Although I agree with the many of the sentiments surrounding the impossibility of seeking an uncolonial version of nationhood within a colonial court - I don’t agree with some of the points and a lot of tone of this article. It’s foolish to believe that Tshilqot’in or others who followed this case believed that magically out of the pleadings was going to surface a new form of allodial type of title for the benefit of indigenous people in Canada. The mystical question of how the Crown has got ‘radical underlying title’ beneath the feet of communities that have been on the land since time immemorial has been left for another day. Maybe we can start having THAT discussion in the courts, now that aboriginal title has been resolved. A colonial court is only going to give you colonial remedies. I spoke of this earlier - that this decision is the knife coming out of the back a little bit further. And with that comes a little bit more of healing. I accept that the only legal redress that could come from a court is cloaked in colonial thread. That is the materials they have been given. I also accept as well though, that it was an honorable journey that those who made it through, and give them the respect they deserve for making the long fight to protect their land, provide for their children and hold up their community. If you see it as a death knell, then it becomes it. I see the dialogue on nation-to-nation as more complex than that, more complex than legal redress, and that the case as an inspiration to those who continue to struggle. Now let’s talk about this so called ‘radical title’….
Posted on: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:54:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015