Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:49:57.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

First Nations, Citizenship and Animals, or Why Northern Indigenous People Might Not Want to Live in Zoopolis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Paul Nadasdy
Paul Nadasdy*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
*
Department of Anthropology and American Indian Studies, Cornell University, 229 McGraw Hall, Ithaca NY 14853USA, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent northern First Nation land claim agreements have created a new category of First Nation citizenship. Although many embrace the category as an essential aspect of First Nation sovereignty, others reject it as a colonial imposition that constrains the possibilities for indigenous politics. There does indeed appear to be a gap between the legal category of First Nation citizenship and northern indigenous peoples’ ideas about political society. For one thing, the latter includes animals, while the former does not. In their recent book, Zoopolis, Donaldson and Kymlicka develop a model of animal citizenship. Although not primarily concerned with First Nation citizenship, they do assert the universality of their model, including its compatibility with indigenous ideas about proper human-animal relations. In this article, I assess those claims and show that, to the contrary, their model is in many ways antithetical to the knowledge and practices of northern indigenous peoples.

Résumé

Des accords de revendication territoriale conclus récemment avec les Premières Nations du Nord ont créé une nouvelle catégorie, celle de citoyenneté des Premières Nations. Bien que cette catégorie soit considérée par de nombreuses personnes comme un aspect essentiel de la souveraineté des Premières Nations, d'autres la rejettent, car il s'agirait d'une imposition coloniale qui limite les possibilités en matière de politique autochtone. Il semble y avoir effectivement un hiatus entre la citoyenneté des Premières Nations comme catégorie juridique et les idées que se font les populations autochtones du Nord au sujet de la société politique. Entre autres, cette dernière notion inclut les animaux alors que ce n'est pas le cas pour la première. Dans leur ouvrage récent, Zoopolis, Donaldson et Kymlicka élaborent un modèle de citoyenneté pour les animaux. Bien que ces auteurs n'aient pas comme principale préoccupation la citoyenneté des Premières Nations, ils affirment l'universalité de leur modèle, incluant sa compatibilité avec les idées des autochtones sur ce que devraient être les relations entre les humains et les animaux. Dans cet article, j'analyse ces assertions et je démontre qu'au contraire, leur modèle est à maints égards aux antipodes du savoir et des pratiques des populations autochtones du Nord.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfred, Taiaiake. 1999. Peace, Power, Righteousness. Don Mills ON.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anaya, S. James. 2004. Indigenous Peoples in International Law. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. rev. ed. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Appadurai, Arjun. 2003. “Sovereignty without Territory: Notes for a Postnational Geography.” In The Anthropology of Space and Place, ed. Low, S. and Lawrence-Zúñiga, D.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Asch, Michael. 1989. “Wildlife: Defining the Animals the Dene Hunt and the Settlement of Aboriginal Rights Claims.” Canadian Public Policy 15 (2): 205–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, Michael. 2014. On Being Here to Stay. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Balée, William. 1992. “People of the Fallow: A Historical Ecology of Foraging in Lowland South America.” In Conservation of Neotropical Forests: Working from Traditional Resource Use, ed. Redford, Kent and Padoch, Christine. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Basso, Keith. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Beinart, William. 2007. Environment and Empire. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Carole. 2009. “Differentiating Indigenous Citizenship: Seeking Multiplicity in Rights, Identity, and Sovereignty in Canada.” American Ethnologist 36 (1): 66–78.Google Scholar
Black-Rogers, Mary. 1986. “Varieties of ‘Starving:’ Semantics and Survival in the Subarctic Fur Trade, 1750–1850.” Ethnohistory 33 (4): 353–83.Google Scholar
Borrows, John. 2002. Recovering Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Borrows, John. 2010a. Canada's Indigenous Constitution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Borrows, John. 2010b. Drawing out Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Brightman, Robert. 1993. Grateful Prey. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Hugh. 1987. Living Arctic. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Coulthard, Glen Sean. 2014. Red Skin, White Masks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Sue and Kymlicka, Will. 2011. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Sue and Kymlicka, Will. 2013. “Reply: Animal Citizenship, Liberal Theory and the Historical Moment.” Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review 52 (04): 769–86.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/knowledge, ed. Gordon, Colin. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Goulet, Jean-Guy. 1998. Ways of Knowing: Experience, Knowledge, and Power among the Dene Tha. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Hallowell, Irving. 1960. “Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and Worldview.” In Culture in History, ed. Diamond, Stanley. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hendrix, Burke A. 2010. “Political Theorists as Dangerous Social Actors.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (1): 41–61.Google Scholar
Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Janara, Laura. 2013. “Situating Zoopolis.” Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review 52 (04): 739–47.Google Scholar
Kulchyski, Peter and Tester, Frank J.. 2007. Kiumajut (Talking Back): Game Management and Inuit Rights, 1900–70. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will and Norman, Wayne, eds. 2000. Citizenship in Diverse Societies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B. 1979. The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B, and DeVore, Irven, eds. 1969. Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Lynge, Finn. 1992. Arctic Wars, Animal Rights, Endangered Peoples. Hanover NH: Dartmouth College, University Press of New England.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, John M. 1988. The Empire of Nature. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C. B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Marriott, McKim. 1976. Hindu Transactions. Chicago: University of Chicago, Committee on Southern Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1972. “On the Jewish Question.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Tucker, Robert C. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
McClellan, Catharine. 1987. Part of the Land, Part of the Water. Vancouver; Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre.Google Scholar
Mehta, Uday Singh. 1999. Liberalism and Empire. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Alexander. 1996. “The Sovereign State System as Political-Territorial Ideal: Historical and Contemporary Considerations.” In State Sovereignty as Social Construct, ed. Biersteker, Thomas J. and Weber, Cynthia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Natasha. 2015. “Conversations of Plant Sensing: Notes from the Field.” NatureCulture 3: 35–66.Google Scholar
Nadasdy, Paul. forthcoming. “Imposing Territoriality: First Nation Land Claims and the Transformation of Human-Environment Relations in the Yukon.” In Ice Blink: Navigating Northern Environmental History, ed. Martin, Brad and Bocking, Stephen. Calgary AB: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Nadasdy, Paul. 2003. Hunters and Bureaucrats. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Nadasdy, Paul. 2007. “The Gift in the Animal: The Ontology of Hunting and Human-Animal Sociality.” American Anthropologist 34 (1): 25–43.Google Scholar
Nadasdy, Paul. 2012. “Boundaries among Kin: Sovereignty, the Modern Treaty Process, and the Rise of Ethno-Territorial Nationalism among Yukon First Nations.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 54 (3): 499–532.Google Scholar
Natcher, David, Davis, Susan and Hickey, Clifford. 2005. “Co-Management: Managing Relationships, Not Resources.” Human Organization 64 (3): 240–50.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard K. 1983. Make Prayers to the Raven. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Omura, Keiichi. 2013. “The Ontology of Sociality: ‘Sharing’ and Subsistence Mechanisms.” In Groups: The Evolution of Human Sociality, ed. Kawai, Kaori. Kyoto Japan: Kyoto University Press.Google Scholar
Planinc, Emma. 2014. “Democracy, Despots and Wolves: On the Dangers of Zoopolis's Animal Citizen.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 47 (01): 1–21.Google Scholar
Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. “The Original Affluent Society.” In Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sandlos, John. 2007. Hunters at the Margin. UBC Press.Google Scholar
Smith, David. 1998. “An Athapaskan Way of Knowing: Chipewyan Ontology.” American Ethnologist 25 (3): 412–32.Google Scholar
Smith, David. 2002. “The Flesh and the Word: Stories and Other Gifts of the Animals in Chipewyan Cosmology.” Anthropology and Humanism 27 (1): 60–79.Google Scholar
Strang, David. 1996. “Contested Sovereignty: The Social Construction of Colonial Imperialism.” In State Sovereignty as Social Construct, ed. Biersteker, Thomas J. and Weber, Cynthia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tanner, Adrian. 1979. Bringing Home Animals. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Winichakul, Thongchai. 1994. Siam Mapped. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Torpey, John. 2000. The Invention of the Passport. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Bryan. 1990. “Outline of a Theory of Citizenship.” Sociology 24 (2): 189–217.Google Scholar
Wenzel, George. 1991. Animal Rights, Human Rights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar