Realizing Reconciliation: Analyzing Resource Revenue Sharing Agreements and Indigenous-Settler Relations in Ontario's Mining Industry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 2018, the Government of Ontario and the Grand Council Treaty #3, the Mushkegowuk Council and the Wabun Tribal Council announced that they had entered into three resource revenue sharing agreements. These new agreements were publicly celebrated as an example of reconciliation with First Nations in Ontario. This dissertation critically studies the development of these new agreements, from their conceptual origins in reconciliation to how they reshape Indigenous-settler relations in Ontario. Relying on settler colonial studies, governmentality, and Mills’ legality tree as theoretical frameworks, and through archival research, textual analysis and the principles of Indigenous research methodologies, this dissertation paints a complex picture of reconciliation, resource revenue sharing and settler colonialism in Ontario. I begin by theorizing the lifeworld of liberalism, noting how Christian creationism influenced liberal philosophy, settler colonialism, and reconciliation discourses. I argue that Christian theology is anthropocentric, which is reflected by how state actors use reconciliation discourses, and that this contrasts with Indigenous worldviews. Despite the narrower conception of reconciliation, I contend that reconciliation, as a political rationality, was heavily influenced by Indigenous peoples seeking to remake their relationship with the state in the 1990s. I explicate that resource revenue sharing emerged as a new governmental concept for repairing Indigenous-settler relations. Next, I trace the development of reconciliation as a new political rationality in Ontario. I then examine the decade and a half long story of how resource revenue sharing went from a divisive concept to one that was widely accepted by a diverse assemblage of Indigenous, state, extractive and market actors in Ontario, and how it was developed into a reconciliatory technology. With humility, I also consider how these new agreements can affect Indigenous-settler relations in Ontario. I reason that while reconciliation produces concessions for Indigenous peoples from settlers, it may still leave in place asymmetrical power relations, as settlers seek to govern Indigenous peoples in accordance with their own settler colonial interests regarding resource extraction. However, rather than concluding that reconciliation is an ideology that only shields settler colonial relations, I argue that since reconciliation has a concessionary logic, reconciliation discourses have the potential to affect the actions of settler actors, even if it does not end settler colonialism. This is further explored by how the Progressive Conservative government eschewed reconciliation to de-Indigenize resource revenue sharing, and how there are fierce discursive struggles to define reconciliation and influence the scope of its concessions. Finally, I assert that reconciliation produces messy alliances, technologies and outcomes, and that future scholarship requires a careful and contextual analysis of reconciliation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».