This site (Restoring Democracy to our First Nations: Rising above the Indian Act - located at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/94265841191/?fref=ts) as always has made the Indian Act an integral part of its emphasis. It has been my hope that a realistic understanding of the Indian Act be birthed. Sadly though it (the Indian Act) has been mire and an almost depressing rendition of what encompasses a large number of our people. But I would want you to not only be upset, saddened, and frustrated, but to seek out solutions. Not in haste but a deep determination. In fact such a real understanding of the Indian Act should make it so unbearable, that you will want to do anything in your power to lift yourself out of this (legislated) quagmire. We need, (suffice to say), that kind of understanding to be able to do what is next and that is to act.
Given that we have different perspectives and realities as First Nations people which should be part of how we completely understand the Indian Act, as native people. In other words we need to give consideration to each and everyone’s perspective to do ample justice. And that goes without saying that not all First Nations in this country have the same reality when it comes to the Indian Act. Plainly put, how the Indian Act affects us will not be to the same extent. But it is important to be of the same mind, and have the same goal, which is to see this hand of oppression lifted. Is it about defiance, no! Rather it’s about giving us the best opportunity to succeed. Success will only come by way of taking out any impediment that may affect our ability to grow and be prosperous.
Freedom is the air around us that brings out our best, it’s the man-made oppressive measures that hold back and smother that freedom.
I would have to agree that seeing the Indian Act in a realistic light, is depressing. The power of control and domination over our people (the essence of the Indian Act) in this country is unacceptable. But for those who want to find that elusive answer they may have to face things realistically: Even if its oppression (being the main effect) is excessively burdensome.
People say, “I don’t need the negativity!” But those who go on understanding the extent of that deep oppression will understand what we need to overcome this oppression. It is going to be a heartfelt answer and it will come from understanding that oppression.
In fact if we do not put forth the Indian Act in its actual rendition we are not only denying people from the ability to deal with things (based on the real problems); but we moreover have become part of the problem. The Indian Act will never be dealt with if it is not understood in its fullest extent. So even though such an understanding wavers on near depression, it’s my belief that the full rendition will give us the impetus that we will need to deal with it. We will then moreover embrace the answer in a greater capacity.
And so we look for that answer, and it clearly lies with the concept of freedom. But where can we understand that freedom? Where, if anything, will the answer lie?
Independence
The treaties are an integral part of Canada, no doubt about it. And we have heard of the spirit and intent of those treaties. So what exactly is the spirit and intent?
After reading some of the biography of Champlain, written by David Hackett Fischer, there was an interesting observation made by the author, about Champlain, that moreover stood out; I would like to share that….“Here was a moment of high importance in the history of North America. Nobody had planned these events, but both French and Indian leaders were to see an opportunity. The great Tabagie marked the beginning of an alliance between the founders of New France and three Indian nations. Each entered willingly into the relationship and gained something of value in return. The Indians acquired a potential ally against their mortal enemies, the Iroquois. The French won support for settlement, exploration, and trade. The alliance that formed here would remain strong for many years because it rested on a mutuality of material interests. The leaders who had met at Pointe aux Alouettes also did something else. They gave a tone to the Alliance. Pont Grave, Champlain, Anababijou, the sagamores, and most of all the two young Montagnais who had been to Paris did that together. They treated each other with dignity, forbearance, and respect. They began to build an atmosphere of trust that was fundamental to relations between Europeans and Indians. They also kept it growing. When trust grew strong, many things were possible. When trust was lost, it was rarely regained. This meeting was important for the spirit, as well as its substance. It marked the beginning of a relationship that was unique in the long history of European colonization in America.” (Fischer, p. 134)
It was this new relationship that would birth Champlain’s vision of, “a new world where different nations could dwell in peace.” (ibid., p.141)
Champlain was ripe, after seeing the indiscretions of other Europeans and how they treated the indigenous populations, to the point of being moved to see things play out differently. And for the native people it was the constant warring with other tribes that goaded them towards a better relationship. No one benefited quite like them, as they reached out and embraced one another uninhibitedly.
Nothing pushes people more to peace than years of war, Chief Joseph once said, “I will fight no more forever!”
The spirit of peace and trust go hand and hand. Brotherhood is the highest call, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God!” ~ Matthew 5:9
Treaties stretch from coast to coast in this country. And we have been given so many books of legal advice and interpretation when it comes to the treaties. Yet an integral part is the political and social aspects to, moreover, get a full meaning of the treaties. If anything it’s the incorporation of all aspects, the political and social that could and should strengthen the legal position.
The treaties took on a greater aspect, than just friendship and good relations. We can use the Iroquois as an example for greater enlightenment to those relationships. “In both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries treaties of alliance, peace, and friendship were commonly employed to regulate relations between Europeans and First Nations, and also between and among the Indian nations themselves. Probably the most famous example of the early treaty system in extensive and elaborate form was the “Covenant Chain” that the Iroquois League (or Iroquois Confederacy) fashioned with Dutch and British. Using the metaphorical language typical of Native diplomacy, the Iroquois described their ties to European and to fellow North American Nations as a chain. When the Iroquois thought their allies were neglecting their obligations, for example, Iroquois negotiators would speak at conferences of how the chain was rusting, and they would call for greater effort to make it, once more, shine brightly.” (Miller, 112, 2004)
Treaties are “formally concluded and ratified agreement between states” “the document embodying such an agreement,” “an agreement between individuals or parties..” In other words treaties are formalized records of negotiated agreements between parties usually states but sometimes people.” (Miller, 3)
But these agreements were even more than just an agreement; it was a compact or covenant. “These compacts were render’d as firm as the Indians could make them, by such ceremonies as were most sacred and obligatory among them.” (Miller, 21, 2009) (More on the sacred aspect later)
But the treaties were more than just being sacred; they encompassed an aspect of indigenousness that produced new ways of seeing things. Equality was at the base of this understanding. Equality meant two equal sides in an agreement.
The idea of being equal allowed each side to have and keep its sovereignty. There was no room for domination, trickery, or downright deception. If anything, a treaty could not go on if that was the case. So it stood to reason that equality was of the essence when it came to the treaties.
But such a concept, equal sides, was hard to comprehend (particularly for the Europeans). In fact nothing points the difficulty of this indigenous concept out more than the time when Benjamin Franklin and fathers of Confederation were seeking how to include the other states into one nation, without moreover breaking up the country (This would be around 1750’s). How could the states come together?
“Closing his final speech on July 4 1744, Canassatego told the assembled Iroquois and colonial commissioners: Our wise forefathers established union and amity 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 one another.” (Johansen, 61,62) Franklin concluded that, “(a) federal structure such as the Iroquois Confederacy, which left each state in the union to manage its own internal affairs…” seemed to be where the answer lay. They had to promote independence and unity. As Canassatego once said and commissioners would repeat, “The Six nations are a wise people, Let us hearken to them, and take their counsel, and teach our children to follow it.” Our old men have done so. They have frequently taken a single arrow and said, Children see how easily it is broken. Then they have taken and tied twelve arrows together with a strong string or cord and our strongest men could not break them. See, said they, this is what the Six nations mean. Divided, a single man may destroy you; united, you are a match for the whole world.” (Ibid., p.76)
Strength lay with an individual arrow coming together with the others. What a concept, it was certainly not a European thought; it was clearly indigenous, through and through: The idea of an independent coming together in unity.
Treaties were strange concepts to Europeans, especially when Indigenous thought and concepts were applied. Unity was not about being a homogeneous group; but individual groups, sovereign groups, that would come together and produce a bond. The European on the other hand, did not understand being sovereign and being able to come together. In fact, the European mind was about domination, not brotherhood. It was an epiphany; let the colonies/states stay independent as they unify! It would be the foundation on which America would be built.
Being independent included the foundation of understanding equality. It was an indigenous thought! And it was what lay behind the treaties.
When the treaties were being put together in Canada, there was a particular treaty, where a commissioner would state, “The Indians think they are equal!” Rather than assume the Indians were wrong; were they actually approaching the treaties with how treaties were meant to be approached? Was this the basis to the treaties?
But the concept of independence was far reaching… Lord Durham’s report was signed, January 31, 1839 (about 100 yrs after America’s enlightenment). In Durham’s report, he would write, “Nor can I conceive that it would be found impossible or difficult to conduct a Colonial Government, which precisely that limitation of the respective powers which has been so long and so easily maintained in Great Britain….I admit that the system which I propose would, in fact, place the internal government of the colony in the hands of the colonists themselves and that we should thus leave to them the execution of the laws, of which we have long entrusted the making solely to them.” (New, p.173,174) The writer in Lord Durham’s biography would go on to say, “Lord Durham’s Report is more than the charter of Canadian democracy and self government, the corner-stone of the first British nation beyond the seas. It is the great watershed of British imperial history. It is one of the few events of world-history of which one can say that this is the beginning of something absolutely new under the sun.” (ibid., p.168) In Canada, Lord Durham’s Report meant, “(T)he Canadian people were to govern themselves without any restriction.” (Ibid., p.179)
Rather than be something new under the sun, it was as the bible would say, that “there is nothing new under the sun.” ~ (Ecclesiastes 1:9) This effort to moreover allow independence, and bring unity, which was a way of building strength in a nation, was conventional thought in the new world. Building equality, and encouraging independence, was what you would call a hallmark particularly of what the Americas would mean.
So assuming that the treaties were covenants based on equality and independent nations certainly is not some far fetched idea. If anything, we can assert that equality and independence encompassed the spirit and intent of the treaties. Independence was recognized as being essential, to the well being of both America and Canada.
Before there were any other nations here, First Nations were independent sovereign nations. It’s funny how concepts of equality and the promotion of independence would be the foundations on which both America and Canada would posit themselves. And that they would go on to be strong nations, yet the very nations to initially posses these ideals (first nations) they moreover would be denied these fundamentals (independence and equality) to their detriment.
If anything First Nations lost these concepts to the Europeans, during the treaties. In fact, more so today, if First Nations seek equality and independence, this is actually seen as an act of treason and defiance. Yet that is not the case, recognizing one another equally and sovereign was the ultimate in respect. It was part of how the treaties came about.
We say that native people lacked, when they entered the treaties and as a result that the treaties were done in ignorance, equally however Europeans did not understand what went into a treaty.
From the native point of view, if there is no equality and brotherhood, than how can Canada call itself a “just” nation! The alternative unfortunately for First Nations is to pull away from a relationship that denies simple justice. And what it comes down to…it has to be sovereignty and brotherhood or sovereignty and a separate life: The main thing being or even sought, is independence. You see that’s where it becomes a contingent word (contingent on European interpretation), and it drifts away from an indigenous meaning. It drifts from the foundation of the treaties. For the European thought, sovereignty was never meant to be part of unifying, if anything it was about coming under a sovereign: A homogeneous nation, with one nation hood. It was moreover a colonial concept, a Hobbes concept to be more exact. “To remedy such war and satisfy their desire for self preservation, people, Hobbes argues, would be rational to contract with one another to create a government run by a sovereign holding absolute power, because only absolute power is sufficient to resolve disputes that otherwise would precipitate conflict dissolving the commonwealth and threatening the lives of all.” (Cahn, p. 215)
When the treaties were signed, natives were deemed Her majesty’s subjects. (more later)
And then there was Rousseau and his social contract. Sovereignty was about to be turned on end. To people/the French nation where they were ruled and controlled by the catholic church such an idea of equality was treason and blasphemous. Rousseau’s idea was that individuals were sovereign, and people were equal; his ideas would eventually make him flee his country. (Doyle, p.53) Hobbes was about control and Rousseau was about liberty. The truth is however that we need both sentiments.
A bit more on Rousseau, this is an excerpt from his book, the Social Contract…. “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they. How did this transformation come about? I do not know. How can it be made legitimate? That question I believe I can answer. If I were to consider only force and the effects of force, I should say: ‘So long as a people is constrained to obey, and obeys, it does well; but as soon as it can shake off the yoke, and shakes it off, it does better, for since it regains its freedom by the same right as that which removed it, a people is either justified in taking back its freedom, or there is no justifying those who took it away.’ But the social order is a sacred right which serves as a basis for all other rights. And as it is not a natural right, it must be founded on a covenant.” (Cranston, p.49,50)
“For Rousseau, rightful institutional arrangements must respect human beings’ essential autonomy.” (Levine, p.56) (More discussion can be given to Rousseau’s ideas, but for the most part they built on indigenous concepts. Too see more on his ideas, Levine’s book, “Engaging Political Philosophy, is an excellent source.)
Now concerning the indigenous concept, which was essentially giving people their sovereignty based on equality: This idea of seeing others as equals, well, that is where problems came into the picture? The colonial thought of equality was based on being homogeneous, these concepts, equality and independence, were according to European thought, meant for people who were the same: Because surely there was a hierarchy of people: From superior nations to those on the lower end of humanity.
The Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal,” was meant for White Anglo Saxon Protestant males; and was clearly linked to Rousseau’s philosophy. But it would be the blacks who would then use equality as springboard to attain their freedom.
Giving people their right to independence is at the foundation in both countries (Canada and America), it all stemmed from equality. Independence and equality are the basis for unity. For brotherhood!
How do you close the doors to what has made you a strong nation, and at the same time leave in place a repressive life? How do you deny the neediest people in this country from attaining what you have taken for grant it? If Trudeau meant what he said, “all we can do is be just,” then where is that effort in this day and age to moreover see people benefit from principles that will ensure that they progress and reach their greatest potential?
Independence allows people to reach their greatest potential, and if one segment of our society is allowed to reach its greatest potential and another is not…than a great injustice is occurring!
Recognizing equality between individuals, and knowing all are independent, is the utmost respect…this is how the treaties were approached: This was the spirit and intent of the treaties.
Unity
Only after this is done (recognizing equality and knowing all are independent), only then can unity be reached. Unity is the ultimate attainment for man, and brotherhood is where the blessing is commanded.
Psalm 133
1) Look how good and how pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity! 2) It is like precious oil on the head, descending to the beard— even to Aaron’s beard— and flowing down to the edge of his robes. 3) It is like the dew of Hermon falling on Zion’s mountains. For there the LORD commanded his blessing— life everlasting. (*International Standard Version)
Benjamin Franklin owned a printing press, something of an anomaly in his time. One of the things he would print out in his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, was some of the treaties that he managed to collect. It was his interest that would promote the Indigenous thought to Europeans.
In one of Canassatego’s first speeches Benjamin Franklin heard, and which Benjamin would write out, Canassatego had this to say: “Brother, the governor of Maryland, When you mentioned the Affair of the Land yesterday, you went back to old times, and told us that you have been in possession of the Province of Maryland for above one hundred Years; but what is one hundred years in comparison to the length of Time since our Claim began? Since we came out of the ground? For we must tell you that long before one hundred years our ancestors came out of this very ground, and their children have remained here ever since….You came out of the ground in a country that lies beyond the Seas, there you may have a just claim, but here you must allow us to be your elder Brethren, and the lands too belonged to us before you knew anything about them.” (Johansen, p.60,61) Brotherhood was a promoted Indigenous thought.
Nothing gives people their freedom, than to be independent: And to turn around and ask for the hand of brotherhood, makes for strong relations. Canada was founded on these principles. It would do wisely to continue on in this manner.
Our Side
So far we have examined the European side, but like a treaty there are two parties in a covenant. Native people are just as hinged when it comes to keeping the relationship in good stead. If our forefathers gave their best, nothing less would be expected of us!
We can cite the failures on their side, but do we look at ourselves?
To reiterate, “But these agreements were even more than just an agreement; it was a compact or covenant. “These compacts were render’d as firm as the Indians could make them, by such ceremonies as were most sacred and obligatory among them.” (Miller, 21, 2009)
There was a sacred connotation; it was a pact before the Creator. When we say we are all equal, it seems redundant and almost insulting to say such a thing. But the affinity between us is that we have one Creator, we do not have a God for native people and a God for white people….otherwise it undoes the term equality. And since there was a strong conviction when using the word “equal,” they (our leaders) knew and were quite aware that we were just one people under one God! Yet rather than see where we are the same, we often look for ways to pull us a part (differences mean more).
We can’t cite equality if we don’t put above all things, that we have one Creator. What does sacred mean? It means holy, righteous, it means we tremble before our Creator. This is the truth, and we can see that aspect in the treaties.
“Morris also evoked the Great Spirit - a practice he had doubtless learned from the Amerindian negotiators – so as to lend legitimacy and solemnity to the process, and to emphasize openness and honesty with which the parties, including himself were expected to speak. “I wanted you to meet me here today because I wanted to speak to you before the Great Spirit and before the world.” Chief Cheekuk (the Worthy One), although anxious about the question of representation, would later express a similar sentiment. “My ears are open to what you have to say. Just now the Great Spirit is watching over us; it is good, He who has strength and power is overlooking our doings. I want very much to be good in what we are going to be talking about, and our Chiefs will take you by the hand just now.” (Talbot, 116,117) located on the internet: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/002/MR49281.PDF
One chief expressed wanting to be good, because to evoke the Creator was a solemn act. It very much lent legitimacy to the proceedings. Evoking the Great Spirit was like placing a hand on the bible.
Such an act called for doing right and good, there was no greater point of legitimacy than to recognize the Creator in the proceedings. Doing right and being truthful was the essence when evoking God (there is no greater understanding than that)!
Well you’d think that the case is closed, and that the proceedings were legitimate, but apparently that was for only one side. When the treaties were being carried out there was a complete silence in the east, in fact the treaties were considered a conquest. “Natives, however, did not escape substantive notice in either paper (the east papers at the time). In fact both publications had much to say about them – ultimately leading to the conclusion that the lack of interest in the treaty as news reflected a “thick” sense that the treaties were minor incidents in the larger narrative of triumphal Anglo conquest.” (Anderson, p.44)
“ Though often scorned today as an empty form imposed by a conqueror on the conquered, the treaties of the 1870’s should not be dismissed so quickly.” (Friesen, p. 137)
Far from being just a pact, they were about a solemn contract; for the pipe was used to endorse that solemnity: As was the calling on the Creator to witness the ordeal. Native people did their thing (utilizing the pipe), and that was enough for them to ensure their end was legitimate.
In fact when it came to the position of the Europeans there was little on the table…. “The Europeans entered the negotiations with limited financial resources to pay for concessions, little military power to enforce their will, and a great deal of nervousness as to what the Indians would accept.” (Friesen, ibid.) Hardly a position of conquest!
If anything both sides had to approach the proceeding with caution and put their trust in each other.
Truth was an important part of the treaties even though people wanted them to be carried out with little implication. It’s not important as to how or what they went into the treaty with but that they went into a binding agreement! We can look for a door out, but we are both bound to this countries foundation, an agreement between natives and non-natives (to use the term then, Indians and Whites/Europeans).
More on smoking the pipe or evoking the Great Spirit where a covenant of brotherhood was undertaken, to create what we have today! Clearly they both had different ways of exercising their faith! Let us say that the Natives felt they had a greater position in terms of spirituality by utilizing their pipe. But that does not give any advantage, because such pomp and ceremony is clearly meant for their own benefit. “In our Cree way our promises were made with the Creator that we would never break that oath. This was our way and it was just as binding as the oath the whitemen took in the name of the queen.” (Goodwill, p. 12)
Conversely, evoking God (something the Commissioner did during the treaty proceedings) was enough to legitimate the other side. But to reiterate, it was the concept of brotherhood that is more binding to both sides.
There is no “Holier than Thou” concept, just brotherhood. In fact “Holier than thou” is detestable to God!
Spiritual pride is the end of exaltation, for to know God is to be broken and humbled; in fact that is the essence of true spirituality!
And then to think that an agreement can be drawn up and then it can be treated with contempt is very unassuming, to say the least. An agreement is an agreement! No nation is able to rise above an agreement that establishes its existence! A covenant of brotherhood was created by the treaties!
The term brotherhood is essential in understanding the spirit and intent of the treaties. If you don’t know brotherhood you don’t know the treaties!
When we look at the treaties we see a different people than what we have today. There is a clear difference from those who entered the treaties and those who transmitted those events. No matter how we think and believed we entered the treaties, it if anything has culminated in an agreement, and its worthy of reiterating…. The Treaties are the foundation on which this country was built.
Firstly the idea of complacency, as was approached by the Europeans was wrong. An agreement is not something you can so quickly overlook. When it comes to the fact that it’s a legal document that lies in the creation of this country, there is no back door. An agreement does not lie with the power of domination, and therefore it being a document that can be overlooked and changed. The treaties are peace treaties, and that is what keeps our country the way it is.
So it did not matter that the Dominion approached the treaties complacently, it is an agreement. Furthermore in terms of how native people approached the treaty: Spirituality was a big part of their lives, and treaties had this aspect. But spirituality is a personal choice; native people have been in the position where they were forced to comply with others beliefs, so they are aware of being forced. And so no matter what native people did, at the time of the treaties, it was done for themselves. In other words you can’t hold other people to your own covenant (spiritual ways). If I watch the Pope on television and he does his ceremonies that does not make me a Catholic. Now even though the intent was to add a greater emphasis by making the ordeal solemn, it was just one side trying to add to the occasion. And so really the more important thing is that treaties were a covenant, again it was the covenant of brotherhood that made it binding.
It was not that the Creator was not recognized because He was: But each in a different way. Europeans evoked the Creator, and it was not just ceremonially, but it was taken to be legitimate. And you can’t approach things like that complacently. Today’s Charter and 1982 Constitution read, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God..” (Dyck p.695) To recognize God in one instance and not another, is to be inconsistent.
The bad thing is, over emphasizing our spirituality; it does not add a greater weight, except on those who decide to do such a thing. If the treaties define us than we are the people who have to rise and do right! Whereas, on the other hand, to approach things and evoke God with a complacency, is certainly just as wrong. Again there are two issues, one is to walk in a spiritual pride and the other is to be complacent with issues of God: If God tossed Lucifer out heaven, because of his pride, we would do wise to keep such a thing in check. Again the other thing is to take lightly, God’s name!
We can do all these things; think we are walking at a high level of spirituality and evoke the name of God; but it’s only the fear of God that adds legitimacy to these things. To be spiritual is to walk in righteousness, to use God’s name is to humble oneself. If we don’t walk in a right way than what right do we have to say we are spiritual people, and if we can’t show respect when using God’s name, than your religion is meaningless!
Land is another issue that needs discussion. “(T)he time the whiteman first came to this country; he saw there was a lot of land….It was a beautiful land, a land that was here in order for us to make our living from it. This land provided us with many things, gave us a good life and we were able to survive by all the resources available to us….The Creator had placed them on the land for our use, and though they were taken, continues to protect us, which is why we were never completely destroyed and why we are still here today. If the whiteman had a better understanding of what the land meant to us he would have thought differently about us.” (Goodwill, p.1)
Land is important to natives because of its factors in sustaining us. In fact we call the earth Mother. We live off the earth’s bounty, it’s essential to our existence. But the earth is about keeping our flesh alive, and we are people who have a spirit. God is the one who gave us our spirit; in fact it will go back to Him when we die. God also gave us the earth, the animals, the plants to survive. When people get married, they adore each other, but it’s the relationship and loving people for who they are that means the most. So what am I getting at, God gave us good things in life, and it would be wrong to put more attention on these things than God himself. Equally, if we were to have a relationship without loving each other for who we are, that relationship will not reach its greatest potential.
God is the greatest thing in our human existence, yet there are so many other things that want to get in the way and take our attention away from Him. This is for all people for we have only one God, our Creator, who deserves the highest praise!
We are told in God’s word that “Heaven and earth will pass away, and there will be a new heaven and earth.” ~ Revelation 21
But for natives one issue is having that collective duty of stewardship. In fact all people need to be enlightened in this same way. So really we are at the end of our existence, when it comes to living on this planet. Clearly there will be one thing that will be asked of us: and it will be how we got along with each other!
The bible says, creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God, that means redemption is close. All the struggling that creation is going through will end!
Trees for instance are an interesting study; they have ways of communicating with each other. ( http://www.westernherbalmedicine.com/western-herbal-medicine/professor-suzanne-simared-talks-about-how-trees-communicate-with-each-other-video.html ) “The treaties were based on the First Nations peoples’ principles: “Miyowîcêhtowin” (“Getting along with others”), Wîtaskêwin (“Living together on the land”)….” (p.9 found at: http://www.otc.ca/siteimages/TELS.pdf ) We can even point out that most life is interconnected, and there is some relationship that occurs. It is these concepts in nature that give us wisdom to live out our lives. It is not just that we are kept alive with the earth’s bounty, but we are shown how to survive and shown that connection is necessary in life. So as the earth wanes and loses its luster, we should be quick to look to the real life giver, God/the Creator himself.
The spirituality of nations has come a long way, but still there are those who still push a division between people. At one time it seemed that it was a right path, to separate people and this led people to believe that the Creator treated people differently. Yet it’s the other way around, people have divided themselves; and it seems they would rather hold onto their differences because coming together is not really in their nature, today. If there is one thing it’s about bringing nations back to one God, the Creator of all. It was the hope that by bringing people together they would eventually unite. But men have created devises to the contrary, and for that we have failed greatly and miserably. The great call is brotherhood, and at onetime native people understood and promoted this concept.
If you think I’m saying hold hands and sing, you miss the point. It is a change of heart and attempting a greater way, it is about being on that road that leads to the best that we can have and be as people.
But in the end people have to do something, head in a good direction; grow in a relationship, or that relationship will eventually suffer. The treaty should be seen for what it was, a time for new things. (Buckley p.5) It was a time to start building a relationship; it was not a time to march off to the concentration camps. It was the birth of a country. But if that relationship is not honored there will certainly be no growth. But as with any relationship it is incumbent on both parties to make an effort. That’s all you can do, give your best and follow your convictions.
If our forefathers understood the importance of doing right as it is related to the Creator than that is what we should be doing as people. It’s doing right that makes people… there has to be a consistency, with any spirituality. We can point to other belief systems, but the same standard applies to us. And so I’m not talking about other people; I’m talking solely about native people. We put our whole lives on the treaties yet they mean doing right. Are we like those people at that time, are we moreover pushing brotherhood, and peace? These are good and right ways.
One of the things often used to describe native people is the “warrior” aspect. We think of the Iroquois and their awesome influence, yet it was the peacemaker who gave them that notoriety. “The Great Law of Peace,” would be an ideology that would change the world. As far as I know the opposite of peace is war. They are not famous for their war exploits, as much as they are for encouraging the way of peace! We owe them for those awesome ideals.
The treaties were about peace, being played out. If it fails, do we revert back to War! Peace was something they sacrificed for, and has that all come to naught? Should we pull away, and be the ones who could not accomplish the great exploits of our forefathers?
Do we lift up our way to others (insulting other people); do we have a mind that is only half of what is great? Did they lie, as they shared their way? We are people that look to our past people, but we have yet to say I will do what they wanted! I will rise with a Warrior’s determination, but with dignity as a civil Chief! This is still our home and native land, and we need to put forth that awesome way of our forefathers!
We will not fail nor succumb to the pressures of others to abandon what we know to be true and just. We will not be quick to abandon, the way of our people. It takes more to understand and to use your mind; it is much easier to settle for less than reach for greatness. To act in anger is the lesser of the two!
I put before you the way of peace/the treaties or a lesser way, the way of shame which is to break that covenant of peace (our posterity is depending on us). I see in the distance, a person, He is a man of peace, and He is noble! “And of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end.” —Isaiah 9:7 Peace is the Creator’s way!
There is no loss, a pact was made and that is the essence of this country! Treaties are integral and will always be what this country is!
Conclusion
Before we think that peace was only our way, the numbered treaties start by saying, “(T)o deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Most Gracious Majesty of the one part, and to the said Indians of the other; and whereas the said Indians have been notified and informed by Her Majesty’s said Commissioner, that it is the desire of Her Majesty to open up for settlement and immigration a tract of the country bounded and herein described as herein after mentioned, and to obtain the consent thereto of Her Indian subjects inhabiting the said tract and to make a treaty and arrangement with them, so that there may be peace and goodwill between them and Her Majesty…”
It seems to be a simple deduction, that peace was foremost. However we have to think about today’s reflections, 140 yrs later, we know that the resources of this country have been denied to native people. It seems that resources or “any mineral or other valuable productions” (*see: Robinson Treaty) was deliberately kept out of the numbered treaties. The time, however, would arrive when generations today would realize and make this (the resources) a central issue. Especially given that First Nations people and their communities are often impoverished. Keeping with peace, such an act to deny (resources) would hardly be an act of peace! It seems the more we examine the treaties the more we see where we lack as a country.
Sadly another issue is the term “Her Indian subjects,” how was the even possible. Stepping into the treaties as sovereign people, and to suddenly be considered subjects, seems a tad out of step with the treaties. The treaties were about give and take, if anything Indians did agree to keep the peace or “to forego hostilities”: But, moreover, never to concede their sovereignty.
The term “subject,” was an underdeveloped term (related to colonial ways), in fact it was based on a European concept. “Subject” meant, to be subject; even the word citizen has more meaning. “(T)he term citizen brings into prominence the rights and privileges of the status, rather than its correlative obligations…” And on the other hand “subject” means, “one who owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by that sovereign’s laws.” (*Black’s law dictionary)
And so, it becomes known that there was deliberate effort made to make no mention of resources, and to take greater control of the lives of Indian people, all in the treaties; again hardly grounds of peace. (In this sense, it was not the usual treaty)
(I tried not to go into the legal aspects, but that is easier said than done) So far the treaties are considered, unique; it is an agreement sui generis…” My argument is that those treaties are more the same rather than being different, if anything there are points of blatant miscarriage of injustices embedded in the treaties and that is to put it mildly. But to the other side those injustices are considered, “erratically and unequally conceived, imperfectly understood, and inadequately performed.” (Elliot, p.39)
So rather than address those issues there is an attempt made to isolate the (numbered) treaties. Furthermore, by trying to make them appear to be less binding, it is an attempt to overlook the implications of the responsibility that comes from them. We can say they were imperfect but they did carry out the underlying things of not giving Indians rights to their resources and to take greater control over them. Or we can say they were just made for the convenience of the newcomers, which is to give that greater bargaining position once again to the other party. If anything, the treaties need to be revisited, and First Nation’s rights have to be given a greater emphasis.
And so, the question remains are we capable of doing this again? There has to be a more thorough understanding and greater grasp of the spirit and intent of the treaties. Treaties were about diplomacy, it was about a time to come together. (Miyowîcêhtowin)
As we go back, it is hard to understand completely, but we can get a pretty good understanding of their emotions and intent. And no matter what did occur, there was genuine commitment and trust that occurred. In other words it may seem idealistic yet that was a close rendition given the euphoria that each felt, thinking it was going to bring about good things for all. (Think in terms of a wedding, the wedding has elements that can’t be reproduced, it’s a once in a lifetime event) This was one speech given, by Chief Onchiminahos, “I am glad from my very heart. I feel in taking the Governor’s hand as if I was taking the Queen’s….In sending her bounty to us I wish an everlasting grasp of her hand, as long as the sun moves and the river flows. I am glad that the truth and all good things have been opened to us. I am thankful for the children for they will prosper. All the children who are sitting here, I hope the Great Spirit will look down upon us as one.”(Goodwill, p.19) In other words taking a position further and outside of the actual parties does not capture the real spirit and intent. (Moreover, for example it wouldn’t be long before betrayal or broken promises would occur, and that altered the perception: In other words treaty interpretation would then take on a different meaning) So as best as can be done I tried getting us to capture those early treaties, and their strength, dignity, and integrity. The treaties were certainly carried out with our best foot forward.
If anything the treaties should be an inspiration and we should have a good understanding of them. We should have learned more… as to whom we are and were as people. The treaties made this country what it is; never again should we think that as native people we have had little influence and that our lives are nothing but negativity. Our understanding should never be limited by other people, and our reality should never be only what others live. We look back to our forefathers and their sagacity, as they touched the pen: As they deliberated and contemplated their future, (as they set out our lives).
Their understanding of equality, of independence, and freedom, (something denied to them), is so vital and important when it comes to the treaties. But it is also the treaties that can revive this understanding.
A covenant was made with the natives of the land, and it was a covenant of peace, it was about brotherhood. But that relationship is so unbalanced, rather than see a new day, this relationship with the newcomers has soured over the years. But no matter what has come of that relationship, native people are the ones who can hold their heads up. They have given themselves to those treaties. But they are also calling for a renewing of that relationship. They may not have much, but they do possess things of value. And so a covenant is still holding things in place, and no amount of indifference and complacency will ever change that. An act to dominate to the point of taking it all away will be one of the greatest injustices ever committed.
I would like to retell (paraphrase) a story in the bible: There was a man who owned a vineyard, he had little, but it was a great vineyard. The King wanted this vineyard and as a result was spurred on by his wife, who reminded him that he was king (and that he can do whatever he wanted). So he went to that poor man and took his vineyard, and needless to say that day the king’s kingdom came to an end.
Power is an illusion, it makes you think that there are no laws, only the laws we make. But God is a God of justice and He has His laws. We have a great thing in this country, and that is an opportunity to make good relations between people who are different. But it will never be done by one side only. So let us do all that we can to ensure that this country be all that it can be!
I would like to explain my use of biblical scriptures, it is my belief that we are so much the same and that the bible has many instances that make this obvious. If like our forefathers believed, that we were just brothers, we must have veered off the road at some point. Misunderstanding is inevitable, but may we not be the ones to drive a wedge between our brothers. It is more important to tear down those walls.
I don’t think that native people are abandoned and overlooked, as some would have us believe (and something that is so hard to hear). And really such thinking is being racist. There is not one nation that God does not intimately know of their circumstance, and because of that our well being is certainly within His desire. I will end with this word! Something that appeared to me, the day Bill-C-45 was passed.
“For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon you or destroy you or forget the solemn covenant he made with your ancestors.”
And for the country….. “The Lord says, “Let my people return to me. Remove every obstacle from their path! Build the road and make it ready! I am the high and holy God, who lives forever. I live in a high and holy place, but I also live with people who are humble and repentant, so that I can restore their confidence and hope. I gave my people life, and I will not continue to accuse them or be angry with them forever.” I was angry with them because of their sin and greed, and so I punished them and abandoned them. But they were stubborn and kept going their own way. I have seen how they acted, but I will heal them and help them and I will comfort those who morn. I offer peace to all, both near and far! I will heal my people.” ~ Isaiah 57:14-19
Biographical List
Anderson, Mark Cronlund, “Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers,” 2011, University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.
Buckley, Helen, “From Wooden Ploughs To Welfare,” 1992, McGill-Queen’s University Press, London.
Cranston, Maurice, “The Social Contract,” 1968, Penguin Group, London.
Doyle, William, “The Oxford History of the French Revolution,” 1989, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Dyck, Rand, “Canadian Politics,” 2008, Laurentian University, Toronto.
Elliot, David W., “Law and Aboriginal People in Canada,” 1997, Captus Press Inc., North York.
Friesen, Gerald, “The Canadian Prairies, A History,” 1987, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Goodwill, Jean, “John Tootoosis,” 1984, Pemmican Publications, Winnipeg.
Johansen, Bruce, “Forgotten Founders: How the American Indian Help Shape Democracy,” 1982, The Harvard Common Press, Harvard and Boston.
Levine, Andrew, “Engaging Political Philosophy: From Hobbes to Rawls,” 2002, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Malden.
Miller, J.R., “Compact, Contract, Covenant: Aboriginal Treaty Making in Canada,” 2009, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
New, Chester, Lord Durham’s Mission to Canada, 1963, University Press, Toronto.
Also: * Morris, Alexander, “The Treaties of Canada with the Indians,” 1862, Belfords, Clarke & Co., Publishers, Toronto.
*The Bible, International Standard Version.
*Black Law Dictionary - http://www.exfacie.com/?q=subject_vs_citizen_definitions_from_blacks_law_dictionary_9th_edition
