"Surrender" or "Share" - What's the Difference? - Further comments -

Dear Lance:

Thank you for this comment on my blog post “Surrender” or “Share” – What’s the Difference?

As one follows the news reports and court findings re the treaties signed between the First Peoples in Canada and the representative of the Crown, later the Canadian government, one hears reference by the First Peoples to what they termed “peace and friendship” treaties, which refers to the same cultural understnding of what “sharing” of Mother Earth looked like. In fact, the traditional spiritual understanding of the First Peoples’ relationship to Mother Earth simply precluded the idea of “ownership”. One doesn’t “own” one’s mother – rather one shares one’s relationship with Mother Earth with other human beings who also wish to be sustained and nurtured by the bounty of Mother Earth.

That was not the understanding of the settler/immigrant peoples who came to Canada. Those people pursued relationships with the people they met in North America under what they understood to be the “Doctrine of Discovery”, and edict from the Roman Catholic pope which said that whenever Christian people went out into the wider world and found lands not inhabited by Christian people, it was quite okay to claim those lands for the Christian nations under whose flag they were travelling. And that European understandomg of relationship with the land meant that the people who “conquered” the land could put fences around it and say “it’s mine – you keep out”.

One of the things you hear First Peoples saying over and over again is: “We are NOT conquered peoples. We signed treaties as sovereign nations with the Crown, and in fact, treaties are only signed between sovereign peoples, so the fact that those treaties are in existence, and recognized by the Canadian courts of law, means that we are in fact sovereign nations.

So we can see what a really big disconnect was happening between the First Peoples and those who came from somewhere else.

Unfortunately, in the first place, my people have a hard time admitting they may have misunderstood – we are so used to being right and to knowing ourselves as being correct in all matters, so to this day, it is not easy for Canadians to grasp the point that the First Peoples are trying to make. And of course, in the second place, if we admit that we were wrong, we will have to re-assess our understanding of what it means to “share” Mother Earth with the First Peoples, rather than “owning” the land and grudgingly accepting that some other beings (known as “Indians”) have to live somewhere because we have not been able to get rid of them. Those First Peoples are still here in our midst. And it is recorded historically that the Canadian government’s policy towards the First Peoples has been to get rid of the Indian – through assimilation and other oppressive colonial measures.

This is what my “work” has been about for the past 40 years, and I still can’t say I have accomplished much, but I know the struggle will go on long after I have passed from this earth.

Thanks for asking, and thanks for listening, if you are still with me!

Blessings,

Jean.

“Surrender” or “Share” - What’s the Difference?

It appears that Dr. David T. McNab, Metis, and professor of York University’s Indigenous Studies, Canadian Studies and Culture & Expression co-ordinator, was engaged in researching the Canadian Journal of Native Studies (CJNS) Number 16, 2 (1996):293-314, and discovered documents which had been recently made available.

So Dr. McNab wrote a “Research Note” to alert readers of this section of the CJNS that additional information has been uncovered, concerning this particular treaty: “THE PROMISE THAT HE GAVE TO MY GRAND FATHER WAS VERY SWEET”: THE GUN SHOT TREATY OF 1792 AT THE BAY OF QUINTE: http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/16.2/mcnab.pdf

Dr. McNab continues:
"In a recent (1996) paper, Paul Williams has written about Aboriginal Oral Traditions.(1) In it, he has observed that there are 'some aspects of Ontario Indian oral tradition that remain unsolved mysteries.' As an example, Williams has pointed to the Gun Shot Treaty of '1791' at the Bay of Quinte. He remarked that this Treaty'guaranteed that all Indians would always be able to hunt within the sound of a gunshot from any lake or river, and would be able to camp within sixty-six feet of their shores or banks.' However, he further stated that there is'no written record of any such promise' and that the documents 'confirming the tradition' of the Treaty 'remain elusive.' He speculated that '(m)aybe' the documents 'do not exist - - and maybe the Treaty was not as the tradition recalls. '(2)

"In June 1995 additional documents pertaining to the Gun Shot Treaty became available in the provincial Archives of Ontario by an acquisition of private papers, called the A.E. Williams/United Indian Bands of Chippewas and Mississaugas Papers.(3) Written documents, based on Aboriginal oral tradition, pertaining to the Gun Shot Treaty of 1792 at the Bay of Quinte are in these Papers. These written documents are in Ojibwa and in English. The purpose of this research note is to draw attention to the existence of these documents in the Ontario Archives."

What caught my eye was the footnote at the end of this document:
"19. There is no concept of the English word 'surrender' in Ojibwa. The Aboriginal understanding in concept and language would have been the word 'share'."

This website also contains the Ojibwe translation of the written treaty, and as I look through that, I find several points at which the settler negotiator writes English words which convey the meaning of “surrender” but the Ojibwe negotiators have changed the wording to convey the meaning of “sharing” of the land.

On the website, pages 303 to 306 show how the words “share” and “surrender” were stroked out and changed, reflecting a difference of opinion in how those words were understood in each language.

I phoned Dr. Dean Jacobs of NIN.DA.WAAB.JIG at Bkejwanong First Nation (Walpole Island) who said: “We were sharing, in spirit and intent, when we negotiated treaties. The white man talks about ‘the letter of the law’, but the whiteman’s courts are beginning to back us up.”

I have also spoken with Ojibwe speakers about this, and they suggest that translating is a problem because of the difference in the way land is viewed by the two cultures.

The Indigenous view of land is that it is sacred, held in trust to be shared with others, and preserved for the use of future generations.

The Settler-Immigrant view is that land is a commodity to be bought and sold, and whoever "owns" the land has complete control over how it is used, bought and sold, etc.

Thus, when my people say "surrender" land, we mean to "hand it over, give it into another's power or control, relinquish possession of, especially upon compulsion or demand" (from the Oxford dictionary meaning). The Indigenous people, however, would consider conversation or negotiation about land to mean that the land would be shared so that both groups could make use of it, but both groups would also be expected to preserve the land for future generations.

Thus, we can see how this "miscommunication" leads to colossal misunderstanding between people of the two different cultures, and leads to the comment that "there is no concept of the English word 'surrender' in Ojibwa. The Aboriginal understanding in concept and language would have been the word 'share'." The reason there is no such concept of “surrender” is because of the totally different worldview in each culture about land and use of land.

As you know, I have been studying the Ojibwe language for over 40 years, and what I am beginning to see is that learning the language opens my mind to how lost and ignorant our ancestors must have been if they did not understand the First Peoples' languages and only relied on their own understanding of their own languages.

My Ojibwe teacher so often says things like: "You could say this, or this or this, and the meaning may be this, or this, or this." I have come to see this as the subtlety of the Ojibwe language. It means you have to, in a sense, "feel" what the words mean, as well as "know" what the words mean.

And doesn't that point up another great difference between us - that First Peoples sense their relationships as encounters which include recognizing feelings among people; we Settler/Immigrant people don’t see “relationships - we simply see “business transactions“.

(end)

Report of Meeting: Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples &TRC Commissioners

September 28, 2010

With comments by Jean Koning

Truth & Reconciliation Canada commissioners told members of the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples that “there is no Aboriginal person who has not been touched by the legacy of the Indian residential schools (IRS)”; moreover, “all of us have been affected”, said Commissioner Justice Murray Sinclair. The IRS teachings which declared First Peoples' languages, traditions and spirituality to be inferior and unacceptable was “unconsciously taught in the public school system”, he said, so we grew up thinking we were “superior”. It is that “flawed relationship” which must be removed.

I also heard this from the Commissioners:

• The relationship between First Peoples and the rest of us is not good; we need to fix it.

• Respect is needed, beginning with self-respect. Aboriginal youth must be allowed to gain self- respect.

• Large numbers of Aboriginal people have assimilated, but large numbers have not.

• There is a need for education; a multi-generational approach; with long-term solutions.

• In our five-year mandate, we will not accomplish reconciliation. We can only begin that process.

• The “national events” do not provide enough time to hear stories of IRS survivors, so we will go into the communities to listen. The model as laid out by the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) is a “restorative justice model”.

• TRC has five years in which to deal with 150 years of stress. Seven or eight generations have been affected by “massive social difficulties”. The Aboriginal population has grown by eight to ten times; our children will inherit the legacy. What tools will we give them?

• Common Experience Payments (CEP) and Independent Assessment Process (IAP) go only to those who resided in schools; day school attenders do not qualify.

• Education is the answer; look at this in the global context. The United Nations has said our TRC is “a good model of conflict resolution”. Many eyes are watching us. There has been no progress since the apology (in June 2008) re accepting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

• When “statement-gatherers” finish recording IRS survivors' stories, they ask: “What would you like us to do with this?” (so story-tellers retain control). A common theme is: “let the stories help to restore the relationships within our families – to help end the pain.”

• The role of forgiveness: We accept that IRS survivors may not be able to forgive, but it seems to be important that children of survivors find a way to offer their forgiveness to family members who are IRS survivors.

Comment:

Perhaps it is important to note that, while there is a need to restore right relationships between the First Peoples and “The Rest of Us”, the IRS survivors recognize first of all the terrible damage done to family relationships within their own communities. They understand the need for young people to be able to understand why going back to the Elders for teachings and guidance (the traditional way for youth to learn) simply does not work if the Elders have been damaged by IRS assimilation policies.

First Nations community leaders know the bereavement of their people where this has happened. In particular, some Elders have been so conditioned by the Christian teachings they received that they cannot accept the traditional ceremonies, rituals and teachings that have historically been a part of their tribal culture. This leaves First Nations youth on their own, to try to find the way back to the good Red Road of traditional teachings which inform the values of the Seven Grandfathers: Wisdom, Love, Respect, Bravery/Courage, Honesty, Humility and Truth. We - “The Rest of Us” - need to understand and appreciate this terrible lack within First Nations communities which, I fear, only time will heal.

To continue:

• Education is so important. First Peoples went through the Canadian educational system but had no idea of who they were as Aboriginal persons. This is what must change in the school systems.

• Truth informs reconciliation. We are “truth-gathering”. What do we do about this? For many IRS survivors, reconciliation is personal; it happens within families.

• Our ambition, realistically, is to define what reconciliation is so it can be worked at as we go forward.

• The IRS policy was assimilation; what do we want to have now as our goal? Find examples of how to bring communities together to work at reconciliation.

Comment:

This may be what the Kawartha Truth & Reconciliation Support Group (KTRSG) seems to be able to achieve. We have been meeting once a month for about two years: 16 to 20 persons who are retired and active priests and ministers (Anglican and United Church, men and women); retired school teachers (men and women); working and retired laywomen (both churched and unchurched); two Ojibwe Elders (one man, one woman); and altogether, the Aboriginal members of the group number five, so they are outnumbered by “The Rest of Us”; nevertheless, we share our thoughts and our knowledge of who each of us is, which helps us to learn of the different cultures we represent.

We use the “Talking Circle” to hold dialogue, by which we are disciplined to listen to one another which means that sometimes difficult questions are asked, and we must struggle to find answers to enable one another to gain new understanding.

In many ways, we are a “work in progress”, not sure of our purpose except that we know we have developed a sense of trust in one another to enable us to continue the dialogue, and from which each of us derives benefit – I would dare to say “spiritual benefit”.

As with the TRC, we have identified the need for education of Canadian citizens to understand Aboriginal history if we are to establish right relationships between us. How to undertake that kind of education in our area may become one of our goals.

To continue:

• Education of non-Canadian people is important. One big challenge is to understand that this is a Canadian problem; not an Aboriginal problem.

• We are working with the immigration department to produce a video for the immigration and citizenship process which includes the story of the IRS.

• There are health support systems in place – for the survivors; for statement-gatherers; for when survivors go home from telling their stories; including traditional supports. We now have one Health Canada staff person working with the TRC full-time.

• If stories are too traumatic for survivors to tell a second time, transcripts from the IAP are available so they can be made available (with the survivor's consent) to the archives.

Conclusion:

The legacy of the Indian residential schools is Canada's shame; what we do through the Truth & Reconciliation Commission can become Canada's pride. - Mr. J. Murray Sinclair.

The contrast

If you plan to be in Manitoulin Island for the Wikwemikong Powwow, look for the opportunity to see "The Honour Song" at Holy Cross Mission Ruins, Wikwemikong, July 23 to August 14th. My dear friend, Audrey, tells me her four-year old granddaughter will appear in this production, along with her father, Joe Osawabine. What a wonderful way to teach the young children their history, culture and spiritual teachings - and what a contrast to the sad, devastating legacy of the Indian residential schools. Congratulations to everyone involved.

Blessings,
Jean.

Racism

Take a look at this: http://tinyurl.com/257fbo2


Deja vu - a repeat of the situation faced by the folk who tried to launch the Argyle Centre in Peterborough, Ontario, a couple of years ago.

I have just "returned" from the annual general meeting of the Assembly of First Nations in Winnipeg earlier this week. One of the key speakers, Truth & Reconciliation Canada (TRC) Commissioner Justice Murray Sinclair, told the delegates that while the Canadian government was spending 150 years to convince the Indian residential school students that it was necessary to "remove the Indian from the child", they were also raising up a population of Canadian citizens to believe that the First Peoples were a "problem" to be gotten rid of ; that there were two levels of "citizens": "Indians", and the rest of us.

It is this mindset with which Canadians have been indoctrinated. It is this mindset that must be removed if there is ever to be healing and reconciliation in Canada.

And how do we remove or alter that mindset? It must begin with listening to, and sharing in, truth-telling

There are a number of people working at that, including the TRC. Let us pray that Alberton and environs will soon raise up people who can begin this work in their neighbourhood.

Unfortunately, it will not happen overnight, probably not in my lifetime - but I have hope that it will happen one day.

Blessings,
Jean.

"Uprising" by Douglas Bland

Go to your library or bookstore to find this book. It's a fascinating read for those of us who follow Indigenous justice issues. See http://tinyurl.com/26xqutl for an excellent review. I started reading it in Calgary but didn't finish it so now I have to ask for it at my local library - or go out and buy it.

For those of you who regularly follow my comments, I consider this a kind of "companion piece" to John Ralston Saul's book: "A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada", although I'm not sure either of those authors would want to be told that.

However, for me, both books say some very important things that we Canadians need to know. And I was excited to see that Chief Terry Nelson, at the Assembly of First Nations general annual meeting in Winnipeg yesterday, held up the Bland book as he spoke to the more than 600 Chiefs of First Nations across Canada about "how important we are". He offered "Uprising" as one way in which First Nations people can grasp the power they have because "you are the real owners of the resources that are being sold by Canada to other people, especially the Americans".

Chief Nelson suggested asking the Chinese government "to open trade with us" (the First Nations of Turtle Island - not the rest of us.) "Tell Canadians to solve these problems," he ended his presentation, with the "Uprising" book held high in his hand. "I believe in Shawn Atleo (AFN National Chief chosen last year) - he's on the right track!"

More about the AFN meeting later. Meanwhile, look for "Uprising" asap.

Blessings,
Jean.

Assembly of First Nations Meeting, Winnipeg, July 20-22, 2010

Dear Friends:

Take the time to tune in to http://tinyurl.com/2u6h4jk to follow the 31st Annual General Assembly of First Nations webcast this week. There will be media coverage also, of course, with Aboriginal journal Trevor Greyeyes adding to the Winnipeg Free Press coverage, but watching the action unfold on the webcast is exciting too.

Last year I attended the AFN Assembly held in Calgary when Shawn Atleo was chosen National Chief. At that time, he declared: "It's our time", and today in his opening speech to the Assembly, he showed how the AFN has moved towards taking over its own destiny, breaking away from the detested Indian Act and proposing a new relationship with the federal government under a "Ministry of Crown Relations".

There's more, and I will hope to add further to this blog in coming days.

Meanwhile, my best wishes to all delegates as they consider the future.

Blessings,
Jean.