Gender and women's participation in municipality-driven development : IDP [Integrated DevelopmentPlanning] and project-level participation in Msinga, eThekwini and Hibiscus Coast
Gender and women's participation in municipality-driven development : IDP [Integrated DevelopmentPlanning] and project-level participation in Msinga, eThekwini and Hibiscus Coast
复制标题
性别和妇女参与市政驱动的发展：IDP [综合发展规划] 和姆辛加、埃特克维尼和芙蓉海岸的项目级参与
DOI：
10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01413_11.x
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
A. Williamson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Sithole;A. Todes;A. Williamson
关于美洲黑人和土著人民的学术和流行文献将黑人视为“新世界”或“散居者”，而将土著人民视为“土著”。但是，如果对黑人和原住民的传统建构被瓦解，从而让黑人和原住民被理解为互补性而非对立性，结果会怎样呢？换句话说，是否有可能谈论黑人原住民或本土黑人，如果是的话，这意味着什么？马克·安德森（Mark Anderson）的重要新书《黑人与原住民：洪都拉斯的加里富纳行动主义和消费文化》提出了一些关于非裔原住民方程式的关键问题。他认为洪都拉斯的案例可以让人们理解黑人原住民或土著黑人。哪些投资投入到将这些区别标记为对立面，从而使新世界黑人永远不可能成为土著——或者他们可以（第 1 页）？安德森对社会身份的二元结构提出了质疑，并认为洪都拉斯的案例需要采取更细致的方法。 《黑人与土著》探讨了现代洪都拉斯和美洲其他地区的种族构成、黑人和土著身份、非裔加里富纳社会运动以及新自由主义多元文化政治的兴起之间的复杂交集。提出的主要问题之一是我们是否可以解释和解释加里富纳之间种族和文化的各种话语和实践，他们产生了黑人的各种含义，并不同程度地强调了土著（第7页）？对他们来说，“黑人”和“本土性”并不是相互排斥的范畴，而是相互排斥的。相反，它们作为身份形成的方式相互重叠（第21页）。
The academic and popular literature on black and indigenous peoples in the Americas frames blacks as being “new world” or “diasporic” and indigenous peoples as “native.” But what if the traditional construction of blackness and indigeneity were collapsed, thus allowing blacks and indigenous peoples to be understood as complimentary verses oppositional? In other words, is it possible to speak of a black indigeneity or indigenous blackness, and if so, what does this imply? Mark Anderson’s important new book, Black and Indigenous: Garifuna Activism and Consumer Culture in Honduras, raises some critical questions on the Afro-Indigenous equation. He argues that the Honduran case allows for an understanding of black indigeneity or indigenous blackness. What investments go into making and marking of these distinctions as oppositions, such that new world blacks can never be indigenous—or can they (p. 1)? Anderson calls into question binary constructions of social identity and argues that the case of Honduras calls for a more nuanced approach.Black and Indigenous explores the complex intersection of racial formation, black and indigenous identities, Afro-Garifuna social movements, and rise of neoliberal multicultural politics in modern Honduras and other part of the Americas. One of the main questions raised is whether we can interpret and explain the variety of discourses and practices of race and culture among Garifuna, who produce various meanings of blackness with variable emphasis on the indigenous (p. 7)? To them,“blackness” and “indigeneity” are not mutually exclusive categories; instead, they serve as modalities of identity formation that overlap with each other (p. 21).