(eBook PDF) Indigenous Peoples in the

Twenty-First Century 3rd Edition

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-indigenous-peoples-in-the-twenty-first-ce
ntury-3rd-edition/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) Governing California in the Twenty-First

Century 6th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-governing-california-in-
the-twenty-first-century-6th-edition/

Governing California in the Twenty-First Century 7th

Edition (eBook PDF)

http://ebooksecure.com/product/governing-california-in-the-
twenty-first-century-7th-edition-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-

First Century

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-environmental-sociology-
for-the-twenty-first-century/

(eBook PDF) Diversity and Indigenous Peoples in Canada,

3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-diversity-and-
indigenous-peoples-in-canada-3rd-edition/
(eBook PDF) Governing California in the Twenty-First
Century (Seventh Edition) 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-governing-california-in-
the-twenty-first-century-seventh-edition-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Governing California in the Twenty-First

Century (Seventh Edition) 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-governing-california-in-
the-twenty-first-century-seventh-edition-7th-edition-3/

(eBook PDF) Governing California in the Twenty-First

Century (Seventh Edition) 7th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-governing-california-in-
the-twenty-first-century-seventh-edition-7th-edition-2/

(eBook PDF) The United States and China: Into the

Twenty-First Century 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-united-states-and-
china-into-the-twenty-first-century-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Twenty-First Century Musicals: From Stage

to Screen

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-twenty-first-century-
musicals-from-stage-to-screen/
 Contents vii

10 Aboriginal Rights, Self-Government, and the Inherent Rights

of Indigenous Peoples 192
Learning Objectives 192
Introduction 192
Governance and Accountability 194
Aboriginal Rights, Self-Government, and the Courts 194
Inherent Rights and the Courts 196
Self-Government 198
Self-Determination 199
Change in the Wind 202
Self-Government and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 203
Indigenous Sovereignty 204
Conclusion 207
Questions for Critical Thought 208
Suggested Readings 208
Suggested Websites 209
Suggested Films 209

11 The Political Economy of Indigenous Peoples 210

Learning Objectives 210
Introduction 210
The Genesis of the Problem 211
Box 11.1: Oka: Conflict That Shook the Nation 214
Labour Markets and Indigenous Peoples in Canada 216
The Current Picture 217
Indigenous Youth and the Labour Market 218
Urban Economic Development 220
Casinos 222
New Models of Economic Development: The Harvard Project 223
Box 11.2: A Case Study: Membertou Reserve 224
Indigenous Economic Progress Report 226
The Federal Approach 226
Conclusion 228
Questions for Critical Thought 229
Suggested Readings 229
Suggested Websites 230
Suggested Films 230

12 Surviving in the Contemporary World: The Future of Indigenous

People in Canada 231
Learning Objectives 231
Introduction 231
viii Contents

How Many Indigenous People? 233

Residence 234
Population Growth and Size: Fertility, Mortality, and Migration 235
Demographic Profile of Indigenous People 240
Implications of Demographic Changes 246
Conclusion: The Possible Future Scenarios 249
Questions for Critical Thought 252
Suggested Readings 252
Suggested Websites 253
Suggested Films 253

Glossary 254
References 261
Index 281
Preface
Over the past three years, major social and legal events in Canada have i­ nfluenced—
some might say forced—the changing relationship between governments and
­Indigenous people, and this relationship is central to the present work. The reader
familiar with earlier editions of this text also will see that the scope of the book has
been enlarged, encompassing First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and non-status Indigen-
ous peoples. Moreover, in most cases, when statistics are presented here, there will
be a “comparison group” so the reader can see the big picture.
The court decisions, social movements, and political action that have occurred
in recent years remind us of the dynamic nature of the relationship between the
settler majority society and its governments and the many governments and cul-
tures of Canada’s Indigenous peoples. I hope that by challenging readers to be more
than a reflection of the relationships we have inherited, they will transform the way
Canadians think about themselves and Indigenous people. Through the explora-
tion of several significant issues, I show that Canadians seem to be embarking on
a new path towards reconciliation that will help them recreate their laws and im-
aginations, all of which will achieve social inclusion of Indigenous people. In the
end, I hope that I have shown that the relationship between Indigenous peoples
and Canadian governments is as much about the global process that has incorpor-
ated Indigenous peoples into the world capitalist system as it is the result of settler
society values.
This is a book focused on Indigenous people, otherwise known in Canada’s
legal language as “Aboriginal,” who encompass the Indian, Inuit, and Métis
peoples. I seek to demonstrate how the federal government and Indigenous peoples
are trying to resolve many significant issues such as Aboriginal rights, land title,
education, and their rightful place in Canadian society. Moreover, the topics cov-
ered in this book are central to the evolution of Canadian society, and resolutions
to today’s problems (whatever form such resolutions take) will have major impacts
on the future of Canadian society.
Colonial thought during the 1800s reconstructed Indigenous people as homo-
geneous, unchanging, and limited to a state of “uncivilized” nature (Brownlie,
2005). As such, at the time of Confederation, as well as before and after that seminal
date, Euro-Canadians generally placed Indigenous people outside of history and
merely identified them as background as the settlers evolved into a more civilized
and technological society. Others took an easier route and simply wrote them out
of history. One way of doing this was simply to write about the history of settlers in
Canada as they came into the new land.
More recently, Indigenous leaders and scholars have taken on the task of writ-
ing their own history. Prior to the 1950s, there was an unreceptive climate regard-
ing writing about Indigenous people. However, George Copway and Peter Jones
(neither of whom are widely recognizable names and remained outside the scope
x Preface

of academic historians until recently) were the first Indigenous scholars to write
about their history. Today their works are considered invaluable contributions to
understanding Canadian history and the role Indigenous people played in the de-
velopment of Canadian society. Nevertheless, publications written by Indigenous
people were scarce until the 1970s (Timpson, 2009). Edward Ahenakew’s (1929)
brief tales about First Nations life, outlined in a scholarly journal, were among
the few exceptions during this time. Joseph Dion (1979) and Michael Mountain
Horse (1979) were among the early Indigenous historians who provided insights
about First Nations history. While their books were published in the last quarter
of the twentieth century, they had initiated their work many years before, trying
to bring Indigenous history to the foreground and inform Canadians of the role
that Indigenous people played in the social, economic, and political development
of Canada. The works of Harold Cardinal (1969) and Howard Adams (1975) also
are relatively recent accounts of Indigenous life, although they are as much political
statements as they are historical. Nevertheless, these scholars championed Indigen-
ous history and created the groundwork for those who have followed, perhaps most
notably Métis scholar Olive Dickason, whose Canada’s First Nations remains the
authoritative history of Indigenous peoples in Canada from the earliest times.
To understand the relationship of Indigenous people and government today, we
need an understanding of history. How Indigenous people find themselves today is a
result of government and Indigenous peoples’ actions and inactions over a long period
of time. The general theme of this book is that European colonization and colonialism
have had a long-term impact on the lives of Indigenous people and transformed them
into a marginal people within Canadian society. Moreover, it has been an insidious
process, encroaching upon Indigenous communities without a face—government just
acts and consequences follow. As Lutz (2009) so cogently argues, the displacement of
Indigenous people was carried out through peaceable subordination. However, he goes
on to note that it was subordination without subjugation. But colonization also has im-
pacted non-Indigenous people. It provided non-Indigenous people with the standards
by which they evaluated the performance of others; it allowed them to build stereo-
types about Indigenous people; and it provided non-Indigenous Canadians with the
normative support to engage in individual and systemic discrimination against them.
The issues discussed in this book are major and far-reaching, and will trans-
form the nature of Canada when they are addressed. We have an opportunity in
the twenty-first century to deal with the architecture of Canadian society and our
relationship with Indigenous people. The formal apology made by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper in 2008 and the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Com-
mission are a good beginning, and perhaps that bodes well for how relations be-
tween Indigenous people and other Canadians will unfold. The current Trudeau
government has tried to develop new policies: a nation-to-nation relationship, the
development of a Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework, revised
negotiation mandates for land claims and self-government, new fiscal relations,
and many working groups, tables, and memorandums of understanding.
 Preface xi

In the end, we must fully appreciate that no matter what actions are taken to
restore relations, it will take time. The impact of colonization took many years and
so we can’t look for the magic “solution” that will restore the identity, integrity, and
trust that many Indigenous people had when they first encountered the settlers. It
will take years to make the social change, and then, only if we, as Canadians, insist
that our politicians make special efforts to deal with the legacy of colonialism.

Organization of the Book

Each of the chapters in this book is a stand-alone discussion of a specific topic.
The references and websites will take you further into the details of the issues
under consideration. In some cases, issues such as gender are interwoven into
the ­chapters. Recent books by Suzack, Huhndorf, Perreault, and Barman (2010)
and by Sunseri (2010) focusing on Indigenous women and feminism explore how
­Indigenous women are addressing issues confronting them. Any discussion about
the uniqueness of different Indigenous peoples will be nuanced, and some topics,
such as inter-Indigenous conflicts, are not covered. These are certainly important,
but they are not the focus of the work at hand. Nevertheless, I have added con-
siderable information regarding the ongoing National Inquiry into Missing and
Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The order of the chapters is chronological
so that the reader can better understand modern-day issues such as health and
­government responsibilities after they first learn about the historical context.
Chapter 1 provides a brief historical outline of settler–Indigenous relations and
of the introduction of colonialism and its initial impacts, and also discusses who
writes history—and why. Chapter 2 focuses on defining the members of a category
of people called “Indigenous.” This question seems innocent enough when first
asked, but usually by the time you get the answer your eyes are glazed over, and
you are lost in a quagmire of legal and legislative doublespeak. You also will see the
disjuncture between real life and the abstract realities of social policy as it relates to
Indigenous people. But in the end, the intent is to show why Indigenous people see
the issue as important.
Chapter 3 outlines Western ways of knowing and Indigenous ways of know-
ing. It provides the reader with some basic understanding of how the world is
viewed by the two groups and looks at points of congruence and difference. The
residential school issue is documented in Chapter 4, showing that Canadians were
able to deny and/or conceal the impact of this policy for nearly a century. This
chapter also examines how the issue—once it reached the policy agenda—was re-
solved in less than 10 years and in a manner that has circumvented the wishes of
Indigenous people. Chapter 5 deals with the impact of colonization and provides
an understanding of what trauma is, how it is transmitted from one generation to
another, and how it impacts individuals and communities. The importance and
role of language in culture is the focus of Chapter 6. Here we see that Indigenous
languages are stressed and at a tipping point. Depending on the changes taking
xii Preface

place in the next decade, many Indigenous languages could be strengthened or

swept to extinction.
Chapter 7 examines the well-being and health of Indigenous people, how they
access health care, and how their health differs from non-Indigenous people. Chap-
ter 8 explains the duty of government in its relation to Indigenous people and re-
veals how the courts have determined the need for government to acknowledge the
“honour of the Crown” when dealing with Indigenous people—not just legally but
ethically.
No book on Indigenous people in Canada would be complete without a dis-
cussion of the bureaucracy that deals with them. Chapter 9 looks at the mammoth
organization of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (now divided into two
ministries—Indigenous Services Canada and Crown–Indigenous Relations and
Northern Affairs Canada), which has been so pervasive that it regulates the be-
haviour of Indigenous people from boardroom to bedroom, from birth to death.
Also discussed are the activities of the Assembly of First Nations, Canada’s national
First Nations organization, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal
Peoples, which acts on behalf of Métis and non-status people across Canada, and
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national organization protecting the rights and inter-
ests of Inuit, and we consider how these pan-Canadian organizations deal with the
Indigenous Affairs bureaucracy as well as with other federal agencies.
The issue of self-government and Aboriginal rights is examined in Chapter 10.
This chapter demonstrates how the colonial rule of law has taken over Canadian
society and how political decisions are now dominated by the courts—with some
interesting results. It also raises the question of whether Indigenous people are one
or many nations first or citizens of Canada. Chapter 11 looks at the political econ-
omy of Indigenous people and why they have been relegated to the socio-economic
fringe of mainstream society.
Finally, Chapter 12 provides a social and demographic picture of Indigenous
people in Canada, with recently updated numbers from Statistics Canada. Begin-
ning with a historical profile, it reveals the changes that have taken place over the
past 100 years. Although the Indigenous population of Canada came to the brink of
extinction early in the twentieth century, this population rebounded and is now the
fastest-growing group in Canada. The chapter also considers the future, in which
there will continue to be a major disjuncture between the needs and aspirations of
Indigenous people and those of the rest of Canadians.

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank those scholars who reviewed an earlier draft of this work and pro-
vided feedback. Their thorough reviews and critiques have made this book a more
positive contribution to this complex area of study. The encouragement they pro-
vided also led me to accept the challenge of trying to address thorny and contro-
versial topics in the area of Indigenous–government relations. My work has been
 Preface xiii

nurtured by an amazing Indigenous community who shared their views and ex-
planations regarding Indigenous knowledge.
There are a few people who were essential to the writing of this book and I could
not have written it without their input. I would like to thank those who have given
their support and advice as I struggled to update each of the topics examined in the
text. Specific thanks to Vanessa Vredenburg, Monique Passalec-Ross, Shawna Cun-
ningham, Dr Mike Lickers, Line Pare, David Laidlaw, Dr Reg Crowshoe, and Su-
zanne McLeod. From the academy, I’d like to thank my colleagues Dr Yvonne Pratt,
Dr Marie Delorme, Dr Cash Ahenakew, and Dr Vivian A ­ youngman, all of whom
have a better grasp of the situation than I but have shared their insights and know-
ledge with regard to specific topics. Each of these individuals has made a unique
contribution to this work and they have provided me with information, advice, and
criticism when I needed it. While they have supported me in this p ­ roject, they are
not to be held responsible for the contents of the book.
I also am grateful for the support of the editorial and production staff at
Oxford University Press. First of all, I would like to thank Amy Gordon (associate
editor), who entered this journey with me by reviewing each of the chapters and
identifying issues that needed clarification, citation, and additional information.
She identified sources that I could investigate that reflected her broad knowledge of
the topic, and also identified sources that had escaped my attention. Her input was
substantive and she was especially focused in her comments and suggestions. I’d
also like to thank Mariah Fleetham (developmental editor), who read and critiqued
the original manuscript and then continued to lend her insights and careful read-
ings to critique the subsequent revisions. She was an incisive reader and her critical
questions, suggestions, and guidance in the production of the book is deeply appre-
ciated. Thanks are also extended to Richard Tallman, copy editor, whose keen eye
caught many an error. His editing also revealed areas that needed clarification and
more substantive comment. I deeply appreciate his careful editing and suggestions.
In the end, the book reads better and with greater clarity due to his diligent work.
I also would like to thank Phyllis Wilson, managing editor; Lisa Ball, senior
­production coordinator; and Dave Ward, editor-in-chief.
1 Knowing Your History

Learning Objectives
• To recognize that history is a key to understanding current events.
• To learn to appreciate why it is important to know the authors of history.
• To learn to critically evaluate the histories of Indigenous peoples currently available.
• To discover how colonialism has impacted the traditional ways of life for Indigenous peoples.
• To appreciate how Indigenous–government relations changed over time.

Introduction
The denial of Indigenous sovereignty and the imposition of patriarchal, European
sovereignty represent the historical foundation of Canada’s policy and framework
regarding Indigenous peoples (Searle & Mulholland, 2018), and to maintain a cer-
tain bureaucratic order and logic the Canadian government has built upon those
foundational principles. At the same time, Canadians believe that society is pre-
dictable and represents a just place—a society in which people get what they de-
serve. Where there is evidence to suggest that the world is not just, individuals have
two options: (1) to restore justice through helping the victim, or (2) to convince
themselves that no injustice has occurred. As particular perspectives are built into
our institutions, they become part of “the way things are,” and thus we partici-
pate, intentionally or not, in the support of a society that deflates the value of one
culture while inflating the value of another (Kendall, 2002), as if the social con-
tract is a zero-sum game of winners and losers. Consequently, if we deem ourselves
to be “winning,” we conclude that action on our part is not needed. This raises
the issue of bias and narrative privilege of people writing histories. The settlers of
Canada had, and continue to have, a settler imaginary that represents a constella-
tion of ideas and values underpinning their views of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis
people (Taylor, 2004; Bell, 2014). This imaginary constitutes a set of assumptions
and common understandings that allow us to carry out the collective practices that
make up our social life (Taylor, 2004).
2 Indigenous Peoples in the Twenty-First Century

Privilege and Responsibility

Privilege is an institutional (not personal) set of benefits granted to some people
who are similar to individuals who dominate powerful positions in our institu-
tions. Privilege is hard for anyone to see, particularly if you were born with access
to power and resources (Kendall, 2002). White privilege is the ability to make
decisions that impact everyone without having to take others into consideration.
As such, the Euro-Canadian elite set standards by which they are likely to suc-
ceed and others are likely to fail (Moreton-Robinson, 2015). In many cases this is
not done deliberately or maliciously. In the end, privileges are bestowed on non-
Indigenous people not because they are especially deserving but because of their
“Whiteness” and the biases favouring them that are built into social and political
institutions (Kendall, 2002). One can see this in the content of the British North
America Act (now called the Constitution Act, 1867): those drafting it believed
their destiny was to own and rule over the land in what is now Canada, and they
and those who succeeded them believed it was their right to remove Indigenous
children from their homes and communities and place them in schools, to invoke
legislation to keep Indigenous people from entering the core economic activities
of the time, and to prevent Indigenous people from participating in the political
structures of colonial Canada.
Many Canadians distance themselves from any responsibility for the actions
of their parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents, or, more specifically, for the
actions of governments from 50 or 150 years ago. Such a view suggests that the cur-
rent conditions of Indigenous people are an uncaused tragedy, not a wrong imposed
by the dominant society. In short, this view refutes the idea of “Whiteness” and its
relationship to Indigeneity (Larkin, 2013) and claims that people today cannot be
held accountable for what happened generations ago. Implicit in this argument is
a denial that historical factors are linked to current conditions, that is, the social
and economic barriers that Indigenous people face today. Moreover, there is no
recognition of the unearned privileges that non-Indigenous people have gained as
a result (Caquette & Taylor, 2015). As such, many Canadians arguably are discon-
nected from the past and take no responsibility for the fate of Indigenous people,
nor do they have any problem in accepting that they have benefited from previous
actions of their ancestors. In brief, a prevailing ethos in society defends and justifies
the status quo (e.g., the existing social, economic, and political a­ rrangements), and
this results in the self-claimed privilege of creating the narrative about Indigenous
people. Historically, those in power—by whatever means—have been the authors
of history.
In Canada, the value of meritocracy is well entrenched in the social phil-
osophy. However, Indigenous people argue that the norms of fair treatment and
equality of opportunity (integral components of meritocracy) are not being met.
This is one of the key messages identified by Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation
­Commission, which was a central component of the Indian Residential Schools
 1 Knowing Your History 3

Settlement Agreement (TRC , 2015). One might hope that Canadians would see
this inequality as problematic, yet many non-Indigenous people in Canada are
reluctant to attribute the socio-economic disparities between Indigenous people
and non-Indigenous people to any bias within the social institutional structures
(Knowles & Lowery, 2012). Why is this so? First, most non-Indigenous people
see the status quo as legitimate. Others claim there is no problem in protecting
their advantaged position in society. Or, as Knowles and Lowery (2012) argue,
non-Indigenous people deny inequity because the greater importance they place
on the value of meritocracy as a norm for distributing valued goods, the less will-
ing they are to see this norm as having been violated. In the end, non-Indigenous
people see themselves as personally possessing merit (e.g., talent, hard work, dedi-
cation), and thus dismiss the claim that any inequities are based on white privilege
(Gagnon, 2014).
Some authors preface their work on Indigenous issues with reference to how
Canada engaged in genocide (physical, social, cultural) with regard to Indigenous
people. However, this term has been rejected by many Canadians, perhaps because
“genocide” has taken on meanings and become a metaphor in the past century (the
Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the slaughter of one ethnic group by
another in Rwanda) to characterize the actions taken by government or its de facto
representatives as the pinnacle of evil. In other words, the feeling is that this could
not have happened in Canada; this could not be happening in Canada (Girvan,
2010). Put another way, such a term, it is believed, is too harsh to characterize how
Indigenous people have been treated over the past three centuries. Others argue
that the actions by government in dealing with Indigenous people were undertaken
with a sense of righteousness and were justified in the defence of a communal good.
Nevertheless, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin,
noted in 2015 that Canada had developed an ethos of exclusion and annihilation
regarding Indigenous people that amounted to cultural genocide, and that this has
lasted into the twenty-first century.
We know that individuals who created the laws and policies of Canada rarely
showed signs of guilt or remorse. However, it is clear from Canadian history that
Canadians were complicit in the disenfranchisement of Indigenous people, active
participants in their removal from the land, and supportive of the assimilation
policies of the Crown because they thought it was the appropriate thing to do.
­Settlers did not view their actions as criminal or step back from their opportun-
ities to inflict pain and suffering on Indigenous people. For example, the churches
running residential schools had little interest in addressing cultural concerns of
Indigenous people; rather, their goal was similar to that of the Crown—to “take
the Indian out of the child,” a policy largely acquiesced to or actively supported
by all Canadians, or at least by all Canadians who gave it so much as a thought.
It also is important to realize that discrimination and harm towards Indigenous
people by the settlers was voluntary. As Brannigan (2013) points out, individuals
who engaged in violence against minority groups—sometimes reluctantly and at
4 Indigenous Peoples in the Twenty-First Century

other times enthusiastically—reveal they had freedom to refuse and acted without
undue ­pressure or compunction to carry out violence against Indigenous people.
Supporting such actions by the settlers was the legal institutional order created at
the same time colonization was taking place. This process allowed for the “convention-
alization” of criminal activities by settlers, business people, and politicians (Carson,
1979). In this manner, a variety of criminal activities against ­Indigenous people were
undertaken by individuals and the state, and although technically “against the law”
they were freely resorted to. Occasionally one of the perpetrators would be prosecuted
but few were found guilty, and the punishment, if found guilty, was minimal. The lack
of sanctions for such actions resulted from several justifications that tended to under-
mine the seriousness of the offence and thus minimized the response of the public
and legal authorities. Few settler authorities objected, and thus there was little moral
or legal challenge to the policies being established by the Crown. Some people might
have noted that the actions of the Crown towards Indigenous people were unpleas-
ant, but then would justify them by saying they were unavoidable. Legal and political
authorities argued that the motives for carrying out illegal acts against Indigenous
people were not criminal but supportive of the emerging capitalistic economic struc-
ture that focused on the creation of national wealth through a “productive” use of
the land. As such, the absence of moral objections by non-Indigenous people to the
policy of removing Indigenous people from the land and its embeddedness in the
legal system of Canada allowed the violence directed against Indigenous people to be
carried out without any restraint. This ethos continues.

Who Writes History?

Every group of people has a history, whether oral or written or both. The contents
of written history reflect the points of view of those who have written it, just as the
oral history of a people will reflect the world view of those who keep it and transmit
it from one generation to the next, in countless tellings of tales, myths, legends, and
genealogies (Tamm & Burke, 2018). In the case of Canada’s Indigenous peoples,
their written histories for much of the past 500 years can hardly be called “theirs”
because they were produced by non-Indigenous people. Is it an accurate history?
Does it capture the essence of what Indigenous lives were like? The answer is both
“yes” and “no.” Some elements of the existing history of Indigenous people—as nar-
rated by Euro-Canadians—are accurate. On the other hand, many elements of that
history reflect a non-Indigenous perspective and distort the experience of the first
human inhabitants in what would become Canada. What kind of information about
Indigenous people do we have? Lomawaima (2004) claims that between 1850 and
1950, over 90 per cent of all objects ever made by Indigenous individuals ended up
in museum collections. Even if this is an exaggeration, with that amount of infor-
mation we should know a lot! However, much of that information has been ignored
or viewed from a specific perspective. For example, policy-makers in the dominant
settler society homogenized the many different Indigenous cultures in Canada.
 1 Knowing Your History 5

The writing of any people’s history reflects the cultural ethos and perspective
of the writer. How accurate could your history of a people be without your being
“in their skin,” without being one of them and having the experience and know-
ledge of generations that comes with being part of a historical-cultural group? For
example, you would need to become an expert in the language so you could com-
municate and understand the people. Does this mean that only Indigenous people
can write Indigenous history? As J.R. Miller (2009) points out, this suggestion is
unjustified because what is being considered is not something that only Indigenous
people have experienced or can comment on; rather, Indigenous history is part of
Canadian history and, equally important, Canadian history is part of ­Indigenous
history. On the other hand, if we are talking about secret societies, traditional
homelands, or traditional ecological knowledge, then certainly Indigenous people
have a proprietary right and I, as an outsider, might not be privy to such informa-
tion. Individuals writing a history will find that it is difficult to represent a culture
outside of their own cultural bias. In the end, such restrictions will bear heavily on
your reconstructed history, and even with the best of intentions it is likely you will
get some things wrong.

Indigenous History
The view that Indigenous people played no significant role in Canada’s history was
first set in place when non-Indigenous people began to write the history of Canada.
Today we find that many written historical sources, from which First Nations and
Inuit histories are constructed, are from elites who had an interest in representing
Indigenous social life in negative terms (Francis, 1992). For example, the historian
G.F.G. Stanley set in motion a belief that First Nations widely supported the Riel
Rebellion of 1885, although later researchers, such as Stonechild and Waiser (1997),
have shown this claim to be false. Nevertheless, for much of the twentieth century
and earlier, a pervasive belief held that Indigenous societies had contributed little
to the development of Canadian society, had lost their cultural vibrancy, and were
a people headed for extinction. The histories of Indigenous peoples, by and large,
have been written by non-Indigenous people using non-Indigenous sources. This
is not bad per se, but it does point out the limitations of writing history from one
perspective—that of the dominant settler group.
Over the past centuries, the dynamic of concealment (consciously and un-
consciously) has ultimately served the settler population in covering up the
­violence—physical and, especially, cultural and psychological—that was visited
upon Indigenous people. The implementation, cover-up, and resistance for nearly
a century to address the residential school atrocities also reflect a kind of sanitized,
revisionist history as presented by the dominant majority. These concealments have
been embedded in the political, social, and economic history of Canada (Reid, 2008),
which makes it difficult to accept as accurate much of what has been written about
­Indigenous–settler relations.
6 Indigenous Peoples in the Twenty-First Century

Indigenous people argue that Canada’s history is based on several false assump-
tions dating back over a millennium and that these assumptions present a biased
view of what “really happened.” For example, early European explorers and settlers
are portrayed as clever in their adaptation to and settlement of a “New World,” not
to mention their “discovery” of that world, and this cleverness is related to their su-
perior technology. Often forgotten is the extent to which Indigenous technologies,
means of social organization, ecological knowledge, and direct assistance made
that adaptation and settlement possible.
First, these false assumptions of inherent European superiority build on the
belief that Indigenous people were (and are) incapable of self-government. Second,
there is a belief that the treaties between First Nations and the settler-colonial gov-
ernments are not really binding covenants of trust and obligation, that they are not
living agreements but rather are simple negotiated contracts from the past that have
long outlived their usefulness and legal basis. Third, for over a century the belief—
and the policy that followed from it—was that the relationship between Indigen-
ous people and the government was one of wardship, meaning that when social
changes had to be made, Indigenous people were incapable of making decisions
and did not need to be consulted. And finally, it is believed that the development
of Indigenous communities must take place through the dominant society’s neo-
liberal philosophy and not on terms desired by Indigenous people (Nobles, 2008).
However, over the past five decades, dating from the 1966 Hawthorn Report,
which recommended a “citizens plus” approach to the government’s treatment of
its Indian citizens, and the infamous 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, which
failed to heed anthropologist Harry Hawthorn’s recommendations, more and more
materials have been produced by Indigenous people with regard to their cultures
and histories (Dickason, 2002), and we shall weave this information and these per-
spectives into this book. For example, John Borrows (2002), a Chippewa, has skil-
fully integrated evidence from both Western and Indigenous ways of knowing in
his work with a result of producing new insights into Canadian law. Indigenous
historians have shown that contact between the two cultures brought both nega-
tive and positive consequences to both sides. As Miller (2009) points out, to study
the treaty-making process one must go beyond the Euro-Canadian perspective to
consider, as well, the contributions of First Nations to the process. Only by incor-
porating a history that accounts for both settler and Indigenous narratives can our
understanding of the past become fuller and more comprehensive.

First Nations and Inuit before 1500

An estimated 500,000 First Nations and Inuit occupied what is now Canada during
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Trovato & Aylsworth, 2015). These people
were spread across the country in small “bands,” many of which were semi-­nomadic,
although eastern First Nations, such as those in the present-day Maritimes and
in southern Ontario, were more sedentary than nomadic, and the peoples of the
 1 Knowing Your History 7

Northwest Coast, because of the riches of the sea, notably salmon and shellfish, lived
a sedentary and hierarchically ordered life in villages along the coast. ­A lthough
many political institutions were developed by First Nations people, families were the
basic social unit in pre-contact time. These were tied to the land and supported by
tight kinship units such as the extended family and clans. This was reiterated in the
report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (rcap, 1996), which notes
that the family is the foundation of culture, society, and economy. ­Furthermore, the
social and political structure of First Nations life was not separated into the differ-
ent dimensions we find in Western culture, although among many groups different
leaders were chosen for different activities, so that there would be leaders or chiefs
of the hunt, of warfare, and for peace. G ­ enerally, however, there was little separa-
tion of the political, social, economic, and spiritual dimensions of people’s lives.
­As Helin (2006) points out, many Indigenous people had a more holistic world view
that placed social concerns at the centre of everything.
Prior to European contact, First Nations families were organized communally
and non-hierarchically, without coercive authority (Leigh, 2009). Some First N­ ations
societies were, to varying degrees, women-centred, matrilineal, and inclusive of
women in the political aspects of the society (Mihesuah, 2003). In many societies
women were considered sacred and respected as wise advisers. As E ­ mberley (2001)
points out, Cree women were considered the centre of the circle of life. Moreover, in
a hunting society, the distinction between work and home was not important. Only
with the introduction of a wage economy did the roles people play become linked to
economics, making that of the “breadwinner” the more powerful role (Dick, 2006).
Women tended crops in agricultural societies, gathered roots and berries, and pre-
pared the products of the hunt for food, clothing, and various household needs.
Much of this would change when European colonialism and settlement began.
Pre-contact Inuit culture reveals a number of settlement types as well as the
features of these camps. Nevertheless, there were cultural commonalities across
the Arctic due to interlocking regional trade networks. Inuit life was organized
around a schedule of game harvesting and a periodic bringing together of local
groups and then dispersion at other times. Kin and gender social categories were
the most important but there were other roles to be played (e.g., shaman, angagoks),
Loose alliances occurred between different families but there always was a sense of
community and place, and sharing of accumulated wealth was expected.
Before the Europeans arrived, there was considerable contact and trade, as
well as warfare, among First Nations and Inuit. Through trade networks and estab-
lished trade routes, goods travelled considerable distances: for example, archeolo-
gists have found coastal seashells well into the interior of Canada. Conflict between
some of the tribes was ongoing. For example, by the early seventeenth century
the Algonquins had been driven from their homeland by the Kanienkehaka and
Mi’kmaq; conflict between the Mi’kmaq and the Wabenaki continued for nearly
the first seven decades of the seventeenth century before it subsided. These con-
flicts focused on obtaining slaves, controlling trade routes, and obtaining loot from
8 Indigenous Peoples in the Twenty-First Century

the villages captured. Larger units, called “tribes,” were political arrangements that
­a llowed smaller groupings to have some linguistic or cultural affinity with others.
In other cases, they formed alliances among themselves, such as the Wabenaki,
Wendat, and Haudenosaunee confederacies, which allowed greater political organ-
ization and control, as well as expanded trade, and ensured that enough food was
available for survival (Harris, 1987).
Across what would become Canada, prior to contact there were seven major cul-
ture areas and over 50 languages that linguists have divided into about 12 ­language
groups (Morrison & Wilson, 2004, pp. 4–5, 14–18); the peoples in each culture area
developed their own political, economic, and social structure that allowed them
to fit into their ecological niche. For well over 10,000 years, these units were self-
sustaining and prospered (Helin, 2006). There were times of famine and times of
war, but these were episodic in nature and each of the tribes developed strategies
to deal with the exigencies. But all of this would change when the Europeans came
to colonize. As Helin points out, a way of living involving co-operation that had
worked well for Indigenous people prior to contact would be a major weakness once
contact occurred.
While many Inuit and First Nations people were hunters and gatherers, their
lives were ruled by a high degree of co-operation, not only within communities but
also between them and sometimes inter-tribally. Traditional First Nations and Inuit
communities were generally egalitarian. There is considerable agreement between
First Nations and non-First Nations people that most tribes were self-governing
nations, and this view was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in the
famous Marshall decision of 1831 in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, when the Court
determined that the “Cherokee Indians” were a “domestic dependent nation.”
­A lthough there is no equivalent court decision in Canada, the Royal Proclamation
of 1763 suggests that First Nations people did control their own lives in the eyes of
the British government, and the Proclamation set conditions by which land could
be taken from First Nations people living in the “unsettled” lands beyond Quebec
and the Appalachian Mountains.

Contact and European Settlement

The earliest time of contact is unknown but archeological and literary evidence
suggests it took place around 1000 ce when the Vikings sailed the North Atlantic
from Greenland to the northern tip of Newfoundland, where they established a
settlement that lasted for several years. However, ongoing contact can be said to
have begun in 1534 when Jacques Cartier made his first voyage and was in contact
with the Stadakohnans, near present-day Quebec City. Cartier would return again
in 1541 to establish a colony at what is now Montreal. Later, other early explorers,
notably Samuel de Champlain, came in contact with Indigenous groups. On his
first voyage in 1603 Champlain encountered Innu, Kanienkehaka, and other First
Nations groups, and he founded a permanent settlement at Quebec City in 1608.
 1 Knowing Your History 9

When settlers entered the country, they brought with them the notion of a
patriarchal family as the most important component of settlement. Thus, to civil-
ize First Nations (the White Man’s burden, in the later phrasing of the English
author, Rudyard Kipling), the Europeans subjected them to reorganization along
patriarchal lines, aligning the interests of First Nations families and the social
organization of the communities with the interests of the colonial power (Leigh,
2009). This brought about the displacement of First Nations women from the
­positions of government and power they had traditionally held within some groups,
such as the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat. Leigh argues that First Nations men
were brought into line with the patrilineal system of the settlers through punitive
strategies for those who resisted and rewards for those who accepted this new role
and reorganization of the family.
Finally, the introduction of the 1876 Indian Act cemented the new social or-
ganization for First Nations people when it defined Indian women through their
relation to men (an arrangement that continues even with the passing of Bill C-31
in 1985). As Leigh (2009) points out, under the new Indian Act, First Nations men
gained recognition under European law in exchange for dispossessing First Nations
women of their power. Women were denied any vote in the government-imposed
system involving chief and council. As such, they were stripped of any formal in-
volvement in the political process. As Christianity was introduced, from a very
early time in New France, it added to the shaping of First Nations families so that
they met the settlers’ conception of “family.” Thus began the transition of Indigen-
ous cultures to better align with the settler society. The Indian Act also began to
create the gender tensions in First Nations communities that continue to this day.
The result of colonialism has been the forced acceptance of settler family struc-
tures, values, and behaviours by Indigenous people, a process that has permeated
Indigenous cultures. The consequences of the settler project of assimilation have
been dramatic, perhaps most especially in regard to the residential school system,
which we shall examine in Chapter 4.
Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples can be described as a series of
phases in which interests and policy changed substantially. Generally, five phases
have characterized the relationship with Indigenous people, although it might be
argued that in recent decades we have moved into a sixth phase.

Phase 1 (1610–1680)
By the early seventeenth century both the French and English had made inroads
into the northern half of North America. Small French settler communities were
established, trade routes were formed, and a thriving barter system had developed
with the First Nations populations (Rutherdale, Abel, & Lackenbauer, 2017).
Of course, considerable conflict between the two European powers vying for con-
trol of the continent continued, and each side sought First Nations allies in their
­ongoing dispute.
10 Indigenous Peoples in the Twenty-First Century

First Nations peoples were essential to the survival of the early colonial settle-
ments in Canada. This early contact between First Nations and Inuit populations
and the settlers could be best described as symbiotic in that each group was able
to benefit and learn from the other. First Nations and Inuit taught European set-
tlers and explorers about the land and about survival in a harsh northern climate—
about the wild foods and game to eat, the clothing to wear, the shelters to construct
in an unforgiving environment, canoes and komatiks for transport, and physical
geography and travel routes. In return, Europeans provided metal, firearms, and
other materials and foodstuffs that, it appeared, would enhance the quality of life
of First Nations and Inuit (Patterson, 1972). As such, the initial contact brought an
influx of material objects (technology) that led to significant changes in the lifestyle
and culture of the Indigenous populations.

Phase 2 (1680–1815)
The second phase of contact saw Indigenous peoples (First Nations, Métis, and
Inuit) drawn deeper into the economy of the settlers through the fur trade as they
became more dependent on the trade goods brought by the Europeans. During
this phase, too, the devastation of First Nations and Inuit populations by European
diseases such as smallpox began to have a huge impact, so that the pre-contact es-
timated Indigenous population of half a million was reduced to barely 100,000 by
the end of the nineteenth century.
The French had established various posts in which they could carry out trade
with the First Nations. At the same time, Jesuit missionaries were sent to the inter-
ior of Canada to convert the Indigenous people. The French fur trade in its infancy
was linked to the European hat trade and was controlled by the Ministry of Marine,
responsible for colonial affairs. It created a company called Compagnie des Indes
­occidentales, which controlled the fur and moosehide trade in Canada. While it was
made to look like a private enterprise, it was in fact a French Crown corporation.
As such, all permanent residents of the French colony were compelled to deal with
the Crown company while others could trade with other companies. The intent of
the company was to begin with the fur and moosehide trade but then to develop
trade in timber, minerals, and foodstuffs for the West Indies plantations. Thus, the
French sent thousands of single young men to the new colony to begin development
of the new land. Until the 1750s, the fur trade expanded, and it served both eco-
nomic and political purposes for the French (Miller, 2018). The fur trade was profit-
able, and it also allowed the Crown to control the settler population. Such trade also
influenced the ways of life of Indigenous peoples: in some instances, local animal
populations were decimated and the pursuit of furs drew the men away from their
traditional activity of hunting to provide for families and communities.
In 1670, the English Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) was chartered and
given control over a large area of present-day Canada. The Company was given
wide powers, including exclusive trading rights within the area called Rupert’s
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the old house looked very pretty, and were glad that some
one had come to live in it.

"Will he live by himself, Stephen, do you think?" said

Audrey.

But before Stephen had time to answer, Aunt Cordelia's

voice was heard calling—

"Now, Audrey, tea-time! What about your pinafore?"

The pinafore was quite clean this time, and Audrey went
in with a light heart; and as a reward for keeping clear of
dirt, she was allowed to play with Stephen again after tea.
She was eager to get out, that she might catch another
glimpse of her old man, as she called him; but she found
the shutters closed, and she and Stephen could only watch
the flickering of the bright light inside.

"He's got a fire," said Stephen; "look at the smoke

coming up out of the chimney."

"And he's got a lamp, too," said Audrey. "Look, you can
see it through the crack in this shutter."
 "THERE'S SOME ONE SITTING IN THE WINDOW!" HE SAID.

"Listen—" said Stephen. "What is he doing?"

The sound of hammering came again and again from

the room, the window of which looked into the churchyard.

"He's putting up his pictures," said Audrey. "How pretty

it will look in the morning!"

There was, however, no time for her to peep at it before

school; but when she came home at twelve o'clock, she
found Stephen full of excitement.

"There's some one sitting in the window, and I can't

make out who it is," he said. "I can see something white,
and it moves, but it isn't the old man's head; it's too white
for that."

"Why don't you go and look?" said Audrey.

 "I daren't," said Stephen; "I waited for you, Audrey."

The little girl went on tip-toe and peeped in.

"It's an old woman, Stephen," she reported, when she

came back to him. "Such a pretty old woman, and she is
sitting in that arm-chair, knitting, and she is smiling to
herself as she knits. I wonder what she is thinking about
that makes her smile. Come and look, Stephie."

Very, very quietly the two children crept to the window

and peeped in.

"Is any one there?" said a pleasant voice.

But the children were so startled when she spoke, that

they ran away and hid behind the bushes, and it was some
time before they dared to venture again near the window.

"Is any one there?" said the kindly voice of the old
woman. "I am sure I hear some little feet outside."

"Yes, ma'am," said Audrey; "it's me and Stephen."

"You and Stephen, is it?" said the old woman. "And

what are you and Stephen like?"

Instead of answering, the two children put their heads

in at the window.

How pretty it was inside that room! The walls were

covered with pictures and photographs and coloured texts,
a fire was burning in the grate, and in front of it lay a
tortoiseshell cat fast asleep; the chimney-piece was
adorned with stuffed birds and vases filled with grass, and
on the round table was a large bunch of wallflowers, which
filled the whole room with sweetness.
 "Now then, what are you and Stephen like?" said the
old woman, smiling again.

"Can't you see us, ma'am?" said Audrey.

"No, I can't see you," said the old woman quietly; "I'm
blind."

"Oh dear, what a pity!" said little Stephen.

"No, not a pity," said the old woman, "not a pity,

because the good Lord sees best; we must never say it's a
pity."

"Can't you see anything?" said Audrey.

"Not a glimmer," said the old woman, "it is all dark now;
but I can feel the warm sunshine, thank God, and I can
smell these sweet flowers, and I can hear your bonny
voices."

"I'm so sorry for you," said little Stephen, "so very, very
sorry!"

"God bless you, my dear child!" said the old woman,

and a tear rolled down her cheek and fell upon her knitting.
"And now tell me who you are, and what you are like."

"I'm Audrey, please, ma'am," said the little girl, "and

he's Stephen, and he's as good as my brother, only he isn't
my brother—are you, Stephie? And he's got shaky legs, and
he can't walk far; but he plays with me among the graves—
don't you, Stephie?"

"And now, Stephen, what is Audrey like?" asked the old

woman.
 "She's got yellow hair," said little Stephen, "and she's
nice!" And then he turned shy, and would say no more.

"Now," said the old woman, "you must often come and
talk to me as I sit in my window, and you must tell me all
you are doing. I know what to call you, but you must know
what to call me. My name is Mrs. Robin, and you shall call
me Granny Robin. I have some little grandchildren, but they
live over the sea in America, so you must take their place."

"Thank you, ma'am," said Audrey. "Thank you, Granny

Robin, I mean," she added, laughing.

That was the beginning of a great friendship between

the two children and the new-comers. Mr. Robin had been a
schoolmaster, and for many years had worked hard and
lived carefully, so that in his old age he had saved enough
to retire, and to take the old house, and make a
comfortable home in it for himself and for his wife.

The rent was low, for few liked to take a house the
windows of which looked out upon graves, but the
schoolmaster made no objection to the churchyard. There
were green trees in it, which would remind him of the pretty
village where he had lived so long, and he did not mind the
graves: he would soon be lying in one himself, and it was
well to be reminded of it, he said. And as for his wife, she
could not see the graves, but she could hear the twittering
of the swallows that built under the eaves of the deserted
church, and she could smell the lilac on the bush close to
her window, and it would be a quiet and pleasant home for
her until the Lord called her.

The only fear that the schoolmaster had had in choosing

his new home had been lest his wife would miss the
company to which she had been accustomed in the village
where they were so well known. She had a large and loving
heart, and there were very few in the village who did not
come to her for sympathy both in joy and in sorrow. She
knew the history of every one, and, one by one, they
dropped in to tell her all that was going on in the village—
countless little events which would have been of small
interest to others, but which were of great interest to Mrs.
Robin.

She sat at her knitting when the neighbours had gone,

thinking over what she had heard, and carrying the sorrows
of others, as she ever carried her own, to the throne of
grace.

But Mr. Robin need not have feared for his wife. She
had a happy, contented spirit. It is true she had felt sad at
leaving her happy country home, but new interests were
already springing up in the one to which she felt the Lord
had brought her. Little Stephen with his shaky legs, and
Audrey with her motherly care over him, had already won
Granny Robin's heart, and the children from that time spent
a very large part of their playtime in talking to their new
friend, as she sat at her window knitting.

CHAPTER IV
Forgotten Graves

ONE day, as the children stood by Granny Robin's side,

they talked about the old graves in the churchyard. It was a
bright spring evening, and the golden sunshine was
streaming through the branches of the ragged, untidy trees,
which nearly hid the old church from sight. Granny Robin
could not see the sunshine, but Stephen could see it, and
he told her about it, and said he was sure the swallows liked
it as much as he did, for they were flying round and round
in long circles, twittering as they flew.

It had become quite a regular thing for Stephen to tell

the old woman all he saw, and he loved to hear her say that
she was now no longer blind, for she had found a pair of
new eyes.

One day she called him her "little Hobab," and when he
laughed and asked her why she gave him such a funny
name, she said it was because, long, long ago, when Moses
was travelling through the wilderness with the children of
Israel, he said to his brother-in-law, Hobab:

"Thou mayest be to us instead of eyes." And she said

that God had sent little Stephen to her, in her old age, that
he might be instead of eyes to her.

"I am so sorry for those poor graves," said Stephen on

that spring evening, when he had been telling Granny Robin
about the sunlight and the swallows.

"Why are you sorry for them?" asked the old woman.

"They look so sad and lonely," said Stephen.

"What are they like?" asked Granny Robin.

"Oh, all green and dirty," said Audrey, "and the trees
are fallen against them, and when the wind blows, their
branches go beat, beat, beat, against the stones, till Aunt
Cordelia says she can't bear to hear them when she's in bed
at night."

"Does nobody bring flowers to put on them?" asked the

old woman.

"No, never," said little Stephen.

"Nor wreaths?"

"Oh no, never."

"Does no one ever come to look at them?"

"No, never once, Granny Robin," said Audrey.

"And they do look so sad," said Stephen.

"Yes," said the little girl, "I went with Aunt Cordelia to
the cemetery one day, and it's lovely there, just like a
garden; the flowers are beautiful, and there were heaps of
people watering graves, and raking them and pulling off the
dead flowers, and some of them were crying."

"But no one cries over these graves," said Granny

Robin.

"No, not one person," said Stephen. "My father says all
the people that loved them are dead and buried
themselves."

"Poor forgotten graves!" said the old woman. "And my

grave will be like one of them in fifty years' time—a
forgotten grave."

She was talking to herself more than to the children,

but little Stephen answered her.
 "Will no one remember it, Granny Robin?"

"Yes, some one will," she said brightly; "my Lord will
never forget. He will know where it is, and whose body lies
inside, and it will be safe in His care till the great
Resurrection Day."

"Will the angels know too?" said Stephen.

"I think they will," she said.

"Do they know who are buried in these poor old

graves?" asked the child.

"Yes, I believe they do," said the old woman.

"In every one?"

"Yes, in every one."

"Even when the names are worn off?" asked the little
boy.

"Yes, I believe they do," said Granny Robin softly.

"I'm so glad," said Stephen. "Then maybe the angels do

come and look at them sometimes. I expect they come at
night, when Audrey and me are in bed. I'll get out and look
some night, Granny Robin; maybe I shall see them; my
window looks out this way."

The forgotten graves weighed heavily on Stephen's

mind after this talk with the old woman. When Audrey was
at school, he used to wander up and down amongst them,
pitying them with all the pity of his loving little heart. And
he would try to put aside some of the branches that kept
blowing against the stones, and which were so fast wearing
them away, and he would pull up some of the long grass,
which in some places hid the stones completely from sight.

"Audrey—" he said one afternoon when Aunt Cordelia

had given her leave to have a long play with him, "Audrey,
couldn't we make these poor old graves look nice?"

"We couldn't do them all," said Audrey. "Why, Stephen,

there must be a hundred or more!"

"No, we couldn't do them all; we might begin with two—

one for you and one for me, Audrey."

"Well, let's choose," said the little girl. "We'll walk round
and have a look at them all."

"We'll have one with some reading on," said Stephen,

"and then we shall know what to call it."

"Here's a poor old stone against the wall," said Audrey;

"I'll read you what it says."

"'SACRED
TO THE MEMORY OF
CHARLES HOLDEN,
WHOSE REMAINS LIE
HERE INTERRED.
HE WAS
OF HUMANE DISPOSITION,
A SOCIAL COMPANION,
A FAITHFUL SERVANT,
AND A SINCERE FRIEND.
HE DEPARTED THIS LIFE
THE 23RD OF DECEMBER, 1781.
 AGED 38.'"

"I don't like that one bit," said Stephen; "it has got too
many hard words in it."

"Well, here's another."

"'IN MEMORY
OF
JOHN POWELL.
DIED IN 1781.
ALSO MARY, RELICT OF
THE ABOVE, WHO DIED
JANUARY 20, 1827,
AGED 87.
ALSO TWO GRANDCHILDREN,
WHO DIED YOUNG.'"

"That's much nicer," said Stephen. "I like those two

grandchildren who died young. I wonder how old they were;
do you think they were as old as you and me, Audrey?"

"I don't know," said Audrey; "it doesn't say, and it

doesn't tell if they were girls or boys."

"Never mind," said Stephen, "we can guess. I think one

was a girl and one was a boy. And are their bodies really
down under here, Audrey?"

"Yes, what there is of them," said Audrey; "Aunt

Cordelia says they turn to dust."
 "Oh," said little Stephen, in an awestruck voice, "I wish
we could see the dust of the two grandchildren who died
young! I'll have this grave, Audrey, and take care of them.
Is there any one else inside it?"

"Yes, there's John Powell, died in 1781; also Mary, relict

of the above," read Audrey.

"What does relict mean?" asked Stephen.

"Aunt Cordelia has a relict," said Audrey, "and she

keeps it in a box."

"Is it a woman?" asked Stephen.

"No, it's a bit of grey hair; she cut it off her mother's
head when she was dead, and she says it's a relict. I don't
know what she means, but she keeps it locked up ever so
safe."

"I hope John Powell didn't lock Mary up," said Stephen.

"She must have got out if he did," said Audrey, "for she
lived a long, long, long time after him. He died in 1781, and
she didn't die not until 1827; let me count up, it's quite a
long sum. Why, it's forty-six years, Stephen!"

"Oh dear," said Stephen, "that is a long time! Let's tell

Granny Robin about it, and I'll ask her if she would have
that one if she was me."

Granny Robin quite approved of their plan, and of

Stephen's choice of the two grandchildren who died young.
She told them that relict meant the wife left behind, and
tears came into the old woman's sightless eyes, as she sat
at her knitting and thought of the poor widow left behind for
forty-six years. She pictured her living on and on, year after
year, coming doubtless often to that grave to look at the
place where her John lay, but still kept waiting for forty-six
years for the glad day when she should see him again.

Granny Robin thought it must have seemed a longs

dreary time to poor Mary. And then, maybe, those two
grandchildren were a cheer and comfort to her. Yet they
were taken, they died young, but old Mary still lived on. Till
at last, on that winter's day, January 20, 1827, the call, so
long waited for, came, and she and her John were together
again. Then, too, the old grandmother saw once more the
faces of the two grandchildren who died young.

So Granny Robin mused as she sat at her work; and she

wondered whether the waiting-time seemed as long to old
Mary, as she looked back to it from the brightness and the
joy of the Home above, or did it seem short as a troubled
dream seems when we wake from sleep?

"Our light affliction, which is but for a moment."

So long, when we are passing through it; but for a

moment, as we look back to it from God's eternity.

CHAPTER V
The Collection
 STEPHEN had now quite settled upon the grave which
he was to make his especial care, but he promised not to
begin his work until Audrey had chosen hers. She was very
undecided for a long time, but at length she chose one,
sacred to the memory of another John.

"It will be nice for us each to have a John," she said.

"'BENEATH IS DEPOSITED
ALL THAT WAS MORTAL OF
JOHN HUTTON,
WHO DIED THE 12TH OF APRIL, 1793,
AGED 47.'"

"'Go home, dear wife, and shed no tear,

I must ly here till Christ appear;
And at His coming hope to have
A joyful rising from the grave.'"

"How do you spell lie, Granny Robin?" said Audrey,

when she had finished reading it to her.

"L-i-e," said the old woman.

"Well, it's l-y here," said the child.

"That's the old-fashioned way," said Granny Robin.

"Well, now, we'll set to work," said Audrey; "we must

wash them first, Stephen. Do you think your father would
give us some water in a basin? I daren't ask Aunt Cordelia;
she would say I should dirty my pinafore."

"If Stephen's father will give him a basin, I will give you
one, Audrey," said Granny Robin.

"And I'll get you both an old sponge," said Mr. Robin,
who was smoking his pipe in the window.

What a scrubbing went on after that! Stephen's father,

who was always pleased to do anything his poor little boy
asked him, brought out soap and two scrubbing brushes,
and the children worked away diligently for more than an
hour.

At the end of it, they were far from satisfied with their
work.

"The two grandchildren who died young won't come

clean, Granny Robin," said little Stephen mournfully.

"They're quite as nice as my John is," said Audrey.

"Anyhow," she added more hopefully, "they're a deal
cleaner than they were before. Now what's the next thing to
be done?"

"We must cut the long grass behind them," said

Stephen, "and then we must dig up the grave in front of the
stone. I'll get father's big scissors and my little spade."

Father's big scissors cut the grass down very

successfully, but Stephen's little spade refused to go into
the hard ground. It had been trodden underfoot for many
years, and it lay hard and dry and stony over the heads of
the two grandchildren who died young.
 But at this point old Mr. Robin came to the rescue. He
brought a large spade out of his house and dug the grave
over for little Stephen, and then, after he had rested a little,
he did the same for Audrey's John, as she called him.

AT THIS POINT OLD MR. ROBIN CAME TO THE RESCUE.

"Wouldn't the wife be pleased if she saw we were doing

it?" she said.

"What wife?" asked Stephen.

"This wife it says about in the hymn—"

"'Go home, dear wife, and shed no tear.'"

 "I wonder if she did shed any," said Stephen.

"I expect she did," said Audrey; "I wonder what has
become of her. Do you think she will ever come to see how
nice we have made her John's grave, Granny Robin?"

"When did John die?" asked the old woman.

"In 1793," said Audrey.

"1793—a hundred years ago!" said Granny Robin. "Why,

Audrey, the wife must have been dead long since!"

"And she never sheds any more tears now," said

Stephen, "because she's in heaven."

"I hope so," said Granny Robin.

"Does everybody go to heaven when they die?" asked

the child.

"No, my dear boy, not every one."

"Shall I go there when I die, Granny Robin? I do hope I

shall," said little Stephen.

"I hope so too, my little man. The Lord wants to have

you there," she said.

"What is it like, Granny Robin?" asked Stephen.

"We know very little about it, Stephen," said the old
woman, "but we can't help thinking about it, and dreaming
about it; and I always think of it as a beautiful garden,
where the King walks with His friends. I may be wrong,
Stephie, but that's what I always see in my mind when I
think of it."
 "The two grandchildren who died young will like being in
the garden," said Stephen. "Do you think they're glad they
died young, Granny Robin?"

"I think they are, Stephie," she said; "they did not have
to tread far on life's rough ways; their little feet reached the
garden long, long years ago."

"And there will be soft grass for them to walk on there,"

said Stephen, "Maybe I'll see them when I get there. Do
you think I'll know them, Granny Robin?"

"I think you will, Stephie; I feel almost sure you will,"
she said.

"If I see any very dear little children playing under the
trees of the garden," said little Stephen, "I might ask them,
'Are you the two grandchildren who died young?' And then
they could tell me, couldn't they?"

"God bless you, my dear little lad!" was all the answer
Granny Robin gave him.

The next day was Saturday, which was market-day in

the old city. It was Audrey's holiday, and the happiest day in
the week to Stephen and to herself. Aunt Cordelia was
always busy cleaning from morning till night, and sent
Audrey into the churchyard, that she might be out of the
way of her sweeping-brush and dust-pan.

On this particular Saturday, Audrey and Stephen were

whispering together under the lilac tree for a very long
time; and about ten minutes afterwards, Mr. Robin, who
was smoking his pipe in the window, saw a sight which
made him laugh so much, that for a long time he could not
tell Granny Robin at what he was laughing.
 As he looked across the churchyard, he saw Audrey and
Stephen coming towards the window arm in arm. Stephen
was dressed in the tall hat which his father wore when he
went to chapel on Sunday night, and in an old greatcoat,
which was fastened round his neck, and dragged like a long
tail behind him, whilst the sleeves were turned up so far
that there was far more lining than cloth to be seen. Audrey
had a red shawl thrown over her head, and her pinafore
was tied round her waist like an apron. Each child carried a
tin, on which old Mr. Robin distinctly read the words
"Colman's Mustard."

As soon as they came up to the window both children

made a low bow, but neither of them spoke.

"Well, what do you want?" said Mr. Robin, as gravely as

he could. "Are you going round begging this fine spring
morning?"

"Please, sir, we're making a collection," said Audrey.

"Yes, it's a collection," echoed little Stephen.

"What's it for, my little dears?" said Granny Robin, as

she laid down her knitting, and began to put her hand into
her pocket.

"Mine's for the TWO GRANDCHILDREN WHO DIED

YOUNG," said little Stephen.

"And mine's for ALL THAT WAS MORTAL OF JOHN

HUTTON," said Audrey.

"Oh, I see," said the old woman; "you want to go and

get some roots in the market for your graves—is that it?"
 That is it, and Granny Robin's hand must go in the
pocket again. It goes in empty, but it comes out well filled.
Three pennies for the grandchildren go into Stephen's tin,
and three more for John Hutton go rattling to the bottom of
Audrey's.

Now it is Mr. Robin's turn, and his pocket seems to be

full of pennies too; and the tins make such a noise when
they are shaken that Granny Robin pretends to stop her
ears, that she may not hear the din.

Then the two children go on to the next window, where

Stephen's father sits busy with his work. But the boot is laid
down, that the collection may have due attention, and it is
silver this time which goes into the tins, two quiet silver
threepences, which make no noise, but which the two
children admire greatly as they slip in amongst the copper.

"Now for Aunt Cordelia," says Audrey. "You must go

first, Stephen; she won't say 'No' to you."

Aunt Cordelia makes a dive at Audrey's pinafore, the

bottom of which she declares is collecting all the dust in the
churchyard, but she is not angry when she hears why they
have come. And when Stephen pleads for something for his
two grandchildren, she goes to her till and brings out
several pence for each tin, and willingly gives Audrey leave
to go that afternoon to the market with Mr. Robin to make
her purchases.

CHAPTER VI