{"id":29,"date":"2016-10-19T21:14:58","date_gmt":"2016-10-20T04:14:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/?p=29"},"modified":"2016-10-19T21:14:58","modified_gmt":"2016-10-20T04:14:58","slug":"the-map-that-roared","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/2016\/10\/19\/the-map-that-roared\/","title":{"rendered":"“The Map That Roared”"},"content":{"rendered":"

In order to address this question you will need to refer to Sparke\u2019s article, \u201cA Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.\u201d You can easily find this article online. Read the section titled: \u201cContrapuntal Cartographies\u201d (468 \u2013 470). Write a blog that explains Sparke\u2019s analysis of what Judge McEachern might have meant by this statement: \u201cWe\u2019ll call this the map that roared.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

When Chief Justice Allan McEachern unpacked the map showing the land claims of the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People he said \u201cWe\u2019ll call it the map that roared.\u201d Now that statement could be understood in many ways, but given that the land claims the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People made were huge and were not taking into account anything brought to British Columbia through the colonization (McCullough<\/a>) and subsequent undertakings such as boundaries, streets, power lines, towns or any other non-natural things it seems likely to assume that Chief Justice Allan McEachern said what he did, knowing that this map would stir up a lot of friction between the government and the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People. Not only was the area big, but the total disregard for all things brought to British Columbia through the colonization would make any agreement even harder to achieve because for either side there was a lot to lose.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chief Justice Allan McEachern later decided that while evidence based upon oral traditions could be presented in court, and the map was just that, a depiction of the oral tradition, oral traditions on their own, without any other form of evidence that could be recognized by the court are not enough to successfully make a claim. Therefore, no decision was made regarding the claimed land. One could argue that seeing the map the Chief Justice already knew, that a decision would be impossible just based on those claims, because the ramifications would be huge and arbitration could easily take decades. His statement could be interpreted in a way that he perfectly understood the huge meaning of this map but that in the end it would be nothing more than a \u201croar\u201d because nothing would be coming from it. By now the Supreme Court of Canada overturned McEachern\u2019s judgment and has thus opened up the possibility of a new trial (The Supreme Court<\/a>). But even without a new trial, which could take a very long time given the amount of things that have to be taken into consideration it is now possible again to have talks and find solutions for the problems.\u00a0 <\/span>It is my opinion however, that even though it is now easier to litigate the claims of the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People, in the end they will have to give up big parts of their claims.<\/span><\/p>\n

As so many times before in history Indigenous People will have to yield to the modern world. And it might not just be pure malevolence doing that, it is just not feasible to move complete settlements or even towns which are now located in areas claimed by Indigenous People. For the future it will be important to see that the claims of the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People will not be dismissed lightly. Yet they have a hard stand, as their culture and heritage is not shared by most of the people with the power to at some point make these decisions. Getting fair rulings will not be easy when there is this enormous bias.<\/span><\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/span><\/p>\n

McCullough, J. J. “Early Canadian History.” JJs Complete Guide to Canada. J. J. McCullough, 2016. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of Canada. “Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.” Supreme Court Judgments. Decisia by Lexum, 11 Dec. 1997. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In order to address this question you will need to refer to Sparke\u2019s article, \u201cA Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.\u201d You can easily find this article online. Read the section titled: \u201cContrapuntal Cartographies\u201d (468 \u2013 470). Write a blog that explains Sparke\u2019s analysis of what Judge […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":43462,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/43462"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29\/revisions\/30"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/cdnlit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}