White possessive sovereignty names how nations construct themselves as white possessions through naturalised assumptions of white entitlement to land and resources. Goenpul scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson developed this concept to analyse how whiteness operates as political project displacing Indigenous sovereignties through legal and social processes.
Possessiveness as structure
The white possessive operates through taken-for-granted assumptions rather than explicit claims. White people in settler colonial nations like Australia, Canada and the United States experience land and resources as rightfully theirs. This possessiveness appears natural rather than political.
Moreton-Robinson distinguishes possessiveness from simple racism. Racism involves prejudice and discrimination. Possessiveness involves deeper ontological assumptions about belonging and entitlement. White people possess the nation in ways that Indigenous peoples cannot, regardless of legal citizenship.
This possessiveness structures national identity, policy and everyday practice. The nation imagines itself through white subjects. Indigenous peoples appear as elements within white national space rather than sovereign peoples with prior claims. When white Australians say “we” or “our country”, this “we” assumes white possession.
The possessive operates materially through control over land, resources and political authority. It also operates symbolically through national narratives, memorials and cultural production. Australia Day celebrates white possession. National museums frame Indigenous cultures as part of white national heritage.
Patriarchal whiteness
Moreton-Robinson connects whiteness to patriarchy as mutually constitutive systems. White possessive sovereignty operates through patriarchal logics where white men occupy positions of authority whilst white women access possession through their relationships to white men and white supremacy.
Indigenous women experience dispossession through intersecting colonial and patriarchal violence. Colonisation imposed heteropatriarchal structures onto Indigenous societies often featuring women’s political authority and diverse gender systems. This served multiple colonial objectives simultaneously.
Patriarchal whiteness structures how Indigenous women are represented and treated. Sexual violence against Indigenous women operates as assertion of white male possession over Indigenous bodies and lands. The epidemic rates of violence against Indigenous women in settler states reflects this structural dynamic.
White women participate in possessive sovereignty whilst occupying subordinate positions within patriarchy. White feminist movements historically demanded equal possession rights with white men rather than challenging possession itself. This produces conflicts between white feminism and Indigenous feminisms centring decolonisation.
Disavowal of Indigenous sovereignty
The white possessive requires ongoing disavowal of Indigenous sovereignty. Indigenous peoples’ continuing presence and rights claims threaten white possession’s legitimacy. Settler states develop mechanisms for managing this threat whilst maintaining white dominance.
Legal frameworks prove crucial for disavowal. Australian native title recognises limited Indigenous rights whilst affirming Crown sovereignty as foundational. This makes Indigenous rights dependent on white legal systems rather than inherent in Indigenous sovereignty. The framework disavows Indigenous authority whilst appearing to recognise Indigenous interests.
Reconciliation discourse functions similarly. Settler states offer apologies and cultural recognition whilst maintaining control over land and resources. This accommodates Indigenous difference within white possessive frameworks rather than challenging possession itself.
The disavowal operates through what Moreton-Robinson calls “possessive investments in whiteness”. White people benefit materially and psychologically from possession. Acknowledging Indigenous sovereignty requires relinquishing these benefits. The investment in maintaining possession proves strong.
National belonging
White possessive sovereignty determines who belongs to the nation. Indigenous peoples remain perpetual outsiders despite being original inhabitants. Their belonging appears conditional on white permission rather than inherent right.
White migrants, by contrast, can belong fully through assimilation into white national identity. Multiculturalism incorporates non-white migrants into the nation whilst maintaining white possession as framework. Diversity operates within white-controlled space rather than challenging white sovereignty.
This produces what Moreton-Robinson calls the “possessive logic of patriarchal white sovereignty”. The nation possesses Indigenous peoples and migrants rather than being shared space. White people determine terms of inclusion. Indigenous sovereignty claims appear as threats to legitimate national order.
Citizenship exemplifies these dynamics. Indigenous peoples became citizens of settler states through legislation granting what already belonged to them. This frames citizenship as white gift rather than recognition of prior sovereignty. Indigenous peoples remain citizens within white possessive frameworks.
Affective dimensions
The white possessive operates through affects as much as policy. White people feel entitled to land and resources. Indigenous assertions of sovereignty generate white anxiety and resentment. These affects structure political responses.
Moreton-Robinson analyses how Indigenous presence produces white shame and guilt. These affects prove complex. They can motivate justice efforts but also defensive reactions. White guilt often seeks quick absolution through symbolic gestures rather than structural transformation.
White innocence constitutes crucial affective dynamic. Settler discourse presents contemporary white people as innocent of colonisation because it happened in the past. This temporal distancing maintains white possession whilst denying responsibility. The white possessive continues but contemporary white people claim innocence.
Fear also structures white possessiveness. Indigenous sovereignty claims generate white fear of losing possession. This fear motivates resistance to Indigenous rights. Claims that land rights threaten ordinary white Australians reflect possessive anxiety rather than material threat.
Property and land
Property regimes prove central to white possessive sovereignty. English common law treated land as commodity that could be owned, bought and sold. Indigenous relationships to land through care and reciprocity rather than ownership became legally unintelligible.
Terra nullius exemplified how legal frameworks served white possession. By declaring lands legally empty despite Indigenous presence, settler states legitimated seizure. Contemporary land rights struggles address ongoing effects of these foundational legal fictions.
Property continues structuring white possession. Home ownership enables white wealth accumulation on stolen Indigenous lands. White people inherit and transmit this possession across generations. Indigenous peoples remain disproportionately dispossessed from land and property.
Resource extraction industries operate through white possessive sovereignty. Mining, forestry and agriculture treat Indigenous lands as available for exploitation. Indigenous peoples must fight for consultation rights whilst companies assume access. The possessive framework positions resources as rightfully available to white capital.
Challenging white possessiveness
Understanding white possessive sovereignty proves essential for decolonisation. Recognising possessiveness as political project rather than natural state enables challenge. This requires white people acknowledging their investments in possession.
Moreton-Robinson argues that substantive decolonisation requires relinquishing white possession rather than merely recognising Indigenous cultures. Land return, treaty negotiations and Indigenous governance authority constitute necessary steps. Cultural recognition without structural transformation maintains possession.
Indigenous sovereignty assertions challenge white possessiveness by refusing its terms. When Indigenous peoples assert ongoing nationhood and law independent of settler recognition, this exposes white sovereignty’s violence. Refusal rejects white frameworks rather than seeking accommodation within them.
Critical race and whiteness studies informed by Indigenous sovereignty analysis can help white people recognise their possessiveness. This work proves difficult because it challenges fundamental assumptions about belonging and entitlement. Yet such recognition proves necessary for justice.
Transnational dimensions
White possessive sovereignty operates across settler colonial states with local variations. The United States, Canada, Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand share structural features whilst differing in specific histories and mechanisms.
The concept also illuminates how whiteness functions globally. European colonialism established white possession as planetary project. Decolonisation movements challenged but did not eliminate white global dominance. Contemporary international systems maintain white possessive logics.
Climate change creates new possessive dynamics. White Global North nations generated climate crisis through industrial capitalism on colonised lands. They now claim authority over mitigation whilst Indigenous peoples face displacement. Green colonialism extends white possessive sovereignty through environmental crisis.
Contemporary relevance
White possessive sovereignty remains critically relevant as Indigenous peoples continue challenging settler states. Land defence movements like those protecting sacred sites from mining assert Indigenous sovereignty against white possession.
Constitutional reform debates illustrate possessive dynamics. Indigenous demands for voice and treaty negotiations challenge white frameworks. White anxiety about Indigenous authority reflects possessive investments. Reforms that maintain ultimate white control reproduce possession whilst appearing progressive.
Immigration and refugee politics reveal white possessiveness. Settler states claim authority to determine who enters “their” countries on Indigenous lands. Border controls assert white possession whilst erasing Indigenous sovereignty. Detention centres operate on stolen land.
The concept ultimately exposes how whiteness functions as political project maintaining settler colonial power. Understanding white possessive sovereignty proves essential for analysing ongoing colonialism and imagining decolonial futures. Decolonisation requires transforming or dismantling white possessive frameworks rather than accommodating Indigenous peoples within them.