Abstract: Critical Indigenous Studies scholars assert that our imperative is to support Native sovereignty and self-determination, especially as it is constituted under American settler occupation and to enact decolonization through theory and practice. However, as Indigenous feminist scholars demonstrate, Native nation-building must be understood historically as an American colonial project intended to remake Indigenous peoples into mirror images of citizens of western democracies that privilege heterosexual patriarchy. Patriarchy signifies how relations of dominance and subjection marks our lives, from our relationship to the land, to non-human beings and to each other. Indigenous adaptation to the structures of a settler government has meant presumed authority over all manners of Indigenous living under settler authority, including formations of intimate and domestic spaces where the categories of gender and sexuality have been naturalized as constructions of the binary—feminine/masculine. In order to build democratic Native nations, it was crucial to transform Indigenous ways of thinking and being to accept heteropatriarchy as the natural evolution of modern democracy. This essay addresses the construction of the modern Navajo nation’s intersection with gender, and how leadership, laws and policies shape citizenship and belonging in ways that exclude gender diversity. Beyond the constraints of living within nations that surveil how we belong as its citizens, I find that Diné and Indigenous forms of ceremony speak to my thinking on Navajo narratives of kinship and belonging and how these ways of belonging persist against formations of modern tribal nation-building that are rooted in settler colonialist formations. I marvel that the spaces of traditional ceremonies and Indigenous drag shows, seemingly different spaces, create similar feelings of freedom, love and compassion. What is it about these spaces that recreates and affirms a sense of belonging that belies the kinds of nationalist belonging to a nation that institutionalizes heteropatriarchy, to exact belonging and unbelonging by race and gender? Traditional Diné principles of K’é, of kinship and belonging, continue to be practices, whether it be in participation in the ceremonies of blessing and renewal, or in drag show performances. In these spaces we remember who we are: Diné who honor the teachings of our Holy People, through K’é. In those spaces of freedom, we imagine once again our capacity to be loving, generous and compassionate.










Abstract: As part of research on social conflicts caused by the appropriation and use of lands and other spaces, this article addresses how the Argentine state constructed social threats between 2015 and 2019. The topics explored include who is construed as a threatening subject, the justification for using violence against these subjects and, more specifically, the notion of citizen versus foreigner used to legitimize the violence. By creating a threat, illegality is legally produced as part of the government’s concern for population security and circulation. Legislation, public debates, and national press coverage provide insight into these questions, as does the ethnographic fieldwork the authors have done with migrant organizations and rural and native communities since 1990. The state actions analysed herein should be understood as part of stricter control of migratory movements and borders in recent decades. But these global trends are linked to national and regional histories. In the policies implemented in Argentina between 2015 and 2019, two issues commonly viewed separately in the social sciences and public policies are connected: immigration/border crossing and the indigenous “problem.” Thus, the global rhetoric surrounding border control and illegality in Argentina refers to both non-nationals who move to the country and native groups who precede the nation-state. Although citizenship has been increasingly seen as separate from nationality, this article shows how the state continues to connect the two vis-à-vis the concept of foreignness. Additionally, it draws attention to how theoretical concerns about governmentality can be enriched by questions related to inequalities, disputes over goods and recognition, and, particularly, processes associated with accumulation by dispossession.