Like Wilderson, we must attempt to chart the genocided Savage’s demand. Wilderson writes that “Red flesh can only be restored, ethically, through the destruction of White bodies, because the corporeality of the indigenous has been consumed by and gone into the making of the Settler’s corporeality.” This demand for flesh reparations is repossessed not just through lost labor power, language, or land, but rather the raw materiality of Savage flesh which has gone into the formation of the White body. Thus, “one knows precisely from where to repossess it.” Tzotzil cosmological understandings only heighten the urgency of this issue. If the Settler’s position does not come to a close, the destruction of all life will end as Jaguar eats the sun.
…show more content…
The Savage’s demand is not the return for Turtle Island but rather a demand for flesh itself. Let us not flinch from the radical ethics that parity for genocide demands, let us not forget Frantz Fanon’s elegant proclamation that “[i]n its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives.” The reality of the Settler/Savage antagonism is one that presents itself to us through the ongoing genocide of Savage bodies, a genocide which globally fuels the Settler’s political and libidinal economies. It is not that the demand of the Savage, the positioning of Whiteness through genocide, is “absurd and unethical, but rather that it is a demand so pure in its ethicality that it threatens the quotidian prohibitions which, in Modernity, constrain ethics. The demand is far too ethical [emphasis …show more content…
True today as it was twenty years ago, “[w]e have been denied the most elemental preparation so they can use us as cannon fodder and pillage… wealth... They don 't care that we have nothing, absolutely nothing, not even a roof over our heads, no land, no work, no health care, no food nor education.” The banality of Settler violence inflicted upon Indigenous bodies leaves them bloodied and broken, lost in the whirlwind of violence that arises from ontological genocide. Although, we remain and, we, as Joy Harjo
The Savage’s demand is not the return for Turtle Island but rather a demand for flesh itself. Let us not flinch from the radical ethics that parity for genocide demands, let us not forget Frantz Fanon’s elegant proclamation that “[i]n its bare reality, decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives.” The reality of the Settler/Savage antagonism is one that presents itself to us through the ongoing genocide of Savage bodies, a genocide which globally fuels the Settler’s political and libidinal economies. It is not that the demand of the Savage, the positioning of Whiteness through genocide, is “absurd and unethical, but rather that it is a demand so pure in its ethicality that it threatens the quotidian prohibitions which, in Modernity, constrain ethics. The demand is far too ethical [emphasis …show more content…
True today as it was twenty years ago, “[w]e have been denied the most elemental preparation so they can use us as cannon fodder and pillage… wealth... They don 't care that we have nothing, absolutely nothing, not even a roof over our heads, no land, no work, no health care, no food nor education.” The banality of Settler violence inflicted upon Indigenous bodies leaves them bloodied and broken, lost in the whirlwind of violence that arises from ontological genocide. Although, we remain and, we, as Joy Harjo