If you liked this podcast
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/contributors/thomas-r-verny-md
If you liked this podcast
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/contributors/thomas-r-verny-md
Thank you, a warm welcome to Pushing Boundaries, a podcast about pioneering research, breakthrough discoveries and unconventional ideas. I'm your host, dr Thomas R Bruny. My guests today are Jerry Fontaine and Don McCaskill. I will briefly tell you a little bit about both of these good people. Jerry Fontaine, also known as Makwa Ogima, is Ojibwe Anishinaabe from the Ojibwe Anishinaabe community in Sakig, manitoba. He was chief during the period 1987 to 1998. So that's about 11 or 12 years, I guess, and has been an advisor to the Anishinaabe communities and industry. Jerry currently teaches in the Department of Indigenous Studies at the University of Winnipeg. He recently moved from Travius Bay, manitoba, to Toronto. Have I got that right, jerry?
Speaker 2:Yes, you do sir.
Speaker 1:OK so well.
Speaker 1:Thank you. So we'll go over to Don. Don McCaskill, also known as Kapita Acht, is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Indigenous Studies at Trent University, where he taught for 47 years Well that's really something and served as chair for 13 years. He has edited seven books in the fields of Anishinaabe culture, education, community development and urbanization. Don lives in Toronto, ok, well, welcome. Welcome to this little podcast. You are the authors of the recently published book and I can read the English translation quite easily. I may have a little bit of trouble with the Ojibwe. The English translation is to own ourselves, embodying Ojibwe Anishinaabe ways, and I guess in Ojibwe it is the Bayan DZ win Welcome.
Speaker 2:Good stuff.
Speaker 1:OK, welcome. So please tell me, let's start by you guys telling me how the two of you got together that led to the writing of this book. A little bit of your background, either one of you.
Speaker 2:OK, go ahead, Don, I'll follow your lead OK.
Speaker 3:Well, I think you should talk about it in the beginning of the book.
Speaker 2:OK, the. I've known Don for a little bit of time, you know he was. I went to try to complete my PhD and Don, as luck would have it, became my supervisor and you know, I've known, I knew of him for a long time Because you know he knew, he knew my, he and his father knew my uncle, phil Fontaine, for quite some time, from Winnipeg. Actually, one of Phil's first jobs was working with Don, you know, with, I guess, with the corrections system. So anyways, that's how I knew of Don and that's how I came to know him.
Speaker 2:The book itself I was approached, Don and I both spoke at a conference, a CAUT conference in Ottawa, and you know we were on different panels.
Speaker 2:By chance, you know, I sat on a panel that explored indigenization or talked of indigenization within the Academy by, you know, using teaching approaches, having a First Nation, métis Anywood, peoples involved or recognized within various departments across the country. So I was asked, following that presentation, I was asked by one of the publishing companies to see if I would want to talk about that further, to write about it. And I always saw myself as one trick pony with respect to the Academy, because I come to the Academy rather late and my involvement in everything that I've done has been about resistance. You know so, I think, what the publishing company wanted. They wanted something more detailed in terms of the Academy. So I went to the person I thought knew the most and knew the best, and I was Don McCaskill. So I asked Don if he would want, if he was interested in co-authoring this book with me. And the rest says they say Sister, and here we are.
Speaker 3:And here you are All right and Don, I should say that Jerry's presentation that he made at the conference was quite provocative and was very well received because it went against the kind of grain about indigenizing the Academy, and so that, I think, is what sparked the interest of the publishers. They wanted something, a different approach, more cutting edge approach to the whole issue of reconciliation and indigenizing the Academy and those kinds of things. So at the beginning of the book we talk about how we wanted to start the book in a ceremonial way, in a traditional Anashtabbe way, and so we did a pipe ceremony with the publisher. They came up to Trent University and we did a pipe ceremony, we did an eagle feather teaching and we established a relationship with the publisher in a traditional way, and so that, I think, was an important way of getting things started and they really appreciated that, and so the relationship since then has been very good in terms of working through the publication of the book.
Speaker 1:So, jerry, you mentioned a few minutes ago that your strengths has always been talking about resistance.
Speaker 2:Yeah, my family.
Speaker 1:What do you mean by that? What does that entail? Resistance.
Speaker 2:I was born and raised the Sagin first nation. It's an Ojibwe-Indian community in Manitoba. I come from a political family quite actively involved in reserve politics, provincial issues and national issues. Actually, my grandmother, my dad and my dad's mother was the first Anishinaabe woman to be elected under the Indian Act to counsel. Up until 1952, a woman weren't allowed to be involved in anything political, so she was the first elected counsel.
Speaker 2:So my world has always been about resistance, beginning with my cook and with my grandmother. She pushed issues that weren't popular recognition of women's rights, recognition of family rights. She pushed all of these issues and then in 1952, this is such a long time ago and that was before I was born she was pushing for change and she also, in terms of residential school, all of her children and some of her grandchildren went to residential school. So at that time she was pushing against the old guard, so to speak, challenging the church, the Catholic church, and trying to create a safe space for her children and other parents' children within the residential school. So that was resistance at its finest.
Speaker 2:And my dad was involved in First Nation politics as well and in fact, as one of the first, I always say his time in counsel was the time when we, or when the community, broke free from the shackles of the Indian agent, because up until that time the Indian agent controlled everything.
Speaker 2:So in terms of meetings the Indian agent would share, and one of the first meetings my dad went and told the Indian agents you're sitting in my chair. The Indian agent thought he was joking. My dad said you're sitting in my chair. And the Indian agent didn't move and then started laughing and my dad said again you're sitting in my chair. And then the Indian agent then asked oh, where do you want me to sit, my dad? And then my dad pointed to the corner and said that's where you sit from now on. And in my mind that broke like the control the Indian agent had. And up until that time too, education has been pretty important for my family specifically, and it wasn't popular to talk of school committees, to talk of taking control of education. So this young council of men and this was in the early 60s and I wasn't like, I was just just a- baby.
Speaker 2:But they pushed to take control. And then I remember later, as we caught the tail end of residential school, and I remember one telling me one time what makes your dad think that he understands education, what makes you think that the other members, the other men, know? Because they're nothing but drunks, they're nothing but well, you live on welfare and it's you should be thankful that we're here to give you education. So that was the beginning of it. It's been sequential in terms of the movement or the focus on residential school and education.
Speaker 2:So Phil Fontaine gets elected chief, takes control of the education system, full control affairs, all of the Indian affairs, hire teachers and then uses our own people to start teaching and creates an education program for teachers or works relationship with and this was unheard of at the time established a relationship with Brandon University to train men and women and become teachers, get teaching certificates, education degrees. So that was the beginning, actually, and so that again is resistance. And then, of course, phil continued his trajectory by talking about residential school and the issues of abuse that took place in residential school and the challenges that a lot of our people faced. So that's what I mean, you know, when I stand on the shoulders of resistance. You know I was born into the, a resistant movement, so to speak, within my own family.
Speaker 1:Well, I find it interesting. I find it interesting that you equate the word resistance with advocating for active change. I'm wondering. I mean, to me the word resistance is kind of passive, whereas advocating for change is so much more active. I wonder why you have chosen such a Passive weird for what you're trying to do.
Speaker 2:For me, resistance is really it's about being active. It's about in your face, you know, challenging the government, the powers that be. You know it's in your face, it's aggressive. You know we've been involved in arm resistance, you know there's. I see advocacy. I see it the other way. I see advocacy as more of a friendly way of posing your eyes. But resistance, in my mind, is really active and very aggressive.
Speaker 1:Okay, so we have established that. Now that's another way that both of you are using is indigenization Indigenization within the academy. What do you mean by that? Do you want to have that, don Don? Why don't you try that?
Speaker 3:Sure, yeah, probably back in about 10 years ago, particularly with the publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there was a mushrooming of awareness of indigenous issues, particularly, of course, of the abuses that took place in the residential schools. But generally the situation with regard to indigenous people generally. And the universities, among many, many other institutions, recognize that they're needed to be. They become much more welcoming, much more friendly, much more reflective of indigenous people, and so they, and universities, kind of led the way in this process. They called indigenizing the academy and so what you have is things like the land acknowledgement. Now that is said before every meeting that is held. They put indigenous art on the walls.
Speaker 3:There have already been a lot of indigenous studies departments out there that you could argue have been indigenizing the academy for many years. But they did try and expand some of the indigenous programs to other faculties. They sometimes they hired an administrator. Maybe even at the vice president level there was an indigenous person with a mandate to indigenize the academy. And so the universities have recognized there needs to be a movement towards being more reflective of indigenous culture, indigenous politics, indigenous academics.
Speaker 3:But what we argue in the book is that that really doesn't go far enough and in many cases it's fairly token because it doesn't involve the shift of any kind of power, any kind of authority in terms of decision making, and it doesn't really reflect the university involving indigenous people in any kind of significant way or changing the nature of the institution in terms of how decisions are made, in terms of many of the kinds of things that you see as indigenous people are working with and I should not be people are working with regard to self government, decision making authority, that kind of thing. So we're fairly critical of the concept in the, in the book, but certainly university would see themselves as really being on the vanguard of trying to reflect indigenous culture and in their in their institutions.
Speaker 1:You mentioned land acknowledgement. I live in Stratford, where we have lots of theater, as you know, and before every performance, every lecture, there is this expression of gratitude to the first nations for taking such good care of this land. And do you, apart from the fact that people are getting really tired of it, Really, really, do you see any good coming out of that?
Speaker 3:Well, I think it's the first step, but it's not particularly significant because it's so easy to say and it doesn't really get into some of the key issues, like this doesn't get into acknowledging the treaty and the treaty rights that indigenous people have, which implies that some kind of action needs to be taken. It's more of a feeling good about the fact that now we can raise the awareness and acknowledge indigenous people in some ways in their, in their, in their being on the land. But it's fairly token as far as I'm concerned. Jerry, you may want to say what you say.
Speaker 2:I agree with Don. It's a lot of this a performative, and I think it's a point in the book that it's strange with all these land acknowledgments and so on, the only place I can exercise my my treaty right as a treaty first nation person or as a treaty with jibway Anishinaabe, is either on my own reserve or other reserves throughout Canada. That's the only place I can that my treaty rights are respected. The land acknowledgement do absolutely nothing for me. They mean nothing and more often than not they're spoken in English and the land that they're supposed to be acknowledging has has a certain memory of a language that was first spoken. So if you're going to do a plan acknowledgement, you should use it, speak in the language that the land remembers, because the land and language are one of the same. And so for me, like I'm, probably like a lot of the people that are just plain tired, we, you know. Again, it's performative. I'll just use this example of.
Speaker 2:So there's these two young Ojibwe nation of his sisters. They're at the university, one impact. So they asked the oldest. She was in a higher, she was a senior, so they asked her to do the land acknowledgement. So she did it in English, even though she's a phone speak Ojibwe, ojibwe wind speaker. So she did it in English. And then the guy that the next guy that followed was a he's a white guy, he was the dean and he spoke an Ojibwe one. And then, when this young girl went to sit with her sister, she said Jesus Christ, they've been out and digitizing us. Now you know, she made that, she made it. She just found it hilarious that, yes, yes and all he bastardized the language. He made that, that attempt.
Speaker 1:Right, that's right At least. At least he tried. So in your book you suggest that the Ojibwe ways of doing and knowing, as well as Ojibwe Anishinaabe values, language and ceremonial practices can provide an alternative to western political and academic institutions. Could you, could you just unpack that for me? So?
Speaker 2:for me, ojibwe, anishinaabe, jujuge, winsukuk and Dasun for me, that's foundational for me and anything that I do, because it's our way of doing, or to come to know things, and and it's really in the book. In the book it's subjective and it's so personal to a fault. You can't take yourself outside of this idea or outside of this. I don't know if the approach the Academy. On the other hand, I find it's thorough. You're told to be objective. You're told to be neutral. One of the first problems I had in writing anything about myself or my nation was that I didn't know how to write outside of the circle, so to speak, because for me, I'm so immersed in everything that we do in the language, in the ceremony, I just couldn't write outside of that. I couldn't see myself separate from anything or everything that we do to come to this place of knowing.
Speaker 1:Can you be more specific? How does your outlook differ from Canadian Western values and doing things? What are some specific differences?
Speaker 2:Well, there's plenty, I guess. First and foremost, I don't see myself as Canadian. I don't see myself as part of the Academy, because I think I'm an outlier in many instances, on the other side of the line or the boundary or in the other canoe. I'm more immersed in my language. I know, for example, that when I speak with Jabweemwan, for example, and the Maman in Odoi, it's my mom. I hear, it's my mom's voice, I hear, I know when I speak with Jabweemwan, the land on which I stand remembers me.
Speaker 2:This is one of the reasons. Before I begin anything, I say well, this is who I am Makwao, gemma and Dishnika. So the land remembers my name and also remembers my clan. So there's an immediate connection between the land and myself. I can't detach myself from that. Also, in terms of when we talk ceremony, the ceremony connects us to a different place. It's spiritual. Obviously, ceremonies are also with the, so the sound can maybe speak to this as well. It takes you to a different realm because the voices that you hear it's not like a crazy moment when I say that, but the voices that come to you, the teachings that come to you from another dimension you can say, well, hi, how does that happen?
Speaker 1:That's fine. That's not my question, go on.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so ceremonies are really, for me, pretty foundational in anything that I do. And the other thing in terms of language ceremony and worldview in Endemwan, everything that I am and how I view the world comes from a very specific place in the universe, and that's Sagatong, where the river widens. My family rests there and perhaps that, maybe that's where I'll rest too when I leave this physical world. So it's really For me, my worldview is really specific to a specific place, specific teaching, specific ceremonies, language and so on, and so I can't make that connection between you. Asked about the Canadian perspective, I can't because I don't see myself as Canadian. Yeah, I speak English, I live in this place they call Canada, but I don't really recognize it and I don't think Canada as a physical place doesn't recognize me either.
Speaker 3:If you take in terms of the different worldview. If you take language for an example and putting it kind of in a Western analysis on this, english is very much a noun-based language and when you establish the ground, the language, in a noun, you create concepts and there's a gap between you and the concept because, as Jerry says, you objectify your understanding of the world and so because you're talking about it in terms of a thing, a noun, and that has implications in terms of your worldview, in terms of how you understand the world, how you perceive it within the particular cultural context, because language is so fundamental in expressing the culture Absolutely. So if you see, for example, the land as a thing, you can see it. The next step could easily become seeing the land as a commodity. And if you see the land as a commodity, then you can exploit it for economic purposes and is based to some degree on the Judeo-Christian concept of humans man has dominion over the earth.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 3:And it's not way when indigenous languages tend to be much more verb-based, and verb-based implies a closer relationship, especially when you're talking about the land, and implies action. It implies having to do something, and so that when you talk about the land and ceremonies and everything is interconnected. And so you need to take care of the land because, as they see it as their mother, literally their mother provides for them, the land takes care of you and you have to take care of the land and the reciprocal relationship. And so it's a very different way of approaching understanding the land through the vehicle of the language.
Speaker 3:And then, of course, the ceremonies emerge from the language as well, and so it starts with the fundamental belief, as Jerry says, that all things are spiritual, that the trees, the land, the water, they all have spirits.
Speaker 3:So that when we went fasting out in Alberta for many years in the 80s, we would always take tobacco or sema and put it in the. When we were cutting, for example, willows for making the sweat lodge or the fasting lodge, we would always present tobacco and ask the spirit of the willow to allow us to take part of their tree and use it in a good way as part of a ceremony, and so, again, all of these things are connected and ceremonies were conducted in the language and it reinforced the worldview that everything is alive and has a spirit and you need to take care of it. And it's all expressed within the language and in the book. We try to use the language and explain these different ideas to a non-indigenous audience as well as an indigenous audience. As Jerry says, it's difficult to explain these things in English in a book, but that's what we're trying to do, because we want the book to be appealed to a non-indigenous audience as well as an indigenous audience.
Speaker 1:Right, okay, that's very helpful, very good. So my next question follows this so is that the reason that First Nations in North America sort of avoided sort of any exploration of science like the way the Greeks did, the Egyptians did, the Babylonians did, south America, the Incas, they all got into pretty complicated scientific explorations, particularly in terms of mathematics, but also in terms of physics, chemistry. Very little of that has happened here. What is the reason for that?
Speaker 2:I would disagree. Actually, there was a lot of exploration of science because we understood the world. We knew, for example, that the world wasn't flat, because we knew that the sun rises in the east, sets in the west every day. Yes, we know that the seasons change as well. You have winter, you have spring, you have summer, you have fall. We also knew, for example, that you talk about mathematics. We also understood people were of the belief that we didn't have math, but we have numbers. We have very sophisticated and complicated numbers. That understands the relation between mathematics and the world. We also knew, for example, that well, I mean, you have, I look the Einstein as an example. You know Einstein came to this. So we have the understanding of the world one millisecond before the Big Bang. And we know, for example, that one millisecond before the big band there was a sound.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:What sound? The sound of a shaker Like? If you I don't know, I don't have a shaker, I'm sure Don does and I want if you shake something. Yes, so we knew what the world was before the big bang. We have explanations of what was taking place at that time, one millisecond before the big band. And when we, when I've heard elders talk about this man called Einstein, they say, well, he came to this door, he didn't go beyond that door because he was. He didn't understand what was behind that door. And the elders will say, well, what was behind that door was spirit. So in many ways we make well, we make that connection between science and spirit that there's. They're one of the same.
Speaker 2:You look at, for example, the book talks about shape shifting. How was that? How was that physically possible? How was that scientifically possible? But there are explanations to that. Also, the idea of time travel. You have. The book references, or makes mention of a shingwok who was able to travel from the 1800s to the point of first contact. And people try to reason this Well, there must have been two shingwoks. So how could shingwok live in the 18th century and then go back to the point of first contact with the first people that set foot on Manitouke and shingwok describes, he writes about the ability to travel in time, to go from this place to this one place, and he records his. He records his stories at Agawa Canyon, I mean, I say Agawa Canyon's just west of Bawitigong, or.
Speaker 3:Sousa and Marine.
Speaker 2:So he writes of those things, the scrolls as well, also describes DNA. You know, don, and I have talked about that. I've showed them the scrolls, our scrolls, that speak of this DNA. So, yeah, we understood the, we understood science, but we just didn't call it that. We call it the jichigei. Again, it's a way of kikenda asuin. You know, it's this knowing, and I, in a lot of my language, I, for example, I never use the word knowledge.
Speaker 2:Don made the point that you know we're verb based, so for me, everything is about knowing things. Knowledge has no place in my language. So, anyways, but that's, you know, that's our understanding of science. And you mentioned the Greek, for example, aristotle and Plato, and stories. We had, you know, we made use of stories as well At Tsukhanak, a way to give a non-departement. You know we, yeah, so we really, I think, in terms of what the, the ancient people such, are mentioning, you know, we, I think we had something very similar. I would ask you, you know, if you know, if you look at a scroll, for example, like to explain that it's pretty detailed, it's pretty complicated and it speaks to all things, all things that exist in science.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think there's a misnomer to think that indigenous people didn't have a sophisticated science. Obviously, the most obvious example are the Mayans, who had an incredible understanding of the heavens, the stars, the solstices and all of that.
Speaker 3:But in addition, they mean even the Anishinaabe people. For example, if you're going to make maple syrup, if you're going to understand the medicinal properties of the plants, if you're going to understand the dimensions and how to measure to make a canoe and the materials that have to go into it, there was a sophisticated system of mathematics. As a matter of fact, we we in a project that was a national project called NCCIE, national National Collaboration in Indigenous Peoples, indigenous Education we developed a series of curriculum that is based on indigenous understandings of all of the different disciplines. Obviously, environmentalism and is something that is clearly related you can see the connection with indigenous people. An environmentalist, of course are recognizing more and more the fact that the worldview of the indigenous people had a lot to say in terms of taking care of Mother Earth, much more effective than the way we have done it. But we also developed a mathematical curriculum that talked about measurement, that talked about concepts of using materials in particular ways and constructing them, and all that. So so I think there's more and more people are beginning to recognize that there was a sophisticated understanding, including a scientific understanding, of the world.
Speaker 3:I mean so many of the medicines, for example, that we use. Now, if you look at pharmacopia, you know about 70% of all of the medicines that are now we use, including aspirin, and all those things were based on indigenous medicinal plants in the past. I remember going to with an elder through the woods in Northern Ontario and I was thinking, well, if I ever got lost here I would be in big trouble, or if I got injured. And he said, well, it'd be crazy, because you know 70% of the plants all around you you can either eat or you know use for medicine. And I had no idea most urban people don't have that. So. So there is actually more and more being recognized and sophisticated understanding of science.
Speaker 2:I would just start as well. You know, don remind me in terms of like we have. We have words for every part of our body. So we know, for example, if you had a, if you have a kidney ailment, you know what medicines to use. If you have a liver issue, we know what medicine to use for that. And if you're like, if you're bleeding, to suppress the bleeding, you know, we know. You know what medicines or what plants or what herbs will help with that. And the I come Makua Netuten I'm a baroclan People will tell you that if you follow Makua in the wild, a bear and the forest, any plant, herb or root tree barked at the bear eats are all medicinal and they each have each of the roots, bark and so on. Leaves, you know, are, yeah, are helpful from a medical perspective.
Speaker 3:I tell a story in the book about an elder and I and when we were out in the fasting camp in Alberta he wanted to go in to get some medicine and so he asked me to come with him and I brought a big bag, thinking it was going to be a lot of herbs and plants and things like that, and we went. We drove to maybe 20, 30 miles in the mountains and very isolated place and he started walking up the mountain and this way and that way and this way, looking for this particular medicine, and he turned to me and he said they're trying to fool me. And I said what? There's nobody within 25 miles of here who's trying to fool you. Well, it was the spirits that was trying to fool him because he was connected to it.
Speaker 3:And eventually, after quite a long time, he pointed up onto a cliff. There was a cave there and he said that's where the medicine is. And he went up there and he scraped some of this medicine from his kind of a tar like substances came out of the rock and put it you know this much, and he half for me and half for him, and it was bear medicine, one of the most important medicines of all, and that cave was where the bear hibernated who knows how long ago, and that medicine I used when I had prostate cancer to help with the prostate cancer, along with Western medicine as well. And so you know, that's the kind of understanding of the.
Speaker 3:Mother Earth that the Anishinaabe people have and the connection between science and spirit is so important, but that because we've secularized our understanding of science, we don't make that connection, although Einstein in a way did make those connections with his abstract. It did Right.
Speaker 1:What is the percentage in Canada of indigenous people? What percentage of the population?
Speaker 2:Well, in the prairies, I don't know.
Speaker 3:In the prairies Manitoba, saskatchewan. Alberta it's around 10%.
Speaker 1:About 10%.
Speaker 3:And then in other places because of the larger population, ontario. Ontario actually has the largest number of Indigenous people, but percentage-wise it's less. But if you go to Thunder Bay or Sudbury, of course it's higher. But even within the city of Toronto there's probably they estimate between 60 and 80,000 Indigenous people.
Speaker 1:So if you could do anything to improve the lives of Indigenous people, what would it be?
Speaker 2:For me, the first thing would be to respect and honour the treaties that are going to an end, the treaties. It's interesting that we don't have a word, you know, just way, for treaty. You know it's a European construct, it's a word or concept that Europeans brought to these talks with our people. So our understanding of the treaty relationship is very different. You know, we say, for example, that the first relationship, the first relationship of sharing, was between Kitshe Manitoba and Anishinaabe, the creator and human being. And the creator gave life to the human being. The human being agreed that he will live according to the teachings this is Nizhwas-Sul-Kinama Gewanen. So that's the first relationship. And then the second relationship of sharing that was established was between Woy Si'aq, the animals, and Anishinaabe, you know, the human being. Again, the Woy Si'aq agreed in counsel that they would give their lives to make sure that human being would live, would have some sustenance, and human being, again in terms of a reciprocal relationship, agreed that you know, we would honour Woy Si'aq, the animals, and we would feast them annually. And Ma'quannu Tuuteim, I'm a bear clan, so I honour the bear for what he's done for me.
Speaker 2:And then the third sharing relationship was between the European and Anishinaabe, where we agreed to share all of the bounty of Manitoba-Keh, and so that's land, that's sustenance, that's whatever Manitoba-Keh or Mother Earth agrees to, agreed to provide to human beings generally speaking, and unfortunately, you know, there hasn't been really been. You know we've disrespected Manitoba-Keh, the spirit of the land, you know, at every step. So for me that's the first thing, and the second thing is to understand the value of separation. Yeah, Canada sees itself as this great has, this great country. You know our people on the other end don't see it in that way and for our survival we need some separation and the book speaks to that. So those things, in my mind, are the two most important things.
Speaker 1:So what sort of separation do you have in mind?
Speaker 2:Well, you know, when we first point of contact, you know there's a tool, rwampum. You know that told the story of these two things, the story of these two nations, these two peoples that travel down the same river side by side, separate from one another, each one respecting the values and the world view and the organization of society, of their society. These two boats go down the same stream and never do we, never does one human being and the other canoe interfere with the other. So there's that, there's that respective separation, and the book also talks about now, okay, the middle ground. And the middle ground is where, you know, when I talk of separation, the middle ground is where these, these two nations come together to talk about issues regarding whatever the issues might be.
Speaker 2:You know, you look at, you look across the country, our people are the poorest of the poor. You know there's there's issues with homelessness, there's issues with housing. Actually, you know, when I walk to City Hall in Toronto, I see homeless people. So it's just not a, it's just not a First Nation issue. Now, so we have, you know, we, we have a common issue here. So how do we resolve that? Yeah, that's how I see separation. I use housing as an example that you know, there's commonalities that we we can address in, in in this place. I see as the middle ground and that might be, that could be Parliament, that could be some place else the legislative assembly, but the, the two peoples, have to come together at some point to talk about these issues so that this idea of separation can can be respected and fulfilled.
Speaker 1:So would you like to have your own state? Who is in Canada?
Speaker 2:Yes of, oh yeah. Yeah your very own country. Yeah, well, I'm, I'm. I come from Sagitton Dungi, I'm from this place that I call the River Wines, which is part of the Ojibwe-Initian Aave Nation and the Ojibwe-Initian Aave Nation, which is part of the three fires Nishwesh Keteikan, nishnabeg Odush Keteikan, the three fires Confederacy, which is made up of the Ojibwe, yudawa and the Potawatomi. So that's for me, that's my community. For me, that's my nation.
Speaker 1:And Don do you? Do you agree with? Do you agree with that?
Speaker 3:Yes for sure. Right now there's a major initiative, you know, which is termed reconciliation between the non-Nishnabeg people and the Nishnabeg people, and the whole purpose of the book, to some degree, is to try to educate the non-indigenous people as to how a true reconciliation might happen, and that is to first of all come to an understanding and an honoring of indigenous culture. And we talk about three processes, one of which is a kind of environmental ethic that you have to first of all understand, and we talk about it as one dish and one spoon. There's only one dish, and that is the land, and there's only one spoon, that's human beings, and we are all eating from the same place and we're sharing a meal together, which is a very much an indigenous concept and idea of any kind of relationship being established, and it's not just, of course, it's the same in many cultures. We share a meal together, first of all to establish a relationship, and then, secondly, we talk about coming into each other's camps.
Speaker 3:Traditionally, even traditional enemies, like, for example, two different indigenous groups, would come together in the wintertime to the other person's camp and live there together and share meals and share ceremonies, even though they would then go back in the summer and maybe you know, come back again. And then the third. There was the one that Jerry talked about, the middle ground, where the indigenous people and the non-indigenous people came together. But the key is that the non-indigenous people needed to come in sort of halfway and have an understanding of, as Jerry says, what's in the other canoe and honor that and to agree to that. So we argued that if those three different phenomenon are together we can have some kind of true reconciliation, an understanding of both sides in some kind of degree of equality, because right now indigenous people are almost always on the turf of the non-indigenous people. They're speaking English, they're in parliament with western institutions or universities or whatever.
Speaker 3:And now there needs to be a kind of a moving more towards the center, as Jerry says, and honoring the treaties, and a lot of that is happening. I mean, there is a. The courts have insisted, for example, recently that the Robinson Treaty that was signed 150 years ago be honored and it wasn't honored. And so now there's been a substantial financial compensation to the First Nations communities that were not honored. The treaty where the treaties wasn't honored. The federal government and the provincial government have provided financial resources now in that. And of course there's. You know there is to some degree some level of independence and self-government in all of the First Nations communities, where they control the municipal services, they control the education system, they control. So in that sense the concept of nationhood is somewhat different, but it's there and more and more the Canadian government and institutions are recognizing that. But there's still a long way to go to be able to come to the court.
Speaker 1:Thank, you, thank you, that's. That's a positive note on which we shall conclude our discussion. My guests today have been Jerry Fontaine and Don McCaskill. Their book to own ourselves embodying Ojibwe Anishinaabe ways has been published and I highly recommend it. You will find a lot of information, as we have found it right here, that you're not familiar with and that may be, you know, very new and very influential in terms of which way we live our lives in the future. So I just want to say, jerry, don, thank you very much and until we meet again, take care, bye, bye, miigwech, thank you.