Fellow NAISA members, (apologies for the lengthy post!)

As one more voice, I’d like to weigh in on our debate about whether to cancel our annual meeting as part of a larger Arizona boycott. SB1070 is draconian. But I am not sure that cancelling the meeting is our most productive action. The arguments of NAISA’s elected leadership for pushing forward are both critical of the broader political-economic ramifications of the bill and measured with regards to the survival of our organization. Like Aileen Moreton-Robinson, I see coming to “the belly of the beast” in order to articulate a strong stance as a legitimate option. I also second Leanne Howe’s reminder to be generous with one another. I have a few additional thoughts to add.

Of course we should keep our money out of the hands of those who support this bill. But figuring out which businesses to patronize will not be as easy as patronizing only those operated by people of color. There are plenty of people of color who support this bill and plenty of whites who don’t. And how can we tell who is a person of color? The faces of our own NAISA membership should tell us that phenotype isn’t always an indicator. It is also important to situate this boycott within a broader political-economic critique. As indigenous studies scholars many of us regularly frequent large corporate venues for meetings and we seem to travel nonstop. We avail ourselves of fossil fuels and corporate services that result in environmental degradation and human rights and labor abuses the world over. I see this as an opportunity to rethink our own practices (outside of as well as within Arizona) while calling attention to the historical amnesia that has produced SB1070.

That leads to my second point—that understanding this issue with respect to indigenous sovereignty is not straightforward. Many of us from out-of-state can certainly choose to stay away, but Arizona IS Indian Country. The Natives who live in Arizona will continue to pay their rent and mortgages there, buy their food and other necessities there. Some of those Natives are hosting our meeting and have requested that we be there to make a statement against SB1070 with them. I would like to see some recognition (perhaps it’s here and I’ve missed amongst many blog posts) of the complexity of this situation for Native people living on the border. When I taught at Arizona State multiple students wrote papers in my classes about the toll that illegal immigration takes on their lands and lives. Especially students from T.O. noted considerable environmental degradation, violence, and property damage that their families and tribe must foot the bill for. If we don’t recognize how complicated this situation is for Native people, how can we expect to mount strategies that will help address their needs? At the upcoming NAISA meeting I think we can articulate a thoughtful platform that stands against the frankly white supremacist foundations of this bill (and the bill to ban the teaching of K-12 ethnic studies) while supporting tribal and indigenous sovereignty. But we need to come together to do that.

Sincerely,
Kim TallBear (Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate member)
Assistant Professor of Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy
UC Berkeley