Chapter 8 U.S. Empire and the War Against Native Sovereignty

Conquest ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 177-192
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Steven Salaita

The second chapter offers a broad history of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, or BDS, movement and theorizes ways that it can be used in the service of Native nationalism. It explores the implications of academic boycott in the context of broader questions about decolonization, emphasizing the geographies of Indigeneity in America. While issues of academic freedom and activist strategy are central to BDS, it is important to keep sight of the movement’s engagement with the landscapes from which it arises. What does it mean for a BDS movement, one originating in Palestine, to do work in America, itself a colonized space? In what ways can and should BDS interact with Native communities? How do Native communities inform the tactics and philosophies of BDS? The chapter argues that BDS actually functions as an articulation of Native sovereignty, inside and beyond America, but only when it transcends its own nationalist paradigms.


Metrics ◽  
2016 ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
MOLLY HALES
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 783-799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aida Gureghian

In 1514, the first battle between the Ottomans and the newly founded Safavid dynasty took place. The Battle of Chaldiran, as it came to be known, marked the beginning of a century-long struggle between the Sunni Ottomans and Shia Safavids that would draw to a close in 1639 with the Treaty of Zuhab. The human toll of this ongoing warfare over the Caucasus and Mesopotamia would be exacted not just from the soldiers of each empire, but also from the different ethnic groups that inhabited these regions. Some caught in the midst of these conflicts had their towns and homes razed by these troops. Others were forced to relocate and resettle. The Armenians were one such group, trapped between these Muslim forces, whose material and non-material well-being was under threat. Armenians had been coping with foreign incursions for centuries. Historical Armenia had been invaded and often laid to waste by the Arabs in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, the Byzantines in the eleventh, and the Mongols and Seljuks from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries. In fact, an Armenian kingdom in ancestral Armenia had not existed since the eleventh century, leaving the people of Greater (or historical) Armenia without any native sovereignty and as a politically fragmented entity. In the sixteenth century, historical Armenia had once again come to lie at the center of unremitting wars, this time fought between the Safavids and the Ottomans.


2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 373-407
Author(s):  
Zak Leonard

Beginning in the 1840s, high-ranking officials within the East India Company began a concerted effort to confiscate and annex princely states, citing misrule or a default of blood heirs. In response, metropolitan reformers and their Indian allies orchestrated a sustained legalistic defense of native sovereignty in the public sphere and emerged as vocal opponents of colonial expansionism. Adapting concepts put forth by both law of nations theorists and contemporary jurists, they sought to preserve longstanding treaties and defend the princes' exercise of internal sovereignty. The colonial government's failure to adequately define the basis of its modern “paramountcy” invited such creative maneuvering. Reformist opposition to the annexation of Awadh, the dispossession of the Nawab of the Carnatic, and the confiscation of Mysore demonstrates that international law did not simply function as a Eurocentric tool of subordination, but could also provide a bulwark against colonial depredations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document