Pub Date : 2020-10-06DOI: 10.1080/2201473X.2020.1823750
Desirée Poets
ABSTRACT How does elimination work in Brazil? After a brief history of miscegenation as assimilation/elimination, this article addresses this question through the experiences of one urban indigenous group (Aldeia Maracanã) and one urban Afro-descendant quilombo (Sacopã) in Rio de Janeiro. Based on fieldwork conducted between 2014 and 2017, the article traces the continuities of settler colonialism in independent Brazil, including the multicultural turn of the 1988 Constitution. I centre the lived experiences and struggles of the two groups, whose intersecting politics are caught within the inescapability of being ‘within Empire’ while having to imagine a politics outside of it (Simpson 2014). I then contribute to Settler Colonial Theory from this perspective, challenging its land-labour binary, for Black and Indigenous peoples have both been affected by processes of elimination, dispossession, labour exploitation, and exclusion (racism). Moreover, miscegenation/assimilation has not been merely ‘a kind of death’, as Patrick Wolfe has portrayed it (Wolfe, 2006). Miscegenation has also functioned as the space from which indigenous and black peoples have resurged, survived, and thrived. When we engage critically with the political options available to these groups within settler colonialism, we are forced to ask: What does it mean to talk about de-colonisation in Brazil?
{"title":"Settler colonialism and/in (urban) Brazil: black and indigenous resistances to the logic of elimination","authors":"Desirée Poets","doi":"10.1080/2201473X.2020.1823750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2020.1823750","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT How does elimination work in Brazil? After a brief history of miscegenation as assimilation/elimination, this article addresses this question through the experiences of one urban indigenous group (Aldeia Maracanã) and one urban Afro-descendant quilombo (Sacopã) in Rio de Janeiro. Based on fieldwork conducted between 2014 and 2017, the article traces the continuities of settler colonialism in independent Brazil, including the multicultural turn of the 1988 Constitution. I centre the lived experiences and struggles of the two groups, whose intersecting politics are caught within the inescapability of being ‘within Empire’ while having to imagine a politics outside of it (Simpson 2014). I then contribute to Settler Colonial Theory from this perspective, challenging its land-labour binary, for Black and Indigenous peoples have both been affected by processes of elimination, dispossession, labour exploitation, and exclusion (racism). Moreover, miscegenation/assimilation has not been merely ‘a kind of death’, as Patrick Wolfe has portrayed it (Wolfe, 2006). Miscegenation has also functioned as the space from which indigenous and black peoples have resurged, survived, and thrived. When we engage critically with the political options available to these groups within settler colonialism, we are forced to ask: What does it mean to talk about de-colonisation in Brazil?","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"8 1","pages":"271 - 291"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73217553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-06DOI: 10.1080/2201473x.2020.1829423
Darren R. Reid
ABSTRACT British and Afrikaner governments used different types of legal arguments to legitimize their acquisition of African land in the early nineteenth century. Using Pierre Legrand’s concept of legal mentalité, I explore the legal mythologies that conditioned Britons’ and Afrikaners’ methods of land acquisition. I adopt two instances of land acquisition to use as case studies: the British annexation of Kaffraria in 1835 and the Afrikaner annexation of Natalia in 1839. I show that the annexation of British Kaffraria was conditioned by a legal mythology influenced by Lockean ideas of property theory, in which property could be legally obtained through a framework of improvement. Meanwhile, I show that the annexation of the Republic of Natalia was conditioned by a legal mythology influenced by Grotian ideas of property theory, in which property could be legally obtained through a framework of conquest.
{"title":"Dispossession and legal mentalité in nineteenth-century South Africa: Grotian and Lockean theories of property acquisition in the annexations of British Kaffraria and Natalia","authors":"Darren R. Reid","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2020.1829423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1829423","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT British and Afrikaner governments used different types of legal arguments to legitimize their acquisition of African land in the early nineteenth century. Using Pierre Legrand’s concept of legal mentalité, I explore the legal mythologies that conditioned Britons’ and Afrikaners’ methods of land acquisition. I adopt two instances of land acquisition to use as case studies: the British annexation of Kaffraria in 1835 and the Afrikaner annexation of Natalia in 1839. I show that the annexation of British Kaffraria was conditioned by a legal mythology influenced by Lockean ideas of property theory, in which property could be legally obtained through a framework of improvement. Meanwhile, I show that the annexation of the Republic of Natalia was conditioned by a legal mythology influenced by Grotian ideas of property theory, in which property could be legally obtained through a framework of conquest.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"43 1","pages":"69 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90494262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-06DOI: 10.1080/2201473X.2020.1823752
Gustavo Verdesio
ABSTRACT In a country like Uruguay, that imagines itself as a ‘country without Indians’, the emergence of groups of activists who claim to be of indigenous descent has provoked a series of reactions that cover a wide spectrum that goes from mockery to wrath. The State and some of the most revered anthropologists (like Daniel Vidart and Renzo Pi Hugarte), as well as the general public, are reluctant to recognize their legitimacy. This has serious legal consequences in that country, which does not count with a specific legal framework to deal with indigenous matters due to the fact that Uruguay has not ratified the ILO Convention number 169, which is the most important international piece of indigenous legislation that has binding power for the ratifying nations. In this paper, I will discuss the pertinence of settler colonial studies for the understanding of some historical processes in the Southern Cone. I will also try to shed some light on the Uruguayan case through an analysis of the importance of the Marxian notion of primitive accumulation, which explains the process of dispossession suffered by the diverse indigenous groups that populated the land before the arrival of European settlers. Hopefully, this will shed some light on the sometimes angry and violent reactions of Uruguayan mainstream society to the reemergence of indigenous collectives in a country where they were thought to be extinct: their reappearance puts into question the legitimate possession of the land by the Uruguayan State and its inhabitants.
在乌拉圭这样一个自认为是“没有印第安人的国家”的国家，声称自己是土著血统的活动家团体的出现引发了一系列反应，从嘲笑到愤怒。国家和一些最受尊敬的人类学家(如Daniel Vidart和Renzo Pi Hugarte)，以及普通公众，都不愿意承认他们的合法性。这在该国造成了严重的法律后果，由于乌拉圭尚未批准劳工组织第169号公约这一事实，它不属于处理土著问题的具体法律框架，而该公约是对批准国具有约束力的最重要的国际土著立法。在本文中，我将讨论定居者殖民研究对了解南锥体的一些历史进程的相关性。我还将试图通过分析马克思主义原始积累概念的重要性来阐明乌拉圭的案例，该概念解释了在欧洲定居者到来之前居住在这片土地上的各种土著群体遭受剥夺的过程。希望这篇文章能揭示乌拉圭主流社会对土著集体在这个被认为已经灭绝的国家重新出现的愤怒和暴力反应:他们的重新出现使乌拉圭国家及其居民对土地的合法占有产生了疑问。
{"title":"Endless dispossession: the Charrua re-emergence in Uruguay in the light of settler colonialism","authors":"Gustavo Verdesio","doi":"10.1080/2201473X.2020.1823752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2020.1823752","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In a country like Uruguay, that imagines itself as a ‘country without Indians’, the emergence of groups of activists who claim to be of indigenous descent has provoked a series of reactions that cover a wide spectrum that goes from mockery to wrath. The State and some of the most revered anthropologists (like Daniel Vidart and Renzo Pi Hugarte), as well as the general public, are reluctant to recognize their legitimacy. This has serious legal consequences in that country, which does not count with a specific legal framework to deal with indigenous matters due to the fact that Uruguay has not ratified the ILO Convention number 169, which is the most important international piece of indigenous legislation that has binding power for the ratifying nations. In this paper, I will discuss the pertinence of settler colonial studies for the understanding of some historical processes in the Southern Cone. I will also try to shed some light on the Uruguayan case through an analysis of the importance of the Marxian notion of primitive accumulation, which explains the process of dispossession suffered by the diverse indigenous groups that populated the land before the arrival of European settlers. Hopefully, this will shed some light on the sometimes angry and violent reactions of Uruguayan mainstream society to the reemergence of indigenous collectives in a country where they were thought to be extinct: their reappearance puts into question the legitimate possession of the land by the Uruguayan State and its inhabitants.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"192 1","pages":"319 - 343"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73281924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/2201473x.2020.1829369
A. Meir, B. Roded, Arnon Ben-Israel
ABSTRACT As any other locality a road is a place with sense of road as place among people experiencing it. Roads in peripheral areas are a scarce social resource over which people compete. When a periphery is an internal ethnic frontier, competition between the local/Indigenous people and the settlers over accessibility/connectivity afforded by a road reflects not only hegemonic cultural and identity differences but also contradicting spatiality temporality and dimensionality related to sense of road as place. These mobility-related differences are a neglected area of ethnic relationships. We analyze Indigenous Bedouin's and Jewish settlers’ sense of Road 31 as place in Israel as an infrastructure for understanding ethnic relationships resulting from co-using it. We surface relationships at various times scales and spatial dimensions revealing the contrasting and dynamic dimensionality of mobility, accessibility regimes, and informal mobility emanating from both cultural and political ethnic relationships.
{"title":"Janus-faced mobility, sense of road-as-place and Indigenous Bedouin-Jewish settlers relationships","authors":"A. Meir, B. Roded, Arnon Ben-Israel","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2020.1829369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1829369","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As any other locality a road is a place with sense of road as place among people experiencing it. Roads in peripheral areas are a scarce social resource over which people compete. When a periphery is an internal ethnic frontier, competition between the local/Indigenous people and the settlers over accessibility/connectivity afforded by a road reflects not only hegemonic cultural and identity differences but also contradicting spatiality temporality and dimensionality related to sense of road as place. These mobility-related differences are a neglected area of ethnic relationships. We analyze Indigenous Bedouin's and Jewish settlers’ sense of Road 31 as place in Israel as an infrastructure for understanding ethnic relationships resulting from co-using it. We surface relationships at various times scales and spatial dimensions revealing the contrasting and dynamic dimensionality of mobility, accessibility regimes, and informal mobility emanating from both cultural and political ethnic relationships.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"69 1","pages":"576 - 596"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86899876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-06DOI: 10.1080/2201473x.2020.1811591
Jennifer Matsunaga
ABSTRACT This paper brings into conversation truth telling and compensation as forms of reparation for historical injustices in the Canadian settler colonial context. I examine how settler bureaucracy engages with stories of Indian residential schools and former students through analysis of the Common Experience Payment program’s application form and final evaluation. This program, which provided former students with compensation for their collective experience in residential schools, erases survivor-centred forms of truth telling within the records and practices of the public service. I argue that the Common Experience Payment process both produces a new Indigenous population to be governed and perpetuates longstanding settler colonial rationalities that attempt to manage and marginalize the emotion and voices of Indigenous peoples and racialize them as inferior by way of being a ‘challenge to overcome’ for the bureaucracy. I emphasize that assimilation is not located simply in the spectacular or brute acts embedded in settler colonial policy, but in the everyday procedural instruments and mechanisms of the public service such as application forms and final evaluations which are largely taken for granted as benign.
{"title":"The red tape of reparations: settler governmentalities of truth telling and compensation for Indian residential schools","authors":"Jennifer Matsunaga","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2020.1811591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1811591","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper brings into conversation truth telling and compensation as forms of reparation for historical injustices in the Canadian settler colonial context. I examine how settler bureaucracy engages with stories of Indian residential schools and former students through analysis of the Common Experience Payment program’s application form and final evaluation. This program, which provided former students with compensation for their collective experience in residential schools, erases survivor-centred forms of truth telling within the records and practices of the public service. I argue that the Common Experience Payment process both produces a new Indigenous population to be governed and perpetuates longstanding settler colonial rationalities that attempt to manage and marginalize the emotion and voices of Indigenous peoples and racialize them as inferior by way of being a ‘challenge to overcome’ for the bureaucracy. I emphasize that assimilation is not located simply in the spectacular or brute acts embedded in settler colonial policy, but in the everyday procedural instruments and mechanisms of the public service such as application forms and final evaluations which are largely taken for granted as benign.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"108 1","pages":"21 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75528962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-21DOI: 10.1080/2201473x.2020.1809939
Ryan Wander
ABSTRACT This article reads naturalist portrayals of “post-frontier” frontiers by Frank Norris and Jack London, two key turn-of-the-twentieth-century US literary naturalists, for their chronotopic engagement with the temporal logics and phenomenological orientations that underwrite US settler colonialism. Despite its 1890 “closure,” the concept of the frontier remained central to the ongoing enactment of US settler colonialism around the turn of the twentieth century, and it remains so to this day. This article argues that Norris and London's naturalist aesthetics support the US settler state's biopolitics of white ascendance, racialized death, and Native elimination through narratives of white settler death. By considering texts whose narratives appear to contradict the white masculine triumphalism that literary critics often stress in readings of naturalist frontier fiction, I trace how texts including McTeague (1899), The Call of the Wild (1903), and “To Build a Fire” (1908) mobilize US literary naturalism's evolutionary and typological representational idiom to stage critiques of the racial and genocidal logics of US settler colonialism. Ultimately, these critiques uniquely help to consolidate the phenomenological orientations that underwrite US settler biopolitics: Norris and London's narratives of white settler death turn the representation of white settler death into a source of (white) settler futurity.
{"title":"The end(s) of regeneration: naturalist frontier chronotopes and the time of US settler colonial biopolitics","authors":"Ryan Wander","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2020.1809939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1809939","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reads naturalist portrayals of “post-frontier” frontiers by Frank Norris and Jack London, two key turn-of-the-twentieth-century US literary naturalists, for their chronotopic engagement with the temporal logics and phenomenological orientations that underwrite US settler colonialism. Despite its 1890 “closure,” the concept of the frontier remained central to the ongoing enactment of US settler colonialism around the turn of the twentieth century, and it remains so to this day. This article argues that Norris and London's naturalist aesthetics support the US settler state's biopolitics of white ascendance, racialized death, and Native elimination through narratives of white settler death. By considering texts whose narratives appear to contradict the white masculine triumphalism that literary critics often stress in readings of naturalist frontier fiction, I trace how texts including McTeague (1899), The Call of the Wild (1903), and “To Build a Fire” (1908) mobilize US literary naturalism's evolutionary and typological representational idiom to stage critiques of the racial and genocidal logics of US settler colonialism. Ultimately, these critiques uniquely help to consolidate the phenomenological orientations that underwrite US settler biopolitics: Norris and London's narratives of white settler death turn the representation of white settler death into a source of (white) settler futurity.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"42 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86563826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-20DOI: 10.1080/2201473x.2020.1807877
Erich W. Steinman
ABSTRACT A great deal of recent sociological scholarship in Canada has examined the ‘unsettling' process motivating non-Natives or ‘settlers' to act in solidarity with Indigenous movements and their experiences of becoming unsettled through such engagements. Informed by settler colonialism and Indigenous studies concerns, such conceptualizations of unsettling have focused primarily on individual trajectories', in conjunction with an overriding normative emphasis on settlers’ active support for, and accountability to, Indigenous leadership.While invaluable, these predominating conerns leave open questions about the scope of appropriate agency for non-Native people in challenging settler colonialism. Scholarship to date lacks an explicit affirmative model for settlers to interrupt the routine institutional reproduction of settler colonial understandings, discourses and practices, which also limits its applicability to the United States context. Drawing upon sociological concerns with the institutional and organizational reproduction of power, the article discusses and disentangles differing notions of unsettling and suggests that, under larger covering norms of following Indigenous leadership and relationality, settlers can actively destabilize the reproduction of settler colonial reality through a disruptive form of quotidian agency wherever they are.
{"title":"Unsettling as agency: unsettling settler colonialism where you are","authors":"Erich W. Steinman","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2020.1807877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1807877","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A great deal of recent sociological scholarship in Canada has examined the ‘unsettling' process motivating non-Natives or ‘settlers' to act in solidarity with Indigenous movements and their experiences of becoming unsettled through such engagements. Informed by settler colonialism and Indigenous studies concerns, such conceptualizations of unsettling have focused primarily on individual trajectories', in conjunction with an overriding normative emphasis on settlers’ active support for, and accountability to, Indigenous leadership.While invaluable, these predominating conerns leave open questions about the scope of appropriate agency for non-Native people in challenging settler colonialism. Scholarship to date lacks an explicit affirmative model for settlers to interrupt the routine institutional reproduction of settler colonial understandings, discourses and practices, which also limits its applicability to the United States context. Drawing upon sociological concerns with the institutional and organizational reproduction of power, the article discusses and disentangles differing notions of unsettling and suggests that, under larger covering norms of following Indigenous leadership and relationality, settlers can actively destabilize the reproduction of settler colonial reality through a disruptive form of quotidian agency wherever they are.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"50 1","pages":"558 - 575"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89935941","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-12DOI: 10.1080/2201473x.2019.1699707
Amina Marzouk Chouchene
ABSTRACT This article explores the daily fears, anxieties, and panics that dominated the British settler experience in the 1820 eastern Cape and Fremantle settlements. It reveals that these interrelated emotions were generated by the real or imagined threats posed by the indigenous people to the security and safety of the settlers. Moreover, the article suggests that this sense of vulnerability led to a growing racialization of the indigenous people, the escalation of violence, and the imposition of stringent measures of colonial control. Whether triggered by actual or imagined threats, the settlers’ fears, anxieties, and panics are an interesting subject of historical research not only because they are ubiquitous but also they paved the way for a radicalization of the settlers’ mindset and colonial policies.
{"title":"Fear, anxiety, panic, and settler consciousness","authors":"Amina Marzouk Chouchene","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2019.1699707","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2019.1699707","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores the daily fears, anxieties, and panics that dominated the British settler experience in the 1820 eastern Cape and Fremantle settlements. It reveals that these interrelated emotions were generated by the real or imagined threats posed by the indigenous people to the security and safety of the settlers. Moreover, the article suggests that this sense of vulnerability led to a growing racialization of the indigenous people, the escalation of violence, and the imposition of stringent measures of colonial control. Whether triggered by actual or imagined threats, the settlers’ fears, anxieties, and panics are an interesting subject of historical research not only because they are ubiquitous but also they paved the way for a radicalization of the settlers’ mindset and colonial policies.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"89 1","pages":"443 - 460"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86574717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-06DOI: 10.1080/2201473x.2020.1794211
R. Kuokkanen
ABSTRACT The Deatnu River, located in Northern Scandinavia in the heart of Sápmi, is often regarded as one of the finest salmon rivers in Europe. In the 1751 Strömstad Peace Accord, the Deatnu river was made into an international boundary, becoming one of the oldest political borders in Europe. Since 1873, salmon fishing in the Deatnu River has been regulated by bilateral agreements negotiated between Norway and Finland. The most recent agreement was reached in 2017, in spite of a very strong, uniform opposition of the local population, Sámi and non–Sámi alike. This article considers the nature, effects and objectives of the 2017 Deatnu Agreement in the context of an international boundary. I suggest that the 2017 Deatnu Agreement is a figurative wall erected by the states of Norway and Finland in the context of the post–Westphalian order. The 'post–Westphalian order' is characterized by the erection of walls to define nation–state boundaries. Drawing on Elizabeth Strakosch' analysis of policy as a key strategy of settle colonialism and Lorenzo Veracini's concept of transfer, the article considers how this figurative wall is intended to target the Sámi people and how it is an emblem of Nordic settler colonialism.
{"title":"The Deatnu Agreement: a contemporary wall of settler colonialism","authors":"R. Kuokkanen","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2020.1794211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1794211","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Deatnu River, located in Northern Scandinavia in the heart of Sápmi, is often regarded as one of the finest salmon rivers in Europe. In the 1751 Strömstad Peace Accord, the Deatnu river was made into an international boundary, becoming one of the oldest political borders in Europe. Since 1873, salmon fishing in the Deatnu River has been regulated by bilateral agreements negotiated between Norway and Finland. The most recent agreement was reached in 2017, in spite of a very strong, uniform opposition of the local population, Sámi and non–Sámi alike. This article considers the nature, effects and objectives of the 2017 Deatnu Agreement in the context of an international boundary. I suggest that the 2017 Deatnu Agreement is a figurative wall erected by the states of Norway and Finland in the context of the post–Westphalian order. The 'post–Westphalian order' is characterized by the erection of walls to define nation–state boundaries. Drawing on Elizabeth Strakosch' analysis of policy as a key strategy of settle colonialism and Lorenzo Veracini's concept of transfer, the article considers how this figurative wall is intended to target the Sámi people and how it is an emblem of Nordic settler colonialism.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"8 1","pages":"508 - 528"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84249886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-29DOI: 10.1080/2201473x.2020.1801274
Z. Gottesman
ABSTRACT This paper looks at recent isekai (‘different world’) anime in relation to 2018s Goblin Slayer. It argues the latter is a settler-colonialist critique of the unconscious structural violence within former’s tropes and presumptions. Isekai anime provide a space where superexploitation and the redistribution of surplus value are buried within a fantasy of non-alienated, non-commodified labor, and Goblin Slayer represents the exhaustion of this fantasy and the return of the repressed unconscious of settler violence on the frontier. Using Patrick Wolfe’s theorization of a neoliberal settler-colonialism, this paper argues that Japanese settler-colonialism is not a primitive form of capitalism or a historical episode shed by postcolonialism but a contemporary mode of production that coexists alongside imperialism. Through an analysis of the historiography of the Japanese Empire, this paper constructs a general theory of settler-colonialism that situates Japan at the forefront of the late capitalist world system, anime as the system's cultural representation, and otakudom as its labor regime. Finally, it asks what lies beyond the settler-colonialist critique and the space Goblin Slayer opens up against its own ideological limitations.
{"title":"The Japanese settler unconscious: Goblin Slayer on the ‘Isekai’ frontier","authors":"Z. Gottesman","doi":"10.1080/2201473x.2020.1801274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1801274","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper looks at recent isekai (‘different world’) anime in relation to 2018s Goblin Slayer. It argues the latter is a settler-colonialist critique of the unconscious structural violence within former’s tropes and presumptions. Isekai anime provide a space where superexploitation and the redistribution of surplus value are buried within a fantasy of non-alienated, non-commodified labor, and Goblin Slayer represents the exhaustion of this fantasy and the return of the repressed unconscious of settler violence on the frontier. Using Patrick Wolfe’s theorization of a neoliberal settler-colonialism, this paper argues that Japanese settler-colonialism is not a primitive form of capitalism or a historical episode shed by postcolonialism but a contemporary mode of production that coexists alongside imperialism. Through an analysis of the historiography of the Japanese Empire, this paper constructs a general theory of settler-colonialism that situates Japan at the forefront of the late capitalist world system, anime as the system's cultural representation, and otakudom as its labor regime. Finally, it asks what lies beyond the settler-colonialist critique and the space Goblin Slayer opens up against its own ideological limitations.","PeriodicalId":46232,"journal":{"name":"Settler Colonial Studies","volume":"31 1","pages":"529 - 557"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74415496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：