Dear Editor,
I would like to share my perspective on two related articles from last week’s edition of THE EQUITY on the subject matter of Chief Pontiac. In “Who was Pontiac?” the general facts of his life and military campaign against the British as presented are without dispute and agreed upon by the historians. However, what is also agreed upon, but not mentioned in last week’s article, was the brutal manner in which Pontiac waged his uprising against the British. Specifically in the Fort Detroit siege where a frustrated Pontiac had no qualms in allowing his warriors to torture prisoners and murder English women and children caught outside the safety of the fort. One well documented example of this was Pontiac’s order to have a nine-year-old girl by the name of Betty Fisher thrown into the river to drown. Will the proposed display of Chief Pontiac at the MRC mention this? Or, will we have a ‘warm and feel good’ recounting of his life story and the events that swirled around it? I believe that most of us have no problem in taxpayers dollars allocated to such a display at the MRC, as long as it is not some romantic whitewashed version of the past.
The second article, “Honouring our county’s namesake” relating to the terrazzo depiction of Pontiac being roped off due to concerns about visitors walking on his head which was viewed as being disrespectful raises a wide array of questions.
Let’s start with the image itself. If the MRC is true in the desire to honour its namesake it should strongly reconsider changing its logo of Chief Pontiac adorned with a full headdress of eighteen feathers. Such an image is clearly a prime example of cultural misappropriation on the part of our MRC at the expense of the First Nations. Such a headdress was worn by the Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains such as the Dakota. The Odawa, whom Pontiac was its Chief, were according to written accounts and illustrations not known to wear such a headdress. But, the MRC has misappropriated Indigenous culture and then took artistic license to manipulate the likeness of Pontiac into something that he was not, by giving him 18 feathers to represent its 18 municipalities to suit its own political considerations. The older logo, such as the one found on the floor, is somewhat closer to the reality than the current MRC image.
Secondly, the issue brings light to both cultural differences and contradictions between Europeans and First Nation peoples. In western culture it is acceptable to honour people by placing their image or names on the ground. Evidently our local Indigenous community feels it is not acceptable. Yet, we can see in Toronto on Canada’s Walk of Fame notable Indigenous artists such as Kenojuak Ashevak and Buffy Sainte-Marie being honoured on a sidewalk which has pedestrian traffic.
This then raises the third point. Do the local Indigenous people actually speak for the Odawa people in that they were delegated by them to speak on their behalf? Perhaps the Odawa of Michigan, where they reside, have no issue with Pontiac’s depiction on the MRC floor?
Arguably it is a question well worth asking. If the Odawa do not have issue then perhaps our local Indigenous people misappropriated Pontiac for their own agenda as well, just as the MRC has done for its agenda? Would it not have been best to have consulted with the Odawa first on this matter to obtain some sort of genuine representation before arriving at a decision? Would they not be the ultimate authority? Or, is Pontiac all of ours to claim and revere.
Our warden states that complaints were voiced and she acted and “that it is important to speak up about issues that matter to you.” This leaves us with the fourth and final question. If she and her council of mayors are so sensitive to act on complaints when a culture is being ‘trampled’ on, can we then take it as a given that the MRC will stand up for English businesses that are having their language rights being diminished by way of unjust legislation?
Todd Hoffman, Clarendon, Que.
