This week in PHIL 355, we shift to practical issues concerning both Conservation and Reconciliation.

In ‘Food Sovereignty, Justice and Indigenous Peoples: An Essay on Settler Colonialism and Collective Continuance’, Kyle Powys Whyte discusses how colonial settlement has interfered with the collective self-determination of Indigenous Peoples via the disruption of their food systems. Through the violation of Treaty Rights, U.S. settlers have engaged in practices such as intensive agriculture and urban development that have subsequently degraded the habitats of Treaty protected plants and animals, including salmon (Whyte, para. 13).

According to Whyte, the failure to appropriately conserve particular foods bares a significant impact on the collective continuance and self-determination of Indigenous Peoples (2018). Through traditional practices associated with particular food and food systems, Indigenous people are able to sustain traditional knowledge, cultural identity and self-respect (Whyte, para. 63). The degradation of habitats associated with these practices thus not only interfere with diet and food supply, but also provides less opportunities for social activities and traditional ceremonies that help in the preservation of their cultural identity (Whyte, para. 64).

One aspect of the reading that I found particularly striking was the importance for Indigenous Peoples to conserve particular foods for the purpose of reincarnation. According to this belief, members of particular tribe view salmon and humans as mutually responsible for sustaining one another overtime (Whyte, para. 25). The killing of salmon is therefore not necessarily seen as a means to an end, but rather an act of transformation that is necessary in order to honour the mutual respect, responsibility and accountability in the relationship between the two parties. (Whyte, para. 25).

This raises the question: Is it ethically justifiable for Indigenous people to be hunting salmon and other wildlife in order to preserve their spiritual connections associated with them? Does it make a difference whether or not they are conserving the wildlife and hunting these animals at sustainable rates?

To answer the first question, I would argue in favour of Indigenous hunting practices for reasons of spiritual connectivity. In accordance to the Land-Ethic Principe brought forward by Aldo Leopold, humans have to start thinking of themselves as interdependent members of a biotic community (1948). While Western settlers tend to hold a dichotomist view between people and the environment, Indigenous populations believe that people and animals are both physically and spiritually interrelated. Through their long and complex relationship with the land, hunting is a form of expression of both their sovereignty and unity between the natural and spiritual environment. Hunting therefore not only serves to permit these populations to achieve and maintain food security, but also provides a way for these people to connect to their spiritual values and beliefs.

For reasons of this spiritual connectivity, I believe that Indigenous populations have a greater incentive to conserve and hunt at sustainable rates. Unlike commercial hunters that accumulate their prey until populations are depleted, Indigenous populations engage in sustainable hunting in order to ensure a healthy dynamic between animals and the communities. This approach reflects Leopold’s idea of eco-communitarianism, which suggests that we owe duties to ecological communities (as wholes) upon which our social communities and lives as people depend upon (1948). The importance of ensuring eco-communitarianism is reflected in the article through the role of titleholders of potlach ceremonies, whom of which would have their positions stripped if their knowledge capacity was so insufficient in-so-far as they were giving beyond what was ecologically sustained (Whyte, 2018).

In addition to reasons of spiritual connectivity and sustainable practices, I would also argue that Indigenous hunting practices are justifiable because they are conducted as a means for survival. According to Whyte, food injustice occurs when one group systemically dominates another through their interactions with one another in local and global food systems (para. 2). While colonial settlers have impacted indigenous food systems by depleting local resources through natural resource development, their forced resettlement to isolated reserves have also had significant negative impact on their relationship with global food systems.

In the North, food prices are substantially higher due to shipping and transportation costs to these remote communities. When colonial settlers thus deplete these food resources through expansion, they subsequently force Indigenous populations to purchase commercial goods and services at extremely high prices. Hunting often involves a collective component where animals are shared amongst the community and distributed to individuals who are too poor to feed themselves. If members of these communities were unable to hunt and thereby forced to depend on commercial foods, many of them would consequently starve. As a result, subsistence hunting is justified for these communities because their interdependency to the land and connections offered through these practices is essential for their survival.

Leopold, Aldo. (1948). “The Land Ethic” in A Sand County Almanac.

Whyte, Kyle Powys. (2018). “Food Sovereignty, Justice, and Indigenous Peoples: An Essay on Settler Colonialism and Collective Continuance.” In The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics.