Inclusive Elimination: How White Americans Oppose Native Nation Sovereignty Using "Our Land" "Our Laws" Narratives

• In Event: The (Im)possibility of (Re)Indigenization: Indigenous Futurities Beyond Settler Structures

Abstract

Native nations in the United States hold inherent sovereignty. Yet, many White Americans oppose this political authority. Employing thematic analysis of written survey responses from 558 White Americans responding to ten real-world scenarios involving Native nations exercising sovereign power, we identify three dominant narratives of opposition. First, respondents positioned themselves as members of the dominant group, constructing a civic “we” to evaluate and reject Native authority. Second, respondents defended settler colonial power, declaring that Native nation lands and citizens are part of the United States and thus should follow state and federal laws. Third, respondents framed Native nation sovereignty as harmful to non-Native people, citing threats to their ability to travel freely, food safety, and financial fairness. We situate these narratives within theories of settler colonialism, group position, and the abstract liberalism frame of color-blind racism. Further, we introduce the concept of inclusive elimination, which is an ideological mechanism of settler colonial power that employs claims of national inclusion to oppose, and advocate for the elimination of, Native nation sovereignty. We make multiple contributions, including identifying the most common opposition narratives to Native nation sovereignty in a national sample, synthesizing theories to explain these narratives, and introducing the concept of inclusive elimination as a mechanism of dominance.

Authors

• Theresa Rocha Beardall, University of Washington

• Laurel R. Davis-Delano, Springfield College