Abstract: In contexts of collective victimization such as settler colonialism in Canada, recognizing both
historical and ongoing victimization, as well as supporting reparations measures, is crucial for healing
the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and for propelling reconciliation
efforts forward. While most non-Indigenous Canadians recognize the historical victimization of
Indigenous peoples, fewer acknowledge ongoing victimization of Indigenous communities and
support measures promoting their right to self-determination. The recognition of ongoing
inequality can evoke feelings of guilt and pose a threat to the privileges of the advantaged groups,
which may lead to minimizing and disregarding experiences of victimization of the disadvantaged
group. While recognition of ongoing victimization can be uncomfortable, it is not impossible.
According to the needs-based model, members of the advantaged group may be more willing
to acknowledge the ongoing structural victimization and consider relinquishing their privileges if
they receive social acceptance from members of the disadvantaged group. Using data (n=313)
collected from an original survey, this paper examines if social acceptance by Indigenous peoples
influences: (a) acknowledgment of ongoing victimization, (b) support for justice measures, and (c)
recognition of Indigenous autonomy among non-Indigenous Canadians. The findings suggest that
there is a positive relationship between social acceptance and both recognition of victimization
and support for justice measures. However, no significant association was found between social
acceptance and support for autonomy. These findings partially support the needs-based model,
suggesting that social acceptance plays a limited role in promoting reconciliation
.


Description: The remarkable story of Edward McCabe, a Black man who tried to establish a Black state within the United States. In this paradigm-shattering work of American history, Caleb Gayle recounts the extraordinary tale of Edward McCabe, a Black man who championed the audacious idea to create a state within the Union governed by and for Black people — and the racism, politics, and greed that thwarted him. As the sweeping changes and brief glimpses of hope brought by the Civil War and Reconstruction began to wither, anger at the opportunities available to newly freed Black people were on the rise. As a result, both Blacks and whites searched for new places to settle. That was when Edward McCabe, a Black businessman and a rising political star in the American West, set in motion his plans to found a state within the Union for Black people to live in and govern. His chosen site: Oklahoma, a place that the U.S. government had deeded to Indigenous people in the 1830s when it forced thousands of them to leave their homes under Indian Removal, which became known as the Trail of Tears. McCabe lobbied politicians in Washington, D.C., Kansas, and elsewhere as he exhorted Black people to move to Oklahoma to achieve their dreams of self-determination and land ownership. His rising profile as a leader and spokesman for Black people as well as his willingness to confront white politicians led him to become known as Black Moses. And like his biblical counterpart, McCabe nearly made it to the promised land but was ultimately foiled by politics, business interests, and the growing ambitions of white settlers who also wanted the land. In Black Moses, Gayle brings to vivid life the world of Edward McCabe: the Black people who believed in his dream of a Black state, the white politicians who didn’t, and the larger challenges of confronting the racism and exclusion that bedeviled Black people’s attempts to carve a place in America for themselves. Gayle draws from extraordinary research and reporting to reveal an America that almost was.






Abstract: Revisiting Cole Harris’s Making Native Space, this article responds to Harris’s assertion that settler attitudes toward Indigenous people were not gendered but that, rather, it was the civilization–savagery paradigm that conditioned Indigenous dispossession. Revisiting the same colonial archive of British Columbia through the dual lenses of legal geography and Indigenous feminism, the article examines available evidence about Indigenous women’s role in land governance in British Columbia. Although fragmented and partial, due to the historical and colonial devaluation of Indigenous women’s knowledge, evidence is available on the specific forms of land governance throughout northern, interior, and coastal regions of British Columbia, forming what might be considered property relations in colonial terms. Through a rereading of the archive with knowledge of Indigenous gender and legal relations, it is argued that settlers were able to suppress the legal nature of women’s land governance practices through colonial understandings of Indigenous women as racial and gendered subjects who were already always deterritorialized, incapable of forming territorial expressions of authority. The suppression of Indigenous women’s authority is continued in settler colonial paradigms that separate traditional ecological knowledge from realms of law or governance and that deny gender as a structural component of settler colonialism. Key Words: colonial archives, deterritorialization, gendered dispossession, Indigenous legal geography, settler colonialism.