MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063750910 · doi:10.1353/wic.2010.0011

<i>Native Peoples and Water Rights: Irrigation, Dams, and the Law in Western Canada</i> (review)

2010· article· en· W2063750910 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ted Binnema

Bibliographic record

VenueWicazo Sa Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousArgument (complex analysis)LawNarrativePolitical scienceIndigenous rightsSociologyHistoryHuman rightsArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Native Peoples and Water Rights: Irrigation, Dams, and the Law in Western Canada Ted Binnema (bio) Native Peoples and Water Rights: Irrigation, Dams, and the Law in Western Canada. by Kenichi Matsui. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009 The topic of indigenous water rights, long a topic of scholarly interest in the United States, has received little attention in Canada—until now. Because of the combination of remarkable similarities and distinct differences in legal traditions and Indian policies in Canada and the United States, the history of indigenous water rights in both countries should be of considerable interest to all scholars interested in either country. For that reason, although this study has significant weaknesses, scholars on both sides of the border should welcome this pioneering book. The most disappointing shortcoming of this book is the lack of any clear explicit or implicit central argument. To be fair, Matsui admits that he does “not seek to offer a definitive account of Native water rights history,” but more modestly to present “an account of the intertwined stories that both Natives and newcomers created” (14). But the book is too interpretively timid. Its introduction draws on Nicholas Thomas, Edward Said, and Homi Bhabha, but that discussion seems divorced from the body of the book. In terms of the Native side of the story, Matsui remains relatively true to his stated aim of avoiding “victim narratives” (xiv), although Natives do sometimes disappear from the discussion. The conclusion represents Matsui’s best attempt at some broader arguments about the significance of his findings (beyond perhaps implying—as his introduction seems to do—that his findings seem to fit the theoretical frameworks of those discussed in his introduction), but it is too short and unfocused to be effective. The lack of any real, convincing, overarching argument or theme means that the book can be read as a collection of five thematically connected chapters. The first, which surveys the history of water and property rights quite broadly, is followed by two that examine conflict over Native irrigation rights in the dry belt of the British Columbia interior. They discuss three interior Salish communities: the St’at’imc [End Page 133] (Lillooet), the Nlaka’pamux (Thompson), and in most detail, the Secwepemc (Shushap). The second of these (chapter 4) is a revised version of an article Matsui published in Wicazo Sa Review in 2005. Chapter 5 looks at the early history of water and irrigation issues on the Tsuu T’ina (Sarcee) and Siksika (Blackfoot) reserves of today’s southern Alberta. The last chapter explores the question of waterpower rights on the Nakoda (Stoney) reserve at Morley. The individual chapters are also more focused on reconstructing the complex and ambiguous history (not that this was an easy feat, by the looks of it), than offering deep analysis and argumentation. Matsui is at his best when presenting his archival discoveries. That means that his chapter on property and water rights law is weak. Its flaws range from the general (it overemphasizes the influence of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson), to the specific (it mysteriously identifies Abraham Lincoln’s administration as Whig [21], and inadvertently, because of poor writing, will lead unaware readers to assume that the Canadian expedition led by Henry Youle Hind may have been sent to the prairies in 1830, rather than 1857 [22]). The chapters based on archival research are much better. Chapters 3 to 6 (those based most heavily on archival research) reveal much about the way water rights principles evolved in Canada (and Matsui’s conclusion does hint at this). We get a sense of the chaotic and inconsistent ad hoc functioning of often cash-strapped and understaffed bureaucracies and corporations, the competing interests of government departments (some weak, some strong), the competing interests of federal and provincial governments, and the different strategies (from conciliation to confrontation) employed by bureaucrats and officials in the Department of Indian Affairs to solve problems, sometimes at the expense of Native communities. In these complex and confused circumstances, Native leaders tried to represent their own interests, with more or less success. In what is probably the most intriguing argument of the book, Matsui contends that the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWicazo Sa ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207