Abstract: For Native American and Indigenous peoples, settler colonialism in the United States continues to disrupt many cultural understandings and practices. There is a particular disruption upon Indigenous sexualities, given the ways in which gender and sexuality are used to uphold white supremacy and settler colonial political objectives. Native American women’s sexuality is rarely discussed within academia or even within Native communities. The heavy silence on the topic of Native women’s sexuality must be disrupted. The high rates of gendered-based abuse against Native women represent a singular story. Instead, I research how Native women understand their own sexualities, sexual imaginations, and sexual knowledge. Native American women’s sexuality is an important topic for decolonization and represents a way to re-construct Indigenous realities. I center Native women’s views on sexuality and how Native women’s sexual experiences can be expanded. My theoretical contribution is Indigenous decolonial sexuality and it challenges the monolithic representation of Native women and argues for new Native sexualities free of violence. To decolonize sexuality, Native women must be given the opportunity to share their voices, exposing harsh experiences of sexual assault, but also their sexual imaginaries.

The first of my four body chapters centers Native women’s voices through one-on-one interviews with approximately forty Native American and Indigenous women in and around the Denver area. I propose that Native women’s sexuality is currently based on complex influences of settler colonialism, power structures, and a desire to re-construct Indigenous-based constructions on sexuality. My second chapter draws from Cheyenne Arapaho artist, Brent Learned’s, 2017 exhibition titled Native American Body of Art. This exhibit challenges the idea that Native women are only sexual assault victims within the realm of sexuality and serves as a material representation of the Indigenous erotic. My third chapter analyzes early anthropological ethnographies that document Pawnee mythologies as guidance for Pawnee people to include and value queer/Two-spirit Pawnee people as significant members of community. Chapter Four analyzes a progressive sex education curriculum, which I use as a template to theorize a sex education curriculum intended for Native Americans.



Access the chapter here.


Abstract: Indigenous people have been subject to policies that disproportionately incarcerate them since the genesis of colonization of their lands. Incarceration is one node of a field of colonial oppression for Indigenous people. Colonial practices have sought to reduce Indigenous people to “bare life,” to use Agamben’s term, where their humanity is denied the basic rights and expression in the pursuit of sovereign extinguishment. Across the settler colonies of Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, the colonial drive to conquer land and eliminate Indigenous peoples has left deep scars on Indigenous communities and compromised bonds to kin, culture, and country. Indigenous people have been made refugees in their own countries.

Contemporary manifestations of penal incarceration for Indigenous people are a continuation of colonial strategies rather than a distinct phase. The concept of “hyperincarceration” draws attention to the problem of incarceration and its discriminatory targets. It also turns our attention to the turnstile of incarceration in Western postmodernity. However, the prison is but one form of exclusion for Indigenous people in a constellation of eliminatory and assimilatory practices, policies, and regimes imposed by colonial governance. Rather than overemphasizing the prison, there needs to be a broader conceptualization of colonial governance through “the camp,” again in the words of Agamben. The colonial institutionalization of Indigenous people, including in out-of-home care, psychiatric care, and corrective programs, is akin to a camp where Indigenous people are relegated to the margins of society. We eschew a narrow notion of hyperincarceration and instead posit a structural analysis of colonial relations underpinning the camp.




Abstract: The livelihoods of indigenous peoples, custodians of the world’s forests since time immemorial, were eroded as colonial powers claimed de jure control over their ancestral lands. The continuation of European land regimes in Africa and Asia meant that the withdrawal of colonial powers did not bring about a return to customary land tenure. Further, the growth in environmentalism has been interpreted by some as entailing conservation ahead of people. While this may be justifiable in view of devastating anthropocentric breaching of planetary boundaries, continued support for “fortress” style conservation inflicts real harm on indigenous communities and overlooks sustainable solutions to deepening climate crises. In reflecting on this issue from the perspective of colonial land tenure systems, this article highlights how ideas—the importance of individualised land ownership, cultivation, and fortress conservation—are intellectually flawed. Prevailing conservation policies, made possible by global non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and statutory donors, continue to harm indigenous peoples and their traditional territories. Drawing from the authors’ experience representing the Batwa (DRC), the Ogiek and Endorois (Kenya) and Adivasis (India) in international litigation, this paper examines the human and environmental costs associated with modern conservation approaches through this colonial lens. This article concludes by reflecting on approaches that respect environmental and human rights.




Abstract: Indigenous migration from Latin America to the United States has been on the rise over the past decades. There has also been an increase in Indigenous self-identification amongst people in the United States who previously self-identified as Hispanic or Latina/o on census forms. Though Latin American Indigenous migration to the United States has been steadily on the rise since the 1990s, there remains a lack of resources—philosophical, political, and bureaucratic—to account for this migrant group. My goal in this article is to explore in greater depth why Latin American Indigenous migration is hermeneutically marginalised. First, I argue that we problematically fail to understand settler-state borders—particularly the Mexico-US border—as, in part, Indigenous spaces. Second, and relatedly, I argue that our failure to understand borders as Indigenous spaces is connected to the widespread, inaccurate presumption that Indigenous peoples ‘lose their authenticity’ (and, in turn, their very Indigenous identities) upon crossing settler-state borders. Contrary to what I describe as the dominant view of borders as de-Indigenised or non-Indigenous spaces, I argue in that many settler-state borders are spaces where Indigenous peoples, including Indigenous migrants, may experience their Indigenous identities intimately, and even publicly articulate and defend them. Importantly, this does not mean that settler-state borders do not also harm Indigenous peoples by threating Indigenous sovereignty. I end by arguing that addressing the hermeneutical marginalisation of Latin American Indigenous migration requires a rigorous reconceptualisation of borders themselves as Indigenous spaces.