Please choose one of these questions to respond to in a 2-3 page paper. It will be due on monday, 4/27/09.


Fanon and DeLoria Jr. both see the revival of indigenous institutions and philosophy as key to helping societies overcome the negative effects of colonization, though each sees the tactics that could legitimately used by indigenous activists as being different. Fanon argues for the validity of violence directed against colonizers as necessary, in some cases, to removing the "colonial mindset"- to purify the struggle, to destroy both black and white. In contrast, DeLoria Jr. sees the most valuable tactic by indigenous activists to learn both ways- indigenous and colonizer- and use whichever is most effective at achieving a greater voice for indigenous ideas, but working within the system, always. Which theorist seems most right about tactical decisions to you? Why?

DeLoria has a different view of "nature" and the relationship with technology and knowledge than many previous theorists have had, in that, he sees the rootedness in the real culture and real practices and institutions of indigenous society as the way to be centered enough to be critical of the artificiality and claims of modern industrial society. In comparison to Marcuse, he doesn't just negate or refuse to engage in modern society, but instead argues that native peoples need to learn the value of their own indigenous traditions in order to understand the problems of industrial life. He further argues that while indigenous people have indigenous traditions, even colonizers have their own roots and cultures that they can embrace as a more healthy alternative to modern life. Do you agree with DeLoria's point or is the way he is constructing indigenous life just another discourse that we take on? Why or why not?

Foucault argues that we are constructed, controlled, and divided internally by the various discourses that hold us like a web of power. We work so hard to remain 'normal' and not deviant, that we cannot resist the discourses even when we know they must be wrong. To break free and open some space to be free, then, Foucault directs us to look toward the marginalized people, the deviants, who openly challenge how they are defined as the space most open to transformation. The current battle over same sex marriage can be viewed in this way. Those who have been defined by society as deviant are fighting for the right to be included in the institutional definition of those whose relationships can be legally recognized by the state, and could be viewed as attempting to expand the definition of what "normal" is. Is Foucault useful for understanding this social movement? Why or why not?