Rural Saskatchewan people and First Nations people have often found themselves at odds, although it's not as bad as it used to be.
The first time I explored this issue in depth was for a book entitled "Writing off the Rural West." My chapter was called "Uneasy Neighbours" that explored the sometimes-difficult relationship between the two sides.
In that book chapter I explored how relationships are often stronger in communities where First Nations and white communities are economically independent in communities. (Prince Albert and Meadow Lake come to mind.) But I also explored how difficult this relationship can be and cited the town of Punnichy next to the Gordon First Nations. One homeowner told me that in Punnichy at the time, homeowners would often buy cheap houses around them just to tear them down to prevent Sask. Housing from purchasing them and renting them to Indian families.
Since the writing of that book, it's likely fair to say that even more progress has been made, although progress has often been slow. More and more economic participation by First Nations in local communities has meant more co-operation and better relations.
One example I can remember writing about in the past decade involved the Thunderchild band need Turtleford where both sides became active participants in the hospital. Another example that has struck me in recent years is the entries in the Saskatchewan Municipal Awards that see local communities and First Nations jointly working co-operatively.
But what has struck me of late is how problems of First Nations and rural communities tend to be common ones. And this thought really crossed my mind last week when about a thousand First Nation's people marched down Regina's Albert Street in a day of protest against the provincial government.
Admittedly, I'm rather skeptical of most legislative protests and especially this one. That it was organized about the time the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) was taking heat for dumping former grand chief Guy Lonechild, despite a court ruling suggesting they couldn't do that. It was a bit too much for this old cynic.
Add to the fact that I've seen all too many protests at the legislature over the years demanding more support for agriculture, a lack of health and education funding, less interference in local government issues, less taxation and more equitable resource sharing.
But it's also about here where it struck me that rural folks from the local farms, villages, towns and small cities and First Nations folks from the reserves, villages, towns and small cities may have a lot more in common than they recognize.
For example, for years rural folks have made the point that the oil, natural gas and potash is produced right under their feet and that hat should entitle them to a fair share of royalties so they can fix the roads or keep their schools and hospitals open.
Interestingly, this was also one of the major themes behind the First Nations protest march in Regina, albeit with added dimension of treaty rights.
First Nations argue the original treaties they signed 140 years ago with the new white federal government (remember, this was the northwest territory and Saskatchewan wouldn't become to be a province for another 30-plus years) talked about sharing the land to the "depth of a plough shear". First Nations say his means that they never gave up the right to natural resources buried much deeper. Or at least, they view this as grounds for a bigger share.
And while some might rightly view this is a specious argument, it's quite similar to the argument rural communities make for a bigger share of the natural resource pie.
So perhaps we're all not so different. Perhaps our biggest challenge right now is recognizing our similarities.
