Everything is Relative

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 as you 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Know More Than You Do!

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

Pankiw and Ahenakew sitting in a tree...

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

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

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

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

Ears to hear

 

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

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

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

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

Killing the beast

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

Frenzy concert

Independance

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

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!