Abstract: Racially disproportionate incarceration, or over-incarceration, of Indigenous people is a significant issue in the US. Overincarceration of Indigenous people in the US is a critical and deep-rooted social issue. Racialized structural inequalities in general are theorized to underpin racialized inequalities in carceral system capture (arrest and incarceration) and outcomes including sentence length, monetary penalties, and supervision. Further, settler colonialism is theorized to underpin these inequalities where they are experienced by Native people. However, this research area is still in the earlier stages of development in the US. Nonetheless, a notable body of literature is available that demonstrates the existence of Native carceral system, or “criminal justice system,” inequality at the stage of arrest, incarceration, and post-release supervision, as well as in the case of the assessment of legal financial obligations. As well as those that theorize the underlying structures that create, maintain, and exacerbate these inequalities of criminalization and carceral system capture. This review and synthesis of the literature provides a comprehensive illustration of the state of carceral system inequalities experienced by Native (Indigenous) individuals and communities in the United States from the criminalization of Nativeness within US law and culture to the modern experiences of disparate carceral system involvement and the disparately harsh outcomes of this involvement.





Description: Future Spaces of Power explores political, cultural, and societal narratives of future space(s) on a global scale to complicate the cultural logic of systemic futures that exist outside the boundaries of dominant political imaginaries. Contributors critically engage with alternative visions found in literature, film, and other cultural artifacts that encourage us to either live with or escape from the systemic conditions of neoliberalism and late capitalism and consider what these alternative visions might do – or fail to do – in combating anti-democratic futures, environmental degradation, and new forms of imperialism. Through these analyses, the volume collectively argues that anti-postmodern and postmodern readings of future spaces overlook the everyday lived experiences of certain bodies – including chronic health problems, effects from systemic racism, and other experiences of insecurity, fear, and death in the face of institutionalized violence – by disregarding differential experiences of time within different spatial contexts. Contributors suggest that critiques of narratives occurring within and about virtual and metaspaces, artificial intelligence, space exploration, and even the colonization of outer space can provide critical insights concerning global futures and our perceptions of space and time, especially as they inform how we should live in the present amid environmental destruction, information capitalism, neoliberalism, and the remaining infrastructures of colonialism. Ultimately, this book interrogates how a variety of media shape and inform our understanding and assumptions about conceptualizations of future space(s) as it demonstrates how governmentality eliminates and regulates surplus bodies – both overtly and covertly – through the technological, spatial, discursive, and temporal management of space.




Excerpt: Today, Thomas Chandler Haliburton (1796-1865) is no longer viewed without controversy as “the ‘father of American humour’” (Cogswell). Whereas earlier scholarship praises the author’s “compassionate humour” and reads Sam Slick’s witticisms as part of the “free exchange of ideas between men and women” (Harding 224), recent approaches to The Clockmaker have flagged the political nature of Slick’s humour. Ruth Panofsky (“Breaking”) and George Elliot Clarke (“Must”; “White”) have demonstrated how Slick’s jokes target female characters and Black characters especially often. As Panofsky claims, “Women and Blacks represent two disenfranchised groups whose vulnerable positions in an all-white patriarchy make them easy targets for his often-times vicious humour” (“Breaking” 42). For Clarke, Slick’s gibes align with the “English-Canadian conservatism” of Haliburton, who was “bourgeois in his blood, Tory to the bone, and Gothic in spirit” (“Must” 4). Following up on these inquiries into the ideological nature of Slick’s jokes, this article suggests that The Clockmaker’s humour is part of a nineteenth-century settler colonial tradition that creates an illusion of a harmonious British Atlantic Canada. While laughter has been recognized as a veritable tradition in postcolonial and transcultural literatures (Balce; Dunphy and Emig; Reichl and Stein), the following discussion links the forms and functions of humour in Haliburton’s works to discussions of settler colonial aesthetics (Bryant; Gould; Rudy; Veracini; Wolfe). Haliburton’s humour idealizes settler colonial relations in Atlantic Canada and turns conflict into comedy. This pertains to differences not only between British and non-British characters but also within the English-speaking community. Settlers from different parts of the British Isles are satirized, though with the overall function of imagining them as a diverse, agreeable body of like-minded settler colonists. Discourses of Scottishness in The Clockmaker and its sequels illustrate this naturalizing and idealizing function of humour in settler colonial fiction.