Understanding Indigenous Voice Terminology

The absence of theorised terms within Indigenous discourse before 1969 reflects historical marginalisation and the systemic suppression of Indigenous voices and knowledge systems. Indigenous peoples encountered formidable challenges in articulating their worldviews and conceptual frameworks within academic and public spheres due to multifaceted factors, including colonial suppression, dominant Eurocentric narratives, limited access to education and publishing platforms, political marginalisation, and the prioritisation of survival over academic theorising. This essay delves into these complexities, examining how the period after 1969 marked a significant turning point in Indigenous activism and scholarship, leading to the emergence of theorised terms that continue to shape Indigenous discourse and activism today.

​

Colonial suppression played a decisive role in silencing Indigenous voices and knowledge systems. Through policies of assimilation, cultural erasure, and forced conversion, colonial powers actively sought to suppress Indigenous languages, cultures, and traditional knowledge (Smith, 1999). Indigenous peoples faced coercive measures aimed at eradicating their cultural practices and replacing them with Eurocentric norms. This suppression extended to academic and intellectual spheres, where Indigenous perspectives were often dismissed or marginalised within mainstream discourse.

The dominance of Eurocentric narratives within Western academia and mainstream discourse further contributed to the absence of theorised terms within Indigenous discourse before 1969. Eurocentric perspectives often portrayed Indigenous knowledge systems as primitive, backward, or superstitious, reflecting broader colonial ideologies of cultural superiority and racial hierarchy (Medicine, 1997). Indigenous voices and perspectives were rarely acknowledged or valued within academic institutions, where Eurocentric frameworks and methodologies prevailed.

​

Limited access to education and publishing platforms posed significant barriers to Indigenous scholars and activists seeking to articulate their concepts and theories within academic and public spheres. Indigenous peoples faced systemic inequalities in accessing formal education and publishing opportunities, which constrained their ability to participate in intellectual debates and articulate their worldviews (Cajete, 1999). Moreover, the marginalisation of Indigenous languages and cultures within educational systems further exacerbated these barriers, as Indigenous knowledge systems were often excluded or misrepresented in academic curricula.

Political marginalisation compounded the challenges faced by Indigenous peoples in articulating theorised terms within academic and public spheres. Indigenous communities were often marginalised politically, socially, and economically within colonial and post-colonial societies, limiting their opportunities to engage in broader intellectual debates and assert their cultural identities (Simpson, 2017). The suppression of Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination further constrained Indigenous peoples' ability to articulate their worldviews and aspirations within mainstream discourse.

Survival priorities also played a significant role in the absence of theorised terms within Indigenous discourse before 1969. For much of history, Indigenous communities focused on survival and resistance against colonial violence, displacement, and cultural genocide (Deloria Jr., 1969). The priority was often on preserving cultural traditions, languages, and community cohesion rather than engaging in academic theorising or articulating conceptual frameworks.

​

The emergence of theorised terms after 1969 represents a transformative moment in Indigenous activism and scholarship. The rise of Indigenous activism during the Native American Rights movement and the emergence of Indigenous studies as a distinct academic field provided platforms for Indigenous scholars and activists to reclaim their voices and articulate their concepts and theories within mainstream discourse (Smith, 1999). Indigenous scholars and activists began reclaiming their voices and articulating theorised terms to assert their worldviews, identities, and aspirations within academic and public spheres.

The articulation of theorised terms is crucial for Indigenous cultures both past, present, and future. These terms encompass diverse concepts that challenge colonial narratives and assert Indigenous perspectives on sovereignty, land, knowledge, and identity. Through the articulation of theorised terms, Indigenous scholars and activists seek to reclaim their cultural heritage, promote Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, and challenge colonial power structures (Simpson, 2017). Theorised terms serve as vehicles for preserving Indigenous knowledge systems, promoting intergenerational transmission of cultural traditions, and fostering resilience and resistance against ongoing colonial legacies (Cajete, 1999).

The absence of theorised terms within Indigenous discourse before 1969 is a reflection of historical marginalisation, systemic suppression of Indigenous voices and knowledge systems, and the prioritisation of survival over academic theorising. The emergence of theorised terms after 1969 marks a significant turning point in Indigenous activism and scholarship, providing platforms for Indigenous scholars and activists to assert their worldviews, identities, and aspirations within mainstream discourse. The articulation of theorised terms is essential for Indigenous cultures both past, present, and future, serving as vehicles for reclaiming cultural heritage, promoting sovereignty and self-determination, and challenging colonial power structures.

The absence of theorised terms within Indigenous discourse historically empowered imperialism and colonialism by facilitating the imposition of dominant narratives and erasure of Indigenous perspectives, thereby perpetuating systems of oppression and marginalisation. As Edward Said elucidates in his seminal work "Orientalism," colonialism utilised narratives to control and overpower Indigenous voices, reinforcing hegemonic power structures and justifying colonial domination (Said, 1978). This narrative control extended to academic and intellectual spheres, where Eurocentric perspectives marginalised Indigenous knowledge systems as primitive or inferior, thereby legitimising colonial practices of assimilation and cultural erasure (Smith, 1999).

The imposition of dominant narratives by colonial powers served to silence Indigenous voices and suppress Indigenous knowledge systems, perpetuating systems of colonial domination and marginalisation. Indigenous scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith discusses how colonialism operated through mechanisms of control, including the suppression of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives, which were often dismissed or misrepresented within academic and public discourse (Smith, 2012). This suppression of Indigenous voices and knowledge systems facilitated the consolidation of colonial power structures and the perpetuation of systems of oppression.

Moreover, colonialism utilised narratives to justify the dispossession of Indigenous lands and resources, as well as the imposition of colonial policies and practices that disrupted Indigenous ways of life. Indigenous scholar Vine Deloria Jr. highlights how colonial narratives were used to justify the dispossession of Indigenous lands and resources, as well as the imposition of colonial policies and practices that disrupted Indigenous ways of life (Deloria Jr., 1969). These narratives served to delegitimise Indigenous sovereignty and justify colonial interventions, thereby reinforcing systems of colonial domination and marginalisation.

Furthermore, colonialism utilised narratives to construct Indigenous peoples as "Other" and justify their subjugation, thereby reinforcing colonial hierarchies and power dynamics. Indigenous scholar Leanne Betasamosake Simpson discusses how colonial narratives constructed Indigenous peoples as "Other" and justified their subjugation, reinforcing colonial hierarchies and power dynamics (Simpson, 2017). This construction of Indigenous peoples as "Other" served to justify colonial interventions and perpetuate systems of oppression and marginalisation.

The absence of theorised terms historically empowered imperialism and colonialism by facilitating the imposition of dominant narratives, erasure of Indigenous perspectives, and justification of colonial practices. As Edward Said and other theorists elucidate, colonialism utilised narratives to control and overpower Indigenous voices, reinforcing hegemonic power structures and perpetuating systems of oppression and marginalisation. Indigenous scholars highlight how colonial narratives were used to justify the dispossession of Indigenous lands and resources, construct Indigenous peoples as "Other," and reinforce colonial hierarchies and power dynamics. The recognition and articulation of theorised terms within Indigenous discourse serve to challenge dominant narratives, assert Indigenous perspectives, and promote decolonisation and Indigenous sovereignty within academic and public spheres.

Applying the methodology of theorising terms to understand colonial control methods within the built environment, particularly in architecture, involves critically examining how power dynamics and dominant narratives shape architectural practices, urban planning, and the socio-spatial organisation of cities. Richard Sennett's work in "Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilisation" provides valuable insights into the ways in which architecture reflects and reinforces societal power structures, including colonial control methods, within the built environment (Sennett, 1994).

Sennett discusses how architectural design and urban planning have historically been used as tools of social control and exclusion, reflecting broader power dynamics and colonial ideologies within society. He emphasises the role of architecture in shaping social interactions, identities, and power relations within urban spaces, illustrating how physical structures can embody and perpetuate colonial narratives and hierarchies.

For example, colonial powers often employed architectural strategies to assert dominance and control over colonised territories, imposing monumental structures and urban layouts that symbolised colonial authority and reinforced colonial ideologies (Hosagrahar, 2018). The built environment became a tangible manifestation of colonial power, reflecting and perpetuating colonial hierarchies through spatial segregation, monumental architecture, and symbolic landscapes (Mitchell, 1995).

​

Furthermore, the design and planning of colonial cities often reflected Eurocentric ideologies and imposed Western architectural styles and spatial configurations onto Indigenous landscapes, erasing Indigenous knowledge, cultures, and ways of life (Bunce, 2018). This imposition of colonial architectural forms and urban layouts served to displace Indigenous communities, disrupt traditional social structures, and assert colonial control over Indigenous territories (Bunce, 2018).

Additionally, colonial control methods within the built environment extended beyond physical structures to include spatial regulation, surveillance, and social engineering aimed at maintaining colonial domination and quelling resistance (Foucault, 1977). Architectural spaces were designed to regulate social behaviour, control movement, and reinforce colonial hierarchies, reflecting broader strategies of colonial governance and control (Sennett, 1994).

In contemporary contexts, the legacy of colonial control methods within the built environment persists, albeit in more subtle forms. Urban development projects often prioritise the interests of powerful elites and multinational corporations at the expense of marginalised communities, perpetuating patterns of social exclusion, gentrification, and spatial inequality (Harvey, 2008). Architectural designs and urban planning decisions continue to reflect and reinforce existing power structures, contributing to the marginalisation and disenfranchisement of certain groups within society (Sennett, 1994).

By applying the methodology of theorising terms to understand colonial control methods within the built environment, researchers and practitioners in architecture can critically examine the ways in which architectural practices, urban planning, and spatial configurations reflect and perpetuate colonial ideologies and power dynamics. This critical inquiry can inform efforts to decolonise architectural practice, promote spatial justice, and create more inclusive, equitable built environments that empower marginalised communities and challenge colonial legacies (Harvey, 2008).

In conclusion, applying the methodology of theorising terms to understand colonial control methods within the built environment, particularly in architecture, involves critically examining how power dynamics and dominant narratives shape architectural practices, urban planning, and the socio-spatial organisation of cities. Drawing on insights from researchers such as Richard Sennett in "Flesh and Stone," this approach enables researchers and practitioners to uncover the ways in which architectural design and urban planning reflect and reinforce colonial ideologies and power structures, informing efforts to decolonise architectural practice and promote spatial justice.