What was the relationship between national character, government, and civilization for James Mill? This article answers this question by focusing on Indian and British national characters. For Mill, Indian national character was unsuited to trigger the progress of civilization. He questioned how a society with a flawed character could be led toward improvement. This article underlines the importance of human agency for the progress of civilization in Mill’s thought. In order to cause progress, individuals had to voluntarily guide society toward improvement by embracing the principle of utility. Governmental action should create the conditions necessary to bring about individuals of suitable character. Members of the middle class could foster progress better than those of any other class. They could oppose the despotism of the aristocracy and be the driving force of civilization by voluntarily shaping their ideas in accordance with the public good.

This article offers a four-part argument in favor of settlers adopting an ethics of recognition in negotiations with Indigenous peoples to support decolonization in North America. Part 1 examines theories of decolonization offered by Indigenous scholars, who show that ethical practices within Indigenous communities are necessary for decolonization. Part 2 focuses on James Tully’s revision of the liberal politics of recognition (LPR), arguing that Tully brings the LPR closer to the aims of decolonization. Part 3 argues that his innovations do not sufficiently acknowledge how inequality undermines the freedom he champions. Part 4 draws on Judith Butler’s interpretation of Hegelian recognition and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson’s idea of recognition to sketch an ethics that minimizes the inequalities of participants in the political negotiations Tully theorizes. Minimizing inequality will promote the greater freedom needed for the legitimacy of negotiations, making them a possible vehicle for decolonization.