Decolonisation is a Political Project: Overcoming Impasses between Indigenous Sovereignty and Abolition

In this article we seek to intervene in conversations that frame Black abolition and decolonisation as antagonistic political projects. We respond to Garba and Sorentino’s (2020) “Slavery is a metaphor”, which critiques Tuck and Yang (2012; “Decolonization is not a metaphor”) and decolonisation. Our concern is that scholarship in this vein denies Indigenous sovereignty and futurity while unnecessarily characterising decolonisation as antiblack. We contend that ontological, epistemological, and disciplinary traps lead to this problem: reductions, conflations, and taking settler‐enslavers’ word as truth. We suggest that critiques of settler colonial studies shouldn’t be confused with the aims of Indigenous decolonisation, where the former is largely driven by white scholarship and the latter is an Indigenous‐led project rooted in Indigenous epistemologies. We focus on questions of land and sovereignty, gesturing toward framings that are inclusive of Black, Native, and immigrant communities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
UNC Libraries
Published
2025-05-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17615/q6yd-rc18
Primary Topic
Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Decolonisation is a Political Project: Overcoming Impasses between Indigenous Sovereignty and Abolition

Pallavi Gupta, Sara Smith, Lara Lookabaugh, Christopher Neubert et al.
UNC Libraries
Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
article

Decolonisation is a Political Project: Overcoming Impasses between Indigenous Sovereignty and Abolition

Pallavi Gupta, Sara Smith, Lara Lookabaugh, Christopher Neubert, Andrew Curley
article en

Abstract

In this article we seek to intervene in conversations that frame Black abolition and decolonisation as antagonistic political projects. We respond to Garba and Sorentino’s (2020) “Slavery is a metaphor”, which critiques Tuck and Yang (2012; “Decolonization is not a metaphor”) and decolonisation. Our concern is that scholarship in this vein denies Indigenous sovereignty and futurity while unnecessarily characterising decolonisation as antiblack. We contend that ontological, epistemological, and disciplinary traps lead to this problem: reductions, conflations, and taking settler‐enslavers’ word as truth. We suggest that critiques of settler colonial studies shouldn’t be confused with the aims of Indigenous decolonisation, where the former is largely driven by white scholarship and the latter is an Indigenous‐led project rooted in Indigenous epistemologies. We focus on questions of land and sovereignty, gesturing toward framings that are inclusive of Black, Native, and immigrant communities.

UNC Libraries
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Decolonisation is a Political Project: Overcoming Impasses between Indigenous Sovereignty and Abolition — Pallavi Gupta, Sara Smith, et al. · UNC Libraries (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS