Canadian Native Perspective

2010-03-16T09:25:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-01-01T22:19:00.000-08:00

Everything is Relative II

2010-01-01T21:24:00.000-08:00

It seems that in our society there are circumstances where injustices are practiced and often it is not opposed: And if it is, the opposition is usually shut down. I firmly believe that we can learn something from the blacks and their circumstances....

Newspapers where suppose to be a great democratic tool where opinions could be heard and at the same time welcomed. But often it was controlled and dominated by one opinion. But nonetheless that was the strength of the oppressor, where the media, and in this case the newspapers, at the time neglected to write on the conditions of the blacks. In fact to raise any discontent, particularly about how society operated, it was often treated like it was blatant treason. (“The Race Beat,” Roberts: p. 53,67)We should be able to see the parallels in that the natives and their circumstance are often neglected, and if discontent should rise its seen as being anti-social, in terms of going against mainstreams’ objectives/the status quo.

Also, it should be noted that, “the white press ignored the grievances of the blacks, (however) confining itself to the usual reporting of black crime.” (Goodwin: p. 18) It moreover seemed that by keeping (black)people away from opportunities of advancing, it never dawned on them (whites)that this was the main reason for the (black) discontent. And so a large part of the race problems in the states was largely because of the segregation that was kept in place.

And hence the means in which to oppose this injustice was to seek equality, a fundamental in democracy. “(D)emocracy has become an immediate goal to the negro. His rumblings for equality in every phase of American life will reverberate into a mighty roar in the days to come.” (And how true that became)

Equality is the biggest grounds by which any movement can progress!

Segregation served two purposes; unfortunately some have tried to keep it reduced to one objective, and thereby forcing one result.

To elaborate, one of the first things the whites did to meet these new public demands/black discontent was to legitimate a way of dealing with the race problem. Under the rubric, “separate but equal,” it was of all things, suppose to legitimate segregation. On the other hand, to the blacks, it seemed that if they were to have any success, however limited, it would come by way of an all black environment. Some people tried to keep segregation in place, and for a moment it seemed to be a good objective.

However the blacks would settle for nothing less than full equality. Besides blacks came to believe that “separate but equal,” was a ploy “used by whites to justify all phases of segregation with its inevitable train of discrimination, oppression, brutality and petty chicanery,” (Roberts: p. 45) On the other hand segregation to the whites seemed the best way to hold on to what they had. Segregation was the essence of life in the south. (Roberts: p. 37) Even though separate but equal contravened “the equalitarian spirit of the American Heritage,” perpetuating inequality, and institutionalizing social disharmony.” (Ibid., p. 38) If anything segregation was going to be an issue where things were going to get even more heated.

It seems that the only explanation stems from a European system where the order of the day was to look down on others because of a system that sanctioned superiority. And so in such a system where there were lower classes of people there were also inferiors. And so domination and keeping advantages in place culminated into segregation.

On one level, segregation stretched through every aspect of a black person’s life. Boxing videos were prohibited if there was a black person boxing with a white person, blacks and whites couldn’t publically play checkers. The Jim Crow laws were astounding. The cry of the day was, “if we can legislate we can segregate.” It would be in this arena of law were the true battle began.

Laws eventually were passed that tried to address the issue of segregation. But by now segregation had become a full blown issue of race. It would be a case in 1947, Brown v. Board of Education, where things became more heated. But before that, something else happened that would ignite more unrest, in terms of white backlash.
A civil rights committee recommended the government adopt a sweeping program. The report called, “to eliminate all forms of legally sanctioned segregation and discrimination. It asked for new, “laws requiring states to end discrimination in education.” (Roberts: p. 38) It wasn’t that these people (blacks) were inferiors but to an obdurate group of people, the last thing they wanted to give up was their superiority, their position of dominance. Non-blacks balked at the idea, “that anyone would seek to institutionalize in the law any concept of equality for a race they felt was clearly inferior.”

Never in their mind could they reconcile the truth that they had kept people out of opportunities and this was by far the biggest set-back, rather than them being inferior. James Eastland, a Mississippi senator, could not reconcile that, “organized mongrel minorities control the government. I am going to fight it to the last ditch. They are not going to Harlemize the country.” (Roberts: 40)

But an assault continued at every level that was going to lay the foundations for a new social movement.

And because segregation was so wrong it was inevitable that it would not stand before the greater good/truth. Since all men are created equal, the systems of men or injustices will inevitably succumb to the everlasting truth.

It is hard not to be insulting, but it is better to gulp down every bit of truth and let education takes its course. “Who is more contemptible than a civilization that scorns knowledge of itself?” (Saul: p. 3)

It is here that I must now change from the central theme of this article that of being one on the blacks to an article on native people.

I am amazed when I see and hear of the ignorance that exists in mainstream and the dominant majority when it comes to natives and their issues. There have been times were I have been regulated to being a representative of my people. My history class was one such instance. I was asked a question on why natives did such and such, and incidently the year this occurred was in the 1600’s. I wondered and was amazed, because essentially I knew just as much as they did; I was living today and had no relation to the past, never mind the fact that these were eastern natives. Then there was the issue of the treaties, I wrote an article in the local paper on the treaties. I was again surprised that I was talking about something that most people didn’t have the foggiest idea about, an issue that was so central in the making of this country. I was told, we were never told anything like this in school, and as a result they were genuinely thankful for what I had written.

How does not allowing or for that matter giving people knowledge of others help in the grand scheme of socialization. Is Canada not multicultural, of all things? Canada needs to allow knowledge of others (and that goes for every aspect of their lives) if it is to see greater relations, and a stronger nation. Obscurantism does nothing for the cause of liberation.

Moreover and rather synonymous in Gunner Myrdal’s book, An American Dilemma, (a fascinating account of the black’s condition in America) he observed that there existed ignorance in America: “The result (of his study) is an astonishing ignorance about the negro on part of the white public in the North. White southerners, too, are ignorant of many phases of the negro’s life.” (Roberts: p.6)

You see there are things we can learn in similar circumstances and the issue of the blacks in the south is a clear example of seeing that relevance.

From the wiles of segregation, which is manifested in the Indian Act and the reserve system, we know that segregation has been instrumental in our lack of opportunity, and yet the majority refuses to acknowledge this simple fact. From being Neolithic to being inferior in need of civilization, natives have had to overcome an attitude that has tried to keep us on a lower scale of evolution.

In the Indian Act, natives were not allowed to leave the reserve without a pass; they were not allowed to sell their livestock, they moreover basically needed the Indian agents permission to sell anything; natives could not take whites to court; they were forbidden from gathering; they couldn’t enter a pool room. After reading the laws in the south, more specifically the Jim Crow laws, if anything a person is astounded. There is no time to be bitter, but one can only shake their head in disbelief.

It seems that the civilizers had a little problem with their intent, in that obviously or rather sadly; it was never about benevolence but control and domination.

The battle ground today is in the media, even though we should relish our country’s freedom of the press, yet circumstances say otherwise. Just as the blacks inability to have their grievances and discontent heard: So likewise natives are still silent citizens. Democracy is about giving people an opportunity to express their true feelings. Democracy is about opening up a window where debate is meant to bring us to a better place in society. Democracy recognizes the ability of the common people that they can indeed hash out issues and come up with sound solutions. Knowledge is clearly not confined to experts, politicians, or bureaucrats. Essentially if anything the press or media seems to be about polarization, never about pulling down ignorance.

Is this about rebelling, about the system, no, it is about the fact that, people know better. And that given the opportunity we can come up with a better circumstance.

Are we going to reach a better way or are we going to face stubborn opposition. Time will tell! But truth is going to prevail!

When you think about people, you know they are limited when it comes to change, in fact often it is feared. So to put it plainly, this is not about adding or giving an unreasonable burden, but that in the essence of man there lays a competence, that staggers the imagination. It is the ability to be great, and it leaves out no man or woman.

Some people say this is about sedition, about rebellion, about getting even. Is this just about ranting and raving and raising a fist? Or is this the real thing, that we are nearer to rising, to becoming a great nation. That once again man can reach heights that show us there is more to us than just the elements of degradation. We must start by believing that no matter what position we hold in society, that each of us has the capability to become that better person. That in the depths of our souls, there is a godliness that wants to lift us above the confines of our humanity.

If we strive for good, and earnestly seek it we will find a good path.

Everything is Relative

2009-12-31T08:07:00.000-08:00

So what’s the point of writing on mainstream/the majority’s attitude. I guess it is safe to say it wasn’t just a gripping session.

Firstly, I did mention that I seen Prairie Fire on google and not long after it went missing. Well it certainly never dawned on me that I was writting things that certain people did not want to hear. On the other hand I do realize that everything I wrote in my opening remarks produced little concern to most natives because they already know much of what I was writing about.

Initially my paper was intended for a native audience. So anyways I had to backtrack, and lay out what I knew and that was that native issues have little interest, and if you rock the boat, you’re shut-up, shut out and shut down before you know it. Unfortunately we all know that Natives are basically repressed in mainstream.

There is a correlation between mainstream and our own communities, that deserves attention; and that is that once again native people possess a second-class position/citizenship. Basically natives are not free in either society; they are dominated even though they are a part of the government in both societies. We can point out the parallels, but in many instances they are certainly different circumstances. That of course is not to say, that we cannot learn good things in both instances: for instance we can learn how we are treated both in our communities and in mainstream. And this moreover equips us better when handling our situation.

Liberty is about having a voice, being able to voice your opinion and to know that it is of value. When people are not given consideration, they become demoralized. But that is the power of the oppressor, to further oppress. I don’t think that our greatest enemy are those who dictate over us, but rather it all comes down to our inability to communicate. Power is always a responsibility, and if you use it to further oppress people, that’s abuse.

What we need is to create instances where we can have our opinions valued.

Native leaders and mainstream/the majority both hold a position where we have to hope they will act fairly and justly, and that they will value our discontent.

Clearly in both instances, the answer is to unify, but it cannot be overstated that we have less value in mainstream and as a result it becomes that much more imperative that we develop a better relationship within our own communities.

If you don’t already know, where our struggles lie, it becomes obvious that it is within our own leadership as well as mainstream. How those struggles play out can be pretty diverse.

Basically the more you know, the more you get vexed by any circumstance that impedes your life. In other words, “people typically become angry and feel their situation is unjust when there is a significant difference between the conditions of their lives and their expectations.” (Goodwin: p. 18)

Another example, if after studying a better system of governance and you know begin to know your own circumstance, it gets pretty frustrating as to why you cannot have the most effective system. It’s also likened to the proverb; “he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” In other words the more you know the more you understand oppression or at least what oppresses people. And that much more do you want to act.

It’s like seeing freedom in mainstream, which in our case is the ability to voice grievances and to know you’re heard, but unfortunately for native people ,it all comes down to, who we are ( more on this later). It’s all about power and having a voice is power. Unfortunately natives are not even granted the simple thing of being able to voice our discontent, and yes they lack (political)power.

The more you know about the freedoms and strengths of other people and the more you know your own system and what you lack; well, after that it’s time to seek a little equality in society. And that essentially is what stirs discontent.

It cannot be overstated that it is to our benefit, that we support any means where greater freedom is achieved.

Democracy is about freedom and equality, those are the fundamentals.

At this point I want to point out a couple words and the definitions that come with it:
Tyranny: 1) oppressive power; oppressive power exerted by government. 2) a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler ( in the native circumstance it would be the few in power) 3) a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force.
Tyrant: 1) an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution. 2) usurper of sovereignty.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

Dominance essentially is to impede people so they cannot attain their best. Any form of colonialism works against a society’s abilities.

To control and dominate people to where they cannot develop is a great injustice.

If people are impeded by other people, and it is within the realm of change, it is unacceptable. And therefore any circumstance like this is an injustice and must be changed. To keep such a circumstance in place is tyrannical.

And so there you have it, that our suppression is not only within our own communities but we are also under the same banner of oppression in mainstream. Grant it this allows us to use both instances as a means to understand how we can overcome, and in this case democracy is always relative.

If you can't handle the truth

2009-12-29T13:19:00.000-08:00

Prairie Fire, my previous post, starts out essentially as a no-holds-barred exercise. At least that is how some people see it, yet others know it to be all too true. Those who disagree say it’s all about sour grapes, but that is the usual colonial response, which is nothing more than the inability to deal with things outside your own immediate realm. Native reality, to some, is a hard pill to swallow; it shocks the intellectual recesses of the mind.

But nonetheless to know native people is to know and acknowledge every aspect of their lives.

It seems that every time natives gripe about their circumstance, it becomes a polarizing exercise. It becomes an issue of "us" verses "them," and nothing ever gets done. Locked in polarizations.

I often wonder how natives can be so scrutinized when truthfully their essence lies in the majorities’ hand. The latest books on native people attest to this: “Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry”, or that no so harsh “A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy,” these are the two latest books, making their rounds in mainstream circles.

Really what I’m saying is how can they criticise yet all the while not seriously look at, (rather I should say acknowledge) what has been created by themselves and their forefathers? When I wrote this paper it essentially lays out where natives presently are, and since we cannot create the changes we need, we have to, of all things, look at what we can do for ourselves.

We can ask, of all things, do we not, both need great leaders to take their place; ordinary (yet extraordinary)people from all walks of life to initiate social change. I mentioned that natives never really needed revolution; they just operated in an already great system.

The highest call for all is to seek unity above all things, but unfortunately we have to carry different burdens. (But you also have to be realistic and competent, to address the way things are.)

After I put up my blog on this article, it appeared in google, but it didn’t take long before it went missing, but when you speak what is true it is not always welcomed news, especially when it pertains to native people. If anything it goes against the national objective: Which to me is to is really about keeping it all under the rug; you know, keep all the dirty Landry in the closet,yet hold a “just” facade.

Since we didn’t create most of this mess, I would say some other people better stand up and be take resposibility.

Let me refresh your memory on what I pointed out. The treatment of its aboriginal people is an international disgrace; we just have to know a little about some things that Canada has been involved in, at the United Nations level, to see how true this is. Long standing bureaucratic oppression, rejection of meaningful dialogue, and as long as the colonizer is still dominating there seems to be no end in sight. With the present system of the Indian Act still in place, native people are controlled by the minister, which is something that is so outdated. The paternalistic excuse no longer cuts it. Then of course there is the industry of keeping dependency in place which essentially is about justifying colonialism.

Let’s not forget our bright minds in Canada, and all they can come up with is some overly prejudicial view, (sadly products of their culture).

A person can then understand why natives hold such a position of enmity in society after all this lop-sided mess.

Of all things the idea of having no means of becoming self-sustaining and sufficient, in a system noless designed to fail, leaves you scratching your head. Can you come up with some easy answer to the Indians and their problems, probably not: And rather than take responsibility of all things just and true, and let these people free, but ashamedly they continue to be a part of the colonial legacy!

And so it is harsh! And it has to be constantly asserted; essentially that native people do not possess the ability to do anything because everything is taken from them. Be honest and know and acknowledge that for natives to come out of this fiasco, they are going to have to, have people from the outside making the biggest impact in their communities; which seems rather ironic, but not impossible.

We can spin the big lie and say they are all under the cult of victimization but that is just another colonial way of off-shooting responsibility and neglecting to see the way things really are.

Unfortunately natives and their circumstances are not the easiest things to swallow: And it going to take some great people to transcend all that.

Native people have had to, for so long, carry the burden of their circumstance, yet all the while believing the lie that they are wholly responsible for this mess, when in fact it has exogenous ramifications: Meaning that these circumstances are not just their own doing but rather it has been put in place by the outside influences. I think it is about time those on the outside, start carrying the responsibility and start letting these people exercise their natural freedom and implement the principles of “good government!” Like anybody else natives need to drop the burden, they need to be free, last of all they need a newfound strength to take on the tasks ahead. And finally being responsible seems, of all things, to be a collaborated effort.

I don’t have to justify what I have written, but I would like to see a little more discussion and debate when it comes to the native circumstance, after all we live in a democracy.

And so democracy is not something you are born with, but remember it is part of native history. And so every person or rather new generation has to be established or learn the rudiments of democracy. We have to know our rights, and politics should never be some dirty word. Politics is a just cause, and an area that is filled with practical issues. To some people democracy will be a candle lit flame, to others it will be a torch. Every effort of freedom is freedom for those who need it the most. Stick your nose in the books, learn more and ignite your passions. I think about the fire it started in me, I think of the fire Benjamin Franklin had and how fired up he was with the democratic principles.

I also think about racism, oppression based on race, it is something to learn about, especially in a society that has become shrewd and can wilfully subvert its intentions.

So what about native people and their dire circumstances we are told the intentions were misguided, and they really had the best interest in mind, and really that is just fudging over reality. From what I read and know of Sir John A. MacDonald his wasn’t very benevolent. In fact Indians were given little consideration; the impetus was to build a nation, and never mind the Indian problem. The idea of the treaties was just to do what was necessary, after that natives were once again given no consideration and put out of site.How do you hold you head up, it must be hard for a proud nation?

All this benevolence has somehow wrapped up the natives to where nothing gets done, that is called bureaucracy: Or more formally known as the Indian Act.

Freedom is to be able to think the way we want to, and as a result we can also speak whatever we want. If it is wrong let people decide for themselves, we don’t live in a totalitarian regime. Certainly our government is not a dictatorship, practising absolutism, right?

All this can be summed up in this quote....
“Many Canadians who discover what has been done under the Indian Act can scarcely believe that such things happen in Canada: the all-embracing, totalitarian controls taken over every aspect of Indian life; the deliberate degradation of native cultures; the mean spirited regulations that first reduced aboriginals to penury and then ensured they stayed poor; the fascistic race-classification system, invented by a race of faceless civil servants; the neglect of aboriginal education and health; the deliberate subjugation of all things Indian to the physical psychological dominance of non-Indians. These historical cruelties are responsible for the collective misery and individual personal tragedies of much cotemporary aboriginal life.” (“People of Terra Nullius,” Richardson: p. 95)

In an era of great strides, how do we overcome the native circumstance? Shall we stay indifferent, and neglect to stand and hash out and take on our responsibilities. It must be clear by now that, “It is illogical to accept responsibility beyond the scope of one’s powers.” (Gibson, p. 48)
From what I know it is hard to approach dominance, it makes them more indurate. And so I say, drop the gloves of dominance already! Let’s get real if we are to deal with this country’s main issue.

Are the problems that natives face just about disgrace-opprobrium? If it was, then a red face is least of our problems.

What does Canada’s relations with its natives entail: White guilt and native hurt, that culminates in disappointment. Yet a country so rich with opportunity cannot bring itself further than its history. A ahistorical attitude is to deny the reality that native people have and still struggle. How can we admonish equality when one segment of our society lags behind the rest? There has to be more to our lives than to roll around in the sticky argillaceous Canadian soil. Will we have a character that can face and ultimately deal with the real Canadian reality? We search for areas to tackle, areas that have yet to be conquered, and sadly our social development lags behind. Until people decide to come together, and seriously say I will deal with this problem, then what are we going to do?

I say in the mean time, our goal should be to unify our own people, by strengthening them in the auspiciousness of good governance. Democracy- the rule of the people has yet to establish itself among our people, and if it did, we would have greater power than can ever be imagined.

Prairie Fire

2009-12-22T07:14:00.000-08:00

This is an original paper I put together while attending University.

Introduction:

The Nations Within, in this book the author comes out swinging with what is conventional to most native people. In Chapter II it states, “Canada’s treatment of its aboriginal peoples has been called a ‘national tragedy’ and an international disgrace with…parallels (being made) to the white supremacist (groups) in South Africa.” There is evidence that supports this claim, such as “long standing bureaucratic oppression, rejection of meaningful dialogue, and disempowerment of aboriginal communities.”[1] Aboriginals remain economically dependent on the federal government for services; it is these services that moreover are intended to bring us into parity with the rest of society. However in many instances, this is one area where we tend to lag behind, the area services. Such conditions are creating unrest; the need for reform is predominant in Native communities. Unfortunately how it is reflected in mainstream is made known in the usual response, “ it is nothing more than an “Indian problem” and because of that attitude, indifference is all to often the norm”

According to a recent survey, Students at a university were asked for their opinions on Natives Canadians, typical of ignorant responses, they labeled them as being “alcoholic and lazy, giving rise to feelings of anger and uneasiness, and symbolic beliefs of Native Canadians violating peace.” Found in 2001 Psychology.[2]

Indians are always seen as problems, never as people that deserve help from a condition that are beyond them. They are seen as the tax problem, the social problem, and the great violators of peace, particularly in this country. But yet how many people know they come from a system that dominates them, which has made them nothing more than helpless mendicants. Or who knows that Natives lived the past hundred years in isolation, on pockets of land that add up to .02% of the landmass in Canada. (Did you know that the total landmass of reserves in Canada is equal to less than half of the present-day Navajo Reservation in Arizona?)[3] Yet another shocking thing is we do not own reserve land and we also have limited access to its resources, even though we are the original inhabitants of the land!

I can then ask, where is the home of the native people, and how are we to reach self-government without a land base?

Our life revolves around a dominating bureaucratic system, which is a result of the Indian Act; a piece of repressive legislation that at one time controlled every aspect of an Indian’s life.

In conclusion, we are not violators of peace, but people in need of some thing better. Traditional knowledge tells us that we eventually end up at the same spot. Until we take control of our own affairs, only then will we know how it is to be free in a free country? Until we have more access to resources, it is then and only then that we will truly be able to govern ourselves.

We must then wonder, with self-government on the horizon, what are our options?

My topic then is entitled “History, a Democratic Look at Native People.” I will be looking at a method of governance, which has deep roots and bears a remarkable resemblance to some traditional concepts.

Roots of Democracy

But before I get there we must look briefly at the roots of Democracy. In the 1700’s, The French Revolution was taking place across the great divide. What is unique is that these Frenchmen appear to have been moved by how Native people lived in the new world, and also how they governed themselves. Olive Dickason says in her book, Canada’s First Nations, that ” The King of France spent a good deal of energy, not to mention money, maintaining alliances with these people whose ideas of equality and individual freedom he would not of tolerated for an instant in his own subjects.”[4]

The French were the first to interact more closely with the Indians in the Americas, through intermarriages, alliances in trade and war, and not to mention the times they had to learn how to survive in the new country. So before the French Revolution, it appears the French were quite familiar with the life of the Indians, mainly because they lived with them.

In Harry Liebersohn’s book, Aristocratic Encounters, he speaks about Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book, Discourse on Inequality, Where Rousseau idealized a state of nature by using virtuous people called “noble savages” as his example of people possessing an original state of order.[5] He implied that the French had lost rudimentary things such as equality and freedom: And furthermore, the French situation to Rousseau, looked irreversible. Well needless to say, this created a debate about equality; and so the debate was on. Denis Diderot collaborated with Thomas Raynal and others who took the argument further, an ambiguity occurred though, when they noticed freedom and treatment was better under the Indian leadership, but at the same time they could not reckon these people more than primitive beings. These savages however were a part of a ten-volume work. The influence, of the free and liberated Native, meet with opposition, a counter-revolutionary hatred of Rousseau surfaced.[6] It was a shock to French Society that Rousseau would put these savages in a position of prominence, but in reality, the dissidence that arose was an act meant to dissuade the cries of equality. Rousseau had sparked a revolution, or should I say the Indians of America.

At the same time of the French Revolution, the American Revolution was just underway.

The colonies wanted to break away from the Monarchy: they felt Britain had too much control over the colonies; taxation became a burden. Many people began studying in France such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin. The Revolution in France was looked as a possible example of independence.

But the example did not solely center on France. In the New World, the colonies, looked to their back yards, where the Iroquois became a prime example of governance. Benjamin Franklin said, “ Throughout the eighteenth century, the republican and democratic principles that lay at the heart of the Five Nation’s system of self-government had been included among the studies of the philosophers of Europe and America who were seeking a more just and humane way for men to be governed.”[7]

One Iroquois leader, Canassatego, said, “ Our forefathers established union and amity (friendship) between the five Nations. This has made us formidable. This has given us great weight and authority with our neighboring nations. We are a powerful Confederacy, and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with each other.”[8] (Found in Bruce Johansen’s book, Debating Democracy.)

So what kind of system did they have? Well according to Richard White in his book, Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815, “ There is no king in the tribe, but a chief who is not a chief of state (and) has no authority at his disposal, no power or coercion, no means of giving a order. The chief is not a commander; the people of the tribe are under no obligation to obey. The space of the chieftainship is not the locus of power. And the profile of the primitive chief in no way foreshadows that of a future despot.”[9](A ruler with absolute power)

Within the Iroquois system there existed, a headman, seven under chiefs, a women’s consultative group, and various other groups.

The construction of the leadership then reveals the structure in their society. There was no leader, only equals; women were just as important, if not more so, to their society. The people in the community always had a voice, every issue went to the people by way of consensus. The chance of community unrest was limited, because despotism was abhorred and not allowed.

We must now jump to the people who are more relevant to us, and that is the Prairie tribes. I intend to look at the Assinoboines, and then end with the Cree.

A study was taking place on the Prairie tribes; it was an ethnographic study put out by the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE). Henry Schoolcraft was asked to compile information on the history and present conditions of the Indians in the U.S., the secretary of war, who oversaw the administration of Indian Affairs, appointed him.[10] By mid-may in 1874, a circular was passed around to the various Indian experts. It is from this information collected, that Edward Denig produced his excellent work on the Assinoboine. (See David Miller’s book, The Assiniboine)

The Assinoboine were one of the tribes that depended on the Buffalo for subsistence. They were considered nomadic, and their tools consisted of stone axes, bone awls, clay pots, and rib knives.[11] But the question that can then be asked “Is there anything of note-worthy in their communities?” One of the questions in Schoolcraft’s circular, was, “Is the democratic element strongly implanted?”[12] “The Assinoboine had one main Chief, some lesser Chiefs, and Chiefs of the soldiers, lesser soldiers, the soldiers themselves, elders and other groups.[13]

Denig answered the question by saying,” There is, as observed before, but one nominal (of relating to, or constituting a name) chief to each band, and it is he who leads it. Yet this position does not destroy nor militate (to have effect) against the will of several others in the same band whose voices are as much entitled to a hearing and sometimes more so than his. No man’s rule over them is absolute; their government is pure democracy.”[14]

In Donald Wards book, The People, he says, “ The Assinoboine had no hereditary class of chieftains or nobles... When several bands came together, a single chief would dominate, but again his rank was more symbolic than real.”[15]

Outside the community, the chief had more clout, inside the community he was just like all the others.

In fact, they considered the position of chief with high regard. William Graham in his book, Treaty Days, points this out. “Sometimes no one wanted the position; it meant too much responsibility.”[16] In fact both Denig and Dickason point out that “the chief would often times be the poorest.”[17] And that was largely because of the importance of the community; where the people held precedence.

Denig points out, “In each and all the bands mentioned there are several men bearing the character, rank, and name of chief. But he is only considered as chief of the band who heads and leads it. Yet this power does not give him the right to tyrannize over any other chiefs, or dictate to them any course they would not willingly follow; neither does it detract from their dignity and standing to acknowledge him as head. Some one must be nominal leader, and as this place involves some trouble and action and is not repaid with any extra honors or gifts it is not in general much envied. Moreover, this leader is mostly, if not always, supported by numerous connections who second his views and hence his authority.”[18]

Here then, lie the similarities between the prairie tribes and the tribes in the east; they both used and had the same concepts of governance.

Denig makes his strongest statement, by saying,” Their ideas are by no means groveling (unworthy), nor is their form of government to be derided (subject to contempt). Neither can we conscientiously assign to them a lower place in the scale of creation; perhaps not so low as any other race of uneducated sentient beings.”[19]

Here we can somewhat see the democratic structure, but there still exists another aspect that we can still look at to get a deeper sense of democracy.

In 1876, a treaty was being signed on the prairies, specifically in Canada. (Peter Erasmus, Buffalo Days and Nights)

Governor Alexander Morris arrived at Fort Carlton with his two interpreters; the Indian contingent had their own interpreter, his name being Peter Erasmus: Reverend John McKay and Peter Ballenden were the interpreters of the governor. In the early part of the processions an indiscretion occurred between the interpreters: where one spoke Swampy Cree, as most in attendance were Plains Cree, the other interpreter had a low voice, so because of these problems Erasmus, the Indian’s chosen interpreter, took over the proceedings, and did so to the end.[20]

Morris earlier had said to the chiefs, “I have come to meet you Cree chiefs to make a treaty with you for the surrender of your rights to the land to the government.”[21]

Mistawasis, one of the head chiefs, rose, after Morris concluded with the explanation of the treaty terms, and said, “We heard all you have told us and I want to tell the Governor how it is 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.”[22]

A recess ensued, and the proceeding were to commence on the following Tuesday, it was Saturday.

The Indian contingent was not all in agreement, in fact there was a small rift. Peter was invited to the council discussions, but some objected. Star Blanket (Ah-tuk-a-kup) got up and said, “He is here to open up our eyes and ears to the words that you and I can not understand.”[23]

Pounmaker and the Badger led the faction and were in control of approximately thirty lodges out of the 250 teepees. Poundmaker had earlier caused a stir, by saying, “ This is our land! It isn’t a piece of pemmican to be cut off and given in little pieces back to us. It is ours and we will take what we want.” A strong wave of approval came back, some jumped to their feet and waved their arms and yelled, “Yes, Yes!”[24]

The Governor somewhat taken aback said “ that unless some land has been set aside for the Indians, the country would be flooded with white settlers, who would take no consideration of the Indians.”[25]

Well after a whole day of deliberations by the Chiefs, Mista-wa-sis finally rose after not saying anything all day. After everyone quieted down, he began to speak, “I have heard my brothers speak, complaining of the hardships endured by our people. Some have bewailed the poverty and the suffering that has come to Indians because of the destruction of the buffalo as the chief source of our living, the loss of the ancient glory of our forefathers; and with all that I agree… I speak directly to Poundmaker and The Badger and those others who object to signing this 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.” He went on, “I for one, look to the Queen laws and her Red Coats servants to protect our people against the evils of the white man’s firewater and to stop the senseless wars among our people the Blackfoot, Peigans, and Bloods. We have been in darkness.”[26]

He ends by saying, “Even if it were possible to gather all tribes together, to throw away the hand that is offered to help us, we would be too weak to make our demands heard.”[27]

There was a deep silence, finally Star Blanket rose and stood there with his head bowed, he looked up “Yes, I have carried the dripping scalps of the Blackfoot on my belt and thought it a great deed of bravery. I thought it was a part of the glory of war but now I agree with Mista-wa-sis. Then he raised his voice so that it rang with the power and conviction, “It is no longer a good thing.”

“ Can we stop the power of the white man from spreading over the land like grasshoppers…There are men 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… our people think we have wisdom above others 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.”[28]

After all this information, it is time to examine the modern concepts of Democracy.

*Democracy puts more emphasis on the group rather than on the leader.

*Democracy means government by the people.

*In Democracy the leaders are spokespersons that are representatives of the people.

*Democracy is about having Citizens.Citizens are people that can discuss and make decisions concerning their life. If you can not do that, you are a mere subject. Subjects are not equal, but citizens are equal: because they can equally discuss and make decisions about the community.

*Democracy is about communication; where the people’s voice is important, and their opinions are valued.

*Democracy is about consensus. If the majority appear to have more control, than this is not real democracy, because real democracy does not mean a disregard of minorities, it holds equality as the highest order and regards all people.

*Democracy is about the ability to openly debate. Debate and opinion is necessary to build good relations in a community. Differences are not roadblocks but building blocks. Discussion means equality; superiors do not discuss with inferiors.

*And finally, Democracy is about people’s relationship with themselves and others, rather than being restricted to institutions.

Conclusion:

Democracy is about self-government. So what is the meaning of uncovering these concepts and showing the governing intricacies of Native society; it is to show you that these so called Democratic concepts are nothing more than concepts that existed in our communities, well before it became fashionable to fight for the cause of equality. It is to show you that our societies, once held onto something great. They grasped concepts the ancient Greeks only wrestled with.

It will not take much effort to extract the Democratic concepts in Traditional societies, since they are actually the roots of Democracy. That is one of the reasons I gave you the list and put the concepts last, as they are self-evident and are rather conspicuous. Democracy is an ongoing concept in the world. Yet in our societies we never lived by emulation or concoction based on mythical representations, but the concepts were an essential part of the people, and because of that the concepts were real. Representation was the norm, the people were above leaders, and they held precedence and were always taken into consideration. This was especially true in the Treaty talks as the leaders spoke. Debate was necessary to get all sides out, William Penn, marveled at the Iroquois’s life, “Every king hath his council, and that consists of all the old and wise men of his nation…[Nothing is undertaken, be it war, peace, the selling of land or traffick, without advising with them; and which is more with the young men also…The kings…move by the breath of their people. It is the Indian custom to deliberate…I have never seen more natural sagacity.”[29]

These concepts are far reaching, when you think you got it down packed along comes another angle.

Their ability to converse in eloquence and wisdom was common for leaders: Denig describes the Assinoboine oration as one of, “simplicity, clearness and strength of language (which) are its distinguishing traits.”[30]

Ever since equality has been sought, various opposing factions have risen, Rousseau had to flee his country, and many were executed for holding on to the same views. In Britain it was the same, as in America when the ideas were first debated, they were meet with opposition; Roger Williams, who was eventually deemed a rebel, had his book, The Bloudy Tenent, burned. The reason for this opposition was that it was so contrary to the way Europeans lived, they lived in a Monarchy and hierarchy. It would take revolutions, to bring the changes. Then and only then did all people hold a position of importance.

Democracy is not a panacea, but that it is ever changing to the needs of the people. Winston Churchill, said, “Democracy is the worst form of government in the world-except for all the other forms.”[31]

The Ironies of ironies is that these people (Indians) who were so accustomed to freedom and liberty ended up being the most repressed.

But, my impetus is not to sow discord, but to encourage our people to seek a way that will enhance our communities. In that sense, self-government can then mean a revival of traditional democratic concepts.

It is now up to us to take these traditional concepts and implement them into our society. We must once again look to our lowest people and lift them up; we must honor them with a voice. Our communities are only as good as the least one in our society. It has been stated, “You know a society by how it treats it’s poor.”

I have to ask, how long are we going to let our people continue to be mere subjects of bureaucracy, how long are they going to be sitting on the outside looking in?

Like the old Assinoboine chief who said, “ good men and wise men are scarce.” Today we have no excuse, we should be quick to put our people first, this is not ideology; this is about what works; this is about community development. A real leader then, is a servant of the people. A real leader then does not have to be told to remember his People. A real leader does not wrestle with power he wrestles with service.

Biographical list:

Angus, Ian, Emergent Publics, Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 2001.

Denig, Edward, The Assinoboine, Regina: Canadian Plain Research Center,

2001.

Dickason, Olive Patricia, Canada’s First Nation: A History of Founding

Peoples from Earliest Times, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Ebenstein, William, Today’s ISMS: Communism Fascism Capitalism

Socialism, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

Erasmus, Peter, Buffalo Days and Nights, Calgary: Fifth House Publishers,

1999.

Fleras, Augie and Jean Leonard Elliott, ‘The Nations Within’: Aboriginal-

State Relations in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand,

Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Graham, William M., Treaty Days; Reflections of an Indian Commissioner,

Calgary: Glenbow-Alberta Institute, 1991.

Grinde, Jr., Donald A., and Bruce E. Johansen, Exemplar of Liberty:

Native America and The Evolution of Democracy, California:

University of California, 1991.

Liebersohn, Harry, Aristocratic Encounters: European Travelers and North

American Indians, Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University

of Cambridge, 1998.

Pocklington, T.C., Liberal Democracy: in Canada and the United States,

Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Limited, 1985.

Santrock John W. and John O. Mitterer, Psychology: First Canadian

Edition, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 2001.

Ward, Donald, The People, Saskatoon: Fifth House Ltd., 1995

Watson, Patrick & Benjamin Barber, The Struggle for Democracy, Toronto:

Lester & Orpen Dennys Ltd., 1988.

The not so secret inclinations of an Indian Agent

2009-10-03T19:17:00.000-07:00

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!

Success at Last

2009-05-20T06:51:00.001-07:00

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!

2009-04-20T17:47:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-03-09T18:40:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-07T12:15:00.001-08:00

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

2009-03-07T11:32:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-28T14:31:00.000-08:00

Independance

2009-01-16T07:26:00.000-08:00

I wrote this before Obama was inaugurated, he is truly an inspiration; cause surely the blacks were one of the most mistreated people, but they have now overcome! It's now time for aboriginals to rise.

It’s time we take the helm; and we must rise up and move to the “Promised Land:” The promised land of independence. It is time to move and shake mountains.

I feel for the student body at the First Nations University, they reside in a no-man’s land. Leadership has lost its connection; maybe it never had a connection in the first place. The days of partisan politics are on its last legs; it’s time for real leadership to move in, politicians move over. No more playing the people, no more manipulating things for your own self aggrandizement. A real leader calls out for the poor, poor in spirit. Our people are victims of circumstances that are not often of our own doing.

Our enemies are great, but greater are you because we have a just cause. Justice must reign in and amongst our people. We are a Nation, not just little broken up pieces that have little or no strength. Our cause is across those little nations and that makes us one.

I am tired of my inability, I’m tired of my circumstances, I am tired that I am getting nowhere, and fast!

My forefathers were the true pioneers of the Great White North; it is truly our home and Native land. But you will not find that in a history class, neither will you be told that we are a positive feature in Canada.

My people were the foundation of “Good Government.” Democracy made us a strong people; we had the ability to unite, and to put away our reasons for enmity. Since we are an ocean of people, our waters should cover our enemies. This new tide is not for the proud and arrogant, neither is it for those who just want a free ride. When the waters of justice roll in, you do not want to be on the wrong side.

Justice will be for the true North Strong and Free. Native people have to be free. I cannot be free if my reality is of no concern, to mainstream. My struggles and oppression must be given a voice. At some point I have to shake off “the status of degradation;” (to use a John Hope Franklin phrase.)

The Indian Act has roosted way too long, politicians rise and play the people, and they seek to sit on the throne of power. Real leaders do not exalt, they lift up others. There was a time when our people never took leadership lightly, in fact people would rather avoid leadership positions at any cost, and that was because it was a great responsibility. Where are those humble leaders? Where are those leaders who know to be leader is to be responsible?

And thus we have our multitudes of people lacking a leader; they are in a land of disarray. The left and the right are hedged up and our enemies are in hot pursuit, like Moses, only the sea is in front of us. The Promised Land looks far off; the time is here for us to cross, to get there, and to set our foot on the promise of independence.

Fear not, we shall get there! Because surely Justice wants us to get there!

Freedom

2009-01-13T08:08:00.000-08:00

What were the original aspects of Multiculturalism? According to Trudeau, “The government will encourage and support the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitality to our society. They will be encouraged to share their cultural expressions and values with other Canadians, and so contribute to a richer life for us all.” Notice, originally, it was the job of the government to encourage and support; nowhere did it state they would take control and dictate how multiculturalism should unfold. Unfortunately multiculturalism has taken a turn, even though it may seem small to some nonetheless it is like any other initiative that gets lost to the dominant: And as a result once again the oppressed are overlooked.
In fact, by allowing people to develop it creates an autonomy which is a form of self-government, which essentially is to have control over your own affairs.
Thus any control over ethnics, stems historically from the colonial mind: Which is based solely on superiority and domination, to where the colonist thinks they know more about who you are and what is best for you. It is certainly not like an over protective parent, but more akin to a domineering spirit.
Every nation has the right to rise and become independent. The problem with seeking independence is that little is conceded and sadly the alternative is to demand. Dominance is always kept in place, independence is never voluntarily given. Even though it may mean a stronger relationship, yet the sociopathic symptoms of control are deeper and harder to overcome. This form of dominance sees no advantage in giving independence; it only sees what it will lose. Thus what was originally meant to encourage independence and growth is thwarted by a reluctance based on domination. Multiculturalism is now about catering to that domination, it is not about progressing. It is about the Status quo, of domination/ colonialism once again being intact. Shall Canada falter because it refuses to relinquish what is so natural, namely independence? Are these the Colonial times all over again, shall the colonies/reserves demand their independence.
How can a country strive for all that is good, yet deny a certain segment those very benefits? Yet Canada is doing just that.
Ever since, our Native forefathers touched the pen, and we were placed under the Indian Act, we lost our Freedom. We lost our dignity. We lost our worth.
It is anyone’s right to throw off despotism, any form of government that does not produce security or does not give you the right to be free to develop. In this case change is for the better. Where I can hold my head up, and know my worth is great. Where I know that I have a greater chance to do good, and my future, my children’s future, will be as bright as the new day.
My forefathers were magnificent people, they were the true pioneers, and they were the ones who settled this harsh country. They said let us share this country, let us be a nation that is made up of many brothers. My country will be a country that promotes, “freedom for all.” Free to chose, free to develop, and free at last! Thank God we will be free at last! Canada will surely rise when it moves to promote freedom. Freedom for all is true freedom!

Obscurantism and Improvement

2008-12-11T08:45:00.001-08:00

One of the secrets to the southern domination of blacks was that the media paid little if any attention to the racial reality that was so prevalent at the time. "(The) success of segregation had been the way newspapers had neglected it." It is unfortunate, that even today, given the freedom of the press how the unconventional reality of race is often overlooked. Even though we live in a great democracy, sadly the totalitarian way is still eminent. Racism is not some exception that goes on rather it is conventional and ingrained via culture.

People cannot be free, if they are subjected to oppressive measures. Therefore the obscurantism of this reality is part and parcel to the denial of freedom. Great freedom will never be achieved, unless those who are repressed are set free and given the public opportunity to openly face their oppression.

When I read Dr. Green's article, I know it is saying more than what some people can fathom. That because such an issue as race is overlooked and given little consideration it is seen as the exception; and nothing can be further from the truth.

All a person has to do, is listen to the people south of us and you will hear about the race reality that occurs in the not so distant land. Barak Obama coming to the helm of power is a prime example. The mistreatment of the Blacks was openly confessed, and the racial significance of Obama was then conferred. It was considered by some to be the fulfilment of Martin Luther's dream speech. Yet here in Canada, there were other emotions, such as fear and anger. How can such an event be met with such extreme and diverse sentiments? How can hope stand side-by-side with fear and anger? If anything it proves that yes there is a veracity that is not recognized: And it is defined by race and its reality. When I see fear and anger, and when justice is ringing from the mountain tops, then are you really holding back a dream? It is only equality that will pave the way for greater things. And we should start with giving people the opportunity to express their reality. Canada certainly needs a greater infusion of justice: And Canada does have room for improvement.

Racism in Canada

2008-12-08T12:31:00.000-08:00

In the deep south of America, there were some very strident measures in place (the Jim Crow laws); these measures were all about race. One of the secrets to the continuous power of racial oppression was that those who were oppressed were hardly if ever recognized; little or no effort or recognition was given to their oppression. Thus the ones in power could keep in a system of power by not recognizing the reality of those whom they oppressed. Regarding Natives and their plight, there is little recognition, and their mistreatment is conventionally overlooked. This is as clear as a parallel as one could get.

In terms of native people the oppression is locked in place through many factors, yet being in a democracy this goes against all that a democracy represents. Social equality is a must for a democratic country, and thus there should be no disadvantaged person or groups. However there is a bold face lie and manipulation of truth that is often used to keep things in place. Every time a small advantage is given to native people there is an outcry, yet in the context of justice, the little that is given cannot compare to the disadvantages incurred by Native people in our great (Canadian) society.

Racism has always been about power, from putting measures in place to creating advantages, to incurring disadvantages for others. This is the essence of institutionalizing racism, by making it convention, to creating a culture of racial advantage and disadvantage. Yet these fundamentals are obscured, and made to be insignificant. If a person dare mention racism and its oppressive nature, it appears to border on treason. But how can recognizing the injustice of the lowly be treason? If anything, it is clearly wrong to continue on, where some people are advantaged and others disadvantaged: More so when those who are disadvantaged are so poor. If justice is truly color blind, than racial distinction inclined to give advantage and disadvantage is clearly unjust.

A clear example of the power that accompanies racism is the recent election of our first black President, Barak Obama. The fact that this appointment was met with anger and fears indicates that the issue of power-shifting from one person to another, (and the other being not like yourself), was a jolting experience for some. Yet from another perspective the idea that a person from a disadvantaged group could make an unprecedented stride was exhilarating, to say the least. It seems that when power is threatened, all hell breaks loose. And it seems equally understandable that fear and anger are the net result of losing power.

If we are in a great and actual democracy, it would seem the sharing of power is not some strange bedfellow. Rather it should be the essence of our countries, the time has come where people must think of unifying and this could ultimately mean working with others not like you.

Another example of the elements in racism has to be apartheid system in South Africa. “Apartheid can be best understood as (the systematic attempt to reverse economic integration as much as possible by legislating social barriers) in order to channel the inevitable political consequences of African economic advancement in the interests of privileged white.” For those caught in a repression like this (colonialism) they must transcend the efforts of humiliation and disrespect. These attacks have been so widespread that the obvious example of the Indian Act is a true culmination of these colonial efforts of humiliation and disrespect. The Indian Act will always be an act of colonialism; (the economic and political policies by which a nation indirectly maintains or extends its influence over people). And so it is that within civilized society, there were many different ways to achieve the end of advantage and disadvantage.

To then overcome both apartheid and colonialism is to overcome control/domination and exclusion. Clearly the Indian Act is a prime example of both control/domination and exclusion. It was certainly not the Apartheid system, nor was it the Jim Crow Laws but it was a system so similar that it is obviously no different than the other systems of exclusion, and domination/control.

Segregation is not conducive to an equal and democratic country. It would seem it is inevitable that systems of segregation will be challenged by the enlightenment of equality. That all men are created equal, and that given the same opportunities success is predestined.

The net result of such a system is the pit of poverty that continually grows, and it seems unjust that billions have to be poured into poor communities. It becomes a national outcry; riches should be given to the progressive, let alone the unmerited poor. For example the constructed Jim Crow laws helped “white Americans, as a group (to) continue to be the beneficiaries of the legal apparatuses of white supremacy, carried out the full weight of America’s legal, political, and economic institutions. The consequences of state-sponsored racial inequality created a mountain of historically constructed, accumulated disadvantage for African Americans as a group.”

The only way for the lowly to succeed is to tear down the control/domination and exclusion factors.
The worth of the lowest is equal to the highest. No longer should the lowest be disrespected and humiliated.

Power does not always go to the arrogant. The Apartheid system was defeated by democracy, the idea that numbers would play an important part in redistributing power was the culmination of the new system. The Jim Crow laws were also defeated by democracy, this time it was about the equality of man. In Canada it will be about “good governance,” that unless native communities practice democracy good governance will not be possible. The people have to decide matters for them self, they do not need outside indirect (colonial) control. Those days are gone; the perpetual children need to grow up. The Indian Act and its paternalism are truly anachronistic.

I think the idea that this is new information is nothing more than a farce, it is about the age old secret of keeping things the way they are, about hiding the obvious, and by not recognizing the repressed reality. Justice is about hearing the repressed, about initiating change that we might all partake of the benefits that this great country has to offer.

Responsibility

2008-12-05T09:39:00.001-08:00

Native people are needy. They have little political power, little resources, all in part to their marginalization. Our present government was given, by me, a lot of room to produce a better relationship. I started out feeling that there was hope, however, it has been replaced by a greater belief that arrogance lies at the root of our government. Firstly there was the United Nations incident where indigenous people where to be given more rights. But Canada took the helm and acted against this initiative, and that, moreover, the lowly should receive nothing more. Is Canada only about progress of the rich, the rich get richer? The road to riches has been unimpeded, so at what point do the powerful consider the lesser? There is a great responsibility with great power, no doubt about it. The rich cannot continually snub their noses at the needy and feel they are acting responsibly? If I feel somehow under duress, to consider those who are less fortunate, then there is an obvious disconnection and waywardness to our social responsibility. Are the lowly forgotten and unheard, never, their cries are loud, and they are heard by a greater factor: A factor so in control that they, the lowly, will inevitably ascend.

The biggest factor of impediment to progress is the arrogance factor. Arrogance is a great corruptor of power, but to be responsible with power means consideration. In other words it is the inconsideration of others that is the apex of arrogance. Our world, country for that matter, is tagged as being Democratic. Yet being democratic means social equality. Segregation is the biggest factor when it comes to discrimination. There is nothing different, about fundamentals, no matter how we think we can control or dictate things. For example Multiculturalism per se will never change racial issues, and segregation is this biggest factor related to bigotry. To even think that we are as dominant as to control social outcomes reeks of subversive arrogance. Unless, good honest, respectful relations are sought with all diligence, then we shall, continually, be tripped up. There must be forums and debates that must occur to enhance these good relations. Respect and honour needs to given to all parties involved.

Recently the latest political developments are certainly a prime example of how things need to change. Arrogance has reached a peak; our government feels it does not have to act as the world: And we can deduce that once again arrogance is leading the way. This time though, it has backfired. There are two things that will happen; our government will be in trouble for its ways or arrogance will rise even more. Unless the government sees that this is a second chance to recreate better relations.

In other words, we have to become better people by more civil interactions. This present issue should be seen as a second chance at averting a disaster. The governor general is not the one who holds the balance, it is the government. Now if all that can be deemed as good is that we are democratic, then social relations must then be a priority. If it is about going back to the people, then it is also about proper representation. If we are multicultural, as we so dauntingly hold to, the doors of diversity are a must. Is Democracy about majority rules? Or is it about diversity being given the chance to express its concerns, (minority issues have to be more than a marginal thing): then and only then we will ultimately become more democratic.

I fear that given a system of opportunity that power and corruption will continually try to manipulate our system into a self-serving scheme. More power more arrogance, yet we have been given a way out and that is to open the doors for greater participation. The more involved the less room for arrogance; take the present initiative of downsizing, it could mean more power for fewer people. Downsizing of bureaucracy seems more sensible, but greater participation must also be an inevitable thing for a country like Canada: Less bureaucracy and more participation.

The present situation of where the government is threatened by a coalition that wants to take-over has been met with distain. Since most of Saskatchewan is conservative, this whole thing would be pretty disturbing, to say the least, especially regarding these seemingly unprecedented developments. And so we have a majority up in arms, how is that for instantly losing power? No matter how you feel about being in control, suddenly there comes along a circumstance that invariably chances everything. Is there anything greater than, the lifting up of the strength of man? Is there a greater justice in the works? I would think so!

Moreover consider the reactions that are taking place: First there is the ridiculing of the coalition and then there is the demonizing of the Quebec MPs. Already these are not reactions conducive to good relations, if anything it indirectly promotes further divisions and arrogance. How the government in place is a representation of democracy seems obviously erroneous. 37% of the popular vote is hardly a representation of democracy. In fact, we must admit that what has recently transpired is related to the governing system that is in place.

Harper is now evoking for more democracy and that the people should decide. But democracy means greater social equality, and not to mention greater representation. At least this is what democracy should entail. We must also know there certainly will not be as much power in the hands of a few and the representation of a multicultural spectrum will be inevitable. This is what our country will look like; a spectrum of multi-cultures and a broader base for which power can lay.

We may decry the present initiative as being underhanded, yet having a government with 37% of the popular vote is just as underhanded and manipulative. But you may even justify it as being democratic yet when in fact real democracy is about proper representation. Canada is multicultural and diverse and it would seem that our government should be no different.

So one should ask is this about growing pains? Or are we about to dissolve because we cannot develop into greater things? The old school of one group being dominant is fading away. Welcome to the twentieth century, where others will and should take their rightful place in government.

Harper's position

So far, we have been told that the country will break apart. We have been told the separatists are akin to making a deal with the devil. Two things have run by us under deception; One, that Harpers was a person who was proposing the use of the block to get power, even before this whole new issue came into focus. Two, that the coalition is about two parties coming together, and that the block has limits. After using deception under demagogy, and driving a wedge between the parties, you would think it has done more harm than anything. Harper obviously knows how a coalition works, and to also come out and give false information is deceptive and irresponsible. By saying that the coalition refused to sign by the flag is also deceptive and irresponsible? He stopped at nothing to cling to power, a different scenario where he once arrogantly pranced about doing his business. Canadians must not forget these facts. He must be held to the highest standard given the disaster that was before us. It has been fortunately averted, and people who played the demagogic card should be disciplined. Certain folks forced people to act in certain way by using fear-mongering and playing an emotional rollercoaster to sadly manipulate their way into hanging onto power. Not everyone is deceived. Chicken Little has frenzied the barn house: And they should be held accountable.

Let not, the arrogance continue

Now permission has been given, will this further endorse arrogance? Will the fear mongering continue? Do we not have a system with certain procedures? Are these procedures to be followed, or is playing politics the most important. Harper has now used politics today to change things, to get his way once again. And therefore he must now be more responsible, otherwise arrogance will be the undoing: It is now up to Harper and his party to clean up this mess and to act responsibly.

Paul Oakly

2008-09-29T18:44:00.000-07:00

Praise God again! This is a real good tune.
Thank-you for always keeping me, your love is amazing, your faithfulness truly reaches the heavens. Keep me God in your way,keep me close to you,
Thank-you Jesus.

My Redeemer Lives

2008-07-31T20:41:00.000-07:00

Nothing will ever beat a life with God, where else can your spirit be lifted up. God still raises those who are low. Bless God, thank-you Jesus!

Father's day

2008-06-19T20:18:00.000-07:00

I had a great fathers day! Thanks kids. This is actually a pic from last year, same day though.

Matt Redman and Hillsong

2008-06-14T21:02:00.000-07:00

There are so many awesome singers out there and so many wonderful songs. I encourage you to enjoy yourself as you listen or sing along to this song, I would prefer the latter; as it takes the focus off us and we can then reach out. Pray as you sing, pray during the song, pray after the song, reach out to our help in time of need, he is forever faithful. God bless!

Sacrosanct

2008-06-04T10:36:00.000-07:00

The Foundation

Native protest, what the heck is the beef? Living in the lap of luxury will never allow you to identify with those less fortunate. One face or side of Canada is about the riches amassed and the progress that is taking place, the darker side of Canada (which by-the-way is never openly admitted) is its relationship with its Native people. Unfortunately the (native) reality is always marginalized, always segregated to places in the hither land: It is covered up, opposed and treated like an isolated incident. Put in the context of Canadian life it is often a minor issue; but if it is the major reality of native people, then in that case it must be addressed. If native people are kept helplessly dependant, than the umbilical cord must be cut to create an independence: This dysfunctional relationship, needs a healthy dose of liberty. No governing body can function at its full capacity, unless they become the driver. This whole political domination, is anachronistic, it has outlived its purpose. The more you hold down a people the more they want to be independent. Native people have tried to fit into Canadian society, but they have been opposed, and treated like they are nothing more than outsiders. What, I ask, is the alternative but to make your own environment to stand up and make a statement? Native people are the foundation on which this country was built; you cannot separate Natives from Canada. They have to be given their rightful place, and allowed to prosper; they should never be treated like a threat. All such thoughts and rhetoric have perpetuated the colonial way of domination; never was it about helping native people come to their full potential and to be a part of Canada, to be moreover the success story that grew from a barren land. Native people are the true pioneers that settled this country. They again are the foundation on which Canada was built. (Treaties attest to this truth)

A catch-22; protest and stay oppositional, which we should recognize that when we do protest we end up being a minority and quite frankly being in opposition further exacerbates our position, it makes us the disadvantaged people: Native people can either stay a minor issue, or they can pursue developments that will benefit them as a people. Hence, resources are the only alternatives to a brighter future.

If native people prospered, then we can say, as Canadians that we are all proud to live here. No other country has this opportunity.

Do you ever notice how some people fit in, they can learn the game and fit in that way, or they can take over and set new rules, it may work or you could be put out of the game completely. But playing the game does not mean you are true to the game. For one thing, people do not necessarily care about your life, especially if the game they are playing is giving them great dividends. In the end, you might fit in but chances are you will have to start a new group.

So Canada is unique, in that we have two nations who founded this country, it is the epitome of multiculturalism worldwide. Evidently the only way to function was to give a little independence to the lesser of the two, allow them to achieve some sort of independence. Sounds like a great country, but a third founding member has been overlooked. What is wrong with giving independence to another group? Is prosperity limited to the chosen few? Or could Canada become even better? Native people are just beginning to reach a potential that has once been denied.

Fittingly the protest started off at the First Nations University, and ended off at the Legislative Building; The reason being that our beginning is at the education level and the ending is at the political level.

And so the story goes as if done in din, it is not a lesson rather it is about a problem that is not addressed. It is becoming sacrosanct to question the plaguing injustice, the lack of moral fortitude that is often in the hands of the majority. Rather than seriously examine this daunting reality, it is hardening hearts, with no response calculable and it is a problem that is left to a new generation. To a new fire, a new breath of life, that sees the reality of today and looks to a better and brighter future.

Will Canadians ever awaken to see the injustice?

An Injustice to one is an injustice to all

2008-06-03T20:46:00.001-07:00

This is a video on youtube, it depicts the growing unrest, but it is all done through peaceful measures.

New Heights

2008-06-02T09:53:00.001-07:00

Every human being has the right to be free. Liberty is the right of every human being. No one can give you what is already yours. If people are hindering your freedom, than they are doing what is unnatural. It is not that people do not voluntarily give themselves, if anything that is the ultimate sacrifice when one does give up his freedom: In doing so they gain a new freedom.

If freedom cannot be taken, you cannot lose it to another. Just as man cannot take another mans freedom so likewise he cannot give you freedom. Freedom does not lie in man's ability. Associating oneself with another's freedom is the ultimate arrogance. If anything, it is the domination that you are incurring that needs to change. If we feel we are in a process of administrating freedom, we are in fact in a process of domination.

Native people are in that very circumstance, they are dominated and oppressed, and they have limited freedom. Only by another administrating freedom, can we gain greater independence. But yet natural law says otherwise, in that we should never be in a circumstance where we are without freedom.

Today the constant discontent is falling on hardened ground, on deaf ears. The dominators do not care to hear such a cry. Even if justice is still needed, it will not be heeded. If anything the discontent is becoming stale. The older generations and much of the middle aged are hard pressed to see things differently. Natives have been dominated since the inception of this country. Why change the status quo, today we are getting bitter and contentious verbiage, it seems that the plight of the native people is not altering opinion rather it is hardening hearts. What we need is a new wine skin, for a new way, maybe it will be the new generation who will not just blindly follow convention, maybe it will be them who move and shake mountains. Leaders have to come from the middle aged, and guide justice through the fevered youth. Canada is a great country, and great things are possible. Rather than see new possibilities we are grounded by indifference, justice must rise to meet the new heights that are possible. Can Canada be greater, truly, it will only come by those who are willing to soar.

Day of Recognition

2008-05-29T20:41:00.000-07:00

Two things, Pittsburgh Penguins won, which is a surprise considering how they got slaughtered in the first two games. The point is how an environment clearly makes a difference to anyone’s success. Pittsburgh could not do anything when they played in Detroit, but when they went back to play in their home town things miraculously changed. Environment obviously changes things, and it does not matter who you are.
Now you take Native people and self-government, their greatest success might only come in their own environment. It is not about harming Canada; it is about giving people who have had little chance at success and giving them that opportunity to succeed. It’s a no-brainer, once again.
There was a march here in Regina, a protest for recognition. The relationship between the government and First Nations people and more specifcally how the government treats its First Nations people, was under question. It is sad that native people have to establish their voice, when it should have come uncontested especially living in a grand and free country. But the turn-out for this protest was something else, it seems the wheels are turning and we are not getting any further. Public indifference will play against any progress native people make. It’s like living two lives, the two faces of Canada, one says we are a rich and progressive country, that is getting richer; but the other face of Canada, says poverty and its undesired life is still intact for native people, Macleans magazine can attest to that. Who cares about the underprivileged when progress is in place? In that case the public will always act the way they always acted and that is to overlook natives for the country's all impending progress. Justice will never reside in Canada until it changes it relationship with its native people.
In the end, Canada is only just as good as its native people.

Our God is an Awesome God

2008-05-22T09:09:00.000-07:00

Things may come and go, you might be down and even feel you are out, you might be strolling through tough times, hard things may be in your path, but there is always one thing we can do and that is praise God!

Catching up

2008-05-22T07:03:00.000-07:00

Greetings
So I did it, I will graduate, this fall. Yahoo!
I haven't written in awhile, but my passion is still there. The last post had some interesting perspectives happening. I actually submitted this article to a local paper. It seems they can not create a negative angle, or they want to make me out to be the hash person. But it is kinda hard to be nice to any racist attitude out there. Racism is serious and no amount of kind words will ever deter such a henious way and therefore make that meaningful change. Politics is just as important when it comes to native people, it is the umbilical cord, so to speak, and so therefore it is very important as to what we are attached to.
Talk about polarities, racism is a harsh reality and politics is a positive initiative. So sometimes native reality is about the good, the bad and the ugly.
I am so beside myself, after listening to that radio program about how the chiefs wanted to reinstate Ahenekew, the point to me was how the public wanted to come in so quickly to dominate native people once again. The worst part was where the chiefs were called stupid, by the host. I would have thought there was a defamation suit on its way. All that did happen was the Chiefs were put on the defensive. Moreover, there was a young guy, just recently, that meet with an unfortunate circumstance, his children died in his care, and he is now being charged. (see: http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/index.html ) Half the community believe he shouldn't be charged, they think he will bare the consequences the rest of his life. But you see, folks often care deeply for their own people: That's a no-brainer.
If anything, outside judgments are often devoid of compassion. Native people in this particular case will often go gainst public opinion, which is nothing more than outside domination with no compassion. Native people must see that they will more than often, never be held highly for their opinion, it is convention, it is how things work.

Anyways thats my criticism for today, and I guess that is all for now.

Retribution

2008-04-09T08:42:00.000-07:00

Amazingly, after all that controversy, all the negative press regarding natives, a show was on the radio about racism. It started off with the usual hub bub,the blatant scorges of racism. Cross burning was mentioned, the fountain thing, the signs that posted whites and the "other." Yeah yeah, I would have to go against the current on this one. It seems to me a lot is said about blatant racism. However given the fact that many people are pretty darn smart; I'm guessing few people are, today, openly and blatantly racist. In fact since racism is related to a deep attitude, it can be hidden quite easily. Thus racism is more often subversive. Racism is about domination, its about oppression. I'm also thinking in terms of racism that a minority cannot do as much damage as someone from the majority when it come to slurs and derogatory comments. Thus we can also conclude racism is about power. The more a person has, the more his opressive and dominating words will inflict the greater damage. Racism is about an attitude, we might alter our outward appearances, but we could still have those festering attitudes. Just because you have a few friends that are not like you, doesnt necessarily mean you are without predjudice. At least we can say interacting is a good start. Lastly we have made a conjecture that racism lies in forced segregation. Yet simply chosing to segregate, is just as bad if not worse. Any segregation opens the door to the inability to socialize with those that are not like us. If anyone is anti-social it has to be those who are segregated. Segregation is going against some of our more recent developments. Multiculturalism and intercultural relations have a better chance of creating a common good for all people. It is a larger theory, and greater than domination and homogenizing the masses. Just knowing that Canada's landscape is changing, to where the aboriginal population is the fastest growing segment in our society: And there are some 1/4 of a million biracial marriges. Need I mention that only 18 percent of our people call themselves Canadians, all the rest of Canada is broken up into ethnic groups. Canada is certainly going multicultural bigtime. We can hold to the old ways or we can change for the better. I think if a person contiues to make racial remarks or pushes the race thing they are treading on thin ice. It is time to reconsider past cultural indiscretions and move with the times.

Talk show hosts, Ahenakew, and Saskatchewan politics

2008-04-02T15:07:00.000-07:00

More things to say....
This controversy (the Ahenakew debacle) is doing more harm, and it is discouraging that people cannot see this. Like I said it is too bad if anything it is more related to one person who is offended at some past things. This talk show host obviously cannot see past his bitterness. Now native people have to reap the havoc, and they have to be disciplined. To me it is about that hegemony that is so deeply ingrained in Canadian politics. Just the response from everyone other than natives themselves is a prime example. It has been said, “take away the funding,” I even think people have gone as far as making derogatory remarks about the chiefs; this is certainly getting out of hand. At some point there has to be some respect for native people particularly how they want to deal with things. Now after positioning himself in derogatory sentiments, there is no turning back, no means of retracting such statements: The damage is done and until a public apology is given for instigating spite against our First Nations people or we will continue to roll in Saskatchewan’s argil. Lastly, I still firmly believe that good things await native people: And that they will be up and reaching new heights, and justice will surely reign.

A National Day

2008-04-02T13:46:00.000-07:00

It seems to me it is not just about having a voice as it is, being able to dictate ones direction. Clearly native people are overly burdened by specifically what mainstream thinks of them, and this has lots to do with how they moreover function. If they are treated like children; who are unable to be responsible for themselves, then how could they achieve any sucess? This whole historical thing about how they were unable to function properly, and then dictate how they operate is a far cry from "good governance." The recent issue of Ahenakew is a prime example of mainstream coming in and dictating how they should deal with things. It is certainly hard for most people in mainstream to see that the native side in particular that their latest initiative is about forgiveness. (The Ahenakew case)
If anyone is oppressed in society, it is the native people. You have to have some form of political ability to be able to make a statement that is far reaching and somewhat effective; plainly said, native peoples attitudes and opinions are very different from say the majority. I would think quite obviously that the majority's voice will do more damage in the negative sense, and as a result there is no reverse discrimination or hypocracy when it come to oppressed people having an opinion, in fact if anything it is all about hegemony in action via the majority. And quite certainly using equality to bully an opinion onto a minority is wrong. This whole circumstance is about the age old story of native bashing in mainstream, why don't people just put together a national day of native bashing and get it over with, since it is still a cultural thing. Where are the good down-to-home people who will stand up for an already oprressed people. Justice is never advanced by discrimination, be it ever so subversive. Native people have to develop some political authority or they will always succumb to an opinion that does not resinate with them. Natives have to stick together, and maybe one day, they will see justice rise up; and moreover there will be a lifting up society's down-trodden.

An old article

2008-03-30T20:46:00.000-07:00

This is a old article I dug up, it is not related to my former article. IT was written in 2005 and is still relevant today.

Native Voice

What made me question our (Native)voice was when I tried entering a native
site, redwiremag.com/
What happened was, that a message popped up and said this site had
questionable material. I read articles here before and it seemed your usual
conventional blab of how it was for natives. How could this site have
questionable material? But isn't that how the government treated
natives for years, denied them a voice; and censored them.

However, after writing all that in my last post, you may ask, is
there any just elaborations necessary. Clearly if we are concerned
for people and we love our country, I believe that it is not only
necessary, it is imperative.

Going beyond the usual partisan politics of where only one side is
presented, and being too judgemental, I think we do need some balance
with the last post.

I think it is not fair not to recognize all that is happening with
natives today. Today we have many more programs initiated by the
government. And we have a Governor General who identifies with those
in our circumstance. Therefore due respect must be given to our
government's efforts and initiatives.

But if people are to examine or consider the native plight they must
clearly note the frustration of living in circumstances mentioned
previously and most of all being unable to have a voice, which sadly
has gone on for years.

Therefore it is not good to just adhere to one view, nor is it good
to be too judgmental when it comes to how things are for native
people. Being judgemental is being absolute. Many people are offended
at native people and their struggles, they feel they should pull
themselves up. They continuely feel we are a drain, it all sounds
true but little effort is made to know natives and their true
circumstances.

One person, even went as far as saying we had a perpetual-victim
syndrom. But I believe if that person knew the real circumstances of
natives, he would never be quick to say such a thing, nor would he ever be justified.

Thus, we shall always be opposed, by some people, and no amount of
debate will convince them otherwise.

Regardless of where you position yourself, we have to consider all
sides, all views and opinions.

Our youth, must have a rounded and whole interpretation of where we
are. It is not good to get them into partisan politics, nor is it
good to have them end up thinking that Canada must be judged for how it often
deals with Native people. Clearly Canada must be big enough: At least just enough to deal with our true reality.

CMax

The Great White North

2008-03-21T22:36:00.001-07:00

Being a Native blogger is pretty tricky, you have the controversial things, like racism, good old politics, other social issues. Audiences can vary, but it is trying to get your thoughts down no matter how unrefined they are.
Historically, native people had a pretty good system of governance; their small communities were quite suited for that direct democracy if anything. So unique was it (Democracy by Natives) that it was studied by the new-comers. It is hard to even think that native people were the savages of days gone past, they certainly possessed rational logistic ways, things such as dealing with an issue was a long drawn out affair, they were so deliberative. It may have taken days and days, weeks, even months. Yet sadly some of our precious treaties were completed in a day. We are all treaty people, (that is old news to some) because this country was made on them.
Any government needs a land base and resources to develop, people need to take the helm; to be noless autonomous over their own affairs. Why our people are so controlled, in this day and age, by the Indian Act, and even why they have no resources and land base, is also so unacceptable. Yet even though this is so true, it continues on, with no remission in sight. Paternalism though a very shallow excuse to control the native circumstance has done more harm to the impoverished than any other thing. Even though we are a federal responsibility, and the government had jurisdiction over Indians and reserves, it, this system is a far cry from "good governance." How long will the truth and the responsibility of the government be dealt with more appropriately? Is it ever going to take place? It is one thing playing political games (bureaucracy) with the well off yet it is another thing playing with the lives of the most disadvantaged! We have heard of paternalism, and even know that domination is the essence of colonialism, so when are we going to move into the new era of citizenship that will lift up the lost Canadians? The rabble is being stirred, and it is not about vengeance but about seeing justice reigning supremely. That once again, the political authority of days gone past will come to roost and the last great warriors of the plains will mount up and battle the beasts. Truth will be heard, the days of ignorance are coming to an end. If all men are born free and it is their right to be autonomous then why, why I ask, are the most disadvantaged left to struggle in a time and land that is beheld in high esteem? If we are to be that esteemed country, then let us give those in need the rights they need to prosper.

Because of His love - Paul Balouche

2008-03-20T06:55:00.000-07:00

Another good day on the horizon, bless God!

God is so faithful, always there despite, how can we not be honest with him. He is so worthy of our praises, such a small thing compared to who he is. Have a good day.

Hillsong - One Way

2008-03-18T21:38:00.001-07:00

Its always good getting that focus, this is one of the best songs ever. God Bless!

Segregated communities

2008-03-18T12:17:00.000-07:00

So I went on a small trip this weekend back to my First Nation, and I did some visiting, encouraging, a little bit of politiking. Yet if that did not fill my weekend, it ended off where I actually ran into some conventional attitudes. It is funny how segregated communities are the worst for initiating bias. And of course segregating has a way of producing a pathology that is nothing more than anti-social behavior. Of course it is one thing to to live in a community that has great initiatives for intercultural relationships, but yet it is still part and parcel to our province that other communities particularily here in Saskatchewan are just backwards when it comes to other people. How is that a person can go into a community, and feel that they do not belong, especially in a public place. It seems to me it is all related to cultural learning, at that: and that even though racism is wrong it certainly has its places where it is still predominant. This is 2008 and you would think this segregating would have outgrown its pervasiveness.
Egad! I mean it is not those who are forced into segregation, that are socially problematic but it is people who feel they have to live away from anybody that is different. I sure hope people will not put their head in the sand, and will hear that their way is indeed, itself problematic. Thank goodness we have become more civilized, and can actually bring peace and understanding to places that need to know there is a world beyond our own segregated communities. I would rather see people that know how to interact with others running our country, rather than people who have a closet full of questionable cultural hang-ups. We can never change those differences but we can certainly interact despite how others act.

Speaking of Rocks

2008-03-13T19:03:00.000-07:00

It is so strange, when I first heard this group, I was thinking they were a little too rocky (as in Rock style) for me, I guess I had my reservation (that's a Native joke). Anyways, I thought I would just move on, I sure liked the music and all: Then it so happened I read this scripture, that said, "He who brings an offering of praise and thankgiving honors and glorifies me." I was thinking that this was only a thought deep within me, and here God answered me. Today, its all about praising God and focusing on him; "If I be lifted up.....
God bless, agin.

Lucky Man, just plain lucky

2008-03-13T08:30:00.001-07:00

We have to the most blessed on the earth. We have been taught to praise, and not only that but God gives us his word. Ecclesiastes says, "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better and gains gladness." There is a gain in sadness, and it is to know joy and happiness, to receive oil instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a heavy, burdened and failing spirit." Bless God and Glory to his name! It seems that those who possess a little wisdom have many burdens, but praise God he carries our burdens. May God bless you this day.

Me - as the world sees me

2008-03-12T15:39:00.000-07:00

This is actually the only picture of myself that I have ever put on the net. I hope to string together some videos, and put them up. I usually stick them on youtube or put them here. As a side note, the Traditional Knowledge Keepers video, was something I put together a while back, the sad thing is it never got finished or published properly it ran into Politics. It made it to Geneva, if there was a concession. Anyways, hope all is well.

throwing stones again

2008-03-08T15:59:00.000-08:00

It is good to see Christians doing their thing. Personally, my interests vary, and I guess to me #1 is sometimes my people and their plight. But I must say at least many of my beloved are doing good for themselves, which is a good thing, considering where they have been placed in our Canadian society. Yet their life has not been unnoticed, and justice is being meted out today. I know in terms of Christian ethics, Shane does not epitomize an upright way, but to me it is about giving a plug to a fellow Native, and for that matter I sure hope I can reach more of my people with my writing. The reason being that we might be on the same page, and that our life will not be so diminished in importance. The strongest witness is to walk in righteousness, to live a life of praise, and to submit ourselves under God’s mighty hand. I strongly think that Christians do have a place in this world, at least temporarily. Again back to my Shane video, maybe it is about praying for those whom we think needs our prayers. Of course that is pretty redundant because we all need prayers. Sorry if it is offensive to you, but I have my reasons. It’s strange but I was just reading some posts on a Christian awards video, and some people made disparaging remarks about one Christian lady singer, yet others gave her the benefit of the doubt regarding her life. So to me opinions are good but it is still your opinion. I for one will not turn my face from anyone just because they may not have a life that does not match up to my standards. For one thing my people are and have often been seen as the most dispossessed in society. To me I will never turn from the sinner. I guess this is my Christian view, at least for now, I just thought I would share that.
Take care

God of Wonders - Chris Tomlin

2008-03-08T14:02:00.000-08:00

After checking that post on one of the blogger's site, I just wanted to put this song on my blog. It's a awesome song. Enjoy

The Blood - Matt Redman

2008-03-08T13:45:00.000-08:00

This is an excellent tune, one that gets you going. God is awesome, worthy of all our praise. God Bless!

Don’t Throw Stones

2008-03-07T09:02:00.001-08:00

"Failures are the stepping stones to great things." If that is the case, our people are just about to reach a pinnacle. It is certainly a positive thing to go beyond our failures, rather than deter us we should reach the new heights that are before us. I am so proud, everytime our people do well. It is always a positive thing to know that we have crawled out of our pits: and into the limelight. Yet things like racism have a way of getting under your skin, it certainly does not pull out the best in us. But hey it's a feather in our cap when we do go beyond those things and moreover be that positive influence to those around us. Maybe we just need to be told that constantly, and hey, let's just not throw (those)stones, anymore.

Shane Yellow Bird

2008-03-07T08:37:00.000-08:00

Recent Things

2008-02-28T12:18:00.000-08:00

Greetings

So I went of on a tangent, on the last post. Some things needed to said, but it certainly is not my ususal demeanor. Though I do hold strongly to things that I firmly believe in. Regardless, so much can be said about racism and I'm sure there is no lack of high emotions that can surface. I appologize that I can rant when it comes to things like that. I must say that of all countries Canada has to be one of best places to live. Mind you, that will never negate the subversive and often residual effects of past indiscretions.

On a lighter note my son is going to be in a movie that airs this sunday (March. 2nd/2008); CBC will be carrying it, it is entitled, "Englishman's Boy." He does not think much of it , but I think its great. Anyways, native people are becoming more active in promoting themselves, and that in it self takes out some of those ill-begotten feelings that have moreover stemmed from things like racism.

Be sure to check out the preview on youtube, type in Englishman's Boy:

Regarding the video

2008-02-21T20:07:00.001-08:00

It starts off with anger, how can sane people openly disrespect other people; And moreover go public: is that stupidity or just plain arrogance in a liberal society filled with rights? People of oppression deserve better treatment. Think people, its actions like this that make racist programs justifiable. Only white privilage can postualte itself to do such things and then further turn around and defend such things, proposterous. When (the oppressed) people react with frustration, you have other people calling them racist. Native oppression will never be the same as White oppression, too bad equallity is cheapened by trying to equate the both of them. Racism is essentially oppression, there is no other way of understanding it. People can say things, but if they have the power to oppress, than their words are more damaging, that is racism 101.

Racism

2008-02-19T14:14:00.000-08:00

2008-02-06T19:06:00.001-08:00

Traditional Knowledge Keeper

2008-02-06T18:29:00.000-08:00

"R" is for Racism

2007-12-19T11:16:00.001-08:00

From what I have come to understand, racism is more often a deliberate act. Particularly, in a society that has constructed various systems that enhance and promote racism, there actually exists a consciousness that knows that such a system is advantageous for some while all the while pulling down others. It is the subversive status quo, which lingers and lives by the power of the people. Men have always constructed advantages for themselves, but it is exploiting other people that has done the most damage. To first exploit people they have to be placed in an disadvantageous position. There are two things that can justify certain (racial) things, one is to get lots of people doing what you are doing, the other is to make it a part of life, a cultural act if you will. At this point we can certainly say advantage and culture can go hand in hand. What exactly makes people prejudice of others, it seems to be distinctions, even though they are part and parcel to life, nevertheless they are often used to divide people: sadly in a capitalist society, the next thing would be to put the groups into a system of hierarchy. In other words, the group that is considered better is then placed over others: moreover, it would certainly be easier if one group is placed in the most negative/disadvantageous position: furthermore based on a constructed hierarchy it then becomes a construct to distribute various things via the lest to best. You would think in a democratic society, people would be allowed to develop and then compete equally. However after trying to implement such an democratic ideal, unfortunately you realize that there are lots of constructed things that give certain people advantages.
This brings me to oppression, there are many systems that give others advantages over others, life has no shortage of constructed systems which can oppress. However we can say, if I had a system that gave me an advantage, I would more than likely be willing to keep it in place. Many have did just that, moreover, by keeping such system in place sadly it usually comes about by whatever means possible. It becomes very contentious issue as some try to keep the constructed status quo. If I recognize that the system is oppressively based, I for one thing can exploit the oppressed within that very system. Justice is then denied. People are pretty deliberate when acting to oppress others, especially if such a system is readily available to them: the other thing is it becomes entrenched in an acceptable system. Thus it becomes almost justifiable, based on tradition, culture or whatever you may have.
There are two examples of racism being a constructed thing. I have had children grow up, and they grew up pretty normal. They interacted with various people, however later on, it becomes obvious that as soon as the kids realized that they lived in a racial society, they took on different identities.
Then there are public schools verses community schools. In a public school, that specifically caters to a segregated community, which moreover is often predominately white, the lines become pretty obvious. It seems people make a choice to be openly segregated, and they draw lines based on obvious distinctions. Whereas in a community school where there is a mixture of people, the lines of distinction are not as obvious: probably because the later school practices the ethics of multiculturalism. It is here that the obvious can be said, that race and racism are a deliberate construct. Moreover the opposite can also be said to be true where race can play a very insignificant part in a school system. If this is all true, than the onus is for us to be more responsible, because we can obviously dictate what our society shall become.
Why is racism a problem? It is often guided by hate, it is certainly an oppressive system. No person is immune to the scourges of hate, in fact recognizing oppression is also a burden in itself. We may feel we are strong people, but hate/oppression will sneak in and do damage to our psyche. I for one never felt that racism effected me, but there it was being an oppressor. I relished the time when people could identify with my oppression. Men can oppress women, though unknowingly, however like any oppression people need to be educated. Certainly it is the truth that sets you free, but how do we end up being so entangled? When we use oppression to launch our own frustration and hate.
There comes a time when it becomes so burdensome, so tiring and we must ask is there any hope for new things? As I spoke of my oppression, it was like submitting to the pain that I carried, and by telling someone who came from the oppressors it seemed to be so liberating. I thought that people’s ignorance made them so guilty, that they were part of the oppressors. Then I realized, not all people understand and this allows them to be excused. In fact, they actually wanted to learn and listen, it certainly takes special people to go beyond themselves, but that is precisely what we need. We need great individuals to rise above the majority, to face oppression in its face. If we can help any oppressed person then we are certainly good stewards of each other’s well-being. Today I realize I can not take up the same fight, and that my own heart is more important. That my feelings, must be kept in check. If we give in and fight, the oppressor gets an advantage. There are lots of oppressed people out there, but for one thing we need them to be in control of their emotions. Certainly every smoldering flame of anger, lights the fire of hate. Love is the only answer, because it is the water that cools the soul.

See Video for racism in action......

Steps in the right direction

2007-09-17T08:47:00.000-07:00

Along with this respect, we need a little self-control and forgiveness. Forgiveness, in that no matter where we come from and regardless of our background we sill have to consider forgiveness. How we have been wronged should not dictate our solutions. Being resentful and angry hinders our redress. I really think our plight is sinking in, and the onus is on action and self-control: The latter being the Native position/perspective. Action has to take place, forgive me for being persistant, but indifferance up till now has been conventional. Today it is about people not wanting to touch the"Indian problem" for fear of losing votes. Moreover, when it comes to concerns it will always be about what-concerns-me, in that case problems outside of your own immediacy will persist. What happened to posterity? Shall we wait till demographics change or will good men and women rise despite the tide? If indifference continues in how we deal with our First Nations, then maybe the answer lies in allowing them some independance. Let's move beyond our own gratification, or utilitarianism, let us have some lasting "happiness," happiness beyond ourselves.

Just a few things to ponder.

Respect

2007-09-16T21:45:00.000-07:00

Giving due

Following all the hub bub, there seems to be so much justified complaining. But complaining is just that complaining, clearly an end in itself. No matter how vindicated we may feel as Native people, yet it is still up to us to show some respect, and moreover, uplift authority. Our government is in that position, and regardless of what we think and feel, they deserve our utmost respect. I know as native people we can forget the very thing that is so important, especially because of our hurts, pains and frustrations.
Our world, country for that matter, needs order and it will never come if we overlook authority. Rendering the respect, uplifts all of us. My personal appologies, for I certainly do not want to be just a complainer.
So before I put the cart ahead of the horse, I think we still have to be respectful. Ego is something you can control, but you do not want to encourage stupidity, and that would be to approach our governemt without the proper respect.
Sure we have a complaint, but we should also know we need to create a respectful environment. Our country needs nothing but the best ways, especially dealing with our candid issues.
Respect is certainly due any authority. And there is no reason we can not do what is so naturally required of us.

( just a little balancing, and introspection)

Regards

The United Nation's issue regarding Indigenous People

2007-09-15T09:32:00.000-07:00

Part 1
Oh! Canada: roadblocks to glory

The Canadian song goes on to say, "our home and Native land." Native land, has always been an issue, toNatives/First Nations and the government. Land is vital for any Nation, it stands for a homeland,it gives people that firm foundation if you will. All nations that build tend to need land and its resources.Canada's First Nations are in the process of nation-building. A group of people (First Nations people)who were originally debased, lacking any foundation whatsoever, and now on the threshold of new beginnings,who is setting up the roadblocks now?
Autonomy is the road of all Nations, it is what makes people strong. Native people would do more for themselves if they took the proverbial reins. In that case who then has the reins?
When a person grows up, it is their parents that hold the essential moral agency position: but the time comes when the children have to be more independant. The good parent will see that their child's independance works in their favor and becomes their strength. It is not about losing power, but gaining allies: And becoming that "community of communities," that we so despartely need.
Let all fears be allayed, that First Nations want to tear down Canada. For one thing this is our Canada just as much as anybody else. The Quebec Cree made it clear that they will not leave Canada. On has to ask, How do you leave your home?

Now having said all that, Canada's position with its First Nations is anachronistic, it was certainly for another time. So, today in all maturity it is time to let those reins go, and to encourage a little independance, it is time to stop such dominance/colonialism, and see that First Nations strength will be Canada's strength.

The reason for this blurb is that I feel disappointed that the presiding government has taken such an unwarranted position against its First Nations. Nations need land, resources, if they are refused then who is creating such an unnatural and dependant relationship. Normally, such a circumstance would be quickly frowned on.
But unfortunately there is a degree of control and powermongering when it comes to our First Nations, and moreover anyone who does not concur is missing an integral part of understanding First Nations people. That has to change, standing against the worlds position, does not take us on the progressive road. Is it about keeping that dominance, or is it about putting lop-sided economics over the well-being of our fellow countrymen? I Hope Not! I recall, a historical incident, that went like this, refferring to the treaty and how the Queen was going to look after her red children; one person said, that she must be pretty rich. My paraphrase, would go like this, he was shocked that the Queen would put herself in a position to look after all the native people and their coming generations: Either that was one exemplary foot-in-the-mouth situation or there was no real honest effort, thus the good faith was certainly not operaable.

Native people did not say, I want to be in a helpless and dependant position, if a person is helpless they will certainly need lots of help. The ground-up kind of help, and the longer we put that off, the deeper will become the pit of needs. I think it is time to start, by putting a stop to blind ignorance, when it comes to our First Nations. That whole thing about pointing the finger without the facts, only perpetuates a problem. The UN declaration took more than 20 yrs to develop, in that case there was plenty of time to debate and question.
Why should one people, look on while others enjoy liberation? Why can't they have the mechanisms and tools to become a strong nation?
I have to understand, why, of all things, positive efforts for Indigenous people can be deffered?
But before I take a psychoanalysis approach, I would like to believe that our government is holding out for a better alternative. That maybe all good things take time.
I held back when it came to the Kelowa Accord, thinking their was more to it than just opposing First Nations. Its pretty perplexing, to see the helping-hand pulled back with no explanation, and now today world efforts to encourage progress have now been opposed. How long does a person have to scratch their head before they say something. Native people have always been dealt with, via the high-handed approach. Moreover, you certainly do not want to perpetually think in the same vein, and thus there is room for something, anything.
Obviously, this is now creates a circumstance for debate and communication. It certainly can not be a time to tuck away our First Nations from the rest of society.
It is a problem that will not go away, and until all the chips are on the table, only then will we have a circumstance that will create an honest effort. The quick fix days should not suffice, give this issue to those who are willing to make an honest and lasting effort.
Man has tackled some difficult circumstancesand there is no reason we do not have the same capabilities, today.

May great men rise and lead our country to better days.

Part 2

Yahoo!

Reading that the declaration in the UN was passed, begins a new era. There is more than one way to forward justice. Being a Christian, lets you know and hope that there is a way out of oppression, and sujugation. That there is a greater thing than just man-made circumstances. That even the greatest and strongest will bow down to the will of God. God is for justice: He is for lifting up those who are cast down. That is pretty awesome, can we all say a big AMEN!

Native people will not tear down society, it will be injustice. Plainly put, the more you have, the more is expexted of you. Bring that into conventional wisdom.

Here is a small com[pliation of those injustices: Canada is a supposed Democracy, democracy says that we have the right to complain about our government, and that we can chose another. Moreso, I would think if that government's initiatives border on control. (eg the Indian Act) Native people did not construct the Indian Act, and certainly any "people(s)" have to have a part in the chosing and making of their government, it is the democratic way.

Prairie life: Canada has alway been about getting help from the government. This country was put together, by government initiatives, medi-care, CPR ect, ect. Government policy has been about helping the have-nots, example-equalization. Prairie people should know how it is to scrap up from the bottom. That is what makes them unique. 1930 was when they (The Prairie Provinces) finally had access to their own resources. Hey! no resources, could that put you on the path of growing poverty. Tranfer funds who may I ask does not get that needed help?
I am starting to think that being in such a circumstance people would develope a little problem with their pschy. Lacking a little ego - or maybe we think we got everything by the sweat of our brow, never mind by the backs of anybody. The problem is, as I see it, how can any Prairie person turn arround and do things that might suggest otherwise. Like putting down people in simular circumstances, like being so intolerant will that not go against your deep character? "Sadness is the great partner of happiness:" Seeing all that the prairie people have had to go through, and that part of their rising happiness is a direct link to those troubles.
Native people need help. like any needy person, or does help only go to those who are like us? Who then creates those divisions and distinctions. When in fact, are not all people created equal? Can you see the injustice, now?

I want to go on, and go into another area, that will wait for another time.

Part 3

UN ARTICLE

Firstly, regarding this article, how does such an important issue find itself on the last page. Yet weeks ago there wasa article on the klan on the front page. I hope this does not reflect a bias and indifferent attitude which seems tobe conventional wisdom when it comes to our First Nations.
(Story found at: http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/national/story.html?id=23df9769-3423-4f43-b828-a755725c2719&k=23677

Saying the UN is about only the Indigenous, is to sadly assume that the collectivity of humanity is not considered. When in fact the well-being of our indigenous people means the well-being of all. The Un is about development and as far as I can see the indigenous people are the only ones yet to develop in many needed areas. It is not about injustice in terms of equality, as the liberal ideology would have us beleive, but about taking steps in ratifying past indiscretions. If we really and firmly believed in equality, we would consider all times and circumstances: because moreover those past acts of inequality still effect things today. So how we can just jump on the "Equality" liberal-bandwagon without considering past affecting circumstances, is beyond me. No wonder why we are so divided.
It is our responsibility to become informed on how we arrived at where we are today.

Lastly, it seems ironic that Strahl would use the all encompassing "you need to consider the people who also lived on those lands" It seems to me native people have always had that position, the reason being, they have always been excluded.I am thinking that if we are to get anything out of this issue, we should realise it is certainly not good being excluded.

In totality, Steven Edwards Sept. 14th article on the United Nations is a good one.

Sharing the light

2007-09-08T19:06:00.000-07:00

Greetings

It has been almost one year, (Since I wrote a blog) I am back in school, struggling to finish what is turning out to be my last classes. As a returning mature student, indigeous at that, it has proven to be something that I have managed, even though I originally thought I could not do it. My marks in high school were not remarkable, so University seemed to be a step up. I have gained so much, by way of knowledge and being encouraged that my thoughts are pretty well in sync with coventional Indian wisdom. Hopefully I have zig zaged my way through life enough to give others a chance to avoid the pitfalls. Maybe they can now jump to the end of the tunnel, and present the picture of light for so many. But part of being in the dark is to get alittle light happening. Hopefully that light is our gained knowledge. Native people have certainly come a long way, and may we continue to gain and share and develope in the most positive way.

Ekosi

National Issue

2006-12-05T11:34:00.000-08:00

There was just recently a event that took place, regarding the stepping down of an MP from his party. The name of the MP is Michael Chong, he refused to accept the nation motion, citing a principle of unity. He went as far as saying, that he opposed ethnic nationalism. Whatever that means?

So I write this letter giving my opinion, it was to the National Post. It never made it into the paper even though I saw little opposing views to Michael’s position. There was a mention of it being nothing more than a symbolic move, with that I concur. But I felt he was espousing a deeper position.

This is the e-mail I sent:

The recent happening in parliament raises some important issues. Specifically where Mr. Michael Chong steps down. It seems rather ironic that here is a man who has obvious ethnic roots and yet he is dogmatically opposed to ethnic nationalism. To me it all seems to be related to dialectics-a argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas, but yet he does not attempt a resolution, therefore he is really being argumentative. This is evident in that he is extreme in his position. He is actually wanting to uphold one culture over another: That I suppose is the Canadian culture. Given that Canada has a history of presiding over other ethnic groups, you would think the folly of such antics would be recognized immediately. However it is cited as being a principle, when in fact Canada is known for its multiculturalism. One does not have to be hard-line nationalist to uphold their ethnicity. In fact the issue here is one of respect and being democratic. The strongest Nations that have nations within, are nations that grant distinction and espouse unity. Two principles that go hand in hand and ultimately create a strong environment.

Canada is in a unique position, in that they have three founding people, First Nations, French and British. Ethnic nationalism is to in fact exalt one people over other people. So if Canada is about exalting on cultural way over others, without first giving due process of respect, than the very thing that is wanting to be avoided is in fact being put in place. Unity can not come until respect comes.

However on the other hand, in terms of respect; if I give respect, am I not working on the larger picture? Indeed a united Canada should be our goal, but that will never come until we exercise some respect. Therefore such a initiative of recognition should be applauded, not opposed. Harper is right in doing what he did.

My e-mail has been modified to be made more clear, but for the most part it is what I initially wrote. Historically, putting a culture and way of life over others has been for the most part something that occurred in many parts of the world. But it is something that is not readily accepted today, in fact it goes without saying such tactics are reminiscent of past dictation’s of control and exclusion. The old premise of nation building being a sort of justification is an old, archaic discourse that outlived its purpose. It is time for other nations to rise and bring strength to our country. It is not relinquishing or losing power but gaining extra hands to do the job. Many of the problems lie with minorities, and if the future is going to see a rise in their populations, they may just need to be included. Any plan that is different, will add and give rise to problems that can be for the most part avoided.

Punishing the Poor

2006-11-20T09:49:00.000-08:00

Just days ago, there was this question that was proposed to the general public. The question asked was, should parents be responsible for their children’s actions? With all the juvenile crime happening, someone has to pay, so the argument goes. It would seem to be a cut and dry argument, but for a few overlooked facts, things could indeed be different when considered at some length.
Firstly, it seems most of the delinquents are often of aboriginal descent or more broadly, minorities: And they are often poor. When the jails hold, particularly, large numbers of aboriginals, it would seem such tactics could swell the ranks further. The forgone conclusion to me seems to be that the jail that houses young aboriginals, will now hold their parents or guardians with them.

Elementary, poverty breeds social ills. I would think the first order of business would be to rescue some of these people from their dire existence. The rich get richer, and the have-nots get hungrier. Material things do create a circumstance where differences in what one possesses becomes a proving ground or a system that blindly classifies people. Beyond that, people are generally the same. Say what? Yes, the person who has no car, is the same as the person who has many cars. But even though that is a truant, people would rather live with an imagination. So in that lala land of differences based on what one owns, we have inadvertently created boundaries between people, and moreover the ways in which we deal with them can even become accepted laws.
Consider the Jim Crow laws in the south, Apartheid, Reserves, or certain legislated acts of exclusion.
They certainly never worked and never will: and moreover to make two laws is clearly unjust. I would be strongly against any law that punishes poor people, or anything that distinguishes one segment of society to be dealt with differently.

It is wrong to punish the poor, because of their circumstance. Unless you have made some serious efforts to help them, and those corrections are then applied, I would think further punishment should be held off.
What happens if such a thing went through? Clearly more bureaucratic red tape will be left to placard the rabble; then these other issues in place will likely avert any honest efforts that might actually bring change.

Maybe what we really need is more compassion for our fellow man. In the great quest to amass should we not think twice about how we deal with one another? Especially if we reside in the same neighborhoods. Social progress will never come where there is a two tier system: Where more bureaucratic rope is put in place as justice. Real and lasting change must get to the roots rather than treat the symptoms.

There is a fork in the road and until we go back and deal with things at that particular junction, we wouldn’t be coming up with things that will further divide our society. Grant it, it may take some forethought and it may even need some input from those involved. But we may be rewarded with a thorough and just plan.

Historical terms

2006-11-18T07:11:00.000-08:00

On the front page of the Regina Leader-Post it reads, "Then on Monday afternoon, a standoff on the Muskowekwan First Nation near Punnichy ended with the death of a 44 year old male during an exchange of gunfire with RCMP. RCMP received a 911 call from a women around 6:30 am Monday about a man with a rifle. When RCMP arrived on the scene, an aboriginal man had barricaded himself into a house on the First Nation." Nov.14/06

Now I may be grabbing for straws, to some, but there is some underlying ignorance, being espoused in this article. Firstly, if it was a Caucasian, would it have read, "a white man barricaded himself in the house.." Highly not, but it seems ok to designate anyone outside the white race by their ethnicity. It seems to be the norm and nothing seems to be wrong with such insensitive and ignorant rhetoric. Ignorant in that it promotes ignorance. As long as people can first be designated by race, there will always be room for ignorance: and nothing clearly points this out, but doing such a thing so blatantly, for it moreover tacitly conveys that the writers and readers readily accept such ignorance.

We can look more deeply into this argument about words, since many balk at such a junction. Academically speaking, it seems such epistemology, having a different view, is unconventional. And that this is all about making mountains out of mole hills. Certainly these are alien experiences outside the accepted cultural milieus. My insistence that such a term is offensive to some, goes beyond just offence. I see such things as making divisions once a person can be designated outside with some other group. Not only does it breed schisms but it highlight differences. Clearly one side is oppressed and the other is not, thus all opinions are essential.
But that is rudimentary stuff, that there is indeed knowledge beyond some realities, now if anything we have to go beyond all that. I certainly do not have to alot for other's ignorance or justify my opinion. But until we do move in a direction beyond this mush, I am afraid more things will continue to hinder us from coming together. It is funny that I have to argue over a given, That peole have opinions and perspectives, so you really wonder is it is all about domination and control.

Take for instance, I have been reading this book entitled, "Who Killed Canadian History?", written by J.L. Granatstein, apparently a national bestseller. In the book he speaks against immigration, where the education system has to cater to other ethnic groups. Particularly where they have to learn, about the country in another language. It would seem the question would be, why bother? It seems it is quite a task, to teach other nationalities. And they have little interest, and thus teachers scramble to make it interesting. Now supposing those other nationalities are from here, like say the First Nations? Shall they be left out because their mother tongue is not English?

It seems the biggest problems in this country resides particularly with minorities or those outside of the mainstream culture. It would therefore also seem, that if any social advances are to take place it would hinge on these particular groups. How does the answer lie in being indifferent and segregating a population in dire need? Pulling away because they are different, you can understand such ignorance to occur in days gone past, but certainly not today.

Therefore the onus or answer lies with the fact that these groups that are oppressed for various reasons, most certainly must be dealt with justly, and fore-mostly. It is a matter of Canada’s overall well-being, that the people with the most social ills/problems should be the people who are the ones to be first considered, if we are in fact to progress as a country.

Such terms, that create unseen divisions, are doing more against social progress, rather than crossing the ignorant divide. A simple term like, "the man barricaded himself into a house.." would seem more appropriate.
For those who know how words can play against you, also know these straws are what breaks the camels back.

Canadian history, includes First Nations, and if they gave up so much for all that exists here today, it would seem that it is a small price to pay for waiting for them to catch up and to be included in all aspects of Canadian society. Nationalism will never be strong until all her sons, are taught the same things. Canada is diverse and until the whole truth of all the native groups (First Nations, French, English) and how they were a part of construction of this country is readily known to all, then we just hope to become a unified and strong country. It is not so much where we came from, but where we are going that matters the most.

Is it just a term or is it just about history? It is about inclusion, its about being included in the big picture.

Smoke and Mirrors

2006-10-16T15:02:00.000-07:00

Greetings

Before I post my opinions, I would like to welcome you.

I was intrigued by a news item, that appeared on the tube. It was about Natives, so it caught my attention. It was about a sign that had a red bull sitting at a table smoking a cigarette. The "beef" was, apparently all in the fact that according to the opponents of the sign, it violated a federal law: Some tobacco law for big companies, that says no advertising is allowed, I think it was called the "curtain law." They went on and ranted about it being a two tier thingie. Excuse me, but are not natives, the people who live on segregated land and who are run by a system that resembles African apartheid? Really I surmise once again, that the all emcompassing ignorance has reared its ugly head. Thee old demagoguery of fighting people who are themselves strapped, is ludricrous. It is pretty sad that the poorest of the land have to resort to questionable methods to become self sufficient. Then in their quest for parity, all is taken from them. Justice for a "just society" would probably not entail these circumstances.

Smoking has always been an issue that speaks volumes. There was the Saskatchewan issue, where on my reserve (White Bear First Nation) smoking was allowed, despite it becoming effectual law, it by-passed provincial laws and became an issue of jurisdiction.
see story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/01/22/sask-casinos050122.html
Yes, in a sense there are different laws, but isn't that how its always been?

Sadly the police have become involved, in this slant. Our bands, have the power to make by-laws. Just recently, our Chief was having problems with a member of the community. It was pretty serious, and he went to the RCMP. They retorted, that it was out of their jurisdiction. Now our community, is in shambles because the police refuse to "serve and protect." Equal before and under the law, I assume means everyone. Unless your not within jurisdiction, there is something amiss where corruption is allowed in our Great White North.

If anything, Jurisdiction is becoming the mirror of our discontent.

more to come....