Journal Issue: Stolen People, Stolen Land, Stolen Identity: Negotiating the Labyrinth of Anglo-American Culture and Law
Loading...
Volume
Number
Issue Date
2012-09-03
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Journal Volume
Articles
From the Guest Editor: An Introduction to Stolen People, Stolen Land, Stolen Identity: Negotiating the Labyrinth of Anglo-American Culture and Law
(2012-03-01) Brown-Perez, Kathleen A.
Wabanaki Resistance and Healing: An Exploration of the Contemporary Role of an Eighteenth Century Bounty Proclamation in an Indigenous Decolonization Process
(2012-03-09) Newsom, Bonnie D; Bissonette-Lewey, Jamie
The purpose of this paper is to examine the contemporary role of an eighteenth century bounty proclamation issued on the Penobscot Indians of Maine. We focus specifically on how the changing cultural context of the 1755 Spencer Phips Bounty Proclamation has transformed the document from serving as a tool for sanctioned violence to a tool of decolonization for the Indigenous peoples of Maine. We explore examples of the ways indigenous and non-indigenous people use the Phips Proclamation to illustrate past violence directed against Indigenous peoples. This exploration is enhanced with an analysis of the re-introduction of the Phips Proclamation using concepts of decolonization theory.
Colonial Violence and the Gendering of Post-War Terrain in Southern New England: Native Women and Rights to Reservation Land in Eighteenth-Century Connecticut
(2012-03-09) Den Ouden, Amy E
This essay examines the significance of reservations in southern New England as indigenous places-in-the-making in the aftermath of King Philip’s War. It highlights crucial moments in the early eighteenth-century history of reservation communities in Connecticut that were engaged in struggles to defend their lands against the imposition of private property and the violence of dispossession that targeted Native women, who were purveyors of communal land rights. These post-war histories reveal that reservations were not localities of “pacified Indians”, but rather sites of new conflicts over the rights and futures of Native peoples within which gendered forms of dissent confronted the gendered violence of colonial law.
On Resolution | Intellectual Property and Indigenous Knowledge Disputes | Prologue
(2012-03-09) Anderson, Jane E
@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }@font-face { font-family: "Garamond"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoEndnoteText, li.MsoEndnoteText, div.MsoEndnoteText { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }span.EndnoteTextChar { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }span.EndnoteTextChar1 { }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } The issue of indigenous interests in intellectual property law is difficult precisely because of the historical, political, cultural dimensions that inform the subject notion of ‘property’ and the historical delineation, exclusion and current inclusion of populations now referred to as ‘indigenous’, ‘traditional’ or ‘local’. The current conditions of colonialism also mean that there are legitimate questions about the extent that the legal ordering of indigenous knowledge issues through an intellectual property paradigm works to privilege certain modes of inquiry and investigation over others. This paper offers initial musings upon the idea of resolution. It necessarily begins with a theoretical exploration of the problems that exist within this field as well as practical suggestions for modifying and appropriating aspects of the intellectual property apparatus in ways that are meaningful and respond to Indigenous interests in knowledge control and circulation. Its structure mirrors the fracturing of the discourse itself.
“A Reflection of Our National Character”: Structurally and Culturally Violent Federal Policies and the Elusive Quest for Federal Acknowledgment
(2012-03-09) Brown-Perez, Kathleen A.
On March 3, 1839, the Brothertown Indian Nation became the first American Indian tribe whose members had U.S. citizenship. One hundred and forty years later, the tribe learned that it no longer had a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. government. It soon entered the new administrative federal acknowledgment process, where it would remain for three decades. In August 2009, the Office of Federal Acknowledgment issued a Proposed Finding against federally acknowledging the Brothertown. This decision was based in part on the 1839 Act, which OFA determined was a congressional act of tribal termination. Having worked toward tribal survival since its inception in 1785, the Brothertown Indian Nation is once again a victim of the structural and cultural violence present in federal Indian policies, policies that make the government sole judge, juror, and executioner regarding federal acknowledgment. The Brothertown are not the only victims of these policies, but they are in the unique position of either continuing with the status quo or finally (and openly) acknowledging the illegitimacy of the federal government’s assertion that it, and it alone, controls tribal sovereignty.