HBC claims to lands in PNW

[David Lewis]

I have not yet said how much I appreciate speaking with you about these
issues. As I discover these histories I find more and more people to help
and I really appreciate everyone on this listserve for their generocity and
patience in the developing discussions. Once again thank you.
David



At 12:26 PM 1/31/1999 -0800, Mike Cleven wrote:
>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.
>
>
>