Dancing on Our Turtle's Back

by Leanne Simpson

  Gdoo-naaganinaa in Contemporary Times

  At no time did the Haudenosaunee assume that their participation in the Dish with One Spoon treaty meant that they could fully colonize Nishnaabeg territory or assimilate Nishnaabeg people into Haudenosaunee culture. At no time did the Haudenosaunee assume that the Nishnaabeg intended to give up their sovereignty, independence or nationhood. Both political entities assumed that they would share the territory, that they would both take care of their shared hunting grounds and that they would remain separate, sovereign, self-determining and independent nations. Similarly, the Nishnaabeg did not feel the need to “ask” or “negotiate” with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy for the “right” to “self-government.” They knew that Gdoo-naaganinaa did not threaten their nationhood; Our Dish was meant to preserve their nationhood, protect their territory and maintain their sovereignty. At the same time, both parties knew they had a shared responsibility to take care of the territory, following their own culturally based environmental ethics to ensure that the plant and animal nations they were so dependent upon carried on in a healthy state in perpetuity. Both parties knew that they had to follow their own cultural protocols for renewing the relationship on a regular basis to promote peace, goodwill and friendship amongst the Nishnaabeg and the Haudenosaunee. Both parties knew that, if peace were to be maintained, they had to follow the original instructions passed down to them from their Ancestors. Although Gdoo-naaganinaa is a living treaty with the Haudenosaunee, the Nishnaabeg understanding of it can give us great insight into Nishnaabeg traditions governing treaty making, and their expectations in their early interactions with settler governments. According to our prophecies, the Nishnaabeg knew a “light-skinned” race was coming to their territory.[29] They expected to have to share their territory. The expected Gdoo-naaganinaa would be taken care of so that their way of life could continue for generations to come. They expected respect for their government, their sovereignty, and their nation. They expected a relationship of peace, mutual respect and mutual benefit; and these were the same expectations the Nishnaabeg carried with them into the colonial period. Indeed, these are the expectations we carry with us into meetings with settler governments today.

  Too often in contemporary times we are presented with a view of the world that renders us incapable of visioning any alternatives to our present situation and relationship with colonial governments and settler states. Biskaabiiyang compels us to return to our own knowledge systems to find answers. For Nishnaabeg peoples, Gdoo-naaganinaa does just that. It gives us an ancient template for realizing separate jurisdictions within a shared territory. It outlines the “rights” and “responsibilities” of both parties in the on-going relationship, and it clearly demonstrates that our Ancestors did not intend for our nations to be subsumed by the British Crown or the Canadian state when they negotiated those original treaties.

  One does not have to give birth or breastfeed to come to understand Gdoo-naaganinaa, but those processes were critical to my understanding of Gdoo-naaganinaa. The process of birthing and mothering within a Nishnaabeg cultural context was the process by which I could engage in Biskaabiiyang to decolonize my understanding of treaties and treaty relationships. The seven-year cycle that spanned those initial experiences and the writing of this chapter enabled that knowledge to become Debwewin. When I cast my stone in the water by offering Edna Manitowabi tobacco to help with the safe arrival of my child into the world, I intended to reclaim birth and infant care traditions. I did not plan on learning about Nishnaabeg political culture, governance and international relations. Emergence took care of that. If our political cultures begin at home, and our families are the microcosm for governance, then what are we currently teaching our children about leadership? Decision making? Nation building?

  * * *

  Kiera Ladner and Leanne Simpson, “This is an Honour Song,” in Leanne Simpson and Kiera Ladner, eds., This is an Honour Song: Twenty Years Since the Blockades, Arbeiter Ring Publishing, Winnipeg, MB, 2010, 8. ←

  Kiera Ladner, “From Little Things…,” in Leanne Simpson and Kiera Ladner, eds., This is an Honour Song: Twenty Years Since the Blockades, Arbeiter Ring Publishing, Winnipeg, MB, 2010, 290–291. ←

  Neal McLeod, Cree Narrative Memory: From Treaties to Contemporary Times, Purich Publisher, Saskatoon, SK, 2007, 6. ←

  Neal McLeod, Cree Narrative Memory: From Treaties to Contemporary Times, Purich Publisher, Saskatoon, SK, 2007, 7–8. ←

  Neal McLeod, Cree Narrative Memory: From Treaties to Contemporary Times, Purich Publisher, Saskatoon, SK, 2007, 6. ←

  Wendy Makoons Geniusz, Our Knowledge is Not Primitive: Decolonizing Botanical Anishinaabe Teachings, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY, 2009, 11. ←

  Doug Williams retells this part of this Creation story online at www.storiesofthenightsky.ca/ontario.htm, accessed June 9, 2010. ←

  Doug Williams, www.storiesofthenightsky.ca/ontario.htm, accessed June 9, 2010. ←

  A previous version of this paper was published in the Wicazo Sa Review, 23.2, Fall 2008: 29–42, and was republished as “Looking After Gdoo-naaganinaa: Pre-colonial Nishnaabeg Diplomatic and Treaty Relationships,” in the forthcoming anthology by Susan A. Miller and James Riding In, eds., Native Historians Write Back: Decolonizing American Indian History, University of Texas Press, Lubbock, TX. In these academic contexts, I removed the initial section on breastfeeding in response to reviewer’s comments, but never felt good about that. The experience of breastfeeding was the seminal turning point in my thinking on treaties. If Edna Manitowabi had not spelled out that link to me, the rest of the paper would not have followed. Indeed, my entire thinking on treaty making would be much different. ←

  James Morrison, “The Robinson Treaties of 1850: A Case Study,” research study prepared for rcap (1994), as cited in the Final Report of the Royal Commission of Abor-iginal People, Volume 1, note 35, www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg11_e.html#36, accessed January 5, 2008. I confirmed this with Shirley Williams (Peterborough, ON, February 21, 2008) and she gave me the correct spelling in the double vowel system. The other word for treaty, according to both of these sources is Bgedinige, which means letting go. ←

  Indigenous nations conceptualized governance, sovereignty, and nationalism differently than their European counterparts. For a discussion, see Patricia Monture-Angus, Journeying Forward: Dreaming First Nations Independence, Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, NS; and Kiera Ladner’s “Women and Blackfoot Nationalism,” Journal of Canadian Studies, 35.2 (2000): 35–60. ←

  To western scientists, different species of fish gather at this location in the spring and fall to migrate and spawn. To the Nishnaabeg, these are not just “species of fish;” they are nations within their own right, with political structures unto their own. This reflects a different conceptualization of “nationalism,” similar to the conceptualizations in Kiera Ladner’s Women and Blackfoot Nationalism. To be clear, fish clans represent the Nishnaabeg people, fish nations are the actual species of fish. ←

  Mnjikanming is located near Orillia, ON and has a series of ancient fish weirs reminding us of this relationship. ←

  John Borrows, Recovering Canada: The Resurgence of Indigenous Law, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, 2002, 16–20. ←

  Borrows notes that there are many slightly different versions of this story in print and in our oral traditions. John Borrows, Recovering Canada: The Resurgence of Indigenous Law, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, 2002, 19. ←

  Judy DaSilva is a Traditional Knowledge Holder and environmental activist from Grassy Narrows First Nation, Grassy Narrows, ON. Interviewed by Leanne Simpson, March 31, 2003 ←

  Dewe’igan is our word for drum, and it means the centre of our nations or the heartbeat. Anton Treuer, The Assassination of Hole in the Day, Borealis Books, St. Paul, MN, 2010, 15. ←

  The last time I heard this story it was told in April 2010 by Michi Saagiig Nishnaabe big drum carrier Adrian Webb as part of our local langua
ge nest. Likely several written versions exist, but my understanding is based solely on oral versions. Steve Teekens (Nipissing First Nation), First Nations House, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, March 2004. ←

  This is a scared story and it is not appropriate to share the entire version in this forum. What is shared is a very simplistic and short sketch and it is used here to illustrate my point. ←

  Gdoo-naaganinaa is the correct spelling in the Fiero orthography eastern Ojibwe dialect. According to Alan Corbiere, Project Coordinator of Kinoomaadoog at M’Chigeeng First Nation, May 4, 2007, this treaty between the Nishnaabeg Nation and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is called Gdoo-naaganinaa by the Nishnaabeg, both in the oral tradition and in historical documents written in Nishnaabemowin, and it means “Our Dish.” This is the inclusive form, as opposed to the ndoo-naaganinaa: “our dish (but not yours).” See Victor P. Lytwyn’s research into historical documents that contain the concept and also use the term Kidonaganina. “A Dish with One Spoon: The Shared Hunting Grounds Agreement in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Valley Region,” Papers of the 28th Algonquian Conference, David H. Pentland, ed., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, 1997, 210–227. ←

  To the Haudenosaunee, this treaty is known as the “Dish with One Spoon.” The wampum belt for the treaty is housed in the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, ON. ←

  According to Haudenosaunee scholar Susan Hill, “The Haudenosaunee are a confederacy comprised of five original member nations—Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca—and several ‘dependent’ nations, including the Tuscarora (officially the ‘Sixth Nation’), Delaware, Nanticoke and Tutelo. The Haudenosaunee are also known as the Iroquois Confederacy, the Five Nations and the Six Nations.” Susan Hill, “Traveling Down the River of Life Together in Peace and Friendship, Forever: Haudenosaunee Land Ethics and Treaty Agreements as the Basis for Restructuring the Relationship with the British Crown,” Leanne Simpson, ed., Lighting the Eighth Fire: The Liberation, Resurgence and Protection of Indigenous Nations, Arbeiter Ring, Winnipeg, MB, 2008, 23–47. ←

  For a detailed historical discussion of Kidonaganina based on archival documents from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, please see Victor P. Lytwyn, “A Dish with One Spoon: The Shared Hunting Grounds Agreement in the Great Lakes and St., Lawrence Valley Region,” Papers of the 28th Algonquian Conference, David H. Pentland, ed., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, 1997, 210–227. ←

  Leanne Simpson, Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Insights, Issues and Implications, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, 1999. ←

  The Dish Wampum Belt is currently housed at the Royal Ontario Museum. ←

  The purpose of this paper is to focus on discussing Nishnaabe pre-colonial treaty-making processes. For discussions of the treaty from an Haudenosaunee perspective, see Barbara Gray’s “The Effects of the Fur Trade on Peace: A Haudenosaunee Woman’s Perspective,” in Aboriginal People and the Fur Trade: Proceedings of the 8th North American Fur Trade Conferences, Louise Johnson, ed., Dollco Printing, Akwesasne, Mohawk Territory, 2001; and J. A. Gibson, “Concerning the League: The Iroquois League Tradition as Dictated in Onondaga,” H. Woodbury, R. Henry and H. Webster, eds., Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics Memoir 9, 1991. ←

  Barbara Gray, “The Effects of the Fur Trade on Peace: A Haudenosaunee Woman’s Perspective,” in Aboriginal People and the Fur Trade: Proceedings of the 8th North American Fur Trade Conferences, Louise Johnson, ed., Dollco Printing, Akwesasne, Mohawk Territory, 2001. ←

  Susan Hill, The Clay We Are Made of: An Examination of Haudenosaunee Land Tenure on the Grand River Territory, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Indigenous Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, 2006; Susan Hill “Traveling Down the River of Life Together in Peace and Friendship, Forever: Haudenosaunee Land Ethics and Treaty Agreements as the Basis for Restructuring the Relationship with the British Crown,” Leanne Simpson, ed., Lighting the Eighth Fire: The Liberation, Resurgence and Protection of Indigenous Nations, Arbeiter Ring, Winnipeg, MB, 2008, 23–47. ←

  Edward Benton-Banai, The Mishomis Book, Indian Country Communications, Hayward. WI, 1988, 89-93. ←

  Protecting the First Hill: Nurturing Eniigaanzid in Children

  Resurgence movements need leadership. And it requires a different kind of leadership than expressed in band councils and contemporary Indigenous organizations, because many of these individuals and organizations have adopted styles of leadership that are western-based and counter to the basic values and tenets of Nishnaabeg lifeways.

  When I think of leadership, I think of individuals in my life that have influenced, inspired, encouraged and brought out the very best in me. Many of these people were, or are, Elders who embody gentleness, kindness, respect, humility, and have grounded, authentic sources of power that come from working within the emergent forces of nature and the implicate order, rather than from authoritarian power. I have worked alongside these people and watched as they empowered youth to self-actualize, make mistakes, figure out solutions, grow, and become fully present creative forces in our communities by divesting of their own authority or power. In essence, they “lead by following.” They teach by allowing students to direct their own learning. They are always around us, like our clans and non-human spirit beings, but they are not directing us.

  One aspect of leadership that I have observed and heard stories about, but have rarely seen in print, is the emerging nature of leadership in Nishnaabeg governance. It is my understanding that formal governance occurred most often in the summer months, when the clans gathered together or as it was needed when issues arose. Different clans had different responsibilities, and therefore different areas of expertise. This division of responsibilities necessitated different leaders—as did the plurality of issues a family group, clan or community might face. When particular issues arose, leaders emerged according to their expertise (a combination of authentic power, knowledge, experience and personal gifts or attributes as recognized by the collective). Linda Clarkson, Vern Morrisette and Gabriel Régallet explain:

  While the clan was represented at the central fire it was not always represented by the same person. In fact, who was there was dependant [sic] upon the decision to be made. If it had to do with the assessment of the resources of the immediate territory, the clans would send their best hunters and medicine people to discuss the issue at hand. Quite simply, they were the best barometers of the resources and could make informed discussion on the subject. As well, medicine people were used to forecast the potential of the resources from their knowledge of the seasons, changes in patterns and their intimate relationship with the spirit world. If it were a decision that related to contact with another band, warriors and statesmen would be sent to discuss the matter. When we call people warriors, consider it in the context of protectors of the people not in the context of a standing army that is the reality of today.[1]

  Basil Johnston also sees traditional Nishnaabeg leadership as pluralistic:

  Ogimauh [means] the foremost leader. The term is derived from Ogindaussoowin, which means to count or calculate. In referring to a leader, the term means he (or she) who counts a number of followers and, conversely, he (or she) who many count. Leaders did not seek followers; followers sought them. It was common for a community to have more than one leader, just as there are many flocks of geese, each with its own leader.[2]