Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (review)

It has often been noted that the political claims of minorities and indigenous peoples are marginalized within traditional state-centric international political theory; but perhaps more surprisingly, they are also marginalized within much contemporary cosmopolitan political theory. In this chapter, I will argue that neither cosmopolitanism nor statism as currently theorized is well equipped to evaluate the normative claims at stake in many minority rights issues. I begin by discussing how the “minority question” arose as an issue within international relations—that is, why minorities have been seen as a problem and a threat to international order—and how international actors have historically attempted to contain the problem, often in ways that were deeply unjust to minorities. I will then consider recent efforts to advance a pro-minority agenda at the international level, and how this agenda helps reveal some of the limits of both cosmopolitan and statist approaches to IPT.

Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Contemporary Political Theory ◽

10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300036 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 239-241

Author(s):

Catherine Frost

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous Peoples

Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie ◽

10.2307/3341950 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 29 (1) ◽

pp. 150

Author(s):

Michael Asch ◽

Duncan Iveson ◽

Paul Patton ◽

Will Sanders

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous Peoples

Resistance and the Sacred: An Approach to the Various Meanings of the “Right to the Sacred” in Mexico Today

Open Theology ◽

10.1515/opth-2018-0016 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 228-235

Author(s):

Silvana Rabinovici

Keyword(s):

Global Warming ◽

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous Peoples ◽

Modern Science ◽

American Continent ◽

The Social ◽

Political Interpretation ◽

Social Environmental ◽

Over Exploitation ◽

The Right

Abstract This article analyses a certain philosophical (ethical and political) interpretation of “the sacred” as brought up by native world views of indigenous peoples in the American continent from a decolonial approach. Translation is used as resistance that resounds in the social-environmental struggles in our continent nowadays, particularly in Mexico. The appropriation of the term “sacred” by native peoples reveals the colonial political theory of the State. By challenging consumerism and ecological destruction, the translation of the indigenous concept of ‟sacred” into an ecological conception of intrinsic link between people and “nature” enables a dialogue between those cultures and the warning of modern science about global warming and the over-exploitation of the earth’s resources.

The Politics of Makarrata: Understanding Indigenous–Settler Relations in Australia

Political Theory ◽

10.1177/0090591719849023 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 48 (1) ◽

pp. 30-56 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Adrian Little

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous People ◽

Indigenous Peoples ◽

Torres Strait Islander ◽

Truth Telling ◽

Comparative Political Theory ◽

Torres Strait ◽

Significant Point

In May 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was released, providing an Indigenous response to debates on recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian constitution. The document advocated for a “Makarrata Commission,” which would oversee truth telling and agreement making. This essay analyzes the concept of Makarrata as it has emerged in the context of Indigenous–settler relations in Australia and argues for a deeper engagement of non-Indigenous people with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts and practices. By extending some of the methods of comparative political theory to incorporate endogenous as well as exogenous comparisons, the article demonstrates the ways in which Makarrata is likely to contribute to continuing contestation and disagreement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. While the Uluru Statement marked a significant point in the Australian recognition debate because it reflected a relatively consensual Indigenous message articulated on its own terms, the article suggests that “Makarrata” must not be appropriated into a benign settler discourse of reconciliation, if the concept’s potential to inform substantive change in Indigenous–settler relations is to be realized.

1 Tribal Membership Governance and the Cultural Production of Indigeneity: Reflecting Inter‐indigenous Recognition in Public Policy

Tribal Constitutionalism ◽

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199587094.003.0002 ◽

2010 ◽

Author(s):

Gover Kirsty

Keyword(s):

Public Policy ◽

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous Peoples ◽

Cultural Production ◽

Race Model ◽

Indigenous Communities ◽

Do So

In the settler states, recognition of indigenous peoples has traditionally proceeded on one of two models: the race model (prioritizing indigenous ancestry) and the nation model (prioritizing tribal membership). This chapter suggests that both models are inadequate, because neither acknowledges inter-indigenous recognition. By reference to tribal constitutions and codes, it shows that many tribes use a concept of indigeneity in their membership criteria. Many allow the enrolment of non-descendants and prefer indigenous persons when they do so. This shows that when they self-constitute, tribes position themselves within a broader cultural association of indigenous communities, enclosed by an indigenous non-indigenous boundary of their own making. Existing models of tribalism, indigeneity, culture, and recognition in political theory and public policy do not adequately account for the relationships between tribes and indigenous persons.

Modern Political Philosophy and Prehistoric Anthropology: Some Preliminary Issues

10.3366/edinburgh/9780748678662.003.0002 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Karl Widerquist ◽

Grant S. McCall

Keyword(s):

Political Philosophy ◽

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous Peoples ◽

The State ◽

Academic Disciplines ◽

State Of Nature ◽

Theory Section ◽

To Receive ◽

The Relationship

Because this book involves two very different academic disciplines, political philosophy and anthropology, some background about the relevant topics in each one is helpful. In this chapter, Section 1 introduces the relevant political theory. Section 2 discusses some of the anthropological methods and conceptual issues involved in the examination of the evidence relevant to these philosophical arguments. Section 3 discusses how the state and the state of nature are defined in relation to each other. Section 4 addresses some responses this book is likely to receive. Section 5 discusses the relationship between this book and modern indigenous peoples.

From Locke to Slots: Money and the Politics of Indigeneity

Comparative Studies in Society and History ◽

10.1017/s0010417518000051 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 60 (2) ◽

pp. 274-307 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Jessica R. Cattelino

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous Peoples ◽

American Indians ◽

New World ◽

Private Property ◽

Settler Colonialism ◽

Everyday Practices ◽

Constitutive Exclusion ◽

Theories Of Money ◽

The Impact

AbstractWith ongoing consequences for American Indians, the New World Indian has been a pervasive figure of constitutive exclusion in modern theories of money, property, and government. This paradoxical exclusion of indigenous peoples from the money/property/government complex is intrinsic to, and constitutive of, modern theories of money. What is more, it haunts the cultural politics of indigenous peoples’ economic actions. In Part I, I establish that, and how, indigeneity has been constitutively present at the foundation of modern theories of money, as Europeans and settlers defined indigenous peoples in part by the absence of money and property (of which money is a special form). In turn, and more to the point here, they defined money and property in part as that which modern non-indigenous people have and use. These are not solely economic matters: the conceptual exclusions from money/property were coproduced with juridical ones insofar as liberal political theory grounded the authority of modern government in private property (and, in turn, in money). To show how this formation of money and indigeneity has mattered both for disciplinary anthropology and for American public culture at several historical moments, Part II traces how the dilemmas expressed by these texts haunt subsequent debates about the function of wampum, the logic of potlatch, and the impact of tribal gaming. Such debates inform scholarship beyond the boundaries of anthropology and, as each case shows in brief, they create harms and benefits for peoples in ways that perpetuate the (il)logics and everyday practices of settler colonialism.

Settler–State Political Theory, ‘CANZUS’ and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

European Journal of International Law ◽

10.1093/ejil/chv019 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 26 (2) ◽

pp. 345-373 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Kirsty Gover

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous Peoples

A Race of Devils: Race-Making, Frankenstein, and The Modern Prometheus

Political Theory ◽

10.1177/0090591720988686 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 009059172098868

Author(s):

P. J. Brendese

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Indigenous Peoples ◽

Religious Conversion ◽

Raw Material ◽

Subject Formation ◽

Native Peoples ◽

Cultural Genocide ◽

Liberal Humanism

This essay engages Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus as a salient intervention into modern political theory. I analyze the work as a cipher for the tensions inhabiting Euro-modernity’s stitched together fictions of racial determinism and racial dynamism legible in slavery, assimilationist projects and White fears reverberating throughout. Adapting the mythical ancient Prometheus as one who steals fire from the gods to create humans and civilization, Frankenstein dramatizes the risks and monstrous results of White imperial masculinity as a Euro-colonial Promethean project of subject formation and race-making. Viewed through the prism of the Modern Prometheus, modernity in general and liberal humanism in particular are recast as monster-making projects. The European “discovery” of Indigenous peoples amplified Promethean aspirations to create subjects through civilizational processes of religious conversion, the infusion of Enlightenment rationality, and assimilation into whiteness. Politically, the Promethean capacity to engineer humans and proto-humans using Native peoples as raw material allowed progressives to argue against outright extermination in favor of cultural genocide. Seeking to create a subserviant species, Victor Frankenstein confronts a revolting insurrection of his own making—a Creature who refuses slavery, claims mastery over his creator and demands a female companion. Yet Frankenstein’s fear of creating “a race of devils” betrays a terror of what Whites know, but refuse to acknowledge, about themselves and racial others.