Re-Imagination Part 5

Twice more, with thanks to Ben Mulroney for his November 10th article that has inspired this group of posts, we look at areas of Canada that are in need of rethinking. This instalment will discuss indigenous relations.

Not an easy topic to discuss by a white guy. Although sometimes the simple answer is the right one. Is there a simple answer here? To start at the beginning probably will not get us there. Back before that might.

Where do we start with our understanding? We could begin as the apologists would like us to, that we are colonial settlers that have pushed the native population onto reserves, stealing their traditional lands for our own benefit. There is true in that but it is not the whole story. What were the relations between these nations prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Was it an all for one type of situation? Or was it simply an ongoing war with your neighbour for territory to hunt and fish.

With the exception of the Iroquois peoples in southern Ontario these were nomadic peoples following the food supply. The Iroquois farmed rudely growing corn and other staples and tobacco. Proteins were still hunted. They lived communally in long-houses.

Contrary to popular mythology the nations did not co-exist in a friendly state. Most were constantly at was with one another for territory or slaves. Many raiding parties were simply to capture slaves to make up for losses do to deaths in their own nations. Whether those deaths were from other battles or as the ravages of less abundant seasons for hunting or farming took their toll. Slavery was a standard way of life.

Ritualistic torture, scalping and even cannibalism followed victory. This was the fate for the men in battle. Ultimately those who could withstand the greatest amount of post battle pain had their hearts removed for feasting upon to grow the strength of those partaking. Women and children who were capture were distributed amongst the band as wives and other family members.

The structure of the tribes differed greatly from one another depending upon the nature of their existence. Nomadic tribes of the far north were led by the best hunters who shared the most with others. The semi-sedentary tribes of the south had a matriarchal hierarchy given the women were the ones staying home running the communities while the men went out to hunt or fight. Women were leaders in the West Coast tribes also passing these roles from mother to daughter.

Today, a significant proportion of the remaining aboriginals in Canada live on reserves. Here in Canada the nature of the governance of these reserves is covered by the Indian Act which provides for a democratic model of self governance. One visit to a larger reserve will show just how ineffective this has become.

It is entirely possible that I judge this from an incorrect perspective, but the squalor that can be seen in the living conditions on a reserve are stunning. Unfinished houses covered simply with tar-paper to keep out the elements. vehicles strewn willie nilly. Even the band buildings seem somewhat simple. It’s as if adornment or pride in ownership is not a characteristic of native culture. Pride certainly is not an issue if you visit a pow-wow or native celebration, cultural pride is evident everywhere.

The reserve system has proven truly problematic. The remote isolated nature of many, the lack of clean water, of employment potential, or self sustaining opportunity create many issues. Health issues, suicide, addiction all drastically higher on a reserve than mainstream culture.

What also appears to be an issue from this casual observer is the that the underlying governance structure poses problems. A hereditary maternalist governance model has been the norm for thousands of years. While men are also in this hereditary structure the leadership has moved to the democratic model which is not in the tribal nature. There is also a third structure, that of business leaders who have tremendous funds.

With these folk work and favour are both discretionary. If you are on the right side of the business leadership you can flourish, the wrong side and you can be considered outcast. What develops is an inherent lack of trust for capitalism which furthers dependence on political structures like the band or federal government.

Developing a capitalist mentality requires wholesale change. And I do not believe it is counter to the traditional beliefs of native culture and identity. There are bands in the US that have embraced capitalism to be able to better address historic issues. Not to say there are not issues but a look at the Seminole Tribe in Florida selling the rights to their name to Florida State University seems a brilliant move. Leveraging their initial foray into the casino world to what is now The Hard Rock empire has built a trust for the children of the tribe. At 24 years old each child receives somewhere between 3-4 million dollars.

The new problem then becomes teaching the children to respect and build upon this legacy. A very different problem I am sure many a tribe in Canada would like to ponder.

Respecting the heritage lands of our indigenous peoples, and what is under it or needs to run through it is a start. Helping fund development of resources is very expensive but giving tribes the ability to negotiate these rights for themselves with financial backstopping and intra-native helps fundamental to bring about change. Control of your destiny leads to better decision making.

A change like this does not happen quickly, sometimes inertia prevents it from happening at all. Competing governance structures are problematic. Messaging to us in the rest of Canada is confusing. And whether this can be resolved is really an unknown to me.

A will on both side to effect change is essential. How to foster this is the question.