Premium
Canadian University Acknowledgment of Indigenous Lands, Treaties, and Peoples
Author(s) -
Wilkes Rima,
Duong Aaron,
Kesler Linc,
Ramos Howard
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
canadian review of sociology/revue canadienne de sociologie
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.414
H-Index - 35
eISSN - 1755-618X
pISSN - 1755-6171
DOI - 10.1111/cars.12140
Subject(s) - indigenous , politics , openness to experience , humanities , ethnology , multiculturalism , political science , treaty , sociology , geography , anthropology , law , ecology , art , psychology , social psychology , biology
At many Canadian universities it is now common to publicly acknowledge Indigenous lands, treaties, and peoples. Yet, this practice has yet to be considered as a subject of scholarly inquiry. How does this practice vary and why? In this paper we describe the content and practice of acknowledgment, linking this content to treaty relationships (or lack thereof). We show that acknowledgment tends to be one of five general types: of land and title (British Columbia), of specific treaties and political relationships (Prairies), of multiculturalism and heterogeneity (Ontario), of no practice (most of Quebec), and of people, territory, and openness to doing more (Atlantic). Based on these results, we conclude that the fluidity of acknowledgment as a practice, including changing meanings depending on the positionality of the acknowledger, need to be taken into account. Plusieurs universités Canadien pratique une reconnaissance des territoires, des traités, et des peoples autochtone en publique. Cette pratique, cependant, n'a jamais été considérée comme une enquête savante. Dans ce projet nous regardons comment les reconnaissances varie par institution et pourquoi. Nous trouvons qu'il y a un lien entre le contenu des reconnaissances et les relations traité. On démontre cinq forme des reconnaissances: territoire et titre (Colombie britannique); traité spécifique and les relations politiques (Prairies); multiculturalisme et hétérogénéité (Ontario); l'absence (la majorité du Québec); et des peoples, territoire et volonté a plus faire (Atlantique). Nous concluons que la fluidité de la reconnaissance, comme pratique, est fluide et doit prendre en considération la position de la personne qui le fait.