Reprinted from _Turtle Talk_ <The New Catalyst Bioregional Series,
Vol 1, 1990> eds. C and J Plant:
WINGS OF THE EAGLE
by Marie Wilson
[One of the avowed aims of bioregionalism is to work to become
'native to place' as human groups once were, before the advent of
industrial civilization. Accordingly, bioregionalists have a natural
affinity with i peoples, deeply respecting the fact of their survival
through the ages, and seeing their ways as something of a model for a
sustainable future. Descriptive of this affinity is _Akwasasne Notes_'
term for both as 'Native and Natural Peoples.' Support for native groups
in their contemporary struggles to survive and assert their autonomy has
been at the heart of much bioregional work.
Marie Wilson is a spokesperson for the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en Tribal
Council from northwestern British Columbia. The Gitksan Wet'suwet'en
have been involved, since 1987, in a classic native land claims case
against both the provincial and federal governments. Seeking to assert
their claim to over 22,000 square miles of their traditional territory,
the tribal council took their case to the B C Supreme Court. There they
have had to defend themselves against charges that the Gitksan
Wet'suwet'en were no longer even a distinct culture, since they were
assimilated into the dominant society by virtue of their living in
modern houses and purchasing 'white' consumer goods. As a cultural
researcher for the tribal council, Marie Wilson has been involved in
gathering evidence tio demonstrate that, despite this attempt to deny
their existence as an authentic culture, her people are indeed distinct
and have never ceded their lands to the Canadian state.
While the case drags on slowly through the courts -- deliberately
prolonged by governments that fear the effect of its resolution in favor
of the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en -- resource extraction has continued apace
in the territory under dispute. Subsequently, in 1989, the native peope
took to blockading logging roads in their home region in order to
prevent further destruction of the forests. Widely supported by
envialists and other non-Indians, the tribal council envisages a
partnership model of bio government, involving both Inds and non-Inds,
should the case be resolved in its favor. Yet many non-native people
remain fearful of what Ind self-government might mean. In this
interview, Marie Wilson talks about some of the differences in outlook
of the two cultures, pointing to ways in which we might come to a closer
understanding of one another.]
The New Catalyst: Many non-native activists believe we have much to
learn from native peoples. I'd like to explore some of the similarities
and differences that exist between native and non-native cultures, so we
might better understand one another.
For example, the ideas of ecofeminism suggest that the ways in which
women have been mistreated by patriarchal society are very similar to
the ways in which nature has been ravished and exploited. What do you
think?
Marie Wilson: When I read about ecofeminism I find that the attitudes
towards women and the feelings inside myself are different. It's
difficult to explain, but it's as if women are separate. Though I agree
with the analysis, the differences must be because of where I come from.
In my mind, when I speak about women, I speak about humanity because
there is equality in the Gitksan belief: the human is one species broken
into two necessary parts, and they are equal. One is impotent without
the other.
When I look upon the Western world today, I see this human species
broken into a siamese twin relationship where one wounded partner is
being dragged behind the other. There is no co-operation, or pragmatic
understanding, which is necessary for the species to be whole.
A North American Ind philosopher has likened the relationship between
women and men to the eagle, which soars to unbelievable heights and has
tremendous power on two equal wings -- one female, one male -- carrying
the body of life between them. The moment one is fractured or harmed in
any way, then that powerful bird is doomed to remain on earth and cannot
reach those heights.
We tend to think: male, female -- two species. We are not. We are
one. Therefore I am feminine to the largest degree but I cannot bring
myself to hurt or blame that male part of me that has come from my body:
my sons. Similarly, my husband. It's a wonderful feeling to be loved,
after 40 years; to have support and oneness with someone. It hasn't
always been easy. As you can see, I'm not a submissive woman and he came
from a rather chauvinistic family; we had a lot of growing up to do.
Coming straight out of our Gitksan background, however, was a deep
committment to our union. Though Jeff has been a loving father, the
children are my responsibility -- by my example I will mark them.
TNC: Perhaps in a culture that is connected to the land, and isn't
separated from the life process, there is a greater appreciation and
understanding of the Earth as Mother?
Marie Wilson: I don't look upon the Earth as my mother. I don't believe
the Gitksan ever did. They talked instead of the Power Larger Than
Ourselves. They looked upon the land, the sea, the air, the creatures,
as created life. Other native peoples did have a vision of the Earth as
mother, but I can speak only for G.
The ground is throbbing with life, the dirt is not really dirt, in a
sense, it is full of life. We are a product of the dust of the stars, as
others have said. This hand that I hold up is actually a multitude of
different organisms living off the kernel that is my life. There are
thousands of different, created things within my body that have nothing
to do with the spark that causes our energy to flow. We are the compost
of the future. This is exactly the vision that Gitksan have. What do we
cherish most in the corner of our gardens? The compost. Where do we put
it? Around the tender new life to give it a good start in the new
created life it will become. If I had any way of describing myse4lf,
that would be the way I would like to be described. I believe this is
why the Gitksan believed in reincarnation. They believed that the energy
I create cannot be destroyed -- you can change its appearance but the
influence remains.
The Gitksan did not have a god in the sky. They had a power larger
than themselves which they recognized; they understood the limit of a
lifespan and they lived comfortably within that limit. It was this
understanding that was fundamental to the covenant created between
humans and the land. They knew that the well-being of future generations
depended upon caring for all life which the land represents. The land is
the skin of the Earth -- without it, we die. And yet, we're ripping the
skin off the Earth without any thought at all, not appreciating the fact
that that first inch of soil represents life.
TNC: The G's sense of spirituality would never have allowed the
destruction of that inch?
MW: Oh no! We believe that each created llife is so born as to survive,
knowing its own way. If we leave it alone, it will survive. We
understand that we must use what we must to survive -- that in order for
one life to survive, another must be given. The Gitksan had ways of
cleansing themselves before entering the animal world to take life --
actually, to receive life, to accept the gift. The hunters cleansed
themselves not for a good hunt but so they would be acceptable to the
animal. This is a total difference in attitude.
The Gitksan have no word for sin. Instead, you make bad judgements.
Bad judgements have to do with people and have nothing to do with a god.
All actions come back, full circle, and we have a lot to account for.
So my relationship as a woman is often different from the vision non-
Ind women have in their heads about being a woman. My vision as a woman
is not bitter, although I think women have suffered bitterly in the
world. I believe there's no way that any woman can cut herself off from
that -- we are sisters. My feeling for women involves almost a pity for
humanity because we have missed the boat so badly. The Gitksan are not
alone. There are many cultures who believe the same things we do.
TNC: Yes, people who were not brought up this way are looking towards
cultures like the Gitksan for some direction.
Marie Wilson: The pity is that I believe all people started out
connected to the land. People like the Gitksan copied nature because
they were surrounded by it, not protected from it as we are. They saw
the cycle of life, from the very smallest to the largest, all connected,
and saw that the system itself punished any breaking ofg the cycle --
not a god. The people saw and understood the checks and balances that
were exhibitied by the cycle and chose to base their fundamental truths
and authority and responsibilities on something that has worked for
millions of years. They fitted themselves to the cycle of life.
What we are doing is putting into the English language what we have
in our heads. This is very difficult to do. It can take months to define
a few words: creation, philosophy, self-government, spirit.
TNC: How is respect for other life made concrete in Gitksan society?
MW: It's made concrete through the rules. People have asked what is our
law. We called them rules because we have no outside control; we used
inner control. We didn't have judges or lawyers or supreme courts or
anything like that. Individuals were under strict self-control and,
collectively, this controlled the whole society.
The principles, or rules, were about hunting, about relationships
between humans. Self-cleansing before hunting included fasting and
meditation, and the hunters removed themselves from the women so that
they could go deeply into themselves. In the kill itself there were
certain things that had to be done in order to honor that creature: ways
of disposing of what was not used, for example, though almost everything
was used. Most of what they did was based on common sense which included
reason and flexibility, because no two situations are quite the same.
The criteria for judgement were that decisions must be good for the
people, not just the decision-maker. While people of today dismiss this
process as belonging to a primitive time when people were limited, does
this mean that today peoples' lives are any less significant? And who
will make the choice as to who is expendable and who is not? People in
the so-called western world may be materially wealthy, but they are
bankrupt in morals. The conditions under which people in less wealthy
nations live -- including the native peoples of this country -- have
meant that they are the recipients for decisions made by people who have
set themselves up as gods.
You must realize that in my language there is no word for 'rights.'
We have really struggled to find an equivalent in Gitksan Wet'suwet'en
and there is none. The closest we could come to an equivalent was
jurisdiction and responsibility. 'Rights,' to us, is a very selfish
word.
<continued>
|{hm kerry miller <ASTINGSH@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>