REVIEW ESSAY Invisible to Political Science: Indigenous Politics in a World in Flux Tulia G. Falleti, University of Pennsylvania Theft Is Property! Dispossession and Critical Theory. By Rob- ert Nichols. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2020. Global Indigenous Politics: A Subtle Revolution. By Sheryl Lightfoot. New York: Routledge, 2016. The Prior Consultation of Indigenous Peoples in Latin Amer- ica: Inside the Implementation Gap. Edited by Claire Wright and Alexandra Tomaselli. New York: Routledge, 2019. N o Justice on Stolen Land” is the opening phrase of Robert Nichols’s fascinating book Theft Is Property. I read the book in the wake of the inhumane killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, David McAtee, and Rayshard Brooks, as the chant “no justice, no peace” reverberates in the streets of cities and towns across the United States and the world. These are two re- lated and unresolved demands for justice. In the United States, the only group more exposed to police violence than Black Americans is Native Americans. 1 To study Indigenous poli- tics in the current political context—in the midst of a pan- demic that because of systemic inequalities disproportion- ately kills Blacks, Indigenous, and Peoples of Color and where human-produced climate change threatens our collective ex- istence—means to peel back another layer of the system of white supremacy and exploitation of humans and nature on which capitalism’s economic and political institutions have been built. From private property, to the nation-states, to the legislatures and courts, to the police and the criminal system, to the educational and health systems, and to the interna- tional organizations, all these institutions are built on ex- clusion, exploitation, and discrimination of Blacks, Indige- nous, and Peoples of Color. In this context, the books by political scientists Robert Nichols, Sheryl Lightfoot, and Claire Wright and Alexandra Tomaselli could not be more timely and necessary for our discipline. For too long, political science has been system- atically ignoring Indigenous Peoples, their organization, and their collective demands. The exceptions have been relatively few and mostly emerged from the comparative study of Latin American politics. Since the uprising of the Zapatista move- ment in Chiapas, Mexico in 1994, and the political organiza- tion of Indigenous movements in the region, most notably in Ecuador and Bolivia, Indigenous politics caught the attention and imagination of political scientists in North America who produced pathbreaking scholarship (Eisenstadt 2011; Jung 2008; Lucero 2008; Madrid 2012; Rice 2012; Trejo 2012; Van Cott 2005; Yashar 2005). Discipline wide, however, in the last three decades only 10 research articles were published in the top three generalist journals of our discipline containing the words “Indigenous” or “Native” (as applied to Indigenous Peoples) in either their title or abstract (six in the American Political Science Review, Tulia G. Falleti (falleti@upenn.edu) is an endowed term professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. I thank Murad Idris for pointing me in the right direction, Maria Paula Saffón Sanín for her expert and timely comments, and Adalyn Richards for her research assistance. 1. Police brutality against Native Americans led to the creation of the Native Lives Matter movement in late 2014. “For every 1 million Native Americans, an average of 2.9 of them died annually from 1999 to 2015 as a result of a ‘legal intervention,’ according to a CNN review of CDC data broken down by race. The vast majority of these deaths were police shootings.... That mortality rate is 12% higher than for African-Americans and three times the rate of whites” (Hansen 2017). See Edwards, Lee, and Esposito (2019) for a different ranking of the risk of being killed by the police force according to race/ ethnicity, gender, and age in the United States, which places Native Americans second from the top after Black Americans. However, as these authors state, the “risks are estimated with less precision for American Indian/Alaska Native men and women than for other groups” (16794). The Journal of Politics, volume 83, number 1. Published online November 12, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1086/711568 q 2020 by the Southern Political Science Association. All rights reserved. 0022-3816/2021/8301-00XX$10.00 000