By Colin Darling, Heba Suleiman, and Brian Williams
Content Warning: This case may be distressing and awaken memories of past traumatic experiences and abuse.
The National Indian Residential School Crisis Line provides 24-hour crisis support to former Indian Residential School students and their families toll-free at 1-866-925-4419.
Individuals impacted by the issue of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls are encouraged to contact the MMIWG Crisis Line toll-free at 1-844-413-6649.
First Nations, Inuit and Métis seeking immediate emotional support can contact the Hope for Wellness Help Line toll-free at 1-855-242-3310, or by online chat at hopeforwellness.ca.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
On Oct. 3, 2022, Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller, agreed on behalf of the government to return 120 hectares of land that belonged to the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) band council, accompanied by approximately $31 million.1
Although the amount of land and sum of money involved in the deal appear substantial, there is more to the deal being complete than the signing of the documents.
Firstly, the land dispute is longstanding, and the 120 hectares account for only a third of the land that is currently under claim.
Secondly, the signing of the documents does not immediately return the land to Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. Although the land should be rightfully returned promptly, the ratified documents do not offer a concise timeframe of when the land will change possessions. The $31 million offered by the government is not a synonymous value in terms of reclaiming the land, nor is it a sufficient alternative for the outstanding issue of the People having been separated from their land.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVED
In “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang discuss decolonization as being, “not accountable to settlers, or settler futurity. Decolonization is accountable to Indigenous sovereignty and futurity.”2
The authors’ interpretation of decolonization is meant to be taken literally, which translates to the concept of “land-back.” In essence, the healing from having been removed and displaced from land that once belonged to Indigenous Peoples can only begin once the land has been returned.
Of course, returning a third of the land is the start of the decolonization process, however, it does not address the other two-thirds in dispute nor has a timeline to return the land been established.
The nature of the displacement shares a relation with Nancy Fraser’s concept of subaltern counterpublics. Fraser refers to members of this group as being subordinated wherein they invent and circulate counter-discourses which cause an opposing evaluation of how the group views themselves, their interests, and their needs.3
For example, Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory has been disputed since 1837.4 A connection between Fraser’s concept and the Tyendinaga Mohawks can be made in this case due to the nature of the dispute, such as having been separated from their land and made to feel “othered,” coupled with the amount of time that has elapsed. From this context, it is important to note that the Tyendinaga Mohawks are not the lone group of Indigenous Peoples who could be classified as a subaltern counterpublic.
Contributing factors in the delay of returning the land to the Tyendinaga Mohawk and being a subaltern counterpublic can be attributed to the Indian Act. The Indian Act was created in 1867 and placed the federal government in charge of Indigenous affairs, allowing the government to govern most aspects of Indigenous People’s lives, such as status, land, resources, wills, and education.5
Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller contends the process is slow due to the government’s attempt to work beyond the act due to its racist nature.6 The Act also places Indigenous Peoples in a position to be marginalized which is the essence of belonging to a subaltern counterpublic. While the document has been amended since 1867, many questions loom large as to why it still exists, why decolonization continues to be a precarious process and how exactly the Tyendinaga Mohawk might continue to use its counterpublic status to facilitate change.
While abolishing the Indian Act seems like the most ethical decision the federal government could take, it is so deeply sewn into the way Indigenous Peoples currently live that removing it entirely would leave many without protection and status.
As for Brett Forester’s CBC article that profiles the case, the headline does not tell the full story. To do justice to this story and others, Forester should be including the partial nature of the success of this agreement in the headline. As it stands, the headline reads: “Minister signs deal to return land to Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory.” 7 This statement is entirely true but is misleading as to why this decision carries weight (or lack thereof) from an Indigenous perspective.
Discussion Questions
- When traditional Indigenous lands are now privately owned – what should the “land-back” process look like in these cases?
- If the Indian Act were to be abolished entirely, what type of protective legislature would immediately need to be put in place to ensure forward progress?
- What are the best practices to avoid “parachute journalism” when covering stories that involve Indigenous communities?
- Do you think all non-Indigenous journalists should receive Indigenous storytelling training(s)? What does that look like? Is this crucial to more accurately report “news” in reference to potential traumas?
Endnotes
[1] Brett Forrester and Olivia Stefanovich, “Minister signs deal to return land to Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory,” CBC News, Oct. 3, 2022, https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/tyendinaga-culbertson-tract-claim-1.6604236.
[2] Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1, no. 1 (2012): 35.
[3] Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” Social Text, no. 25/26 (1990): 67.
[4] Forrester and Stefanovich, “Minister signs deal to return land to Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory.”
[5] Isabelle Montpetit, “Background: The Indian Act,” CBC News, May 30, 2011. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/background-the-indian-act-1.1056988.
[6] Forrester and Stefanovich, “Minister signs deal to return land to Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory.”
[7] Forrester and Stefanovich, “Minister signs deal to return land to Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory.”
