I am writing in response to the questions posed by PCo. He states, at the end of his contribution, that not all interpretations of the past are going to be equal- some will be better than others. Therefore, how do we choose which are better? I think it is important to take each interpretation as fact. Even though some may be better than others, if interpretations are not considered, we are discrediting the source and possibly turning our back on the past. As well, PCo suggests Natives and newcomers should collaborate in writing an inclusive history of Canada by focusing on shared understandings. In order to achieve this, I would suggest consulting Native groups within Canada, which would in turn help to establish what they deem important and significant in Canada?s history. It would be tragic if these groups were not contacted, and in turn their voices were left unheard (much like they have been up to today).

Another issue that needs to be discussed is the education system. Currently, Canadian history texts (in particular) are lacking in Native history. Often times, only a few lines (or a small section) is written about Native groups within Canada. What does that say about us non-Native newcomers? It shows a lack of concern or interest in a group who are present within Canada, and were here long before anyone else was. It also shows ignorance, because Native groups from across Canada are often lumped together under the title ?Natives.? There are dozens of groups within Canada, and each as specific characteristics that are explicitly theirs. Therefore, how can each group not be identified individually?

Native groups? experiences and stories are just as important as anyone else?s. Their point-of-view is just as significant- they were involved with newcomers, and their lives have forever been changed by those experiences. It is vital that these two stories and point-of-views are collaborated to paint a bigger picture of what Canadian history means- both positive and negative aspects of it. No one is perfect, and that is important to illustrate when it comes to newcomers. Instead, until now, it appears as if the Natives have been painted in a negative light (maybe not a negative light, but surely not completely positive). That needs to be changed, because that is not always the case. Awareness needs to start at a young age, and if that is to occur, then an inclusive history of Canada, which includes both Native and newcomer experiences, needs to be written before anything can happen. Youth are the generation of tomorrow- if we expect them to be aware, we ourselves need to be aware as well.

-Kristine

In picking up this thread, I?m hoping to extend a discussion that?s been continuing on the sidelines of a course I?m teaching at Nipissing University on the history of Native-newcomer relations in Canada. We began the course by reading a section of the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that outlined the differences between Native and non-Native conceptions of history (vol. 1, chap. 3). The Report presented a fairly dichotomous picture of the differences, which can be summed up as follows:

Whereas the non-Aboriginal historical tradition
- seeks objectivity
- is scientific and privileges secular interpretations
- emphasizes written records
- views human beings as being at the centre of history
- creates distance between past events and the reader/listener
- relies on a linear/progressive notion of time;

the Aboriginal conception of history
- embraces subjectivity
- allows for spirituality
- is oral
- does not assume that human beings are the most important elements in the universe
- creates immediacy/relates past to present
- is cyclic.

Having presented this image of stark contrast, the authors of the Report then offered this interesting comment: ?Differences of this kind are important, not because they represent absolute distinctions between peoples?cultural worlds are too rich and complex for that?but because they serve to illustrate, however inadequately, that there are different ways of expressing ideas that, at a deeper level, have much in common? (pp. 5-6). Yet this ?deeper level? of common ground was something the authors declined to explore at any length.

Although I think the way the Report characterizes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historical traditions is not too far off the mark, I do think that the comment that I?ve quoted is just as important. Differences can be exaggerated, and generalizations about a culture can obscure its actual contradictions and complexities. Perhaps we see differences only because we don?t make enough of an effort to locate the common ground.

Here?s an example that to my mind illustrates this point.

The supposed dichotomy between linear/Western and cyclic/Aboriginal conceptions of time is one of those areas where I think difference can easily be exaggerated. On the surface it seems to underline a basic cultural difference. But I recall being struck by something Maurice Bloch wrote about this kind of dichotomy. As I remember it, Bloch made the point that it wasn?t an either/or situation, but a both/and situation. That is, he argued that most cultures conceived of time in both linear AND cyclic terms, depending on context. In general, a cyclic conception of time is linked to ritual contexts. An example of this might be an annual religious holiday: in its most important aspects, the holiday connects those who observe it with all past and future holidays of the same kind. I?m tempted to think that prior to the secularization of Western society, Native American and European conceptions of time might have shared more ?cyclic? characteristics than we tend to imagine. This connects, I think, to Cathy Wheaton?s post: our environment and the way we relate to it (ritually? pragmatically? exploitatively?) has a lot to do with the way we experience and understand time.

I feel that it?s important to make the most of areas of congruence wherever we can find them. In writing history, I think that mainstream historians are beginning to do this. Recent writing on the numbered treaties makes use of Native oral histories to highlight the misunderstandings that arose during negotiations. The result is a history for the mainstream that emphasizes the importance of incorporating the perspective of Aboriginal participants. So I think that there is the possibility of a shared and inclusive history of Canada in the offing.

Last week the CBC reported on efforts by Pasqua First Nation and the Royal Saskatchewan Museum to acquire a pencil drawing made by chief Pasqua of the treaty 4 negotiations of 1874.
(See the article at
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/story/2007/02/22/pasqua-pictograph.html.) The drawing is said to include pictographs of treaty negotiators and of the gifts the Cree and Saulteaux would receive under the treaty, and is apparently the only known contemporary depiction by a First Nations person of any numbered treaty. In the article, one of Pasqua?s descendants notes that ?the [Pasqua First Nation] could use it [the drawing] as written proof of promises made, including health care and education, in the original Treaty 4.? Yet the meaning of the pictographs is not always clear: there are pictures of trees, for example, whose meaning is not today obvious.

Pasqua?s drawing defies the simple dichotomy between oral and literate cultures. And it reminds us that reconstructing the past is always going to involve a degree of interpretation. But not all interpretations are equal?some are going to be better than others. The question is, how do we choose which are better? In closing, I would suggest that Natives and newcomers could begin working towards an inclusive history of Canada by focusing on shared understandings of what makes a good interpretation.

Now what might those be?

-- Peter Cook

[%sig%]

"Are mainstream historians changing their ideas of what history is or can be as a result of contact with indigenous peoples"...I do not think so. Look at University history classes they are concerned with mostly European history. Classes concerning indigenous people, whether they are from the Americas, Africa, Australia, etc., seem to be confined to Anthropology departments. In Nova Scotia, where i am currently living, history seems to begin in 1755 with the deportation of the Acadians. 1755 seems a tad late.

I'm a member of the class taught by PCo and am writing in response to his post. To say that white culture and native cultures are very different is a statement of the obvious; there are certain things about white culture that may be superior and certain things about native culture that will be superior. And while much of their shared history is about trying to find a 'middle ground', I don't think that we've come much closer in the centuries we've been co-existing. The issues may be different, but the gap is the same.

If we acknowledge that a gap still exists, then I don't know that there will ever be an agreement as to which interpretation of information is better. Personally, when writing an essay on native topics, I like to try and find oral sources from the group I'm writing about. Not only is the information more interesting to read, but it gives you a better sense of what the culture and experience was like for the people who lived it. Unfortunately, there are very few oral histories from contact days, and the one's that do exist were subject to interpretation by a people who did not have a firm grasp of the language. But it is better than nothing.

Natives and newcomers usually agree on one aspect of history, it has limitations. I think we are asking too much for these two opposite cultures to come together with a shared history, it will take forever to agree on a working version of this. Neither group will ever be happy, and in the process more children will grow up with limited native input. Therefore, it is nice to see that native people are no longer waiting for white society to include them within their texts, instead there is a movement to create their own. Until such a time when the two groups come to a REAL ?middle ground?, this is an appropriate solution.

-Karen