Comment: Canada is a two-story house
- Paul Chartrand | July 18, 2014
Those of my generation who appreciate 'good ole country music' will recognize the title of a song that the recently-departed George Jones sang with Tammy Wynette. In that song, a couple worked hard to get a two-storey house to replace their two-room shack; ended up in a splendid two-storey house but left love behind...hence two stories. One each from the husband and the wife.
The history of Canada, the first story, has been told and retold and written and rewritten and seeded into the popular mind by the English-French side. There are two stories to the history of Canada. In the first story, the Aboriginal side matters only where and to the extent it is part of the history of the English-French side.
Starting late in the 18th century, the first story has been told primarily by the English side because they won the war against the French and history is told by the victors. I will not complicate this commentary by including the continuing French story. The English story will be enough to illustrate my point my story, and particularly so because the Protestant religion that went along with the English language to define the English culture has undoubtedly won over the French-Catholic culture in Canada. Even in Quebec the Church does not matter much anymore.
According to their story, the English were faced with an Indigenous population that had to be forcibly changed to become like them. Viewing themselves as members of a superior race,' just like a purebred greyhound over a mongrel dog, they could only see the ultimate demise of the local folks and their cultures. They therefore saw fit to congratulate themselves over their good and benign policies which promoted acculturation or civilization over outright physical extermination. So the 'Indian reserve' system was seen as a good policy, one that 'smooths the pillow of a dying race' in the language of the day.
The courts are storytellers, too. In Aboriginal and Treaty rights cases, the courts have required historical accounts as part of the legal tests to prove these rights. The judges call upon not only Elders but the other side's professional storytellers from the university to tell them about the stories of the First Nation or Metis or Inuit people. This development causes real problems for an Aboriginal people. Its oral stories are up against the written word in front of judges whose careers are based upon the written word. By picking one story over another, a judge can lead himself straight to the decision that he wants. Some cases deal mainly with stories about legislation and policy and on these topics it will be the other sides professional story that is likely to convince the judge. When this story is recorded in the case law, an Aboriginal people's 'real story' is written in a way that can differ widely from its own version. This is particularly important if we believe as many do that a people's history is important for its collective sense of identity. In this case, it matters less whether a story in fact happened or not: it is told for the purpose of holding up particular values and ideals that a people holds dear.
The recent case of Manitoba Métis Federation (originally styled Dumont) illustrates the problem of judges misunderstanding Métis history. It may be more accurate to state that the judge simply adopted the story of the six government experts instead of the story argued by MMF counsel without the aid of a professional story-teller. As the author of the only published book (now long out-of-print) on the constitutional analysis of the Métis settlement scheme of 1870, which is at the heart of the case I can assert that the history adopted by the court, resembles not at all the true story of the great dispossession of the Métis from Manitoba. This confusion of the courts is important in Saskatchewan because many of the Métis families moved here after the Métis lands promise was not fulfilled, and their descendants today have a strong basis for claiming a real interest in the results of the MMF decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.
So long as there remain two separate stories our country will not achieve a strong sense of its past. Without a single shared story it is hard to build a vision of what is Canada far beyond its obvious cold climate. Without a common past there cannot be a common vision of the future.
Canada is a two-story house. The idea of 'reconciliation' is not likely to lead far unless the stories that are told in the schools and universities, as well as in the courts, are not seriously at odds with the stories that are told in the homes and in the ceremonial life of the community.