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.

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.