Prairie Fire

This is an original paper I put together while attending University.

Introduction:

The Nations Within, in this book the author comes out swinging with what is conventional to most native people. In Chapter II it states, “Canada’s treatment of its aboriginal peoples has been called a ‘national tragedy’ and an international disgrace with…parallels (being made) to the white supremacist (groups) in South Africa.” There is evidence that supports this claim, such as “long standing bureaucratic oppression, rejection of meaningful dialogue, and disempowerment of aboriginal communities.”[1] Aboriginals remain economically dependent on the federal government for services; it is these services that moreover are intended to bring us into parity with the rest of society. However in many instances, this is one area where we tend to lag behind, the area services. Such conditions are creating unrest; the need for reform is predominant in Native communities. Unfortunately how it is reflected in mainstream is made known in the usual response, “ it is nothing more than an “Indian problem” and because of that attitude, indifference is all to often the norm”

According to a recent survey, Students at a university were asked for their opinions on Natives Canadians, typical of ignorant responses, they labeled them as being “alcoholic and lazy, giving rise to feelings of anger and uneasiness, and symbolic beliefs of Native Canadians violating peace.” Found in 2001 Psychology.[2]

Indians are always seen as problems, never as people that deserve help from a condition that are beyond them. They are seen as the tax problem, the social problem, and the great violators of peace, particularly in this country. But yet how many people know they come from a system that dominates them, which has made them nothing more than helpless mendicants. Or who knows that Natives lived the past hundred years in isolation, on pockets of land that add up to .02% of the landmass in Canada. (Did you know that the total landmass of reserves in Canada is equal to less than half of the present-day Navajo Reservation in Arizona?)[3] Yet another shocking thing is we do not own reserve land and we also have limited access to its resources, even though we are the original inhabitants of the land!

I can then ask, where is the home of the native people, and how are we to reach self-government without a land base?

Our life revolves around a dominating bureaucratic system, which is a result of the Indian Act; a piece of repressive legislation that at one time controlled every aspect of an Indian’s life.

In conclusion, we are not violators of peace, but people in need of some thing better. Traditional knowledge tells us that we eventually end up at the same spot. Until we take control of our own affairs, only then will we know how it is to be free in a free country? Until we have more access to resources, it is then and only then that we will truly be able to govern ourselves.



We must then wonder, with self-government on the horizon, what are our options?



My topic then is entitled “History, a Democratic Look at Native People.” I will be looking at a method of governance, which has deep roots and bears a remarkable resemblance to some traditional concepts.



Roots of Democracy

But before I get there we must look briefly at the roots of Democracy. In the 1700’s, The French Revolution was taking place across the great divide. What is unique is that these Frenchmen appear to have been moved by how Native people lived in the new world, and also how they governed themselves. Olive Dickason says in her book, Canada’s First Nations, that ” The King of France spent a good deal of energy, not to mention money, maintaining alliances with these people whose ideas of equality and individual freedom he would not of tolerated for an instant in his own subjects.”[4]

The French were the first to interact more closely with the Indians in the Americas, through intermarriages, alliances in trade and war, and not to mention the times they had to learn how to survive in the new country. So before the French Revolution, it appears the French were quite familiar with the life of the Indians, mainly because they lived with them.

In Harry Liebersohn’s book, Aristocratic Encounters, he speaks about Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book, Discourse on Inequality, Where Rousseau idealized a state of nature by using virtuous people called “noble savages” as his example of people possessing an original state of order.[5] He implied that the French had lost rudimentary things such as equality and freedom: And furthermore, the French situation to Rousseau, looked irreversible. Well needless to say, this created a debate about equality; and so the debate was on. Denis Diderot collaborated with Thomas Raynal and others who took the argument further, an ambiguity occurred though, when they noticed freedom and treatment was better under the Indian leadership, but at the same time they could not reckon these people more than primitive beings. These savages however were a part of a ten-volume work. The influence, of the free and liberated Native, meet with opposition, a counter-revolutionary hatred of Rousseau surfaced.[6] It was a shock to French Society that Rousseau would put these savages in a position of prominence, but in reality, the dissidence that arose was an act meant to dissuade the cries of equality. Rousseau had sparked a revolution, or should I say the Indians of America.

At the same time of the French Revolution, the American Revolution was just underway.

The colonies wanted to break away from the Monarchy: they felt Britain had too much control over the colonies; taxation became a burden. Many people began studying in France such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin. The Revolution in France was looked as a possible example of independence.

But the example did not solely center on France. In the New World, the colonies, looked to their back yards, where the Iroquois became a prime example of governance. Benjamin Franklin said, “ Throughout the eighteenth century, the republican and democratic principles that lay at the heart of the Five Nation’s system of self-government had been included among the studies of the philosophers of Europe and America who were seeking a more just and humane way for men to be governed.”[7]

One Iroquois leader, Canassatego, said, “ Our forefathers established union and amity (friendship) between the five Nations. This has made us formidable. This has given us great weight and authority with our neighboring nations. We are a powerful Confederacy, and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with each other.”[8] (Found in Bruce Johansen’s book, Debating Democracy.)

So what kind of system did they have? Well according to Richard White in his book, Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815, “ There is no king in the tribe, but a chief who is not a chief of state (and) has no authority at his disposal, no power or coercion, no means of giving a order. The chief is not a commander; the people of the tribe are under no obligation to obey. The space of the chieftainship is not the locus of power. And the profile of the primitive chief in no way foreshadows that of a future despot.”[9](A ruler with absolute power)



Within the Iroquois system there existed, a headman, seven under chiefs, a women’s consultative group, and various other groups.



The construction of the leadership then reveals the structure in their society. There was no leader, only equals; women were just as important, if not more so, to their society. The people in the community always had a voice, every issue went to the people by way of consensus. The chance of community unrest was limited, because despotism was abhorred and not allowed.



We must now jump to the people who are more relevant to us, and that is the Prairie tribes. I intend to look at the Assinoboines, and then end with the Cree.



A study was taking place on the Prairie tribes; it was an ethnographic study put out by the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE). Henry Schoolcraft was asked to compile information on the history and present conditions of the Indians in the U.S., the secretary of war, who oversaw the administration of Indian Affairs, appointed him.[10] By mid-may in 1874, a circular was passed around to the various Indian experts. It is from this information collected, that Edward Denig produced his excellent work on the Assinoboine. (See David Miller’s book, The Assiniboine)

The Assinoboine were one of the tribes that depended on the Buffalo for subsistence. They were considered nomadic, and their tools consisted of stone axes, bone awls, clay pots, and rib knives.[11] But the question that can then be asked “Is there anything of note-worthy in their communities?” One of the questions in Schoolcraft’s circular, was, “Is the democratic element strongly implanted?”[12] “The Assinoboine had one main Chief, some lesser Chiefs, and Chiefs of the soldiers, lesser soldiers, the soldiers themselves, elders and other groups.[13]

Denig answered the question by saying,” There is, as observed before, but one nominal (of relating to, or constituting a name) chief to each band, and it is he who leads it. Yet this position does not destroy nor militate (to have effect) against the will of several others in the same band whose voices are as much entitled to a hearing and sometimes more so than his. No man’s rule over them is absolute; their government is pure democracy.”[14]

In Donald Wards book, The People, he says, “ The Assinoboine had no hereditary class of chieftains or nobles... When several bands came together, a single chief would dominate, but again his rank was more symbolic than real.”[15]

Outside the community, the chief had more clout, inside the community he was just like all the others.

In fact, they considered the position of chief with high regard. William Graham in his book, Treaty Days, points this out. “Sometimes no one wanted the position; it meant too much responsibility.”[16] In fact both Denig and Dickason point out that “the chief would often times be the poorest.”[17] And that was largely because of the importance of the community; where the people held precedence.

Denig points out, “In each and all the bands mentioned there are several men bearing the character, rank, and name of chief. But he is only considered as chief of the band who heads and leads it. Yet this power does not give him the right to tyrannize over any other chiefs, or dictate to them any course they would not willingly follow; neither does it detract from their dignity and standing to acknowledge him as head. Some one must be nominal leader, and as this place involves some trouble and action and is not repaid with any extra honors or gifts it is not in general much envied. Moreover, this leader is mostly, if not always, supported by numerous connections who second his views and hence his authority.”[18]

Here then, lie the similarities between the prairie tribes and the tribes in the east; they both used and had the same concepts of governance.

Denig makes his strongest statement, by saying,” Their ideas are by no means groveling (unworthy), nor is their form of government to be derided (subject to contempt). Neither can we conscientiously assign to them a lower place in the scale of creation; perhaps not so low as any other race of uneducated sentient beings.”[19]

Here we can somewhat see the democratic structure, but there still exists another aspect that we can still look at to get a deeper sense of democracy.



In 1876, a treaty was being signed on the prairies, specifically in Canada. (Peter Erasmus, Buffalo Days and Nights)

Governor Alexander Morris arrived at Fort Carlton with his two interpreters; the Indian contingent had their own interpreter, his name being Peter Erasmus: Reverend John McKay and Peter Ballenden were the interpreters of the governor. In the early part of the processions an indiscretion occurred between the interpreters: where one spoke Swampy Cree, as most in attendance were Plains Cree, the other interpreter had a low voice, so because of these problems Erasmus, the Indian’s chosen interpreter, took over the proceedings, and did so to the end.[20]

Morris earlier had said to the chiefs, “I have come to meet you Cree chiefs to make a treaty with you for the surrender of your rights to the land to the government.”[21]

Mistawasis, one of the head chiefs, rose, after Morris concluded with the explanation of the treaty terms, and said, “We heard all you have told us and I want to tell the Governor how it is with us as well. When a thing is thought out quietly, that is the best way. I ask this of him today that we go and think over his words.”[22]

A recess ensued, and the proceeding were to commence on the following Tuesday, it was Saturday.

The Indian contingent was not all in agreement, in fact there was a small rift. Peter was invited to the council discussions, but some objected. Star Blanket (Ah-tuk-a-kup) got up and said, “He is here to open up our eyes and ears to the words that you and I can not understand.”[23]

Pounmaker and the Badger led the faction and were in control of approximately thirty lodges out of the 250 teepees. Poundmaker had earlier caused a stir, by saying, “ This is our land! It isn’t a piece of pemmican to be cut off and given in little pieces back to us. It is ours and we will take what we want.” A strong wave of approval came back, some jumped to their feet and waved their arms and yelled, “Yes, Yes!”[24]

The Governor somewhat taken aback said “ that unless some land has been set aside for the Indians, the country would be flooded with white settlers, who would take no consideration of the Indians.”[25]

Well after a whole day of deliberations by the Chiefs, Mista-wa-sis finally rose after not saying anything all day. After everyone quieted down, he began to speak, “I have heard my brothers speak, complaining of the hardships endured by our people. Some have bewailed the poverty and the suffering that has come to Indians because of the destruction of the buffalo as the chief source of our living, the loss of the ancient glory of our forefathers; and with all that I agree… I speak directly to Poundmaker and The Badger and those others who object to signing this treaty. Have you anything better to offer our people? I ask again, can you suggest anything that will bring these things back for tomorrow and all the tomorrows that face our people.” He went on, “I for one, look to the Queen laws and her Red Coats servants to protect our people against the evils of the white man’s firewater and to stop the senseless wars among our people the Blackfoot, Peigans, and Bloods. We have been in darkness.”[26]

He ends by saying, “Even if it were possible to gather all tribes together, to throw away the hand that is offered to help us, we would be too weak to make our demands heard.”[27]

There was a deep silence, finally Star Blanket rose and stood there with his head bowed, he looked up “Yes, I have carried the dripping scalps of the Blackfoot on my belt and thought it a great deed of bravery. I thought it was a part of the glory of war but now I agree with Mista-wa-sis. Then he raised his voice so that it rang with the power and conviction, “It is no longer a good thing.”

“ Can we stop the power of the white man from spreading over the land like grasshoppers…There are men who are trying to blind our eyes, and refuse to see the things that have brought us to this pass. Let us not think of ourselves but our children’s children… our people think we have wisdom above others amongst us. Then let us show our wisdom. Let us show our wisdom by choosing the right path now while we yet have a choice.”[28]





After all this information, it is time to examine the modern concepts of Democracy.



*Democracy puts more emphasis on the group rather than on the leader.

*Democracy means government by the people.

*In Democracy the leaders are spokespersons that are representatives of the people.

*Democracy is about having Citizens.Citizens are people that can discuss and make decisions concerning their life. If you can not do that, you are a mere subject. Subjects are not equal, but citizens are equal: because they can equally discuss and make decisions about the community.

*Democracy is about communication; where the people’s voice is important, and their opinions are valued.

*Democracy is about consensus. If the majority appear to have more control, than this is not real democracy, because real democracy does not mean a disregard of minorities, it holds equality as the highest order and regards all people.

*Democracy is about the ability to openly debate. Debate and opinion is necessary to build good relations in a community. Differences are not roadblocks but building blocks. Discussion means equality; superiors do not discuss with inferiors.

*And finally, Democracy is about people’s relationship with themselves and others, rather than being restricted to institutions.





Conclusion:



Democracy is about self-government. So what is the meaning of uncovering these concepts and showing the governing intricacies of Native society; it is to show you that these so called Democratic concepts are nothing more than concepts that existed in our communities, well before it became fashionable to fight for the cause of equality. It is to show you that our societies, once held onto something great. They grasped concepts the ancient Greeks only wrestled with.

It will not take much effort to extract the Democratic concepts in Traditional societies, since they are actually the roots of Democracy. That is one of the reasons I gave you the list and put the concepts last, as they are self-evident and are rather conspicuous. Democracy is an ongoing concept in the world. Yet in our societies we never lived by emulation or concoction based on mythical representations, but the concepts were an essential part of the people, and because of that the concepts were real. Representation was the norm, the people were above leaders, and they held precedence and were always taken into consideration. This was especially true in the Treaty talks as the leaders spoke. Debate was necessary to get all sides out, William Penn, marveled at the Iroquois’s life, “Every king hath his council, and that consists of all the old and wise men of his nation…[Nothing is undertaken, be it war, peace, the selling of land or traffick, without advising with them; and which is more with the young men also…The kings…move by the breath of their people. It is the Indian custom to deliberate…I have never seen more natural sagacity.”[29]

These concepts are far reaching, when you think you got it down packed along comes another angle.

Their ability to converse in eloquence and wisdom was common for leaders: Denig describes the Assinoboine oration as one of, “simplicity, clearness and strength of language (which) are its distinguishing traits.”[30]

Ever since equality has been sought, various opposing factions have risen, Rousseau had to flee his country, and many were executed for holding on to the same views. In Britain it was the same, as in America when the ideas were first debated, they were meet with opposition; Roger Williams, who was eventually deemed a rebel, had his book, The Bloudy Tenent, burned. The reason for this opposition was that it was so contrary to the way Europeans lived, they lived in a Monarchy and hierarchy. It would take revolutions, to bring the changes. Then and only then did all people hold a position of importance.

Democracy is not a panacea, but that it is ever changing to the needs of the people. Winston Churchill, said, “Democracy is the worst form of government in the world-except for all the other forms.”[31]

The Ironies of ironies is that these people (Indians) who were so accustomed to freedom and liberty ended up being the most repressed.

But, my impetus is not to sow discord, but to encourage our people to seek a way that will enhance our communities. In that sense, self-government can then mean a revival of traditional democratic concepts.

It is now up to us to take these traditional concepts and implement them into our society. We must once again look to our lowest people and lift them up; we must honor them with a voice. Our communities are only as good as the least one in our society. It has been stated, “You know a society by how it treats it’s poor.”

I have to ask, how long are we going to let our people continue to be mere subjects of bureaucracy, how long are they going to be sitting on the outside looking in?

Like the old Assinoboine chief who said, “ good men and wise men are scarce.” Today we have no excuse, we should be quick to put our people first, this is not ideology; this is about what works; this is about community development. A real leader then, is a servant of the people. A real leader then does not have to be told to remember his People. A real leader does not wrestle with power he wrestles with service.







Biographical list:

Angus, Ian, Emergent Publics, Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 2001.

Denig, Edward, The Assinoboine, Regina: Canadian Plain Research Center,

2001.

Dickason, Olive Patricia, Canada’s First Nation: A History of Founding

Peoples from Earliest Times, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Ebenstein, William, Today’s ISMS: Communism Fascism Capitalism

Socialism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

Erasmus, Peter, Buffalo Days and Nights, Calgary: Fifth House Publishers,

1999.

Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliott, ‘The Nations Within’: Aboriginal-

State Relations in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand,

Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Graham, William M., Treaty Days; Reflections of an Indian Commissioner,

Calgary: Glenbow-Alberta Institute, 1991.

Grinde, Jr., Donald A., and Bruce E. Johansen, Exemplar of Liberty:

Native America and The Evolution of Democracy, California:

University of California, 1991.

Liebersohn, Harry, Aristocratic Encounters: European Travelers and North

American Indians, Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University

of Cambridge, 1998.

Pocklington, T.C., Liberal Democracy: in Canada and the United States,

Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Limited, 1985.

Santrock John W. and John O. Mitterer, Psychology: First Canadian

Edition, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 2001.

Ward, Donald, The People, Saskatoon: Fifth House Ltd., 1995

Watson, Patrick & Benjamin Barber, The Struggle for Democracy, Toronto:

Lester & Orpen Dennys Ltd., 1988.