Geography is a product of colonial processes, and in Canada, the exclusion from educational curricula of Indigenous worldviews and their lived realities has produced “geographies of ignorance”. Transformative learning is an approach geographers can use to initiate changes in non-Indigenous student attitudes about Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies. This study explores non-Indigenous student perspectives concerning a field school and digital storytelling as transformative experiences within the context of an “Indigenous Perspectives on Environmental Management” course; they were asked to reflect on their course experience. Findings indicate that students found both to be effective and important steps in the transformation of their own worldviews.

Historians often refer to the British Empire, focused primarily eastward after the loss of the American colonies, as the “second empire.” Unlike the “first empire,” this second empire of the nineteenth century ceased to be an empire largely composed of communities of free peoples of British origin with political and economic ties to Britain. It was now an empire of peoples who were not British in origin, incorporated into the empire by conquest and ruled without representation. In spite of this difference, however, both the first and second British empires shared a common character in the ways that colonists engaged with indigenous people. Central to this engagement were treaties that supposedly created legal agreements between European powers and indigenous people. These treaties represent a historical phase in which colonial powers purported to deal with indigenous people as autonomous partners rather than as subjects or conquered peoples. They are therefore crucial to understanding the nature of colonial encounters. This paper explores some of the salient parallels and contrasts in colonial treaty making in Canada and West Africa. Focusing on colonial treaties with the Yoruba people of West Africa and aboriginal communities in Upper Canada, it investigates the conditions and contingencies that shaped the role of indigenous people in treaty making. It examines how native agents, in different contexts, found means to empower themselves. While some of these processes were unique; others were similar in both contexts. It argues that fruitful comparisons must attend carefully to specifics — the differing processes and outcomes of treaty making in each colonial context was the result, not only of disparate imperial agendas, but also of the initiatives and responses of indigenous people.

This pioneering comparative history of the participation of indigenous peoples of the British Empire in the First World War is based upon archival research in four continents. It provides the first comprehensive examination and comparison of how indigenous peoples of Canada, Australia, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa experienced the Great War. The participation of indigenes was an extension of their ongoing effort to shape and alter their social and political realities, their resistance to cultural assimilation or segregation and their desire to attain equality through service and sacrifice. While the dominions discouraged indigenous participation at the outbreak of war, by late 1915 the imperial government demanded their inclusion to meet the pragmatic need for military manpower. Indigenous peoples responded with patriotism and enthusiasm both on the battlefield and the home front and shared equally in the horrors and burdens of the First World War.

Several recent discussions within archaeology refocus attention on the relationship between western knowledge and “indigenous knowledge”: one arising from the question of local ownership of land, technologies, and archaeological materials; another responding to the continued interest within development, conservation, and ecology in the potential efficacy and sustainability of local resource-use strategies; and a third that explores the possibility of producing archaeological interpretations that incorporate local conceptions of the past. In addition to an interest in indigenous knowledge (whether technical or conceptual), these various lines of inquiry are related by the desire to give due respect to local beliefs, practices, and property, and by the ambition to define ways in which archaeological research can provide benefits to society in general or, more specifically, to the communities that play host to archaeological field projects. These shared goals account for the fact that these discussions are sometimes conflated, but they can nevertheless be separated into distinct projects by examining the criteria by which their proponents are likely to judge success. Doing so permits an assessment of the feasibility of these approaches, referred to here as applied archaeology, hybrid archaeologies, and the production of a “usable past.”

This article analyses two cases brought by aboriginal Australians against the Australian government acquisition of long leases of their land under the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007. These leases are conspicuous, particularly in that the government always made it clear that it would not take up its right to exclusive possession of the leased land, and has not done so. The leases have not been used to evict residents, as some feared; nor to pursue mining or agricultural activity. Socio-legal theories centered on the right to exclusive possession cannot account for these leases. The article explores the use of property under the 2007 Act, the legal geographies of the areas subject to the leases and the political potency of property beyond exclusive possession, and suggests an understanding of property as a spatially contingent relation of belonging. Specifically, the article argues that property is productive of temporal and spatial order and so can function as a tool of governance.

In the Canary Islands two invasive rat species, Rattus rattus and Rattus norvegicus are present, but little is known about the origin and colonization. To this end, a molecular study was performed on R. rattus from the Archipelago and from the nearest continents. Partial cytochrome b gene sequencing offered very low levels of haplotype and nucleotide diversities, with only seven haplotypes identified. All of them belong to the European Lineage I, specifically to the “ship rat” cluster. The haplotype network showed a star-like topology. Haplotype distribution showed a genetic subdivision between eastern and central/western islands, suggesting a double colonization event. This hypothesis is congruent with historical human colonization and it is similar to that proposed for the rodent parasite Hymenolepis diminuta. In addition, a possible role of the Canary Islands as a faunal link with the European and American continents is discussed.

In 1852, the naturalist and writer Louisa Meredith observed in her book My Home in Tasmania: “I know of no place where greater order and decorum is observed by the motley crowds assembled on any public occasion than in this most shamefully slandered country: not even in an English country village can a lady walk alone with less fear of harm or insult than in this capital of Van Diemen’s Land, commonly believed at home to be a pest-house, where every crime that can disgrace and degrade humanity stalks abroad with unblushing front.”

Meredith’s paean to life in the notorious Australian penal colony of Hobart was in stark contrast to her earlier, highly unfavourable account of colonial Sydney. It papered over the years of personal hardship she had endured in Australia, as well as avoiding mention of the racial warfare against Tasmania’s Aborigines that had afforded her such a genteel European existence.

Such intra-Australian complexities, however, were lost when Meredith’s account was superimposed onto German debates about the desirability of penal colonies for Germany. Instead, Meredith’s portrait of a cultivated city emerging from the most notorious penal colony in Australia was presented as proof that the deportation of criminals was an important dimension of the civilising mission of Europe in the extra-European world. It was also presented as a vindication of those in Germany who wished to rid Germany of its lumpen criminal class through deportation. The exact paragraph of Meredith’s account cited above was quoted in German debates on deportation for almost half a century; first in 1859 by the jurist Franz von Holtzendorff, and thereafter by Friedrich Freund when advocating the establishment of a penal colony in the Preußische Jahrbücher in September 1895.

“The evidence is absolutely consistent with dismemberment and de-fleshing of this body,” said Doug Owsley, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC.

Written documents had previously suggested the desperate colonists resorted to cannibalism – but the discovery of the 14-year-old girl’s bones offers the first scientific proof.

Smithsonian researchers believe the dead child became food for a community struggling to survive the harsh winter of 1609-10, known to historians as the Starving Time.

“There were numerous chops and cuts – chops to the forehead, chops to the back of the skull and also a puncture to the left side of the head that was used to essentially pry off that side,” Dr Owsley said. “The purpose was to extract the brain.”

The marks also indicate that the tongue and facial tissue were removed.

Jane O’Brien, BBC News.

Zimbabwe’s starving San community, commonly known as bushmen, are demanding to be taken back to the bush saying the government has neglected them for many years.

The San were moved from Hwange National Park in the 1920s during the colonial era by the Europeans and most of them settled in Mgodimasili area in Tsholotsho South in Matabeleland North Province.

There are over 1 500 San people in Zimbabwe and some are found in Plumtree in Matabeleland South.

[...]

They said going back to the bush to survive on hunting and gathering is better than staying under a government which treats them like animals.

“We want to go back to the bush, they should open up Hwange National Park and we go back.

“Our grandfathers had better lives that side than here where we are still treated like animals.

“The government has totally failed to help us to improve our lives for the past years and some politicians have been telling us lies all these years.

They only want our votes but they have not done anything for us,” Madlela Maphosa, a 70-year-old headman for the San people in Mtshina Village said.

Bulawayo24.