Mi’Kmaq: A foundational disagreement

 

Chief Donnacona was the Iroquois Chief of the village of Stadacona when Jacques Cartier arrived on his second trip to Canada as it is now called. It was located at the site of what became Quebec City, which Christiane and I passed by on our way to the east coast of Canada on our own personal voyage of discovery in 2024.

In 1536 Cartier arrived a little deeper into Canada.  He arrived with a ship and landed in Île d’ Orléans, an island in what we now call Quebec. 11 of his men were very sick. They were basically dying of scurvy.

While Cartier and his men were in Canada, Chief Donnacona and his people prepared  tea for the Frenchmen who had landed on their shores from the leaves of 2 conifers that were rich in vitamins. That cured the men and they survived.

As so often happened in Canadian history, the First Nations of North America helped these Europeans survive in the Western hemisphere. They helped because that is what they did. They did not ask for payments.  But they did expect that if they were in need some day the newcomers would help them out if they could. Reciprocity was an important value among the First Nations of North America. This is how civilized people act.

Cartier, on the other hand, concluded that second voyage by kidnapping Donnacona along with 9 other Iroquois captives, and brought them all the way to France as curiosities for the people of France to see. That act showed the true meaning of European arrival in the so-called “New World.” That is not how civilized people act.

In the CBC story Telling our Stories, Edna Manitowabi an Anishinabe woman from Wiikwemkoong said, We helped them. We were kind to them. We were generous and yes we agreed to share. We will share but we didn’t give up. We agreed to share.

Those words tell us a lot about Indigenous philosophy. It was a profound way of thinking. The actions of Cartier tell us a lot about European philosophy.  Their philosophy embodied “taking” rather than sharing.

According to the doctrine of discovery, initiated by the Roman Catholic Popes, anyone who was not a Christian was a savage. And savages had few rights. And their land could be taken from them.

But I ask, “Who were the savages? And who was civilized?’

However, this fundamental misunderstanding between Indigenous people and the new arrivals from Europe proved very costly. As a result of that misunderstanding, Canada has suffered through decades of discontent by their partners who resented being treated as people who had sold off their inheritance to Canada.  While indigenous people remained unable to successfully assert their rights the newcomers enjoyed nearly a century of apparent quiet possession of Canada, but this fundamental misunderstanding still meant the “root of title” to use a concept of the common law of England which became part of the common law of Canada after Confederation was in doubt.  In time, the Supreme Court of Canada has turned back Canada’s easy assumptions that all of Canada had been ceded to Canada by Indigenous people.

Eventually, the Canadian courts kiboshed this idea. That does not mean the Canadian courts have accepted everything that Indigenous people argued, but it confirmed that Indigenous people had a lot more rights than Canada had believed. The extent of those aboriginal rights which have not been ceded is still being worked out by Canada’s courts and this has made law in Canada such an interesting thing. It is one of the reasons that an old teacher of real estate law in Canada—me—has had so much enjoyment out of practicing law.

What was once certain has become shaky.

 

Leave a Reply