This post is in response to this question:

At the heart of the intersection between story and literature we will easily find the meeting of native and newcomer, and as Chamberlin says, “I keep returning to the experience of aboriginal peoples because it seems to me to provide a lesson for us all. And for all its [Canada] much-vaunted reputation as an international mediator and peacemaker, it is in this story of natives and newcomers that Canada really has something to offer the world” (228). And, then he goes on to propose: “Why not change underlying title back to aboriginal title?” (229). Explain how Chamberlin justifies this proposal.

I have just now returned from a profound journey through logic and imagination in the form of J. Edward Chamberlin’s book, “If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?” This book is about the need for “Us’s” and “Them’s” around the world to recognize that we share a borderland of faith which allows us to believe that the stories of our culture are true simply because they originate in our ways of knowing and our cultural histories. It encourages us to forge a new respect for one another by meeting in this borderland; and the book’s final chapter demonstrates the validity of the stories of all cultures by relating the events of a land dispute in which facts from an aboriginal myth were corroborated by scientific inquiry (219-221). In telling about these events, Chamberlin points out that an occidental mindset would be inclined to see scientific evidence as confirming the indigenous myth, which it would view as previously having no legs to stand on, whereas in reality all forms of story are equally valid.

This can be understood in light of the fact that most scientific ideas are actually theories, or “likelihoods” (Chamberlin 125), despite Western culture’s tendency to pretend they are more. Building on this thought, Chamberlin points out that the structure in North America of underlying land title is just another story, and that it, therefore, can, and perhaps should, be changed to reflect a deeper truth about this continent (228).

Currently, underlying land title belongs to the monarchy, or “Crown,” in Canada, and to the republic in the United States – but does that really make sense? Does it reflect truth? Or should it belong to the indigenous peoples?

Chamberlin points out that nothing in our everyday realities would change if we gave underlying land title to aboriginals: it “wouldn’t mean that an Indian chief could come and sit on my doorstep or walk into my house, any more than the Queen or the president could right now”; yet “this new title would constitute a new story and a new society. . . . [It] would finally provide a constitutional ceremony of belief in the humanity of aboriginal peoples in the Americas” (230-31).

The indigenous peoples of Canada and the United States have been displaced since settlers arrived. Changing underlying titles would be a step towards sharing the lands between us. It would provide common ground, which is an absolute necessity if we are to exist together peacefully.

Works Cited

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Reimagining Home and Sacred Space. Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, 2004. Print.

D’Errico, Peter. “Canadian Court Grapples with Native Lands, Preserves Crown Dominion.” Indian Country Today Media Network.com. Indian Country Today Media Network, 9 July 2014. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.

Welker, Glenn, comp. “Native American Mythology.” Indigenous Peoples’ Literature. N.p. 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.