Introduction
As Aboriginal Peoples stand to lose the most from the development of their lands and its resources the co-management model is believed agreed to be an appropriate model in ensuring Aboriginal knowledge, values, and goals are including in decisions regarding the management of resources on their lands (Nadasdy, 1999). The model however, is based on a set of principles with no set standards. Therefore this report aims to survey the subject literature to provide insight into such questions as, what is co-management and how does it fit with Aboriginal environmental knowledge and value systems? The report will end with a summary of challenges and best practices in cross cultural co-management agreements.
Principles of Co-management
Co-management is defined and applied in various ways depending on the stakeholders and the resources involved (Booth & Skelton, 2010). One of the foremost guiding principles of co-management is that it involves the formation of an agreement between “government and local resources users” (Berkes, George & Preston, 1991, 12). Additionally, this partnership is about sharing the responsibilities of managing one or more natural resources (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005). Common stakeholders include federal, territorial, and provincial governments, Aboriginal Peoples, and environmental groups (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005).
Indigenous Rights as Equal Partners
Historically, Aboriginal Peoples in Canada have rarely been invited as partners in the development of their land, but as mere consultants, or worse their input has not been considered (Booth & Skelton, 2010). Aboriginal Peoples have always asserted themselves as First Peoples of the lands and therefore as having the right to be consulted and included in...
... middle of paper ...
...nowledge: Resource management and inuit knowledge of barren-ground caribou. Society & Natural Resources, 21(5), 404-418.
Mulrennan, M.E. (in press) Aboriginal Peoples in relation to resource and environmental management. In Mitchell, B. (ed) Resource and Environmental Management in Canada. Chapter 3, Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
Mulrennan, M. E., Mark, R., & Scott, C. (2013). Revamping community-based conservation through participatory research. The Canadian geographer, 56(2), 243-259
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of tek: power and "integration" of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36(1-2), 1-18.
Nadasdy, P. (2003). Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic, 56(4), 367-380.
Turner, N. J., & Berkes, F. (2006). Coming to understanding: Developing conservation through incremental learning in the pacific northwest. Human Ecology, (34), 495-513.
Inuit Odyssey, by CBC’s: The Nature of Things covers the long and eventful journey of the Inuit people. Canadian anthropologist, Dr. Niobe Thompson searched for the answers to questions about who the modern day Inuit are, where did they come from, how did they survive and who did they conquer along the way? Thompson explored the direct lineage between modern day Inuit and the Thule people, and their interactions with the Dorset and Norse Vikings in their search for iron. Thompson is ultimately concerned with how the current warming climate will affect the Inuit people therefore, he decides to retrace the creation of the Inuit culture, starting his journey in the original homeland of the Thule people.
In this paper, I will consider James Tully’s argument for an element “sharing” in a just relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of Canada. I will claim that “sharing” is one of principles to the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who has connection with economic, political and legal relations. I will argue, that it is important to build “sharing” into a new, postcolonial relationship since it brings beneficial to country. I will also state proponent view with James Tully’s discussion that utilization of “sharing” to economic, political, and legal relations is essential to our society.
First I will define the definition of terms used in this paper. When I use the word Aboriginal, I understand this as a label given from the colonizers/ Europeans to identify Indigenous peoples. Canadian legislation defines Indigenous peoples as Aboriginal, I understand this as indifferent from the dominant ideology, therefore, the colonizers named Indigenous peoples as Aboriginal. According to teachings I have been exposed to it’s a legal term and it’s associated with discrimination and oppression. However, audiences I have written for prefer the use of Aboriginal. More premise to this reference is Aboriginal, Indigenous, First Nations, Indian and Native are used interchangeable, but it should be noted these names do represent distinct differences. Furthermore, I will use Indigenous to represent an empowering way to reference a unique general culture in Canada. Under the title of Indigenous peoples in Canada, for me represents: First Nations people, Metis people and Inuit peoples. These are the two titles I will use when I reference Indigenous people from an empowering perspective and Aboriginal from a colonizer perspective.
Despite the decreasing inequalities between men and women in both private and public spheres, aboriginal women continue to be oppressed and discriminated against in both. Aboriginal people in Canada are the indigenous group of people that were residing in Canada prior to the European colonization. The term First Nations, Indian and indigenous are used interchangeably when referring to aboriginal people. Prior to the colonization, aboriginal communities used to be matrilineal and the power between men and women were equally balanced. When the European came in contact with the aboriginal, there came a shift in gender role and power control leading towards discrimination against the women. As a consequence of the colonization, the aboriginal women are a dominant group that are constantly subordinated and ignored by the government system of Canada. Thus today, aboriginal women experiences double jeopardy as they belong to more than one disadvantaged group i.e. being women and belonging to aboriginal group. In contemporary world, there are not much of a difference between Aboriginal people and the other minority groups as they face the similar challenges such as gender discrimination, victimization, and experiences injustice towards them. Although aboriginal people are not considered as visible minorities, this population continues to struggle for their existence like any other visible minorities group. Although both aboriginal men and women are being discriminated in our society, the women tends to experience more discrimination in public and private sphere and are constantly the targeted for violence, abuse and are victimized. In addition, many of the problems and violence faced by aborigin...
The journey for the Aboriginals to receive the right to keep and negotiate land claims with the Canadian government was long but prosperous. Before the 1970's the federal government chose not to preform their responsibilities involving Aboriginal issues, this created an extremely inefficient way for the Aboriginals to deal with their land right problems. The land claims created by the Canadian government benefited the aboriginals as shown through the Calder Case, the creation of the Office of Native Claims and the policy of Outstanding Business.
“In about half of the Dominion, the aboriginal rights of Indians have arguably been extinguished by treaty” (Sanders, 13). The traditions and culture of Aboriginals are vanishing at a quick pace, and along it is their wealth. If the Canadian Government restore Native rights over resource development once again, Aboriginals would be able to gain back wealth and help with the poverty in their societies. “An influential lobby group with close ties to the federal Conservatives is recommending that Ottawa ditch the Indian Act and give First Nations more control over their land in order to end aboriginal poverty once and for all” (End First). This recommendation would increase the income within Native communities, helping them jump out of
Aboriginal people groups depended on an assortment of unmistakable approaches to sort out their political frameworks and establishments prior to contact with Europeans. Later, a considerable amount of these establishments were overlooked or legitimately stifled while the national government endeavored to force a uniform arrangement of limitlessly distinctive Euro-Canadian political goals on Aboriginal social orders. For some Aboriginal people groups, self-government is seen as an approach to recover control over the administration of matters that straightforwardly influence them and to safeguard their social characters. Self-government is alluded to as an inherent right, a previous right established in Aboriginal people groups' long occupation
The unit readings argue that anthropologists insist that global flows also partake in affecting local practices. The beliefs and customs of the Inuit are accounted for their interaction with the environment, but these factors also interrelate with neighbouring societies, global capitalism, and international NGOs, as Martha of the North describes. The Inuit were used by the Canadian government in a form of racism and cruelty. To affirm sovereignty in the vast arctic land, Canada had to have permanent residences residing within these territories. They had created a façade that they were providing the Inuit with the opportunity of a better life when in reality, they did not care about them at all. The government had less than honest intentions. What the people who represented the nation did to the relocation of the Inuit is unacceptable and its effect can be explained through holism but also goes beyond the concept on an international scale. Global practices influenced the local practices of the Inuit in the High Arctic. The government representatives of Canada at that time did not value the lives of these people and only cared about their own
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
Shah, Anup. "Rights of Indigenous People." Global Issues. N.p., 16 Oct. 2010. Web. 3 May 2014. .
Bastien, B. (2011). Blackfoot ways of knowing: The worldview of the siksikaitsitapi. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press.
Holism is present and the importance of nature and the maintenance of a traditional life-style (stick four). Through McLeod’s (2007) work we see a bond between landscape and other beings. “Through ceremonies, prayers, and songs, the Nehiyawak were able to communicate with other beings and the powers of the land around them, the Atayohkanak, the spiritual grandfathers and grandmothers” (p. 26). McLeod goes on to state that the power of ceremonies in a relationship is not limited to a human-to-human relationship. For example, “[t]he pipe stem is significant for the Nehiiyawak, the Dene and other Indigenous nations as a way of concluding arrangements… [it] was more than… a way of sealing political arrangements… it was a way of making and affirming relationships with the land, of honouring the spiritual powers who dwelt where the people were living.” (McLeod, 2007, p. 27) As well, language is a reoccurring theme. McLeod (2007) attributes much of the continuity of the Cree people to maintaining language which is often through the elders (in his instance, his
The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400). The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognizes Indian sovereignty and its entitlement to land, became the benchmark for treaty making in Canada (Epp, 2008, p. 133; Isaac & Annis, p. 47, 48; Leeson, 2008, p. 226). There are currently 70 recognized treaties in Canada, encompassing 50 percent of Canadian land mass and representing over 600,000 First Nations people (Canada, 2013). These treaties usually have monetary provisions along with some financial benefits given by the Crown, in exchange for lands and its resources (Egan, 2012, p. 409). Its purpose should be an equal sharing of wealth that is beneficial for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals (Egan, 2012, p. 414).
Wilcock, D. A. (2013). From blank spcaes to flows of life: transforming community engagment in environmental decision-making and its implcations for localsim. Policy Studies 34:4, 455-473.
* Daily, Gretchen C., ed. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997.