Indigenous governance now: settler colonial injustice is not historically past

ABSTRACT

This article argues against Jeremy Waldron’s supersession thesis by outlining several ways in which the historical injustice of settler colonialism is not past, but continuous. Through engaging with both contemporary settler colonial theory and contemporary Indigenous political theories, I argue that Waldron’s understanding of historical injustice and the focus on justice in the now, which may supersede historical claims, relies on both Eurowestern epistemological and temporal frameworks that are ill-suited for understanding the continuous nature of settler colonial violence, and thus what Indigenous justice requires. As such, I explain how the supersession thesis, specifically the supersession of sovereignty, contributes to a prominent theme in western liberal political theory that attempts to fix both settler colonial injustices and Indigenous nations to an irrecoverable chronological past.

KEYWORDS:

• Supersession thesis
• Indigenous political theory
• settler colonialism
• land justice
• temporality

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. See, Million (2009) and Rogers et al. (2013).

2. For the transmission thesis see, Lackey (1999).

3. See, Irlbacher-Fox (2013).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Esme G. Murdock

Esme G. Murdock is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at San Diego State University. Her research explores the intersections of social/political relations and environmental health, integrity, and agency.