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.

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!

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.

Responsibility

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 I started out feeling that there was hope, however, it has been replaced by a greater belief that arrogance lies at the root of our government.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harper's position

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

Let not, the arrogance continue

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