DEFINITION AND ETYMOLOGY A combination of the prefix “dis-” and the term “possession,” dispossession refers to a lack of ownership with an implicit definition of deprivation. In American cultural studies, dispossession is “the action of depriving someone of land, property, or other possessions” (Oxford Languages). Scholars in this field commonly use and analyze this word to denounce racial capitalism since it is needed for its execution. Dispossession calls for the exploitation of non-white populations through human labor, whether for a price or by force. The reliance on cheap labor for economic profits led to the creation of many methods to dispossess marginalized peoples. From the clearing of Indigenous lands during the colonialism era to the de jure exclusion of immigrants seeking refuge or citizenship in the U.S. today, dispossession can be executed through physical means and work as a legal form of discrimination. This is significant to emphasize since the U.S. continues to uphold its exceptional image as an inclusive society that grants equality and freedom to people of all backgrounds. Several scholars that discuss capital accumulation through the valuation and expansion of the property relation in this course’s readings point to the multiple ways dispossession can be enforced. DISPOSSESSION AS AN OBJECT OF STUDY Dr. Brenna Bhandar, Director of Research in the School of Law at the University of London, discusses the physical appropriation of indigenous lands and the inherently dispossessive qualities of property law in her book Colonial Lives of Property: Law, Land, and Racial Regimes of Ownership. She highlights that there was a racialized “ideology of improvement” woven into property law, which American authorities used to justify the seizure of native land for colonization. Bhandar argues that “modern property laws emerged along with and through colonial modes of appropriation” (Bhandar 3) and that “legal forms of property ownership and the modern racial subject are articulated and realized in conjunction with one other” (Bandar 5). The reason why she says modern property laws and racial subjects are produced through each other is to reveal how this ideology of improvement subordinated the U.S. Indigenous population; American authorities defined and policed who had the right to own land. Bhandar also states that “those communities who lived as rational, productive economic actors, evidenced by particular forms of cultivation, were deemed to be proper subjects of law and history; those who did not were deemed to need of improvement as much as their waste lands were,” and because only white people were deemed as “proper subjects of law and history,” Indigenous people were targeted and branded as improper and undeserving of these privileges (Bhandar 8). This imposed image, which made the Indigenous appear uncivilized, made the concept of ownership contingent on race: non-white groups experienced many limitations and little advantages in modern property law. This made many of their actions on this land illegal, which further fueled sentiments that these groups’ dispossession was legitimate. The solidified racial hierarchy between white and non-white populations secured property and capital (in this case, native land) strictly for white landowners, and this is the race-property relation in which racial capitalism thrives. Robert Nichols, Associate Professor of Political Theory at the University of Minnesota, stated in his 2019 book Theft Is Property! Dispossession and Critical Theory that dispossession is “commonly used to name some manner of coercive appropriation of property, typically on a large scale (affecting more than one individual), and typically of private property by a public entity (the state or its agents)” (Nichols 4). He narrows his focus of dispossession by defining the logic of “recursive dispossession,” a mode of property-generating theft, or in other words, a way that “theft paradoxically precedes, rather than presupposes, property” (Nichols 5). Similar to the ideas Bhandar explores in her text, Nichols says this system of organized theft caused the formation of this race-property relation and consequently the circumstances for Indigenous struggles and dispossession: “reflecting the history of these [Indigenous] struggles, I suggest that dispossession can be usefully reconstructed to name a unique historical process, one in which property is generated under conditions that require its divestment and alienation from those who appear, only retrospectively, as its original owners” (Nichols 5). This alienation from property showed how dispossession made race an influential factor in the formation of property laws which placed many restrictions on Indigenous people who wanted to own land. Therefore, Nichols’ contribution to the analysis of dispossession in American Studies is also a source that proves dispossession can occur through physical and legal dimensions. The works by Brenna Bhandar and Robert Nichols both discuss the manipulation of the law to serve the interests of capitalism. They argue separately that the construction of racialized narratives and discriminatory property laws minority was, and still is, an effective method that sustained racial capitalism during settler colonialism, slavery, and other eras of minority subordination. Those in power used the race-property relation, “the owner and the owned,” and the legal and illegal to justify not only racial superiority but most importantly the dispossessions that deliberately put native, Black, and other non-white populations at the bottoms of economic and social hierarchies—a necessary component to serve racially capitalistic motives. During the 1820s and 1830s, American Indian law imposed the label “Indian” on people of Native American descent. These individuals “did not possess full rights to sovereignty and land ownership” (Nichols 19), which made others view the Indigenous as racially inferior and incapable of exercising rights under private property laws. Although they were not barred from purchasing land entirely, property laws—especially the convoluted revisions of the Preemption Act of 1830—made it difficult for Indigenous peoples to legally own homesteads: “‘Homesteaders’ (as they were now more positively deemed) had to be the head of a family, a widow, or a single man over twenty-one years of age and a citizen of the United States (or current applicant for citizenship). They could not already be the proprietor of 320 acres or more of land in any state or territory, must reside on the plot in question and ‘improve’ it” (Nichols 19). Since Indigenous peoples were dehumanized, “the new market for land was predicated upon the military conquest of Indigenous peoples, their forced removal from the territories in question, and their de jure and de facto exclusion from the market” through legislation explicitly designed to ensure they could not compete with white settlers when purchasing lands. (Nichols 20). EDUCATION, ANTI-CAPITALISM, AND THE “NO ONE IS ILLEGAL ON STOLEN LAND” CAMPAIGN Contemporary efforts to aid Indigenous populations in the U.S. involve educating larger audiences about their culture, history, and their struggles regarding alienation. The Pluralism Project at Harvard University aims to present information about the growing cultural and religious traditions in the United States. The “Native American Traditions” section provides various resources to learn about Indigenous experiences and essays on language reclamation, religious freedom, recognition from the nation-state, and more. The article “Struggle and Survival: Native Ways of Life Today” describes modern-day dispossession through unresolved poverty, environmental degradation, and attempted assimilation by the U.S. government: “dispossession continues to set the terms today for Native people’s struggles for physical and cultural survival. The U.S. Cavalry no longer rides in Indian country, but land and economic policies join with subtler forms of forced assimilation to frustrate the self-determination of Native communities” (“Struggle and Survival”). The historical oppression against Indigenous people has also motivated activists of all backgrounds to help preserve sacred land, protect native sovereignty, and reverse the detrimental effects of dispossession. The “No One is Illegal on Stolen Land” Campaign is a prominent movement that activists have organized to fulfill these goals. This phrase was coined in 2018 when protests broke out against U.S. actions regarding illegal immigration and detention centers at the U.S./Mexico border. As the topic gained more traction on social media, the phrase also started to apply at a domestic level: Native Americans used it to empower their communities and call for action as they still battle with underrepresentation and discrimination. In this picture of a Native American youth, the message of the Campaign is clear from the clothing he is wearing, the markings on his face, and the background of the photo itself. The juxtaposition between the Native subject of the photo and what is quintessentially “American” in it conveys a powerful message of resistance against the limitations and horrors of Indigenous dispossession in the United States. For example, he is reclaiming the imposed label of the Indian savage, which is represented by the word “ANIMAL” on his forehead. The accessories from his tribe that he paired with a quill and U.S. flag shirt argues against the belief that his people are uncivilized. Similar to this movement, social media has helped facilitate “anti-capitalism” sentiments and protests across the country. Dispossession is an essential factor of capitalism, and this is rooted in the fact that capitalists own the labor process and extract any surplus for themselves, including cheap labor, wages, and sacred land where millions of people of one culture lived on. Supporters of the anti-capitalism movement have realized that working towards this reality starts with abolishing the value of the racialized property relation that favors white individuals and abolishing the forceful separation from our labor and the things that sustain us. From posting memes on Twitter to protesting in front of the White House, activists have formulated many arguments for why we should “Eat the Rich,” strive for racial equality, and uplift historically disenfranchised communities to speak against their deprivation of land, freedom, dignity, and self-determination in the United States. WORKS CITED
Bhandar, Brenna. “Introduction: Property, Law, and Race in the Colony.” In Colonial Lives of Property: Law, Land, and Racial Regimes of Ownership. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018. “Dispossess.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispossess. Lavin, Talia. “How ‘Eat the Rich’ Became the Rallying Cry for the Digital Generation.” GQ, 5 Nov. 2019, www.gq.com/story/eat-the-rich-digital-generation. Nichols, Robert. Theft Is Property! Dispossession and Critical Theory. Duke University Press, 2018. Statement of the Socialist Equality Party. “The Global Protests and the Fight against Capitalism.” World Socialist Web Site, 8 June 2020, www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/08/pers-j08.html. “Struggle and Survival: Native Ways of Life Today.” The Pluralism Project, 2019, pluralism.org/struggle-and-survival-native-ways-of-life-today.
0 Comments
|
AuthorsS.L. is a first-year student at Williams College. Although she is undecided about what to major in, she enjoys American Studies classes and is considering having a concentration in either Justice in Law or Latina/o Studies. Coming from Queens, the most diverse borough in New York City, S.L. wishes to help immigrants from the city seeking asylum or citizenship and to one day work in the Supreme Court of the United States. Categories
|