Being an Advocate

*Note-This initiative is still under construction

Native Governance – opening statements

I have been advocating a democratic approach to our native governance for some time. I have also mentioned that we are directly related to those principles via our traditions. In other words we were an intricate and vital part when it came to developing those governing principles of Democracy. The mores of representation, participation, and deliberation were so foundational in our communities; yet we continue to float by and do with what we have. The bureaucratic system (administrative system) of the Indian Act has all but replaced things like representation, participation and deliberation.

After I introduced the tenets of democracy to my community, and showed that we were heirs to such practices of “good governance,” the principles managed to make their way into our community. So much so that the term democracy was a term predominantly used in the next election. But that was a sad reality, because they ended up being just political words; people talked the talk but did not walk the walk.

My cousin (Allan Maxie) later became Chief; and he took things further, Democracy became a reality; he actually got more participation happening from the people, to where they actually deliberated issues. He had band meetings where the people participated. It was a great time for our community. Never was there so much accountability present as when the people got involved. There was a power change from the leaders to the people. It was like day and night. But rather than develop these principles and rather create a committee that would oversee and implement these fundamental principles (of good governance); its growth was stunted, and before you know it other issues took precedence. There was a personal fight with the Chief and a councilor, and that took the focus away from developing the principles further. In fact, the developments that occurred quickly vanished and the old school system of the Indian Act, being the dominant way to operate, quickly settled back in.

It was about politics verses real leadership-real leadership being a longer and arduous process, rather than just competing to do what one wants, it (real leadership) was about deliberating matters. The leadership settled back to leading and they bypassed the process of deliberation. Sadly, it’s hard to bring or introduce change, especially when the way our communities act has been happening for awhile!

Now concerning government there is not one mode of operation, but an incorporation of different aspects; in other words the bureaucracy is just as needed as well as the social and political developments for moreover any sound government. But the thing is that those aspects have to be two different operations not a mesh of both, like what we have in our Indian Act system of governance. It is political science 101 that there has to be a separation of powers. That is, fundamentally speaking, where we fail as native communities: Politics and administration clearly need to be separated.

We need the people involved, and we need our politicians away from the administration (though limited in certain situations). “No hands in the cookie jar!”

We need clear lines of division in terms of operation. We also need a legal system, with every system in place, from a legislature, to police (to moreover enforce our laws). We even need all aspects of the judicial system, judges, lawyers, prosecutors. And this brings me to the question, do we need one (a judicial and legal) for each of our communities or do we need some centralized system in place?

So in other words we will have to give up on our coveted uniqueness (how individual first nation’s communities are) for a common goal and that is to implement a system that can be utilized by all. Even though this is taxing on our communities it is the only way to go, it is certainly the path to independence. Having said that, let us look at some aspects of governance.



Part 1 Self government

Let us now go back and into the deeper issue of self-government. Self-government for First Nations people took on a greater and more in depth meaning during the 1990’s as we can see in this quote; “The Charlottetown Accord contained a desperately needed new deal for Canada’s Aboriginal people, one that would have explicitly recognized their inherent right to govern their own affairs and that would have been provided a constitutional and policy framework for proceeding with the implementation of self-government…The failure of the Charlottetown Accord, and the subsequent failure to reach any comparable consensus, has meant that the pursuit of self-government has remained a distant dream for many Aboriginal peoples.” (“Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada,” John Hylton (1999)) The fact that our destiny is hinged on others, says a lot about how our aspirations of independence are in the courts of compromise. But rather than see this as a setback, we have to if anything, see that we need to approach things differently.

The idea that native people have been forced to assimilate has been, as it has been for many, an issue where violence and destruction has occurred. (See: “Indigenous Resistance,” by Noam Chomsky) This assimilation process is essentially known as colonization.

Since we have so many different people, we will also have to deal with independence. Independence means: not subject to control by others (you are basically your own boss). Independence however should be a limited problem; and by that I mean, being independent means we can achieve our best, but unfortunately for the most part independence can and does however conflict with other aspirations. And that can be a problem.

It is forced assimilation where conflicts occur. Most people will resist any type of force especially if it goes against our nature of being independent. But there is the idea that when building a nation you need some type of similarity in the people (if you get the people to be the same the idea is that it will be easier to control them): This is fundamental in understanding how Canada was formed.

There are then two needs when we think of Canada: The need to have people working for that same cause, and the fact that we have many native people who need to have some independence for their general well-being. It can be argued that, how can we have independence where the interests of Canada should be precedent. And so the idea that First Nations are seeking self-government, it moreover becomes an issue of resistance as seen from the general public. Rather than see and understand that being independent is paramount to the well-being of people and that control and domination creates the complete opposite. It is important to note that domination actually keeps people incapable and inept.

Regardless that self-government is a fundamental right for any people; native people on the other hand have lived under the confines of the Canadian government (and its people), for some time now. Where the government has been allotted the responsibility to seek out the best for native people (see Constitution), yet they have failed to do so and this has become an obvious paradox (in Canada).

Make a big note: Independence does not mean that we (First Nations people) will abandon the well-being of our country, but it does mean that we will take control of our own issues and rightly so. There is no discrepancy in terms of the need to be independent because that is a fundamental right, other than this issue of self-government being one of a fiscal issue, and that seems to be the real issue. But let us also note that many have pointed out that we (First Nations people) will be a greater financial burden if we are continually refused independence. “The Royal Commission (1996A), for example has estimated that 1996 costs related to aboriginal in Canada were in order of $7.5 Billion. These costs relate not only to the budgets for providing services, but even more significantly, to losses of productivity associated with maintaining Aboriginal people as a marginalized group within Canada. Moreover, these costs have been escalating and they will continue to do so.” (Hlyton, p.2)

Being independent, means that we should be financing our own efforts: However, given the fact that our developments are impeded, via the Indian Act, in one way or another. Take for example, that Native people have difficulty if they want to apply for a loan. This has been a problem that most bands are familiar with. Recently, the Harper government has decided to help First Nations people: “Revenues from leases, fees, oil and gas royalties, and businesses owned by a First Nation, transfers from provincial or municipal governments and, in some cases, even federal transfers could be used to secure financing.” The idea being, that “bonds” will be made available to First Nations communities so they can achieve independence and take responsibility for their own initiatives. Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/First+Nations+could+access+millions+investment+dollars/3958681/story.html#ixzz18KTC4eJX

I also think the general public, is taking into consideration that self-government is a costly venture. Since Canadians feel that Native people are sustained by taxpayers, they therefore would rather refuse any type of effort at independence. Let us therefore examine the treaties, they were meant to benefit our (native) people as well. Given that we exchanged certain things for the land, that exchange process will always be here as long as the land is still here. The treaties point to an even more important thing and that is that we are co-heirs with moreover all that this land affords (and that means resources).

Self government is a costly venture, but there is no price that we can put on our independence. If we are to get the best out of our people we will need to proceed towards self-government.

And so a fundamental thing for self-government is to take the financial reins (and that could be in any capacity). Take for instance India when it was breaking away from the domination of the British, they financed their own institutes.

There are so many ways to achieve the number one need in an initiative like self-government: (these might be pretty obvious to some but it’s something I feel I need to reiterate at this time) First, we can see what we can get from the Feds in terms of monies for self-government. The bonds will be another step, for a greater flow of finances. We can look to our people, and see if they would not be interested in financing an effort like this, we can pass a BCR to distribute money for an initiative like this. Lastly, the other thing is that we are and always will be joint heirs to Canada’s resources, which is something we have to continually stress until it becomes an accepted fact/reality.

Part 2 Examining self-government

In so many senses we are the same, having the same needs as other Canadians. And this should not be shocking, that after achieving independence we will still strive for a common goal, the Canadian goal. First Nations should be taking pride in their country; never should they be in a position where they are on the outside: Because, this is so, it has resulted in a broken country. Native people cannot fall far from the tree; native people need to align themselves with everything that is in this country. There is no other way than to be independent, because independence means freedom and the ability to develop (progress if you will).

Please forgive me for being simple, but for a relationship to work, in its greatest capacity, there has to be a degree of independence for those involved. Independence does not mean going your own way; it does however mean that you are able to work with your greatest potential albeit in essence staying connected.

And there are two examples to this and that is a marriage and the two row wapum. (* a small caveat- The 1613 treaty was recorded by the Haudenosaunee in a wampum belt known as the Two Row Wampum. The pattern of the belt consists of two rows of purple wampum beads against a background of white beads. The purple beads signify the courses of two vessels -- a Haudenosaunee canoe and a European ship -- traveling down the river of life together, parallel but never touching.”) Of which the first has more precedence, for what we need to understand at this moment. Having said that it should also be noted, that not only is it important to be independent, but that we need to concede as part of a relationship and do what is required of us to get our best results.

Native people are certainly westernized in so many ways, so to even think we should abandon everything, and create everything from scratch, seems to be a tad out of sync with reality. But there is a way to change things in such a way as to have our own leanings or methodology in the system.

The problem is that since we have been so dominated, that our only recourse seems to be to seek a complete independent way. But like any issue there is a much needed balance when we consider any initiative. Thus to break away from something that is so ingrained, clearly you need a definite act at some point to put things in their right order.

This all seems to be contradictory, but there is a fine line as to what is true. To say we have to adapt is not working against our independence. Like marriage we have to concede, we have no other choice but to build a consensus, we moreover have to give and take for the best results.

Self-government is going to have to include institutions that will enable us to work with others, outside our communities. As John Hylton points out in his book, “There is a better way. It involves the development of parallel social, economic, cultural, and political institutions run by and for the benefit of aboriginal people, in other words, self-government.” (p.2)

Native people will have to take on the responsibility of their own institutes. If your spouse expects you home at a certain time, though unwillingly we feel that it is more our right to do as we please, we will however have made a compromise against our relationship. In other words we will have to make personal sacrifices to give our relationship what it needs to be wholesome. A complete and absolute position of independence in a relationship is clearly not possible.

And so self-government is about having independent institutes (to an extent), and that would mean that we will also need the human resources.

So far we are looking at the finances and human resources that are moreover imperative in an initiative like self-government.

Part 3 The Heart of the Matter

“We know them to be a very jealous people, and to have the highest notions of Liberty of any people on Earth and a people who will never consider consequences when they think their liberty likely to be invaded, tho’ it may end in their ruin.” George Croghan to the Lords of Trade, 8 June 1764

If anything, it was the idea of freedom that permeated the original habitants of this land. It was something that was new to the Europeans. On the other hand Native people understood what freedom meant. But with any good thing there still has to be a balance.

And so being confined and controlled was the worst thing to happen. It went against our nature. When we look at the prairies, and how our people lived there was a lifestyle where freedom ruled.

“No man can control another man,” at least so goes the saying. The concept of freedom would play an important part in the development of European governance. Up till now Europeans had to contend with control factors. So when they seen that people could be free, it made them reevaluate their own circumstance: If anything the axiom was, to be free was a natural characteristic in all people.

But being confined has a way of growing on to you. There is a concept where people who spent lots of time being institutionalized, where they eventually become dependent; dormant if you will. Being dependant moreover becomes a part of our reality. People are creatures of habit: However just because we accept it, does not make it right. The concept of freedom had its conundrums for Europeans. Jean Jacques Rousseau was one of the first to pose the concept, “man is free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Freedom was what was missing for the Europeans.

Freedom, our natural right, and it would spark a revolution; the old system or Monarchs ruling over the people was being questioned. And so those hundreds of years of control would be something they (Europeans) could not accept but unfortunately they eventually would captivate people that were accustomed to freedom. The acts of control and domination were justified as being a part of the process of colonizing other people. Quebec is an example of bringing a people under the colonial regime. Canada has a rich history of colonization, even if our Prime Minister denied it.

And then there was Trudeau, whose impetus at one time was to repatriate our constitution. He wanted to give Canada the complete reins to their own destiny. And so with any country you are not a nation until you control your own destiny.

Let’s take the last part of my opening quote, “a people who will never consider consequences when they think their liberty likely to be invaded, tho’ it may end in their ruin.” What is being said here or what is he alluding to? As I said too much of one thing needs to be balanced or it gets out of whack. Freedom can easily lead to anarchy and rebellion. Natives were not just free but they respected each other. In other words it was other people that kept our freedom in check. There has to be a limit; respect and the concept of a relationship and keeping it important, is moreover what helps freedom from running roughshod.

But just like freedom which needs to be controlled, so over control (such as domination) is not acceptable. Confining and dominating is wrong. But after developing with these fundamental truths Europeans see nothing with living one way and forcing another way on people not like themselves. However if there is one thing they missed it is the fact that these people whom they dominated were quite familiar with personal liberty.

But real truths have an aspect of universality with them that moreover transcends the differences in people. Clearly there is no excuse as to why Native people are not governing with the same fundamentals of “good government” in this country. The conundrum for native people is that they need to develop the capacity to reach their greatest potential, but that will not happen until independence is part of their lives.

Is it a problem being independent, or is it a matter of trust? There is no other way to answer our problem in Canada, with regards to native people, but to give them independence and know that they will strive for what is best in this magnificent country and that clearly seems to be the answer.

Part 4 Putting It All Into Context

Self government is in some respects a new concept for First Nations people. Therefore part of the process is to establish a foundation of knowledge as it pertains to us. This includes elements of complex to simple aspects, and because of that we will need a host of policy makers. I have left out the administrative side, seeing that we have been operating in this manner for awhile. We certainly need the social and political aspects to be part of our governance. Again developing, something that has few references will be for the most part theoretical in some respects. Technical jargon will be something we will not be able to avoid, but we will still need to lay foundations that are fundamental. In other words being technical too soon is not advancing our cause.

After studying political systems and thoughts, I can assuredly say that political philosophy has to lead the way. What are our problems…and how will we deal with each issue? Questions like this are where we can begin. This quote might shed some light on what I am saying: “To do philosophy is to try to make sense of aspects of human experience by identifying puzzlements, formulating them in ways that make their resolution tractable, and then, but only then, arriving at positions that address the question that philosophizing leads us to ask.” (Levine, p.3) So really what I have done was lay out how I seen things and I tried to bring in the aspects I felt that we needed to access our situation. Now after doing that, we will be on our way. Also there are still other issues that I did not include, but the idea at this point is to start someplace.

More on political philosophy, “But there is philosophizing to be done when the conceptual resources available to us seem inadequate, when we are unclear about what would count as an answer to questions we are not sure how to formulate. In these circumstances, new information will not help. What is required instead is more fundamental- a rethinking of our conceptual moorings, a reconceptualization of our concerns.” (Levine, ibid) We have to formulate new ideas from thinking about how things are. In terms of the native position, it becomes clear that we have no resources that will lead us, given that self-government is a new area. So the answer is to go back and make some reassessments.

This is the technical aspect of self-government. In terms of technical aspects we have administrators telling us that self-government is bureaucracy and only bureaucracy, which is not true. Bureaucracy is the clamp that has held our people down, it has done what the government wanted and that was to control and dictate our lives. So when all we hear for self-government is the bureaucratic aspect that is no better than doing what has always been done to native people and that is to control and dictate their lives. So clearly there has to be alternative ways.

Of course in the mad drive for control, a response is to act as if we are so set against administration, and nothing can be further from the truth. Bureaucracy is one aspect of governance, and it is important in today’s society quite simply because things operate in this manner. It is not wrong to develop the social and political aspect of our government. The political aspect means political strength; it is something the government never wanted us to have. This was proven by the fact that natives could not congregate or they could not take the government to court all courtesy of the Indian Act. The social aspect is of all things to get people involved in the politics of their community.

Two things I don’t like, and that is to see native communities lean more towards a bureaucratic system and forget about developing socially and politically. The other thing is to see bureaucrats, piously, feel that they know the way and what is good for the people. This breath of arrogance is where the biggest check and balance needs to be applied.

It is this position even attitude of wanton disregard of the people that is dashing the hopes of the people. Being a technocrat is making your position that of a job, it is not about being a leader. (And it should be pointed out…when you are in a job you have no ownership rights, and you are also subject to greater disciplinary rules due from those who have control of the system and unfortunately that discipline is not advocated in our communities.) Is it wrong to make it a job, of course not; but it is about who controls this employment circumstance. The community would certainly be better off to control this circumstance. Presently we have no repercussions for people who go all out for their administrative duties. Therefore one of the developments of self-government is to curb the blatant actions of technocrats. There has to be more swift mechanisms-modes of operation with which to deal with administrative indiscretions. There has to be a clear connection, and the administration needs to come under the community/the people.

People have been leaning towards the administrative side (where people have been seeking degrees in this area); they know how our system operates. But if things develop properly and the community takes more control, this position/area will slide down and not hold the power that it presently possesses. Self government is pretty complicated, but not impossible. It will take a more in depth look at all aspects of our government.

I hope this gets us thinking and gets us more serious about governing ourselves in ways that are best and ways that must be part of our governments.

For now Clayton


Part 5
“The first condition for changing reality is to understand it.” Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America

So what is our traditional way? Our leaders interacted with their people; where they moreover went to them when decisions were to be made. What about the present system, the way of Indian Affairs, or the Indian Act for that matter? Decisions are made by going to the government. They (our leaders) have to pass a BCR (band council resolution) this is for the most part passed by the Chief and council, who then go to the federal government to get a decision regarding their request. As you notice in this system the people can actually have no part in matters that pertain to them. Let it be known…there are actually no other people who operate like this in our country! Historically natives were seen on the outside, even though they lived in this country. The reason for putting them on the outside was to dominate all aspects of governance, so that there was no other way than what the government wanted. The government kept the control and native governance was just an obstacle. And so it has been like that since the inception of this country.

As I mentioned people need to have a degree of independence; people moreover need to be able to make choices for themselves. If we cannot incorporate this fundamental aspect in our governance, we will be a weak and helpless community. (so citing failures in native communities without seeing and acknowledging the system they operate in is to possess a great degree of ignorance.)

Max Weber one of the famous students of the bureaucracy envisioned that we will have such a large bureaucracy in world. He was saying that things will operate in this way and they were only going to get bigger. Native people have been diametrically opposed to the system of capitalism, simply because their system was communal: Whereas capitalism was selfish and individualistic and communalism is about the people. Today the administrative system is arranged in a hierarchy and it serves capitalism well. Administrations are needed but we still need to have some control as people.

If people do not take a stand against bureaucracies they will be overrun and make people insignificant. In this way native people have been people who stood against this system. However my fear is that our people have been so immersed in this system that they do not know anything differently. In other words the people today for the most part do not think about striving against this system of bureaucracy.

If our leaders were as traditional, they would clearly know that they need more than what they operate in. Capitalist have an accumulation of material wealth; capitalism can be seen as a progression in this world that has never been seen before. But it has been a system that has overlooked people, through exploitation and manipulation. The system could serve people well, if they set it up to benefit themselves also known as “a regime of proprietary privilege.” This process has to end; the process of ending the exploitive subjugation of a large plurality of global citizens. (Hall, p.5,22)

Capitalism has always strived against social development: Which is obvious given that one is about people, the other is about me (the individual). Who cares about people, when our world is about making money?

Aboriginal people are about being connected. So connected they called the Earth, mother.

One of the more recent developments in the area of epistemology has been that of relativity: The idea that people have different ways of knowing, and that knowledge is really an accumulation of different views and perspectives. The idea here is that it is not about the parts as it is about the whole. Rather than give up and fall to other people’s ability to dominate, it is better to know your perspective well. Views are always trying to swallow other views, but yet diverse opinions are just if not more important when it comes to developing knowledge.

The point is that native people have their own importance when it comes to life. The idea that we are a clump of people has been a hindrance in many respects. Clearly everything needs balance.

With so much information, it almost seems that there are contradictions. But that is where being able to discern, or being wise is necessary. It is important being an individual as well as being part of a group. Both these ways of knowing moreover only enhances our ability to process what is in fact true.

If a person has riches unimaginable, and another person has made their community important are these not both ways of knowing? Native people looked highly upon people that put their people in high regard. Non-natives looked highly to people that have much by way of material things. Somehow you would think that the community minded person trumps the individualistic person. But that is not how things work today in the world. So you can see that a traditional native way is clearly not in-line with today’s society.

There have been political words that were meant to identify this way of thinking. “Communism” or specifically Bolshevikism was the first designation that came from the upper echelon of Canadians. In the States they were called “socialists.” The point was this mentality of a community mind was against the capitalistic way, and because of that there was an opposition.

If the bureaucracy serves the capitalist, then the socialist way serves the community.

Socialist: a theory of the collective or government ownership and administration and distribution of goods. It would seem that the traditional way of the community was as close to socialism as one can get. In other words the Indian way was not an accepted way. However, when it comes down to it we are not communists nor are we socialist, we are just people who think about and have regards for our people.

Chief White Bear was a great Chief, he took the people into consideration when he did things. The government did not like his way of doing things, they wanted their interests carried out. And as a result they removed him in his old age, this would prove to be a hard thing on him, and he would later die.

Was Chief White Bear just part of the old ways or was he part of the true ways?

“(C) apitalism, with its propensity to produce huge economic inequities, and liberalism with its emphasis on equal worth, dignity, and rights adhering to every human life.” (Hall, p.131)

Capitalism has been part of how our country has been run. The result of making a divide between people via riches has for the most part a problem that our communities cannot sustain. Essentially the distance between the rich and poor is a result of the capitalist way. On the other hand community is the hallmark where equality is essential. We can say that we need to pull out the people from poverty, and being a capitalist is the only way to do it. But the point is to develop the community where we have regard for the poor. We have to know that we cannot just go on a make a greater divide between our people, which obviously capitalism has a way of doing just that. Another question is how can we benefit from capitalism, and make it work for our community? We need to go beyond Ronald Regan’s, trickledown effect: “A term associated with neo-classical economics, referring to the alleged tendency for economic growth in an unequal society to benefit the population as a whole, via the eventual downward percolation of wealth to the lowest strata. This thesis is usually deployed against the view that state intervention is necessary in order to eliminate poverty.” Found at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-trickledowneffect.html

Going on, has the United States been no better than other countries, with its history of exploitation of its indigenous people? And there is the present debate of how it has gone east to seek out more for itself. In that case is there any progress, other than the fiscal aspect. Have there been any social developments, from the great civilizer? So as not to have its reputation shredded it has decided to go back and recognize the injustices done to its original inhabitants.

Just recently, “Congress approved $3.4 billion to settle the lost royalties case, which covers claims that Native Americans were swindled out of payments for oil, gas, timber and grazing rights for more than a century.” Found at: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/retiring-senator-spurs-burst-legislation-native-american-issues-20101228-213216-014.html Bureaucracy a rational mode of thinking, which seems logical, but always overlooks the personal aspect of government: Do we have room for both aspects of governance, the answer is resounding yes. Even in general society it has become an issue that has been looked into and further developed. The idea that bureaucracies need to personalize their efforts has moreover been fundamental in developing the new way of doing things. Understanding relationships is part of the professional life. Therefore, “the need to reject styles of interactions that emphasize status and power and to move to more consensual modes of operation. It implies the need to develop cooperative approaches to work and harmonious relations between and among people and to reject the aggressive, impersonal and manipulative relations characteristic of many bureaucratic systems.” (Stringer, p.31)

Not only are our traditions beckoning us, but changing the way things are done has become a societal norm. In fact the global indigenous movement, of resisting domination and exploitation, which is essentially colonialism, has been gathering steam for some time now. It is time to make an effort towards change, and to bring our people to a better way of doing things. It is time to go beyond the Indian Act, and to do more than just be dominated.

Part 6 The Ultimate Political Move

Native people do not need domination. Commanding, controlling or prevailing over others, that’s the essence of domination/colonization. You would think that some people deserve more than others, and that is what domination is saying. If we are equal, and we are, then such a mode of operation like domination has no validity.

The biggest political move in our communities has been inaction, to do nothing. This actually what you would deem a power move; it controls and prevails over others. “The world has been shaken by inaction.” If there is anything that our leaders are adept in, that is to be indifferent. They are good at doing nothing, when it comes to their people. They have been fighting their people with indifference for some time now. A house divided will not stand. How can you be for you people when your inaction has torn your community a part? Is it fear that hinders you from doing anything, or is that you are comfortable?

What’s the problem, the problem is that our leaders see nothing with operating in a system that has cut the people off from being a part of the decision making process. We live and move in a system that dictates our lives. The people in the system go on doing the same thing. Maybe they do not understand what the problem is. But when they hear people voice their discontent about how things work, they nod their heads. Then they turn around and do the same old thing, which is to do nothing. They are leaders at doing nothing. They do not see that the system has grown on them. They are powerful in this sense, they keep the people helpless. They perpetuate the status quo. Who do these leaders represent anyway?

This is the culture of our leaders…the do nothing people.

How are we to ever defeat this beast of inactivity? The life of the bureaucrat is upon our people. The thing with lies, is, they get weaker as time goes on.

In India, there was a law that was constructed to serve only one segment of society: People could not possess salt which had not been bought from official shops. The people decided to go against this blatant injustice. People went down to the sea and they made their own salt. The armies came out to deal with the insurrection, but this was a peaceful revolution. The people were beaten, but the people “did not respond violently to the arrests or to the beatings.” (Rawding, p.37) By acting in this way the people could see that they could one day win their independence. This action showed the world that they were being forcefully controlled.

Out of this, Ghandi, the leader, “absorbed many influences to form the tough sinew of his own unbreakable resolve to oppose wrongfully imposed authority through principled non-cooperation.” (Hall, p.184) Freedom has a path, by resisting an obvious injustice, and by not complying with a wrong way, we are closer to freedom. Doing nothing has power, and when put it in the proper place because it can bring about justice.

Moreover, as “Ghandi saw it, his quest to transcend the exploitation of colonialism was based on a rejection of all forms of corrupt domination. His non-violent protests were directed not only at the external forces of oppression but also at the internal tyrannies of the spirit that often prevents us from realizing our full potential as liberated and truly self conscious beings.”(Hall, p.184)

With years of domination, of which it has permeated our communities, there is a time when we have to say that our circumstance of being dominated has come to an end. Our leaders need to lead; and say, this is enough. Is there a better way than to say, I will not comply with a way that is not good for me or my people.

Now is the time, and this is the place to act with non-cooperation. This is where your years of training in docility can be utilized in a positive way. We need to take back the reins of our own destiny! The injustice of those years of domination, have to be replaced by our own potential as truly liberated people. We are all free people, and we deserve nothing less. Every form of domination has no place. What can be shaken will be shaken! When people are so dominated, there is the time when we have to challenge the injustice, we have to be stubborn and know that truth will prevail. If the only thing people learned out of the Nazi war was that, “No nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations.” Then we have to know that the time has arrived for our nation to shake off the years of domination. That like anybody else we deserve to be free. Things change, and what was accepted one time will not always be accepted.

Doing nothing has no place in our communities. Doing nothing is meant to fight against domination, it is clearly not meant to dominate. Our people do not need to be further dominated. But we do need to strive against anything that dominates us.

We live in a country where we can know freedom, but we also live with people that are still dominated. But who wants to slip backwards, you know go and live in a system that takes things away and hinders the people from being independent? Take Barriere Lake, they should have peaceful demonstrations of non-compliance. Our own leaders should stop complying and start serving their own. If the government continually wants us to serve them only, then that says it all. But there is a better way, and that is to serve your people to get the best. But it’s not about doing absolutely nothing so inactivity must not be construed as the panacea- if anything inactivity may mean doing things differently.

The only force is to see good for native communities! The rise of a new attitude of determination is in no way a rooted in rebellion, but it’s a fiery enthusiasm that is being lit and ignited by our awakened understanding and discontent. A new generation has arrived, and they want concrete developments, they want a future for their people. So they are determined to seek out what will work best for their communities.

Part 7 What to do?

Firstly, there actually are ways to begin taking back our independence: One is to create a responsible government, and that is to implement an opposition, there should never be just one group who leads and controls the decision making process in our communities. If anyone needs “good government” it has to be people who have been suppressed for years. By having an opposition, we can hold our leaders more accountable. An opposition can come about in many ways; a citizen’s group, an advocate’s group, (a political party- this may be long off goal and it is surely a contended issue at the moment). But the essence is to better our ways of governing. Even just having the people involved, through direct democracy, is a natural process of accountability. This is such a fundamental way to develop….it’s almost shameful that this has not come about earlier. Our people have lost their way to govern their people, they have been holding up the way of the government (which was to control our people and stay disconnected). And so we have had countless failures, and as long as we don’t start implementing better ways of governing we will continue to struggle.

We need support to fulfill our mandate, and that is to govern responsibly. We need to have a collaborative effort, at all levels of government; the well-being of native people will only mean the well-being of our country. When you look at the Indian Act, there is one section (sec. 2 (3) that gives the community the option to utilize the people as part of the decision making process, it doesn’t have to be just leadership arbitrarily making decisions for the community.

It just sounds, so unbelievable that this has to be sought when this should have been something done sooner. The only way for native people to succeed is for them to have a greater level of independence. Developing their way to govern responsibly is one of those efforts at independence.

It is my hope that we will receive the support to proceed with such a needed development. Our proposal is to create an opposition via an advocate’s group. At this point we are encouraging the development of a citizens group with Whitebear members; we are helping to organize, and helping in the research department. Again we are looking for support in our initiative. (Of course we are not just looking at this being an effort for only Whitebear but that we will help other native communities that are also operating in the Indian Act). Our efforts are purely diplomatic and we also understand that we will face resistance to change, and so we understand any change is often reluctantly accepted. But we all know that old habits die hard!

Right now in our community, there is no alternative to how things operate, so all directions go with our set leadership. Again to reiterate, we need to be able to hold our leadership accountable, and the people’s opinions need a venue where they can be heard. Since, this is an ingrained mode of operation (arbitrary rule) we clearly need support from the outside. And hence we are seeking support and assistance, which will be greatly appreciated: Assistance not just for our efforts but assistance that we can pass on to the community level and their developments. The native cause has been so overlooked, and today we can change that, we can give justice to those who have been denied for so long. The people are calling out for help, and they clearly need to have a voice!

Lastly, in the news it should be pointed out that Standing Buffalo used their newly developed Senate to enforce accountability on their leadership; again clearly an opposition is a needed development for our First Nations communities. And it goes without saying that they are now in a mess with contentions coming to the forefront, as they moreover try to implement this new and needed development…all we can do is hope the changes for the better take root in their community.

Hopefully this piece has been of assistance, in not only understanding the native position but to see the obvious need to develop as an effective community. There is no greater injustice but to keep the people quite. Hopefully we can change things collaboratively, and give the people back their voice!

Prairie Fire

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.