To continue on my posts regarding the RBC branch bombing in Ottawa last week:
I will not call the FFFC a band of brave warriors.
This is not about ideology.
This is about accountability.
Warriors involved in resistance are the most powerful and successful when they come from, are lead by and reflect the will of the community they claim to represent.
In this case, we have the previously unknown FFFC who carried out the early morning Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) branch bombing in the Glebe neighbourhood of Ottawa, all in the name of Indigenous rights. Thus, in a statement released by the FFFC, it explains the choice of the RBC as a corporate target because of its sponsorship of the Vancouver Olympic Games ("held on stolen indigenous land") and its role as financier of the Alberta oil sand ("tar sands").
So, is the FFFC a band of brave corporate warriors as some activist have declared? A North American version of Che resistance (as if First Nations communities don't have their own heroes and must import someone else's?)
Advertising
From my humble understanding, if I may try and summerize First Nations culture whiile also understanding it is not a true homogenous thing, warrior societies and warriors reflect the essence of guardianship and are the defenders of their community. It is only the common white person's outside perspective of these warrior societies that carry the mythos of scalping, indiscriminate bloodshed and a lone wolf mentality.
In a traditional warrior society, if a warrior conceived of an action, they would first approach their Council and ask permission of the elders (or other governing body) to seek their wisdom and discuss if the proposed action could have repercussions on the women/children/community as a whole. They would then obey the wisdom received from the Council, as the Council would represent the needs of the community; not just an individual's ego.
I mean, logic has it that if any group wanted to act on behalf of a cause or community, it would first consult with the primary stakeholders involved -- in this case, the First Nations communities. In the case of the FFFC, of all the different groups who have publically or privately commented on the fire bombing in the name of Indigenous rights, I have not heard one say they were consulted by members of the FFFC prior to the fire bombing.
Until I hear otherwise, there was no consultation process. But there should have been. Power does not come without its equal weight in accountability. If the FFFC -- whomever its members turn out to be -- is really so concerned with Indigenous rights, then let it also be involved in shielding the First Nations communities from the state and police repercussions that will arise from the groups solo act.
Why would the FFFC even want to pick a fight if its actions could have serious repercussions on the very community it is trying to represent, especially if the community had not previously agreed to play an equal and supporting role.
Let's face reality, it's one thing to type on a chatboard or talk over a beer about how brave the FFFC was to confront the RBC symbol of power, but true to my statement, the Canadian government, TAPPS, the G8-G20 Integrated Security Unit, the RCMP, provincial and local police are already using the bank fire bombing as a pretext for the excessive-force policing of the G8/G20 demonstrations in Huntsville and Toronto.
Conservative Party Federal Industry Minister, Tony Clement, said in regards to the high cost of security funding for the G8/G20 Summit, "Early in the process, people were questioning why we needed so much security." Now, no one is questioning it." Immediately following the afire bombing, the government made a formal request for 500 additional police for the G20 summit, pushing the total number well over the 10,000 previously reported.
This on top of what I can assume will be some kind of intense scrutiny on Aboriginal communities, especially ones involved in resistance struggles. Remember that the Native Rights Movement is considered Canada's #1 domestic threat.
There will be blowback on First Nations communities, as well as on the activist community as a whole. That is why I called the RBC branch bombing an act of "terrorism", because the police's reaction -- backed by government justification -- could/will be used to terrorize the very people that the FFFC claims to represent. It may not be the rolling out the War Measures Act, but the crack down will come. And the net will be wide.
Let me state again, regardless of who the FFFC turns out to be, it is always the non-white, non-Western, marginalized communities that suffer most when the state acts in its inherent racism and classism against any form of resistance. Every activist should always be mindful this fact.
It is these marginalized communities that have to live with police and state racism every day and the state and police's reaction to the fire bombing only adds another layer of oppression.
To all the activists reading this, if you really care about First Nations issues, first learn about the teachings, the culture, consult with the elders, the women, the leadership and members of the different communities before you go off and play the Indians and make the state the Cowboys.
Learn about the history and how it feels to live in a Canada where the police can drop you off in the middle of nowhere on a cold Manitoba-winter night, or what it feels like to have your sister/mother/daughter/cousin disappear off the back of Turtle Island without a trace. And have no body care.
You wanna be a warrior, kid? Start there. Start with the teaching and learn.
This is not about ideology.
This is about accountability.
why not post the statement that brought this rant on?
http://www.warriorpublications.com/?q=node%2F112
if you want to get into math, 500 extra police officers on top of an already planned 10,000 is an extra 5% ... in other words, the excessive policing/repression is happening regardless of what happened in Ottawa. the repression happens regardless.
and i ask, are you accountable/responsible in this column? have you consulted with people and made sure that the message you are spreading through this privileged position you have is in fact representative of 'the people'? obviously not representative of the statement i linked above, which singles out a previous opinion column of yours on this issue as "a good example of how middle-class reformists attempt to use any statement from Indigenous people that promotes nonviolence over militant resistance as a means of legitimizing their position"
your professed 'belief in diversity of tactics ... hooray for diversity!' is obviously a far cry from the understanding of DOT expressed in the Warrior Publications statement
Krystalline,
I'd like to come at this from the other side - whereas fluidity and M. Spector wish to defend the use of violence by 'FFFC', I would like to point out to you that your support for 'diversity of tactics', with its tacit support for violent tactics, is a line of reasoning that encourages support for violent actions of various kinds - it's a slippery slope. Once you are willing to tacitly support the use of violence in one scenario when it comes to protest/activism ostensibly geared toward seeking social justice, it's difficult to draw lines.... while it may seem logical to you to denounce the firebombing while perhaps preferring other, 'milder' forms of violence (might you enumerate what would be more 'acceptable' forms of violence to you?), I would submit that violence is never effective in social movements...
I have never defended the use of violence by the FFFC. I have criticized those such as yourself who give uncritical support to the forces of repression in response to violent acts of rebellion.
As for your dictum that "violence is never effective in social movements" I assume you use "social" in the sense of tea parties and sunday school picnics. Because the social movements in history that have really made any difference at all have always done so either through direct violence or the implied threat of violence. The ones that eschew violence always get crushed by the violence of the state.
Power is always about violence, express or implied.
in your previous piece you advised "for now the best solution is to wait until we receive the wisdom and guidance of the different First Nations groups as it is their reaction that sets the tone". Perhaps you yourself should await this wisdom and guidance - especially before attempting to treat processes internal to Indigenous resistance and warrior societies.
I frankly don't see where this confusion around Diversity of Tactics is coming from. The mechanics of Diversity of Tactics must exist in an environment where there is accountability. Diversity of Tactics has never meant "anything goes", as if an activist can act as a lone wolf and participate in any action without then being held accountable for what they have done.
In this case, whomever was involved in the FFFC bank firebombing should be held accountable by the two stakeholder groups it claims to represent: the activist community and the First Nations communities.
And please stop me right now if I have missed this, but please show me one First Nations group or community or First Nations solidarity group or community who has come forward and said: 1: it was consulted by the FFFC prior to the bombing 2: it supports and backs the FFFC in its RBC branch bombing, is happy with the actions of the FFFC and wants the group to follow through with its manifesto's promise of continuing on this course of action.
Apparently you don't think it's sufficient that the individuals who call themselves FFFC will be held accountable first and foremost to the Canadian state and its legal system.
And it's disingenuous of you to suggest (and indeed insist) that any First Nations group that condoned this action must come forward and submit itself to the full force and fury of the Canadian criminal justice system for conspiracy, accessory to arson, counselling arson, terrorism, and god knows what else the cops come up with. Does it really surprise you that nobody has turned themselves in?
ADHarden>
If you insist on continuing to spout the same argument, reposting the same words, over and over again across this site, other people's blogs, mailing lists, etc. it would be nice to see you at least once address some of the opposing sides points. I think that at this point you're working only to discredit yourself as a reasonable person. I think that you raise some good points, but they are the exact same points you raised two months ago and seem to refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. That is not debate.
"To all the activists reading this, if you really care about First Nations issues,
first learn about the teachings, the culture, consult with the elders, the women,
the leadership and members of the different communities before you go off
and play the Indians and make the state the Cowboys."
I stood up and appaluded when I read that. Thank you.
The State isn't the Cowboys? Who knew?
You say that you will not call this entity calling itself the FFFC, whomever they/it may be a band of brave warriors. Then you openly reiterate asking whether this FFFC may in fact be a band of brave corporate warriors. Since First Nations of Onowaregeh are not corporations, are you implying that you ar now beginning to openly suspect that the RBC fire-bombing was yet another false-flag inside job?
In that case one would be led to wonder about the range of probablilities that the fire-bombing stunt might have been executed with the complicity of RBC.
As to responding more generally, from myself personally as a First Nation individual-- and please do take note of my sovereign freedom in doing so, something that you, as property of the British Monarch, need to try & begin to properly understand for the difference in world view this entails--, Canada is not itself a legal entity under international law, so to propose us as being it's #1 domestic threat is preposterous. The reality, which you also need to face & be faced with constantly, is that Canada is the #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 alien threat to our sovereignty. In terms of an immediate and present danger of this threat, Canada could be considered a #1 in relation to this territorial instance of the RBC bombing, since it is in Algonquin territory. But that is also debatable since Britain does always have to be seen as the #1 party in terms of the source of accountability for all of this. These facts are why we are fighting to completely dismantle Canada, through a diversity of tactics.
From criticizing the militants who carried out the RBC attack and invoking Native struggles to do so, Kraus now moves to appropriating the voice of Indigenous peoples and assuming some kind of insight to indigenous culture and community, thereby revealing her colonial mentality.
As an Indigenous person i find this disgusting yet, not surprisingly, typical of the reformist left.
There are many instances where warriors have had to overcome the fear, hesitation, and lack of will among their own people to confront the colonial state. Warrior resistance is not simply going to a 'council' of elders to seek permission--this is an utterly simplistic and romanticized view.
As you do not know the identity of the FFFC, your allegations that they should go 'educate' themselves is a great assumption. In my opinion, they have educated themselves and are more aware of the 'issues' than most of these 'rabble' bloggers and the middle-class reformists that oversee the rabble.ca.
Yes, Indigenous and 'marginalized' peoples bear the brunt of repressive state policies and general oppression. That is why their resistance is far stronger than white, primarily middle-class Kanadians. Look at Oka 1990, Gustafsen Lake and Ipperwash '95, Six Nations 2006. What recent actions more closely replicate these? The 2010 Heart Attack and the RBC attack, both of which engaged in property destruction and direct attacks on colonial capitalist institutions.
Maybe when you summon the courage to do more than blog you will have a greater understanding of what militant resistance and a diversity of tactics are. Until then, please stop acting like you know something about the internal conditions and struggles of Indigenous peoples.
Interesting. I just watched the video again and noticed a couple of things. Firstly, despite Kraus' claim that the RBC bombing was done in the name of indigenous communities, this is actually only a small part of the groups 'manifesto'. They give equal weight to issues of homelessness and the environmental devastation of the Tar Sands. Secondly, I have heard much talk about the SUV that the protestors climb into. There isn't one! This has been made up entirely! Watch the video! Finally, these folks have made no claim to being warriors, they haven't invoked Che, and they hurt no one. IF there is to be legitimate discussion of this tactic then we have to get our facts straight way and not succumb to the temptation of emotional hyperbole and speculative nonsense.
Krystalline,
thanks for engaging me on 'diversity of tactics' - my point is that indeed, DoT does function as an 'anything goes', from the perspective of those individuals or groups that decide they want to use violent tactics... if one accepts DoT, this provides a blanket of much-sought-after legitimacy and justification for the minority of groups and individuals that wish to engage in violent tactics (and by this I refer to smashing, destroying, hitting, throwing stuff at police, using physical force against people...)... it's this I have a beef with.
Cytizen H, it doesn't matter that no one was hurt (though we must pay attention to the fact that someone - a janitor perhaps - could easily have been hurt - this is the nature of violence!). This was a violent tactic that ought to be roundly and rightly condemned on all sides - as all violent tactics should be, in my view, because ultimately they are only destructive, and any pretense that they are 'effective' in some way is farcical. But you already know my central point - they could only be considered 'effective' in my view by the perpetrators as a form of futile catharsis of venting rage through violence, which does nothing good whatsoever to the broader nonviolent movement...
Your thoughts?
that reminds me of a tune...
Whoa - top 40 material for sure! :)
I'm going to try to formulate my thoughts properly, still waiting on a response from my former student... but I do think that 'diversity of tactics' (because of its function as a legitimation tool for violent tactics) is damaging to the overall movement against neoliberalism and war, so I'm happy to keep singing that tune :) - especially in dialogue with folks who seek to advocate or defend violent tactics... in the attempt to try to convince folks of the ultimate futility of violent tactics to the broader movement and its aims..
I flatly disagree with you that diversity of tactics encompassing violent actions is in any way damaging to the anti-colonial movement of Onowaregeh. If someone were to for example blow up every major bank building in Canada and in Britain all at once, I would consider it to be entirely justified and appropriate to the purpose because I would expect such an act to make a strong enough impression in letting the colonists know that they are not wanted here and are not welcome and are better off DEAD. They were welcomed once upon a time but no longer, we did not welcome you with the understanding that you would be committing wholesale genocide and destruction of our natural environment. You can either learn to live peaceably in accord with the covenants you made with us, or you can leave, or you can die, I don't think there is another option at this point.
Now back to the concrete matter of this fire-bombing stunt. I am still above all interested to know who did it and I believe that it is in the best interests of First Nations to discuss amongst ourselves to learn of who, if any of us, is responsible for it & to encourage to make it known. I believe it is entirely worth it, no repercussions would be forth coming anyway, and it would clear the air concerning the still glaring possibility of this having been a false flag operation, and so we need to know this as soon as possible. Anyone claiming responsibility will be considered a hero, no question there!
For an interesting look at the firebombing checkout
http://hammerhearts.wordpress.com/ADHarden> Since you are still claiming to be interested in "dialogue"... A couple of questions.
Firstly, what are your thoughts on self defence? Does a fight for one's own immediate survival warrant violent action? What about someone else's? If someone's person is being violated, and it is in my power to stop it, does this warrant violent action? Is violent action futile in these instances?
During World War II, in Eastern Europe (mostly), groups of peasant Jews hid in the woods and formed militia groups, called the Partisans. Among other things, they burned railroad bridges that were being used to transfer priosners, weapons, etc. Were these bridge burnings acts of catharsis?