OrilliaMatters welcomes letters to the editor. This letter is in response to Bruce McCrae's letter that was published Sunday. You can read that letter here.
********************
The letter writer says the issue is ‘arguably a failure of curators and narrators – not the sculptor.’
This letter writer says this is an issue of the narration of history being one-sided and that of the oppressors which is of outdated perspectives in so-called art being displayed publicly.
History about this statue is a matter of perception and what to do with the statue a matter of respect.
I will share a teaching I received from an original language speaker named Tekarontake (Two big tall trees standing side by side) in the Kanien’keha’ka (Mohawk language). It’s the word Oseriwakwanieste translated to English as respect. Oseriwah is a root word in the term of helping someone and Kwanieste is of a root word to meet their fullest potential.
Our responsibility as people according to the Kanien’keha’ka people are to help each other to meet our fullest potential.
I applaud Parks Canada for reaching this decision in dismantling the disrespectful imagery found in the intact statue. Some non-indigenous peoples perceive it to be “art” and “history”, while many Indigenous peoples see keeping the statue intact and displayed as an intergenerational reminder of the oppression and harm done to their ancestors; the colonization that continues to happen today. We will decide if that continues in the future.
The voices of Indigenous peoples are silenced and discredited by the re-telling of history from a non-indigenous perspective. Media and many other outlets need to give voice to the voiceless.
The ongoing arguments in media defending this statue and the necessity of Indigenous peoples to protect the simplest human right to be seen as equal is a sign of where we stand with helping one another meet our fullest potential. Respect is a prerequisite of reconciliation.
Giving a voice to racism is not the answer. Yes, I know I called it. One definition of racism is the perpetuation of stereotypes of those people of colour who suffer the ongoing chronic and negative effects of the stereotypical perceptions of the dominant group.
In Canada, the dominant group is anyone other than Indigenous peoples speaking on Indigenous issues. The negative imagery of this statue is an Indigenous issue. It negatively impacts Indigenous peoples. The letter writer writes about this artist being a “genius” whereas that is a matter of personal opinion and not indeed the belief of everyone and yet the writer speaks as if this is fact.
More disturbing is the letter writer’s opinion that the statue is being dismembered as a matter of “political messaging”, downplaying and minimizing the actions of Parks Canada’s decision to combat old paternalistic and racist images negatively impacting local Indigenous communities.
When the letter writer states, “despite what the commenters assert” (he means anyone opposing his views) he is already exercising a privilege many people of colour don’t have and that is to negate someone else’s views as rhetoric instead of backed by fact the writer never bothered to ask the Indigenous commentors for.
We have historians! Yes we do! There’s indeed a history that Indigenous peoples have of their own. We remember the relations with Champlain in our historical narratives. We also remember the fur trade and it does not reflect the almost heroic narrative that this local historian letter writer depicts. It’s one of conflict, food deprivation and the settler perception of higher Christian morality driven by the Doctrine of Discovery which continues to oppress Indigenous communities in exercising their birth rights today.
Our narrative is one where Champlain came here to Turtle Island (Canada) with an intention and it certainly had nothing to do with living peacefully with Indigenous peoples. It was one of promoting his reputation, working toward resource extraction and the gathering riches in fishery, fur trading and well the commodification of Indigenous peoples and the lands.
The relationships between Indigenous peoples and the settlers were plagued with the “gifts” of death by disease, beaver depletion, the theft of lands, murder and the rape and of women and children. This is hardly the narrative this local historian cares to share.
In the spirit of truth and reconciliation let's use our “good minds” as the Haudenosaunee say and analyze what has happened by rewriting the history to include all perspectives and remove these negative images from public places. Not to assimilate but to understand a more equitable version of history.
This is not a matter of tearing apart a statue, it runs much deeper than that. This is a matter of what Canadians are willing to do to repair the relationship between Indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.
Is a statue more important than the feelings of a human?
Is a statue more important than the perpetuation of racism?
Is the statue more important than the relationships?
Is a statue more important than the dehumanization of Indigenous peoples whether it is done in art, song or stories?
The statue is a harmful depiction of Indigenous peoples that promotes paternalistic and stereotypical perspectives. A Canadian historical account is not evidence enough to explain away the Indigenous experience of this statue.
One of the biggest things we teach as Indigenous cultural competency/safety trainers is that when you portray an individual’s experience as merely a perception that you can argue with, then you deny or negate someone’s reality causing harm to that individual by denying racism exists.
Another thing we teach is that nice people can still hold racist views and those views can be unconscious or conscious but need to be explored in order to prevent further harm to our future generations.
Of note, I’m confused by the writer’s comment, “Orillians have an opportunity to change the only monument in Canada relevant to the Anishinaabe/English Colonization”. Does this imply the Anishinaabeg colonized alongside the English?
I would ask the letter writer to clarify how an Indigenous community who by ancestral birth colonized anything? I would also speak to the difference in facts this local historian claims as a correct historical account. Perhaps this letter writer would be inclined to consult with and include all narratives of history.
“Not about us without us” is the new approach to reconciliation. Historians seeking the truth about this statue may find value in consultation especially considering the decision would impact in some way the following confederacies, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Three Fires Confederacy, Wyandotte not Wendat (Wendake Confederacy) and the Metis.
If we move further east, the writer may consult with the Wapanaki Confederacy and the Algonquin peoples on his narration of history with respect to this statue. This would give a more accurate explanation as to how the artists own potentially racist perceptions of Indigenous peoples would have and likely affected his work.
As an Indigenous descendant of the fur trade as well and I can personally tell you that the fur trade was not a matter of fair and equitable trade. This is not fact just because this statue does not have a gun present.
I remember hearing stories passed down of starvation because the beaver was being depleted which was a food staple of the local Indigenous communities.
It’s our opinion that the fur trade was the first commodification of the minds of Indigenous peoples brought in by the English and the French settlers which created much division between the Indigenous communities who previously had peaceful relations.
As Pontiac’s story depicts, before the colonization of these lands, we respected our mother earth as she was not a commodity to be sold. We also respected all that lived on this earth within the Two Row understanding of life. We lived and respected all beings as equal, we took only of what we needed and did not seek profit over another. We had ceremonies like the condolence ceremonies, potlek and others that kept our commerce system fair and equitable without greed.
Since the letter writers speaks of the pipe ceremony between Champlain and Chief Donnacan, he fails to mention that the pipe ceremony was peaceful and uniting. However, shortly thereafter Champlain began badgering the Chiefs to convert to Christianity.
Often our epistemology (the transferring of knowledge) is done in stories. We have a beautiful story that was told by the Chiefs to Champlain about accepting where he is and not to seek riches that the Chiefs shared with him at that pipe ceremony the writer speaks of. The story proves we were not a savage people in need of conversion to Christianity, yet that was a very big part of the colonization of our peoples.
To see this displayed in the statue depicting the Indigenous peoples at the feet of the cross with curiosity of the bible is void of fact. The image only goes to prove the narration as one-sided and paternalistic.
I choose not to give voice any further to the debate of the imagery of this statue as it’s not an effective use of the time. I will speak to the misconception of the symbolism of the pipe and that it has NOTHING to do with fair trade or proof thereof.
The pipe in the Indigenous community is far more beautiful than to relate it as a symbol of the commodity of fair trade to be displayed for all to see. I ask that the letter writer who claims historical expertise to also consider using correct terminology of those Indigenous communities the writer speaks of.
We have many differences in opinion and ways of thinking. One thing we have in common is that we are humans with ancestors and histories that collided.
I don’t speak for all Indigenous peoples, but I do not ever say we have a “shared history” because to decolonize history we must understand that pre-colonization Indigenous peoples had thousands of years of history since time immemorial here on these lands. Settler Canadians have only 500 years here and their history is of paternalistic control, oppression, and colonization which they still benefit from today.
A respected Indigenous speaker named Winona Leduke states, the root word in colonization is “colon” which means to digest. I’m having difficulty colonizing this historical account by the local historian who wrote this letter.
The statements written in this letter are riddled with inaccuracies from an Indigenous perspective. However I am only addressing the comments that matter with respect to correcting asserted facts over perspectives.
An example of this would be the stated fact that “Le Caron created the first dictionaries for the languages spoken by the Wendat, Algonquin, and Montagnais” and that it was noteworthy to point out that learning to read English was an “opportunity”.
This was in our opinion, rather a necessity and, in fact, learning English was forced onto Indigenous peoples in effort to colonize the minds of these communities and remove culture, spirituality and identity. It’s in my experience insulting to imply this was an opportunity and speaks to the old euro-centric perspective of the settler nations.
In my view, those dictionaries would likely depict the translations of our words into a very simplistic definition of Indigenous language. The word, Skennen (peace) in the Kanien’keha’ka neha (Mohawk ways) alone has 52 teachings and governance implications that I’ve had the honour of learning to date.
Any attempt as the translation from our languages into English would not have preserved but instead damaged the true meanings of these words and contributed to the destruction of Indigenous cultures which included governances and spirituality.
The expression in the letter writer’s belief that the sanctification of marriages done by Jesuit missionaries imply that somehow missionaries had to sanctify marriages and that this action proves in some way there was a spirit of peace and friendship historically is only a Canadian perspective and not one of fact.
Instead consider that many of these marriages were self serving attempts by non-indigenous men to gain power over the commerce happening in this “new world”. These marriages were intended to destroy the spirituality and culture of Indigenous peoples and convert them to European values.
The historical accounts I’ve heard is that these marriages were forced between white settlers and Indigenous women and girls might I add. That the marriages were done out of necessity to prevent starvation and slavery. Yes, there were marriages between Indigenous and non-indigenous couples that were potentially consensual such as in the case with Acadia, however this is not “gospel fact”.
What makes this even harder to colonize or digest is the writer’s assertion that the white settlers here in Eastern Turtle Island had their hands clean of any kind of abuses or “atrocious actions” like in other places. Who is the letter writer trying to fool?
This historian has a very washed out historical account that fails to mention the two times Champlain and his crew were rescued by the Chief and nursed back to health after the crew of 100 suffered from scurvy and syphilis to then be betrayed by the kidnapping of Mi'kmaq Chief Membertou's men.
Are we to believe that Champlain was of upstanding heroic moral character to kidnap Indigenous men in order to boost his reputation with the King?
The historian suggests the statue ‘remain intact’ and ‘understood’. Well through whose understanding and whose education? I hope the writer isn’t suggesting Indigenous peoples and Canadians alike be educated on the Canadian narrative of history regarding this statue.
To put plaques up and to educate the public while keeping this statue in-tact is a novel idea however who would be doing the educating? Indigenous peoples? Not likely.
Instead, let’s explore and give voice to the narrative of history from Indigenous perspectives as we know that this sharing of history would be in the infancy stages.
Remove the repulsive display of the Champlain statue and accept that decision of Park’s Canada who worked in collaboration with Indigenous voices regarding this atrocity and move forward with reconciliation.
After all, reconciliation “only if intact” will come from these actions of solidarity. Let’s do this for the future faces of our children.
Miigwetch, Nia’wenhko:wa, Oela’lioq, Marsi and Thank you.
Amanda Dale (Director of Bear Waters Gathering)
Muskoka
********************
