Rob White, ‘Indigenous Young People and Hyperincarceration in Australia’, Youth Justice
(Online December 2014).

This article describes and analyses the over-representation of Indigenous, young people in Australian juvenile justice. It contextualises this over-representation, through a brief discussion of colonialism and its continuing impacts. The concept of hyperincarceration is then used to describe the patterns of Indigenous detention, one that is overwhelmingly, disproportionate in terms of Indigenous status compared to non-Indigenous status. This article provides recent empirical evidence of the gross over-representations of Indigenous young people, especially in the harshest parts of the juvenile justice system. Alternative forms of intervention, such as justice reinvestment, are briefly discussed.

Ken Gelder and Rachael Weaver, ‘Towards a Genealogy of Minor Colonial Australian Character Types’, Interventions Published online: 15 Dec 2014

The business of colonization is often understood in terms of global frameworks, large-scale movements and top-down, ‘abstract’ perspectives; in which case, the turn to minor characters in the colonized world might seem almost like an act of bad faith. It runs the risk of breaking open stable, overarching categories, like the ‘white man’ – which, as minor characters are introduced, sometimes struggles to retain its ascendancy. This essay pursues the idea of minor settler types in colonial Australia as points of departure or differentiation from the macro-narratives of colonial discourse. Sometimes they do consolidate into something dominant, but they can also disassemble into peripheral identities that the nation might continue to invest in or want to leave behind, depending on the case. The narratives they inhabit are therefore especially important, throwing types together, leading them in different, sometimes contradictory, directions, juxtaposing them with one another. This essay will look at colonial investments in a range of major and minor character types, including the Coming Australian, the rouseabout, the Melbourne dandy, the ‘night auctioneer’, the Sydney pieman and the ‘inspector of nuisances’. It introduces a Sydney-based magazine called Heads of the People (1847–8), which immediately raised – and did not resolve – the problem of who is central and who is peripheral to the colonial economy. The magazine self-consciously drew minor character types back into public life, recognizing that colonial literature – like the colonial economy itself – was continually assembled, and disassembled, by the narratives these figures inhabited.

Daniel H. Usner, ‘Rescuing Early America from Nationalist Narratives: An Intra-Imperial Approach to Colonial Canada and Louisiana’, Historical Reflections 40, 3 (2014).

The effort to compare and connect different French colonies in North America encounters some treacherous roadblocks, including the powerful impact of Canadian and United States nation building on the treatment of French colonial regions and the widely divergent approaches taken by scholars of New France and French Louisiana. This essay attempts to explain why these obstacles appeared in the first place and to suggest how they might be overcome in the future. At a time when historians of early America are vigorously seeking new analytical frameworks and meaningful historical narratives, intraimperial research on complex relationships and comparative issues in French North America constitutes an essential area of study. Whether examining the role of Canadian families in the founding of Louisiana, the influence of Acadian settlers on south Louisiana culture, or the character of Indian relations in French colonies—among other issues—a shared history of early Canada and Louisiana will significantly improve our understanding of North American peoples and places.

Jean Michel Montsion, ‘Disrupting Canadian sovereignty? The ‘First Nations & China’ strategy revisited’, Geoforum 58 (2015).

In response to foreign investors’ growing interest in Canadian natural resources, British Columbia (BC) First Nations created the First Nations Energy and Mining Council (FNEMC) in 2006 in order to foster direct, independent and collaborative relations between indigenous peoples and investors. In 2011, the FNEMC launched the First Nations & China: Transforming Relationships strategy to facilitate two-way investment between First Nations and Chinese businesses, and to represent the interests of BC First Nations in cases in which they perceived the Canadian state and Canadian investors are not adequately representing their interests. This strategy is an interesting case of indigenous self-affirmation because it disrupts the narrative of Canadian state sovereignty. It does so to position BC First Nations as legitimate and central interlocutors for Chinese investors who are interested in resource extraction on traditional indigenous lands. To better understand the strategy’s impact on Canada–China relations, I focus on the spatial dimensions of the First Nations & China strategy. Specifically, I situate the strategy in the context of BC First Nations’ history of political organization, and analyze the discursive practices surrounding the strategy’s launch. I draw from the various spatial dimensions associated with contentious politics – scale, place, network, positionality and mobility – to argue that the First Nations & China strategy opens Canada–China diplomatic relations for participation of BC First Nations by producing a ‘third space of sovereignty’ while also opposing Canada’s sovereign claims and control over territory, resources and diplomacy.

John Munro, ‘Interwoven Colonial Histories: Indigenous Agency and Academic Historiography in North America’, Canadian Review of American Studies (online 15 October 2014).

Inspired by a recent call for greater integration between histories of capitalism and of Indigenous peoples in the United States, I argue that scholars across American studies should take stock of the ways in which Indigenous history pertains to fields beyond economic history. This article emphasizes Indigenous agency and activism to historicize how Aboriginal history has become (somewhat) more prominent in American studies. In reviewing some of the literature that has helped bring about this still incomplete shift, I look at developments in the settler states of the United States and Canada in order to highlight their shared colonial structures.

Inspiré par un appel récent pour une plus grande intégration entre les histoires du capitalisme et les peuples indigènes des États-Unis, je fais valoir que les universitaires dont les travaux portent sur les études américaines devraient tenir compte que l’histoire indigène s’articule parfois dans des domaines autres que l’histoire économique. Le présent article souligne le pouvoir d’agir et l’activisme des indigènes afin d’historiser la façon dont l’histoire aborigène est devenue (en quelque sorte) encore plus importante dans les études américaines. En examinant des documents qui ont permis d’entraîner cette mouvance encore incomplète, je porte une attention particulière aux développements des états colonisateurs des États-Unis et du Canada, afin de souligner les structures coloniales partagées.

Paul Spoonley, ‘New diversity, old anxieties in New Zealand: the complex identity politics and engagement of a settler society’, Ethnic and Racial Studies (Published online: 19 Nov 2014).

Superdiversity signals the common experience in many countries and cities of the enhanced levels of diversity that are associated with contemporary immigration, yet there are a range of permutations and possibilities. One example of superdiversity – that of a particular group of settler societies represented by New Zealand – is explored, as the colonization of indigenous peoples has occurred alongside a nation-building project that centres on mass immigration, and which in turn has been layered by a more recent immigrant recruitment project that ostensibly values immigrants for the skills that they contribute to economic development. Since the 1970s, there have been limited but still important concessions made in terms of diversity recognition and group rights. This article explores the nature of this settler society superdiversity and its politics.

Gardner Seawright, ‘Settler Traditions of Place: Making Explicit the Epistemological Legacy of White Supremacy and Settler Colonialism for Place-Based Education’, Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association 50, 6 (2014).

With the rise of place-based models of education, credence needs to be given to epistemological traditions that curate individual understandings of and relations to the social world (i.e., places). The epistemological traditions that have been shared across generations of North American settler colonialists are at the center of this article. The dominant epistemology of settler society provides racialized, anthropocentric, and capitalistic understandings of places. Relations to place are cultivated through particular conceptions of nature, private property, and personhood, which remain at the epistemic foundation of Western society. These conceptions are concomitant to modes of domination like white supremacy and settler colonialism, and ultimately constitute an ideal white male settler actor. This article suggests that place-based education carries the potential to offer epistemic resistance to domination, but first needs to engage in a more comprehensive understanding of settler traditions of place.

Michael Brull, ‘A Tale of Two Settler Colonies’, Overland 217 (2014).

That Australia is a settler colony is uncontroversial. For progressives, Australia’s settler past leads to two understandings: first, they understand why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples resisted colonisation; second, even if they regard Australia as a wonderful place today, they understand that First Nation Peoples harbour feelings of resentment. The chant ‘Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land’ might make some uncomfortable, but for the most part progressives do not respond with self-righteous horror, nor allege anti-white bigotry. Aboriginal intellectuals who talk about sovereignty might be marginalised, but it’s not difficult to grasp the logic of their position.

If one accepts that Israel is a settler colony – and there are strong arguments for this position – then there are certain understandings that should follow. Progressives should understand, for instance, why Palestinian people opposed the colonisation of their land. This should, in turn, help them understand the ongoing conflict, specifically that Palestinian resistance is not exclusively driven by Islamism or anti-Semitism, but rather motivated in large part by anger at dispossession.

‘Land, children and politics: Native Americans and Australian Aborigines 1900–1930’, Journal of Australian Studies 38, 4 (2014).

In this publication to honour Professor Ann Curthoys this article considers the comparative aspects of Native American and Australian Aboriginal political activism in the time period 1900–1930. Central to the study is the importance of revealing the missing chapters of Indigenous political history in both the countries during these important and largely overlooked decades. The approach undertaken is restorative history and privileges the tools of historical narrative (story). The current study places the significance and impact of Indigenous campaigners at the forefront of an awakening awareness of the shared political and racial challenges confronting Indigenous people in the USA and Australia. There were many similar issues confronting both the Indigenous groups. These included the pressures applied on Indigenous land and its resources and the removal of Indigenous children from their families. The article highlights the tactics and voices of Indigenous opposition in fighting courageously for their rights and people.

‘Tokenism or belated recognition? Welcome to Country and the emergence of Indigenous protocol in Australia, 1991–2014’, Journal of Australian Studies 38, 4 (2014).

This article addresses the largely neglected history of the widespread acceptance of Indigenous protocol across Australia since 1991. Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies are now established as permanent features in Australia’s cultural landscape. For the first time, the article seeks to explain the origins, development and historical significance of Indigenous protocol. In particular, it explores the Indigenous perspective. It explains how the protocols emerged largely due to the initiatives of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (1991) and Reconciliation Australia (2000) and argues that they constitute the infiltration of a radically different understanding of both history and place in Australia.