Abstract: This article considers what role and responsibility historians may have when faced with settler society’s tendency to be freshly shocked each time it learns (again) about a colonial horror from its past that was, in fact, already long well known by many. Following an introduction, my argument unfolds in five sections. First, I engage a mostly Indigenous scholarship to suggest replotting British Columbia’s timeline as a continuum, or continuous process, of ongoing violence that illuminates connections across myriad forms of violence. Second, I reflect on an earlier, mostly non-Indigenous historiography about physical force and violence in British Columbia. Third, with this scholarship as context, I use an experimental format to present a catalogue of dispossession drawn from transcripts of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia (1913–1916). These accounts demonstrate that settlers relied on physical violence during the foundational pre-emption and Crown granting processes to an extent that warrants greater attention. Fourth, I suggest that some important implications follow from this for understandings of British Columbia’s past and present. Fifth, I argue that taking the long view of settler-on-Indigenous violence as a continuum helps clarify connections among forms of violence, particularly in relation to the materiality of forced physical dispossession, and, in so doing, moves us closer to telling histories that are not just for the winners.



Excerpt: Canada’s most enduring violence against Indigenous women and their descendants is currently written into Canada’s federal legislation: policies that have long targeted Indigenous women and their descendants with discrimination and erasure. My engagement with this work is rooted in personal experience, and I begin with a brief positionality statement to explain how my own status journey led me to critically examine the Indian Act’s ongoing impacts. From its enactment, the Indian Act has directly targeted Indigenous women and their children with discriminatory, assimilating policies. Despite these policies being acknowledged as discriminatory against Indigenous women and their descendants, Canada has not effectively addressed the systemic inequities to remedy the issue. Parliament first introduced Bill C-31 to rectify the sexual discrimination within the Indian Act, only to create more inequity. After backlash, Canada enacted Bill C-3, which, while granting status to many, continued to enable many of the previous prejudiced policies. Bill S-3 looked promising to remedy the core issues of the sexually discriminatory assimilation policies within the Indian Act, only to be passed without the crucial amendment. The Government of Canada is now enacting a collaborative process to look for further remedies for the inequitable policies, despite already having an effective solution to the remaining inequities with the disregarded amendment of Bill S-3.1 As a result, Indigenous women and their descendants are left to deal with the far-reaching consequences of these policies, including the socioeconomic marginalization and the heightened vulnerability they face in connection with the ongoing crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two-Spirit individuals. With the current supports like Jordan’s Principle overburdened, Indigenous women and their descendants are left with little to support them in the aftermath of this political violence.2 The Indian Act’s gender-discriminatory policies continue to marginalize Indigenous women and their descendants. These harms are upheld by insufficient legislative reforms and Canada’s failure to implement meaningful change, resulting in lasting systemic inequities, reduced access to essential supports, and increased vulnerability across generations.


Abstract: While scientists have sounded the alarm regarding anthropocentrically-fueled climate change for decades, global governmental and even smaller-scale responses to slow or halt this process have sometimes been sluggish or wholly ineffective. Yet Indigenous Peoples whose homes are on lands claimed by the United States, particularly coastal Peoples, have been engaging with climate change’s effects and working to mitigate them for decades, often using traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Kyle Powys Whyte, Zoe Todd, Gregory Cajete, and other Indigenous scholars working in the environmental sciences, environmental humanities, and Indigenous studies more broadly have explored and documented how various Indigenous communities are refusing displacement from this latest crisis caused by colonization. Indigenous activists and scholars have long connected climate change and the Sixth Extinction with settler colonialism and colonization more broadly, noting that the systems responsible for the increased carbon output, namely capitalism, directly result from colonization. Todd and Heather Davis, for example, argue that the Anthropocene’s golden spike should begin with colonization in the 15th century, a suggestion taken up in varying degrees by non-Native scholars, such as Mark Maslin and Simon Lewis, and Kathryn Yusoff. This essay examines the work of several Indigenous poets, particularly those belonging to coastal Peoples whose homelands are currently claimed by the US, such as Craig Santos Perez (CHamoru), dg nanouk okpik (Iñupiaq-Inuit), Houston Cypress (Miccosukee), and Thomas Parrie (Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb) in order to gain insight regarding how these regions and Peoples both frame climate change and respond to it through contemporary ecopoetry


Excerpt: Inuit have an interconnected and inter-reliant relationship with the land, waters, and ice across their homelands which include Kalaallit Nunaat/ Greenland, Canada, Alaska (United States), and Chukotka (Russia). Drastic changes in the Arctic place Inuit on the frontlines of climate change. Thawing permafrost and eroding coastlines undermine built infrastructure and entire Inuit communities face relocation. Increasingly unpredictable freeze-melt patterns of sea ice threaten Inuit food security and sovereignty. Wildland and forest fires, as well as rain-on-snow events are reshaping the landscape and affecting the health of animals, the land, and consequently Inuit themselves. While the impacts of climate change are felt globally, the urgency to act and adapt is not new to Inuit, who have been raising the alarm about climate change for decades. The oceans, sea ice, and glaciers across Inuit homelands are sites of increasing interest for proposed climate intervention and geoengineering projects. These waters and ice are central to a healthy ecosystems, Inuit food sovereignty and traditional economies, and they support transportation and connectivity for Inuit, while also contributing to global weather and climate systems. In pursuit of solutions to climate change, some geoengineering experiments have already been funded and carried out in Inuit homelands, while others remain in scoping or conceptual stages. The Arctic Ice Project (formerly Ice911) faced strong vocal opposition from Alaska Native groups and environmental NGOs for solar radiation management (SRM) experiments conducted on a lake near Utqiaġvik, Alaska in 2017, and ceased operations in 2025. Although the Greenland Ice Sheet Conservation (GRISCO) project made some efforts to engage Inuit in Ilulissat, Greenland, a more formal approach is required to uphold the rights of Inuit. In 2025 researchers determined that this seabed curtain experiment was not feasible in Sermeq Kujalleq. The Real Ice Project has been conducting sea-ice thickening experiments since 2024 in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. This project has engaged directly with Inuit in the community and received support from the Ekaluktutiak Hunters and Trappers Organization, as required by Nunavut research permitting processes. Engagement with Inuit through brief advisory meetings, employment as field assistants, or open town halls does not, however, fully address the obligations of these projects to Inuit as rightsholders.




Access the article here.


Abstract: As climate change’s impacts are felt more acutely by Indigenous communities across the planet, settler environmentalists are beginning to acknowledge colonial land theft as a major contributor to the climate crisis. In response, some settlers have begun supporting Indigenous demands for Land Back. Because we reproduce the dominant worldview that perpetuates and reflects Canada’s structural racism, settler support for Indigenous movements at times cause further colonial harms to Indigenous people who invite our participation while undermining their movements. This dissertation proposes a framework for settlers supporting Coast Salish land stewardship that reduces potential harms caused by our participation. My research follows two communities of settler environmentalists participating in Coast Salish-led land stewardship projects to better understand how our (re)production of the dominant worldview continues to cause harm to the Indigenous people we displace. Participating in Coast Salish-led invasive species removal and other land stewardship practices, our experiences indicate that sites of Indigenous resistance to the colony create transformative ethical spaces through ceremony and protocol where settlers can start learning to live in Indigenous sovereignty. Understanding Coast Salish-led ecosystem restoration as a culturally relevant place of learning, settler participants begin to (re)orient ourselves, giving us tools necessary for interrupting the dominant worldview as it is reproduced in us while we become aware that we carry responsibilities for living on stolen land. By taking up Indigenous research methods and methodologies under Indigenous leadership as praxis, this research describes an emergent set of decolonial practices that specifically support Coast Salish resurgence through meaningful settler engagement.