Dr. Brian Egan, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University
land and property the land surface of the Earth is humankind’s principal resource base: across much of the planet, human life and well‐being ulDmately depends on the biological producDvity – especially plant and animal life – resulDng from the interacDon of solar radiaDon, soil, and water. criDcal land resources include: (a) food and agriculture (Feb 8); (b) forests (Feb 29); and (c) biological diversity (Mar 28). focus today is on systems of control and ‘ownership’ over the most basic resource – land.
control and ownership control or ownership of land goes to heart of many resource issues and conflicts: who owns the land? who gets to use it? who owns the resources found on (or in) the land? who gets to use the land and resources or gets to decide how they are used? how are the benefits from the land and resources used or distributed in society? quesDons of land or resource control and access are oRen central to resource conflicts or disputes.
land and idenDty control over or ownership of land is Ded up with poliDcal and cultural idenDDes and with socio‐economic status: land as territory and as the basis for collecDve idenDDes (e.g., Canadian, BriDsh Columbia, Vancouverite). individual or group (e.g., family) land ownership (property) as symbol or indicator of socio‐economic and poliDcal status. like any other resource, land is a cultural arDfact: the way land is viewed and used varies from one cultural group to another.
regimes of control and ownership open access resources – no organized regime of control or ownership (e.g., atmosphere, open ocean, terra nullius ). common property resources – land and/or resources controlled or owned by a defined group, whether a family, community, tribe, or some other collecDon of individuals. private‐property resources – control or ownership of land and/or resources by individual (real or ‘arDficial’ person). state ownership of resources – the state controls or owns land and/or resources (e.g., “public forests” or “Crown lands” in BriDsh Columbia.
tragedy of the commons Hardin (1986) – common property resources (e.g., common pasture) would inevitably be degraded by raDonal economic actors; thus need to move to private property regimes. Ostrom (1990) – Hardin confused common property resources (CPR) with open access, poinDng out that CPR regimes have worked very well for centuries. CPR regimes rely on social insDtuDons and clear rules to operate effecDvely and sustainably. tradiDonal CPR insDtuDons have been undermined by colonialism, delegiDmaDon of local authoriDes, centralizaDon, imposiDon of market systems.
property common understanding – a thing that one possesses or owns (e.g., a plot of land, real estate or ‘real property’). legal – a bundle of rights, including (a) to use as one wishes, (b) to exclude others, and (c) to transfer to another person. under liberal (classical and neo‐liberal) theory, property usually equated with private property, which is seen as the ideal form of property to opDmize economic progress (wealth generaDon). private property also seen as best form of property to sustain environmental resources – Michael Walker (Fraser InsDtute) argues that everything should be privaDzed. property should be private; common property and state property seen as inferior and of limited uDlity.
private property source of wealth and freedom; bulwark against the state. the owner is central, he or she possesses most (if not all) of the bundle of rights property contains. owner is self‐regarding, concerned only with his/her property with few (if any) obligaDons beyond property border. private property has a spaDal form, with clear boundaries, and no two properDes overlap. property is fixed, certain, secure, beyond poliDcs.
a broader view property is about organizing relaDons between people with respect to things and, as such, is deeply implicated in social, economic, and poliDcal relaDons. property relaDons reflect social, economic, and poliDcal power. property (especially private property) is not fixed, but historically and socially conDngent – property is made and requires conDnually ‘doing’ – and is open to contestaDon. how does property come into being? property as a socio‐cultural pracDce. Western and Indigenous concepDons of property.
Hul’qumi’num case study Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group – 6 Coast Salish First NaDons on BC’s south coast involved in modern treaty process. history of colonizaDon and dispossession. imposiDon of colonial law. creaDon of Indian reserve system. privaDzaDon of land and resources. treaty negoDaDons. appeal to OrganizaDon of American States Human Rights Commission.
colonial dispossession introduced disease. physical violence. the imperial state The culture of colonialism. Segler self‐interest. Cole Harris, “How did colonialism dispossess? Comments from an edge of empire,” Annals of the Associa0on of American Geographers 94 (2004): 165‐182
the imperial state “I informed them that the whole of their country was a possession of the BriDsh crown, and that her Majesty the Queen had given me a special charge, to treat them with jusDce and humanity and to protect them against violence of all foreign naDons which might agempt to molest them, so long as they remained at peace with the [white] seglements.” James Douglas, 1853
The culture of colonialism "I think they are the ugliest and laziest creatures I ever saw and we should as soon think of being afraid of our dogs as of them." (1850) “[Indians] really have no right to the lands they claim, nor are they of any actual value or uDlity to them.” (1867) "I have not yet met with a single Indian whom I consider to have agained even the most glimmering percepDon of the ChrisDan creed.” (1871) Joseph Trutch (1826‐1904) Photo by William James Topley, from Library and Archives of Canada (PA‐025343)
Source: Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group
Source: Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group
colonial legacies economic – loss of access to areas of economic importance, including hunDng territories, fisheries, areas for food gathering, sites for plant culDvaDon, and have received ligle benefit from the extracDon of natural resources from this land grant area. cultural – loss of access to areas of great cultural importance (e.g., bathing and burial sites), loss of access to materials used for cultural purposes (e.g., wood for canoes and carving). ecological – degradaDon of important sites (polluDon of clam beds, destrucDon of cultural sites), depleDon of resources (fish medicinal plants), and concerns about water quality and quanDty.
Recommend
More recommend