Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
The Third Space of Sovereignty

The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.–Indigenous Relations

Kevin Bruyneel
Copyright Date: 2007
Edition: NED - New edition
Pages: 328
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.cttts6t5
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    The Third Space of Sovereignty
    Book Description:

    The Third Space of Sovereignty offers fresh insights on such topics as the end of treaty-making in 1871, U.S. citizenship in the 1920s, native politics during the civil rights era, and the current issues surrounding casinos. Kevin Bruyneel shows how native political actors have effectively contested the limits that the United States has imposed on their ability to develop economically and politically on their own terms.

    eISBN: 978-0-8166-5393-5
    Subjects: Sociology

Table of Contents

Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-vi)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. vii-viii)
  3. A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY
    (pp. ix-x)
  4. INTRODUCTION: POLITICS ON THE BOUNDARIES
    (pp. xi-xxiv)

    Where do indigenous people fit in relation to the American political system—inside, outside, or somewhere in between? How have the historical and modern expressions of colonialism shaped the modern U.S.–indigenous political relationship? What are the differences between indigenous and American political actors in the way they answer these questions? To start to find some answers, take a brief look at a contemporary case, one that gained notoriety for the controversial statements of a former professional wrestler whose sartorial trademark was a fetching feather boa.

    In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court had before it the case ofMinnesota v....

  5. CHAPTER ONE THE U.S.–INDIGENOUS RELATIONSHIP: A STRUGGLE OVER COLONIAL RULE
    (pp. 1-26)

    In his 1950Discours sur le colonialisme, Martinique poet and dramatist Aimé Césaire argued that one of the fundamental dilemmas and defining traits of colonial rule is that “it is the colonized man who wants to move forward, and the colonizer who holds things back.”¹ Césaire’s claim rebutted the colonialist imaginary of a progressive and thus advancing settler society that seeks to civilize or in some way transcend the primitive, static indigenous society. Césaire’s image of a colonized people that seeks to move forward as the colonizer seeks to hold them back closely captures what indigenous people have experienced regularly...

  6. CHAPTER TWO RESISTING AMERICAN DOMESTICATION: THE U.S. CIVIL WAR AND THE CHEROKEE STRUGGLE TO BE “STILL, A NATION”
    (pp. 27-64)

    In an article on Native American sovereignty, Steven McSloy argues that the time from the passage of U.S. federal Indian crime legislation in the 1880s to the American state’s repression of indigenous political activism in the 1960s and 1970s indicated that “in less than a century, Native peoples were transformed in the eyes of the United States from foreign soldiers to domestic traitors.”¹ While McSloy’s time frame is valid, if a little late in starting, one does not need almost a century of time to trace this shift in the U.S.–indigenous political relationship. During the Civil War and the...

  7. CHAPTER THREE 1871 AND THE TURN TO POSTCOLONIAL TIME IN U.S.–INDIGENOUS RELATIONS
    (pp. 65-96)

    From the Civil War to the early twentieth century, the relationship between the United States and indigenous people went through a decisive change that re-marked the status and location of indigenous tribes and nations in their relationship to the American political system. During this period the boundaries defining American sovereignty were solidified as they expanded, drawing indigenous communities further within U.S. boundaries without fully integrating them. With the emergence of an emboldened American settler -state and nation after the Civil War, the effort to impose modern colonial rule over indigenous nations and tribes began to move at a precipitous pace....

  8. CHAPTER FOUR INDIGENOUS POLITICS AND THE “GIFT” OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY
    (pp. 97-122)

    One of the many questions indigenous people faced in the first decades of the twentieth century concerned their individual political status in relation to the American political system: were all indigenous people, henceforth, to be citizens of their tribes, citizens of the United States, or dual citizens? Or, to paraphrase Deloria and Wilkins, would some indigenous people in the U.S. context find a way to say “No” to the American colonial imposition of citizenship, and in its place offer their own postcolonial position? These questions became more pressing in the years leading up to and beyond the day that U.S....

  9. CHAPTER FIVE BETWEEN CIVIL RIGHTS AND DECOLONIZATION: THE CLAIM FOR POSTCOLONIAL NATIONHOOD
    (pp. 123-170)

    During the politically vibrant decade of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, boundary politics continued to define U.S.–indigenous relations. By that time, indigenous political actors faced the tension of having to construct and express their politics betwixt and between a civil rights framework predominant in the United States and the nationalist decolonization framework common to many post–World War II third world struggles. The dominant trend in indigenous politics at that time saw indigenous people carving out a path that redefined the terms of their politics in ways that served to reshape U.S.–indigenous relations from that time...

  10. CHAPTER SIX INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS COLONIAL TIME AT THE TURN OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
    (pp. 171-216)

    For the first time in well over a century, a number of indigenous tribes are articulating their sovereignty in a manner that is fostering their enhanced economic and political capacity to reclaim indigenous location in North America in the form of literal territory and increasingly effective political agency and autonomy. In response, the United States, primarily state and local governments and citizen groups but also the U.S. Supreme Court, increasingly views tribal sovereignty as a political expression that is out of (another) time, and therefore a threat to contemporary American political life and political space. Present-day American resistance to the...

  11. CONCLUSION: THE THIRD SPACE OF SOVEREIGNTY
    (pp. 217-230)

    In writing this book, a question often popped into my mind, the one famously posed by postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak: “Can the subaltern speak?” Spivak’s question is not about the vocal cords of the colonized; it is about the colonizer’s ear drums; “Can the subaltern speak?” really means, “Are the colonizers deaf?” not “Are the colonized mute?” This study has demonstrated ways in which the American settler-state and nation have sought, often successfully, to impose temporal and spatial limitations on indigenous political life. In resistance, indigenous political actors speak against and across the boundaries of colonial rule by articulating and...

  12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    (pp. 231-234)
  13. NOTES
    (pp. 235-270)
  14. BIBLIOGRAPHY
    (pp. 271-290)
  15. INDEX
    (pp. 291-314)
  16. Back Matter
    (pp. 315-315)