Abstract: This dissertation challenges the long-standing historical narrative that the Lipan Apache disappeared in the late nineteenth century. Instead, it argues that the non-reservation Lipan Apache survived through strategic adaptation, mobility, kinship networks, and cultural continuity across the United States-Mexico borderlands. By examining the Lipan experience under Spanish colonial rule, Mexican governance, the Republic of Texas, and the State of Texas, this study demonstrates that shifting political regimes consistently pursued Indigenous land, labor, and subordination through structures of settler colonialism and racial hierarchy. Using the frameworks of settler colonialism, white supremacy, genocide studies, oral history, and autoethnography, this dissertation shows how military campaigns, legal systems, racial classification, and archival erasure worked together to marginalize the Lipan Apache and to legitimize settler expansion. However, these systems failed to eliminate Lipan identity. Instead, many Lipan families responded by migrating to Mexico, intermarrying, adapting their language, participating in Catholicism, and concealing their identity within Mexican and Mexican American communities. What many historians interpreted as a disappearance was often a deliberate survival strategy. Methodologically, this dissertation combines archival sources with oral testimonies, family interviews, and community memory to reconstruct histories often absent from official records. These sources reveal that Lipan identity endured through storytelling, kinship, ceremonies, and intergenerational knowledge transmission into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Ultimately, this study contributes to Indigenous, borderlands, and Texas historiography by reframing Lipan history from extinction to endurance. It demonstrates that Indigenous survival does not depend on reservation boundaries or federal recognition but can persist through community, memory, and cultural practice. The continued presence of the Lipan Apache exposes the limits of settler colonialism and challenges narratives equating invisibility with absence.




Abstract: This dissertation develops a sociological account of colonial settlement by examining the historical formation and contemporary operation of the Israeli settler–state compact in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It asks how political projects that instrumentalize violence are carried out when the actors who advance them occupy disparate social and institutional locations, and how variable coordination shapes outcomes. Drawing on multi-sited ethnography conducted in the Occupied West Bank among Israeli settlers, soldiers, state and military officials, and Palestinians living in the rural frontiers of Areas B and C, alongside semi-structured interviews and extensive archival research, the study reconstructs the processes through which territorial expansion and coercive governance are produced through interaction. The dissertation advances a theory of colonial embeddedness to capture the historically produced entanglement of state institutions and settler networks in the joint exercise of rule. Rather than treating settler–state alignment as given, it shows how this relationship is assembled through contingent yet patterned processes, including path-dependent institutional repertoires, learning through diffusion and adaptation, institutional transformation, and the empowerment of extra-state actors. These processes redistribute coercive capacity across formal and informal actors, producing what the study terms splintered sovereignty: a governing arrangement in which domination is delegated and unevenly coordinated. Empirically, the dissertation traces the evolution of Zionist settlement from its late-Ottoman and Mandate-era foundations through the territorial reconfigurations of 1948 and 1967 and into the contemporary West Bank. It argues that war functions as a critical juncture that reorganizes the conditions under which colonization proceeds, opening space for actors to reconfigure territorial rule and set durable trajectories of expansion. Colonial violence emerges through relational mechanisms: settler actors deploy territorial and vigilante violence and, together with state actors, give rise to deprivation, predation, constraints on social reproduction, and manipulations of futurity. Their articulation is mediated through mechanisms such as social appropriation, entryism, bureaucratic forbearance, and role collapse, which blur the boundary between state and non-state authority. Palestinian contention, in turn, reshapes these dynamics by delaying, disrupting, exposing, and possibly entrenching practices of domination. By foregrounding process over teleology, the dissertation shows that dispossession and displacement arise from shifting configurations of embedded rule. In so doing, it contributes to sociological debates on state formation, the organization of political violence, and the nature of colonial rule.


Abstract: This Article is the first work of legal scholarship to examine Turkish population transfers in northern Syria, which constitute perhaps the most aggressive movement of settler populations into occupied territory in current times. In particular, it examines the lawfulness of such movements under Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from “deport[ing] or transfer[ring] parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” In a series of major military operations beginning in 2018, Turkey has seized nearly 3,000 square miles of territory in two sectors in northern Syria and established control. While it receives scant attention in the Western press or in legal academia, Ankara continues to maintain its occupation of what it terms as “buffers” or security zones, apparently indefinitely. During its occupation of these areas, Turkey has overseen the movement of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people from within its borders into the occupied areas, significantly changing the delicate demographic balance there. The migrants are primarily Syrian Arab refugees previously residing in Turkey, internally displaced persons from elsewhere in Syria, and families of Turkishbacked Syrian National Army (SNA) fighters. But Turkey apparently has steered them to entirely different areas of Syria from those where they originate. This appears to be deliberate, using the Sunni Arab settlers to displace the local Kurdish populations and disrupt ethnic composition of formerly Kurdishmajority regions. Many of the migrants take over houses abandoned by Kurds, while in some cases Turkey or private Arab foundations have financed the construction of entirely new communities for the migrants in the occupied territories.




Abstract: This article offers a critical Indigenous analysis of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, celebrated as an innovative fusion of Māori cosmology and Western law through the legal personhood of the river. While positioned as a hallmark of bicultural partnership, the Act exemplifies bicultural containment – a state strategy that symbolically includes Māori worldviews while preserving the juridical supremacy of the settler state. Drawing on Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s theory of the white possessive, Unger and Henderson’s contextuality, and critiques of biculturalism as a ‘zombie’ concept, the paper shows how Te Awa Tupua functions as a ‘settler move to innocence’, reframing whakapapamana and kaitiakitanga within government regimes. Rather than advancing mana motuhake, the settlement embeds Māori relational ontologies into governance structures accountable to ″the Crown″. Legal personhood, while symbolically powerful, is constrained by co-governance mechanisms, racial capitalism and biopolitical control, ensuring sovereignty over ‘resources’ remains with the state. Situating Te Awa Tupua within the trajectory of Crown–Māori relations, the article argues that biculturalism has shifted from responding to Māori demands for justice to regulating them within narrow confines. Genuine decolonisation requires the return of land, water and decision-making authority grounded in tikanga and Indigenous governance, not symbolic recognition.





top posts today

Archives

stats for wordpress