Pimicikimak Sovereignty: Cree Sustainability and Hydroelectric Inundation in Northern Manitoba

  • Jessica Jacobson-Konefall
Part of the Contemporary Performance InterActions book series (CPI)


Hydroelectric development on the Saskatchewan, Churchill, and Nelson River systems has been devastating for Cree peoples. Inundated by land flooding since the 1970s, the Cree have long fought for just relations with the utility Manitoba Hydro, the province of Manitoba, and Canada’s federal government. In this context, Cree self-government functions as a performative path to sovereignty as well as a means to resist exploitative relationships imposed by the state, province, and public hydro utility. The Cree have performed—undertaken, constituted, transmitted—their practice of sovereignty from time immemorial on their lands. Cree self-governance engages the imposed structures and discursive forms of Canadian law, that is, treaty and Aboriginal rights, as well as those of human rights in innovative and self-determined ways. First, they are committed to their lands through ancient, sustainable, and ongoing cultural practices and attachments. Second, the Cree ground their use of human rights discourse in historically specific struggle, based on their own commitment to sustainable relationships at multiple scales.


Hydroelectric inundation Indigenous and human rights Sovereignty Sustainability Cree peoples Pimicikimak 


  1. Corntassel, Jeff. ‘Re-envisioning Resurgence: Indigenous Pathways to Decolonization and Sustainable Self-Determination.’ Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1, no. 1 (2012): 86–101.Google Scholar
  2. Coulthard, Glen. Red Skin White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  3. Desbiens, Caroline. Power from the North: Territory, Identity, and the Culture of Hydroelectricity in Quebec. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  4. Evans, Lara. ‘What to Do When Theory Does Not Work for You: Native Performance Art and Performance Theory Revised.’ Not Artomatic, March 4, 2010.
  5. Gillespie, Colin. Portrait of a People: A Study in Survival. Winnipeg: Big Fizz, 2017.Google Scholar
  6. Kulchyski, Peter. Aboriginal Rights are Not Human Rights. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  7. ———. ‘Bush Sites/Bush Stories: Politics of Place and Memory in Indigenous Northern Manitoba.’ MLA Commons, July 13, 2016.
  8. ———. ‘A Step Back: The Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and the Wuskwatim Project.’ In Power Struggles, edited by Thibault Martin and Steven M. Hoffman, 129–144. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  9. Neckoway, Ramona. ‘Amiskuk Boo-koo Ta Ki Oosey-ta-chik Ki-piikuna: “Only Beavers Should Build Dams”.’ Master’s Thesis, University of Manitoba, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. ———. Conversation with the Author, August 2017.Google Scholar
  11. Pimicikimak Cree Nation. ‘A New Relationship.’ Discussion Paper. 1998.Google Scholar
  12. Rifkin, Mark. ‘Settler Common Sense.’ Settler Colonial Studies 3 (2013): 322–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Robinson, Dylan. ‘Enchantment’s Irreconcilable Connection: Listening to Anger, Being Idle No More.’ In Performance Studies in Canada, edited by Laura Levin and Marlis Schweitzer, 211–235. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ‘Who We Are.’ Wa Ni Ska Tan, 2015.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Jacobson-Konefall
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WinnipegWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations