It isn't surprising...

... that 'Status Indians' face threat of extinction, since the Indian Act was implemented specifically for the purpose of eradicating indigenous peoples and culture. Indian Status was designed to reduce the Indian population, a neat solution to the "Indian Problem".

Within a few generations, it was assumed, the Indian population would nearly disappear. This was ensured through the restrictive nature of Indian Status: an indigenous woman who married a white man lost her status, as did her children, plus if you were enfranchised to vote or got a university education you were no longer considered an Indian.

In the past 40 years there have been many changes to the Indian Act, some positive and some negative, but most aboriginals in Canada are unable to access the benefits of the Act, while dealing with many of the negative consequences of their heritage. Canadians often display an incredible degree of racism, particularly towards aboriginal individuals and groups. Don't believe me? Just read the comments on the Star article, if you can stomach it.

Personally, I can't imagine if the government was able to decide for me who I am (legally speaking). Imagine they all of a sudden decreed that only those with two Christian parents could be Christian, or that those women who vote were no longer legally women, or that men who go to university are no longer legally men, or if you have a slice of pizza you are now Italian.

Also see How the Indian Act made Indians act like Indian Act Indians

Early Farmers in the Americas - Farming because they wanted to, not because they had to

This is an interesting article, especially for me, with my interest in indigenous precolumbian agriculture in the Americas.

Three thousand eight hundred years ago, long before U.S. plains rippled with vast rows of corn, Native Americans planted farms with hardy "pioneer" crops, according to new evidence of the first farming in eastern North America.

Because the area appears to have been well stocked with wild food sources, the discovery may rewrite some beliefs about what led people to start farming on the continent, scientists say.

Rather than turning to farming as a matter of survival, the so-called Riverton people may have been exercising "free will" and engaging in a bit of gastronomic innovation, archaeologists say.

This does not surprise me in the least. We always assume 'prehistoric' peoples started farming because they had to, as a survival technique, but we don't ever stop to think that they might be just like us, inventing new things simply because they want to. Did we need the iPod or the car? Was our survival significantly enhanced because of either of them? We grow later to think we can't live without electricity, flush toilets, and the internet, because they make our lives easier or more enjoyable.

Around the world and throughout ancient history, people switched from mainly hunting and gathering to farming as a way to cope with environmental stresses, such as drought—or so the conventional wisdom says.

But the new research "really challenges the whole idea of humans domesticating plants and animals in response to an external stress [and] makes a strong case for almost the polar opposite," said lead study author Bruce Smith, curator of North American archaeology at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

Before they began farming, the Riverton people lived among bountiful river valleys and lakes, apparently eating a healthy and diverse diet of nuts, white-tailed deer, fish, and shellfish, the study says.
[...]
But that doesn't mean farming didn't give the Riverton culture a practical advantage: In addition to their normal fare, the people may have relied on the crops as a stable source of food—insurance against shortages of wild food sources..

The Intrepid Explorer Returns, plus links about The Apology

As you may have noticed I have posted very little in the past few weeks. This is because I have been away exploring touristing the far reaches of the world Europe. Regular blog posting to resume shortly.

The big story today is the federal government's apology for the residential schools, and of course the disgusting remarks of Pierre Poilievre. This has been well covered both in the mainstream press and the blogosphere and I have nothing new to add, so I'll just list some good links.

The Toronto Star's coverage has been really good, with about 15 articles, plus videos. For instance: Why the apology matters to us all, Apology 'is not going to fix what happened', Native apology doesn't address grim reality, Apology alone cannot close a gaping wound.

Also check out Dawg's Blawg on the apology, TGB's It wasn't me! It wasn't me! and Stageleft's Apology Day. And don't miss the biting commentaries from Harper Valley (including her trademark graphics).

And on Pierre Poilievre, here's just a few select comments from Canadian Cynic, Scott Tribe, Liberal Catnip, and Just Another Willy Loman

Why I Am Not an Objectivist, #2311

Ayn Rand on the theft of Native American Lands:

They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent. <Lawyers, Gun$ and Money>

Hmm... Greenspan hearts Rand. Probably thinks they Iraqis live like animals in caves, too. Which is why the civilized Americans need to liberate their oil. Well, as long as we are all as selfish and greedy as possible, it will all work out in the end, right? ...right?

The Politics of Solidarity: Six Nations, Leadership, and the Settler Left

The European settlers who colonized most of North America, were themselves uprooted from the land through capitalist enclosure and the commodification of land and labour – a process later exported to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the rest of the world. By becoming small farmers and independent commodity producers in the early stages of Canadian development, poor and working class settlers in North America clearly benefited from the theft of indigenous lands. However, over the past 100 years, capitalism has extended and intensified its reach. Non-native people have become increasingly concentrated in large cities (Canada has the most urbanized population per capita in the world) and have been integrated into the capitalist system as workers. Because of the inherently exploitative dynamics of capitalism, workers in North America have faced a decline in living standards since the neo-liberal offensive of the late 1970s.

As William Robinson has argued, the contemporary resurgence of indigenous struggle in the Americas is happening as the few remaining autonomous indigenous communities are being forced into compliance with the demands of capitalist world market. This market seeks to commodify their labour and their land. At the same time, it seeks to drive down living standards and commodify the lives of non-native people as well. These pressures are just as evident on the Haldimand tract as they are in Canada's far north, in the mountains of Chiapas, or in the jungles of the Amazon. Traditional indigenous resistance to enclosure and commodification is increasingly assuming a directly anti-capitalist character. When this resistance takes place in large urban areas where a relatively small proportion of settlers directly occupy the land in question, new opportunities for joint struggles arise. Doing this kind of work will not be easy. Building radical organizations and combating white racism within predominantly white communities, workplaces, and political organization will be particularly hard. But it remains necessary task as a pre-condition to building meaningful solidarity with indigenous struggles.

Read this article by Tom Keefer via Whenua, Fenua, Enua, Vanua (originally published here), discussing how non-native activists can support indigenous struggles, like that of the Six Nations reclamation in Caledonia, breaking away from the "leadership" model, and turning towards work within our own comminities as well as alliances with indigenous communities. It is a long article, but worth the read.

Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Canada (along with three other good old-fashioned white colonial settler nations: USA, Australia & New Zealand) voted no. 143 other countries voted yes, so it passed anyways.

Wait... we voted no? To a non-binding declaration?

Yup, that's right: "No rights for you!"

Um. What gives the Canadian state the right to dictate who get rights anyways?

JJ is right, it is embarrassing, but unsurprising.

Papua New Guineans Apologize for their Ancestors' Killing of Four Missionaries

Is it just me or does this make you angry too?

The descendants of cannibals in Papua New Guinea, who killed and ate four Fijian missionaries in 1878, have said sorry for their forefathers' actions.

They held a ceremony of reconciliation, attended by thousands, in the East New Britain province where the four died.

The missionaries were part of a group of Methodist ministers and teachers who arrived in 1875 to spread Christianity.

Their murder three years later, by the Tolai tribespeople on the Gazelle Peninsula, sparked angry reprisals.

The head of the mission, English pastor George Brown, avenged the killings by taking part in an expedition that resulted in the deaths of a number of tribespeople and the torching of several villages.

Ten commandments

Candles were lit in remembrance of the four killed missionaries as thousands attended the ceremony in East New Britain.

Fiji's High Commissioner in PNG, Ratu Isoa Tikoca, accepted the apologies on behalf of the descendants.

"We at this juncture are deeply touched and wish you the greatest joy of forgiveness as we finally end this record disagreement," he said.

PNG's Governor-General Sir Paulias Matane praised the early missionaries for making the country Christian - and called for more people to follow its guiding principles.

"I wish many people could follow the 10 commandments, but they still steal today and commit adultery," he said.

"There is a big increase in HIV/Aids cases in the country because of adultery, despite knowing its wrong."

I wonder if the church ever apologized for what it did to the peoples of Papua New Guinea? For one thing, missionaries were heavily involved in the colonization of the island, helping to open up the island to Europeans. From the US Department of State: "Traditional Christian churches proselytized on the island in the nineteenth century. Colonial governments initially assigned different missions to different geographic areas."

Papua New Guinea has been passed around from colonial ruler to colonial ruler, broken up, stitched together, broken up again. Informal racial segregation was the norm until recently. It still has some of the most intact indigenous cultures left in the world, and one of the lowest rates of urbanization. The vast majority of the population depends on subsistence agriculture; they live off the land.

Unfortunately, the exploitation of the people and the resources of the island continue. Mining and mineral production make up a huge portion of the economy, but this is devastating the land and the indigenous peoples who depend on it. A good old Canadian company, Barrick Gold, is just one of those pursuing destructive gold mining.

Oh, and about HIV/AIDS... From Human Rights Watch:

Public shaming of sex workers as 'AIDS carriers' prevents people from seeking HIV-related services for fear of being stigmatized. Police continue to harass persons possessing condoms, including by forcing individuals to chew and swallow condoms and their plastic wrappers. Such responses deter condom use and undermine desperately needed HIV/AIDS prevention work by NGOs and the government.

And a group of indigenous Papua New Guineans is made to apologize for killing 4 missionaries over a hundred years ago? People, this is a prime example of the internalization of colonialism through humiliation and shame.

Interesting how those with power rarely apologize for horrible past actions and yet those without do.

The Occupation of Alcatraz: Photo Essay

Thousands of American Indians and their families occupied Alcatraz Island from November, 1969 to June, 1971. The story of this occupation is absolutely amazing and I thought today, on this Day of Action, that it might serve as inspiration.

A proclamation on Alcatraz Island tells new arrivals where they are.

Signs hung on the dock on Alcatraz Island read, from left to right, "Red Power. Indians," "Human Rights, Free Indians," "Remember this land was taken from us!" "Alcatraz for Indians."

For many people, the occupation was the first time they had been surrounded by other Indian people. The experience was one of cultural renewal, exhilaration, and a new-found sense of Indianness.

Indian women played a major role in the occupation. They served on the is land council and the security force and worked in the health clinic, the day care center, and the school.

Stella Leach, a Colville/Sioux woman, took a leave of absence from her job at the All Indian Well Baby Clinic in Berkeley, California, to participate in the occupation of Alcatraz Island, where she operated a health clinic for island residents.

Many of the occupiers brought their families hundreds of miles to live on the island. A preschool and a nursery were operated for those who had children on the island.

Indian occupiers work to bring supplies onto Alcatraz. The island has no natural resources, so all supplies, fuel, and water had to be ferried over form the mainland and transported up the island by hand.

One of the last occupiers leaves Alcatraz Island, June 11, 1971.

On the mainland, on June 11,1971, Harold Patty (left), a Paiute Indian from Nevada, and Oohosis (second from left), a young Cree Indian from Canada, join two friends in demonstrating that the spirit will continue.

Overcoming exhaustion and disillusionment, young Atha Rider Whitemankiller (Cherokee) stands tall before the press at the Senator Hotel after the removal. His eloquent words about the purpose of the occupation - to publicize his people's plight and establish a land base for the Indians of the Bay Area - were the most quoted of the day.

Read more about the Alcatraz Occupation here and see more of these fantastic of photos here

Rumour has it the natives will be restless tomorrow (Friday, June 29). Nobody really knows what's going to happen – there could be roads blocked, train routes compromised, taxes hiked way up on native cigarettes, anything at all.
[...]
Come the Day of Action, expect a plethora of grievances and calls for redress. Here are a few of the lesser-known ones:

WE DEMAND that something be done about the belief that Aboriginal people get everything for free. This might seem to be true if you count the bad water in Kashechewan, illness from black mould in inadequate housing, linguistical genocide, diabetes and rampant sexual abuse. But trust me, we've paid for all this.

WE DEMAND that the feds actually appoint a native person as the minister of Indian Affairs. We humbly ask: isn't the attorney general usually a lawyer? Isn't the minister for the Status of Women usually a woman? Doesn't the minister of Transportation have a driver's licence? Isn't the minister of Defence usually defensive?
[...]
WE DEMAND that white people (more politically correctly known as people of pallor) stop angrily saying, "They shouldn't do that!" in regard to protests and blockades, and instead exchange it for the more understanding "They shouldn't have to do that." It's technically more correct.
[...]
WE DEMAND that all commercials for Lakota medicine be pulled. Immediately.

WE DEMAND the Assembly of First Nations explain what it is it actually does – other than call for days of protest.

WE DEMAND that the police of this country stop shooting, assaulting and otherwise abusing the civil rights of native people. It's for law enforcers' own benefit. There are substantially more native people in this country than police, and we have more guns.

You know what, I think all people of pallor better go read the whole thing. There's something here for everyone.
Seeing red: This Indian’s plan to clean up the mess left by 500 years of illegal immigration by Drew Hayden Taylor.

Did I mention I heart Drew Hayden Taylor? HT to Stageleft

Indigenous Peoples Fighting Ongoing Colonization and Genocide: Australia

Indigenous peoples all over the world are fighting valiant battles to protect what's left of their land, peoples, and cultures in the face of ongoing colonialism. While there are some small victories, the vast juggernaut of globalized corporate Capitalism simply steamrolls on. Helping this along is the paternalism of well-meaning liberals.

It is from the "white man's burden" that some of the most lasting harm has come. Apartheid in South Africa grew out of the same reserve system we have in Canada. Self-government for the natives in semi-autonomous communities - sounds almost progressive doesn't it? Well, we all know how that ended up.

Similarly, misguided but mostly benevolant people, who wanted to improve the lot of young native children through education, created Residential Schools - known as The Stolen Generation) in Australia. This was genocide dressed up as education, with devastating consequences. What happens when nearly an entire people is subject to state-sponsored physical, sexual, verbal, spiritual, and other forms of abuse - for generations? Anyone familiar with the effects of child abuse knows that it can persist through generations in complex ways.

Australia has done little to heal the damage, despite evidence of chronic social problems in Indigenous Australians communities. Instead of promoting healing, the Howard government introduced a a policy banning porn and alcohol for Aboriginals, ostensibly to protect children from abuse(even though the abuse is committed by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people). Howard's actions are reactionary, but he speaks the language of care, which unfortunately is often accepted by kind and decent people.

How does eliminating pornography teach a child to love her blood, her cells, her roots?
How does a ban on alcohol erase the desire to no longer be aboriginal?
How does controlling welfare payments teach aboriginal mothers to trust themselves and their love again? <BFP>

Not only are the Howard government's policies cruel and racist, but they are also not likely to be effective because they are targeting the consequences instead of the causes. Alcohol and pornography do not cause abuse. Rather, those with a history of abuse are far more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs and to have difficulty achieving healthy sexuality, among other terrible outcomes. Even I know better than to conflate correlation with causation.

But perhaps the Howard government does not care if it will be effective. Perhaps this has to do with gaining increasing control over Aboriginal communities and lands (possibly for more nuclear waste dumps or mining): "Australia’s national Government was using its powers to seize control of the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal settlements... The proposals mean scrapping the entry-permit system under which Aboriginal people have controlled access to northern Australia’s 660,000 square kilometres of Aboriginal lands - an area about of the size of Afghanistan - in recent decades." <Times Online> The Howard government is using well-intentioned Australians to promote his atrocious policies. But such paternalism, however pure the intentions, is still racist.

Most Australians don't like to be termed as racist.

The word is supposed to be for South Africans two decades ago, or for Americans before the civil rights era, or even for our earlier colonial ancestors, about two hundred years ago.

But what other reason could there be for the fact Aboriginal people have the same mortality rate of sheep?

And what other word could be used to justify the fact that being an Aboriginal Australia is more dangerous in terms of annual excess mortality than that people in US-occupied Iraq? <National Indigenous Times via Shmohawk's Shmorg>

Fighting Amongst Ourselves for the Scraps

One of my favourite Canadian blogs has a very interesting conversation going on in the comments of this post, as explained here. To sum up, there's a Nice White Guy who feels Indiginous peoples have unfair advantages, and Scott has some very compassionate and well-argued points. I urge everyone to go and read.

I've been hearing and reading versions of this conversation everywhere lately. The well-meaning, hard-working white guy has a tougher and tougher time making it these days. He looks back, feeling nostalgic for a time that seems simpler; the time before the women's movement, before civil rights, before various other liberation struggles. There's a tendency among many regular working class people to blame those who are below them in the heirarchy but catching up, rather than those at the top who are keeping everyone down. Thus you have increasing fear, and a huge backlash against so many of the progressive reforms hard fought and won. Vicious anti-feminism, anti-immigration, and that sort of soft reactionary racism that is common these days (such as the belief in reverse discrimination).

See, on the left, we usually see the rise of neoliberalism as one of the main causes of the increasing difficulties for the white middle class. We blame those at the very top, and their cheerleaders and supporters in the market fundamentalist government, corporate media, and think tanks. Most (though not all) of these people are white, wealthy, Christian, hetero men. That doesn't mean we blame white people, the wealthy, Christians, heteros, or men.

The nostalgic past in which life was simple and good for a hardworking everyman was experienced by a minority of white Westerners. The 50s look very different to a black woman in the US, or an aboriginal person in Canada, an Algerian in Algeria, or a Palestinian in a refugee camp.

The last few decades have seen amazing struggles, many successes, and many setbacks. I certainly don't want to bedgrudge any group the rights they fought so hard for. I want them to have more. I want us to have more. That's what social justice is about. If I may use a dog-and-meat-metaphor: we should not be fighting amongst ourselves for the scraps, but going after those who are eating the prime rib. (Well, more precisely those structures that dole out prime rib to some and scraps to the rest.)

Ipperwash Inquiry: The Verdict is In

Who killed Dudley George? The Ipperwash report, just released, found that although Mr. "I want the fucking Indians out of the park" did not directly order the police to Ipperwash, his government, along with the federal government, still shares some of the blame.

In his findings, Commissioner Sydney Linden faults the feds for expropriating disputed First Nations land, then failing to give it back as promised.

He faults the government of then-premier Mike Harris — and the premier himself — for impatience, uttering a racial slur and misleading the legislature.

But Judge Linden also concludes Mr. Harris did not direct police to enter the park on that fateful night against protesters he concludes were not armed.

G&M:

Ipperwash report released

More coverage

Update June 1 More details have come out. Here's some recommended reading:

• Ipperwash;First Nations Claims and Concerns Finally Validated on Engaged Spectator
  
• "Bomber" Harris said it from Shmohawk's Shmorg
  
• "I want the fucking Indians out of the park" on Dawg's Blawg
  
• Red Coat Friday… Little Lord Mike Harris on Harper Valley
  
• Action must follow Dudley George inquiry from Amnesty International
  
• Mike Harris and State Terrorism at Le Revue Gauche
  

Will Railways Agree to Shut Down on Day of Protest?

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has passed a resolution calling for Canada's national railways to voluntarily shut down during the group's "day of action" on June 29. (CTV)

I hope, but don't expect, that the railways will indeed consider this request and show some support for the First Nations. It's the least they could do. But then again, they have been profiting off land illegally obtained from aboriginal peoples for years - perhaps it's too much to hope they'd change.

As Terry Nelson of the Roseau River First Nation said: "... There are only two ways of dealing with the white man. One, either you pick up a gun, or you stand between the white man and his money... I prefer to stand between the white man and his money."

And now for your reading pleasure. And note: This was written by senators. Yes, fuddy, duddy old senators (not the hockey players).

Oka, Ipperwash, Caledonia.

Blockades, masked warriors, police snipers.

Why?

Canada's failure to address and resolve the legitimate claims of First Nations.

Imagine your new neighbour comes into your backyard and fences off half of it. Then he sells it to someone down the street. This new neighbour tells you he got a good deal but he won't say how much he got. Then, he says that he'll take care of the cash – on your behalf, of course.

Maybe he even spends a little on himself.

You complain. He denies he did anything wrong.

What would you do?

Go to the proper authorities? Turns out that the authorities and their agencies work for him.

Sue him? He tells you that none of the lawyers can work for you – he's got every one in town working for him. When he finally lets a lawyer work for you – it turns out that he can afford five of them for every one you can afford.

Finally he says: Okay, I'm willing to discuss it. But first you have to prove I did something wrong. Oh, and I get to be the judge of whether you've proved it. And, if you do prove it, I get to set the rules about how we'll negotiate. I'll decide when we've reached a deal and I'll even get to determine how I'll pay the settlement out to you. Oh, and I hope you’re in no rush because this is going to take about twenty or thirty years to settle.

Sounds crazy?

Welcome to the world of Indian Specific Claims. Specific Claims arose when Canada and its agents failed to live up to Canada’s responsibilities in connection with First Nations' lands, monies and assets. In some cases Canada didn't give them the land they were promised in the treaties. In some cases, they got the land only to have it taken away again – in a way that violated Canada's own rules. In other cases, federal employees actually stole Indian land, money or other assets.

Until the 1950s, First Nations were prohibited by law from hiring lawyers to pursue these claims – many of which date back 70, 100 or 200 years. Since then impoverished Indian communities have had to fight the federal government in court or else persuade it to acknowledge the claim and negotiate a settlement. Currently, everything is done on Canada's terms and the government is both defendant and judge.

With few resources allocated to find solutions, it can often take twenty or more years from the time a First Nation comes forward with a claim to finally reaching a settlement.

Despite the amazing hurdles, almost 300 claims have been settled. In every case where they have been settled, it has meant an immediate improvement in the lives of First Nations people. It has also strengthened relations between Canada and those First Nations and between those First Nations and the communities that surround them. Settling outstanding claims is not only the just thing to do, it is the smart thing.
Close to 900 claims sit in the backlog. Things are getting worse rather than better. First Nations have been patient – incredibly patient – but their patience is wearing thin. [Emphasis mine]

- Gerry St. Germain, P.C., Chair, and Nick G. Sibbeston, Deputy Chair, Forward to NEGOTIATION OR CONFRONTATION: IT’S CANADA’S CHOICE. Final Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples Special Study on the Federal Specific Claims Process Full report here (PDF)

A Better Communications Strategy? No, We Need Safe Drinking Water

Message about bad water on reserves not getting through: study

Health Canada says it plans to revamp its communication strategy about drinking water in aboriginal communities after finding out that its warning ads are not working.

Federal Health Minister Tony Clement said Thursday a study has found that its ads, which come in the form of signs and posters, are not clear or effective.

"You live and learn in these things," Clement said in Ottawa.

"This was a situation where something was tried, it was found to be wanting so we are going to fix it and make sure it's more effective in the future."

A total of 89 First Nations communities in Canada were under a drinking water advisory as of May 4. Among other things, Health Canada was trying to warn people in these communities not to drink their tap water.

Clement said Health Canada will take a more personal approach by using new radio ads and going door-to-door to educate people in aboriginal communities about their tap water this fall.

Considering some of these communities have been without safe drinking water for years and years, perhaps the problem isn't the signage.

One sign posted on a reserve by Health Canada reads: "Do Not Consume Advisory."

According to the study, residents did not know if the sign referred to their tap water or if the advisory was just a suggestion.

The study also found that posters used by Health Canada were confusing.

Chief David General of Six Nations in Ontario said he is aware that people in his community drink their tap water even though it is not safe and that some people get sick as a result.

General said many people do not even notice the signs that warn them not to drink tap water.

'More eye-catching'

"It has to be more than just the static sign that just everybody walks by. It's got to be something that is more eye-catching."

Health Canada says a drinking water advisory is a way to advise members of the public in a specific community that they should use an alternative source of drinking water.

It says it is a measure designed to protect public health from waterborne contaminants that could be present in drinking water.

In March 2006, Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice launched a plan of action to address drinking water problems in First Nation communities.

General said many aboriginal communities would rather have a new water plant instead of a new communications strategy.

Is it just me, or is this article rather patronizing?

If one were to read this article without any background, one would think the problem is the fault of the aboriginals themselves, as if they aren't smart enough to understand not to drink their tap water. They don't mention that many people drink their water because they can't afford bottled water, or because they sometimes have to walk for miles to get clean water.

The problem isn't the communications strategy (although I must admit that was pretty crappy - apparently one of the signs had a calm scene of a mother bathing her baby - gee I wonder why the water appears safe!).

As of May 4, 2007, there were 89 First Nations communities across Canada under a Drinking Water Advisory, and many more are considered "at risk". Many are so contaminated with things like arsenic, so boiling doesn't make it safe. Residents of these communities often get skin rashes from bathing in the water.

(Additional details)


It's criminal this this wealthy nation isn't supplying safe water to its most marginalized communities.

That is one of the many reasons why our First Nations communities experience living conditions equal to those ranking 63rd in the world - in other words they live in Third World conditions. It contributes to the low life expectancy of aboriginals (consistently around 5-7 years less than the rest of the Canadian population).

The camouflaged native as blockader is Canada's fave new stereotype

From a piece by Drew Hayden Taylor (First Nations comedian and author of several books including Me Funny):

Blockades were not part of our traditional culture. Historically, Canada had too many wide-open spaces for native people to successfully blockade anything. But we are an adaptable people. After a while, we learned to blockade roads and railways, just as we learned to hunt with guns, cook with flour and lard and ride in cars. It seems like a natural progression.

Sadly, this image of the camouflaged native as blockader is replacing the drunken Indian as Canada's favourite new stereotype.

Children are in danger of becoming more familiar with the Indian wearing a bandana to hide his face than with the mighty warrior on a horse hunting buffalo. In the U.S., the dominant stereotype is the casino Indian.

Here in Canada, I know many people who've been involved in blockades and other acts of civil disobedience. They do not make these choices lightly. Most of them know things will get worse before they get better.

Everybody remembers the tragic images in Alanis Obomsawin's brilliant documentary Rocks At Whiskey Trench of local whites stoning Mohawks who were being evacuated from Kahnawake during the Oka crisis, resulting in one man dying of a heart attack.

Most people have come to understand that natives' actions at Oka, Ipperwash and other standoffs were justified. All involved years of trying to settle land claims with little response from the federal government. The ante needed to be upped.

On the news, I heard an annoyed VIA passenger bitterly condemn the native blockade: "I didn't think they were allowed to do that, but I guess they can do whatever they want." Our elders used to say the same thing about white people.
[...]
At the very least, irate VIA passengers will have an amusing tale to tell their grandkids. "I was part of the great Tyendinaga Railway Blockade of 07." I'm sure insurance will cover those companies or individuals who may have lost money because of the inconvenience. There must be some sort of "Act of Indian" clause somewhere.

Printed in this week's Now Magazine (It's been a particularly good issue). Read the Whole Thing Here

Colonization and the Killing of History

Read this slowly. Let it sink in.
Roland Chrisjohn:

What if the Holocaust had never stopped?

What if no liberating armies invaded the territory stormed over by the draconian State? No compassionate throng broke down the doors to dungeons to free those imprisoned within? No collective outcry of humanity arose as stories of the State’s abuses were recounted? And no Court of World Opinion seized the State’s leaders and held them in judgment as their misdeeds were chronicled? What if none of this happened?

What if, instead, with the passage of time the World came to accept the State’s actions as the rightful and lawful policies of a sovereign nation having to deal with creatures that were less than fully human?

What if the Holocaust had never stopped, so that, for the State’s victims, there was no vindication, no validation, no justice, but instead the dawning realization that this was how things were going to be? What if those who resisted were crushed, so that others, tired of resisting, simply prayed that the ‘next’ adjustment to what remained of their ways of life would be the one that, somehow, they would be able to learn to live with? What if some learned to hate who they were, or to deny it out of fear, while others embraced the State’s image of them, emulating as far as possible the State’s principles and accepting its judgment about their own families, friends, and neighbors? And what if others could find no option other than to accept the slow, lingering death the State had mapped out for them, or even to speed themselves along to their State-desired end?

What if?

Then, you would have Canada’s treatment of the North American Aboriginal population in general, and the Indian Residential School Experience in particular.

Canada's aboriginals are survivors of genocide. They are still a colonized population. It isn't history. It isn't in the past. They are still living the effects today.



From Praxis Media's Hoping Against Hope: The Struggle Against Colonialism in Canada Listen to the first episode, read transcript here, read a review or purchase the series.

Radical Aboriginal Canadians are Terrorists?

Let me get this straight. Let's say I walk into your house, kill most of your family, take your children away, destroy your means of livelihood, and force you to go live on the sidewalk. When I then take a stand and ask for, say, my garage back, I'm the problem? Not just a problem... a terrorist?

Let's see if this definition resonates. "Terrorists", noun, plural: people on the underside of the social, economic, and political power structure who stand up for themselves. Those who, marginalized on the land they peopled first, take a stand and demand their rights instead of continuing to allow themselves to be further beaten down. Also known as "Insurgents" or "Military Opponents".

At least that's how the term is to be understood in the Canadian army's counterinsurgency manual, which states:

The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims... Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence. (G& M)

Read the excellent response by Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine. Excerpt:

Any reference to First Nations people as possible insurgents or terrorists is a direct attack on us - it demonizes us, it threatens our safety and security and attempts to criminalize our legitimate right to live our lives like all other Canadians do. Just being referenced in such a document compromises our freedom to travel across borders, have unimpeded telephone and internet communications, raise money, and protest against injustices to our people.

I mean, we all know it is which side of the power structure you are on which determines whether your fight is "terrorism" or "defense" or "freedom fighters" or "insurgents". But usually they try to hide that fact.

John Mohawk, Iroquois Leader and Scholar, Dead at 61

Rest in Peace, John Mohawk.

I was fortunate enough to see John Mohawk at the Bioneers conference, at a "Kitchen Table Conversation" entitled Race, Class and Power, where he spoke alongside Paul Hawken, Aqeela Sherrills, and Akaya Windwood. This was a powerful workshop, which was so packed full there were people crammed in, sitting on the floor (You can buy a copy of the CD or MP3 from this session. It's worth a listen). I always have soft spots for historians, since history is one of my passions, but I have to tell you John Mohawk gave off such an aura of wisdom and gentleness. He also had very important things to say.

The 20th century saw the rise of Stalinism, of Hitlerism, of Fascisms of all kind all over, I mean not just Europe but in many places has led to holocausts, exterminations, extinctions.

In each and every case it was started by a people who felt like the Germans did, that they were somehow left out, somehow not given their due. People who took a conscious effort to reform their culture, and in so doing gave themselves permission to commit murder. That has been accelerating in this century and I think it will continue to accelerate into the next century.

That is going to be a result of the side effects of the combination of the globalisation of economy and all the social changes that have diminished the value of human labour and diminished the value of people's relationships and their symbiotic relationships with land.

Read or listen to the rest of this interview with him regarding the future.

Yesterday's Democracy Now also featured an excerpt from a talk he gave at a teach-in last month.

the American civilization has a rationalization for a lot of bad things, things like the removal policy and things like the Indian war thing, and things like the forced assimilation policy.

All of those flow from an ideology of white supremacy, which was the dominant ideology of race theory in the United States in the 19th century. I point this out, because it seems to me that the moment we're looking at is a proposal that peoples of the world, distinct peoples of the world have a right to a continued existence as distinct peoples. And I point to you that the white supremacy argument offers no such rights. It doesn't offer any rights to a distinct existence -- a continued existence of other species, of birds, animals, plants and whatever, fishes. It is a theory that says that one group has the absolute unhindered right to do what they need to do to get what they want.

Listen, read, or watch the whole thing

Federal Cuts Undermine the Progress of Women and All Canadians

Despite the $13.2 Billion surplus, the federal government just went on a slash-and-burn rampage, cutting funding for all kinds of things. The choice of programs that bore the brunt is very telling. Many are progressive programs that help some of the most vulnerable among us, and those who run, and those who benefit from these programs were given no opportunity to defend them.

Somehow there's enough money to increase defense spending, such as $30 million for an "acoustic weapon locator system", but not enough to help Aboriginal youth and pregant women stop smoking ($10 Million)? It isn't surprising at all, really, simply confirms the Conservative Party's values.

The news today tended to blanket the cuts without giving enough details, which I think is one of the reasons opinion tends to favour the cuts. People feel debt repayment is more important than "special interest" funding.

Even the CBC, tells little about WHAT was cut, summing up into 4 categories:

• Programs that are not delivering value for money.
• Programs that didn't spend all the money allocated.
• Work that could be done more efficiently outside the government.
• Programs that don't meet the needs of Canadians.
  

But these are value judgements made by the Conseratives, often with no basis. I think everyone can agree that spending money foolishly is a baaaad thing, but so many of these programs are very important and effective despite already being severely underfunded and operating on a shoestring budget.

The complete list can be found here, and includes adult literacy, youth employment, public diplomacy, and several Canada Heritage programs.

A couple of good examples are the Court Challenges program (“This Program has provided Canadian women with their only access to the use of their constitutional equality rights,” said Shelagh Day. “Equality rights have no meaning in Canada if women, and other Canadians who face discrimination, cannot use them.”) and the Status of Women Canada, whose budget is already one of the smallest of any department at the federal level, and has now been halved. This isn't "trimming the fat". Likewise should an obese person cut off an arm in order to improve her/his BMI? Good op-ed here.

More on women's issues, politics