Take at least two aspects of Gilio-Whitaker's discussion of the indigenous rights movement (ie, environmental racism, indigenous sovereignty, women's rights, etc) and at least two aspects of Dietrich's conservative movements (ie, economic harms, cultural harms, anti-immigration, etc) and compare them. Bearing in mind that these groups are not monolithic, consider the similarities and differences between the origins of their claims of injustice, how they choose to frame issues, and what tactics they use to propel their movements.
What are the bases of these groups' claims to confront injustice? How do they make use of "proprietary claims" or claims to endangered economic/cultural/social/symbolic capital?
How do these groups frame their claims to social justice? How do they claim the different aspects of their causes fit together? How do they frame the impact of these issues on society more broadly?
What are goals of these groups? Are they compatible? Why or why not?
Sample Solution