Introducing a special issue on indigenous-settler relations in anthropological practice: Brian Noble, ‘Consent, Collaboration, Treaty: Toward Anti-Colonial Praxis in Indigenous–Settler Research Relations’, Anthropologica, 57, 2, 2015, pp. 411-417
Excerpt: The contributors to this thematic section issue explore the contours of research praxes for anthro-pologists, and other engaged scholars, committed to strengthening anti-colonial and decolonial engagement in settler–Indigenous encounters. Animating these articles are three quite charged, and increasingly explicit features of research engagement in such encounters: first, seeking the consent of Indigenous peoples we engage as peoples; second, advancing respectful collaborative research relations as persons; and, third, taking seriously the over-arching idea and practice of treaty as a guide to acting honourably together as researchers, persons and peoples. These explorations are offered in response to our shared, empirical understandings that settler–Indigenous relations are still dogged by the unrelenting double problem of colonial dispossession/colonial imposition, and in response to the rising currents of decolonial action through mutual engagement and alliance-building between Indigenous and settler peoples—Idle No More being but one prominent example of such engagement.
The four articles in this series offer examples of how these three modes of engagement are woven into thinking, praxis and the lived interchanges between Indigenous and settler peoples. Spurred by interrogation of these practices, we also see how this leads to the obligation to position oneself, as researcher and person, whether settler or Indigenous, in relation to the facts of the political milieu of our moment and their antecedent histories. Emma Feltes, Joshua J. Smith and Brian Noble write from the stance of settler Canadian anthropologists, and Sherry M. Pictou, who is Mi’kmaq of L’sitku, writes from the stance of an Indigenous resurgence scholar.
In this introduction, I situate the four articles in relation to several contexts of research and thinking, starting from a key challenge raised by Michael Asch (2001), whose subsequent, incisive commentary also concludes this series. I also locate the papers in regard to the rise of what I call the collaborative ethos in anthropological research, and how practices of consent and treaty become activated in relation to this ethos.
As will become evident, there is an abiding interest to plumb the possibilities of what it means to live, act and undertake research together as “treaty people,” while recalling, as Sherry M. Pictou carefully and rightly does in her contribution, the need to be wary of, and differentiate such action from, what takes place in official, contemporary “treaty” negotiations, which are prone to subordinating Indigenous peoples’ autonomy, authority and lands to the economic and political powers of the sovereign state (Coulthard 2014; see Scott 2011). The alternative ideas and praxes of treaty discussed in these articles are drawn from historic and lived precedents among Indigenous peoples and settler society relations, and from the direct involvement of the contributors as engaged decolonial researchers.
Filed under: Uncategorized |