Discussion thread about basic principles of the Aboriginal forum.
Tan'si,
Okay...I keep seeing reference made to basic assumptions or principles on Babble, but often those aren't super clear. I thought maybe for this forum, we could work on a few specific to Aboriginal issues. IE, discussions we aren't willing to have because they're basically bullshit.
There are plenty of things I personally don't mind debating when it comes to Aboriginal issues. I find a lot of people are really ignorant on these issues, and I don't mind giving them information if they can be respectful during the conversation.
HOWEVER! There are certain topics that get brought up that I don't think are worthy of discussion, because of how those topics are used politically and because they don't really alter the reality of Aboriginal rights.
The one topic I can think of right now is whether or not indigenous peoples in the Americas were actually 'here first' or not. I'm sure most of the aboriginal posters here are quite aware of our own views of our origins, which are often at odds with European views of the same. I don't see the point in debating that, because generally it's only brought up in order to somehow claim that indigenous peoples weren't First Peoples, that some other people were here first and that maybe indigenous peoples killed them all etc etc, speculation ad naseum. This of course is used as a pretext to claim Aboriginal peoples don't have any inherent Aboriginal rights.
This is one of the 'bullshit' topics I don't think needs to be discussed here. What do you think?
I'm hoping that out of this, we can eventually create a sticky of "basic assumptions" to inform people new to the Aboriginal forum.
Some of the first principles that come to mind at first aren't up for debate on babble are:
-the fact that all of Canada currently exists on unceded Aboriginal land.
-the state of Canada (and other colonialist states) are currently engaged in an ongoing colonization project intent on extinguishing native right and title and, indeed, the existence and right to exist of Aboriginal cultures and persons.
-the status of being Aboriginal is a criminalized state under the justice system of Canadian and other colonialist legal and policing systems, and as such, self-identified First Nations live in a constant state of surveillance and state coercion.
-Generally, First Nation persons are members of an economically, socially and culturally marginalized and oppressed class in Canada.
-The Government of Canada, past and present, is perpetually at effort to ignore and discredit the above truths.
There are doubtless others. But other first principles about the Aboriginal forum is that it is a space made for FN posters to discuss FN issues from a FN point of view. rabble.ca is well aware of the contradiction that sees two non-FN moderators, employed by an entirely non-FN staff with a largely non-FN readership, act as stewards and caretakers for these principles, thus reproducing the usual liberal line whereby benevolent Westerners keep Aboriginals safe (cf. residential schools, the Indian Act, the 1969 White Paper, and countless treaties throughout history).
rabble.ca is well aware of the contradiction that sees two non-FN moderators, employed by an entirely non-FN staff with a largely non-FN readership, act as stewards and caretakers for these principles, thus reproducing the usual liberal line whereby benevolent Westerners keep Aboriginals safe (cf. residential schools, the Indian Act, the 1969 White Paper, and countless treaties throughout history).
Excellent diagnosis. What's the cure?
I don't know. It may be incurable. This forum used to have a fairly steady hand when Makwa was modersator, but since then its been kind of dishevelled.
Being born in another settler nation, australia, I cannot understand the societires of all settler nations! Europeans are full of semantics and hippocracies! Indian Act. Is there similar legislation for the european tribes that arrived here? If not, why not? Why shoulkd the First Nations have specific legislation? Are the First Nations the caretakers and decision makers of such legislation?
If you cannot admitt that there were original peoples on these lands and you have to debate that point, then I am sorry but what do the europeans need to be convinced? Maybe another invasion like their ancestors hundreds of years ago!
www.stoptheintervention.org.
I'd like to point out that FN is not an appropriate term to use if you want to include all Aboriginal people. FN does not include Metis, non-status Indians or Inuit.
So I was thinking, though I don't have the energy right this second, that if we agree on a set of...I don't want to use the term first principles, it makes me want to start making Ayn Rand jokes...anyway, basic principles...then it might be helpful to provide some links people can explore on their own if they are new to them. Some 'official' reports, some 'other' sources, etc. I think overestimating the general population's understanding of these basic principles is the wrong approach to take. Understanding goes a long way. However, doing this would also avoid having people ask for 'proof' and derailing topics.
Sounds like a good operating principle.
I would add that some of these things entail as prerequisites rather raw, if not ugly, basic discussions to get at 'basic information'.
To make it concrete: 'race based privileges' is the ugly and confrontational way of putting something that many people will bring up, albeit using prettier and/or masked language.
To my mind, if you are going to be sending people who lack basic information about treaty rights for example, it isn't going to do any good to send them to a clinical and historical explanation. What they read has to take them on some kind of excursion through the controversies that are always there... that are not really even "below the surface".
Some of the first principles that come to mind at first aren't up for debate on babble are:
-the fact that all of Canada currently exists on unceded Aboriginal land. [...]
I would very much appreciate a clarification on this. To my understanding, the lands covered by the 11 numbered treaties (essentially current day Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, with small parts of Ontario, Quebec, the NWT and a slice of north eastern British Columbia) were in fact ceded - that being the Crown's goal when entering the treaties themselves.
I am not making any assertions about the fairness of the treaties or the treaty process, I am questioning the sweeping assertion being made in your post Catchfire. Could you please explain how you arrive at this interpretation and how it becomes something not up for debate when it appears to be based on something that is simply not factual.
Yes, I see your quibble bagkitty. I think "unceded" is an unecessary and complicating descriptor. Perhaps just "all of Canada currently exists on Aboriginal Land" would be better.
"Ceded/unceded" land is a bit tricky, and, as you say, usually refers to FN which don't have a treaty with Canada, like some Dene nations in the north and many nations located in what is now called BC. I was referring to the tricky concept of "land" in the discourse between Aboriginal Nations and Canada/British Crown, in that usually (although my knowledge of Canadian treaties is far from comprehensive) "land" meant something different to both parties. I can expand on that if you like, but you're right: calling it "unceded" was clumsy.
Basically it just means that tired old canards like "Indians came here from Africa/over the land bridge! They're not indigenous either!" or "They lost the war/signed treaties/etc. so it's not there's anymore!" or "How long ago was that anyway? Get over it!" aren't permitted.
Even in the cases where there has been a treaty, ongoing specific and general claims continue to be fought in the courts. Meaning, many First Nations did not get the land they were 'allocated' when they signed their Treaty, or even worse, they had huge chunks of their allocation taken from them. Lands that were not specifically "reserved for Indians" were still, however, 'burdened' with various Aboriginal rights, such as the right to hunt, gather, fish, extract timber and so on. Don't forget as well that the Metis have so far been unsuccessful in their land claims, but that with new developments in Aboriginal law, may indeed be successful, meaning large swaths of area covered by the 'numbered Treaties' and supposedly 'ceded' would have to be dealt with.
That, on top of the fact that hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of land in Canada were NOT ceded through Treaty, means that it's fair to say, all lands in Canada are impacted by Aboriginal Rights. To what extent varies from outright title, to right to hunt/fish/etc, and also include the positive right to be included in consultation when there is development, and accomodation depending on the circumstances.
Though it is still accurate, with all the above in mind to say that...most of Canada exists on unceded Aboriginal land.
Last post from me in this particular thread (really, I promise).
Thanks Catchfire and Yiwah. Having thought about it more, I am getting the feeling I probably should have sought the correction in a seperate "reactions" thread. I follow a number of threads in the aboriginal forum with interest, but don't chime in because I recognize that my comments would be coming out of the peanut gallery. In this instance, though, I was under the impression that Catchfire was posting with mod hat on (ex cathedra if you will) and it was my intention to seek clarification in the hope of avoiding having the thread become about (as he puts it) his "clumsiness". I recognize that a certain amount of lawyer-speak is, of necessity, going to be involved while discussing some of the topics around title and rights -- I just hope that the mod hats take into account they have a particular responsibility to use it carefully when they might be seen to be speaking with their bonnets on. Even more so when they are overtly "laying down the law" as to what the acceptable parameters of the discussion are.
Thanks for that clarification about unceded land. The Nisga for instance would be an exception to any generalization about treaties and treaty rights.
It is very hard to discuss aboriginal issues because as pointed out above FN's are not the extent of the way we use the term aboriginal. I find this forum very hard to post in because I would like to discuss models from our history that had some good features but that runs into the idea that all settlers are illegitimate. Is Batoche a symbol of the settler culture or the aboriginal culture? The answer to that question I think holds the key to the difficulties in many of the generalizations we use about this issue. Was Beausoleil a settler or an ally of a FN at war with the British empire? Given that is my heritage I find it a fascinating question? How I should view Acadia? The history including Mi'Kmaq history says that the Acadians lived in peace in a symbiotic relationship with the Mi'Kmaq for over 150 years. If you call this a settler society and dismiss its legitimacy then are you not also dismissing the sovereign authority of the Mi'Kmaq themselves given they chose to share their territory?
These I think are issues that are not disrespectful of aboriginal culture or rights but they clearly do not fit into the paradigm described above.
When it comes to questions like that, I'd rather let a Mi'gmaq speak to the issues.
After all, we aren't a hive mind, and we won't all agree with one another :D
You see that is the problem is it not? If you talk about Batoche would you only want to hear the Cree perspective? Just so you know where I come from I will post links for you form the Mi'Kmaq. Daniel Paul is I believe still one of the most respected historians of the Mi'Kmaq people.
I find it interesting that my ancestors arrived in Mi'Kmaq territory over 350 years ago and you think my view of that history is somehow not relevant. Therein lies the difficulty because unlike you I have studied both the history of my people and the history of their FN's allies but my thoughts are not to be trusted despite my going to both Acadian and M'iKmaq sources to learn about the inteplay of the two cultures.
Governor Shirley of Massachusetts, who had been agitating for a campaign to drive the French from Nova Scotia, is given permission to do so by the Secretary of State, Sir Thomas Robinson. The Secretary also orders Shirley to collaborate on this effort with Governor Lawrence, who had advocated the same policy. The two governors correspond and jointly plan for an expedition to be sent to Chignecto in the spring of 1755. The expedition, consisting of 2,000 New England militia and 250 British regulars from Fort Lawrence, lays siege to Fort Beausejour on 12 June 1755. The French capitulate four days later. This successful action by the British effectively removes French influence from Nova Scotia.
Mi'kmaq raid isolated settlements in Nova Scotia, with British fishing boats as a main target. The Penobscot raid frontier settlements in Maine.
Expulsion of Acadians begins. The Mi'kmaq hide many Acadians to save them from being deported. Many Acadians flee into the forests and fight a guerilla war beside the Mi'kmaq.
http://www.muiniskw.org/pgHistory2.htm
By 1713, the year France transferred its self-endowed ownership of Acadia to the English via the Treaty of Utrecht, the Mi'kmaq/Acadien relationship was so close that it caused the British to become paranoid about it. In fact, their paranoia was so bad that they tried to end it in 1722 by issuing a proclamation forbidding any social exchanges between the two Peoples. Dated August 1, 1722, by Richard Philipp, Governor of Acadia. Under its provisions it became illegal for Acadians to entertain a Mi'kmaq in any manner. How strictly it was enforced is reflected in the minutes of a Council meeting held on May 22, 1725:
“The Honourable Lt. Governor, John Doucett, acquainted the board that Prudane Robichau, senior inhabitant in the Cape, had entertained an Indian in his house, contrary to His Excellency's proclamation, dated August 1, 1722. That he had therefore put him in irons and in prison amongst the Indians for such heinous misdemeanour. This was to terrify the other inhabitants from clandestine practices of betraying the English subjects, into Indian hands. A petition by Robichau for release was then presented to Council for approval: The said petition being read. It is the opinion of the board, upon account of his age, and having been so long in irons, that upon the offers and promises he made in his petition of putting up as security goods and other chattels for his future good behaviour, he be set free.”
To date, I’ve found no evidence that the 1722 proclamation was rescinded. However, after the treaty of 1725 was ratified by the Mi’kmaq at Annapolis Royal in 1726, it wasn’t strictly enforced. During these years British authorities would at times take measures that penalized the Mi’kmaq or Acadiens, and try to play one party off against the other. It never worked, primarily because they communicated their experiences with the English to each other, and many of the barbarities committed against one party often penalized both.
For instance, there is convincing evidence that when bounties for Mi’kmaq scalps, including those of women and children, were offered in Nova Scotia by Massachusetts Governor William Shirley in 1744, prosecuted by the Bay colony’s Captain John Gorham’s bloodthirsty “Gorham’s Rangers,” by Governor Edward Cornwallis's 1749 and 1750, and by Governor Charles Lawrence in 1756, many scalps of mixed bloods, as well as some full blood Acadiens, were also harvested.
http://www.danielnpaul.com/AcadianMi'kmaqContactsOutlawed.html
Mi'kmaq, Acadian relationship built on respect
For me, June 7, 1997, shall always be a day of fond memories. It was the day that University Sainte-Anne, the institution of higher learning that serves the Acadians of Nova Scotia, awarded me an honourary Doctorate in Letters and I became Dr. Paul!
They added spice to the day by giving me the honour and the pleasure of delivering the convocation address. I used the opportunity to review the Acadian/Mi'kmaq social relationship as it existed prior to the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763.
The association was one of long duration. It started in the late 1500s with the arrival of French missionaries and fur-traders. These early contacts quickly grew into a mutually beneficial and respectful relationship which paved the way for French settlers to begin to establish themselves in Acadia in 1605 without opposition from the Mi'kmaq.
During this period, the two peoples established many social exchanges. Inter-marriage was quite common and each adapted to many of the customs of the other. French schools were established and Mi'kmaq children attended them on a daily basis alongside Acadian children.
Today, as a legacy of this relationship, the Acadian language contains Mi'kmaq words such as “matues” (mud-oo-wes), the Mi’kmaq word for porcupine. On their part, the Mi'kmaq adopted the Roman Catholic faith of the Acadians as their own.
Not surprisingly, the Acadian culture exhibits many of the excellent values that the Mi'kmaq hold near and dear - mutual respect for neighbours, democratic practices, welfare of the community before oneself, and a desire to be left in peace, to name a few.
In the Mi'kmaq community, before and, for a considerable time after, this period of closeness with the Acadians, maintaining the integrity of one's personal honour was the guiding principle upon which relationships with others were built.
This is probably why the Mi'kmaq stuck with the Acadians to the conclusion of the bitter events of the mid-1700s - three proclamations issued by English governors for Mi'kmaq scalps and the edict of1755 for the expulsion of the Acadians.)
http://www.danielnpaul.com/Col/1997/Mi'kmaqAcadianRelationship-Respectful.html
This looks like a lot more than we need to get into to set out some basic principles of essentially what will not be discussed.
Are you thinking that this might potentially be a topic and specifics that would not be discussed?
.... The history including Mi'Kmaq history says that the Acadians lived in peace in a symbiotic relationship with the Mi'Kmaq for over 150 years.
If you call this a settler society and dismiss its legitimacy then are you not also dismissing the sovereign authority of the Mi'Kmaq themselves given they chose to share their territory?
These I think are issues that are not disrespectful of aboriginal culture or rights but they clearly do not fit into the paradigm described above.
Reference to the highlighted bit: I don't read it that way.
For one thing, the 'paradigm' is a work in progress. But I also don't see in where it seems to be headed that your questions would not fit. Its basic principles being laid out, and I dont see even in where things seem to be going so far that the topics you brought up would be excluded.
Maybe I'm being too simple, or missing something, but I think the 'paradigm' is in the end about what will not be discussed. While you seem to be talking about it as if its about what will be discussed. And I think there is a fundamental practical difference there.
I find it interesting that my ancestors arrived in Mi'Kmaq territory over 350 years ago and you think my view of that history is somehow not relevant.
There's been a misunderstanding. What I meant by my comment is that I would ask a Mi'gmaq what he or she felt about their relationship with non-Aboriginals, and the specific issues you raised. I can't really comment. I wasn't saying that your view of history is somehow not relevant.
So I'll take this assumption with a grain of salt. I know quite a lot about the history of the people who live in my territory, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike. I'm not afraid to admit that I didn't delve as deeply into the non-Aboriginal cultures of the East coast. Hence my preference to defer to the opinion of an Aboriginal person with more experience in that particular area.
As for your reference to Batoche...I'm Metis.
Fair enough Yiwah and I as well have always made a point as an adult in learning the history of the FN's land I have entered and settled in. I think that the principle of cooperation is why the Mi'Kmaq and Acadians were able to live in peace and relative harmony. The Acadians were not an individilisict farmer culture they were a communal diking culture. Because they diked the Fundy Bay instead of cutting trees everywhere they did not compete with their neighbours. The Acadians learnt many things from the Mi'kmaq and without their help and friendship they would not have survided the first few decades. That is a familiar story for many FN's. The Europeans were treated as guests and accorded respect. The reason I think Acadia is important in settler FN's discussions is because unlike the other places where the settlers after a couple of generations began to exploit and try to control the FN's who had graciously welcomed them, the Acadians remained allies until their ethnic cleansing by the British from Mass. I believe it has to do with the communal nature of both cultures.
So, I've been thinking about how to respond to this, and here goes...
I respect your opinion, and I think you've made some good points, but I disagree that this is the time to "discuss models from our history that had some good features but that runs into the idea that all settlers are illegitimate".
I say this within two contexts. One, in regards to this Aboriginal forum specifically, and two, in regards to indigenous scholarship on a wider level.
In both cases, the real Aboriginal viewpoint is an emerging one. As in, not the Aboriginal viewpoint as presented by some non-Aboriginal academic, ethnogropher or cultural anthropologist, but our viewpoints, in our own words, presented by ourselves. There are so, so many areas we need to explore yet, including what you've brought up here...but we also need the time to develop our own praxis and adapt our own academic traditions (which existed and continue to exist in a much different form than what you find in non-Aboriginal cultures) to the demands of constantly needing to be 'bilingual' in the sense of bridging two worldviews.
In addressing the issue you've brought up, I fear we run the risk of letting our needs fall to the side in favour of once again addressing the needs of non-Aboriginals and their concerns. I say this with the utmost respect. I hope it makes sense, and I certainly welcome the voices of other Aboriginal people here, to comment on what I'm trying to get across.
In addressing the issue you've brought up, I fear we run the risk of letting our needs fall to the side in favour of once again addressing the needs of non-Aboriginals and their concerns. I say this with the utmost respect. I hope it makes sense, and I certainly welcome the voices of other Aboriginal people here, to comment on what I'm trying to get across.
I understand and agree however since this thread was specifically about types of discussions I thought I would note it. I try to be only supportive in this forum and have not raised those kinds of issues in many years. I believe that in the right context with the right people this could be a productive avenue of thought but I also understand that it can quickly lead to a glorification of settler society. I have spent a decade exploring my own roots in Acadia and when I was a young man I had two Canadian heroes, Gabriel Dumount and Norman Bethune, so my perspective is not normally mainstream and for some reason never really has been.
Let me start with this most recent point...
"...the real Aboriginal viewpoint is an emerging one...."
Well no it is not. What is emerging is a pan-indianism viewpoint, where the settler society tries to hang on to what one Indian says, and then try to apply it universally. This hurts the politics of nativeness far worse that wannabe plastic shaman harms the culture. And it fits right into the government promotion of multiculturalism, where they can deal with one native issue (say on the west coast) while they ignore another (like eastern land claims) all the time boasting that they are helping native people (if you get the drift). The Anishanabe have rejected the term "aboriginal" outright for the same reason (as they should) and demand that they be called by their own name "Anishanabe" or "the people". Until the native ethnic groups do the same it provide government with an excuse to continute to ignore their individual concerns and instead focus on easily-solved and less costly isolated solutions.
An old Mohawk taught me a long time ago to ask which viewpoint people are speaking from when they are telling a story or offering advice and to make sure that I state it before I retell the story or the lesson. It isn't disrespctful to do so, but makes sure that we don't fall into the trap of pan-Indianism and that we properly attribute where the information comes from.
On the issues of treaties.
Treaties did not legally surrender the land as originally intended. The fact the the rights obtain through the Royal Proclamation 1763 are entrenched in the Charterof Rights and Freedoms kinda throws a monkey wrench into governments plans to take over all the land. Essentially all the treaties do, is surrender certain rights to the described lands, while maintinaing others "for as long as the grass shall grow". And in many cases such as the Robinson-Huron Trety 1850, and the Williams Treaty 1923, the government erred in attempting to get the Mississauga and Wendat to surrender land that they fully knew were the sovereign territory of Six Nations. These over-lapping jurisdictions among first nations were not expected and so the treaty only surrendered the Mississauga rights within Six Nations territory. However, since the Mississauga have a long-standing treaty with Six Nations, their use of the territory cannot be surrendered without Six Nations and the Mississauga first dissolving their own treaty. Its legally pretty complicated but the jurisprudence is defensible.
Lastly on the issue of settlers.
The early settlers to Upper and Lower Canada did live in harmony with the various First Nations, just as they did with the Miq Maq. The problem came about as a result of the Victorians (notably Sir John A. McDonald) who sought to remove the obstacles that Indians, their treaties and agreements represented in the expansion of certian Victorian financial interests...greed... (and in fact greed was one of the primary reasons for the formation of Canada under the BNA Act). By believing they were removing the Crown authority and supplanting with their own, the Victorians created legislation and took action against the Indians and Metis in order to have free reign on the countryside. Yet at the time of Confederation the settlers were still friendly to the Indians, the government then made a series of prohibitions to stop the trade and co-operation and cause settlers all kinds of hardships if they did not comply. And through these policies successive Victorian governments marginalized First Nation people, and created the model of perpetual care most Bands seem to be stuck with.
Even today First Nations are saddled with the Indian Act which seriously impedes their economic viability. Today's government continues in fashion to control and obfuscate First Nations as a means to continue development and profit on unceded "Indian Lands". The game is still being played only now, many First Nations have learned the rules and skillfully put the government on the defensive. "Its a good day to die", Crazy Horse.
Let me start with this most recent point...
"...the real Aboriginal viewpoint is an emerging one...."
Well no it is not. What is emerging is a pan-indianism viewpoint, where the settler society tries to hang on to what one Indian says, and then try to apply it universally. This hurts the politics of nativeness far worse that wannabe plastic shaman harms the culture. And it fits right into the government promotion of multiculturalism, where they can deal with one native issue (say on the west coast) while they ignore another (like eastern land claims) all the time boasting that they are helping native people (if you get the drift).
I don't take issue with anything else you've said, so I've snipped it.
As for the above, no, that's not what I'm referring to. First...I understand that there is no consensus on the term 'Aboriginal'. Nonetheless, neither is there consensus on the term indigenous and sometimes, you do need a term that is inclusive because constantly saying "First Nations, Inuit and Metis" all the time is unweildly. Not to mention that even those terms can be contentious.
The Aboriginal viewpoint has always been there, but it's been roundly rejected by non-Aboriginal academics. The only people 'qualified' to talk about Aboriginal people in the opinion of those non-Aboriginal academics...were other non-Aboriginal academics. Of course, only non-Aboriginal 'academics' are truly 'academic'...there is no process to give respect to the knowledge of elders, or people with bush lore other than as translated through non-Aboriginal academic reporting.
So when I say 'the real Aboriginal viewpoint is an emerging one', I am referring to Aboriginal people who are creating their own 'indigenous scholarship'. I think of specific examples such as dissertations on the Gikstan legal orders, or work on fourth world feminisim from a Cree-Ojibwe point of view. These are nation-specific, Aboriginal academics, who are bringing forth an nation-specific indigenous worldview. In addition, the form of scholarship is being challenged by people such as these. There has always been the attitude among non-Aboriginal scholars that unless you bring forth your research in an 'appropriate way' (ie, according to the rules and principles of non-Aboriginal academia) then your work is not valid. Indigenous scholars are responsible in great part for the inclusion of a wider variety of non-Western 'evidence' and form in various fields.
I am not referring to tired memes such as the medicine wheel, as it is now being applied to every single social services practice, in that pan-Indian vein. Slapping a medicine wheel into your western-based thesis doesn't make it suddenly Aboriginal, and I agree that there is a fair amount of this going on, that later gets used and applied generally.
"....sometimes, you do need a term that is inclusive because constantly saying "First Nations, Inuit and Metis" all the time is unweildly..."
Well actually, no we do not need another term. In fact using the terms First Nations, Intuit and Metis have the same problem as the term "aboriginal" in that it seeks to generalize all native people into one specific group and ignores the individual worldviews at play when discussing native issues. In my view this is harmful not only to the nation whose lesson you are conveying and also to the academic society you are trying to convey to.
I would rather have a speaker announce they are speaking from a particular viewpoint. The only reason for generalization is to lead the audience into believing they are an authority, even when they do not belong to that particular First Nation. By the same token, I don't believe (and have been taught accordingly) that for instance a Metis can not speak accurately on Anishanbe issues and vice versa even though they might closely be related. And the reality is that in Canada Metis issues are completely different than Anishanabe, because the histroy is different, the culture is different and the politics are different. All of these kinds of bias tend to cultivate speakers in a different direction.
I'm lost.
That its me in particular doesnt matter.
But think of me as the canary.
The term is meant to be inclusive of all Aboriginal people. That does not preclude people from speaking from their specific nation, and I disagree with none of the things you have said about 'not speaking for others'. As to the indigenous academics I am referring to, none of them simply identify as Aboriginal, they ALL identify themselves according to their nation. Nor does their work 'speak for all'. It can't. It's too specific to their own unique traditions.
If you are simply trying to clarify issues here in this thread, that's fine. However,I'd also point out that not all Aboriginal people have a problem with generalised terms especially when the conversation is general. (ie, while you can delve into the specific situation of each and every native community, you also sometimes need to look at the general socio-economic factors from an 'average' in order to see the pattern)
I think the most care has to be taken when the conversation turns to things like what Aboriginal people 'believe/think/do'. Just there should be care taken with those sorts of generalisations among any people, including 'settlers'.
Though putting this 'principle' up there might not be a bad idea...ie...an 'Aboriginal person' does not speak for all 'Aboriginal people'. Etc...with some of the things you've said about different nation specific views. Charter, would you like to see that included as a principle in some sort of stickied thread? And if so, would you mind drafting it?
This thread reminded me of a conference I attended and found the presentation I was looking for. It is very well written and thought provoking.
"Thinking about Aboriginal Justice: Myths and Revolution"; Patricia Monture-Okanee I find it hard to believe that the conference was over 15 years ago. The whole paper is on line.
http://iportal.usask.ca/docs/purich/purich-12468.pdf
As well I found a piece by Emma Larocque in an collections of essays helped me reframe and think about justice issues from a different perspective. Here is a link to the info for the book it is in.
"Re-examining Culturally Appropriate Models in Criminal Justice"; Emma LaRocque
http://www.ubcpress.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=1298
Both these pieces are about the interplay of aboriginal culture and the justice system and I found them very instructive. They highlight the point that the "aboriginal" community is very diverse with a wide range of views on how the cultures both aboriginal and non-aboriginal should interact.
I'm lost.
That its me in particular doesnt matter.
But think of me as the canary.
Be patient. The question of a general vs individual nations' voices is an important one, if only one of the fundamental issue that need to be resolved. The topic itself is vital. It is developing and the result probably worth waiting for.
That was a week ago. And I dont think it was just me lost when I said it.
v
Sorry, wasn't watching the calendar, just reading along.