Abstract: In Taiwan, indigenous languages and cultures were marginalized in the education system for a long time while also being neglected in the curriculum and textbooks. Recently, to promote the teaching of indigenous languages, the Council of Indigenous Peoples and the Ministry of Education commissioned the Center for Aboriginal Studies at National Chengchi University to publish the Advanced Indigenous Languages Textbooks—Cultural Topics. This set of textbooks includes a large amount of discourses on indigenous language, culture, and history. Incorporating the settler colonialism theory by Veracini (2007, 2010), this study examines whether the contents of these textbooks reveal reflections on the various settler colonization tactics utilized by mainstream society to control indigenous peoples in the past, and also depict the praxis of decolonization. Moreover, it also examines the dialectical connection between decolonization theory and praxis. Finally, this study provides reflections on the ways to overcome the obstacles of achieving decolonization praxis. Design/methodology/approach There are currently 16 officially recognized indigenous cultures in Taiwan with their own language. Of these 16 languages, some even have sublanguages, which make up a total of 42 languages. In this study, the settler colonialism theory was referenced to conduct a content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018) of the Advanced Indigenous Languages Textbooks—Cultural Topics and to interpret the textbook analysis results. To better understand the themes that indigenous peoples focus on and to investigate the frequencies of these themes in textbooks, a word cloud analysis was also conducted, and its results were compared with the results of the content analysis. Findings/results The contents of the Advanced Indigenous Languages Textbooks—Cultural Topics reveal reflections on the various settler colonization tactics used by mainstream society to control indigenous peoples in the past, which were mainly accomplished via 5 settler colonization transfer methods: transfer by assimilation, transfer by name confiscation, ethnic transfer, transfer by performance, and transfer by coerced lifestyle change. Awareness of these transfer methods sets the foundation for decolonization praxis for indigenous peoples. Furthermore, these textbooks depict the praxis of decolonization, which includes nine relevant topics: the preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages, the restoration and development of indigenous cultures, the identification of indigenous groups and restoration of indigenous surnames, the return of indigenous territory, the affirmation of political participation rights, the establishment of indigenous media, the awakening of indigenous autonomy consciousness, the designing of indigenous autonomous governments, and the establishment of holidays for indigenous seasonal rites and festivals. In these textbooks, there is a preliminary dialectical connection between the “reflections on the various settler colonization tactics used by the mainstream society to control indigenous peoples in the past” and the “praxis of decolonization.” However, the dialectics between the two are not comprehensive enough and there are still conflicts or contradictions between them. This results in obstacles to implementing the praxis of decolonization. Regarding the obstacles of implementing decolonization, this study proposes a viewpoint of the diversity of indigenous knowledge. Through the interaction of these indigenous knowledge systems with those of other communities, the former functions to generate new and innovative knowledge. This viewpoint can inspire indigenous peoples to build up their own indigenous-centered knowledge systems with confidence and can also serve as a basis for overcoming obstacles to implementing decolonization praxis. Originality/value This study reveals that the settler colonialism framework by Veracini (2007, 2010) provides an appropriate theoretical basis for analyzing indigenous decolonization discourse in indigenous language textbooks. Moreover, these textbooks are not only a teaching tool for indigenous language revitalization, but also a voice for indigenous peoples, revealing reflections on the methods whereby mainstream society has colonized the indigenous peoples in the past and presenting the praxis of decolonization. Furthermore, the preliminary dialectical connection between the theory and praxis of decolonization is also analyzed in these textbooks. Finally, these textbooks are helpful in the awareness and practice of decolonization for indigenous peoples.


Abstract: The problematic relationship between settler colonialism and Pan-Afrikanism is a marginalised issue. The naïve continentalism of Kwame Nkrumah, which accepts both Arab and European settlers on the continent, has resulted in the biological survival of Afrikans being in question. Both in the south and north of the continent, Afrikans are regarded and treated as immigrants in their own land. What the president of Tunisia said about Afrikans is traceable to the inherent racism of settlers and the pitfalls of continental Pan-Afrikanism, which fails to take seriously the problem of settler colonialism. Chinweizu has suggested that Afrikans abandon Nkrumah’s continentalism and embrace Garveyism in the form of Black Power Pan-Afrikanism. This paper will discuss in detail Chinweizu’s suggestion of the urgent need for Garveyism on the continent. The fundamental argument of this paper is that until Afrikans address settler colonialism in the south and north by adopting Garveyism, the dream of Afrikan unity and prosperity will not only remain elusive but will never be attained. It is in this sense that we posit that settler colonialism is the main challenge of Pan-Afrikanism in the 21st century. The AU is premised on Nkrumah’s continentalism. We postulate that it is time to rethink this formal expression of continental Pan-Afrikanism and embrace Garveyism. Given the risk of racial extermination posed by settler colonialism on the continent, we argue that it is either Garveyism or perish.



Abstract: Using empirical evidence and an exploration of literature on simple commodity and capitalist farm production, a theoretical argument is developed to show that, despite not employing labour, self-employed family farmers (at least in New Zealand) are capitalist, not simple commodity, producers. This has major implications for not only class theorists from a Marxist perspective, with whom we are primarily concerned, but also poses questions for Weberian inspired stratification adherents preoccupied with occupation and lifestyle. Land ownership, together with the different way capital can be generated in broad-acre livestock farming compared to other industrial settings, enables family farmers to generate profits and accumulate capital. This means that rather than being subsumed by capital, self-employed owners of farm enterprises appropriate surplus value not by directly hiring labour to generate income from their large landholdings but indirectly by utilising the labour of other enterprises and by hiring bourgeois or petit-bourgeois operators (purchasing equipment, technology and knowledge, and using the distribution, processing, marketing and other services supplied by other businesses). Buying and selling land also supports these capitalist enterprises. Although not expropriating surplus value directly to operate their enterprises, capitalised family producers have, as was pointed out in 1985 by David Goodman and Michael Redclift, achieved political legitimacy by distancing themselves at the ideological level from capitalism (despite embracing capitalism at the economic level). By disguising their class interests, such producers are adept at legitimating state policy in their interests.



Access the special issue here