Boundaries among Kin: Sovereignty, the Modern Treaty Process, and the Rise of Ethno-Territorial Nationalism among Yukon First Nations

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>The Canadian government recently concluded a series of land claim and self-government agreements with many First Nations in the Yukon Territory. A result of First Nation claims to land and sovereignty in the region, these modern treaties grant First Nations some real powers of self-governance. They are framed in the idiom of sovereignty, but they also compel First Nation people to accept—in practice if not in theory—a host of Euro-American assumptions about power and governance that are implicit in such a framing. This article focuses on a central premise of the sovereignty concept: territorial jurisdiction. The Yukon agreements carve the Yukon into fourteen distinct First Nation “traditional territories.” Although many assume that these territories reflect “traditional” patterns of land-use and occupancy, indigenous society in the Yukon was not composed of distinct political entities each with jurisdiction over its own territory. Thus, the agreements do not simply formalize jurisdictional boundaries among pre-existing First Nation polities; rather, they are mechanisms for creating the legal and administrative systems that bring those polities into being. The powers these agreements confer come in the territorial currency of the modern state, and territorialization processes they engender are transforming First Nation society in radical and often unintended ways. One significant aspect of this transformation is the emergence of multiple ethno-territorial identities, and corresponding nationalist sentiments. I examine these processes by focusing on two cases of contemporary boundary making among Yukon First Nations.</jats:p>

Analyzing entangled territorialities and Indigenous use of maps: Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok (Quebec, Canada) dynamics of territorial negotiations, frictions, and creativity

“…In Indigenous studies, the concept of overlapping territories is often used to identify areas of occupation that are claimed by at least two Indigenous nations (Sletto 2009; Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Thom 2014; Vincent 2016). In the context of territorial negotiations between Indigenous nations and the federal and provincial governments, the issue of overlapping territories is problematic since each Indigenous nation must, according to the federal government's Comprehensive Land Claims Policy , demonstrate an “exclusive” occupation of the territory (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016). In this context, the federal and provincial governments are suggesting to First Nations that they resolve this issue of territorial overlap by negotiating an overlap resolution boundary (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016) among themselves.…”

“…In the context of territorial negotiations between Indigenous nations and the federal and provincial governments, the issue of overlapping territories is problematic since each Indigenous nation must, according to the federal government's Comprehensive Land Claims Policy , demonstrate an “exclusive” occupation of the territory (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016). In this context, the federal and provincial governments are suggesting to First Nations that they resolve this issue of territorial overlap by negotiating an overlap resolution boundary (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016) among themselves. It is obvious that, during this negotiation process, the various levels of government are compelling the Indigenous nations present at the negotiating table to frame their claims within fairly narrow boundaries, constraining them to appropriate and use discursive strategies specific to ethno‐territorial state nationalism (see Figure 1) (Sletto 2009; Thom 2009, 2014, 2015; Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012).…”

“…In this context, the federal and provincial governments are suggesting to First Nations that they resolve this issue of territorial overlap by negotiating an overlap resolution boundary (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016) among themselves. It is obvious that, during this negotiation process, the various levels of government are compelling the Indigenous nations present at the negotiating table to frame their claims within fairly narrow boundaries, constraining them to appropriate and use discursive strategies specific to ethno‐territorial state nationalism (see Figure 1) (Sletto 2009; Thom 2009, 2014, 2015; Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012). I shall return to this later in this paper, but let me point out now that for most members of Algonquian nations (the term includes several First Nations in North America, among them the Ojibway, Anicinabe, Eeyouch [Cree], Innus, and Atikamekw Nehirowisiw), this issue of overlapping territories is not actually a problem related to a discrepancy between historical interpretations regarding occupation.…”

“…The issue of the entanglement of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous territorial regimes in Canada has been addressed in several studies over the past century. Examples include the works of Speck (1915), Cooper (1939), Speck and Eiseley (1939), Hallowell (1949), Leacock (1954), Mailhot and Vincent (1980), Bishop and Morantz (1986), Tanner (1986), Feit (1991, 1998), Leroux, Chamberland, Brazeau, and, Dubé (2004), Scott (2004), Nadasdy (2012), Palmer (2012), Vincent (2016), Poirier (2017), and Chaplier and Scott (2018), among others. In the case of the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok, recent studies have focused on issues related to the coexistence of forest resource management practices (Wyatt 2004; Fortier and Wyatt 2014; Wyatt and Chilton 2014; Fortier 2017); Indigenous political practices and decision making processes regarding resources management (Houde 2011, 2014); and process of intergenerational territorial knowledge transmission and normative practices (Poirier and Niquay 1999; Poirier 2014; Éthier 2014; Éthier 2017).…”

Ethno‐Territoriality and Ethnic Conflict

“… For an excellent analysis of the rise of ethno‐territorial nationalism among First Nations in the Yukon in recent years as a result of negotiations with the Canadian government see Nadasdy (). …”