The Ipperwash Inquiry and the Importance of Cultural Context

[infocom@pro.net]

The Ipperwash Inquiry and the Importance of History and Culture . . .

Connecting People to Place
Great Lakes Aboriginal History in Cultural Context
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/ipperwash2.pdf

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy,Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

July 14, 2004

Dudley George, unarmed, was shot to death while standing strong for Anishinabek rights, and that is a true tragedy. Nearly nine years later it is critical to say, he did not die in vain. I believe that his death brings life, to the beginning of a new era of understanding between Aboriginals and Canadians - building the foundation for the path to justice.

It only started this week to hear evidence, but I do not think it is too early to suggest the huge opportunity created by the Ipperwash Inquiry . . . an opportunity to educate non-Aboriginals about our history and culture, and the genesis of the clash of cultures, that led to Dudley's death at Ipperwash Park in 1995.

"I wanted to get beyond the notion of just physical geography. I understand landscape is a way of articulating how humans see or perceive or experience the physical world around them. It is not just a physical world for aboriginal people, it is also a spiritual world. And totemic identity also has a very strong, in my experience, a very strong spiritual component.-"

Those are but a few of the many, insightful words from the first witness at the Ipperwash Inquiry in Forest, Ontario - Professor Darlene Johnston of the University of Toronto School of Law. She is a member of the Marten clan of the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation on Georgian Bay. Appearing at the inquiry as an expert witness, Professor Johnston presented detailed information and historical research documents.

Her presentation included a paper she prepared called, Connecting People to Place, Aboriginal History in Cultural Context. Professor Johnston is an expert in Great Lakes aboriginal history and traditions - the Great Lakes Algonquian speaking peoples and the Iroquoian speaking peoples, including the connection between territory and totemic identify and governance - that is who was entitled to govern. Whether the system was hereditary or elected.

Her Powerpoint presentation was detailed and complex, but I believe it provided important insight - to show how an obvious cultural clash began many years ago, and would influence relationships, and determine how misinformed the newcomers and their subsequent governments could be, about Aboriginals and their lands and their rights.

For example, "Algonquian is a term used by linguists but it refers to people who, in our language, speak Anishnaabemwin . Anishinabek people speak Anishnaabemwin. And we, in fact, suffered, I think, the greatest disservice in terms of the naming practices with our complex social and totemic and political identities being distilled down to some very common denominators, particularly by the British.

And what I mean by this is, each totemic group, as a result of my research, I have been able to find, had a particular name, and sometimes, in fact, more than one name. And when the French first came to the region, their first guides into the Great Lakes were, in fact, Iroquoian speaking peoples, the Huron, or the Wendat, who lived in what is now Penatanguishene area. And so when the French first came, the first words they heard, or the first names they heard for Anishinabek peoples, were Huron names.

Then they got to know the Anishinabek people and started using our individual totemic names, but eventually they started in terms, I suppose, of bureaucratic or administrative efficiency, to use some generic terms. So, rather than calling the various groups, whether they are Crane people, Cat people -- Catfish people, or Bear people - those names, those started calling them Outaouac or the people that lived at the Sioux, they called them Sauteurs. Even so, the French had more variety in their naming practises than the British. By the time the British enter the region in 1760, they are calling people either Chippewa, Ottawa, or Potawatomi.

And those designations, in fact, blur very important territorial differences and totemic differences. And so, I wanted to be able to show that, of the very highly nuanced forms of identity that existed at contact, they would get watered down by the French and then even more so by the British. And it creates a problem then, because if the people that we are concerned with, signed a Treaty in 1827, and they are called Chippewas, and you go back looking for Chippewas in the early contact period, you are not going to find them, because Chippewa is not a name that they used themselves, and it is not a name that the French use. And so the name Chippewa does not show up until the beginning of the British regime, and if you insist on just looking for Chippewas, you will think that there were no Chipewas there in the early period.

And so you need another way, a more stable indicator of identity to be able to make the connection back in time through the French regime and into the very early contact period. . . In my research, I am satisfied that totemic identity is the most stable and the earliest form of identity, which persists across the four centuries since contact."

Professor Johnston used herself as a way of explaining the significance of totemic identity. "Aboriginal cultures in North America, well at least in Eastern North America, are based on a kinship system which is also known as a totemic system or a clan system.

And for the Great Lakes people who speak Anishnaabemwin - Algonquian speaking peoples. Our totemic system is -- is patrilineal, that is, children are -- when they are born, they are born into the clan of their father or the dodaim of their father. So, for instance, my fathers father is Potawatomi and he is Marten clan. My fathers mother is Otter dodaim. So when my father was born he is the son of an Otter and a Marten, but he is a Marten. And then because I am my fathers daughter, I am also a Marten. So, when you speak to a persons totemic identity, it is how you trace the identity of your clan back generations through the patriline."

MORE . . .
http://68.146.188.247/trans/ipperwash/j ... /index.htm

[www.ipperwashinquiry.ca]

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy,Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

August 19, 2004

Hearings resumed this week at the Ipperwash Inquiry, in Forest, Ontario where expert witnesses are providing historical context to help understand what happened in September 1995, when Dudley George was shot to death by police.

Testifying was Professor Joan Holmes, an expert in historical studies in relation to land claims and aboriginal rights - looking at the relationship between the Crown and various First Nations.

According to her, the existence of native burial grounds at Ipperwash was no secret.

The government of Mike Harris, accused by the George family of ordering the raid against Natives, claimed there was no proof of burial grounds.

But Professor Holmes described several documents that showed the Ontario government was provided with proof, but it refused to accept it, or dismissed it for political reasons.

The inquiry also was given a government memo that previously was confidential. It revealed that officials in Ottawa had ample warning about the dispute and the potential for conflict.

Former prime minister Jean Chretien warned the federal government, more than twenty years before the 1995 Ipperwash crisis that officials had to start respecting Chippewa burial grounds around Ipperwash Provincial Park on Lake Huron - or face native protests. Chretien, as Minister of Indian Affairs warned the defence minister in a 1972 confidential memo, "It seems to me that the Indian people involved have a legitimate grievance. They did not agree to surrender the land in the first place, but it was appropriated in the national interest prevailing in 1942. It is now 1972, and they have not got it back . . . there is their deeply rooted reverence for land and their tribal attachment to it".

Chretien also wrote, "They have waited patiently for action. There are signs, however, that they will soon run out of patience".


----------------

Ipperwash Inquiry Resumes Next Week With History Testimony

Aug. 13, 2004

The Ipperwash Inquiry resumes next week with the testimony of Joan Holmes, B.A., M.A., president of Joan Holmes Associates Inc, an Aboriginal rights and research consulting firm. Ms Holmes is the second of
two experts to testify at the evidentiary hearings that started the Inquiry
hearings last month.

Next week's hearings are scheduled for Tuesday, August 17, Wednesday,
August 18, and Thursday, August 19, in Forest, Ontario.

Ms. Holmes will trace the history of relations and land transactions
between Great Lakes Aboriginal people and governments from the mid-18th Century to 1995. Her presentation will include an examination of the land transactions between 1927 and 1928 in which the Kettle Point and Stony Point First Nation surrendered land, the purchase of the Ipperwash Provincial Park by the province and the expropriation of the Stony Point reserve during the Second World War.

As part of that review, she will trace the requests for return of the
former Stony Point reserve territory and governmental responses to such
request, including requests made by the Honourable Jean Chrétien when he was the Minister Responsible for Indian Affairs. The Department of National Defence used the War Measures Act to appropriate the former Stony Point Reserve in 1942. As well, Ms. Holmes will review the contemporary claims concerning the possible existence of burial grounds of both Ipperwash Provincial Park and the nearby Camp Ipperwash.

During three days of hearings in July, the Inquiry heard testimony from
Darlene Johnston, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., a specialist in Great Lakes Aboriginal
history and a descendant of the Great Lakes Aboriginal ancestors. She is also a member of the Inquiry's Research Advisory Committee. Her presentation is available on the Inquiry' web page www.ipperwashinquiry.ca

The Inquiry was established by the Government of Ontario to inquire into
the fatal shooting of Dudley George during a protest by Aboriginal people at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995.

The Inquiry is to report on the circumstances that led to the shooting
and is also to make recommendations designed to avoid violence in similar
circumstance in the future. The Honourable Sidney B. Linden is the
Commissioner.

The historical presentations set the context for the evidence to be heard
later in the year about the 1995 protest and the subsequent events.

Commissioner Linden has separated the Inquiry into two phases that will
run concurrently. Part I will deal with events surrounding the death of Dudley George. Part II will deal with the policy issues and recommendations directed to the avoidance of violence in similar circumstances.

Next week's hearing will be held at the Forest Memorial Community Center
(Kimball hall) at 6276 Townsend Line, Forest, Ontario. Forest is part of the
Municipality of Lambton Shores. The hearing on Tuesday, August 17, will start at 10:30 a.m. and at 10 a.m. on the subsequent days. The schedule of further hearing days is posted on the Inquiry's website: www.ipperwashinquiry.ca

For further information: Peter Rehak, Communication Coordinator and
Media Relations Officer, The Ipperwash Inquiry, (416) 212-6876.