Pols 320: First Nations Politics

POLS 320: First Nations Politics

Film Response

Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo

10175904

Geraldine King

November 13, 2017

Native unrest has been manifested from coast to coast in major resistance movements denouncing the exploitation of Indigenous territories as a result of dysfunctional treaty relations and international trade agreements. How one is taught to know the natural world determines the dynamic relationship he has with its fundamental resources, land and water. By analyzing the films Trick or Treaty? and The Fire Over Water, I will demonstrate the destructive impacts Canada’s capitalist-colonial society has had on Indigenous lands and resources by exploiting them exclusively to further settler wealth and not upholding treaty rights. Using the works of Simpson and Coulthard, I will argue that the answer towards fighting the effects of globalized capitalism lies in the resurgence of land-based movements calling for the revitalization of sustainable local Indigenous economies and the return to Indigenous ethics to reform education and treaty making processes. Engaging in land as pedagogy by opposing settler colonial authority through Indigenous resistance movements encourages the return to pre-colonial treaty making practices as a model for rebuilding solidarity and allows the land to become the focus of reconciliation conversations.

In Canada, Indigenous people are almost never rightfully consulted or informed about law treaties, which has often resulted in governments acting unilaterally when making constitutional amendments or trade agreements (Simpson, “Land as Pedagogy” 15). While both movies address this issue by exploring two mobilization movements, they do so by taking different approaches. Trick or Treaty? takes on a global perspective by focusing on the legal and historical precedents surrounding Treaty 9 that contributed to the rise of the Idle No More movement. The work is both a political and social statement as it allowed viewers ignorant of facts to understand the injustices imposed on Indigenous communities and find common grounds beyond laws and treaties (Obosawin, Alanis). In comparison to The Fire Over Water, this movie was more objective as it approached Indigenous resistance but exposed two sides of the story by considering the two versions of Treaty 9; the written colonial history and the oral Indigenous history (Obosawin, Alanis). By giving two perspectives, one from a historian and one from an ancient chef of the Cree nation, it allowed the viewer to consider the different ways in which colonizers and Indigenous communities negotiate treaties (Obosawin, Alanis). On one hand, the Cree and Objibway nations had oral traditions and did not speak English, whereas settlers worked with written agreements (Obosawin, Alanis). While under the assumption that signing the treaty would bring peace and prosperity, Aboriginals were not aware they were actually surrendering their rights and privileges over to settlers (Obosawin, Alanis). Thus, Treaty 9 in theory was supposed to be a fair land sharing accord but turned out to be another instance where Canadian government did not uphold the rights negotiated by not including oral promises made and used the unceded territory for its own ends.

Similarly, The Fire Over Water reaches the same conclusion that in Canada, governments do not act by taking into account Indigenous communities’ economic, social or environmental wellbeing. The work highlights this reality by interviewing several members of the Elsipogtog Indigenous community who never consented or were consulted by the New Brunswick government over its decision to allow “fracking” (“Elsipogtog: The Fire Over Water”). This practice employed by the Texas gas company occupying the Indigenous territory, consists of extracting gas by injecting chemicals and nitrogen in the water and ground, thus contaminating both sacred resources (“Elsipogtog: The Fire Over Water”). This report fails to look beyond the violent imagery of the anti-fracking protests that happened in Elsipogtog by not considering the background of previous treaties. It also lacked objectivity, as it seemed to only provide viewers with one perspective furthering Indigenous stereotypes, which was showing the reserve residents burning police cars and portraying them as violent and angry protestors (“Elsipogtog: The Fire Over Water”). Although the work does explore some of the legal strategies proposed to ease the tensions, it did not focus enough attention on answering the central question of why the Mi’kmaq protestors were willing to put their bodies on the line for this cause. It failed to explain in detail that they had nothing else to do to bring attention to their realities than to sacrifice themselves and get arrested to protect their sacred water since the provincial government completely overlooks Indigenous practices (Coulthard). Finally, I found that both works were missing to address the evolution of the judicial understanding of what the treaties and oral traditions imply. I believe that it is one thing to recognize history and oral promises as legally valid in courts, but that does not solve much. The long-established laws adjacent to hearsay evidence are still present and not only conflict with oral traditions, but also create a bias where the value of oral testimonies and Indigenous connection to the land are lost.

The key towards a decolonized future is by including the land in the reconciliation conversations and refusing colonial discourse by engaging in land as pedagogy (Simpson, “Land as Pedagogy” 22). This practice can take different forms and implies “coming face to face with settler colonial authority, surveillance and violence because in practice it places Indigenous bodies between settlers and money” (Simpson, “Land as Pedagogy” 19). As manifested in both films, asserting Indigenous’ sovereignty on their territory can be done through blockades hindering access to critical colonial infrastructures or by affirmative actions such as hunger strikes and pilgrimage to Parliament Hill to enact Indigenous law and obligations placed upon them. Both are crucial in transforming the colonial economy and creating empowering Indigenous alternatives to it (Coulthard). By establishing a solidarity framework of Indigenous nationhood, these resistance movements have created a resurgence of land-based movements (Simpson, “Land as Pedagogy” 14 ). They are calling for radical changes in education, treaty relations and political-economic culture to bring back sacred relationships with the land and the natural world by including the lens of Indigenous worldview (Simpson, “Looking after Gdoo-naaganinaa” 29). Achieving this would ensure that the next generation has the knowledge and values to rebuild Indigenous nations according to their culture and would allow for the development of economies that are sustainable for all parties and the environment (Coulthard).