Originally written in Fall 2020 for my Indigenous Perception of Landscape course
Introduction
Feeling a sense of belonging is central to human nature, and this can be achieved through placemaking. In a neocolonial age, placemaking can also be a form of Indigenous resistance and can strengthen Indigenous identities. Centuries of cultural genocide inflicted by the colonial project worldwide has displaced people physically and spiritually from their traditional homelands. Therefore, acts of placemaking allow healing of this broken connection and also functions as a political statement. This essay presents examples which show how placemaking is useful for Indigenous peoples in a dynamic way. First, placemaking is defined, then it is shown how storytelling can create meaning for places near or far. Second, I present how connecting to ancestral objects and cultural expression in the urban setting can create a sense of belonging for Indigenous peoples. Third, I explain how Indigenous placemaking can help assert rights and title within colonial frameworks. There is a lot of potential for this topic to be explored in scholarship and enacted on the ground to make more resilient communities.
Places can be described as spaces we care about, socialize in, and that are lively, secure, and distinct (Cilliers and Timmermans, 2014, p. 414-415). Communities can work together to create places which contribute to their health, happiness and well-being. This is placemaking, a concept developed in the urban planning realm over the last several decades. It can be performed at many scales and by anyone. A common example would be the addition of benches to a concrete pathway, therefore making a place for people to sit and socialize, associating that space with meaning. Indigenous placemaking is a concept which has gained some academic scholarship, and it goes beyond urban planning. For example, Indigenous placemaking may be performed through storytelling about a space, rather than actually making physical modifications to the land. At Swi:lcha (Cultus Lake) in what is now British Columbia, storytelling is used by both settlers and Indigenous peoples. Although settler stories here are an assertion of colonial power, the Sto:lo stories of disaster and community origins are a legitimate claim to the land from colonizers and even other Indigenous groups (Trimble, p. 44). For Sto:lo peoples, stories about place are a way for physical spaces to speak to them and make them understood (Trimble, p. 47). This is a way of retaining a strong identity and resisting other forces of power which aim to undermine their worldviews. Across the world in Australia, the Anangu peoples are able to compartmentalize their Christian religion and traditional religion of “Dreaming”. They use placemaking to discuss ancestral knowledge and understand their homeland, while also etching Christian values into that same land. Stories in this context are “key to placemaking, as they form an emotional attachment, attach cultural heritage, and inform political perspectives on belonging” (Eickelkamp, p. 49).
The Anangu’s ability to feel connected to far-away Christian places and their traditional territory shows how Indigenous peoples can use placemaking whether they are in their ancestral homeland or not. Eickelkamp points out that there is no significant physical evidence of Christianity on the land performed by the Anangu people. Their placemaking is cognitive but still very real and meaningful in their minds. In urban areas of Australia, many Indigenous people feel inauthentic compared to their “country” or rural counterparts, because the colonially built city often does not reflect Indigenous worldviews (Gibson, 2012). Seeing yourself and your cultural identity reflected in your city can be very reassuring and generate a sense of pride. This applies to all multicultural cities and the groups which live in them; we can feel a sense of belonging when our community has physical aspects of who we are. As the Australian Aboriginal people of New South Wales have gained more political freedoms in recent decades, they have started re-colonizing and re-making cities in a physical way through cultural expression. There have been positive collaborations between urban Indigenous people and local museums, where previously bought or stolen items are able to be accessed exclusively. Museums therefore become “collection sites” for their people rather than just a place for drawers of objects (Gibson, p. 207). The Aboriginal people born into settled urban areas have experienced greater and longer periods of physical and cultural rupture and dislocation across all areas of life (Gibson, p.211). However, connection is regained through stories, painting, and mentally travelling to rural homelands through museum objects. Museums are now placemaking sites of resistance and newfound expression, showing that there is “unbounded potential of what it is to belong and to be in place.” (Gibson, p. 216). This concept of reconnecting with objects could apply to Indigenous peoples around the world, whose colonial situations vary from place to place. For example, an archaeological site in the United States could be restricted to only be accessed by Indigenous peoples whose ancestry relates to that landmark. Being able to have meaningful access to objects, places, and even storytelling may be vital to Indigenous cultural resilience. Emily Potter also touches on placemaking in the Australian city. She argues that Indigenous placemaking is inherently political, and it has the ability to assert resistance over domination (Potter, p. 132). She touches on the fact that urban cities are not properly built to accommodate the public, communal behaviours and cultural needs of local Indigenous peoples, and this has left them excluded on their own land. She calls for a more inclusive urban planning process which acknowledges these tensions of placemaking in the city, because it is hard for Aboriginals to be resilient without better collaboration. It is a positive thing that settler states are more often incorporating Indigenous worldviews into the urban planning process.
In what is now British Columbia, most of the land has not been ceded by treaty. As many nations enter the modern treaty process, Indigenous placemaking is being included in the government’s analysis of Aboriginal rights and title. In Elsey’s book on Indigenous landscapes, she argues that Indigenous oral maps are “sensuous, elastic, picturesque, and free floating” (Elsey, 2013, p. 45), as opposed to rigid cartesian western maps that the government usually insists on having. Although oral testimony is not given equal respect and consideration by the courts, the Indigenous methods of knowledge transfer are becoming more accepted each year. Attaching meaning to specific places is common in Coast Salish cultures, and this is a form of placemaking. Indigenous peoples using placemaking in the treaty process is a form of resistance and resilience because the alternative colonial, utilitarian methods threaten Indigenous “self-determination, regional and community-based will, and indigenous identity” (Elsey, p. 18). However, it is possible that resolving questions of Aboriginal rights through the courts “serves only to reproduce original models of colonialism” even if some Indigenous worldviews are included (Elsey, p. 8). There is a great account of how traditional whaling practices are being revitalized on Coast Salish territories in the book Spirits of Our Whaling Ancestors. The Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah people of Vancouver Island and Washington have been fighting for cultural rights to catch whales for a century, with some recent success within legal systems. This revitalization could arguably be attributed to a form of placemaking on traditional ocean hunting areas and all of the stories and culture tied to whales. The author believes that “place roots individuals in the social and cultural soils from which they have sprung together, holding them there in the grip of a shared identity” (Coté, 2017, p. 95).
Conclusion
The ways in which community spaces are given meaning and made into places, the essence of placemaking, is particularly important for Indigenous peoples both rural and urban. It can be an assertion of land claims, a method of reconciliation, and a way to connect to lands which someone is displaced from. It can be performed through storytelling about a space near or far away, a connection to the displaced. It can be employed in colonial institutions like museums, rekindling kinship relations and connecting to important objects. It can also be a way of asserting rights and title within legal and institutional frameworks. All of these combine to show how Indigenous placemaking has several important functions and contributes to resilience across the world, whether for an individual or a whole nation.
References
Cilliers, Elizelle J, and Wim Timmermans. “The Importance of Creative Participatory Planning in the Public Place-Making Process.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 41, no. 3, 2014, pp. 413–429., doi:10.1068/b39098.
Coté Charlotte. Spirits of Our Whaling Ancestors: Revitalizing Makah and Nuu-Chah-Nulth Traditions. Langara College, 2017.
Eickelkamp, Ute. “Emplacing Christ: An Indigenous Australian Ethics of Placemaking Across Borders.” Anthropological Forum, vol. 28, no. 1, 2017, pp. 45–60., doi:10.1080/00664677.2018.1410780.
Elsey, Christine J. The Poetics of Land & Identity among British Columbia Indigenous Peoples. Fernwood Publishing, 2013.
Gibson, Lorraine. “Colonizing Bricks and Mortar: Indigenous Place-Making through Art Objects and Artifacts.” Postcolonial Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2012, pp. 203–219., doi:10.1080/13688790.2012.693044.
Potter, Emily. “Introduction.” Postcolonial Studies: Making Indigenous Place in the Australian City, 2nd ed., vol. 15, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012, pp. 131–142.
Trimble, Sabina. “Storying Swí:Lhcha: Place Making and Power at a Stó:Lō Landmark.” BC Studies, no. 190, 14 July 2016, pp. 39–66., doi:https://doi.org/10.14288/bcs.v0i190.187241.
marina miller 