A nation is not conquered until the hearts of the women are on the ground. (33)
Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide by Andrea Smith looks at the effects and the effectiveness of colonization of the indigenous people. It concentrates primarily on the violence committed against women and children, as they remain most vulnerable members of the community, but Smith also addresses the overarching concern of contemporary genocide of the Native communities.
This isn’t an easy book to read by any means, but a really important one to consider. Among many other concerns, a few of the conversations in the book revolve around assimilation practices at boarding/residential schools, medical experimentation, indigenous women’s reproductive health (such as the promotion of abortion to reduce population and infertility operations performed without consent), sexual appropriation, and more. The last quarter of the book also brings up the topic of violence within minority communities and how women of color are often asked to tolerate domestic violence to present a unified front against the white oppressor.
Most of my familiarity with indigenous history is covered in the earlier chapters, particularly the attempts of colonizers to dehumanize indigenous peoples. Thankfully, this is a chapter that was briefly addressed in early American history courses, if still unsatisfactorily. An interesting layer I hadn’t uncovered myself was the one where Smith showcases the snowball effect of white men attempting to throw indigenous women off the pedestal they maintained in native communities, and how it ultimately affected white women into shunning the native women and thus, they too fell into the trap of playing damsels in distress. Smith emphasizes,
“…in order to colonize the people whose society was not hierarchical, colonizers must first naturalize hierarchy through instituting patriarchy. Patriarchal gender violence is the process by which colonizers inscribe hierarchy and domination on the bodies of the colonized…
Apparently, Native woman can only be free while under the dominion of white men, and both Native and white women have to be protected from Indian men rather than from white men” (23).
Because indigenous peoples can’t possibly have better societies than the white man’s, correct? What a saddening history for all womenkind.
The last quarter of the book was something I enjoyed the most because in many ways I found myself relating to it a lot. As a woman of color, the decision to ‘let go’ of the inner-community violence for the greater cause is often a harrowing one. While I agree with Smith that racism and sexism are conjoined like grape vines, often violence against women of color is undercut and ignored by the mainstream advocates that only enforces the racial prejudice of our society.
Similarly, she also touches on the importance of inclusivity in communities of color. A small section which looked at the struggle for reparations points out that African Americans asking for monetary reparations are ignoring the fact that this will only cut into more indigenous land. Her suggestion, which I wholeheartedly support, is to work together and find a better way to reconcile our past. She writes, “simply paying a lump sum for the injustices it has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate, the U.S. can absolve itself of any responsibility to transform these institutionalized structures white supremacy” (53). Realistically, monetary payment won’t fix the psychologically damaged states of our communities so what we need is perhaps a more sociologically beneficial approach. Sadly, while I found her solution rather exciting, she fails to properly lay out the basis for how we may achieve such a goal.
Likewise, indigenous people are also often seen at the forefront of anti-immigration debates and while the nationalists would have one convinced that this is simply a shared belief to protect the American landscape, this attitude can only backfire on indigenous peoples themselves. By aligning with anti-immigration parties, they are only reinforcing the US sovereignty over all land. She states this as a matter of self-preservation in the end, which I didn’t care for, but her point isn’t wrong.
However, readers should be aware that this book is slightly old. Majority of the events relayed in the book are anywhere from twenty to thirty years old. While I certainly don’t think we’ve made huge leaps since then, especially in the United States, I found the outdate nature of the book bothersome in that I still have no information on the ongoing politics. It’s not a reason to pass on this book entirely, but be aware that this might hinder the reader’s ability to be up-to-date on the events discussed.
Another reason this book isn’t always such an excellent read is because the writing style and form is quite weak. At times the book reads more like an introductory essay written by a college student. One of the worst errors you can commit while writing an academic paper is to begin your argument with any phase reminiscent of ‘here I shall discuss…’. She does this often and not only is distracting, it’s also something that just felt unprofessional. Don’t tell what you’re going to write about, show me it. The quoting could’ve used some culling as well since she also has a pattern of paraphrasing something by someone and then also adding the actual quote in itself. One doesn’t need both—one or the other should be sufficient.
Conquest is a good book, if at times a bit difficult to get through given the topic. I didn’t always see eye to eye with Smith on everything, but it’s a good place for me to start learning more.
Advertisements Share this:
