Second-hand Invitations
being a good guest, even if you are a plus-one
Best wishes to you all in this New Year! I must say that over December, I missed the regularity of this communication. Thank you to so many of you who are interacting with this material. You are sharpening my thinking or even helping me know what thoughts or questions are sparked for you as you engage with these ideas. Thank you. I am so very grateful!
We are now back to regular weekly posts, even as I head off the grid to get more focused work done on my book. Have no fear; posts are already in the queue for you, and if you shoot me an email or respond to this, I will look forward to interacting when I return.
Also, at the request of a subscriber, I will be offering an audio version of these newsletters as well. Let me know if these are helpful for you as well.
Now, to this idea of second-hand invitation…
Have you ever been someone’s plus-one or maybe had access to a place as a friend of a friend? You weren’t the one to receive the invitation. You don’t have direct access to the details, but you do have access to something or somewhere that you have no direct claim to, but you are welcomed into nonetheless. What is to be expected of you under those circumstances? What do you expect of yourself?
In the conversation about repairing the relationship between Indigenous folks and immigrants to this land, how we understand our relationships matters. I want to argue that whether we are descended from original colonial immigrants from Europe or we have come in more recent waves of immigration, we are bound by the invitations and agreements that preceded us.
If, in an invitation to spend a weekend at a friend’s cottage, I get to tag along, even though I have never met the owner of the cottage. I should still be bound to the commitments made to the owner. If we are supposed to leave the linens on the bed, I would expect my friend to communicate that and that this expectation would also extend to me.
Here in the land we refer to as Canada, the stories of first contact between European settlers and the Indigenous Peoples of this land were marked by invitation. Those invitations took various forms as per the customs of the nations where contact was made. We will touch on three types of invitations: the Peace and Friendship Treaties in the east, the Wampum Treaties of the Great Lakes Region and the Welcome Post protocols of the west coast. Often, these invitations, and the agreements made about how the land would be shared were not passed on in reliable ways from those who made the agreements. However, the agreements are, in many cases, still in place. There is still an expectation on the part of Indigenous Peoples that this is how newcomers will live in the land.
What impact does it have on our way of looking at the land and our relationships on it if we see ourselves as guests in another's house? What impact does it have if we understand that our ancestors were welcomed to the land and that there is both a standing invitation and a standing set of responsibilities for being guests on the land?
How might understanding these invitations, treaties, and agreements shape our ways of understanding and re-setting our relationships as a means of beginning the work of repair?
Peace and Friendship Treaties
First contact with Europeans was made in the east of what we now call Canada. The earliest treaties we now refer to as Peace and Friendship Treaties were made between the British and the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy, Abenaki and Penobscot First Nations between 1725 and 1791. Treaty-making was a practice that Europeans did not bring or invent but was already in place among many host nations. Treaties were often designed to prevent war between enemies, determine areas and rights to hunting and fishing, and facilitate trade between nations.
The impetus for some of these treaties was the conflicts between the French and British in the region. While the French seemed satisfied to make oral agreements about alliances and agreements, the British preferred these agreements to be set down in writing. For example, the Peace and Friendship Treaties signed in 1760-61 guaranteed Mi’kmaq the right to hunt, fish, gather and earn a reasonable living without British interference. They contained no monetary or land transfer provisions or terms of surrender or relinquishment of rights.
What does it mean to be in lands where the first agreements promised to live in peace and friendship and to ensure that the original inhabitants would continue to have access to enough of the means of survival to thrive without interference? Nothing has happened to extinguish these agreements. So, what does it mean to be a second-hand beneficiary of the agreement? What responsibilities do non-Indigenous Peoples in Canada have for the responsibilities when we have already received the benefits of the Peace and Friendship Treaties?