Indigenous frameworks offer alternatives to data-colonial modes of being

Evidence

Simpson (Always Done, 17) writes of the capacity called Biiskabiyingan in the Nishnaabeg language: “The process of returning to ourselves, a reengagement with the things we have left behind, a re-emergence, an unfolding from the inside out.” For the idea of “returning to ourselves,” compare what H. S. Bhola (Literacy) calls the ontological reintegration of the individual to the world. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 1231

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines Biiskabiyingan, a Nishnaabeg concept of returning to oneself, presented as a counter-model to the data-colonial self.
• XREF: Connects to decolonial theory and to Simpson’s broader scholarship on Nishnaabeg resurgence, and parallels Santos’s epistemologies noted in this chapter. — connects to: Indigenous digital studies offer a grounded normativity that empowers refusal of data systems. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 593; Data colonialism requires transforming society itself, not just extracting value — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 365; Resisting data colonialism requires an ecology-of-life frame, not legal regulation — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 567 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Resisting data colonialism requires an ecology-of-life frame, not legal regulation #expands (0.88) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 567
• Data colonialism requires transforming society itself, not just extracting value #qualifies (0.72) — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection, 365