Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (Indigenous Americas) (30 page)

37.
Robert Nichols, “Indigeneity and the Settler Contract Today,”
Philosophy and Social Criticism
39, no. 2 (2013): 166.

38.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri,
Commonwealth
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009), 84.

39.
Karl Marx, “The British Rule in India,” in Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels,
On Colonialism
(Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2001), 41–42. This is also the underlying thrust of Marx and Engels’s famous assertion in
The Communist Manifesto:
“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word it creates the world after its own image” (
Karl Marx: Selected Writings
, ed. David McClelland [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987], 225). For a useful discussion of this aspect of Marx’s argument, see Aijaz Ahmad,
In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures
(New York: Verso, 1994); Epifanio San Juan Jr.,
Beyond Postcolonial Theory
(New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1999); Arif Dirlik,
The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism
(Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1998); Crystal
Bartolovich and Neil Lazarus, eds.,
Marxism, Modernity, and Postcolonial Studies
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

40.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
The Philosophy of History
(New York: Dover, 1956), 99; Karl Marx, “The Future Results of the British Rule in India,” in
On Colonialism
, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2001), 81.

41.
This rigidly unilinear understanding of historical development began to shift significantly in Marx’s work after the collapse of the European labor movement following the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871. It was at this point that Marx began to again turn his attention to the study of non-Western societies. Marx scholars have tended to identify three areas of Marx’s late writings (1872–83) that reflect this shift in perspective: (1) editorial changes introduced by Marx to the 1872–75 French edition of
Capital
, vol. 1, that strip the primitive accumulation thesis of any prior suggestion of unilinearism; (2) a cluster of late writings on Russia that identify the Russian communal village as a potential launching point for socialist development; and (3) the extensive (but largely ignored) ethnological notebooks produced by Marx between 1879 and 1882. See, in particular, Kevin Anderson, “Marx’s Late Writings on Non-Western and Pre-Capitalist Societies and Gender,”
Rethinking Marxism
14, no. 4 (2002): 84–96; and Gareth Stedman Jones, “Radicalism and the Extra-European World: The Case of Karl Marx,” in
Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth-Century Political Thought
, ed. Duncan Bell, 186–214 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Although each of these three strands in Marx’s late scholarship are instructive in their own right, his 1872–75 French revisions to
Capital
are of particular interest for us here because of the specific focus paid to the primitive accumulation thesis. Marx referred to these revisions in a well-known 1877 letter he wrote to Russian radical N. K. Mikailovsky, in which he states that the “chapter on primitive accumulation”
should not
be read as a “historico-philosophical theory of the general course imposed
on all peoples
”; but rather as a historical examination of the “path by which,
in Western Europe
, the capitalist economic order emerged from the womb of the feudal economic order” (Karl Marx, “A Letter to N. K. Mikailovsky,” transcribed and reprinted in
The New International
1, no. 4 [November 1934]: 1). Marx makes the virtually analogous point in his well-known letter to Russian populist Vera Zasulich (Karl Marx, “A Letter to Vera Zasulich,” in McClelland,
Karl Marx: Selected Writings
, 576–80).

42.
Marx,
Capital
, 1:932.

43.
Ibid., 1:940. For a discussion of this feature of Marx’s project, see R. Young,
Postcolonialism
, 101–3.

44.
Marx,
Capital
, 1:932.

45.
As David McNally succinctly puts it: at its “heart” primitive accumulation is ultimately about “the commodification of human labour power” (
Another World Is Possible: Globalization and Anti-Capitalism
[Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Press, 2006], 107).

46.
Federici,
Caliban and the Witch
, 12.

47.
For an example of this line of argument drawn from the neoliberal right, see Thomas Flanagan,
First Nations, Second Thoughts
(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000). For an example claiming to speak from the left, see Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard,
Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation
(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008).

48.
Aidan Foster-Carter, “The Modes of Production Controversy,”
New Left Review
107 (1978): 47–77. This text provides an excellent introduction to the “articulation of modes of production” debate.

49.
For an autonomous Marxist critique of socialist primitive accumulation that also draws off the insights of Kropotkin, see Harry Cleaver, “Kropotkin, Self-Valorization, and the Crisis of Marxism,”
Anarchist Studies
2, no. 2 (2003): 119–36.

50.
Frances Abele and Daiva Stasiulis, “Canada as a ‘White Settler Colony’: What about Natives and Immigrants,” in
The New Canadian Political Economy
, ed. Wallace Clement and Glen Williams (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1989), 252–53. Also see Terry Wotherspoon and Vic Satzewich,
First Nations: Race, Class, and Gender Relations
(Regina: Canadian Plains Research Centre, 2000); David Bedford and Danielle Irving,
The Tragedy of Progress: Marxism, Modernity and the Aboriginal Question
(Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2001). On the importance of Native labor to Canadian political economic development, see John Lutz,
Makuk: A New History of Aboriginal–White Relations
(Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2008).

51.
Cole Harris, “How Did Colonialism Dispossess? Comments from an Edge of Empire,”
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
94, no. 1 (2004): 167.

52.
Canada, “Annual Report Department of Indian Affairs,”
Sessional Papers
, 1890, no. 12, 165.

53.
Taiaiake Alfred articulates this point well in the context of Canada’s land claims and self-government policies when he writes: “The framework of current reformist or reconciling negotiations are about handing us the scraps of history: self-government and jurisdictional authorities for state-created Indian governments within the larger colonial system and subjection of Onkwehonwe [Indigenous peoples] to the blunt force of capitalism by integrating them as wage slaves into the mainstream resource-exploitation economy” (
Wasáse
, 37).

54.
Marx,
Capital
, 1:876.

55.
Joel Kovel,
The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism of the End of the World?
(Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2007); John Bellamy Foster,
Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature
(New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000). These authors provide a constructive conversation regarding both the limits and potential of Marx’s ecological insights.

56.
On intersectionality as a methodological approach to studying questions of race, class, gender and state power, I am indebted to a number of critical works, including the following: Rita Dhamoon,
Identity/Difference Politics: How Difference Is Produced, and Why It Matters
(Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2009); Yasmin Jiwani,
Discourses of Denial: Mediations of Race, Gender and Violence
(Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006); Smith,
Conquest
; Chandra Talpade Mohanty,
Feminism without Borders
(Durham: Duke University Press, 2003); Razak Sherene,
Looking White People in the Eye: Gender, Race and Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998).

57.
Marx,
Capital
, 1:874.

58.
Ibid., 1:926.

59.
In framing this question, I do not intend to suggest that the day-to-day effects of colonial dispossession within our communities have not been incredibly violent in character. All evidence points to the contrary. Nor am I suggesting that the era of overtly coercive colonial rule has come to an end. The frequency of what have at times been spectacular displays of state power deployed against relatively small numbers of Indigenous community activists has shown this not to be the case either. The violent state interventions that transpired at Kanesatake in 1990 and Gustafsen Lake in 1995 demonstrate this all too well. I am merely suggesting that strategically deployed state violence no longer constitutes the
first response
in maintaining settler-colonial hegemony vis-à-vis Indigenous nations. On the military and paramilitary attacks at Kanesatake and Gustafsen Lake, see Geoffrey York and Loreen Pindera,
People of the Pines: The Warriors and the Legacy of Oka
(Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1991); and Sandra Lambertus,
Wartime Images, Peacetime Wounds: The Media and the Gustafsen Lake Standoff
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004).

60.
See in particular, Frantz Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
, trans. Charles Lam Markmann (1967; repr., Boston: Grove Press, 1991); Fanon,
A Dying Colonialism
(Boston: Grove Press, 1965); Fanon,
Toward the African Revolution
(Boston: Grove Press, 1967); Fanon,
The Wretched of the Earth
(Boston: Grove Press, 2005). For a theory of colonial governmentality that draws more centrally from Michel Foucault’s contributions, see David Scott, “Colonial Governmentality,”
Social Text
43 (Autumn 1995): 191–220. Also see, Michel Foucault, “Governmentality” and “The Subject of Power,” in
Power: The Essential Works of Michel Foucault
, vol. 3, ed. James Faubian (New York: The New Press, 1994), 201–22, 326–48.

61.
Fanon,
The Wretched of the Earth
, 4.

62.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
Phenomenology of Spirit
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977).

63.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 45.

64.
Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” 32–33.

65.
James Clifford, “Taking Identity Politics Seriously: The Contradictory Stony Ground . . . ,” in
Without Guarantees: Essays in Honour of Stuart Hall
, ed. Paul Gilroy, Lawrence Grossberg, and Angela McRobbie, 94–112 (London: Verso, 2000).

66.
Brian Barry,
Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001), 325.

67.
Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking Recognition: Overcoming Displacement and Reification in Cultural Politics,” in
Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Identities, Agency and Power
, ed. Barbara Hobson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 22.

68.
I would argue that this claim applies to other identity-related struggles as well. As James Tully suggests, when “struggles over recognition” are conceived of in “broad” or “ontological” terms, it is clear that any effort to alter “the norms under which citizens are led to recognize themselves [and each other] will have effects in the distribution or redistribution of the relations of power among them.” This is as true in cases where workers collectively struggle to challenge the prevailing norms of exploitative nonrecognition that have hitherto excluded them from participating in the democratic governance of a site of production, as it is in contexts where a group of Indigenous women challenge a patriarchal norm of misrecognition which has functioned to exclude, assimilate, or dominate them. When seen in this light, many, if not most, of today’s prominent social movements clearly “exhibit both recognition and distribution aspects” (
Public Philosophy in a New Key
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008], 1:293–300).

69.
Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth,
Redistribution or Recognition? A Political Philosophical Exchange
(New York: Verso, 2003), 72–78.

70.
Cressida Heyes,
Line Drawings: Defining Women through Feminist Practice
(Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 2000), 35.

71.
Anne Philips,
Multiculturalism without Culture
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 14.

72.
Richard J. F. Day,
Gramsci Is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements
(Ann Arbor, Mich.: Pluto Press, 2005), 15.

1.
Hegel,
The Phenomenology of Spirit
.

2.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 148.

3.
R. Young,
Postcolonialism
, 275.

4.
Fraser and Honneth,
Redistribution or Recognition?
, 1.

5.
Hegel,
Phenomenology of Spirit
, 11–119.

6.
See in particular, Alexander Kojève,
Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit
(New York: Basic Books, 1969). Also see Jean-Paul Sartre,
Being and Nothingness
(New York: Washington Square Press, 1956); Sartre,
Anti-Semite and Jew: An Exploration of the Etiology of Hate
(New York: Schocken Books, 1974); Sartre, “Black Orpheus,” in
Race
, ed. Robert Bernasconi, 115–42 (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2001). The relationship between Fanon and Sartre on the question of recognition will be taken up in more detail in chapter 5.

7.
Nigel Gibson, “Dialectical Impasses: Turning the Table on Hegel and the Black,”
Parallax
8, no. 2 (2002): 31.

8.
Fraser and Honneth,
Redistribution or Recognition?
11.

9.
Hegel,
Phenomenology of Spirit
, 178.

10.
Robert Pippin, “What Is the Question for Which Hegel’s Theory of Recognition Is the Answer?,”
European Journal of Philosophy
8, no. 2 (2000): 156.

11.
Hegel,
Phenomenology of Spirit
, 191–92.

12.
Ibid., 191, 192.

13.
Ibid., 195.

14.
Robert Williams, “Hegel and Nietzsche: Recognition and Master/Slave,”
Philosophy Today
45, no. 5 (2001): 16.

15.
Patchen Markell,
Bound by Recognition
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 25–32. One could argue that this is not necessarily the case with respect to Hegel’s later works, particularly
The Philosophy of Right
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), where the state is understood to play a key role in mediating relations of recognition.

16.
Markell,
Bound by Recognition
, 25.

17.
Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” 61, 40.

18.
Ibid., 61.

19.
Ibid., 32–34; and Charles Taylor,
Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 27.

20.
Charles Taylor,
The Malaise of Modernity
(Toronto: Anansi Press, 1991), 45–46.

21.
Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” 25

22.
Ibid., 26, 36.

23.
Ibid., 36, 64.

24.
Ibid., 26.

25.
Ibid., 40; also see Charles Taylor,
Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism
(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993), 148, 180.

26.
Taylor,
Reconciling the Solitudes
, 180. Also see Charles Taylor, “On the Draft Nisga’a Treaty,”
BC Studies
120 (Winter 1998/1999): 37–40.

27.
Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” 40.

28.
Richard Day and Tonio Sadik, “The BC Land Question, Liberal Multiculturalism, and the Spectre of Aboriginal Nationhood,”
BC Studies
134 (2002): 6. Taylor,
Reconciling the Solitudes
, 148. Taylor, “Politics of Recognition,” 41.

29.
Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” 65–66.

30.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 12; Taylor, “Politics of Recognition,” 65–66. Also see Charles Taylor,
Philosophical Papers
, vol. 2,
Philosophy and the Human Sciences
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 235.

31.
A number of studies have mapped the similarities and differences between the dialectic of recognition as conceived by Fanon and Hegel, but relatively few have applied Fanon’s insights to critique the groundswell appropriation of Hegel’s theory of recognition to address contemporary questions surrounding the recognition of cultural diversity. Even fewer have used Fanon’s writings to problematize the utility of a politics of recognition for restructuring hierarchical relations among disparate identities in colonial contexts. For a survey of the available literature, see Irene Gendzier,
Fanon: A Critical Study
(New York: Grove Press, 1974); Hussien Bulhan,
Frantz Fanon and the Psychology of Oppression
(New York: Plenum Press, 1985); Lou Turner, “On the Difference between the Hegelian and Fanonian Dialectic of Lordship and Bondage,” in
Fanon: A Critical Reader
, ed. Lewis Gordon, Denean Sharpley-Whiting, and Renee White, 134–51 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996); Beatrice Hanssen, “Ethics of the Other,” in
A Turn to Ethics
, ed. Marjorie Garber, Beatrice Hanssen, and Rebecca Walkowitz, 127–80 (New York: Routledge, 2000); Sonia Kruks,
Retrieving Experience:
Subjectivity and Recognition in Feminist Politics
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001); Kelly Oliver,
Witnessing: Beyond Recognition
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001); Nigel Gibson, “Dialectical Impasse: Turning the Table on Hegel and the Black,”
Parallax
23 (2002): 30–45; Gibson,
Fanon: The Postcolonial Imagination
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003); Anita Chari, “Exceeding Recognition,”
Sartre Studies International
10, no. 2 (2004): 110–22; Andrew Schaap, “Political Reconciliation through a Struggle for Recognition?,”
Social and Legal Studies
13, no. 4 (2004): 523–40.

32.
Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” in
Mapping Ideology
, ed. Slavoj Žižek (London: Verso, 1994), 100–140.

33.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 84 (emphasis added).

34.
Fanon’s contemporary Albert Memmi drew a similar conclusion five years later, in 1957: “Constantly confronted with this image of himself, set forth and imposed on all institutions and in every human contact, how could the colonized help reacting to this portrait? It cannot leave him indifferent and remain a veneer which, like an insult, blows with the wind. He ends up
recognizing it
as one would a detested nickname which has become a familiar description. . . . Wilfully created and spread by the colonizer, this mythical and degrading portrait ends up being
accepted
and
lived
to a certain extent by the colonized. It thus acquires a certain amount of reality and contributes to the true portrait of the colonized” (
The Colonizer and the Colonized
[Boston: Beacon Press, 1991], 87–88 [emphasis added]).

35.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 111–12.

36.
Ibid., 109.

37.
Ibid., 111.

38.
Ibid., 112.

39.
Ibid., 109.

40.
Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” 26.

41.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 11–12.

42.
Ibid.

43.
Ibid., 11.

44.
Ibid., 202.

45.
Ibid., 11.

46.
Fanon,
Wretched of the Earth
, 5.

47.
Georg Lukacs,
History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 83.

48.
For example, see Himani Bannerji,
Dark Side of the Nation
(Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 2001); Richard Rorty,
Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998); Rorty, “Is ‘Cultural Recognition’ a Useful Notion for Leftist Politics?,”
Critical Horizons
1, no. 1 (2000): 7–20; Richard Day, “Who Is This We That Gives the Gift? Native American Political Theory and
The Western Tradition
,”
Critical Horizons
2, no. 2 (2001): 173–201; Day and Sadik, “The BC Land Question,” 5–34; Brian Barry,
Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism
(Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002); Fraser and Honneth,
Redistribution or Recognition?

49.
Fraser and Honneth,
Redistribution or Recognition?
, 12–13.

50.
Day, “Who Is This We That Gives the Gift?,” 189.

51.
In particular, see Howard Adams,
Prison of Grass: Canada from a Native Point of View
(Saskatoon: Fifth House Publishers, 1975); Adams,
A Tortured People: The Politics of Colonization
(Penticton, Ont.: Theytus Books, 1999). Also see Marie Smallface Marule, “Traditional Indian Government: Of the People, By the People and For the People,” in
Pathways to Self-Determination: Canadian Indians and the Canadian State
, ed. Menno Boldt, J. Anthony Long, and Leroy Little Bear, 36–53 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984); Watkins,
Dene Nation
.

52.
For example, see: Lee Maracle,
I Am Woman: A Native Perspective on Sociology and Feminism
(Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers, 1988); Taiaiake Alfred,
Peace Power Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto
(Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 1999); Alfred,
Wasáse
; Smith,
Conquest
; Gord Hill, “Indigenous Anti-Colonialism,”
Upping the Anti
5 (2007), 4–15.

53.
Alfred,
Peace Power Righteousness
, 60.

54.
Alfred,
Wasáse
, 133.

55.
A more thorough treatment of Indigenous anticapitalism in Canada will be examined in chapters 2 and my concluding chapter.

56.
Fraser and Honneth,
Redistribution or Recognition?
, 29.

57.
Day, “Who Is This We That Gives the Gift?,” 176. Also see Nancy Fraser, “Against Anarchism,”
Public Seminar Blog,
October 9, 2013,
http://www.publicseminar.org/2013/10/against-anarchism/#.UzR7nTKcXok
.

58.
Fraser and Honneth,
Redistribution or Recognition?
, 100.

59.
Ibid., 31.

60.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 11.

61.
For a comprehensive evaluation of Fraser’s critique of “psychologization” in the work of Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, see Simon Thompson,
The Political Theory of Recognition
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006), 31–41.

62.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 217 (emphasis added).

63.
Ibid.

64.
Hegel,
Phenomenology of Spirit
, 113–14.

65.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 220 (emphasis added).

66.
Ibid., 18.

67.
Ibid., 12.

68.
Turner, “On the Difference,” 146.

69.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 221.

70.
Oliver,
Witnessing
.

71.
Fanon,
Wretched of the Earth
, 9.

72.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 220–22.

73.
Taylor, “Politics of Recognition,” 50 (emphasis added).

74.
Fanon,
Black Skin, White Masks
(1991), 220 (emphasis added).

75.
Will Kymlicka frames the problem of colonialism as a matter of unjust incorporation into dominant state structures; see his
Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights
(Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 1995);
Finding
Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada
(Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 1998);
Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship
(Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 2001).

76.
Todd Gordon, “Canada, Empire and Indigenous Peoples in the Americas,”
Socialist Studies
2, no. 1 (2006): 47–75.

77.
Isabelle Schulte-Tenckhoff, “Reassessing the Paradigm of Domestication: The Problematic of Indigenous Treaties,”
Review of Constitutional Studies
4, no. 2 (1998): 239–89.

78.
Michael Asch, “From ‘Calder’ to ‘Van der Peet’: Aboriginal Rights and Canadian Law,” in
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand
, ed. Paul Havemann, 428–46 (Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1999); Patrick Macklem,
Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001); James Tully, “The Struggles of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom,” in
Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
, ed. Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, and Will Saunders, 36–59 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

79.
Supreme Court of Canada,
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia
(1997), 3 SCR 1010, in
Delgamuukw: The Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Aboriginal Title
(Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation, 1998), 35, quoted in James Tully, “Aboriginal Peoples: Negotiating Reconciliation,” in
Canadian Politics
, ed. James Bickerton and Alain-G. Gagnon, 3rd ed. (Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2000), 413.