Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Craig Proulx
(St. Thomas University)
- Stream:
- Worlds in motion: Anthropology in movement/Mondes en mouvement: Anthropologie en mouvement
- Location:
- FSS 11003
- Start time:
- 3 May, 2017 at
Time zone: America/New_York
- Session slots:
- 2
Short Abstract:
Indigenous peoples around the world are engaged in, among others, various forms of physical, discursive, political and economic movement. This panel will interrogate Indigenous mobility and the role of anthropologists play in it across a host of vectors.
Long Abstract:
Indigenous peoples around the world are engaged in, among others, various forms of physical, discursive, political and economic movement. They are also involved in resisting constructions of their mobility as a political-economic problem by various state and corporate actors. Settlers around the world, uncomfortable with these contexts and actions, attempt to re-frame, recalibrate and block this resistance. Anthropologists continue to play a role in understanding, translating, collaborating and building relationships with Indigenous movements while sometimes being criticized for this work by Indigenous peoples. This panel will interrogate Indigenous mobility and the role of anthropologists play in it across a host of vectors. For example, what anti-racist projects are enacted to confront Settler resistance to Indigenous mobility? How are movement discourses of recognition, reconciliation and healing etc. being furthered and/or contested? How is consultation being mobilized in treaty negotiations and/or other Indigenous/state/corporate contexts? What Indigenous protests are mobilized to confront dissatisfactions, oppressions and securitizations? How is how the new mobility of Indigenous peoples disrupting racism, multiculturalism, nation building and normalizing discourses? How are forms of media used by Indigenous peoples, Settlers and anthropologists to advocate for and/or against the above movements? How is Indigenous knowledge changing medical praxis and resource extraction regimes? How are anthropologists seen as allies or as hindrances in these movements and resistances? This panel will consider other views on movement, Indigenous peoples and anthropologists.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper short abstract:
Anthropological dilemmas involved in indigenizing a university
Paper long abstract:
Settlers have mobilized to "indigenize" colonial institutions from the red faces in white places policies and practices within policing to today's call to indigenize the academy. At the heart of these moves have been recognition, reconciliation and healing discourses which many indigenous peoples and anthropologists have rightly criticized. This paper discusses dilemmas I faced as an anthropologist on a senate university indigenization committee. In particular I focus on how the efforts to change education for all through indigenization continue to normalize settler coloniality.
Paper short abstract:
Piliwitahasuwawsuwakon is the Wolostoqey word best encompassing the idea of transformation. Academia should be central in the move to Indigenize. Yet real transformation is only slowly moving across the academic 'learning-scape.' Can anthropology offer any insights into this emergent transformation?
Paper long abstract:
As an anthropologist in a faculty of Education, I have observed and been party to an ever growing number of Indigenizing processes, procedures and programs. For my Wolastoqey colleagues, these changes are both exciting and daunting because the demands placed on them increase with each new effort and idea. Just what does it mean to Indigenize academia? And how can that change become deep and abiding transformation, or Piliwitahasuwawsuwakon: to change one's heart and mind; to walk on a different path; to think differently? Reflexive participatory action, Indigenous methodologies, and ethnographic engagement help explore what Piliwitahasuwawsuwakon means for my colleagues and myself from our varied perspectives.
Paper short abstract:
Indigenous movement in Eastern India by the Primitive Tribal group of Klahandi and Raygada districts of Odisha , Eastern India, in South Asia, against Vedanta Aluminium Industry is the burning example of empowered voices from the indigenous community.
Paper long abstract:
Niyamgiri is a range of hills which is elongated through Kalahandi and Rayagada districts of Odisha, India in South Asia. It is into contention in last decade in Orissa regarding hiring the Niyamgiri Bauxite reserve located on the top of Niyamgiri hill by the British Vedanta Group. It is basically dominated with Primitive Tribal Group such as Dongaria Kondha and Kutia Kondha of Eastern India in South Asia. The intensity of pollution had disturbed the structural balance of biodiversity and affected the socio-cultural elements of settlers of Niyamgiri hill. Consequently, the appeal of the environmentalists and the tribal were accounted by the Supreme Court of India and it came to the rescue of these scheduled tribal. The Supreme Court declared for the holding of 'Gram Sabhas' in twelve different villages in the districts of Kalahandi and Raygada in presence of district administration. This was the stage of complete rejection and all the participant tribal voted against the industry and for the first time in the history of the world democracy indigenous decision compelled the multi corer projects to be banned immediately.
Paper short abstract:
In 2016 an expert witness argued an acre of land, a milk cow, and a garden were sufficient to support a family. BC government officials referred to hunting rights as a “pie”, which was insufficient to further share. This paper explores using (in)sufficient foods to limit Sinixt rights in BC.
Paper long abstract:
In the fall of 2016 charges against a Sinixt (Lakes) hunter from the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington state were heard in BC Criminal court. This case is significant as Sinixt were classified as "extinct" by the Canadian government in 1956. An anthropologist expert witness for the prosecution argued that an acre of land, a milk cow, and a garden were sufficient to support a family, while BC government officials referred to hunting rights as a "pie", which was insufficient to further share. The prosecution proposed hunting was no longer "integral to Sinixt" and that they moved south to "enthusiastically pursue farming" and, by doing so, had given up their rights to Sinixt traditional territory in BC. This paper will explore the use of (in)sufficient foods as justification to limit Sinixt aboriginal rights and title in British Columbia, Canada.
Paper short abstract:
I compare two collections of James Bay Eeyou narratives and proposals to governments, companies and Eeyou youth about possibilities and uncertainties of co-surviving forests, animals, hunters and loggers. The possibilities are embedded with enduring but fragmented experiences of co-governing.
Paper long abstract:
Dialogues with animals and other persons are among the ways that some James Bay Eeyou hunters seek to survive and live well in an emergent world. Similar dialogues are also part of the ways that some Eeyou hunters seek to survive and live in the midst of non-Cree governments' agency and developers' projects. In this paper I compare and contrast two collections of Eeyou narratives. In 1975, in the midst of initial phases of hydro-electric development, hunting families reflected on ways of surviving and told stories of times of starving to youth. In 1999 Eeyou hunting families gave court affidavits seeking changes in forestry company practices in order to renew forests. In related and differing ways these narratives tell stories of seeking and at some important moments engaging in respectful dialogues, practices, relations and mutually recognized if discontinuous co-governance with non-Crees, amidst recurrent destructive logics and practices. Some of these dialogues offer grounded experiences, explanations, and emergent proposals for the co-surviving of forests, animals, hunters and loggers. Some proposals offer unexpected, grounded, specific, yet hard to enable possibilities for futures living on the land. They are hard to envisage both from the land and because of markets. Yet some respected hunters pursue these chancy possibilities even at risk to their lands and future choices. In both earlier and later narratives the relations of hunters, animals, forests, governments and companies raise ever-changing situated uncertainties of survival along with unanticipated possibilities of continuing to live with the land.
Paper short abstract:
This paper presents stories shared by Piikani and Ktunaxa people on “Following Deer", establishing treaty-ecologies across territories. I then discuss how treaty ecologies re-emerge and have decolonial purchase in current land protection efforts against massively invasive pipeline projects.
Paper long abstract:
In this paper I will present stories shared with me by Piikani and Ktunaxa people, stories of "Following Deer" as effective treaty-ecology within a territory. These are explicit stories of movement and encounter, and they are wholly non-colonial, indeed they are the opposite of colonial. As I will discuss, the stories are based on restoring the continuity of "living-with" and "living-together" relational practices, together constituting what may be referred to as "treaty ecologies" After contouring the political dimensions treaty ecologies, I discuss how similar ideas and praxes are emerging and propagating across multiple land-defender, water-protection resistance sites, mostly associated with massive scale pipeline projects. Two examples of this are the Standing Rock camps heading off the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the multiple camps in or near the west coast of Canada, established to halt mining and pipeline development, and in particular those protecting the land from advancement of the Kinder Morgan Pipeline. The approach is based in decolonial commitment - which is to say that we first acknowledge conditions of ongoing coloniality but then seek to act in ways that interrupt, replace, and dissolve those conditions - by enacting their pragmatic opposite. In other words, we displace an ecology of coloniality by enacting an ecology of treaty, which requires humans, animals, all things working and living well together, inter-personally and inter-politically.
Paper short abstract:
This paper examines the ways in which members of one Anishinaabeg community have engaged with state impositions of artificial boundaries that constrain movement, identity, and bodies.
Paper long abstract:
Anishinaabeg people inhabit a world in flux, full of beings, spirits, stories, memories, waterways and trails that traverse multiple dimensions. This fluidity of lived places has been constrained by colonial impositions of boundedness as people and landscapes have been subjected to various forms of overt state control, and more recently, subversive forms of managerialism. The conceptualization of Anishinaabeg communities as circumscribed spaces has served as a means to alienate people from their territories and responsibilities to human and other-than-human kin, while simultaneously overlooking the various ways in which activities imposed outside of Anishinaabeg communities contribute to environmental degradation and change within them. Drawing on three years of research with Dokis First Nation in Northern Ontario, this paper examines the ways in which members of one Anishinaabeg community have negotiated state impositions of artificial boundaries that constrain movement, identity, and bodies. This paper asks: what role can Anthropologists play in contesting the construction of Anishinaabeg territorial use and relationality? How might we differently consider connectedness between human and other-than human components of our land and waterscapes that flow through constructed geo-political boundaries? And, what moves -methodologically and epistemologically - must anthropologists make in order to avoid re-impositions of the ways in which lived land and waterscapes are understood?
Paper short abstract:
In the summer of 1971 anthropologist Adrian Tanner submitted a specially commissioned report entitled “Sickness and Ideology among the Ojibway” to the authorities of the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital. The authorities promptly ignored the clear and cogent suggestions Tanner put forth, shelving his report.
Paper long abstract:
In the summer of 1971 British born Canadian anthropologist Adrian Tanner submitted a specially commissioned report entitled "Sickness and Ideology among the Ojibway" to the authorities of the Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital. The authorities promptly ignored the clear and cogent suggestions Tanner put forth, shelving his report. Rediscovered in the sealed archives of the University of Toronto by medical anthropologist Gerald McKinley in 2014, this paper has never been published. During his doctoral studies Tanner ethnographically explored the experience of illness and health he found among northern Ontario community members through first hand interviews and participant-observation in various locales. The newly formed Sioux Lookout Zone Hospital Archives Project will (among other work) reassess the reasons for the report having been undervalued, and will reconsider the original report in the wake of the "ontological turn" in anthropology. Tanner identified two distinct "ideologies" relating to illness and disease in the northern communities that he visited. One followed a Western or bio-medical model of the causes and cures of many common ailments. The other constructed a relational perspective on the vectors and treatments of issues arising from transgressions against "others," broadly understood by Ojibwe and Cree to include other-than-human persons. Tanner's proposal of a long term research project with the aim of tracing culturally situated notions of being-well, or Bimadaziwin, is only now becoming a reality with several projects converging in the area, each working to return stories to the people who have been affected by them.