Sovereignty of Indigenous People's Bodies

In light of mascot name changes

Photo by Doug James/Icon SMI/Corbis via Getty Images

An excerpt from Leanne Simpson in her work As We Have Always Done

“I notice that in the aftermath of the height of the Idle No More movement, there has been a significant amount of inline activism toward eradicating stereotypes of Indigenous peoples and a significant lack of discussion and action about land issues. While it has become the practice for segments of Canadian society, particularly the more liberal and well-meaning segments, to condemn racist stereotypes. the same group is immobilized with regard to land issues. As a result, it is possible to get, for instance, music festivals to ban hipsters from wearing Native headdresses, or sports teams to change their name from the Nepean Redskins (‘Cleveland Indians ((my insert)) , or even worry the word squaw to be removed from maps. Those efforts have my respect but also my worry. Changing stereotypes are easy wins right now. They are easy because they are acceptable to the oppressor, and they only give the illusion of real change. It is not acceptable to wear a headdress to a dance party, but it is acceptable to dance on stolen land and to build pipelines over stolen land. It is not acceptable to call Indigenous women “squaws,” but it is acceptable to maintain all of the systems that target Indigenous women’s minds, bodies, and spirituality and to continue to exclude those political orders from governance and decision making that we perceive to be embodying these stereotypes. It is acceptable to undermine and attack our body sovereignty and self-determination. It is acceptable that we are not in control of how we want to use our bodies and our minds. It is acceptable that we are not free. In a sense, it like the colonizer saying to me that colonialism, colonial gender violence, and Indigenous dispossession are so entrenched in North America that we don’t even have to use racist stereotypes to maintain these systems. They perpetuate themselves.

Let me be clear, from within Nishnaabewin, the decisions about how I use my body, my mind, my sexuality, my spirituality, and the relationship I’m embedded in are my decision and one else’s. The regulation of my body, my brain, and my sexuality are attacks on my body as a political order, my nationhood, and my freedom, regardless of intent. I do not consent to have my freedom restricted by those who believe they know best for me and my body. I refuse.”