1. Methodological
1.1. indigeneity as an analytic
1.1.1. =/= identity
1.1.2. examples:
1.1.2.1. collusion of queer theory and colonialism within indigenous studies
1.1.2.1.1. Loving v. Virginia
1.1.2.1.2. inflict homonormative claims to equal protection
1.1.2.1.3. race becomes the “harbinger of gender, sexual, class, immigrants, disabled, trans and other rights”
1.1.2.2. reading of desire, space and temporality
1.1.2.2.1. Samuel Delaney’s “Aye, and Gomorrah”
1.1.2.2.2. desires in legal cases
1.2. Indigeneity on the queer body and identity
1.2.1. affective, bodily experiences
1.2.1.1. purpose: indigenous resistance against settler colonialism
1.2.1.2. queer indigenous bodies
1.2.1.2.1. material
1.2.1.2.2. "political orders"
1.2.1.2.3. embodiment of “knowledge, relationships and responsibilities”
1.2.1.2.4. generate a wealth of theory and critical analysis regarding settler colonialism that straight bodies cannot
1.2.1.2.5. “stories and literature writers by and for 2SQ people”
1.3. Discussion question
1.3.1. Given these two distinctive methods by Byrd and Simpson, one that focuses on indigeneity as an analytic while one emphasizes on the queer body and identity, how should we approach queer indigenous studies carefully without reducing it as an identitarian politics, nor an abstract theoretical high-ground that excludes lived experiences of queer indigenous people (in particular, the corporeal violence experienced by 2SQ)?
2. Readings
2.1. Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. “Chapter 8: Indigenous Queer Normativity”
2.2. Jodi Byrd. “Loving Unbecoming: The Queer Politics of the Transitive Native”
3. Theoretical
3.1. Key question:
3.1.1. How do we understand queer in indigenous studies as challenges to the queer in queer studies?
3.2. queer studies
3.2.1. subjectlessness
3.2.1.1. analytic
3.2.1.2. detach from identitarian-based politics
3.3. queer indigenous studies
3.3.1. "theory of resistance"
3.3.2. usefulness of subjectlessness
3.3.2.1. "escape from ethnographic entrapment"
3.3.2.2. "intellectual project" for all
3.3.3. Subjectless critique by Byrd
3.3.3.1. indigeneity as political referent that is tied to “land, relation and community” and ideological referent that is “ontologically ephemeral, temporally challenged”
3.3.3.2. temporal logic of subjectivity
3.3.3.2.1. the governance of the prior
3.3.3.2.2. transitive relationality
3.4. Indigenous studies
3.4.1. resurgence theory
3.4.1.1. queering resurgence
3.4.1.1.1. dismantling heteropatriarchy by normalizing queerness within indigenous communities
3.4.1.2. political philosophy that argues that indigenous people must rise above colonialism
3.5. Discussion questions:
3.5.1. With a loose definition of United Nation on “indigenous people”, who counts as “indigenous” and authentic in indigenous studies?
3.5.2. How can we understand “queer” not as an additive category to indigenous studies, but could serve as a refusal to a collapsed version of indigeneity into race in queer indigenous studies?
4. Affective
4.1. indigenous refusal
4.2. affective love and care
4.2.1. Simpson's daughter's queer experience in ceremonial communities
4.2.2. Simpson's experience of wearing a skirt or jeans in ceremonies as a way to care for queer indigenous youth
4.3. Discussion question
4.3.1. How might this love and care productive in detaching from an affective investment that centers the settler colonial violence, and how might it romanticize queer indigenous critiques?