Jobin 15

Cree epistemology is embedded in relationships with the land. Treaty Six Elders interviewed by H. Cardinal and Hildebrandt describe this connection to land as including at least the spiritual, physical, and economic elements, “This connection is rooted in the Cree concept and doctrines related to pimâtisiwin (life). It is a concept that contains many theoretical subsets including among other things, a concept called “pimâcihowin” (the ability to make a good living). Land (askiy) is an important source of life for it provides those things required for the physical, material, and economic survival of the people. When treaty Elders use the word “pimâcihowin” they are describing a holistic concept that includes a spiritual as well as a physical dimension” (H. Cardinal and Hildebrandt 2000, 43). Within this perspective Cree economy is intimately tied to relations with the land, encompassing laws, principles, values, teachings and responsibilities regarding these relationships, including responsibilities to the land and other living beings. In the book Spirit Gifting: the Concept of Spiritual Exchange (2007), Elder Elmer Ghostkeeper explores the importance of living in relationship with the land to the Indigenous worldview: “The eastern sky at sunrise is usually a brilliant yellow in my region. When I arise in the morning I face the east and say a prayer asking for a strong mind and giving thanks for my source of fire, heat, light and energy” (2007, 1). Ghostkeeper positions himself within his writing by stating that his 107 S Jobin father’s teachings regarding their Indigenous worldview and their living universe were all in the Cree language, Ghostkeeper says that this “might indicate that he had more of a Cree cultural perspective on life, than my mother, whose lessons were mostly in the English language” (2007, 6). Ghostkeeper describes himself as having a Metis49 worldview. However, I see his perspective regarding the shift from Indigenous relations with land to relations with land based on market citizenship principles as also being instructive to Cree interactions with market citizenship. How does the value of being in reciprocal relationships with physical and metaphysical beings shape notions of Cree citizenship and challenge market citizenship? I address this question in the rest of this chapter, and in chapters five, six, and seven. Ghostkeeper describes an Indigenous worldview regarding sustenance: Food to sustain life is created by The Great Spirit. It comes in the form of a gift (mekiwin), or something that is freely exchanged and shared between a donor and recipient through the relations of giving and receiving … It is the gathering and harvesting of plants and animals in order to make a living with the land. In this livelihood, a ritual is considered to be a decision made through the recital of a prayer by a gathering or harvester. The person requests permission from The Great Spirit, Mother Earth, and the aspects of the spirit, mind, and emotion of a plant or animal to sacrifice its body for human sustenance. The spirits of the donor and recipient are thought to be equal. This request is in exchange for an offering in the form of a gift of a pinch of tobacco or food, and it signals spiritual equality. (Ghostkeeper 2007, 11–12) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 49 In Ghostkeepers book, he uses the spelling Metis instead of Métis. 108 S Jobin Ghostkeeper sees this type of subsistence-based philosophy as a sacred relationship: living with the land. According to Ghostkeeper, through changes in subsistence patterns a shift occurred to one described as a secular worldview: living off the land. The shift to living off the land is described as a move to a secular worldview compared to an Indigenous spiritual worldview of living with the land. In his book, Ghostkeeper documents his own shift, from the patterns of subsistencebased living in his community to the wage economy, encompassing the construction of a natural gas field and the beginning of grain farming on their land. In analysing these changes, Ghostkeeper examines the technical and social relationships involved; where the “land, equipment, and labour, or forces of production, are more or less under the control of individuals from the community; the relationships, or means of production, are under the control of forces outside the community” (2007, 4–5). Ghostkeeper explains that his community historically saw themselves as part of the land with all other living beings and that one process in these relationships includes the exchanging of aspects of the mind, body, and spirit thought to “provide life for the body through the activities of ceremony, ritual, and sacrifice” (2007, 4). He explains this as Spirit Gifting, “when one makes a living with the land, using the gifts of plants and animals for food and medicinal purposes” (ibid.). He says that this relationship with the land changed when he was awarded an oil-field contract from the company in Calgary that was completing the natural providing new economic resources will revitalize their people. However, an unknown number of people, like Ghostkeeper, have pinpointed their growing dissatisfaction with the negative impacts these new market “relationships” bring. Significantly, these self-government agreements may actually push his community further into sociocultural market rationalities. Although Ghostkeeper found a way to revitalize his Indigenous worldview and sustain it within the current global neoliberal economic system, it is important to understand how the community as a whole has responded. Collective Reflexivity Increasingly, Indigenous scholars are critiquing the application of neoliberal instruments of capitalism and governance to First Nations communities (Alfred 2005; Bargh 2007; Altamirano-Jiménez 2009b; Kuokkanen 2006; Corntassel and Witmer 2008). Maori scholar Maria Bargh equates neoliberalism as the new form of colonisation on Indigenous peoples (2007, 2). In the article “North America First Peoples: Self-Determination or Economic Development?” Castro-Rea and Altamirano-Jimenez argue that government policies in Canada focus on (1) minimizing transfer payments to First Nations, (2) bounding self-government to self-administration of services, (3) prioritizing and encouraging neoliberal economic development, and (4) promoting relations between Aboriginal people and corporations to respond to global market pressures. The authors state that this is especially targeted to Indigenous peoples who have lands with oil and gas resources on them (Castro-Rea and Altamirano-Jiménez 2008, 241). Federal involvement, especially through negotiated self-government agreements and the push for opening Indigenous lands up to marketization, impacts communities and challenges Indigenous worldviews and relationships to the land. Within a market-citizenship regime there is a widening gap between rich and poor. Historically, Cree communities had norms preventing this sort of stratification. For example, in Cree society the Giveaway Ceremony, still occurring today, is a way to express thankfulness for the gifts of sustenance throughout the year and a process of wealth redistribution. During this ceremony people bring gifts to share with others. Part of the purpose of this ceremony is to provide the “necessities to live a prosperous life, with enough food to carry families through each winter” (Makokis 2001a, 107). I explore the giveaway ceremony more extensively in chapters five and six. Elmer Ghostkeeper writes that when the Metis live in relationship with the land, the norm of sharing is principal: “The harvesters would distribute and share a large portion of moose meat with other Metis, beginning with the elders, the next of kin, the most in need, and finally others that had shared with them in the past” (2007, 44). Moving to living off the land, Ghostkeeper shares that he “viewed the land as a commodity instead of a gift.” The shift from seeing the land as a gift changes Indigenous perceptions regarding sharing these gifts with others. Ghostkeeper describes his disconnect with the land translating to an unbearable dissatisfaction withlife, motivating him to reflect on the Indigenous knowledge he had been repressing, and to develop a revitalization model (see Figure 13) to explain his own individual revitalization process (2007, 81). 112 S Jobin Figure 13: Revitalization model. Ghostkeeper (2007, 81) This model is informed by Anthony Wallace’s (1970, 188) group revitalization theory and adapted to fit an Indigenous context. Within this rediscovery, Ghostkeeper reflected on the normative and behavioural ideals in an Indigenous worldview, acknowledging the diversity within. For Ghostkeeper, During the process of self-appraisal, using the concept of the ideal self (what I really wanted to be), I rediscovered a repressed code from my traditional knowledge, the concept of spiritual exchange, which I now refer to as “Spirit Gifting.” I revitalized this concept as a part of my way of knowing to form a new code which blends both traditional and Western scientific knowledge in a way that had been impossible for me before. (2007, 80) Elmer Ghostkeeper decided to once again live with the land. However, for him this did not mean a complete rejection of Western scientific knowledge practices. The ethic does require a continual critical and reflective approach, thoroughly examining how decisions and actions will impact the roles and responsibilities that Indigenous peoples hold as central to their identities. There also needs to be collective deliberations on how a people (for example, the Cree) will apply their collective revitalization. This is explored further in chapters five, six, and seven. For Ghostkeeper, and other Indigenous leaders, it is not necessarily about trying to protect themselves and their communities from outside influences at all costs. It is, however, about critically examining detrimental governmental and market governing forces.50 It is crucial to fully understand the two-pronged approach of settler-colonialism: state domination and economic exploitation. Selfdetermination is not achieved by replacing one colonial logic with the other. The process of Indigenous collective-reflexivity should guide community visioning and decision making. Ghostkeeper’s personal narrative shows how market citizenship can be incompatible with Indigenous worldviews regarding reciprocal relationships, especially surrounding resource development endeavours. Relations with the land shape Indigenous identity. In this chapter, I explored the specific disruptions that neoliberalism as governmentality has on Cree peoplehood. The next chapter delves deeper into Plains Cree peoplehood. Archival evidence shows that the Cree conceived of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 50 Chapters five to seven provide examples grounded in ᓀᐦᐃᔮᐃᐧᐃᐧᐣ(Nehiyâwiwin; Creeness). 114 S Jobin themselves as a distinct people, partaking in international trade and embarking in foreign affairs. Without continual individual and collective reflexivity, perpetual discontent might settle in, making capital accumulation and self-determination a hollow achievement.