Abstract: This thesis seeks to determine the role of rhetoric in the American process of occupation that includes Settler Colonialism and Imperialism. I explore the connection between these two ideas using an example of each: the United States’ occupation of the tribal territory of the Shoshone peoples of North America as an example of Settler Colonialism and the United States’ occupation of the Philippines as an example of Imperialism. I examine the contributions of rhetoric to these processes of occupation and describe each process. This thesis expands upon the basic research of Walter L. Williams, who posited that the occupation of the Philippines was an expansion of the earlier “Indian Policy.” While the terminologies of “Settler Colonialism” and “Imperialism” were not used by Williams (in fact were not formed to the degree they are today at the time he published his work), modern scholars such as Paul A. Kramer and Julian Go have explored the use of these terms. I argue that all three authors describe a similar occupational process and that rhetoric from both the American government and from the press was a key part of executing each occupation. Most of my research on the connection to rhetoric comes from primary sources: newspaper articles, presidential speeches, Congressional arguments, and military briefs that describe both types of occupation. I demonstrate how using rhetoric to frame the story was one key to justifying the occupation while also describing the belief system that produced it. I depict how the rhetoric of a unified American process of occupation used internal, external, and press sources to lay out the steps to justify an occupation. First, the occupied nation is characterized as weak and incapable of managing its land, resources, and population; it is deemed in need of either reestablishment or civilization by the Americans. Next, as the occupation takes shape and the occupied peoples resist, the depiction of them changes; the centers of information paint them as bloodthirsty, almost inhuman sources of danger that need to be quelled. Finally, once resistors inside the occupied nation are incapacitated (either through death, capture, or threat of both), the initial characterization of hapless native peoples returns, and the rhetorical channels depict the benevolence of the United States to help them. As a result of my research, I outline a unified rhetorical process called American Occupation, with branching outcomes: American Settler Colonialism and American Imperialism. These differing outcomes are essentially based on (1) whether the goal of occupation was to expand the physical border of the United States by relocating the occupied peoples and settling their lands, as in Settler Colonialism, or (2) expanding the ideological border of the United States by controlling the occupied peoples and altering their lives to be more aligned with an American image, as in Imperialism. While these end goals differ, the occupational process that approaches them is unified, and the rhetoric that surrounds it is consistent.


Abstract: This thesis explores two underexplored works of gentrification literature—Paula Fox’s novel, Desperate Characters (1970) and Kali Fajardo-Anstine’s short story collection, Sabrina & Corina (2019). Desperate Characters offers a nuanced and critical examination of characters with privilege who move into Brooklyn in the 1960s, which involves the displacement of Black and Latinx communities; Fajardo-Anstine’s collection introduces Denver as a site of dramatic gentrification in the new century, by portraying Latinx characters from older neighborhoods who must adjust to the disintegration and cohesiveness of their communities in the face of gentrification. In my discussion of these works, I draw from pre-existing scholarship as necessary to discuss how the writers use language which reframes gentrification within displacements involved in a longer history of settler colonialism in the U.S. In Fox’s novel, newly-arrived gentrifiers, the Bentwoods, engage in a new iteration of conquest in the urban frontier, often frustrated by realities which undermine their aestheticized ideal. The novel maintains an uneasy tone about those who are causing displacement of others throughout, while Fox’s language likens the endeavor to imperialist expansion of European powers. The history of Indigenous displacement is made more directly visible in Fajardo-Anstine’s narratives, which include characters who are descendants of people first shaped by the Spanish colonial expansion in North America, prior to nineteenth-century U.S. cultivation of the American West. The themes of frontier and westward expansion manifest in new ways, so that the displacement of underprivileged communities can also be seen as a form of modern-day settler colonialism. By highlighting these works, this thesis situates gentrification within a longer history of colonization, and centers the conflict of gentrification presented through opposing perspectives.



Abstract: There are 574 federally recognized domestic dependent tribal nations in the United States. Each tribe is separate from its respective surrounding state(s) and governs itself. And yet, none of them have the power to send representatives to Congress. Our democratic representative structures function as if tribal governments and the reservations they govern do not exist. But tribal citizens do not simply live within a state and are not simply governed by that state like any other state citizen. Rather, it is tribal law and tribal governments—not state law or state governments—that primarily govern and shape the lives of tribal citizens living on reservations. Tribal governments are not complementary or subsidiary to state governments—they are frequent rivals for power and resources. This system, simply put, doesn’t make sense. Tribes should have their own representation in the federal government. This Article makes the case for why and examines how this seemingly obvious omission in our democratic structuring came to pass. This Article examines the democratic mismatch between existing governments—which include not only 50 states, but also 574 federally recognized tribes—and the representative democratic structure that is built into the Constitution around the institution of the state. It details the failed attempts of tribal governments to obtain representation, either as states or outside of statehood. This history reveals a story about race, power, colonialism, and institutions. Attempts by white majorities to hold onto political power within states included denying Native peoples’ individual rights and denying statehood to largely Native areas until Native people assimilated or white citizens outnumbered them. These dynamics, which this Article dubs “assimilative colonialism,” have not only shaped our existing democratic structures but have also had a lasting effect on Native relationships with political power. The nefarious brilliance of assimilative colonialism was to offer American political power to Native peoples—whether citizenship, statehood, or delegates—only and always at the cost of what made them Native. As a result, many Native people justifiably view American political power not as empowering but as dangerous. Assimilative colonialism has thus held back the emergence of Native movements for political reform by making it impossible to even imagine tribal representation in a real sense since it seemed only possible through assimilation. It is long overdue that we step back and examine the legacy of assimilative colonialism in American representative democracy. We ought to think about structural reform and what representative structures could—and maybe should—have been on the table for tribal governments and their citizens since the beginning. We ought to be asking: What would American democratic structures look like if we truly incorporated tribal governments as equal sovereigns within the United States?