In his book “Decolonizing Wealth, Indigenous wisdom to heal divides and restore balance,” Edgar Villanueva, describes himself as a Lumbee Indian (one of the first to make contact with Europeans in the 1500s in the North Carolina area of North America), an urban Indian (he lives and works off of the reservation), and a philanthropy professional. His book analyzes the oppressive dynamics in the field of philanthropy and charts a path to decolonizing philanthropy.
He begins the first part “Where It Hurts”, by introducing us to a series of concepts. The first is the notion of the colonizer virus: a spiritual malady that “urges us to divide, control, and exploit.” In contrast there is the indigenous notion of medicine: what one needs to bring one back into balance. Medicine should be thought of as a very wide concept, it could be a drug (rarely), a word, a gesture or an experience. It could be anything that changes a person and moves them into a better balance. “You don’t choose the medicine, the elders say, it chooses you.” The medicine for decolonization counters the effects of the colonizer virus. The medicine needed replaces the urge to divide with one to connect; the urge to control with one to relate; and the urge to exploit with the urge to belong. “in healing we eradicate the colonizer virus from society: instead of divide, control, exploit, we embrace a new paradigm of connect, relate, belong.”
Another distinction the author makes is that of the worldview of the farmer and the hunter gatherer. The farmer, or separation, worldview is very close to the capitalist’s and colonizer’s worldview because farmers, to be successful, must own and control land and livestock. It is a relatively small incremental expansion of that worldview to append anything else such as women and intellectual property. Such a worldview sees the farmer (or capitalist, or man, or race) as outside the natural order. “Separation correlates with fear, scarcity, and blame, all of which arise when we think we’re not together in this thing called life. In the separation worldview, humans are divided from and set above nature, mind is separated from and elevated above body, and some humans are considered distinct from and valued above others—us vs. them—as opposed to seeing ourselves as part of a greater whole.” The hunter-gatherer or indigenous worldview is the opposite: it “seeks not to own or control, but to coexist with and steward the land and nonhuman forms of life…[in short, quoting Derek Rasmussen] ‘Indigenous people believe they belong to the land, and non-indigenous people believe the land belongs to them.’”
The author’s “central argument is that what ails philanthropy at its core is colonialism.” Colonialism is made up of 3 attitudes and practices: white supremacy, the saviour mentality and internalized oppression.
The author prefers the term “white supremacy” instead of the term “racism” because it points out who benefits from racism and draws attention to the privilege conferred and not just the disfranchisement of the victims. White supremacy in this sense is racism as a mythology that privileges some and devalues others based on the lack of pigmentation in their skin. The author goes on to show how this is systematic by noting the percentages of whites in various positions of power—it is high, far above the demographic makeup of the population.
The saviour mentality, as the name suggests is the notion that one can and should save another by entering into a parent-child relationship. Philanthropic organizations are some of the worst perpetrators of the saviour mentality. The problem is that, despite the rhetoric of change, reform, and/or improvement they never talk about, much less deal with the “underlying system of privilege and power because that’s what grants them their status and position in the world.” Not all with saviour mentality are white. It can affect anyone who has been infected with the power dynamic of the colonizer virus. “No matter how much [saviours] think the victim may need their help rescuing someone can only reinforce their victimhood. There’s a theory from psychology around this dynamic called the Drama Triangle. It states that there are three roles in abusive or oppressive situations: perpetrator, victim, and savor. Victims hurt, perpetrators inflict the hurt, and saviors relieve or remove the hurt. These three interlocking roles work together to create cycles of hurt, blame, and guilt that continue endlessly unless we awaken to them.
“The key to escaping the Drama Triangle dynamic is to shift from looking for affirmation and purpose externally, outside oneself, from others. Everyone must take full responsibility for her/himself, and learn to cultivate purpose and worth internally, without needing the other players in the power dynamic.”
Internalized oppression can take two forms. The first is a dynamic the author witnessed and experienced among non-whites to a greater degree than among whites in the philanthropy sector and which he describes as “eating our own”. In white spaces where a very limited amount of space is made for diversity groups, members of those diversity groups often feel affirmed, powerful, and purposeful due to the privilege conferred. “There is a sense of specialness and scarcity, that there’s only a few of us who get in the door, and so you want to hold onto your spot and to the little bit of power and privilege that you have. All of a sudden there’s another person of color. You almost can’t help being afraid that person might take it all away from you. It can make us behave terribly towards one another.” The second and more insidious form of internalized oppression comes from living as a minority in a colonizer culture. One cannot escape the culture in which one lives – one is surrounded by it everywhere. “…it’s almost a given—that you’ll be affected by it and infected by it. Internalized oppression involves consciously or unconsciously adopting the mindset of the exploiter, the oppressor, the hater. Because it’s generally not safe to lash out against the actual perpetrators, this kind of behavior plays out where it is ‘safe,’ which, tragically, means turning this mindset toward yourself or toward members of your own group…. you perpetuate the abusive treatment that you received at the hands of those who diminished, exploited, and abused you. You turn it against your already wounded self and your fellow wounded.”
Architecture and organization design are two areas where the separation worldview manifests. In the author’s experience “Professional buildings intentionally feel different from spaces where people live. The cold, hard style and feel of these spaces allows the decisions made there to be impersonal and rigid, following rules rather than flexibly adapting to the complexity of human situations. Their location, architecture, and design support colonizing tactics of division, control, and exploitation…”. Organizational design is ubiquitously pyramidally hierarchical. This choice of structure made armies most effective in winning wars through principles of division, control, and exploitation. It has expanded out beyond the armed forces and is used today as the most effective transfer of wealth, power, and privilege to the membership at the top. The author asks us to imagine how organizations could be different “…if they were based on principles like integration and interdependence, reciprocity and relationships?”
The author then writes about three common buzzwords, diversity, tokens, and multiculturalism, from a minority perspective. “‘Diversity’ is how white people talk about race when they don’t want to talk about race…” or any other minority or marginalized category such as sexual orientation or identity, religious or cultural background, and disability. The author marshals a lot of data that indicates that most programs on diversity, equity, or inclusion are counterproductive because they ended up decreasing the amount of diversity, in the most progressive workplaces. “…efforts to support diversity in corporate settings are often counterproductive, because the approach follows more of the same divisive, dominating colonial tactics…. Diversity talk allows people to deny racism. It lets white folk ignore persistent, alarming racial inequalities and discriminatory practices.” Diversity policies often lead to token hiring. There is some nebulous notions of the value of diverse opinions and view points but everyone who is hired is expected to assimilate and fit in. “Tokens end up on tiptoe, always on our best behavior. This is heightened by the sense that we still often have the feeling that we are representing our entire race, that everything we do will reflect on other [members of our race]. Who’s going to speak truth to power when there could be negative consequences for everyone who looks like you, not just in the is moment but into the foreseeable future?” playing a role or trying to fit in destroys the benefit of diversity to the organization; yet being honestly authentic is not tolerated in modern workforce culture. In other words, the image of diversity is more important than actual diversity. “Up until now, diversity and inclusion tactics have been about getting different kinds of people in the door, and then asking them to assimilate to the dominant white colonizer culture. But the issue is not recruitment of diverse humans—the ‘pipeline’ focus of the past, laying a seat at the table, as is often said—the issue is creating a culture of respect, curiosity, acceptance, and love. It’s about fundamentally changing organizational culture, what constitutes acceptable behavior, and the definitions of success and leadership. It’s about building ourselves a whole new table—one where we truly belong.”