This Is Not a Peace Pipe: Towards a Critical Indigenous Philosophy (review)

This book is a sustained (and I find cogent) argument for the need for academically trained indigenous philosophers who can act as bridges and advocates for native peoples within a democratic state. Ostensibly aimed at native peoples, it is in fact a challenge to all upholders of democratic political theory. As a non-Indian, it has forced me to rethink some basic assumptions in political philosophy. Specifically aimed at the Canadian situation, it is quite relevant to the United States. It would be useful for Indian intellectuals, and non-indigenous readers, those in administration, public policy, law, and education, especially those who teach indigenous students. The author, who teaches at Dartmouth, is a member of the Temagami First Nation.

Included in this clearly written book is a treatment of Canadian court cases and government policy statements plus analyses and critiques of non-native Canadian philosophers who are attempting to bring justice to First Nation communities and also of other native philosophers. Turner engages a number of mainstream and Indian intellectuals. Perhaps it is important to note that, as I read it, the tone of the writing is not angry, although the commitment of the writer to his cause is obvious. In other words, a non-Indian student reading this would not be put off by the writing, but should have her eyes opened to the issues.

According to Turner, every law school in Canada offers at least one course on Aboriginal law. But many Aboriginal peoples do not understand themselves in terms of the Canadian state’s legal and political discourse. The reason is that many First Nation peoples think of their relation to the Canadian state as one of “nation to nation,” reflecting the original treaty relationships. Many Aboriginal peoples believe that they own their lands, yet the Canadian state continues to assert and enforce its unilateral claims to sovereignty over Aboriginal lands.

For Turner “the purpose of this book is not to provide another theory . . . of Aboriginal rights.” Rather it is to show that any such theory should “evolve out of the dialogue between Canadian and Aboriginal peoples” (5). Furthermore, Aboriginal people need to engage Canadian legal and political discourse more effectively in a very specialized kind of dialogue. Hence the need for “word warriors” (presumably like the author).

Chapters 1–3 critique three well-meaning attempts to address aboriginal rights. First is that of the 1969 White Paper of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal government. This included the recommendation that tribal lands should be divided into individual private properties. Many Canadians believed and still believe that this proposal would make Canada a truly just society, but it was seen by many Aboriginal leaders as an example of colonialism. Two of Turner’s four criticisms of this document are that it fails to “consider that indigenous rights are a sui generis form of group rights and not merely a class of minority rights” and to “acknowledge that any workable ‘theory’ of Aboriginal rights in Canada must include the participation of Aboriginal peoples” (15). For Turner, an adequate theory of indigenous rights must recognize that these rights are “group rights that flow out of Aboriginal peoples’ status as indigenous nations” (37). The second and third chapters critique the liberal theories of Allan Cairns and Will Kymlicka.

The argument takes a turn in chapter 4, which discusses the claim that Aboriginal peoples perceive the world differently than those in the mainstream and how Indian intellectuals can explain these differences. Included in this section are discussions of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, James Tully’s Strange Multiplicity, and the Delgamuukw and Van der Peet cases. Most significant is Turner’s depiction of an indigenous word warrior as a mediator who is able to move between languages, between ways of thinking about the world. How this is to be done remains to be worked out. Clearly their participation in the intellectual culture of the dominant society...