Williams/Konsmo write the following in their critique of "the feminist unification project":
the words we use to describe the mentality of mainstream feminists needing to hold hands, learn from each other and be sisters, in one unified circle of feminism, in order to win the fight against partriarchy. But this denies our sovereignty as distinct Indigenous nations, each with our own language, culture, history and experience of colonization (26).
Why wouldn't these authors promote the value of "learning from each other" and working for unity?
Earlier in the book, Jessica Yee writes:
I want to say that I don't think we need to reject feminism though -- I think we need to redefine it, find common points and common ground and involve Indigenous peoples and other com- munities of colour. As long as there is mutual respect and all of our cultural and historic realities are brought into the mix, we can create cross-cultural human movements (18).
(How) can we read these passages together?
What are the limits of working for unity?
What shifts when our goal is "cross-cultural movement" and not "unity"?