Abstract: Despite claims towards a process of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, the Canadian state has made no attempt to reform its unilateral claim to sovereignty over the lands now known as Canada. This has direct consequences for any process of reconciliation, as it results in the Crown acting over Indigenous peoples, rather than with them. This thesis questions the Canadian state’s liberal notions of state sovereignty, especially in relation to both colonization and the nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples. I start this research with a historical survey of the liberalism of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, their conceptions of sovereignty, and the effects of this on colonization in Canada. These two writers discussed three similar principles of state sovereignty, which I define by: 1) the consent of the governed; 2) majority rule; 3) locating Indigenous political authority as outside the realm of sovereignty. I then take these principles and analyze their role in Confederation, and how they were institutionalized through the Canadian constitution. I then look towards Indigenous notions and critiques of sovereignty and how they interrupt the Crown’s claim to unilateral sovereignty. Ultimately, I argue that the conflicts between the Crown and Indigenous peoples have to do with a clash of the first and third principles; Indigenous peoples never consented to unilateral Crown sovereignty, and it is now assumed over them through the third principle. I show how this necessitates a refusal of the Crown’s unilateral claim to sovereignty, and the institutions that this idea created, namely the Canadian constitution.






Abstract: Although the literature on ethnicity is vast, studies have typically focused on minority groups, with white majorities, including Europeans in Aotearoa New Zealand, surprisingly absent. Demographic changes, however, and the decline of majorities, are altering politics and making white ethnicity more salient. (Re)assertions of dominance such as Brexit and the storming of Capitol Hill, and white nationalist violence such as the Christchurch mosque terror attacks, all illustrate the growing need to understand structures and processes of majority
identity. Recognising this gap, this study examines changing patterns of identification within the European population in the New Zealand census. To do so it uses the novel New Zealand Longitudinal Census (NZLC) dataset, which links individuals across censuses, offering an unprecedented opportunity to examine whether and how individuals change their ethnic affiliations over time. The study adopts a critical demographic conceptual framework, incorporating insights from diverse fields including social constructivism, critical whiteness studies, and a growing literature on settler colonialism. Census counts are fundamentally political, with clear implications for policy and resource distribution, and offer a rich context for exploring the structure of majority ethnic identity. Existing census-based studies, though focused generally on minority groups, have demonstrated clearly how censuses form a key site in the social construction of ethnicity and ethnic groups. The study is in two main parts. The first part considers what patterns can be observed in European identification over the five censuses held between 1991 and 2013. This broad analysis – over two decades of remarkable social and demographic change – finds that Europeans have generally had the lowest level of ethnic response change of any of New Zealand’s major ethnic groups. This contrasts sharply with the fluidity observed between and within other groups, particularly Māori and Pacific peoples. The second part focuses on an exception to this general pattern of European stability, shifts to ‘New Zealander’ ethnicity by Europeans in the 2006 census. It considers the factors associated with this one-off shift to national naming and the broader relationship between national identity and majority identity. Regression modelling shows that claims to New Zealander ethnicity were far from random. Rather it was a phenomenon significantly correlated with being male, being middle aged, having a post-secondary education, living in a solely European household, and in areas with a higher proportion of Europeans and lower levels of deprivation. These characteristics, and the ‘race-like’ stability of European ethnicity, suggests power and dominance play a key role in structuring majority ethnic claims, and offer further evidence of ethnic counts as illustrative of both the individual and the society that produced them.





Description: Though First Nations communities in Canada have historically lacked access to clean water, affordable food, and equitable health care, they have never lacked access to well-funded scientists seeking to study them. Inventing the Thrifty Gene examines the relationship between science and settler colonialism through the lens of “Aboriginal diabetes” and the thrifty gene hypothesis, which posits that Indigenous peoples are genetically predisposed to type 2 diabetes and obesity due to their alleged hunter-gatherer genes. Hay’s study begins with Charles Darwin’s travels and his observations on the Indigenous peoples he encountered, setting the imperial context for Canadian histories of medicine and colonialism. It continues in the mid-twentieth century with a look at nutritional experimentation during the long career of Percy Moore, the medical director of Indian Affairs (1946–1965). Hay then turns to James Neel’s invention of the thrifty gene hypothesis in 1962 and Robert Hegele’s reinvention and application of the hypothesis to Sandy Lake First Nation in northern Ontario in the 1990s. Finally, Hay demonstrates the way in which settler colonial science was responded to and resisted by Indigenous leadership in Sandy Lake First Nation, who used monies from the thrifty gene study to fund wellness programs in their community. Inventing the Thrifty Gene exposes the exploitative nature of settler science with Indigenous subjects, the flawed scientific theories stemming from faulty assumptions of Indigenous decline and disappearance, as well as the severe inequities in Canadian health care that persist even today.