From One Raven's Eye

Page 7

Hello, ahnen and tansi. A few weeks ago we left off our treaty talk on how land could be lost by one and acquired by some other. Remember that? It's sorta like us as owners or landlords of a building. These tenants show up asking to move in. A deal is made. They move in. All of a sudden, though, those renters start complaining about the rent. Back in the days before some of us became steadily businessmen, the rent wasn't

set high enough to begin with. Then those talents begin heavily insinuating that they, not us, owned the place after all.

Is there something in that little story that sounds slightly nuts to you? Well one time we came on the verge of saying that about ourselves, and in public yet.

Way back in 1969, the government came up with this original idea they keep having over and over every three or four years since then. The idea is that us Indians would be better off without any treaty rights at all. They never consult Natives of any kind about this subject first, however. If they ever do, we should get them to ask the Metis and non-Status people. They have had legislated equality for years. They have been worse off than we have been for all that time, also.

Anyway, as a result of opposition to that, government-funded Native organizations sprang up across the country. In the early seventies I got a job doing some research for one of those offices in Manitoba. Those guys came up with an idea on how to convince the federal government to renegotiate the treaties. Actually it was the high-priced non-Native lawyers and consultants who thought it up. They said the whole thing was "unconscionable."

That means because of culture differences, language differences and the fact the interpreters were not one hundred per cent on our side either, we could claim we didn't really understand what is was we were signing. Of course the word also means loco, out to lunch, off your rocker and so on.

The idea to bring those treaties up to date was a good one though. Five dollars

a year as a symbol is fine but two pounds of baloney and a box of macaroni later and its pretty much gone. Why couldn't we have just gone to Ottawa and said, "if you guys can mess around with the deal like you have since day one, well then so can we."

I can't remember whether that temporary insanity idea got adopted as an official position or not. I went a little off the deep end myself around that time and lost my job, but I do remember reading later what Ottawa said.

"Well, yeah, okay. But what about the Indian Act now? Shouldn't we revise that a little. Take this annual budget and see what you can come up with."

After that they've suggested we work on the Constitution, Bill C-31, and now self government. When are we going to get back on that original idea? That had the most practical potential to positively affect how things are with us?

Now there is something we do in our dealings with our treaty partners that is truly unconscionable, right. That's when we go to and accept as final judgments of their courts. Are they going to say that because no treaties have been signed in B.C., no government apart from the Aboriginal ones have any right to be there? That they therefore have no jurisdiction there, no legal right to rule in the question.

As party to the treaty we agreed to live under their laws. This however means the ones that apply to individuals, not the ones that apply to nations. What I mean is that next time a question of treaty rights comes up, we should get up a council of Elders to rule on the thing instead of going to them.

Another time the government tried to dump its treaty responsibilities was during the writing of the present Constitution. All the premiers except Rene Levesque signed this one which left out Indians, women, the French. We travelled to Edmonton to join the protest against that. My clearest memory of that day is these three old women, in braids, blankets wrapped around their shoulders. They had their hands aised in anger.

"You lie, you lie," they were saying. "We are honest people. We have always kept our word. All you have done al these years is lie, lie, lie."

As a result of this and other protests they drafted up a new version of the things that included us and those others once again.

Why is it though that they have a tough time living up to their solemn word? Not only to us but certain of their own people as well.

One time as a student at a small American college, we were sitting around planning for our yearly Indian Days stuff. Someone came up with the idea. Dress up somebody in the traditional Hollywood Indian style. Have them stand on a marked off square foot of land. Tie a rope around their waist and put up a sign that said "pay your quarter and rip the Native off for his land." We might have made some money on that, but then again maybe not. Those disrupting our claims these days try to be a little more subtle than that.

What are we talking about in all this really is in terms of what's in their hearts. Our patience shows that despite the evidence of our eyes, we keep believing that our treaty partners are capable of more than they have shown us yet.

Well, thanks for reading another one of these. Meegwetch, and see you next week.