Abstract: Background: Public opposition to COVID-19 public health measures in the United States is often understood as a product of misinformation, political polarization, or distrust. Such explanations, however, obscure how histories of race, governance, and moral authority shape resistance to pandemic mitigation, particularly in settler colonial contexts. Theoretical Rationale and Methodology: Drawing on scholarship on whiteness, settler colonialism, and biopolitical governance, this article examines pandemic resistance as a racialized and moralized political formation. The analysis is based on qualitative research conducted in Sheet’ká (Sitka, Alaska), including digital ethnography, interviews, and analysis of public testimony delivered at Sitka City Assembly meetings between September 2020 and September 2021. Results: Findings show that white settlers articulated “health freedom” through opposition to mask mandates, appeals to Christian nationalism, and discourses that dismissed death among those deemed “vulnerable.” Speakers mobilized claims to bodily sovereignty, divine authority, and inevitability to justify noncompliance while disavowing collective responsibility. Notably, pandemic discourse oscillated between denying the danger of COVID-19 altogether and acknowledging risk for an abstract and marginalized “vulnerable” population, an oscillation that functioned as a key mechanism of entitlement rather than a contradiction. Discussion/Implications: I conceptualize these dynamics as biopolitical entitlement: a racialized assumption that authorizes certain populations to determine how risk, exposure, and loss are distributed without accountability for the consequences of those decisions. By situating pandemic discourse within histories of whiteness, settler colonialism, and biopolitical governance, this article demonstrates how public health crises can intensify, rather than disrupt, racialized hierarchies of life, death, and collective responsibility.




Abstract: This thesis investigates the inherent limitations of state-led justice within the structure of settler colonialism through a relational analysis of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and the Palestinian people. Central to this inquiry is erasure—an ongoing “logic of elimination”, as articulated by Patrick Wolfe, which seeks to dissolve native societies to facilitate settler replacement and territorial acquisition. By evaluating Canadian mechanisms of reconciliation, such as official apologies, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and land acknowledgments, this study argues that these symbolic gestures often function as “settler moves to innocence”, a framework developed by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang. These mechanisms frequently historicize colonial violence as a “sad chapter” of the past, thereby neutralizing ongoing dispossession and securing settler futurity through what is identified as the “erasure of erasure” or “double denial”, drawing on the work of Saree Makdisi. The research further critiques the application of transitional justice frameworks to non-transitional colonial contexts, contending that such models create a “post-colonial” façade while leaving oppressive structures intact. In response to these liberal narratives, the thesis centers Indigenous and Palestinian modes of resistance, including Audra Simpson’s politics of refusal, resentment as moral protest, and Sumud (steadfastness) as a grounded rejection of state-led “gifts” and normalization. The final analysis reflects on Palestinian futures, contrasting the “liberal trap” of the two-state solution with the material necessity of the Right of Return. Ultimately, this work contends that “true” justice and settler colonialism are mutually exclusive, asserting that decolonization requires the dismantling of settler structures and the physical restoration of the relationship between the people and the land.



Abstract: This dissertation examines the role of political exiles in gathering ethnographic knowledge about Siberia’s Indigenous peoples and influencing nationalities policies in Russia before and after 1917. Specifically, this work explores how 13 former members of the Populist (Narodnik) political movement—agrarian socialists exiled to Sakha (Yakutia) in Eastern Siberia and Russia’s Far East in the late 19th century—developed a distinct ethnographic approach. Seeking to propagate revolutionary ideas and collect folklore among the local population, the outcast intellectuals applied their emancipatory platform to Indigenous communities, paradoxically contributing to Russia’s enduring efforts to integrate the borderlands into the imperial core. I argue that these Populists-turned-ethnographers were among the first Russian revolutionaries to extend their class-based rhetoric to Indigenous peoples of Northeast Asia. Moreover, my analysis demonstrates that former Populists, in many ways, anticipated the Bolshevik Indigenization policies of the 1920s, which aimed to promote Native languages and cultures under socialism. Their long-term banishment to Siberia and interactions with local communities determined the Populist anthropological methodology: long-term fieldwork as a form of voluntary exile, proficiency in Native languages, and collaboration with Indigenous intelligentsia and informants. These principles were further institutionalized within the late imperial and early Soviet academia. To trace the continuities and ruptures in Populist ethnographic practices across 1917, I examine two key expeditions—the 1894–1896 Sibiriakov expedition and the 1925–1930. Complex expedition to Sakha (Yakutia). Ethnographic programs of both projects relied on the participation of former exiles and their collaborations with the regional administration on the one hand and the Native intelligentsia on the other. Although by the late 1920s Populist ethnography primarily declined, disrupted by Stalin’s Bolshevization of ethnography and political dynamics in Eastern Siberia, many of its disciplinary foundations persisted within the Soviet ethnology of the North as a part of the Leningrad school of ethnography.



Abstract: This article examines the work of a Blackfoot-led, volunteer-based outreach organization that patrols the urban core of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, providing support and connection to vulnerable community members. While settler colonialism maintains exclusionary racialized geographies which locate cities as spaces of “Whiteness” and reserves as places of “Indianness,” SAGE Clan challenges these divisions by patrolling the urban core and providing supports and aid to people experiencing homelessness and addiction. In so doing, it marks its presence on the landscape, asserting an enduring Indigenous connection to ancestral Blackfoot territory. Further, through their concept of Niitsitapiikimmapiiyipitssinni, which understands being Niitsitapi (the Real People) as not tied to blood or ancestry, but embracing a responsibility for mutual care, patrollers challenge neoliberal values of individualism and self-reliance—values echoed in Western medicalized addiction treatment programs—and suggest that being or becoming Niitsitapi is open to all who choose to walk with SAGE Clan and embrace a way of life premised on care and empathy. We suggest that by asserting that all citizens have a role to play in assisting vulnerable community members, and framing Niitsitapi values as open to all, SAGE Clan challenges racial divisions which uphold settler colonialism, articulating a pathway to reconciliation [Urban Indigeneity; Settler colonialism; Addiction; Racialized Geographies; Reconciliation].






top posts today

Archives

stats for wordpress