Dawnland Voices: An Anthology of Indigenous Writing from New England

James Sakej Youngblood Henderson

82 James Sakej Youngblood Henderson (b. 1944) Henderson is married to Marie Battiste, with whom he has three children, including Jaime. In 1974 he received a juris doctorate from Harvard Law School and became a law professor who created litigation strategies to restore Aboriginal culture, institutions, and rights. During the constitutional process (1978–93) in Canada, he served as a constitutional advisor for the Mí’kmaw nation and the National Indian Brotherhood—Assembly of First Nations. A noted international human rights lawyer and authority on protecting indigenous heritage, knowledge, and culture, Henderson was one of the drafters and expert advisors who developed the principles and guidelines for the protection of indigenous heritage in the un human rights fora. He has also been a member of the Advisory Board to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Advisory Committee to the Canadian Secretariat for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance (wcar) within the Department of Canadian Heritage. Currently he is a member of the Sectoral Commission on Culture, Communication , and Information of the Canadian Commission for unesco; the Eminent Person Implementation Committee for Traditional Knowledge in the Biodiversity Convention Office; and the Experts Advisory Group on International Cultural Diversity. The following excerpt appears in Honoring 400 Years: Kepmite’tmnej, edited by Jaime Battiste. Mi’kmaq Treaties introduction After the Thirty Years’ War between the Catholics and Protestants in Europe the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) created a new regime in international law of Europe. This treaty order divided Europe into Catholic and Protestant states. The states embarked on the establishment of a world order based on the secular sovereignty of states and on treaties, rather than under the Holy See. The change brought instability among the European monarchs who fought over acquiring jurisdiction over different parts of Mi’kmaki, and the Mi’kmaq were forced to defend their territories. This James Sakej Youngblood Henderson 83 defense required the executives and delegates of the Grand Council and the chiefs to negotiate treaties with the secular states that claimed an interest in Mi’kmaki. Under the Putuswagn traditions and the Aboriginal transnational law (Nikmanen law), the executive of the Grand Council of the Mi’kmaw Nation or their selected delegates were empowered to speak for the nation in the treaties and alliances. They were charged with creating and maintaining the centralized relationship with other nations and authorities. This was their unique role. However, the executive did not have inherent authority to enter into treaties that would automatically bind the district chiefs that comprised the Grand Council. Each of the Mi’kmaw districts had to consult with their families and ratify or renew negotiated treaties. The Mi’kmaw treaties are about relationship and diplomacy. They are about maintaining and structuring relationships between diverse nations, Aboriginal and European. The treaties were a reflection of their spiritual heritage and their consensual traditions. They were concerned with creating a legal and diplomatic relationship with these nations. The relationship was conceived as a kinship relation, a “Chain in our Hearts,” and a “friendship.” In 1726 the Council entered into treaty relations with the British Crown as allies of the Wabanaki Confederacy, by ratifying the central 1725 Compact with the Wabanaki and the Crown. In 1752 the Council entered into a direct Compact with the British Crown. It was known as Elikawake, being with the King’s House. These two treaties are the center of the treaty relations and are surrounded by many ratifications and renewals by district chiefs and captains. In the negotiation of the 1752 Compact, the Grand Chief explained the Mi’kmaw traditions. While he was empowered to treaty on behalf of the Mi’kmaw Nation, he had to return to the people, inform them of the treaty, go to the other chiefs and propose to them to renew the peace, use his utmost endeavors to bring the other districts to make peace, and return with their answers. This protocol was identical to that used in the 1610 alliance with the Church and in the Wabanaki Compact of 1725. It provided formal recognition of the treaty union with the British king with the Mi’kmaq “heirs and the heirs of their heirs forever.” The federated structure of the “Mickmack Nation” confused the European nations and colonialists. They were familiar with a king who 84 mi’kmaq conducted foreign affairs and entered treaties for the people without any consultation with his...