First Nations and Self-governance

Richard Foot, of Postmedia News, http://tinyurl.com/26p36ne “Native communities struggle with governance, accountability”, Telegraph-Journal.com, December 30/10; hits the nail on the head with this well-written article covering all the bases of this difficult subject – difficulty which is of our making, not the First Peoples'.

Some years ago Georges Erasmus, then National Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Chief, told Project North cum Aboriginal Rights Coalition members that “we (First Nations people) have to do it ourselves. Yes, we're going to make mistakes, but you have to let us make our own mistakes while we learn how to govern ourselves and make decisions for ourselves!”

Now Shawn Atleo is saying the same thing. He stands by all the Chiefs (accountable or not) before the world, but within the AFN, he says: “Look, people – we've got to do better – for ourselves, not for anyone else. And we can do it – it's our time!”

Part of the legacy of the Indian Act which has governed the lives of those named “Indian” (one of our first mistakes), was to remove the traditional governance of First Peoples' Nations and replace it with a municipal-style Band Chief and Council system, with definite instructions to account to the Dept. of Indian Affairs (now INAC http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index-eng.asp), and no instructions at all to provide any accounting to the people in the community.

There are a number of First Peoples who, when chosen to be chief of their community, have an innate sense of the traditional teachings in which “headmen” (now also “head women) were raised to understand that their role would be leadership, which meant service to the people. Atleo's own story confirms this. I heard him say that, as a child, he would be asked his name by an Elder, who would respond that he was destined to be a leader “to serve the people”. In Atleo, I think we see some of the best of the good teachings, which have not been wiped away by the residential school experience, but retained through the teaching of the Elders who remember the ancient values of their people.

I experienced this situation first-hand when I was asked by an Elder to accompany a small group of women who had decided to ask for a forensic audit of their Band Chief and Council. It's a long story which I'll tell another time, but the important part, to me, was the final remarks of the judge who suggested that, with an election coming in the spring, the “dissenters” could engage in “strong, peaceful protests during the campaign for band council elections in June”.

That was a “settler-immigrant newcomer” Canadian speaking; I knew that such an election process couldn't possibly happen at that time on that Reserve. The Chief had been in that role for a number of years and, supported by the particular brand of Christianity he and his family had espoused for many years, if you were not a member of that church, you were not considered for any Band Council appointments, and also not for many of the amenities that were supposed to be shared with Band members in the community – new housing, social assistance welfare, post-secondary education, etc. And if you tried to launch other candidates to oppose the elected officials, that would be remembered and you could definitely wipe out any possibility of benefiting from that rampant nepotism. And no one had the strength of will to try – they were imbued with a sense of hopelessness.

It is that kind of apathy prevalent among so many Band members, often as a result of the residential school experience where children grew up to believe they were worthless human beings, that they were not deserving of anything good, and that their voices would never be listened to, that has maintained the oppressive colonization across so much of “Indian Country”, and allowed Band officials to profit from that sense of malaise among the people.

And ultimately it is only the people themselves who can make those changes – within themselves, to believe that they are worthy and completely deserving of the best kind of leadership their own cultural and traditional values can offer – until they become strong enough to say, collectively, “we can do better, and we will!”

And how can we help?

First by understanding and accepting the reality of our shared history, dark though that legacy is from our perspective.

Second, by encouraging First Peoples brothers and sisters to regain the sense of their true worth as fellow human beings, with whom we are equal in every way, and with whom we share the good teachings of our respective cultures, traditions, and spirituality.

Third, by learning of and supporting the recommendations coming from the AFN Chiefs and Councillors as they lead the way for their people to move, collectively, into self-governance and self-reliance.

Fourth, by educating ourselves through the number of writings available to us for our understanding:

• numerous books by authors like John S. Milloy, James R. Miller, Olive P. Dickason, etc.;

• the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples;

• the findings of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Canada;

• meeting with and listening to – really listening – to First Peoples wherever they are willing to have us join in such ventures.

It is my hope that, as we begin to identify ourselves as “Treaty Persons,” First Peoples brothers and sisters will believe that it is indeed okay for them to let us meet with them so that we can listen and learn the truth of our shared history, and together we can find the way to move into the future as equals.

And who are “Treaty Persons”? You and I, who are the beneficiaries of those historic and modern treaties between the Nations of the First Peoples, and the Rest of Us who are settler/immigrant/newcomers to this part of Turtle Island we call Canada.

And I'll have more to say about “Treaty Persons” in a future blog. Till then, may your New Year be filled with new learning, new friendships, and new blessings as you join the walk towards respect, dignity, and equality with the First Peoples of our country, Canada, and their homeland, Turtle Island.

Thanks for listening.

Jean Koning.

Can we learn to listen to one another effectively?

I have received a copy of this column by Paul Schneiderit of The Chronicle Herald online, Halifax, N.S., Nov. 16/1o.

FROM: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1212257.html

Herewith, some quick thoughts.

It would appear that, if Blatchford’s book is racist, that means it is “racist” against “Indians”, since she writes of police action or inaction in and around Six Nations. So were there “Indians” preventing Blatchford from being heard? Or were they “non-Indians” in support of “Indian” issues and concerns, or of other concerns?

And then I would ask: were those protesters speaking for themselves, or for “Indians”? This is important to me, because I have spent half my life trying to learn how to listen to First Nations, Metis and Inuit sisters and brothers. The First Peoples of this part of Turtle Island are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. If First Peoples want us to stand and speak with them, we can and should do that, but I don’t think we should speak “for” First Peoples. So did the protesters consult with any First Peoples before they began to engage in their protest at Waterloo University? On whose behalf, besides themselves, were they actually speaking?

And then there is another question: did Waterloo University officials consult with the First Peoples located within their establishment? Did they seek the opinion and advice of those First Peoples? In other words, how is the University of Waterloo showing the world that it is standing in solidarity with the First Peoples colleagues in its midst? And if this thought didn’t occur to anyone up to this point, is is possible that the University administration people will sit down with those First Peoples colleagues within their community, to discuss how to handle this type of event, should it happen again?

Or are Waterloo University officials still trying to work through their relationship with their First Peoples colleagues, and since they have not yet reached a meeting of minds, they thought it would be better to give in to the protesters, rather than appear to be “anti-Indian”? So I would like to hear from the First Peoples who are part of the university establishment. What are their opinions, ideas, concerns?

I think Christie Blatchford’s book may offer us an opportunity to sit down together, First Peoples (especially from Six Nations) and the Rest of Us, to begin to talk about what exactly we are trying to accomplish in our current relationship as it is manifesting itself in the territory of the Six Nations of the Grand River. This is what the Government of Canada should have been doing from the beginning – in our name, as our elected representatives - but since it hasn’t, maybe we, the people, can begin that process of listening to one another – effectively listening – towards learning the truth of our shared history.

Is it possible that Christie Blatchford would be willing to appear on a stage with a member of the Six Nations community to begin such a listening process? Because that’s what missing. We are not listening effectively to one another. Or so it seems to me.

Thanks for listening.

Jean Koning.

"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.