Introduction
In recent years, indigenous revival has arisen as a distinct ideological and cultural tendency in the Canadian environment. Self-determination for Indigenous populations across the world is a contentious and hotly debated issue. In Canada, the rhetoric of acknowledgment has been more popular in framing Indigenous demands for self-determination, resulting in policies and programs that are frequently regarded as liberal and progressive. In the article of Michelle Daigle (2016), “he juxtaposes the spatiality of colonial governance reproduced through recognition-based strategies with the relational geographies lived through everyday practices of self-determination that are rooted in place-based Indigenous ontologies” (p. 259). Daigle hopes to foster more discourse in cartography about the various ways Indigenous peoples think about and experience consciousness outside and beside official state and international organizations while also confounding our understanding of place, land, and accountability. Michael Elliott, in his article (2018), “to offer clarification on the political critique behind the resurgence movement and the “turn” or strategy of disengagement it advocates and, second, to excavate an opposingly directed drive within it” (p. 61). This work was written to compare these articles and their analysis.
Daigle Analysis
Over the last few years, Indigenous-state relationships in Canada have entered a new phase. In a revitalized partnership based on mutual acknowledgment, the Government of Canada has progressed toward balancing Indigenous demands for self-determination with Crown authority. Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island lived as various nations distinguished by their historical territories, familial relationships, government systems, trade and investment systems, and well-established yet flexible legal codes before colonial arrival. Indigenous governance systems, as well as the sociological, economic, cultural, and religious organizations in which they are entrenched, continue to remind daily life at the level of Indigenous communities.
Indigenous peoples have maintained their diversity by continuously transferring and renewing their metaphysics through their languages, creative and narrative traditions, spiritual events, yearly community meetings, and sourcing and distribution of their local cuisine. Daigle contends that it is this metaphysics, as well as the behaviors through which they are conveyed, that foster an independent political of indigenous self-determination (Daigle, 2016). These ideologies serve as the foundation for pre-colonial legal frameworks that regulate how Indigenous nations have and continue to connect to their native homelands, including animals and plants, cousins, community and family members, and representatives of other clans and countries.
Through the law of awawanenitakik, the Omushkegowuk Cree comprehends and experiences self-determination. The law highlights the significance of having lived an Omushkegowuk Cree style of living by vigorously preserving people’s obligations to their ancestral homelands through location border control such as teaching and talking Omushkego, the Cree language, having participated in annual celebrations, and extracting and being able to share local cuisine. Daigle investigates the rising geopolitics of awawanenitakik as experienced via ritual rejuvenation in my community, Achikamaw also called Constance Lake First Nation, which is situated in Treaty 9 territory (Daigle, 2016). Furthermore, focusing on ordinary geographies of revival helps unravel the complicated challenges of regenerating Indigenous elements.
Elliott Analysis
Although half a century of seeming progress toward recognizing and correcting colonial injustice, it is maintained that the current age represents a general continuation of the inherent causal implications of colonial oppression. These precepts are connected to the reality that there is no different geographical homeland to which the colonizing civilization may, in theory, retreat in settler-colonial circumstances such as Canada. This indicates that lands taken from Indigenous populations are essential not just for reasons of resettlement and productivity expansion but also because they serve as the crucial geographical underpinning of the conquering civilization itself.
The conceptions of decolonization advanced by resurgent theorists often concentrate upon the achievement of mutually accepted cohabitation terms between Indigenous and colonial peoples. While the precise details of these future interactions must be continued to work out in the course of their worthwhile building projects, in broad terms, they will also include shapes of kingdom configuration wherein the stakeholders’ system participants, and soul jurisdiction are asserted, and capabilities for self-definition, consciousness, and consciousness are convinced. Rather than aiming to proclaim an entirely original plan of action from the standpoint of theory, the movement takes its cues from modes of being and behaving that are already deeply embedded in Indigenous groups and social histories (Elliott, 2018). This is critical if Indigenous norms can be re-established as a positive force on the current terrain, and movement toward altering colonial actuality can be realized.
Language, it is suggested, is essential because it offers a portal to information, moral norms, norms, and conceptions contained in standard structures, which may give assistance and direction to people striving to establish decolonized societal possibilities. A resistance to merely imposing familiar language frameworks appears to be necessary if individuals of settler culture find themselves in a more significant position to undertake reciprocating discourse with Indigenous peoples (Elliott, 2018). It is about preventing the simple repetition of colonial assaults on Indigenous languages, which are invariably accompanied by more comprehensive attacks on civilization and existence.
Comparison
Studying these articles, one can understand that the authors express their thoughts from different positions; although Elliott tries to take all sorts of situations in his article, Daigle talks about the people with whom he is directly connected. Throughout the article, Daigle refers to the terms of the people, which are somehow related to the topic of the article. In my opinion, Elliot approached writing the article more systematically, covering both fundamental and unique issues directly related to the solution to this problem. The topics of the pieces are fundamentally different, just representing the general position of the authors. Daigle talks about the self-determination of peoples, while Elliott talks about the introduction of peoples into Canadian society in terms of their assimilation, respectively, the gradual identity of peoples.
Daigle, in his work, speaks from the side of the people about the attitude to the proposals of the official authorities. Unfortunately, people disagree with the full implementation in Canadian society. The policy of spatial recognition limits indigenous self-determination to colonial territorial boundaries, in contrast to indigenous relationships and responsibilities to their kin networks, including their kindred lands. Elliott, in turn, speaks about the situation more from the official site of the authorities, although touching on various positions of both Canadian society and people.
For many years, the parties could not agree because the people wanted recognition of their autonomy because they lived in this territory before the emergence of a large state. In the works of the authors considered in this comparison, there is one aspect that entirely coincides, namely, the confidence that the dialogue between the two parties should continue, since there should be a complete settlement of the issue, taking into account the wishes of all parties. The main task of this dialogue is to take into account all issues and possible problems with the recognition of the territories of peoples.
Conclusion
Indigenous-state relationships in Canada have entered a new era in recent years. The Canadian government has made headway at reconciling Indigenous wishes for the soul with Crown power through a revived partnership basis of mutual acknowledgment. Self-determination for Indigenous peoples across the globe is a sensitive and divisive topic. In Canada, recognition rhetoric has become more common in expressing Indigenous aspirations for the soul, resulting in policies that are usually viewed as socially progressive.
Daigle intends to encourage more excellent discussion in cartography in numerous ways. Indigenous groups think about and feel awareness outside of and in addition to formal state and international institutions while simultaneously complicating our concept of place, land, and responsibilities. Daigle argues that it is this metaphysics, as well as the actions that express it, that develop an autonomous politics of indigenous self-determination. Furthermore, concentrating on ordinary revival geographies aids in unraveling the complex obstacles of renewing Indigenous components.
Elliot took a more methodical approach to author the paper, including both primary and unique aspects directly connected to the solution to this challenge. The themes of the essays are essentially different, just conveying the writers’ overall point of view. Daigle discusses peoples’ self-determination, while Elliott discusses peoples’ entrance into Canadian society in terms of integration, alternately, peoples’ developing identification. There is one component that completely corresponds to the works of the writers analyzed in this comparison, and that is the faith that the communication between the two sides should continue, since there should be a thorough resolution of the question, taking into consideration the objectives of all organizations.
References
Daigle, M. (2016). Awawanenitakik: The spatial politics of recognition and relational geographies of Indigenous selfādetermination. The Canadian Geographer/Le GĆ©ographe Canadien, 60(2), 259-269.
Elliott, M. (2018). Indigenous resurgence: The drive for renewed engagement and reciprocity in the turn away from the state. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 51(1), 61-81.