The not so secret inclinations of an Indian Agent

It’s pretty conventional that the Indian Act was very racially motivated and thus nothing but legalized racism. When you are selective of a group of people and make laws to exclude and control them, it’s pretty obvious that it’s blatant racism. But yet today in this day and age the Indian Act is still operating.

Of all things which prove this particular point is the Indian agent- this person was about dominating the people; about excluding natives in matters that affected them. Such an arbitrary ruler could control all things about an Indian’s life. An Indian agent could preside over a band meeting and disallow anything the band might pass. An Indian Agent took control away from the people. By the late sixties the Indian Agents were gone.

But power was still in the hands of the government. For example however there appears to be some sway in operations and bands were seemingly given some control: such as making by-laws. However there was an instance where one band attempted to make a speeding by-law, it was knocked down and disallowed. Such a by-law was not something they had in mind rather the by-laws were more of the insignificant type (Noxious weed control or dog by-laws). (See The Dispossessed by Jeffery York)It must be pointed out that the Indian Act is not about giving control to the people but having and taking control. Well all this seems pretty obvious, that moreover much of the Act is discriminatory and over-bearing. We could then ask what Canadian citizen is as controlled as natives are? Or for that matter what citizen would stand for such antics?

But the government is always looking at ways it can avoid its responsibilities. How can they avoid the obvious injustices that occurred? There are two things that come to mind, one is, they can pass the buck so-to-speak, and they can bring a more uniform type of control.

First off, today devolution is occurring where more administrative control are being given to bands, where they have more control over areas such as education, social assistance, ect. However the final say by INAC on the financial aspect is still intact. In some instances INAC is now developing the administrative aspect of native communities. But our communities are not getting better, nor are they becoming effective. Since there is an obvious disconnect this devolution is working against most communities. Now it is not just INAC that is under the gun but now it’s our elected leaders. INAC has effectively put the spotlight on other people. Enter the new Indian Agent, domination and the people are once again kept out.

Okay so you heard this story before, but the second aspect is more interesting. As INAC pushes its administrative measures, we become more like other Canadians. And then there is the individualism that is pervading our communities. Nothing wrong with that but do you see that the more we adapt the more we will have to take our place as insignificant minorities. All this is nice if we took control as a people, and that means not just our elected leadership which seems to be all that happens in Indian Country. Our leaders must make that connection to their people. Let the people be a part of the changes that are occurring.

Clearly self-government is a must; however our present efforts are going to end up where we will essentially be just like other Canadians and in that particular scheme we will succumb to what the majority want: It is not about being completely different, rather keeping our sovereignty. Anybody knows that our circumstance is unique and we need more control and power to be an effective people. We need to come together and tackle the issues like say equality. And we need to get rid of arbitrary rule and know that our real strength lies with all the people.

So this is the thing if we do not take some control of the changes we will have lost our ability to govern our self. Our independence will be like others and we will eventually have no say. It’s never about taking a different position but taking control and the greatest control will only come by way of the people. By keeping things the way they are, our independence is waning. No one will be to blame but the inability to include the people in matters that are important to them. (More on these ideas are found in “Surviving as Indians”: Meno Boldt)

What do we have real leaders that include their people or leaders that can roll in the false power that is ever keeping our people broken and down? There are no Indian Agents only the residue of past ways. Let us forsake arbitrary rule, let us be more than selected leaders, let us keep power in the hands of the people!

Of course this debate is not complete without recognizing that there is some progress being made. Money is coming in, we can make by-laws, and we can make membership codes, we can even choose a traditional council. But after these things and other administrative proclivities, in the end we are still in the Indian Act, we do not have last say, and never will. Barrierie Lake is the most recent example of the controlling aspect of the Act. Gone was their government and in was what the government wanted.

We can also lament that FSIN and AFN lose funding if they get too aggressive and off the mark of what the government wants and that is to give no power. What can the government possibly do if the people and their leaders stick together and make decisions? So rather than fight for ultimate power, we should be growing in power!

I will end this session with a quote: “Today, Indian leaders are presented with the best opportunity yet to empower their people. They can take advantage of the opening provided by the community-based self government process to engage their people in a meaningful process of participatory constitution making. They can take the constitution-making process out of the Hands of DIAND (INAC)and use it for purposes of founding a true Indian government, which will govern at ‘the pleasure of the Indian people.’ Such a process has the potential to yield Indian governments that can serve as a symbol of solidarity, group pride, and loyalty – the essential ingredients of empowerment.” (Boldt:p.162, 1993)

The Indian Agent is gone let’s not bring him back!

Treaty Number Six

Review of chapter 14 “Treaty Six”, in Buffalo Days and Nights, by Peter Erasmus.

Even with the lowest of people, there is an air of nobility; it is something that separates us from the beasts, it is given to all mankind from the creator, we all have the capacity for nobility, because we are all made in the image of God.

The success of the Treaty was in large part due to the native leaders recognizing the importance of the Law. Even though the event was covered by a small group of police officers, it was successful. It is therefore obvious that native people knew the importance of rules, and this moreover was emphasised strongly by their leaders.
“The small number of this Police Force would have been utterly incapable of handling the thousands of Indians if they had attempted to employ force to compel obedience. The Chief and his councillors administered the laws for their band and the tribe recognized the necessity for rules governing individuals who at times broke the rules set by their leaders for the benefit of the majority. That in my opinion, is what made possible the successful role that this small Force played in the progress of settlement of one country.” Erasmus: p.240

(Certainly the community held precedence and it goes without saying that it was the laws that strengthened their communities.)

It is often said that the law came one way, through the Whiteman; yet it was an integral part of native people, how else could a small police force have had any success? It was the Natives holding high the law that actually established the treaties. So great was their respect for the law, that, authority during this time grew, thus if anything the treaties received credence from the native people. These were not just savages devoid of knowledge; they understood the importance of government- they knew what good governance was all about. (I know that we should be way past such ignorant statements, yet it still deserves to be noted how conventional thought once was) It is a myth then to believe that native people lacked ability- and were without knowledge concerning how to govern. The truth is they were reciprocal when good governance was being established, they not only took part but they also created the “good governance,” that we enjoy today!

And so if we were as noble as this account points out, why do we not govern the same way? Where are our efforts at upholding the law? Obviously it is not just a job for the police, but it must come from the people and its leaders. Upholding the law is therefore a concerted effort. If our leaders loved and upheld the law, then if we want to be truly traditional we would do the same thing, we would then moreover follow their example.



Treaty talks – Treaty Number Six

Since there were already treaty negotiations that occurred, there was some foreknowledge on what was expected and what had occurred to natives up to this time. As a result people were visibly upset that some of the previous treaties were not honoured. After allowing this discontent to surface, the leaders then took control and restored order. After this first discussion, the native people retired to their tents and continued to thrash out the treaty terms.

The talks continued the following day and the new meeting was again met with discontent, the main Chiefs however eventually restored order.

After a brave spoke about how much land was to be given, he answered by saying, “this is our land!” You cannot pass it out like a piece of meat! There was some loud cheering that erupted after this was said. The Governor, Alexander Morris, was visibly upset after this demonstration; he thought that they accepted the terms. The Governor then went on to say that unless land was set aside for their use, it would be settled by a flood of white settlers who would give them no consideration.
“Mistawasis (then) rose to his feet at the conclusion of Morris’s detailed explanations of the treaty terms and answers to questions that arose during the proceedings, saying, “We have heard all you have told us and I want to tell the Governor how it is well with us as well. When a thing is thought out quietly, that is the best way. I ask this of him today, that we go and think over his words. Governor Morris agreed with the chief and the meeting was adjourned till Monday. It was now Saturday.” Erasmus: p.245

The leaders and the people then had a meeting, where they discussed that, “There are many among us who are trying to confuse and mislead the people; that is why I thought it best to give them lots of time for their bad work. Today they will have to come out in the open and will be forced to show their intentions.” Erasmus: p.245
“The chiefs were in agreement that it was better to bring about an understanding among their own people before meeting with the Commissioner.” Erasmus: p.246

The point up to here worth noting is that there was much deliberation and participation. There was no unilateral decision-making. The people participated, and order was kept intact by the leaders.

Note: Since this is the most important conversation out of this treaty it will be written out quite extensively: The next meeting took place for most of the day, it was a great display of “Indian eloquence.”

Mista-wa-sis, rose to his feet. All afternoon he had sat without taking part in the speeches. All those who were taking part in the previous arguments sat down. There was silence as the man stood and waited for every person to be seated. (Mistawasis was a main chief, and he possessed authority and was given great respect)
“I have heard my brothers speak, complaining of the hardships endured by our people. Some have bewailed the poverty and suffering that has come to the Indians because of the destruction of the buffalo as the chief source of our living, the loss of the glory of our forefathers; and with that I agree. (The native circumstance was acknowledged, and it was being assessed) “With all these things, I think and feel intensely the sorrow my brothers express. I speak directly to Poundmaker and The Badger and those others who object to signing the treaty. Have you anything better to offer our people? I ask again, can you suggest anything that will bring these things back for tomorrow and all the tomorrows that face our people?” (Here the real leader faced the political manipulator, because it all comes down to who can see further, who considers the future, realistically. It was about taking into consideration what actually serves the majority, what will benefit the people? Equally it is important to note that they (the leaders) were certainly not tripped up by superficial arguments.) “I for one think that the great White Queen Mother has offered us a way of life when the buffalo are no more. Gone they will be before many snows have come to cover our heads or graves if it should be. There was loud groans and exclamations of despair at the later statement..” Erasmus: p.246, 247

The issue of how natives were being treated, by traders was something that stuck out in the minds of the leaders: And they knew that they were also people that waged war with one another. Thus we can deduce that part of their culture was a culture of war. Therefore their culture and lives were if anything in transition. So how did they then get this respect for the law?

It seemed apparent that when they dealt with white traders (from the south)that “These traders, who were not of our land, with smooth talk and cheap goods persuaded the southern tribes it would be a good thing to have a place to trade products of the hunt, the hides and tanned goods. The traders came and built strong forts, and with their long riffles that can kill at twice the distance of our own and the short guns that can spout death six times quicker than you can tell about it, they had the people at their mercy. The Blackfoot soon found out the traders had nothing but whiskey to exchange for their skins. Oh, yes! They were generous at first with their rotten whiskey, but not for long. The traders demanded pay and got Blackfoot horses, buffalo robes, and all other things they had to offer. Those traders laughed at them for fools, and so they were, to sell their heritage for ruin and debauchery. Some of the bravest of the Blackfoot tried to get revenge for the losses but they were shot down like dogs and dragged to the open plains on horses to rot and be eaten by wolves.”

Now it was these traders that ran once the Queen’s Red Coats appeared. “It was the power that stands behind those few Red Coats that those men feared...the Police are the Queens Mothers agents and have the same laws for whites as they have for the Indians.” Erasmus: p.247, 248 (The Natives respected the law because it controlled and stopped their enemies from taking advantage of them, and they seen that this law was also for them, equally.) “I for one look to the Queens law and her Red Coat servants to protect our people against the evils of the white man’s firewater and to stop the senseless wars among our people...We have been in darkness; the Blackfoot and others are people as we are..we will be brothers in misery when we could have been brothers in plenty...We speak of glory and our memories are all that is left...we are few in numbers compared to former times, by wars and terrible ravages of smallpox...Even if it was possible to gather all the tribes together, to throw away the hand that is offered us, we would be too weak to make to make our demands heard...I for one will take the hand that is offered. For my band I have spoken.” (There was a silence that followed as Mistawasis took his seat)

Finally Star Blanket got up, he stood in silence for a moment, “Yes, I have carried the dripping scalps of the Blackfoot on my belt and thought it was a great deed of bravery. I thought it was part of the glory of war but I agree with Mistawasis. Then he raised his voice so that it rang with power of great conviction, “It is no longer a good thing. If we had been friends we might now have been a host of people of all nations and together have power to demand things some of you foolishly think you can get and insist on now demanding...There are men among you who are trying to blind our eyes, and refuse to see the things that have brought us to this pass. Let us not think of ourselves but our children’s children. We hold our place among the tribes as chiefs and councillors because our people think we have wisdom above amongst us. Then let us show our wisdom. Let us show our wisdom by choosing the right path now while we yet have a choice.” Erasmus: p.249, 250

At this point what can we come up with? Over and over we can see the connection the leaders had with their people. We can see the ability of the leaders to access their circumstance; and we can see that they were wise when they dealt with their own people. It is a wonder that native people were studied by the white-man; they wanted, of all things, to know how the people were governed. (See Edwin Denig, The Assinoboine, Enquires at the back of the book, one question asked was, “Is the Democratic element strongly implanted?”) They (natives) governed in a way that was fundamentally strong, and even before there was any thing called democracy, native governance was about the people!

Star Blanket ended by saying, “Surely we Indians can learn the ways of living that made the white man strong.”

Mistawasis adjourned the meeting by saying, “It is good that my brothers go back to their teepees and study these matters with care. We will not be hasty.”

In the matter of governance, we know that the fundamentals of good governance were exercised by our people. The ideas of participation, deliberation and representation are the rudiments of democracy. Representation was about representing the band, and need I say that meant all the people. Clearly the leaders held and received authority from the people. There is such an obvious connection that exists with the people and the leaders and this cannot be over-emphasised. Being a representative means having a strong connection to your people/band. Thus the strength of our people is that connection. If anything we need to revive this strength once again.
When it came to the treaties native people did not just put down their “X”, they governed their people, and they made the proceedings respectful. They lead their people, and walked with their people as they made decisions. They made us proud that we had forefathers who were sagacious and walked with dignity. They were noble when they envisioned their posterity; today we can hold our heads up, and we can be as dignified and noble as they once were.

Success at Last

Racism will never leave our democratic country, because the people who control and dictate things are from the dominant society, the majority rules. Take for instance how native people can never write about their discontent, because it is against the majority. Even though the cause of the minority is supposed to be a democratic pursuit, it is not, publically speaking. Now on the other hand places like Small Dead Animals website can spew out its hatred, go figure. It is even endorsed by a prominent talk show host, here in Saskatchewan.

First Nations have to, more than anything else; develop themselves, because justice evades our cause at the hands of the majority. Do you feel my anger, and frustration because I am, and it seems that real justice lays limp at the majority's whim. But nothing could be further from the truth, and unfortunately as native people rise those who stick to their cultural bigotry will be on the wrong side.

If there is a greater moral cause, and that could be what is in store for native people, for we have yet to reach the pinnacle of greatness. Canada will include Native people, and the majority cannot fight the inevitable, sadly though this may be our country's downfall. I want a successful country, do you?

I Know More Than You Do!

I’m sure everyone watches the (hockey) playoff games. Man can it get pretty dirty- there is no limit to winning- its win at all cost. We are just about to enter into a new election on my rez, so the nominations are in, there is approximately 1 month till the actual election. I hope it aint a rendition of survivor or a playoff game for that matter. There are a lot of new books out on First Nations, seems the Indian Act is coming under fire- but is that just convention- I mean is that in vogue to put down the native system and sound like you’re giving good advice? Certainly we all know that the system was never concocted by the Natives themselves. If anybody should be accountable the government should fess up and try coming up with some sound governance or should I say “good government?” Two books come to mind, “Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry,” by Francis Widdowson and Albert Howard: the other one is entitled, “A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy,” by Gordon Gibson. So is this all different, I mean isn’t that the way it always is, non-natives knowing more about us than we do ourselves. Why does that dominating way always pass off as knowledge? If we (aboriginal people) have any criticisms we are ostracised and made to look like our opinion is weird, and out of line. So when do native people become free from the oppression of the dominant majority? This new pedagogy is probably more related to creating a knowledge that is oppositional to what today’s native knowledge is pumping out. Native epistemology is on its way, and you can’t fake your knowledge nor create something that is against the real truth. There are native people who know more than what is often acknowledged. It aint mystical, but it is an experience that being native does give you an upper hand. The battle of the intellects, is just beginning.
So when our leaders are standing up there they have to understand that they are in conflict with the Indian Act. So the leaders must know that the Indian Act has to be part of their platform. If they lack such knowledge, than they are leaders that truly lack.
You can check out one book on line:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=oWkWXRcqCM4C&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq=gordon+gibson+-+A+New+Look+at+Canadian+Indian+Policy:+Respect+the+Collective+--Promote+the+Individual.&source=bl&ots=qVe-6Ymlwb&sig=t7vuGJofXDnnC0ZOYMHCMGk16nw&hl=en&ei=P4nqSbufJKaeM8qexOEF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR5,M1

Pankiw and Ahenakew sitting in a tree...

To begin with, this is a quote from an article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090306.wsask0306/BNStory/National/home
“Daniel Poulin, a lawyer for the human rights commission, said since the pamphlets aren't subject to the act, the panel was unable to consider whether Mr. Pankiw's statements were objectionable.”
Jim Pankiw- what gets me is how racism-discrimination is such a hard thing to understand. Certainly it is related to oppression, and that is why advantaged people have such a hard time understanding it. If you attack an already oppressed group of people, you are irresponsible. It is akin to the lowest of blows, it is nothing more that dirty fighting. Moreover, how do you use equality against an already disadvantaged people? Seems to me the constitution got it right. Need I remind you Section 15(2) states: “Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantage individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race...”
The only reasoning I can come up as to why equality is used is because it is all about keeping the disadvantaged out. Yet this country was built with advantages, it is therefore hard to see how not allowing advantages to others is against the status quo. I would also think the constitution has a higher ideal/principle than some emotional opposition. Imagine if equality started at the inception of this country, there would be no reserves and the First Nations people would not be controlled and dominated by some legislation.

Now in terms of Ahenakew: To begin with, I believe that the views espoused by Ahenakew clearly came from a different source other than from himself. In fact Ahenakew’s words sound like they are merely repeated, and so the depth of his attitude remains in question. Ahenakew appears if anything to be a middleman; the crime comes from those who held such deep attitudes of hatred to the Jews. This hatred for Jewish people had to of come from those who interacted with them on a personal level. And because of that it is hard to see Ahenakew as being a hard-lined racist, against Jewish people. Unfortunately Ahenakew spoke, he got caught, and as a result the real perpetrators are getting away. If anyone should be indicted it should be those who hold such deep attitudes of hatred.

Here is a quote from a blog, “ i don’t share ahenekew’s position one bit, but as far as i know he never encouraged anyone to harm a jewish person, and he was (once) charged with promoting hatred for simply answering a question truthfully. the ku klux klan is known to act violently against blacks. Jews and homosexuals yet they are allowed to hold meetings, in national parks no less.” http://www.breakfastmeat.com/2006/06/ahenekew-vs-kkkcanada-vs-usa.html

By using a situation that involves a venerable and emotional old man, is nothing more than exploitation. Ahenakew will never get forgiveness from the general public, but unlike the colonial way his forgiveness does not depend on them.
Complaining about how the justice system is serving a minority is also another attempt at manipulating the facts; I then have to ask should justice serve only the dominant majority. Will society be better by denying justice to an already disadvantaged people? Yet it seems the rising sentiment of the majority is nothing more than, riding roughshod over the minority and their disadvantages.
Race is a small factor, yet some people make it a big factor. It is these people who are the ones who cause problems in our society; they are the ones who need to be reprimanded. They are the ones who bring the rifts in our society.
So in the end it is always about Natives, First Nations, aboriginals, it is sensationalism- too bad cause natives really are sensational.
If there is anything I do believe it is that the Ahenakew and Pankiw cases tend bring out the racist views.
Moreover, the most disturbing thing about the Ahenakew and Pankiw case is the anti-native sentiments that seem to follow and are expressed.
Hopefully there will be an outcry over Pankiw as there was for Ahenakew.
Ekosi

Ears to hear

 

Let us allow more years of repression to continue. That is the extent of not allowing the native voice to be heard and not just heard but to allow native opinion to be given the venue of expression. There is a different perspective than just mainstream or the dominant societies' view. Canada will never be the democratic country if all it does is promote just the non-native view. Surely everything is relative; if there is no voice, there will be no change, and so I ask why complain about the native problems if that is the way things are. It is one thing to sensationalize natives in the news but it is another thing to keep out their perspective-opinions. It sounds pretty hypocritical, if you complain but allow the people who are in the midst of these problems to have no say. What is wrong with the great democratic country, where freedom of expression is not given to the oppressed?

Maybe it is the harsh words that are generated from native people, but years of repression have a way of doing that to a person: Remembering those thousand injustices. If all it does is prick the conscience of the dominant majority, that is a small price to pay compared to the hopelessness that comes from inabilities and frustrations of First Nations people.

Of course you can always do the same thing but remember you are just as responsible if you stifle the struggles that the oppressed feel.

Natives must rise above all their struggles, but that will not happen if they feel their problems are meet with indifference. We certainly need more than superficial feelings; if anything we first need to allow First Nations' struggles to be voiced no matter how difficult it is to hear such negativity. Then we will surely be on the road to recovery.

Killing the beast

Time to write smack about all the flack that natives, first nations, aboriginals, get: First there is the ongoing saga of Ahenakew, not to mention Pauchay, gangs in Saskatchewan, the FNU and the incompetence that is becoming more and more obvious, where do I start?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1362071 : Pauchay story
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/03/05/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-104710 Gangs in Saskatchewan
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/03/03/8601231-cp.html FNU - Chairman for BOG
So off reserve can now run for the council positions? The federal government wants to bring more revised polices on transparency and accountability on reserves, no less. Hmmm, so are we at the helm of change? Possibly, at least it will all matter if we can figure out things and act sagaciously.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20090303/NATIVES03/national/National INAC –Federal Government
When it comes to Pauchay and Ahenakew, it is all about non-natives once again dictating, the course of justice. Its colonialism all over again, colonialism is, as we all know, essentially about domination. Heck non-natives seem to always want to believe they know more about ourselves then we do. Yet today is pointing to the fact that those affected by whatever, have to be involved in producing solutions. Finally so will our guilt be in the hands of non-natives, surely they would never stand to have their very own lives dictated by another person/group. Yet that is what they want, to tell us how to live and to say what is best for us. Where have heard that before? Some things never change.
Gangs in Saskatchewan, the product of years of dispossession: For people that have been excluded, and dominated and controlled, suddenly they are supposed to act righteously. Every time they (natives) did have success they were often seen as a challenge and a competition. So will the future be any different? Success in a twisted world often worked against us; maybe it was not us who had the pathology in the first place?
FNU – Leadership is only as good as its people. Seems to me getting the people involved is the last thing to be considered yet it should be the first order in governance. If the Chairman is looking for guidance, does that mean there is a lack of knowledge? Or is he looking for a way out; a way from not acting on the recommendations that were given in the first place. The BOG has yet to approach the students, even though this whole fiasco affects them and it is becoming more vital in terms of their education. Is the institution going down due to the inability to act proper and righteously? Good governance is our traditional heritage, yet we cannot put in the traditionally democratic principles that could make us effective, through and through.
Then there is the federal government, justice for one means justice for all; equally, an injustice for one is an injustice to all. How can any government be effective if it is dominated and controlled, yet that is the bottom line when it comes to native communities? Heck this country was supposedly built on Good Governance, yet that means little to our communities. No wonder, our leaders do not know how to act, they have been manipulated, and controlled for more than a hundred years. Now the government wants to shift the blame away from itself, and make it look like native communities suddenly need their help when in fact it is the government who created the system of governance in the first place.
If anything the problems of today reflect the years of domination; clearly it will only be by giving back sovereignty to the First Nations people so that will they begin to recover from the years of abuse. But before you think this is all about total rebellion, let me make one thing clear that until all people come together and put in the right people in the right positions of leadership, then and only then will we actually make head way like we have never made before. The government must be less, and the real strong leaders have to take the helm, and most of all there has to be a time of great patience; because this is about restructuring, if anything
If the political power does not act, which is the people themselves, native people will not see the political power that they need. If the bureaucrats act, which is what the government is trying to do, they will not give the people what they want and desperately need. Thus any move by the government is destined to once again fail. Change has to come from the body, and not from outside domination.

Frenzy concert