Walking in the circle

Two weeks ago, our delegation was traveling from Kenora to Grassy Narrows to attend the community annual Pow Wow. This was my first Pow Wow and, for me, one of the highlights of the trip. As a (temporary) conclusion for my blog, I want to remember and share the colors and the music of this community event.

In general terms, a Pow Wow is a gathering; however, it carries on and preserves many traditional elements of First Nations’ culture. Dancers and drummers are the essential part of the celebration; and the set-up of the dance arena follows strict rules.

"The dance arena, known as the arbor, is a large circular arena in the center of the designated location… The arbor is blessed prior to the powwow starting and is considered sacred ground during the entire celebration… The entries are on the four points of the compass, but usually dancers enter from the east entrance" (http://www.powwow-power.com/powwowhistory.html). The circular shape represents the circle of life, a central concept to First Nations’ spiritual beliefs. It was such a privilege to be part of this celebration and, above all, it was an amazing experience to be invited to walk with everyone else in the circle of life!

I left Grassy Narrows still walking in the circle -and adding "the" makes of course the whole difference-, taking with me sounds, lights, and emotions that I want to keep with me.

*Example of Men's traditional dancing at Grassy Narrows's Pow Wow: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIUL0-imwE/
*Grass dancers at Grassy Narrows' Pow Wow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dPAL_ydQNc&feature=related/

Left with heavy memories

"In 1928, a government official predicted Canada would end its 'Indian problem' within two generations. Church-run, government-funded residential schools for native children were supposed to prepare them for life in white society. But the aims of assimilation meant devastation for those who were subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Decades later, aboriginal people began to share their stories and demand acknowledgement of —and compensation for— their stolen childhoods" (picture & text from: http://archives.cbc.ca/society/education/topics/692/).

Originally started in the 19th century, Canada’s residential schools system reached its peak in the early 1930s; the last school of its kind closed its doors in 1996. The principle of the system was very simple: assimilation of Aboriginal kids to white culture and erasure of indigenous heritage. The means to implement such goals are pretty common, among others: sequestration of children and interdiction to speak native languages. Canadian society has taken some steps in order to deal with this past, but Aboriginal families are of course suffering from it in ways that are difficult to fully measure. On June 2, 2008, The Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission started its work; it is still active and working on finding ways to heal (http://www.trc.ca/).

Every single person we met from the Anishinaabe Nation during our visit in Kenora and Grassy Narrows mentioned the residential schools system. Every one of them had a memory of it, either from having experienced the system themselves or from knowing someone in the family who had. Telling this story is difficult and heavy; listening to it is difficult and heavy too. The wounds left by this past are long to heal. It is the story of survivors who carry the weight of memories through time. The community as a whole needs to heal.

We are sitting outside in Grassy Narrows, looking out on to the lake and the Pow Wow ground; something there is very peaceful and traditions have been preserved despite all of it. If only the past could lose its grip and let go of these heavy memories! Maybe each of us, by listening to them, made them very very slightly lighter… the echo, at least, has stayed with me!

*Current exhibit on the history of residential schools: http://www.wherearethechildren.ca/

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?