Page: 1
2
Relational law – in Cree, wahhkotowak, the act of
being related to each other – has a number of areas
connected to this category of First Nations understanding:
kinship systems / family relationships (nehiyawewin/akayasemowin,
or kiciniskehk, meaning ‘sacred power’), making things
'right,' systems of responsibility, respect, consent,
reciprocity, etc. This section outlines some of the more
important concepts among Algonquin, Athapaskan and
Siouan-Speaking Peoples. Among the Cree people, this kind of
law is said to deal with Kahkiyaw ni wahkomâkanâw or All my
Relations.
Preamble to Relational Law
William Dreaver, a North Battleford Cree Elder recalled the
stance taken by his ancestors at the time of treaty as
conveyed to him by his grandfather.Here he outlines the
several ingredients of Nature’s Law as it was passed on to
him:
"And also, you can travel anywhere on this land,
and you will not have to pay" is what the French Man
told him. "You will not have to pay for anything." The
old man said to me that we shouldn’t have to pay for
license plates on this land, on the roads on our land.
This is how I understand this issue based on what the
Elders have said. I am relating what I was told in the
past. I was entrusted with this information of what I am
telling you. Our grandfathers never wrote anything.
Today we do not own anything. I think that the white man
does not have ownership here. Of what they own here, we
have a greater right to ownership on this land (than
they). I am not scolding anyone but I am relating a
story.
They have created laws for us, for all of us
Indian people and they have not finished. I think that
the Elders have got to understand. I am not being
superior to anyone in relating this story, my friends,
but I am telling a story of what little I do know in the
use of this land. It is true it (this land) has
benefited me. I think that the white man should try to
understand the natural law that our grandfather was
raised on. It is a natural law that we do not really
want to talk about. I was asked once in the white world
what that meant, and I said that the little I understand
that everything that is here was given to the old man
and old woman... to the first ones who were born here,
is what I am saying.
Nobody knows what that means or what the value is
for someone to understand, even a white lawyer does not
understand of what I say, and what I understand. I am
not saying that I know anything except what the old man
said.
And also of what little that I do know, everything
on this earth we need to survive is here; I still think
this way. There is a lot there for us. This is why I
think that it is time for the white man to try to
understand of all that they have claimed on our land. I
do not hate him for he is working for the same One who
owns everything. I cannot say too much more for they
will walk away too, the same as the French Man who came
to deal with our grandfather.
This land was whole and good; there was no
province at this time of Treaty 6. They called them
different names like Treaty 8 and 7 for the white man
conceived of that idea. It was not an Indian concept. We
are all under the same laws; we all have the same
rights. I am not preaching to you, but (under Nature’s
Laws) I can take these logs to build a house to where I
want to settle—that’s what our grandfather had said. You
can take logs to build a house to live in—that’s what he
had said. Today, the province ‘owns’ everything. I am
not scolding but I am relating it to what I have heard
about this story.
Another (aspect) is if a young man and a young
woman are going to be together, the Queen’s
representative is to give them tools with which to make
a living. Cows were given earlier; this is what they
said the Elders said where I was. They also were given
animals (oxen) to use for a team, later horses were
given, that is, Indian Affairs. They were also given
assistance for raising children. Again I haven’t heard
of anyone talking about this. But what I have seen about
Indian Affairs was when someone got married, when I was
up there was one woolen blanket, and that was all the
help they provided for anyone raising children.
Apparently the rule was that they were to have helped
people with which to make a living, that is what the old
man said. Today, that would be a tractor to help in
livelihood and raising a family. We do not see this
also, but I will stop here for now. I start getting
angry when I telling about this story. I will stop for
now, my friends. Ay hiy. (Mountain Cree Camp, 2002)
There are several important elements of Nature's Laws
mentioned here. In effect, Indigenous people did (and do)
have 'Nature's Laws,' but the codification of it resides in
the collective memory of the elders. There has been much
dispute about the oral nature of this memory, since for
Western law, codification requires written language forms,
which are deemed necessary to prevent change of meaning.
However, written codification may preserve the letter of
law, but not necessarily its spirit. Indigenous memory
stresses the spirit of the law, and allows the articulation
of it to be contextualized. It is the oldest and greatest
minds in the community that preserve this meaning and the
words they use on any given occasion to articulate the
community truths are shaped for the context they are in at
the time. Hence Elder William Dreaver can speak of "a
tractor to help in livelihood and raising a family,"
thus placing the spirit of the law in a contemporary
context.
Nor do Indigenous peoples regard Nature's Laws as working
according to a certain definable human logic, machine-like,
or according to scientific causality, like some might regard
the Western legal system. This does not mean that Indigenous
people have or had no law like Western law, it just means
that they would not describe the concept of law in terms
related to Western categories of law, nor Western categories
of experience. For example, Nature's Laws also include
greater-than-human creatures, ancestral spirits, and
numinous entities in the world, like powerful stones, and
animals. All of these could be conceived of as 'relations'
in Nature's Law. Fundamentally, then, the community defines
what relational law might mean in any given case.
Western law might recognize God, but it does not countenance
cases being made on the basis of spirit beings or sacred
locations (Western legal tradition does accept an 'act of
God' as having legal force, despite the fact that the
people involved may not believe in God). Even then, it is
evident that the relevance of God to any particular case
would be severely restricted in court. For example, Western
law could not accept that God or the Sacred World is the ‘cause’
of someone’s personal action against someone else, yet it is
quite logically possible from a Indigenous perspective. This
is because Indigenous people have always held that some
people do things because they have spirit helpers who help
them do things.
|