Abstract: The survival of Indigenous peoples in the CANZUS states of Canada, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and the United States is nothing short of remarkable. Not only have Indigenous peoples thwarted colonial tropes of the vanishing native but, for decades, Indigenous population growth rates have significantly outpaced those of the dominant settler populations. The future survival of Indigenous peoples fundamentally rests on continued natural increase, and understanding the causes and consequences of fertility behaviour is critical. While total fertility rates for Indigenous women in CANZUS countries are relatively low, childbearing tends to be concentrated at younger ages in contrast to the dominant white populations. The fertility transitions of both settler and Indigenous populations in the CANZUS states are well documented, however, a significant gap remains: how cultural factors shape contemporary Indigenous fertility behaviours. Using Aotearoa as a case study, we explore the relationship between Māori cultural identity, birth timing, and the duration of birth intervals. We use the 1995 New Zealand Women: Family, Employment and Education survey data to further test the impact of cultural identity on birth transition rates using the piecewise exponential model and Kaplan-Meier estimates. We find that women who identify Mainly Māori (exclusively or primarily) are at greater risk of bearing much earlier to first birth but not necessarily subsequent births. However, because of the earlier start, Māori have a longer reproductive window to bear more children, and at higher birth orders still bear earlier than non-Māori. The empirical evidence strengthens our case to suggest that cultural orientation has some influence on Indigenous fertility and contributes to the development of Indigenous-centred theories of fertility and demography more broadly.





Excerpt: In March 2023, the Vatican issued a statement repudiating the doctrine of discovery. The repudiation is a result of dialogue with Indigenous Catholics: ‘In our own day, a renewed dialogue with indigenous peoples, especially with those who profess the Catholic Faith, has helped the Church to understand better their values and cultures. With their help, the Church has acquired a greater awareness of their sufferings, past and present, due to the expropriation of their lands, which they consider a sacred gift from God and their ancestors, as well as the policies of forced assimilation, promoted by the governmental authorities of the time, intended to eliminate their indigenous cultures’. There is a lot to unpack in this statement: for example, the acknowledgement of present suffering, not only past suffering (historian Patrick Wolfe would say that settler colonialism is a structure rather than a discrete event), that lands that were stolen from Indigenous peoples were – are – sacred to them, and the Catholic Church’s active (even if only tacitly admitted) role in executing policies of forced assimilation. There is a throughline that runs from the papal bulls that applied the doctrine of discovery in the Americas in the fifteenth century to the mass graves of Indigenous children unearthed at sites of Native American and First Nations residential schools in the United States and Canada. Investigating this throughline is one of our goals in gathering scholars to think at the intersection of political theology and settler colonialism.


Abstract: Taking Indigenous sovereignty as at once axiomatic and constitutively strategic, this article argues that it is necessary to expand the chronology and disrupt the geographic certitude through which the history and present of US higher education and its internationalization are conventionally understood. Colleges and universities in the British colonies and what became the United States, including Harvard, William & Mary, and Dartmouth, were founded and funded with the intention that they would function as a vital technology through which the nation-state and white Christian culture would reproduce and secure themselves, their possessions, and their futures. This project was to be accomplished through the assimilation and at times incorporation of people, often youth, from polities understood as fundamentally other from that of their instructors and benefactors. Assessments of the extent to which such projects were effectuated vary, but it is well established that contemporary universities and colleges are conceptually and financially rooted in colonial educational projects that targeted Indigenous students for incorporation and assimilation. In an era when many of these same institutions are making substantial, if inadequate, efforts to contend with their historical origins, it is necessary to move beyond acknowledgment of these histories and contend, instead, with how such projects materially and epistemologically underwrite the basic functions of the most well-resourced and prestigious higher education institutions of the present.