The political ecologies of fire: Recasting fire geographies in British Columbia, Canada

Onyx Sloan Morgan, Judith Burr
{"title":"The political ecologies of fire: Recasting fire geographies in British Columbia, Canada","authors":"Onyx Sloan Morgan, Judith Burr","doi":"10.1177/25148486241235836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How fires burn across British Columbia (BC), Canada is shaped by settler coloniality, timber capitalism, state forestry regimes, criminalization of burning, and Indigenous resistance. Despite the urgency of confronting the fire suppression paradox embedded in settler colonial fire management laws and practices, approaches to studying fire in Canada that foreground Indigenous law and de-center settler colonial governance is scarce. As political ecologists and geographers working and living in the context of unceded and ancestral lək̓ʷəŋən, W̱SÁNEĆ, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, səlilwətaɬ, and syilx territories, we engage with Indigenous feminist scholarship to expose how coloniality and gender intersect in attempts to erase Indigenous sovereignty to structure and naturalize provincial fire policy and its emplaced impacts on Indigenous legal orders. Our analysis contextualizes settler-colonial provincial fire management policy in the purview of Indigenous legal orders to foreground how racial-colonial and gendered politics are obscured when colonial fire and wildfire practices are naturalized. Revisiting key moments in the political development of fire suppression across so-called BC, we contend that the suppression paradox is embedded in and reproduces a colonial logic that widens existing social and economic gaps. These gaps are uniquely gendered, as settler coloniality operates upon patriarchal lines that have actively attempted to erase Indigenous women and Two-Spirit peoples, including the laws and legal authorities that they possess and practice. Considering the 1910 Fulton Commission, we highlight an example of how women and Indigenous people were excluded from the political decision-making structures that shaped colonial fire management practices in BC. These gendered and racialized exclusions bear directly on the exclusion of Indigenous women and gender-diverse folx, and Indigenous legal orders guided by matriarchal lines of fire knowledge.","PeriodicalId":507916,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space","volume":"84 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486241235836","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How fires burn across British Columbia (BC), Canada is shaped by settler coloniality, timber capitalism, state forestry regimes, criminalization of burning, and Indigenous resistance. Despite the urgency of confronting the fire suppression paradox embedded in settler colonial fire management laws and practices, approaches to studying fire in Canada that foreground Indigenous law and de-center settler colonial governance is scarce. As political ecologists and geographers working and living in the context of unceded and ancestral lək̓ʷəŋən, W̱SÁNEĆ, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, səlilwətaɬ, and syilx territories, we engage with Indigenous feminist scholarship to expose how coloniality and gender intersect in attempts to erase Indigenous sovereignty to structure and naturalize provincial fire policy and its emplaced impacts on Indigenous legal orders. Our analysis contextualizes settler-colonial provincial fire management policy in the purview of Indigenous legal orders to foreground how racial-colonial and gendered politics are obscured when colonial fire and wildfire practices are naturalized. Revisiting key moments in the political development of fire suppression across so-called BC, we contend that the suppression paradox is embedded in and reproduces a colonial logic that widens existing social and economic gaps. These gaps are uniquely gendered, as settler coloniality operates upon patriarchal lines that have actively attempted to erase Indigenous women and Two-Spirit peoples, including the laws and legal authorities that they possess and practice. Considering the 1910 Fulton Commission, we highlight an example of how women and Indigenous people were excluded from the political decision-making structures that shaped colonial fire management practices in BC. These gendered and racialized exclusions bear directly on the exclusion of Indigenous women and gender-diverse folx, and Indigenous legal orders guided by matriarchal lines of fire knowledge.
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
火灾的政治生态:重塑加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省的火灾地理格局
加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省(BC 省)的火灾如何燃烧,是由定居者殖民主义、木材资本主义、国家林业制度、将燃烧定为犯罪以及土著人的反抗所决定的。尽管亟需正视定居者殖民地火灾管理法律和实践中的灭火悖论,但研究加拿大火灾的方法却很少能突出土著法律,并消除定居者殖民地治理的中心地位。作为政治生态学家和地理学家,我们工作和生活在未受保护和祖传的 lək̓ʷəŋən、W̱SÁNEĆ、xʷməθkʷəy̓əm、Sĵwx̱wú7mesh、səlilwətaɬ 和 syilx 领土、我们与土著女权主义学术研究相结合,揭露殖民主义和性别是如何在试图抹杀土著主权的过程中相互交织,从而构建省级消防政策并使其自然化,及其对土著法律秩序的影响。我们的分析将定居者殖民主义的省级消防管理政策纳入土著法律秩序的范畴,以揭示当殖民主义的消防和野火做法被自然化时,种族殖民主义和性别政治是如何被掩盖的。我们重新审视了所谓的不列颠哥伦比亚省灭火政治发展的关键时刻,认为灭火悖论嵌入并复制了殖民逻辑,扩大了现有的社会和经济差距。这些差距具有独特的性别特征,因为殖民定居者在父权制基础上运作,积极试图抹杀土著妇女和双灵人,包括她们拥有和实践的法律和法律权威。考虑到 1910 年的富尔顿委员会,我们重点举例说明了妇女和土著人是如何被排除在政治决策结构之外的,而政治决策结构决定了不列颠哥伦比亚省殖民时期的火灾管理做法。这些性别化和种族化的排斥直接影响到土著妇女和性别多元化的女性,以及以母系火知识为指导的土著法律秩序。
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
Reindeer, rockets and space infrastructures: Enacting oligoptic-satellitarian environments in Northern Sweden Uncertainty talk for bio-digital technologies: Expert conceptions of uncertainties in genomic selection for forestry Accessible nature: Balancing contradiction in protected areas Ecology of grief: Climatic events and disasters in the Himalaya Against the promethean: Energy throughput and the far-right politics of degrowth
×
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