Loading…
The ties that blind: making fee simple in the British Columbia treaty process
Property is a crucial means by which space is made, and remade. This is powerfully evident in settler societies, such as British Columbia, Canada. To understand the work that property does requires us to attend to the manner in which it is entangled in and constitutive of a multitude of relations (e...
Saved in:
Published in: | Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965) 2015-04, Vol.40 (2), p.168-179 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4648-2e1c958512eb2e0f8e85bec00527f9541d1f987148a128b580829c9e6931dff33 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4648-2e1c958512eb2e0f8e85bec00527f9541d1f987148a128b580829c9e6931dff33 |
container_end_page | 179 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 168 |
container_title | Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965) |
container_volume | 40 |
creator | Blomley, Nicholas |
description | Property is a crucial means by which space is made, and remade. This is powerfully evident in settler societies, such as British Columbia, Canada. To understand the work that property does requires us to attend to the manner in which it is entangled in and constitutive of a multitude of relations (ethical, practical, historical, semantic and so on). Yet for property to function, some of these relationships must be bracketed. That which is designated as inside a boundary must be partly disentangled from that identified as outside. Property practice and theory helps organise these exclusions. Yet this is not disinterested: Property's frames, therefore, can become political battle lines. Drawing from a modern-day treaty process involving indigenous communities and the federal and provincial governments in British Columbia, Canada, I trace the ways in which the state has sought to disentangle property from its recently re-emergent colonial entanglements. One of the ways in which it has tried to do this is to insist that First Nations hold their treaty settlement lands as a form of fee simple, this being bracketed as a clear and certain entitlement, replacing a messier 'Aboriginal title'. First Nations negotiators, however, have pushed back, re-entangling fee simple in culture, politics and place. I explore the performative use of categorisation on the part of the Crown in their attempt at re-framing fee simple as 'simple'. Apart from documenting this understudied postcolonial moment, I also encourage geographers to recognise the important work that property does in making space. To do so, I theorise property as an effect, performed through multiple technical and categorical enactments. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/tran.12058 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1676089449</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24583377</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24583377</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4648-2e1c958512eb2e0f8e85bec00527f9541d1f987148a128b580829c9e6931dff33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90M1rFDEYBvAgCq7VS-9CoBcpTJtk8umtXXRX-iHIisVLyMy-0812PrZJFt3_3myn7aEHcwnh-b1JeBA6pOSE5nWagutPKCNCv0ITypUohJT0NZoQwkjBlOBv0bsY12R_JuUEXS1WgJOHiNPKJVy1vl9-xp278_0tbgBw9N2mBez7DACfB598XOHp0G67yjucAri0w5sw1BDje_SmcW2ED4_7Afr59ctiOi8uv8--Tc8ui5pLrgsGtDZCC8qgYkAaDVpUUBMimGqM4HRJG6MV5dpRpiuhiWamNiBNSZdNU5YH6NN4b373fgsx2c7HGtrW9TBso6VSSaIN5ybToxd0PWxDn3-XVWaCSbpXx6OqwxBjgMZugu9c2FlK7L5Zu2_WPjSbMR3xH9_C7j_SLn6cXT_NfBxn1jEN4XmG8ZyVSuW8GHMfE_x9zl24s1KVSthf1zMrf1_NLm7M3M7Lf7StkgQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1667652619</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The ties that blind: making fee simple in the British Columbia treaty process</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Blomley, Nicholas</creator><creatorcontrib>Blomley, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><description>Property is a crucial means by which space is made, and remade. This is powerfully evident in settler societies, such as British Columbia, Canada. To understand the work that property does requires us to attend to the manner in which it is entangled in and constitutive of a multitude of relations (ethical, practical, historical, semantic and so on). Yet for property to function, some of these relationships must be bracketed. That which is designated as inside a boundary must be partly disentangled from that identified as outside. Property practice and theory helps organise these exclusions. Yet this is not disinterested: Property's frames, therefore, can become political battle lines. Drawing from a modern-day treaty process involving indigenous communities and the federal and provincial governments in British Columbia, Canada, I trace the ways in which the state has sought to disentangle property from its recently re-emergent colonial entanglements. One of the ways in which it has tried to do this is to insist that First Nations hold their treaty settlement lands as a form of fee simple, this being bracketed as a clear and certain entitlement, replacing a messier 'Aboriginal title'. First Nations negotiators, however, have pushed back, re-entangling fee simple in culture, politics and place. I explore the performative use of categorisation on the part of the Crown in their attempt at re-framing fee simple as 'simple'. Apart from documenting this understudied postcolonial moment, I also encourage geographers to recognise the important work that property does in making space. To do so, I theorise property as an effect, performed through multiple technical and categorical enactments.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-2754</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-5661</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/tran.12058</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Bargaining ; bracketing ; British Columbia ; Canada ; categorisation ; Community ; Community involvement ; Government ; Indigenous peoples ; indigenous treaties ; law and geography ; Native North Americans ; Place ; Property ; Treaties</subject><ispartof>Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965), 2015-04, Vol.40 (2), p.168-179</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)</rights><rights>The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG). © 2014 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4648-2e1c958512eb2e0f8e85bec00527f9541d1f987148a128b580829c9e6931dff33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4648-2e1c958512eb2e0f8e85bec00527f9541d1f987148a128b580829c9e6931dff33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24583377$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24583377$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,33223,33224,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Blomley, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><title>The ties that blind: making fee simple in the British Columbia treaty process</title><title>Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965)</title><addtitle>Trans Inst Br Geogr</addtitle><description>Property is a crucial means by which space is made, and remade. This is powerfully evident in settler societies, such as British Columbia, Canada. To understand the work that property does requires us to attend to the manner in which it is entangled in and constitutive of a multitude of relations (ethical, practical, historical, semantic and so on). Yet for property to function, some of these relationships must be bracketed. That which is designated as inside a boundary must be partly disentangled from that identified as outside. Property practice and theory helps organise these exclusions. Yet this is not disinterested: Property's frames, therefore, can become political battle lines. Drawing from a modern-day treaty process involving indigenous communities and the federal and provincial governments in British Columbia, Canada, I trace the ways in which the state has sought to disentangle property from its recently re-emergent colonial entanglements. One of the ways in which it has tried to do this is to insist that First Nations hold their treaty settlement lands as a form of fee simple, this being bracketed as a clear and certain entitlement, replacing a messier 'Aboriginal title'. First Nations negotiators, however, have pushed back, re-entangling fee simple in culture, politics and place. I explore the performative use of categorisation on the part of the Crown in their attempt at re-framing fee simple as 'simple'. Apart from documenting this understudied postcolonial moment, I also encourage geographers to recognise the important work that property does in making space. To do so, I theorise property as an effect, performed through multiple technical and categorical enactments.</description><subject>Bargaining</subject><subject>bracketing</subject><subject>British Columbia</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>categorisation</subject><subject>Community</subject><subject>Community involvement</subject><subject>Government</subject><subject>Indigenous peoples</subject><subject>indigenous treaties</subject><subject>law and geography</subject><subject>Native North Americans</subject><subject>Place</subject><subject>Property</subject><subject>Treaties</subject><issn>0020-2754</issn><issn>1475-5661</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp90M1rFDEYBvAgCq7VS-9CoBcpTJtk8umtXXRX-iHIisVLyMy-0812PrZJFt3_3myn7aEHcwnh-b1JeBA6pOSE5nWagutPKCNCv0ITypUohJT0NZoQwkjBlOBv0bsY12R_JuUEXS1WgJOHiNPKJVy1vl9-xp278_0tbgBw9N2mBez7DACfB598XOHp0G67yjucAri0w5sw1BDje_SmcW2ED4_7Afr59ctiOi8uv8--Tc8ui5pLrgsGtDZCC8qgYkAaDVpUUBMimGqM4HRJG6MV5dpRpiuhiWamNiBNSZdNU5YH6NN4b373fgsx2c7HGtrW9TBso6VSSaIN5ybToxd0PWxDn3-XVWaCSbpXx6OqwxBjgMZugu9c2FlK7L5Zu2_WPjSbMR3xH9_C7j_SLn6cXT_NfBxn1jEN4XmG8ZyVSuW8GHMfE_x9zl24s1KVSthf1zMrf1_NLm7M3M7Lf7StkgQ</recordid><startdate>201504</startdate><enddate>201504</enddate><creator>Blomley, Nicholas</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>John Wiley & Sons Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201504</creationdate><title>The ties that blind: making fee simple in the British Columbia treaty process</title><author>Blomley, Nicholas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4648-2e1c958512eb2e0f8e85bec00527f9541d1f987148a128b580829c9e6931dff33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Bargaining</topic><topic>bracketing</topic><topic>British Columbia</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>categorisation</topic><topic>Community</topic><topic>Community involvement</topic><topic>Government</topic><topic>Indigenous peoples</topic><topic>indigenous treaties</topic><topic>law and geography</topic><topic>Native North Americans</topic><topic>Place</topic><topic>Property</topic><topic>Treaties</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Blomley, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Blomley, Nicholas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The ties that blind: making fee simple in the British Columbia treaty process</atitle><jtitle>Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965)</jtitle><addtitle>Trans Inst Br Geogr</addtitle><date>2015-04</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>168</spage><epage>179</epage><pages>168-179</pages><issn>0020-2754</issn><eissn>1475-5661</eissn><abstract>Property is a crucial means by which space is made, and remade. This is powerfully evident in settler societies, such as British Columbia, Canada. To understand the work that property does requires us to attend to the manner in which it is entangled in and constitutive of a multitude of relations (ethical, practical, historical, semantic and so on). Yet for property to function, some of these relationships must be bracketed. That which is designated as inside a boundary must be partly disentangled from that identified as outside. Property practice and theory helps organise these exclusions. Yet this is not disinterested: Property's frames, therefore, can become political battle lines. Drawing from a modern-day treaty process involving indigenous communities and the federal and provincial governments in British Columbia, Canada, I trace the ways in which the state has sought to disentangle property from its recently re-emergent colonial entanglements. One of the ways in which it has tried to do this is to insist that First Nations hold their treaty settlement lands as a form of fee simple, this being bracketed as a clear and certain entitlement, replacing a messier 'Aboriginal title'. First Nations negotiators, however, have pushed back, re-entangling fee simple in culture, politics and place. I explore the performative use of categorisation on the part of the Crown in their attempt at re-framing fee simple as 'simple'. Apart from documenting this understudied postcolonial moment, I also encourage geographers to recognise the important work that property does in making space. To do so, I theorise property as an effect, performed through multiple technical and categorical enactments.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/tran.12058</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0020-2754 |
ispartof | Transactions - Institute of British Geographers (1965), 2015-04, Vol.40 (2), p.168-179 |
issn | 0020-2754 1475-5661 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1676089449 |
source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | Bargaining bracketing British Columbia Canada categorisation Community Community involvement Government Indigenous peoples indigenous treaties law and geography Native North Americans Place Property Treaties |
title | The ties that blind: making fee simple in the British Columbia treaty process |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T08%3A33%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20ties%20that%20blind:%20making%20fee%20simple%20in%20the%20British%20Columbia%20treaty%20process&rft.jtitle=Transactions%20-%20Institute%20of%20British%20Geographers%20(1965)&rft.au=Blomley,%20Nicholas&rft.date=2015-04&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=168&rft.epage=179&rft.pages=168-179&rft.issn=0020-2754&rft.eissn=1475-5661&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/tran.12058&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24583377%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4648-2e1c958512eb2e0f8e85bec00527f9541d1f987148a128b580829c9e6931dff33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1667652619&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=24583377&rfr_iscdi=true |