These remedies involve the challenges of responding to the harms of colonialism and avoiding new neo-colonial harms. Part I stresses the importance of interim remedies to prevent irreparable harm to Indigenous rights. Courts should stop their tendency to discount pecuniary losses even while trying to off-set this with a more generous approach to non-pecuniary harms. Part II examines the duty to consult. It, like the South African practice of engagement, can result in consensual agreements but also authorize limits on rights, especially if no attempt is made to address inequality of bargaining power and respect Indigenous law. Part III argues that proportionality principles can be used to avoid allowing majoritarian and economic interests to weaken remedies. Following Article 40 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the overall balance stage should be applied bi-jurally to respect both rights and Indigenous law including with respect to the environment. Part IV suggests that domestic and supra-national courts should focus on providing first-track remedies to prevent irreparable harm and compensate for past harm. They should employ a lighter and respectful touch that encourages bi-jural treaties as systemic remedies. Effective first-track remedies may make such agreements more likely.

This chapter argues that disciplining of bilingual education as a scholarly field served to divorce discussions of bilingual education from broader political and economic struggles in favor of the seemingly objective pursuit of the benefits of bilingual education. This disciplining of bilingual education was part of a larger discursive shift that reframed discussions of racial inequality from a focus on unequal access and the need for structural change to a focus on the deficiencies of racialized communities and the need for modifying these deficiencies. The chapter ends with a call for bilingual education scholars to situate issues of language inequality within the broader white supremacist and capitalist relations of power. This will offer bilingual education scholars tools for rejecting deficit perspectives of language-minoritized children and pointing to the broader racial stratification that makes these deficit perspectives possible to begin with.

Forty years ago there were approximately fifty child speakers of Hawaiian in the state of Hawai‘i. Today there are thousands of speakers of all ages and a constellation of pre-K–PhD programs to promote the Hawaiian language and culture. In the early 1990s, there were no living speakers of myaamia (Miami) or Wôpanâak (Wampanoag), both North American Algonquian languages. Today, these languages, once decreed “extinct,” live in vibrant community-based education programs and family homes. Drawing on an international scholarly literature and the author’s long-term collaborative research with Indigenous educators, this chapter reflects backward and forward on the field of Indigenous language reclamation, tracing its development against the violence of settler colonialism and exploring current movements, their challenges, and the language planning and policymaking possibilities they suggest. In an age of growing raciolinguistic inequality, these movements provide both a cautionary tale and a vision of the interventions necessary to support Indigenous self-determination and sustain linguistic diversity for all.