Abstract: This paper discusses the limits of recognition by investigating the politics of Indigenous rights in Paraguay. The “multicultural turn” of the 1980s–1990s promised to disrupt historical patterns of Indigenous dispossession through land titling initiatives across the Americas, yet as this case shows, recognition comes without guarantees. I draw from ethnographic research with the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous community in Paraguay’s Chaco to consider how Sanapana and Enxet-Sur Indigenous peoples are reworking the limits of recognition to disrupt settler colonial power. Rather than rejecting or refusing recognition, I argue that the Xákmok Kásek community now employs a dialectics of refusal and engagement that rewrites the terms of recognition, subsequently forcing state officials to reconcile with new articulations of indigenous self-determination that disrupt settler colonial power. Focusing on the dialectics of refusal and engagement brings nuance to the complex negotiations and evolving strategies of resistance that Indigenous peoples are employing to challenge the status quo of dispossession in pursuit of decolonial futures across the Americas, futures shaped by historic processes that draw humans and non-humans together in place to maintain existing relations and form new ones in pursuit of more just geographies This article, therefore, contributes to ongoing debates about the politics of recognition, post-multiculturalism, and decolonial geographies by bringing a focus on Latin America more fully into dialogue with analyses of settler colonial geographies in North America and Australia.


Abstract: While Forest Schools are increasingly popular in Canada and their work of connecting children to nature and enacting a new pedagogy for learning outdoors is important, how do Forest Schools, as places of learning in nature and on the land, connect with Indigenous ways knowing, learning, and teaching? This question is significant in the context of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as Canada is in the midst of recognizing the injustice of its treatment of Indigenous Peoples and working toward reconciliation. Through a review of literature, this chapter examines the ways that Forest School pedagogy and Indigenous educational perspectives may meet, may be far apart, and may come together. How do notions of nature and land, risk, and resilience differ from western understandings? What does decolonization mean? How does place-based education connect with Indigenous understandings of land as first teacher? As a settler and early childhood educator, the author is situated in this learning journey as “coming to know”. Drawing on Indigenous and settler scholars offers insight into the complex differences between Forest School pedagogy and Indigenous educational perspectives and offers guidance on how (re)positioning Forest Schools in the context of settler colonialism reframes the premise of how Forest School may incorporate, embed, and be reshaped by Indigenous educational perspectives.








Excerpt: The Book of Mormon is not just a reflection of Mormon settler colonialism, but has been used to create a discourse that silences Indigenous voices and perspectives regarding their own history as a people on this continent. According to P. Jane Hafen, this is a“disruptive and colonizing act.” The Book of Mormon is utilized to construct a Lamanite identity and history in which Indigenous Peoples exist only to legitimize the presence of Mormon settlers on this continent and the religious narrative found in the Book of Mormon as accurate and true. By depicting Indigenous Peoples as Lamanites, or the first immigrants to this continent, the Book of Mormon provides the necessary justification for Indigenous removal and dispossession by Mormon settlers along the Mormon Corridor (Idaho, Utah, Arizona) in what is now the United States. The Book of Mormon reflects the nuanced ways in which Mormon settler colonialism is utilized to physically remove Indigenous people from their homelands while also demarcating Indigenous worldviews, identities, and histories as the racialized “other.” The Book of Mormon reflects the nuanced ways in which Mormon settler colonialism functions by creating very distinct notions of Indigeneity. Indigeneity, as defined by the Book of Mormon, is exhibited through the construction and application of “Lamanites” to American Indian Peoples. Lamanite identity is fluid, changing over time, but always in relation to Mormon Euro-​American notions of Indigeneity. The use of the Book of Mormon as a historical and religious text of Lamanite identity and history on this continent erases the way Indigenous Peoples view their own creation as a people, their connection to the land, and their identity as a people. Instead, Indigenous Peoples are made to fit into Mormon creation stories and religious belief system. The erasure of Indigenous Peoples and history by Mormon settlers is an extension of the larger American colonial project of removal and genocide of Indigenous Peoples.


Abstract: Albert Camus was born in Mondovi, Algeria, in 1913 to white European settlers of French and Spanish origin. Hence, Camus and his parents belonged to the pied-noircommunity, a term commonly used to refer to Europeans who settled in Algeria during the French colonial occupation. While Camus chose Algeria as the setting for four of his literary texts, this article focuses on Camus’s first novel, L’Étranger, written during World War II and published in 1942, and his unfinished, posthumous, semiautobiographical novel Le Premier Homme, written during Algeria’s War of Independence and published in 1994, because they both discuss the French Algerian pied-noir community. I argue that this distinction allows them to best convey the evolution of Camus’s pied-noir identity. Through an analysis of these novels, I examine the ambivalence of Camus’s representations of French Algeria. Though his writing has left an ambivalent legacy, I contend that Camus mythologizes the past and present primarily through his piednoir origins. His poverty and loss are consolidated in his negative prognosis for Algeria’s future, a prognosis that is often mistrustful of Algerian independence. Often his pied-noir upbringing and experiences with poverty and marginality put in question the very possibility of an all-inclusive nation, rendering him incapable of imagining a hybrid community of French and Algerians living together. These works convey the complexity of Camus’s identities, and foreground his attempt and ultimate failure to navigate his past and access memories. In the end, these novels offer us a nuanced exploration of pied-noir marginality.