Kumtux

Never sell your land

2009-04-21T14:30:00.000-07:00

As Chief Joseph's father lay dying he said,

"My son, my body is returning to my mother earth, and my spirit is going soon to see the Great Spirit Chief. When I am gone, think of your country. You are the chief of these people. They look to you to guide them. Always remember that your father never sold his country.

You must stop your ears whenever you are asked to sign a treaty selling your home. A few more years and the white men will be all around you. They have their eyes on this land. My son, never forget my dying words. This country holds your father's body. Never sell the bones of your father and your mother."

[Quoted from Vine Deloria, Jr's God is Red: A Native View of Religion, pp. 172-173.]

Waziyatawin’s Remember This! Dakota Decolonization and the Eli Taylor Narratives

2008-12-23T19:22:00.000-08:00

Remember This! Dakota Decolonization and the Eli Taylor Narratives provides an inspirational and illuminating example of how to conduct research in a good way. And while I am still learning the jargon of university research methodology, Waz' book provides excellent examples of research where she is clearly situated in an Indigenous community, unambiguous about her intentions, understanding of her unique role as researcher, listener and learner, and accountable through kinship ties. All of these are vitally important when conducting research, or perhaps more appropriately, learning and living Indigenous ways of being. I like how Waz states in the Introduction, “When other colonized peoples give voice to experiences we have struggled to articulate, we rejoice. When we see ourselves in words of their creation, we are affirmed. When we hear stories of resistance, we are inspired.” This summarizes the effect the book had on me. Of particular interest to my work is how Waz maintains a focus on the importance of decolonization. Too often I feel, leaders and scholars, in attempts not to appear “negative” or “unproductive” ignore the realities of colonization, and instead take up the Colonizers rhetoric of moving beyond history and assert the primacy of progress. I believe that we cannot truly move forward in a good way unless we have an honest assessment of where we are and how we got here.

Regarding how colonization is the deprivation of experience, Waz points out how, “not only…personal experiences affect a person’s life, but also how missed experiences equally affect them.” This is clearly illustrated by the fact that Unkanna is unable to participate in the inipi or wiwanyak wacipi ceremonies (my apologies, my computer does not have the correct phonetic symbols to type these properly). This raises a very interesting point about the oral tradition in Indigenous societies. While we value the stories of direct personal experience, we also value the stories and teachings that have been passed on and embodied for generations. I believe this is what Waz is getting at in describing the oral tradition as something that is living and ongoing as an individual and communal responsibility.

Two other elements that I appreciated are the scope of stories from indefinite (but not problematic) historical times to more contemporary times and the fact that Waz did not shy away engaging in potentially controversial themes – such as Eurocentric views on Indigenous gender relations. Both of these elements confront colonial assumptions about indigeneity that are pervasive and harmful. By sharing stories that are contemporary, we remind our kin that Indigenous ways of knowing and being are entirely relevant to our lives today and we dispel the colonial myths that true Indigenousness is a relic of the past. And in bringing greater complexity to the issue of gender relations, we are able to move beyond both Eurocentric patriarchy and liberal feminism that are both problematic for Indigenous peoples. Finally, I also liked the inclusion of spiritual and “supernatural” stories that support a deeper appreciation of Indigenous realities.

As all of this relates to research in general and the community research I intend to engage in specifically, Waz provides some helpful lessons on how I can go about it. The narratives that she recorded and analysis she provides hits home in a much more profound way than any of the academic renditions of research methodologies have been able to provide. In a Nuu-chah-nulth context, many of these lessons resonate with me. The coastal communities of the Nuu-chah-nulth nation have been rather uniquely situated vis-à-vis colonization. While their relative seclusion has enabled them to retain many of their traditions – including vibrant oral traditions and ceremonial life, they have also experienced what seems like an accelerated or intensified form of neocolonialism. This is not meant to ask, “Who had is worse?” but to recognize the similar and unique elements of the colonial experience amongst varied Indigenous peoples. For the Nuu-chah-nulth, this experience can see the loss of languages and histories within a very short time frame, thus compelling community members to work assertively to ensure that our languages and histories are not only preserved, but also perpetuated. As I seek to learn about Nuu-chah-nulth ways of living in the course of my research, as a Nuu-chah-nulth person, it is my responsibility to live a Nuu-chah-nulth life. Along with the responsibility for keeping our ways of life alive, colonization has also added the necessity that we critically engage our traditions for the purpose of adapting them to our contemporary contexts. This is a daunting task indeed, and at times, I am admittedly discouraged. I thank Waz for sharing her words and those of her grandfather. I hope that over the course of my work, I can reciprocate with some of the lessons and experiences of my communities that I hope will be equally inspirational.

moving the centre

2008-12-06T00:08:00.000-08:00

In Moving the Centre: The Struggle for Cultural Freedoms, Ngũgĩ, a Kenyan intellectual and writer, offers several important insights into the revitalization of Indigenous societies in the wake of colonialism and the current turbulence of neocolonialism. Like Nkrumah before him, Ngũgĩ offers a powerful critique of the ongoing exploitative reality of neocolonialism and the political, economic and cultural underpinnings of this persistent imperial enterprise. While not excluding the importance of the political and economic realms, Ngũgĩ draws our attention to the often-ignored cultural elements of the neocolonial relationship including Eurocentrism, the persistence colonial legacies, and racism. Ngugi’s insistence on the revival of indigenous languages has been exemplified by his own writings in his native Gikuyu language. Ngũgĩ’s criticisms are not merely rooted in intellectual and scholastic endeavours, however. Members of his family were directly involved in the struggle for independence led by the Mau Mau in the 1950s and 1960s, and Ngũgĩ himself has been jailed numerous times for his anti-neocolonial writing, causing him to live a life of exile for the past thirty years. Despite these enormous contributions rooted in community and praxis, Ngũgĩ’s writings, at least as they are expressed in Moving the Centre, suffer from two significant shortcomings.

First, he completely ignores the struggle for freedom by Indigenous peoples, specifically in North America. His only references to North America speak of solidarity with African-Americans, white workers, women, peace and environmental activists. Even his repeated mention of the potential for alliances of people of the Tricontinental seem ignore the existence of a continued struggle for liberation by the Indigenous peoples of those lands, particularly in Asia and South America. Certainly, his focus on the shift from colonialism to neocolonialism can include these discussions, and not merely limit their scope to a critique of Western Imperialism. Second, Ngũgĩ’s sense of liberation is somewhat rooted in Socialism, which also complicates matters vis-à-vis Indigenous worldviews and values. Granted, “African socialism” as extolled by C.L.R James, Kwame Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral and others adapted socialism models to their unique situations, socialist values, despite their anti-imperial rhetoric are often at odds with Indigenous values, not the least of which is the insistence on the state and its apparatus. This state-centric issue leads me to my final concern, that Ngũgĩ, among others has underestimated the flexibility and resilience of neocolonialism as it has shifted into the current incarnation of neoliberalism. Not only elites, or "comprador collaborators" as Ngũgĩ points out that fall prey to the dominant ideology, but the common person is also increasingly afflicted with the values of neoliberalism.

With these criticisms in mind, I would like refocus on a few of Ngũgĩ’s most important contributions to libratory literature and practice. Ngũgĩ writes in the Preface, “Eurocentrism is most dangerous to the self-confidence of Third World peoples when it becomes internalized in their intellectual conception of the universe.” Ngũgĩ goes into great detail describing how the colonial and neocolonial environments repress Indigenous cultures and psyches through literature, theatre, and education in addition to political and economic influence. As a response to this, Ngũgĩ stresses the importance of reviving an Indigenous intellectual tradition rooted in Indigenous languages. He writes further, “knowing oneself and one’s environment was the correct basis of absorbing the world.” In the African context, Ngũgĩ also stresses the importance of rooting a revival in oral traditions, not just the written word. As for Intellectuals Ngugi writes, "A consistent anti-imperialist position – that is, a position that struggles against or that exposes the continued neo-colonial control of African economics and cultures by the Western bourgeoisie – is the minimum necessary for a committed, responsible scholarship in Africa, or anywhere in the Third World."

The road is tough for Indigenous writers in a neocolonial context, as Ngũgĩ’s own life can attest. He comments, “Write and risk damnation. Avoid Damnation and cease to be a writer.” Ngũgĩ’s writes, “Workers in the west are the natural allies to the working people of the ‘Third World.’” Again, this is reminiscent of socialist rhetoric in the vein of Marx’s “Workers of the world unite!” Unfortunately, Marx was dreadfully wrong in his predictions about a proletarian revolution – where socialist revolutions were successful they were led largely by peasants (Russia, China), or they were not openly socialist in the beginning (Cuba). In an Indigenous context in the Americas, I believe Ngũgĩ’s most poignant contributions lie in his analyses of culture and language. As it relates to research and Indigenous communities, Ngũgĩ’s emphasis on Indigenous languages are as critical as his commentaries on the struggles with neocolonial cultural, economic, and political domination and persistent racism. Despite my belief that Ngũgĩ underestimates the persistence of capitalism (not an uncommon socialist ideological flaw), I believe he speaks the truth when he writes, “Peace is impossible in a world dominated by imperialism. Peace is impossible in a world guided by the ideology and practice of racism. Hence, the struggle for peace in the world must be a concerted struggle against racism and imperialism.”

Decolonizing Methodologies

2008-12-03T14:28:00.000-08:00

Linda Tuhiwai Smith reminds us of a critical point about history and research in the colonial context in the first chapter of her book, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People:

"We assume that when ‘the truth comes out’ it will prove that what happened was wrong or illegal and that therefore the system (tribunals, the courts, the government) will set things right. We believe that history is also about justice, that understanding history will enlighten our decisions about the future. Wrong. History is also about power. In fact it is mostly about power."

Smith challenges several assumptions about academic research and Indigenous-Settler relations. She reminds us that, “…a thousand accounts of the ‘truth’ will not alter the ‘fact’ that indigenous peoples are still marginal and do not possess the power to transform history into justice.” We must never forget that Indigenous-Settler relations are first and foremost, characterized by an imbalance in power in favour of the colonizers. The reality of the Indigenous experience is that we are occupied and surrounded, physically, culturally, spiritually, and intellectually – including our experiences in academic institutions. It is a mistake to think that the issues of power and imperialism are exclusive to the political and economic realms. Additionally, Smith writes, "Imperialism still hurts, still destroys and is reforming itself constantly." For Indigenous peoples, imperialism is not a thing of the past - it is ongoing, whether it is called neocolonialism or neoliberalism, or progress and economic development. It still perpetuates the subjugation of Indigenous peoples and territories.

Smith argues that these elements of domination and Eurocentric bias are inherent in the Settler intellectual and academic traditions. These traditions are rooted in liberal thinking that emerged during The Enlightenment period and are manifest in “positivism and notions of objectivity and neutrality.” The experiences and knowledge of Indigenous people have been discounted in imperial institutions in favour of these liberal philosophies and methodologies, yet Smith believes that there is still a vital place for Indigenous academics and research. Despite the fact that the academic experience can be "alienating and destructive," Indigenous people are in a position to not only survive their experiences, but also reorient research agendas to serve Indigenous aims and aspirations. Smith quotes Kathie Irwin who states, "We don't need anyone else developing the tools which will help us to come to terms with who we are. We can and will do this work. Real power lies with those who design the tools - it always has. This power is ours."

In utilizing 'Indigenized' research, Smith offers a hopeful and dignified approach for Indigenous intellectuals who seek to revitalize their communities. In addition to highlighting ten ways in which Indigenous people continue to be subject to imperialist research from outsiders (and arguably, from a minority of insiders as well), she summarizes twenty-five important research projects about, by, and for Indigenous peoples. While I believe that they are all important, I wish to focus on three that particularly resonated with me. The first is "Negotiating," of which she writes,
"When one reads of the decisions made by various indigenous leaders to accept the terms and conditions of colonization, what emerges from those stories is the concern shown by leaders for the long-term survival chances of the collective, of their own people. That was the basis of their courage and, despite the outrage younger generations of indigenous people might feel about the deal which some leaders accepted, the broader picture across several indigenous contexts is one of dignity and acceptance of a specific reality. Their negotiations were undertaken quite literally with guns at their heads, with their people starving and with death around them."

In-depth Indigenous research conducted with this understanding may allow for the younger generations to greater appreciate the dire conditions experienced by our ancestors. This understanding is not only vital in terms of accuracy, but also in terms of how present generations deal with the shame and guilt that comes with being a colonized people. Further understanding of this kind can only enhance how we move forward into the future. Secondly, I wish to comment on the project of "Connecting." Smith writes that, "Connecting is related to issues of identity and place, to spiritual relationships and community wellbeing." Smith also states that connecting is about being "whole" and "establishing good relations." I'm reminded of a statement from the introduction of Ella Cara Deloria's novel, Waterlily: "To be a good Dakota is to be a good relative." Research in an Indigenous context is about re-establishing the healthy connections that were severed by the colonial experience, with each other and to the land. Finally, I want to focus on the importance of "Creating." Smith writes, "The project of creating is about transcending the basic survival mode...to dream new visions." I believe that while the current experience of colonialism is still devastating to Indigenous peoples - in very physical, mental, and spiritual ways - there are no longer as many guns to our heads. The work of prior generations has created some space for our communities to begin healing and begin creating again. I believe that Indigenous research can play a vital role in community revitalization. In discussing her own experiences with Indigenous research Linda Tuhiwai Smith writes of the people she worked with, "I saw their continuing belief in themselves, their positive outlook and optimism and their hope that maybe, one day, life would get better." Smith's Decolonizing Methodologies is a rich and powerful (in the Indigenous senses of the words) contribution to the revitalization of Indigenous communities, ways of life, and worldviews. As it pertains to us, here at the University of Victoria, Smith offers an insightful, critical and ultimately inspirational guide as we move forward as Indigenous "academics" that care about the health and wealth of our communities.

long time eh?

2008-12-01T21:15:00.000-08:00

Some of you know that I am still in school, hence my MIA status the last little while (ok, the last long while). Well, I only have one more paper to write this term, so with a little breathing room, I thought I would post some of my smaller assignments, starting with my response papers to various books I read this term. First up: A lil Colonizer/Colonized action by good ol' Memmi. I had been looking forward to this one for several years. Enjoy.

In the Introduction to Memmi’s The Colonizer and the Colonized, Jean-Paul Sarte succinctly points out an important but often obscured reality of colonization, “that there are neither good nor bad colonists: there are colonialists.” This perspective has particular relevance in the Indigenous territories that have never experienced decolonization, formal or otherwise - mainly the countries now known as Canada, USA, New Zealand, and Australia. All of these countries have developed broadly accepted national mythologies that invoke varying degrees of legitimacy and patriotism among Settler populations. And while Memmi was writing primarily about his experiences on the African continent, specifically as a Jewish immigrant in Tunisia, many of his insights into the portraits of the colonizer and the colonized are relevant to an analysis of Indigenous-Settler relations here in Canada. In offering a critique of Memmi's anti-colonial classic, I point out some differences as experienced by Indigenous peoples in Canada, especially on the question of assimilation in our current era of neoliberalism. Finally, I comment on what might be Memmi's most obvious shortfall, that of his failing to meaningfully acknowledge the experience of Indigenous women in the process of colonization.

Memmi writes that, "All Europeans in the colonies are privileged," and that whether the colonizer is rich or a poor "dupe and victim, he also gets his share." As years turn into decades and generations of Settlers are born in the colonies, one often hears the argument from Settlers that they are innocent of the crimes of colonization. In fact, not only are they innocent the argument goes, but they no longer benefit from a place of privilege relative to Indigenous people. Memmi points out that this is just not the case, and that all colonials benefit at the expense of Indigenous people. And while it is important that their unique place of privilege is acknowledged, it is also important to understand that they also suffer from the dehumanizing effects from colonization. Speaking of the experience of left-leaning colonials, Memmi writes, "He lives his life under the sign of a contradiction which looms at every step, depriving him of all coherence and tranquility" and "it is certainly admitted today that one can be, while awaiting the revolution, both a revolutionary and an exploiter." And while Memmi writes that, "it is more convenient to accept colonization" for some, "to possess victory completely he needs to absolve himself of it and the conditions under which it was attained." This persistent need for legitimacy and absolution can be seen in the current BC Treaty Process and various Comprehensive Claims negotiations throughout Canada, despite the de facto legitimacy and sovereignty that the state already enjoys.

Memmi's chapter on the "Mythical portrait of the colonized" illustrates many of the ways in which the colonizer seeks to legitimate his role as usurper in the name of "progress" and "industry." The colonizer in painted as a man of action and virtue, while the colonized is cast as lazy and indolent. The dehumanization and objectification of the colonized have had profound effects, not the least of which is a little matter of genocide. Memmi also writes, "The most serious blow suffered by the colonized is being removed from history and from the community. Colonization usurps any free role in either war or peace, every decision contributing to his destiny and that of the world, and all cultural and social responsibility." He writes further, "The colonized seems condemned to lose his memory." These disconnections that have occurred as a result of colonization continue to plague Indigenous people, not merely as an historical trauma, but as an ongoing experience. Indigenous children are still being removed from families, Indigenous people are faced with economic dilemmas that force many to leave their homelands to seek education and work in Settler communities, and the Indigenous experience continues to be characterized as one of inferiority in the face of overwhelming Settler values and worldviews.

In his Conclusion, Memmi writes, "Contemporary colonization carried an inherent contradiction which, sooner or later, would cause it to die." What Memmi did not foresee, however, would be what Kwame Nkrumah called, "neocolonialism" and an ongoing relationship of the exploiter and the exploited. Indigenous people continue to live this experience in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. As it relates to Canada, Memmi would also be wrong in writing, "the colonialist never planned to transform the colony into the image of his homeland, nor remake the colonized in his own image!" He writes further that, "Within the colonial framework, assimilation has turned out to be impossible." In the 1950s and 1960s it might have been more accurate to make this assumption, with segregationist policies in North America and formal decolonization occurring in Africa, but in today's neoliberal era, assimilation and homogenization have become hallmarks in the ongoing imperial project.

Symptomatic of much of the writing of his time, Memmi also completely ignores the experience of colonized women and even goes so far as to suggest that colonial women are "less concerned about humanity in an abstract sense..." In the Afterward, Susan Gilson Miller points out this shortfall in Memmi's writing as well, noting that aside from the obvious, women have always been profoundly influential in African liberation movements. While The Colonizer and the Colonized provides us with many important insights into the respective minds of both Settlers and Indigenous people, the omission of the roles and experiences of women in the process of colonization is fatal to any prospect for successful decolonization.

Atoning for the sins of the parents: Thoughts on living with colonial legacies

2008-07-04T13:45:00.000-07:00

[This article was originally published in the June/July 2008 issue of Briarpatch magazine]

You’ve surely heard some variation of the saying: the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents. This maxim often surfaces when discussing Canada's colonial legacy or whenever people raise the issue of outstanding indigenous land claims or disputes over rights. What are we to make of this statement? It has two implications. First, that current settlers are innocent of the sins of the past, and second, that they cannot be held responsible, be required to pay too much, or otherwise be inconvenienced by the resolution of indigenous claims or disputes. Native people, rather, have a responsibility to “get over it” and “move on.”

But is the current generation of non-indigenous Canadians innocent of the crimes committed in the colonization of this land? Viewed through the rubric of liberalism, this view certainly seems fair. Citizens, the argument goes, are individually responsible for our own actions, nothing more. But despite the hegemony of liberal ideals, which enshrine private property, the free market and individual liberty, the sins of the mothers and fathers—or more correctly, of the Canadian state—have left us with an inescapable colonial legacy that all inhabitants of this land – indigenous and non-indigenous - bear a moral responsibility to rectify.

Approaching the question in terms of individual guilt or innocence is problematic, but it strikes me that the legal principle that’s generally applied to those who benefit from the “avails of crime” is relevant: when criminals are brought to justice, neither they nor their families are permitted to continue benefiting from the profits of their criminal enterprises. Yes, I am suggesting that what happened in Canada was—and remains—a crime. And settlers, for the most part, have benefited and continue to benefit from this crime.

Canadian history books don’t tell it that bluntly. They speak of brave explorers red coat-wearing do-gooders bringing law, order and opportunity to sparsely populated lands and primitive indigenous peoples. Motivations such as colonial greed are sidelined in these narratives. When such motivations are acknowledged, Canadian often dismiss these injustices as mistakes that have been overcome with time and reason. This is accepted as “progress,” a cornerstone of Western political thought. We are better than we used to be, the thinking goes. Bad things may have been done in the past, but we no longer do those things. Today, everyone can join the multicultural Canadian dream; never mind the fact that many Western democracies were built on the backs of dispossessed indigenous peoples and slaves, and that these states continue to benefit from ongoing neo-colonial relationships.

So what are the responsibilities of Canadian settler society, and of individual settlers? I recently heard a refreshing perspective on this. A university professor shared his reflections upon working with an indigenous community to negotiate various land claims, self-government agreements, and economic development projects. He saw that what was really being presented to the community was a choice between bad and worse. What Canadians are saying through their government and their own complicity, he realized, is this: be like us or perish. Surrender or die. Indigenous populations have been decimated by disease, our ways of life marginalized or destroyed, our beliefs ridiculed, and today we are invited to assimilate in order to enjoy the privilege of joining the modern world.

Gee thanks. Vine Deloria, Jr. expressed it best in his book, Custer Died for Your Sins when he stated that what indigenous people really need from settler society is a “leave us alone” law.

Indigenous people often speak of “decolonization.” For us, this concept involves the shedding of colonial ways of thinking and acting, and a revitalization of indigenous languages and ways. But what does decolonization mean for Canadian settlers? The professor laid it out like this: settlers, despite popular mythology, are visitors here, not yet justly rooted. Canadian society is built upon a foundation of theft and genocide, and the past continues to shape present realities. In order for genuine reconciliation to occur, Canadians must humble themselves and ask permission to stay and be prepared to deal with the consequences should indigenous people say, “No.”

Now, you and I know that this may never happen, but at some point the dialogue must consider such possibilities if truth and justice are to prevail over the pragmatic forces of liberalism and capitalism.

For non-indigenous people to root themselves in this country legitimately and justly, they must be prepared to move beyond Canadian mythology and the multicultural politics of recognition and deal with their debt to indigenous people honourably. This means moving beyond the arguments that “might makes right” and majority rules. Colonial stains do not wash out easily. New relationships must be built upon trust and respect. Anything else is just a more form of neocolonialism - and a lie.

2007-12-09T13:33:00.001-08:00

I am on a hiatus.

the right man for the job

2007-10-21T21:53:00.000-07:00

In a previous blog I expressed some anger and frustration at recent developments (Stephen Point as Lieutenant-Governor and Tsawwassen Final Agreement). Tonight, on the occasion of another group of nations approving their Final Agreements, I wish to share some additional thoughts on the nature of the Lieutenant-Governor's position and the so-called, BC Treaty Process.

The more that I think about it, there could hardly be a more appropriate person for Lieutenant-Governor than Stephen Point. He is indeed the right man for the job. First, I should explain exactly who the LG is (seeing as I'm relearning it all in POLIs 101 and 102 this semester). Prior to Canada becoming a country (officially assuming control over domestic matters in 1867), the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec), New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Vancouver Island, and British Columbia were ruled by governors. These governors were the personal and practical representatives for the English monarchs (most notably a bunch of King Georges, Edwards, a William, and Queens Victoria and Elizabeth II).

The powers of the monarchs changed considerably after the 1689 English Bill of Rights. England and her imperial colonies gradually worked their way through responsible and representative governemnts until we arrived at the current liberal-democratic arrangement we have today. While the Queen no longer possesses any practical power in England or her former colonies, she retains official representatives for ceremonial purposes. In Canada, Queen Elizabeth II is represented by the Governor General in Ottawa (Michaëlle Jean), and a Lieutenant-Governer in each of the 10 provinces.

Officially, Stephen Harper is not the head of state of Canada. Queen Elizabeth II is. In fact, the Canadian Constitution makes no mention of the Prime Minister or Cabinet. Instead, it refers to the Privy Council (which used to advise the afore mentioned governors). Constitutional convention however, empowers the Prime Minister while the GG and the 10 LGs are for show only. This is my point. A lot of fuss was made about Michaëlle Jean being both a woman and a minorty (Haitian) and Stephen Point being the first indigenous LG.

Not only do they not have any real power, convention strongly suggests that they remain apolitical. No power. No politics. Lots of pomp and ceremony. It reminds me of the law-making authority provisions in the recently ratified Final Agreements (again, they are not actual treaties). While indigenous folk may make our own laws, they must conform to Canada's laws and should there be a conflict, the laws of both BC and Canada prevail in an overwhelming majority of the cases. So, we would have no real power, at least not radically different than the current state powers.

Perhaps that is the Point.

Westward the course of empire goes forth.

"Westward the Course of Empire Goes Forth"

2007-10-15T23:22:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago while shopping at the Bay Centre in Mituunii, I noticed a rather large and ornate clock suspended over the happy shoppers. I've seen it before of course, but this time something else caught my eye. Written on the side, so that you can see it quite clearly from the third and fourth levels is the phrase, "Westward the Course of Empire Goes Forth."

Indeed.

Last month the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada appointed former provincial court judge, BCTC Chief Commissioner, and Skowkale elected chief, Stephen Point as the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. Point is the first indigenous person to be selected as the Queen's personal representative. Some hailed this an historic moment worthy of celebration. The last time I remember such Aboriginal-Settler goodwill was shortly after Premier Campbell announced the $100 million New Relationship fund, and Stephen Point spoke to the Summit chiefs about how much progress we've made "since 1969."

I guess it couldn't get any more appropriate than to have Stephen Point round out this little narrative with an LG appointment. In 2005 I disagreed with Mr. Point and now in 2007 I find myself uninspired again. Of course, you may ask, "who is he? (meaning 'me'). What has he done?" Not a lot, I must confess, but I do feel entitled to an opinion. And I am more than aware that I possess the luxury of my dissenting views because people came before me who fought for recognition against a much more overtly racist society. I respect the experiences and efforts of my elders. I respect it so much in fact that I am compelled to tell the truth as I see it. I believe that we owe that much, and if my opinions are indeed dissenting opinions than so be it.

I want to bring up a few points that came up at a meeting I attended last night in Tsartlip. The meeting was called by local community members concerned about the impending Tsawwassen Final Agreement. Two things really stood out for me. First, the passionate appeal of speaker after speaker that what is happening is not right. Being a guy like me (fairly reserved and guarded), and a student I was reminded of how visceral these issues are for people - especially as they relate how the generally esoteric matter of indigenous-settler relations impact their lives on a day-to-day, in your face basis. I struggled to hold a tear or two back several times. My chest swelled, and a very real real feeling emerged again - the need for us to stand up and fight, our duty to defend our ways of living and being in this world.

One speaker remembered a call-in radio program that was discussing the issue of Aboriginal Rights, and caller after caller, all settlers echoed a common message, "The Indians need to become more Canadian." Really? You mean like pro-actively participate in the legal system? Vote in elections? Run for the Liberal party? Learn to do business their way? Open a fish farm? Mine the earth? Help build an oil rig? Open a casino? Learn to Dance with Dollars? Dance for wealthy tourists at the Olympics? Represent the Queen, an imperial institution that has killed millions and made trillions on our own lands? Is that Canadian enough for you? After all, Canadians are so nice and polite and loved worldwide, right?

It's hard not to be sarcastic. It's hard not to be cynical. It's hard not to be angry, but should we apologize for it? Should we swallow our dignity along with everything else? Another sentiment that was shared last night by a prominent indigenous leader was that we've lost our way. In the fight for equality and respect, we gradually lost sight of who we were, are, and what we want to be. My father said that he is old enough to remember a time when all our families were self-sufficient, when everyone worked and not one person wanted for the basic needs in life. It wasn't that long ago. And after decades of court battles, political accommodation, and economic acquiescence what have we gotten for our efforts?

I realize that I do come across as angry and I have raised more questions than answers. First, I will not apologize for my anger under the guise of respect. Respect, for the self and for others demands that we speak the truth. Second, as I've said before, perhaps it is enough to say "no" and ask questions. If indeed we have lost our way, it might make sense to stop, gather ourselves, and move in a new direction. I've also said this before: Some say a bad deal is better than no deal. I disagree. If this is a game, it is serious and for all time.

Tsawwassen elected chief Kim Baird spoke in the BC legislature this morning. I could not bare to listen to it all. Disingenuous platitudes (especially by government ministers) make me ill, but I did overhear one fact that rings true. She outlined the "traditional territories" that the Tsawwassen people did not surrender.

That is, until now.

Westward the Course of Empire Goes Forth.

Negotiating the Terms of Surrender

2007-07-24T11:58:00.000-07:00

As the community of Tsawwassen votes on their Final Agreement today and with the community of Huu-ay-aht set to vote shortly, I thought I would return from my self-imposed exile on "treaty" matters and share some thoughts and feelings on the political processes underway in BC. This is not a technical exercise. Others are far better at dissecting the legal jargon than I (Art Manuel, and even my London School of Economics-educated friend from Sḵwxwú7mesh).

Another friend, Lahalawuts'aat best characterized the BC Treaty Process when she said indigenous people were merely "negotiating the terms of surrender." To say that we have been negotiating is putting it generously. The governments are imposing the terms of surrender and indigenous people are being coerced to accept them finally and completely.

What's wrong with this picture? Perhaps, one can concede that the ubiquitous nature of the Canadian state is so powerful that resistance is futile and pragmatic collaboration is preferable. Even during the early, optimistic days of the BC Treaty Process, some of our leaders believed this, which brings me to my first point: Power politics and force.

In 1990, a 270 year resistance flared up again in Kanien’kehaka territory over the expansion of a 9-hole golf course. Initially, over a 1,000 SQ were called in, then a battalion-sized force of the Canadian Army took over for all the world to see. The stand-off lasted 78 days, but the legacy lasted much longer. Out of it came (however briefly) unprecedented national indigenous unity, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the BC Treaty Process. A tremendous amount of political space was created in the wake of Oka. [In 1990, I was 16, turning 17]

Political space eventually dissipates however, and 17 years later it seems almost non-existent, such is the current climate of government-funded dissent, political pragmatism, capacity building, and economic development. I was there in 1991, on the Capilano reserve of the Sḵwxwú7mesh people, when the BC Treaty Process began. Interestingly, it was a Conservative government in Ottawa and a Social Credit (right-wing) government in Victoria that ushered in the "modern-day treaty process." I was almost completely apolitical and in my first year of college at the time.

Shortly after the process began, I remember noticing a headline of the Nisga'a Agreement in Principle and a cash settlement of $190 million dollars [I was 23 at the time]. I thought that was a lot of money. I still think it is a lot money (in the appropriate context of course). I said as much to my father. He immediately replied that it was peanuts and that hardly anyone was talking about what the Nisga'a were giving up (92% of their lands, etc.) During the late 90's the general tone at the Summit was one of "respect for the Nisga'a and their decision" but a unanimous sentiment that echoed, "but WE are not going to SETTLE for that."

Most negotiators believed that they could negotiate a better deal. Some believed that they could not. The first, a group of mostly Native Youth Movement activists, strongly opposed the process from the beginning, often disrupting meetings and even occupying the BC Treaty Commission office. The second was a savvy and experienced Nuu-chah-nulth leader. He offered the Tribal Council a deal. He would negotiate a treaty for them single-handily for less than $200,000.00. He knew that the government would not negotiate, that they had predetermined mandates, and that all that would need to be sorted out were the details.

Of course the chiefs rejected his offer and 15 years later the Tribal Council is fractured into 4 distinct negotiating units and collectively carrying over $20 million dollars in BCTC loan debt. (Also notable is that the other major tribal groupings, once having entered into the process united, have also broken up at least two, and sometimes three or four-ways: Sto:lo, Tsimshian, and Kwakwakw'awakw). This leader, even though we differed substantially on most political matters, knew then what I know now. We are not really negotiating.

There exists a facade of negotiations. Research occurs. Papers are written. Meetings take place. Non-indigenous lawyers are paid copious amounts of money. Consultants are hired and the "people" remain suspiciously apathetic (note: I am not blaming the people for this). I worked in the business for nearly 6 years. I was paid a lot of money and in the beginning, I was optimistic as well. And while my peers may be shocked to hear it now, I did vote "yes" on the Nuu-chah-nulth AIP in 2001. It's safe to say that I've since changed my mind.

I am now accused of being philosophical, backward, unprogressive, and somehow in love with the Indian Act. From 2001 until 2006 I sat in on dozens and dozens of tri-partite negotiation sessions. Not once did I ever see BC or Canada capitulate on anything significant or increase their mandates in a substantial manner. Even when the Nuu-chah-nulth table broke up and the Maa-nulth tribes came back and reported that they had successfully negotiated for more land, leading some to believe it was their sheer intelligence, skill, and will that had accomplished the deed. I immediately called my source in the BC Treaty Negotiation Office and asked if this was true. The answer was that the parties agreed to remove smaller amounts of high-value land, and replace it with greater amounts of lower-value land. The overall formula remained unchanged. Surely, you can see the wool being pulled over someones eyes.

Perhaps I wouldn't feel so ill about it if the rhetoric was different. Both the Aboriginal and government negotiators speak emotionally about how tough negotiations have been and about the give and take and sacrifice on all sides. It's usually at about this point that I want to take a gravol or maybe something stronger. The "treaty negotiation" interview has become about as predictable as the hockey interview. "...We were caught on our heels at first. They came at us hard. We gotta give them credit, but then our guys really stepped up and put forth a team effort..."

Back to my philosophical arguments and the terms of surrender. Even according to colonial law (when they aren't changing them), the BC land question remains open. Even according to notions of imperial civilization, in which indigenous people should be grateful for the coming of our great white fathers, the matter has not been dealt with properly, until now. Now, our own people fill the offices of Indian Affairs. Even one of the Chief Negotiators for Canada, Dan Goodleaf, is a Mohawk. Fresh Aboriginal graduates from Canadian universities fill the offices and court rooms of the colonial state, with good hearts, hoping (I hope, at least) to change the system from within.

Is it working? Has anything substantially changed since 1990? How about 1975 or 1969? Finally, the colonial governments have managed to convince us to say yes, to sign on the dotted line and justify their theft. Our leaders are being paid (albeit sometimes with loans our people will have to pay back), to officially give up, at least the battle for a greater sense of independence - they used to call it Self-Government. Canada (and all the states in the Americas for that matter) have rotten foundations, a reprehensible past and an ongoing neo-colonial present). Finally, the settlers will be able to breathe a sigh of relief and recount, "Whew! That was a close one. It's ours. It's finally ours, legitimately. The Indians agreed to give up 95% of their lands and waters, and we didn't even have to compensate them, and even the land they do retain will be subject to our laws and jurisdiction."

It sounds like a great deal for somebody. Now this is undoubtedly the point where I get accused of being cynical and negative and somehow in favour of the status quo. The liberal-democratic-capitalist system breeds cynicism. Everyone expects it. No one trusts politicians, not really. Former Canadian Prime Minister Chretien campaigned on a promise to eliminate the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and in ten years, didn't even come close but people kept electing his party anyway. Why should this be any different, especially if we are being asked to plug into their system?

I am no longer apolitical, but I remain optimistic and I return to my father's words over ten years ago. What did they give up? What are we being asked to give up? Is it worth it and do we really want to be full-fledged Canadian citizens? Sure, they say it's one of the best places to live on earth and sure our conditions, both on the reserve and in the cities are downright despicable, but is it really worth it? Are liberal-democratic-materialist-individualist solutions really going to make us happy?

There are other places with lots of loot floating around: Hobema, Osoyoos, West Vancouver, north eastern BC, to name a few. Ask yourselves this, are the people happier and are they living healthy indigenous lives? I don't have a final answer myself. I am truly asking you. Of course, hinting at the importance of living an indigenous life begs several questions. What is it and is it even desirable?

Prior to the advent of the current process, closer to the time the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council made it's first comprehensive claim, there were over 200 Nuu-chah-nulth fishing vessels. Now there are less than 20. We have more people working with farmed salmon than wild salmon. Diabetes, among a litany of other health concerns are rampant. So what's the solution? A treaty? A 40-60 hour per week job? How about a white picket fence and a vacation to Disneyland?

I don't have all the answers, but I do have some ideas. I know that I feel my most content, fulfilled and empowered, when I see our culture in action. I'm reminded of my father who says there is no word in our language for "culture." It is not something we study or read about. It is not a weekend retreat. It is who we are. It is how we live. And I find that I am happiest when I am living what might be interpreted as a Nuu-chah-nulth life*.

Last year in school, I had the least amount of money and stuff I've had in over 13 years, and I was happier than I've been in almost the same amount of time. I've learned more about Nuu-chah-nulth ways of being and language than ever before. I've gained an appreciation of our philosophies and unique worldview in a way that I had not before, and have developed a burgeoning ability to implement these ideas into daily practices.

Some people earnestly believe that a deal, any deal is better than no deal. I disagree. I believe a bad deal is a bad deal and they've been imposed on our people for hundreds of years, but I will not agree willingly to one now. Since Oka, no one has really pushed the envelop. Sure there have been minor flare-ups but nothing lasting. Even from my pragmatic point of view, we have not created any greater leverage. If anything, it has decreased, along with our collective bargaining power.

I have no illusions about they way things have turned out. I've read enough history and lived enough direct experiences to know that it's all a game of power politics and that governments never relent willingly. Their behaviour at the negotiation table, in their court rooms and board rooms has not surprised me. I've learned to expect it. This realization doesn't even have to add to my cynicism. It can elevate my thinking. Have we tried hard enough? Have we sacrificed enough? Do the current deals truly offer our communities a chance at healthy resurgence (on our own terms)?

Some will say yes. I must say no. What do you say?

*I am in the process of getting in greater touch with my Tsimshian roots, but until I live and learn more, this commentary remains largely from a Nuu-chah-nulth perspective.

Indigenizing Revolution: Restoring Balance

2007-07-14T15:23:00.000-07:00

The idea of revolution and immediate change is appealing, especially considering the horrendous living conditions endured by a majority of indigenous people in this country. Yet despite the need for immediate action to better the lives of indigenous people, leaders of modern indigenous resistance movements find themselves – counter-intuitively perhaps – facing the reality that substantive change will take a considerable amount of time. Indigenous activists are refocusing their attention on local, fundamental issues, while attempting to remain true to their indigenous philosophical roots.

While classic socialist notions of revolution are appealing, like their liberal-democratic counterparts they are rooted in Eurocentric political, social and economic worldviews. Indigenous resurgence is more than just the elimination of poverty or the improvement of any number of the socioeconomic indicators. Yes, indigenous people want to be healthy and happy, but not at the expense of losing who they are as a people. Of course, ideas that conceptualize indigenous resurgence are diverse, but most indigenous people express a desire to preserve and perpetuate their unique languages, cultures and ways of living.

In his most recent book Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, Kanien’kehaka scholar and activist Taiaiake Alfred calls for indigenous people to move away from materialist and individualist state-centric engagements, and re-embrace their traditional values and principles. In dealing with the issue of violence Alfred writes, “How you fight determines who you will become when the battle is over.”

Identifying the core issue of ends-means consistency, Alfred calls for the employment of a variety of strategies, including what he calls non-violent creative contention. He further states, “A true revolution is spiritual at its core; every single one of the world’s materialist revolutions has failed to produce conditions of life that are markedly different from those which it opposed.” This critique can be seen not simply as abandoning all the ideals of revolution, but perhaps indigenizing them.

True indigenous resurgence is about restoring balance. Any Eurocentric solution, no matter how well-intentioned, is bound to fail. It is important to recognize certain unique indigenous worldviews and philosophical perspectives here. Bearing in mind that indigenous communities and cultures across the Americas are far from homogenous, there are some commonalities that are worth mentioning. A common principle amongst indigenous peoples is that of interconnection; indigenous worldviews see all creation as connected and interrelated. Recognition of this is manifested in indigenous ways of living in balance with the environment.

Co-optation

After a legacy of displacement, dispossession, devastating diseases, and state-led attempts at cultural erasure and assimilation, indigenous people have had to deal with an imposed form of governance – that of the Indian band council. These extensions of the federal government have ranged from ineffective liberal democratic regimes that lack popular legitimacy at the least, to unaccountable and corrupt authoritarian regimes at the worst. Even communities that manage to liberate themselves from the confines of the Indian Act and negotiate their own self-government agreements are forced to accept democratic constitutions that are not rooted in indigenous principles or values. Taiaiake Alfred identifies the mainstream strategies of political and legal engagement as “aboriginalism,” and sets out a compelling case not only of their futility, but of the very dangerous ways in which they promote assimilation.

Indigenous peoples must be able to choose how they govern themselves. For indigenous peoples it is a fundamental right, as well as a responsibility. This concept of responsibility that places indigenous people as stewards of the land has largely been lost in the debates and negotiations. Adopting the rhetoric of rights and engaging with the colonial political and legal institutions on their own terms are a significant departure from indigenous worldviews and philosophies. This is why narrowly focused, state-centric initiatives have proven largely unsuccessful.

Politically, some argue that progress has been made. While the $5 billion Kelowna Accord seems to have been abandoned by the current Conservative government, the provincial Liberals in British Columbia continue to move ahead with their $100 million New Relationship initiative. Premier Gordon Campbell surprised many with his about-face on “treaty” negotiations and unexpected efforts to accommodate First Nations in British Columbia with a series of social and economic policy shifts.

But co-optation will not come easily. The community rejection of the Lheidli Tenneh Final Agreement by a vote of 123-111 on March 30 is sending shockwaves throughout the BC treaty establishment. After 14 years of negotiations and hundreds of millions of dollars of accumulated debt, the BC Treaty Process has yet to produce a single ratified agreement – the Nisga’a negotiations predated the formal BC Treaty Process and their agreement was concluded outside its domain. Two other agreements will soon face community referenda: Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth. Both will face considerable community opposition, especially in the wake of the Lheidli Tenneh rejection and overall dissatisfaction with inflexible government mandates, ongoing resource extraction, and continued community poverty.

Endeavours to obtain justice in the Canadian courts have proven equally disheartening. Aboriginal law and the concepts of aboriginal title and rights began to take shape with the Calder decision in 1976. While the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Frank Calder and the Nisga’a Nation on a technicality, aboriginal law and rights rhetoric had found a venue – and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of lawyers willing to take on cases. After the 1982 repatriation of the Canadian constitution and the inclusion of section 35.1, which recognized “existing Aboriginal and treaty rights,” aboriginal law and its practitioners gathered momentum that continues unabated.

In cases like Sparrow, Gladstone, Marshall, Haida, Taku, and Delgamuukw the courts have been notoriously vague in their rulings about the nature and scope of aboriginal title and rights. What they have not been vague about is the unassailability of Crown title and jurisdiction. Delgamuukw, often heralded as a victory for indigenous people, confirmed aboriginal title but only as a “burden” on Crown title. To top it off, Justice Lamer provided a veritable grocery list of reasons for “justifiable infringement” of aboriginal title that all but rendered the recognition of it useless. Both negotiations and the courts have proven time-consuming, expensive, and have produced dubious results at best.

A Community-Centred Approach

Political and legal efforts to achieve reconciliation are mostly disappointing and somewhat esoteric to average community members. So what are the alternatives? Many young indigenous activists struggle with how best to lead their communities, often responding to the dire need for change with elitist revolutionary ideas. In contrast, Nicole Cross, a 22-year old Nisga’a woman, believes that the consciousness and awareness of the common people is where we must focus our efforts. Consistent with Frantz Fanon’s belief that action occurs most often amongst those with nothing to lose, Cross advocates a broad community-centered approach to organizing. Seventeen-year old Dustin Rivers of Skwxwú7mesh also believes that community resurgence cannot merely be an elite-led process.

Jessica Wood, a young Gitxan mother, believes that our politics must be more inclusive, suggesting that indigenous communities have become increasingly divided – especially on the basis of gender. Possibly one of the most devastating and divisive strategies employed by colonial authorities was the implementation of the overtly sexist provisions of the Indian Act. Prior to an amendment in 1985 that allowed for a limited recovery, the legislation granted “Indian status” to non-indigenous women who married indigenous men, and stripped it from indigenous women who married non-indigenous men. In many cases non-status Indians were required to leave their home communities and fend for themselves in urban centres often under conditions of isolation and poverty. The legacy of this community fragmentation is no more evident than in the national disgrace that is the reality of Canada’s more than 500 missing and murdered indigenous women.

If the restoration of balance is intrinsic to community resurgence rooted in indigenous principles however, then restoring balance to indigenous gender relations must be a priority. After years of public and police apathy, community activists and concerned family members have worked hard to focus attention on the issue of violence against women, especially in places like the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver where countless indigenous women have been lost and forgotten by most.

A central theme of the Nuu-chah-nulth Stop the Violence Movement is the restoration of hope. In May 2006, a handful of young Nuu-chah-nulth people, with the support of respected elders, embarked on a 10-day journey that would take them to all 15 Nuu-chah-nulth communities on Vancouver Island. Their concern was domestic violence, and their message was simple: Indigenous people must stop the violence in their communities, a manifestation of anger turned inward. Men and women need to stand together, restoring balance and bringing dignity again to the people.

Organizers worked outside the state-sponsored band council system, choosing instead to recognize the traditional Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’wiih (hereditary leaders), and when possible observe all pertinent cultural protocols. Given the positive responses from the communities, organizers have decided to make the Stop The Violence Movement an annual event. This year participants plan to travel to all the major urban areas where more than 65% of Nuu-chah-nulth families reside to continue sharing the message of love, concern, and hope.

Resistance

Community people young and old are saying, “no,” and “enough.” One of the most common criticisms levelled at indigenous dissidents is that it is not enough to merely say “no.” It is as if one is unable to articulate a comprehensive alternative, one is not deserving of a public opinion. Grassroots community members often feel intimidated by the legal and political jargon prevalent in current indigenous politics and negotiations. With the immense pressure to plug-in, buy-in, go shopping, go to school, go to work, pay the bills, and “just do it,” and assimilate into the Canadian state politically and economically, many believe that for the time being it is enough to just say no.

In this view, resistance precedes resurgence. Uruguayan writer, Eduardo Galeano writes in his book, We Say No, “By saying no to the devastating empire of greed…we are saying yes to another possible America…In saying no to peace without dignity, we are saying yes to the sacred right of rebellion against injustice…By saying no to the freedom of money we are saying yes to the freedom of people: a mistreated and wounded freedom, a thousand times defeated…a thousand times arisen.” Indigenous activists in Canada, while focusing their efforts locally, are mindful of allies abroad, and like their Zapatista brothers and sisters in Mexico, also say “Ya Basta!”

What is the future of indigenous resistance, and why is resistance specifically, an important element to the overall project of indigenous resurgence? Perhaps Sub-Comandante Marcos, spokesperson for the indigenous Zapatista uprising in Mexico, states it most eloquently in Our Word is Our Weapon, “For everyone, everything, nothing for ourselves.”

In explaining why the Zapatistas use the weapon of resistance, Marcos further states, “From the beginning of our uprising, they have offered us everything to get us to sell ourselves, to surrender…But we chose not to sell ourselves, we chose not to surrender.” The Zapatista movement and its most recent incarnation, the Other Campaign, epitomize a non-state-centric, anti-neoliberal approach to indigenous community resistance and resurgence.

Are the Zapatista lessons relevant to Canada? For the Zapatistas, their poverty is integral to their strategy. It is a weapon. In Canada widespread indigenous poverty is a reality. But there is also a burgeoning indigenous elite that has grown to lead the mainstream political and legal engagements with the state. Such a vanguard-led approach, whether from the left or the right, will be problematic and susceptible to co-optation.

Seeds for Tomorrow

For the time being perhaps it is enough to say enough. Resistance may be the order of the day. But like all truly indigenous movements, the current movement must connect to the next movement, and the next, and the one after that. While addressing the most urgent needs of today, we must also begin planting the seeds for tomorrow. And here I am reminded of my nieces and nephews, and our future generations. It is more than just a cliché. Cycles of violence, depression, poverty, and cultural devastation are broken intergenerationally. As we overcome our trauma and grief through the generations, so must we rebuild our strength and dignity through the generations.

My nephew Kashus will be two-years old in August. He is the son of my sister, a strong, compassionate, wonderful woman and her husband, a man of immense character, respect and a true warrior at heart. When Kashus was a few months old, my sister sent me a photograph of him lying in his crib with his right hand balled into a little fist raised in the air defiantly. I have the picture in a frame on my bookshelf and every time I look at it I am reminded of my commitment to him and my family. Tsimshian/Cree activist and performer Skeena Reece is known to have coined the phrase, “We must raise the next generation on truth.” In itself, this is an act of resistance and resurgence.

[This article was originally published in the Summer '07 issue of the New Socialist. Many kleco's to Deb and Adam for their editing prowess.]

Finding Dawn...Finding Hope

2007-03-21T22:37:00.000-07:00

I've just left the Farquhar Auditorium at the University of Victoria, after having viewed the largest screening to date of Christine Welsh's film, Finding Dawn. I can't remember how many times I cried. We were told that it would be a 'heavy' film, but Christine truly manages to tell a moving, indignant, powerful, and ultimately, hopeful story about the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada.

It was hard to comment on when the film was over. My friends and I were almost rendered speechless. And at the same time, we cannot be. As indigenous communities, we've been silent about these matters for too long. HUNDREDS of missing and murdered indigenous women. Our sisters. Our mothers. Our aunties. Our daughters. Our cousins. Collectively, we must say, "Enough! No more!" Collectively, we must begin to act, to stop the violence, to restore balance, dignity, and honour to our families and communities.

I applaud Christine Welsh for her monumental achievement in creating this film, in finding the stories and allowing them to be told. So many times, we were brought to tears, as we met these women, their families, became aware of who they were. Christine not only humanizes these victims, she helps us remember our indigenous dignity. The stories are painful and heart-wrenching. I can hardly describe my own visceral, physical reaction.

But she does more than shed light on these issues, long kept silent. On her journey, she also finds hope. This hope reminds us of who we are, and our place in this world. This hope compels us not only to remember these women, but to act, to stop the violence, to uphold our sacred responsibilities. We haven't a moment to lose. We need to take inspiration from work like Christine's film and the stories of the women she shares, and restore, revitalize and rebuild our homes.

I'm looking forward to working with Chiinuuks, Muhwa, Ha'wiih'thlup, Hiish-miik, Seitcha, Wichaninnish, and all my brothers and sisters to Stop the Violence in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. The movement will not stop. It will continue this Spring, this time bringing the dual-message of awareness and hope, to the urban centres where more than 65% of our people live. If you get a chance, see the film, and get involved, and start a movement in your community.

Dignity and Hope.

our responsibilities...

2006-09-12T00:30:00.000-07:00

"Our children need to know that some people fought back, and others collaborated." - President Roslin

conflicting interests

2006-08-09T12:35:00.000-07:00

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Wasase

2006-07-12T09:49:00.000-07:00

Wasáse is an intellectual and political movement whose ideology is rooted in sacred wisdom. It is motivated and guided by indigenous spiritual and ethical teachings, and dedicated to the transformation of indigenous people in the midst of the severe decline of our nations and the crises threatening our existence. It exists to enable indigenous people to live authentic, free and healthy lives in our homelands.

Aim

Wasáse promotes the learning and respecting of every aspect of our indigenous heritage, working together to govern ourselves using indigenous knowledge, and unifying to fight for our freedom and the return of our lands. It seeks to liberate indigenous people from euroamerican thoughts, laws and systems.

Approach

Wasáse is a resurgence of diverse actions. It works by awakening and reculturing individuals so that indigenous thoughts are restored to their proper place in the people’s minds and their attachment to false identities is broken. Members of the movement are committed to the restoration of indigenous traditions, ceremonies and knowledges; reconnecting to and loving the land; and, revitalizing indigenous languages.

Wasáse challenges indigenous people to reject the authority and legitimacy of the colonial system and to rebel against its institutions. Wasáse is not a political party or governmental organization, and its members do not seek or hold political office. The movement does not use violence to advance its aims. Its political struggle is conducted through intellectual confrontation and mass communication; revealing the corruptions, frauds and abuses of colonizers and collaborators; and, supporting direct action in defense of indigenous communities, their rights, and the land.

Affiliation

Wasáse is a movement of Real People who have adopted its principles and are committed to applying indigenous teachings and values as our way of life. The movement includes women and men regardless of gender, age, color, or nationality.

Support

Wasáse does not accept funding from colonial governments or corporations. The movement is funded by contributions from its members, and it seeks material support and alliances with individuals and organizations who share its principles and commitments.

Contact

Wasáse does not have an office, central location or staff. It is a network of mutual support and coordinated action that extends in all four directions across Turtle Island. We welcome and encourage contact for the purposes of information, affiliation or support.

www.wasase.org
contact@wasase.org

Guest Column: Detoxing From Canada

2006-04-26T10:52:00.000-07:00

The following was originally posted on Sketchy Thoughts and is re-posted with permission from Kersplebedeb.

The Mohawk people at “Douglas Creek Estates” are reclaiming their land, not mine. Indigenous culture is not my culture. Their struggle is their struggle, and they will take the lead and set their terms and define their own strategies. This is just normal.

Nevertheless, as must be obvious from the past weeks on this blog, i am not neutral or disinterested about what happens in Caledonia. I see the Mohawk struggle as an inspiring front in the war for a better world. While thousands of settlers may have rallied against the Mohawks in Caledonia last night, there is no “racial divide” which forces non-natives to take such a bigoted stand. It’s a choice.

What follows is an explanation for why i think even settlers should choose to support the Mohawk reclamation.

Mind-Altering Parasitism

Canada is a parasitic society. It is a nation built on other people’s land, with labour stolen from workers here and around the world. Those who identify as proud Canadian citizens are really identifying as proud parasites. And parasitism is like a drug – it is both mind-altering and addictive.

Let’s look at the forms these delusions can take.

Take a look at the Hennings, the two brothers generally described as upstanding citizens and pillars of their community. They’re the ones who sunk their money into a housing development on Mohawk land, and who are now facing bankruptcy. Don Henning was quoted as follows: “I didn't sign up for this, I'm afraid. I guess I haven't got much choice to try to continue doing what I can.”

Or then there is the unnamed Caledonia resident who spoke to the media, explaining that “I'm not against native rights, but what about my right to go about my life, and drive down the road without getting turned back at a roadblock?”

The way in which parasitism makes some people lose touch with reality, or flip it around in a guilty-conscience induced projection, was most clear when that sorry white woman was shown on tv worrying about how far the natives might go. “Are they going to try and take your land? That’s the big issue,” she said.

Geez… maybe they’re going to put white folks in reservations and steal their kids away in residential schools? You think?

This “forgetting who you are”, this loss of any sense of reality, was also present during last night’s rally in Caledonia, where settlers shouted “Go home!” to the Mohawks on the other side of the police line.

As these examples show, being the citizen of a parasitic society sometimes means becoming oblivious to irony itself. Not surprising as “Irony involves the perception that things are not what they are said to be or what they seem.” (wikipedia) How can a delusional person be trusted to recognize such a thing?

The delusions and psychoses these people are suffering from are all caused by Canada and colonialism. Being citizens of a parasitic society creates distorted expectations about what a “normal” society looks like, and creates unrealistic expectations about the nature of that power and privilege and wealth and safety which every settler is taught can be theirs.

If we are ever to free ourselves from these delusions, Canadians must be taught certain hard truths. But instead we are lied to.

Canadians are not taught that we live on land which is still owned by First Nations. Canadians are not told that our society’s wealth – stored in its infrastructure, institutions and land – was just recently stolen from other nations. Most importantly, Canadians are not taught that colonialism did not “win” and the indigenous nations did not “lose”… how can we talk in such final terms when the war is not over and people are still resisting the colonial monster in communities across this continent and around the world?

Choosing Sides

Watching tv yesterday i thought Caledonia was beginning to look like Chateauguay did back during the Oka crisis. Back in 1990 white folk in that Montreal suburb were inconvenienced by the Mohawk barricades on the Mercier bridge, so they responded as settlers so often do: with race riots and attacks on any Mohawk (or suspected Mohawk!) they could find.

The truth is, though, that the people of Caledonia (like those of Chateauguay) are no more racist than settlers across Canada. Like those Israelis who think the Middle East belongs to them, like those Afrikaaners who still insist they arrived in South Africa at the same time as Black Africans, most Canadians believe the land belongs to “us” now.

“Whatever bad stuff might have happened to the Indians happened centuries ago, and how can we be blamed for that?” So goes the reasoning of the delusional.

This ignorance, this fantasy belief that imperialism “won” and the game is over now, is fostered by all sectors of settler society. It is a mechanism whereby anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism are relegated to the dustbin of history and resistance becomes as pathetic as beating a dead horse in the blinkered view of the oppressor society.

So let’s be clear, both to the Hennings and to the “good folk” of Caledonia, and to our neighbours and to ourselves - because, as the Native Youth Movement reminds us, this land is all Indian Land - so let’s be clear: colonialism is war, and the war is not over. The Canadian and American States both exist on other people’s land, and looking to the government to guarantee that your home, your neighbourhood, your community be “protected” from First Nations peoples makes you complicit with the whole kit and caboodle, right back to those infected blankets and the residential rape schools. So you see, Mr Henning, when you turned to the colonial State to protect your business investment, when you demanded that the police attack the Clan Mothers’ reclamation, that’s when you “signed up” for this…

Choosing To Break With Our History

So what’s the way forward? What’s the solution?

There is news both bad and good.

The bad news (at least so far as those who cling to their delusions are concerned) is that Canada does not hold title to this land. Regardless of where you live, there’s no guarantee you won’t some day be faced with a conflict at your doorstep, barricades and angry people and cops and tough choices to make. Because those maps you studied in school lie and you can’t rely on the colonial State to tell you the truth about who owns what. It would be like asking Chretien who was guilty in the sponsorship scandal, or asking Bush who was to blame for Abu Ghraib.

And the good news? Well, the good news is really great. The good news is that we don’t have to side with Canada. You see, the indigenous nations are nations not bigoted constructs like the European “races”. Time after time the First Nations have welcomed allies from the settler society who were willing to struggle against the colonial monster.

This open-mindedness, this non-racist approach to anti-colonialism, is particularly obvious in the current standoff. While the people of Caledonia have held demonstrations where they have talked about “killing Indians” and bringing in the army the people at the reclamation site have time after time expressed their concern for the people of Caledonia and their view that they are fighting against the Canadian State, not against their neighbours who may claim Canadian citizenship. They even put themselves at risk to allow settlers to go to their church services on Sunday!

(Indeed, these constant displays of goodwill coming from the Mohawk side make the deranged hostility of some settlers all the more disgusting to see…)

So my advice to settlers is to disconnect your identity from Canada. The Mohawk Nation is not asking you to “go back to Europe” (or wherever you came from), nobody is arguing that you should become second class citizens, so you should just calm down and take a deep breath. This is a serious situation, incredible injustices have been done, genocide on an unparalleled scale, but you don’t have to remain complicit. You have a choice.

And if you make that choice, if you see the justice of the First Nations’ struggle and if you see that it is not a threat to you… well, you may notice some other things too.

You may notice that the system Canada is a part of – global capitalism – is not a particularly great way for people to live. It gives us war and superstition, and with every passing year it brings humanity to new lows. It gives us a woman-hating culture, with rape as the fastest growing form of male entertainment. It gives us global warming and skyrocketing cancer rates and news that we’re about to experience a species die-off of geological/historical proportions. It gives constant insecurity and (for the lucky middle classes) lives defined by mind-numbing work and even more mind-numbing shopping… and for the rest of the planet it gives lives of back-breaking labour and an existence just a step away from starvation and homelessness and watching your kids die of easily preventable illnesses.

Haven’t you noticed that this is what capitalism gives? It’s written clearly enough even in the lying daily news…

What we can see at the Six Nations land reclamation is people keeping alive a struggle for their sovereignty, for a renewal of their better way of life before colonialism swept this land. The First Nations have survived centuries of genocide inflicted upon them by euro-capitalism - their resistance struggle is only threatening to those who identify with this death-system.

For those of us who dream of a better world, their struggle serves as an inspiration, a glimmer of hope and a reminder that all is not lost. Far from it.

So take the plunge. Say goodbye to your illusions, to your addiction to colonialism and genocide. Life can be better than this.

Stop The Violence Movement

2006-03-28T09:23:00.000-08:00

Cheyenne proverb: A nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground. Then it is done, no matter how brave its warriors or how strong its weapons.

To all Nuu-Chah-Nulth Nations,

RE: STOP THE VIOLENCE in Indigenous Communities!

As Nuu-Chah-Nulth women and men we are regenerating our responsibility to uphold our Sacred Laws. It is with this strength of spirit and out of love for our communities, the land, justice, and freedom that we demand the immediate stop of violence, be it physical, sexual, emotional or spiritual abuse in the homes and communities of our women and children. We are demanding the restoration of respect for the role women have, for their ability to bring life into this world.

As Nuu-Chah-Nulth peoples we have resisted 200 years plus of violence at the hands of the colonizers and their guns, canons and diseases. All Indigenous peoples experience colonialism through the racist policies and legislation of the department of children and family services, which dictate to us whether we are ‘fit’ to raise our own children. The travesty we face today is this rage and frustration turned inward; a perpetuation of colonialism and violence within our own communities.

It is not acceptable to allow our women and children to be constant victims of violent abuse. It is against Nuu-Chah-Nulth values, principles and laws. This can only be addressed if we stand together and prepare to address this issue in a meaningful way.

Join us in a walk to stop the violence from May 5-14, 2006. We will travel through each of the NCN territories, ending up in Tla-o-qui-aht for mother’s day. Families are welcome, including women, men, elders and youth. Join us in our struggle for freedom from violence and oppression!

For further information and to offer support please feel free to contact me at (250) 386-0760 or by e-mail at rogilvie@shaw.ca.

Ha'wiih'thlup (David Dennis) (604)868-4283 dave@unns.bc.ca

Na'cha'uaht (Cliff Atleo Jr.) (250)720-7203 cliffatleojr@gmail.com

Cuu, with respect and love,

Chiinuuks (Ruth) Ogilvie

Short Assignment #1

2006-02-21T20:58:00.000-08:00

I have been relatively quiet on Kumtux these days...perhaps it is due to my recent return to the (virtual) halls of higher learning. I am taking IGOV 384: Indigenous Resistance and Renewal, an online course at the University of Victoria. Below is a copy of my first assignment:

Question 1. What do you think Taiaiake Alfred means when he states that most anti-colonial struggles to date, including our own, have ignored the “inextricable bonds between means and ends” (p. 51)? What does this imply for our decolonization efforts?

As a former member of the disbanded West Coast Warrior Society, I am intimately familiar with both the strategic and ethical considerations regarding the use of force as a means to further decolonization. In stating that most anti-colonial struggles have for the most part ignored the “inextricable bonds between means and ends” (Alfred 2005, 51) Taiaiake Alfred is basically saying that how you fight the war largely determines who you become when the war is over. Bob Overy echoes with a similar sentiment, “the choices made by a liberation movement at the start can determine the kind of society that eventually emerges” (Overy 1984, 14). These thoughtful considerations challenge some of the attractive rhetoric of historical leaders such Malcolm X and Ernesto “Che” Guevara, but I believe they are necessary if we are to seriously pursue a decolonizing path that not only acknowledges our Indigenous values but also seeks to bring about a future of true peaceful co-existence with the settler society.

One need only observe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to envision the perpetual cycle of violence that emerges when an Imperial power is engaged in a guerilla war-like conflict for liberation (or annihilation). In particular, this perpetuity is enhanced when the conflict is a result of resistance to “Internal Colonisation” (Tully 2000, 37) because both parties feel they are fighting for their homes. The argument that “we are all here to stay” while distasteful when utilized to justify the negation of historical injustices, remains an important consideration when peaceful co-existence is a long-term goal. The Zapatistas clearly understood this in January 1994 when after 10 days of military conflict with Mexican authorities, agreed to a ceasefire and began a new (non-violent) phase in their campaign for liberty, justice and democracy. While maintaining a right to self-defense, Taiaiake in conversation, has quoted Max Weber who stated that the “State has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.”

Taiaiake Alfred also points out that violence can be “seductive and intoxicating in the short term” (Alfred 2005, 51-52), particularly for young males I would add. My own experience with the West Coast Warrior Society and reflecting on the experiences of other similar groups (AIM, Native Youth Movement) has led me to determine that future initiatives, if they are to be successful must be led in much stronger numbers by Indigenous women. Any initiative that is too narrow is bound to fail Indigenous people who are historically are less inclined to compartmentalize issues but rather take a holistic or interconnected worldview.

As emerging Indigenous leaders it remains our responsibility to learn from historical struggles, our own and those of other Indigenous peoples around the world. A better understanding not only of our Indigenous principles and values, but of imperial power, patriarchies, the cycles of violence and long-term goals of peaceful co-existence point us in the direction of being more creative in our action-oriented deliberations. Instead of evolving as a war-ravaged society, always on edge, we can opt to challenge the legitimacy of the colonial powers with non-violent contention, revive our true Indigenous principles and emerge as strong, powerful and peaceful Indigenous nations.

References

Alfred, Taiaiake. Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005).

Overy, Bob. 1984. A Radical Peace. The New Internationalist. 136: 14.

Tully, James. “The Struggle of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom”, in Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, and Will Saunders (eds.), Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press, 2000), 36-59.

2 months salary...

2006-01-11T10:46:00.000-08:00

That is what a man is supposed to spend on a diamond engagement ring these days. Are you kidding me? I did have an ex girlfriend that was pretty serious about that too. Thankfully, we never got engaged and well, that I wasn't making that much at the time. I'm not making much now either, but still.

Someday, I hope to find a wife who: a. Is cool with a strictly Indigenous ceremony (breathing life and legitimacy back into our ways) and b. Would rather we spend that money on travelling (as contientiously as possible) and meeting other Indigenous people, learning and sharing experiences. Any wagers on my chances? Should I give up and prepare for a monastic life of crime-fighting?

I was inspired to share a few thoughts on this issue after having read the post of another blogger, Stacy and this Econ-Atrocity Bulletin on "Ten Reasons Why You Should Never Accept a Diamond Ring from Anyone, Under Any Circumstances, Even If They Really Want to Give You One." I scooped the picture from the IGOV wesbite, although I forgot exactly where.

I also discovered, not suprisingly, that Indigenous people here are getting in on the act of exploiting not only themselves, their lands but others around the world as well. I have not yet conducted exhaustive research but I encourage you to look into it for yourself and if you have questions or concerns here are some Nations who are getting in on the bling that you can contact:

Yellowknives Dene First Nation
Dogrib Treaty 11 Council (Tli Cho Government)
Lutsel K'e Dene Council
North Slave Métis Alliance

(bat)W

Comandanta Ramona

2006-01-10T09:05:00.000-08:00

San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico, January 6th 2006. - The woman who had the command of the taking of the city of San Cristobal on the 1st of
January 1994, died this morning 6th of January 2006.

The news of the death of Comandanta Ramona was broken at the Otra Campaa meeting in Tonal, Chiapas, where the Delegado Zero was participating. Since 1994 she was suffering from a terminal disease. In 1995, she had a kidney transplant operation and with that she stole another 10 years from death. This morning she awoke in a delicate state and she died when she was brought to San Cristobal (Trans note: the original spanish says she "ceased to exist", but of course it would be nonsense to put it like that in english)

Comandanta Ramona, a tiny indigenous woman, commanded the strategy of the taking of San Cristbal de Las Casas, Chiapas during the armed uprising of the 1st of January 1994. She was a woman who gave her life for the struggle of her people, and who despite her delicate state of health, was always present.

The last time she was seen in public was the 16th of September 2005, in the plenary meeting of the preparations for the "Other Campaign", in the Caracol of La Garrucha, Municipality F. Gomez.

In giving the news, Delegado Zero announced the suspension for 2 days of the programmed "Other Campaign" tour, and the return of the delegation to the Caracol of Oventic, in order to be present at the funeral of this great woman, Comandanta Ramona.

A poem by Zach De la Rocha about Comandanta Ramona:

"...but Ramona -
with eyes of Obsidion,
peering thru her blood and sweat drenched mask

Darting,
Unseen

changing direction with the swiftness of a bird
thru the shanties of the canyon

with every Coyote
every Insect
every phylum of Life -

urging her

Propelling her forward

the leaves and branches of the forest
part for miles
clearing her path

the voices and screams of the dead beneath her feet
echo beneath the deepest chasm of her soul
Hurling her toward the city

History
Surging thru her Veins
Pulsing thru her fingers
hurling her toward the city

she carresses her trigger
and the words of Magon fulfill her being

and with each shot she fires
she affirms her movement

Saying -

ENOUGH!
ENOUGH!

NO!

I WILL SEE MY OWN BLOOD FLOW
BEFORE YOU TAKE
MY LAND
OR MY LIBERTY."

Why I Don't Vote 2.0

2006-01-09T14:01:00.001-08:00

per·pet·u·ate
1. To cause to continue indefinitely; make perpetual, as in "perpetuate a myth."

It is not uncommon for non-Indigenous politicians to covet the Aboriginal vote. It is no longer uncommon for happy Aboriginals to encourage other Aboriginals to vote. Heck, they even have their own party now. I still maintain that voting in settler elections is not only a waste of a good Indigenous person's time, it serves only to perpetuate the corrupt myth of Canadian legitimacy on Indigenous lands. I still encounter my share blank faces when I make such statements. Let me take another crack at it and see if I can't win you over.

Many of you may have seen One Dead Indian on TV last week. Although I did not catch it (I even own the book which I have yet to read), a review did catch my eye. The review, titled, "Movie takes sides in deadly standoff" was written by Steve Tilley of the Ottawa Sun. For me, one line stood out amongst all others: "Based on Peter Edwards' book of the same name, One Dead Indian is firmly on the side of the Stoney Point Band members and it doesn't try to look at the larger ongoing issue of illegal land occupation by Native protesters."

Journalism 101: Writing about the locals
"First Nations" are happy, singing folk.
"Natives" are angry and often break the law.
"Aboriginals" get lots of money.
"Indians" only seem to appear in the National Post and Fraser Institute publications (Interestingly, the term now seems to offend Aboriginals and their friends but does not seem to perturb Indigenous people too much anymore)

As you may have guessed I take exception to Tilley's assertion that "illegal land occupation by Native protesters" is a larger ongoing issue that is somehow being ignored here. My contention is of course, that the larger ongoing issue is the illegal ongoing occupation of Indigenous lands by illegitimate settler governments, their citizens, police and military. Tilley of course is merely acting upon the myth that Canada is some bastion of freedom and justice void of any colonial past or present.

This view is so pervasive that most people don't even question it any more. Indigenous culture and language and institutions belong in the museum. Even our own people have come to accept this myth. In fact we perpetuate it by acknowledging, willing now it seems, through our actions of going to court, voting, running for colonial office and every other action that recognizes the Canadian government. We ignore our own institutions, our own Indigenous governance structures. I mean "we" in the collective sense. There are pockets of resistance and hope but they are sparse.

Many of us are taught that to not vote is an act of inaction, apathy, unproductive and negative. Many of us are taught that to criticize is wrong, to think critically is wrong, to question the general direction and wisdom of our current crop of Aboriginal leaders is wrong. To be clear, I have never advocated for or promoted senseless or malicious criticism. We seem to be taught that the only logical voice of change is the one currently being encouraged by the AFN and other similar institutions. I disagree.

I will take the time to encourage anyone to not participate in the settler elections that seem to drive our people crazy for 6 weeks and then leave us standing at the alter of good intentions, alone again. Not voting is an important first step. What you do with that energy is an even more important second step. Sit with your elders. Learn your language. Revive and adapt your own traditions, teachings and stories. Breathe life into your Indigenous ways and ignore the myths that serve only to keep our people down.

If you must vote, vote for Pedro.

W

Indians and Oil

2005-12-13T11:17:00.000-08:00

Like oil and water? Apparently not for some. Many first nations are involved in the oil and gas industry. For years we have heard of some of the oil-rich first nations in Alberta and last year, Fort Nelson First Nation in the northeastern part of BC actually bought part of their very own oil rig. That's Minister Neufeld (energy), Premier Campbell and former Chief Liz Logan looking all happy in the picture. Well, this Indigenous man finds it all very distressing and disgusting.

I was reminded of the issue again at the recent 74th annual Native Brotherhood of British Columbia convention in Campbell River. A Tsimshian sister (who is also Chair of Ocean Industries BC) talked of the inevitability of offshore oil and gas development. Talk of inevitability and pragmatic acceptance of reality is what is truly accelerating the extinction of Indigenous people in these lands. Think about it. What are we really becoming? If not diabetics, alcoholics, drug addicts, gambling addicts, we are consumers, fitting in, becoming more equal with the settler society. The majority of our people have lost much of their Indigenous identity and not only are we not indignant about it any more, many embrace the non-Indigenous way of life and call it progress.

I have referred to the original testimony at the 1975 Berger Inquiry, of Fort Good Hope Chief Frank T'Seleie in a previous post. I won't quote him again, but encourage you to click on this link, hit the play button and listen yourself. Man, it still inspires me, even though I know he eventually sold out and now supports the current MacKenzie Valley Pipeline Initiative. Perhaps that is how it goes. Young grow older and become realistic. With so much pressure from the dominant settler society, perhaps people just give up. They forget who they are. They set aside not only their Indigenous ways of life but also their Indigenous values and principles.

Young Indigenous woman, young Indigenous man, will that happen to you?

With all the passion, respect and energy I can muster, I encourage you to remember. I encourage you to hold on to your dreams, your humanity and your Indigenous identity. If you lost it or never had it, go find it. It will save you. It will save this planet. Yes, it is counter-intuitive in this modern, consumer-mad society to look past the money and the jobs and the education. It is hard, and your own people will think you are crazy, but remember the young, and remember the old, the radicals still among us. Gather strength on the land, on the sea. Communicate with your ancestors and join the battle.

Make no mistake, those who would destroy your homes, lands, waters and way of life are powerful adversaries. According to Fortune magazine, of the most profitable companies on the planet, ExxonMobile ranked number 1, Royal Dutch/Shell Group number 2, and British Petroleum number 5. According to www.endgame.org, year 2000 revenues for ExxonMobile were $210,392,000,000; Royal Dutch/Shell Group were $149,146,000,000 and; British Petroleum were $148,062,000,000. These are among the largest corporations on the planet, larger than most countries. How much influence do you think they can afford to buy?

As long as we continue to define power in terms of money and neo-liberal politics we will lose. While I don't know many people who advocate for return to "500 years ago" and a complete return to the land, we cannot ignore the importance of a distinct Indigenous way of life and our connection to the land and water. By abandoning our way of life as much as we have, we have facilitated the destruction of our territories and identity. Losing our connection to the land completely is a death sentence for our nations. Perhaps it is impractical to call for a 100% return of and to the land, but I urge you to dream. Re-learn to think with an Indigenous mind and feel with an Indigenous heart and act now.

One of the most basic and fundamental Nuu-chah-nulth principles is embodied in the phrase, "Hish'ukish Tsa'walk" (Everything is one/connected). A full comprehension of this principle teaches us that we cannot support unsustainable development. We cannot support an industry that would threaten our watersheds with complete devastation. We cannont gladly shake the hands of corporations who use proxy governments (US, UK etc.) to wage wars all over the world, killing other Indigenous people. We cannot make the best of an inevitable corporate imposition by selling ourselves for a few jobs and money. We cannot accept this inevitability.

It is our responsibility to resist completely, not politely weigh the pros and cons. The Zapatistas have taught us that there is dignity in resistance. Sometimes you just have to say no. Enough is enough. Ya Basta!

Some links on resistance to oil and gas:

Arctic Indigenous Youth Alliance
Oil Free Coast
Living Oceans Society
David Suzuki Foundation

Upside Down: a brief book review

2005-12-12T14:53:00.000-08:00

A couple of months ago on my mundane site I mentioned I was reading a few books. One of them was Eduardo Galeano's Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World. A few books managed to jump the queue but I finally did get back to my list and finished Galeano's eloquent and tongue-in-cheek diatribe against imperialism, and the many false assumptions about north and south and rich and poor. I recommend this to anyone interested in justice and our responsibilities to each other, the animals and the environment that we are a part of, world-wide.

Sometime shortly after my sister started taking university psychology courses she announced, "depressed people see the world more clearly." Not the greatest thing to remember, and I assure you I have many more fond memories of my childhood years with my sister, but that comment has stood the test of time. Now, I don't believe it as an excuse to be bummed out all the time but I do believe it is important for us to have an accurate understanding of what's going on out there, in our backyards and all over the world.

The picture Galeano paints is not of his imagination but of the world he sees, as a formerly-exiled journalist and citizen who is still crazy enough to believe in truth, liberty and justice. The book is arranged as a faux-study plan with chapter headings such as "The Teaching of Fear," "Lessons for Resisting Useless Vices," and "Crash Course on Incommunications." Galeano's style is subtle yet shocking. He deftly exposes not conspiracy theories but open horrors perpetrated in the name of God, democracy, the free-market and order.

Different than his previous history-focussed works, Upside Down sheds light on current and recent issues. He touches on the hypocrisy of the politicians of the north, the cowardice of the politicians of the south, neo-liberal globalization, mass media control, crime, poverty, war and environmental devastation. The world is at once ugly and beautiful, desolate and hopeful. Paradox is not lost on Galeano and he manages to capture the beauty and humanity of the poor and disenfranchised.

With awareness comes responsibility and was I ever thankful for the last two chapters that discussed previous attempts at bringing about justice, lessons to be learned and hope for the future. Galeano writes, "In the language of Castile (Spanish), when we want to say we have hope, we say we shelter hope. A lovely expression, a challenge: to shelter her so she won't die of the cold in the bitter climate of these times."

Aboriginal Angel Doll Project

2005-11-29T00:40:00.000-08:00

This is an initiative undertaken by a recent acquaintance of mine, Gloria. I will be interviewing her later this week for next weeks radio show. In her own words, "100 Dolls to promote a vision of the Aboriginal women who are missing or have been murdered, to one of dignity and honor. British Columbia must stop housing conditions that are conducive to Native Women being hunted down and killed."

I commend Gloria for her efforts to address this vital issue in her own unique way, through art. As an Indigenous man, I feel that we have a sacred responsibility to do everything in our power to respect, uplift and care for our Indigenous grandmothers, mothers, aunties, sisters, daughters, and nieces. Find out more about her project and the gathering she is organizing here.

cuu,

W

Remembering Indigenous Veterans

2005-11-11T16:18:00.000-08:00

Thousands of Indigenous men and women have served in the Canadian and American Militaries. I don't know nearly enough about their contributions but I have heard that Indians serving in the first and second world wars endured disproportionately high casualty rates (due to the relative danger of thier missions). And of course most people know that Indigenous veterans lost their Indian status and were not afforded the same considerations as non-Indigenous veterans upon returning home.

One day a year is not nearly enough but I believe it is important to pay respect to the sacrifices they made. You will notice that I did not finish that last sentence with something like, "to serve their country." Ironically, that is as political as I'm going to get today.

"War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."
- Karl von Clausewitz

Of Beggars, Vampires and the "New Relationship"

2005-10-30T01:47:00.000-08:00

What follows is a guest commentary, by Lana Lowe a travelling Dene friend riding her motorcycle down through the Americas:

LA PAZ, MEXICO, GUAYCURA TERRITORY. One of the first people I met when I first got to La Paz was Hector. In his early 50s, dishevelled and weathered, Hector appeared in Mareiros to see if there were any gringos around with a spare peso to help him get a bus ticket back to Guadalajara. I’d already decided that I would give him a few pesos so I saved him the trouble of the pitch and instead engaged him in conversation. His faded “La Paz, BCS” t-shirt suggested that he’d been in La Paz for a while. I asked him how long.

“Eight months. I’d like to go home now,” he said, reclining awkwardly in one of the small bistro chairs as I paid my bill and waited for the barista, Armando, to bring me some change. I told Hector I too was planning to go to Guadalajara. His face brightened, “Muy bonita. Very nice. Muchas cosas interesantes. Muchas personas.” Then he pointed at the helmet on my lap, “Tu casco.” He motioned outside where my bike stood, “Tu moto?”

I nodded and told him about my trip. He looked at me in disbelief, “Sola?” I nodded. He pulled back and looked at me, trying to figure out if I was for real. Deciding I was, he shook his head and straightened up in the tiny metal chair, not knowing what to say. I shrugged and let out a little laugh.

Armando returned with my change. Even though he had only asked for one peso, I offered Hector four, telling him four is better—it’s good luck. He took the money and shook my hand, “Mucho gusto. Bien viaje.” I thanked him and wished him well too.

About a week later, I was parking my bike (always a slow and somewhat awkward affair since my feet barely touch the ground) while Allen, one of the motorcycle adventure guys, waited. As I was taking off my helmet, Hector appeared with a big hello and a handshake. I introduced him to Allen. Allen, sensing a beggar, offered a quick hello and stepped back.

I asked Hector how his ‘fundraising’ was going and if he’d managed to get enough money for a ticket yet. He laughed and said La Paz isn’t so bad. Allen started toward the street, and I bid Hector farewell. Before I could walk away, he grabbed my hand and said, “For you. You’re a nice person. I want to give you something.” In it, he pressed a small plastic keychain adorned with a tiny red lobster and a small seashell inscribed with La Paz, BCS. It was cheap. It was cheesy. And it was beautiful.

I was touched that Hector, who had so humbly asked me for a peso (about 10 cents) and so graciously accepted the four that I offered him, wanted to give me something. Now it was I who humbly accepted his generosity and kindness. I immediately put it on my key clip. I shook his hand and thanked him again for the gift. He looked very pleased. I showed Allen the keychain. He lifted his eyebrows briefly and said, “Cool.” I think I sensed a little sarcasm or perhaps impatience.

Since then, I’ve been mulling over my brief encounters with Hector and the concept of giving. I think about how I met him—that he had asked me for something and I was able to give it to him. I remember how pleased I was with myself afterwards. I think about how happy Hector was to be able to give me something. And I think about how humbled I was to receive his gift. Hector, in his desire and ability to give, ceased to be the beggar that Allen perceived him to be. And I, formerly the giver and empowered by the act of giving, was humbled and grateful to receive this small gift from him. In his seemingly small gift, Hector had created balance and harmony between us that made us both feel pretty good. And that got me thinking.

The key to creating such balanced and harmonious relationships is not generosity or even a willingness to give. Many a generous giver has motivations that have more to do with assuaging their own guilt, fear and insecurities than creating balance and harmony in the world. Still others have darker motivations that keep the balance tipped in their favour and maintain a world of disharmony because it serves their interests. The key to balance and harmony then is a willingness to both give and to receive. The key, in other words, is humility.

Take for instance, the United States and their reluctance to accept help from Mexico in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In their undying arrogance and childishness, the United States government initially refused to receive such foreign aid, especially from Mexico. Mexico has its place in the world order and they have no business offering aid to the All Mighty and Supreme Power. The United States are givers not receivers of aid. This gets to the heart of the power dynamics of giving and receiving.

Giving empowers the giver and humbles the receiver. The giver in their ability to give becomes superior to the receiver. And giving, in all its generosity, cannot cull benevolence from a malevolent and arrogant heart.

A prime example is the “New Relationship” in British Columbia. Canada has spent its entire existence sinking its teeth into the throats of our people and ripping the guts out of our territories. And there is no end in sight—they intend to continue until there is nothing left to feast on and no more crumbs to placate us with. In the distribution of these crumbs, Canada engages in a strategic philanthropy that enrages less strategically minded Canadians with its sheer generosity, and has led many of our people to believe that restitution is near—that the carnage will cease and peace and harmony will be restored in our territories. These people are foolish.

What if Canada stopped giving? I can almost hear the collective gasp as every Indian Chief in Canada reaches for his heart medicine. Seriously, why did the Province of British Columbia give us Indians $100,000,000 to establish a “New Relationship” with them? And why does this generous gift form the very basis of this New Relationship? Because there is nothing new about it. In this act of giving, British Columbia bolsters its superior position in an unbalanced and disharmonious relationship that makes us beggars in our own lands.

Why not establish a New Relationship in which Canada is willing to receive (not take—receive) from those peoples whose territories it has been devouring? What if Canada was willing to receive our humble gifts of knowledge and understanding? What if Canadians were humble enough to receive our teachings—teachings that have told us for generations how to live properly in these lands and with each other? If Canadians were willing to receive these gifts, would they then stop trying to destroy our very existence?

Only when Canada stops giving and starts receiving will peace and harmony be restored in our lands. This, thanks to Hector, I am very sure of.

[Read more of Lana's adventures and observations at www.lowerider.ca]

On Enemies, Cops, Spooks and Poker

2005-10-22T11:19:00.000-07:00

"O wise man, wash your hands of that friend who associates with your enemies." - Saadi (1184-1291)

[Originally posted on www.munadventdub.blogspot.com]
Awhile back I sent a blog update notification through e-mail and I addressed it something like, "Friends, Family and Enemies." Several people were amused enough to reply and comment and one "friend" even offered to be a new enemy. I said she could be a rival instead. We would try and beat each other (not sure at what yet) but when push comes to shove we would help each other out. Enemies are meant to be vanquished and I will let you take as liberal or creative an interpretation of that as you want.

I got to thinking about enemies again recently and have wondered how real they are and how one must deal with them. Upon hearing the news that one of my cousins was trying to get into the RCMP I responded rather immediately and undiplomatically (Lana says I can be "quick and merciless") in the negative. I stated that Indigenous people here in Canada joining the national police force made about as much sense as a Palestinian joining the IDF. I told my uncle that I hope we (I and my cousin) don't end up on opposite sides of a barricade someday.

Another family member, could not fathom the slightest idea why I would think becoming a police officer was a bad thing. This difference in reaction goes to the heart of what is conceived of as Indigenous on the one hand and a Canadian Aboriginal on the other. Some people think it's great, honourable and certainly better than many of the other social pitfalls that our people often fall into. I think it's unconscionable. I think of Dudley George, J.J. Harper, Neil Stonechild, Starlight Tours among the other nameless and faceless Indigenous people to fall victim to the RCMP.

And I've been writing only about the beat cops. What about the super-sleuthy-spooks? Most people I find, don't even know that Canada has its very own spook organization. When I mention CSIS and the fact that I have been contacted by "researchers" twice they either ask what CSIS is or think its cool. The first time was shortly after I moved to Vancouver Island and the apparent reason for the visit was a (pretty tame) article I wrote for Redwire Magazine.

I admit I was pretty spooked (maybe that's how they earned their nickname) at the time. I mean how often does one get contacted by an organization with the responsibility to "investigate threats, analyze information and produce intelligence; it then reports to, and advises, the Government of Canada, so as to protect the country and its citizens. Key threats include terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, espionage, foreign interference and cyber-tampering affecting critical infrastructure"?

That was 4 years ago. The next time, a man calling himself Donald Curran showed up at the door of a condo I had owned, was renovating at the time and sold earlier this year. Like the first guy (for all I know it could have been the first guy again) he didn't seem to want all that much. He had called me in December 2004 and I brushed him off as I was in the process of getting toasted from my job at the NTC and too stressed out to worry about anything else. So 4 months later he just knocks on my door as I'm laying laminate flooring in Surrey.

Aside from the fact that only 3 people knew where I was at the time, and his access to surveillance (either my mobile phone or e-mail) was the only explanation for him knowing, I was not spooked, but oddly amused. Their reason for contacting me this time I assumed, was my recent departure from the West Coast Warrior Society (another tidbit of intel that was not widely known). I was amused because it became clear that a lot of what these guys do is observe body language. Not a lot of conversation or even discussion about anything terribly important needs to take place for them to begin gathering information about you. So I stood there with a slight grin because it seemed funny that I was watching him watch me watch him.

I have recently become a little more skilled at the art of observing body language. I just finished reading Peter Collett's Book of Tells. Not wanting to be a spy, but actually motivated by wanting to become a better poker player, I picked up the book from Curious Coho Books (buy local). It's an easy read and the author does a good job of breaking down all the different tells that people reveal, mostly unconsciously. What struck me most was the amount of information that is exchanged in a two-minute encounter that neither participant are too consciously aware of, that never the less significantly impacts the outcome.

So the morals of this story...don't be a cop (or a spy!); be nice to Indians; if you want to be a better poker player at your weekly game I recommend Collett's book; yes, I know this is just more fodder for the spooks and; if you are reading this CSIS is probably checking YOU out now! ;-)

Free Your Mind

The Coming Storm

2005-09-30T21:41:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, there is a significant absence of dignity in "aboriginal" politics these days. Despite the pride with which many of our politicians and bureaucrats (I’m one of the latter by the way) carry themselves there is no longer any dignity in their actions. This omission while not openly discussed is evident everywhere. For the most part, our people are detached and uninvolved in the “politics” of our communities. Our leaders accuse the majority of apathy, and the vocal minorities of negativism. The desolate and seemingly hopeless lives of many of our community members, despite a few success stories, is further evidence of a lack of genuine, dignified leadership.

The Chief Commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission (former judge Stephen Point) recently said, “we have come a long way since 1969.” As much as I like Stephen personally, I must vehemently disagree. After this statement he went on to state a variety of criteria proving our Aboriginal ascendancy – education, training, careers and such. These are all indicators of success in the mainstream society. All they prove is how assimilated we have become. In almost every major indicator of Indigenous success; language, culture, way of life, things have gotten worse and unless we do something drastic now, we are well on our way to oblivion.

Why should community members be excited about surrendering (willingly this time) 95% of their lands? Why should we agree to final primacy of neo-colonial laws? Why should we agree to indemnify the imperialists for their lies and deceit and treachery for a few million dollars and tax bills? Many of us have watched our way of lives – fishing, hunting, trapping – disappear and be replaced with tourists, whale watching and oil rigs. How the hell are we supposed to get excited about that?

The last time the Indigenous people of this country collectively felt excitement, hope and dignity on a grand scale was in 1990. Many who were not raised strongly Indigenous, in fact many who lived as “undercover brothers” suddenly stuck their heads up, puffed their chests out because of the actions of their Mohawk brothers and sisters. People were moved. Many became born-again Indians. Since then other conflicts, perhaps to a lesser extent, have had similar effects, and our leadership have become increasingly co-opted.

We felt proud because someone was willing to fight, to take a stand. We felt proud because finally, someone (who looked like us) had had enough. Negotiation (especially from profound positions of weakness) does not inspire. Paying non-Indigenous lawyers copious amounts of money to argue facts we already know does not inspire. Mimicking mainstream society in our band politics does not inspire. Action inspires. Standing up and saying enough is enough inspires.

A storm is coming. Treaty commissioners, Indian Act Chiefs, negotiators, consultants, lawyers, and brown bureaucracies be damned, a storm of Indigenous dignity, hope and action is coming.

Revolutionary Women

2005-09-27T19:36:00.000-07:00

Fear not, loyal fans and adversaries. I will return with some original (is such a thing even possible?) thoughts soon, but I had to share this. The following is an excerpt from the Twelve Women in the Twelfth Year, March 11, 1996 (from the book, Our Word Is Our Weapon, selected writings:

Meanwhile, on the other side of the blockade, she appears.

She. Has no military rank, no uniform, no weapon. Only she knows she is a Zapatista. Much like the Zapatistas, she has no face or name. She struggles for democracy, liberty and justice, just like the Zapatistas. She is part of what the EZLN calls "civil society" - a people without a political party, who do not belong to "political society," made up of leaders and political parties. Rather, she is a part of that amorphous yet solid part of society that says, day after day, "Enough is enough!"

At first she is suprised at her own words. But over time, through the strength of repeating them, and above all living them, she stops being afraid of these words, stops being afraid of herself. She is now a Zapatista; she has joined her destiny with the new delirium of the Zapatista National Liberation Army, which so terrorizes political parties and Power's intellectuals. She has already fought against everyone - against her husband, her lover, her boyfriend, her children, her friend, her brother, her father, her grandfather. "You are insane," they say. She leaves a great deal behind. What she renounces, if one is talking about size, is much greater than what the empty-handed rebels leave behind. Her everything, her world, demands she forget "those crazy Zapatistas," while conformity calls her to sit down in the comfortable indifference that lives and worries only about herself. She leaves behind everything. She says nothing. Early one dawn she sharpens the tender point of hope and begins to emulate many times in one day, at least 364 times a year, the January 1 of her sister Zapatistas.

She smiles. Once she merely admired the Zapatistas, but no longer. Her admiration ended the moment she understood that they are a mirror of her rebellion, of her hope.

She discovers that she is born on January 1, 1994. From then on she feels that her life - and what was always said to be a dream and a utopia - might actually be a truth.

In silence and without pay, side by side with other men and women, she begins to knit that complex dream that some call hope: "Everything for everyone, nothing for ourselves."

She meets March 8 with her face erased, and her name hidden. With her come thousands of women. More and more arrive. Dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions of women who remember all over the world that there is much to be done and remember that there is still much to fight for. It appears that dignity is contagious, and it is the women who are more likely to become infected with this uncomfortable ill...

This March 8 is a good time to remember and to give their rightful place to the insurgent Zapatistas, to the women who are armed and unarmed.

To remember the rebels and those uncomfortable Mexican women now bent over knitting that history which, without them, is nothing more than a badly made fable.

Tomorrow...If there is to be one, it will be made with the women, and above all, by them...

From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos

To Plant The Tree Of Tomorrow

2005-09-24T23:58:00.000-07:00

There is a story told that, in a certain town, men and women toiled at work in order to survive. Everyday the men and women went out to their respective jobs: the men to the fields and the bean crops; the women to the firewood and the carrying of water. At times there was work that brought them together as equals. For example, men and women would join together for the cutting of coffee, when its time had come. And so it passed.

But there was a man who did not do that. He did work though, but not in the fields or bean crops, nor did he go to the coffee plantations when the beans reddened among the branches. No, this man worked planting trees in the mountain. The trees this man planted did not grow rapidly, all of them took entire decades to grow and to make all their branches and leaves. The other men laughed at and criticized this man quite a bit.

"Why do you work at things that you are never going to see completed? Better to work in the fields, which will give you fruit in months, and not in the planting of trees that will be large when you have already died." "You are a fool or crazy, because you work fruitlessly."

The man defended himself and said: "Yes, it is true, I am not going to see these trees full grown, full of branches, leaves and birds, nor will my eyes see children playing under their shade. But, if all of us work just for the present and for just the following day: who will plant the trees that our descendents are going to need, in order to have shelter, consolation and joy?"

No one understood him. The crazy or foolish man continued planting trees that he would not see, and sensible men and women continued planting and working for their present. Time passed, and all of them died, their children continued in their work, and those were followed by the children of their children.

One morning, a group of boys and girls went out for a walk and found a place filled with great trees, a thousand birds living in them and their great branches giving relief from the heat and protection from the rain. Yes, an entire mountainside was found filled with trees. The boys and girls returned to their town and spoke of this marvelous place.

The men and women gathered together and they went to the place in great surprise. "Who planted this?" they asked. No one knew. They went to speak with their elders and they did not know either. Only an old one, the oldest of the community, could give them the information and he told them the history of the crazy and foolish man.

The men and women met in assembly and had a discussion. They saw and understood the man whom their ancestors had dealt with and they admired that man very much and they were fond of him. They knew that memory can travel very far and arrive where no one can think or imagine, the men and women of that today in the place of the great trees.

They surrounded one that was in the center, and, out of colored letters, they made a sign. They had a fiesta afterwards, and dawn was already approaching when the last dancers were leaving to go to sleep. The great forest was left alone and in silence. It rained and it ceased to rain. The Moon came out and the Milky Way molded its convoluted body once again. Suddenly a ray of moonlight insinuated itself among the great branches and leaves of the tree in the center, and, by its small light, the sign of colors that had been left there could be read:

"To the first ones:

Those who came later did understand.

Health to you"

* * *

This that I am recounting to you was told to me fifteen years ago, and fifteen years had already passed when what they told me had come to pass. And yes, perhaps it would be pointless to say it in words because we say it with acts; but yes, those who came later did understand.

And if I am telling you this, it is not just to give our regards to the first ones, nor is it just to gift you with a little piece of that memory that would seem to be lost and forgotten. Not just for that, also to try and respond to the question of what the zapatistas want.

To plant the tree of the morning, that is what we want. We know that, in these frenetic times of "realistic" politics, of fallen banners, of polls that substitute for democracy, of neoliberal criminals who call for crusades against what they are hiding and that which feeds them, of chameleon-like transformations; in these times, to say that we want to plant the tree of the morning sounds foolish and crazy, which, regardless, has not become a theatrical phrase or an outdated utopia.

We know it, and, nonetheless, that is what we want. And that is what we are doing. How many people in the worlds that make up the world can say as we can say, that is, that they are doing what they want to do? We think there are many, that the worlds of the world are filled with crazy and foolish persons who are planting their respective trees for their respective tomorrows, and that the day will come when this mountainside of the universe, that some call "Planet Earth," will be filled with trees of all colors and there will be so many birds and comforts that, yes, it is likely that no one will remember the first ones, because all the yesterdays that are distressing us so today will be nothing more than an old page in the old book of the old history.

In that tree of tomorrow, a space where everyone is, where the other knows and respects the other others, and where the false light loses its last battle. If I were pressed to be precise, I would tell you that it is a place with democracy, liberty and justice: that is the tree of tomorrow.

- Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos from the Closing Words at the Encuentro in Defense of the Cultural Heritage, August 14, 1999 published in Our Word Is Our Weapon, selected writings

Action and Freedom

2005-09-05T21:47:00.000-07:00

"A warrior is the one who can use words so that everyone knows they are a part of the same family. A warrior says what is in the people's hearts, talks about what the land means to them, brings them together to fight for it." - Bighorse, Dine

Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred's third and definitive book, has just been published and I am currently on page 105. I will provide a more in depth review when I am finished but I want to take this opportunity to share some of the First Words and my reflections on the importance of living Indigenous, living as warriors, living the truth.

In particular, I want to focus on two quotes from the first chapter that shed some much needed light on the present state of Aboriginal/Indigenous politics. I will provide some brief commentary and invite you, my loyal readers to provide your thoughts. You can leave your comments anonymous or not at the bottom of each of these blogs.

From page 23: Consider the futility of our present politics and the perversity of what I will call "aboriginalism," the ideology and identity of assimilation, in which Onkwehonwe ("original people" in Mohawk) are manipulated by colonial myths into a submissive position and are told that by emulating white people they can gain acceptance and possibly even fulfillment within mainstream society. Many Onkwehonwe today embrace the label of "aboriginal," but this identity is a legal and social construction of the state, and it is disciplined by racialized violence and economic oppression to serve an agenda of silent surrender. The acceptance of being aboriginal is as powerful an assault on Onkwehonwe existences as any force of arms brought upon us by the Settler society. The integrationist and unchallenging aboriginal vision is designed to lead us to oblivion, as individual successes in assimilating to the mainstream are celebrated, and our survival is redefined strictly in the terms of capitalist dogma and practical-minded individualist consumerism and complacency."

(Me now:) Each and every one of us are assimilated to one degree or another, certainly by virtue of you reading this in english. I believe that is it critical however, that we begin to carefully, perhaps even harshly, examine our lives and ask ourselves: Am I living a good, meaningful Indigenous life? Since contact many of our people have unabashedly embraced the ways of the Imperialists, forsaking their Indigenous ways and in some ways you have to respect them for making a choice. I agree with Dr.T. however, in stating that if you are serious about being Indigenous and reclaiming your ancestral ways and principles, you need to check your self. It is the hypocrisy of "aboriginalism" that is ultimately distasteful and damaging. We need to look beyond the rhetoric, to the heart of our lives and actions and begin to make some changes.

From page 37: The framework of current reformist or reconciling negotiations are about handing us the scraps of history: self-government and jurisdictional authorities for state-created Indian governments within the larger colonial system, and subjection of Onkwehonwe to the blunt force of capitalism by integrating them as wage slaves into the mainstream resource-exploitation economy. These surface reforms are being offered because they are useless to our survival as Onkwehonwe. This is not a coincidence, nor is it a result of our goals being obsolete. Self-government and economic development are being offered precisely because they are useless to us in the struggle to survive as peoples, and they are therefore no threat to the Settlers and, specifically, the interests of the people who control the Settler state. This is assimilation’s end-game. Today, self-government and economic development signify the defeat of our peoples’ struggles just as surely as, to our grandparents, residential schools, land dispossession, and police beatings signified the supposed supremacy of white power and the subjugation and humiliation of the first and real peoples of this land.

(Me again:) This reminds of something that my friend Lana Lowe uncovered while researching the history of Indigenous resistance in British Columbia. I'm sketchy on the details but I will provide the essence. She found some verbatim meeting minutes from the 1800's between some Tsimshian and Nisga'a leaders and some senior colonial officials at the time, like Governor, Lands Commissioner etc. From the minutes it was obvious that the two delegations could barely communicate (although they had adequate translation) because their world-views were so diametrically opposed. Essentially, the primary concern of the chiefs at that time was preserving their way of life and limiting settler encroachment. The Englishmen, for the lives of them could not understand why the Indians would want to preserve their ancient ways of life, "roaving the hills like animals."

If I am correct, it was not until a white, christian lawyer-missionary from Toronto entered the scene and began working with the Nisga'a and others and helped draft their (now almost sacred) declarations, did the focus shift away from preserving an Indigenous way of life toward legal remedies of compensation and recognition of rights. It's easy to see then how we got from there to here, sometimes to the mystery of our community members, and upon the advice of high-paid non-native consultants and lawyers. Man, did we F$%k up or what? It's not too late. We can reinvigorate, re-establish, recover, regenerate and reclaim. Stay tuned.

Look in the mirror.

Restitution not reconciliation.

The Champ Is Here

2005-08-30T22:06:00.000-07:00

I wasn't always known as Dubya. Once upon a time I was known as "The Champ." Even though I was a mediocre soccer player, my Dad was always a fixture on the sidelines cheering as me and my teammates buzzed around the ball like a swarm of bees. Over the years I have also been known as Cliffy, Jiggs, Jiggsbert, Junior, J.R. and Reddog, but there is a new Champ in town. I became an uncle for the first time, last Thursday, August 25th just before 10 pm when my sister gave birth to Kashus Cedar. Two days after he was born I overheard my Dad say he was going to see the Champ. I smiled as I had realized that I was no longer the Champ and that it was indeed time to pass the torch. I have happily relinquished one title in favour of another: Nuhyiiksuu (Uncle).

I have been thinking about the importance and role of family in the resurgence of our Indigenous communities for some time but I think I needed the recent addition of Kashus to our family to provide more clarity. All of a sudden I have another very compelling reason to take care of myself; physically, mentally, culturally and spiritually. Kashus will grow up in the world we leave behind, and more specifically with the opportunities and challenges we leave for him as a family and community. I am not a parent yet myself but being a new uncle brings me another step closer to appreciating the extent of my responsibilities as an Indigenous man.

I held Kashus in my arms when he was about 11 hours old. He's so tiny and having never held such a young baby before I handled him with a mixture of fear, gentleness and wonder. The day after he was born I went to the hospital to visit along with my paternal grandmother. When my sister, brother-in-law and baby returned home on Monday, great-grandpa Allan came to visit. Seeing both great-grandparents hold my new nephew was truly a moving experience. I began to appreciate the importance of a strong connection between the generations and I realized that the revolution we seek will take much longer than anticipated. I was not discouraged by this realization, instead I was encouraged by the fact that we will go on, each of us playing our small part in the revitalization of our selves, families, houses and nations.

I still have a lot more thinking to do and family to raise but I know that in fulfilling my responsibility as a leader in my community, my work starts at home, building a healthy home and remaining connected to the generations past, present and future.

Viva la revolucion! Viva Kashus!

Authoritarian Democracy and Elected Dictators, Oh My!

2005-08-24T10:03:00.000-07:00

American televangelist, Pat Robertson (whose right-wing Christian followers overwhelmingly supported George Bush in the last two elections) recently advocated for the assassination of Venezeulan President, Hugo Chavez. While the Bush administration has distanced themselves from his comments, they certainly have not condemed them. None of this is suprising. The US Central Intelligence Agency has declared Venezuela a "top potentially unstable country" and its leader an "elected dictator." It is obvious that they are struggling with how to deal with Chavez, whom journalist Greg Palast referred to as, "round and brown" like the legions poor African and Indigenous people who elected him.

Chavez is a former paratrooper who led a failed-coup in the early 90's. He spent two years in jail before being pardoned. Incidentally, Fidel Castro was also jailed following a failed first attempt to overthrow American-backed dictator Batista in Cuba in the 1950's. Upon release Chavez turned political and was democratically elected only to survive a US-backed coup in 2002 and a recall referendum in 2004 (which his government made a constitutional amendment to allow). The CIA and US State Deparment have further labeled Chavez a "negative force in the region" and a "threat to democracy." It is clear that Chavez, also a friend of long-time thorn in the side Fidel Castro, is an enemy of the United States.

Chavez made headlines last October when he stated, "We Venezuelans, we Latin Americans, have no reason to honor Columbus. Christopher Columbus was the spearhead of the biggest invasion and genocide ever seen in the history of humanity." Chavez encouraged his citizens not to celebrate Columbus Day, but instead remember October 12th as a "Day of Indian Resistance." To be fair, Chavez has also had his problems in dealing with Indigenous issues, particularly as it relates to resource and mining operations. He has endured numerous Indigenous-led protests demanding that he respect their rights. While he should be applauded for his words of support of Indigenous issues I agree that he should be held accountable for his actions.

I encourage you to make up your own mind. Balanced coverage can be hard to come by, but if you dig deep enough, you will find enough news and opinions to begin shaping your own views. Chavez has been an outspoken critic of US imperial policy and for this he has attracted a lot of negative attention. Both he and Castro have offered poor Americans cheap gas, free education and free health care. He has introduced social reforms, land reform and suggested a rethinking of their energy policy. The latter may ultimately lead to his downfall. Venezuela is the 5th largest oil producing country in the world and supplier of 8% of the United States' annual consumption.

Keep your eyes and your mind open. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. An excellent place to start is with Eduardo Galeano's Open Veins of Latin America, a chronicle of imperialism from 1492 to just prior to Pinochet's reign of terror in Chile. Further, think how southern issues relate to Indigenous people here in North America. I believe the eagle and condor share a common fate.

W (the nice one)

Warriors No More?

2005-08-22T14:33:00.000-07:00

What follows is the final communique of the West Coast Warrior Society and some of my thoughts and reflections below:

WEST COAST WARRIOR SOCIETY FINAL COMMUNIQUÉ

The West Coast Warrior Society has disbanded.

As a result of the unlawful and unethical activities of Canadian police agencies in targeting our members and our organization, and the unfair branding of Indigenous activists as terrorists, we have concluded that it is no longer possible for us to be effective in carrying out our responsibility to defend Indigenous lands, communities, and rights as we have been doing. The police have used lies, misinformation, threats and intimidation by law and force to create a climate of fear surrounding our organization and have undermined our support.

It must be understood that we are first and foremost men who are committed to our families and communities. This commitment is stronger than our adherence to an ideology or allegiance to an organization. We have talked with and listened to our elders, our women, and our children, and it is out of love and respect for them and concern for their well-being and security that we have decided to end our association and operations.

We have never advocated the use of violence to advance our cause. We reiterate that our actions in Burnt Church, Cheam, Esowista and Saanich, and in all of our other involvements, were acts of self-defense. They were legitimate and justified responses to the direct threat posed to Indigenous peoples by racist policies and overzealous law enforcement agencies. We restate our disavowal of the use of violent means to achieve the goal of Indigenous self-determination. However, the police killings of Dudley George, J.J. Harper, Neil Stonechild, Anthany Dawson and thousands more of our people confirm the need for us to maintain the right to defend ourselves and protect our families from physical harm.

We restate our dedication to fight for the survival of our people and to protect our way of life. Our communities, cultures, and lands must be defended. We are disbanding as an organization dedicated to the physical defense of Indigenous communities and we are embarking on the path of strictly nonviolent political and social struggle. We are rededicating ourselves today as warriors and we are committing to advance Indigenous people’s cultural and political and social resurgence.

Coast Salish Territory
August 2, 2005

"We have always been wit woq (warriors) and always will be. They can never take that away from us. We were always wiiuk (brave, courageous) and we need to be that again." - Quote from a respected Nuu-chah-nulth elder

I was involved with the West Coast Warrior Society for a little more than a year, and while I saw a limited amount of "action" I have always appreciated the original intent - to defend the people and the land. The role of various warrior societies was never more prevalent than when the Canadian government deployed its military or paramilitary forces in places like Kanehsatake, Esgenoopetitj, Gustafson Lake or Cheam. While embracing non-violent resistance, I will always advocate for the right for Indigenous people to defend themselves.

In a post-9/11 world the military power of the state and the freedom to abuse its power can be overwhelming. After a few weeks of armed struggle the world witnessed the Zapatistas begin a campaign of non-violent resistance. This year also marked the laying down of arms by the Irish Republican Army. We are in a new era of resistance to imperialism/neo-liberalism/globalization and Indigenous resurgence. In resisting and resurging it is imperative that we not become like our oppressors. We must also realize the futility of attempting to meet the imperial powers on their own terms and on their terrain. If we are to not only survive, but thrive as Indigenous people, our resistance must come from the embracing of our ways, our livlihoods, language and culture.

I believe we will be warriors always, however we will begin to choose the time and place of communal resurgence and no longer react to government and corporate infringement. As Indigenous warriors it is not only our duty to preserve life, but to preserve our way and quality of life. Like the tide, we will rise, unstoppable, strong and fluid - by the best means possible - realizing and being who we are.

Why Wal-Mart Is Bad For You

2005-08-21T15:53:00.000-07:00

I can remember joking that one of the best places to run into other Nuu-chah-nulth people was at the Wal-Mart in Nanaimo. Quu’as came from far and wide to take advantage of the “everyday low prices.” Earlier this year, with much fan-fare, Port Alberni was graced with its very own Wal-Mart. I must admit to having shopped at the store in Nanaimo numerous times and in Port Alberni exactly three times. While I had a basic idea of the size and conduct of the company before this year, perhaps it was the first invasion by the big-box retailer into Nuu-chah-nulth territory that prompted me to do some investigating and ultimately swear to never shop there again.

The first time I aimlessly wandered around the Port Alberni Wal-Mart I was struck by how bright and clean the place was. It almost had an antiseptic–institutional feel about it. The shampoo bottles and deodorant sticks looked like little soldiers, all lined up neatly in unbroken rows as if I was the first hapless consumer ever to venture down that particular aisle. The store seemed to have everything a small-town family could want from DVDs to clothes to hardware to pet food, even groceries. Indeed, the suburban retailing behemoth had come to Hupacasath and Tseshaht territory with its seemingly bullet-proof formula for success.

According to the Fast Company, “The Wal-Mart You Don’t Know” article, published December 2003, “Wal-Mart is not just the world’s largest retailer. It’s the world’s largest company – bigger than ExxonMobile, General Motors and General Electric. The scale can be hard to absorb. Wal-Mart sold $244.5 billion worth of goods last year.” In 2004 Wal-Mart profited over $10 billion and Sam Walton’s family heirs have a net worth of over $90 billon notes Fortune and Forbes magazines respectively. According to the 2005 Annual Report issued by Wal-Mart Watch, President and CEO, H. Lee Scott reported $17,543,739 in income last year – 871 times more than the average US Wal-Mart employee. Good for them you say? A closer look reveals many disturbing facts.

“We want clean air, clean water, good living conditions, the best healthcare in the world – yet we aren’t willing to pay for anything manufactured under those restrictions,” Steve Dobbins states in the same Fast Company article. Because of Wal-Mart’s commitment (and our addiction) to lower prices year after year, suppliers are under increasing pressure to reduce their costs, which often translates into abominable working conditions and below-poverty wages for Indigenous people all over the world. In countries like Nicaragua, Honduras China and Taiwan, workers earn as little as 3 cents an hour, working 14-hour shifts, 7 days a week, 30 days a month. According to a National Labour Committee report, 46% of workers in China earned nothing at all and were actually in debt to the company.

A large percentage of people in Central and South American countries are Indigenous or Mestizo (mixed ancestry) and an even larger percentage of those countries’ poor people are of Indigenous ancestry. The question you have to ask yourself: Do I want to support a company that exploits people just like me? Wal-Mart fails on numerous indicators of corporate citizenship (see www.walmartwatch.com), but I want to keep the focus on its negative impact on Indigenous communities, here at home and around the world.

Wal-Mart wields an enormous, almost unprecedented amount of purchasing power when dealing with suppliers. It has driven many North American suppliers to close local factories and move operations to third world countries where, labour costs are lower and health and environmental regulations are negligible. By shopping at Wal-Mart (and numerous other retailers, such as dollar stores) Indigenous consumers here in North America are directly supporting the relentless exploitation of our brothers and sisters in other countries.

On top of poor labour practices in other countries, Wal-Mart and other mega-corporations like McDonald’s have the unique distinction of virtually no unionization in North America. Both companies have elaborate systems in place to respond to any employee rabble-rousing at a moment’s notice. Workers at a Wal-Mart in Quebec attempted to organize and the store was promptly shut down, citing a lack of profitability. Wal-Mart is also known for using its power to obtain tax breaks and subsidies which, according to Good Jobs First, totalled more than $1 billion in the US alone.

The Wal-Mart Watch Report states, “Market analysts estimate that for every Wal-Mart opened, at least two local supermarkets will close.” The effect of a Wal-Mart on small, locally-owned businesses can be devastating. In Port Alberni, we have already seen one of the first casualties: Foto Source closed shop shortly after Wal-Mart opened, unable to compete with the giants’ super fast, super cheap photo developing services. I suspect that Foto Source was the first of many local businesses to be driven out of by our new blue smock-wearing neighbours.

I believe that our decisions as consumers and choices as Nuu-chah-nulth citizens can make a difference. Unless we make a conscious effort to support locally owned, ideally Indigenous businesses, we become nothing more than willing participants in the devastation of Indigenous economies and communities here and abroad. I encourage you to find out more about globalization, fair trade and truly sustainable Indigenous economies. More than that, I encourage you to put down that Starbucks mocha frappuccino (don’t get me started on them) and go fishing. We do not have to submit and become mindless drones in the dominant consumer culture. We can take back what is ours and show others a good way to live with the earth; a true part of the Ha’hoolthee of our Ha’wiih.

The Big Lie

2005-08-21T15:09:00.000-07:00

In 2001 Supreme Court Justice Binnie in Mitchell v. M.N.R. stated, “Grand Chief Michael Mitchell also known as Kanentakeron…is also part of modern Canada who watches television from time to time and went to high school in Cornwall. As much as anyone else in this country, he is a part of our collective sovereignty.” Mitchell lost his case which argued that he had an Aboriginal right to trade across the border duty-free. There are other notable “losses” such NTC Smokehouse, Van der Peet, Cheslatta Carrier Nation and others, but I contend that all the Aboriginal rights cases that have been brought before Canadian courts have been losses for Indigenous rights.

For a long time Indigenous people were prohibited from bringing rights cases before the courts. In 1973 Calder marked the entrance of Indigenous peoples into the previously exclusive litigation club as Karilyn Toovey points out in her MA thesis in Indigenous Governance: “Decolonizing or Recolonizing: Indigenous Peoples and the Law in Canada.” Toovey presents a thoroughly researched and well documented case against legal cases as a means to achieve any form of restitution let alone reconciliation for Indigenous people in Canada.

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against several Mi’kmaq loggers in two separate cases in a decision praised by non-Indigenous logging companies, government officials and our Métis friend at the Canadian Tax Payers Federation. Aboriginal leaders across the country have been quick to dismiss the ruling as having little to no impact on their legal aspirations. I have not heard the latest from Guujaaw, president of the Council of the Haida Nation on this issue but I do remember him saying once upon a time, “when one tribe wins a case, it only applies to that one tribe, but when one tribe loses a case it applies to everybody.”

I believe there can be no justice for Indigenous people in the colonial courts. I do not believe this because of the recent “losses” or any other loss. I believe that the whole process of appealing to the Canadian Courts is replete with inherent flaws, the first of which is the fact that they have no legitimate jurisdiction over our sovereign Indigenous rights. Prolonged attempts to gather just the right evidence, with just the right group of highly-paid lawyers in front of the right sympathetic judge create a false sense of hope and merely add legitimacy to an otherwise corrupt system.

Perhaps we can best understand and illustrate the profound absurdity of these flaws by actually examining the political “gains” and “winning” cases. In her paper, Toovey states,
“In 1982, section 35 was added to the newly patriated Constitution of Canada. For many this signalled the beginning of a new relationship (sound familiar?) between the government and Indigenous people. Section 35 essentially ushered in a new rights focused discourse in Canada, and paved the way for a new era of lawyers bent on emancipating Indigenous peoples.”

Many Aboriginal leaders fought for the inclusion of section 35 however the landscape changed such that Indigenous people had “to take any and all claims to court, further legitimizing the institutions of the Canadian state, and removing Indigenous issues from the political sphere,” states Toovey. Not to mention the millions upon millions of dollars paid to mostly non-Indigenous lawyers, while our people remain in abysmal living conditions.

Now let us address the “wins.” R. v. Sparrow is hailed by leaders and lawyers far and wide as a victory. It basically confirmed that Indigenous people had the right to fish for food. We needed a bunch of stuffy neo-colonials in wigs and robes to tell us that? The ruling stated that the government could infringe upon that right, as long as it did so justifiably.

Patricia Monture-Angus points out another problem, “In Sparrow, the delineation of rights is consistently narrowed in such a fashion that valuable Aboriginal time and energy must be repeatedly expended to secure narrow victory upon victory with the great consequence of failure looming around every judicial corner.” Essentially it set out the requirement that Indigenous people would be required to legally fight, right-by-right, case-by-case.

While not a victory, R. v. Van der Peet added to the increasingly narrow legal landscape. Toovey points out that, “The court in Van der Peet determined that it is not only appropriate, but also necessary for the judiciary to determine what is authentically Indigenous and that this can be done through a series of tests…” The increasing number of firms practicing Aboriginal Law exclusively is evidence of the growing complexity and number of hoops that Indigenous people continue to subject themselves to.

R. v. Gladstone, another victory, confirmed the Heiltsuk right to sell herring spawn, or in the view of the court, granted the commercial sale of herring spawn in so far as earning a “moderate livelihood.” It is worth mentioning R. v. Marshall here, which stated that while they may also earn a “moderate livelihood” the Mi’kmaq were prevented from an “open-ended accumulation of wealth.” The courts confirmed the government’s right to regulate and curtail the rights of the Heiltsuk and the Mi’kmaq. In fact, the public outcry was so strong after the first Marshall ruling, not to mention the $30 million DFO and the RCMP spent battling the community of Esgenoopetitj, the Supreme Court issued Marshall 2 further enhancing the government’s regulatory powers.

Are you feeling righteously indignant yet? Are you itching to go fishing? It gets better. The big daddy of them all has to be Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. At the trial level, the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en spent almost two years, 374 days and millions of dollars in court. The sheer size and scope of the case had pundits and legal scholars holding their collective breath in anticipation of the appeal ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. Crown sovereignty was asserted stronger than ever referring to Aboriginal Title as merely a “burden on the Crown.”

Justice Lamer stated, “In my opinion, the development of agriculture, forestry, mining and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds of objectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify the infringement of aboriginal title.” Excuse me? What’s the point? How then after something so fully demeaning and exemplary of the colonial’s attitude were we ever duped into thinking this was a good thing? The depth of our masochistic desires seems, as yet, to know no bounds.

Still, lawyers like Louise Mandell, QC, speak of “planning for the big win,” that ever elusive pie in the sky that is just around the next corner. Well, I haven’t even really talked about the “losses.” The Canadian Courts have failed to act with any modicum of decency that would suggest they are prepared or even able to deal with Indigenous people justly. Every year that passes grants the governments and their courts greater legitimacy. Every case we bring before them puffs up their neo-colonial chests and still our rights are denied, our people suffer, our territories are depleted and the lawyers cry all the way to the bank. When will we get off our knees, brush off the dust and take back our sacred rights and responsibilities?

[Special thanks to IGOV graduate, Karilyn Toovey for an MA thesis, “Decolonizing or Recolonizing: Indigenous Peoples and the Law in Canada” that was enlightening and inspirational. You can download it in .pdf format here.]

The Wretched of the Earth

2005-08-21T14:44:00.000-07:00

I have just finished reading The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon. I agree that it is an important and influential book. It has inspired many African and Indigenous thinkers and revolutionaries, most notably perhaps Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party. It was first published in 1961 when Fanon was 36. Incidentally, that was the same year Fanon, who was a psychiatrist, died of cancer.

Fanon largely draws upon the Algerian war for independence (with France) for this book and while there are some slow parts (chapters on National Consciousness and National Culture) he offers a brilliant description and analysis of the colonial relationship that will have you thinking he is talking about your own band council and Indian leadership. It is here that I wish to refer to some of my favourite quotes. I will follow each quote with some brief commentary.

"For a colonized people the most essential value, because the most concrete, is first and foremost the land: the land which will bring them bread and, above all, dignity."

You always hear Indigenous people speak of the land and its importance. I believe this is an issue that we should not lose focus on and we ought to go back to how our elders spoke of our relations to the lands and waters of our peoples. From the beginning of colonial-Indigenous relations there has been a fundamental chasm on our respective relations and connections with the land. You will often hear old school Indians say that we do not own the land, that we belong to it, that we are a part of it. I fear that our current leadership has gradually, out of practicality many say, moved over toward a colonial relating to the land and her resources.

"Truth is that which hurries on the break-up of the colonialist regime; it is that which promotes the emergence of the nation; it is that which protects the natives, and ruins the foreigners."

Of all the things one can think of doing when feeling overwhelmed by the weight of colonization and our desire to decolonize, the truth is where we must start. Alone we may have great difficulty changing the world, but alone and slowly with others, we can tell the truth and live the truth more and more. It is a simple, if difficult thing that with its absence, all other efforts are in vain.

"And it is clear that in the colonial countries the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The starving peasant, outside the class system is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays. For him there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization a simply a question of relative strength."

The gaps among our people is becoming more and more evident: on reserve and off reserve; bush Indians and urban Indians; middle income Indians and no income Indians. I agree in principle that those with nothing to lose and everything to gain make appropriate revolutionaries and we had hoped to see this in BC but it has not yet happened. When the BC Liberal Government made changes to the welfare program, many feared (some anxiously awaited) the rush "home," a flooding of people from the cities to the reserves in search of services and basic human needs (shelter, food). The anticipated effect has not really occured. I believe that we also need leadership with "something to lose" to actively decide to sacrifice and lead the fight (like Fidel the lawyer, Che the doctor and Marcos the professor).

"We have seen that inside the nationalist parties, the will to break colonialism is linked with another quite different will: that of coming to a friendly agreement with it."

This phenomenon is rampant, not that hard to understand and seemingly difficult to challenge. In our case the "nationalist parties" can be likened to the AFN, Summit, UBCIC or your Tribal Council or Band Council. Despite the good hearts and intentions of many of the people involved (I used to be one), you cannot ignore the most influential factor: government funding. Until we break this cycle of dependence (without selling our souls to the corporate interests), we will always have relatively weak political institutions.

"They are so used to the settler's scorn and his declared intention to maintain his oppression at whatever cost that the slightest suggestion of any generous gesture or of any good will is hailed with astonishment and delight, and the native bursts into a hymn of praise."

This issues creates the most ire and cynicism among young people when watching their elder leaders kiss the white man's ass and sing their sacred songs for him time after time. I once referred to this practice as "pimping our culture" and it has to stop. We must keep our songs and dances sacred by sharing them only with those whom we have respectful and honourable relationships proven over time. This does not preclude sharing in the future with our white neighbours, only for the time being while they continue to rape, steal and pillage.

"The native must realize that colonialism never gives anything away for nothing...moreover, the native ought to realize that it is not colonialism that grants such consessions, but he himself that extorts them....if need be the native can accept a compromise with colonialism, but never a surrender of principle."

If ever there were a tao of W, this would come close. My obersevation of the way the world works always tells me that the only way we will get what we want; assume our sacred responsibilities; and truly come to the table as men and woman, strong and principled is if we take it. I know there is a lot of room for debate on this issue, particularly as it relates to violence and lesser forms of conflict, but I believe the fundamental formula is true: If we want it, we must be prepared to take back what is ours and defend it.

Canada Day Reflections

2005-08-21T14:19:00.000-07:00

Recently, many of our neighbours (Indigenous and settler alike) celebrated the 138th birthday of Canada. I didn't notice too much, not out of righteous indignation, rather I was much more interested in the long-awaited arrival of a good friend from many miles on the road. Needless to say, as a self-styled pundit, I should say a few words to mark the occasion.

Recent (meaning the last 40 years or so) Aboriginal political thought has long embraced the idea of being both Indian and Canadian. Much of the struggle for rights focused on issues of parity and equality: the right to vote, the right to drink, the right to wander freely, the right to an education, very much similar to the civil rights struggle in the US. Current political initiatives also find their roots in Canadian political and legal soil. Aboriginal politicians speak of constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights and title and achieving our place within Canada.

Before I go any further I must confess to not always aspiring to be Indigenous, and must admit to cheering for Team Canada at various Olympics and World Hockey Championships in the past. I read My Heart Soars and hoped to one day master the seemingly easy task of walking with a foot in both worlds. Well, the older I get the less I seem to be able to tolerate this schizophrenic vision of hybrid-aboriginal-ness. As each day passes, the urgency to uncover, rediscover, revitalize and breathe life into my own Nuu-chah-nulth and Tsimshian ways increases.

Two months before my father endured a heart attack last December, he began to teach me and a few brothers and sisters how to Tsiik-tsiik'a (to speak Nuu-chah-nulth). Like other educational endeavours, the more we learn the more we realize how little we know and hence, the sense of urgency increases. It's hard enough to be who you are. Why for the life of me do we try to be more than that or less than that? My uncle Sennen told me at one of our language sessions, that we don't have to be equal or better to the white man. We merely need to be who we are: Quu'as, real human beings.

I liked the way a friend of mine, Lahalawuts'aat explained it, "Having the state claim you as a citizen is not your choice. Whether you willfully participate in its political processes is." I may not be able to do anything about the state of Canada asserting is sovereignty over our lands at this time, but I can decide what kind of man I want to be. I'm only 32 but already the years are starting to crunch together and accelerate. Time is finite, at least my time here is. I have decided to devote more and more of it to being a better Nuu-chah-nulth and Tsimshian man. That leaves me little room for being a good or willing Canadian.

There is no question where my loyalties lie. The more I realize what is truly important in my life the less time I have to 'celebrate' the birth of a country that has done nothing but attempt to destroy everything I love and cherish. The time of acting like a hapless, unwitting victim in love with his tormentor has come to an end.

Now, many of our more "progressive and positive" brothers and sisters will accuse me of being bitter or angry or negative. There are times when I do choose to be bitter or angry or negative about the ongoing destruction of my peoples' way of life and lives but I also choose to breathe life and energy and vibrancy into my peoples' ways and principles and beliefs. These ways and principles and beliefs just might save the world yet and you can't get much more positive than that. ; )

Why I Don't Vote

2005-08-21T13:46:00.000-07:00

I originally wrote this during the last federal election. I am republishing it now because I believe my arguements apply to all settler elections.

I will not be participating in today's election and I think it is important to explain why. To be clear I respect everyone's right to an opinion. My views are mine alone and I wish only to share them so that you understand where I am coming from.

As an Indigenous person descendent from Nuu-chah-nulth and Tsimshian peoples, I truly believe that our territories are wrongfully occupied. Although many of our people have come to accept themselves as British Columbians or Canadians, we are a displaced and marginalized people under colonial control. I expect the newcomers to forget their imperial legacy for it is not truthfully taught in the schools, but I would hope our own people would not forget. Because I believe that the lands and waters of our Ha'wiih have been wrongfully usurped I cannot in good conscience lend further legitimacy to the present neo-colonial governments by voting.

Life is full of contradictions and many of us have accepted, both wittingly and unwittingly, the entrapments of colonialism and assimilation. I drive a car, I have to eat, I even have a passport that swears I am Canadian, but in my heart I am Nuu-chah-nulth, son of Wickaninnish, nephew of Umeek and 1st cousin (brother) of A-in-chut, of the house of Tlakishpilth of Ahousaht. I also descend from the house of Nishaywas, of the Kitselas with relations amongst many of the Tsimshian nations. I believe these are real. I believe they are as real as we make them. In my mind I cannot be true to both (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) at the same time. I cannot actively legitimize the colonial government by such a fundamental, democratic act as voting in their elections, when our own governments are ignored.

The collective legacies of Canada and BC, vis-à-vis Indigenous people, exemplify nothing but dishonour and disrespect. Early on, the oppression was fairly direct. Over time their methods became more refined and “civilized” but no less deadly. Many of our parents' generation were openly ashamed of being Indian. I have heard the stories of my aunts and uncles, their experiences in school and such. Despite all that, we have not disappeared nor forgotten who we are. Some of our people still remember. While that flicker of knowledge exists, I will do all I can to stoke it, to encourage it and defend it from those who would rather we just disappear.

We have been forced and later accepted many aspects of the settler society, but it does not always have to be this way. The younger generation while somewhat removed from our teachings is also a generation removed from the residential school experience. Many of us do not want to assimilate, or fit in, or be equal. We merely want to be who we are. We recognize the damage it is causing to take on too much of the settler's ways. We do not need to catch up, or compete or be equal. We need only to stand up and take our place of leadership and show the rest of the world how to live right with the earth and the animals.

I do not vote because no non-Indigenous system or politician can do any of those things for me. I do not vote because that neo-colonial system still fights and resists our way of life. I do not vote because I would rather accept my responsibilities as a Nuu-chah-nulth/Tsimshian man than continue to perpetuate the myth that I am Canadian.

Provincially the Socreds denied our rights, the NDP denied our rights and the Liberals have denied our rights. It has made little difference which party was in power. All governments have been beholden to the corporations and the people who work for them. Their mandate has always been to generate wealth from our lands. In fact, I often think that the NDP have been the most dangerous of all, for they led many of our people to believe that they were our friends. Many of our people and leaders bought the line that the NDP cared about Indigenous people enough to deal with us honourably. Under the BC Treaty Process, the NDP were never prepared to acknowledge more than 4-8% of our lands as ours. When push came to shove, the right thing to do was displaced by the practical thing to do.

At least with a neo-conservative government, you have a little better idea of where they stand and what their priorities are. To the Liberals, Indigenous rights and issues are merely an annoyance, in the way, and in some cases, the "cost of doing business." I am by no means a supporter of the Liberals; I just feel they are more honest about their greed than the NDP.

Either way, I feel it makes little difference. If we truly appreciate where it is that we want to go as Indigenous people, we will realize that what matters more is the time, energy and brainpower we pour into revitalizing our own independent communities. What little if any difference that could be made "from inside the system" pales in comparison to the strides we could make if we focused all of our energies into rebuilding our communities free of government funding and dependence.

I appreciate the time to share some of my thoughts. I felt it was important for you to hear my rationale and not to mistake my refusal to participate as simply matters of negativism or apathy. Power to our people!