This paper proposes that "development justice" be taken up as an analytical concept and praxis-driven framework for research on disasters, resilience, and climate change. The piece begins with a synopsis of the historical-structural factors exacerbating risk in the Caribbean before reviewing the concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and development justice. Next, drawing from empirical data and via a development justice lens, we highlight how the logics, practices, and debts of colonial underdevelopment, racial capitalism, and neoliberal extraction continue to erode resilience across the region. We end by recommending that future adaptation and mitigation strategies related to disasters, catastrophes, and climate change be more attentive to structural and slow violence, as well as the historical trajectories of imperialism, racial capitalism, and hetero patriarchal norms. In sum, the piece constitutes an evidence-based assertion that development justice perspectives alongside theories of non-metaphorical decolonisation be used by scholars, activists, scientists, and states alike who are committed to mediating climate change and preventing/reducing the damage caused by disasters.

Drawing upon empirical data from a qualitative research project in Southeast Kansas, this paper employs feminist and decolonial theories to analyse the interlocking relationality of hegemonic masculinity, neoliberal ideology, social conservatism, rurality, and gun culture. The first goal is to shed light on the subordinating and marginalizing tendencies that arise as a result of gendered conceptions of gun use. The second aim is to illustrate how gun culture is normalized, and often valorized, through individualistic narratives of self-reliance, security, protection, and defence. The third objective is to interrogate the ways in which particular material practices and gendered discourses regarding gun use are reinforced by settler colonialism, whiteness, heteronormativity, enabledness, and nationalism. Finally, the paper critically examines the social hierarchies that are reaffirmed as a result of culturally embedded patriarchal, white supremacist, and neoliberal ideologies, and how rurality mediates the masculinist subjectivities that are produced in such spaces.

Scholars are increasingly declining to offer their services in the peer review process. There are myriad reasons for this refusal, most notably the ever-increasing pressure placed on academics to publish within the neoliberal university. Yet if you are publishing yourself then you necessarily expect someone else to review your work, which begs the question as to why this service is not being reciprocated. There is something to be said about withholding one’s labour when journals are under corporate control, but when it comes to Open Access journals such denial is effectively unacceptable. Make time for it, as others have made time for you. As editors of the independent, Open Access, non-corporate journal ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, we reflect on the struggles facing our daily operations, where scholars declining to participate in peer review is the biggest obstacle we face. We argue that peer review should be considered as a form of mutual aid, which is rooted in an ethics of cooperation. The system only works if you say ‘Yes’!

This article provides a critical analysis of the practices and discourses of white settler “men” in Southeast Kansas (Ancestral Osage Territories) by examining the inextricable links rural masculinity has with settler colonialism. I begin by underscoring how efforts in erasing Indigenous histories have been sanctioned through processes of dispossession, bordering, and nation‐state building. I then explore how hetero‐patriarchal rural hierarchies are assembled via capitalistic desires for private property; conservative Christianity's rhetoric of altruism and good intentions; white supremacist conceptions of race; and masculinist perspectives regarding work and gender. Next, I highlight how the spatial assertion of white settler masculinity reproduces colonial oppressions based upon interlocking subject positions and notions of difference. I continue by suggesting denial and disaffiliation are banal exercises of disavowal employed by white settler societies as attempts to forget colonial violence. I then finish by illustrating how a masculinist status quo might be disrupted, resisted, and transformed.