Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSmith, Joshua
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-21T16:00:25Z
dc.date.available2022-03-21T16:00:25Z
dc.date.issued2021-12-17
dc.identifier.citationSmith J (2021) Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Public Land, and the Spaces of Whiteness. Front. Commun. 6:725835. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.725835en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/32648
dc.descriptionA grant from the One-University Open Access Fund at the University of Kansas was used to defray the author's publication fees in this Open Access journal. The Open Access Fund, administered by librarians from the KU, KU Law, and KUMC libraries, is made possible by contributions from the offices of KU Provost, KU Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies, and KUMC Vice Chancellor for Research. For more information about the Open Access Fund, please see http://library.kumc.edu/authors-fund.xml.en_US
dc.description.abstractIn this essay, I examine the 2016 takeover of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The principal instigators of this occupation, the Bundy family of Nevada, pointed to federally owned public lands as the primary reason for their takeover, citing the allegedly unconstitutional government ownership of these lands. I contend that the Bundys’ arguments about public lands exemplify rhetorical strategies that further one of the primary ends of settler colonialism; the remaking of land into property to better support white settlers’ claims to that land. I hold that the Bundys remake land by defining the land’s meanings following the logics of settler colonialism in three specific ways: privatization, racialization, and erasure. First, I examine the family’s arguments about the constitutionality of federal land ownership to show how the Bundys define public lands as rightfully private property. Second, I examine the ways that the Bundys racialize land ownership and how, in conjunction with arguments about property rights, the family articulates land as the domain of white settlers. Third, I discuss how the Bundys further colonial logics of Native erasure. That is, the family defines land in ways that portray Native Americans as having never been on the land, and as not currently using the land. I argue that these three processes render meanings of land––as private property, colonized, and terra nullius––that rhetorically further the operation of settler colonialism.en_US
dc.publisherFrontiers Mediaen_US
dc.rightsCopyright © 2021 Smith. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.subjectPublic landsen_US
dc.subjectSettler colonialismen_US
dc.subjectMalheuren_US
dc.subjectBundy familyen_US
dc.subjectWhitenessen_US
dc.titleMalheur National Wildlife Refuge, Public Land, and the Spaces of Whitenessen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
kusw.kuauthorSmith, Joshua
kusw.kudepartmentCommunication Studiesen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fcomm.2021.725835en_US
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher versionen_US
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccessen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright © 2021 Smith. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as: Copyright © 2021 Smith. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).