Following is the transcript of the July 2, 2008 discussion between Wilfred King, who is serving his third two-year term as Tribal Chief of the Gull Bay Ojibwe of Lake Nipigon, Ontario, and Tamarack Song.
Tamarack: What do you see as your people's big challenges, and what are you focusing on in this term?
Wilfred: I think the primary focus would be healing among the community. I’ve come to the conclusion that the community needs to address issues in relation to healing and once the community begins to heal, then I think anything’s possible in terms of development of the community.
T: What needs healing? What are the wounds?
W: I think the legacy of the residential school system has had an enormous impact. There are issues in relation to colonialism, the loss of one’s culture. Our people have been systematically relegated in community and society, and I feel this is a direct result of the colonial policies of Canada. I think that has a significant impact on them.
T: Second-class citizens, basically?
W: Basically, yeah. There are issues of second class citizenry. I think we’ve been put in a situation where we’ve become so dependent upon the social welfare state that it almost fogs their ambition in terms of trying to move the community ahead. Now, not everybody’s in that situation, I know that there are a lot of our people that have been very successful, have become professionals. Some have really addressed the issue of moving the community forward. But there’s still a large segment of the population where there are deep divisions among the community and we have to somehow get beyond that.
T: Is there tension in the community because of that -- because of those who have gotten used to the welfare state and those who think, “Hey, we ought to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and do something.”
W: Yeah, I think we’re caught in this dilemma. Some members feel that the chief and the council and the band are ultimately responsible for their welfare, and I feel that those individuals have to emancipate themselves from the shackles of colonialism and poverty. And the only way they can do that, I feel, is through a healing process, for one; and secondly, I think there has to be an educational process as well.
T: So it sounds as though you’re advocating stepping into the 21st century; we can’t live the way we once did.
W: I think that there are, like I said, basic tenets in our way of life. There are the seven grandfather teachings, there are certain aspects of aboriginal culture that I feel that are very important and very relevant. The big thing that you must try to overcome is, how do you incorporate those teachings and that way of life into the modern age? I think, for example, the basic philosophy of our people can obviously be applied in contemporary times. The teachings, they can be incorporated in everyday life. I don’t think that we necessarily have to go back to living in wig-wams and that sort of thing. I think people can still live a modern life but still retain the culture, the language, the teachings, which are important as well.
T: Yeah, so you don’t see a conflict between those old values and living in modern society?
W: Not at all, not at all T: You can see how they can actually benefit?
W: I could see them marry in the future for sure--values and the way of life. We’re living in an evolutionary process. I think that’s what elders and some of the older people have always talked about. They knew that things were going to change quite dramatically, and a lot of the prophecies talked about the coming of the White person, how education is going to be so important, and we have to make that transformation in order for us to survive.
T: I see. Are you concerned at all about the good aspects of your culture being lost?
W: Absolutely. I think that’s one of the key things that I’ve learned in my formal education- that aboriginal people had a philosophy, had their own laws, they had an intellectual base, every culture has that, and I think for years our culture has been eradicated from our lives and in fact, people have grown up with the notions that Indians were lazy, drunks, that they were living off the tax payer; little does society realize that aboriginal people have made enormous contributions to the country of Canada.
T: So it’s not only education of your people, it’s education of the populace at large as to the fact that Native people have made such a contribution.
W: Yes, yes, and I think the key thing with education is that it raises your conscious level and once you raise your conscious level then you obviously are not worried about an inferiority complex, you know, you’re no longer considered inferior to the White person: you’re just as valued as that person, and in fact, I think that’s what really enlightens someone who went through a good formal education—that they understand what our contributions were in terms of what the First Nation’s people contributed to modern society and society in general.
Right now there’s been a re-immergence of environmentalism in Canada, the United States, and in fact, the world. I think there are a lot of groups now that are trying to consult with the aboriginal community and elders in terms of how humankind fits into the ecosystem and what their role is in that ecosystem. So I think that these are some of the things that can be shared in this modern age in which people are now. For the most part I think that we still retain a lot of cultural beliefs and I think that, generally speaking, Canadian society is basically culturally bankrupt. They have lost their way of life; everything is basically commercialized. Everything is based on a capitalist society and we tend to forget our fellow mankind, and to worry about ourselves only.
T: How did you escape from the plight that a lot of your people are in: you know, the welfare mentality?
W: I think one of the key things is that my grandfather left the reserve at a very early age and went to work off reserve, and because he was working off reserve, his children did not move back to the reserve. And, as a result of that, I lived in a mixed community where we had First Nations people, we had Metis [of mixed Native-European ancestry] people, and non-Native people. And part of that was--you had to either work or go to school--that was the philosophy that was basically imbedded from our parents--that you had to either work or go to school, and that was key and fundamental in terms of our social upbringing.
I think the other thing that was very important was that my late father was heavily involved with politics, and he was well versed in terms of education. He was taught at residential schools, but I think he really took advantage of the intellectual environment that was there, you know, Jesuit priests were very scholastic in terms of their educational abilities, and he took advantage of that. And, I think also, being a WWII veteran, he did travel the world. He had a keen interest in reading books on political science or philosophy, and he really incorporated strong fundamental teachings with the kids--be proud of who you are as an Anishinaabe [what the Ojibwe call themselves] person, there’s nothing to be ashamed of, being an Indian. This is basically something that was imbedded in us at a very early age, so I didn’t really have this issue in terms of not knowing what our culture was, in which he was well versed. In our culture as well as with the modern way of thinking. So I had the luxury of having that, and again, that really inspired me to work, and to get a very formal education as well.
T: I see. Let me back my question up—how did your grandfather escape? It seems like it happened three generations ago already.
W: Yeah, I think at that time the reserves in Canada were created. It’s my belief that the method was to try to corral the Indians on a single piece of land, more for administrative expediency of the department of human affairs, [where] it’s easier to control them. At one time you needed a pass to leave the reserve, and during that time as well, they really still couldn’t control the Native population because there was still a lot of Native people that lived in communities, but they still left the communities freely and said, “I’m going to go here and I’m going to go work here.”
And he was also a trapper as well, so his trap line obviously wasn’t in the reserve boundaries: he would go for four months at a time on the trap line and make these great big circle routes, so I think that was one of the key things, that he left at an early age on his own volition.
T: Yeah, good for him. Do you have a base of elders yet who have a firm rooting in the old traditions, elders who haven’t gone to the community schools, who haven’t been completely Christianized and turned against your old ways, had the old ways demonized inside them?
W: I think that there are still, not so much in our community—the really, really elderly people have since passed on. We do have people in our communities that are elders that have been Christianized and are the product of the residential school system, but I still think that there are still some of those elders that believe in Christianity, but also have hung onto their traditions of the past. So I think that we still have those people out there that maintain that knowledge, but they’re very few and far between; they’re not really accessible for everybody.
T: What percentage of your people still speak the original language?
W: Actually we’re quite fortunate, we’re one of the communities in this territory in which I would say at least fifty percent still speak the language.
T: Oh, really!
W: Yes, and the only unfortunate thing is that I think some of the younger kids that are entering grade school now are starting to lose it; that’s the drawback, but we were very fortunate to have that.
T: Wow, now that’s exceptional--especially considering you’re not way far north!
W: Exactly.
T: Do you have a school on the reserve?
W: Yes, we do.
T: Is the [Ojibwe] language incorporated in the school?
W: No, it isn’t, not at this stage, and we’re trying to get an Ojibwe immersion, because we feel that there’s now a real need for our kids to learn the language for sure.
T: On some of our reserves in the U.S., down below the border, we have young radicals who don't want anything to do with the dominant culture. They criticize their elders who are going out and teaching, who are listening to some of the old prophesies saying that there’s going to be a time of change coming, that we can’t hang onto this stuff all on our own anymore, that we are going to sink or swim, that this world is in trouble, that we have to share the old teachings to help to change society because there’s nowhere to run. Some of the young radicals are saying, "No, this is ours, we’ve been ripped off and now they want to take our spirituality, they want to take the last thing we have. We shouldn’t share anything." So there’s this rift in the communities; do you see it in your reserve?
W: Not necessarily so. I think there is a portion of our members in the community that have become acculturated and have become indoctrinated with western society’s beliefs and values. Then there are others that want to maintain strict accordance with the old teachings; and yet there are others, more the moderates, that are saying, “No I think it’s good that we share our culture, and we share our language, we share our beliefs.” And I really don’t see that as a problem in our community. I think our culture--one of the key aspects of our culture, which is so fundamental--is the notion of sharing, and I think that we don’t do enough of that. And I feel because of the Western dominant culture, that belief is not being incorporated enough into our daily lives, somewhat. We become very selfish in terms of how we do things and the things that we acquire.
T: Do you see a fundamental difference with the approach of the people to life in the U.S. and in Canada, the Ojibwe people for example?
W: It’s really hard to see. From the artificial perspective perhaps it’s there, but I think we’ve both been subjected to colonial powers whether they be, you know, the British colonialism had its tentacles in the United States as much as it had in Canada. In the United States, I think there was a recognition of the internal sovereignty of the bands in the communities. In Canada, I think that the difference, I believe, is that we have a tendency to maintain a lot of our identity and our relationship with the British crown because we feel that we were a sovereign nation at one time, and some of us still believe that we are still a sovereign nation and we have a relationship with the British crown, which signifies that we were a sovereign nation.
Fundamentally, no I don’t think that there’s any real differences. Some of the bands in the United States have become quite wealthy and they’ve got their very poor communities in the United States, much like what’s in Canada. We have some communities that are very wealthy, some are very poor. I really don’t see any real distinction there.
T: How about administratively? Do you see a difference in the way the U.S. government treats the reserves, treats the Natives, as opposed to the Canadian government?
W: I think that fundamentally there’s no real difference. You know, you guys have the Bureau of Union Affairs, we have the Department of Union Affairs. Our system is based on a patriarchal system in which we become basically wards of the state, and I don’t think it’s much different in the United States than it is in Canada. Both countries have followed policies of, at one time eradication, now assimilation. So I still think that there’s no real difference in terms of a policy, other than the fact that the United States has recognized the right to self-government as an internal right, whereas in Canada, it’s now consciously protected in the constitution. I think those are the only fundamental differences.
T: Okay. What about in terms of internal politics? You’re an elected chief, that’s not the traditional way. How is that working with the people: is there any resentment that the traditional lines are not being followed, or that a chief has to be elected by the dominant culture’s way of running politics as opposed to the way it used to be done?
W: The system that I’m elected under is obviously a colonial system. It’s by virtue of a creature known as the Federal Statute Indian Act, and is under the election provisions. And it is considered, I guess, a democratic process. Some of our people who are very adamant about going back to the traditional form of government are talking about how we should be selecting our leadership through the traditional way, and I’m not adverse to that, in fact, I would definitely welcome that. But, again, those same people who want to go through that process are the first ones relying on provisions of the Indian Act. It’s because of political convenience that they can say, “Well wait a minute here.” The people that want to go back to the traditional form of government are the ones that are saying, “Sorry this section of the Indian Act says you can’t do that.”
So I think that what has to happen is that I don’t think we can really go back to the real traditional form of government. One reason being that on Lake Nipigon we had fifteen distinct clans, dodems, and that’s how we basically structured our governance: it was based on our familial ties and our dodems. And when the treaty was signed they basically placed a lot of the dodems within one reserve, so this is where I think a lot of the internal fighting happens. And in order to go back to that it’s going to take major, major restructuring in our communities.
And, I think the other aspect is that people must really understand what leadership consists of. Even though I consider myself the elected chief of the community, I feel that I’m only the spokesperson. I am no better than the common person, and in fact, traditional Ojibwe, they viewed the leadership as a system that was inverted. Meaning that the chief was basically at the bottom of the social strata, and then you had the hunters, then you had the common people, who were viewed at the top. Whereas Western society, it’s the other way around. You have the chief or king at the very top and then you have his people that were considered to be part of the upper echelon, and then you had the common person at the bottom.
We never viewed our societies like that. Our societies were inverted; the people were considered at the top. And the other thing about the hereditary form of chiefs [is that] you only had that position at the will of the people. In fact there was a process of impeachment, if you lost the support of your people, you could be there six months, you could be there a year, you could be there for thirty years, so it wasn’t a system where someone claims to be hereditary chief and they’re chief for life. It was never like that, and of course if the lineage did fall through, often it would be up to the clan; but that wasn’t necessarily so either.
There were times when the people said, “We feel that this person should be the leader of the community.” And there were two types of leaders—the civil chief and the war chief: the civil chief was more of the diplomat and he would carry out diplomatic relations with the other nations. Then you had the war chief whose job and duty was to protect the community and often went and rallied the warriors to go to war. So, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done in that area. It’s not so easy to do, and a lot more research needs to be done. And people really have to understand and define those roles.
T: Hmm. In my area, the hereditary chiefs weren't what we think of as in European nobility, but it was more dodem-based. Those of Crane dodem were oftentimes the leaders, [and] the leaders could be anybody in that dodem. They just had that [leadership] characteristic because Crane was their dodem.
W: Yep, yeah. And again, they were at the will of the people. So that’s really important to recognize.
T: Yeah, very important. What do you know of your culture: do you know the old stories...the old Nanabozho [culture hero] stories that used to be told? Are those still being shared on your reserve?
W: To a certain extent. I think there’s been a disconnect between the elders and the youth. I think that’s one of the key things that we must really, really reconstitute in our communities, is the storytelling. I myself, these stories were told to me by my father and they were told to him by a very elderly man. When I think about it in retrospect, I think, “Jeez I would’ve listened more,"--I wish I would’ve, you know--"because those stories for me are now gone and I wish I took the time to really, really listen." And I didn't listen to what they sang, because you know they'd always tell the stories. And unfortunately young kids nowadays are so much involved in modern technology and the modern conveniences of life: television, Nintendo...I just don’t feel that there’s that dialectical unity between the elders and the youth. And somehow we must, again, reconstitute that and reclaim that. I think that’s very, very important.
T: Need some Nanabozho games, eh?
W: Yeah, (laughter) yeah. And just the teachings I think that there are… the tales of Nanabozho, they all have a meaning, they all have significance and it’s not just a story, you know, there’s significance to that story. All the narratives, they all have a meaning to it. So I think that’s something that’s missing and I think that definitely needs to be reincorporated in our communities, in terms of, you know, starting from an educational base as well.
T: Great. Boy I hope you can do something with the schools because that’s one place where all the kids get together at the same time.
W: Yeah, yeah.
T: That’d be great to see.
W: Mmm.
T: How many grades do you have on your reserve?
W: Grades 1-8 and then there’s kindergarten, yes. Preschool, I guess.
T: Are they bused out then for high school?
W: No, they come to Thunder Bay for the high school.
T: Oh, they come all the way down here?
W: Yes, yep.
T: Whoa!
W: So they’re away from home quite a bit.
T: Do they stay down here during the week, then?
W: Yes, all week.
T: Where are they boarded?
W: They board at different homes in the city.
T: Alright. What is the predominant faith on the reserve?
W: Roman Catholic.
T: Roman Catholic...Jesuits [the Catholic missionaries who converted the Ojibwe]. What percentage of the people on the reserve do you think are practicing Catholics?
W: Oh, I would say a large percentage, maybe 85 percent.
T: Oh, that’s high. Are you a practicing Catholic?
W: I am a poor Catholic. (Laughter) I was born a Catholic, baptized a Catholic, I believe in the Creator; that’s what’s important to me.
T: Are traditional practices like the Vision Quest for adolescents occurring on the reserve on a regular basis? Is that happening at all, and [how about] the Sweat Lodge ceremony?
W: To a certain extent, yeah. They still...do Sweats to some degree. Some of the younger people go do a Vision Quest, but it’s not as predominant as it was maybe ten-fifteen years ago. It sort of caught on for a bit, then it sort of just faded away again.
T: I visited the Big Grassy Reserve [four hours' drive west of Gull Bay], oh this was twenty five years ago I think. There was, as with all over the place, a lot of intermarriage going on and there weren’t...well, I don’t know now, probably less than when I was there, but there weren’t too many pure bloods there. Some of the younger people were concerned that their blood was becoming so diluted and genetic purity was really important to them. They were really concerned about the Native people not only not looking like the Natives used to anymore, but that their distinction as a race--not only physically but culturally and spiritually--was going to be gone right along with the dilution of their genetics. Is there any concern by you or by other people in your reserve about intermarriage, about what’s happening?
W: Not necessarily. I think that’s something that’s reality. That is something that we’ve all come to the conclusion, I guess, that the non-Native people are here to stay. And obviously when people are migrating out of the community and coming back and forth, you’re going to have those interactions with other cultures. I really don’t view that as a problem. I myself, the way I see it is that if two people fall in love and they create offspring, well then that’s just God’s wish. So I really don’t see that as a problem. And again, there might be some concern but nobody has really raised it in terms of an issue for councils to discuss or to debate. So it really isn’t there. And again there still are a lot of people in our community that marry non-Native people from other communities and within the community. So, it’s not really a big problem I don’t think. As of yet. I don’t see it as a big problem right now.
T: When non-Natives marry into your community are they welcome in the community? How are they received?
W: Yes, they’re welcomed. They don’t have band membership, they’re not afforded the same legal rights, and that’s by virtue of the Indian Act and that sort of thing, but for the most part they’re welcome to live there, stay there, and partake in band activities and feast and that sort of thing. There’s no real issue with having non-Native people live in our community.
T: I’ve noticed something and I’m not sure what it’s based upon but it seems as though in the more settled areas there’s more friction between Natives and non-Natives on the reservation, and the further north you get the less there is and the more accepting people are, both Natives and the non-Natives. For example, the French up here, when the French first came (the French fur traders), they married into the Native communities, had children together, and it seemed to flow so nicely and easily. And that attitude still seems to prevail in the North Country. The further south you go there’s a lot of tension sometimes. It’s like in the lower forty eight when Black people walk into a White area, they just feel creepy because they know that eyes are on them and they don’t feel accepted. And some White people feel that on reserves in the south, not up north though. There seems to be a distinct difference.
W: Mmm. Yeah, I guess it was out of necessity. Looking at some of the non-Native people and the Native people in the North, they have to coexist in almost a mutual coexistence and they relied upon each other. That was key I think. If you look on the north of James Bay and Hudson Bay, a lot of the Scottish people had set up their posts and camps up there, so you had a lot of intermarriage between the Scots and the local Natives. And again the French and the Natives, there was a lot of intermarriage there. I think England had a different type of policy and their policy was not to encourage their settlers to intermarry with the Native people.
T: Yeah, the British had a superiority complex.
W: Yes (laughter).
T: Lety takes two different classes on reserves near us, and she’s noticing that when the young people in the classes are learning the names of the animals and plants, they don’t know the plants and the animals, even the simple ones. Lety was really concerned about that because she was concerned the younger people are losing their touch with nature, and if you don’t have a connection with the plant and animal relations, you don’t have a connection with your culture anymore because the culture is all about greater relationship. She's concerned about the future of these reserves in that, well, her language teacher used the example of an apple, you know, he said, "What's happening to us is that we’re red on the outside but we’re White on the inside, we’re just losing it." Perhaps it's not as extreme here in the North because you’re more isolated, you’re more connected with nature, but do you have any ideas as to what can be done to help the young people stay connected to the natural realm?
W: I think it’s a way of life, and you must also really have immersion. Immersion works. I know in the city here we have a lot of English kids and Native kids that are starting school at the elementary level. They’re immersed into the French language and they speak French very fluently. I’ve noticed at some reserves they have an immersion program in the Anishinaabe language, and they’re speaking it very well, you know like grade one, grade two, so you have to have that immersion. I think that’s so important. I don’t think you can do it part-time, you can’t do it.
I shouldn’t say that: some people can adapt to languages very well and some people can take perhaps a university course and can carry on, you know, and have a conversation in Ojibwe. But for the most part, for the majority of people, I think what’s important is you have to have a total immersion in the language. And I think also in the way of life: I think with education, for example--and it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about, whether it be language or...--you could teach certain subjects in the natural environment.
[And] you could do certain things by incorporating mathematics as well, and that sort of thing. I think that's because Ojibwe people...the way they learn--the way I learn--is almost like hands-on. It's not so you can read a book or you can read a theory, and I think if you practice that theory it makes more sense. It comes to you much quicker and you learn a lot quicker, too.
And if you take the kids into say, perhaps, a wilderness setting and understand the importance in terms of how flora and fauna coexist with one another and how mankind [fits], because we’re part of this natural environment as well. I think people have a tendency to think the natural environment excludes humankind. No it doesn’t. In fact, humankind is inextricably linked to the natural environment, and we’re just part of [it], and we have to somehow again really appreciate [it] in terms of what it means, in terms of its life-giving properties.
T: Yeah, that runs right into my next question, which is on diet. You know, when your people and my people were living and inextricably immersed in the natural environment (which is much longer ago for my people than your people), we naturally ate the foods of the environment. And that’s what we evolved to eat to remain healthy. There wasn’t so much diabetes, there wasn’t obesity, there weren't cardio-vascular problems, there wasn’t cancer. There wasn’t even tooth decay, as I understand from my research. These things just did not exist. And now we’re in such sad shape, in general as a culture--not all of us --but as a culture. It doesn’t matter; White, Native, it doesn’t matter. Look at us: we’re in poor shape. The medical industry is making a fortune off of us and it shouldn’t be. Immersion is the answer, of course. How can we do it? How can this culture immerse itself back into these traditional ways of being so that we can be healthy again? Where do we begin?
W: I think things are too convenient. It’s pretty convenient to run to the grocery store and grab, you know, a loaf of bread. It’s so convenient for us to eat...processed foods, because we’re living such a fast-paced lifestyle. And I’m also guilty of that myself. I’m not here to preach that I live a healthy lifestyle and eat a healthy diet. Because of my work schedule, I often find myself going to a fast food restaurant and eat there.
T: Sure, sure.
W: Ah, but I understand the importance of eating wild game, for example. You could use moose, for example: it's a very lean meat, very high in protein, so in fact it’s good for you. Whereas beef is quite the contrary, you know, unless it’s naturally raised. Beef has chemicals injected into it; beef has a lot of steroids injected into it. I think one of the things people fail to recognize as well is that even if you’re [trying] to live a healthy lifestyle by eating a lot of vegetables and fruits--and I find that’s good, you know--but I think there’s a lot of insecticides, herbicides also in those fruits and vegetables. So I think that we have to be very careful in terms of [healthy eating].
And I think that also we used to have a very active lifestyle--you were always working at doing something. And I think that now we often put in eight hours day in an office chair sitting around working on a computer and we don’t have the desire to perhaps walk to work. It's more convenient to jump in your vehicle; it’s more convenient to go to a fast food restaurant. I think that somehow we should be trying to eat as much wild foods as possible because they’re good for you, and they’re naturally good for you. I still think there are, in a lot of the northern communities (though I can only speak for some of the northern communities), on the shelves there is no fresh vegetables, there is no fresh fruit, it’s all processed foods. We’ve come to rely on processed foods so much that a lot of people don’t even hunt or fish anymore; so, and again I agree, there’s a direct correlation between the food we eat and the health ailments we have today.
T: Yeah. You mentioned before the prophecies; and of course, we all know that we’re on a one-way road to, if not doom and disaster, at least some radical change in our culture. We’re running out of oil, we’re paving over some of our best farm land, cities are sprawling: strip development is just going out and out and out. We’re becoming much more materialistic consumers, we’re getting more and more disconnected from the natural realm, and our foods are more and more fast foods: we don’t have the time anymore. And some of the prophecies that were given to us way before this time seem to have predicted exactly what is happening. How do you see the prophecies: where do they come from and what are they telling us? What should we be watching out for?
W: I think the prophecies basically have given you some of the future predictions in terms of what’s going to happen. And I think that I’m a firm believer--you know I’m an optimist, I’m not a pessimist--I firmly believe that the world can heal itself. I just think that we must change the way in which we interact with each other in society, and how we value the natural resource has to change. I think that’s key and fundamental. It’s not for natural resources, you know. Again, we utilize natural resources as well; however, I think there has to be an element of respect for that natural resource.
And I believe that there are methods and technology out there today that can mitigate that damage. Yes, we all know that we need an internal combustion engine to run our vehicles. Well, it’s not a very efficient way: I think only 25 percent of the internal combustion energy is utilized and I think that there’s other methods now, such as using perhaps electric vehicles. There’s other technologies that we can incorporate that have less of an impact in terms of the environment. Looking at hydro electricity, for example, we could use very, very small runs of the river for hypo projects now--we don’t need to create big, big dams. There’s many things that we could do.
I think that at one time even our community had a community garden where the community would plant early in the spring and then everybody would gather in the fall. That’s something that we’re trying to reincorporate. We’re trying to have community gardens again where people plant their own vegetables and that sort of thing. So, you know it’s a very difficult thing to do and I recognize that. But somehow we have to understand what’s happening around us, and we have to see the destruction that’s around us. You know, it’s easy to put your head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t exist, but it’s there, and I think that we need to recognize that we have to change the way we utilize this natural environment. I think that Canada is probably one of the few countries in the world that has vast areas that are still considered pristine. And I think that Native people have that obligation to ensure that it's there for future generations. And I’m not saying it’s there for naturalists to go and take a picture of a bird and go back to the city of Toronto and then pretend that the world’s okay. People have to utilize the natural environment for their existence and it’s up to those communities to decide what is best for those communities.
T: The prophecies that you’ve heard: do your elders have some of these prophecies? Are they passing them down? Did you get them from your grandparents, or from the community at large, or…?
W: I think that they are there, but I don’t think it’s being shared enough. And I think that it’s almost like, again it goes back to the whole cultural thing where you have the disconnect between the elders and the youth. There’s no real model for them to say, “Well how do we engage this again? How do we get the elders and the youth speaking together again?”
You know, storytelling, for example, used to be a key aspect of our culture and I find that’s been a thing that’s been lost as well. I think young people are very eager to learn and want to learn these things and I’m pretty sure the elders are willing to share this knowledge, but I guess what’s important is how do you do that and how do you get the young people to engage in that again?
T: Alright, these are the main points I wanted to cover. Is there anything that I didn’t touch upon that you think might be important: anything that you think I ought to include that would be helpful for other people to understand?
W: I guess what’s key and important is that as non-Native people and Native people, we have to coexist. We’re all here to stay. That’s fundamental. The White people are not going to go back to Europe. The Native people are here and what’s important for the future is how do we peacefully coexist in harmony with each other in which all races--the four races of mankind--and Mother Earth can live in harmony with each other. And I think that’s so important because we have to come to that reality at some point in time and understand that, and to peacefully coexist with one another in harmony and in balance with nature.
T: That does say it all, doesn’t it? So many of our cultural problems would cease to exist if we would just accept each other. Thank you.
W: Well, thanks a lot; and again it was nice to share that with you and hopefully I offered some insight from our perspective in the North.