Indigenous peoples, like some ethnic groups, derive much of their identity from histories of state-sponsored genocide, forced settlement, relocation, political marginalization, and various formal attempts at cultural destruction.
Quote from “The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity” by Ronald Niezen (2003)
Deriving our identity from our colonial oppression is a dangerous but all too common practice. While it can make “indigenous” people feel united by some common experience, it can also serve to divide our people as we increasingly depend on colonial notions to forge new identities at the expense of our traditional identities. Our nation-building options are severely limited by our endorsement of colonial labels such as “Quebec Cree,” “Ontario Cree,” “Treaty 9 Cree,” etc. It might seem simplistic, but rejecting these notions is such a fundamental issue that our future as a nation depends on it.
In 1870, the Hudson’s Bay Company surrendered its charter to the British Crown, receiving £300,000 in compensation. By doing so, the territory they called Rupert’s Land was transferred to the British Crown, who then granted the Dominion of Canada legal control, but only on the condition that treaties be negotiated with the indigenous nations. In other words, Rupert’s Land was never “owned” by the Company or by the British Crown and the treaties were meant to solve this sticky situation.
This led to the numbered treaties in the west, but the situation in the east took a slightly different turn. In 1895, Canada created the District of Ungava out of the eastern portion of Rupert’s Land.
In 1898, the adoption of the Quebec Boundary Extension Act transferred the southernmost portion of the District of Ungava (excluding offshore islands) to Quebec, extending the latter’s border north to the Eastmain River.
In 1912, another Quebec Boundary Extension Act was passed, transferring the rest of Ungava’s continental land to Quebec. As for the offshore islands, they were transferred to the Northwest Territories.
For the next 60 years or so, the Governments of Quebec and Canada basically acted like they had actual legal control over our homeland, but it was all fiction. No treaty was ever signed and there definitely never was a military conquest, nor a large movement of people who colonized and by de facto took over. In the 1960s, indigenous peoples were still the majority and legal control had yet to be secured by Canada as requested by the British Crown in 1870. In other words, ᐃᔨᓂᐤ ᐊᔅᒌ (often stylized Eeyou Istchee) was not legally part of Canada when Quebec embarked on its James Bay Project in the late 1960s. That was a major factor in the court’s decision that led to the negotiation of the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA). That is also why the boundaries of the agreement extend beyond traditional Cree territory to include Anishinabe country in Abitibi. In other words, the Quebec government intended on legally securing the land transferred to it illegally in the Quebec Boundary Extension Acts of 1898 and 1912. In the process, it trampled over Anishinabe rights.
This last point is today an issue of contention as the Anishinabe often incorrectly blame Cree people themselves for overstepping their own territorial limits in the southern part of the territory. This legal delineation of the territory by Quebec would also lead to problems in the region where the lands of the Ouje-Bougoumou, Mistissini, and Piyekwakami people meet in the southeast and where the lands of the Waswanipi and the Opitciwan meet in the south. These five closely related Cree-speaking peoples would continue to find themselves dealing with the consequences of the JBNQA’s boundaries throughout the following decades. The boundaries between the Ouje-Bougoumou and Mistissini lands would eventually be settled officially in 2014. But the problematic boundary between their lands and that of the Piyekwakami, a people excluded from the JBNQA and instead covered by the Indian Act, would unfortunately inspire a deepening political divide that continues to cast the beneficiaries of the treaty as guilty of territorial aggrandizement. A similar situation would transpire between the Waswanipi and the Opitciwan, only the former being beneficiaries of the treaty. But nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, the problem itself has always lied in the foreign concept of boundaries that were imposed where peoples’ lands traditionally overlapped. Instead of addressing these traditional overlaps by creating shared buffer zones, boundaries were delineated where the distinction between treaty beneficiaries and non-beneficiares have become starkly apparent in regards to their respective rights to harvest.
The key, therefore, to understanding and solving these issues lies on the one hand in the recognition of these shared overlaps and on the other hand with an understanding of the colonial governments’ need to acquire legal control over our lands. Casting this as a problem between various indigenous peoples instead of an issue between indigenous peoples and foreign colonial governments continues to divide and weaken the position of the various indigenous peoples involved.
It is also this need for legal control that would eventually have the governments dealing with the offshore islands mentioned earlier. These would be subject to a Offshore Islands Agreement in 2009, thus paradoxally recognizing our right to these islands while simultaneously legalizing Canada’s control over them.
Without these treaties, Canada’s control over our lands would never have been legal. The Cree in northern Quebec would basically become, legally, Canadian citizens in 1975 with the signing of the JBNQA. We may now be Canadian citizens, but we are also Status Indians. If it weren’t for the signing of the JBNQA, this second-class type of citizenship would ensure that our communities remained as poor, underdeveloped, and controlled by Canada the way the rest of Cree country is. In fact, it is this distinction that underpins the widening divide between communities covered by the treaty and neighbouring communities who, aside from feeling robbed of a portion of their traditional territories, have to deal with the indignity of answering to the Indian Act. It may be Canada Day today, but to somehow express pride in being “Canadian” is a sad reflection of how little we actually know and understand about how this colonial state has and continues to divide our people and oppress those outside the territory covered by the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement.
Hubris and ignorance often beget cynicism and cultural nationalism, two impediments to the acquisition of real political power. Cynics doubt that anything done has been done right, while cultural nationalists maintain that nothing should be done, save for sweating, smudging, dancing, and singing. Oh, how comforting a thought that must be to the overseer that such attitudes and beliefs prevail in Cree country!
The White Man never could have killed the Indian in the Child
Despite a plan to sanitize and civilize the wild
He couldn’t have succeeded and the reason is because
He couldn’t find the Indian – the heathen never was
But on the other hand the child was definitely real
In order to withstand the torture he’d learn not to feel
As he was educated by a dedicated host
To survive he simulated what was hated most
The Indian was born when the child forgot his name
Whatever he was told he was he certainly became
So while he couldn’t be himself he knew he wasn’t White
So he had to be an Indian – he couldn’t win the fight
We can tell you don’t like us, we really do get it
We’re just inconvenient – Thomas King said it
“The Indian’s dead” is a myth that’s embedded
But our numbers keep growing – death is not where we’re headed
We just want some respect and little autonomy
But you falsely claim it would ruin your economy
What can we say to these Matthew McConaughey‘s
Speaking in favour of racial taxonomies?
Have I stepped out of line? Am I hitting him low?
I mean, surely a team name is hardly Jim Crow!
Should I tell my young boy as I’m watching him grow
That those words of abuse really honour him though?
I think we all know what a word really means
That the world hasn’t changed as much as it seems
That in spite of her hopes or a beautiful dream
An Indian girl might end up in a stream
These Indian women they fill me with awe
My mother, my sister; if only you saw
But he, Jesse Eisenberg, sees only flaws
to him all these women are nothing but squaws
He’ll get all defensive and bring up the fact
It really means ‘woman‘ we shouldn’t react
Would he say it’s like nigger – Spanish for ‘black’?
Let him call someone that and he’ll likely get smacked
You should know we speak English, we’ve gone to your schools
So we’ll walk off the set if you take us for fools
We’re done being props, extras, or tools
Your game is played out, we’ll be making the rules