Treaty culture and its limitations

During our CPT delegation, we heard many references made to Treaty #3, an official document signed in October 1873 between the Crown of England and the Anishinaabe Nation. The Treaty regulates the use of 55,000 square miles of territory and "the Chiefs negotiated, among other things, that their 'business' would be allowed within the entire territory and that both the lands and resources would be shared between them as 'brothers'" (http://www.gct3.net). Today, Treaty #3 is still the basis of negotiations between the Anishinaabe Nation and the government of Canada.

The records of the Treaty are not 100% straightforward and, as often with historical documents, need to be interpreted. If several accounts and written sources mention the Treaty, views disagree on the exact terms of the agreement. What seems to be certain on the other hand: quickly after the signing of the Treaty, the Canadian government took full control of the territory and its population. The Treaty stands then as an empty monument that justifies History.

The Treaty culture, as I call it, characterizes many encounters between settlers and representatives of First Nations. One of the most celebrated examples occurred in Pennsylvania at the end of the 17th century. According to the legend, William Penn signed a treaty of friendship with the Indians in 1682: "The legend of William Penn's Treaty with the Indians became a universal symbol of religious and civil liberties. Voltaire made reference to the event in 1764, and artists throughout Europe recreated the scene first painted by Benjamin West in 1771" (http://www.penntreatymuseum.org ).

Narratives around treaties contribute to building a positive image of the settlers, often in opposition to the indigenous populations who, sooner or later, are bound to break the treaty. In Ontario, the fight continues over Treaty #3 and its interpretation and thus, embodies the ongoing struggle over whose narrative will eventually become truer. However, and this is a pretty amazing fact I believe, the Supreme Court of Canada, in 1997, in a case brought by the Delgamuukw Nation against British Columbia, "ruled that oral histories were just as important as written testimony" in establishing historical truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_history).

It will probably take many years to fully implement this ruling, but as a legal decision, it creates a precedent that may ultimately alter History as we know it… and it is a written document that no one can dispute, or can we?