Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T07:57:29.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notions of property: traditional land use and boundaries in the Deh Cho region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2012

Carol J. Brown-Leonardi
Carol J. Brown-Leonardi*
Affiliation:
The Centre for Citizenship, Identity and Governance (CCIG), Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6BJ and The Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities (CISH), University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester C04 3SQ ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Deh Cho Dene have been negotiating territorial land since early European settlement. This paper argues that the changing needs of Deh Cho Dene society has changed their concept of property and this transformation has evolved with a responsibility to conserve cultural practice and ecological balance in Deh Cho Dene territorial lands. The article considers how the changing need of European society addresses property and ownership in the context of basic human rights and consumer interests. It uses the theories of Macpherson, Locke, and Marx to construct a model to understand the property relations that exist in the Deh Cho Dene region. Accordingly, the paper addresses oral narratives to give historical insight into the relations between neighbouring tribal groups and their understanding of territorial boundaries. An account of present day negotiations highlights the various initiatives taken to protect traditional interests and uphold historical claim to the territory. The negotiation of joint ventures and property ownership has evolved with concerns over ecological sustainability and the protection of a subsistence lifestyle, which is critical for the social and economic interests of Deh Cho Dene culture, and is closely connected to the land.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 48 , Issue 3: THEMED SECTION: CONTESTED BORDERS AND IDENTITIES , July 2012 , pp. 249 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Brody, H. 1981. Maps and dreams. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre.Google Scholar
Burch, E.S. 1994. Rationality and resource use among hunters. In: Irimoto, T., and Yamada, T. (editors). Circumpolar region and ecology: an anthropology of the north. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press: 163–185.Google Scholar
Dickerson, M. 1992. Whose north? Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Fumoleau, R. 1975. As long as this land shall last: a history of Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, 1870–1939. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
Government of the Northwest Territories. 1981. The Dene of the Northwest Territories. Yellowknife: G.N.W.T. (Public information series).Google Scholar
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2000. Map of Asserted Deh Cho Territory. Yellowknife: DIAND.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1721. Essay concerning human understanding. London: A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1946. The second treaties of civil government; and a letter concerning toleration. (Editor J.W. Gough). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. 1964. The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. 1979. Property as mean or end. In: Parel, A., and Flanagan, T. (editors). Theories of property. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfried Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1968. Capital: a critique of the political economy. New York: New World Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Williams, N.M., and Hunn, E.S. (editors). 1986. Resource managers: North American and Australian hunter-gatherers. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Williams, N.M. 1986. The Yolangu and their land: a system of land tenure and the fight for its recognition. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar