Reframing Indigenous Territories: Private Property, Human Rights and Overlapping Claims

Abstract

This paper considers the implications of the powerful "overlapping territories" map produced by the government of Canada in its attempt to refute human rights violations charges brought by Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The map is at the core of Canada's defense in that it suggests that overlapping indigenous territories negate claims of exclusivity over the land and therefore any kind of obligations the state may have in respect of human or other indigenous rights in those lands. Revealing the limits of cartographic abstractions of indigenous spatialities, as well as the perilous stakes for indigenous peoples when engaging in conventional discourses of territoriality, these issues have broad significance.

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. 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.…”

“…Yet, such dynamics of coexistence and entanglement inevitably take shape as politics, or even as a political ontology (Blaser 2009), and are manifested in different ways—as agreements and alliances, conflicts and misunderstandings, and negotiations and compromises between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous peoples and their respective institutions. The study of entangled territorialities makes it possible to rethink mapping and bordering practices while taking into account the power dynamics and the ontological and political relationships and conflicts taking place within these territories in the contemporary context (Nadasdy 2002, 2012; Palmer 2012; Sletto 2009; Thom 2009, 2014, 2017). In this regard, the concept of entangled territorialities seems more appropriate than that of “overlapping territories” because it emphasizes the interactions and interweaving of land tenures which, in practice, can lead to conflicting relationships between users of the land.…”

“…As part of the comprehensive land claim process, the Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok are required to map the extent and boundaries of their claimed ancestral territory and have had to appropriate Western concepts of “ownership” and “boundary” in order to circumscribe their ancestral territories, at the risk of raising conflicts between neighbouring Indigenous families, communities, and nations (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Sletto 2009; Thom 2009, 2014, 2015). Thus, the “political maps” (Vincent 2016) developed in the context of territorial negotiations between Indigenous and state governments imply the reproduction of a logic tied to borders and exclusive territorial occupation modelled on the (Western) state model of private property (Thom 2010, 2015; Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Vincent 2016; Pasternak 2017; Peterson 2017).…”

Financiers in the forests on Vancouver Island, British Columbia: On fixes and colonial enclosures

“…The sticking point in the Hul'quimi'num negotiations has been that 85% of their land is privately owned and TimberWest and Island Timberlands “own” 60% of the territory. As Egan (; see also Thom, ) discusses, the roadblock in the negotiations has been the Crown's unwillingness to include the privately held land within the treaty process.…”