Sign up for the paNOW newsletter

PAGC Conference: Treaties and identity

Jan 19, 2017 | 11:07 AM

The treaties made between the British crown and the first peoples of Canada are more than a series of agreements, but documents which define an entire peoples.

For Darrell McCallum, a treaty educator and former Chief of the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation, the connection between treaty and identity stems back to his childhood.

“I used to wonder why my mom used to say that every time I used to leave the house as a kid… ‘Don’t forget you’re a Treaty Indian,’ what’s that mean?” McCallum asked, during a presentation on treaty education at the Senator Allen Bird Memorial Center. “That was my mom’s way of saying hang onto my culture.”

McCallum said he identifies himself as an Asiniskaw Itiniw, or Rocky Cree person. He sees the title of “Treaty Indian” as a label, but a necessary one. 

“Over time when the Canadian government tried to correct the wrongs, each time they’d stamp a new name for our people along the way,” McCallum said. “Which is why we have 15 different labels for aboriginal people.”

McCallum said constant re-naming can have an adverse effect on Indigenous youth. He worries the numerous titles will confuse the younger generations or cause a crisis of identity.

“In other cultures, [you’re told] this is who you are, this is where you come from, these are your family, this is your country… we have to have that same kind of mindset for [Indigenous] children,” he said.

McCallum’s work as a treaty educator puts him directly on the frontlines with Indigenous youth. He said the best age range to begin educating about treaty is between the ages of five and 10 as the earlier children can accept themselves for who they are, the more they will be to grow into successful adults.

“You won’t get lost when you know who you are. But if you don’t, you are a very lost person,” McCallum said. “Once you know yourself, you know what you want to be.”

The dangers of new labels

McCallum thought the changing labels could create conflicts beyond those of identity.

“The word ‘Indian’ is referenced right in the constitution. For us changing to Indigenous now, do we have an argument in treaty when the wording is not parallel anymore?” McCallum asked.

The educator wondered if the federal government could claim treaties were originally negotiated with “Treaty Indians,” making discussions with “Indigenous” people invalid.  

 

Bryan Eneas is paNOW’s Indigenous and northern reporter. He can be reached at Bryan.Eneas@jpbg.ca or tweet him: @BryanEneas