Food Sovereignty
In Kyle Whyte’s essay on Food Sovereignty, Justice and Indigenous Peoples he focuses on the interactions of colonizers and colonial powers with Indigenous peoples and the impacts on food sovereignty. This post will offer a very current and relevant example of how settler colonial domination undermines indigenous culture and food security.
In Nova Scotia Sipekne’katik First Nation began a moderate livelihood fishery. The idea here is that the indigenous community could exercise their treaty rights, these treaty rights include “right to fish, hunt and gather to earn a moderate livelihood.” [1]This implementation has resulted in an eruption of violence against indigenous people, it is a perfect example of how colonialists work to dominate indigenous groups and create food injustices.
Food injustices are created “when at least one human group systematically dominates one or more other human groups through their connections to and interactions with one another in local and global food systems”[2] In exercising their right to fish and earn a moderate livelihood the Mi’kmaq first nations have permits to fish outside of “season”, this is creating tensions and anger with the commercial fisherman who are taking actions to stop this. In doing this, commercial fishing industry are using their connections to ensure local businesses will not buy lobster from Mi’kmaq fishermen. This is an example as to what Whyte is referring to as a food injustice. Along with interfering in their fishing, there is an unsafe work environment being created in this industry. The uproar in violence including cutting lines, intimidation, pelting buildings with rocks, barricading fishers, fires[3] are just the beginning is preventing a safe work environment or access.
Next Whyte introduces food sovereignty, that is “the right of peoples and governments to choose the way food is produces and consumed in order to respect livelihoods.”[4] Using the same lobster fishing example we can see how it is a situation where an indigenous group is seeking to govern themselves in “different respects as collective societies”[5] The violence targeting indigenous peoples is disrupting how they fish for cultural purposes. However, I agree with Whyte when he states “Indigenous peoples claims about the connections of particular foods to collective self- determination are much more complicated. The claims are more about how colonial domination, in contexts such as US settler colonialism, is organized to undermine certain human institutions that are pivotal to Indigenous peoples’ capacities to exercise collective self- determination, food sovereignty being a significant part of that.”[6]There may not necessarily be a spiritual or cultural need for the livelihood fishery they have set up, however, it is necessary for the indigenous group to continue living their lives without being under the power of colonialism and an industry that seeks to over-power their indigenous culture.
Just like in Whyte’s article like the salmon fishers the Lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia are exercising their treaty rights. “rights protecting Indigenous peoples’ relationships to particular foods from the actions of settlers.”[7]While indigenous people are having to fight for their fishing rights, more importantly they are fighting for their treaty rights and respect for them. The settler’s way of life in the lobster industry has been to have an off season in order to avoid overfishing and depletion, however, treaty rights state that indigenous people need not be impacted by settler activities and should have the right to continue fishing during off seasons. In order to avoid settler colonial domination this particular indigenous group in Nova Scotia must continue to fight for respect of their treaty rights.
The current crisis and uproar of violence against indigenous lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia is a suited example for Whyte’s article. It is relevant in discussing his main arguments and understanding how settler colonialism interferes in indigenous cultures and food security. It is representative of how indigenous connection and relation to this industry is also a fight for self-determination and avoidance of domination.
[1] Angel, Moore. Sipekne’katik chief’s message to Canada is moderate livelihood fishery is here to stay. Published October 20, 2020. APTN news
[2] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples: An Essay on Settler Colonialism and Collective Continuance. Published March 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics.
[3] Amanda, Coletta. Indigenous People in Nova Scotia exercised their right to catch lobster. Now they’re under attack. Published Octover.26, 2020. The Washington Post.
[4] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples
[5] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples
[6] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples
[7] Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples
References
Amanda, Coletta. Indigenous People in Nova Scotia exercised their right to catch lobster. Now they’re under attack. Published Octover.26, 2020. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/canada-nova-scotia-indigenous-lobster-fishery/2020/10/24/d7e83f54-12ed-11eb-82af-864652063d61_story.html
Angel, Moore. Sipekne’katik chief’s message to Canada is moderate livelihood fishery is here to stay. Published October 20, 2020. APTN news. https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/sipeknekatik-chiefs-message-to-canada-is-moderate-livelihood-fishery-is-here-to-stay/
Kyle Powys Whyte. Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples: An Essay on Settler Colonialism and Collective Continuance. Published March 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics.
Alison
Hey there!
I applied Kyle Whyte’s essay to the same case study. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought it fitting when I did the reading. However – to my own detriment – I think you did a much better job of integrating the material with the case study, whereas I explained some concepts and then applied them. I think you captured Whyte’s point much better by doing the analysis that way. I think you also pointed out a conclusion I missed out on, where you talk about the fact that the Sipekne’katik must keep fighting for their moderate livelihood fishery. Though I mentioned they should because they have the right to, I think Whyte would take it to the next step and say that the fight must be undertaken in order to continue avoiding settler colonial domination. I did say that I thought they should fight for the right to self determinate, though I think this is different from pushing back against settler colonial domination. I think this solely for the fact that the right to self determination seems to me like something that is allocated by settler colonialism. But the way in which you structured your argument takes a more commanding stance that Indigenous peoples should not “be allowed”, but should be respected and not interfered with.
– Suzanah
Great analysis. I agree absolutely that Indigenous rights are being infringed upon by colonial settlers in the Nova Scotia lobster fisheries. However, I wonder about the lobsters themselves and I wonder how a three-way tie might be worked out. Certainly, I agree that over fishing is of concern to the Indigenous people living in the area as both a threat to a vital, cultural food source from the point of view of custom and nutrition and that such a threat is a form of ongoing colonial domination as you have brilliantly pointed out. With that being said, I wonder if the Federal Government might cede certain rights to the species in the fisheries and to Indigenous people who inhabit the area to ensure the lobster’s viability and Native cultural viability, even at the cost of Canadian lobster fisheries. Temporary boycotts just don’t seem to care enough about the species viability or the people in question. Indigenous persons living in the area may well advocate for the right to restrict and with Federal Government consent to work out this tie. This is what happened to other fisheries in the Maritimes. Clearly everyone loses if they don’t, so I wonder if this is a bit of a wait and see scenario too. In the meantime, however, I am not eating a whole lot of lobster. I do not wish to infringe upon those making their lives around lobsters or the lobsters themselves. I think sometimes articles like Kyle Whyte’s remind us to change our habits and customs too so as to accommodate other species and cultures that are different from ours. I also sometimes wonder if we do this, will that make the matter more hospitable to all?
Tammy