Land Back: Indigenous Perspectives | The Agenda

Summary

In this insightful conversation, Pamela Palmater and Riley Yesno discuss the complex concept of 'land back' and its implications for Indigenous governance in Canada. They emphasize that land back goes beyond the return of physical land, including the restoration of resources, self-determination, and sovereignty. Both experts highlight the political and economic barriers hindering progress, such as corporate interests and treaty misinterpretations. They advocate for practical actions non-Indigenous Canadians can take to support land back, from returning land to showing solidarity with Indigenous communities. Ultimately, they argue that land back is a necessary step toward addressing colonialism and achieving reconciliation.

Takeaways

• 😀 Land Back refers to the return of land, resources, and self-determination to Indigenous peoples, going beyond just physical land to include cultural, economic, and social aspects.
• 😀 Indigenous peoples see Land Back as part of a long-standing struggle for justice, highlighting the importance of regaining control over their lands and resources after colonial exploitation.
• 😀 Many non-Indigenous people mistakenly believe Land Back would involve kicking them out of their homes, but it focuses on returning jurisdiction and resources, not personal property.
• 😀 Indigenous governance models, like those practiced by the Wet'suwet'en, already exist and are functioning in parallel to state governance, demonstrating that Indigenous sovereignty is alive and practiced.
• 😀 The Canadian government has made progress in recognizing Indigenous rights, particularly through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), but continues to struggle with full implementation.
• 😀 The government often complicates Land Back by introducing bureaucratic processes, which many Indigenous nations find unnecessary, especially when it comes to asserting sovereignty over their lands.
• 😀 Some Canadians are proactively engaging with Land Back by offering land or making donations to Indigenous communities, signaling a growing willingness to support reparations and justice.
• 😀 Indigenous people face continuous challenges with the Canadian government, as the state often disregards treaties and agreements, leading to ongoing struggles for rightful governance over their lands.
• 😀 The idea of Land Back includes both physical land and a fair share of the wealth generated from natural resources, taxes, and permits on Indigenous territories.
• 😀 Although Canada recognizes UNDRIP, in practice, many agreements still seek to extinguish Indigenous rights, requiring a deeper commitment from the government to respect and honor Indigenous sovereignty.

Q & A

What is the core meaning of 'land back' as explained by Pamela Palmater?

Pamela Palmater explains that 'land back' is about returning actual land, resources, and respect for Indigenous self-determination. It also includes the return of Indigenous children, women, and cultural practices that Canada has attempted to take. It is not about displacing non-Indigenous people but rather restoring Indigenous governance and control over their traditional lands.

How does Riley Yesno define 'land back'?

Riley Yesno defines 'land back' as any action that returns jurisdiction, authority, and resources to Indigenous people. It is framed as part of a larger anti-colonial movement aimed at undoing the harms caused by colonialism, extending beyond just land to include cultural and governance rights.

What are the common misconceptions about 'land back' among non-Indigenous people, and how are they addressed?

Non-Indigenous people often misunderstand 'land back' as meaning the removal of people from their homes. Both Pamela and Riley clarify that it does not involve displacing non-Indigenous people or taking private property away. Instead, it focuses on returning control over land and resources to Indigenous peoples, which can also benefit everyone by promoting joint governance, community building, and addressing issues like climate change.

How can 'land back' contribute to addressing climate change?

Pamela Palmater explains that Indigenous people are on the front lines of protecting the environment, including efforts to prevent contamination and preserve clean water. By returning control of land to Indigenous communities, it could foster better stewardship of natural resources, benefiting the broader society, especially in addressing climate change.

What is the significance of the government’s relationship with Crown land in the context of 'land back'?

Riley Yesno points out that most of the land in Canada is Crown land, not private property. Therefore, 'land back' often involves transferring control over these public lands back to Indigenous peoples. This means that the land in question is primarily held by the government, and the process of 'land back' is not about displacing private property owners but about returning public land control to Indigenous communities.

How do treaties factor into the discussion of land ownership and sovereignty?

Pamela Palmater discusses how treaties, particularly the numbered treaties in Canada, were often misunderstood or misrepresented, with Indigenous peoples being pressured into agreements under duress or through mistranslation. She suggests that many of these treaties do not legally cede land, meaning that the land remains unceded and is still under Indigenous title, which remains a point of contention in ongoing land claims and governance.

What role does the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) play in the land back conversation?

Both Pamela and Riley refer to Canada's commitment to UNDRIP, which affirms Indigenous rights to self-governance and control over lands and resources. Pamela notes that Canada has recognized UNDRIP as applicable law, raising the standard for Indigenous rights. However, she and Riley both feel the government is slow to fully implement these rights, continuing to undermine Indigenous sovereignty through complex and inadequate negotiations.

Why does Pamela believe that land negotiations are not as complicated as the government suggests?

Pamela argues that the government complicates land negotiations to maintain control and delay action. She believes that Indigenous communities already exercise sovereignty over their lands, as seen with groups like the Wet'suwet'en. Governments could respect Indigenous authority immediately by allowing self-governance, sharing resources, and honoring land back, without needing lengthy negotiations.

What concerns does Riley Yesno have about the government co-opting the meaning of 'land back'?

Riley expresses concern that the government may try to redefine 'land back' in a way that limits Indigenous sovereignty. For example, adding lands to reserves or forcing Indigenous people to go through lengthy legal processes might dilute the true intent of 'land back,' which is about returning full jurisdiction and governance to Indigenous nations.

How can non-Indigenous people contribute to the 'land back' movement?

Both Pamela and Riley suggest several ways non-Indigenous people can support 'land back.' This includes donating to land trusts, showing up to support Indigenous land defenders, and respecting Indigenous laws when on their territories. Riley also emphasizes that non-Indigenous people can use their voices and votes to advocate for Indigenous rights, while Pamela highlights the importance of reparations through direct action like donating land or supporting local Indigenous communities.