalCrit.  All other tenets are offshoots.

2.       U.S. policies toward Indigenous peoples are rooted in imperialism, White supremacy, and a desire for material gain.

Williams’ (1987, 1989) examination of early US legal policies towards American Indians demonstrated self-interest in protecting White settlers and served to rationalize and legitimize decisions to steal lands from Indigenous peoples inhabiting them.  This process marked a significant difference in how each viewed their relationship with and to the land. From the White perspective, Indigenous people were underutilizing the land and needed to be moved to make way for settlement. When natural resources were found on and under the new lands the Indigenous peoples inhabited, they were again acquired for their usefulness and financial gain of the new owners.  Manifest Destiny and the Norman Yoke both contained an underlying moral authority or obligation, in the case of the latter, to “use” the land (432), and were used as justification for repeated removals and the dispossession of the landbase of Indigenous peoples. White supremacy then, according to Brayboy, has come to be viewed as “natural and legitimate” (432) and has hegemonic power, which continues to exist today. 

3.       Indigenous peoples occupy a liminal space that accounts for both the political and racialized natures of our identities.

This tenet explains the position that American Indians are placed in the racial landscape which fails to acknowledge the legal and political relationship with the federal government unique to them.  “Even though our status as legal/political group has been repeatedly articulated in government policy, legal code, and the everyday lives of American Indian individuals and communities, it remains a point of debate and contention” (433).  Brayboy notes American Indian groups were regarded as nations prior to the signing of the Constitution.  

4.       Indigenous peoples have a desire to obtain and forge tribal sovereignty, tribal autonomy, self-determination, and self-identification.

Tribal autonomy, as defined by Brayboy, is the “ability of communities and tribal nations to have control over existing land bases, natural resources, and tribal national boundaries” and is linked to the ability to interact with the U.S. and other nations on a nation-to-nation basis” (Brayboy, 2013, p. 94). Self-determination is the goal of tribal nations to act with agency and in accordance with their customs, values, beliefs, and rights and rejects the paternalistic aspect of tribes’ relationship with the federal government. 

5.       The concepts of culture, knowledge, and power take on new meaning when examined through an indigenous lens.

Recognizing the contested nature of the term culture, Brayboy describes it as “fluid or dynamic and fixed or stable” and uses the metaphor of culture as an “anchor in the ocean” (94), tied to a physical place, honoring both its cultural inheritance and engaging in cultural production. Brayboy points to three types of knowledge which serve Indigenous peoples, at times, simultaneously, and at others, complementing each other:  academic knowledge, cultural knowledge, and knowledge for survival.  Cultural knowledge is knowledge of one’s tribal identity and the meaning of tribal membership.  Academic knowledge is that gained through formal educational or training.  Knowledge of survival includes how and in what ways an individual and a community accommodates change, and “the ability and willingness to change, adapt, and adjust in order to move forward” (Brayboy, 2005, p. 434-435).  Power is sacred and is rooted in a group’s ability to define themselves, their place in the world, and their traditions (Brayboy, 2013, p. 95).  Power is also “the ability to define what is good, true, right, and beautiful” (95). Power is also “rooted in the ability to adapt to changing landscapes, times, ideas, circumstances, and situations” (95).  Culture, Brayboy states, is the basis for the relationship between culture, knowledge and power, and there are reciprocal ties between them. Culture defines the individuals who are part of it, allowing for adaptability, while knowledge offers connection through what individuals know, and power emerges from that definition, though not through any individual, but with the tribe.

6.       Governmental policies and educational policies toward Indigenous peoples are intimately linked around the problematic goal of assimilation.

TribalCrit recognizes and rejects the governmental and educational policies towards Indigenous peoples with assimilation as its goal, existing since the colonial period, and the establishment of Harvard in 1636.  TribalCrit recalls the “rhetoric calling for integration and assimilation of American Indian students in institutions of higher education,” rejecting it in favor of recognizing the “wisdom of Indigenous knowledge systems” and formal education systems aimed toward tribal nation building and local capacity-building (Brayboy, et al, 2012 in Brayboy 2013, p.96). 

7.       Tribal philosophies, beliefs, customs, traditions, and visions for the future are central to understanding the lived realities of Indigenous peoples, but they also illustrate the differences and adaptability among individuals and groups.

“We are, therefore I am,” Burkhart’s restatement of the Cartesian principle (Burkhart, 2005, in Brayboy, 2013, p. 96) from an Indigenous perspective, re-centers community as the focus, rather than the individual.  This emphasis on the individual over community has been one way in which the fundamental orientation of Indigenous peoples has been diametrically opposed to the American economic and political epistemology and ontology.  This difference in perspective has emerged numerous times, particularly in relation to resource use, with the Dawes Act as a prime example.  This Act divided reservations into parcels of land meant for individual ownership and re-orientation of understanding of one’s relationship with the land being between individuals and no longer with tribal communities.   Brayboy asserts “Indigenous beliefs, thoughts, philosophies, customs, and traditions…must be recognized as being viable and important for the lives of individuals and members of the group” (96)  and provide diverse perspectives and theoretical frames with which to view experiences.

8.       Stories are not separate from theory; they make up theory and are, therefore, real and legitimate sources of data and ways of being.

Indigenous peoples use story to “orient oneself and others toward the world and life” (Brayboy, 2005, p. 439). They are used to convey knowledge of their surroundings and for survival, morals, and kinship and clan relationships.  The stories referenced here contain the histories, knowledge, and cultural heritages of the Indigenous communities of which they are a part.  This knowledge system is not generally recognized or viewed as legitimate by educational institutions, though Brayboy points out that even in scientific studies, “’proof’ is thought of in different ways” (440).  The onus for the significance of stories is on the listener hearing the story, feeling it, and understanding its nuances.  Stories hold places in the psyches of those communities from whom they come (and to whom they return) because they hold the memories of tradition and reflections of power.

9.       Theory and practice are connected in deep and explicit ways such that scholars must work towards social change.

Building on Williams’ Critical Race Practice, Brayboy writes, TribalCrit must be “praxis at its best” (Brayboy, 2005).  Its purpose is “to expose structural inequalities and assimilatory processes and work toward debunking and deconstructing them,” but more importantly, research must be relevant and pursued in order to address the needs or improve the lives of Indigenous communities.  Further, these communities should direct these efforts, supporting tribal sovereignty and self-determination (440-441).

Applications

Since the time of its publishing in 2005, Tribal Critical Race Theory has been cited in over 300 publications.

The following six articles are a small sample, representing TribalCrit’s application in research in areas such as: social studies education (Daniels, 2011; Padgett, 2015); teacher education, training, and professional development programs (Kitchen, et al., 2012; Vegh Williams, 2013); education policy (Quijada Cerecer, 2013); and indigenous education programs (Kaomea, 2009).  An analysis of the emerging research incorporating TribalCrit as a theoretical framework would necessitate a focus on the recognition of colonization in order to begin to construct measures to “confront and dampen” (Brayboy 2013, p. 93) its effects.

Two articles use TribalCrit in the social studies.  Emily Daniels (2011) effectively summarizes and draws out uses of TribalCrit in the social studies in the K-12 realm, noting “specific considerations and needs of indigenous peoples need to be addressed through a new critical theoretical lens that centers the discussion on the particular forms of marginalization experienced by First Peoples, hence the importance of a TribalCrit standpoint” (216). Gary Padgett (2015) performs a critical case study of U.S. history textbooks to examine how the social studies can lead to the inclusion of an “awareness of injustice” and “difficult truths” that will lead to a more genuine democracy (Daniels, p. 211) and more accurate and inclusive accounts of history as it relates to American Indians (Padgett, p.153). While both researchers draw attention to the need for re-examining curricular representations of the experiences of Indigenous peoples, and using Indigenous voices in the telling, only Daniels does so convincingly using TribalCrit with calls for specific actions in specific ways that will make it happen.  

Articles examining teacher education and professional development programs also use TribalCrit and are significant due to their potential as sites for transformation for Indigenous communities who seek to preserve their languages and cultures. Kitchen, Hodson and Raynor (2012) examined the partnership between the Tecumseh Centre for Aboriginal Research and Education of Brock University and the Northern Nishwabe Education Council (established in 2006).  Kitchen et al. describe the Aboriginal, community-based program and its epistemological connections to Indigenous culture. Although the article does not draw direct connections between the epistemological, pedagogical, and geographical  roots of the program to the tenets of TribalCrit, it does make a strong case for the program being a response to colonization.  A similar finding results in examining the non-Native teacher professional development program at Farmingdale School District, an effort by the District (through the Farmingdale Native American Resource Program) and the Mohawk Tribal Education Committee at Akwesasne to assist teachers in understanding Mohawk culture and incorporating elements of it into their practice.  For the Mohawk community, such an effort contributed to mutual understanding, but more importantly, it provided the dual education that addressed what Brayboy (2005) identified in the third tenet (429) as tribal peoples’ liminal space (i.e., as legal/political and racialized beings) and the importance of the tribe’s participation in an educational solution that included and benefited them. 

Another use of TribalCrit is Quijada Cerecer’s (2013) article looking at how school policies and leadership practices in a public school affect Pueblo high school students. The study demonstrates how students use counterstory (knowledge of themselves and their people gained at home or in their community) to engage in “transformational resistance” to navigate a challenging school climate and persist through graduation.  The Pueblo students’ home and community experiences are not valued or validated, resulting in disengagement.  Further, the school negatively affects Pueblo students’ experiences by implementing a dress code and installing a police officer in the school.  The ensuing interviews revealed the students’ counternarrative of themselves and their reinforcement of it with each other served as an effective buffer against mis-identification and a strengthening of their individual self-determination, closely connecting their experiences to tenets four through eight (Brayboy, 2005, p. 429).

Julie Kaomea (2009) examines TribalCrit’s applicability in preserving indigenous education programs and addresses Hawaiian education programs specifically. In recent years, anti-affirmative action groups have brought court cases against programs designed to increase the participation of historically under-represented groups, including Native Hawaiians, in schools (culturally-specific schools or admission for Native Hawaiian students to schools or programs), teacher training, and administrator training programs.  Kaomea asserts, these programs, like cultural kipuna, are “places of preserved histories which hold the seeds for renewed beginnings..places of hope, of promise, and of survival” for Hawaiian people and communities (119).  Invoking TribalCrit, Kaomea  advocates using counterstory and counterstorytelling, being mindful not only of the message but how it is conveyed, and to “’finding ways to make those stories matter in the legal system’” (Williams, 1997, in Kaomea, p.119).  Kaomea’s analysis demonstrates tenets four through eight of TribalCrit at work in that it acknowledges the (ongoing) role of colonization, the use of Hawaiian culture to retain identity and resilience, and advocacy for social change.

Each of these pieces reflects important work occurring in various places across the landscape of Indigenous education.  CRT and TribalCrit will not apply to all research affecting communities of color. The use of TribalCrit as a framework in the research noted here is largely  appropriate. Its strongest use is when the studies call out the effects of colonization on education of Indigenous students and communities and calls for remedies or strategies for change, such as the teacher education and professional development efforts reviewed here.  

References

Brayboy, B.M.J. (2013) Tribal critical race theory: An origin story and future directions. In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson (Eds.), The handbook of critical race theory in education, 88-100. New York, NY:  Routledge.

Brayboy, B.M.J. (2005) Toward a tribal critical race theory. Urban Review, 37(5), 425-446.

Brown, K. and Jackson, D.D. (2013) The history and conceptual elements of critical race theory.  In Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education, 9-22. New York, NY: Routledge.

Daniels, E.A. (2011). Racial silences: Exploring and incorporating critical frameworks in the social studies. The Social Studies, 102, 211-220.

Kaomea, J. (2009). Indigenous education for all?  A metaphorical counterstory. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 2(1), 109-121.

Kitchen, J., Hodson, J., and Raynor, M. (2012).  Indigenous teacher education as cultural brokerage: A university/First Nations partnership to prepare Nishwabe Aski teachers. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(1), 119-134.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory – What it is not! In Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education, 9-22. New York, NY: Routledge.

Padgett, G. (2015).  A critical case study of selected U.S. history textbooks from a Tribal Critical Race Theory perspective.  The Qualitative Report, 20 (3), 153-171.

Quijada Cerecer, P.D. (2013). The policing of Native bodies and minds: Perspectives on schooling from American Indian youth.  American Journal of Education, 119, 591-616.

Vegh Williams, S. (2013). Outsider teacher/insider knowledge: Fostering Mohawk cultural competency for non-Native teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 2013, 25-43.