if it's somethng youre comfortable with I would love to hear your opinion on the push in some tumblr pockets that not including european indigenous white people in bipoc is "anti-indigenous" and "exclusionary."
my personal feelings is that they're (the folks pushing that take) acting in bad faith to center whiteness again and ignoring that the indigenous European experience is not the same as the Indigenous experienc bipoc is used to refer to. it feels to be like racists trying to co-opt indigenous movements and abuse inclusive terminology for the sake of making their volkist, racist, nationalist views seem more acceptable by attaching them to a term (bipoc) that actually never had anything to do with them to begin with
but I'm curious what your feelings are. I know you've answered asks about the topic of the use and application of that term before (asks that I think came from that pocket of users actually judging by their posts compared to the asks), and I just think your answers then were direct, concise, but also human and explained the history context and purpose of the term really well. thanks for your time, bubbele
Oof. Well, I'm clearly comfortable with addressing the topic. I think my opinion is likely one people can guess if they've read my other responses about similar matters [x x]. Personally, I think that it's completely ridiculous to expect the definition of BIPOC to be changed to suit the narratives of a handful of white people on tumblr who feel excluded. Not only is it ridiculous, but it's racist, plain and simple. It disregards and minimizes the experiences (both historical and current) of BIPOC and is complete erasure of the acronym's intended purpose and origination.
I've gone over the definitions of BIPOC before, but I'll do it once more just to be clear on this, because I've seen some of those kinds of posts, and many of them are deliberately trying to redefine BIPOC by twisting words and leaving out context. Doing so is deliberately misleading, something that I'm sure is fully known by the folks that are pushing that narrative.
sources: YWCA Seattle // Wikipeda // Web MD
See, many people involved in this "push" to "redefine BIPOC" really like to cut the definitions short. They like to leave it at
BIPOC
abbreviation: black, indigenous, and people of colour [...]
They cling to that comma and that "and" as if their lives depend on it and use it to say that BIPOC therefore must also apply to white people who identify as indigenous. There are indigenous European peoples. No one is saying there aren't. They are not, however, BIPOC, and they do not face the kinds of subjugation, oppression, and marginalization that BIPOC was originated to address. Not only that, but people that leave their chosen definition at just that are deliberately leaving out the rest.
BIPOC
abbreviation: black, indigenous, and people of colour (used to refer to members of non-white communities). -Oxford Languages
BIPOC abbreviation — black, indigenous and people of colour (used in North America to refer to people who are not white) -Oxford Learner's Dictionary
Definition: BIPOC is an acronym that acknowledges the distinct histories, cultures, and struggles of Black and Indigenous peoples alongside other people of colour. -Oxford Review
So, you and I, anon, are in agreement that we think that this "push" is in bad faith and is yet another attempt to center whiteness and the white experience, thus talking over and silencing actual BIPOC. Which is again, racist.
As to you saying you feel they're pushing "volkist (aka folkish, folkist, etc.), racist, nationalist views," I can't claim for those people what their views are, but I can say that it is not a coincidence that when you look up "indigenous European" you will come across an alarmingly high number of nationalist, white supremacist movements, organizations, forums, reddit threads, etc. At this point, "indigenous" is being used as a dogwhistle by many among Europe's far right, nationalist, white supremacist, white nationalist, ethno-nationalist movements and numbers. That is not to say that everyone who is European who uses the term indigenous or identifies as indigenous has any of those beliefs or philosophies, but one does have to take care when they see these terms being used, because it factually is used as a dogwhistle by many other actors as well. And that's deliberate. You called it a co-opting of Indigenous movements, and it is. They're using this language and the movements that are attached to this language both as a shield to hide their own beliefs and bigotry, but also to deliberately confuse and conflate, to cause people to question the intentions of anti-racist movements that use 'BIPOC' and other pro-Indigenous terminology.
So, your concerns are valid. I completely understand where you're coming from. We can't say that everyone who identifies as indigenous European is racist, is folkist, is any of those things. But we do have to be aware that there is context to those concerns, and that "indigeneity" is co-opted and weaponized by European ethno-nationalist and white supremacist movements and philosophies. And that's not a new thing either. We've seen this several times throughout history.
