Miyowîcêhtowin: Getting Along with Others

Introduction

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

Everything is Relative II

It seems that in our society there are circumstances where injustices are practiced and often it is not opposed: And if it is, the opposition is usually shut down. I firmly believe that we can learn something from the blacks and their circumstances....

Newspapers where suppose to be a great democratic tool where opinions could be heard and at the same time welcomed. But often it was controlled and dominated by one opinion. But nonetheless that was the strength of the oppressor, where the media, and in this case the newspapers, at the time neglected to write on the conditions of the blacks. In fact to raise any discontent, particularly about how society operated, it was often treated like it was blatant treason. (“The Race Beat,” Roberts: p. 53,67)We should be able to see the parallels in that the natives and their circumstance are often neglected, and if discontent should rise its seen as being anti-social, in terms of going against mainstreams’ objectives/the status quo.

Also, it should be noted that, “the white press ignored the grievances of the blacks, (however) confining itself to the usual reporting of black crime.” (Goodwin: p. 18) It moreover seemed that by keeping (black)people away from opportunities of advancing, it never dawned on them (whites)that this was the main reason for the (black) discontent. And so a large part of the race problems in the states was largely because of the segregation that was kept in place.

And hence the means in which to oppose this injustice was to seek equality, a fundamental in democracy. “(D)emocracy has become an immediate goal to the negro. His rumblings for equality in every phase of American life will reverberate into a mighty roar in the days to come.” (And how true that became)

Equality is the biggest grounds by which any movement can progress!

Segregation served two purposes; unfortunately some have tried to keep it reduced to one objective, and thereby forcing one result.

To elaborate, one of the first things the whites did to meet these new public demands/black discontent was to legitimate a way of dealing with the race problem. Under the rubric, “separate but equal,” it was of all things, suppose to legitimate segregation. On the other hand, to the blacks, it seemed that if they were to have any success, however limited, it would come by way of an all black environment. Some people tried to keep segregation in place, and for a moment it seemed to be a good objective.

However the blacks would settle for nothing less than full equality. Besides blacks came to believe that “separate but equal,” was a ploy “used by whites to justify all phases of segregation with its inevitable train of discrimination, oppression, brutality and petty chicanery,” (Roberts: p. 45) On the other hand segregation to the whites seemed the best way to hold on to what they had. Segregation was the essence of life in the south. (Roberts: p. 37) Even though separate but equal contravened “the equalitarian spirit of the American Heritage,” perpetuating inequality, and institutionalizing social disharmony.” (Ibid., p. 38) If anything segregation was going to be an issue where things were going to get even more heated.

It seems that the only explanation stems from a European system where the order of the day was to look down on others because of a system that sanctioned superiority. And so in such a system where there were lower classes of people there were also inferiors. And so domination and keeping advantages in place culminated into segregation.

On one level, segregation stretched through every aspect of a black person’s life. Boxing videos were prohibited if there was a black person boxing with a white person, blacks and whites couldn’t publically play checkers. The Jim Crow laws were astounding. The cry of the day was, “if we can legislate we can segregate.” It would be in this arena of law were the true battle began.

Laws eventually were passed that tried to address the issue of segregation. But by now segregation had become a full blown issue of race. It would be a case in 1947, Brown v. Board of Education, where things became more heated. But before that, something else happened that would ignite more unrest, in terms of white backlash.
A civil rights committee recommended the government adopt a sweeping program. The report called, “to eliminate all forms of legally sanctioned segregation and discrimination. It asked for new, “laws requiring states to end discrimination in education.” (Roberts: p. 38) It wasn’t that these people (blacks) were inferiors but to an obdurate group of people, the last thing they wanted to give up was their superiority, their position of dominance. Non-blacks balked at the idea, “that anyone would seek to institutionalize in the law any concept of equality for a race they felt was clearly inferior.”

Never in their mind could they reconcile the truth that they had kept people out of opportunities and this was by far the biggest set-back, rather than them being inferior. James Eastland, a Mississippi senator, could not reconcile that, “organized mongrel minorities control the government. I am going to fight it to the last ditch. They are not going to Harlemize the country.” (Roberts: 40)

But an assault continued at every level that was going to lay the foundations for a new social movement.

And because segregation was so wrong it was inevitable that it would not stand before the greater good/truth. Since all men are created equal, the systems of men or injustices will inevitably succumb to the everlasting truth.

It is hard not to be insulting, but it is better to gulp down every bit of truth and let education takes its course. “Who is more contemptible than a civilization that scorns knowledge of itself?” (Saul: p. 3)

It is here that I must now change from the central theme of this article that of being one on the blacks to an article on native people.

 

I am amazed when I see and hear of the ignorance that exists in mainstream and the dominant majority when it comes to natives and their issues. There have been times were I have been regulated to being a representative of my people. My history class was one such instance. I was asked a question on why natives did such and such, and incidently the year this occurred was in the 1600’s. I wondered and was amazed, because essentially I knew just as much as they did; I was living today and had no relation to the past, never mind the fact that these were eastern natives. Then there was the issue of the treaties, I wrote an article in the local paper on the treaties. I was again surprised that I was talking about something that most people didn’t have the foggiest idea about, an issue that was so central in the making of this country. I was told, we were never told anything like this in school, and as a result they were genuinely thankful for what I had written.

How does not allowing or for that matter giving people knowledge of others help in the grand scheme of socialization. Is Canada not multicultural, of all things? Canada needs to allow knowledge of others (and that goes for every aspect of their lives) if it is to see greater relations, and a stronger nation. Obscurantism does nothing for the cause of liberation.

Moreover and rather synonymous in Gunner Myrdal’s book, An American Dilemma, (a fascinating account of the black’s condition in America) he observed that there existed ignorance in America: “The result (of his study) is an astonishing ignorance about the negro on part of the white public in the North. White southerners, too, are ignorant of many phases of the negro’s life.” (Roberts: p.6)

You see there are things we can learn in similar circumstances and the issue of the blacks in the south is a clear example of seeing that relevance.

From the wiles of segregation, which is manifested in the Indian Act and the reserve system, we know that segregation has been instrumental in our lack of opportunity, and yet the majority refuses to acknowledge this simple fact. From being Neolithic to being inferior in need of civilization, natives have had to overcome an attitude that has tried to keep us on a lower scale of evolution.

In the Indian Act, natives were not allowed to leave the reserve without a pass; they were not allowed to sell their livestock, they moreover basically needed the Indian agents permission to sell anything; natives could not take whites to court; they were forbidden from gathering; they couldn’t enter a pool room. After reading the laws in the south, more specifically the Jim Crow laws, if anything a person is astounded. There is no time to be bitter, but one can only shake their head in disbelief.

It seems that the civilizers had a little problem with their intent, in that obviously or rather sadly; it was never about benevolence but control and domination.

The battle ground today is in the media, even though we should relish our country’s freedom of the press, yet circumstances say otherwise. Just as the blacks inability to have their grievances and discontent heard: So likewise natives are still silent citizens. Democracy is about giving people an opportunity to express their true feelings. Democracy is about opening up a window where debate is meant to bring us to a better place in society. Democracy recognizes the ability of the common people that they can indeed hash out issues and come up with sound solutions. Knowledge is clearly not confined to experts, politicians, or bureaucrats. Essentially if anything the press or media seems to be about polarization, never about pulling down ignorance.

Is this about rebelling, about the system, no, it is about the fact that, people know better. And that given the opportunity we can come up with a better circumstance.

Are we going to reach a better way or are we going to face stubborn opposition. Time will tell! But truth is going to prevail!

When you think about people, you know they are limited when it comes to change, in fact often it is feared. So to put it plainly, this is not about adding or giving an unreasonable burden, but that in the essence of man there lays a competence, that staggers the imagination. It is the ability to be great, and it leaves out no man or woman.

Some people say this is about sedition, about rebellion, about getting even. Is this just about ranting and raving and raising a fist? Or is this the real thing, that we are nearer to rising, to becoming a great nation. That once again man can reach heights that show us there is more to us than just the elements of degradation. We must start by believing that no matter what position we hold in society, that each of us has the capability to become that better person. That in the depths of our souls, there is a godliness that wants to lift us above the confines of our humanity.

If we strive for good, and earnestly seek it we will find a good path.

Everything is Relative

So what’s the point of writing on mainstream/the majority’s attitude. I guess it is safe to say it wasn’t just a gripping session.

Firstly, I did mention that I seen Prairie Fire on google and not long after it went missing. Well it certainly never dawned on me that I was writting things that certain people did not want to hear. On the other hand I do realize that everything I wrote in my opening remarks produced little concern to most natives because they already know much of what I was writing about.

Initially my paper was intended for a native audience. So anyways I had to backtrack, and lay out what I knew and that was that native issues have little interest, and if you rock the boat, you’re shut-up, shut out and shut down before you know it. Unfortunately we all know that Natives are basically repressed in mainstream.

There is a correlation between mainstream and our own communities, that deserves attention; and that is that once again native people possess a second-class position/citizenship. Basically natives are not free in either society; they are dominated even though they are a part of the government in both societies. We can point out the parallels, but in many instances they are certainly different circumstances. That of course is not to say, that we cannot learn good things in both instances: for instance we can learn how we are treated both in our communities and in mainstream. And this moreover equips us better when handling our situation.

Liberty is about having a voice, being able to voice your opinion and to know that it is of value. When people are not given consideration, they become demoralized. But that is the power of the oppressor, to further oppress. I don’t think that our greatest enemy are those who dictate over us, but rather it all comes down to our inability to communicate. Power is always a responsibility, and if you use it to further oppress people, that’s abuse.

What we need is to create instances where we can have our opinions valued.

Native leaders and mainstream/the majority both hold a position where we have to hope they will act fairly and justly, and that they will value our discontent.

Clearly in both instances, the answer is to unify, but it cannot be overstated that we have less value in mainstream and as a result it becomes that much more imperative that we develop a better relationship within our own communities.

If you don’t already know, where our struggles lie, it becomes obvious that it is within our own leadership as well as mainstream. How those struggles play out can be pretty diverse.

Basically the more you know, the more you get vexed by any circumstance that impedes your life. In other words, “people typically become angry and feel their situation is unjust when there is a significant difference between the conditions of their lives and their expectations.” (Goodwin: p. 18)

Another example, if after studying a better system of governance as you begin to know your own circumstance, it gets pretty frustrating as to why you cannot have the most effective system. It’s also likened to the proverb; “he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” In other words the more you know the more you understand oppression or at least what oppresses people. And that much more do you want to act.

It’s like seeing freedom in mainstream, which in our case is the ability to voice grievances and to know you’re heard, but unfortunately for native people ,it all comes down to, who we are ( more on this later). It’s all about power and having a voice is power. Unfortunately natives are not even granted the simple thing of being able to voice our discontent, and yes they lack (political)power.

The more you know about the freedoms and strengths of other people and the more you know your own system and what you lack; well, after that it’s time to seek a little equality in society. And that essentially is what stirs discontent.

It cannot be overstated that it is to our benefit, that we support any means where greater freedom is achieved.

Democracy is about freedom and equality, those are the fundamentals.

At this point I want to point out a couple words and the definitions that come with it:
Tyranny: 1) oppressive power; oppressive power exerted by government. 2) a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler ( in the native circumstance it would be the few in power) 3) a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force.
Tyrant: 1) an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution. 2) usurper of sovereignty.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

Dominance essentially is to impede people so they cannot attain their best. Any form of colonialism works against a society’s abilities.

To control and dominate people to where they cannot develop is a great injustice.

If people are impeded by other people, and it is within the realm of change, it is unacceptable. And therefore any circumstance like this is an injustice and must be changed. To keep such a circumstance in place is tyrannical.

And so there you have it, that our suppression is not only within our own communities but we are also under the same banner of oppression in mainstream. Grant it this allows us to use both instances as a means to understand how we can overcome, and in this case democracy is always relative.

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.

Independance

I wrote this before Obama was inaugurated, he is truly an inspiration; cause surely the blacks were one of the most mistreated people, but they have now overcome! It's now time for aboriginals to rise.

It’s time we take the helm; and we must rise up and move to the “Promised Land:” The promised land of independence. It is time to move and shake mountains.

I feel for the student body at the First Nations University, they reside in a no-man’s land. Leadership has lost its connection; maybe it never had a connection in the first place. The days of partisan politics are on its last legs; it’s time for real leadership to move in, politicians move over. No more playing the people, no more manipulating things for your own self aggrandizement. A real leader calls out for the poor, poor in spirit. Our people are victims of circumstances that are not often of our own doing.

Our enemies are great, but greater are you because we have a just cause. Justice must reign in and amongst our people. We are a Nation, not just little broken up pieces that have little or no strength. Our cause is across those little nations and that makes us one.

I am tired of my inability, I’m tired of my circumstances, I am tired that I am getting nowhere, and fast!

My forefathers were the true pioneers of the Great White North; it is truly our home and Native land. But you will not find that in a history class, neither will you be told that we are a positive feature in Canada.

My people were the foundation of “Good Government.” Democracy made us a strong people; we had the ability to unite, and to put away our reasons for enmity. Since we are an ocean of people, our waters should cover our enemies. This new tide is not for the proud and arrogant, neither is it for those who just want a free ride. When the waters of justice roll in, you do not want to be on the wrong side.

Justice will be for the true North Strong and Free. Native people have to be free. I cannot be free if my reality is of no concern, to mainstream. My struggles and oppression must be given a voice. At some point I have to shake off “the status of degradation;” (to use a John Hope Franklin phrase.)

The Indian Act has roosted way too long, politicians rise and play the people, and they seek to sit on the throne of power. Real leaders do not exalt, they lift up others. There was a time when our people never took leadership lightly, in fact people would rather avoid leadership positions at any cost, and that was because it was a great responsibility. Where are those humble leaders? Where are those leaders who know to be leader is to be responsible?

And thus we have our multitudes of people lacking a leader; they are in a land of disarray. The left and the right are hedged up and our enemies are in hot pursuit, like Moses, only the sea is in front of us. The Promised Land looks far off; the time is here for us to cross, to get there, and to set our foot on the promise of independence.

Fear not, we shall get there! Because surely Justice wants us to get there!

Freedom

What were the original aspects of Multiculturalism? According to Trudeau, “The government will encourage and support the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitality to our society. They will be encouraged to share their cultural expressions and values with other Canadians, and so contribute to a richer life for us all.” Notice, originally, it was the job of the government to encourage and support; nowhere did it state they would take control and dictate how multiculturalism should unfold. Unfortunately multiculturalism has taken a turn, even though it may seem small to some nonetheless it is like any other initiative that gets lost to the dominant: And as a result once again the oppressed are overlooked.
In fact, by allowing people to develop it creates an autonomy which is a form of self-government, which essentially is to have control over your own affairs.
Thus any control over ethnics, stems historically from the colonial mind: Which is based solely on superiority and domination, to where the colonist thinks they know more about who you are and what is best for you. It is certainly not like an over protective parent, but more akin to a domineering spirit.
Every nation has the right to rise and become independent. The problem with seeking independence is that little is conceded and sadly the alternative is to demand. Dominance is always kept in place, independence is never voluntarily given. Even though it may mean a stronger relationship, yet the sociopathic symptoms of control are deeper and harder to overcome. This form of dominance sees no advantage in giving independence; it only sees what it will lose. Thus what was originally meant to encourage independence and growth is thwarted by a reluctance based on domination. Multiculturalism is now about catering to that domination, it is not about progressing. It is about the Status quo, of domination/ colonialism once again being intact. Shall Canada falter because it refuses to relinquish what is so natural, namely independence? Are these the Colonial times all over again, shall the colonies/reserves demand their independence.
How can a country strive for all that is good, yet deny a certain segment those very benefits? Yet Canada is doing just that.
Ever since, our Native forefathers touched the pen, and we were placed under the Indian Act, we lost our Freedom. We lost our dignity. We lost our worth.
It is anyone’s right to throw off despotism, any form of government that does not produce security or does not give you the right to be free to develop. In this case change is for the better. Where I can hold my head up, and know my worth is great. Where I know that I have a greater chance to do good, and my future, my children’s future, will be as bright as the new day.
My forefathers were magnificent people, they were the true pioneers, and they were the ones who settled this harsh country. They said let us share this country, let us be a nation that is made up of many brothers. My country will be a country that promotes, “freedom for all.” Free to chose, free to develop, and free at last! Thank God we will be free at last! Canada will surely rise when it moves to promote freedom. Freedom for all is true freedom!