The research conducted and the resulting paper centre on the ties of the author to her family and her father’s traditional community. Therefore it is also about how reclaiming lands and artifacts are a means for her to reclaim her identity through reclaiming and learning traditional knowledge. The intention of this research was to determine how international law could be used to reclaim Mamalilikila lands and artifacts. The outcome of the research was that international law was as inadequate as Canadian law and policies. The resulting paper gives a brief background and discussion of reclaiming both land and artifacts as a means of reclaiming identity and knowledge.
The purpose of my project is to share with you a part of the history of the relationship of the Mamalilikila, of the Kwakwaka'wakw nations, with Canada and British Columbia. I will explore some of the problems arising out of this relationship and the possible means by which these problems might be resolved. For me, exploring the problems arising out of this relationship is vital to beginning to understand our people today and in beginning to move toward a healthy living amongst the Mamalilikila and between the Mamalilikila and non-Mamalilikila peoples.
To this end, I will share a brief history of the Mamalilikila and the ba-sap (potlatch system) as practised by my people. I will also analyse the Canadian government's attempt to wipe out the Mamalilikila through relocation and assimilation policies, and the ba-sap through legislation. I will argue for self-determination, the restoration of our land base and the return of artifacts taken by the Canadian government during the ba-sap ban between 1884 and 1951.
An underlying principle of this project was to learn and to share how international law could be used to rectify problems arising out of colonial relationships. I have found however, that the international stage is not an adequate tool for the task. This is because Canada has not ratified or otherwise endorsed Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation or the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (not yet an official document). Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , to which Canada is a signatory, has been of limited use (it has been invoked only twice, successfully, for Indigenous peoples in Canada ). I am left with the question, then, of what might be an adequate tool for repairing damages done to our people, to our culture and to our lands.
Objective :
I seek absolute restoration of our traditional lands, including 'Mi'mkw a mlis ( Village Island ), and the repatriation of stolen artifacts. Once achieved, these goals will enable the Mamalilikila people to regain control of our lives, to begin to repair damaging changes to our traditional way of life arising from residential school experiences, the ba-sap ban, and other government legislation and policies.
The Mamalilikila territory was not terra nullius at the time Britain declared sovereignty over our territories, nor were we an unorganized society and we therefore have rights to lands that were and are our traditional territory. [1] We were here when European settlers and "discoverers" came to our coast. The "doctrine of discovery," that unoccupied or terra nullius land was open to settlement, is flawed and was an insufficient basis for the British, and therefore for Canadians, to claim our lands. The International Court of Justice has said that "territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as terrae nullius in international practice during colonisation ( Western Sahara 1975, paras. 75-83). Moreover, the "blue water thesis," as described by Anaya, is inadequate grounds upon which to base colonial and now Canadian claims to our territory (Anaya 1996, 43). Any declarations based on such theories - the "Doctrine of Discovery" or the "Blue Water Thesis" - are wrong and contrary to our right to choose our own paths.
The Mamalilikila seek repatriation of all artifacts taken during the ba-sap ban. Provisions for the protection of culture can be found in international documents on indigenous rights, whether these have been adopted or are merely drafts,. For example, principle 13 of the Declaration of Principles of Indigenous Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples states that the original rights to [Indigenous] material culture, including archaeological sites, artifacts, designs, technology and works of art, lie with the Indigenous people (Anaya 1996, 189). However, as mentioned earlier, this instrument is not yet and may never be binding on the Canadian government. The Canadian government and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) need to reflect on the principles enshrined in documents such as the Declaration of Principles of Indigenous Rights because if properly adopted and invoked the status quo could no longer endure. The WIPO objective of promoting monetary and material wealth needs to change. As long as such organizations help corporations generate wealth, they will contribute to impoverishing Indigenous peoples.
Once achieved, the goal of repatriating cultural artifacts will bring the Mamalilikila people another step closer to reclaiming our identity. Some artifacts have been returned and are currently housed at the U'Mista Cultural Centre in Alert Bay , British Columbia . The name "U'Mista" was chosen for the cultural centre because it means, "to return home" (U'Mista 1975). The return of these artifacts has allowed all Kwakwaka'wakw people not only to share these artifacts and this part of our culture with tourists and other interested parties; it has also enabled a more personal teaching of our culture, of ba-sap, to our future generations.
Both of these objectives, while not uncommon goals of Indigenous peoples worldwide, are unique objectives to the Mamalilikila people in that our culture, language and relationships to our land, culture, language and each other, are unique. However, we share similarities with other Indigenous peoples' cultures and colonial experiences.
One international avenue Indigenous peoples could use to regain their lands and cultural identity may be available through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . It provides for the basic rights of all peoples and is binding on the Canadian government. However, since it provides only for basic rights, it may be inadequate because it is the historical relationship between colonisers and indigenous peoples that needs to be addressed, not basic freedoms and rights, as they exist today. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prescribes that everyone has the right to participate freely in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits (United Nations 1948). The U.N. Human Rights Committee in Lovelace v. Canada found Canada in violation of this provision because it denied, based on the Indian Act in effect at that time, Indian status to Lovelace and therefore denied her access to her cultural community. [2] However, we would need to exhaust avenues available in Canada before proceeding under that declaration, and this would require time and resources that our people do not necessarily have. For this reason among others, I find the international stage inadequate.
The background below will provide historical views of the Mamalilikila, in terms of both our land and ba-sap. I have tried to follow the oral tradition by using interviews to gain most of the knowledge shared here. This is the beginning of my path of discovering not only who I am, but also how I fit into Kwakwaka'wakw society because of where and whom I come from.
My Family
This project centres on who my family is, not solely because they are the basis for the argument I make but also because my family contributed to this project by allowing me to interview them. Before proceeding to give my background and analysis, I would like to explain who these people are and how I am related to them.
My father, Johnson Bell, was adopted at birth by his great-grandparents, Henry and Eliza Bell. They adopted my father according to both ba-sap rules and the provincial regulations in effect at that time. My father's mother, Edith George, was raised but not adopted by the same people.
Through this adoption my father had many siblings. His brothers include John Bell (deceased), Norman Bell, James Bell (deceased) and Richard Dawson (unofficially adopted and raised by other grandparents). His sisters include Margaret Charlie (also his biological grandmother, deceased), Dora Speck (deceased), Janet Powell (deceased), Frances Quocksister, Edith George (also his biological mother), and Doreen Walkus. My father also has siblings born of Edith: Henry George (deceased), Silena George (deceased), Richard George, and Walter George (deceased).
There are three interviewees that are not siblings of my father, but nephews and niece: Harry Bell the son of John Bell (I call Harry "uncle" because he is the eldest grandson and of the same age range as my biological grandmother), John Powell, the son of Janet Powell, and Joye Walkus, the daughter of Doreen Walkus.
Background
The Mamalilikila were an organized society when settlers arrived on the west coast. Families and tribes within the Kwakwaka'wakw nation followed a strict hierarchy that ensured wide distribution of property (U'Mista 1975). This was done through ba-sap. The settlers and colonial governments were unable to fathom why a people would share their wealth rather than hoard it. Governments and non-Mamalilikila remain unable to understand ba-sap values today. The traditional lands of the Mamalilikila are trampled upon by tourists under the guise of cultural tours; [3] our unreturned artifacts are housed in foreign museums that profit from allowing the public to view artifacts belonging to a people they believe are extinct (U'Mista 1975).
Exclusive land rights
The Mamalilikila are from the Pacific coast of present-day British Columbia . They have lived in the area of Knight Inlet, Village Island, and surrounding islands and inlets since at least contact and therefore before reserves were created in British Columbia (Canada 1998, 203). We had an exclusive relationship with our land, an exclusivity that was respected by other Kwakwaka'wakw people and neighbouring nations (Codere 1972, 2; Drucker and Heizer 1967, 10). In addition, prior to British Columbia joining Confederation, the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) recognised the land ownership of our brothers, the Kwakiutl, and accordingly signed a treaty with them, dated 8 February 1851 (British Columbia 1987). The Canadian courts have recognised the continuing validity of treaties entered into at this time by the HBC with various nations. [4]
The Kwakwaka'wakw people's ownership and control of their lands was recognised by neighbouring nations and vice versa. Our neighbours include the Bella Coola, the Nuu-chah-nulth (formerly known as Nootka), and the Salish. When one nation failed to properly recognise another, war ensued, property was destroyed, and/or slaves were taken (Spradley 1969, 27-29, 32-36). For example, in 1884, war broke out between the Qwe'kwe'so'tenuk and the Bella Coola, ending in a massacre of the Qwe'kwe'so'tenuk peoples. The remaining population went to 'Mi'mkw a mlis to find shelter amongst the Mamalilikila (Spradley 1969, 32-36). In the mid-1960s the Canadian government relocated the Mamalilikila to facilitate service provision to the community. The Mamalilikila live in numerous locations, with an administrative base on the territory of the Campbell River Band. A result of the above-mentioned massacre, therefore, is that the Mamalilikila and the Qwe'kwe'so'tenuk are one band under the Indian Act , since they lived together at the time reservations were made. Consequently, the two have had disputes regarding administration and are now seeking to divide according to their traditional affiliation rather than that imposed by the Indian Act (Bell 2003; George 2003; Walkus 2003).
The fact of Mamalilikila independence and sovereignty pre-contact coupled with the fact that the HBC entered treaties in order to gain land title under the British system strengthens the argument for restoration of our lands. Following the above logic, our land has been stolen under international law; those who now claim sovereignty over our land never legally acquired it whether you hold them to their own standard or our standards. In addition, the argument for repatriation of our stolen artifacts is strengthened because our sovereignty is based around the ba-sap, as will be discussed below.
Our Society's Organisation - the Ba-sap (Potlatch System)
Our society was based on a complex hierarchical system. Each people within the Kwakwaka'wakw were ranked, the Mamalilikila being second only to the Kwakiutl (George 2003). Within each people, the Mamalilikila for example, families were ranked. Finally, within families, individuals were ranked on the basis of primogeniture, with a first-born son having prominence (Drucker 1967, 10-11). On the surface we are a patrilineal society, but in many cases a chief received his rank from his wife (George 2003). [5] This hierarchy served as our political, social and economic organising mechanism.
Rank determined who could marry whom, where one sat in a ba-sap (potlatch), in what order chiefs spoke at a ba-sap or other gatherings, and how one was expected to behave in public (Spradley 1969). The ba-sap was, and still is, the main mechanism for maintaining one's rank within the Kwakwaka'wakw people. A ba-sap is "the ostentatious and dramatic distribution of property by the holder of a fixed, ranked and named social position, to other position holders" (Codere 1972, 63).
Ba-sap may be held for no particular reason at all or for very specific reasons, including: to name new-born children, to celebrate and to recognise the coming of age of a young adult of high ranking, to wed, to mourn, or to compensate for a wrong/shame caused by a member of the hosting family (Dawson 2003). Therefore, a family of high rank would hold frequent ba-sap in order to reinforce that rank in relation to others. The hosting family gives away gifts and money at the end of the dancing and speeches as payment to those in attendance for witnessing what transpired at that particular ba-sap.
Within the hierarchy, the varying levels enjoy the privileges of owning names, dances and songs. Depending on one's rank, these privileges could entail the right to numerous names, all of which would be enjoyed exclusively by the person or family.
In 1884 the Canadian government made it illegal for our people to ba-sap (Sewid-Smith 1979, 1, 7; U'Mista 1975). The government's initial legislation did not hold up in Court and our people continued to practise the tradition of ba-sap. The government, however, repeatedly amended the law to make it stronger so that it would withstand the Court's scrutiny and, in time, crafted legislation that did just that (Sewid-Smith 1979, 1, 7; U'Mista 1975).
Even so, the ba-sap continued, in 1921 our ancestors held a ba-sap at Village Island . Through an informant, the Indian Agent William Halliday, heard about the ba-sap and began gathering information in order to arrest, convict, incarcerate and take away our people, and ultimately our artifacts, from our communities. Halliday gathered information on those who planned the ba-sap, those who attended it, those who performed in it, and those who generally participated (Sewid-Smith 1979; U'Mista 1975). As a result of Halliday's investigation, my grandfather was summoned to answer charges but was not sentenced to jail time.
Why was my grandfather not sent to jail? Agent Halliday had decided that this was the time to wipe out the ba-sap once and for all. To achieve that end, he agreed not to send people to jail if they surrendered their dance regalia, family coppers, any and "all paraphernalia" that had a connection to the ba-sap. My grandfather and his family agreed to surrender artifacts to the Indian Agent (Sewid-Smith 1979; Bell 2003; Dawson 2003; Powell 2003). The forcing of this surrender was and is not legal or morally correct. In what other legal context can jail time be avoided upon the surrender of personal property? Indeed, in what situation is "consent" under duress lawful? The artifacts "given up" by my family rightfully belong to my family.
The return of these artifacts is integral to maintaining and re-educating our people about our culture and practices. Article 4 of the International Labour Organisation Convention (No. 169) says, at paragraph 1, that "special measures shall be adopted as appropriate for safeguarding the persons, institutions, property, labour, cultures and environment of the peoples concerned" (Anaya 1996, 195). Article 3, paragraph 1, provides that "Indigenous and tribal peoples shall enjoy the full measure of human rights and fundamental freedoms without hindrance or discrimination" (Anaya 1996, 195). While this convention is not binding on Canada since it has not been ratified ILO 169 , the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding, and, as mentioned above, Article 27 of this instrument provides an individual the basic right of enjoyment of culture and art (United Nations 1948).
My Ancestry
My name is Kwen kwa la o gwa; [6] I am the eldest daughter of Six'walas, who was the youngest son of Odzistales, through adoption, and of Putlas, eldest daughter of Roy Hunt. My father was adopted by his great-grandfather at birth; this adoption was not legally finalized until my father was six (Powell 2003). At some time in my father's infancy, my grandfather gave a ba-sap so that the people of the Kwakwaka'wakw nation could witness this adoption (Dawson 2003). My father began training to be a hamat'sa with Gi'yax'tlana at the age of four and was later initiated into the hamat'sa society by his father, Odzistales (George 2003).
Both my father and my grandfather were hereditary chiefs. My grandfather had held numerous ba-sap to ensure recognition of his status (Bell 2003; Dawson 2003; George 2003; Powell 2003; Walkus 2003). My father did not have the opportunity to throw his first ba-sap before his death. Five years after my grandfather's death, his chiefly name Odzistales, was given to my cousin, Henry Walkus, the eldest son of my grandfather's youngest daughter (Bell 2003; Dawson 2003; George 2003; Powell 2003; Walkus 2003). As my father's eldest son, my brother, Johnson Bell, has inherited my father's chiefly name, Six'walas, and will host a ba-sap both to mourn the loss of our father and to have his rank recognised (Bell 2003; Dawson 2003).
This lineage gives me the standing to seek the return of our artifacts to my family. As the eldest daughter, I do not stand in line to be a chief, but I do have the responsibility of ensuring that my brother, now Six'walas with the passing of our father, takes and keeps his proper place (Bell 2003; Dawson 2003). I do not stand here to plead for these to be returned to myself, I am here on behalf of my family.
Analysis
Failure of the Canadian government to take the advice of its Indian Claims Commission
In 1995, the Mamalilikila's land issue was brought to the attention of the Indian Claims Commission of Canada (ICC). While the Commission recommended that our claim be accepted for negotiations, the government declined to follow this recommendation ( Canada 1998). It is necessary to say that, at and before Confederation the province of British Columbia had chosen not to settle the land issue with our people. The McKenna-McBride Commission was created in 1912 to settle the land issue, but further failed our people when it issued its final report in 1916 (Canada 1998, 205, 209-212).
The ICC recognised that Canada , through its Indian agent, had a lawful obligation to protect and look out for the best interests of all Kwakwaka'wakw people, [7] and that it had failed the Mamalilikila in this regard before the proceedings of the McKenna-McBride Commission (Canada 1998, 263-267, 275-277). The ICC came to this conclusion because the Indian agent failed to intervene on behalf of our people when timber license applications were announced. Because he failed to intervene, our territories were leased or alienated to companies to be logged.
At the time of the McKenna-McBride Commission, when our chiefs were informed of these "alienations", one of our chiefs, Chief Dawson, said:
From whom was the land purchased? .
We won't allow the place to go that way - We never sold it, and we want the place. .
. The country does not belong to the Government, and they have no business to sell it. What business has anyone to go and sell that land without asking if I had no more use for it. What right have they got to sell it before I was through with it because I was the owner of it. I want to ask the Royal Commission if it is in their power to find out who sold this land without first asking me (Canada 1998, 259) .
This hearing shows that my ancestors articulated their right to the land before the government relocated our people and before our people were subjected to the Indian Act system of governance. It shows that my ancestors considered themselves independent of and equal to the British and the non-indigenous settlers of our coast. Britain , Canada , and British Columbia have repeatedly failed the Mamalilikila. ILO 169 , Part II, while not ratified by Canada , recognizes the value of land to our peoples, ought to be implemented by Canada to rectify these failures. Cultural integrity and maintenance are basic human rights and are protected, as mentioned above, by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948).
Failure of the Canadian system to return the stolen artifacts
Immediately following the taking of our artifacts, our people fought for their return, my grandfather Odzistales, included. It must be remembered that the government amended the Indian Act in 1927 to forbid the hiring of lawyers and the raising of funds to hire a lawyer (U'Mista 1975). My grandfather was still alive to witness the repatriation of some of the artifacts in 1979, but was disappointed by the fact that not all had returned home at the same time (Sewid-Smith 1979, 65-71). Other museums and collectors have now returned many of the other artifacts, but many still remain outside of our possession.
The ICC is currently conducting hearings for the repatriation of the remaining artifacts (Alfred 2003; Dawson 2003). Our people's experience with the ICC and the government's stance on the ICC recommendations, however, has left us with little hope that our issues will be resolved. While the ICC recommended negotiation for the return of some of our traditional lands due to the failure of the Indian Agent, William Halliday, to meet his fiduciary duty to our people, the Canadian government has clearly said that the ICC is not the forum to recognise or compensate for failure to uphold such a duty ( Canada 1998).
I asked my uncle, Richard Dawson, how we could explain the importance of these artifacts to our people and therefore why they should be returned. His words to me were:
I strongly believe that there needs to be pressure. These artifacts are coming back. And the museums are willing to give them back. But, the thing is to prove who you are. The why is easy, it's who we are. What needs to happen is to prove our connection to these artifacts.These things need to happen before the artifacts are returned (Dawson 2003) . [8]
However, I fear that the Canadian government will fail to meet their legal duty once again. As Indigenous peoples, we witness daily the exploitation of our knowledge, our resources, our cultures. Intellectual property laws exist only to protect the elite, the profit-generating corporations. We must unite to fight for protection of our cultural property - our knowledge, our resources and our culture.
Conclusion
The ba-sap, mutual indigenous recognition of indigenous independence, cross-society independence and the Hudson's Bay Company's recognition of the necessity to purchase Indigenous land, show that the Kwakwaka'wakw generally, and the Mamalilikila specifically, were and are a people who had and have a social and political organization. While the Mamalilikila were a semi-nomadic people at the time British sovereignty was asserted, this does not limit our people's ability to be self-determining ( Western Sahara 1975). Our lands were not terrae nullius at the time of contact, nor at the time Britain declared sovereignty over our territories.
The lands of the Mamalilikila have not been surrendered or sold in any agreement with the Hudson 's Bay Company, the British government, the Canadian government or the British Columbian government. Nor have our lands been "lost" in war with any nation. Our chiefs demonstrated their ownership and control of Mamalilikila lands in wars with each other and with neighbouring communities (Spradley 1969, 27-29, 32-36). Chief Dawson reiterated this in his comments to the McKenna-McBride Commission in 1914 (Canada 1998, 259).
The Canadian government has repeatedly failed to fulfil its obligation to protect our interests. Both the Canadian courts and the Indian Claims Commission have recognised that such an obligation is a legal one (Canada 1998, 263-267, 275-277). [9] We desire to regain control of our lives and our lands to ensure a better future for our children and future generations.
There is a clear need for cultural property laws and their enforcement throughout the world. The Canadian government has repeatedly denied us the ability to reclaim our identity. It creates legislation in the name of strengthening our local governing systems while denying our ability to do so without their "delegation." [10]
How much traditional knowledge are we going to allow them to exploit? How much of our lands are we going to watch go to waste? When are we going to see our children benefit from our knowledge, our lands and our culture? I urge indigenous peoples to unify and reclaim our identities, our knowledge, our culture and our lands; it is time that our rights gain both recognition and substance. For my people, a part of that struggle is ensuring that our ba-sap regalia is returned in order that foreigners not profit from the works and the culture of our people.
Canadian courts are a resource and time consuming forum in which to seek restoration of our lands and repatriation of our artifacts. The ICC found in our favour by recommending negotiations around the land issue, but the Canadian government refused to follow those recommendations. ILO 169 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are inadequate tools for the restoration of our lands and repatriation of our artifacts - ILO 169 because the Canadian government has not ratified it and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it requires us to exhaust all domestic forums before seeking the advice and recommendations of the Human Rights Commission.
There appear to be no adequate domestic or international forums for our goals at this time. However, this does not mean that we should sit and wait for the "ideal" forum to be created. We need to do something now, but unfortunately, the inadequate courts and commissions of the Canadian government are the only forums available at this time. What we need to do is decide what we want and make our submissions and arguments as strong and as well formulated as possible so that the judges, commissioners, and ultimately the current governments understand what has happened to the Mamalilikila and why our lands and artifacts should be returned and in doing so bring them to understand and respect us, our knowledge, our cultures and our lands.
References
Alfred, Esther. 2003. U'Mista Cultural Centre, Alert Bay .
Anaya, S. James. 1996. Indigenous Peoples in International Law . New York : Oxford University Press.
Bell, Harry. 22 February 2003 . Interview . Port Hardy.
British Columbia . 1987. Papers connected with the Indian Land Question 1850-1875. British Columbia : Queen's Printer.
Canada . 1998. Indian Claims Commission Proceedings , v. 7. Ottawa : Communication Group.
Codere, Helen. 1972. Fighting with Property: A Study of Kwakiutl potlatching and Warfare 1792-1930 . Seattle : University of Washington Press.
Dawson, Richard. 22 February 2003 . Interview . Port Hardy.
Drucker, Philip & Robert F. Heizer. 1967. To Make My Name Good . Los Angeles : University of California Press.
George, Richard. 21 January 2003 and 20 February 2003 . Interview . Port Hardy.
International Labour Organisation Convention (No. 169).
Powell, John. 24 February 2003 . Interview . Victoria .
Sewid-Smith, Daisy. 1979. Prosecution or Persecution . British Columbia : Nu-Yum-Baleess Society.
Spradley, James P. 1969. Guests Never Leave Hungry: The Autobiography of James Sewid, a Kwakiutl Indian . New Haven and London : Yale University Press.
U'Mista Cultural Society (Executive Producer). 1975. Potlatch: a strict law forbids us dance . Vancouver : Canadian Filmakers Distribution West.
U'Mista Cultural Society (Executive Producer). 1983. Box of Treasures . Vancouver : Canadian Filmakers Distribution West.
United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights . <http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html>.
Walkus, Doreen and Joye Walkus. 21 February 2003 . Interview. Port Hardy.
Western Sahara . 1975. Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. online: International Court of Justice (decisions) < http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htm>.
1.Terra nullius was not adopted in British Columbia as the justification for British sovereignty; Governor Douglas recognized indigenous title and sought to extinguish it by way of land purchases. Contact has been adopted as the appropriate point of reference in land title cases in Canada by the courts in Delgamuukw v. R. ., [ 1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010. On the other hand, contact was deemed to be the appropriate time in Western Sahara , Advisory Opinion, [1975] I.C.J. online: International Court of Justice (decisions) < http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htm>.
2. See <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~sraponi/lovelace.html> for a summary of the Lovelace case.
3. For example, there are tours that are conducted, without the permission of families of the Mamalilikila, by a descendant of James Sewid, see the tour's web-site <http://www.villageisland.com/tours.htm>.
4. See White and Bob (1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613.
5.For example, our grandfather, Henry Bell of the Mamalilikila, came from a family and a tribe whose standing was lower than that of our grandmother, Eliza Wallas of the Kwakiutl. By marrying my grandmother, my grandfather's standing was raised. But, when my grandfather did anything it was under the instruction of my grandmother.
6.A translation to English would be "Thunder lady/woman." This translation was provided to me by my interview with Richard Dawson ( 22 February 2003 ).
7.Known as Kwakiutl at the time of the McKenna-McBride Commission.
8.Interview with Richard Dawson ( 22 February 2003 ). Also articulated in other words by my Uncle Harry Bell ( 22 February 2003 ) and cousin Joye Walkus ( 21 February 2003 ).
9.See Guerin v. R ., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 325.
1o.Consider Canada, Bill C-7, An Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts , 2d Sess., 37th Parl., 2001-2002, (re-introduced 9 October 2002), online: QL (CB). This bill has now been dropped, see Kim Lunman, "Martin scraps bill to change Indian Act," Globe and Mail , 09 January 2004 . |
