Replacing Rights with Indigenous Relationality to Reclaim Homelands

J. L. Reid
{"title":"Replacing Rights with Indigenous Relationality to Reclaim Homelands","authors":"J. L. Reid","doi":"10.33134/ahead-1-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Indigenous peoples have had and continue to have contested relations with protected spaces of nature, many of which nation states have carved from Indigenous homelands and waters. Usually in the name of the common good, governments and their officials prohibit or limit Native peoples from exercising their rights in these spaces. This gives rise to conflicts and tensions that emerge from a Western rights framework that white settlers and elites have used to prioritize the rights of nature over Indigenous peoples. This chapter seeks to provide some historical context for the way that three problematic and closely related “white-settler social constructs”—wilderness, preservation, and the ecological Indian—came to shape the emergence and management of protected spaces of nature, particularly under a Western rights framework. Overall, the chapter argues that a relationality framework offers an Indigenous-based counterpoint to the rights framework, in which white settlers and elites privilege the rights of nature over those of Native peoples.","PeriodicalId":122203,"journal":{"name":"Bridging Cultural Concepts of Nature: Indigenous People and Protected Spaces of Nature","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bridging Cultural Concepts of Nature: Indigenous People and Protected Spaces of Nature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33134/ahead-1-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Indigenous peoples have had and continue to have contested relations with protected spaces of nature, many of which nation states have carved from Indigenous homelands and waters. Usually in the name of the common good, governments and their officials prohibit or limit Native peoples from exercising their rights in these spaces. This gives rise to conflicts and tensions that emerge from a Western rights framework that white settlers and elites have used to prioritize the rights of nature over Indigenous peoples. This chapter seeks to provide some historical context for the way that three problematic and closely related “white-settler social constructs”—wilderness, preservation, and the ecological Indian—came to shape the emergence and management of protected spaces of nature, particularly under a Western rights framework. Overall, the chapter argues that a relationality framework offers an Indigenous-based counterpoint to the rights framework, in which white settlers and elites privilege the rights of nature over those of Native peoples.
以原住民关系取代权利,夺回故土
土著人民与受保护的自然空间的关系一直存在争议,而且还在继续存在争议,其中许多自然空间是由民族国家从土著的家园和水域中分割出来的。通常以公共利益的名义,政府及其官员禁止或限制土著人民在这些空间行使他们的权利。这引发了冲突和紧张局势,这些冲突和紧张局势来自西方权利框架,白人定居者和精英们利用这种框架将自然权利置于土著人民之上。本章试图提供一些历史背景,说明三个有问题且密切相关的“白人定居者社会结构”——荒野、保护和生态印第安人——是如何塑造自然保护空间的出现和管理的,特别是在西方权利框架下。总体而言,本章认为,关系框架提供了一种基于土著的权利框架的对应物,在这种框架中,白人定居者和精英将自然的权利置于土著人民的权利之上。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信