In If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?, Chamberlin analyzes stories and considers their intersection. He considers the significance of a title, “a single metaphor about land, in which a fiction—a story—was created to credit the fact of ownership” (Chamberlin, 228). An example of the intersection of different titles can be seen in the case of Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia in 2014. Crown title is partly based on Terra nullius, which claims that “no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty” (Harrington, para. 2). Terra nullius was never fully enacted in Canada, yet “the Crown acquired radical or underlying title to all the land in” British Columbia (para. 3). In this case, Aboriginal title claims to land conflicted with Crown title claims to the land. This exemplifies the ways in which titles intersect, and how they can be based on metaphors and stories about land. Chamberlin proposes that we “change underlying title to aboriginal title” which he justifies by examining our need for such a shift and considering its benefits (Chamberlin, 229).

Newspapers detailing the results of the Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia case

According to Chamberlin, shifting to Aboriginal title would address our need for a deeper understanding of titles and their significance. All titles, including Crown title, are “arbitrary” and “meaningless” (229). However, “we have become so used to telling” Crown title narratives “that we believe it” (229). Chamberlin insists that we need to regain awareness of the fictitious nature of titles. Furthermore, he claims that we must “reclaim the unbelievability of our belief and the contradiction between reality and the imagination that lies at its heart” (229). Reclaiming these understandings is vital because “it is not the conflict between the two sets of stories that is the problem” (230). The real problem lies in our need to be reminded that stories depend on the contradiction between the real and the imaginary for their power. By making Canada’s underlying title Aboriginal title again, our need to recover understandings of the arbitrary and contradictory nature of title will be met and we will be able to perceive and appreciate the fallibility of settler titles.

Chamberlin further justifies a shift to Aboriginal title by emphasizing the ways in which it would benefit communities. He notes that Canada “has something to offer the world” and seems to suggest that it has a sort of responsibility “as an international mediator and peacemaker” to initiate such a shift (228). He also acknowledges that Indigenous peoples have something to offer too, especially with regard to their lessons of sustainability within the current climate crisis. Chamberlin declares that a shift in the narrative would provide an example to other global communities “where conflicts over land mask deeper misunderstandings over stories such as this” (231). In this way, Canada could provide a template for a new way of navigating instances of disagreeing titles and stories that avoids violence.

Ultimately, Chamberlin justifies his proposal by noting the ways in which it would secure and protect the dignity and rights of Indigenous peoples. Historically, government policy has not fully protected the rights of Indigenous peoples nor has it respected their culture. Chamberlin says that a shift to Aboriginal title “would finally provide a constitutional ceremony of belief in the humanity of aboriginal peoples in the Americas” (231). Despite the arbitrary nature of title, it “shapes the facts of life and of the land” (229). Therefore, title informs the law and the societal expectations of the people who live under it. Aboriginal title “would constitute a new story and a new society” in which progressive change could occur and the human rights of Indigenous peoples could be fully realized by the settler (231).

Chamberlin justifies his proposal by detailing the ways in which it would meet our need to recover an understanding of the nature of title and how it would benefit the global community, as well as the Indigenous communities here in Canada. Chamberlin’s proposal encourages thought on the power of stories and the dominance of some narratives over others. If the narratives we share have the ability to influence our society, what will be the effects of the stories we share today?

Works Cited: