Synthesis of main ideas and support from articles (list main ideas and summarize support

1. Article Review 1 Assignment ( Description Instructions)

2. Week Four Reflections (Reflection Guide Lines instruction)

There are 4 articles and there are two post with instructions on it for each assignment. It’s simple just don’t have time to do it.

Requirements: 250-300 words for Reflection/ 300-500 for Article Review

Title of articles and authors:

Synthesis of main ideas and support from articles (list main ideas and summarize support; be sure to include references): This section can be in paragraphs, bullet points, or even a concept map(s).

Main idea

Support (brief summary): this is where you will lay out the synthesis. For example you can start with the article that first addressed this main idea and then put it in conversation with another article.

Critiques:

What did the authors do well in the articles? (1-2 sentences)

Where could the authors strengthen their claims/argument? (1-2 sentences)

Outstanding questions

What questions do you have after reading these articles? (Include at least 1 question)

417The Lumbee are the largest tribe in North Carolina and pri-marily reside in Robeson County, which has made lists of the most dangerous counties nationwide. Indigenous women are more likely to be murdered than any other racial group, wherever they live. This work explores violence against Natives and the dangers to Lumbee women in particular.Content Note: This commentary discusses traumatic topics, including rape and murder, which some may find distressing.Introduction In 2014, I was working as a school social worker at Lumberton Senior High School, the school I graduated from. I worked with a myriad of kids—those impacted by domestic violence, struggling in school, or who just needed a little extra support and guidance. There are students I worked with that I will never forget. One of those students is Marcey Blanks. She was a whirlwind of a girl, bright and witty and sharp-tongued, but also kind, empathetic, and thoughtful. She was brown-skinned, thin as a rake, with soft, brown, wavy hair and the biggest brown eyes I’d ever had the privilege of seeing. After I left my job in 2015, I often checked on Marcey on social media to see how she was doing. And in 2016, I remember exactly where I was when I got the news: Marcey had been brutally murdered. Once I learned more details—that she had been raped, that her home had been set on fire, that she had been stabbed 89 times, and that she managed to, after all of this, walk out of her home to a neigh-bor’s and name the person who did this, after which she died on his doorstep—I was even more horrified that such a thing could happen, let alone to someone I knew.Marcey’s story, in all of its horror, is unfortunately not unique. I host a podcast called The Red Justice Project with Chelsea T. Locklear, another Lumbee woman, and each week we cover the story of a different Indigenous person who has gone missing or been murdered, with a particular focus on cases in Robeson County, North Carolina, where the Lumbee Tribe is centered. Every story is horrible in its own way, but the stories are endless. Someone once asked us what we would do when we ran out of stories to tell from our home county; I realized in horror that we never will. This list is never-ending.North Carolina is home to eight state-recognized tribes, including my own Lumbee people. The Lumbee Tribe is the largest tribe east of the Mississippi, with more than 70,000 members, and North Carolina is home to more than 122,000 Indigenous people [1, 2]. Robeson County, where the Lumbee Tribe’s headquarters is located, has topped many statewide and national rankings as one of the most danger-ous counties to live in, and Lumberton, the county seat, has been named as one of the most dangerous cities in America [3, 4]. But for Native women living in the county, the reality is particularly dire. Indigenous women in the United States are 10 times more likely to be murdered than the national average and 84% have experienced violence in their lifetime [5]. Indigenous women are also the group most likely to be victims of sex trafficking, with 40% of all women who are sex trafficked in the nation identifying as Native American [6]. In my work on our podcast, people often ask us why. Why is this happening? Why is there this epidemic of violence against Indigenous women? I always respond that it is not an epidemic. Sarah Deer notes in her 2015 book The Beginning and End of Rape that the word epidemic “allow[s] society to absolve itself of blame…suggests that the problem is biologi-cal, that the problem originated independent of long-stand-ing oppression…suggests a short-term, isolated problem” [7]. The problems that Indigenous women face are neither short-term nor isolated. These were the same problems faced by their mothers and grandmothers before them, the same problems that their own daughters and granddaugh-ters face now.Violence Against Native Women: The BeginningWhen Christopher Columbus first landed his fateful ship in the “new world” on his voyage, one of the first acts of the Ain’t No Sunshine When She’s Gone: Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in North Carolina Brittany HuntElectronically published November 8, 2021.Address correspondence to Dr. Brittany Hunt, 6936 Cascade Dream Ct, Huntersville, NC 28078 ([email protected]). N C Med J. 2021;82(6):417-419. ©2021 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.0029-2559/2021/82612

418settlers he brought with him was to start a sex slave trade of Indigenous girls. In the year 1500, Columbus wrote this to a friend in reference to Taino girls: “there are many deal-ers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand” [8]. Pocahontas, who many consider the most famous Native woman of all time, was just a child, 8 or 9 years old, when she met John Smith, and oral tradi-tions and other written records indicated that she was raped by the colonists in the area, that other Native children were routinely raped by colonists, and that Native women would offer themselves up to prevent this abuse [9]. Pocahontas died at age 20, the location of her remains unknown [9]. Sacajawea, who was used by the women’s suffrage move-ment as the image of women’s liberation and independence, has a similarly sad story: she was kidnapped as a child and sold into slave marriage at age 13 to a 34-year-old colonist, after which, at age 16, she was forced to accompany him and Lewis and Clark on their journey west. She died at age 25.The targeting of Indigenous women is not a new phe-nomenon, and certainly not an epidemic. Our girls and women have always been isolated, preyed upon, hunted. What is happening now nationwide, in North Carolina, and in Robeson County in particular, is “a fundamental result of colonialism, a history of violence reaching back centuries” [7] and that now reaches forward, seizing our mothers, daughters, sisters—and our Marceys. Despite this centuries-long assault on our women and girls, the matriarchy reigns and remains. Our women are still at the center of our cultures, our mothers are still the leaders in our households, our grandmothers are still the backbone of our families. A few years ago, my granddaddy expressed annoyance that we called their house “grandma’s house.” This was never intended as a slight, but as an ances-tral reminder that we are a matriarchal people, that property belongs to the women, just as all life springs from them. The colonizers knew upon arrival to Indigenous soil that women were revered, that we were leaders amongst our people, working and owning land and property [7]. For colo-nialism to work, this system had to be uprooted to mirror more closely the subjugation of European women, in order to justify the seizure of Indigenous land and labor from our women. And ultimately, though colonizer men have been the primary abusers, Indigenous men began joining in on the degradation of Indigenous women. Patriarchy and colonial behaviors have impacted us all, but none more than Native women, as they face threats from both within and outside of their communities.Violence in Robeson County ContinuesIn Robeson County in 2017, the bodies of three women—two Indigenous and one White but enmeshed in the Native community—were found. Rhonda Jones was found in a trash can, and the same day, just feet away, Kristin Bennett was found in an abandoned home in a television cabinet. A friend of theirs, Megan Oxendine, spoke to the news about their deaths. Weeks later, her body was found less than a mile from the others, beside an abandoned home [10]. The medi-cal examiner listed the causes of the three women’s deaths as “undetermined.” Two other women—Cynthia Jacobs and Abby Patterson—went missing from the area within weeks of these deaths [11].When asked by a reporter about information on missing and murdered Indigenous women (MMIW) in the county, local sheriff Burnis Wilkins stated, “I wasn’t really 100% familiar with our cases until you actually brought it to my attention and wanted some statistics” [12]. What the sher-iff “wasn’t familiar with” are the stories we can’t forget, the murders that rip apart families, that traumatize communi-ties. They are the Marceys, Rhondas, Kristins, Megans, Cynthias, and Abbys, and they are not statistics to us. They are us. When we tell our stories on The Red Justice Project, they are not just cases. They are our people. Each mother or sister or friend of a victim we speak to, we share a special bond with. They share with us the most intimate and violent loss they have experienced. Marcey’s mother told me that after she learned of her murder, she wanted to go to Marcey immediately; she said, “I felt like if I could just get to her to touch her, hug her, she would be all right” [13]. She told us that she goes to Marcey’s grave every single day.Generational Trauma and HealingNative communities throughout the state, but the Lumbee community in particular, are marred by the collu-sion of colonial violence and historical trauma, defined as the “cumulative emotional and psychological wounding across generations…which emanates from massive group trauma” [14]. Though in modern medicine the focus is often on the body and studying the quantifiable through Western sci-ence, there are other forms of science that are innate, immu-table, and ancestral to Indigenous peoples that are harder to name or measure. As Indigenous people, we do not just experience our own realities, but the realities of our commu-nities and of our ancestors. This aligns with the Indigenous concept of blood memory, which is a “common tribal value of multigenerational remembrance [that] runs directly counter to prevailing Western traits of individual achievement, lack of transgenerational memory, and transcendence of one’s genealogical fate and place of origin” [15].Though we seek neither to transcend our “genealogical fate” nor forsake our blood memories, there is a systemic unhealth prevalent in Indigenous communities through both direct and peripheral violence. What happens to my mother also happens to me. What happens to my sister also happens to me. What happens to my neighbor also happens to me. Indigenous healing is not individual, it is communal. How can I heal myself if my sister is in pain? How can my sister heal if she sees me suffering?

419There are many steps that we can take together toward healing. Currently, the Lumbee Tribe is being denied full fed-eral recognition. For us, this recognition would mean access to funding, services, and greater self-determination to create policy, health services, domestic violence services, and heal-ing modalities for our people. Though we have done much already, bureaucracy prevents us from doing more. Our bod-ies are being judicated through court systems that care little for our lives, and by sheriffs who know nothing of our sto-ries. Indigenous health needs to be managed by Indigenous peoples. Full federal recognition is one way to secure this.However, non-Natives need to take their place on this issue as well. Ninety-six percent of perpetrators of sexual violence against Indigenous women are non-Native [16]. More education on Indigenous people should be required in schools, including on their nations and societies pre-col-onization and the ways in which colonization has impacted them from 1492 to today. Rather than putting the focus on women preventing their own rape or murder, the onus needs to be placed on non-Native men and strategies they can take toward self-control and healing. Much violence can be pre-vented in this way, rather than taking the reactive approach of making it a women’s issue.Though there is much healing that needs to be done in Indigenous communities, our state and country have their own historical trauma that needs addressing. A country that began through so much violence, pain, and degradation cannot be sustainable for anyone—regardless of whether you are the ancestor of the colonized or of the colonizer. A wound comes whether you are the inflicted or the inflictor. How can you be healed if you are a creator of pain? White supremacy, racism, and colonialism, are a mar on us all. And no one knows this more than Indigenous women. Brittany Hunt, PhD director, Indigenous Ed, LLC, Lumberton, North Carolina.AcknowledgmentsI would like to acknowledge those who inspired this work: Marcey Blanks, Rhonda Jones, Kristin Bennett, Megan Oxendine, Cynthia Jacobs, and Abby Patterson, and the countless other Indigenous women and non-Indigenous women connected to Indigenous communities who have been marred by violence. This work is forever for you, in hopes that it will inspire others to work, too. Disclosure of interests. No interests were disclosed.References1. Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina (Lumbee Tribe). History & Culture: Recognition. Published 2019. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://www.lumbeetribe.com/history–culture2. NCPedia. American Indian tribes in North Carolina. Published 2005. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://www.ncpedia.org/tribes3. Spectrum News Staff. These 2 Carolina cities among the most dan-gerous in the US, study says. Spectrum News 1. Published August 26, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://spectrumlocal-news.com/nc/triad/news/2017/08/26/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-us-report-nc-sc4. Tribune Media Wire. 3 NC counties make list of top 30 ‘murder capitals’ in the U.S. Fox 8. Published February 29, 2016. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://myfox8.com/news/the-30-murder-capitals-in-the-u-s/5. Salam M. Native American Women Are Facing a Crisis. New York Times. Published April 12, 2019. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/native-american-wom-en-violence.html 6. NCAI Policy Research Center (NCAI). Human & Sex trafficking: Trends and Responses across Indian Country. Published Spring 2016. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://www.ncai.org/policy-research-center/research-data/prc-publications/TraffickingBrief.pdf7. Deer S. The Beginning and End of Rape: Confronting Sexual Violence in Native America. 3rd ed. University of Minnesota Press; 2015.8. Brockell G. Here are the Indigenous people Christopher Columbus and his men could not annihilate. The Washington Post. Published October 14, 2019. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/10/14/here-are-indigenous-people-christopher-columbus-his-men-could-not-annihilate/9. Schilling V. The True Story of Pocahontas: Historical Myths Ver-sus Sad Reality. Indian Media Network. Published September 8, 2017. Updated September 13, 2018. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/true-story-pocahontas-historical-myths-versus-sad-reality10. Futch M. How did these 3 Lumberton women die? The Fayetteville Observer. Published July 11, 2019. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20190711/how-did-these-3-lumberton-women-die11. Burke D. Inside the tiny town where three women have died and two more gone missing in just six months. Mirror UK. Published No-vember 6, 2017. Updated November 7, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-tiny-town-women-three-1147868912. Jones R. “There’s a Sickness in Robeson”: Families of Slain Na-tive Americans in N.C. want justice. Spectrum News 1. Published March 9, 2021. Updated March 11, 2021. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/triangle-sandhills/news/2021/03/09/murdered-native-american-families-search-for-justice#13. Locklear C, Hunt B. Episode 11: Marcey Blanks . Red Justice Project. Published January 18, 2021. https://www.redjusticepodcast.com/listen-here/episode/4a13241f/episode-11-marcey-blanks14. Brave Heart MYH, Chase J, Elkins J, Altschul DB. Historical trauma among Indigenous peoples of the Americas: concepts, research, and clinical considerations. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2011;43(4): 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2011.62891315. Mithlo N. Blood memory and the arts: Indigenous genealo-gies and imagined truths. American Indian Culture and Re-search Journal. 2011;35(4):103–118. https://doi.org/10.17953/aicr.35.4.ch5u144q02746t4616. Indian Law Resource Center. Ending Violence Against Native Wom-en. Accessed September 27, 2021. https://indianlaw.org/issue/ending-violence-against-native-women

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 2015, Vol. 1(1) 52 –72© American Sociological Association 2014DOI: 10.1177/2332649214560440sre.sagepub.comCurrent (and Future) Theoretical Debates in Sociology of Race and EthnicityIn this article I argue for the necessity of a settler colonialism framework for an historically grounded and inclusive analysis of U.S. race and gender for-mation. A settler colonialism framework can encompass the specificities of racisms and sexisms affecting different racialized groups—especially Native Americans, blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans—while also highlighting structural and cultural factors that undergird and link these rac-isms and sexisms. I offer here a first rough sketch of a settler colonialism–framed analysis of racial formation in certain critical periods and places in the United States. I engage with recent theoretical work that views settler colonialism as a distinct transnational formation whose political and eco-nomic projects have shaped and continue to shape race relations in first world nations that were estab-lished through settler colonialism. My aim is to avoid lumping all racisms together, even for the benign purpose of promoting cross-race alliances to fight racial injustice. Equally, I wish to avoid seeing racisms affecting various groups as com-pletely separate and unrelated. Rather, I endeavor to uncover some of the articulations among differ-ent racisms that would suggest more effective bases for cross-group alliances.In the latter regard, one implication of taking settler colonialism seriously is to advance decolo-nization as a necessary goal in the quest to achieve race and gender justice. Indeed, the elaboration of the settler colonialism framework has been closely paralleled by the development of decolonial cri-tiques of racial justice projects that aim to achieve liberal inclusion, rather than liberation, of 560440SREXXX10.1177/2332649214560440Sociology of Race and EthnicityGlennresearch-article20141University of California, Berkeley, CA, USACorresponding Author:Evelyn Nakano Glenn, University of California, 506 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720.2570, USA. Email: [email protected] Colonialism as Structure: A Framework for Comparative Studies of U.S. Race and Gender FormationEvelyn Nakano Glenn1AbstractUnderstanding settler colonialism as an ongoing structure rather than a past historical event serves as the basis for an historically grounded and inclusive analysis of U.S. race and gender formation. The settler goal of seizing and establishing property rights over land and resources required the removal of indigenes, which was accomplished by various forms of direct and indirect violence, including militarized genocide. Settlers sought to control space, resources, and people not only by occupying land but also by establishing an exclusionary private property regime and coercive labor systems, including chattel slavery to work the land, extract resources, and build infrastructure. I examine the various ways in which the development of a white settler U.S. state and political economy shaped the race and gender formation of whites, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Chinese Americans.Keywordssettler colonialism, decolonization, race, gender, genocide, white supremacy

Glenn 53subordinated groups. Theorists of decolonialism, such as Walter Mignolo (2007) and Nelson Maldonado-Torres (2011), argue that the case for liberal inclusion can only be made by working within the narratives, logics, and epistemologies of modernism. Yet, these are the very narratives, log-ics, and epistemologies that undergird settler colo-nial projects. Thus, strategies and solutions that adhere to modernist concepts of progress, individu-ality, property, worth, and so on are fated to repro-duce the inequalities that colonialism has created. Mignolo and Maldonado-Torres argue for the necessity of challenging and rejecting modernist concepts. They propose that the border thinking and philosophy of women of color feminists offer counter-hegemonic narratives, logics, and episte-mologies that enable the imagining of liberation for men and women of color. What I draw on from decolonial theory is an intersectional perspective, one that recognizes gender, sexuality, and race as co-constituted by settler colonial projects.Before further elaborating the settler colonial framework, I will contextualize my project by briefly reviewing previous efforts to develop con-ceptual models to analyze and compare racisms affecting varied racialized groups in the United States.BEyOND THE BlACk-WHITE BINARy?American sociologists developed the concept of “ethnicity” to refer to relations among groups marked by cultural and language difference, while “race” referred to groups marked by supposed somatically visible difference. These scholars rec-ognized that racial groups were also characterized by cultural distinctions, but in practice, the study of ethnic relations generally focused on intraracial relations, especially among whites from different national origins, while the study of race focused in interracial group relations and inequality between and among groups marked as white and black. Indeed, the vast majority of sociological studies of racism and racial inequality have focused on white-black conflict and disparities. This attention was warranted given the long history of black subjuga-tion and the unique structural position blacks occu-pied as property under the regime of chattel slavery. Jared Sexton (2010:46) noted, “Because Blackness serves as the basis of enslavement in the logic of a transnational political and legal culture, it perma-nently destabilizes the position of any nominally free Black population.” Indeed, after Emancipation and the end of Reconstruction, white supremacy was reinstated in the former slave states by mea-sures that subjected nominally free blacks to legal, political, and economic conditions as close to slav-ery as possible. Blacks were systematically disfran-chised, super-exploited, confined, and terrorized in multiple ways. Denied any freedom wages in the form of land, freed people were ensnared in debt bondage under the sharecropping system, arbi-trarily imprisoned and put to forced labor under the convict labor system, and kept in check by legal and vigilante terrorism.Finally, a century after formal emancipation, with the gains won by the Civil Rights Movement in the United States and the growing ethnic, racial, and religious diversity of the U.S. population, espe-cially as non-Hispanic whites have approached becoming a numerical minority, race scholars have shifted more attention to racism affecting other groups, particularly Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans.One strategy has been to cluster racialized groups together under an umbrella term, such as “non-Whites,” “people of color,” or “third world minorities.” By identifying commonalities in their experiences of subordination, exploitation, and exclusion, theorists hoped to promote coalitional organizing to fight racism. The internal colonialism model, originally devised by Carmichael and Hamilton (1967) to account for the condition of African Americans, was elaborated by Robert Blauner (1972) in his influential volume Racial Oppression in America to encompass African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans. According to Blauner (1972:53), these racialized minorities (Colonized Minorities) “share a common situation of oppression” that differed from the situation of European immigrants (Immigrant Minorities), namely, “forced entry into the larger society” (as opposed to voluntary entry by European immigrants), subjection to various forms of coerced labor (as opposed to participation in free labor), and colonizer cultural policy that “con-strains, transforms, or destroys original values, ori-entations, and ways of life.” Racial Oppression became a foundational text for students and schol-ars of Chicano-Latino, Native American, and Asian American Studies during the 1970s and 1980s.A second approach has been to focus on the common processes by which groups are formed (and reformed) as racial groups—that is, are identi-fied by social and political institutions and self-identify as distinct races. This approach bypasses the problem of mapping racialized groups in a

54 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) conceptual space or in a hierarchy of groups. Michael Omi and Howard Winant took this approach in their seminal work, Racial Formation in America, originally published in 1989 and reis-sued in revised versions in 1994 and 2014. Omi and Winant argued that in the United States, “Race is a fundamental axis of social organization.” At the same time, they recognized race not as fixed but as “an unstable and ‘decentered’ complex of social meaning constantly being transformed by political struggle” (Omi and Winant 1994:13). Indeed, the last decades of the twentieth century saw racially defined groups engaging in political struggle to challenge the structural and cultural violence of colonialism, apartheid, and racial-ethnic cleansing. One result of these struggles is that “we have now reached the point of fairly general agreement that race is not a biologically given but rather a socially constructed way of differentiating human beings” (Omi and Winant 1994:55). Omi and Winant (1994:63) caution, however, that “the transcen-dence of biological conceptions of race does not provide any reprieve from the dilemmas of racial injustice and conflict nor from the controversies over the significance of race in the present.”A third approach to the imperative for a more comprehensive understanding of race has been to retain the white-black poles as the anchors of a hierarchical U.S. racial system but to expand the hierarchy to include other racialized groups between the poles. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (1997) developed what he called a “racialized social sys-tem” approach to analyzing how a society’s eco-nomic, political, social, and political stratification is structured by the placement of actors into racial categories. In other writings (e.g., Bonilla-Silva 2009) he argues that U.S. racial stratification is undergoing transformation into a tri-partite Latin American style system consisting of blacks, whites, and an intermediate category of honorary whites. Bonilla-Silva examines the ranking of various Asian and Latino groups on an array of measures, including income, schooling, educational attain-ment, occupational status, self-identity, attitudes toward blacks, rates of intermarriage, and residen-tial segregation. These rankings provide support for his hypothesis that some Asian groups (e.g., Chinese and Koreans) and some (generally lighter skinned) Latino groups (e.g., Chileans and Argentines) are being assimilated “upward” to become accepted as whites or else are being absorbed into an intermediate stratum of “honorary whites.” Concurrently, other Asian groups (e.g., Hmong and Cambodians) and darker skinned Latinos (e.g., many Puerto Ricans) are being assimilated “downward” to become part of an expanded category that he calls the “collective Black.”Still another approach has been taken by non-U.S. origin scholars who pioneered postcolonial studies (e.g., Bhabha 1994; Gilroy 1995; Hall 2003) and by U.S. Latino/a thinkers who pioneered border studies and feminist decolonial studies (e.g., Anzaldua 2012; Lugones 2010; Sandoval 2000). These scholars have stressed the indeterminacy of racial categories and the fluidity and hybridity of racial identities. Such conceptions make eminent sense of a world where large swathes of popula-tions emigrate and move across borders, where borders are constantly contested and changed, and where individuals and cultures mix and merge. Moreover, some ethnic groups in the United States have long embraced a hybrid identity, most promi-nently Mexican Americans, many of whom cele-brate their mixed Indigenous/Spanish heritage (mestizaje), and Filipinos. Regarding fluidity, recent empirical work by Aliya Saperstein and Andrew Penner (2010, 2012) analyzes national longitudinal data over two decades and finds that individuals’ racial self-identification and others’ classification of them shift over time. Generally, becoming successful and of high status leads to shifts in self-identification and social assignment toward “white,” while becoming unsuccessful and low status (including being incarcerated) leads to reassignment to “black.” A concurrent develop-ment has been the destabilization of sex and gender designations and identities by feminist thinkers such as Judith Butler (2006) and empirically stud-ied by researchers such as Lisa Diamond (2009), which unfortunately I do not have space to elabo-rate on here. Yet, despite the increased recognition of the instability and ambiguity of race and gender categorizations, they remain persistent and resilient principles for organizing hierarchical relations within and between societies. How are we to account for this seeming contradiction?AN AlTERNATIVE STARTING POINTI now turn to an exposition of settler colonialism as an alternative starting point for a framework that can generate a more historically and structurally grounded analysis of racial inequality in the United States, one that pays attention to variation across time and place while also being attentive to struc-tures that link these differing cases. It is

Glenn 55a framework that is amenable to intersectional understanding because it is widely understood that colonial projects simultaneously structure race, gender, class, and sexual relations within and between colonists and the colonized. Moreover, since settler colonial projects are transnational in scope, a settler colonialism framework invites investigation of cross-national connections and comparisons.The concept of settler colonialism has been most clearly elaborated by scholars of indigenous studies, especially in Australia, Canada, and the United States. It is a framework that highlights commonalities in the history and contemporary situation of indigenous peoples in many parts of the world. However, although it may seem to be best suited to explain the racialization and treatment of indigenous peoples, I agree with Patrick Wolfe (1999) that settler colonialism should be seen not as an event but as an ongoing structure. The logic, tenets, and identities engendered by settler colo-nialism persist and continue to shape race, gender, class, and sexual formations into the present.Scholars of settler colonialism argue that it is a distinct form of colonialism that needs to be theo-rized separately from colonialism more generally. In contrast to classic colonialism whose aim is to take advantage of resources that will benefit the metropole, settler colonialism’s objective is to acquire land so that colonists can settle perma-nently and form new communities. Lorenzo Veracini (2011) compares the narrative arc of clas-sic colonialism and settler colonialism to the differ-ence between a circle and a line. In classic colonialism, the narrative, as in the Odyssey, takes a circular form, “consisting of an outward move-ment followed by interaction with exotic and colo-nized ‘others’ in foreign surroundings, and by a final return to an original location” (p. 205). In con-trast, “the narrative generally associated with set-tler colonial enterprises rather resembles the Aeneid, where the traveler moves forward along a story line that can’t be turned back” (p. 206). Settler colonists do not envision a return home. Rather, they seek to transform the new colony into “home.”The differing goals of classic colonialism and settler colonialism lead to a second major differ-ence: their confrontation with indigenes. In classic colonialism, the object is to exploit not only natural resources but also human resources. Native inhab-itants represent a cheap labor source that can be harnessed to produce goods and extract materials for export to the metropole. They also serve as con-sumers, expanding the market for goods produced by the metropole and its other colonies. Goods and raw materials, like colonists, follow a circular path in classic colonialism.In settler colonialism, the object is to acquire land and to gain control of resources. To realize these ambitions, the first thing that must be done is to eliminate the indigenous occupants of the land. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways: genocide, forced removal from territories desired by white settlers, and confinement to reservations outside the boundaries of white settlement. It can also be accomplished through assimilation. Assimilation can be biological (e.g., through inter-marriage to “dilute” indigenous blood) and/or cul-tural (e.g., by stripping indigenes of their culture and replacing it with settler culture).The second thing that must be done is to secure the land for settlers. This can be accomplished by imposing a modernist property regime that trans-forms land and resources (sometimes including people) into “things” that can be owned. This regime consists of such elements as mapping and marking boundaries to delimit an object that is to be owned, a system for recording ownership, and legal rules for ownership and sale of objects defined as property. Indigenous people generally understand the land and their relationship to it very differently, viewing themselves as being provided for by the land and in turn as living in harmony with the land and having a sense of responsibility for its welfare. Settler society does not recognize indigenous conceptions and from their own per-spective of land as property, views indigenes as failing to make productive use of it.THE lOGIC AND PRACTICES Of U.S. SETTlER COlONIAlISMI turn now to the specific case of U.S. settler colo-nialism. Walter Hixson (2013:29) argues that the British settler colonial project in North America was unique from those of its Spanish and French rivals: “Like the Spanish and the French, the English embraced patriarchy, private property, and Christianity, but the emphasis on the settlement of families and communities distinguished them.” Spanish male colonists were spread thinly across vast vistas of land. French traders and missionaries were surrounded by indigenous people with whom they had to coexist. The French also were over-whelmingly male and often took Indian mistresses and wives with whom they formed Metis (mixed) communities. “By contrast European women migrated with men and children to settle in the

56 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) English colonies.” This family-based colonization in combination with its rural character proved to be advantageous, enabling “a steady westward migra-tion towards the agricultural frontier as the threat of Indian attack diminished” (Elliott 2006:43–44).With regard to the elimination of the indigene, settlers adopted all of the aforementioned policies at one time or another. Hixson (2013) documents the almost continuous history of settler colonial ethnic cleansing. Regular outbreaks of warfare occurred throughout the seventeenth, second half of the eighteenth, and the nineteenth centuries as settlers pressed up against lands inhabited or used by Native Americans first in the East and then in the Midwest and finally the West. Some genocidal campaigns were carried out by official military forces of the metropole or the colonies, while oth-ers were unauthorized actions by settler vigilantes. Attacks launched by vigilantes were likely to be particularly brutal and to involve the slaughtering of women, children, infants, and the elderly. Hixson notes that in 1609 when hostilities broke out between the English settlers in Jamestown and Native Americans in the region, the leader of the colony, James Smith, “pioneered the tradition of irregular warfare in the ‘New World’ by burning and razing Indian homes and agricultural fields” (p. 31). Warfare escalated during and after the Civil War as American settlers pushed to occupy the remaining land in the West and Native tribes fought to preserve their ways of life. The Massacre at Wounded Knee (1890) that resulted in the death of 300 Sioux warriors was one of the last major bat-tles and mostly ended Indian armed resistance (Brown 2007:439–50).A little known aspect of genocidal raids and warfare was the enslavement of indigenous survi-vors, particularly women and children. In colonial New England, the selling of Indian slaves on the international market in the Caribbean and South America helped defray the costs of the Powhatan Wars. Settler men spoke of their desire for Native American women whom they could use as domes-tic servants and sex slaves. In the South, according to Alan Gallay (2009:57), “Only through warfare could Carolinians obtain the slaves they desired to exchange for supplies to build their plantations.” In California between 1850 and 1863, Walter Hixson (2013:125) writes, “Some 10,000 Indians were sold into servitude. American slave traders often killed the parents of Indian children so they might be seized and trafficked.”Conflicts over territory were also resolved by removal and relocation under treaties that were agreed to by Native Americans induced to sign by false promises and duress. During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, and at his urging, the U.S. Congress passed The Indian Removal Act of 1830 (IRA). The IRA targeted the “five civilized tribes” of the southeast (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole), so called because they had gone furthest in adopting the culture and ways of life of white settlers (including the ownership of black slaves). Through treaty, these tribes were prevailed upon to cede their traditional lands in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida in exchange for land west of the Mississippi. The Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw were the first to be removed, and they suffered the loss of thousands of men, women, and children who died en route to the West. Cherokees waged a long legal battle that delayed removal until 1838. At that point, the U.S. government sent in 7,000 troops to force the Cherokee into stockades and then sent them on a forced march to the West with inadequate provisions. On the “Trail of Tears,” at least 4,000 Cherokees perished from hunger, cold, and disease. The Seminoles resisted militarily, wag-ing two wars, the second of which did not end until 1858, at which point most Seminoles had been relo-cated to Oklahoma. Even so, one hardy band of Seminoles managed to hold out in Florida, where their descendants still live (Foreman 1974; Perdue and Green 2008).Near the end of Indian armed resistance in the West in the 1880s, federal Indian policy turned decisively toward assimilation, or as it was often dubbed, “Americanization.” The aim was to phase out Indian treaty rights and other special statuses so as to absorb indigenous peoples into settler society. The twin prongs of Indian assimilation policy were land allotments and education. Under the Dawes Act of 1887, the federal government divided tribal land into individual allotments. Heads of house-holds were entitled to 160 acres, single individuals to 60 acres, and those under 18 to 40 acres (Debos 1973). By allotting larger holdings to heads of households, the program was designed to encour-age the formation of heteropatriarchal nuclear households. Proponents of allotment believed that owning and cultivating individual plots would transform Indian men into citizen farmers and Indian women into farm wives. Importantly, the large surplus left after allotments was made avail-able to white settlers and railroad companies for development. The net result of allotment policy was to dramatically reduce the amount of land owned by Indians collectively and individually. In 1887, before the start of allotment, Indians owned

Glenn 57138 million acres; that amount was reduced to 54 million acres by 1934 when the allotment program was terminated (McDonald 1991).Special education for Indian children was meant to complement allotment by preparing Indians for new productive roles in American society. Starting in the 1880s, reformers’ designs for Indian children consisted of two components: child removal and placement in boarding schools. Education officials at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) favored com-pulsory removal so as to limit the influence of Indian mothers. Estelle Reed, a longtime Superintendent of Indian Schools, explained, “The Indian child must be placed in school before the habits of barbarous life become fixed and there he must be kept until contact with our life has taught him to abandon his savage ways and walk in the path of Christian civilization” (Superintendent of Indian Schools 1900:426). Over a 24-year period from 1879 to 1902, the federal government estab-lished over 150 boarding schools, of which 25 were off-reservation (Reyhner and Eder 2004). BIA recruiters were hired to convince parents to enroll their children, with the promise that their children would be fed, housed, and educated so that they could improve their lives.Once at school, Indian children were given hair-cuts and issued settler clothing. They were prohib-ited from speaking their native languages and from practicing native religions and rituals. The curricu-lum focused on gender-typed vocational training. Boys were trained in farming and trades and girls in domestic skills. Even though most federal offi-cials placed more emphasis on “civilizing” Indian men, they were persuaded to try to educate Indian girls under the tutelage of white female teachers. They blamed Indian women for the “backward-ness” of Indian men. In their view, the fact that Indian women did heavy physical labor and were ignorant of modern housekeeping methods accounted for Indian men’s laziness and disinterest in material progress. If Indian women could be educated to focus on the household and to desire better furnishings, Indian men would be impelled to work hard to acquire material goods (Stremlau 2005). Thus, assimilation was intended to instill a sense of gender-appropriate duties and obligations. Ultimately, the aim of Indian schooling was to impose “social death.” Col. Richard C. Pratt, founder and head of the Carlisle Indian School, proclaimed in a speech given in 1892:A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man. (Pratt 1973:260)The decades of the 1940s to the 1960s saw still another shift in settler policy toward Native Americans. The intent was to assimilate Native Americans as individuals into settler society and to break their communal orientation and tribal ties. In 1953 the U.S. Congress passed legislation termi-nating the tribal status of many Indian groups. Termination of tribal status meant the loss of legal standing as a sovereign dependent nation and the end of federal aid, protections, and services, such as health care, which had been provided by the Indian Health Service. Many reservations were also terminated and reservation land sold off, pri-marily to non-Indians. Tribal members were unilat-erally made U.S. citizens, subject to taxes and state laws from which they had been exempt. Over the next decade the government terminated 109 tribes and removed 2.5 million acres of trust land (Fixico 1986, 2000; Ramirez 2007).A linked policy was to disperse Indians away from reservations. The Indian Relocation Act of 1956 paid moving expenses and provided voca-tional training and job placement to Native Americans willing to leave their reservations for 9 government-designated urban centers (Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Dallas). Indian men were tracked into low-level, dead end jobs, and Indian women were directed into domestic ser-vice in white households. Many relocated Indians found that the promised jobs and stipends did not materialize and fell on hard times in the city; some returned to the reservation. The relocation policy resulted in the dispersal of the Indian population. An estimated 750,000 Native Americans migrated to cities between 1950 and 1980. Whereas in 1940 only 8 percent of Native Americans resided in cit-ies, by 2012, 70 percent did (T. Williams 2013).In the city, Native Americans often found com-munity with members of other tribes, leading to the development of a pan-Indian orientation; intermar-riage across tribes increased the proportion of Indians with multi-tribe identities. With the rise of the black civil rights movement, Native Americans began to organize for the cause of self-determina-tion for Indian people. This activism included legal challenges to termination and relocation policy that

58 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) eventually succeeded (LaGrand 2005; Smith and Warrior 1997).U.S. SETTlER COlONIAlISM AS A RACE-GENDER PROjECT: DEVElOPMENT Of NATIONAl IDENTITy AND NORMAlIzATION Of GENDERED WHITENESSIn this section, I describe U.S. settler colonialism as a race-gender project. By that I mean that it transplanted certain racialized and gendered con-ceptions and regimes from the metropole but also transformed them in the context of and experiences in the New World. What emerged out of the settler colonial project was a racialized and gendered national identity that normalized male whiteness. Since settlers initially were exogenous others seek-ing to claim rights to land and sovereignty over those who already occupied the land, they needed to develop conceptions of indigenous peoples as lesser beings, unworthy of consideration. They har-nessed race and gender to construct a hierarchy of humankind. Conceiving of indigenous peoples as less than fully human justified dispossessing them and rendered them expendable and/or invisible. Land occupied or used seasonally by indigenes was conceived of as terra nullius (empty land or land belonging to no one) and therefore available for taking by white settlers. Simultaneously, settlers conceived of themselves as more advanced and evolved, bringers of progress and enlightenment to the wilderness. Masculine whiteness thus became central to settler identity, a status closely tied to ownership of property and political sovereignty. The latter in turn articulated with heteropatriarchy, which rendered white manhood supreme with respect to control over property and self-rule. This entailed settler wives being denied an independent legal identity; instead, her identity was merged into that of her husband, and her property and labor were under his control. Further, it was presumed that “heteropatriarchal nuclear-domestic arrange-ments, in which the [white] father is both protector and leader should serve as the model for social arrangements of the state and its institutions” (Arvin, Tuck, and Morrill 2013:13).Settlers may initially identify with the imperial power and submit to its rule, but over time their interactions with indigenes and experiences in the colony set them apart from the population in the metropole. American settlers attached their identity to the land itself, to the mythologized common experience of settlement, and often to the shared goal of self-government. Frontiersmen and women became symbols of what it meant to be American. This new identity helped to bridge differences of class, ethnicity, and nationality that might other-wise have divided them. Thus, there was greater equality among the settlers than existed at the time among inhabitants of the metropole. European immigrants to the United States who moved west to take advantage of inexpensive frontier lands were quickly granted American citizenship rights and considered equals among their peers in matters of local government.Some settlers also appropriated indigenous symbols, attributes, and skills, as in the case of American frontiersmen who wore buckskin and cowboys, range-riders, and backwoodsmen who adopted native trapping, hunting, and riding tech-niques. Turner’s ([1893] 1920:4) essay refers to frontiersmen discarding train travel for traveling by birch canoes, wearing hunting shirts and mocca-sins, planting Indian corn, and even shouting war cries and taking scalps in “orthodox Indian fash-ion.” Of course, the vast majority of white Americans did not actually ride canoes or wear buckskin. However, they identified with fictional or mythical characters (e.g., Leather Stockings, Paul Bunyan) or emblematic exemplars who did (e.g., Daniel Boone, Buffalo Bill).Walter Hixson (2013:3) characterizes the emu-lations of indigenes as expressions of settler ambivalence:The colonizer desired the colonized other, for example for his attunement with nature or sexual liberation, and yet was repulsed by his primitiveness and the dangers he posed. The slippages and uncertainty with the colonizer’s identity, including taking on some of the characteristics of the “savage,” produced anxiety and instability.Importantly, the adoption of indigenous symbols and attributes differentiates settlers from residents of the metropole, whom settlers may scorn as “over-civilized.” In the U.S. case, the appropriation of indigenous symbols and practices contributed to the forging of a new national identity separate from that of the metropole and supporting the case for self-government.Another element common to settler colonial-ism, one that certainly characterizes U.S. settler colonialism, is the “denial and disavowal of the

Glenn 59history of violent dispossession of the indigenes” (Hixson 2013:12). Lorenzo Veracini (2010:14) opines,The settler hides behind his labour and hardship (the settler does not dispossess anyone; he “wrestles with the land” to sustain his family) . . . the settler enters a “new, empty land to start a new life;” indigenous people naturally and inevitably “vanish;” it is not settlers that displace them.In short, “settler colonialism obscures the condi-tions of its own production.” Veracini adds that set-tler colonialism’s need to disavow any foundational violence is such that “even when settler colonial narratives celebrate anti-indigenous violence, they do so by representing a defensive battle ensuring the continued survival of the settler community and never as a founding violence per se” (p. 78).The encounter with the indigene can be viewed as the founding moment for the formation of U.S. whiteness. The “savage” and eliminable indigene is racialized as “other” in contrast to the “civilized” sovereign settler, who becomes “white.” Whiteness also becomes synonymous with the nation. Aileen Moreton-Robinson (2008:85) explains, The USA as a White nation state cannot exist without land and clearly defined borders, it is the legally defined and asserted territorial sovereignty that provides the context for national identification of Whiteness. In this way . . . Native American dispossession indelibly marks configurations of White national identity. Melissa Lovell (2007:3) observes, “Settler colo-nialism is an example of an institutionalised or nor-malised (and therefore mostly invisible) ideology of national identity.” She also points to the associated invisibility and normalization of whiteness. “White people are able to define Whiteness as normality and to position themselves as full citizens whilst pushing non-White people (including migrants and indigenous people) to the margins or even outside of the boundaries of citizenship.”Native American legal scholar Robert A. Williams, Jr. goes further, attributing the establish-ment of a U.S. white racial dictatorship to settler resolve to erase Indians from the land:An overtly racist, hostile, and violent language of Indian savagery can be found in the first official U.S. legal document promulgated by the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence. . . . [This] racist, organizing iconography of the Indian as irreconcilable and inassimilable savage other continued after the Revolution as one of the core organizing beliefs inspiring the Founders’ vision of America’s growth and potentiality as a new form of expansionary White racial dictatorship in the world. (R. Williams 2005:39)While acknowledging the centrality of enslaved blacks to the formation of white racial identity, R. Williams argues that the Founders’ first Indian pol-icy “was the inaugural step in defining a White racial identity for the United States as a nation” (p. 48).THE lOGIC AND PRACTICE Of RACIAlIzED SlAVERy AND ExPlOITATIONAs stated in the earlier exposition on the defining characteristics of settler colonialism, U.S. settler colonialism has been driven by the impulse to gain sovereignty over land, bodies, and labor by turning them into private property that can be bought, exploited, and sold. In this section, I analyze exam-ples of how this impulse and the institutionalization of property regimes affected not only Native Americans but also other racialized groups in the past and present. Arvin et al. (2013:12) point out thatwithin settler colonialism, it is exploitation of land that yields supreme value. . . . Extracting value from the land also often requires systems of slavery and other forms of labor exploitation. These simultaneous processes of taking over the land (by killing and erasing the peoples with previous relationships to that land) and importing forced labor (to work the land as chattel slaves to yield high profit margins for the landowners) produced the wealth upon which the U.S. nation’s world power is founded.Initially, American colonists made use of enslaved Native Americans, immigrant white indentured servants and convicts, and enslaved Africans. However, Americans came to favor black chattel slaves, finding them more profitable, espe-cially for plantation labor in the South. What emerged was a triadic system that brought together the industry of the white settler, the land of dispos-sessed Native Americans, and the forced labor of

60 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) enslaved Africans to produce European and white American wealth. Patrick Wolfe (2011:273) notes, “Ubiquitously, colonizers have encoded and orchestrated this complexity by reference to some version, however inchoate, of the doctrine of race. In the sound-bite vocabulary of race, the three points of the Atlantic triangle . . . Africa, America and Europe became chromatized as Black, Red, and White respectively.”The establishment of black chattel slavery has been fundamental to U.S. conceptions of race in black-white terms. The distinction between the eliminability of indigenous peoples (for land) and usefulness of blacks (as property and for productive and reproductive labor) held as long as slavery remained in place. Thus, rules governing racial classification of Native Americans and blacks dif-fered. For Indians, miscegenation diluted indigene-ity such that mixed people were disqualified for tribal membership and therefore for coverage by treaty rights and entitlement to land allotments. Reducing the indigenous population entitled to treaty rights and land served the interests of white settlers and capitalists by opening up more land for them to own and exploit. In contrast, for blacks, miscegenation perpetuated blackness and increased the population of enslaveable people. The growth of the black slave population was consonant with the goals of increasing white property. The black-white binary came to be mapped onto other dichotomies that defined American identity: freedom-slavery, humanity-animality, owner of property–being prop-erty, and citizen-noncitizen. Given the transforma-tion of Native Americans into ghosts, it is not surprising that everyday conceptions of race came to be organized around a black-white binary rather than a red-white binary.These contrasting positions of eliminable Native Americans and enslavable and exploitable blacks were rooted in historical circumstances that have changed over time. With the dismantling of chattel slavery and emancipation, blacks in some places and in some situations became positioned more similarly to Native Americans as surplus population, therefore more eliminable. Patrick Wolfe (2006:404) notes that prior to emancipation, “as valuable commodities, slaves had only been destroyed in extremis.” Indeed, historian Walter Johnson (2013) has calculated that on the eve of the Civil War, in 1860, the value of slaves exceeded the value of all railroads and factories in the United States. However, once slavery was abolished and Reconstruction ended, the U.S. witnessed the rise of Jim Crow terrorism, lynching, legally mandated segregation, and criminalization-imprisonment tar-geting blacks. Still, their “dispensability was tempered” as long as blacks “continued to have value as a source of super-cheap labour.”In more recent times, particularly since the 1980s, blacks have lost their value as labor due to deindustrialization, globalized production, and immigration of workers from the global south to provide even cheaper labor. Racial zoning of American cities has hardened, and incarceration rates of blacks, particularly black men, have soared. Michelle Alexander (2012) has aptly dubbed the phenomenon of mass incarceration of blacks as the “New Jim Crow.” Even more starkly, Wolfe (2006) has proposed the term “structural genocide” to cover a range of eliminatory practices from mass killing to spatial removal to biological and cultural assimila-tion, all of which have been employed to deal with Native Americans and to some extent with blacks.Ruth Gilmore (2007) analyzes the massive growth of the California prison population dispro-portionately made up of African American men. She relates this growth to the diminishing demand for black labor by tracking the tandem rise in num-bers of unemployed and of prisoners between 1973 and 1996.Her analysis exposes the prison industrial com-plex as a key instrument of “structural genocide” directed against blacks. This notion is consistent with Gilmore’s (2007:28) definition of racism as “the state-sanctioned or legal production and exploi-tation of group-differentiated vulnerabilities to pre-mature death.” Another prominent instrument of “structural genocide” is social and spatial contain-ment in impoverished inner city ghettos. Gilmore (2007:74) points out that the “concentration effect of sociospatial apartheid” includes “increased vulnera-bility to intentional and accidental violence, leading to premature death from a variety of causes.”SETTlER COlONIAlISM AND GENDERED AND RACIAlIzED OTHERSI next turn to settler colonial mobilization of race and gender to manage “exogenous others” beyond the indigenes and enslaved blacks. In contrast to virtuous or potentially virtuous exogenous others (typically European immigrants) who may be selected for gradual inclusion, undesirable exoge-nous others (typically racialized immigrants) were considered morally degraded, sometimes irredeem-ably so. Settler colonialism’s response to undesir-able exogenous others has often swung (and still does) between the poles of “elimination” and coer-cive “exploitation.”

Glenn 61In making connections between settler colonial treatment of undesirable exogenous others and the treatment of Native Americans and African Americans, I am not assuming a commensurability between anti-black racism or anti-Indian racism and other racisms. The so-called Afro-pessimist school of thought argues for the singularity of anti-black racism, which is rooted in the unique condi-tions of chattel slavery (Patterson 1985; Sexton 2010, 2011; Wilderson 2010). In his exegesis of Afro-pessimism, Jared Sexton (2010) contends that despite the fact that some non-black groups have at times labored under conditions similar to blacks, they have not been subject to the rule of slave law. He goes on to argue “the ‘social death’ in which one is denied kinship entirely by the force of law, is reserved for the ‘natal alienation’ and ‘genealogical isolation’ characterizing slavery” (Sexton 2010:41). Thus, the analogizing of people of color suffering to black suffering “bear(s) a common refusal to admit to significant differences of structural posi-tion born of discrepant histories between Blacks and their political allies, actual or potential” (Sexton 2010:47–48).I agree that racisms targeting different groups are not identical and that different racisms cannot be made equivalent by drawing analogies between differing forms of subordination, for example between chattel slavery and labor exploitation. However, I do argue that the structure of U.S. set-tler colonialism rests on social, economic, and political underpinnings that link racisms. In mak-ing the argument, I eschew constructing or adjudi-cating a hierarchy of suffering but work at uncovering some of the underpinnings.Among the groups that can be considered under the rubric of “undesirable exogenous others” are Mexicans and Chinese. They are each single nationality groups that are often subsumed under broader designations, Hispanics/Latinos and Asian Americans, respectively. For purposes of this anal-ysis, I hone in on the specific groups—Mexicans and Chinese—rather than the broader heteroge-neous groupings because of their long history in the United States and their prominent representation in popular culture and political-legal discourse. Also relevant is that the period of these groups’ initial incorporation into the United States coincided with the westward expansion of U.S. settler colonialism and its project of final elimination of indigenes dur-ing the second half of the nineteenth century. While the category of exogenous other seems to fit the Chinese, who were viewed and treated as inalter-ably alien, it may seem incongruent to characterize Mexicans in that way. But, as Mae Ngai (2004:131–32) points out, “When Anglos confronted Mexicans, they perceived Mexicans as foreigners even though the majority of the Anglos themselves had also migrated to the Southwest at the same time.I now turn to examine settler colonialism’s con-frontation with Mexicans and Chinese, focusing on the specific racialization and control strategies aimed at these “undesirable exogenous others.”MANIfEST DESTINy: SETTlER COlONIAl ExPANSION INTO THE SOUTHWESTIn many ways the confrontation between Anglo settlers and Mexicans in the American Southwest was a continuation of U.S. settler colonialism’s restless expansion. As in the case of settler colonial takeover of Indian land, Anglo takeover of northern Mexico was a race-gender project. In the settler imagination, a feminized and backward Mexican race was giving way to a freedom-loving, demo-cratic progressive Anglo-Saxon or “American” race. Anglo settlers viewed Mexican men as weak, pusillanimous, and above all, lazy. Simultaneously, they depicted Mexican women as alluring and available, awaiting and welcoming Anglo-Saxon men. The sexual conquest of Mexican women as a metaphor for political conquest was often quite explicit (Almaguer 2008:60–62; de Leon 1983:9–10; Horsman 1981:233).Anglo settlers dispossessed Mexican landown-ers and agriculturalists through a combination of legal and extra-legal means: “taxation, boundary manipulation, theft, and juridical means such as delaying land grant claims” (Velez-Ibanez 1996:62). The closing off and privatizing of com-munal grazing lands and transformations in the economy constrained the ability of ordinary Mexicans to maintain their pastoral ways of life. Mexican men were increasingly forced into sea-sonal migratory wage work initially as sheepshear-ers, vaqueros, and later in railroad construction, mining, and agricultural field labor. Women and children remained in their home villages and engaged in domestic production and subsistence agriculture (Deutsch 1989).Up until the 1930s, the U.S.-Mexico border remained highly porous. The movement of Mexican nationals into the American Southwest (and back to Mexico) was not policed. Mexican immigrants entered freely and worked alongside Mexican Americans. After World War I, agriculture in California, Texas, and Arizona boomed. The

62 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) mode of farming “shifted from small and medium family-owned and run farms and sharecropping to large commercial farms owned by banks, lawyers, and merchant investors” (Ngai 2004:130). These agribusinesses required a large mobile labor force to move with the seasons for cotton, sugar beets, vegetables, and fruit. They welcomed migrants from Mexico to join the ranks of an exploitable migratory workforce.Racialization of Mexican Americans was com-plicated by the fact that under the terms of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States agreed to grant “the enjoyment of all the rights of citizenship of the United States to all of the varied people recognized as citizens by the Mexican gov-ernment.” The settler colonial formula that required whiteness as a condition of citizenship in some sense dictated the reverse logic that if Mexicans were American citizens they must be white. Thus, before the 1930s the U.S. government did not dis-tinguish Mexicans from whites for official pur-poses, including the U.S. census (Haney Lopez 1996; Reisler 1976).However, everyday practices of Anglo settlers and local governments were based on different understandings. In some times and places, Anglos differentiated between “Indian” and “Spanish” Mexicans, based on skin tone and class; in other times and places, they considered all Mexicans to be “mestizo” or “colored.” The Texas and New Mexico constitutions gave citizenship rights to “free Whites” and “citizens of Mexico,” while the California and Arizona constitutions limited suf-frage to “Whites” and “White” citizens of Mexico. On an everyday level, Anglo interpretations of Mexicans’ race varied, but by the 1910s it was con-verging toward lumping all Mexicans into the cat-egory of “non-White” or “colored” (Almaguer 2008; Weber 1992). Ngai (2004:131) notes that the concentration of Mexican immigrants in migratory agriculture “stoop labor” was central in their racial formation in the United States. They were branded by such epithets as “greasers” or “dirty Mexicans.”After World War II, particularly after the Civil Rights gains of the 1960s and 1970s, some U.S.-born Mexican Americans were able to move into white-collar and professional occupations and mid-dle-class neighborhoods. However, the ranks of Mexican Americans were swelled by new immi-grants, who were drawn by the demand for labor in agriculture, gardening and maintenance, food ser-vices, sweatshops, domestic service, and construc-tion. In 1965, the U.S. Congress passed a new immigration law that eliminated national quotas and replaced them with “need” criteria, including labor demand, family reunification, and political asylum. While opening up immigration from previ-ously barred areas, such as Asia, the 1965 Act severely reduced entry from Mexico and Central and South America. The restrictions did not deter economic migrants seeking to escape poverty, however, so the number of “illegal” immigrants from Mexico increased. Undocumented immi-grants readily found employment in low wage jobs, but lack of legal status constrained their employ-ment choices and left them unprotected and vulner-able to wage theft and many other forms of exploitation.For nearly a century after the U.S. takeover, much of the lower Southwest constituted a broad borderland where peoples and cultures mixed and merged to create distinct new styles of food, music, and arts. Residents continued to cross the interna-tional border more or less freely to work, shop, and visit friends and family, sometimes commuting back and forth on a daily basis to jobs on the U.S. side and returning to homes on the Mexican side. Towns and metropolitan areas also spanned national borders. The two largest binational metropolitan areas are the San Diego–Tijuana complex and the El Paso–Ciudad Juarez–Las Cruces complex. The lat-ter, with a population of 2.7 million, is the largest bilingual binational workforce in the Western hemi-sphere. However, with the imposition of stricter border control at the U.S.-Mexico line after 1965, Mexicanos could no longer move freely within their traditional lands. Those who crossed without papers became undesirable “illegal immigrants.”As undesirable exogenous others, Mexicans have been subjected to control by four main tech-nologies: (a) containment (separation and segrega-tion), (b) erasure (cultural assimilation), (c) terrorism (violence, lynching), and (d) removal (expulsion, deportation). I will give brief examples of how these technologies were deployed to control Mexican Americans.ContainmentMexican Americans in the Southwest were kept contained through segregation in almost all aspects of life. In many towns, they lived in designated areas that lacked enclosed sewers and paved streets. They worked in a segregated labor market that restricted them to the most menial jobs. Social spaces were organized to reinforce distance between Anglos and Mexicans. In public sites such as stores, theaters, and restaurants, Mexicans were

Glenn 63allowed to be present only at certain restricted times or in segregated areas. For example, in some Texas towns, Mexicans were allowed only in the balcony sections of theaters, to sit only at counters or to use take-out at Anglo-run restaurants, to use the municipal swimming pool on the day before the pool was cleaned, and to shop on the Anglo side of town only on Saturday mornings (Foley 1999; Haas 1995; Montejano 1987).School segregation was mostly de facto, an out-growth of segregated housing patterns. However, many school districts established separate schools for Mexicans, even busing Mexican children to these schools. De jure segregation was technically illegal because the federal government and some state constitutions considered Mexicans to be “white.” Mexican parents mounted legal chal-lenges to separate schools for Mexicans. When Santa Paula, California, school officials were forced to admit Mexican students to two predomi-nantly white schools in the mid 1920s, they had special showers constructed in which Mexican stu-dents were required to bathe each day. Using the hygiene argument protected school boards in California districts from charges of illegal segrega-tion because the state school board allowed admin-istrators to bar children from attending school or to segregate them if they were “filthy” or “unhealthy” (Hernandez 1983; Menchaca 1995).ErasureRegarding cultural erasure through assimilation, Carlos Velez-Ibanez (1996:66) describes education of Mexican children in Arizona as conveying the message “that their considerable poverty stemmed from their backward Mexican culture and lan-guage.” Their education in Anglo-taught schools focused on eliminating obviously ‘foreign’ accents in Spanish, prohibiting the language from being spoken, and advising that Anglo Saxon models of work, morality, and government were to be imitated. . . . The school curriculum was designed to erase language, culture, social relations, food preferences and a sense of cultural lineage.Curricula were aimed not at preparing Mexican children for assimilation into the middle classes but at training them for a limited future as reliable and diligent workers. Curricula for Mexican children emphasized learning basic English and arithmetic skills, inculcation in the ideals and values of American society, development of good habits such as cleanliness and punctuality, and acquiring gender-appropriate vocational or domestic skills. Mexican girls studied sewing and mending, while Mexican boys were trained in carpentry, repairing shoes, basketry, haircutting, and blacksmithing (Haas 1995; P. Taylor 1930).TerrorismPerhaps the least known aspect of Mexican American history is the extent of racial terrorism and mob violence against Mexicans. Combing data from newspaper stories, photographs, letters, jour-nals, and diplomatic records, historians William Carrigan and Clive Webb (2013) were able to com-pile data on 547 Mexican victims murdered by Anglo mobs between 1848 and 1928. Reasoning that only a small percentage of instances could be documented in surviving sources, they argued,From the California Gold Rush to the last recorded instance of a Mexican lynched in public in 1928, vigilantes hanged, burned and shot thousands of persons of Mexican descent in the United States. The scale of mob violence against Mexicans is staggering, far exceeding the violence exacted on any other immigrant group and comparable, at least on a per capita basis to the mob violence suffered by African Americans. (Carrigan and Webb 2013:1)RemovalDuring times when there was a demand for labor, Mexicans were desirable as a source of super-exploitative labor doing the dirty work that Anglos considered beneath them. However, when work was scarce, they were considered expendable, a threat to community stability, and a drain on the economy. During the Great Depression, agriculture in the Southwest was especially hard hit, and hun-dreds of thousands of farmworkers were thrown out of work. In an effort to reduce welfare burdens, local officials organized mass “repatriation” drives. Welfare officials would grant temporary relief to impoverished Mexicans on the condition that they repatriate to Mexico at public expense. An esti-mated 350,000 to 600,000 Mexicans, many of them born in the United States and therefore American citizens, were put on trains and sent en masse to Mexico in the 1930s (Guttierez 1996; Reisler 1976). A second large-scale expulsion took place during 1954 under “Operation Wetback,” a U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service sponsored

64 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) campaign to apprehend and deport undocumented agricultural workers. INS officials boasted that Operation Wetback had succeeded in apprehending and deporting some 1,300,000 “illegals” (Velez-Ibanez 1996:289).A third era of mass deportation was ushered in by a series of new immigration and deportation laws enacted between 1996 and 2003 that elevated militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border and inten-sified surveillance in the interior of the United States. Different new laws increased deportations by expanding the categories of non-citizens eligi-ble for deportation, restricting the ability of migrants to appeal deportation, eliminating judicial reviews of deportation orders, and creating a new agency, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) charged with “apprehending, detaining and deporting ‘criminal and fugitive’ non-citizens long after their arrival” (Hagan, Rodriguez, and Castro 2011:1375–76). In 2013, 369,000 undocumented immigrants were deported (“America’s Deportation Machine” 2014). In 2009, 72 percent of deportees were from Mexico, of which only 33 percent were for criminal violations. As in the case of the Depression era deportations, most of those deported in this recent wave have strong ties to the United States such as long resi-dence, a home, and/or family members. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) esti-mated that close to three-fifths of undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for more than a decade (Ewing 2014).PERPETUAl AlIENS IN OUR MIDSTAround the same time that Mexicans in the Southwest were incorporated into the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, gold was discovered near Sutter’s Mill in northern California in 1848. Thousands of mostly young males rushed in from the East and Midwest and from Latin America and Europe to prospect for gold or to sup-ply goods and services to the miners. Among the motley and polyglot gold rushers, the largest group of foreign workers was Chinese, comprising up to a quarter of miners in some counties (Kanizawa 2005). These comprised the first cohort of immi-grants who left Guangdong Province to work in California and other parts of the West. Thereafter, during a period of open immigration from 1850 to 1882, over 300,000 mostly young men were recruited to work on railroads and in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. They initially came over under contracts with labor brokers that bound them for a fixed term, usually seven years (Ling 1912). When federal legislation was passed in 1862 outlawing contract labor, labor brokers switched to a credit ticket system that bound workers until they could pay off their debts.Some men of the merchant class brought wives or concubines, but the vast majority of Chinese immigrants were laborers who came alone. Over half left wives behind in China. As “sojourners,” they worked to send remittances to relatives and to accumulate enough capital to acquire land in China. Many apparently succeeded in returning because according to the U.S. Census, the Chinese population never reached more than 107,000 dur-ing the nineteenth century. The Chinese population remained overwhelmingly gender-skewed, with the ratio of men to women ranging from 18.58:1 in 1860 to 26.79:1 in 1890 (Glenn 1983).Chinese labor filled demands in parts of the economy that in the American South would have been delegated to enslaved blacks. However, some white settlers (as well as federal policy) opposed the introduction of slavery into California and other western territories and states, and after Emancipation, white Californians opposed the entry of free blacks. Instead, they turned to imported labor from Asia. Chinese immigrants were tracked into work gangs laying railway tracks, clearing fields, and digging ditches for irrigation; they were also recruited into agricultural field labor, mining, and manufacturing. Finally, they filled the need for reproductive labor for the largely male Western population, as cooks, laundrymen, and domestic servants.Chinese laborers were sometimes “negroized” in popular culture due to their relegation to danger-ous and backbreaking work usually assigned to blacks and their roles vis-à-vis white workers (Aarim-Heriot 2003). However, they were more often depicted through orientalist tropes. Advertisements, editorial cartoons, and popular fiction portrayed “Chinamen” doing “women’s work” as laundrymen, houseboys, and cooks. Much excellent scholarship has documented, dis-sected, and analyzed more than a century of Sinophobia, including not only racist depictions of the Chinese in popular culture but also anti-Chi-nese pronouncements by representatives of white labor, white politicians, and white officials, as well as outbreaks of moral panics and health campaigns focused on Chinatowns (e.g., McClain 1994; Saxton 1975; Shah 2001).As undesirable exogenous others, Chinese were controlled via some of the same technologies as

Glenn 65Mexicans, specifically: (a) containment (separa-tion/segregation), (b) terrorism (mob violence), and (c) removal (expulsion). For the most part, there was little focus on assimilation aside from Christian missionary efforts to convert Chinese and to rescue Chinese women from prostitution. White settler society viewed the Chinese as inassimilable, and it strongly opposed miscegenation, especially between white women and Chinese men. However, settler colonialism adopted two other powerful technologies to manage the Chinese: (d) restric-tion/disablement and (e) exclusion.ContainmentI will not elaborate on segregation because of the well-known phenomenon of the concentration of Chinese in Chinatowns that were viewed as simul-taneously unclean and vice-ridden and as exotic tourist attractions. There were also segregated schools for Chinese children in San Francisco and for “Oriental” students in the Sacramento Delta region through the 1930s.Terrorism and RemovalI combine terrorism and removal because much of the white mob violence against the Chinese was aimed not so much at killing or lynching individu-als but at destroying Chinese settlements and expelling all Chinese from a neighborhood, town, or city. Starting in 1850, with the driving out of Chinese miners from the gold fields and the seizing of their assets, white American settlers carried out more than 200 “roundups” and expulsions of Chinese over the next half-century. Jean Pfaelzer (2007:xix) asserts, “Surely the term expulsion doesn’t fully represent the rage and violence of those purges. What occurred along the Pacific coast, from the gold rush through the turn of the century, was ethnic cleansing.”The ethnic cleansing drives peaked in the 1880s, with Chinatowns in Los Angeles, San Jose, Seattle, and Tacoma being destroyed by white mobs. Pfaelzer (2007) was able to find documenta-tion for cases of mobs or vigilantes driving out Chinese residents from nearly 200 towns in the Pacific states. “Following expulsions, mobs or vig-ilantes seized Chinese fishing boats, nets, vegeta-ble gardens, laundries, stores, and homes then they burned down rural Chinatowns” (Pfaelzer 2007:253–54). David Courtwright (1996:158) wrote: “As with Indians to whom Whites often compared the Chinese, the way such killings were carried out revealed a deep, almost feral hatred. Chinese men were scalped, mutilated, burned, branded, decapitated, dismembered, and hanged from gutter spouts.”Restriction/DisablementPerhaps the most characteristic technology employed to manage the Chinese was the use of legal restric-tions designed to disable Chinese immigrants from making a living, putting down roots, procreating, and acquiring property, in short to become long-term and self-regenerating residents and citizens. The city of San Francisco, with the largest popula-tion of Chinese residents, passed several ordi-nances to hobble Chinese laundries. The State of California passed laws that imposed special taxes on Chinese miners and fishermen and that barred Chinese from testifying in criminal or civil cases and from employment on county irrigation projects (McClain 1994; Sandemeyer 1991).Most disabling were laws banning Chinese immigrants from owning land. As early as 1879, Oregon’s first constitution included a section grant-ing “White foreigners” the same rights in land as native citizens but added, “No Chinaman, not a resident of the state at the adoption of [this] consti-tution, shall ever hold any real estate or mining claim” (Lazarus 1987:217). Such forthright racial language was made unnecessary by the passage of the federal Naturalization Act of 1870. This law limited the right to become American citizens to “White persons and persons of African descent,” thus barring Asians from becoming naturalized citizens and creating a new category for them of “aliens ineligible for citizenship.” Thereafter, states and municipalities could pass restrictive legislation targeting Chinese (and later other Asians) without specific reference to race. Thus, California’s rewrit-ten constitution of 1879 extended land rights to for-eigners of the “White race or of African descent who were eligible to become United States citi-zens” (Lazarus 1987:216). Washington’s state con-stitution of 1889 prohibited “ownership of lands by aliens, other than those who in good faith have declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States” (Lazarus 1987:232). If property/land ownership was the defining entitlement of the white settler, then the Chinese immigrant was the quintessential alien “other.”While settler culture valorized the heteropatri-archal family as the moral foundation of its society, white settlers restricted Chinese immigrants’ abil-ity to form such families. The passage of the Page Act in 1875 prevented Chinese immigrant men who might otherwise have sent for wives from

66 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) doing so. Supposedly designed to prevent entry of Chinese, Japanese, and “Mongolian” prostitutes, contract laborers, and felons, the Page Act was mostly used to bar Chinese women under the fic-tion that they were all prostitutes (Abrams 2005:701). Alternatively, many Chinese sojourners might have formed relationships with local women, as Chinese male immigrants did in the Philippines and Peru (Hunt and Walker 1974; Wong 1978). This avenue was closed by the passage of state anti-miscegenation laws that banned marriage between Chinese and whites (Pascoe 2009). Together, the Page Act and state anti-miscegena-tion statutes served to worsen the gender imbalance of the Chinese community and reduce its ability to maintain itself or grow through procreation.ExclusionThe single most powerful technology employed to manage the Chinese was legal exclusion. The earli-est legislation to restrict Chinese immigration was the Page Act, which, as mentioned previously, cur-tailed the entry of Chinese women but did little to cut the flow of male Chinese laborers. This goal was finally accomplished with the passage of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese laborers from immigrating for a period of 10 years and prohibited Chinese already in the United States from becoming citizens. The Chinese Exclusion Act ended a long era of open immigration and for the first time regulated entry based on national ori-gin. It foreshadowed later legislation that applied exclusion to other Asian groups and limited entry based on national origin. The Immigration Act of 1924 prohibited immigration from an area defined as the Asian Pacific Triangle and set limits on immigration from southern and Eastern Europe (Ngai 2004).Some Chinese men aspiring to immigrate man-aged to find a few loopholes in the law. For exam-ple, some were able to enter as “paper sons,” the supposed offspring of American-born Chinese (Hsu 2000). Without these subterfuges, the Chinese population in the United States might have disap-peared altogether. As it was, by 1930, the Chinese population in the United States had shrunk to 74,954, three-quarters of whom were male. With the paucity of females, the growth of an American-born generation entitled to citizenship was very slow. Thus, Chinese exclusion “made [Chinese] into permanent foreigners and guaranteed they would be but a small marginalized population in America for nearly 100 years” (Ngai 2004:18).This situation began to change during World War II. In 1943, in response to China’s position as a wartime ally, the U.S. government repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and created a token quota of 105 entrants per year. It also agreed to make perma-nent residents eligible for citizenship. Opening the gates wider were the Brides Act of 1946 that allowed entry of wives and children of citizens and permanent residents and the Immigration Act of 1953 that gave preference to relatives of citizens. For the first time in 60 years, sizable legal immi-gration flowed from China, and for the first time ever, the majority of newcomers were women. Finally, the passage of the previously mentioned 1965 immigration law that replaced national quotas with need criteria strongly favored Chinese immi-grants, who disproportionately qualified under the family reunification and labor needs criteria.These new immigrants entered at a time when racial exclusion in housing and employment was waning due to the implementation of anti-discrimi-nation laws passed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. These reforms enabled col-lege-educated Chinese Americans and scholar pro-fessional immigrants to enter occupations and industries previously barred to them and to live in integrated neighborhoods and suburbs. However, the majority of Chinese immigrants were not middle class. Over half of the Chinese entering each year had been employed as service workers, operatives, crafts-men, or laborers prior to entry from Hong Kong or China. Moreover, a significant proportion of profes-sional, managerial, and white-collar entrants experi-enced downward mobility into blue-collar and service jobs due to language and licensing difficul-ties. Approximately two-thirds of immigrant Chinese in the United States are not fluent in English.Over the next five decades, the Chinese com-munity in the United States grew dramatically, bal-looning from 236,084 in 1960 to an unprecedented 4,010,114 by 2010. Many Chinese Americans have fared well in terms of education, family income, and occupational achievement; however, others have not. Chinese still confront discrimination or even Sinophobia in their dealings with white Americans. A consistent issue is that Chinese Americans are often seen and treated as foreign-ers—from somewhere else—by other Americans. A Pew Research survey conducted in 2012 found that 72 percent of Chinese American respondents felt that discrimination against their group was a problem (Pew 2013). Within white settler society, the relative success of some Chinese and other Asian Americans have been assigned various roles:

Glenn 67as a middleman minority that can act as a buffer between whites and blacks, as a model minority to help hide the history of genocide/slavery, or as an exotic other to display the nation’s tolerant multiculturalism.SUMMARy AND CONClUSIONSThe most widely used sociological frameworks for theorizing race relations in the United States have focused on generating analyses that encompass not just anti-black racism but also anti-Latino and anti-Asian American racisms. What these frameworks share is an appreciation that racial hierarchy and inequality are not simply the products of individual beliefs and attitudes but are built into American social structure and that whites have historically benefited from racial inequality. I have found each of the major frameworks, internal colonialism, racial formation, and racialized social systems, use-ful in my own work in comparative race and gender studies. However, what these theories do not explic-itly consider is whether and in what ways U.S. national and regional racial systems may be unique and/or idiosyncratic because they have grown out of distinct material, social, and cultural circumstances, in this case, U.S. settler colonialism.I have offered the concept of “settler colonial-ism as structure,” as a framework that encourages and facilitates comparativity within and across regions and time. I believe that a settler colonial structural analysis reveals the underlying systems of beliefs, practices, and institutional systems that undergird and link the racialization and manage-ment of Native Americans, blacks, Mexicans and other Latinos, and Chinese and other Asian Americans that I have described herein.What are these underlying systems/structures? First, the defining characteristic of settler colonial-ism is its intention to acquire and occupy land on which to settle permanently, instead of merely to exploit resources. In order to realize this goal, the indigenous people who occupy the land have to be eliminated. Thus, one logic of settler colonial pol-icy has been the ultimate erasure of Native Americans. This goal was pursued through various forms of genocide, ranging from military violence to biological and cultural assimilation. British set-tler colonialism in what became the United States was particularly effective because it promoted fam-ily settlement right from the beginning. Thus, the growth of the settler population and its westward movement was continuous and relentless.Settler ideology justified elimination via the belief that the savage, heathen, uncivilized indi-genes were not making productive use of the land or its resources. Thus, they inevitably had to give way to enlightened and civilized Europeans. The difference between indigenes and settlers was simultaneously racialized and gendered. While racializing Native ways of life and Native Americans as “other,” settlers developed their self-identities as “white,” equating civilization and democracy with whiteness. Indian masculinity was viewed as primitive and violent, while Indian women were viewed as lacking feminine modesty and restraint. With independence from the metro-pole, the founders imagined the new nation as a white republic governed by and for white men.Second, in order to realize a profitable return from the land, settlers sought to intensively culti-vate it for agriculture, extract resources, and build the infrastructure for both cultivation and extrac-tion. For this purpose, especially on large-scale holdings that were available in the New World, extensive labor power was needed. As we have seen, settlers in all regions enslaved Native Americans, and the transnational trade in Native slaves helped to finance the building of Southern plantations. However, in the long run, settlers could not amass a large enough Indigenous slave work-force both because indigenes died in large numbers from European diseases and because they could sometimes escape and then survive in the wilder-ness. Settlers thus turned to African slave labor. Slave labor power could generate profit for the owner in a variety of ways: by performing field labor, processing raw materials, and producing goods for use or sale and by being leased out to others to earn money for the owner.What linked land taking from indigenes and black chattel slavery was a private property regime that converted people, ideas, and things into prop-erty that could be bought, owned, and sold. The purchase, ownership, and sale of property, whether inanimate or human, were regularized by property law or in the case of chattel slaves, by slave law. Generally, ownership entails the right to do what-ever one wants with one’s property—to sell, lend, or rent it and to seize the profits extracted from its use.The elimination of Native Americans and the enslavement of blacks form two nodes that have anchored U.S. racial formation. Redness has been made to disappear, such that contemporary Native Americans have become largely invisible in white consciousness. In contrast, blackness has been made

68 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) hypervisible, and blacks are constantly present as an imagined threat to whites and the settler colonial social order. As pointed out earlier, Indianness is thought to be diluted and then to disappear through miscegenation, while blackness is thought to be con-tinually reproduced even through generations of miscegenation. In this respect as well as others, the racialization of blacks—the irredeemability and dehumanization of blacks—has been incommensu-rable with the racialization of other groups.Nonetheless, the racialization of certain (in Lorenzo Veracini’s term) exogenous others has been a prominent feature of settler colonial societies. In the United States, some groups have been recruited and/or tracked into hard labor and super-exploited because they can be induced to work by need and kept in place by restricted mobility. For a nation that purports to stand for freedom, opportunity, and equality, the United States has had a long history of imposing coercive labor regimes, social segregation, and restricted mobility on many of its residents. Racializing certain groups as insufficiently human serves to justify subjecting them to oppression, sub-ordination, and super-exploitation. Thus, conditions of compelled labor short of chattel slavery—con-tract labor, sharecropping, payment in scrip, wages paid only after completion of a long period of work—were legally allowed and commonly imposed on racialized others even after the abolition of slavery. These practices were designed to immo-bilize and disable workers’ ability to survive by other means and thereby tie down theoretically free workers. These forms of coercion might be labeled de facto slavery because they do not involve owner-ship of the person and the enforcement of slave law.The experiences of national and local policies toward Mexicans and Chinese were examined herein to help illuminate the linked processes of racialization and super-exploitation in U.S. settler colonialism. Racialization has been integral to resolving the contradiction between settler ideolo-gies of freedom, equality, and progress and the unfreedom, inequality, and denial of mobility and citizenship rights to Mexican Americans in the Southwest and Chinese Americans in the Far West. The various technologies of control and manage-ment (segregation, cultural erasure, terrorism, expulsion, and legal exclusion) served the interests of capitalism by enabling landowners, plantation owners, and railroad companies to super-exploit these exogenous others. At the same time, racial-ization of “others” enabled white workers to reap a psychic reward, the so-called “wages of whiteness” to succor the wounds inflicted by class inferiority.The case studies of Mexican Americans and Chinese Americans further illustrate the impor-tance of paying attention to both the specificities and differences and the connections and common-alities among and between the experiences of vari-ous racialized others. Some of the major technologies for control and management of racial-ized groups were similar, most prominently the use of terrorism. It could be argued that the continuous history of genocide against Native Americans helped to normalize the use of extreme violence against non-white “others.” Extreme violence was rationalized as necessary to ensure settler security. As described, not only blacks, but also Mexicans and Chinese were subjected to extreme and dispro-portionate violence that might well be character-ized as ethnic cleansing. And, as in the case of the denial of the founding violence against Native Americans, white settler culture either denied or forgot its violence toward Mexicans and Chinese by magnifying the threat they posed not only to individual whites but also to the nation.The technology of erasure through cultural assimilation practiced on Native Americans was also employed on Mexican Americans. In both cases, schooling was intended to prepare girls and boys for gender-appropriate domestic and voca-tional skills. The speaking of children’s natal lan-guages was punished, and mainstream (white/Anglo) ways of living were valorized. Education was also intended to teach racialized children “their place” in American society, that is, to accept and be satisfied with a limited future. The technologies unique to Mexicans and Chinese were those of mass deportation and legal exclusion. Native Americans could be and were removed to remote reservations in the United States and in a few instances driven across the Southern border into Mexico, but they were not legally deported. Removal of freed blacks and resettling them in Africa was tried after the Civil War, but the number of those removed was only a small proportion of the population. Whites in the South were able to re-impose a white suprema-cist order that could control and super-exploit black labor. However, once the transcontinental railroad was completed, Chinese labor was not strictly nec-essary in the West, and moreover, as immigrants, the Chinese could more easily be subjected to expulsion and exclusion. In fact, the Chinese were the first immigrant group subject to exclusion, first through the Page Act of 1875 and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and then through the Immigration Act of 1924 that extended exclusion to cover other Asian peoples.

Glenn 69As described earlier, for nearly a century after the U.S. takeover of the Southwest, Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans were able to cross back and forth across the southern border more or less freely. However, this situation began to change during the 1920s with the establishment of the U.S. Border Patrol. Because of high unem-ployment during the Great Depression, Mexican Americans became the first group subject to mass deportation. A second large-scale deportation occurred during another period of unemployment in the 1950s under Operation Wetback. The first decades of the twenty-first century saw the creation and establishment of a vast federal machinery for “safeguarding” our borders, ostensibly to battle ter-rorism. This machinery has been wielded primarily against Mexicans, who are viewed as constituting a different kind of threat, a menace to “mainstream” American (white) culture. Thus, the majority of deportees continues to be immigrants from Mexico.Throughout my historical analyses of settler colonial structures and practices as they developed in relation to Indigenous peoples, blacks, Mexicans, and Chinese, I have tried to apply an intersectional lens that views race and gender as co-formations. The bulk of the discussion has perhaps focused greater attention on race and racialization; how-ever, gender has been present throughout the text. I pointed out that the settler project constructed vari-ous racialized gender and gendered racial dualisms. The white race was masculinized in relation to feminized black, red, or yellow races. Settler ideol-ogy also defined appropriate gender relations within the settler family and community, variously using Indian, black, and “others” as negative foils. White settler society understood extreme gender differentiation as a mark of civilization and thus attempted to shape white womanhood toward domesticity and dependency. Importantly, white women were viewed as needing to be protected by white men, particularly from the dangers posed by the primitive or perverse male sexuality of Natives, slaves, and exogenous others. Thus, for example, lurid tales of Indian capture of white women and their rescue by white soldiers circulated widely in settler culture. Meanwhile, Indian, black, and exogenous women were viewed variously as shameless, docile, alluring, or unfeminine because they did “men’s work.”Settler colonialism also had different effects on men and women from subjugated groups as shown in several instances discussed in the main text. For example, it was mentioned that Indian women were more likely to be enslaved, while adult Indian men were more likely to be killed. Relatedly, Indian women were also more likely to be brought into set-tler households to be sex slaves and domestic ser-vants. As for the Chinese, although male laborers were eventually subject to exclusion, women had been legally excluded earlier and more stringently on the assumption that all Chinese women attempt-ing to enter were prostitutes. In contrast, Mexican women were sometimes viewed more favorably than Mexican men and were thought to be appropri-ate wives for Anglo men. As for enslaved blacks, women were subjected to gender-specific violence such as rape but not exempted from the same kinds of physical punishment and heavy field labor to which slave men were subjected.I will now briefly consider the implications of the present analysis in relation to anti-racist poli-tics. Given that many different groups have been victimized by racial violence, exclusion, and dehu-manization, coalitions among racialized minorities are desirable and necessary. I suggest that coali-tions are best built by recognizing the specific his-tories of racialized minorities other than our own. Our understandings ideally should reckon with (a) commonalities, (b) relations and connections, and (c) differences. All of these are highlighted by this settler colonial analysis. Many commonalities have emerged from the case analyses, including experi-ences of genocide and terrorism that have been inflicted, justified, and “forgotten” or deempha-sized by settler society. Also having emerged are relations/connections in the experiences of differ-ent groups that complicate their positionality vis-à-vis one another. Thus, for example, the analysis might lead us to ask whether and in what ways racialized minorities might position themselves in relation to the territorial dispossession of Native Americans. Finally, some significant differences have emerged; for example, only blacks were sub-jected to chattel slavery, which is a condition of social death and subjection by slave law that even those who worked under conditions of extreme coercion did not share.A final thought: in this article I have suggested that a settler colonialism framework for analyzing and understanding race and gender in America will have certain advantages over other frameworks, most specifically in the strength of its historicity and in a fuller incorporation of the role of Native Americans in how racism and gender oppression have developed and continue to operate. A question with which I have not dealt is to what extent can a settler colonial framework relate to and interact with other frameworks such as internal colonialism,

70 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) racial formation, and racialized social systems. My belief is that there are significant insights and ana-lytical methods offered by each of the frameworks and that the addition of settler colonialism to the mix may help us to work toward a higher level theo-retical model that can be widely used by social sci-entists both in the United States and internationally. I suggest that a fruitful next task will be for us to explore and discuss the connections and relation-ships among the various frameworks, with a new awareness of the distinct historical, social, and cul-tural understandings brought to our table by the set-tler colonialism framework.ACkNOWlEDGMENTSI wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, on which I relied in revising the manuscript. I am, as always, grateful to Gary Glenn for his excellent editorial advice.REfERENCESAarm-Heriot, Najia. 2003. Chinese Immigrants, African Americans, and Racial Anxiety in the United States. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Abrams, Kerry. 2005. “Polygamy, Prostitution, and the Federalization of Immigration Law.” Colombia Law Review 105(3):641–716.Alexander, Michelle. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness. Rev. ed. New York: The New Press.Almaguer, Tomas. 2008. Racial Faultlines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.“America’s Deportation Machine: ‘The Great Expulsion.’” Economist, February 12, 2014. Retrieved October 2, 2014 (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21595892-barack-obama-has-presided-over-one-largest-peacetime-outflows-peo-ple-americas).Anzaldua, Gloria. 2012. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. 4th ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.Arvin, Maile, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill. 2013. “Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy.” Feminist Formations 25(1):8–34.Bhabha, Homi. 1994. The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge.Blauner, Bob. 1972. Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper-Collins.Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism.” American Sociological Review 62(3):465–80.Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2009. “The Latin Americanization of U.S. Race Relations: A New Pigmentocacy.” Pp. 40–60 in Shades of Difference: Why Skin Color Matters, edited by E. N. Glenn. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Brown, Dee Alexander. 2007. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. 2nd ed. New York: Holt McDougal.Butler, Judith. 2006. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Carmichael, Stokely and Charles V. Hamilton. 1967. Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. New York: Vintage.Carrigan, William D. and Clive Webb. 2013. Forgotten Dead: Mob Violence against Mexicans in the United States, 1848–1928. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Courtwright, David T. 1996. Violent Land: Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.De Leon, Arnoldo. 1983. They Called Them Greasers: Anglo Attitudes toward Mexicans in Texas, 1821–1900. Austin: University of Texas Press.Debos, Angie. 1973. And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Deutsch, Sarah. 1989. No Separate Refuge: Culture, Class, and Gender on an Anglo-Hispanic Frontier in the American Southwest, 1880–1940. New York: Oxford University Press.Diamond, Lisa M. 2009. Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Elliott, J. H. 2006. Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830. New Haven: Yale University Press.Ewing, Walter A. 2014. “More Immigrants Are Being ‘Removed’ from the United States Than Ever Before.” Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council. Retrieved October 2, 2014 (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/growth-us-deportation-machine).Fixico, Donald. 1986. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of Mexico Press.Fixico, Donald. 2000. The Urban Indian Experience in America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Foley, Neil. 1999. The White Scourge: Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Foreman, Grant. 1974. Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Rev. ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Gallay, Alan. 2009. The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670–1717. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. 2007. Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California. Berkeley: University of California Press.Gilroy, Paul. 1995. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1983. “Split Household, Small Producer and Dual Wage Earner: An Analysis of

Glenn 71Chinese-American Family Strategies.” Journal of Marriage and Family 45(1):35–46.Guttierez, David G. 1996. Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigants, and the Politics of Ethnicity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Haas, Lizbeth. 1995. Conquests and Historical Identities in California, 1769–1936. Berkeley: University of California Press.Hagan, Jacqueline Maria, Nestor Rodriguez, and Brianna Castro. 2011. “Social Effects of Mass Deportations by the United States Government, 2000–2010.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(8):374–91.Hall, Stuart. 2003. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” Pp. 233–46 in Theorizing Diaspora: A Reader, edited by J. Evans Braziel and A. Mannur. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Haney Lopez, Ian F. 1996. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York University Press.Hernandez, Jose Amaro. 1983. Mutual Aid for Survival: The Case of the Mexican American. Malabar, FL: Kreiger.Hixson, Walter L. 2013. American Settler Colonalism: A History. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.Horsman, Reginald. 1981. Race and Manifest Destiny: the Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Hsu, Madeline. 2000. Dreaming of Gold, Dreaming of Home: Transnationalism and Migration between the United States and South China, 1882–1943. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Hunt, Chester L. and Lewis Walker. 1974. Patterns of Intergroup Relations in Various Societies. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Publications.Johnson, Walter. 2013. “King Cotton’s Long Shadow.” New York Times, December 13, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2014 (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0).Kanizawa, Mark. 2005. “Immigration, Exclusion, and Taxation: Anti-Chinese Legislation in Gold Rush California.” The Journal of Economic History 65(3):779–805.LaGrand, James B. 2005. Indian Metropolis: Native Americans in Chicago, 1945-75. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Lazarus, Mark. 1987. “An Historical Analysis of Alien Land Law: Washington Territory and State: 1853-1889.” University of Puget Sound Law Review 12(1):197–246.Ling, P. 1912. “The Causes of Chinese Immigration.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 39:74–82.Lovell, Melissa. 2007. “Settler Colonialism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Postcolonial Identity.” Refereed Paper presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, September 12-15, 2007. Retrieved May 1, 2014 (http://www.academia.edu/610004/Settler_Colonialism_Multiculturalism_and_the_Politics_of_Postcolonial_Identity).Lugones, Maria. 2010. “Toward a Decolonial Feminism.” Hypatia 25(4):742–59.Maldonado-Torres, Nelson. 2011. “Thinking through the Decolonial Turn: Post-continental Interventions in Theory, Philosophy, and Critique—An Introduction.” Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production in the Luso-Hispanic World 1(2):1–15.McClain, Charles J. 1994. In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Nineteenth Century America. Berkeley: University of California Press.McDonald, Janet A. 1991. The Dispossesion of the American Indian, 1887–1934. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Menchaca, Martha. 1995. Mexican Outsiders: A Community History of Marginalization and Discrimination in California. Austin: University of Texas Press.Mignolo, Walter D. 2007. “Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-coloniality.” Cultural Studies 21(2):449–514.Montejano, David. 1987. Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1886–1986. Austin: University of Texas Press.Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. 2008. “Writing Off Treaties: White Possessions in the United States Critical Whiteness Studies Literature.” Pp. 81–98 in Transnational Whiteness Matters, edited by A. Moreton-Robinson, M. Casey, and F. Nicoll. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in American. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Pascoe, Peggy. 2009. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Patterson, Orlando. 1985. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Perdue, Theda and Michael Green. 2008. The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears. New York: Penguin Books.Pew Research Report. 2013. The Rise of Asian Americans. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 5, 2014 (http://www.pewsocial-trends.org/files/2013/04/Asian-Americans-new-full-report-04-2013.pdf).Pfaelzer, Jean. 2007. Driven Out: The Forgotten War Against Chinese Americans. Berkeley: University of California Press.Pratt, Richard H. 1973. “The Advantages of Mingling Indians with Whites.” Pp. 260–71 in Americanizing the American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of the Indian” 1880–1900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

72 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) Ramirez, Renya. 2007. Native Hubs: Culture, Community, and Belonging in Silicon Valley and Beyond. Durham: Duke University Press.Reisler, Mark. 1976. By the Sweat of Their Brow: Mexican Immigrant Labor in the United States, 1900–1940. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Reyhner, John and Jeanne Eder. 2004. American Indian Education: A History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Sandemeyer, Elmer Clarence. 1991. The Anti-Chinese Movement in California. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Sandoval, Chela. 2000. Methodology of the Oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Saperstein, Aliya and Andrew M. Penner. 2010. “The Race of a Criminal Record: How Incarceration Colors Racial Perception.” Social Problems 57:92–113.Saperstein, Aliya and Andrew M. Penner. 2012. “Racial Fluidity and Inequality in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 118:676–727.Saxton, Alexander. 1975. The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.Sexton, Jared. 2010. “People-of-Color-Blindness: Notes on the Afterlife of Slavery.” Social Text 28(2):31–56.Sexton, Jared. 2011. “The Social Life of Social Death: On Afro-Pessimism and Black Optimism.” InTensions Journal 5:1–47.Shah, Nayan. 2001. Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Berkeley: University of California Press.Smith, Paul Chaat and Robert Allen Warrior. 1997. Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: New Press.Stremlau, Rose. 2005. “To Domesticate and Civilize Wild Indians: Allotment and the Campaign to Reform Indian Families, 1875–1887.” Journal of Family History 30(3):265–86.Superintendent of Indian Schools. 1900. Report of the Superintendent of Indian Schools. In Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Taylor, Paul S. 1930. “Mexican American Labor in the United States: Dimmit County, Winter Garden District, South Texas.” University of California Publications in Economics 6(5).Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Feb 2, 1848, Article IX. Retrieved September 9, 2014 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp).Turner, Frederick Jackson. [1893] 1920. “The Significance of the Frontier in American History.” Pp. 1–38 in The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt.Velez-Ibanez, Carlos. 1996. Border Visions: Mexican Cultures of the Southwest United States. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Veracini, Lorenzo. 2010. Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.Veracini, Lorenzo. 2011. “Telling the End of the Settler Colonial History.” Pp. 204–18 in Studies in Settler Colonialism: Politics, Identity, and Culture, edited by F. Bateman and L. Pilkington. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Weber, David J. 1992. The Spanish Frontier in North America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Wilderson, Frank B. III. 2010. Red, White & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms. Durham & London: Duke University Press.Williams, Robert A., Jr. 2005. Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights and the Legal History of Racism in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Williams, Timothy (April 13, 2013). “Quietly, Indians Reshape Cities and Reservations.” The New York Times, April 13, 2013. Retrieved June 2014 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/us/as-american-indi-ans-move-to-cities-old-and-new-challenges-follow.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).Wolfe, Patrick. 1999. Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event. New York: Cassell.Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8(4):387–409.Wolfe, Patrick. 2011. “Race and the Trace of History: For Henry Reynolds.” Pp. 272–96 in Studies in Settler Colonialism: Politics, Identity, and Culture, edited by F. Bateman and L. Pilkington. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Wong, Bernard. 1978. “A Comparative Study of the Assimilation of the Chinese in New York City and Lima, Peru.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 20:335–58.AUTHOR BIOGRAPHyEvelyn Nakano Glenn is professor of Gender & Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies and Founding Director of the Center for Race and Gender at the University of California, Berkeley. Her teaching and research focus on race, gender, immigration, labor, and citizenship. She is the author of Forced to Care: Coercion and Caregiving in America (Harvard University Press); Unequal Freedom, How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor (Harvard University Press); and Issei, Nisei, War Bride: Three Generations of Japanese American Women in Domestic Service (Temple University Press). She served as 2009–2010 President of the American Sociological Association.

The State is a Man: Theresa Spence, LorettaSaunders and the Gender of Settler Sovereignty Simpson, Audra . Theory & Event ; Baltimore  Vol. 19, Iss. 4,  (2016): N_A. ProQuest document link ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) This article examines the relationship between settler colonialism and Indigenous women’s life and death. In it, Iexamine the incredulity and outrage that obtained to a hunger strike of (Chief) Theresa Spence and the murder ofLoretta Saunders. Both affective modes were torn from the same book of exonerating culpability from a public thatdenied an historic and political relationship between Indigenous women’s death and settler governance. The paperargues that in spite of this denial, these deaths worked effectively to highlight the gendered, biopolitical life ofsettler sovereignty. FULL TEXT   Headnote Abstract This article examines the relationship between settler colonialism and Indigenous women’s life and death. In it, Iexamine the incredulity and outrage that obtained to a hunger strike of (Chief) Theresa Spence and the murder ofLoretta Saunders. Both affective modes were torn from the same book of exonerating culpability from a public thatdenied an historic and political relationship between Indigenous women’s death and settler governance. The paperargues that in spite of this denial, these deaths worked effectively to highlight the gendered, biopolitical life ofsettler sovereignty. This article makes two very simple arguments: one about settler statecraft, and the other about settler imperative.First: Canada requires the death and so called “disappearance” of Indigenous women in order to secure itssovereignty.1 Two: that this sovereign death drive then requires that we think about the ways in which we imaginenot only nations and states but what counts as governance itself. Underpinning these arguments is a crucialpremise: in spite of the innocence of the story that Canada likes to tell about itself, that it is a place of immigrantand settler founding, that in this, it is a place that somehow escapes the ugliness of history, that it is a place that isnot like the place below it, across that border. Canada is not like that place for many reasons2 but it is especiallyexceptional now, because it apologized, it stood in the face of its history, it “reconciles” the violence of the pastwith its present and so, presumably, with this acknowledgment of wrongdoing, may move on. These emotionalgestures, registered at an institutionalized, state level are undermined by an extractive and simultaneouslymurderous state of affairs. And, in spite of those present-day discourses from Canadian political scientists andpolicy makers that imagine a process of equality through the space afforded to Indigenous political orders as the”third order of government”, the evidence suggests that Canada is quite simply, a settler society whosemulticultural, liberal and democratic structure and performance of governance seeks an ongoing “settling” of thisland. The process of settlement is definitely contra equality. I will speak more of this evidence shortly. This settlingthus is not innocent – it is dispossession, the taking of Indigenous lands and it is not over, it is ongoing. It is killingNative women3 in order to do so and has historically done this to do so. It is this killing that allows me to alsoqualify the governance project as gendered and murderous. PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 1 of 17

Relatedly, Jodi Byrd’s Transit of Empire4 structures its intervention among two methodological axes: one of”cacophony” the other of “transit.” It is through these axes that history is known, possibility is made and differenceis rendered. With “cacophony” you have the possibility of multiple, sometimes competing and contestorynarratives of truth and with this, possibility as well. But with that multiplicity, also the riot of noise that requires anear, and a decipherment, an audibility but perhaps a willingness to listen. With these two axis/methodologicalmodalities introduced to us we see her analytic commitments unfold, Indigeneity she argues operates as a transit,an emptying nodal point, or circuit, that allows for empire to move, geographically, politically, hermeneutically. Withthis, Indigeneity is moved well beyond the body and into a global heuristic. “Cacophony” more than acknowledges,in a thin way, the ways in which force structures the multiplicity of voices and truths that emerge out of the transitof this force, it privileges the lives of multiple narratives and invites us to listen closely for those that may matter tous and remain unacknowledged. In all of the acoustic mess of settlement, there is a clarity of one trumpeting discourse and that is of ‘the state’ andhere I want to ground Byrd’s transit in flesh, as the force that she describes and analyzes through texts, I willdemonstrate, moves through bodies, through flesh. The state that I seek to name has a character, it has a malecharacter, it is more than likely white, or aspiring to an unmarked center of whiteness, and definitelyheteropatriarchal. I say heteropatriarchal because it serves the interests of what is understood now as”straightness” or heterosexuality and patriarchy, the rule by men.5 As well, it seeks to destroy what is not. Thestate does so with a death drive to eliminate, contain, hide and in other ways “disappear” what fundamentallychallenges is legitimacy: Indigenous political orders. And here is the rub, Indigenous political orders are quitesimply, first, are prior to the project of founding, of settling, and as such continue to point, in their persistence andvigor, to the failure of the settler project to eliminate them,6 and yet are subjects of dispossession, of removal, buttheir polities serve as alternative forms of legitimacy and sovereignties to that of the settler state. Settler states do not narrate themselves in the following manner: “as settler states we are: founded upon Nativedispossession, outright and unambiguous enslavement, we are tethered to capitalist modes of production thatallow for the deep social and economic differences that takes the shape in the contemporary of “unequal” socialrelations. We now seek to repair these unequal social relations through invigorated forms of economic liberalismthat further dispossess and some would say consensually enslave those who do not own their means ofproduction or opt out or fall out of this form of economic life.” More often than not, and here I am thinking of theUS (in its cagey political project), Australia and Canada fancy themselves as “multicultural, democratic,economically liberal,” and committed to free trade among nations and sometimes, social policies that allow forforms of historical redress that correct or attempt to repair the fundamental and un-narratable violences that bringthem into being. Their histories do not live fully within the present, do not enter into a cacophony of discourses, butinstead take the form of supposedly good policy and good intentions, liberal, settler governance. Those goodpolicies and intentions perform a kind of historical reckoning, but through Truth and Reconciliation commissions,discourses of “healing”, Apologies – in general, the performance of empathetic, remorseful, and fleetingly sorrowfulstates. But states that are built upon violence and still act violently, either at a bureaucratic level, at an economiclevel (as we see saw with the former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s relentless drive to extract from land),7 orthrough a violent indifference – which we saw as well with that governments unwillingness to launch an inquiry intothe Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women (MMIW). This was an unwillingness that is absolutely of a piece with Harper’s August 19, 2014 statement that the problemof murdered and missing Native women should be understood as a “crime” (rather than sociology).8 As a crime itappears to have no context no structure animating it, no materiality besides a legal transgression – thus theappearance of death after a murderous act, with a perpetrator, a victim and a clear and punishable transgressionPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 2 of 17

of a moral and legal code. This is an individuated, judiciable act – justice can be served. But Harper uttered that asthe bodies aggregated, and became something sturdy, something apparent, something hard to ignore, acacophony of death, of grief and of outrage. Harper said this even though this density of native women’s bodies,this aggregate of grief has been called a “phenomenon” of such statistical significance that it warrants reports,warrants explanation. And yet in response to this phenomenon, sociological fact or crime, Stephen Harper repliedto Peter Mansbridge’s query on need for a national inquiry in December, 2014, with “… it isn’t really high on ourradar, to be honest.”9 This specificity of the Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) is of apiece with the diffuse forms of violence that constitute a state: the intentions, the feelings, the capacities of itscitizens, who can also, as we saw in the case of Loretta Saunders, and so many more, kill. States do not alwayshave to kill; its citizens can do that for it. How do the subjects of such states reach for life in the face of this death? How do they not lose themselves in thecacophony? What does this speak of for the future? I will consider two cases that stretch beyond a simple,monologic story of governmental sorrow, abandonment and ineptitude and into an opening into the ways we thinkabout citizenships or publics, particularly the way they may be in active antagonism with the subjected, with thosethat are being made vulnerable. The arc of this article will be the following: bodies, sovereignty and what I see asthe necessity of pedagogical practices of thoughtful antagonism and “contention” not “reconciliation.” Bodies In December 2012, Theresa Spence announced that she would stop eating until the Prime Minister of Canada andthe Governor General of Canada – the official representative of the Crown, met with her to discuss treaties, todiscuss the deplorable conditions of life in her community as well as the broader and also deplorable conditions oflife in the North. Each of these men, as the embodiments of states, she said, had a hand in suffering, in the failureto meet their historic obligations to the land and the people upon the land who were living in contaminatedconditions, were without clean water and proper housing, in legendarily cold and bitter winters. She described thisConservative political party in power as particularly “aggressive” and the Prime Minister Stephen Harper asexceptional in his willingness to withdraw the care and compassion that is supposed to mark a 21st centuryliberal, democratic state. As with all spectacularized political cases, things were not what they seemed. The Hunger Strike was not a hungerstrike in a strict sense of the term, and to be fair, which many were not at the time, a hunger strike under conditionsof ongoing death deserve more interpretive flexibility than Theresa Spence or any indigenous or racialized womanin Canada would or could be afforded in those moments. But to continue with my other point, this was not ahunger strike in a “classic” sense – it was rendered a “soft” hunger strike. And as such we read in endlessnewspaper articles, blog posts, vicious comments sections, in twitter flame wars and heard on TV.10 We heard incomparative terms that her campaign did not compare to the strike of Bobby Sands, or other, “successful” strikes -for example, the strikers at Guantanamo, who have had to be force fed, hers did not compare to these otherdeclarations of a willingness to die because these other strikes nearly ended in death, or in fact, ended in death.She was drinking fish broth twice a day, and so, was “fudging” things (so to speak). And in fact, you would thinkshe was actually eating fudge, as irate Canadians “weighed in” continuously on her insincerity, her avarice, herbody, and in particular, her fat. Yet as the hours turned into days and the days turned into weeks, peoplecaravanned to her camp across from Parliament to assemble around her, to offer strength to her, to visit, – to praywith her. They did not care if she drank fish broth twice a day. In fact, they prayed for her continued life, and theycelebrated her fortitude. Of this the Anishnaabe scholar Leanne Simpson argued in her crucial piece “Fish Brothand Fasting”: PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 3 of 17

We protect the faster. We do these things because we know that through her physical sacrifice she is closer to theSpiritual world than we are. We do these things because she is sacrificing for us and because it is the kind,compassionate thing to do. We do these things because it is our job to respect her self-determination as anAnishinaabekwe – this is the most basic building block of Anishinaabeg sovereignty and governance. We respecther sovereignty over her body and her mind. We do not act like we know better than her.11 Out of respect for her action and for her sovereignty, other Indigenous people stopped eating in solidarity, allrepeating her “demand” to meet with the PM, to have the Treaties upheld, to make something happen in agovernmental storm of complete and total indifference to the life of land and people in Canada. This indifferencehas a life of its own, of course, and its clearest embodiment and manifestation, Stephen Harper, sowed his ownroots as a chief policy analyst for the Reform party in 1987 – a party that was resolutely opposed to any form ofindigenous rights that was not based on the rights of the individual to acquire and accumulate property. This wayof thinking about rights converted historic agreements signed between their country – Canada – and First Nations,what are in fact, treaties, to be in fact, “race-based” forms of recognition that were not tenable with the idea ofequality-as-sameness that his particular political party advocated for. Hence, Harper’s immediate shelving of theKelowna Accord upon coming into office. This is a gloss on a deeper history of reform/alliance party politics thattake the form of conservative skepticism (and here I am being generous) towards Indigenous peoples in Canada,but it is enough to say for now that the intellectual and political project of neoliberal capital accumulation thatmarked Harper’s ascent to the position of PM is what Theresa Spence walked in to. And in this time of aggressivemoves into soil and subsurface soil, of governmental indifference if not abandonment, she stopped eating. Here I want to gender this argument and move to her body. Theresa Spence’s appearance, her fleshy appearance,was itself a site of ire by commentators on-line, in twitter flame wars, and in print journalism. She was too fat! Weheard in different ways, over and over again, to be sincere, to be what she was supposed to be, which was a personin starvation. Yet her “excess” flesh, flesh that exceeds the western, normative Body Mass Index (BMI) of under 25,itself defies a logic of genocide and in this, settler domination. Why this link between fat, her fat in particular, and aresistance or refusal of domination? Because what she is required to do, with or without the starvation, is die. Infact, her very life, like the lives of all Indian women in Canada is an anomaly because since the 1870s they havebeen legally mandated to disappear, in various forms – either through the Indian Act’s previous instantiation ofVictorian marriage rules whereby an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man lost her Indian status (her legalrights based identity) and as such her right to reside on her reserve. With this legal casting out was the casting outas well of the possibility of transmitting that status to her children, a loss as well of governmental power withIndigenous governance itself, the political form that her body and mind signified. Here I want to use an example to demonstrate this argument about symbolization, Indigenous political orders andsettler governance. In the case of Iroquois or Haudenosaunee peoples (the peoples who signal North America’sfirst “new world” democracy) this move to make Indian women white, to remove their status as Indians was a blowto the knees, if not a strangulation of Indigenous governance and political order, as Iroquois women appointedChiefs, held property, counseled chiefs and de-horned them if necessary (removed them from their position ofChief). They divorced their men by placing their belongings outside of the Longhouse. They were the inverse of thesettler colonial woman, they had legally mandated authority and power, and so, they represented an alternativepolitical order to that which was in play or was starting to be in play in the late 19th Century. They embodied andsignaled something radically different to Euro Canadian governance and this meant that part of dispossession,and settler possession meant that coercive and modifying sometimes killing power had to target their bodies.Because as with all bodies, these bodies were more than just “flesh” – these were and are sign systems andsymbols that could effect and affect political life. So they had to be killed, or, at the very least subjected becausewhat they were signaling or symbolizing was a direct threat to settlement. PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 4 of 17

Now I want to emphasize that the technique of elimination that I am emphasizing here is legal and the time that Iam thinking of is the mid and late 19th Century, when the legal work of the Indian Act went into play and marriagerendered Indian women the property of their husbands. As such if Indian women “married out” they weredisappeared into a white, settler body politic through a limited enfranchisement (here I say “limited” because asnew white women and they would not vote in Manitoba until 1918 and Quebec by 1940). Nonetheless, when theirIndigenous political order was overlaid by the Indian Act and specifically its gendered rules recognizing only someforms of marriage, defining then, a notion of out-marriage and the simultaneous imposition of patrilineal descent.At that moment we see a white, heteropatriarchal and white setter sovereignty ascend and show us its face. Itdoes so through the work that it does with this legal move to dispossess people of land, of territory, to killtraditional governance forms and in the Haudenosaunee (and other Indigenous) cases, supplant traditionalIndigenous governance, sovereignty and political life. This was achieved through the imposition of Federal andstate law in particular legislative moments12 but also through slow processes of forced geographic removals,assimilation projects and citizenship itself. The move to patrilineal/patriarchal governance in Indian territories wasa legal femicide of a sort – but not of fleshy bodies, of political form, as women are the political form of the IroquoisConfederacy. Yet, it is this very instrument of Indian women’s legal death or redefinition as subjects of white sovereignty, thatmakes Theresa Spence a “Chief.” An elected, Indian Act “Chief,” 136 years after the Act is imposed on Indians inCanada and 82 years after her Cree trapping community of Attawapiskat in Northern Ontario, enters into Treatywith Canada – Treaty 9 – this is 1930. They are among to the last to sign on, or be added to this Treaty. At that pointthis small “hunting band”, one that lays at the mouth of James Bay, an important stopping point for travelers,fishermen and hunters, was brought into the legal life of an emergent state. Within 82 years the broader politicalorder of “Cree” in James Bay (who are in both what is now Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec) have suffered atleast one serious famine at the turn of the century due to beaver pelt over hunting, have resisted and then enduredthe construction of a hydro-electric dam in 1971 (for Quebec) have then Treated again in 1975 (JBNQA).13 It wasat that time that Mathew Coon-Come argued, “Under this Agreement… [we were] promised compensation, schools,social services, health care, sanitation, housing, employment and training. We were also assured that our huntersand trappers would be able to continue their traditional way of life. As with other Indian treaties, many importantcommitments have not been honoured.”14 What appeared to be an exorbitant payment for their water at that timewas actually paltry – as they cannot fish because of methylmercury poisoning, suffer obesity because of thesedentarization required of their forced relocation and reservationization, and then had to contest with every bit ofenergy imaginable, with a Public Relations firm in tow, a second hydroelectric project “Great Whale” (in 1992),which was to provide energy to sell to the United States. Theresa Spence’s people and community are literally, cousins to all this,15 and seem to suffer even more, outsideof recent Treaty and Provincial payments, it is as if they are outside of time, they suffered the same famines astheir kin in Quebec, and live in what all accounts, sounds like a surreal, federally recognized zone of simultaneousemergency and abandonment. Spence has been on Council since 2010, there have been three states of emergencydeclared since 2009 because of flooding, because the houses are in such disrepair they are uninhabitable, becauseof sewage back up, because these conditions are not survivable anywhere but especially so in subzerotemperatures. Here from Indian Affairs: “”only 46 of Attawapiskat’s 316 housing units are considered adequate,while another 146 need major work and 122 are placement.16 Further to this, Aboriginal and Northern Affairsrepresentative revealed that of the 316 homes, 85 percent are “unfit for human habitation” 17 The Canadian Press -where they have alighted upon Attawapiskat – have zoned in on federal transfers to the community, totaling inevery year, 31 million dollars, and requiring forensic auditing on where the money has gone – transfers in theshadow of a De Beers Victor diamond mine that starting extracting from the land next to Attawapiskat in 2009 -PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 5 of 17

something they have since protested vigorously, pointing to problems with a community consultation process andthe signing a 2005 Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA), negotiated in secrecy, that did not result in housing, betterhealth care services, jobs and improved recreation facilities for the youth.18 Shiri Pasternak has argued in hermeticulous analysis of the fiscal warfare against First Nations people and the case of Attawapiskat that theseImpact Benefit Agreements are another strategy to gain access to Indigenous lands because they “sanitize aregime of accumulation” in new “frontiers like Attawapiskat (2015: 14). She elaborates, “[w]hile IBAs technicallyconstitute a consultation process, since they imply consent from First Nations, these agreements containconfidential and non-compliance clauses that scholars refer to as a hostage situation of “indentured servants, whopromise to work a certain number of years in exchange for their freedom, no matter how bad the workingconditions” (Pasternak 2015: 21). 19According to a 2013 APTN article, this problematic Impact Benefit Agreementprovides Attawapiskat with roughly $2 million a year (1.5 percent) of their annual revenue and De Beers hastransferred $10.5 million into a trust fund for Attawapiskat as of January 2011. The mine also generated $448.8million in gross revenues by the same date.20 It is in this context as well that Theresa Spence, out of what some may say is desperation or deep strategy,stopped declaring states of emergency from the North and, while down south in their nation’s capital – Ottawa, foran Assembly of First Nations General Meeting, decided to declare her own body an exception. In this, she declaredher own body a space for the pronouncement of need, of sovereignty, the site of the decision not to eat. And to noteat solid food until the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper would meet with her to talk about the indifference hisConservative government had shown to Attawapiskat, but also to all communities in the North, to the land, to thepeople on the land. She then started her fast in a traditional dwelling constructed parallel to Parliament and herbody, her action became a piece with the “Idle No More” movement – what may be largest, broad based, grass rootssocial and political movement to unfold in Canadian history.21 Its goals are literally and directly to (and I quote)”stop the [Stephen] Harper government from passing more laws and legislation that will further erode treaty andindigenous rights and the rights of all Canadians.”22 Further it stated “Idle No More calls on all people to join in arevolution which honors and fulfills Indigenous sovereignty which protects the land and water.”23 With those objectives the movement has taken the form of “actions”: flash mobs and round dances in publicspaces that were peopled by at times, hundreds and thousands of participants who drummed and dancedpeaceably, as well peaceful road blockages. Although Spence’s action was separate from the four women inSaskatchewan who first brought the serious implications of the government’s Omnibus Bill C-45 to publicattention24 their actions drew strength from each other and shared similar concerns. The Omnibus Bill was abudget bill that would do many things but of most interest to native people and the environment, would amend theIndian Act so that reserve lands could be leased without a majority consent of the voting membership, amend theNavigational Protection Act so that major pipeline and power line projects did not have to prove their project won’tdamage or destroy a navigable waterway it crosses, unless the waterway is on a list prepared by the transportationminister and the Environmental Assessment Act, which in this Omnibus bill reduces further the number of projectsthat would require impact assessment under the old provisions. “Idle No More” describes itself as an ongoingmovement that took and probably still takes exception to the lack of consultation that marked the passage ofthese acts, as well as the way in which they over-rode existing treaty agreements and the Indian Act itself, not tomention fundamental issues of consent, as well as the abusive indifference of the Federal government to the livesand lands of Indigenous peoples. According to estimates by Idle No More, those amendments removedenvironmental protection for 72 to 99.9 percent of lakes and rivers in Canada.25 It is because of this removal oflegal protections (and probably other very good reasons) that the movement joined forces with those who want tosimply end the prospect of tar sands extraction in Northern Alberta in order to transport and sell oil elsewhere -treating the land like a dead body to be extracted from. It is of no irony that, in that political moment and in thehistorical context that structures Canada, Theresa Spence’s body would be treated with the callous indifference ifPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 6 of 17

not the ire that it was. Flesh and Sovereignty I want to explain why and to do so with recourse to her body and its relationship not so much with this movementbut with death and its failure to die. Spence fasted for six weeks, drinking one cup of fish broth in the morning, oneat night. During that time The Sarah Palin of electoral politics in Canada, then Conservative (Algonquin) SenatorPatrick Brazeau declared at a fundraising dinner that he had the flu and lost more weight in one week than she didin six weeks. This prompted a heckler to chime in, (and be reported in the Press repeatedly), “I think she gainedweight!”26 Spence’s fleshy body was not seen as a sign of resurgent Indigenous life to white Canada, it was notseen as a stubborn, resolute, and sovereign refusal to die, staying alive to have that conversation about Crownobligations, about housing and about historical obligations – it was read as a failure to do what it was supposed todo – perish. Not only do Conservative, neoliberal governments require extractive relationships to territory at alltimes, focusing upon surplus rather than social welfare or care of its supposed citizens (even if they are differentlycitizened, as Indigenous peoples are),27 those that are Conservative settler regimes require a double move, toextract from land and kill land if necessary – it is metaphorically a resource that gives itself to you for this purpose.Harper’s regime is most open about this way of viewing territory. Now all settler colonial regimes, some wouldargue (here I am thinking of Patrick Wolfe’s work and those on his tail or trail) have territory as its irreducibleelement, a desire for territory, not labor, or exclusively labor for example. But Theresa Spence’s two bodies, herChiefly one and her Womanly one were especially untenable because they were both Indian bodies. An Indianwoman’s body in settler regimes such as the US, in Canada is loaded with meaning – signifying other politicalorders, land itself, of the dangerous possibility of reproducing Indian life and most dangerously, other politicalorders. Other life forms, other sovereignties, other forms of political will. Indian women in the aforementionedexample of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy transmit the clan, and with that: family, responsibility, relatedness toterritory. Feminist scholars have argued that Native women’s bodies were to the settler eye, like land, and as suchin the settler mind, the Native woman is rendered “unrapeable” (or, highly rapeable”)28 because she was like land,matter to be extracted from, used, sullied, taken from, over and over again, something that is already violated andviolatable in a great march to accumulate surplus, to so called “production.” This helps us to understand the so-called “phenomenon” of the disappeared women, the murdered and missingNative women and girls in Canada. When we account for this way of looking at Indian women it is not a mystery, isnot without explanation, their so called “disappearances” are consistent with this ongoing project ofdispossession. And we can see that this is sociology and this is criminal. Sherene Razack (2002), Andrea Smith(2005), Beverly Jacobs and Amnesty International (2004 Beverly Jacobs and Amnesty International (2009), thefilm-makers Christine Welsh (2006) and Sharmeen Chinoy (2006),29 as well as countless activists andheartbroken, devastated family members who have marched and petitioned who have stayed on the police have alldocumented, theorized, and written about these deaths, these disappearances, which are explained not only bypolice ineptitude, by police racism, by gendered indifference, but by Canada’s dispossession of Indian people fromland. This dispossession is raced and gendered, and its violence is still born by the living, the dead, and thedisappeared corporealities of Native women. The disappearance of Indian women now takes on a sturdysociological appearance: “missing” in the past decade, gone from their homes, murdered on the now-legendary”Highway of Tears”30in Northern British Columbia, offstreets or reservations. Indian women “disappear” becausethey have been deemed killable, rapeable, expendable. Their bodies have historically been rendered less valuablebecause of what they are taken to represent: land, reproduction, Indigenous kinship and governance, an alternativeto heteropatriarchal and Victorian rules of descent. As such, they suffer disproportionately to other women. Theirlives are shorter, they are poorer, less educated, sicker, raped more frequently, and they “disappear.” Theirdisappearance thus is not an unexplainable phenomenon; like the so called “Oka Crisis” of 1990 in MohawkPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 7 of 17

territory, these not-so-mysterious disappearances are symptomatic of what administrators have called in Canada(and sometimes in the United States) “the Indian Problem.” And the Indian’s problem”: dispossession and settlergovernance are not up for examination and scrutiny, as they were with INM and the pushbacks such as Oka,Ipperwash, Elsipogtog. Theresa Spence’s fleshy life, disciplined in a spectacular declaration to not eat in order toeffect a political end was a sovereign exception to the exception that Indian people find themselves in settlerstates of occupation, Indigenous dispossession and right now, what may be qualified as neoliberal indifferenceand aggression to corporeal life. The Chief’s two bodies signaled too much for a settler eye and imagination tohear let alone act upon, and were she to have died, her body would have been in fact, the eliminatory logic of thestate laid bare, and made all too real. And in these times when the drive to death is apparent, when we are sent thememo repeatedly on the relationship between ideological degradation, gender, dispossession and governance,rendered in the bodies of the murdered and missing women, when Indigenous people are rising up all over, holdinghands with settlers in absolute concern, grief and outrage, the language normatively should not be “reconciliation”since the historical violence of colonialism is not over, it is ongoing.31 Grief I now want to turn now to a recent death, which was a grief filled, nerve ending in this. Loretta Saunders was ayoung Inuk woman who was killed in February 2014. I will unpack some of the details of her passing shortly butwill say for now that this violent murder, which is actually unexceptional when considered against the largercorpus that I have been talking about: the sociological fact, the crime of “Murdered and Missing IndigenousWomen in Canada” is one that was exceptional in that it that actually seemed to matter, it seemed to shockCanada. It was saturated with grievability and managed to rouse the murdered and missing women to settler (andIndigenous) consciousness in ways perhaps that it had not before.32 But before talking of the specifics of herpassing so I want to think first with the writing Darryl Leroux, her thesis advisor, who attempted upon her death, topuncture common understandings of the murders and deaths of Indigenous women in order to offer historical andpolitical context to these deaths. After Saunders’ death was confirmed and it was in fact, a “fact” that she was gone, Daryl Leroux made a careful,and simultaneously impassioned plea in the Huffington Post for white Canadians to think about the history thatthey inhabit, the benefits that they incur from Indigenous dispossession – as Indigenous dispossession is as I havejust argued, foundational for Canada (and of course, the United States). And Indigenous women’s vulnerability toharm, to violence is symptomatic of this dispossession. Before I get further into the crux of his argument I will justrehearse a few points. When we speak of dispossession we are speaking of the materiality of land. The land thatIndigenous peoples own, care for, are related to and are moved from, by force or by fiat for settlement. Thus whenwe think about dispossession we have to think about it as an ongoing activity that the US and Canada are veryinvolved in as these governmental projects also move Indigeneity – as a living thing, a corporeal thing and also asystem of ideas and practices out of the way. These states have to be involved in this ongoing “moving away”because they fundamentally need this land and its resources to fuel themselves and keep producing themselves ofcourse, as a political order but as systems that are attached to people who are not but who can invoke Indigeneityin different ways to suppose themselves, to construct themselves, as civil, as lawful, as the “not-that” (savage andprior other). This may seem a crude construction from various literatures but I want to ground my analysis thoughin the need for not only land, but also selfhood and statecraftto legitimate claims to governance. When we talkabout dispossession, when we talk about settler colonialism or imperial colonialism we are not talking about priorevents, or even just events, we are talking about ongoing processes, and what the comparative historian PatrickWolfe has called a sturdy, enduring “structure” and in this, not only an event.33 Alyosha Goldstein has recentlycalled for a nuancing of this further, as assemblage,34 but the feature of a discernable will to eliminate over timeand is born out in the Canadian case and especially so in relation to gender. Structures move through time andPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 8 of 17

place and if you pay close attention, you can actually see structural activity. The evidence for this, some of which was in Leroux’s articles on the Saunders’s murder, is a “termination plan” putforth by Harper’s regime in September of 2013,35 the ongoing tar sands36 project in Northern Alberta, which stripsthe top soil of Northern Cree and Ojibway communities in order to extract oil from the stripped earth to pipelinethrough the United States and ship through, literally through, other Indigenous communities, and whitecommunities through the trick of “eminent domain” – a legal manoeuver that Indians in the states are very familiarwith because it was one of ways in which land was expropriated from them through an argument that targeted itas necessary “for the public good.” The four phase Keystone Pipeline37 in particular is a compact between big oil,(TransCanada Corporation based in Calgary) and local and federal Canadian and US governments, as state permitswere required to start construction. Starting in 2008 private industry worked with public law to expropriate privateand Indian land to route crude oil from Hardisty Alberta to Regina, Saskatchewan across the border down toNebraska and on to Illinois. Later phases extended the pipelines from Nebraska to Oklahoma Liberty County Texasand “Phases 3 and 3a” onto Houston, Texas. Phase 4, called Keystone XL was rejected by the Obamaadministration after years of review.38 The 1700-mile pipeline was also to start in Hardisty Alberta and route itselfthrough Nebraska, down to the Gulf of Mexico where the oil would be reworked for domestic consumption and/orsold to markets in China, solely for the profit of big oil, not the “public good.” Indian land in Northern Alberta isbeing harvested as well as privately held acreage by white Americans in the Plains. White Farmers that till theearth in perfect, Lockean fashion, are being subjected to the legal concept of “eminent domain” in North Dakota.39It duplicates in precisely what happened to indigenous peoples whose land they now claim and is being taken fromthem. So let me return to this person, the late Loretta Saunders and what her passing means in all of this. For those ofyou that don’t know who Loretta Saunders is, she was a 26-year-old Inuk student from Labrador who was studyingat St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She was writing her honor’s thesis on the so called “phenomenon”of murdered and missing Native women in Canada, and during the course of her thesis research and writing, inFebruary, 2014 her lifeless body was found in a hockey bag along the Trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick.40She was pregnant on multiple levels, pregnant with this thesis that she was researching and writing, and quiteliterally, three months pregnant. According to all accounts, she was a great student, working hard, looking forwardto starting these new chapters in her life, and then was killed shockingly, suddenly by a white couple subletting herapartment when she went to collect the overdue rent from them.41 Loretta Saunders’ murder really, really upset everyone, registering grievability and forms of action42 in ways notseen before for reasons that are both predictable and yet, not. One, she was, like all of these Native women, killedin part of what looks like a vaporous crime spree that belongs to not one serial murder, but an entire citizenship. Asmentioned earlier 1,06043 Native women have disappeared or been killed in the past decade – there have been twoAmnesty International reports, calls for a national public inquiry, reports into police ineptitude, a municipal inquiryfollowed by an apology by the Vancouver police chief Jim Chu for years of doddering inaction regarding themurdered and missing women in that city and the specificity and particular heinousness of Robert Pickton’sperfectly commodifying site of gendered pain and gendered elimination, the “piggy farm.” At the so called “piggyfarm” 49 women (he confessed to 49 and was charged for 6) were murdered and ground, like meat. Like Saunders’body, found in a hockey bag, a container for the sport that seems to condense meaning, and hope, whilesublimating white male violence in a civil form, to stand for Canada itself, Pickton’s violence does perfectlydisgusting and unambiguous work to tell us, to scream at us, Native women will be killed by this country and itspeople. Yet in spite of these signs that scream, settler governance in those moments could not or would not hear them. InPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 9 of 17

March 2014, one month after the Saunders murder, the conservative-led cabinet refused the call for a nationalinquiry into these deaths that crash through austere, Canadian silence the in the form of tears, marches, outragecongealing into one discourse of outraged grief, why are these women being targeted, who is the perpetrator, whatdo we do?44 When history and sensibility is “the perp” a lot has to get done. And the Saunders case agitated all that in ways notseen before. So that is the one way in which this fairly recent murder scrapes at whatever iota of patienceIndigenous people have with the state of affairs. But I suspect the other reason is that Loretta Saunders looked likea white girl. She had fair skin, blond hair, light eyes, she could have infiltrated a KKK meeting without notice.Perhaps, and we will find more than likely, perhaps not. It isn’t white skin privilege that upset people, in that she ismore precious than the darker ones among us – it is that her death demonstrates that no one is safe. Her violentpassing is teaching us that one cannot “pass” – this structure, this assemblage, those people that articulatethemselves through and for it, will find you, and subject you, it can kill you. You too can be emptied of your familialrelations, your relationship to land, your signifying possibility as the ongoing project of Empire transits in Byrd’sparlance, or plows through you. One’s, life, one’s land, sovereignty, one’s body, emptied out, in order for other thingsto pass through. This includes fleshy bodies, this includes Theresa Spence’s stubborn and life sustaining fat. Thisis because if you are an indigenous woman your flesh is received differently, you have been subjected differentlythan others, your life choices have been circumscribed in certain ways, and the violence it seems, and will find you,and choke you, and beat you, and possibly kill you. And Darryl Leroux tried to explain this to Canadians in theHuffington Post, where you will find the startling comments of Canadians who argued in the comments section (invarious ways) ‘she was not subjected to this violence because she was Inuk, she was subjected to this violencebecause she is a woman, because these are killers and they are wholly responsible.’ Somehow the killers wereoutside of the state, they were imagined as outside of the history that structures them as well.45 My favoritecomment to Leroux’s post was and is “You also just helped explain why the numbers for missing/murdered nativewomen are so high. You count any woman with any amount of native blood as native” – completelymisapprehending his argument about history and territory, and with that that phenotype. His crucial point beingthat skin color is not a matter of Indigeneity, that Loretta Saunders was an Inuk that she belonged to her people,she belonged to her family, and that they belong to specific territory. Here he argued that Indigeneity is actuallythis kind of specificity of place and people, and that in particular this so called “white Inuk” belonged to thosepeople and she was claimed and loved and grieved by them. In the numerous YouTube videos on this case you cansee her distraught family plead the public for information, you can see her sister Delilah Saunders with tear stainedcheeks calmly ask for information from the public about her sister, and then wait and ask and then organize asearch for her body. When the news comes to the Saunders family, we see them embrace each other with the reliefof knowing simply that her body had been found – frozen, in the hockey bag. They were happy simply that she hadbeen found because so many of these women have not. And couple their sentiments, which are literally,heartbreaking, her murder enraging, with the cacophony of comments from the Canadian public to Leroux’s blogposts with statements of remorse, because this case is so awful it is inspiring even grief in the trolls. Pedagogies of Contention When I first wrote an earlier version of this article I presented it in Austin, Texas for a graduate student conferenceon ‘Violence and Indigenous Identity.”46 This was in April of 2014. Like many other people, I was thinking a lotabout Loretta Saunders, about the other women, and Leroux’s piece made me think about my students,47 aboutmy job as Professor but specifically as a research Professor that takes teaching very seriously. And as a researchProfessor, I should not work so hard on my teaching. But nonetheless, I take it seriously and push things to thepoint of almost total bodily collapse every year when I get a long, painful and relentless bronchitis. I can barelywalk to work, let alone lecture, and I work across the street from my apartment. I say this not to dramatize a pointPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 10 of 17

about exertion, we all work very hard, but to talk about what I teach and its crucial capacity to exhaust. What Iteach: violence, dispossession, Indigenous political life in the face of death, is high stakes and I know it. Where Iteach is high stakes and I know it – in the US a site of complete atrophied disavowal of dispossession and ongoingcolonialism, disavowal of indigeneity itself. And the courses push up and expose the structures of thatdispossession and disavowal to students while providing an historical narrative with analytics to help them along.Repeatedly I hear, and read from them in different ways, “we didn’t know this” and from my Indigenous students, ofwhich there are more than I ever expected, “this helps to put it all together.” From all, “let’s do something!” I don’tseek to make a claim of an extraordinary status for native studies alongside other crucial, non-canonical andsubaltern histories, all with their own very serious and searing urgencies, but let me make the modest claim thatthe material serves as a “surprise” that topples things and so I would say, is crucial. But because of its generallynon-curricular nature if I don’t get it right, if I don’t ensnare my students with this information, they may never get it,and they may never get it because they may never even hear it. This is because we live in a place, in multipleplaces, that simply require a disappearance of Indians in order to make the meta claims of the state make sense,”We are a nation of immigrants” – this is not true. And even though Obama then quickly offers the exceptionalqualifier “Unless you are one of the Native Americans” he does not explain the violence of settler colonialism, theongoing violence of this all and how it is still going on and itself explains the minoritized, post-genocidal and yes,exceptional space of indigeneity. So unless people have the data of dispossession, the conceptual and analyticaltoolkit to work with these statements, they may take it as a fact, they may be compelled by it as something that istrue and also virtuous. When they have the material of native studies and Indigenous studies to think with thesestatements are perceived differently, their own histories are perceived differently, they will have to think morerobustly and critically about what is before them. And why is this not a matter for everyone to care about, to teach,to think with, to act upon? Because this disappearance keeps things in its place, the narratives, the politics, thedistributions in power that allow for land to still be taken, for Indigenous identities as well to be violated and stolenbecause it is presumed that Indigenous peoples are not here to claim each other, to stand up for each other andthemselves. I have written about this in my first book, Mohawk Interruptus (2014) but you will find other examplesof this clarity of Indigenous political will in other works in literary history (Monture 2014) ethnography (Nesper2002, McCarthy 2016), political analysis and critique (Alfred 1999Alfred 2005Alfred 2008, Coulthard 2014, Bruyneel2007, Moreton-Robinson 2002, Moreton-Robinson 2007, Moreton-Robinson 2015).48 The people I have written about (and belong to), the Haudenosaunee for example, insist on the life of Indigenousnationhood and sovereignty through time and express this in actions that are about not being American, not beingCanadian, and in this it is holding these nation-states in a position of doubt, sometimes interrogation andsometimes refusal. Their political posture is, in short, saying I am not playing with you. You are not the onlypolitical or historical show in town, and I know it. I think of Loretta Saunders, of her sister’s completely devastatingblog that documents her love for her sister, the sadness and rage that she wakes up with, her hopes for the safetyof other women, of life after her sister’s murder,49 and I think of the death grip that threatens to seize all of us, thedeath grip that is very much a part of a settler show. A show of strength, of callous indifference, of an ire thatobtains to Indigenous women’s bodies and how this attaches even to those of us that might think we are safe.Simultaneously I think of her thesis advisor, who tried to translate the very things he was surely teaching LorettaSaunders, learning from Loretta Saunders, to Canadians in the Huffington Post. Is this the cacophony ofdiscourses that vie for a kind of truth telling? Force qualified as violence moves through us, trying to empty us out,transiting through moving to the flesh that is the subsurface of “identity” as peoples possessing bodies with livinghistories of relatedness to territory that is constantly being violated, harmed, ignored – allowing some of us to bedevalued to the point where we are denied bodily integrity, denied philosophical integrity, flattened, sometimeskilled. The force of this is ongoing, and multileveled. I think now, after writing my first book and thinking throughthe politics of Kahnawà:ke which are at times extremely difficult but so very alive and vibrant, which resist andrefuse this kind of process at every turn, the desire for reconciliation by the Canadian government is a curious one.PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 11 of 17

I am not sure that this is possible or fair to attempt to “reconcile” with something that is so violent, so relentless,unless all people stand fully before the sorts of stories I have just assembled, the stories that circulate in ourcommunities, the loss, the gains, the names, and think then about what peace means. The settler state is asking toforgive and to forget, with no land back, no justice and no peace. I find this request for forgiveness by a killing statewith what we now know and continue to know to veer towards the absurd if not insult, in spite of its conciliatoryintent. This is because historical, bodily and heuristic violence along with theftare among those things that arereally impossible to forgive let alone forget. Footnote Notes 1. For the reach of global, imperial and comparative analysis of settler colonialism see Bruno Cornellier andMichael Griffith’s volume of Settler Colonial Studies (2016) 6: 4. See also Alyosha Alex Lubins edited volume ofSouth Atlantic Quarterly (2008): 107 (4). 2. See Paulette Regan Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling and Reconciliation(2011) for an account and analysis of Canadian self perception, especially as international peacekeepers and inrelation to the US 3. And over-incarcerating Native men. Please see Sherene Razack’s (2014) Dying from Improvement: Inquiries andInquests into Indigenous Deaths in Custody (Toronto: University of Toronto Press) for a book length analysis of theover preponderance of deaths in custody, most are men. 4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 5. This is argued in various ways by Aileen Moreton-Robinson in The White Possessive: Property Power andIndigenous Sovereignty (2014). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 6. See Kevin Bruyneel The Third Space of Sovereignty (2007) and Audra Simpson, Mohawk Interruptus (2014) forrelated arguments. 7. Trudeau cancelled the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway project that would transport oil from the Albertatar sands of the coast of British Columbia, He did so just 9 days after assuming office. He is, however supportive ofthe pipeline projects “Energy East” and “Trans Mountain” http://www.canadianbusiness.com/economy/how-the-trudeau-government-tore-up-the-rulebook-on-pipelines/ (last accessed 08/30/2016), because they are thought tooffer a “cleaner” solution than pipelines that transport crude and are underway with more process and consultationwith First Nations. The younger and presumably innovative and inclusive Trudeau was widely regarded at the pointof his election as a departure from the Conservative party leader Stephen Harper’s nine years in office. 8. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/harper-rebuffs-renewed-calls-for-murdered-missing-women-inquiry-1.2742845 [last accessed 09/20/2015]. 9. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/full-text-of-peter-mansbridge-s-interview-with-stephen-harper-1.2876934 (lastaccessed 09/20/2015). 10. For an excellent summary please see http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/31/patrick-brazeau-theresa-spence_n_2589799.html [last accessed 4/7/2013] 11. Please note in his piece Simpson recasts the action of Spence in ceremonial terms, and as simultaneousenactment of the consequences of and critique of Indian Act colonialism. Simpson argued, “colonialism has keptIndigenous Peoples on a fish broth diet for generations…” (2014: 155) “Fish Broth and Fasting” in The Winter WeDanced: Voices from the Past, the Future and the Idle No More Movment The Kino-nda-niimi Collective. Winnipeg:ARP Books. Pp: 154-157. 12. The end of treaty-making for example in the United States (1871) and the imposition of the Indian Act inCanada (1876). 13. This is “James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement, which affects Cree in what was once James Bay and is nowreferred to as “Eeyou Istchee.” (http://www.gcc.ca/pdf/LEG000000006.pdf last accessed 09/19/2015) 14. Mathew Coon Come “Remarks to the Canada Seminar.” Harvard Center for International Affairs and KennedyPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 12 of 17

School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, October 28, 1996.http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/coon_come.html (last accessed 09/19/2015). 15. This article is rich in its invitation for critical commentary, “Quebec Cree avoided the fate of Attawapiskatt”basically by controlling the process of “economic development” through techniques of political resistance untiltheir terms were met. It is emphasized that they are not “opposed to development” but simply want to control itand to receive revenues from it. Time does not permit me to deconstruct the underlying principles of this discoursebut later versions of this project will (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/14/pol-james-bay-cree-northern-quebec-attawapiskat.html) (last accessed 09/20/2015). 16. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/07/attawapiskat-spending-audit-theresa-spence_n_2425725.html (lastaccessed 09/20/2015) 17. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/attawapiskat-chief-slams-audit-leak-as-distraction-1.1318113 (last accessed09/20/2015). 18. Please see the documentary “The People of the Kattawapiskak River (2011, National Film Board of Canada,Alanis Obomsawin, dir) for a documentary treatment of the housing crisis as well as a crucial account of theirindependent funding of their hockey rink. 19. In footnote 101 of her article “The fiscal body of sovereignty: to ‘make live’ in Indian country” Shiri Pasternak(2015) provides a genealogy of IBAS as this accumulative technique and traces them back to Haida Nation v.British Columbia (Ministry of Forests) 2004 SCC 73). In a nutshell, there must be consulation with First Nations ifAboriginal Rights will be contravened, the cunning of IBAs is they imply consent and do not require it fully.Pasternak draws on Ken Caine and Naomi Krogman, “Powerful or Just Plain Power-Full? A Power Analysis ofImpact and Benefit Sharing Agreements in Canada’s North,” Organization and Environment 23:1 (2010). ForPasternak see http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2015.1090525 20. http://aptn.ca/news/2013/02/15/attawapiskat-councillor-accuses-de-beers-of-trickery-as-showdown-looms-on-diamond-mine-ice-road/ 21. This admittedly a difficult claim to prove as the INM movement was and perhaps still is amorphous and proneto spontaneous public actions and thus difficult to “calculate.” Other “to the streets” and protests have beensignificant in demographic scale, notably the Winnipeg workers strikes of 1919. See Craig Heron, ed. (1998) TheWorkers Revolt in Canada 1917-1925. Toronto: University of Toronto Press and the gendered consumer activism of”the Homemakers” organizations through out the 1930s who organized in vigorous protest against rising milkprices. See Julie Guard (2010) “A Mighty Power Against the Cost of Living: Canadian Housewives organize in the1930’s.” International Labor and Working Class History 77: 27-47). I am grateful to Jarvis Brownlie for pushing meon this claim. 22. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/9-questions-about-idle-no-more-1.1301843 (last accessed 09/20/2015). 23. http://www.idlenomore.ca/vision (last accessed 09/20/2015). 24. The Omnibus Bill was first brought to public attention by four women in Saskatchewan – Jessica Gordon, SylviaMcAdam, Sheelah McLean, Nina Wilson as well the woman that first started the hashtag “Idle No More” (and thusintensive discussion and actions – Tanya Kappo). Theresa Spence was similarly acting in protest to what shecalled (and her people call) the “aggression” of the Conservative Government in Canada. In this, their callousindifference to the lives and lands of Native people in the North, in her community housing is abominable andwater undrinkable. This is endemic to many reserves in the North. Please see Pasternak for a detailed legal historyof Spence’s action, placed within the larger context of Indigenous dispossession and Canadian lawmaking (2016).For a multivocal, edited account of the “Idle No More Movement” please see The Kino-niimi Collective (eds.) TheWinter We Danced: Voices from the Past and the Future, and the Idle No More Movement (2014). 25. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/9-questions-about-idle-no-more-1.1301843 (last accessed 09/20/2015). 26. The exchange as reported by Huffington Post Canada: “I look at Miss Spence, when she started her hungerstrike, and now?” Brazeau asked. A spectator then cried out, “She’s fatter,” sparking laughter.(http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/31/patrick-brazeau-theresa-spence_n_2589799.html) (last accessedPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 13 of 17

09/20/2015) 27. See Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States for an ethnographic account of thisdifferent citizenship (Simpson: 2014). 28. See Andrea Smith, Conquest (2005), Jacki Rand, Kiowa Humanity and the Invasion of the State, (2008)specifically chapter 6, which links a degraded status of Kiowa women to settler capitalism. There is reference tosexual violence as well in Ned Blackhawk’s Violence over the Land (2006) and James Daschuk’s Clearing thePlains (2014) but they do not make the claim regarding gender and territory that Smith and Rand do. 29. Amnesty International (2004) No More Stolen Sisters: A Human Rights Response to DiscriminationandViolence Against Indigenous Women in Canada. London: Amnesty International. Amnesty International (2009). No More Stolen Sisters: The Need for a Comprehensive Response to ViolenceAgainst Indigenous Women in Canada. London: Amnesty International Publications. See also Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy (dir.) 2006 Highway of Tears. DVD. Al Jazeera International 26 mins., Razack,Sherene (2002) “The Murder of Pamela George” in Race, Space and the Law: Unmapping a White Settler Society(Sherene Razack, ed). Toronto: Between the Lines Press. Smith, Andrea (2005) Conquest: Sexual Violence andNative American Genocide. Boston: South End Press. 121-147. Welsh, Christine (dir.) (2006) Finding Dawn. Ottawa:National Film Board of Canada. 30. Highway 16 stretches across Northern British Columbia. Eighteen women have been murdered between PrinceRupert and Prince George, rendering that stretch “the Highway of Tears” (Chinoy 2006). On September 12, 2012 itwas reported that Bobby Jack Fowler murdered one of these women in British Columbia and died in an Oregon jailin 2006. 31. Coulthard, 2014. 32. I will explain some of this shortly but let the attention paid to her death, shocking because of what Doenmezcalls a “fatal symmetry” (2015), not override the sustained memorialization and activism of the families and otherloved ones of the Indigenous women and girls or the grass roots community activism and documentation. EveryFebruary 14 is a day of remembrance for the women and girls which sees memorial marches all throughoutCanada. Please consult as well http://www.itstartswithus-mmiw.com/ (last accessed 09/20/2015) for a “No MoreSilence” database that documents the missing women. This site works in partnership with “Sisters in Spirit”through the Native Women’s Association of Canada. Defunded by the Conservative government, the Sister’s inSpirit initiative documented the root causes of violence and harm in Native women’s lives. 33. The paradigmatic piece is Patrick Wolfe, (2006) Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native. Journalof Genocide Research 8 (4): 387-409. 34. Goldstein, Alyosha (2014) “Introduction: Toward a Genealogy of the US Colonial Present” in Formations ofUnited States Colonialism (Alyosha Goldstein, ed.). Durham: Duke University Press. Pp: 1-32. 35. See Russell Diabo (2014) “Harper Launches Major First Nations Termination Plan” As Negotiating TablesLegitimize Canada’s Colonialism in The Winter We Danced Pp: 51-64. 36. For an excellent summary of the Oil or Tar Sands projects in Northern Alberta, and the “catastrophic climatechange that…[Keystone XL] would induce” as well as American lobbying efforts against it please seehttp://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/16/the-president-and-the-pipeline (last accessed 08/30/2016). 37. The fourth phase was not approved by the American state department in November, 2015. 38. Obama’s November 06, 2015 statement can be found here https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/06/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline (last accessed 08/31/2016). 39. See the successful opposition in the courts to TransCanada’s attempt to assert eminent domain in Nebraskahttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/02/24/foreign-company-tries-to-seize-u-s-land-for-keystone-pipeline/#4565e39a64ec (last accessed 08/30/2016) 40. In her thesis Already Disappeared: Interrogating the Right to Life of Indigenous Women in Canada CarolineDoenmez has called the shock of Saunder’s writing about what would befall her as a “fatal symmetry” in heranalysis of the Canadian government’s “failure to protect” in the case of Saunders (alongside of analysis of thePDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 14 of 17

treatment Cindy Gladue and Tina Fontaine) (2015: 13). 41. The details of her murder and the sentencing of Blake Legette and Victoria Henneberry, the couple that killedher may be found here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/loretta-saunders-murder-was-despicable-horrifying-and-cowardly-1.3052465 (last accessed 08/31/2016). 42. Hers is the only individual murder that occasioned a march on Parliamenthttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/loretta-saunders-vigil-draws-hundreds-to-parliament-hill-1.2561062(last accessed 09/30/2015) 43. These numbers are based on Royal Canadian Mounted Police data, which is flawed as it does not include citieswhere RCMP do not have jurisdiction, like Vancouver and Toronto (Doenmez ibid: 14-15). 44. The Inquiry was launched on August 3, 2016 https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1448633299414/1448633350146 (last accessed 08/30/2016). 45. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/darryl-leroux/loretta-saunders-indigenous-_b_5007672.html (last accessed9/19/2015). 46. Violence Against Native and Indigenous Identities: Unearthing and Healing Our Communities, University ofTexas – Austin, March 28, 2014. 47. It was my former student, Lakota Pochedley who invited to me UT-Austin as she was then a graduate studentthere and had gone on after completing a thesis under my supervision at Columbia. 48. Gerald R. [Taiaiake] Alfred (1995) Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors: Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and theRise of Native Nationalism. Toronto: Oxford University Press. (1999) Peace Power and Righteousness: AnIndigenous Manifesto. Toronto: Oxford University Press. (2005) Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action andFreedom. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Kevin Bruyneel (2007) The Third Space of Sovereignty. Glen Coulthard(2014) Red Skin: White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress. Theresa McCarthy (in press) In Divided Unity: Haudenosaunee Reclamation at Grand River (Tucson:University of Arizona Press). Rick Monture (2014) We Share our Matters: Two Centuries of Writing and Resistanceat Six Nations of the Grand River. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Larry Nesper (2002) The Walleye War:The Struggle for Ojibway Hunting and Fishing Rights. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Aileen Moreton-Robinson Moreton Robinson, Aileen (2002) Talkin’ Up To the White Woman: Indigenous Women and FeminismQueensland: University of Queensland Press. Moreton-Robinson (ed.) (2007) Sovereign Subjects: IndigenousSovereignty Matters. New South Wales: Allen &Unwin. (2014) The White Possessive. 49. https://homicidesurvivor.wordpress.com/ (last accessed 09/20/2015). AuthorAffiliation Audra Simpson Audra Simpson is Associate Professor of Anthropology at Columbia University. She is the author of MohawkInterruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States (Duke University Press, 2014), co-editor of TheorizingNative Studies (Duke University Press, 2014). She has articles in Cultural Anthropology, American Quarterly,Junctures, Law and Contemporary Problems and Wicazo Sa Review. In 2010, she won Columbia University’sSchool for General Studies “Excellence in Teaching Award.” She is a Kahnawake Mohawk. Audra can be reached [email protected] Acknowledgements This article is dedicated to the late Loretta Saunders and the MMIWG who have been stolen from their territoriesand their loved ones. First written for “Violence and Indigenous Identity” at University of Texas at Austin (2014), Ithank Lakota Pochedley for the invitation to Austin and the occasion to write new work for that specific event.Expanded and revised versions were presented at the Native and Indigenous Studies Association meeting in 2014as well as the University of Winnipeg, Ryerson University, Carleton University, McMaster University, ConcordiaUniversity, Clark University and UCLA. I thank Isabelle St. Amand and Martin Loftfor inviting me to keynote”Revisioning Americas” in Kahnawà:ke as well as Tracey Lindberg and Malinda Smith for inviting me to keynotePDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 15 of 17

Critical Race and Anticolonial Studies Conference in Edmonton, Alberta where an earlier version of this piece waspresented in 2014. I am grateful to these audiences for their engagement. Any mistakes are my own. DETAILS Subject:Violence; Colonialism; Multiculturalism &pluralism; Women; Murders &murderattempts; Native women; Narratives; Deaths; Reconciliation; SovereigntyLocation:CanadaPeople:Harper, StephenPublication title:Theory &Event; BaltimoreVolume:19Issue:4Pages:N_ANumber of pages:1Publication year:2016Publication date:2016Publisher:Johns Hopkins University PressPlace of publication:BaltimoreCountry of publication:United States, BaltimorePublication subject:Political ScienceISSN:25726633e-ISSN:1092311XSource type:Scholarly JournalLanguage of publication:EnglishDocument type:Journal ArticleProQuest document ID:1866315122Document URL:https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/state-is-man-theresa-spence-loretta-saunders/docview/1866315122/se-2?accountid=14605PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 16 of 17

LINKSLinking Service Database copyright Ó 2022 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuestCopyright:Copyright Johns Hopkins University Press 2016Last updated:2022-06-24Database:ProQuest Learning: Literature,Social Science Premium Collection,ProQuest CentralPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COMPage 17 of 17

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.