The Self-Governing of Inuit Cultural Heritage in Canada: the Path So Far
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Self-Governing of Inuit Cultural Heritage in Canada: The Path so Far Violet Ford Introduction For the last few decades, indigenous peoples around the world have sought opportunities and methods to govern their own cultural heritage. In the previ- ous administration, President Obama acknowledged this struggle: on a visit to Alaska, he changed the name of Mount McKinley back to the historical tradi- tional name that the indigenous peoples of Alaska had given to this highest mountain peak in North America – Denali, which means ‘the High One’.1 This step by a world leader to acknowledge the cultural heritage of an indigenous people is positive, as indigenous peoples have faced many challenges regarding the misappropriation and misuse of their cultural heritage. UN bodies contin- ue to look at indigenous cultural heritage, and scholars are currently studying and discussing the many issues that indigenous cultural heritage raises. The goal of this chapter is to discuss how indigenous peoples in the Arctic are gov- erning their cultural heritage. The chapter argues that the Inuit in Canada are governing their cultural heritage to varying degrees and with various results. The United Nations Educational, Scientifijic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) refers to culture as ‘the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, ma- terial, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only the arts and letters but also modes of life, the fun- damental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs.’2 Cultural heritage, then, may be defijined as both the physical, tangible forms of lifestyle and the expression of culture, including buildings, landscapes, ar- tifacts, and archaeological remains, and the intangible expressions of culture, including values, customs, traditional skills, language, and artistic expressions. 1 Roberta Rampton, ‘Obama Changing Name of Alaska’s Mount McKinley to Denali’ Reu- ters (Washington, 31 August 2015) <www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/31/us-usa-obama- alaska-idUSKCN0QZ0YZ20150831?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews>. 2 United Nations Educational, Scientifijic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Constitu- tion of the United Nations Educational, Scientifijic and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), 16 November 1945. © 2017 Violet Ford. isbn 978-90-04-34218-7. pp. 199-217 Violet Ford - 9789004342194 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-NDDownloaded 4.0 license. from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:18:29PM via free access 200 ford Indigenous peoples’ right to their cultural heritage is now clearly recognized under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.3 Numerous academics, advocates, and stakeholders have studied and writ- ten about cultural heritage. Jofffe highlights the connection between the prin- ciple of free, prior and informed consent ( FPIC), a cornerstone of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the protection of cultural heritage,4 while Prosper argues that the study of cultural landscapes can lead to alternative ways of seeing heritage value centered around relation- ships.5 The relationship between archaeologists and indigenous peoples has been a matter of concern over the last years. Cliffford looks at the limits of collabo- rative work between archeologists and the community.6 Chirikure and Pwiti rightly suggest that community archaeology empowers previously disenfran- chised peoples such as indigenous peoples and local communities that had lost their rights to their heritage through colonialism.7 They argue that com- munity involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage management has created in some areas a positive relationship between archaeologists and com- munities. At the same time, they recognize that heritage management and the relinquishment of control by heritage managers and archaeologists has been a challenge; and working towards an equal partnership between the indigenous community and scientists remains a challenge.8 Specifijically on the Inuit, Mari- anne Stenbaek notes that although the they have faced many cultural changes 3 UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295, see Articles 11, 12, 13, and 14. 4 Paul Jofffe, ‘Canada’s Opposition to the UN Declaration: Legitimate Concerns or Ideologi- cal Bias’ in J Hartlet et al. (eds.) Realizing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Triumph, Hope, and Action (2010) 70, 81. 5 Lisa Prosper, ‘Wherein Lies the Heritage Value? Rethinking the Heritage Value of Cultural Landscapes from an Aboriginal Perspective’ (2007) The George Wright Forum, vol 24, no 2, 117. 6 James Cliffford, ‘Looking Several Ways: Anthropology and Native Heritage in Alaska’ (2004), Current Anthropology vol 45, no 1, 5. 7 Shadreck Chirikure and Gilbert Pwiti, ‘Community Involvement in Archaeology and Cul- tural Heritage Management: An Assessment from Case Studies in Southern Africa and Elsewhere’ ( 2008) Current Anthropology vol 49, no 3, 467. 8 Ibid. Violet Ford - 9789004342194 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:18:29PM via free access The Self-Governing of Inuit Cultural Heritage in Canada 201 due to the influx of peoples from southern regions, the Inuit culture maintains its strength as a culture of a transnational region.9 Traditional knowledge is very important to Inuit. It is a body of knowledge in its own right that reflects who the Inuit are and the worldview that they hold. In their paper, Andrew Stewart, Darren Keith, and Joan Scottie propose that traditional knowledge is played out in the archaeological landscape.10 Inuit place names are another aspect of Inuit cultural heritage and describe physical or cultural features of the landscape.11 George Wenzel posits that tra- ditional knowledge has become a political concern because of the appropria- tion of this knowledge and argues for closer ethical treatment through intel- lectual property.12 What remains rather unexplored in the literature is how the governance of cultural heritage by indigenous peoples within the context of land rights is progressing to date, particularly at the domestic level. Therefore, the question explored in this chapter is the extent to which the protection and promotion of Inuit cultural heritage can be reached under Inuit land claims agreements and the self-government arrangements flowing from these agreements. Its purpose is to look at Inuit governance and the legal arrangements that provide for gov- ernance and how these arrangements have created a path for the Inuit control over and management of their cultural heritage. Inuit in Canada are located in four regions: the western Arctic, the central Arctic, Northern Quebec, and Northern Labrador. Part one provides a sample of the activities that Inuit are carrying out in the governing of their cultural heritage under various legal arrangements. Part two examines other legal ar- rangements that pertain to the issue of governing and protecting Inuit legal rights. Finally, part three discusses more in depth these fijindings. 9 Marianne Stenbaek, ‘Forty Years of Cultural Change among the Inuit in Alaska, Canada and Greenland: Some Reflections’ (1987) Arctic vol 40, no 4, 30. 10 Andrew Stewart, Darren Keith, and Joan Scottie, ‘Caribou Crossings and Cultural Mean- ings: Placing Traditional Knowledge and Archaeology in Context in an Inuit Landscape’ (June 2004) Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory vol 11, issue 2, 183. 11 Inuit Heritage Trust, <www.inti/eng/placenames/pp.index.html>. 12 George W. Wenzel, ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Inuit: Reflections on TEK Re- search and Ethics’ (1999) Arctic vol 22, no 2, 113. Violet Ford - 9789004342194 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:18:29PM via free access 202 ford PART ONE: MAKING A PATH FOR INUIT GOVERNANCE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE First, the paper will examine the legal arrangements under Inuit land claims agreements, the accompanying self-government regimes, and the related land claims provisions. All these agreements have had a direct impact on the pro- tection of Inuit cultural heritage and have allowed the development of cultural institutions where the Inuit have control over the management of their cul- tural heritage. Inuit Land Claims Agreements Before Canada’s Constitution Act of 1982 came into existence, the Aboriginal Peoples in Canada were not protected. Section 35(1) of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982, recognized and afffijirmed existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Section 35(3) states that the treaty rights re- ferred to in section 35(1) include ‘rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired’. Therefore, the Inuit land claims agreements are protected. As such, the Inuit land claims agreements are intended to defijine resource rights and to improve the social, cultural, and economic well being of the Aboriginal people concerned by providing long-term certainty and clarity for land and resource use and management.13 Self-government goes hand in hand with the constitutional rights reflected in the Land Claims Agreement. The Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing Aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution.14 Recog- nition of inherent rights is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in matters that are internal to their