Skip to content

The shared doctrine underneath the hardware — labelled as argument, not fact

Original source: https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/red-skin-white-masks Additional: https://antipodeonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/book-review_mccreary-on-coulthard.pdf · https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/122/article/588016/pdf Retrieved: 2026-07-05

The framing (EXPLICITLY ANALYTICAL — not a documented fact, and never a claim about any person)

Glen Coulthard (Yellowknives Dene), Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (2014), argues settler colonialism is governed by an ongoing drive toward primitive accumulation — dispossession that "never ceases to structure capitalist and colonial social relations in the present." The settler state is structurally founded on the dispossession of Indigenous land; recognition politics can't resolve what the state is built on. This supplies the disciplined intellectual spine for the throughline the project already gestures at: Canada/Alberta and Israel as settler-colonial formations sharing a doctrine — land dispossession, a population managed by a militarized police apparatus, and the criminalization of those who resist. Edmonton sits on Treaty 6 territory; EPS is the force that razes the majority-Indigenous homeless encampments (see sources/homelessness/) AND cleared the Palestine-solidarity encampment (see sources/palestine-policing/). Community signatories to the Statement of Treaty Principles named both clearings as Treaty 6 violations — the settler-colonial link stated in the movement's own words, which is what makes it usable.

Discipline (paramount)

  • This is ANALYTICAL FRAMING, labelled as such — a structural argument about states and land, cited to a named Indigenous scholar. It is NOT a factual claim about any individual and NOT a claim that one struggle equals the other.
  • The parallel is doctrine and structure (dispossession, militarized policing, criminalized resistance), not an equivalence of events or suffering. Coulthard's book is about Canada; the Palestine comparison is a widely-made analytical move in settler-colonial studies, and here it is anchored to the local signatories' own Treaty 6 framing, not asserted by us.
  • Keep it material: the argument lands via the documented pipeline (Corsight, the chief's delegation, the shared training/marketing) plus this named-scholar frame — never via "Israel controls our police," which the whole file set refuses.