The Ties that Blind: Making Fee Simple in the British Columbia Treaty Process

AARN: Race Pub Date : 2014-02-15 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2396668
N. Blomley
{"title":"The Ties that Blind: Making Fee Simple in the British Columbia Treaty Process","authors":"N. Blomley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2396668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Property is a crucial means by which space is made, and remade. This is powerfully evident in settler societies, such as British Columbia, Canada. To understand the work that it does requires us to attend to the manner in which it is entangled in and constitutive of a multitude of relations (ethical, practical, historical, semantic and so on). Yet for property to function, some of these relationships must be bracketed. That which is designated as inside a boundary must be partly disentangled from that identified as outside. Property practice and theory helps organize these exclusions. Yet this is not disinterested: Property’s frames, therefore, can become political battle lines. Drawing from a modern-day treaty process involving indigenous communities and the federal and provincial governments in British Columbia, Canada, I trace the ways in which the state has sought to disentangle property from its recently re-emergent colonial entanglements. One of the ways in which it has done this is to insist that First Nations hold their treaty settlement lands as a form of fee simple, this being bracketed as a clear and certain entitlement, replacing a messier ‘Aboriginal title’. First Nations negotiators, however, have pushed back, re-entangling fee simple in culture, politics and place. I explore the performative use of categorization on the part of the Crown in their attempt at re-framing fee simple as ‘simple’. Apart from documenting this understudied postcolonial moment, I also encourage geographers to recognize the important work that property does in making space. To do so, I theorize property as an effect, performed through multiple technical and categorical enactments.","PeriodicalId":137537,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Race","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"59","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AARN: Race","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2396668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

Abstract

Property is a crucial means by which space is made, and remade. This is powerfully evident in settler societies, such as British Columbia, Canada. To understand the work that it does requires us to attend to the manner in which it is entangled in and constitutive of a multitude of relations (ethical, practical, historical, semantic and so on). Yet for property to function, some of these relationships must be bracketed. That which is designated as inside a boundary must be partly disentangled from that identified as outside. Property practice and theory helps organize these exclusions. Yet this is not disinterested: Property’s frames, therefore, can become political battle lines. Drawing from a modern-day treaty process involving indigenous communities and the federal and provincial governments in British Columbia, Canada, I trace the ways in which the state has sought to disentangle property from its recently re-emergent colonial entanglements. One of the ways in which it has done this is to insist that First Nations hold their treaty settlement lands as a form of fee simple, this being bracketed as a clear and certain entitlement, replacing a messier ‘Aboriginal title’. First Nations negotiators, however, have pushed back, re-entangling fee simple in culture, politics and place. I explore the performative use of categorization on the part of the Crown in their attempt at re-framing fee simple as ‘simple’. Apart from documenting this understudied postcolonial moment, I also encourage geographers to recognize the important work that property does in making space. To do so, I theorize property as an effect, performed through multiple technical and categorical enactments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
盲目的纽带:在不列颠哥伦比亚省条约进程中简化收费
财产是创造和改造空间的重要手段。这在移民社会,如加拿大的不列颠哥伦比亚省,是非常明显的。要理解它所做的工作,我们需要注意它与众多关系(伦理的、实践的、历史的、语义的等等)的纠缠和构成的方式。然而,要使房地产发挥作用,必须将其中一些关系纳入其中。被指定为边界内的部分必须与被确定为边界外的部分分开。财产实践和理论有助于组织这些排除。然而,这并不是无私的:因此,房地产的框架可以成为政治战线。从涉及加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省土著社区、联邦政府和省政府的现代条约程序中,我追溯了该州试图将财产从最近重新出现的殖民纠缠中解脱出来的方式。它做到这一点的方法之一是坚持第一民族将他们的条约定居土地作为一种简单的形式持有,这被列为一种明确而确定的权利,取代了混乱的“土著头衔”。然而,原住民的谈判代表们已经做出了反击,在文化、政治和地域上重新纠缠在一起。我探讨了英国王室在试图将“简单”重新定义为“简单”时对分类的表现性使用。除了记录这个未被充分研究的后殖民时期,我还鼓励地理学家认识到财产在创造空间方面所做的重要工作。为了做到这一点,我将属性理论化为一种效果,通过多种技术和分类的颁布来实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Affirmative Action on Workers' Outcomes Indigenous Knowledge Management and Humanitarian Supply Chain for Disaster Mitigation and Sustainable Development in the Eco Communities of India: Holistic Systems Modeling Approach Challenges and Opportunities With Native Forestry on Māori Land Tribes, Nations, States: Our Three Commerce Powers Neighborhood Racial and Ethnic Diversity and Residential Segregation in Large Urban Areas in the U.S., 1980-2010
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1