No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Beyond Colonial Completion: Arendt, Settler Colonialism and the End of Politics
Abstract
As many have argued, the Western political theory tradition tends to justify settler colonialism and erase its ongoing effects. However, this chapter suggests that we can draw on resources from within that tradition to challenge problematic settler colonial dynamics, which can prevent us as settlers from engaging in genuine political dialogue with Indigenous peoples. As an example, I show how Arendt helps us rethink traditional settler visions of ‘decolonisation’, which are deeply entwined with the drive to colonial completion and the erasure of Indigenous political independence. While her overall body of work has a complex relationship to settler colonialism, she offers an important critique of political projects that paradoxically seek to end politics once and for all. Most importantly, she reinstates political action as a positive enduring condition, and offers an account of politics as the good life rather than as pathway to the good life. This allow us to move the political task facing Indigenous and settler relations from ‘fixing the problem’ Indigenous people pose for us and for the dominant state towards fostering a productive but uncomfortable political coexistence. However, she can only help us to see the need for deep encounter with Indigenous people and worlds. At this point a different and more deeply dialogic conversation must begin.
... alliances and coalitions that center land and place and Indigenous belonging (Mukandi et al., 2019). This requires resistance to settler fantasies of completion (Strakosch, 2016) and adoption (Tuck & Yang, 2012) that seek to save or assimilate Indigenous women and Indigenous gender orders (Arvin et al., 2013, 21). The fourth challenge posed by Arvin et al. is the recognition of Indigenous knowledges, fundamentally based on land justice, Indigenous sovereignties, and the complementarity of Indigenous gender relations and nonbinary gender orders (Anderson, 2016;Cannella & Manuelito, 2008;Hinzo, 2016;Sneider, 2012). ...
Indigenous sociology makes visible what is meaningful in the Indigenous social world. This core premise is demonstrated here via the use of the concept of the Indigenous Lifeworld in reference to the dispossessed Indigenous Peoples from Anglo-colonized first world nations. Indigenous lifeworld is built around dual intersubjectivities: within peoplehood, inclusive of traditional and ongoing culture, belief systems, practices, identity, and ways of understanding the world; and within colonized realties as marginalized peoples whose everyday life is framed through their historical and ongoing relationship with the colonizer nation state. The Oxford Handbook of Indigenous Sociology is, in part, a response to the limited space allowed for Indigenous Peoples within the discipline of Sociology. The very small existing sociological literature locates the Indigenous within the non-Indigenous gaze and the Eurocentric structures of the discipline reflect a continuing reluctance to actively recognize Indigenous realities within the key social forces literature of class, gender, and race at the discipline's center. But the ambition of this volume, its editors, and its contributors is larger than a challenge to this status quo. They do not speak back to Sociology, but rather, claim their own sociological space. The starting point is to situate Indigenous sociology as sociology by Indigenous sociologists. The authors in The Oxford Handbook of Indigenous Sociology, all leading and emerging Indigenous scholars, provide an authoritative, state of the art survey of Indigenous sociological thinking. The contributions in this Handbook demonstrate that the Indigenous sociological voice is a not a version of the existing sub-fields but a new sociological paradigm that uses a distinctively Indigenous methodological approach.
... 99 Even if there were enough Indigenous custodians of land, it is important that all of us attend to neglected Country, led by those with the most experience in doing so (often, but not always, Indigenous people). With the understanding that non-Indigenous people 'are always already in relationship with Indigenous peoples', 100 caring for Country must take precedence over pursuing Indigenous 'extant rights of prior occupancy' 101 per se or efforts to return 'stolen' land. Given that ownership is a modern sensibility, land was never owned by Indigenous people and so could not be stolen. ...
In our world of fractured truths, unparalleled disparities and technological wizardry, it is vital that we interrogate the largely unquestioned political axioms that have brought us to the brink of extinction. In this article, I explore the broader landscape in which settler-coloniality is ensconced through an examination of global modernity. I briefly outline some well-known, but largely subsumed, and mostly unremarked, realities of the contemporary world. I then argue that debt, property, institutions and nation states are the constituent devastations of modernity that we must simultaneously aver and avert. I suggest that the path towards decoloniality entails radical land-based re-localisation, revitalised communalism and embodied kinship with all life. This will necessitate an Indigenisation in which we, collectively across difference and distance, embrace fundamentally transformed relationships of mutuality so as to bring about flourishing egalitarian societies.
... Our subtitle, the importance of disrupting and displacing colonising narratives, alludes to the two ways that, to draw on the work of twentieth century political philosopher Hannah Arendt, we need to critically engage with her work. Arendt's work on responsibility and politics is highly respected, and we suggest it can be generative for analysing settler colonialism; yet there are difcult tensions (Moses 2012;Sloan Morgan 2017;Strakosch 2016). For example, Moses (2012) states "her naïve paean to British expansion simply repeated contemporary European prejudices about their civilization and non-European barbarism" (p. ...
Universities have a unique responsibility to social justice with Aboriginal peoples. Yet settler privilege is evident in how teaching standards and research funding are determined predominantly by government, delivered and driven by universities born out of dispossessing colonisation. Consequently, research projects intended to disrupt/displace settler narratives of social justice run the risk of being sucked back into the mainstreamed system (Castagno, Educated in whiteness: Good intentions and diversity in schools. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 2014; Ladson-Billings and Tate, Toward a critical race theory of education. In A. Dimon & C. Rousseau (Eds.), Critical race theory in education: All God’s children got a song (p. 1130). New York: Routledge, 2006), perpetuating university privilege rather than fulfilling the university’s social justice responsibilities. This chapter explores ways universities can work alongside Aboriginal peoples and communities. Drawing on the Arendtian idea of responsibility, the authors ask: could universities better engage in social justice with Aboriginal people if responsibility meant the welcoming of initiatives that might challenge the university and its traditions?
... A major barrier that must be assailed is the Western notion of sovereignty that insists that it reside in one entity at a time. As Strakosch (2016) argues, 'At an abstract level, settlers imagine that the beginning of settler society coincides exactly with the end of Aboriginal society' (p. 16). ...
This paper focuses on the meaning of education for reconciliation in the context of Canadian settler-colonialism. It captures an attempt to delve into the meaning of reconciliation as an experiential process, through learning on the land with the Tahltan People. We focus on reconciliation not as a theory or political discourse, but rather as a meeting point of theory and experience. We identify and discuss four main components of education for reconciliation: Land as educator, Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy, reciprocity, and sovereignty. We argue for the need to shift from superficial and theoretical discourses of reconciliation in the classrooms to deep engagement with Indigenous knowledge and ways of living on the land.
This article appraises debates about modernism in 1930s and 1940s Australia in relation to the cultural and political traditions of settler colonialism. We theorise settler modernist and anti-modernist engagements as conditioned by a succession of negations constituting ‘Australia’ as what we have previously termed ‘the negative Commonwealth’. Both rejections and affirmations of European modernist traditions considered the imminent arrival in Australia of the ‘dangers’ of modernity. One response was the attempt to keep modernity and its contradictions ‘out’, and to maintain the supposed advantages of being an island continent. When isolation could no longer be maintained, attempts were made to leap over the implications of imminent reconnection by asserting that Australia was always already modern. Here, we survey settler cultural expressions and their embrace or rejection of ‘Old World’ traditions. Beyond complex engagements with these traditions, Australian modernist and anti-modernist experiments similarly struggled to establish their own indigenising settler nationalist traditions.
Nationalism has fallen out of academic fashion over the past several decades. In this article, we refocus on nationalism as a crucial dimension of the continuing settler-colonial project that is ‘Australia’. Across the settler political spectrum, nationalist teleologies envisage a moment of completion, in which conflictual settler-colonial relations will be resolved in the form of an imagined-as unified, coherent and legitimate settler nation. Here, we trace the dynamics of settler nationalism within and beyond the recent debate over an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, identifying a ‘good colonist/bad colonist’ dynamic which we contend works to conceal the eliminationist logics of the Australian settler-colonial project at large. Whereas conservative settler nationalists attempt to (re)construct a white settler nation founded on fantasies of terra nullius, ‘progressive’ settler nationalists seek to build a ‘mature’, reconciled nation-to-come by incorporating limited forms of Indigenous difference within the settler national body. Between these apparently opposing modes of settler nation-building, the unity and coherence of the nation is maintained, while prior and persisting Indigenous sovereignties are denied and disavowed (despite this, they endure). We conclude with our reflections on the necessity of undoing settler investments in the idea/l of Australia, and the political limitations they continue to impose.
In this book, James Gallen provides an in-depth evaluation of the responses of Western States and churches to their historical abuses from a transitional justice perspective. Using a comparative lens, this book examines the application of transitional justice to address and redress the past in Ireland, Australia, Canada, the United States and United Kingdom. It evaluates the use of public inquiries and truth commissions, litigation, reparations, apologies, and reconciliation in each context to address these abuses. Significantly, this novel analysis considers how power and public emotions influence, and often impede, transitional justice's ability to address historical-structural injustices. In addressing historical abuses, power fails to be redistributed and national and religious myths are not reconsidered, leading Gallen to conclude that the existing transitional justice efforts of states and churches remain an unrepentant form of justice. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
First Nations in Australia are beginning to grapple with processes of treaty‐making with state governments and territories. As these processes gain momentum, truth‐telling has become a central tenet of imagining Indigenous emancipation and the possibility of transforming relationships between Indigenous and settler peoples. Truth, it is suggested, will enable changed ways of knowing what and who “Australia” is. These dynamics assume that truth‐telling will benefit all people, but will truth be enough to compel change and provide an emancipated future for Indigenous people? This article reports on Australian truth‐telling processes in Victoria, and draws on two sets of extant literature to understand the lessons and outcomes of international experience that provide crucial insights for these processes—that on truth‐telling commissions broadly, and that focusing specifically on a comparable settler colonial state process, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The article presents a circumspect assessment of the possibilities for Indigenous emancipation that might emerge through truth‐telling from our perspective as a team of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous critical scholars. We first consider the normative approach that sees truth‐telling as a potentially flawed but worthwhile process imbued with possibility, able to contribute to rethinking and changing Indigenous–settler relations. We then consider the more critical views that see truth‐telling as rehabilitative of the settler colonial state and obscuring ongoing colonial injustices. Bringing this analysis into conversation with contemporary debate on truth‐telling in Australia, we advocate for the simultaneous adoption of both normative and critical perspectives to truth‐telling as a possible way forward for understanding the contradictions, opportunities, and tensions that truth‐telling implies.
This chapter provides an introduction to gendered differences in work, poverty, and violence experienced by Indigenous People and the limitations of sociology in explaining Indigenous Peoples continued dispossession and oppression. The chapter also provides an overview of the contribution of Indigenous feminisms and queer Indigenous studies to broader thinking on gender, coloniality, and First Nations sovereignty. Integral to this analysis is the colonial imposition of gender binaries and the gendered violence of settler-colonial societies, which is central to the formation of such states, their spatiotemporalities, and the ongoing oppression of Indigenous Peoples and our lifeworlds. Central to the focus of an Indigenous sociology of gender are myriad forms of resistance to epistemic violence, anchored in tradition and by normative systems, and essential for the maintenance and reinvention of Indigenous futures. This chapter provides an introduction to Indigenous scholarship on gender and sexuality, gendered structures of historic and contemporary violence toward Indigenous Peoples, and maps the resistance of gendered identities as fundamental to the resurgence of Indigenous lifeworlds.
In this chapter we share individual narratives of our experiences to illustrate a ‘day in the life of’ our work as university educators in Aotearoa New Zealand. Together, these narratives create a portrait of the types of teaching and learning opportunities and challenges we face as new settlers in a neoliberal and bicultural university environment. Through a process of venting as feminist praxis, we draw from critical decolonial and feminist theory to reflect on our experiences, and we explore pedagogical potential within experiences of estrangement. We theorize a pedagogy of alienation as an antidote to the problems of imagination and complacency, a pedagogy that embraces anger and rage as part of a broader politics of refusal, as an unsettling alternative to the politics of diversity and inclusion. Through this pedagogy, to disrupt our complacency, we identify and name the ways in which we feel alienated from a structure that is alienating. This ‘double alienation’ is a process of transition and reorientation. We offer a pedagogy of alienation as/for unsettling the university through scyborg technologies and a way to trouble, rage, improve our practice, in order to ‘be in but not of the university’.
This chapter charts some genealogies, challenges, and directions for experimenting with the utopic postdigital ecopedagogies demanded by our present (post)pandemic reality. These are messianic—rather than prophetic—utopias that exist not as proclamations or programmes for a distant future but as potentialities immanent in the irreducible excess of the present. While their roots most clearly emanate from the Freirean-inspired ecopedagogy movement, we conceptualize ecopedagogies instead as educational forms that emerge from, negotiate, debate, produce, resist, and/or overcome the shifting and expansive postdigital ecosystems from and to which we write and think. These are expansive ecosystems of humans, postdigital machines, nonhuman animals, minerals, objects, and more; ecosystems that are overdetermined by new forms of ontological hierarchies and capitalism, imperialism, and settler-colonialism. By charting some of the potential lineages, directions, contradictions, and challenges—and by proposing potential lines of educational praxis—we lay a basis for reinvigorated fields of inquiry that moves beyond the existing postdigital literature on the current pandemic.KeywordsPostdigitalCritical pedagogyEcopedagogyUtopíaEnvironmentFeminismQueer theoryDataAlgorithmsIntersectionalityBioinformational capitalismViral ModernityAestheticsImperialismCritical disability studiesBeliefScience and technology studies
Hannah Arendt’s account of imperialism has become an unlikely source of inspiration for scholars invested in anti-colonial and postcolonial critique. However, the role of settler colonialism in her thought has come under far less scrutiny. This essay reconstructs Arendt’s account of settler-colonization. It argues that Arendt’s republican analysis of imperialism hinges on her notion of the boomerang effect, which is absent in settler-colonial contexts. Arendt recognized some of the distinctive features of settler expansionism but reproduced many of the ideologies that sustain practices of settler-colonial conquest. This interpretation sheds light on the promises and limits of contemporary retrievals of Arendt’s analysis and critique of imperialism by foregrounding the specificity of settler colonialism as an axis of ongoing colonial violence.
The context of this paper is a strategy at a large Australian university that involves embedding a new graduate quality ‘cultural competence’ and lifting the profile of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, experiences and histories. It has been argued that the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges is essential for the decolonisation of our higher education institutions. Decolonisation involves removing the barriers that have silenced non-Western voices in our ‘multi-cultural’ higher education system and combatting the epistemic injustices of a system dominated by Western thought. In this paper, we suggest that our university’s suite of graduate qualities can provide a locus for work at the cultural interface between Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges. While these qualities may be firmly embedded within Western ways of knowing, being and doing, they can nonetheless be used to interrogate and revisit Western disciplinary knowledge construction and pedagogy so as to help bring about institutional change.
This article discusses an aspect of Hannah Arendt’s treatment of the conflict between the Zionists and the Palestinians that has thus far been overlooked in scholarship: her justification of Zionism through the achievements of the Jewish pioneers in cultivating the land, in contrast to the Palestinians’ failure to do so. The inability of natives to cultivate their land was a familiar argument in the history of colonialism, used to legitimize the colonialists’ right to settle a land and often to displace the natives. How should we understand Arendt’s use of this argument? I show that Arendt’s argument should be understood in the context of, first, the recurrence of this argument in Western political thought and practices. Second, the Zionists’—Arendt included—need of legitimizing Jewish settlements in Palestine. And third, the influence of Arendt’s own political philosophy on her understanding of culture in general, and Palestinian culture in particular.
By looking into the case of Palestine, this article has two goals: the first is to provide philosophical scaffolding to the theme of resistance in settler colonial theory, and in so doing to argue that resistance need to be regarded as part of the structure in settler social formations. Secondly, the article rereads ‘the logic of elimination’ upon which settler colonialism is founded in order to suggest that as a settler colonial project Zionism historically evolved via a process of ‘double elimination’ – of indigenous life and of shared life. The aim of this article is then to fold the second conclusion into the first: alongside with indigenous resistance, shared life need be conceived as part of the structural struggle against settler colonialism. The article has three sections. In the first section, the state of the art in the field of settler colonial studies is presented in order to identify strengths and weaknesses. The second section offers a conceptualisation of the idea/practice of resistance by drawing from Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's works. The last section reframes the logic of elimination concluding with a political vision that expands on the notion of resistance.
For a while now I have been researching and writing
about Australian Indigenous education issues. Like you all,
I have seen much good work and learnt much from what is
going on across the country and internationally to improve
outcomes for Indigenous learners in formal education
processes. And still we go on with the struggle and with
the limitations that Western sciences and practices place
on us in the process. This paper draws together theoretical
propositions from the work we have been progressing for the
higher education sector over the past decade and to point
to some foundational principles that can help establish
some early beginnings with Indigenous education as a
discipline in the higher education sector.
Our goal in this article is to remind readers what is unsettling about decolonization. Decolonization brings about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life; it is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools. The easy adoption of decolonizing discourse by educational advocacy and scholarship, evidenced by the increasing number of calls to “decolonize our schools,” or use “decolonizing methods,” or, “decolonize student thinking”, turns decolonization into a metaphor. As important as their goals may be, social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches that decenter settler perspectives have objectives that may be incommensurable with decolonization. Because settler colonialism is built upon an entangled triad structure of settler-native-slave, the decolonial desires of white, non-white, immigrant, postcolonial, and oppressed people, can similarly be entangled in resettlement, reoccupation, and reinhabitation that actually further settler colonialism. The metaphorization of decolonization makes possible a set of evasions, or “settler moves to innocence”, that problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity, and rescue settler futurity. In this article, we analyze multiple settler moves towards innocence in order to forward “an ethic of incommensurability” that recognizes what is distinct and what is sovereign for project(s) of decolonization in relation to human and civil rights based social justice projects. We also point to unsettling themes within transnational/Third World decolonizations, abolition, and critical space-place pedagogies, which challenge the coalescence of social justice endeavors, making room for more meaningful potential alliances.
Settler colonialism has been resistant to decolonization. Some settler polities decolonized later, some tentatively, some not at all (Veracini 2007a). And yet, as underscored, for example, by the 2007 UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and by its careful assertion of an indigenous right to self-determination respectful of the sovereignty of existing states, there is a need to focus on the possibility of postcolonial futures in a not-yet postcolonial world.1 Considering the at times irresistible trajectory of decolonization processes during a number of crucial decades in the twentieth century, settler colonialism’s resilience requires explanation.
The White Possessive explores the links between race, sovereignty, and possession through themes of property: owning property, being property, and becoming propertyless. Focusing on the Australian Aboriginal context, Aileen Moreton-Robinson questions current race theory in the first world and its preoccupation with foregrounding slavery and migration. The nation, she argues, is socially and culturally constructed as a white possession. Moreton-Robinson reveals how the core values of Australian national identity continue to have their roots in Britishness and colonization, built on the disavowal of Indigenous sovereignty. Whiteness studies literature is central to Moreton-Robinson’s reasoning, and she shows how blackness works as a white epistemological tool that bolsters the social production of whiteness—displacing Indigenous sovereignties and rendering them invisible in a civil rights discourse, thereby sidestepping thorny issues of settler colonialism. Throughout this critical examination Moreton-Robinson proposes a bold new agenda for critical Indigenous studies, one that involves deeper analysis of how the prerogatives of white possession function within the role of disciplines. © 2015 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Over the past forty years, recognition has become the dominant mode of negotiation and decolonization between the nation-state and Indigenous nations in North America. The term “recognition” shapes debates over Indigenous cultural distinctiveness, Indigenous rights to land and self-government, and Indigenous peoples’ right to benefit from the development of their lands and resources. In a work of critically engaged political theory, Glen Sean Coulthard challenges recognition as a method of organizing difference and identity in liberal politics, questioning the assumption that contemporary difference and past histories of destructive colonialism between the state and Indigenous peoples can be reconciled through a process of acknowledgment. Beyond this, Coulthard examines an alternative politics—one that seeks to revalue, reconstruct, and redeploy Indigenous cultural practices based on self-recognition rather than on seeking appreciation from the very agents of colonialism. Coulthard demonstrates how a “place-based” modification of Karl Marx’s theory of “primitive accumulation” throws light on Indigenous–state relations in settler-colonial contexts and how Frantz Fanon’s critique of colonial recognition shows that this relationship reproduces itself over time. This framework strengthens his exploration of the ways that the politics of recognition has come to serve the interests of settler-colonial power. In addressing the core tenets of Indigenous resistance movements, like Red Power and Idle No More, Coulthard offers fresh insights into the politics of active decolonization. © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Between Indigenous and Settler Governance addresses the history, current development and future of Indigenous self-governance in four settler-colonial nations: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Bringing together emerging scholars and leaders in the field of indigenous law and legal history, this collection offers a long-term view of the legal, political and administrative relationships between Indigenous collectivities and nation-states. Placing historical contingency and complexity at the center of analysis, the papers collected here examine in detail the process by which settler states both dissolved indigenous jurisdictions and left spaces - often unwittingly - for indigenous survival and corporate recovery. They emphasise the promise and the limits of modern opportunities for indigenous self-governance; whilst showing how all the players in modern settler colonialism build on a shared and multifaceted past. Indigenous tradition is not the only source of the principles and practices of indigenous self-determination; the essays in this book explore some ways that the legal, philosophical and economic structures of settler colonial liberalism have shaped opportunities for indigenous autonomy. Between Indigenous and Settler Governance will interest all those concerned with Indigenous peoples in settler-colonial nations.
This article explores the strengths and limitations of settler colonial theory (SCT) as a tool for non-Indigenous scholars seeking to disturb rather than re-enact colonial privilege. Based on an examination of recent Australian academic debates on settler colonialism and the Northern Territory intervention, we argue that SCT is useful in dehistoricizing colonialism, usually presented as an unfortunate but already transcended national past, and in revealing the intimate connections between settler emotions, knowledges, institutions and policies. Most importantly, it makes settler investments visible to settlers, in terms we understand and find hard to escape. However, as others have noted, SCT seems unable to transcend itself, in the sense that it posits a structural inevitability to the settler colonial relationship. We suggest that this structuralism can be mobilized by settler scholars in ways that delegitimize Indigenous resistance and reinforce violent colonial relationships. But while settlers come to stay and to erase Indigenous political existence, this does not mean that these intentions will be realized or must remain fixed. Non-Indigenous scholars should challenge the politically convenient conflation of settler desires and reality, and of the political present and the future. This article highlights these issues in order to begin to unlock the transformative potential of SCT, engaging settler scholars as political actors and arguing that this approach has the potential to facilitate conversations and alliances with Indigenous people. It is precisely by using the strengths of SCT that we can challenge its limitations; the theory itself places ethical demands on us as settlers, including the demand that we actively refuse its potential to re-empower our own academic voices and to marginalize Indigenous resistance.
This article examines ongoing contestation surrounding the policies of the Federal government's ‘Intervention’ in Indigenous communities in Australia's Northern Territory. It highlights how the paradigm of ‘evidence-based policy’ has been used by both the government and its critics, suggesting this commonality of language is worthy of reflection. Cautioning against an over-reliance on the rationalist framework of ‘evidence-based policy’, it draws on literature that problematizes this idea and insists on the inherently contested and political nature of the relationship between knowledge, evidence and policy-making. It concludes by pointing to alternative strategies for improving Indigenous policy that risk being overlooked by a focus on ‘evidence-based policy’ as a prescriptive ideal.
The article explores the relationship between genocide and the settler colonialism. The author asserts that though the settler-colonial logic of elimination has manifested as genocidal-they should be distinguished. The article further analyzes the negative and positive dimensions of settler colonialism. While on the one hand it attempts to dissolve native societies, it also establishes a new colonial society on the seized land base.
Thesis (M.P.A.)--University of Queensland. Includes bibliographical references.
Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), pensadora política alemana. En esta obra analiza tres fenómenos políticos que prepararon y dieron origen al totalitarismo contemporáneo y sus manifestaciones: el antisemitismo, el imperialismo y el totalitarismo. De cada uno plantea los inicios de su gestación. Así, en el antisemitismo estudia a los judíos en la Europa central y occidental; del imperialismo lo sitúa en el siglo XIX; y del totalitarismo destaca los acontecimientos de los años 1929-1953 de Alemania y Rusia, con Hitler y Stalin, respectivamente.
Sovereignty Sovereignty matters: Locations of contestation and possibility in Indigenous struggles for self-determination
- T Alfred
The promise of politics
- H Arendt
The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt
- S Benhabib
Crown-tribe relations: Contractualism and coexistence in an intercultural context
- P Mchugh
Settler: Identity and colonialism in 21st century Canada
- E Battell-Lowman
- A Barker
History, time and the Indigenist critique
- E Cavanagh
Commonwealth government response to the council for aboriginal reconciliation final report
- Commonwealth Of Australia
Reconciling in the apocalypse. The Monitor 1 March
- E Lee
Hannah Arendt, imperialisms and the holocaust
- D Moses
Hannah Arendt and the philosophical repression of politics
- A Schaap
Speech to the Australian parliament in favour of the Act of Recognition Bill
- J Gillard
Unsettling settler colonialism: The discourse and politics of settlers, and solidarity with Indigenous nations
- C Snelgrove
- R Dhamoon
- J Corntassel
The vanishing endpoint of settler colonialism
- E Strakosch
- A Macoun
Settler colonialism and the transformation of anthropology
- P Wolfe
Speech to the Australian parliament in favour of the Act of Recognition Bill
- T Abbott
Joint press conference parliament house. Canberra
- J Howard
- A Vanstone
Introduction. In The promise of politics
- J Kohn
Dancing with shadows: Erasing aboriginal self and sovereignty
- P Morrisey
On the shores of politics
- J Ranciere
The law of the land. Camberwell: Penguin
- H Reynolds
Sovereignty matters: Locations of contestation and possibility in Indigenous struggles for self-determination
- T Alfred
Commonwealth government response to the council for aboriginal reconciliation final report. Canberra: Government of the Commonwealth of Australia
- Australia Commonwealth Of
- Commonwealth of Australia