Monday, October 1, 2012

Monumental Language

I check in with the office. "Who's my sub for today?"

"Scott," says Deanna.

"Oh, perfect!" I say. I am holding an assignment "Treaty Walks for Kids" that I was going to assign this morning. Scott is one of my treaty teachers, a local who has been thinking and learning about treaty a lot longer than I have.

I find Scott in the classroom and I share my lesson for the day. Scott says, "Hey, I've always wanted to take kids to the two monuments to look at the language on each statue."

"That would be awesome," I say. "I'll go ask Cathy if that's okay."

Cathy says sure, and I couldn't be happier with these teachable "monuments".

"The Two Treaty Monuments" Lesson with Scott Fulton

1. When was each monument erected and by whom? Describe what each monument looks like.
2. Write out the exact language used on each monument that describes what the signing of treaties was all about.

In "Cannonball Park" (locally known as Cannonball Park for the cannon which used to be in Treaty Park)                                               
  • Erected in 1915 by Western Art Association Branch of SK.
  •  "whereby the Indian chiefs ceded all their rights, titles, privileges to all lands wheresoever situated within her majesties N.W.T to her majesty the queen and her successors forever.
By the Courthouse "Man Holding Eagle"
  • In an exchange of solemn promises, they (the First Nations) agreed to share this land with the newcomers. This was done in peace.
  • This plaque was set up in 1987 by the chiefs of the First Nations who were signatories to the treaty.
3. Compare the differences in language in the interpretations of treaty. Which monument's use of language more accurately reflects the spirit and intent of treaty in your mind? Why?


1 comment:

  1. I've also wondered on the statement "this was done in peace" because the next panel I believe talks about the dead that were buried there at the time of the treaty signing?