Everything is Relative II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything is Relative

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.

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!

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.

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!

Obscurantism and Improvement

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

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

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

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

 

Racism in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Injustice to one is an injustice to all

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

Day of Recognition

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

Retribution

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

Talk show hosts, Ahenakew, and Saskatchewan politics

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

A National Day

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

An old article

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


Native Voice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CMax

The Great White North

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

Segregated communities

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

"R" is for Racism

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

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