A Nation of Exclusion: Who Gets Left Out When We Talk About Canadian Culture(s)

Rheault, D’Arcy. “A Nation of Exclusion: Who Gets Left Out When We Talk About Canadian Culture(s)” in “New Visions of Nation: Re-Imagining Canadian Culture(s),” Avancer, The Student Journal for the Study of Canada. Peterborough, Ontario: Trent University, 1998.

Introduction

Who is a Canadian? We are tempted to answer that any person born within the nation of Canada or any immigrant who has received Canadian citizenship is a Canadian. Seemingly simple. But we must remember that Canada, as a nation, has only existed for 131 years. We must also remember that long before the arrival of Europeans and the creation of Canada there existed many sovereign nations, each with its own distinct cultural, political and linguistic traits. Interestingly enough most of these Aboriginal nations still continue to exist as sovereign nations even though the general non-Native population of North America does not seem to be aware of this. Equally interesting is the fact that many of these nations find themselves today divided by a national boundary set out by the early Euro-Canadians and Americans. I remember a friend and I standing together as we looked out from the shores of Sarnia, Ontario towards Port Huron, Michigan. We were discussing the Jay Treaty and the right of Aboriginal people to cross the American-Canadian international border without hindrance. He told me, “That’s their line, not ours. From Ontario to Minnesota, it is all Anishinaabe territory.” Since that day, I have not looked at a map of North America in the same way.

When one is asked to re-imagine Canadian culture(s), one may assume that one should discuss that very topic and thus attempt to define it. My aim, perhaps a little subversive given the title of this conference, is to speak about those that live here but do not consider themselves Canadian or American. Nevertheless, as a person of Ojibwe-Anishinaabe and French-Canadian ancestry I find myself in the peculiar position of a non-Canadian with very old Canadian roots. In essence I am a good analogy for Aboriginal Nations: non-Canadian and American nations with very old Canadian and American roots.

Let me state from the beginning that this paper is not a political diatribe exhorting the inherent rights of First Nations as sovereign political and cultural entities. As an apprentice of Anishinaabe philosophy and tradition I will first discuss my impressions of what has become known as postcolonial thought leading into an examination of the role of Anishinaabe philosophy[1] and oral knowledge in the development of a cultural and personal sense of identity. To this end I hope to impress the need for Canadians to remember that the term “Canadian” or “American” does not necessarily apply to all those who now live within present day boundaries as set out by some North American maps.

As we approach the end of the 20^th century I am also reminded that these dates are Christian in origin. We still speak of the time before Christ’s birth and the time after. It is of further interest to note that Dominion, dominant and domination are related to the Latin domini, as in anno Domini, the year of the Lord. Let me remind you that for the Aboriginal peoples of what are now generally referred to as North, Central and South America, we are in the year 506 A.C.: After Columbus. These are some of the things that Aboriginal people think about, and they are at the very heart of this paper.

A Few Impressions on Postcolonial Thought

It is significant that the end of this Christian millennium marks a time when people are beginning to question the world-wide cultural and political structures born of Western Europe’s historical need for domination and conquest. Consequently, there are many questions floating around these days about post-modernism and post-colonialism. But beware of the questions. I have been taught that any question without context is simply a subtle statement.

When one asks, “Are these post-colonial times?” it could seem that the answer might well be “Yes”. Homi K. Bhabha has stated that post-colonial means

… a social criticism that bears witness to those unequal processes of representation by which the historical experience of the once colonized comes to be framed in the west. (Italics added, in Duran and Duran, 1995)

Initially this sense of postcolonial social criticism is surely what we are witness to with the advent of Native Studies as well as Cultural, Feminist, Black and Hispanic Studies, to name a few in the academic world. Now ask a Native American if these are post-colonial times. (Even the term “Native American” itself does nothing more than homogenises over 500 distinct Aboriginal nationalities in North America alone.)

I was struck by the above quotation from Bhabha’s work for two reasons. First for the use of the expression “the once colonized” as if that reality is behind us somehow, and second, since it is used as a preface quotation in Eduardo and Bonnie Duran’s, Native American Postcolonial Psychology. This text is largely interested in a method of examining and treating those psychological problems experienced and inherited by Aboriginal peoples due to their oppression by the dominant society. In the first part, the authors state that,

Colonization has taken place in many other communities across the world during the past five hundred years. There are many similarities in the experience of most colonized people; therefore, much of the discussion of this book is generalized to other indigenous peoples who have suffered the genocidal effects of colonization. (italics added, Duran and Duran, 1995:2)

Again with the use of the past tense some could be lead to say that in fact, “Yes, these are post-colonial times.” The title of this book gives the impression that colonialism is past and only now can the psychic damage be treated. My point here is that as a purely theoretical label the term ‘post-colonial’ has its value, but Bhabha refers to a postcolonial social criticism, and Duran and Duran refer to a psychological treatment meant to be used in the present. Let us not be fooled here, socially and psychologically we are all still in colonialist times; have been for over 500 years and my guess is for some time to come. We are not post anything. At best we are in neo-colonial[2] times, and only because of the modification of some non-Native opinions concerning issues of dominance. Let us focus on actual reality rather than on an idealised and essentially fictional post-anything discussion. To speak of the theory of post-colonialism otherwise is to dismiss the experience of countless generations of Indigenous peoples (past, present and future) all over the world. This is why I say a question without context is a subtle statement.

An Anishinaabe sense of Cultural Identity

With all this talk of contact, dominance and colonialism, it may seem that many if not all the ways of the Anishinaabe and other Aboriginal peoples were lost or destroyed in the ever-increasing acquisition of land and home by Euro-North Americans. But the essence of the people, the cultural codes, have remained intact after five hundred years of contact. We may live in back-splits with a car in the driveway and a colour television in the living room, and some of us may never have lived on a reserve or spoken our ancestral language, but we are nevertheless Anishinaabe. I admit straightaway that from the point of view of an Aboriginal person, the persistence of essential values or codes is more important than change, and that from the point of view of non-Natives, the interest has always been in attempting to support the myth of the disappearance of Native peoples (Sioui, 1989), or at least of their marginalization into the background. But this is only a difference of perspective, and as such culturally sensitive.

The Sacred Circle of Life

(Fig. 1) The Sacred Circle of Life[3]

The singular force of Anishinaabe philosophy is the idea of the unity and dignity of all beings. Rémi Savard states that:

the genuine American dimension, to which present day Indigenous peoples urge us towards, is neither English, neither French, neither Indian, nor Inuit; it is found in the Indigenous notion of the Great Circle, in accordance with which the absolute respect of the specificity of each link becomes the indispensable condition in maintaining the whole. We no longer have any choice; it is of this America that we must seriously reflect upon in order to finally disembark. (Savard, 1979:15 (lib. trans.))

Each being is an integral aspect of Creation. The Anishinaabe, when praying, addresses his or her salutations to all beings of the universe. This allows one to recognise one’s place in Creation. There is an absolute certainty of coming from somewhere. This reality is not born of some random ordering of cosmic dust, but rather the expression of Creator’s will. This is the underlying spiritual code that maintains and gives meaning to life and how we live.

Spirituality is the beginning of any attempt to understand Anishinaabe world-view, but it is also spirituality that is found when we finish searching for the truth. Spirituality is the underlying truth and without it the cultural codes would have been destroyed long ago, and yet they can still be found in the myths and Teachings of the people.

As a mainly oral system Anishinaabe philosophy finds its foundation and places all its merit on the truth expressed by myth and Traditional Teachings. James Dumont, an Anishinaabe scholar, stresses that,

If we try to understand and sensibly appreciate Native myth and legend we must be willing, first of all, to accept that there is involved here a very special way of ‘seeing the world’. Secondly, and a necessary further step, we must make an attempt to ‘participate’ in this way of seeing. (Dumont in Miller, 1992:75)

He adds that,

There seems to be a vital link, then, for the Ojibwa, between mythical times and the present. In fact, it might be said that mythical times become present when we approach the realm of the sacred through the dream of the vision quest. Perhaps this can be expressed as simultaneous realities. What we have called mythical time is eternally present, and it occurs simultaneously with our present. (Ibid.)

To comprehend this sense of simultaneous realities it is imperative that any interpretation of Anishinaabe myth and Teachings include a comprehensive understanding of the people themselves. The name of the people: Anishinaabe, means “the good being, created from nothing and lowered down to Mother Earth.” Within this one word we find our Creation Story, our purpose and our identity. Myth and Traditional Teachings elaborate on and explain what it is to be Anishinaabe. They not only direct personality, social order, action and ethics, they also set out the proper context for a person’s life. Myth and Traditional Teachings give life structure and meaning. Without these Teachers how else can a person know how to be good? They are oral reference libraries that account for stories, legends, prophesies, ceremonies, songs, dances, language and the philosophy of the people. Moreover, the Elders and Traditional Teachers responsible for these oral libraries, are as much the librarians as the libraries of this knowledge (Couture, 1996). Myths and Teachings are as alive as the person hearing them or sharing them. They exist in a dynamic form and their meaning is eternal. It is for this reason that myth and Traditional Teachings are important, and it is for the same reason that we must listen to their voices.

The World of Relations

(Fig. 2) The World of Relations[4]

One of the things that I have been taught by my Traditional Teachers is that I am at the centre of a community of relations that moves from my immediate family to the whole of the Indigenous population of the world, this population including humans and non-humans alike. This is my reality as a person. It is based on the Traditional Anishinaabe teaching of the inter-relatedness of all beings with Eshkakimikwe (Mother Earth). An underlying truth for the Anishinaabe is the inherent relationship, and belief in a relationship, with our Mother. Anishinaabe people are spiritually bound in this relationship, and this relationship defines each being as a child of the Mother. This is not some kind of mystical awareness that comes only from a ceremony or a ritual; it comes from the very essence of the Anishinaabe world-view. Anishinaabe philosophy also stresses the importance of kendaaswin, (the Ojibwe term for knowledge). Kendaaswin or the way of learning is the epistemic source of truth. An Anishinaabe Elder teaches that the people have been given seven gifts or instructions to lead them through life. These seven instructions are,

To cherish knowledge is to know wisdom

To know love is to know peace

To honour all of Creation is to have respect

Bravery is to face the foe with integrity

Honesty in facing a situation is to be brave

Humility is to know yourself as a sacred part of Creation

Truth is to know all of these things

(Benton-Banai, 1988:64)

These seven gifts begin and end with knowledge and the ability to know. This is what it means to be a good person; life is lived based on practical reflection.

The Anishinaabe is a practitioner of sorts, a practitioner of Mino Biimadizewin (the way of a good life); in other words the Anishinaabe is a dynamic empiricist. Dynamic empiricism is the process by which the Anishinaabe come to understand the world. But this world is seen as more than the simple subject-object structure that is often spoken of in western philosophy. It is an apprehension of the dynamic nature of Creation. The Anishinaabe do not look at the world as made up of subjects and objects but rather understand that goodness, value and beauty are primary. Joseph Couture explains that,

In the West, classical existentialism stresses the utter validity of subjectivity, i.e., of the feeling, reflective subject who has the freedom to make choices, and to determine thus his/her life. Therefore, what one does is of keystone importance. The doing that characterizes the Native Way is a doing that concerns itself with being and becoming a unique person, one fully responsible for one’s own life and actions within family and community. Finding one’s path and following it is a characteristic Native enterprise which leads to or makes for the attainment of inner and outer balance. This is a marked contrast with general Western doing which tends and strains towards having, objectifying, manipulating, ‘thingifying’ every one and every thing it touches. (Couture, 1996:45)

As the centre of a community of relations, my understanding of the world grows from my primary experiential knowledge. This is not a relativistic statement but the statement of a person who is learning and practising the traditional ways of his people. All knowledge is verifiable through a system of Elders and Traditional Teachers whose life knowledge allows them to discern the dynamic nature of Creation. The value of primary experiential knowledge, be it from cultural stories, Traditional and ceremonial instructions, observation of the world or from dreams, visions and intuition, is verifiable since there is no subject-object bifurcation inherent in Anishinaabe world view. Metaphysically, in the west, primary experiential knowledge, particularly knowledge received from a spiritual source, has been discounted due to the belief that the universe is composed of subjects and objects. If something cannot be classified as one or the other then it does not exist and is relegated to relativism or conjecture, belief and faith. This is a metaphysical assumption. Anishinaabe metaphysics does not make this subject-object assumption. Robert Pirsig explains that,

This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance has been the problem of a small container trying to contain a larger one. Value is not a subspecies of substance. Substance is a subspecies of value. When you reverse the containment process and define substance in terms of value the mystery disappears: … (Pirsig, 1991:116)

An Anishinaabe would add that substance is a subspecies of Mino Biimadizewin since the way of a good life is the unfolding of Creation.

We are taught that each Spirit enters the physical world complete. The life giving Spirit that we each express carries with it our name, our clan, our gifts and our purpose in life. When an Anishinaabe says Mino Biimadizewin they are speaking of the way of a good life, not as an individual subject separate from other objects in the world but as the manifestation of Creation. By this, I mean to say that each individual is as much a representation of the whole of Creation as the whole of Creation is a representation of itself. This may all seem rather mystical and cryptic from a Western perspective, but simply put, it is taught that each individual is the physical/spiritual manifestation of the whole of Creation and that it is one’s responsibility and duty to be good so that the goodness of Creation is maintained. Creation is, and as such all that is, is Creation. For the Anishinabe this is the highest goal of being good.

The Four Aspects of Self

(Fig. 3) The Four Aspects of Self[5]

Mino Biimadizewin is based on a concept of health and good living. Anishinaabe philosophy is not a purely intellectual pursuit; it is a lived philosophy, a philosophy of process. It finds meaning in the lived experience of each being of Creation and the concept of health and good living is expressed as the harmony and balance of the four aspects of Self; namely, the spiritual, the physical, the emotional and the mental. These four aspects find their place, as artificial categorical divisions of the inter-connected nature of Self, in the Teachings expressed by the Elders and the Traditional Teachers. These are static labels in themselves but point to the dynamic unfolding of Creation. In essence it means living life in a sacred manner due to the sacred nature of Creation.

Because of the love with which the Anishinaabe approach life some of them attain the level of doctors of philosophy, that is, to use an old stereotype, medicine men and women concerned with the life health of others. This understanding of health focuses on the prevention of disease as well as living life to the fullest, actualising the potentiality inherent in Creation. There is a fine balance or equilibrium that must be maintained due to each being’s responsibility in maintaining the goodness and Beauty of Creation. As we have seen, Creation is all and all is Creation. To understand this last statement, it is necessary to comprehend the significance of Mino Biimadizewin.

The domain of practical reflection opens up an infinity of possibilities. It is said that we must centre our minds in order to apprehend and understand Creation. The special way of seeing mentioned by James Dumont (1992) entails a primacy of perception, although this is a physical/spiritual perception. Humans are physical/spiritual beings that find meaning in a physical/spiritual existence. Anishinaabe philosophy is centred on Creation and all it entails. All is inter-connected, and as such, one’s place in Creation brings balance and belonging to the world.

Conclusion

There is nothing new in the vision of cultural identity that I have spoken of here. Since time immemorial we have understood that it gives life meaning, structure and purpose. The Anishinaabe has nothing to re-imagine. Our cultural codes remain as the anchor for our sense of identity. Re-imagining our culture is not necessary since what I have expressed are the original instructions given to the Anishinaabe by the Creator. Like the dynamic unfolding of Creation, one’s life and the way one lives changes over time, but the purpose and meaning of life is timeless. It is not a question of whether the Anishinaabe world-view needs to change to accommodate Euro-Canadian ways, but rather an understanding that our original instructions are eternal and beyond the constraints of time and space. No matter how many world maps are made and what the international boundaries may be, we will always know where our home is on this place that we call Turtle Island.

Send your comments

Notes

References

Benton-Banai, Edward, The Mishomis Book, The Voice of the Ojibway, Red School House: U.S.A., 1988.

Couture, Joseph, “The Role of Native Elders: Emergent Issues”, in David Lang and Olive Dickason (eds.), Visions of the Heart, Canadian Aboriginal Issues, Toronto: Harcourt Brace, 1996, 41-56.

Dumont, James, “Journey To Daylight-Land Through Ojibwa Eyes”, in David Miller, et al. (eds.), The First Ones: Readings in Indian/Native Studies, Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Indian Federated College Press, 1992, 75-80.

Duran, Eduardo and Bonnie Duran, Native American Postcolonial Psychology, New York: State University of New York Press, 1995.

Pirsig, Robert, Lila, An Inquiry into Morals, New York: Bantam Books, 1991.

Savard, Rémi, Destin d’Amerique. Les Autochtones et nous, Montréal: Édition de l’Hexagone, 1979.

Sioui, Georges, Pour une Autohistoire Amérindienne, Laval: La Presses de l’Université, 1989.

Traditional Elders, Teachers and apprentices, Personal Conversations and Ceremonial Teachings, 1994-1998.