Photo retrieved from: www.sootoday.com/local-news/we-are-not-aboriginal-canadians-we-are-anishinabek-636827
Tansi Nîtôtemtik,
One major legal question that is asked of every system of laws is: who has the authority to make decisions? Different groups may answer this question in a multitude of ways, and the Anishinabek legal tradition is no different in this sense. The Accessing Justice and Reconciliation Project conducted research on Neyaashiinigmiing 27 (“Neyaash”), formerly known as the Cape Croker Indian Reserve No. 27, on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario, with researchers identifying legal principles from approximately 40 Anishinabek stories and interviews with elders. [1]
The Project’s research identified that Anishinabek have multiple ways of making authoritative and legitimate decisions.[2] These practices include: a collective community process, the consulting of elders, decisions made by chiefs on behalf of the community, individuals, and animal communities making decisions regarding harms committed by humans.[3] In the summary and final report, the researchers indicate in which story or tradition they observed evidence of one legal tradition or another.
Collective community process: Decisions made in this manner were typically large-scale, highly impactive, and designed to address serious harms. The Legal Summary describes the Mayamaking Case, in which a man, named Mayamaking, began to act very differently, doing things like “devouring a whole deer at two meals” and “tearing open his veins with his teeth drinking his own blood.”[4] The man continued to act strangely, and the community was worried that the man had turned into a “Windigo” (a very harmful or dangerous person). Because of their community’s fear that this man may pose a threat to the children in the community, a very difficult decision was made by the community to “incapacitate Mayamaking through death”.[5] The act was completed by Mayamaking’s closest friend, who also pledged to take care of Mayamaking’s father.[6]
Elders: To make some decisions in response to harms, especially when the harms involve children, elders may be the sole decision makers. One story that represents this is that of The Magic Pots. In this story, three young girls play with magic pots they have been forbidden from touching. They subsequently break the pots, and this break destroys the Anishinabek’s knowledge of how to make pottery. As a result, an elder changes the girls into crows (which is why crows make such a “mournful cawing sound”). [7]
Chiefs: There was only one story that exemplified the chief making an individual decision: The Legend of the Birch Trees [8] When interviewed, community elders confirmed the traditional autonomy that members of the community typically enjoyed. [9] In interviews, Wilmer Nadjiwon emphasized “that the power of the chief depended on the amount of trust put in him by the people and could be withdrawn at any time”.[10] Similarly, Elder Basil Johnston expressed that in both the past currently “I don’t think that there is anyone that has a final say on things . . . the power of the wolf is in the pack.”[11]
Individuals: Many elders expressed the sentiment that, “if you teach them the principles they will govern themselves.” [12] In the Anishinibek community, there were no judges, jails, or police. Individuals conducted themselves according to the stories and teachings they had learned. This allowed the communities to live harmoniously, without institutions such as the police or jails. Elder Basil Johnston also noted to the researchers that, “historical context is important because in the past people were very busy surviving and completing all the tasks that they needed to survive the winter so there was not a lot of time left for feuding between community members.” [13]
Animal communities: One piece of research that indicates this tradition is the story of Redfeather. [14] In the story, a council of birds work together to decide what decision to make regarding a young boy. This boy has been harming their young by unnecessarily killing frogs and crayfish, the birds’ source of food, and ignored a warning from the birds. The council works together to decide that this behaviour must be stopped -- as such, an owl “picks up the boy in his talons and places him at the top of a tall tree so that he can do no more harm.” [15] To have the boy returned, his grandfather must prepare a feast and guarantee the boy will stop his behaviour. [16]
For more information about the Accessing Justice and Reconciliation Project, and to read the full summary or full report, please go to: www.indigenousbar.ca/indigenouslaw/. In the meantime, keep reading our blog this week for samples of the research that the Project has completed on Cree and Inuit laws.
Until next time,
Team ReconciliAction YEG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[1] Hannah Askew and Lindsay Borrows, “Anishinabek Legal Summary” at page 4, Anishinabek Legal Traditions Report, Accessing Justice and Reconciliation Project, online: <indigenousbar.ca/indigenouslaw/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/anishinabek_summary.pdf>
[2] Ibid at 5.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid at 7
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid at 8.
[9] Ibid at 9.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid at 11.
[12] Ibid at 9.
[13] Ibid at 10.
[14] Ibid at 6.
[15] Ibid at 10.
[16] Ibid.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram:@reconciliactionyeg.
To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.
