Rival geographies: In her article “‘A Landscape That Continually Recurred In Passing’: The Many Worlds of a Small Place,” Natasha Lightfoot borrows this term from Stephanie Camp, who defined a “rival geography” as a space representative of “‘alternative ways of knowing and using plantation…space that conflicted with planters’ ideals and demands’” (Lightfoot 47). While plantation logics depended upon stability and fixity, rival geographies relied on fluidity and movement. Camp underscores the significance of “‘the movement of bodies, objects, and information within and around plantation space’” (Lightfoot 47). She particularly names the open-air marketplaces of St. John’s as an example of a rival geography. These spaces were key because they challenge the idea that an oppressive, colonialist order of being was unchangeable simply because “that’s the way it’s always been.” Rather, rival geographies exemplified the ability to subvert and overthrow existing hierarchies through active resistance. Camp’s understanding of rival geographies as places not only of physical disobedience, but ideological difference renders visible the intersection of plantation geographies and plantation logics. Rival geographies not only signify a physical resistance to the embodied reality of imperialism, but a challenge to the underlying epistemology of dominance and control upon which plantation geographies depend.