“Truth without love is brutality, and love without truth is hypocrisy.”
~ Warren Wiersbe
Have you ever lied, cheated, or stole from someone? I have, and I imagine that you may have as well. Note that feeling of guilt as we admit our wrongdoings. I once stole Pokemon cards from my neighbor. Some of these cards have now become quite valuable. Guilt allows us to correct ourselves before we wreck ourselves.
We all have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Although we may disagree on the specifics, that sense is there in both of us. I believe this sense points us towards truth and is our starting point to its discovery. Just like the old saying goes “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” It’s our choice if we want to pursue it further. If you are reading this book, this choice has already been made for you. Unless of course, you put this book down and never return to it…
—
Truth is the transparency we need to calibrate ourselves and our actions. If we do not tell the truth, we suffer the consequences. Most of us learn this at an early age. Despite this, we all experience times when it seems better not to tell the truth. We either engage in a sin of omission (not telling the whole story), cherry-pick the details (manipulate the story), or outright lie. When we engage in either of these, the best way forward is to correct ourselves immediately.
Truth can be subjective or objective. Subjective truth can be described as “what is true for you may not be true for me.” A six of spades for me may be a nine of spades for you. From each of our perspectives, we are both right. Objective truth is when the card has a line underneath the six or nine. If the line is under the six, I am right. If the line is under the nine, you are right.
Truth may also be described by what it is not: truth is not false. Computers are binary, which means they only work in two states: on and off. If electricity is flowing through the computer, the state of the computer is on (in other words, true). If there is no electricity flowing through the computer, the state of the computer is off (in other words, false). There is no middle ground. Similarly, truth can be defined as an all or none state.
These three examples provide three different perspectives on truth. I argue that there may be an infinite number of definitions of truth. And the more perspectives we understand, the closer we get to it. I’m no expert on the subject of truth. However, if there is one thing I do know it’s this: the truth always comes out.
Oftentimes we say that the past is in the past and can’t be changed. This is a true statement. History, on the other hand, is written by the winners. Whoever wins the most wars, elections, and souls writes the history books. Some of the world’s worst people have at one time been idolized as the world’s most honorable people. And it’s these people who frequently control what is to be believed about the past. As time passes, however, this winning narrative starts to wane in favor of the other, or losing narrative and both sides of the story are shown.
Losing narratives enter our perception as people take steps towards truth. History once thought of as common sense and self-evident becomes questionable. For example, we once thought slavery and racial segregation was good before it wasn’t. The battle between winning and losing narratives never ceases.
This book focuses on Canada’s history, specifically the relationship between the Canadian government and the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. It has been my experience that Canadian history books favor the winning narrative or the European perspective. These books give little, if any, attention to the losing narrative, or the Aboriginal perspective. As more people become aware of the losing narrative, it challenges the winning narrative, and the two become one.
Note that I’m not one for either side. I am here to walk the fine line between both perspectives. As a First Nations man with a European background, I hope to provide a solution to a problem that has long since been unresolved. In this chapter, I provide examples that set the stage for what I discuss later on.
Before we dive in, it is important to note the terminology that I use throughout this book. You may be wondering why you encounter different words to describe us: Indian, Native, Indigenous, Aboriginal, First Nations, Inuit, and Metis.
Or as comedian Howie Miller puts it:
“Yes, I am native, I’m Indigenous, I’m First Nations, I’m Aboriginal, I’m sick and tired of all the politically correct crap you just call me Caucasionally Impaired.”
Although Miller does make light of the matter, there are a few good reasons as to why these differences exist.
As the story goes, it was Christopher Columbus who gave us the name Indians. He planned to be the first one to sail from Europe to India. He set sail from Europe for India in 1492 and hit land shortly thereafter. What he thought was India was actually America. Despite this, he named the people he encountered Indians, and the name stuck. The term Indian is usually viewed as derogatory and it is more acceptable to use the terms Indigenous, Native, or Aboriginal.
Indigenous is a term that is recognized internationally as people who first inhabited a geographical area. It is also a term that describes something that is “produced, growning, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment.”
Native is defined as “belonging to something by birth.” It is a term that is synonymous with the term Aboriginal. Native is mostly used in the United States of America (i.e. Native American) whereas Aboriginal is mostly used in Canada (i.e. Aboriginal Peoples of Canada) and Australia (i.e. Aboriginal Australians).
Traditionally, Aboriginal is defined as people who have “inhabited or existed in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.” According to Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, Aboriginal Peoples include the “First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada.” If we want to discuss the First Nations, Inuit, and Metis People as a whole, we use the term Aboriginal.
First Nations is the term used to define people who fall under the term Aboriginal as defined by the Constitution Act of 1982, specifically those who are not Inuit or Metis.
Inuit defines peoples of the north, inhabiting northern Canada, the Arctic, and Greenland. Inuit literally means “people.”
Metis were traditionally defined as having both French and First Nations heritage. This occurred when the French sailed over to Canada shortly after Columbus. This strict definition has weakened in favor of a mixed heritage definition due to conflicting historical records and land right claims.
Note that the definitions I supply above are loose definitions at best. Not all groups will agree on these definitions – and that is to be expected. I touch on them here to clarify some of the questions you may have from the onset. Feel free to reference these definitions as I will be using them throughout this book.
I would like to spend the rest of this chapter discussing what I believe are most important topics regarding Canada’s checkered relationship with its Aboriginal Peoples. Allow me to give you a brief history lesson. For those who already have the knowledge, it doesn’t hurt to review history, before it repeats itself.
As the opening quote of this chapter states, truth without love is brutality. Understand that in writing this book, I have no ill-will towards the Canadian government or towards the people who have allowed such problems to exist. And the only plight I have against the Canadian government is that they take too much of my income in taxes. The very act of writing this book I believe supports my claim. For those who may not know about Canada’s checkered past, allow me to explain.
The residential school system was developed in the 1830’s by the Canadian government and the Christian church to assimilate Indians to a Eurocentric worldview. Aboriginal children were forced into schools far removed from their family and culture to be taught English and Christian values. The objective was to ‘kill the Indian in the child’ which ultimately lead to child abuse, cultural genocide, and intergenerational trauma.
Over 150,000 children were forced from their family and put into residential schools. The number of children who died at the hands of the Canadian government and Christian church remains unknown. Residential schools remained open until 1993, which means that these schools were open for roughly 166 years.
Aboriginal children were physically, mentally, and sexually abused by their Christian teachers and administrators. Harsh punishments, alongside malnourishment and unsanitary facilities often led to sickness and disease. The abuse was seen as being the only way to lead the children to repentance, allowing them to fully assimilate into Canadian society.
Residential schools were in fact boarding schools as the majority of them were built far distances away from Aboriginal communities. At these schools, Aboriginal children were discouraged or outright banned from speaking their language and practicing their traditions. Children were not allowed contact with their family, which led to the death of many Aboriginal languages and cultural practices.
The children who survived the residential school system grew up with trauma. These children grew up and eventually had children of their own. These children then experience similar trauma as their parents either abuse them in turn or experience lower parental investment as their parents continue to heal from their time at these schools. These children then have their own children and the trauma gets passed down once again. This is called intergenerational trauma.
Even though residential schools have been closed for a few generations, the effects are still seen today through increases in drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide, and homelessness among our Aboriginal Peoples.
The Indian Act is a piece of legislature that outlines the formal relationship between the Canadian government and the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. This document defines Aboriginal People groups and establishes the system of Indian reserves.
Published in 1876, the Indian Act was the second attempt to assimilate Indians into the Eurocentric landscape. It draws the line as to who is an Indian and who is not by defining the terms ‘status’ and ‘non-status’ Indians. A status Indian would benefit from all governmental provisions (i.e. land and hunting rights, health care, educational benefits) whereas a non-status Indian would not. Further, it also details how an Indian’s ‘lineage’ would play out.
Although there is much to discuss regarding the Indian Act, I will only focus on two sections: Section 6 (1) and Section 6 (2). These two sections were added as part of Bill C-31, an amendment to the Indian Act passed in 1985, and defines the current cultural genocide among Aboriginal Peoples.
Sections 6 (1) and 6 (2) state the following:
For all births recorded for persons born after April 17, 1985 and most Bill C-31 registrations, persons are registered either under Section 6 (1) or 6 (2) of the Indian Act.
6 (1) Person has TWO parents who are registered or entitled to be registered under the Indian Act.
6 (2) Person has ONE parent who is registered under Section 6 (1) of the Indian Act. In this case the other parent is non-Indian or not shown on the birth document or not registered.
Any person who is registered under Section 6 (2) of the Indian Act, cannot pass ‘status’ onto their children unless the other parent is also a registered Indian.
Although we do have to draw the status/non-status line somewhere, this calculation is flawed. The calculation is too simplistic and discourages ‘status’ Indians from interracial procreation. For example, I am a 6 (2) status Indian man. If I chose to have children with a non-native/non-status woman, our children will not have status, excluding them from all provisions outlined in the Indian Act. This occurs despite them only being two generations away from a 6 (1) Indian. In other words, my father’s grandchildren will not be status Indians.
Also, what happens when Aboriginal children are adopted by non-native parents? Would the lineage play out like what is described above or would taking the adoptive parents last name exclude them from status (due to a change in legal guardianship)? These types of adoptions occurred frequently in the U.S. before the Indian Child Welfare Act put an end to the adoptions in 1978. In Canada however, no such legislation exists, which complicates these situations even more.
Furthermore, what happens when Indian status is revoked by the Canadian government due to non-existent or inconsistent data regarding proof of lineage? One band in Newfoundland had over 10,000 First Nations status revoked. Imagine being a member of a First Nations band only to find out your Aboriginal lineage was deemed non-existent or inconsistent by the government…
As we can see, the act of differentiating status and non-status Indians is complex. As our Aboriginal population is a minority, it is highly unlikely that status numbers will increase. Following the current calculations outlined in the Indian Act, all status Indians will eventually be bred out of existence – by our own doing.
Ending our brief history lesson, we encounter treaties and Indian reserves. Treaties are formal agreements between Aboriginal groups, specifically First Nation bands, and the Canadian government. Indian reserves are sections of land that were “given” to Aboriginals by the Canadian government. I quote “given” as the land was stolen from them by Europeans and the French when they first settled in Canada.
Treaties were established trade agreements, encouraging respect and cooperation between both parties. However, the respect and cooperation they promised soon vanished and left a scar on both sides.
In Canada, there are 11 numbered treaties and a handful of unnumbered treaties. The numbered treaties were signed between 1871 and 1921 and the unnumbered treaties were mostly signed before this time. The band I belong to is recognized under the Robinson-Superior treaty of 1850, making it an unnumbered treaty.
Treaty rights are federally recognized under the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982. However, the language does not define what the recognition entails.
The official wording of the recognition is as follows:
“Aboriginal and treaty rights are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
Despite the recognition being written in law, Aboriginal groups must dispute their rights in court to define what it means to them. Disputes over land and hunting rights, self-governance, and decolonization must be discussed on a case by case basis.
Progress has been made towards defining these treaty rights. However, progress usually occurs on the micro level. With each court settlement, new precedents are set which slowly moves the ball forward. For example, in June 2019, the Canadian government federally recognized the self-government rights of the Metis people. Previous to this, Metis could not have rights to self-government as they are traditionally a nomadic people. Nomadic groups usually do not have enough evidence to support their rights to specific pieces of land – which is a prerequisite to rights to self-government. This recognition has been in the works for a long time and I believe started with the R. v. Powley case.
In 1993, Steve and Roddy Powley, two Metis hunters, killed a moose without a licence – which is illegal in Canada. They claimed that they did not need a licence as they were expressing their right to harvest meat for the winter. The court agreed, but did not acquit them until 1998 when the judge confirmed their right to hunt was protected under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act. The Powley case set a precedent which most certainly contributed to the federal recognition of Metis rights.
The majority of the treaty disputes involve land claims. Land claims are claims put forth by Aboriginal groups to regain land they lost. Recall that I described Indian reserves as parcels of land that were given to Aboriginal People. Well, most Indian reserves are actually small fractions of the land they lost. Land claim disputes do take time and so they will be in the court systems for the foreseeable future.
These past events shape our present reality. I hope it is now easier to understand why we continue to struggle with the concept of reconciliation in light of these truths.
Again, it is not my intention to bring truth without love, nor love without truth. The truth has now come to light and can be a bitter pill to swallow. How can we reconcile differences when abuse, manipulation, and distrust has occurred? Well, we must first try to grasp another area of discussion: reconciliation.
___
Image courtesy of Ivan Aleksic