Haunani-Kay Trask and Settler Colonial and Relational Critique: Alternatives to Binary Analyses of Power

36 A & Q Williams, Mark. 2009. “The Other from Elsewhere: Arrested Encounters in Bicultural New Zealand.” In The Dragon and the Taniwha: Maori and Chinese in New Zealand, edited by Manying Ip, 300–­ 318. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Wolfe, Patrick. 2001. “Land, Labor, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race.” The American Historical Review 106, no. 3: 866–­ 905. Yamamoto, Eric. 1979. “The Significance of ‘Local.’” SocialProcessinHawaii 27: 101–­15. Yamashiro, Aiko. 2016. “Writing Decolonial Poetry for Ea.” Ke Ka‘upu Hehi ‘Ale. July 11. https://hehiale.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/writing -decolonial-poetry-for-ea/. Haunani-­ Kay Trask and Settler Colonial and Relational Critique: Alternatives to Binary Analyses of Power Dean Itsuji Saranillio Scholar, activist, and poet Haunani-­Kay Trask’s article “Settlers of Color and ‘Immigrant’ Hegemony: ‘Locals’ in Hawai‘i” has been the starting point for much of the work on settler colonialism in Hawai‘i.1 Arguments that an analysis of settler colonialism emerges, instead, from non-­Native scholars are erroneous, at least in the context of Hawai‘i.2 Trask’s work and mentorship have helped many to think of settler colonialism as pedagogical , as offering us bits and pieces about the historical moment within which we find ourselves. At the same time, the political subjectivities that we historically inherit require political mediation to address new historical understandings and possibilities for resistance. This calls for critiquing and redefining the terms of identity within which we are born. It challenges us to become literate in other histories and struggles besides our own, which then helps us to understand how current identifications come at the expense of other marginalized groups. Such challenges for more robust forms of affinity use an analysis of settler colonialism not for a politics of blame and accusation but rather to open our worlds to a plurality of possibilities outside of the constrained realities defined by the settler state. Theorizing settler colonialism thus goes beyond telling a simple story about complicity, offering instead new pedagogies for—­different ways of knowing, being, and responding to—­the living force of the colonial past A & Q 37 in the present. Pushing beyond binary conceptions of power—­oppressor–­ victim, white–­nonwhite, settler–­Indigenous, settler–­migrant—­the intricate relationality of power relations shows how multiple binaries organize and layer differences within the settler state, which itself constrains what is imagined as politically and economically possible.3 Differential locations relative to white supremacy and its ongoing effects unsettle supposedly natural or inevitable alliances between historically oppressed groups. In her essay, Trask catalyzes such thinking by getting at the ways that one can be simultaneously oppressed while participating in the oppression of another. In this, she highlights the imperial violence and labor exploitation suffered by various non-­Native peoples but also shows how current framings often normalize the specific forms of settler colonialism that target Native peoples. This kind of relational thinking—­ an opposition to binary analyses of power where one is either oppressed or oppressive—­ requires examining processes of settler colonialism, which often leads to difficult and uncomfortable questions. In this way, Trask’s use of the term settler of color is meant to unsettle the entrenched identities comfortably used in Hawai‘i—­Local and American—­ and especially the paradigms of colonial thought and structures of feeling that uphold them. Local is not only a geographical marker in Hawai‘i but a working-­class cultural identity formed in the plantations and set in direct opposition to haole (white) racism. But the limitation of Local as a category for solidarity, which is how it’s often invoked, is that it is premised around a shared victimization from haole supremacy, which flattens critical distinctions between Kānaka ‘Ōiwi and non-­Native groups (Trask 2008). Kānaka ‘Ōiwi face distinct forms of colonial oppression within which non-­Natives are given every opportunity to participate. While the binary—­framed within the configuration of haole versus Local (collapsing Asian and Kānaka ‘Ōiwi together), where haole are oppressive and Locals are oppressed—­flattens Indigenous differences between Hawaiians and non-­ Hawaiians, it is also a common Local Asian saying that it is better not to get involved in “Hawaiian issues” or that “it’s the haole who overthrew...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.