I wish that there were a more diplomatic way to say this, but the plain fact is that Obama, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, lied to the Tribal Nations Summit Conference, and to the world, on December 16. I do not relish raining on the parade of those who took Obama at his word, or to dash Indian country’s optimism that finally someone in the White House is going to change the fundamentals of U.S. indigenous policy. It is necessary, however, to face a tough reality. The United States has not, does not now, and likely will never honestly support the Declaration in its current form.

And so, the United States is ‘still lying after all these years’, according to a recent article in Indian Country.

An interesting, and angry piece, but nevertheless one that overlooks the reality that UN Declarations only mean as much as the sovereign-nation which signs them want them to mean. This, quite rightly, is shocking to indigenous activists across the settler world, who have just realised that all the hard work and energy invested into the UNPFII will produce results that fall quite short of the redress they all expected; but it shouldn’t really surprise international lawyers. The UN is a toothless tiger in matters like this — matters affecting first world (settler) states.

Overly negative, perhaps?


A new reading group is starting next week at the University of Melbourne for postgraduates, early career researchers and faculty. The group is named the Critical Postcolonialisms Reading Group and is beginning its program this year next Tuesday, March 1st. Details are available on their blog – http://criticalpostcolonialisms.wordpress.com/ – and through signing up to their newsletter.


I consider myself always available to acknowledge the wrongs of settler colonialism in Australia, but I do not like being cornered in this way. I can already tell that I won’t get along with this amnesic, misinformed, green-eyed git. The matter is serious, though. I sigh in brief repose, and then my beer glass goes down – expressive hands will come in handy to push through all the irony and the irksomeness of the interchange that’s about to ensue.

Of course I know enough about apartheid-era South Africa to offer a superb rejoinder. I could cane him with just the ‘a-word’ alone, and proceed to recount – as so many latte-drinking lefties of all backgrounds love to do here – a particular rendition of South Africa’s recent history: you know, a story in which terrible white racists are cast as antagonists, and Mandela and the African National Congress play the heroes; a story full of all those nasty bits (wrongful imprisonments, torturings, assassinations, bombings, beatings, etc.); a story winding off neatly in 1994.

But this is not what I do.

more here


Dear all,

We are pleased to announce that the first issue of settler colonial studies is now available for your viewing.

Check it out here.

In this stage of its life, settler colonial studies is an online, open-access journal. There are may benefits of such a medium (among them, universally free access, and immediate registration with google and google scholar). We understand, however, that library recognition may take some time. With your help, it might become catalogued faster than it otherwise might — so, if possible, be sure to pass it onto your librarians.

Thanks and happy reading!


John Collins, ‘Between Acceleration and Occupation: Palestine and the Struggle for Global Justice’, Studies in Social Justice 4, 2 (2010)

This article explores the contemporary politics of global violence through an examination of the particular challenges and possibilities facing Palestinians who seek to defend their communities against an ongoing settler-colonial project (Zionism) that is approaching a crisis point. As the colonial dynamic in Israel/Palestine returns to its most elemental level—land, trees, homes—it also continues to be a laboratory for new forms of accelerated violence whose global impact is hard to overestimate. In such a context, Palestinians and international solidarity activists find themselves confronting a quintessential 21st-century activist dilemma: how to craft a strategy of what Paul Virilio calls “popular defense” at a time when everyone seems to be implicated in the machinery of global violence? I argue that while this dilemma represents a formidable challenge for Palestinians, it also helps explain why the Palestinian struggle is increasingly able to build bridges with wider struggles for global justice, ecological sustainability, and indigenous rights.


David A. Chang, ‘Enclosures of Land and Sovereignty: The Allotment of American Indian Lands’, Radical History Review 2011

This essay cautiously compares the dispossession of Native lands in the United States with the enclosure of the English commons, in light of the transfer of political sovereignty that occurred in the case it explores. The federal policy of dividing American Indian nations’ tribal lands into privately owned parcels led to the loss of Native lands and obscured the colonial nature of federal power. Following the implementation of this late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century program, known as allotment, non-Indian people gained ownership of millions of acres of Indian territory. Two neglected shifts accompanied this commonly noted loss of land. First, allotment eroded the sovereignty of Native nations while extending the authority of the colonizing power, the federal government. Second, the program indirectly reinforced a tendency to think that it was race, rather than political difference, that defined Indian people and Indian nations. Placing Native people into the schema of U.S. race relations obscured their status as colonized subjects and members of sovereign nations. Allotment thus simultaneously expanded federal power and veiled its colonial nature.


killer new issue of ethnohistory; check it out here

Coll Thrush: ‘Vancouver the Cannibal: Cuisine, Encounter, and the Dilemma of Difference on the Northwest Coast, 1774–1808’:

Food is fundamental. As Felipe Fernández-Armesto has written, food “has a good claim to be considered the world’s most important subject. It is what matters most to most people for most of the time” (Near a Thousand Tables: A History of Food [New York, 2002], ix). We are what we eat, both materially and discursively, both in terms of the ecological networks that provide us with sustenance and the identities that define who we are as social, cultural, and historical beings. This article examines early contacts on the Northwest coast, using food as a lens on cultural and environmental encounter. Drawing on oral tradition and on accounts of explorers such as George Vancouver, this article treats the newcomers ethnographically, setting their behavior within the context of European cultural practices, and treats aboriginal societies historically, showing them as active participants in processes of change. Across tables and hearths, aboriginal people and the newcomers created a space in which static notions of race played a surprisingly small role. Instead, differences were seen as having to do with subtler concepts like generosity, cultivation, and taste. As with the belief, shared by Europeans and aboriginal people alike, that the strangers they encountered might be cannibals, these early encounters created what Gananath Obeyesekere calls a “dialogical misunderstanding” upon which would be laid the shaky foundations of empire (Cannibal Talk: The Man-Eating Myth and Human Sacrifice in the South Seas [Berkeley, CA, 2005]). By using food to ground the face-to-face encounters between native and newcomer and by placing indigenous understandings of encounter at the center of the story, this article seeks to describe some of the specific mechanisms, material and rhetorical, by which colonialism dispossessed.

Chris Andersen: ‘Moya `Tipimsook (“The People Who Aren’t Their Own Bosses”): Racialization and the Misrecognition of “Métis” in Upper Great Lakes Ethnohistory’

Scholars have long noted the central place of racialization in the last five centuries of colonial rule and likewise the crossracial encounters and eventual colonial intimacies regulated in its shadow. In the conceptual terrain posted by these demarcations, this article explores how, in the absence of extensive documentation on historical self-ascriptions, contemporary ethnohistorians examining upper Great Lakes fur trade settlements have attempted to come to terms with the historical social ontologies that long preceded official attempts to regulate them. Specifically, we examine the racialized logics governing the retrofitting of these settlements as “métis” and “Métis” and, secondarily, the recent creep of juridical logics into ethnohistorical conversations. Rather than challenging ethnohistorical conclusions that these settlements were/are Métis, this article challenges how they are ethnohistorically imagined as such, and in doing so it appeals for a Métis “counter-ethnohistory” alternatively anchored in an analytics of peoplehood.

Timothy H. Ives: ‘Reconstructing the Wangunk Reservation Land System: A Case Study of Native and Colonial Likeness in Central Connecticut’

This article brings land systems into dialogue to explain the successful coexistence of the Wangunks, a native community of central Connecticut, and their English neighbors during the colonial period. Using the interpretive research focus of likeness, structurally similar aspects of Wangunk and English land tenure are compared, including diversified landholdings extending from a village center, cooperation of individual and common rights, and a gendered proprietorship. This discourse suggests that the character of Wangunk ethnicity resonates from the values that motivated their land system more than from its structures. Furthermore, distinctive elements of the Wangunk Reservation land system, as hereby reconstructed, contribute to an emerging sense that articulations of native and English land systems are not only dynamic but locally distinct across New England.

Tom Arne: ‘Strange and Disturbing News: Rumor and Diplomacy in the Colonial Hudson Valley’

Frightening rumors of conspiracies and plots were a prominent feature of relations between Native Americans and Europeans in the colonial Hudson Valley in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. While these alarming reports usually had no foundation in reality, they nevertheless shed light on several aspects of Indian political and diplomatic relationships in this area. This article holds that the spread of rumors and tales from one people to the next represents only the most visible of a great variety of interactions among the Indian groups of the valley, and therefore stands as indirect evidence of a vast native social and political world largely hidden from modern eyes. By plotting the career and distribution of particular rumors, one may get a sense of channels of communication and networks of exchange among the native peoples in the Hudson Valley as well as of the ties these Indians had to native groups in both adjacent regions and more distant locales. In particular, rumors of an Indian conspiracy against the Europeans in 1712 provide evidence of how the outbreak of the Tuscarora War in North Carolina reverberated in the Hudson Valley, which indicates that even small groups of Indians living close to centers of European settlement might be participants in extensive Indian exchange networks and thus be part of a larger Native American world.

Kevin Mulroy: ‘Mixed Race in the Seminole Nation’

This is a story of two hidden identities. It focuses on the family history of Phil Wilkes Fixico (aka Philip Vincent Wilkes and Pompey Bruner Fixico), a contemporary Seminole maroon descendant of mixed race who lives in Los Angeles. Phil is one-eighth Seminole Indian, one-quarter Seminole freedman, one-eighth Creek freedman, one-quarter Cherokee-freedman, and one-quarter African-American-white. His family history records that his paternal grandfather was the offspring of a Seminole Indian woman and a Seminole freedman, but that this “intermarriage” was kept secret from the Dawes Commission and the boy was enrolled as a “fullblood” Indian. This one union and the subsequent history of the family tell us a great deal about relations between Seminoles and freedmen in the Indian Territory and Oklahoma and about status and identity issues among individuals of mixed race within American society. With tragic irony, Phil’s parents also hid the identity of his biological father, echoing the story of his grandfather. Sensing family secrets and lies, young Phil experienced an identity crisis. Eventually discovering his father’s identity and his family history, Phil turned his life around. He has embraced his mixed-race heritage, connected with the Seminole maroon communities in Oklahoma, Texas, and Mexico, and become a creative and energetic tribal historian.


Incredibly detailed and contextualised review of Lisa Ford’s Settler Sovereignty by Cambridge oracle Paul McHugh.

Law and History Review (2011), 29: 313-316

a bit of it:

Ford purposefully describes this as a predominantly legal story rather understating the impact of the huge socioeconomic and demographic changes that turned into steamrolling settler sovereignty. She could stress more emphatically that the earlier plurality and fluidity she describes was being ground down and away not simply because of changes in legal perception but also because of the devastating impact of (what Jamie Belich has recently and aptly termed throughout his book Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Angloworld [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009]) the “explosive colonization” that licensed such a change. Explosive colonization, the sudden change from a trickle (usually welcome) of white settlement to unwelcome inundation, changed everything for the tribes. White settlers outnumbered, outgunned, and ravaged them with disease, leading to their collapse, crisis, depletion, and, in Georgia, forced removal. This simple but brutal phenomenon propelled the legal change that Ford describes. Greater emphasis upon this would slot her legal story into more of a context, highlighting the link between the physical crowding in of the tribes and the juridical transition at the center of her book.

Where this context is given, her narrative acquires extra power, giving a strong sense of the spatial, economic, and other factors enmeshed with the legal ones. One excellent example involves the role of roads through Indian Country in facilitating the demographic explosion of the Old Southwest. By skilful and vivid use of archival material, she shows how these roads presented important legal and spatial issues (many to this day never fully resolved). The “jurisdictional problem of the roads [was] very evident in their name, their legal classification, as well as their vital economic function” (68). They were key, incident-ridden sites of intercultural engagement that became more pressing and tension-ridden as yet more crisscrossed Indian Country (see Ford’s helpful maps showing their dramatic increase from 1796 to 1823) (72–73).

 


Within few decades after the ‘conquest’, Britain, the dominating power in the region at the time, recognised the al-Khalifa tribal order. On several occasions, Britain deployed its forces to quell internal clashes or ward off external foes of al-Khalifa. British support, particularly since 1869, will continue to be the major resource for the regime, for its protection, stability and prosperity. In similarity with many chiefs of other tribal orders in other parts of the Arabian side of the Gulf, the al-Khalifa signed, since the beginning of 19th century a series of agreements with Britain. These agreements recognised Pax Britannica on the one hand and the established tribal political formations, regimes, on the other.

However, unlike other the tribal regimes sanctioned by Britain, the al-Khalifa failed to assimilate within its subject population as did, for example, al-Sabah in Kuwait, al-Thani in Qatar and al-Qawassim in Ras al-Khaimah and Sharja. And, unlike these political formations, Bahrain did not develop into becoming a unified political entity nor did the Bahrainis develop into becoming a single people. Also, unlike other tribal political formations in the region, the al-Khalifas continue to jealously guard their identity/image as ‘settlers-rulers’. However, their ‘tribal’ backgrounds and identity have not been static. To the dismay among their ‘own pure bloods’, and some of their ‘anti-tribal’ opponents, al-Khalifa tribal credentials have repeatedly been revised, with several additions and deletions, to suit vagaries of local and regional politics.

The fourth Nordic conference on Middle Eastern Studies:
The Middle East in globalizing world
Oslo, 13-16 August 1998

hat-tip zunguzungu


A provocative piece in mondoweiss:

Welcome to Palestine, even if it’s a century later. Now let’s reset the relationship. You came from faraway lands claiming an already inhabited one. Oppressed, massacred, and socially separated in Christendom/Europe, you felt as outsiders subject to anti-Semitic threats. Eventually, with the colonial age, a group of you, Eastern Europeans called Zionists argued your right to Palestine, from which ancient Jews were virtually absent from the 1st century and of whom you claimed tenuous descent. You claimed that Jews had a three thousand year cultural and emotional attachment to the holy land; that you are a single group whose roots are to this land and whose heart, spirit, character and center is Jerusalem. That your project wasn’t settler-colonialism, conquest through immigration under the aegis of a colonial power, but return or restoration, rendered moral by your religious roots in the land and in your suffering, hence giving you title to the land that transcends Palestinians rights, claims, attachments, and needs. You insisted that Jews require sovereignty for their safety, protection, and, in the aftermath of the Nazi genocide, survival.

check it out here