On Christine Elsey's "The Poetics of Land & Identity Among British Columbia Indigenous Peoples," Ch. 1

 

Reflection #1: On Christine Elsey’s The Poetics of Land & Identity Among British Columbia Indigenous Peoples, Ch. 1

As is the case with so many progressive minded Canadians, I have always claimed a commitment to the enshrinement and upholding of Indigenous land rights, as well as Indigenous sovereignty. In reading Elsey’s text, I have come to understand, however, that I have heretofore lacked a holistic understanding of the intricacies of what those concepts realistically mean, in the context of Indigenous identity and sense of self.

While I have and continue to espouse these concepts of Indigenous rights, I must admit that I have been viewing them under the narrow colonial framework that is inherent in growing up as a settler in a Eurocentric system. The colonial viewpoint, at this point inseparably interwoven with capitalist ideals, relies on the self as a monolith existing independently of community, spirituality, environment, or experience. One’s “self” might be described and defined by material possessions, achieved status, or even the Judeo-Christian concept of the “soul.” These aspects of self and being exist in flux, allowing the settler to adapt to move across great distances without the same loss potentially felt by an Indigenous individual.

 As Elsey explains, for First Nations, “…the land is inseparably connected to personhood – not simply inert or external to personal identity and being” (9). For the Indigenous individual, oral histories and traditional territories are part of how one’s identity is defined. This effectively explains why Indigenous people tend to be such great protectors of land and water- it is much harder to commodify and monetize a resource when it is seen as an integral part of one’s identity, and natural resources are inherently imbued with value beyond the measurable when considered as such.

While non-Indigenous policymakers tasked with negotiating treaty and land use rights may or may not be operating with respect and deference to Indigenous culture, any negotiations will be inherently flawed and ineffective so long as they do not acknowledge the critical role that land and territory plays in identity for the Indigenous individual. I must wonder if Euro settler communities even possess the capacity to fully appreciate this dichotomy of sense of self. At the very least, it’s clear that our laws and even our concepts of decolonization don’t reflect a very robust understanding.

In reading the chapter, I was brought back to Dr. Angelbeck’s initial discussion of the course, wherein it was mentioned that “Indigenous Cultures of BC” itself reflects a colonial attitude towards Indigenous Cultures. If it is clear within half an hour and a glance at the provided atlas that artificial boundaries are not only ineffective, but actively harmful for Indigenous communities- how then can we go forward in decolonization efforts while upholding such boundaries? This is particularly stark with the US-Canada border, in considering that an artificial line was drawn between people of one community, suddenly told that half of them must adhere to the laws and customs of one country and the other half to another. That documentation must be shown to travel within one’s traditional territory, and that movement is restricted to either side of this border. When considering that land is part of identity, the concept of being separated from a part of oneself and forced to identify as “Canadian” or “American” ahead of a member of one’s Nation is not simply a telling example of the systemic racism and ethnocentricity engrained in society, but carries the potential of an act of psychological violence against the individual.

While, as Elsey quotes the Prime Minister saying that “there is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential school system to ever prevail again” (8), the fact that the Indigenous sense of self and identity is questioned and undermined simply by being forced to exist within artificial borders is evidence to the contrary. Residential schools existed to assimilate Indigenous cultures and force individuals to conform to Canadian rules, laws, and standards. How else can artificial borders and rights and duties as Canadian citizens be described, if not as an expectation to see oneself as Canadian first and Indigenous last?

I am reminded of an excellent short story, Borders by Cherokee-Canadian writer Thomas King, detailing the struggle faced by a Blackfoot woman wanting to cross the border to visit a daughter in the United States, yet forced to declare herself as Canadian in order to cross, which she sees as an unfathomable renouncement of her identity as a Blackfoot woman. I highly recommend giving it a read.

Ultimately, I think that Elsey is communicating that before we are able to decolonize our actions, it is important to recognize and acknowledge that our thoughts are first and foremost subject to colonial imperialist attitudes, and a holistic understanding of Indigenous culture and sense of being is integral to any proceedings or attempts to decolonize. I’m highly appreciating the Elsey text and finding it effective in challenging my preconceived surface notions of the impact of colonialism.