September 15, 2008
ELIZABETH SNELL
Once there was a woman who lived in a large, clean, beautifully maintained ancestral home.
She met a man and they decided to marry, signing an agreement of partnership, respect and equal sharing of the home. But soon the man insisted on his way and abused her when she tried to maintain her traditions.
He also decided he would like income from the house. So he locked his wife in a small basement room, divided the house into condos and sold them to his relatives.
Since the wife's room had no kitchen, the man doled out the bare necessities to her, ignoring for years her pleas to honour their agreement. In fact, he eventually convinced himself that their agreement was not for sharing but for everything signed over to him because he was the man. He even felt his support of her was generous.
The condo-dwellers cluttered their rooms with possessions but neglected the house so it became dirty and decrepit.
The wife's maintenance skills and knowledge were ignored and she became increasingly distraught at her confinement, declining health, dependency and the deteriorating condition of her ancestral home.
Finally, in desperation, the woman managed to slip into an empty condo. She barricaded the door and refused to move. The husband was furious and called the police, complaining that she was illegally taking over his property.
Though very unfair to men, is this an appropriate analogy for our society's treatment of First Nations?
I'm not sure. I am among the condo-dwellers who know little of the wife's plight.
Much seems to come down to differing views of the original agreements.
First Nations see treaties as nation-to-nation partnerships. Others interpret them as concessions of defeat.
Does the analogy offer future guidance? First, the wife needs better living conditions and facilities to maintain herself.
A fair divorce would give the woman full authority over her portion of the home. But because the couple must share the home, they must forge a partnership that respects her knowledge of home maintenance, something that is in all the residents' interest.
These steps are mirrored in recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996 landmark report.
It explained that First Nations are not just another cultural group but sovereign nations.
It urged a new relationship based on mutual respect and that includes First Nation self-government, agreements that share resources and a framework to share future decision-making -- all part of original treaties.
What about the Grand River watershed situation? Many decisions will require nation-to-nation (Six Nations-to-Canada) negotiations, negotiations that we should promote. But we have other local opportunities far more constructive than blocking the Hanlon.
In fact, we need look no further than to the Six Nations themselves for inspiration.
A couple of examples:
Injustice thrives on institutional belief in its own rightness without hearing the opinions of those affected. Institutions with megaphones and ear plugs. An antidote? The First Nations model of talking sticks in council circles -- respectful listening to the holder of the stick and equal opportunity to grasp the stick. Think how that approach might have avoided the residential school tragedy.
Federalism is a Six Nations invention. It allows decisions to be made by the people affected. Local issues are decided locally while issues with broader implications are considered by a council with broader representation. This model inspired the American Constitution, Canada's governance structure and contributes to the application of peace and democracy as far away as South Africa.
Can we in the Grand River watershed build on this brilliant local invention to create a model for mutual respect and maintenance of our common home? One option might be Six Nations presence on the board of the Grand River Conservation Authority, currently limited to municipal representatives.
Justice and watershed health demand action. Combined insights of Six Nations and "newcomers" offer exhilarating scope for building a new relationship based on dignity, rights and shared liberation.
Elizabeth Snell is a member of the Mercury's Community Editorial Board.
http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/article/381011
