Present reconciliation policies still rest on exclusionary civilizational premises.

Evidence

This partial genealogy of the foundational agonism civilization-aboriginality explains, in part, the diHCDculty experienced by many Indigenous communities today to be considered as full political and sovereign actors in their own right. Nowadays, public policies and relations between settler states and Indigenous populations are more inclusive and aim at correcting or redressing historical injustices, reconciliation is the word; yet, the old intellectual schema and political norms informing these discourses and policies remain. The unspoken ‘Aboriginalism’ underlying and undermining the modern state may prevent any political relationship worthy of the name from taking place between (post-) colonial government and Indigenous communities, or rather Indigenous civil societies. — , Stephanie B. Martens - Civilization and…, 87

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in civility as an imagined basis of political cohesion — here civility’s hidden cost is that the uncivilized are structurally denied full political personhood, an inverse of conviviality-based solidarity. — connects to: Ideological conflicts remain bridgeable while civilizational differences do not — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 387
• ADDENDUM: Directly relevant to the ‘On Sacrifice’ piece’s interest in how stratification gets naturalized — here assimilationist policy (‘kill the Indian inside’) is the mechanism, echoing how exclusionary frameworks persist beneath inclusive rhetoric.

Broader Connections

• Ideological conflicts remain bridgeable while civilizational differences do not #corroborates (0.80) — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 387