The article is unavailable, but try here.


Abstract: British Columbia (BC), Canada is repeatedly identified as ‘ground zero’ for climate injustices. These impacts are seen internationally and experienced locally through increased severity and intensity of wildfires. What international audiences do not see, however, is the role that insurance plays in the aftermath of wildfires—particularly the ways that insurance widens pre-existing social and economic gaps as created by and through socio-legal subjectivities. How insurance continues to uphold property regimes in BC, recreating legal and political dynamics rooted within settler coloniality, is rendered invisible in media and the literature. While property is a precursor for property insurance and research has outlined how property in BC is based upon settler colonialism, research has not considered the impacts of wildfire in BC on property as upheld by insurance, nor trickle down impacts on communities. It is these unacknowledged interconnections between wildfire, insurance, property, and settler colonialism that this paper begins to address by laying a theoretical foundation that can serve for future place-based and empirical studies. By engaging Indigenous-led and anti-colonial frameworks of settler colonialism and property, I interrogate the emergence of insurance and property, and how socio-legal subjectivities operate on reserve land and remain central in defining who and how insurance can be accessed. In so doing, I suggest that property insurance widens pre-existing social and legal disparities as animated through settler coloniality by allowing some to ‘build back’ and remain ‘in place’ while others cannot.





Abstract: Singular understandings of racialized experiences are insufficient to advance our understanding of mental health disparities. Perceived racial misclassification (PRM), a perceived discrepancy between one’s socially assigned and self-assigned racial identity, is one such emergent culturally relevant stressor with significant health implications. Evidence suggests that Native American and Alaska Native (NA/AN) individuals experience the highest rates of PRM. Yet, there are no prior studies investigating psychosocial correlates of PRM within NA/AN communities. This exploratory study explored associations between PRM and NA/AN mental health and cultural factors including ethnic-racial identity, connectedness, and historical loss. Comparative analyses were conducted among a national sample of 110 NA/AN college students who were and were not experiencing PRM. Results: Sixty percent reported experiencing PRM. Significant mental health differences emerged between participants who reported PRM and participants who did not, such that the PRM group reported greater anxiety, somatic, and depressive symptoms. No differences were found between groups in well-being, historical loss, cultural connectedness, or ethnic-racial identity. These preliminary findings support the necessity of using multiple dimensions of race to further our understanding of mental health among racialized communities. Further, the results underscore the need for further research into PRM as a widely experienced and critically understudied culturally relevant stressor among NA/AN communities.


Abstract: Background: Links between maternal exposure to child removal by child protective services and increased mortality have been identified in the general population. However, this association has not been examined in First Nations mothers, who are disproportionately intervened upon by this system. Our study aimed to quantify the relationship between child removal and mortality in First Nations and non-First Nations mothers. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we used whole population, matched, and sibling cohorts to compare mortality in First Nations and non-First Nations mothers with and without a child removed by child protective services between April 1, 1998, and March 31, 2022, in Manitoba, Canada. First Nations mothers were identified through the First Nations Research File; non-registered or self-identified First Nations mothers, along with Inuit, Métis, and non-Indigenous mothers, were categorised as non-First Nations mothers. We excluded mothers not residing in Manitoba for 2 years before the birth or first removal date of their oldest child. In the whole population cohort, we compared First Nations mothers with a child removed, First Nation mothers without a child removed, non-First Nations mothers with a child removed, and non-First Nations mothers without a child removed. For the matched cohort, First Nations and non-First Nations mothers with a child removed were matched 1:2 with mothers without a child removed based on First Nations status, urbanicity, and maternal age at first birth. For the sibling cohort, we compared First Nations mothers who had a child removed with a sister (with the same biological mother) who did not have a child removed. We extracted individual-level data from Manitoba’s Population Research Data Repository for each contact a person had with health care and social services. We estimated absolute rates and rate ratios of all-cause, unavoidable, and avoidable mortality. Findings: The whole-population cohort included 16 211 First Nations mothers and 77 841 non-First Nations mothers. The prevalence of child removal was 27·3% (4429/16 211) for First Nations mothers versus 4·3% (3353/77 841) for non-First Nations mothers. Compared with unexposed non-First Nations mothers, adjusted mortality rates due to all causes in mothers with a child removed was highest for First Nations mothers (64 deaths per 10 000 person-years [95% CI 57–72]; rate difference 51·65 per 10 000 person-years [95% CI 49·15–54·14]; rate ratio 5·20 [95% CI 3·98–6·78]) followed by non-First Nations mothers (48 deaths per 10 000 person-years [40–56]; 35·28 per 10 000 person-years [32·81–37·74]; 3·87 [2·90–5·15]). Associations persisted in the matched and sibling cohorts. Avoidable causes accounted for the majority of all deaths, and in the sibling cohort in First Nations mothers, child removal was only associated with avoidable mortality. Interpretation: Child removal was associated with preventable deaths in mothers, with the highest risk of death observed in First Nations mothers. Our findings call for recognition of the potential extent of health harm to mothers attributable to child removal and should accelerate action for First Nations-led interventions to support and preserve families.


Abstract: This essay returns to the persistent problem of fractionation—or extreme coownership—within Indigenous-owned trust allotments and argues that fractionation is a structural feature of the specialized federal trust property regime that applies uniquely in Indian country, not an administrative glitch. The Department of the Interior recently completed a ten-year land buyback program funded by its settlement of the Cobell breach-of-trust class action lawsuit. This effort aimed to consolidate fractional co-ownership interests back into tribal control. The Department recently released its final report from the buyback program, and this offers a natural reflection point. After a decade of effort and nearly $1.9 billion in investment, the buyback program transferred roughly one million undivided interests back to tribal ownership. Yet, the structural property dynamics that produced fractionation to begin with still persist, and—after all this investment—fractionation is predicted to rebound to pre-program levels again in only fifteen years. Drawing on a century-long case study of a single allotment on the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation (Tract 1305) and decades of research and attention to this problem, this essay shows how piecemeal remedies—like repeated rounds of probate reforms, purchase programs, and land-management process improvements—can stabilize symptoms temporarily but do not repair the deeper property system mechanics that produce these results. Fractionation drains scarce federal resources, fragments tribal territorial authority, and entrenches a federalized land regime at odds with Indigenous governance. The essay calls for repair rather than more doctrinal tinkering: land-based reconciliation led by tribal governments, funded and supported by the federal government, and deeply rooted in Indigenous self-determination and land ethics. Fractionation and associated reservation land and governance challenges are products of the federally created trust property system. This system has become so normalized that it can be mistaken for a natural constraint. But this is a system of the federal government’s own making—and one that can be remade in partnership with, and following the lead of, tribal governments.