Showing posts with label Chieftainships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chieftainships. Show all posts
May 25, 2008

Chief Kiapilano and the Squamish™ Nation

Yesterday at around 10:30 Gerald Johnson, who calls himself "Chief Kiapilano" went to the Squamish Nation band office trying to "evict" the elected band council and the staff at the office.  I'm told he was joined by a few other protestors, most of which are non-Skwxwu7mesh.  I am unsure of how many were Skwxwu7mesh, but I think it was just a few.  I also heard reports he was joined by Kevin Annett.

For the past while Gerry Johnson has been going by "Chief Kiapilano", claiming to be chief of all the Squamish people.  He says it's his birthright and that he is the head chief.  A few weeks ago him and a few others tried to evict numerous church's in Vancouver for being on "Squamish Nation Territory".   He also likes to be known as "Royal Hereditary Sovereign Chief Kiapilano".  I also heard reports of him trying to evict newspaper reporters/writers who wrote articles about his friend Kevin Annett.

I am Skwxwu7mesh, a "band-member" of the "Squamish Nation".  I grew up on in two Skwxwu7mesh villages, Xwmelch'stn and Eslha7an in North Vancouver, British Columbia.  I've also studied the history of my people in regards to the hereditary chieftainships, but by no regards consider myself an "expert".  I've just been able to deduce a few things and understand the complexity of the situation.

I've reported on my blog a few times about the hereditary chieftainship system.  A shorter explanation is that the hereditary chieftainship system was originally created by the Catholic Church to convert the mass population in the numerous communities and villages.  Historically, my people were not that stratified and organized in it's political system.  Prior to contact, each family had a "siyam", or a respected person.  This was not a "bossman" or "chairman" like position, but simply someone who was respected by the community and people followed because of the character this person had.  Their status among the community could be raise through a few ways like, distribution of family wealth in potlatching, conduction of spiritual ceremonies, or display of cultural values and principles.  August Jack Khatsalano, a "siyam" born in the late 1800's, and died in the 1970's, was regarded as one.  He potlatched a lot during his time, passed on the knowledge of our ancestors, and conducted mask and spiritual ceremonies in our longhouse.  He said in his book "Converstations with Khatsalano", siyam means a person who is "...the best talker - not chairman, (our people) have no chairman -- but man who says the most wise things".

To what I mentioned earlier, the Catholic Church went around creating "chiefs" over each of the villages.  Later after the passing of the Indian Act and the designation of the reserve, the Indian Agents assigned a chief to each of the reserves.  This is where the current "hereditary chiefs" come from.  They are chiefs of the different reserves in Skwxwu7mesh territory.  In 1923 these hereditary chiefs signed the amalgamation and became a single "Squamish Band" or "Squamish Nation".  I will point out, it wasn't black and white.  Many of these hereditary chiefs were in fact siyam.  They followed our traditions, practiced our ceremonies, and lived strong indigenous lives, but at the time the government would only listen to the band council and so many bought into it.

In the 1980's, a non-confidence vote occurred on the corrupt band council of the time.  For decades the band council was hereditary, but changed in the non-confidence vote and the election codes were changed to create a 16 elected band council.  This is the current governing system of the Squamish Nation.  16 elected band councilors for the 16 hereditary chiefs.  A few of the hereditary chiefs have positions on the elected band council.

Gerry Johnson is not a hereditary chief.  Nor is he a siyam.  He has never once given a potlatch, in distributing his family wealth to the people.  He has never once had a ceremony to take on this name he claims.  He does not work with his people.  He does not have the support of any of our elders.  The "hereditary" position could belong to his family, but birthright and living by our custom are both needed.

He claims to be chief of all the Squamish Nation, but no where in history of my people has such a title or position existed.  There has never been a singular chief of all the Squamish Nation.  16 chiefs, for each of the villages, and before that, multiple chiefs for each of the longhouses in the villages.


Although I don't support the band councils way of governance, Chief Kiapilano's claims are false.  He cannot "evict" who ever he wants.  He cannot go around demanding authority for some birthright he may or may not have title too.  He is simply another Skwxwu7mesh fed up with the current status quo of politics with my people.
by Rivers on Sunday, May 25, 2008 | 5 comments
Labels: , ,
April 30, 2008

Chiefs or Kings

Everyone fights to be chief, but no one wants to be the leader.  Do they not know what it means?  Organizers of the family, conductor of spiritual ceremonies, feaster of ones wealth to be distributed.

For my people, the hereditary chieftainship system is anachronistic. "The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time."  Dare I shout "Tear down this band council.  Dismantle this adversarial colonial way of our people deciding."  But then what do we turn to?  The "hereditary" some say.  But is the hereditary traditional?

Yes.

But whose tradition.

Long ago, not too long though, they came through to convert.  Easier said then done.  Easier made by divide and domination.  Selected individuals out of the small crowds, then they are now placed on the mantle of chiefdom.  Later the Indian Agents ratify, legitimize, and okay this brilliant system of control.  This, becomes the hereditary chieftainship system, the band council system, the present day.  16 chiefs, from 16 church selected, for 16 Indian Agent designed reserves.

So ANACHRONISTIC I say.  These chiefs don't live in the same neighborhood as their constituencies.  They don't even live in the same house.  Nor even the same villages.  For some, their villages are long gone.  Either to water, to colonization, or to obscurity.  So if they have no connection in a meaningful way to represent, to guide, to leader, what legitimacy do they have to real, awesome, dangerous power.

Chief, they tell us to call them.  Even those that word is Irish in origin.  Chief, like President, or Lord, or King.  But all those are boss-man, commandeering the strength of the people through command. But not the leaders of old.  Wise-men, gentlemen, generous men.  If group decides to go on canoe journey, who best to lead the family.  Who best to see all gifts of family.  Who best in knowledge of ancestral ways.  Who displays the values of our civil society.

Then we must ask ourselves, blind, deaf, and complicit in the terrible power they command and wield over themselves, our resources, our future, why do we still follow something so wrong, so old, so illegitimate of our respect and trust.  Something so foreign, in it's commanding breath of individualistic egotism.  Something so foreign in it's control of the peoples finances, culture, governance, and life.

We call them chiefs, or shall we call them kings.  Kings of their own wretched legitimacy.  Will we still follow them?  Or is it even about following.  Maybe, perhaps, it might be....

about always being their for your constituency, your family, your friends, your tribe, your nation, your way of life.
by Rivers on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 | 0 comments
Labels: , ,
March 19, 2008

Forged Leadership

With recent events coming up the media, I thought I would take some time to do what bloggers do best: citizen media.

This past sunday, a group of natives protested at a Catholic Church in Vancouver. This group, lead by Gerry Johnson or Chief Kiapilano as he claims to be, and author Kevin Annnet, stormed the Sunday mass issuing “eviction” notices. The group then proceeded to Christ Church Anglican Cathedral and St. Andrew’s Wesley United Church, where the same Eviction Order was posted on their front doors. Gerry Johnson claims to be hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation, and on behalf of the Squamish Nation, was issuing eviction notices to the church in Vancouver and promised to occupy all of them, today. Gerry Johnson, who is Skwxwu7mesh, and registered with the Squamish Nation membership, claims to be a hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation.

Today the elected politicians of the Squamish Nation distanced themselves from Gerry Capilano. “The Squamish Nation disassociates itself with Mr. Johnston's actions and wishes to clarify that his actions were in no way representative of the Nation.” This came as no surprise, and has been a long time coming from Gerry Johnsons previous attempts at activism in the Lower Mainland.


The myth of this hereditary chieftainship business is quite strong and misleading on many parts. In 1923, 16 “chiefs” of 16 different Skwxwu7mesh villages signed the “amalgamation” unifying the nation for land claims and land rights. These 16 chiefs formed the Squamish Nation Chief & Council, which was held as hereditary until it was voted in referendum decades later to custom election codes under the Indian Act.

What’s kind of absent is what took place before 1923. In 1820, the HBC set up in Fort Langley to do business and trade with local indigenous population. Except the polity and social structure of the west coast, specifically with local Coast Salish, was something odd to these new settlers. Where they were accustomed to trading with one “head chief”, as in a representative for the entire people, the Coast Salish societal structure was less stratified with no single leader for the entire people. This idea was considered absurd. Actually, I still think having one leader for all the people is absurd. How can one person understand everything needed to represent the needs of all their people.

Well, afterwards the Catholic Church set about their mission to convert. But the project called colonization was becoming more and more sophisticated. They lacked the resource to set up presences in every village, so they instead converted covert leaders and designated these men chiefs. These men had to fit the bill of obedient, Christian, and sober. Previously the leadership was defined by: how much they displayed the values of the people (generosity, respect, and knowledge), how much they shared and distributed their resources (economic, spiritual, and cultural knowledge), or through the management of resources and distribution of those resources (potlatching). So instead of having a representative governance of the families, houses, and village, it turned into puppet-chiefs responsible for converting others to Christian agenda.

This is where it get messy. It wasn’t a dry and cut plan. Many families and individuals did convert to Christianity (and their decedents still are Christian). Other families played along and were Christian in name, but indigenous at heart. So the definition was blurred more as the lines between sell-out collaborator chiefs who sided with the Church against their people, and the hardcore resisters who still followed the way of our ancestors. It blended. So the “hereditary chieftainships” became intertwine between what was set up by the Church, and the historical culture of Skwxwu7mesh-ulh.

Yata yata yata, the Federal government ratified these chiefs through the Indian Act, and later they amalgamated and became the 16 chiefs which became the 16 member Squamish Nation Chief and Council. Many politicians on the Indian Act government are “hereditary chiefs” coming from this history. The disputes over names/titles comes from this complicated history, plus other complicated histories of borrowed chieftainships, multiple marriages, and down right theft. This is why Gerry Johnson claims to be a chief.


But one thing that needs to be clarified is that the word chief and leader are not synonymous. Nor is our Skwxw7mesh snichem word siyam synonymous with chief. Anyone and their dog can claim to be a chief, but you can’t claim to be a good leader unless you are one. August Jack Khatsalano spoke about the real meaning of the chief when he said, “Indian have no chairman, only man who says the most wise things.” With regards to our language, a siyam is a highly respected person. Yet sell out politicians all claim to be “chief”. A power dynamic of title and demanded respect. Have these same men displayed the values of the people (generosity, respect, and knowledge)? Shared and distributed their resources (economic, spiritual, and cultural knowledge)? Or even fulfilled their rightful duty of resource stewardship and distribution of those resources (potlatching)?

No, but they claim to be chiefs.

I will say that the elected politicians can represent the “Squamish Nation”, but they are not the nation of Skwxwu7mesh. Just as the Canadian Federal government does not represent all Canadians (it represents the federal government and it’s dealings). There is a important distinction between the Squamish Nation, a legal and political entity in First Nation status, and Skwxwu7mesh-ulh, the indigenous peoples. Skwxwu7mesh, meaning people of the sacred drinking water, is a mixture of worldview, history, politics, governance, land, language, people, society, customs, traditions, beliefs, and much more. But it is clear and easy to say the Squamish Nation are not those. The Squamish Nation is the 16 elected politicians that make up the 16 member Council, it’s mangers, their departments, it’s employees, and their services. A government is not a nation. Indigenous peoples of this land are nations.

So in this shark battle of prestige and title, it comes a off-handed joke to a lot of the people. Most Skwxuw7mesh don’t know who Gerry Johnson is, or his claim to legitimacy, and quite frankly the elected politicians claim, albeit a different level, legitimacy, are both founded on a decaying quagmire of fake-ness or forgery.
by Rivers on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | 8 comments
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)