Rhetorical Exclusion: The Government's Case Against American Indian Activists, AIM, and Leonard Peltier

Written Out of Their Own Story: The Rhetorical Colonialism of Journalistic Practice

“…There is a long history of institutionalized constraints on the discursive contributions of colonized peoples. For example, Sanchez, Stuckey, and Morris (1999) explain tactics of ''rhetorical exclusion'' used to marginalize American Indian activists when their desire for unique indigenous identities threatens monolithic hegemonic interests (p. 30). Endres (2009b) illustrates the government's control over the terms of public dialogue as well as its use of ''strategic silences'' to negate the objections of American Indian nations harmed by federal nuclear energy policy.…”

The Material-Discursive Spaces of Outdoor Recreation

“…Much of the scholarship on rhetorical exclusion points to the nuanced ways in which it occurs through the language of governmental policy and procedures, whereby American Indian voices are excluded from deliberation. Prominent works in this area have included studies of the American Indian Movement of the 1960s and 1970s (Sanchez, Stuckey, and Morris 1999) and of the American Indian objections to the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain (Endres 2009). Many of the ways American Indian voices were systematically excluded from public deliberation over development on the San Francisco Peaks mirror those that were analyzed in these previous studies, including exclusion from the public participation process and development of Environmental Impact Statements (Killingsworth and Palmer 1992: 166).…”

“…It's just that you have to document it as an adverse action. (Benally and Cody 2005) Waldrip's statement re ects larger problems of marginalization within the public participation process, but speci cally it re ects the problem of rhetorical exclusion for American Indians, whose voices are already 'outside the norm' (Sanchez, Stuckey, and Morris 1999). Here, 'outside the norm' and 'deviant' are terms that have been used to point out how language functionally obscures the identities of non-dominant stakeholders (Killingsworth and Palmer 1992: 166).…”

“…Speci cally, it seeks to unmask the ways in which recreational discourses have shaped the space of the San Francisco Peaks. The literature on the rhetorical strategies of exclusion has identi ed many problematic ways in which governmental and legal discourses systematically limit or silence how American Indian people participate in decision-making processes (Conklin 1997;Sanchez, Stuckey, and Morris 1999;Depoe, Delicath, and Elsenbeer 2004;Endres 2009). While acknowledging the strides made to integrate American Indian cultural concerns more meaningfully in land-use decisions, the overwhelming lack of success for American Indians in such cases suggests there are challenges that go beyond legal constraints, that the cultural production of space also plays a signi cant role.…”

Rhetorical Counterinsurgency: The FBI and the American Indian Movement

“…Rhetorical counterinsurgency constitutes a systematic and strategic set of communicative techniques or instruments which, when used in combination, manage, dissipate, and suppress radicalism. Building on the concept of rhetorical exclusion developed by John Sanchez, Mary Stuckey, and Richard Morris (1999), I situate such communicative practices that work in the interests of the state against those of popular movements as a part of modern governance. Ronald W. Greene argues that rhetorical practices thought of as technologies of governance enable the management of "a population, space, and/ or object by articulating an ensemble of human technologies into a function network of power to improve public welfare" (1998,2).…”