Parks Canada has decided to drop the word "siege" from its annual re-enactment of the events of 1885 at Fort Battleford, following the protest of oral historian Tyrone Tootoosis.
The park will team up with First Nations to come up with a re-enactment that satisfies both sides of the story.
"I think what we want to do at Fort Battleford, and what we do with all our historic sites, is work with our aboriginal counterparts and make sure their voice is included," said Mark Calette, Parks Canada manager for national historic sites in southern Saskatchewan.
"We don’t want to be the arbitrators of history. We just want to facilitate the telling of all those stories."
Tootoosis said the quick response after he contacted the park with his concerns is a positive step.
Tootoosis is a descendent of Chief Poundmaker, who advanced on the fort in 1885 with a delegation of Cree and Assiniboine to demand more food rations from the Indian agent stationed there.
"I commend Parks Canada and Fort Battleford for arriving at this point and saying, ‘OK, it wasn’t a siege,’ and asking for help telling the elders’ perspective."
It’s up to Fort Battleford now to reconcile the two versions of the event in its annual celebrations, acknowledging the siege mentality of those who lived in the fort, while working with Cree elders to incorporate their stories.
For First Nations, the Fort Battleford story represents efforts at reconciliation during a time of hunger and conflict — efforts that were met with fear and distrust.
Poundmaker’s delegation was viewed with suspicion by the Battleford settlers, especially following the Metis attack on Duck Lake. When they got word of his approach they left their homes in the village and took refuge in fort, hunkering down for a siege.
The settlers may have had a siege mentality, but Poundmaker didn’t come to make a show of aggression, says Tootoosis. He came to reaffirm his allegiance to the Queen and to demand emergency food rations promised them in Treaty Six, but the Indian agent repeatedly refused to meet with him.
"Our leadership at the time did not want it to be considered a battle. Our leaders were not interested in breaching treaty. When you listen to our elders speak of that time, it was a time of famine, pestilence, disease, starvation. It was a very frustrating time."
There is even some evidence from the record of the settlers themselves that the fort was not besieged, says University of Saskatchewan historian Bill Waiser.
The Cree never bothered to cut the telegraph line, and though the source of water was outside the fort, those inside were not prevented from accessing it, he says.
"It was miserable enough with all those people crowded around the walls and stockade, but the First Nations could have made it much more miserable."
The events at Fort Battleford mark a transition in Canada’s treatment of aboriginals, from the period of negotiation to the painful period of forced assimilation. Bringing oral history to bear on events such as those at Fort Battleford represents one step in the slow healing process, says Tootoosis.
"For many, many years nobody talked about what happened in 1885. . . . People need to understand why. The industrial and residential school era has disrupted the process of oral history, but not totally. It’s an obligation and responsibility on our generation to make sure that what needs to be shared, what needs to be told, that we give a voice to that."
Comments