Missed meanings: the language of sovereignty in the treaty debate

Strelein, Lisa

doi:10.22459/wgc.12.2006.15

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A handful of non-Indigenous scholars who I found to have engaged with Indigenous sovereignties were Brennan et al, Buchan, Burke, Chartrand, Hocking and Hocking, Maddison, Mercer, Nicoll, Otto, Reynolds, and Strelein. Respectively: Brennan et al (2004); Buchan (2002-03); Burke (2002); Chartrand (2009); Hocking and Hocking (1999); Maddison (2009); Mercer (1993); Nicoll (2000); Otto (1995); Reynolds (1996); Strelein (2002-03). Of these, Burke, Nicoll and Otto approached Indigenous sovereignties as alternatives to Crown sovereignty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Australian Sovereignty, Indigenous Standpoint Theory and Feminist Standpoint Theory

Ardill¹

2013

Griffith Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much has been written by non-Indigenous Australians in the wake of the 1992 Mabo case following its rejection of terra nullius in Australia. What is surprising about this literature is the lack of discussion about sovereignty, which is a logical consequence of the Mabo decisionʼs conclusion that the basis for Crown sovereignty was incorrect. What little has been said about sovereignty since Mabo can be placed into two broad groups. The first calls for various forms of First Peoplesʼ sovereignties, and is made up almost exclusively of First Peoples scholars. The other group is dominated by non-Indigenous people who speak instead of citizenship, shared responsibility, native title, reconciliation, rights, selfmanagement, multiculturalism, colonisation and postcolonial theory. This article is directed to non-Indigenous scholars who write on these topics. It is a critique of their scholarship, notwithstanding its merit to the extent that literature questions injustice, dispossession, genocide, discrimination and colonial policy. The basis for this critique is that this scholarship fails to bring First Peoplesʼ sovereignties to the fore, and for this reason persists as colonial knowledge. To make this argument, the article identifies with feminist standpoint theory and Indigenous standpoint theory to contend that First Peoplesʼ sovereignties must be embraced by non-Indigenous scholars.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Returning is not a theoretical or academic gesture on my part. It is about me renouncing the 137 See generally, Brennan et al (2004); Buchan (2002-03); Burke (2002); Chartrand (2009); Hocking and Hocking (1999); Maddison (2009); Mercer (1993); Nicoll (2000); Otto (1995); Reynolds (1996); Strelein (2002-03).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%