“Why not change underlying title back to aboriginal title?” (229). This is one of the last questions that Chamberlin poses to us, right at the end of his novel, If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Chamberlin justifies this claim by outlining how underlying title is fiction, how it was created with ceremony, and then showing how changing underlying title to aboriginal title can be done by believing two stories at once. He first outlines how “title” (228) is really just a metaphor in a fictitious story of how ownership of Canadian land belongs to whoever holds it. This story was written for one reason by the settlers, and that was to justify their destruction of indigenous lives and languages. The settlers believed that because they held the title to the land, that they owned the land, and because of that they could do whatever they wished on that land. This is a fiction because the aboriginals were here long before any settlers arrived, and if claim of the land belongs with those who live there, then it should belong with them.
The settlers further legitimized their claim by using ceremony. Chamberlin points out that ceremonies have a power over us, to lead us to believe things that we would otherwise question. He uses the example of Christian communion to point this out (225). During communion we are told to believe that the wafer and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I know not everyone reading this will have experience in a Christian church, but as someone who was raised catholic, this is indeed what is believed. Outside of the ceremony of church, I rationally know that this is not the case. It is simply a wafer and some wine. During church though, for that moment, no questions are asked. The same applies to settlers and their title claim. They used the courts and the government that they themselves set up, as a form of ceremony, to add belief to the claim and to stop people from questioning if indeed they had any right to this land.
Now that we have an idea as to how underlying title came about, why then should we switch back to aboriginal title? Throughout his book, Chamberlin mentions the possibility of having two contradictory stories existing at the same time, but that are both true (132, 220). As a science student I like to refer to this as Chamberlin’s Cat. It is our own context, frame of reference, and our own ceremonies that lead to the belief of any story. And just like how the act of viewing changes the outcome for Schrodinger, so does the act of believing change the outcome of the story for Chamberlin. In other words, changing underlying title to aboriginal title wouldn’t really change our lives, other than to remind us of the difference between fact and fiction (230). By making this change we would be cutting through the ceremony we have put in place to make us forget about the fiction that has been created to make claim to Canadian land, and to remind us of the fact that this was a story we created. Chamberlin argues for this point further by pointing out that this wouldn’t undo everything society has created, we can have both existing. Making this change “wouldn’t mean an Indian chief could come…walk into my house anymore than the Queen or the President could now” (231). We can still live the story we have created, in the society we created, but change the perspective. “We would finally have a constitutional ceremony of belief in the humanity of aboriginal peoples in the Americas” (231). This is something that has long been missing in Canada, and would go a long way to mending a divide that has existed between settlers and the aboriginal people.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print.
Hanson, Erin. “Aboriginal Title.” Indigenous Foundations, indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_title/.
Physics, Minute. “Schrödinger’s Cat.” YouTube, YouTube, 26 Sept. 2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4.