intersectionality and using voice

The GLQ journal Sexuality, Nationality, Indigeneity gathers several articles that focus on indigenous queer perspectives and forms of resistance to settler colonialism.  The introduction sets the tone for the collection and sends a great message.  While the original cover art was rejected due to being unsuitable for the publication, the editors expressed their resistance to this decision in the introduction.  By doing this, they not only gave an example of resistance, they also raised the point of what is deemed acceptable to those in positions of power.

Much can be said about each piece in this collection.  However, one thing that was apparent throughout was the writing styles of each of the authors.  The voice chosen to write in and the personalization of the subject matter was consistent across the articles.  One standout example of this is in “Puo’winu’l Pryers”:

“Basically, our oppression is about being punished on a daily basis for not being able to conform to colonial/christian expectations of gender and sexuality.  We are pushed out of our families, ceremonies, languages, histories.  Maybe the thinking goes that if we are ignored and made fun of that we’ll just go away, or at the very least we’ll hate our true selves into non-exisitsnce.  Well, we didn’t and we can’t.  And though we are often scared, we are also fierce in refusing to go anywhere except back to the Earth we came from.  We continue to make love, transition our genders, create new ceremonies with remembered ones.  We create.  We love” (Cruz 2010).

This passage speaks to several points, yet uses a voice that can reach people beyond those in academia.  As with several other articles, the words have feeling and a life of their own.  By writing in this style, the authors breathe life into the theories they present.  These are not merely just words and a way to explain a point, they are words to tell a story and create a pathway to resisting not only academic writing styles, but also resisting the indigenous story to be told from the lens of the colonizer. 

Another component that stands out so much in Cruz’s words is that of being left out of stories.  This is another theme that emerged in other articles.  Andrea Smith (2010) discusses this in her article “Queer Theory and Native Studies”.  She argues how having a single scope leaves out much of the story, and by how looking beyond this single scope is a way to disrupt settler colonialism.  This opposition is further explored in “Doubleweaving Two-Spirit Critiques” by Qwo-Li Driskill (2010).  Through this article Driskill describes colonization as an ongoing occurrence indigenous people are actively resisting.  They further explain that when Native and queer studies come together, they create an interwoven connection of concepts that are much more complex than simply an intersectionality.  They exist separately, yet within each other. 

Sharon Holland (2010) describes how queer studies can change the direction of Native studies in the afterword.  The joining of the two is a way to create a stronger resistance to colonial power as well as challenge heteronormativity and “homonationalism”.  By doing this, the authors of the articles are showing that these subjects have a place in academia and a voice in the critiques.