« Older posts
Newer posts »

Settler ‘normalization’: Mai Albzour, ‘The Deconstruction of the Concept of Normalization within the Context of the Settler-Colonialism in Palestine: The Duality of Acceptance and Rejection’, Language, Discourse & Society, 2020

13Sep20

Abstract: The concept of normalization was associated with the peace process with Israelis, in both, Arab and Palestinian context. The term has different interpretations depending on context, and it becomes more complex when referring to a direct relationship between the colonized and their colonizers in the context of the settler colonialism in Palestine, therefore, it is a highly controversial concept. The political debates over the concept, mostly describe it as a term that refers to recognizing the state of Israel and conducting normal relations with Israelis. The term ‘normalization’ has been used by Michel Foucault in describing the processes of psychological dominance imposed by an authority’s penal role in modern societies and its influence on human groups. One of the most prominent purposes of “Post-modern” theories is to resist the colonial dominant narratives by discovering the Scattered Historical Contingencies. Given this premise, this paper has the following objectives: To offer a critical, deconstructivist analysis for the concept of normalization in the context of the settler-colonial regime, and to study the genealogies of this concept (Généalogie) by investigating the relevant historical hypotheses: 1) there are historical differences regarding the appearance of the expression phonologically and its practice (political, official, and public practice); and 2) there are historical epistemological transformations that took place with regards to Arabs’ perceptions, and the political reflection, which shaped the image and the relationship with the colonizer, due to the practice of the concept normalization in politics. I will analyse these historical hypotheses by using a synthesis of settler colonial theoretical frameworks and those of socio-political psychology such as Frantz Fanon’s theoretical contributions, to investigate political discourse, including discourse in peace treaties, politics related to the Palestinian and Arab national identities, and the relevant political discourses used by politicians who reject normalization.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Data sovereignty under settler colonialism is sovereignty: Maggie Walter, Tahu Kukutai, Stephanie Russo Carroll, Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear (eds), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy, Routledge, 2021

11Sep20

Description: This book examines how Indigenous Peoples around the world are demanding greater data sovereignty, and challenging the ways in which governments have historically used Indigenous data to develop policies and programs. In the digital age, governments are increasingly dependent on data and data analytics to inform their policies and decision-making. However, Indigenous Peoples have often been the unwilling targets of policy interventions and have had little say over the collection, use and application of data about them, their lands and cultures. At the heart of Indigenous Peoples’ demands for change are the enduring aspirations of self-determination over their institutions, resources, knowledge and information systems. With contributors from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, North and South America and Europe, this book offers a rich account of the potential for Indigenous data sovereignty to support human flourishing and to protect against the ever-growing threats of data-related risks and harms.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Decolonial metaphors: Warwick Anderson, ‘Finding Decolonial Metaphors in Postcolonial Histories’, History and Theory, 59, 3, 2020, pp. 430-438

09Sep20

Abstract: This is a reflection on the close relations of the writing of postcolonial histories and recent decolonial critiques, and on the tensions between them. Postcolonial historical analysis often has been preoccupied with hybridity and mixture, conjugation and adaptation, exchange and interaction—with subversions of sovereignty in contact zones, borderlands, and on the beach. As a structuralist formulation, decolonial historical binarism in contrast echoes Indigenous politics of self‐determination, even suggesting at times an ontological decoupling of settler and Indigenous histories and practices. Stringent decolonization of historical inquiry—implying the sabotage and superseding of settler colonial linguistic, narrative, and temporal conventions and the disturbing of standardized assumptions about evidence, agency, and authorship—would give us an epistemic assemblage perhaps not recognizable as “history.” Even if desirable, is that imaginable now except as metaphor or ideal?


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Indigenous-led, place-based decolonial practice: Michelle Murphy, ‘Some Keywords Toward Decolonial Methods: Studying Settler Colonial Histories and Environmental Violence from Tkaronto’, History and Theory, 2020

09Sep20

Abstract: This article provides keywords and reflections for decolonial methods, drawing on insights from the Indigenous‐led Land and the Refinery project, which concerns the history of Canada’s Chemical Valley. This project is crucially organized as Indigenous people co‐researching the Imperial Oil Refinery, not as academics studying Aamjiwnaang, and asks how Indigenous and decolonial methods might reorient the use of archives toward other futures. Together, the keywords begin to outline a particular place‐based theory of change within decolonial historical practice.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Settler gendering: Susanah Shaw Romney, Returning to the Gender Frontier’, Journal of Women’s History, 32, 3, 2020, pp. 146-153

09Sep20

Excerpt: Over the last two decades, scholars have rethought the history of empire and colonization in North America. Epitomized by Pekka Hämäläinen’s Comanche Empire, historians have used the term “empire” to turn the tables on traditional assumptions about European power. They instead posit that Native empires maintained or increased control over the heart of the continent into and beyond the eighteenth century.1 At the same time, theorists of Native and Indigenous studies have used the framework of “settler colonialism” to identify the continuous drive for the erasure of multiple Native groups from North American landscapes from the eighteenth to the twenty-first centuries.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Settler bordering, comparatively speaking: Fae Chubin, Manuel A. Ramirez, ‘Securing Racial Borders: A Comparative Study of Settler‐Racial Ideology and State Border Violence’, Sociological Inquiry, 2020

09Sep20

Abstract: The Palestinian “Great March of Return” in 2018, marked by the Israeli government’s brutal attacks on Palestinians who were demonstrating at the Gaza border, nearly coincided with the Trump administration’s “Zero Tolerance” policy in which the unauthorized border crossing of Latinx immigrants came under an ever severe attack. This article offers a comparative content analysis of the “border security” discourses of the two settler‐colonial states of the United States and Israel by examining American and Israeli government officials’ public comments on state violence at borders. We place our study within a settler‐colonial framework to provide a historically grounded analysis of the U.S. and Israel’s racial ideologies and the colorblind rhetoric of “border security.” Through a content analysis of the speeches, interviews, social media posts, and press releases of American and Israeli government officials, we identified a settler‐racial ideology shared by the two states comprised of three distinct and overlapping frames: (1) obscuring settler colonialism, (2) vilification of those constructed as non‐native, and (3) glorification of the state. By bridging theories of settler colonialism and structural racism, we demonstrate that a settler‐racial ideology is central to maintaining the ongoing systems of border violence within settler‐colonial states.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Sovereign outcomes within sovereignty? Wayne Edwards, Sovereignty and Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the United States, Palgrave 2020

09Sep20

Description: This book presents a comparative study of the land settlements and sovereign arrangements between the US government and the three major aggregated groups of indigenous peoples—American Indians, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians—whose land rights claims have resulted in very different outcomes. It shows that the outcomes of their sovereign claims were different, though their bases were similar. While the US government insists that it is committed to the government-to-government relationship it has with the tribes, federal authority severely limits the ability of tribal governments to participate as an equal partner.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Settler colonial diaries: Kelly Struthers Montford, ‘Milk and Law in the Anthropocene: Colonialism’s Dietary Interventions’, Journal of Food Law & Policy, 16, 1, 2020

09Sep20

Abstract: It is widely accepted that we are living in the Anthropocene: the age in which human activity has fundamentally altered earth systems and processes. Decolonial scholars have argued that colonialism’s shaping of the earth’s ecologies and severing of Indigenous relations to animals have provided the conditions of possibility for the Anthropocene. With this, colonialism has irreversibly altered diets on a global scale. I argue that dairy in the settler contexts of Canada and the United States remains possible because of colonialism’s severing of Indigenous relations of interrelatedness with the more-than-human world. I discuss how colonialism—which has included the institution of dairy—requires and authorizes relations that at their core seek to domesticate those imagined as wild, including humans, animals, and land. With this in mind, I then analyze recent and current dairy lawsuits as well as proposed legislation seeking to maintain legislated definitions of milk as exclusively animal-based. I argue that instances of mobilizing law to secure dairy as exclusively animal-based are attempts to re-secure settler colonial ontologies of life along a “real food” versus “fake food” dichotomy in which plant-based foods are positioned as substitutes for animal products. However, these pro-dairy lawsuits are often unsuccessful. Thus, dairy law is one arena in which settler colonialism’s orderings of life and relations are being challenged and re-made. In the context of the Anthropocene, the role of legal ontologies in shaping our consumption habits and relationships with animals remain all the more urgent.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Media policy under settler colonialism: Gretchen King, ‘Disrupting Settler Colonialism and Oppression in Media and Policy-Making: A View from the Community Media Advocacy Centre’, in Sandra Jeppesen, Paola Sartoretto (eds), Media Activist Research Ethics, Palgrave, 2020, pp. 109-129

09Sep20

Abstract: The regulatory regimes that dictate media and telecommunications practices in Canada uphold the colonial settler state and do little to combat systemic racism in the media. This is in part due to communication policy-making processes that marginalize and disempower diverse communities. Too often policy makers and researchers neglect prioritizing the specific needs and rights of people who are racialized, Indigenous, or living with disAbilities to access and representation in media. Within this context, the Community Media Advocacy Centre (www.CMACentre.ca) was founded in 2015 to disrupt settler colonialism and oppression in the media. CMAC was co-founded by experienced media activists who worked for decades in the vibrant community and Indigenous broadcasting sectors within Canada. Today, CMAC is a registered nonprofit organization uniquely comprised of academics, lawyers, policy consultants, and media practitioners who prioritize the perspectives, voices, and lived experiences of Indigenous Peoples, racialized people, and people living with disAbilities. CMAC prioritizes these voices because they are underrepresented in the media landscape generally and noticeably absent from media policy processes. Through research, relationship-building, advocacy, and learning, CMAC works to foreground the experience and knowledge of people who are racialized, Indigenous, or living with disAbilities in media research and communication policy processes.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed

Gender at the center of settler colonialism: Rauna Kuokkanen, Restructuring Relations: Indigenous Self-Determination, Governance, and Gender, Oxford University Press, 2019

06Sep20

Description: This book interrogates normative conceptions of Indigenous self-determination and the structures of Indigenous self-government institutions, arguing that Indigenous self-determination is not achievable without restructuring all relations of domination beyond that with the state; nor can it be secured in the absence of gender justice. It demonstrates that the current rights discourse and focus on Indigenous–state relations is limited in scope and fails to convey the full meaning of self-determination for Indigenous peoples. Besides settler colonialism and neoliberal capitalism, relations of domination include racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, and gender violence, including violence against women, queer, trans and gender-nonconforming persons, and structural violence. Drawing on extensive participant interviews in Canada, Greenland, and Scandinavia, this book theorizes Indigenous self-determination as a foundational value, informed by the norm of integrity. This norm has two interrelated dimensions: bodily integrity and integrity of the land, both of which are a sine qua non for Indigenous gender justice. Conceptualizing self-determination as a foundational value seeks to restructure all relations of domination, including the hierarchical relation between self-determination and gender created and maintained by international law, Indigenous political discourse, and Indigenous institutions. The book argues that the persistent separation of issues between self-determination/self-government and gender/social is a major obstacle in implementing, realizing, and exercising Indigenous self-determination. Restructuring relations of domination further entails examining the gender regimes present in existing Indigenous self-government institutions, interrogating the relationship between Indigenous self-determination and gender violence, and considering future visions of Indigenous self-determination, including rematriation of Indigenous governance and an independent statehood.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed
« Older posts
Newer posts »