14 A&Q Indigeneity at Sea The sea was open to anyone who would navigate a way through. . . . Oceania is vast, Oceania is expanding, Oceania is hospitable and generous, Oceania is humanity rising from the depths of brine and regions of fire deeper still. — Epeli Hau’ofa, “Our Sea of Islands” In a context where representation (as “Asian American”) simultaneously takes place with nonrepresentation (the specificities of being Korean, Hmong, Pakistani ,etc.),PacificIslandersbecomeanotherun(der)representedAsianAmerican constituency to them that just needs more inclusion within the larger project. The problem with this, however, is that Pacific Islanders are not another underrepresented Asian constituency that fits uneasily into the Asian American coalition; they are not Asian American at all, and the political coalition that linked the two different pan- ethnic groups in the political and bureaucratic imaginary was the product of a moment that is long over, though its conceptual categories live on, much to the detriment of Pacific Islanders in general and Hawaiians specifically. — Lisa Kahaleole Hall, “Which of These Things Is Not Like the Other: Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders Are Not Asian Americans, and All Pacific Islanders Are Not Hawaiian” As always, this issue’s A&Q is a polyvocal feature, this time growing out of a panel organized by Charlotte Eubanks for the Global Asias 4 conference , convened at Penn State on March 31 through April 1, 2017. Each of the panelists was invited to respond to a set of questions (provided in edited form herein), reflecting on them from the specific vantage point of their own particularly institutional and disciplinary setting. The goal of the roundtable was to chart some of the interactions between notions of indigeneity and Asian- ness by focusing especially on Pacific Islanders and Oceania and attending to the particular histories, ideas, and epistemologies that such targeted attention might highlight. A & Q 15 1. What might a truly trans- Pacific Asian, Asian American, and/or Indigenous studies look like? If we set Asian studies and Asian American studies “adrift,” (how) can we craft meaningful alliances without erasing indigenous peoples and Pacific Islanders? 2. What is at stake—demographically, aesthetically, legally, socially— in the categorization of Pacific Islanders with Asian Americans? With the categorization of Pacific Islanders with Indigenous peoples ? 3. How might we approach the relations between settler and indigenous communities without expunging difference and locality? What third terms are available, and how might these open crucial, nonbinary space? 4. How is your understanding of indigeneity shaped by, and how does it seek to shape, the institutions and disciplines in which you work? Pacific Worlds: Indigeneity, Hybridity, and Globalization RDK Herman The title of this essay today draws on my web-based indigenous-geography project Pacific Worlds (http://www.pacificworlds.com/). Created in 2000, this project works to portray Pacific Island communities through the words of community members themselves. The premise is that, despite climatic, linguistic, and material- culture similarities, each Pacific Island culture presents a complete and distinct worldview. And these worldviews developed in situ, through generations of interactions between the people and the environment. This kind of locally developed human–environment knowledge is the cornerstone of what I call “indigeneity.” By this term, I am not referring to Indigenous Peoples as defined by the United Nations or other scholars or bodies. As I have stated elsewhere, all of our ancestors were Indigenous once, somewhere. Rather, my focus here is on a way of being in the world: being indigenous to a place means having a depth of knowledge, understanding , and connection to that place (Herman 2008). Indigeneity also includes a sense of stewardship and responsibility for managing that place and working respectfully with its nonhuman inhabitants. This included 16 A & Q holistic and spiritual engagement— both an extraordinary awareness of environmental conditions and, through that, a sense of consciousness and connectivity with the natural world and all its inhabitants. Prior to the onset of modernity, most people on this planet retained some degree of Indigeneity under this definition. I contrast indigeneity with modernity, the mode of human–environment interaction based on industrial capitalism and characterized by commodification and exploitation of the environment. Capitalism fosters individual gain blind to consequences for other people, animals, and the natural world. And this approach...
Read full abstract