‘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.

Settler Colonial Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2015) 

is now available on Taylor & Francis Online. 


Robert L. Nelson, ‘A German on the Prairies: Max Sering and settler colonialism in Canada’

Michael McCrossan, ‘Contaminating and collapsing Indigenous space: judicial narratives of Canadian territoriality’

Robert K. Hitchcock, Maria Sapignoli & Wayne A. Babchuk, ‘Settler colonialism, conflicts, and genocide: interactions between hunter-gatherers and settlers in Kenya, and Zimbabwe and northern Botswana’

Emily Lewsen, ‘Reeled in: the settlement project and the evacuation of an Israeli fishing village from Gaza’

Arnon Yehuda Degani, ‘The decline and fall of the Israeli Military Government, 1948–1966: a case of settler-colonial consolidation?’


Jana-Rae Yerxa, ‘Refuse to live quietly!’


Adam J. Barker, ‘The third space of sovereignty: the postcolonial politics of U.S.-Indigenous relations’

Adam Carmichael, ‘Hunger, horses, and government men: criminal law on the aboriginal plains, 1870-1905′

The tribe went before a panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals during a special hearing at the University of New Mexico law school in hopes of keeping alive its lawsuit against the federal government. The question is whether the tribe still holds aboriginal title to the land.

Karl Johnson, an attorney representing the pueblo, outlined for the court how Spanish land-grant heirs came to hold title to the land following a swap more than 150 years ago. The federal government then purchased the property in 2000 with the goal of operating it as a working ranch while developing recreational opportunities for the public.

Susan Montoya Bryan, ‘Federal appeals court to decide Jemez Pueblo land claim’, for Associated Press

Affrica Taylor, ‘Settler Children, Kangaroos and the Cultural Politics of Australian National Belonging’, Global Studies of Childhood 4, 3 (2014). 

This article reflects upon the ways in which white settler children and kangaroos were enlisted into the cultural politics of nation-building and belonging in the early days of Australian Federation. It revisits Ethel Pedley’s turn-of-the-century children’s book, Dot and the Kangaroo, and contextualises it within some of the notable kangaroo/settler events within Australia’s colonial history. It draws attention to the paradoxes inherent in the symbolic association of settler children with native Australian animals in the emerging national imaginary. The article brings early Australian children’s literature into conversation with settler colonial critique and the ‘animal turn’.

Adam J. Barker, ‘A Direct Act of Resurgence, a Direct Act of Sovereignty’: Reflections on Idle No More, Indigenous Activism, and Canadian Settler Colonialism’, Globalizations (Published online: 27 Oct 2014).

In the winter of 2012, the Canadian political scene was shaken by the emergence of ‘Idle No More’, a collection of protests directed by and largely comprised of Indigenous peoples. Originally, a response to a variety of legislation that was being passed through the Canadian government at the time, Idle No More spread across the country and around the world. In this paper, I argue that, drawing from Indigenous nationhood movements that extend back through five centuries, Idle No More represents a renewed assertion of Indigenous sovereignty in opposition to settler colonisation. Through transgressive actions, Idle No More has brought online activism into alignment with embodied defences of land and place, challenging Canadian sovereignty and Settler identity in multiple and creative ways. However, settler colonial tendencies in Canadian politics have sought to reinscribe Idle No More within established, generic political binaries. This paper positions Idle No More as a ‘movement moment’ that reveals significant insights about Indigenous activism, conservative politics, leftist resistance, and persistent settler colonialism in Canada.

Gregory S. Alexander, ‘The Complexities of Land Reparations’, Law & Social Inquiry 39, 4 (2014).

The question whether unjust dispossessions of land perpetrated on whole peoples in the past should be corrected by restitution in kind, that is, granting reparations in the form of returning land to the dispossessed former owners or their present-day successors, is substantially more complex than the questions posed by other forms of reparations. I argue that the complexities involved in all the situations where claims for land reparations are made to correct historic injustices give us good reasons to be hesitant about granting such claims. At the same time, we should not dismiss such claims out of hand. Reparations that take a form other than restitution of dispossessed land may be both necessary and sufficient to establish a public marker of acknowledgment.

He became the leader of a group of like-minded people, who attempted to realise this objective of a Welsh-speaking, self-governing, democratic and Nonconformist Wales overseas. A number of locations were considered, including Palestine, and Vancouver Island in Canada, but they eventually agreed upon the Chubut Valley in Patagonia – a remote area of South America, with no European settlements, only nomadic indigenous peoples.

BBC News.

Fenn Stewart, ‘Grey Owl in the White Settler Wilderness: “Imaginary Indians” in Canadian Culture and Law’, Law, Culture and the Humanities (first published on October 8, 2014)

This article considers Grey Owl’s tenure in Saskatchewan’s Prince Albert National Park as a “telling instance” of the ways in which iconic Canadian wilderness spaces have been constructed in white settler culture and law – not only through the erasure of Indigenous people(s), but also through highly visible forms of cultural appropriation, including the installation of “imaginary Indians.” Placed in the context of the complex history of Treaty Six, the story of Grey Owl reveals how white settler culture and law have been constructed with reference to two “imaginary Indians”: the “Bolshevik Indian” and the “Park Ranger Indian.” The former, figured as a source of lawlessness and destruction, is erased from the terrain of the nation; the latter, represented in this case by Grey Owl, figures the “consent” of “Indians” to settler law, “naturalizes” Canadian sovereignty, and bestows upon the nation a heritage of “Indian” culture that it is otherwise felt to be lacking.

Recent criticism of the field in Decolonization 3, 2 (2014), featuring Snelgrove, Corntassel, and Dhamoon, and Australian Historical Studies 45, 3 (2014), featuring Rowse, Veracini, and Johnson.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers