当前位置: X-MOL 学术American Literary History › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Imagination and Indigenous Sovereignty in the Trumpian Era
American Literary History ( IF 0.6 ) Pub Date : 2018-12-19 , DOI: 10.1093/alh/ajy045
James Mackay

Donald Trump should not really have a place within a discussion of Native American sovereignty. If sovereignty is to mean anything, it must surely be considered as inherent rather than external: reflections on the particularities of Indigenous sovereignty, particularly in its non-Westphalian manifestations, should take as their starting points the observations of Indigenous thinkers. In the case of the present essay-review, the danger is that we will end with Native American nations placed within a zone of victimage, sad sacrifices to inevitable historical processes. And it should also be borne in mind that, as with much else in the Trump Administration, at the time of writing most of President Trump’s threats to Native sovereignty lie in the zone of bluster and symbolism rather than hard, successfully implemented, administrative action. When the US elects a president who has been spouting antitribal rhetoric for three decades, whose first action in office was to place a portrait of his genocidal forebear Andrew Jackson on prominent display, and whose administration has made repeated and unconstitutional moves to reclassify Native people as racial minorities rather than sovereign governments, it does somewhat throw the issue into sharp relief. None of Trump’s opinions are new: from government boarding schools to official bans on religious rites, from the Dawes Act allotment of Native land to Congressionally mandated termination of treaties, the US in both its liberal and conservative modes has always bent toward the possession of Indian land and the genocidal elimination of Native cultures. Tribal sovereignty, which

中文翻译:

特朗普时代的想象力和土著主权

唐纳德特朗普不应该在美洲原住民主权的讨论中占有一席之地。如果主权有任何意义,它肯定必须被视为内在的而不是外在的:对土著主权的特殊性的反思,特别是在其非威斯特伐利亚的表现形式中,应该以土著思想家的观察为出发点。就目前的论文评论而言,危险在于我们将以美洲原住民国家置于受害区域内结束,为不可避免的历史进程做出可悲的牺牲。还应该牢记的是,与特朗普政府的其他许多事情一样,在撰写本文时,特朗普总统对土著主权的大部分威胁都在于吹嘘和象征意义,而不是强硬、成功实施的行政行动。当美国选出一位总统,他在三十年来一直发表反部落言论,他上任的第一个行动是将他的种族灭绝祖先安德鲁·杰克逊的肖像放在显眼的位置上展示,而他的政府多次采取违宪的举措将土著人重新归类为少数族裔而不是主权政府,它确实在某种程度上使问题得到了明显的缓解。特朗普的观点都不是新的:从政府寄宿学校到官方禁止宗教仪式,从道斯法案对土著土地的分配到国会强制终止条约,无论是自由派还是保守派,美国都一直倾向于拥有印第安人土地和对土著文化的种族灭绝。部落主权,他上任的第一个行动是将他的种族灭绝祖先安德鲁杰克逊的肖像放在显眼的位置上,并且他的政府一再采取违宪的举措将土著人民重新归类为少数族裔而不是主权政府,这确实让这个问题变得尖锐起来. 特朗普的观点都不是新的:从政府寄宿学校到官方禁止宗教仪式,从道斯法案对土著土地的分配到国会强制终止条约,无论是自由派还是保守派,美国都一直倾向于拥有印第安人土地和对土著文化的种族灭绝。部落主权,他上任的第一个行动是将他的种族灭绝祖先安德鲁杰克逊的肖像放在显眼的位置上,并且他的政府一再采取违宪的举措将土著人民重新归类为少数族裔而不是主权政府,这确实让这个问题变得尖锐起来. 特朗普的观点都不是新的:从政府寄宿学校到官方禁止宗教仪式,从道斯法案对土著土地的分配到国会强制终止条约,无论是自由派还是保守派,美国都一直倾向于拥有印第安人土地和对土著文化的种族灭绝。部落主权,并且其政府多次采取违宪举措将土著人民重新归类为少数族裔政府,而不是主权政府,它确实在某种程度上使这个问题变得尖锐起来。特朗普的观点都不是新的:从政府寄宿学校到官方禁止宗教仪式,从道斯法案对土著土地的分配到国会强制终止条约,无论是自由派还是保守派,美国都一直倾向于拥有印第安人土地和对土著文化的种族灭绝。部落主权,并且其政府多次采取违宪举措将土著人民重新归类为少数族裔政府,而不是主权政府,它确实在某种程度上使这个问题变得尖锐起来。特朗普的观点都不是新的:从政府寄宿学校到官方禁止宗教仪式,从道斯法案对土著土地的分配到国会强制终止条约,无论是自由派还是保守派,美国都一直倾向于拥有印第安人土地和对土著文化的种族灭绝。部落主权,从《道斯法案》分配土著土地到国会强制终止条约,无论是自由派还是保守派,美国都一直倾向于拥有印第安人的土地和对土著文化的种族灭绝。部落主权,从《道斯法案》分配土著土地到国会强制终止条约,无论是自由派还是保守派,美国都一直倾向于拥有印第安人的土地和对土著文化的种族灭绝。部落主权,
更新日期:2018-12-19
down
wechat
bug