Non-binary ecosystems: Fashioning a queer ecology

Conducting genetics-related research with populations that have historically experienced considerable harm and little benefit from genetics research poses unique challenges for understanding community-based perceptions of new genetic technologies. This article identifies challenges and strategies for collecting qualitative data on the perceptions of direct-to-consumer (DTC) Genetic Ancestry tests (GAT) among diverse Indigenous communities. Based on a 3-year project related to perceptions, attitudes, and values associated with genetic ancestry testing among diverse Indigenous communities in Oklahoma, the engagement process revealed specific opportunities to improve the process of qualitative data collection related to GAT, and more broadly, to conduct genetics-related research with Indigenous communities in culturally and methodologically appropriate ways. Priority areas include issues related to participant recruitment and tribal advisory boards, challenges of self-identification as a recruitment mechanism, and the necessity of including Indigenous researchers in all aspects of the research process.

BackgroundThe Memory Keepers Medical Discovery Team (MK‐MDT) was established in 2016 to address brain health equity for Indigenous and rural populations. Indigenous populations are under‐represented in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) research studies and clinical trials, yet there is a dire need to address ADRD disparities in this population. In this paper we outline our research approach and studies underway at the MK‐MDT that are designed to address the ADRD disparity in Indigenous populations in the US and Canada. We highlight our flagship study “Indigenous Cultural Understandings of Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia – Research and Engagement” (ICARE) as a key foundational ethnographic study necessary to advance the field.MethodThe MK‐MDT incorporates a community‐based participatory research (CBPR) approach with two‐eyed seeing. Two‐eyed seeing ensures the inclusion and valuing of Indigenous knowledge throughout the research process. In ICARE, we maintain a consistent focus on ethnographic research with Indigenous communities to ensure deep understanding of how culture and context shape the dementia experience. Interviews, sequential focus groups, participant observation and fieldnotes are used to populate an ethnographic database on the lived experience of dementia in Indigenous populations. We incorporate a diversity perspective by working with multiple Indigenous communities for each study. We invest in community engagement infrastructure such as community advisory committees, elder advisors, community‐based researchers and outreach workers to ensure our methods follow local ethical protocols, is culturally safe, and community controlled.ResultWe have successfully initiated NIH‐funded programs of research aimed at reducing dementia disparities. ICARE was launched in 2018 and included 54 interviews and 14 sequential focus group sessions (n = 17) in four diverse Indigenous communities, establishing the first stage of a robust ethnographic database. Findings support the existence of an Indigenous specific understanding of dementia that impacts the dementia care experience.ConclusionThe CBPR approach coupled with two‐eyed seeing has allowed for authentic engagement with multiple Indigenous communities and has supported the collection of ethnographic data that can be used to develop culturally appropriate health promotion materials and interventions. The community‐based infrastructure that has been established is currently supporting multiple projects, including clinical research.

Cultural festivals serve as vital platforms for celebrating diversity and promoting social cohesion in multicultural societies. This study investigates the role of cultural festivals in fostering social cohesion within the context of Brazil, a nation known for its rich cultural tapestry and diverse population. A mixed-methods approach was employed, incorporating qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques. In-depth interviews were conducted with festival organizers, participants, and community members to gain insights into their experiences and perceptions. Additionally, surveys were administered to assess the impact of festivals on social cohesion, measuring factors such as intergroup contact, trust, and shared identity. The findings revealed that cultural festivals play a significant role in fostering social cohesion in Brazil. Festivals provide opportunities for individuals from different cultural backgrounds to interact, exchange ideas, and celebrate their shared humanity. Participation in festivals was associated with increased intergroup contact, enhanced trust, and a stronger sense of shared identity. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of cultural festivals as catalysts for social cohesion in multicultural societies. Festivals create spaces for intercultural dialogue, promote understanding, and foster a sense of belonging among diverse communities. The findings have implications for policymakers, community organizers, and researchers interested in leveraging cultural festivals to build more inclusive and cohesive societies.

Background: In this paper, we describe how we developed a conceptual model of the pathway from the cycle of violence to the circle of healing, through our exploration of a community mobilization process in Indigenous communities in Canada. Indigenous communities in Canada have experienced multiple traumas since first contact, with systematic harms across generations. Research has shown that community-based prevention programs for Indigenous populations can be effective in addressing a range of health challenges. Methods: For over 20 years, the Canadian Red Cross has been working with Indigenous communities in violence prevention to address present day challenges. Through a partnership research grant, we have been working to identify, understand document, community processes that address the cycle of violence rooted in colonization and promote healing rooted in Indigenous traditions. Findings: A comprehensive literature review revealed that multiple layers of harm have accumulated and cascaded to explain the deep disruptions in Indigenous community, family, and individual wellbeing. The community stories helped us understand the cycle of violence from colonization that created physical, mental, emotional and spiritual disruption in domains of Indigenous wellbeing. This understanding of disruptions enabled us to consider the pathways that allow wellness to emerge within these four domains. After identifying the pathway to wellness, we realized that a relational lens was essential for the circle of healing. Interpretation: We came to understand that if colonization had disrupted all my relations, then healing and wellness could be understood as a re-integration of all my relations. We believe that our conceptual model can provide guidance to those working with and within diverse Indigenous communities around the world to address the layers of harm from colonization and create culturally relevant pathways to healing and wellness. Funding Statement: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada #895-2011-1013. Declaration of Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: This research was approved by the Aboriginal Research Ethics Review Advisory Group of the Human Participants Review Committee, York University.

This article describes the innovative use of sequential focus groups (SFGs) with Indigenous adults living with type 2 diabetes. This use of SFGs has not been previously described in the literature. In our project, SFGs were used to explore Indigenous people’s experiences in managing their diabetes. Our research objective has been to elucidate deep understandings of these experiences in order to inform the development of continuing medical education curriculum with the aim of improving approaches to diabetes care for Indigenous people. Working in partnerships with Indigenous health organizations, we recruited four groups comprising participants from diverse Indigenous communities (two urban, two rural) in three provinces of Canada. We conducted a series of five focus groups (SFGs) with the same participants (6–8 participants) at each site for a total of 20 focus groups and 29 participants. Indigenous people living with type 2 diabetes were asked open-ended questions concerning their experiences with diabetes and diabetes care in primary health-care settings. Our findings concerning the use of SFGs for Indigenous health research draw on team member and participants’ reflections captured in facilitator field notes, memos from debriefing sessions, and focus group transcripts. The SFG approach enabled in-depth exploration of the complex, and at times sensitive, issues related to Indigenous people’s views on diabetes and their experiences of diabetes care. The repeated sessions facilitated comfort and camaraderie among participants, which led to insightful sessions filled with personal and emotional stories of living with diabetes, the impacts of colonization, and health-care experiences. Overall, the method fostered a deeper level of engagement, exploration, and reflection than a single-session focus group typically would. We suggest this adaptation of the traditional single-session focus groups would be applicable to a wide variety of research concerning sensitive health topics with vulnerable populations.

Perceived constraints on getting Canadian commodities to global markets have generated renewed interest in a cross-country infrastructure corridor, a concept that was initially conceived several decades ago. Consideration of the corridor concept exists in a broader context of fast-evolving jurisprudence in relation to the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada. The Canadian legal landscape pertaining to those rights has evolved significantly in the years since the northern corridor concept was conceived, particularly with respect to Crown consultation obligations. Crown obligations in relation to the proposed corridor would be significant with respect to the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples. A cross-Canada corridor would, by its linear nature, directly and indirectly affect many diverse Indigenous communities that are situated in non-treaty, modern treaty and historical treaty contexts across the country. For example, the assessment and approval process for the Northern Gateway project involved more than 80 Indigenous communities and territories in Alberta and British Columbia, and the now-cancelled Energy East project would have crossed the traditional territory of 180 Indigenous communities on its route from Alberta to the Maritimes. Similarly, the review and approval process for the Trans Mountain Expansion project (TMX) involved at least 120 Indigenous communities along its route from the Edmonton area to Vancouver. In today’s legal context, the Crown (i.e., federal or provincial governments, or both) must consult, and in some situations accommodate, Indigenous communities in situations where the Crown has actual or constructive knowledge of the existence or potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect those rights or title, such as approval of major infrastructure projects. Pursuit of the corridor project, to the extent that it involves Crown action that may adversely affect established or asserted Aboriginal rights or title, would trigger the Crown’s duty to consult, as would review and approval of specific infrastructure projects that may eventually fall within the corridor.

Introduction Most developed countries, including Australia, have a strong focus on national, state and local strategies for emergency management and response in the face of disasters and crises. This framework can include coping with catastrophic dislocation, service disruption, injury or loss of life in the face of natural disasters such as major fires, floods, earthquakes or other large-impact natural events, as well as dealing with similar catastrophes resulting from human actions such as bombs, biological agents, cyber-attacks targeting essential services such as communications networks, or other crises affecting large populations. Emergency management frameworks for crisis and disaster response are distinguished by their focus on the domestic context for such events; that is, how to manage and assist the ways in which civilian populations, who are for the most part inexperienced and untrained in dealing with crises and disasters, are able to respond and behave in such situations so as to minimise the impacts of a catastrophic event. Even in countries like Australia that demonstrate a strong public commitment to cultural pluralism and social cohesion, ethno-cultural diversity can be seen as a risk or threat to national security and values at times of political, natural, economic and/or social tensions and crises. Australian government policymakers have recently focused, with increasing intensity, on “community resilience” as a key element in countering extremism and enhancing emergency preparedness and response. In some sense, this is the result of a tacit acknowledgement by government agencies that there are limits to what they can do for domestic communities should such a catastrophic event occur, and accordingly, the focus in recent times has shifted to how governments can best help people to help themselves in such situations, a key element of the contemporary “resilience” approach. Yet despite the robustly multicultural nature of Australian society, explicit engagement with Australia’s cultural diversity flickers only fleetingly on this agenda, which continues to pursue approaches to community resilience in the absence of understandings about how these terms and formations may themselves need to be diversified to maximise engagement by all citizens in a multicultural polity. There have been some recent efforts in Australia to move in this direction, for example the Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI)’s recent suite of projects with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities (2006-2010) and the current Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee-supported project on “Harnessing Resilience Capital in Culturally Diverse Communities to Counter Violent Extremism” (Grossman and Tahiri), which I discuss in a longer forthcoming version of this essay (Grossman). Yet the understanding of ethno-cultural identity and difference that underlies much policy thinking on resilience remains problematic for the way in which it invests in a view of the cultural dimensions of community resilience as relic rather than resource – valorising the preservation of and respect for cultural norms and traditions, but silent on what different ethno-cultural communities might contribute toward expanded definitions of both “community” and “resilience” by virtue of the transformative potential and existing cultural capital they bring with them into new national and also translocal settings. For example, a primary conclusion of the joint program between AEMI and the Australian Multicultural Commission is that CALD communities are largely “vulnerable” in the context of disasters and emergency management and need to be better integrated into majority-culture models of theorising and embedding community resilience. This focus on stronger national integration and the “vulnerability” of culturally diverse ethno-cultural communities in the Australian context echoes the work of scholars beyond Australia such as McGhee, Mouritsen (Reflections, Citizenship) and Joppke. They argue that the “civic turn” in debates around resurgent contemporary nationalism and multicultural immigration policies privileges civic integration over genuine two-way multiculturalism. This approach sidesteps the transculturational (Ortiz; Welsch; Mignolo; Bennesaieh; Robins; Stein) aspects of contemporary social identities and exchange by paying lip-service to cultural diversity while affirming a neo-liberal construct of civic values and principles as a universalising goal of Western democratic states within a global market economy. It also suggests a superficial tribute to cultural diversity that does not embed diversity comprehensively at the levels of either conceptualising or resourcing different elements of Australian transcultural communities within the generalised framework of “community resilience.” And by emphasising cultural difference as vulnerability rather than as resource or asset, it fails to acknowledge the varieties of resilience capital that many culturally diverse individuals and communities may bring with them when they resettle in new environments, by ignoring the question of what “resilience” actually means to those from culturally diverse communities. In so doing, it also avoids the critical task of incorporating intercultural definitional diversity around the concepts of both “community” and “resilience” used to promote social cohesion and the capacity to recover from disasters and crises. How we might do differently in thinking about the broader challenges for multiculturalism itself as a resilient transnational concept and practice? The Concept of Resilience The meanings of resilience vary by disciplinary perspective. While there is no universally accepted definition of the concept, it is widely acknowledged that resilience refers to the capacity of an individual to do well in spite of exposure to acute trauma or sustained adversity (Liebenberg 219). Originating in the Latin word resilio, meaning ‘to jump back’, there is general consensus that resilience pertains to an individual’s, community’s or system’s ability to adapt to and ‘bounce back’ from a disruptive event (Mohaupt 63, Longstaff et al. 3). Over the past decade there has been a dramatic rise in interest in the clinical, community and family sciences concerning resilience to a broad range of adversities (Weine 62). While debate continues over which discipline can be credited with first employing resilience as a concept, Mohaupt argues that most of the literature on resilience cites social psychology and psychiatry as the origin for the concept beginning in the mid-20th century. The pioneer researchers of what became known as resilience research studied the impact on children living in dysfunctional families. For example, the findings of work by Garmezy, Werner and Smith and Rutter showed that about one third of children in these studies were coping very well despite considerable adversities and traumas. In asking what it was that prevented the children in their research from being negatively influenced by their home environments, such research provided the basis for future research on resilience. Such work was also ground-breaking for identifying the so-called ‘protective factors’ or resources that individuals can operationalise when dealing with adversity. In essence, protective factors are those conditions in the individual that protect them from the risk of dysfunction and enable recovery from trauma. They mitigate the effects of stressors or risk factors, that is, those conditions that predispose one to harm (Hajek 15). Protective factors include the inborn traits or qualities within an individual, those defining an individual’s environment, and also the interaction between the two. Together, these factors give people the strength, skills and motivation to cope in difficult situations and re-establish (a version of) ‘normal’ life (Gunnestad). Identifying protective factors is important in terms of understanding the particular resources a given sociocultural group has at its disposal, but it is also vital to consider the interconnections between various protective mechanisms, how they might influence each other, and to what degree. An individual, for instance, might display resilience or adaptive functioning in a particular domain (e.g. emotional functioning) but experience significant deficits in another (e.g. academic achievement) (Hunter 2). It is also essential to scrutinise how the interaction between protective factors and risk factors creates patterns of resilience. Finally, a comprehensive understanding of the interrelated nature of protective mechanisms and risk factors is imperative for designing effective interventions and tailored preventive strategies (Weine 65). In short, contemporary thinking about resilience suggests it is neither entirely personal nor strictly social, but an interactive and iterative combination of the two. It is a quality of the environment as much as the individual. For Ungar, resilience is the complex entanglements between “individuals and their social ecologies [that] will determine the degree of positive outcomes experienced” (3). Thinking about resilience as context-dependent is important because research that is too trait-based or actor-centred risks ignoring any structural or institutional forces. A more ecological interpretation of resilience, one that takes into a person’s context and environment into account, is vital in order to avoid blaming the victim for any hardships they face, or relieving state and institutional structures from their responsibilities in addressing social adversity, which can “emphasise self-help in line with a neo-conservative agenda instead of stimulating state responsibility” (Mohaupt 67). Nevertheless, Ungar posits that a coherent definition of resilience has yet to be developed that adequately ‘captures the dual focus of the individual and the individual’s

An ethnographic study was conducted to explore the significance of protecting indigenous knowledge and practices in Uganda, focusing on the Japadhola community in Nagongera, Tororo District, Uganda. Despite Uganda's recognition of its indigenous communities in the 1995 Constitution, there remains a significant gap in the protection and promotion of indigenous heritage. Employing ethnography and critical indigenous research methodology (CIRM), this study highlights the unique ways in which the Japadhola community accesses and controls its indigenous knowledge, arguing against its inclusion in the public domain and calling for a reevaluation of legal protections in Uganda. Data were collected through ethnographic methods, including interviews, observations, document reviews, and focus group discussions. We then analyzed the data qualitatively using a grounded theory approach with MaxQDA24 software. The findings reveal that the Japadhola community employs highly developed and complex access control mechanisms, contributing to contemporary debates on information access and offering insights into African indigenous communities. The study advocates policies that respect and protect the cultural heritage of Uganda's diverse indigenous communities, providing recommendations to various stakeholders.

Reviewed by: Teaching Indigenous Students: Honoring Place, Community, and Culture ed. by Jon Reyhner Linda LeGarde Grover Teaching Indigenous Students: Honoring Place, Community, and Culture. Edited by Jon Reyhner. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2015. vii + 219 pp. Illustrations, charts, references, index. $24.95 paper. This collection of essays edited by seasoned bicultural education expert Jon Reyhner includes contributions from scholars of indigenous education in America as well as in other parts of the world. The theme that emerges in all of the essays, that the valuing of the languages and cultures of indigenous students in classrooms results in improved retention and learning, is a principle of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such a powerful concept, applied as pedagogical philosophy to varied subject areas, teaching practices, and physical settings, strengthens students, families, communities, and ultimately, the boots-on-the-ground teachers whose hearts' desire is to see learners thrive. Although much of the material in this book focuses upon American Indians, the histories of indigenous cultures in other parts of the world, and many of the authors themselves, come from diverse indigenous communities. The collection begins with a history of colonial impact and assimilationist history, particularly education policies inflicted upon indigenous communities worldwide. An overview of the suppression and destruction of cultures and beliefs, and the effects upon families and communities damaged through the schooling of their youngest members, provide an understanding of the herculean efforts in recent decades to reverse assimilation. The essays that follow are a necessarily diverse selection of curriculum development models, classroom and community dynamics, the integration of culture-based and culturally relevant curricula and teaching strategies. Essays that challenge current educational philosophies and strategies explain both research and practical application of the United Nations principle in the teaching of literacy, math, science, social studies, music, art, and physical education. In each subject are specific examples and strategies; the holistic philosophy of the collection creates an interesting read for educators, who will find parallels in the interdisciplinary pedagogy with the linking of teaching and learning to community and culture. The final essay examines the recent establishment of language immersion schools, which strengthen families and communities while revitalizing and increasing proficiency and use of the languages and cultural worldview, undoing damage created by decades of assimilationist education. It is heartening to see the number of indigenous authors in this collection. Their presence and voices are the essence of what this book is intended to address and are what sets this collection apart. All of the authors, both younger, emerging scholars whose voices bring new perspectives to the field, and the experienced, prolific scholars who broke tracks, have built upon their research and are now the elders of pedagogy, a position comparable to that of elders in many indigenous cultures. Educators indigenous and otherwise who work at all age and grade levels, from infant and early childhood education through advanced studies, as well as leaders and elders of indigenous communities, will find much that will enhance their own work and, most important, the success of their students. [End Page 65] Linda LeGarde Grover Department of American Indian Studies University of Minnesota–Duluth Copyright © 2017 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

A framework for operationalising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data sovereignty in Australia: Results of a systematic literature review of published studies

BackgroundEvidence indicates Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) and chronic diseases considered risk factors for developing ADRD disproportionately affect Indigenous people. However, little is known regarding lived experiences, needs and resiliencies across the ADRD disease trajectory in Indigenous communities. This work highlights preliminary data from the ICARE study (R56 AG 62307); a project that explored factors impacting ADRD across the disease trajectory. This research focuses on thematic trends and relationships between education, cultural strengths and stigma emerging from the analysis of Sequential Focus Groups (SFGs) data.MethodCommunity‐based participatory research and phenomenology guided qualitative study design, recruitment, data collection and analysis. We conducted SFGs in four tribal community sites in the US and Canada. All participants had professional health care experience working with Indigenous people with dementia (PWD). Each site held between 4‐5 sequential virtual focus groups with consistent participants lasting between 30‐90 minutes. Community‐based researchers led these sessions focused on understandings within the contexts of early, mid and late‐stage dementia.ResultParticipants (N = 17) were aged 18+, and worked with Indigenous PWD (M = 11.09 years; SD = 9.25). Additionally, 41% reported caring for a loved one with dementia. Preliminary analysis suggests thematic shifts within the contexts of early, mid, and late‐stage ADRD, including cultural understandings of ADRD. Participants described a need for education in early‐stage, service access in middle‐stage, and safety and retrospective recommendations for education in late‐stage. Notably, aspects of stigma appeared thematically through each stage, and appeared antithetical to other consistent subthemes of community needs (e.g., education) and cultural strengths (e.g., connectedness, storytelling).ConclusionSFGs revealed nuances of cultural and community level factors influencing the impact of ADRD across the disease trajectory in four diverse Indigenous communities. Preliminary data provide lines of inquiry for ICARE R01 NIH (R01AG062307), such as exploring culturally appropriate education and outreach as inroads to developing effective interventions and reducing stigma, isolation and the burden of ADRD on AI/FN communities. Notions of stigma require further investigation and may reflect Western ideology and disconnection from traditional teachings resulting from colonization.

Ten years of field research and collaborative development of programs for early childhood in the Upper Rio Negro region of the Amazon provide the authors with new metaphors for achieving wider social impact and new frames to add to the international debate on 'scaling' social change initiatives. Using anthropology and ethno-ontology to think questions of universal and particular, center and periphery, the article reflects on the dangers of monolithic scaling to cultural diversity and future innovation. Instead of the metaphor of scaling - adopted in the discourse of public policy and international development from the Fordist or Taylorist efficiency of the economy of scale - indigenous people speak of exchange, sharing, and transformation. These ideas seek to connect local and decolonized models and value the diversity of local knowledges, epistemologies, and practices around early childhood development. Based on the expansion of the CanalCanoa project among diverse indigenous communities, the paper proposes a flexible and bottom-up model of achieving impact at scale through empowering local actors to teach each other and establish local criteria of learning and evaluation.

To examine the rate of self-reported coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and its association with mental and cognitive health during the post-infection phase among middle-aged and older indigenous adults. A cross-sectional study was conducted, including 141 individuals ≥50 and over from an urban indigenous community in Amazonas, Brazil. COVID-19 was deduced from self-reported infections. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Mini-Mental State Exam, Brief Cognitive Screening Battery (BCSB), and language fluency tests. Meanwhile, mental health was assessed through validated scales examining happiness, stress, and depression symptoms. The association between the rate of COVID-19 and cognitive and mental well-being was analyzed using logistic and linear regressions, adjusted for covariates. From March 2020 to February 2022, 65.2% of the urban indigenous group tested positive for COVID-19. Lower functional capacity decreased the odds of contracting COVID-19 (p = .03). Adjusted linear regression models showed that COVID-19 was associated with higher BCSB learning (p = .017) and delayed recall (p = .028). Women, higher age, lower functional capacity, and hospitalization were associated with worse cognitive performance (p < .05). No impact of mental health indicators on past COVID-19 infection was noted. COVID-19 was prevalent among urban Indigenous Brazilians. Unexpectedly, it was linked to enhanced learning and memory, not mental health issues. Cognitive performance was lower for men, older individuals, those with less functional ability, and hospitalized patients, indicating that participant characteristics and disease severity affect the COVID-19 and cognition relationship. Longitudinal studies across diverse Indigenous communities are necessary to understand COVID-19's impact on their cognitive and mental health.

This article offers Indigenous Environmental Data Justice (IEDJ) as a framework related to, but importantly distinct from, Environmental Data Justice. IEDJ points to the manifold practices and principles that diverse Indigenous communities have developed in response to the pervasive structures of colonial environmental datafication and toward creating their own sovereign data governance practices. This article gathers a constellation of Indigenous community-specific place-thought data relations and practices, particularly drawing on work in North America, which are nonetheless convergent broadly in that they all confront commonalities of colonial data structures. We describe IEDJ as following the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and involving complementary practices for confronting inadequate colonial data that government environmental agencies and companies provide to Indigenous communities.

Indigenous revitalization includes community-led healing from intergenerational land-based trauma. Yet given colonial legacies that perpetuate the devaluation of Indigenous knowledge and dispossession of Indigenous lands, healing in Indigenous communities presents particular challenges. Such challenges can include responding to western models of bureaucratic governance that replicate historical trauma in governance relations. Building on existing frameworks of Indigenous political ecology, we consider the importance of resisting colonial legacies that can influence Indigenous environmental governance. We do so by discussing community-led revitalization and resurgence in the Karuk tribal community, and an exemplar case of family-based management systems for caretaking ceremonial trails in the mid-Klamath (Northern California, USA). Through this case, we consider the interdependent functions of family-based governance and tribal government institutions for collective decolonization and healing. Our analysis of family-based management provides insights into the sociopolitical and ecological dynamics of healing in diverse Indigenous communities, and explores more inclusive models for Indigenous environmental governance.