Respecting water: Indigenous water governance, ontologies, and the politics of kinship on the ground

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 516-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole J Wilson ◽  
Jody Inkster
Keyword(s):  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Indigenous Studies ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Political Ontology ◽  
Living Entity ◽  
Settler Societies

Indigenous peoples often view water as a living entity or a relative, to which they have a sacred responsibility. Such a perspective frequently conflicts with settler societies’ view of water as a “resource” that can be owned, managed, and exploited. Although rarely articulated explicitly, water conflicts are rooted in ontological differences between Indigenous and settler views of water. Furthermore, the unequal water governance landscape created by settler colonialism has perpetuated the suppression of Indigenous ways of conceptualizing water. This paper thus examines the “political ontology” of water by drawing on insights from the fields of critical Indigenous studies, post-humanism, and water governance. Additionally, we engage a case study of four Yukon First Nations (Carcross/Tagish, Kluane, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, and White River First Nations) in the Canadian North to examine their water ontologies through the lens of a politics of kinship including ideas about “respecting water.” We also examine the assumptions of settler-colonial water governance in the territory, shaped by modern land claims and self-government agreements. We close by discussing the implications of Indigenous water ontologies for alternate modes of governing water.

Re-presenting Genocide: The Canadian Museum of Human Rights and Settler Colonial Power

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita Kaur Dhamoon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Colonial Power ◽  
National Narratives ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Settler Societies ◽  
Forced Movement

AbstractIn settler societies like Canada, United States, and Australia, the bourgeoning discourse that frames colonial violence against Indigenous people as genocide has been controversial, specifically because there is much debate about the meaning and applicability of genocide. Through an analysis of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, this paper analyzes what is revealed about settler colonialism in the nexus of difficult knowledge, curatorial decisions, and political debates about the label of genocide. I specifically examine competing definitions of genocide, the primacy of the Holocaust, the regulatory role of the settler state, and the limits of a human rights framework. My argument is that genocide debates related to Indigenous experiences operationalize a range of governing techniques that extend settler colonialism, even as Indigenous peoples confront existing hegemonies. These techniques include: interpretative denial; promoting an Oppression Olympics and a politics of distancing; regulating difference through state-based recognition and interference; and depoliticizing claims that overshadow continuing practices of assimilation, extermination, criminalization, containment, and forced movement of Indigenous peoples. By pinpointing these techniques, this paper seeks to build on Indigenous critiques of colonialism, challenge settler national narratives of peaceful and lawful origins, and foster ways to build more just relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.

Defenders of Nature and the Comarca: Collective Identity and Frames in Panama

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Horton
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Collective Identity ◽  
Collective Identities ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Institutional Practices ◽  
Indigenous Identity ◽  
Identity Based ◽  
Multiple Frames ◽  
Indigenous Land

This article examines collective identities as both a resource and constraint in framing processes of social mobilization through a case study of Panama's Kuna Indians, one of Latin America's most effectively organized indigenous peoples. It highlights tensions between movement nurturance of distinct indigenous identity as intrinsically valuable and to a degree counterhegemonic and instrumental use of an environmental frame to advance indigenous land claims. This article also explores shifts in dominant discourse and institutional practices that provide both opportunities for identity-based movements as well as risks. One way identity groups address tensions between appropriation of externally generated frames for instrumental goals and the nurturing of distinct collective identities is to manage multiple frames aimed at distinct audiences with distinct content. errors are the sole responsibility of the author.

“This Is Going to Affect Our Lives”: Exploring Huu-ay-aht First Nations, the Government of Canada and British Columbia’s New Relationship Through the Implementation of the Maa-nulth Treaty

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Sloan Morgan ◽  
Heather Castleden ◽  
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
150Th Anniversary ◽  
Canadian Provinces ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Of Canada

AbstractCanada celebrated its 150th anniversary since Confederation in 2017. At the same time, Canada is also entering an era of reconciliation that emphasizes mutually respectful and just relationships between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown. British Columbia (BC) is uniquely situated socially, politically, and economically as compared to other Canadian provinces, with few historic treaties signed. As a result, provincial, federal, and Indigenous governments are attempting to define ‘new relationships’ through modern treaties. What new relationships look like under treaties remains unclear though. Drawing from a comprehensive case study, we explore Huu-ay-aht First Nations—a signatory of the Maa-nulth Treaty, implemented in 2011—BC and Canada’s new relationship by analysing 26 interviews with treaty negotiators and Indigenous leaders. A disconnect between obligations outlined in the treaty and how Indigenous signatories experience changing relations is revealed, pointing to an asymmetrical dynamic remaining in the first years of implementation despite new relationships of modern treaty.

scholarly journals Addressing the Challenge of Overlapping Claims in Implementing the Vancouver Island (Douglas) Treaties

2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-307
Author(s):  
Brian Thom
Keyword(s):  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Land Tenure ◽  
Vancouver Island ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Coast Salish ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Industrial Forestry

Indigenous social and legal orders are a source for addressing the challenge of overlapping claims in exercising historic treaty rights in the territories of neighbouring non-treaty Indigenous Peoples. The Vancouver Island Treaties (also known as the Douglas Treaties) of the 1850s made commitments that signatory communities could continue to hunt on unoccupied lands and carry on their fisheries as formerly. Today, as urban, agricultural and industrial forestry have constrained where people can exercise their treaty rights locally, individuals from these nations exercise harvesting rights in “extended territories” of their neighbours. Through detailing several court cases where these treaty rights were challenged by the Crown and the texts of modern-day treaty documents, I show how Coast Salish people continue to draw on local values and legal principles to articulate their distinctive vision of territory and community, both engaging and subverting divisive “overlapping claims” discourses. Not only First Nations but the state, through the judiciary, Crown counsel and land claims negotiators, also, at times, acknowledge and recognise the principles of kin and land tenure that are the foundation for addressing the challenges of overlapping claims.

scholarly journals Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 2113
Author(s):  
Ryan Emanuel ◽  
David Wilkins
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Barriers To Participation ◽  
Political Landscapes

Indigenous peoples worldwide face barriers to participation in water governance, which includes planning and permitting of infrastructure that may affect water in their territories. In the United States, the extent to which Indigenous voices are heard—let alone incorporated into decision-making—depends heavily on whether or not Native nations are recognized by the federal government. In the southeastern United States, non-federally recognized Indigenous peoples continue to occupy their homelands along rivers, floodplains, and wetlands. These peoples, and the Tribal governments that represent them, rarely enter environmental decision-making spaces as sovereign nations and experts in their own right. Nevertheless, plans to construct the Atlantic Coast Pipeline prompted non-federally recognized Tribes to demand treatment as Tribal nations during permitting. Actions by the Tribes, which are recognized by the state of North Carolina, expose barriers to participation in environmental governance faced by Indigenous peoples throughout the United States, and particularly daunting challenges faced by state-recognized Tribes. After reviewing the legal and political landscapes that Native nations in the United States must navigate, we present a case study focused on Atlantic Coast Pipeline planning and permitting. We deliberately center Native voices and perspectives, often overlooked in non-Indigenous narratives, to emphasize Indigenous actions and illuminate participatory barriers. Although the Atlantic Coast Pipeline was cancelled in 2020, the case study reveals four enduring barriers to Tribal participation: adherence to minimum standards, power asymmetries, procedural narrowing, and “color-blind” planning. We conclude by highlighting opportunities for federal and state governments, developers, and Indigenous peoples to breach these barriers.

The Political Consequences of Indigenous Resentment

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Edana Beauvais
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
Policy Attitudes ◽  
Settler Societies ◽  
Using Data ◽  
White Settlers ◽  
Original Survey

Abstract Understanding the legacy of settler colonialism requires understanding the nature and scope of anti-Indigenous attitudes. But what, exactly, are the political consequences of anti-Indigenous attitudes? Answering this question requires recognizing that attitudes toward Indigenous peoples are distinct from White racial attitudes toward other disempowered groups. In this paper, I introduce a novel measure of Indigenous resentment. I then show that Indigenous resentment is an important predictor of policy attitudes using data collected from an original survey of White settlers. I estimate the effect of both Indigenous resentment and negative affect on policy attitudes—opposition to welfare and support for pipeline developments—to make the case that Indigenous resentment is a better measure of anti-Indigenous attitudes than affective prejudice, and that Indigenous resentment is an important omitted variable in the study of public opinion in settler societies.

scholarly journals Contemporary Indigenous Australian Art and Native Title Land Claim

Arts ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Marie Geissler
Keyword(s):  
First Nations ◽  
Contemporary Art ◽  
Visual Art ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Indigenous Australian ◽  
Native Title ◽  
Land Title

This paper investigates a select number of examples in which largely non-literate First Nation peoples of Australia, like some First Nations peoples around the world, when faced with a judicial challenge to present evidence in court to support their land title claim, have drawn on their cultural materials as supporting evidence. Specifically, the text highlights the effective agency of indigenous visual expression as a communication tool within the Australian legal system. Further, it evaluates this history within an indigenous Australian art context, instancing where of visual art, including drawings and paintings, has been successfully used to support the main evidence in native title land claims. The focus is on three case studies, each differentiated by its distinct medium, commonly used in indigenous contemporary art—namely, ink/watercolours on paper, (Case study 1—the Mabo drawings of 1992), acrylics on canvas (Case study 2—the Ngurrara 11 canvas 1997) and ochre on bark, (Case study 3—The Saltwater Bark Collection 1997 (onwards)). The differentiation in the stylistic character of these visual presentations is evaluated within the context of being either a non-indigenous tradition (e.g., represented as European-like diagrams or sketches to detail areas and boundaries of the claim sites in question) or by an indigenous expressive context (e.g., the evidence of the claim is presented using traditionally inspired indigenous symbols relating to the claimant’s lands. These latter images are adaptations of the secret sacred symbols used in ceremonies and painting, but expressed in a form that complies with traditional protocols protecting secret, sacred knowledge). The following text details how such visual presentations in the aforementioned cases were used and accepted as legitimate legal instruments, on which Australian courts based their legal determinations of the native land title.

scholarly journals "The Legacy Will Be the Change": Reconciling How We Live with and Relate to Water

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Lindsay Day ◽  
Ashlee Cunsolo ◽  
Heather Castleden ◽  
Alex Sawatzky ◽  
Debbie Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Water Policy ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Knowledge Systems ◽  
Indigenous Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Be The Change ◽  
Canada Data

Current challenges relating to water governance in Canada are motivating calls for approaches that implement Indigenous and Western knowledge systems together, as well as calls to form equitable partnerships with Indigenous Peoples grounded in respectful Nation-to-Nation relationships. By foregrounding the perspectives of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, this study explores the nature and dimensions of Indigenous ways of knowing around water and examines what the inclusion of Indigenous voices, lived experience, and knowledge mean for water policy and research. Data were collected during a National Water Gathering that brought together 32 Indigenous and non-Indigenous water experts, researchers, and knowledge holders from across Canada. Data were analyzed thematically through a collaborative podcasting methodology, which also contributed to an audio-documentary podcast (www.WaterDialogues.ca).

scholarly journals Queer Settlers: Questioning Settler Colonialism in LGBT Asylum Processes in Canada

Refuge ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Fobear
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Settler Colonialism ◽  
Forced Migration ◽  
History Of ◽  
Sexual And Gender Minority ◽  
Refugee Claim ◽  
And Gender

Refugee and forced migration studies have focused primarily on the refugees’ countries of origin and the causes for migration. Yet it is also important to also critically investi- gate the processes, discourses, and structures of settlement in the places they migrate to. This has particular signifi- cance in settler states like Canada in which research on refugee and forced migration largely ignores the presence of Indigenous peoples, the history of colonization that has made settlement possible, and ways the nation has shaped its borders through inflicting control and violence on Indigenous persons. What does it mean, then, to file a refugee claim in a state like Canada in which there is ongoing colonial violence against First Nations communities? In this article, we will explore what it means to make a refugee claim based on sexual orientation and gender identity in a settler-state like Canada. For sexual and gender minority refugees in Canada, interconnected structures of col- onial discourse and regulation come into force through the Canadian asylum and resettlement process. It is through this exploration that ideas surrounding migration, asylum, and settlement become unsettled.

Controlling Land: Historical Representations of News Discourse in British Columbia

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-92
Author(s):  
Robert Harding
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
The Political ◽  
Special Interest Groups ◽  
News Discourse ◽  
First Case ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Will

News discourse about treaty issues privileges postcolonial discourses about ownership and governance of land and excludes a wide range of indigenous voices. this paper explores how news items interweave the frame “indigenous peoples as a threat” into their coverage of two events, analyzed as separate case studies, that have significant implications for the control of land in British Columbia. The first case study event is the Nisga'a's 1998 referendum on the Nisga'a Treaty and the second is the 2002 British Columbia Treaty Referendum. Reportage of both events was highly racialized and organized around the presumed threat that indigenous peoples pose to settler values. Discourse orbits around several rhetorical arguments, including “‘our’ government is colluding with First Nations to impose race-based governments on British Columbians; and “the will of the majority must prevail over the political maneuverings of minorities and other ‘special interest groups.'” While news discourse focused on the potentially destructive impact of treaties on settler interests, any discussion of the enormous risks treaties represent for indigenous peoples was completely absent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document