Suchergebnisse

Defenders of Aboriginal rights such as James Tully have argued that members of majority populations should allow Aboriginal peoples to argue within their own preferred intellectual frameworks in seeking common moral ground. But how should non-Aboriginal academics react to claims that seem insufficiently critical or even incoherent? This essay argues that there are two reasons to be especially wary of attacking such errors given the historical injustices perpetrated by settler states against Aboriginal peoples. First, attempts to root out error will often be misplaced, because they will fail to consider the full range of possible reasons for particular kinds of social practices. Second, such attempts will often have counterproductive social effects in disrupting conversations and prolonging Aboriginal alienation. This essay thus argues that non-Aboriginal academics should be willing to exercise considerable self-restraint toward apparent intellectual errors, because such a strategy will be most conducive to realizing justice over the long term.

While claims for the return of expropriated land by Native Americans and other indigenous peoples are often evaluated using legal frameworks, such approaches fail to engage the fundamental moral questions involved. This essay outlines three justifications for Native Americans to pursue land claims: to regain properties where original ownership has not been superseded, to aid the long-term survival of their endangered cultures, and to challenge and revise the historical misremembering of mainstream American society. The third justification is most controversial. It asserts that understandings of history shape perceptions of the present, and that intensively pursued land claims can provide powerful challenges to inaccurate conceptions of the past. This essay argues that Native Americans are for this reason justified in strategically pursuing land claims that are difficult to justify on other grounds, and closes with some worries about the legitimate role of strategy in political action.

1 Intellectual foundations2 Moderates, extremists, and terrorists: Krishnavarma and the nationalist constellation; (i) The â#x80;#x98;unknown patriotâ#x80;#x99;; (ii) The nationalist constellation I: moderates; (iii) The nationalist constellation II: extremists and terrorists; 3 A state of violence: Spencer, sociology, and the sentimental foundations of empire; Conclusion; Notes; 3 The other Mahatmaâ#x80;#x99;s naive monarchism: Phule, Paine, and the appeal to Queen Victoria; Slaveries and conquests; Paine in Phuleâ#x80;#x99;s Indian context; The British: better invaders?; Supplication, sentimentality, and the Queen.

Tocqueville's discussion of American Indians inDemocracy in Americais often read as the paradigmatic expression of a conventional story about American political expansion. This narrative holds that westward expansion was easy, in part because American Indians did not offer much resistance. Historians of political thought and scholars of American Political Development tend to affirm this narrative when they read Tocqueville's text as suggesting merely that Indians are "doomed" to an inevitable extinction. Our interpretation here proceeds along different lines, with a greater focus on the ways in which contending Jacksonian-era discourses of Indian nomadism are represented in Tocqueville's text. We argue thatDemocracyreflects complex and often competing descriptions of inherent Indian nomadism, retreat, and removal, with varying attributions of causal responsibility for disappearing Indian populations. This reading of Tocqueville highlights contentions about Indian removal that are often ignored or neglected in current scholarship, and can therefore help us to better appreciate both his text and his time.

AbstractThis paper compares key aspects of governance structures for Indigenous populations in the United States and Australia. The paper focuses on policy coordination and administration, in particular the nodes of decision‐making in the two countries in relation to government contracting and accountability. The U.S. approach to funding Indigenous organizations stems from the 1975 Indian Self‐Determination and Education Act and its subsequent expansions. Through the development of contracting into permanent compacting via block grants, this approach builds established nodes of Indigenous government and facilitates whole‐of‐government coherence at the level of the American Indian tribe. The U.S. approach seems correlated with better performance and may lighten bureaucratic loads over the long term. The Australian model, on the other hand, seeks to create whole‐of‐government coherence through top‐down financial accountability in a way that hampers the development of Indigenous political capacity. The paper traces the development of these practices through time and illustrates how they contribute to the fragmentation rather than growth of Indigenous political capacities. It suggests ways the Australian model could be improved even in the absence of fundamental reform by drawing on the contracting‐to‐compacting framework of longstanding U.S. practices.

Features contributions that respond to deep challenges to social cohesion from racial injusticeIn the latest installment of the NOMOS series, a distinguished group of interdisciplinary scholars explore the erosion—and potential rebuilding—of civic bonds in response to injustice, wrongdoing, and betrayal. Contributors address the possibility of reconciliation and repair, drawing on cutting-edge insights from the fields of political science, philosophy, and law. Nine timely essays explore our pivotal moment in history, from the question of reparations for slavery to the from the art—and impact—of the public apology.The editors of this volume encourage us to not only examine the roots of mistrust, but also to imagine a collective way forward, particularly as we face the continuing threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reconciliation and Repair provides thought-provoking perspectives in an age where they are desperately needed