This Canadian river is now legally a person. It’s not the only one.

With its thunderous rapids carving through a wild boreal forest in Quebec’s Côte-Nord region, the Magpie River is well known to white water rafters from around the globe. What these travelers may not know is that the Magpie recently became the first river in Canada to be granted legal personhood.

The 120-mile-long waterway is sacred to the Innu First Nation, who call it Mutuhekau Shipu. They’ve depended on it as a major highway, food source, and natural pharmacy for centuries. But in recent years, the river has been threatened by hydroelectric dam development, the negative environmental and social effects of which often outweigh any renewable energy benefits.

To protect the natural landmark, the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit and the Minganie Regional County Municipality declared the Mutuhekau Shipu a legal person in 2021. Now the river has nine rights, among them the right to flow, maintain biodiversity, be free from pollution, and to sue.

While this is a first in Canada, it’s part of a global, Indigenous-led campaign echoing the rights of nature movement, which aims to provide concrete protections for the natural landscape. In recent years, many rivers—from New Zealand’s Whanganui to the United States’ Klamath River—have been given personhood. In 2018, Colombia’s Supreme Court granted the Amazon—the world’s largest river—legal rights.

While rivers like the Magpie are already on rafters’ radar, the growth of ecotourism in these areas may be key in helping to protect many others. Developing a non-extractive economy not only gets more people involved in river conservation, it also offers a way for Indigenous communities to educate travelers on the importance of protecting these vital waterways.

Why personhood?

Granting rivers legal personhood represents a seismic shift from the bedrock belief in Western society that humans are at the apex of the natural world. But for many Indigenous people, the concept of nature as a sentient equal to humans is nothing new. In Maori culture, for example, ancestors, or tupuna, are embodied in the landscape.

“I see the river and the trees as ancestors,” says Uapukun Mestokosho, a member of the Mutehekau Shipu Alliance, the committee that advocated for the river’s legal rights. “They’ve been here long before we have and deserve the right to live.”

While the personhood movement reconceptualizes the relationship between rivers and people, granting non-human entities personhood is an existing Western concept applied to corporations that can bridge Western and Indigenous legal systems. “In the case of the Magpie River, Indigenous law is showing up in a language that Canadian law can understand,” says Lindsay Borrows, a law professor at Queen’s University in Ontario.

How these personhood declarations translate into legislation varies widely, from an overarching recognition in the case of the Whanganui River to a list of specific rights in the Magpie and Klamath. Other legislation recognizes natural entities as rights holders but stops short of personhood.

(Follow the journey of how New Zealand’s Whanganui River became a legal person.)

That’s the case with Los Cedros Biological Reserve in Ecuador, where a recent landmark ruling upheld the reserve’s constitutional rights against mining. Similarly, in central Florida, Lake Mary Jane guardians recently filed a case in state court to uphold the lake’s rights against encroachment—a first in America. 

Personhood is a new legal tool, so it remains to be challenged in court. Yet part of its power lies in the ability to keep conflicts outside the courtroom. Instead, it relies on appointed guardians advocating on behalf of the river or forest. It also represents Indigenous law drawing a line in the sand.

“We want to send a message that we are a government for our nation,” says Shanice Mollen-Picard, a member of the Mutehekau Shipu Alliance. “We live in this territory, and we know how to protect it best.”

How tourism can play a role

Personhood raises the profile of natural landmarks by drawing attention to their beauty and cultural significance. In doing so, it builds a strong case for fostering a local economy aligned with conservationist values.

In Quebec’s Côte-Nord region, developing tourism depends on protecting the Magpie River and neighboring Anticosti Island, a provincial park seeking UNESCO World Heritage status. “I don’t think Hydro-Quebec will have much success building another dam on the Magpie once [the river’s] better known,” says Danny Peled, owner of Boreal River Adventures.

Unlike the “boom-and-bust” nature of industrial projects like dam development, ecotourism could create a lasting, sustainable economy in the area. “Ecotourism is taking the land and viewing it through the lens of protection rather than extraction,” says Keith Henry, president of the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada. “It’s shifting the experience there so the world can come and visit.”

(Tearing out these dams will open rivers for conservation—and save lives.)

Through tourism, Indigenous communities can educate travelers about the environmental threats in their territories. “Native voices have really gained prominence when it comes to issues like resource and land management,” says Josh Norris, manager of Redwood Yurok Canoe Tours in Northern California. “Travelers are now seeking that out.”

Norris’ paddling trips offer an intimate understanding of the Klamath River, where visitors board a traditional dugout canoe and float through redwood forests. Along the way, a Yurok guide explains the river’s historical and cultural significance in Yurok culture, as well as the threats that led to its personhood status.

Similarly, a Maori-led canoeing trip on the jade waters of the Whanganui is an up-close journey through Indigenous culture and history—a crucial way to build public support for the river’s continued protection.

“Law is only as powerful as people understand it,” says Borrows. “Until then it hasn’t been written on people’s hearts; it’s only been written on paper. When we go into other people’s territories to enjoy the natural beauty there, I hope we can find ways to discover their laws and live and breathe them so that we’re good visitors.”

(Here’s how Indigenous knowledge is helping to protect Canada’s grizzlies.)

A platform for reconciliation 

Deeper understanding between colonial settlers and Indigenous communities is at the root of reconciliation. While nascent Indigenous tourism in North America and elsewhere often excluded or exploited these groups, river guiding by First Nations in areas they’ve worked to protect allows them to shape the narrative.

On Boreal River Adventures’ multiday rafting trip, Innu guides navigate the Magpie’s frothing rapids and swirling eddies, taking travelers through arctic tundra and shadowy forest. “You get to know everybody well over a week, so it’s a way for people to ask questions and become connected with an Indigenous person in an in-depth way,” says Peled.

Rafting on the Magpie empowers the Innu First Nation to reconnect with their ancestral lands, too. An all-women’s Boreal River Adventures rafting trip in 2013 ignited the community’s passion to protect the river. “That’s the moment that really pushed us to advocate for its protection,” says Mestokosho. “We saw our ancestors’ history, the wildlife, the sun, the power of the river, and that we had to protect it.”

Now, the Innu community hopes to develop their own tourism ventures. Although it’s still in early stages, part of the responsibilities of the appointed river guardians will be sharing traditional knowledge on guided rafting, hiking, and fishing excursions and traditional medicine walks. Community members hope that such activities will cultivate a shared understanding of the importance of protecting these wild rivers.

“We need to see that as humans we are not above the water or the animals. We are part of a whole,” says Mestokosho. “When we heal the earth, we heal ourselves, too.”

Chloe Berge is a Vancouver-based writer who covers travel, conservation, and culture. Follow her on Instagram.

Let’s liberate the Canadian landscape from the Group of Seven and their nationalist mythmaking

Tom Thomson (1877-1917), In Algonquin Park, 1914, oil on canvas, 63.2 x 81.1 cm, Gift of the Founders, Robert and Signe McMichael in Memory of Norman and Evelyn McMichael, McMichael Canadian Art Collection, 1966.16.76 (McMichael Canadian Artwork Collection)

Material warning for Indigenous visitors: colonial violence is reviewed in this essay.

It has taken me a extended time to reconcile the Group of 7 and their location in Canada’s mythology. On one particular hand, I like their paintings: they are gorgeous and assorted in their landscapes, a illustration of these lands in all their sacredness and lifestyle. On the other hand, they suffocate. The Team of Seven’s nationalist tale surrounds us like the prints of their get the job done that hold in Canada’s households, educational institutions, and galleries. 

We are explained to to see their paintings — an necessary chapter in our nationwide story — as essentially Canadian. But the histories of Indigenous men and women on these lands, and the sacred and sovereign connection we have with this land, are not mirrored in the is effective of the Group or their peer and impact Tom Thomson.

Irrespective of how we are intended to see them, the Group’s paintings do not symbolize localized landscapes infused with history from pre-speak to to the colonial present. Instead, they are a reproducible graphic of a standardized Canada, exactly where a jack pine is a stand-in for a purple leaf on a flag. This way of viewing is countrywide in perfect and colonial in gaze. 

If the Group of Seven’s paintings are meant to determine Canada, what does it necessarily mean that so numerous tales of the lands’ background are deliberately lacking? And what is dropped by this colonial gaze of the Group and the land? 

Tom Thomson, The Jack Pine. 1916-1917. Oil on canvas. 127.9 x 139.8 cm. (Nationwide Gallery of Canada)

The Team of Seven mostly painted in the Canadian wilderness. They have been particularly influenced by the sketching trips they went on in Algonquin Park, led by Thomson, who resided there for a lot of the year toward the stop of his life. It was the location exactly where he labored, sketched, and died. The Canadian pure landscape, in all its natural beauty and risk, was an affect that mythologized these painters as artist-bushmen, a new breed of artist born from the rugged wilderness of Canada.

When I 1st began going for walks through the National Gallery of Canada, pausing in entrance of paintings, I wondered why the Team seldom painted First Nations. I go through later on that Canada’s authorities officers compelled out the Îyârhe Nakoda in Banff, then the Coast Salish in Stanley Park, and afterwards the Algonquin in Algonquin Park. Initially Nations ended up forbidden from searching, gathering or travelling via their territories. The land was now a government-founded park, a Canadian park, an exclusionary park.

Continuing the operate of the bureaucrats who designed Canada’s community park technique, the Team of Seven painted the landscape as a terra nullius — “uninhabited land” in Latin. If Indigenous peoples or structures did show up, they ended up often faceless, a natural phenomenon to be witnessed by the colonial gaze.

When anything is erased, a blank sketchbook is all set for its artist. Nationalism desired the artist-bushman to conquer the imaginary landscape as it needed the pioneer to do so with the authentic landscape.– Matteo Cimellaro

I can only hope that it really is not still provocative to say, historically, Indigenous erasure and settler nationalism have been synonymous. Two sides of the coin. The Queen stamped opposite the caribou, the beaver, the bear, and so on. A philosophical basis for this development starts in England in the 17th century. In his “2nd Treatise of Government,” John Locke suggests that when you combine your labour with nature, you develop private house that is owned by you and excludes other people. But what of a nationalizing labour — a cultural labour that creates a country’s mythology?

This nationalizing labour excludes all that is unseen and unspoken. In the Team of Seven’s depiction of the Canadian wilderness, 1st Nations were largely out of sight and silenced. Immediately after governing administration policy designed this deliberate emptiness, the Group’s paintings colonized landscapes within what Northrop Frye referred to as the Canadian creativeness. Via this painting and viewing, a property was sanctioned — a property we call Crown land.

“We are informed to see their paintings — an crucial chapter in our nationwide tale — as fundamentally Canadian.” Canada Write-up stamps introduced in 2020 to mark the centennial of the Group of Seven’s inaugural show. (Canada Write-up Company)

The struggle in opposition to Crown land continues these days. It is a battle to reclaim sovereignty — a preeminent want for 1st Nations to have relations with their lands back, soaring from the accountability to steward Mom Earth for potential generations. Nonetheless, this is Canada, and like the Group’s artworks, Crown land continues to be for private fascination and at any time-increasing gain. (A painting by Lawren Harris that marketed for $11.2 million in 2016 is the most expensive Canadian artwork ever bought at auction.)

In her essay “Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation,” Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg writer Leanne Betasamosake Simpson equates aki, Anishinaabemowin for land, with liberation. She writes: “Aki is also liberation and freedom — my flexibility to build and keep interactions of deep reciprocity inside a pristine homeland that my Ancestors handed down to me. Aki is encompassed by freedom, a flexibility that is guarded by sovereignty and actualized by self-determination.”

Simpson is pointing to a independence that is about human dignity taken by settler nationalism. By way of a nationalist violence, Canada endeavoured to depart Indigeneity in the earlier tense by way of residential colleges, Indian agents, and bans on cultural and religious techniques. 

When a little something is erased, a blank sketchbook is completely ready for its artist. Nationalism wanted the artist-bushman to conquer the imaginary landscape as it needed the pioneer to do so with the true landscape. The Team of Seven, hoping to distinguish by themselves from a European tradition, were happy to deliver these nationalized paintings.

Now it is time to issue no matter whether we, as seers of paintings and landscapes, want to continue on an exclusionary myth of Canada marked by its rugged landscape and rugged painters. The recourse is to reject the colonial gaze: to see things as they are, blemished by the cruelty of background.

I am asking you to meticulously look at the historic truths when you see the paintings of the Team of 7. What do you see — Canada? What does that suggest? It is a landscape, but who is the proprietor? What does that ownership suppose? Is there an owner? 

The artwork allows us have an understanding of historical past by way of what it represents and how and why it can be reproduced. The Group’s paintings and their reproductions played a vital role in forming Canada’s nationwide mythology. Now, the Team of Seven should be liberated from the prison of Canadian nationalism. Legitimate flexibility and sovereignty of the land may well rely on it.