HBC claims to lands in PNW

[terry glavin]

yep, that's a good summary of delgamuukw, mike. it's why i'm quite content
with our kinchotch law these days: the local customary laws (aboriginal law,
aboriginal customs, traditions and practices, aboriginal conceptions of
title, etc.) are now part of the body of english common law in canada, and
the submissions from the oral tradition now carry equal evidentiary weight
in the canadian court system.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cleven <ironmtn at BIGFOOT.COM>
To: CHINOOK at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU <CHINOOK at LINGUIST.LDC.UPENN.EDU>
Date: 31 January 1999 12:27
Subject: Re: HBC claims to lands in PNW


>At 01:41 AM 1/31/99 -0800, David Lewis wrote:
>>Mike-one of the issues which I have faced over the past few years is this
>>idea that the Europeans "discovered" everything. Europeans are not the
>>first to circumnavigate Vancouver Island or whatever the islands real name
>>is. Europeans were not the first to map ou the lands or at least survey.
>>All Indian peoples knew where their lands were and owned certain areas.
>>Ownership does not mean the same to Indians as to Europeans. There are
>>stories which tell us that every family knew where their fishing places
>>were along the rivers. They knew where their lands were and this
>>constitutes a native form of mapping or surveying, even if it is not in
the
>>European fashion. The "accomplishments of the Europeans are so well known
>>because they have sociallized most of the world in their own histories.
>>These histories tell us a lot about them and something about our families,
>>but they have forced the Indian stereotypes down our throats for so long
>>that we even talk like them.
>
>That's taken for granted, David; I didn't mean in my capsule history to
>mean that these were actual "discoveries" (which is why I used quotation
>marks all the time); I was only trying to detail the mechanisms in
>international colonial/imperial law and precedent of the time (as practiced
>by the colonizing powers) in order to establish what the British claim to
>the region was, in comparison to the Russian, Spanish, and American ones
>(La Perouse died in Australia and never made it home, otherwise France
>might have made a claim, too!).  Post-modern versions of the stories of
>"explorers" Alexander Mackenzie and Simon Fraser give the native version -
>that these were poverty-stricken hungry beggars who were guided through
>heavily-populated and well-governed countries over well-known trails and
>routes, who wouldn't have made it anywhere if not for the cooperation and
>assistance of the native communities they "discovered".  Neither one of
>them were welcome when they reached the shores of the Pacific; Mackenzie,
>although an old "native hand" in other parts of the continent, was hiding
>from the Nuxalk when he made his ochre marks on the boulder on Bentinck Arm
>(Dean Channel?), and as mentioned in my account Fraser was driven back from
>the shores of Georgia Strait by enraged Musqueam warriors, who had seen
>quite enough of "Bostons" before Fraser's coming.  (Fraser, though, at
>Lillooet was remarked upon for the sun-cross tattoo on the middle of his
>forehead; obviously a "company man" and hardly the epitome of British
>society of the time).
>
>
>>I believe that we still own the land, native titles were never truly
>>extinguished and someday we will be able to reclaim a good portion of our
>>homelands. The values of understanding how to prove that our families
still
>>have legitimate claim to the lands are uncountable. This has been done in
>>Australia in the Mabo decision, and I hope to be able to bring the same
>>precident through International law to the US and see what happens. The
>>Aborigines in the Mabo case were able to prove they owned their land
>>because of the stories which were passed down. Afterwards, all Aboriginal
>>tribes in Australia have been able to reclaim their lands based on the
>>survival of their mythologies.
>
>It's more than the survival of the mythologies and legal lore and
>governmental hierarchies in BC (e.g. the Gitksan-Wet'su-we'ten
>Confederacy).  It happens to be that the actual "extinguishment of native
>title" in terms of the British Empire's own legalisms which occurred East
>of the Rockies did not take place in BC (with the except of certain parts
>of southern Vancouver Island).  The story is quite complex, and involves
>the intransigence of the British Columbia government to even discuss the
>matter with the federal Crown (Ottawa) who were very concerned with
>resolving the issue so it wouldn't come back to haunt them (as it has).
>Last spring's Lamer decision (on the decades-old Delgamuukw vs. the Queen
>case, concerning the Gitksan) makes it clear that, not only was aboriginal
>title never extinguished in British Columbia - meaning that the province is
>a superimposition on someone else's property - but that native customary
>laws _throughout_ Canada are, in fact, part of Canadian Common Law.  Terry
>Glavin's much more of an expert on this than I could ever be, and hopefully
>he'll provide some clarification of what I've just said (the Delgamuukw
>interpretations are both subtle and blatant, and very complex).  There are
>prodigious amounts of information on these technicalities in the public
>press in Canada, some of which I might be able to find in the stack of
>newspapers in the corner of my office and scan for you when I get the time.
> One book that details pretty accurately (if didactically) the process by
>which the BC government sought to bypass the existing native governments
>while simultaneously stonewalling Ottawa's relatively benign intentions
>(the stress is on relatively) is Joanne Drake Terry's "The Same as
>Yesterday: The Lillooet People; The Theft of their Land and Resources".
>You should be able to order it from down there; it may even be in major
>post-secondary libraries in Washington and Oregon, or they should be able
>to get it from UBC or SFU on an interlibrary loan for you.