The United States established itself as a cohesive and internally policed nation-state through a process of exclusion through border making and racialized violence. Above all, the construction and regimentation of the state involved practices that sought to naturalize the borders of the United States in order to endow its barriers with an immutable solidity. This solidity was ratified through physical demarcation, legislation and violence directed at those deemed “other,” both human and non-human. By relying on a constructed archive that documents the federally organized Gray Wolf eradication programs in the borderlands of Arizona and new Mexico from 1880 until 1930, I demonstrate how the delineation of the United States/Mexico border was both preceded and continues to be perpetually defined by policies that enact precisely these kinds of exclusionary measures. I will show how this federally mandated dominance over the lives and the habitats of non-human animals was utilized by analogous procedures to surveil and police the border in their effort to bolster and sustain the United States as a settler-colonial state. By revealing otherwise concealed historical insights, I hope to undermine the prevailing conceptions of national boundaries by denaturalizing the illusion of fixed, constant, and enduring lines of demarcation and consequently offer opportunities to envision a world without such divisive separations. Such a vision would allow for the recognition of borders not as sites of inclusion, but as spaces built on methodical exclusion of both human and non-human beings.

The Suez Crisis of 1956 was a critical turning point in the decline of the French and British empires following the end of the Second World War. Egyptian President Nasser's nationalization of the French and British-controlled Suez Canal sent officials in both countries into a panic, leading the two nations, together with Israel, to invade Egypt. The short-lived and unsuccessful invasion, ended under pressure from the United States, was a decisive political failure after years of colonial losses since 1945. While scholars have written in depth about the crisis from Britain's perspective, they have tended to oversimplify France's motivations as stemming from the ongoing Algerian War of independence and the fear that President Nasser would become the "next" Hitler. In my research, I examine the Suez Crisis in the larger context of the French colonial issues of the time: the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the losses of Tunisia and Morocco, the bomb attacks against pied-noir citizens in Algiers, the impending losses of the Sub-Saharan colonies, and the diplomatic efforts to include these colonies in European treaty negotiations. I focus on English and French-language sources, including the memoirs of former government officials, diplomatic communication, press coverage, and academic writing from the period to examine how the crisis was seen through these lenses in France. Ultimately, I demonstrate that French motivations during the crisis stemmed just as much from these broader colonial anxieties as from the two most common explanations. The topic of the French empire and its former "great power" status has remained a contentious one in France throughout the last half century. This research showcases a significant moment in the development of this mindset.

Limited English proficiency (LEP) is a significant challenge for persons appearing in the United States immigration court system. The courts often fail to provide adequate language services that address the problems of interpretation. The aim of my project is to investigate the nexus between language accessibility and due process by seeking to answer, “To what extent has the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution been an effective framework for lawyers to promote meaningful legal access to LEP individuals?” The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person should be “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Without adequate language services, LEP persons cannot meaningfully participate in court proceedings, and are subsequently denied their entitlement to due process. Little attention has been given to this structural obstruction of justice revealing the need for a study about power and language in the immigration courtroom. To answer my research question, I analyze court decisions in which lawyers have utilized the Fifth Amendment to advocate for clients in Immigration Court and assess the success of those arguments. Results could inform whether judges are likely to interpret the Fifth Amendment as a protection of interests for LEP individuals in immigration court proceedings. With these findings, I hope to inform and assist legal advocates in improving accessibility essential to meeting justice in immigration court proceedings.

In the past few decades, the colonial roots of Egyptology and the effects of European influence over the development of archaeology in Egypt have become an increasingly popular topic within the field. The works of authors such as Donald M. Reid, Stephen Quirke, and Christian Langer highlight the problematic origins of Egyptology as a discipline, examining the ways in which European states exploited and suppressed native Egyptian archaeologists. Utilizing the frameworks that these authors have created, my research aims to provide a more comprehensive context to the politics and drama within Egyptology and its colonial motivations. In my presentation, I highlight the interpersonal relationships among Egyptologists, archaeologists, and politicians in 19th-20th century Egypt by analyzing first-hand accounts of notable figures in Egyptology. In particular, I look at four individuals whose reputations have been characterized by their racist and colonialist approaches to Egyptology: Victor Loret, Jacques de Morgan, Auguste Mariette, and Flinders Petrie. The main sources I use in my research include the diaries of Emma B. Andrews, mistress of millionaire lawyer-turned-excavator Theodore M. Davis, and a collection of correspondence letters by Arthur Weigall, a British Egyptologist. I also rely on other direct accounts from Egyptologists Archibald Sayce and Heinrich Brugsch to provide additional insights into the relationships of the above figures in Egyptology. My research showcases the often-contradictory perceptions of these individuals in public and private settings and how their reputations influenced their standing in Egyptology. Although the individuals I highlight in my presentation were highly respected in their academic fields and wielded considerable influence and power in Egypt, by compiling reports that inform how these controversial figures were perceived by their colleagues, I attempt to add another dimension to the growing conversation of problematic histories in Egyptology.

The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran saw the destruction of many monuments to previous regimes.  Despite the close alignment of the previous regime to the Tomb of Cyrus the Great and calls from Chief Justice Sadeq Khalkhali to raze Cyrus's tomb, the tomb remained intact as a historical site.  Why was Cyrus's tomb preserved when other pre-Revolution monuments were razed?  I answer this question through the analysis of secondary sources about Cyrus's tomb, architecture, and nationalism.  I combine this approach with the examination of primary photographic and documentary footage of the tomb.  The tomb was preserved because it is a palimpsest, representing many facets of Iranian culture and heritage - from tomb to mosque to monument.  Nationalists in Iran succeeded in attributing modernism and patriotism to Cyrus, both of which are gendered masculine.  The combination of Islam and nationalism into religious nationalism allowed not only for the preservation of Cyrus's tomb, but also his later rehabilitation.  Additionally, the tomb is about 800 km south of the capital city which allowed for the silencing of the tomb without necessitating its destruction.  The iconoclasm of revolution often results in the destruction of important historical monuments and architecture, but the preservation of this particular monument is an important case study for how oppositional new regimes can preserve the monuments of previous ones while still bolstering their own legitimacy.

Stereotypes around femininity, as presented to young Women, have historically not been inclusive. Often consisting of single-story one-dimensional white male ideals of femininity. Young Women could either lean into the stereotype or turn away, the dismissal often created new stereotypes due to a lack of strong feminist representation like the “I’m not like other girls” trope. The exposure to these white feminine stereotypes created cracks in a young Woman’s relationship with femininity and what it means to be girl. Causing a shift to anti-feminist and sexist thought while developing internalized misogyny. This presented externally as Women hating behavior that supported the learned mindsets of white men on the sexualization, degradation, and general treatment of other Women. The patriarchal system influenced this young Woman and others across the country in their homes, in their classrooms, each night on television, reinforced on the covers of teen magazines, through the eyes of their fathers and actions of their mothers. This young Woman functioned as a monument to the Patriarchy. Acting for the best interest of the heteronormative white male experience. I was the monument. With a lack of strong feminist representation, I instead turned into a living, breathing, and sometimes ‘preaching’ monument to the patriarchy. Through autoethnography and research of pop culture from the 1990s and 2000s, friends, family, members, and television shows. I will analyze my own experience to identify and understand my journey from anti-feminist to feminist. Answer how I was manipulated by the heteropatriarchy and colonialism to be antifeminist, to hate other Women, and actively cause harm to others based on their expression of femininity. Understanding the way in which I was once an image fighting for feminine oppression to help others unlearn too.

This paper and counter-tour will examine the relationship between tourism, the silencing of Martinican activism in international media, and the legacy of colonialism. Martinique is located in the southeastern Caribbean, and has been colonized by France since the mid-1600s. Victor Schoelcher was a French abolitionist who has received much more credit than he is owed for emancipation in the French Caribbean. The project explores the tourism industry and international media’s role in upholding dominant narratives around Schoelcher that are rooted in white saviorism. The questions this research seeks to answer are: What is the relationship between tourism and schoelcherisme, which is the glorification and mythologism of Victor Schoelcher? How does activism on Martinique that challenges white supremacy and colonialism bring to light truths that the tourism industry attempts to conceal in its messaging? The approach to answer these questions involves critical analysis of tourist websites and brochures. This project will also incorporate social media and publications of Martinican writers and activists. The counter-tour will illustrate how the tourism industry invisibilizes the work of activists to challenge Schoelcher’s material legacy, keeping their work from receiving international attention. This research project will challenge depictions of the island that are interwoven into the tourist industry’s advertisements and Western perceptions of Martinique, and highlight means of resistance to white supremacy and colonialism.