The Storysharing intervention appears to be associated with changes to the dyadic, personal narratives illustrating its potential.

In the Commonwealth settler states of Australia, New Zealand and Canada 'reconciliation' became a key political term at the turn of the twenty-first century. The use of such a term to herald a new relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in these countries may strike many as surprising since none of these states have experienced revolutionary or state violence in the recent past. This development might appear to be all the more remarkable since reconciliation in the context of the three settler states does not connote a dramatic democratization as it has done in South Africa, the country most commonly associated with the term. Nonetheless, reconciliation did become a useful term in Australia, New Zealand and Canada for marking shifts in the terms and expressions of national affect, particularly in regard to the injustices suffered by indigenous people in those countries' colonial pasts and the need for acknowledgement of and reparation for those injustices in the present.In this article, I argue that what reconciliation in those countries denotes might also be considered as a kind of postcolonial nationhood in settler states. This is a peculiar form of nationhood in which the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous, primarily white, settlers bears symbolic significance for how the state reckons with the colonial past in bringing about a postcolonial future. That relationship even frames how state representatives describe the incorporation of new immigrants who are neither indigenous nor white into the contemporary multicultural nation.Postcolonial nationhood in settler states is not dependent upon an actual shift in indigenous peoples' access to, or representation by, state power. Rather the state is still, in the three countries under consideration here, primarily a 'settler' one. There has been neither a revolutionary rupture with the settler colonial past nor a dramatic shift in the balance of power to indigenous minorities. Instead, what has happened through the affective phrasing of reconciliation is that the authority of the settler state has been cast away from the former imperial metropole and localized in terms of more indigenous claims of political belonging.Here, I discuss the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's official apology to indigenous Australians as an example of the politics of reconciliation in action. Although the apology was in many respects an exceptional event, it also compares with and even connects to similar instances in the other Commonwealth settler states where apologies and

No abstract

Recent discussion has drawn out some important differences between postcolonial and decolonial theories. The former are associated primarily with the work of South Asian scholars working in cultural, literary, or historical studies; decolonial scholarship, by contrast, is located in Latin America and has emerged from sociological critiques of dependency theory. Shifting the locus of debate to the Pacific centers another subject in globalizing critiques of colonialism: the historian in indigenous communities. In this article, I examine how the role of the researcher is conceptualized in Linda Tuhiwai Smith's landmark work Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (1999). Revealing tensions between objectivity and intersubjectivity, on the one hand, and between essentialist identity and hybridity, on the other, I ask why Smith's book hinges on dichotomizing nonindigenous and indigenous researchers, who are by turn enabled or constrained in a colonial present. I situate this late twentieth‐century subject in a genealogy of indigenous engagement with history and anthropology in New Zealand and contemporary problems of historical justice.

No abstract