« Managing intra-settler rivalries: Charles V. Reed, ‘Royalty, loyalism and citizenship in the nineteenth- century British settler empire’, in Robert Aldrich, Cindy McCreery (eds), Royals on tour: Politics, Pageantry and Colonialism, Manchester University Press, 2018
Controlling indigenous mobility one settler licence at a time: Fiona McGaughey, Teodora Pasca, Sarah Millman, ‘The road ahead: Driver’s licensing and the over-incarceration of Aboriginal peoples in Western Australia’, Alternative Law Journal, 2018 »

If it is settler-colonial, it must not be international: Trycia Bazinet, ‘Denaturalizing settler-colonial logics in international development education in Canada’, in Julie Cupples, Ramón Grosfoguel (ed.), Unsettling Eurocentrism in the Westernized University, Routledge, 2018

18Aug18

Abstract: Canada, along with other settler-colonial nations such as the United States, New Zealand and Australia, was not an original signatory of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Even when Canada became a so-called “full supporter of the declaration” in 2016,1 Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould said that in retrospect adopting UNDRIP as Canadian law is “simplistic” and “unworkable” (Canada, 2016). This is only one out of the many statements and policies that demonstrate that settler governments, regardless of the effectiveness of their reconciliatory public relations, are ultimately concerned with reconciling Indigenous’ rights as long as they can be reconciled with the Crown’s sovereignty (Borrows, 2002; Mackey, 2016). Indeed, one of the recurring reason cited by Canadian authorities in their attempts to justify their refusal to endorse UNDRIP had to do with concerns over sovereignty and the management of natural resources.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed
%d bloggers like this: