From Decolonization to Rehumanization

• In Event: Roundtable Session (Monday II)
  In Refereed Round-Table Session: Examining decolonization, spatialities of race, and safe space

Proposal

This paper explores how young people from minority Indigenous groups and majority Bengali groups, in the context of Bangladesh, perceive, accept or deny, and justify or protest, the demeaning narratives against Indigenous peoples. The Indigenous peoples of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh, experience demeaning narratives, such as Upo-Jati (Chakma, 2010), which means small minor race and Kudro NriGhosti (Chakma, 2010), which means inferior sub-nation. Using Critical Race Theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000), Tribal Critical Race Theory (Brayboy, 2005), and Participatory Action Research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; McIntyre, 2007) frameworks and based on a six-month ethnography (n = 84), this study explores the perspectives and views expressed by the youths from the Indigenous minority as well as non-Indigenous Bengali majority groups.
Findings suggest that the introduction of these dehumanizing narratives starts early, through textbooks in schools and media. Most of the participants from both Indigenous minority and Bengali majority groups expressed that they learned about these terms “UpoJati” and “Kudro Nri-Ghosti” from their textbooks in fourth grade in school. A review of fourth grade Bangla textbook confirms that these words are included in the curriculum. Indigenous students become familiar with these terms for the first time as their teachers started addressing them as “UpoJati” and “Kudro Nri-Ghosti” students. Some students also learned it from the government approved official name of local cultural center, as it is called “Kudro Nri-Ghosti Cultural Center.” Few Bengali students, who have access to television, also learned it from the state-run Bangladesh Television (BTV) news or other programs.
Findings also indicate that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous youths comprehend the motivation and implications of these narratives, although there are within group differences in each of these groups based on their background, exposure, and education. Youths from both of these groups, dominant Bengali and minority Indigenous students, however, differ much in their perception, acceptance, and justification of using such dehumanizing narratives to identify Indigenous peoples. For example, when asked about their perception of these words, an Indigenous student responded by saying, “It means we are secondary people. It implies derogatory and inferior nature. With ‘Upojati’ you take away the history, identity of people.” While a youth from the Bengali majority responded to the same question by stating: “Is it wrong to call a black man black? Hence I haven’t formed an opinion yet.” However, some indigenous students internalized and accept these terms, such as, “If you look at the numeric numbers, we are about 1 million while Bengali are 160 million. What can we do? We can do nothing.” These various conforming and non-conforming views and voices from both the indigenous minority and dominant Bengali majority youth groups provide a more holistic picture from their expression of empathy or apathy, care or not, and desire for justice for fellow human beings as evident by their civic engagement and moral action. This study highlights the importance of engaging both Indigenous and non-indigenous youth in critically examining dominant, and often dehumanizing, narratives and re-examining and revising academic curricula for promoting acceptance and respect for diversity.

Author

• Maung Nyeu, Harvard University