The Power of the Nation and its Influence on Native 'First Nations'

Defining a Nation

The term ‘nation’ is notoriously hard to define, not only because it has multiple meanings, but because the prevailing definitions change in response to various social and political factors (Ozkirimli 2000). In its most basic form a nation is conceptualized as a distinctive group of people occupying a defined territory between which there is an immutable relationship (Penrose 1993; 1994). However this category has already become problematic as groups of people and territories rarely align so readily. This brings forth the question, is ‘nation’ therefore an unrealistic concept? Quite probably, however, the contemporary power of the category is derived from the way in which societies regard ‘nation’ as a naturally occurring, and therefore irrefutable, concept rather than the ideological social construction that it is.

1878 photo depicting First Nations people of Manitoba, en route to hunting grounds, on the Nelson River.

While nations are repeatedly referred to as imagined communities in academic literature (Anderson 1991; Smith 2000; Grundy-Warr and Sidaway 2005), Native American self-identification as ‘First Nations’ emphasizes the very real and powerful impact that the concept can have on social and political systems. Through an understanding of the contemporary power of ‘nation’ one can begin to examine why indigenous people may have adopted a social construction that has historically been used as a tool in their oppression and maltreatment (Dyck 1989; Berger 1990).

This article explores the contemporary power of ‘nation’ and why American Indians in Canada have assumed the title of ‘First Nations,’ though similar conclusions may be drawn for indigenous people across the world. As there are numerous representations of the word ‘nation’, there follows an initial discussion of the concept which builds into an assessment of its contemporary power. Several themes are identified from this, which aim toward explaining this self-identification. These focus on the distinctive culture associated with nations, the justification of self-governance and reparation politics. There is then a short discussion on some of the pitfalls of the phrase ‘First Nations’ before finally concluding that this particular form of self-identification is utilized as a means of advancing indigenous politics.

The Nation and its Contemporary Power

A nation identifies a social, political and culturally distinct group of people and grounds them in a physical space (Jackson and Penrose 1993). Consequently the territorial boundaries are conceptualized as coinciding with the cultural boundaries of the people. This concept evolved along with the ideology of nationalism, which draws on the doctrine of self-determination where nations are considered to have the natural right to govern their own affairs (Smith 2000). When these two ideas are combined nations become tools for justifying claims to power. Notably both the concept and the ideology are social constructions which rely on the acceptance of the other as a natural phenomenon to legitimize their immutability.

Although the above describes the epistemology of nations, the concept is fundamentally flawed. Cultural groups and territories rarely align, cannot be easily categorized and frequently intersect. For example, the Kurdish people have a population of over 15 million but live in an area divided between four states: Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria (Grundy-Warr and Sidaway 2005). Once cultures fail to align with territorial and political boundaries the ideology of nationalism begins to falter. One cannot legitimately claim power on the basis of self-determination when one’s people are undefined or already claimed by other nations (Jackson and Penrose 1993).

The second flaw in the conceptualization of nations is the assumption that the people within a nation are homogenous. While this is an integral part of the ideology that governments serve the people, it is entirely unrealistic when considering the diversity of the human species; therefore minority groups naturally arise in all nations (Penrose 1994).

Although the concept of ‘nation’ is fundamentally flawed it has dominated politics throughout the twentieth century (Kymlicka 2001; Grundy-Warr and Sidaway 2005). Its inability to translate to real world examples has led to the oppression of minority groups, discrimination, and its use as a tool for advantaging those in power over others (Schouls 2003). None of this would have been possible were it not for its assumption as an established category which prevents societies from seeking alternative political structures. The category ‘nation’ has heavily influenced history, dividing humanity and causing great injustices as governments have tried to apply this flawed concept irrespective of the consequences.

Furthermore the assumed naturalness of nations and nationalism works to place these concepts beyond questioning. Their power and authority are therefore seldom challenged ensuring their continued acceptance (Jackson and Penrose 1993). This is the contemporary power of the ‘nation’; it is perceived as an immutable category of nature even though it is a socially constructed idea.

Consequences of First Nation Self-Identification

‘Nation’ is a powerful concept that American Indians have embraced to improve their position within the existing Canadian nation. To explore how and why the phrase ‘First Nations’ has been adopted, the following text will discuss three key consequences of this self-identification; these are the distinctive culture associated with nations, the justification of self-governance and reparation politics.