{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0263671875, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01953125, 'mean_word_length': 5.06508875739645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two Laws: Response to Elizabeth Povinelli

Appearing at a time of backlash in Australia against the multicultural policies of the past twenty-five years and of retreat by the present conservative government from the complex issues raised by indigenous peoples using their citizenship to seek entitlements under the law, Elizabeth A. Povinelli's important article 'The State of Shame: Australian Multiculturalism and the Crisis of Indigenous Citizenship' (Critical Inquiry 24 [Winter 1998]: 575-610) provides a challenging critique of the conditions in which this retreat took shape. The value of Povinelli's essay in this context is that it catches neatly the unhappy paradox of difference theories posited as an alternative to the politics of identity: that they come to rely on the self-identity of the different. Her argument is that the Australian High Court's Mabo judgement (more precisely the complex of Mabo and Others v. The State of Queensland (1992), the Native Title Act of 1993, and The Wik Peoples v. The State