Is Chief Justin George betraying his people?
February 10, 2010 - 7:17pm
Chief Justin George of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation says the Olympics are a great thing and that it will mean greater economic development and wealth for all the Four Host First Nations on whose land the Olympics are being held.
Is he stupid? Once the Olympics are over things will go right back to the way they are now. Massive unemployment, poor housing and schools, malnutrition, domestic violence. Sure some people on the FNs will do fine because of kickbacks and short term housing. What I want to know is why is he selling his people out?
Why do your leaders sell you out?
The thing is, such 'selling out' is never a valid transaction from the perspective of First Nations' hereditary stewardship of our territories & so even the possibility of 'selling us out' is in itself an illegal colonial concept introduced by foreigners as a means to commit theft. So the real question becomes why do colonial societies enable and engage in such transactions with persons who are willing to act as traitors to their nations?
Because in government and corporate circles profit comes before principles.
Sure some people on the FNs will do fine because of kickbacks and short term housing.
I think you answered your own question.
Such wholescale theft cannot be merely a matter of government & corporate behavior, it clearly has to do with more fundamental structures propogated by colonial societies as a whole, conscionable dissidence notwithstanding. As far as I understand government involvement, it is related by the requirement of the government of 'Canada' to form/set-up a crown corporation any time the government wishes to engage directly as a commercial enterprise within the territories of Onowaregeh, because all such activities are to be incorporated within the concept of the historical continuum of an alleigance to the British Monarch, as the effect of how this is rationalized. To change this, which would be required if Canada were to embrace the principles stated in the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, would require a re-writing of Canada's constitution. Being this fundamental, the matter therefore does implicate all 'Canadians'. On our side, our interpretation of the true law of the land implicates all of our forebears since time immemorial as well as those of us currently living and the next seven generations.
A bit more into the psychology of why Justin George {Is he actually a 'Chief' or is he an elected official under the terms/policies of the Indian Act?} would have been 'enabled', as many others are, to sell out/betray their nations has I think to do again with the fact that colonial societies have been perpetuating these policies to the extent that today First Nations are physically outnumbered by foreigners within and across our territories, and you add to this fact the assimilationist colonial policies of genocidally attacking the cultural value systems and psychological perception of self-worth of all indigenous cultures {it is worth considering here how an extensive set of government policies such as is evidenced in Canada's Indian Act, attempts to portray a vast array of unique and distinct peoples & their cultures as a single homogenize-able population. I think that this effectively says all that needs to be said of the moral bankruptcy of Canadian society as a whole, at least as evidenced by your governing policies}, you are perpetuating a situation wherein there will always be found individuals who have been mentally & spiritually weakened to the point that they can be persuaded to buy into these colonial policies. I would say this is essentially the explanation.
wow, excellent post.
You are right and George is an elected Chief Counsellor of an administrative unit of usurping, colonizing, genocidal Canada, now legally defined as a 'First Nation'. "Mentally and spiritually weakened" 'Representatives' selling out the interests of 'represented' on behalf of the powerful should come as no surprise to any inhabitants of the 'Dominion' whether it is a Band Chief, MP, Prime Minister or President. It's called 'Democracy' and we're still killing people who resist its imposition both at home and across the world. Let the Games begin on stolen land.
I agree with netsia. So what can we do? I think ensuring we have no settlers on our territory is a good first step. Setting up or revitalizing traditional leadership is another. What would happen if the traitorist band councils were shut down? I don't think the feds would step in, but they would probably cut off the treaty funding. Having limited industry to offset that loos of funding and taxing the settlers who pass through on the highways would be another way to defeat the fed's power over us.
So, are you saying you have no settlers anywhere on your traditional territory? That is in itself quite impressive!
Six Nations has been moving steadily toward shutting down the Indian Act band council there, as I understand it is at the point of happening & might have already taken place by now? The International Criminal Court has also written to Six Nations to confirm that that international court has accepted the Haudenosaunee League's request to conduct a pre-trial investigation of the British Crown's failings to uphold their side of the historical treaty covenants. I do believe that it is of key importance for each nation to take direct action in full-unified solidarity to oust the traitors, who are always a small minority since they mimic the pyrimidal colonial 'power' structures of 'entitlement', and to simultaneously press for and absolutely demand investigations and active interventions be engaged through international institutions who possess the jurisdiction and mandate to do so.
As for this specific issue of enabling 'selling out' being an effectively addressable concern of appropriate international institutions, the European Bank, which Britain is not a member of, has a very fine code of ethics regarding respect for the rights of indigenous peoples. It's been in the back of my mind as an available avenue which could be trod to apply VERY significant economic pressures being brought upon Britain in particular, the worst perpetrator, and also France even that much more directly since France would be a member!!
This would cause a whole-scale military invasion by Canada/USA. Canada has shown no restraint in using the most lethal military force against native people for the smallest of reasons. The stuff about getting rid of band councils, charging settlers to pass through territory would be a minor anoyance to the Feds (though im sure there would be lots of Garry McHails comming around). WHat you are implying is cutting off total acces to the resources that the Feds have been pillaging since they setup the HBC. These resources fuel the empire to the south, the empire that Canada has agreed can deploy their massive military on so-called "canadian soil".
Much better that than allowing things to continue as they are! Such as allowing them to get away with the photo op propaganda of the Olympics. They are already applying brute force against indigenous nations, whenever "legislating us to death"-a great quote that came up in a talk given by indigenous women leaders on the pressing subject of murdered and missing indigenous women & girls across 'Canada', here in Tiohtia:ke last evening- doesn't work out effectively enough for them.
It is all about the resource rights for them, which they do not have, so we must insist that they not only cannot have ANY more, not even a crumb!... That they also owe us, far far more than they will ever be able to repay but 'PAY' they will somehow or other!!
I identify as an Aboriginal registered under the Tlseil-Waututh Nation and I do not believe that he is betraying his people at all. Betrayal would imply knowingly leading his people to despair. He obviously has high hopes for the economic affects of the Olympics, which in the end is all we can have. Optimism is key and it's something found quite often in people of indigenous background. He is not betraying his people because he made the decision believing it was the best thing for his Nation. A lot of families within our Nation do need extra support. Being a host Nation of the Olympics will hopefully boost our tourist season, which a lot of families depend on.
Why are a lot of families within your nation in need of extra support?? Hint! hint!
Who's agenda is it for your nation to be so dependent upon tourism? Don't you know that a diverse economic base is always the most sound approach to maximizing and safegaurding-assuring a society's economic development?
I cannot & do not take seriously any viewpoint supported only by vague semantic terms such as "I do not believe ", "'has high hopes" & "will hopefully boost", where are your fact based arguments please!
There is a world of difference between identifying as a sovereign member of the Tlseil-Waututh nation vs. identifying as an Aboriginal who is 'registered' as a member of said nation, it seems that you are submitting that rather than being an upstanding & proud sovereign indegenous person, as per our universal right, you are quite content to identify as a colonized piece of property of the British Monarch... ?
Your statement "in the end this is all we can have" speaks volumes as to just how colonized is your personal mindset.
And finally, I do concur that BETRAYAL DOES IMPLY THAT HE IS KNOWINGLY LEADING HIS PEOPLE TO DESPAIR, and I must then further clarify specifically on the cultural fallacy of even stating 'HIS' in such context, because in indigenous societies we are all one, without heirarchy & in terms of solidarity-unity we all belong to one another equally.
I think I love you netsia. No, I'm joking but your posts really are thought provoking.
I'm way too late to this thread, and for that I apologize. But the opening post is potentially libelous. Accusing someone of taking kickbacks implies criminal wrong doing and that is serious business.
However, I don't think that was the intention. E. Tamaran is on a time out right now, so when he/she gets back if s/he wants to change the wording I'll consider re-opeing this thread.
lou <at> babble <dot> ca
I think there was a concern that the OP was actionable. IANAL but I think that it's probably not because the reference to kickbacks is actually pretty general. I may turn out to be wrong. I'll remind people that while we might disagree on this point, saving rabble from getting sued is a small but important part of the moderating job.
I agree on both points oldgoat.
1) it looks very general and
2) it is important to keep rabble from being sued.
With that said I'm pretty sure it was a general remark.
I think it is more important to not be paranoid. Fear encourages attack.
I would encourage Neophobic to continue the dialogue.
Being in a clear minority opinion does not mean people who disagree with you are not listening.
agreeing wholeheartedly with the previous 2 posts... & anyway, going by how things are in Canadian society today makes me suspect that Neophobic's opinion is not in the minority, if taking into account the opinion of Canadians as a whole...
While I don't have any first hand knowledge of Justin George, I have some contact with Ernie Campbell, Chief of the Musqueam band. He is a strong and passionate defender of his people's rights and needs. He does not back down to a from a fight and is not pushed around by public opinion. If he signed a deal with VANOC it was because it was in his Band's best interest.
Doing any deal under an aegis of an Indian Act Indian Band = SELLING OUT ONE'S NATION & that's the end of it.
Bullshit. That is like Fidel saying that because we have a illegitimate elections process (first past the post) that none of our prime ministers were actually the leaders of the country (not saying he goes that far).
It would have a lot more legitimacy if you were putting up another leader chosen by another process. If you are going to say that Ernie Campbell is not the legitimate leader of the Musqueam, then please tell me who is (and tell me what they think of the deal with the VANOC).
Doing any deal under an aegis of an Indian Act Indian Band = SELLING OUT ONE'S NATION & that's the end of it.
Netsia is supported also by non-native legal sources. Please see the discussion contained in correspondance between the legal advisor for the Secwepemc Sundance Camp at Gustafsen Lake and the RCMP:
http://www.kstrom.net/isk/canada/gust/clark.html
"...It is apparent that the legislative intent is to implement the policy avowed by the Canadian Prime Minister Sir John A Macdonald, as appears in the following Return to an Order of the House of Commons dated May 2, 1887 (20h) at 37:
'the great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and to assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion, as speedily as they are fit for the change..'
The precise manner in which that particular political interest legislatively has been fostered is epitomized by the two quoted sections of the Indian Act 1880, that is by creating an Indian elective system which, being modelled upon non-native municipal government structures, exercises delegated and therefore controlled powers to supersede the Indians' own previously established traditional 'life' chief system.
The problem, from Sir John's perspective at least, with the traditional system is that the powers it exercises are inherent and unrestricted rather than delegated and restricted, and therefore less amenable to control by the Canadian government as the delegater..."
The broad topic of 'Chiefs' also now has its own thread to which I will also post this
It is really funny that after all these years, Victorians still can't understand the democratic right of First Nations to determine who their leaders. are. Most often they are obscure hereditary Chieftans and many times important decisions are left to "the people" to decide. Colonial Victorians are always looking for "leaders" and when they don't find them they appoint their own in the belief they can create serfs to do their bidding.
You ask who their legitimate "leaders" are. If you really understood the harm caused by your indifference to the Indian Act Chiefs, you would know the answer already. NO Indian Act Chief on any territory that I am aware of IS legitimate. They are most often elected by a few supporters (in many cases less than 15% of the eligible voters) and the remaining 85% are shut out. They are controlled by budgets set by INAC and forced through manipulation to do the government's bidding. They are self-serving and narrowly focused.
The Olympics are being held on unceded territory which according to the supreme law of Canada is illegal. It doesn't matter who you talk to or who claims authority. The governments of Canada and BC did not consult, negotiate, accommodate and reconcile the interests of First Nations before they accepted the Olympics in Canada. That is an illegal act, and no one in a law-abiding country should accept that. After all it is the principle of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that:
Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law....
Perhaps the Charter is nothing more than toilet paper and we should just go around ignoring each other's rights. After all if the government can ignore our rights, and Canadians like you support the government for doing so, the Charter is nothing more than lip service for all Canadians.
If you understood my statement then you'll realize I've gone much further than that. Applying a moral revisionist view to the facts of universally recognized indegenous rights places the onus entirely upon Canada a.k.a. the Crown to prove that 'Canada' has ever had any legally legitimate reason or right to have ever suggested its coming into existence in the first place, close to what you are charging but I am explicitly applying the implication of the Crown's honor.
It is certainly not for me or for you to be asking me how the Musqueam nation identifies & collectively advances their universal indigenous rights of self determination. That is for them to be demonstrating to us=the world.
Here is how the Musqueam first demonstrated their modern day commitment to indigenous rights. You should note that the date is 1976 and it is the Band council who are speaking.
The Musqueam Declaration
Vancouver
June 10, 1976
We, the Musqueam people openly and publicly declare and affirm that we hold aboriginal title to our land, and aboriginal rights to exercise use of our land, the sea and fresh waters, and all their resources within that territory occupied and used by our ancestors, namely:
http://www.musqueam.bc.ca/Rights.html
As a non-FN's I see their leadership demanding a place at the table. I also understand that the act of being at the table itself is problematic for all the aboriginal people from other nations suffering the consequences down around Main Street.
I also do not believe it as simple as the traditional chiefs should decide unless those traditional chiefs have the training in protocols required to fulfill the roles of their ancestors. It is my understanding that amongst the FN's on this coast they had very well established protocols to deal with all community decisions and it was not merely that the Chiefs view was the final answer.
I think in most politics form of government is less important than results flowing to the people the government is supposed to act on behalf of. The Musqueam have used the tools allowed to them by our racist governments to extract from the courts many of the concepts in their 1976 Declaration.
I also do not believe it as simple as the traditional chiefs should decide unless those traditional chiefs have the training in protocols required to fulfill the roles of their ancestors. It is my understanding that amongst the FN's on this coast they had very well established protocols to deal with all community decisions and it was not merely that the Chiefs view was the final answer.
And that is just my point about colonial-victorian thinkers.
1. Traditional Chiefs are selected by their people, or through hereditary protocols already. They do not need our oversight to legitimize their leaders in this way. If a hereditary chieftanship still exists within a nation, you can bet that those chiefs have been groomed for the position since their birth.
2. First Nations do not need our approval to deal with their issues. Regardless if we see it as fair or inequitable it is their system and only they can protest decisions, right or wrong. In fact there is usually some sort of appeal process built in to many native governance systems that take care of disputes. We can't even protest our own governments' decisions successfully to any effect, so what makes you believe that we should interfere with theirs?
Nobody here is talking about interfering with the governance processes of FNs.
At most, what is being offered, and very tentatively at that, is an observation that what is seen categorically as betrayal, is arguable.
[And note that there is a much broader argument made here- not just wheter Justin George is betraying his people, but that any working through colonialist Indian Act mandated governance is betrayal.]
ETA: thats said in the spirit of clarifying and keeping the discussion from going sideways. Intention is to leave my POV out of the picture.
I disagree. When I read:
"I also do not believe it as simple as the traditional chiefs should decide unless those traditional chiefs have the training in protocols required to fulfill the roles of their ancestors."
It is an affront by suggesting that we do not need to take their decisions and leadership with any validity.
Then:
"It is my understanding that amongst the FN's on this coast they had very well established protocols to deal with all community decisions and it was not merely that the Chiefs view was the final answer."
This is suggesting that unless we see some sign that the Chief's answer is not in consultation with the comunity, then it has no value.
We haven't a clue of the protocols involved, nor is understanding possible within our worldview. Rather if the community does not support the decisions and actions taken by their chiefs, it is up to them to retify it. And often their reckoning is out of sight, since many FN do not air their political laundry in public.
I was talking specifically about the Musqueam where I have friends and who are part of the 4 Hosts. From the beginning I wished they had not gone into the Olympics but I am not Musqueam so I will not oppose their right to govern themselves.
Yes Musqueam uses the Band Council governance model but that is likely because like many Coast nations the Potlatch Laws that lasted for generations made it illegal to practice the various governing systems in place before the colonial invasion. By 1976 the Potlatch Laws were about 50 years old and the people used the second rate vehicle they were allowed to fight back.
I do not believe that the people of Musqueam are mostly opposed to their councils decision in this matter. if you have anything except conjecture then please post the links. Do you even know who the "traditional" chiefs from Musqueam are and where they got training for their positions 50 years after their traditional governance model was outlawed. If there is a trained and separate leadership on Musqueam then they would deserve respect if they were supported by the people. I hope you will help us get to know who these leaders are and what their views are.
Unceded British Columbia
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2981
"The Four Host Nations is a corporate body made up primarily of government-funded Indian Act band council chiefs...An overwhelming number of Indigenous people in these territories and in the interior are opposed to the Olympics because of the long term impacts, including destruction of the land, commodification of Native art and culture, and the creation of long term poverty once the few token jobs are gone.
We're raising the issue of colonialism and lack of legal jurisdiction by the government in addition to the issue of land and exploitation of Indigenous culture...
It is the reality of strong opposition to the Olympic Games by Native peoples that hs forced VANOC to desperately try and create the perception of Native support by throwing a lot of money to a few people.."
The land is unceded and the Musqueam Band council has been fighting that fight since 1976.
It would be easier for me if I was FN's. As I said I marched in solidarity with the people who think the Olympics will be destructive not a boon for natives. That is my view but my connection to Musqueam leads me to believe that they are divided in their support but much like my neighbours in Burnaby most think its happening so lets have fun and make some money. I wish someone would point me to the Musqueam people who are leading the opposition to the Olympics so I can learn more.
... If a hereditary chieftanship still exists within a nation, you can bet that those chiefs have been groomed for the position since their birth.
I'll remember this quote for the next thread advocating abolishing the Monarchy.
That's correct about potlatches having been an integral aspect to how those nations traditionally conducted important affairs, reafirming their culture through protocols, conducted match making for marriages & that hereditary chiefs used their prestige of being able to demonstrate a spirit of generosity and sharing in the official 'Give Aways', which would be why agents of the Crown would have been instructed to make every attempt to forbid Potlatches from taking place & for the Crown to have given such instruction is today understood in international law to have been an illegal act of cultural genocide perpetrated by the sanctioned authority of the Crown of Great Britain who is known throughout the world prinicipally for these types of crimes against humanity, which continue today.
A very good documentary about the traditional coast practices is this biography of one of the last traditionally trained elders.
I understand what you are saying but who speaks for a FN when the links to their government and culture have been severed by the oppressors. I certainly can't tell from the outside which is why I was interested to know if any of the Musqueam are traditionally trained and if they are who are they and what are their views.
Adam Dick or 'Kwaxsistala' is the Clan Chief of the Kwakwaka'wakw Nation and the last orally trained Potlatch Speaker of his people. Seventy-five years ago the nobility of the Kwakwaka'waka of the Pacific Northwest Coast chose Adam, secluded him from the authorities when his peers were sent to Residential School, and trained him in every aspect of the culture and traditions of his people. Today, caught between two worlds, he is needed more than ever by his people to reclaim their teachings. Smoke From His Fire is a story of hope, courage, and enduring faith in the beliefs of the ancestors and the teachings of the last Potlatch speaker of the Kwakwaka'wakw tribe.
http://www.knowledge.ca/program/smoke-from-his-fire
Getting a bit generalist since the discussion has shifted into considering traditional cultural norms, I must add that the sentiment 'one of the last of' which one may often encounter in discussions on this topic is definitely a misnomer. The truth is that there will never be a last, the cultures exist, have existed since time immemorial, we are still within this period of colonial encounter but it is just a blip in time. It is up to the people to reclaim and advance their culture by living it out fully whenever they become 'ready' to begin acknowledging their true identity & responsibilities to that identity...
I was merely referring to the documentary itself that claims; "the last orally trained Potlatch Speaker of his people." Culture and traditions in any society evolve and change over time. I admire the FN's on this coast for their determination in ensuring their heritage is not just in a museum.
Traditions change, it is true....but culture is static and intrinsinctly linked with language.
My understanding would be that neither tradition nor culture and nor language are ever 'static' {I guess one could say they become 'interpretable' as 'static' if placed in a museum/library collection say?}... and, my understanding would be that of the three 'tradition' tends most often toward being the cultural form closest to 'static'? The general outlines of mythologies, such as creation stories, whom no one can site an originating time scale for much less the actual date or original orator of, might be among the cultural forms of traditions that come closest to stasis though then to acknowledge consideration of the indigenous nations' traditions here & that being oral tradititions, means that slight changes must intrinsically occur as well since it is a living form of culture handed on orally form one generation's knowledge & perspectives to the next, mental perception to mental perception, actually quite Zen like if you think about it!
I think ensuring we have no settlers on our territory is a good first step.
Isn't all of B.C. FN territory?
All of what is called Canada is Inigenous Peoples' territory.
Members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs are fasting to support the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council's opposition to fish-farm tenures in the Broughton Archipelago.
"The 29-hour fast reflects the 29 fish-farm tenures in our territories," said Chief Bob Chamberlin, chairman of the Tribal Council.
Marine Harvest and Cermaq, which own the tenures in Musgamagw Tsawataineuk territory, both have Norwegian parent companies.
In addition to union president Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and vice-president Chief Willie Charlie, at least a dozen other hereditary and elected chiefs are expected to join the fast, which starts 5 a.m. tomorrow at the union office in Vancouver, Chamberlin said.
Fasts will also be held in communities around the Broughton Archipelago, said Chamberlin, who has already been approached by members of the Norwegian media.
"It is sad we have to turn to the international community to have our territory looked after, but we have turned to the provincial and federal governments to no avail," he said.
Tribal council and Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs members have invited King Harald V of Norway to meet with them while he is at the Olympic Games.
Earlier this month, a spokesman for the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Ottawa said King Harald will be in Vancouver to watch athletes perform and would not meet with any special-interest groups.
Chamberlin, who visited Norway last year, said in a letter to King Harald that the situation is urgent.
"All we ask for is that the river system and inlets which produce our wild salmon that have sustained the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk people since the beginning of time be shown the very same respect the Norwegian government demonstrated in safeguarding the wild salmon of Norway," the letter says.
Another letter to King Harald, signed by 170 people, will be delivered to the Royal Norwegian Consulate in Vancouver Tuesday by the Wilderness Tourism Association of B.C., Pure Salmon Campaign and Wild Salmon Circle.
"We hope Your Royal Highness can persuade Norwegian companies to clean up their act, move farms out of the path of migrating wild salmon and introduce closed containment systems to protect wild fish from sea lice, mass escapes and infectious diseases," the letter said.
At the hockey game, supporters dressed as bears and wild salmon will greet Norwegian fans and offer gifts of wild salmon.
Clare Backman, Marine Harvest Canada director of environmental relations, said standards in the Broughton Archipelago are as high as in Norway, and the company is in compliance with all local regulations.
Standards are even higher than prescribed when it comes to dealing with sea lice, disease or organic waste control, he said.
Backman said he is concerned the company has not been able to work out concerns with groups such as the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk.
Marine Harvest farms are in the territories of 20 First Nations, he said, adding the company has protocol agreements with seven and is in discussions with another five.
http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Norwegian+owned+fish+farms+target+...
Canada's Aboriginal Show and Tell
http://www.counterpunch.org/luckas02172010.html
"The opening ceremonies of the Vancouver Winter Olympiad were flush with aboriginal motifs: hundreds of costumed Indigenous dancers, giant illuminated totem poles, and the broad smiles of representatives from the 'Four Host First Nations'. It was a perfectly choreographed display of Canada's multicultural grace for an international audience.
Ever sensitive about their reputation as a land of the fair minded, Canada's Olympic planners have gone to lengths to showcase the nation's respect for aboriginals. They made an Inuit design the official logo. They ran the torch-relay through scores of reservations. And they bought the support and participation of local First Nations with a few million in bonds, business ventures and gleaming buildings.
An absolute bargain, if this aboriginal gilding can blind Canadians and the world to the country's secret shame: the true state of its Indigenous peoples."
You have posted that same info in several other threads, it is spamming to do that, please stop,
....and how nice of billionaire Soros, who has made his billions off of enterprises built on stolen land, and the white faced gang, making judgement calls on BC FN's....
this piece has only been posted to this thread by me and comes from an activist connected to Defenders of the Land not George Soros...?
Counterpunch is Soros, is it not?
then my aologies if it was not you who has posted this info elsewhere, and another, but posted elsewhere it has, as this is the 3rd time I have read that info here in the last 2 days.
I also do not believe it as simple as the traditional chiefs should decide unless those traditional chiefs have the training in protocols required to fulfill the roles of their ancestors. It is my understanding that amongst the FN's on this coast they had very well established protocols to deal with all community decisions and it was not merely that the Chiefs view was the final answer.
And that is just my point about colonial-victorian thinkers.
1. Traditional Chiefs are selected by their people, or through hereditary protocols already. They do not need our oversight to legitimize their leaders in this way. If a hereditary chieftanship still exists within a nation, you can bet that those chiefs have been groomed for the position since their birth.
2. First Nations do not need our approval to deal with their issues. Regardless if we see it as fair or inequitable it is their system and only they can protest decisions, right or wrong. In fact there is usually some sort of appeal process built in to many native governance systems that take care of disputes. We can't even protest our own governments' decisions successfully to any effect, so what makes you believe that we should interfere with theirs?
It may not be the same everywhere in this country but things were much different for my father than they were for the hereditary chiefs you speak of.
He was shipped off to residential school at 6 years old and the only grooming he recieved was when they shaved his head when he arrived.
It wasn't until many years after he was released at the age of 16 did he discover that most of the elders considered him the hereditary chief.
Even when the time came that he was trained enough in manuevering through the governments red-tape jungle by passing every college test with no lower than 98% and moving through occupations such as social worker, welfare administrator, and then director of medical services he still declined all requests to run for chief.
While one person who couldn't even read became an elected councillor he decided that it would be best for the people to have candidates for chief that would know how to work the innermechanisms of the government. So he nominated a person more learned in politics for elected chief.
It turned out not too bad in the long run. We ended up with a chief that has made our small reserve very prosperous without tapping into one of the richest oil deposits that those who have been attempting to angle drill from my fathers land have ever seen. The prosperity brought by the elected chief did however require something that seems to be rare among elected native leaders which is a man that puts his people before his own personal desires.
So I do much agree that many native chiefs will sell out their own people to the highest bidder.
We went through many of them until we got lucky a few years back.
While I am not contradicting CharterRights statement I am saying there may be more to this picture than meets the eye.
The primary stakes to have in place to absolutely assure the integrity of your nation's sovereignty & power in self-determining still must remain unresolved and insecure within a legal framework that recognizes colonial 'laws/rules', it's in these that 'selling out one's nation' is most fundamentally operative. I just now read of Bolivia inaugurating their President as an indigenous leader from the pre-colonial family line, to lead their 'Pluri-State'. This is news to me! Exciting!:
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/global/83642177.html
Canada's Aboriginal Show and Tell
http://www.counterpunch.org/luckas02172010.html
"The opening ceremonies of the Vancouver Winter Olympiad were flush with aboriginal motifs: hundreds of costumed Indigenous dancers, giant illuminated totem poles, and the broad smiles of representatives from the 'Four Host First Nations'. It was a perfectly choreographed display of Canada's multicultural grace for an international audience.
Ever sensitive about their reputation as a land of the fair minded, Canada's Olympic planners have gone to lengths to showcase the nation's respect for aboriginals. They made an Inuit design the official logo. They ran the torch-relay through scores of reservations. And they bought the support and participation of local First Nations with a few million in bonds, business ventures and gleaming buildings.
An absolute bargain, if this aboriginal gilding can blind Canadians and the world to the country's secret shame: the true state of its Indigenous peoples."
Nothing more than electronic beads and bobbles designed to fool the foolish.
agree withnetsiaa. So what can we do? I think ensuring we have no settlers on our territory is a good first step. Setting up or revitalizing traditional leadership is another. What would happen if thetraitoristt band councils were shut down? I don't think the feds would step in, but they would probably cut off the treaty funding. Having limited industry to offset that loos of funding and taxing the settlers who pass through on the highways would be another way to defeat thefed'ss power over us.
CharterRights as I said a couple of posts back I am not disputing what YOU said...
But I have to question these words from someone else. One of the most outspoken First Nations persons on this forum that to any average person who stumbled onto a thread via google and read a few posts such as the one above could easily surmise that most FN people think this way.
This Mr. ETamarann who will not identify himself to us IS one of our Representatives regardless. So according to him we should all start blocking off all the highways near the plots of land our great great grand parents were imprisoned upon and demand money from travelers. That should end the poverty on reserves, eh?!
The problem with confrontation thinkers is that they believe that confrontation is a means to an end. It is not and that type of thinking is democratically immature.
Protest is a valuable democratic tool, but ONLY IF it is accompanied by accurate information, negotiation and appropriate media support. It fails the test when the protesters lose the message and turn it into personal confrontations. Even when protest degrades to violence against the protesters, or their defense of police intervention is valuble to the cause as long as the message is managed properly. The unfortunate thing about most First Nation protests is that they are filled with supporters who often do not think for themselves and instead are quick to react and resort to violently charged media expositions. Real protesters do not let their immature soldiers speak for cause, or let them get out of control because then the message picked up by the media become the violence, and not the cause.
If an immature thinker has an opinion on a place like Babble, then there needn't be any concern IMO. Correction is needed, and myths perpetuated must be countered in a respectful and factual way. Attacking the poster has not value. Embarrassment is a useful tool, since ignorance and unfounded fears are often what fuel racism (in either direction) and simplemindedness almost always comes to the surface with every retort.
But I have to question these words from someone else. One of the most outspoken First Nations persons on this forum that to any average person who stumbled onto a thread via google and read a few posts such as the one above could easily surmise that most FN people think this way.
This Mr. ETamarann who will not identify himself to us IS one of our Representatives regardless. So according to him we should all start blocking off all the highways near the plots of land our great great grand parents were imprisoned upon and demand money from travelers. That should end the poverty on reserves, eh?!
Most FNs in some FN communities feel EXACTLY as I do. The heroes at Caledonia who drew a line in the sand and said "this far and no farther". The Warrior heroes at Oka. The 401 blockade (that took outstanding courage, and it was incredible to see the settlers stewing in their cars).
By the way, I've offered to speak with you via my personal ISP email account so you can have my real name.
You do understand that Oka, and Caledonia were started and for the most part maintained, by Grandmothers? The 401 wasn't blocked by Mohawks but by the OPP themselves. So your "heroes" really had nothing to do with the bravery that started the protests. They were "Rosa Parkes" types that did and in my opinion they were the brave ones.
And the real work (after the defense of those grandmothers from gung-ho police had to take place) was in the negotiations as it is Mohawk Law (Haudenosaunee Great Law) that no one is to be hurt without just cause sanctioned by the Royaner of the Nation.
So in essence I would suggest that your loyalty is misdirected and instead of advocating violence as a means, you would do the nations much more good by the promotion of Peace, Good-Mindedness and Power, through the Good Mind and not through strong armed tactics..
You're right. The 401 was blocked by the OPP in anticipation of the mohawk blockade. It was Hwy 2 and the CN rail line that were blockaded by the Mohawks. Still te effect was the same. Good on them.
No one's been hurt, except for one pig at Oka.
How many people have visited this popular Olympics site?
2010 Olympics' Aboriginal Pavilion showcases unprecedented partnership
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/2010wintergames/2010+Olympics+Aborigi...
You're right. The 401 was blocked by the OPP in anticipation of the mohawk blockade. It was Hwy 2 and the CN rail line that were blockaded by the Mohawks. Still te effect was the same. Good on them.
No one's been hurt, except for one pig at Oka.
Highway 2 was blocked by the community - women, men and children.
CN Rail was block by pulling a school bus over the tracks.
I don't see any hero warriors, do you?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The problem with confrontation thinkers is that they believe that confrontation is a means to an end. It is not and that type of thinking is democratically immature.
Protest is a valuable democratic tool, but ONLY IF it is accompanied by accurate information, negotiation and appropriate media support. It fails the test when the protesters lose the message and turn it into personal confrontations. Even when protest degrades to violence against the protesters, or their defense of police intervention is valuble to the cause as long as the message is managed properly. The unfortunate thing about most First Nation protests is that they are filled with supporters who often do not think for themselves and instead are quick to react and resort to violently charged media expositions. Real protesters do not let their immature soldiers speak for cause, or let them get out of control because then the message picked up by the media become the violence, and not the cause.
If an immature thinker has an opinion on a place like Babble, then there needn't be any concern IMO. Correction is needed, and myths perpetuated must be countered in a respectful and factual way. Attacking the poster has not value. Embarrassment is a useful tool, since ignorance and unfounded fears are often what fuel racism (in either direction) and simplemindedness almost always comes to the surface with every retort.
Charter Rights that is very well put.
What you said reminds me of an older Caucasian friend of mine from the US. I used to drive for him and maintain his greenhouse about 10 years ago. He considered himself a revolutionary. At the time I didn't know any better and I also thought he was such.
Every weekend I would drive him to meet with native activists from Navajo and Hopi tribes. I'm not sure what the situation is now but at that time there was a supposed land dispute between the Hopis and the Navajos. In reality there was no actual dispute because the Hopis were willing to allow the Navajo to occupy any land they needed. The dispute was being propagated by the media and the government. It a long story and neither of us have time to get into it.
Anyway my friend's plan to "help" the real activists was thwarted by one of the elders. My friend planned to dress in black and sneak around the police headquarters and slash the tires of the police cars.
He was told that his actions would do nothing but cause further problems because the natives would be blamed for his actions.
He was really disappointed that he wasn't given permission to commit his foolish act on behalf of the activists.
Stopping traffic to demand a toll on highways is in my opinion just as foolish and would do nothing but create further problems.
A lot of interesting points & counter-points & discussion being brought here though noting as well that there are two distinct topics being engaged, the first is the opening statement on the subject of ' "Chiefs" ' selling out their nations, then 2nd, probably the natural outcome-progression of 'what to do about it', has 'veered' markedly into the subject of activism & specifically First Nations & First Nations led activism.
I want to add first of all that I find calling police ' "pigs" ' to be inappropriately & ignorantly disrespectful & unlikely to accomplish anything poisitive; likewise I consider such a weak semantic turn of topical phrase as "Real protesters" to be a non-starter & basically ignorant of the facts... I take all activism at face value & consider it for what it is, could also say that in the face of colonial society promoting increases of physical oppressions in the form of a police state, the Vancouver Olympics being a shining example of this, that for concerned & especially for directly affected citizens/persons to directly push back through physical demonstration & confrontation as necessary to be entirely & I think self-evidently valid.
I'm glad someone was able to bring up the legal protocol followed by the Haudenosaunee which makes it necessary for actions of war to have been sanctioned-decreed by the respective nation's Royaner; you should keep in mind whenever bringing this up that the declarations of war follow after an extensive diplomatic protocol has been followed to exhaustion & it signals that the Haudenosaunee 'civic leaders'~'Peace Chiefs' have exhausted all of their means & have turned specific circumstances over to the Royner responsible for war, so it should be viewed as action taken to confront the gravest of threats to Haudenosaunee society only after all other options have been faithfully exhausted; In the instances where it has happened & been sanctioned by the Rotiyaner{the Can Mothers who are the respective nation's title holders to the land} it has been justified & such circumstances call upon anyone sincerely interested to examine the entire historical continuum of facts leading to such actions.
Pointing an accusatory finger as it were at Norway, is interesting too & appropriate in fact: Excpet for Lichtenstein(something of an anomoly), Norway is the world's (2nd) wealthiest nation per capita; That Norway works hard at maintaining a 'low profile' is thus understandable=understandable that they apparently opt to not be a regular country member of the G-8 for example; Hard to argue against the importance of Statoil from a purely economical perspective though the global-environmental-sociatal stability ramifications most probably do require more broad criticl accounting analysis, especially because of the real threats to global security brought about chiefly by fossil fuel industrialization; Norways low profile enables them, erroneously I believe, to go relatively undetected in relation to ecological issues & First Nations fundamental & inalienable rights issues that commercial fish farming interests are in direct conflict with. The hunger strike is a good move!!!!!!!
I submitted my last comments without a spell check! 'Can Mothers' which should be Clan Mothers being the most obvious correction required!