Lecture 9: Rethinking Land and Water

“Cottagers and Indians” Fight over Wild Rice Documentary 

• Main video points: The documentary, follows James Whetung of Curve Lake First Nation, who has been cultivating wild rice on Pigeon Lake. His efforts to reclaim traditional food practices are celebrated by some, including Indigenous grandmothers and environmental scientists, but they have also sparked resistance from local cottage owners who argue that the wild rice obstructs recreational activities and lowers property values.

• How does the documentary invite you to think about land/water: 

  • Land and Water as Cultural identities: the video portrays how land and water are central to indigenous identity and how they perform cultural traditions. James Whetung's cultivation of wild rice (manoomin) is not just about food—it’s a reclamation of traditional practices and spiritual connections to the land. The act of cultivating wild rice demonstrates how Indigenous communities maintain relationships with ecosystems in ways that are sustainable and rooted in ancestral knowledge.

  • Land and Water as Commondities: For the cottagers, the waterway represents property value, recreational use, and aesthetic appeal. Their resistance to Whetung's wild rice cultivation reflects a more commodified view of land and water as resources to be controlled and optimized for economic or personal gain. This invites viewers to question how settler colonial values have reshaped perceptions of natural spaces.

- What are the different perspectives on land/water offered?

- Indigenous Perspective:
For James Whetung and many Indigenous peoples, land and water are not commodities to be owned but living entities to which humans have a relationship and responsibility. Wild rice (manoomin) represents this reciprocal relationship—it nourishes the people while also restoring the ecosystem, as well as builds community. The Indigenous perspective emphasizes sustainability  and the spiritual connection to the land and water. Whetung's cultivation of wild rice is both a cultural reclamation and a practice of food sovereignty.

- Cottagers' Perspective:

The cottage owners view the land and water primarily through the lens of property and recreational use. To them, the waterways are valuable for boating, aesthetics, and property values. The growth of wild rice is seen as an intrusion that disrupts their enjoyment of the lake and devalues their investments. This perspective reflects a settler colonial mindset where land and water are resources to be controlled and shaped for economic and personal benefit.

• What is Property? 

  • In the documentary, property is primarily viewed through a Western, settler-colonial framework. It is defined as a legal right to own, control, and exclude others from land or resources. This concept prioritizes individual ownership and commodification, contrasting sharply with Indigenous understandings of land.

  • For Indigenous peoples, land and water are not objects to be owned but are interconnected with community, culture, and identity. Humans are caretakers of the land, maintaining a reciprocal relationship with nature. Property rights, as imposed through colonial systems, often exclude or dispossess Indigenous peoples from their traditional lands.

What is ‘Cottage Country’?

• “Cottage country” refers to rural, often lakeside areas in Canada where wealthier, predominantly settler families own seasonal properties for recreation and leisure. These spaces are tied to ideas of relaxation, escape from urban life, and private ownership. Cottage country often embodies settler colonial ideals, where land is commodified, privatized, and shaped for the enjoyment of a privileged few.

• In Cottagers & Indians, cottage country becomes a site of conflict. While settlers see the land and water as a retreat for leisure, Indigenous peoples like James Whetung view these spaces as ancestral territories where cultural practices—such as cultivating wild rice—are essential for survival and community. 

What is the relationship of ‘property’ and Indigenous understandings of land/water? 

• Property as Ownership: Settler frameworks treat land and water as commodities with legal boundaries and ownership rights. Property owners assert their right to control and exclude others, prioritizing economic value and private interests.

• Land/Water as Relational: Indigenous understandings reject the notion of land and water as "owned." Instead, they emphasize relationships of care, responsibility, and reciprocity. Land and water are shared, living entities that provide sustenance and require protection for future generations.

This clash highlights how colonial systems impose concepts of property that conflict with Indigenous ways of being. James Whetung's wild rice cultivation challenges settler notions of ownership by asserting Indigenous sovereignty and the right to practice traditional, sustainable relationships with the land and water.

Terria Nullis and Private Property (Justified Land being Settled) 

• Translates to ‘empty land’ 

• Private property refers to land, goods, or resources owned by individuals or entities (e.g., corporations), with legal rights to exclude others from its use.

• Terra nullius justified the colonial appropriation of Indigenous lands by treating them as "unowned" or "unused."

• Once claimed, these lands were transformed into private property under colonial laws, excluding Indigenous peoples from accessing or stewarding their territories.

• This transition reinforced colonial power structures, dispossessed Indigenous communities, and embedded systemic inequalities. 

Making Land “Strange” 

•  Tania Li explains that "making land strange" means questioning the familiar ways we think about land. Instead of treating land as a natural or universal concept, she asks us to examine the social and cultural meanings we attach to it.

• Land is not universal:

  • In some cultures, like the Sulawesi, there isn’t a single word for "land." Instead, they use specific terms like "soil," "forest," or "garden," showing a context-specific relationship with land.

  • Western ideas see land as a commodity 

• Question assumptions:

  • We assume land is "natural" or fixed, but Li shows that land’s meaning changes over time. For example, when cacao farming became profitable in Sulawesi, a new word “lokasi” emerged to describe land as a sellable asset, detached from traditional ties.

• Power and inequality:

  • Access to land often reflects power dynamics like wealth, race, and class. Who gets to control and benefit from land? Making land strange means looking closely at these inequalities.

• Materiality matters:

  • Land isn’t just an idea—it has physical qualities. It "stays in place," is limited, and can be used in different ways (farming, development, etc.), which influences conflicts over its control.

The Layered Uses and Meanings of Land

• Land represents different things to different people, for example a farmer its a source of livelihood, and a tax collector as a commodity and source of revenue. 

• Land's meaning is not static but can change over time with the introduction of new crops, technologies, or economic systems

• There are layers (and they are often at odds with one another) of meaning, attachment, practices and regulations specific to areas of land water.

Land as Materaility

• Tania Li emphasizes the materiality of land, highlighting that it possesses unique physical characteristics that shape its significance and impact on social relations. She contrasts land with other commodities, like a mat, to illustrate that it cannot be simply moved or possessed in the same way

• Immovable and Enduring:

  • Land stays in one place. Its fixed location makes it a key focus for ownership disputes and social interactions (who gets to control or use it).

• Excludability and Boundaries:

  • Even though land can’t be moved, people can still divide it (e.g., by fences or borders) and exclude others from using it. This idea creates systems like property ownership and territories.

• Diverse Affordances:

  • Land has many possible uses (or "affordances"): growing food, building houses, cultural practices, or extracting resources.

  • Different people see land differently—farmers, companies, or governments may argue over its best use.

• Resistance to Full Commodification:

  • Land is essential for life, like water, so treating it purely as a market commodity is controversial.

  • Li shows that land’s physical qualities make it central to human life and struggles. Understanding these traits helps explain why land is so valuable, contested, and difficult to treat like other commodities. It’s about power, ownership, and the social meanings we attach to land.

Land as Inscription 

Tania Li explains that land is not just a physical thing—it is actively shaped and given meaning through tools, actions, and power dynamics. These processes are called "inscriptions", and they determine how land is seen, valued, and used. 

• Tools and techniques like axes, maps, land titles, and satellite images are called inscription devices.

• They do not just "show" land—they create its meaning. For example:

• Clearing land with an axe could signal ownership for a farmer.

• Drawing a map can claim land for governments or investors.

Power Dynamics 

These tools (inscriptions) are tied to power and social relationships.

• Example: Clearing a forest might represent property rights to one group, but "destruction" to others (like conservationists or governments).

• Inscriptions often legitimize certain land uses while excluding others (e.g., colonial powers dismissing indigenous claims to land).

• Different groups often disagree over the meaning and use of land.

  • Example: Indigenous communities might use ancestral graves or trees to claim land, while colonial officials might rely on maps and legal titles.

• These clashes reveal how power shapes land ownership and control.

Tania Li shows that land is not neutral or natural—it is actively shaped through tools, technology, and power. The ways we "inscribe" land (like maps, deeds, or tools) reflect social relationships and often serve powerful interests, leading to conflicts over meaning and use. Recognizing these processes helps us understand land struggles and challenge unfair systems of land governance.

Land Back 

• Land Back is a movement and philosophy rooted in Indigenous rights and sovereignty. It advocates for the return of land to Indigenous peoples, restoring their control over traditional territories, resources, and the governance structures tied to them. The concept is about reclaiming not just physical land, but also jurisdiction, or the authority to make decisions about how the land is used and governed.

• The movement is about self-determination and equity, where Indigenous peoples can control how their territories and resources are managed, breaking free from colonial systems (Jesse Wente). It also inspires a vision of a future where Indigenous peoples are empowered to care for their land in the ways they have traditionally done, allowing for healing and renewed relationships with the land (Cutcha Risling Baldy).