‘Destination Indigenous’: Wilderness Tourism, White Guilt, and Indigenous Ghosts in Algernon Blackwood's Canadian Gothic

Cynthia Sugars. Canadian Gothic: Literature, History and the Spectre of Self-Invention. Cardiff: U of Wales P, 2014. Pp. x, 291. US$150.00. Cynthia Sugars' Canadian Gothic explores the ghosts of settlers past and how recent diasporic and Indigenous writers are unsettling their inherited traditions. Sugars argues that the use of the Gothic is a long-standing strategy for connecting the Old World and New World through shared literary mythologies and for infusing the untamable Canadian landscape with a narrativized past. This Gothic tradition, however, is founded on an exclusionary nationalism that renders non-white Anglo-Canadians as other. Building on her earlier work on the postcolonial Gothic and the unhomely, Sugars makes another significant contribution to the field of Canadian Gothic scholarship by examining the longstanding mutually constitutive relationship between Canadian nationalism, the land, and ghosts in a variety of literary genres. Canadian Gothic spans the sixteenth to the twenty-first centuries to trace the Gothic literary in what is now called Canada; the book is divided into seven chapters that not only offer a historical survey and an analysis of multiple genres but also explore the distinctions between Anglo- and French-Canadian Gothic narratives. Canadian Gothic ultimately establishes the persistent presence of ghosts and the Gothic in Canadian literature. Canadian Gothic begins by analyzing the often overlooked ghosts in two famous Canadian poems, Robert Services Cremation of Sam McGee (1907) and John McCrae's In Flanders Fields (1919). The Introduction then turns to a myriad of writers, such as Susanna Moodie, Duncan Campbell Scott, Robertson Davies, James Reaney, and Margaret Sweatman, among others, in order to argue that from very early on the Gothic has held a precarious, even contradictory, position in Canadian because Canada had long been perceived as either a location of monstrous extremes or an empty terrain that was unhaunted by a historical tradition (8). Ironically, as Sugars asserts, the absence of a Canadian past or mythology is conveyed through Gothic sensations of horrific newness. Chapter One delves deeper into Gothic absence and the paradoxical phenomenon of being haunted by a lack of ghosts. Using white European explorers' encounters with the New World as case studies, the first chapter demonstrates how early explorers projected their psychic fears onto Indigenous peoples. The second chapter surveys the larger national investment in the Gothic as a strategy for defining a Canadian identity. Sugars asserts that settler Canadian literature has its beginnings been haunted by its efforts to 'story' itself (50); in short, absence of the Gothic is aligned with a failure of poetry and a failure of imagination--more specifically with a failure to write Canada into history (67). Sugars suggests that the Gothic not only captures the speciality of a lacking Canadian national identity but also, as a form of artistic creation, offers a solution to this absence. While Chapter Two equates Canadas lack of a national mythology with a lack of ghosts, Chapter Three develops an analysis of psychic projection by arguing that Anglo-Canadian writers started replacing the Indigenous other with a Francophone spectral threat. …

Settler Violence? Race and Emergent Frontiers of Progress in Honduras Christopher A. Loperena (bio) The displacement of black and indigenous peoples from sites of economic opportunity in Honduras, and the systematic enclosure of the natural resources within their territories, is intimately tethered to white socio-spatial imaginaries and the politics of frontier making. In this essay, I analyze how elite investors, with support from the state and multilateral development banks, mobilize the ideology of national progress to further disenfranchise rural communities of color and to legitimate acts of violence against land and environmental activists. This violence has increased dramatically since the 2009 coup against Manual Zelaya Rosales, which was followed by a surge in extractivist activities throughout the national territory. In the quest for land, mestizo elites harness both legal and physical coercion to seize vital natural resources within indigenous and black territories.1 The process of turning indigenous territories into frontier zones for economic development underscores not only the racialized dimensions of dispossession but also the ways in which violence is used to hasten the power and racial domination of mestizo settlers over indigenous and black peoples.2 Settler colonialism, according to Patrick Wolfe, entails conquering the land and then populating the conquered territory with the victorious people. Although qualitatively different from the colonial project imposed by the Spanish and Portuguese—at least from an ideological perspective, since it was contingent on the incorporation of indigenous peoples into the national body politic—settler colonialism remains pertinent to analyses of race relations in Latin America. Wolfe states that settler colonialism is an ongoing process premised on a “logic of elimination.”3 Through an analysis of settler violence, I elucidate the relationship between settler colonial logics and contemporary development practices in Honduras. The ongoing removal and elimination of indigenous and black peoples is epitomized by the targeted repression and killing of key indigenous social movement activists, including the March 2016 assassination of Goldman Environmental Prize winner Berta Cáceres. [End Page 801] The logic of elimination is also expressed through legal arrangements that erode collective property rights and undermine black and indigenous sovereignty over the natural resources within their territories. Although Honduras has signed and ratified international legal conventions on the territorial rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, the state has aggressively pursued development projects that directly violate these rights. Even communities in possession of titles to their lands are subject to these forms of expropriation, particularly when the motive is couched within the discourse of national progress. Progress as Settler Colonial Logic In Latin America, national progress is crucially bound up with white socio-spatial epistemologies, which relegate indigenous peoples to a mythical past and thus render invisible contemporary indigenous peoples’ existence and political vitality.4 Indeed, the ideology of indo-Hispanic racial mixture, or mestizaje, has been used to negate indigenous and black territorial claims and to buttress the political and economic aspirations of the mestizo elite. The incorporation of indigenous peoples into the nation through the ideology of mestizaje ultimately furthers the whitening project on which postcolonial national identity was founded.5 Aspirations to whiten the nation gain material coherence through development practice. Following Keisha-Khan Perry, I understand development projects as the spatial dimension of the whitening ideology.6 The proliferation of extractivist economic activities within black and indigenous territories asserts national sovereignty over the natural resources to which rural communities of color lay claim, and thereby buttresses white spatial imaginaries. Sharlene Mollet’s research in the Honduran Mosquitia illustrates how indigenous land use practices are defined as backward and thus deemed, by the state, unsuitable for market production.7 In this way, racist understandings of indigenous inferiority position mestizo colonos (settlers) as more apt to use the land productively and thus legitimates their continued presence and spatial dominance over black and indigenous peoples. Indeed, the notion of “idle” or “underutilized” land has served as a central justification for the usurpation of lands in areas populated by indigenous and black peoples and which have been folded into the agrarian reform policies adopted by the state, beginning with the Agrarian Reform Law of 1962. Because indigenous and black peoples’ lands were often classified as underutilized, they were subject...

Indigenous peoples need a proper demarcation of Traditional Territories. Traditional Territories are the basis for exercising the collective rights of consultation and consent, and for negotiating the contents of the right to lands and natural resources recognized by the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law. The demarcation would have supported Indigenous peoples to tell their land stories, to denounce the historical injustice, and to practice their customary law. It would have bridged the gap between Indigenous peoples and the state, and between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous society for mutual understanding and reconciliation. This chapter, however, shows how controversial are the Demarcation Regulations issued by the Council of Indigenous Peoples. The author argues that the Regulations ignore the diversity and significance of Traditional Territories and merely focus on a fixed boundary. Therefore, it is inconsistent with historical fact or Indigenous customary law. The Regulations also confine Indigenous Traditional Territories only to public lands because the Council of Indigenous Peoples wants to prevent private property rights from the infringement by Indigenous consultation and consent rights. As a result, it is misleading to imagine Traditional Territories and private property as mutually exclusive. The tension between Indigenous collective rights and property rights is also exaggerated.

Loss of land could threaten health of Sámi people

Under the legacy of neoliberalism, it is important to consider how the indigenous people, in this case of Australia, are to advance, develop and achieve some approximation of parity with broader societies in terms of health, educational outcomes and economic participation. In this paper, we explore the relationships between welfare dependency, individualism, responsibility, rights, liberty and the role of the state in the provision of Government-funded programmes of sport to Indigenous communities. We consider whether such programmes are a product of ‘white guilt’ and therefore encourage dependency and weaken the capacity for independence within communities and individuals, or whether programmes to increase rates of participation in sport are better viewed as good investments to bring about changes in physical activity as (albeit a small) part of a broader social policy aimed at reducing the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in health, education and employment.

Indigenous peoples are uniquely vulnerable to environmental harm because of the increasing pressures on their lands and resources, as well as the cultural and religious links they maintain with their ancestral territories. There are more than 200 million indigenous people in the world. Most of them live in highly vulnerable ecosystems: the Arctic and tundra, tropical and boreal forests, riverine and coastal zones, and mountains and semiarid rangelands. In the past few decades, traditional indigenous lands have come under increased pressure as outsiders have sought and extracted or converted natural resources to supply a growing global demand. Once hardly accessible, the territories used and occupied by indigenous peoples have become a major source of hydroelectric power, minerals, hardwoods, and pasture lands. Other indigenous regions are being threatened or lost as a result of climate change, as discussed in Chapter 9. For those indigenous and tribal peoples who have remained in their traditional territories, the invasion of the outside world has brought with it disease; exploitation; loss of language and culture; and in too many instances, complete annihilation of the group as a distinct entity. For reports of the U.N. special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, see U.N. Docs. A/HRC/15/37 (2010); A/HCC/12/34 (2009); A/HRC/9/9 (2008); A/HRC/4/32 (2007).

This chapter presents a list of contemporary territorial instruments and treaties signed between States and indigenous peoples that provided indigenous peoples with the collective right to live, own and use their traditional territories. In recent decades indigenous peoples have been put under increasing pressure from other actors such as transnational corporations (TNCs) that are increasingly encroaching on indigenous peoples' territories to exploit natural resources. This search for natural resources is one of the primary areas of conflict between indigenous peoples' land rights and other interests.Keywords: indigenous people; traditional territories; treaties

The proposal to create a Northern Corridor that would allow for cross-country, multi-modal infrastructure development is an ambitious vision (Sulzenko and Fellows 2016; Standing Senate Committee 2017). This proposed infrastructure corridor would incorporate multiple uses, from pipelines to railways, roads, telecommunications, electricity infrastructure and more. Its geographic scale stretches continuously from coastal B.C. across Canada to the Atlantic coast, with spurs running northward to the Arctic Ocean through the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and via Manitoba to Hudson’s Bay. A critical foundation for its successful development will be the ability to appreciate and incorporate the rights of Indigenous peoples affected by the project (Wright 2020; Newman 2022). The goal of this research paper is to outline the law of Indigenous peoples’ land ownership rights, including proven and asserted title, Crown-Indigenous treaty relations and obligations and Indigenous land claims agreements, and to consider the implications for a large-scale infrastructure project like the Northern Corridor.1 The focus is on the legaland regulatory aspects of Indigenous peoples’ land rights within the non-Indigenous Canadian legal system.2 The research paper uses standard legal methods to assess the land ownership rights of Indigenous peoples, drawing on relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, leading cases and secondary literature. The paper proceeds with a brief overview of these distinct types of Indigenous land rights, then provides a more detailed account of the legal content of s. 35 constitutional Aboriginal title, historic and modern treaty rights. This includes discussion of government’s legal duty of consultation and accommodation, and the requirements for constitutionally justified limitation of these rights. Indigenous land ownership rights in reserve lands are also discussed. A series of case studies more fully illustrates the implications of these varied Indigenous land rights for a project like the Northern Corridor. Finally, the paper turns to the dynamic nature of Indigenous rights and the potential influence of the UNDRIP. The implications of Indigenous peoples’ land rights for the proposed Northern Corridor are extensive. While many of the legal obligations fall on the Crown, as represented by provincial, territorial and federal governments, industry proponents must also play a role. Project proponents engage directly with Indigenous land-rights holders and are crucial to the exchange of information, mitigation of project impacts and creation of benefits for Indigenous communities. Successful development of the Northern Corridor infrastructure project requires a partnered approach with affected Indigenous rights- holding communities. Portions of the proposed corridor traverse the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples over which Aboriginal title is claimed. Where Indigenous claimants demonstrate sufficient, exclusive use and occupation of the land prior to Crown claims of sovereignty, title will be established. The legal test for recognizing title is one that reflects both the common law and Aboriginal perspectives, and is sensitive to context. The geographic scope for successful Aboriginal title claims that overlap with the Northern Corridor is significant. Where Indigenous peoples hold title to the land, they are collectively entitled to exclusively enjoy the benefits of that land, and to decide on its uses. Governments or third parties seeking access to the land require consent from the title holders. In the period before title is established, governments authorizing projects like the Northern Corridor, that could negatively impact Aboriginal title, must consult with Indigenous peoples and, when appropriate, accommodate their interests. This is required to maintain the Honour of the Crown. While the legal duty falls on government, project proponents working directly with Indigenous peoples are an important part of the consultation and accommodation process. Governments do retain a legal ability to justifiably limit Aboriginal title. They can pursue projects in the public interest that are consistent with s. 35’s reconciliation purpose, if they meet the requirements of their unique obligations to and relationship with Aboriginal people (the fiduciary duty and Honour of the Crown). This means satisfying the procedural duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal title holders, pursuing only limits on title that do not damage their long-term relationship with the land, as well as meeting a recently outlined requirement for proportionality. Proportionality means that limits on Aboriginal title must be necessary to achieve the public purpose and must be as minimal as possible, and that the overall public benefit must not be outweighed by negative impacts on title holders. Projects that go forward with participation and consent of Indigenous title holders will meet these requirements. There is also potential for the Northern Corridor to cross reserve lands. Where these remain subject to the Indian Act, one of the relevant statutory mechanisms for access must be used. These require consent from the band and federal government. For bands that have transitioned to management of their reserves under the First National Land Management Act (FNLMA), only consent of the band as set out in its Land Code is required. The Northern Corridor also crosses lands over which Indigenous people hold land rights under the historic “Numbered Treaties.” While the treaties appear to include formal surrenders of Aboriginal title (an interpretation that is contested), continued rights of use over traditional territories are critical elements of these constitutionally binding agreements. Although governments can “take up” surrendered lands for development, this right is subject to a duty to consult Indigenous parties and accommodate impacts on their treaty rights. Governments can justifiably infringe historic treaty rights. This can be done when a permissible objective is pursued in a way that meets government’s fiduciary duty and upholds the Honour of the Crown. The specific requirements can vary, but generally the test is more restrictive when non-commercial treaty rights are at stake and requires some form of priority to be given to these Aboriginal rights. The requirement for justification is triggered when treaty rights are infringed — when a group is deprived of a meaningful ability to exercise its treaty rights within its traditional territory. Recent developments suggest this threshold should be assessed looking to cumulative impacts and that a process for monitoring and addressing these is part of justified limits on these historic treaty rights. Finally, the Northern Corridor also intersects with lands covered by modern treaties. These agreements provide detailed guidance about the specific rights Indigenous parties enjoy, processes for consultation and co-management of the treaty lands as well as interactions between jurisdictional decisions under the treaty and by other levels of government. Courts have outlined a distinctive approach to the modern treaties that recognize their sophistication and the efforts to negotiate these modern governance frameworks to advance reconciliation. Courts would pay close attention to the relevant treaty terms and processes in any dispute over development of the Northern Corridor. Relatively minimal supervision of the modern treaty relationships should be expected from the courts, although the Honour of the Crown and the obligations it places on governments still apply. It is unclear whether justified infringements of modern treaty rights are possible, and whether a stricter constitutional standard would be required. Case studies of recent infrastructure and resource development projects show that while much of the law is clear, outstanding issues remain, and the practical application of the law can be challenging. The sufficiency of consultation can be in doubt on complex projects involving multiple Indigenous communities. Basic issues such as who to consult can emerge when there is overlap between traditional and Indian Act governance structures and both reserves and other land rights are involved. The applicability of Indigenous laws to traditional territories under claims of Aboriginal title and interactions between Indigenous law and jurisdiction and non-Indigenous law and government authority can also be unclear. Many modern projects proceed with the consent and participation of Indigenous peoples, for example, through benefit agreements. These agreements, because of their link to the underlying Aboriginal rights, can engage the Honour of the Crown and the duty to consult if subsequent developments negatively affect benefits under the agreements. In practice, meeting the legal obligations triggered by Indigenous land rights requires direct, good faith engagement with affected Indigenous communities. The best-case scenario is partnered development that proceeds with the consent of Indigenous rights holders. Current case law suggests that projects like the Northern Corridor might go ahead without full consensus, since there is no “veto” implicit in s. 35(1) Aboriginal rights. However, legal requirements for justified infringements, if possible, still require adequate consultation and accommodation of the rights of Indigenous peoples, and support only necessary, minimal limits on their rights. Overall benefits must outweigh negative impacts on Indigenous communities, and their ability to benefit directly from projects or be compensated for harms is generally part of justifying limits on their rights. On the ground, project proponents will be deeply involved in the relationship-building and engagement that is needed to support consensual development, or will meet the high bar for constitutional justification. Determining whether governments’ legal obligations ultimately have been met is done at a detailed, fact-specific level — not in the abstract. There are no leading cases that support constitutional justification of hypothetical, indeterminate public uses such as the proposed Northern Corridor. The law of Indigenous rights is constantly evolving. Over the lifespan of a project like the Northern Corridor, change would be certain. Canadian approval of the UNDRIP and recent federal and provincial legislation committing to bring Canadian law into compliance are important signals of future development. The UNDRIP embraces a model of Indigenous rights grounded in self-determination and its standard of “free, prior, informed consent” appears to reflect the ability of Indigenous peoples to make their own decisions about projects that impact their rights. The legal implications of the UNDRIP for s. 35 and Indigenous land rights in Canada remain to be seen. As with modern treaties and the FNLMA, it represents a resurgence in Indigenous peoples’ rights to play a direct role in governing their traditional lands and bringing their own laws to bear on developments that impact their lands and rights. Co-management and shared governance frameworks that integrate Indigenous rights holders will likely be key to successful future project development. For a proposal like the Northern Corridor, further study is required to fully appreciate the implications of these nascent developments and consider how they should be reflected in the project proposal.

'Waiting with Bated Breath'

Among the global Indigenous population, concepts of health and healthy living are wholistically intertwined within social, physical, natural, and spiritual systems. On-going processes of colonization and experiences of environmental dispossession have had the effect of removing Indigenous peoples from the lands, people and knowledge systems that have traditionally promoted their health. In 2014, Big-Canoe and Richmond introduced the idea of environmental repossession. This concept refers to the social, economic, and cultural processes Indigenous people are engaging in to reconnect with their traditional lands and territories, the wider goal being to assert their rights as Indigenous people and to improve their health and well-being. As Indigenous mothers, both who live in urban centres “away” from our families and traditional lands and knowledge systems, we engage with this conceptual model as a hopeful way to reimagine relationships to land, family, and knowledge. We embrace the concept of environmental repossession, and its key elements – land, social relationships, Indigenous knowledge – as a framework for promoting health and healing spaces among those who live “away” from their traditional territory. Drawing on three examples, an urban hospital, a university food and medicine garden, and a men’s prison, we suggest that these spaces do indeed offer important structural proxies for land, social relationships, and Indigenous knowledge, and can be important healing spaces. With increasingly urbanizing Indigenous populations in Canada, and around the world, these findings are important for the development of healing places for Indigenous peoples, regardless of where they live.

Where the Earth Touches the Sky: The Xavante Indians' Struggle for Land in Brazil, 1951-1979

This paper presents a rigorous literature review identifying and critically examining the characteristics of decision-making processes in the mining sector that empower or disempower Indigenous communities in north-eastern Ontario, specifically Treaty no. 9 territory. The conclusions drawn from this review aim to inform future research throughout my doctoral program and other researchers and practitioners within the mining sector. The Ring of Fire is a controversial but lucrative mineral cache in north-eastern Ontario worth an estimated $60 billion that may position nearby rural and remote communities for economic growth. However, critics caution that proposed mineral exploration and extraction in the region may threaten the sustainability of First Nations communities. Fifty secondary sources, academic and grey literature produced by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors, were reviewed and I propose three “myths” surrounding relations between the mining sector and Indigenous communities in Ontario. I position the synthesis of literature in response to these myths to provide insight into false assumptions that may form the basis of community-mine relations. First, critical examination of the signing of Treaty 9 in the early twentieth century shows that Indigenous communities in northern Ontario did not unilaterally cede and surrender title rights to their traditional territories. Second, the literature falsifies the notion that Indigenous communities are inherently anti-development and show that Indigenous communities do not always unilaterally refute opportunities for resource development. Third, the literature debunks the idea that the duty to consult and accommodate is always triggered before proponents infringe on Indigenous and treaty rights on traditional territory. The duty to consult and accommodate, triggered by the fiduciary duty of the Crown to protect aboriginal and treaty rights outlined in the Constitution Act of 1982, attempts to address the exclusion of Indigenous perspectives in decision-making processes within the mining sector. However, current consultation standards do not ensure an “effective” or “meaningful” decision-making process. Narrowing in on some false assumptions surrounding relations built between mining operations and Indigenous communities, this rigorous literature review can support researchers and practitioners working with Indigenous communities in the mining sector to generate novel approaches to community-mine relations in the future.

Whither the Aborigine

The development of international law relating to indigenous peoples has been rapid, in particular if one considers advances at the universal level since the 1980s. The article provides a short introduction of the Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries and determines whether complaints manifesting problems that the northern indigenous peoples confront when dominant societies and modern economic activities penetrate deeper into their traditional territories and hamper their traditional livelihoods.

This paper aims to discuss the translation of spatial knowledge and the social space in which the knowledge was translated. Since Native American communities successfully claimed their land rights with community map originally developed under the academic interest of geographers and anthropologists in 1970s, community mapping has been gradually applied by indigenous communities around the world and developed into diverse methodologies. In 2002, Taiwan government launched the nation-wide ITTS in response to the rising indigenous land claims, under which community mapping was designed as a main method to identify traditional territory for every indigenous community. In 2007, Taiwan government firstly announced the traditional territory of Marqwang group of indigenous Atayal people, but unexpectedly caused further conflict between Marqwang group and its neighbor Atayal communities. Aiming to explore the epistemological controversy and methodological limits of community mapping in ITTS, this paper examine how the method of ”indigenous community mapping” was translated in Taiwan society and how indigenous traditional territory was socially constructed under the influence of this translation. Further more, by review the Marqwang case, this paper examine how Atayal spatial knowledge was translated into modern concept of ”territory” in the implement of ITTS, and led to the conflicts between indigenous communities. In the end, this paper argues that the misappropriation of indigenous knowledge is the fundamental reason caused the conflicts.