Kunuugama

I’ve struggled with the concept of a right or rights in a legal context. I think because historically Indigenous people have been granted rights by the colonizing state. As if we have no agency or sovereignty pre-existing before Europeans arrived.

In law school we had an Anishnaabe Professor, John Borrows who said rights were both what one is entitled to but also responsibility for, so it’s a relationship of reciprocity. Even though this idea seemed more familiar, there was still this unresolved internal discomfort over the idea of rights. As it did not answer the question of ‘but where do they come from?’.

The Canadian Constitution recognizes existing rights for Indigenous people – basically what Canada chooses to recognize. Note that it does not say pre-existing. The Canadian Courts have said there are ‘inherent rights’ held by Indigenous people to land, culture, way of life that pre-exist prior to settler colonialism but still limit how these are interpreted.

Even with the adoption of UNDRIP ‘free, prior, informed consent’ assumes a colonial state’s systems are at heart and an Indigenous group is responding to a proposal or approach and not neccessarily defining their own relationship to land, and starting from that basis. It is still a limited notion of sovereignty.

There are examples of Indigenous Nations asserting sovereignty on their own terms. They claim and live sovereignty over their own lives. We see the tension in the Wet’suwet’en territory as Canada tries to assert it’s power.

Whereas we have gone on the path of agreeing with Canada on terms of our relationship through the land claim mechanism. So much of it is ‘granted’ rights, and under Canadian laws and systems. Which limits assertion of sovereignty over our own lives. Because someone else is still defining what our land is for i.e. it’s for exploiting, and how to live our lives around the economy that is defined for us. When Inuit are a hunting society.

All our laws and systems, our language revolve around a hunting way of life. How then do we express ‘rights’ in this context, where we claim sovereignty over our own lives according to our worldview? Without getting stuck in how we have been cornered in how to think about it?

I think of it as a psychological process of claiming space(s). This is our land, we have a right to define our lives, relationships, recover from colonialism and make livelihoods. Once we get to this psychological space of claiming space, it is a lot easier to think about rights on our terms. It lives within us!

Imagine the possibilities once you claim your own space in your head?!

I’ve wanted to go to Alaska ever since I’ve been aware of the place and aware of my Inuitness. Last June I was finally given an opportunity to visit Qikiqtaġruk/Kotzebue. I was so excited and could not believe it was actually happening. The gathering was something my friend Dalee Sambo-Dorough and I had spoken about: getting arctic peoples together to talk about our vision (for us and our people), without the constraints and limitations of colonial institutions. Dalee made it happen, with the help of our friend Anne Henshaw.

The gathering had an amazing group of people who work and think about decolonization and reclamation in various forms. Our hosts were so welcoming and awesome (thank you Corina & Lance Kramer and Lucy Boyd – my heart thanks you for life)!

The setting could not have been better. The discussions were heartfelt and honest, productive in the sense they felt hopeful. This is so important as we live with so much despair in our lives and communities with so many demoralizing barriers to do anything about our conditions.

The highlight was that we got to go on a land trip where we collected eggs of various birds. There were birds I had never heard of. Walking long distances to harvest in peace and serenity, and finding eggs was so rewarding.

We also had a country food night, where we ate very familiar foods. Our food! But also some new ones for us, new to me because they were more plant based of things we may not have in our area. The focus on garden of the sea of ugruk/ujjuk, maktaaq, fish, felt like home!

The abundance of wildlife and the beauty of the landscape made me wonder why Inuit of East of Alaska would have left there. It’s a stunning place with lots of wildlife.

During our visits, tour and conversations we heard stories about how Inuit from the region would gather in Qikiqtaġruk. There would be conflicts and fights. There were boundary marks for different groups, shelters with secret exits and tunnels. Another statement from a story stood out: that children were raised to be warriors. The person (Lance Kramer) asked why is it that we were raised as warriors that we allow colonial forces to rule. The question I’ve asked myself is, why can’t our goodness and kindness win against these forces. We are such good people, it seems to our own detriment at times.

The stories of conflict and fighting made me think we are a Tuniit mix in this region. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

Not that we’ve never had conflict. We certainly have, hence stories like Atanarjuaq; stories in places like Arctic Bay area of warring long time ago; Story of Qillarjuaq, and others. However, most of our stories and teachings are avoiding conflict, dealing immediately with conflict and aiming to live in harmony.

If you look online the story about Kunuk the Orphan (here https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780773594593-toc/pdf ) collected in Greenland, clearly a story based in Alaska, it is about conflict. It explains in the introduction it is not clear whether the fights described were against other group of Inuit or allait/different peoples.

That was the other realization, how Greenlanders are more direct descendants of Alaskan Inuit than us, linguistically, but also the stories and clothing. I’ve known this in conversation with linguistic friends, it just became more apparent while in Alaska with Inuit from Greenland and Canada.

Yes, striving for unity and harmony is true for all Inuit regions. But hearing about raising children to be war ready, types and frequency of warring and conflict made me think about the timid and conflict avoidant Tuniit. That we’ve adopted these traits, because we are them?! Tuniit were also known to be small and very strong.

It is not just our social traits that seem to strongly suggest we are Tuniit. Linguistically speaking, as said Kalaliit are closer to Alaskan Inuit in terminology (not sure about structure). It may be due to our language evolution but maybe also Tuniit influence. As my linguist friend Katti Frederichsen says the further away from source of origin, the more a language evolves. So the closeness between Alaskan and Greenland dialects may be due to proximity in time of contact, but also influence by another group such as Tuniit.

There is more, look at our clothing especially kamiit, qulittat, pualuit and amautiit – our clothing is so different from Alaskans. I had thought in the past that it may be due to Inuit bordering allait, and the influence of that in clothing that their clothes more resemble them. It may be that too. It makes me wonder about evolution of our stories, how close our stories and myths are between the regions and how many distinct stories we may have in this region (if any).

But Tuniit are Inuit. Just an earlier wave of Inuit migrating east. So they would not have been as strangers to Inuit as allait for example. There would be shared traits, including language, tools, hunting methods, worldview. The thinking about Tuniit also made me more curious about our stories of them. And of course, relying less on western theories about our people. We know us, it’s in our stories.

Anirnira, tarnira ~ My soul, I breathe

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Tusaqpagit ~ I hear you

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Ikpigivagit ~ I feel you

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Tukisivagit ~ I understand you

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Kanngunaqtut anivut ~ shame is dispelled

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Tarnira qaummakpuq ~ my soul illuminates

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Uummatiga tatappuq ~ My heart is full

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Ikpigusuutikka ipiksivut ~ My senses are sharpened

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Naglingniq saqqippuq ~ love surfaces

Inuuvugut ~ We are alive, we are beings

1. It is the institution of monarchy I do not agree with, what it is, and what it stands for. The royal family uphold this system.

2. Our parliament (as a monarchist state) makes British monarchy core of our federal structure. Even though the official line is that the monarchy and their representatives play a more ceremonial role, our system is all about ‘in right of her majesty’. This system goes against basic principles of democracy. It also excludes indigenous people from ever being head of state in their own homeland.

3. The mostly ‘ceremonial role’ they play is at great financial cost to the country. Estimated over $50million in 2015.  This is for a handful of people. When you compare this to what is spent on Indigenous communities, it’s hugely disproportionate. Sending an underlying message their lives and life style and up keep is more important than the basic needs Indigenous people struggle to get from the system.

4. Having monarchy as head of state is an archaic medieval practice that keeps feudalism intact, where the class system and social inequality is entrenched as basis of the government. They are the highest of aristocracy and said to represent ‘humanity of the state’ and ‘collective spirit’ (according to Canadian Heritage). It assumes aristocracy is, after all, trusted because they’re superior in intelligence and ability. Especially when it comes to making decisions on policy and money matters.

5. The official line is that the idea one is supreme and divine by birth has been abandoned for centuries. However, we still maintain practice of the right to rule by birth, against the backdrop of feudalism, classism, aristocracy. It simply does not jibe with principles of social equality and democracy.

6. Being a monarchist state makes (British) conservatism as a default governance system, more apt to serve the privileged white Anglo-saxons.

7. The British monarchy have two streams of power: they are head of Church of England  (Anglican Church) and head of the State. Again, contradicting democratic principles that say church and state are to be separate and apart.

8. It is at royal decree of monarch lands were ‘acquired’ as colonies by their agents. As the lands were considered unoccupied  because Indigenous people were deemed uncivilized people because thy were not Christian therefore could not own land. These legacies still are very much at the crux of our relationship with the ‘state’. Indigenous people are still displaced from their lands and having the ability to determine their own destinies.

9. The automatic deference and respect expected to be paid by us, as ‘subjects’ no less with codes of behaviour around the monarchy, is plainly absurd. Bow? Curtsey? These traditions are in places like our courts and parliaments. The absurdity is that the respect was never earned and there is no accountability to us to gain the respect because it’s believed they are born more ‘supreme’ and answer only to God. They are seen as righteous and cannot do wrong. The sense of impunity extends to aristocracy in general, where room for error is larger in being perceived forgivable.

10. Our blind interest in celebrity culture, especially those that appear flawless, or live fairy tale like lives keeps the royal family in limelight of curiosity, making them look relevant to us even if they are just pure spectator objects. When their lifestyle has little relevance to ours, except maybe as fashion, behaviour, protocol icons. In western culture we socialize our children with fantasies aspiring to being princesses or princes.

11. As said the monarchs living realities have little relevance to ours. They are so removed from our realities in so many ways: socially, economically, culturally. How can the monarchy have empathy and understanding for our community conditions? When their riches are as a result of exploitation under colonialism and slavery. These systems of power continue directly and indirectly, safely secured in our political and economic systems.

12. Great atrocities were done in the name and direction of King/Queen for first peoples and black people. Our historical and present relationship with the state as indigenous people is often tenous. Treaties, agreements and terms of relationships have been abused,  misused,  ignored in their favor time and time again. Even though by convention, the democratically elected are acting on their own prerogative, again they working in the larger oppressive hierarchical system that remains. How can you have a good relationship with anyone who sees the other parties as ‘subjects’?

13. The fact the monarchy are head of state and church blurs the line of being able to question them, or the system. The insult to injury is dispossession of lands and control over our own affairs has been to subjugate people through religion into becoming ‘subjects’. In Iqaluit’s Anglican church the holy water bowl was gifted by Queen Elizabeth ‘to my Eskimo people’. Are we hers? Or our own? (I would add as a side note: if monarchy are prime examples of morality, why is ‘God save the Queen’ about crushing the rebellious Scots?).

14. The principle of divine right to rule was used by medieval monarch to instill fear and obedience. Fear was an instrument of colonialism. Fear is certainly still a weapon in controlling systems in Nunavut, fear of (further) economic depravity for example.

15. Even if I am not in favour of being a monarchist state it’s the system we have. I have said before, moving towards becoming a Republic would be great symbolism and act towards reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous people. This would require in shifting the whole system to be more Indigenous governance focused.

16. So supporting having an Inuk governor general, it is within this context of it is what we have right now. If we are to move towards detaching from archaic outdated systems that continue to harm and destroy our communities at worst, work not in their favor at best, who would best be in a position to start the dialogue? It is a standard question of working with the system or outside the system, or both.

17. Until this system is revamped we are stuck seeming being hypocritical at some point. When people are working in the system I understand there are individual decisions on where they draw the line on their relationship with monarchy or the state, representing themselves and being true to themselves as an indigenous person (and feeling like they are not being a traitor). Being a colonized people is often a never win situation as there are many corners to get stuck in in the colonial system.

18. Personally I refused to swear an allegiance to the Queen when being called to the bar (to become a lawyer). Firstly, I went to law school to equip myself with education to learn the Canadian justice system in hopes to give myself tools to seek justice for our people. Justice in the plainest definition of the word, not the Canadian legal definition of the word. Secondly, for the reasons I described above, it is my belief fairness, equality and justice is founded on people, not the “supreme” or “divine” rulers. Thirdly, our history of treatment on behalf of the monarchy and monarchist state has meant being marginalized, it has meant genocide, and subjugation. I did not want to participate in the systems that continue that. Going to law school was struggle enough to feel indoctrinated in an oppressive system. Fourthly, I wanted my oath to represent service to my community, (and not the Queen).