This reply engages critiques of interpretive methods and historical dimensions of Indigenous political theory, highlighting their implications.
Hendrix, Vasko, Gordon, and Bernal raise challenging questions and illuminate key dimensions of Remapping Sovereignty. Their interventions explore the stakes of my interpretive method; probe close readings of the book’s six key thinkers; animate my mapping of Indigenous political theory in longer histories and expanded geographies; and press on the implications of my theorizations of colonial sovereignty and earthmaking for Indigenous and anti/decolonial thought and movements. To synthesize, their comments touch on dual aspects of the book, and how I weave connections between them: on one hand, the historical and interpretive work of (re)mapping Indigenous political theory; on the other, the conceptual insights gleaned through close reading of Indigenous political theory. I address their contributions in turn, starting first with the historical-interpretive dimensions, and next, the political-philosophical implications of guiding conceptual frameworks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Myer Temin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: