If you know Louis CK’s joke on Indians you might enjoy this mini response essay...
“Indians” Ain’t Correct
Immediately diving into June Scudeler’s critique entitled “Indians on Top”: Kent Monkman’s Sovereign Erotics” splashes you into a sea of problematic and politically ambiguous language that might catch the attention of a Queer theorist. It might be generally understood that the accepted terminology today are members of ‘indigenous’ or ‘first nations’ communities. The ’s’ at the end of communities is possibly more than the need to “..update nineteenth century..” (Scudeler 2015) to the twenty first. This compendious essay will critique Shudeler’s critique and propose the question..how vital is conversing in the politically correct or flawless?
Is flawless even achievable? Scudeler mentions the “Sovereign Erotic” (Scudeler 2015) as “Profoundly Political” (Scudeler 2015) and a “Counternarrative that displaces the hegemonic colonial history” (Scudeler 2015). An act of “Rewriting the western art history..” (Scudeler 2015) brings to attention not the flawed absence of Scudeler’s positionality or Scudeler’s lack of acknowledgement of gender neutral pronouns when discussing Two-Spirit identities but the flaws that exist in current understandings of art history. Vitality of the politically correct in our current “..hegemonic colonial history..” (Scudeler 2015) takes issue not informing ourselves of political communities such as “..the Cree concept..” (Scudeler 2015) or Cree people that have existed long before “..settler imperialism..” (Scudeler 2015). An act of Preliminary awareness.
Is it to be politically correct to be Flawless? Scudeler quotes Rader to bring “Aesthetic Activism” (Scudeler 2015) into light. “Rader defines as “Political and social activism and finds representations in the artistic..” (Scudeler 2015). Is the argument of identity politics or the ‘write off’ of identity politics considered a poor justification for social activism let alone political activism? Maybe the existence of the identity exists purely for the politics, for the human rights. The existence for a flawless society might be fanatical but what will happen when all identities and “..assimilationist policies..” (Scudeler 2015) achieve equality and assimilation becomes obsolete? A world without “..dominant ideology.” (Scudeler 2015) Abilities in language evolution not just of “..swampy Cree language.” (Scudeler 2015) but current uses of They/Them pronouns to meet the needs of a gender non-conforming generation. A new Linguistic future.
Often when we discuss the future, who’s future are we discussing? Scudeler’s expression to “..honor Cree-two-spirit histories” (Scudeler 2015) or “..his historical sources.” (Scudeler 2015) almost implies that Scudeler postulates that Mockman’s history is not Scudeler’s history. An act of distancing. An act of othering. This is more than “..tradition as resistance..” (Scudeler 2015) it is possibly the main issue with Scudeler’s absence of positionally. Is Mockman “..rewriting (personal) history” (Scudeler 2015)? If one has participated in viewership of a Mockman exhibit one would definitely see a true “..rockstar of indigenous art..” (Scudeler 2015) as Scudeler so eloquently put. A flawless statement. Yes. Though does not excuse or pardon the apathy of Scudeler’s Positionality.
Subscribe to The Morning Email.
Wake up to the day's most important news.
This conversational piece of literature has only scratched the surface ‘of a critique of a critique’ of body of work “..representing aboriginal philosophy.” (Scudeler 2015). Might be a stretch to define even this capsule of an essay as a piece of literature. My interest in Scudeler and Mockman’s work is biased in my own colonial up bringing in even for a second suggesting that “..two-spirit subjects..” (Scudeler 2015) have any relation to westernized understandings of gender non-conforming or non-binary identities. For the reasons that they are two entirely different concepts or cultures, different “multi-contested history” (Scudeler 2015). How vital is conversing in the politically correct or the flawless? The answer perhaps is not situated in our time period. Answers may lie in the next groups of history, that really...are still all our histories.