North American Apartheid

by all accounts, yeah, canada is really no better.  It's just that the process is a few hundred years along already, so it's much harder to reverse because we've already taken all the good land and control the whole place.  Doesn't mean it can't someday be done, though!

I hope I've convinced you that you should support both indigenous struggles in this country and Palestinian struggles in the Middle East. Let me know if you disagree and I will see if I can re-iterate the argument in a different way.

Canada has achieved what Israel can only dream of...

An Indictment of the Courts for Treason and Complicity in Genocide

http://bcgreen.com/~samuel/fraud+treason.html

I actually think we frame the question quite similarly. As I said, I don't claim any sort of clairvoyance into this issue. I try to look at it objectively, much like a world citizen would when looking at Israel for example. My concern is simply that we apply our sentiments universally. In relation to the issue of apartheid, it means subjecting our nation to the same amount of scrutiny that we apply to foreign lands. To say nothing of the emotional basis for these arguments, there are I think valid legal arguments to be made that we should not be here. The question then becomes how to come to terms with the ramifications of such a realization. I compare our complicity to the blind universal acceptance of economy as framed by neoliberal intellectuals. We live our daily lives in adherence to their principles and try to fight inadequacies from within, not even stopping for a moment to determine whether it is the system as a whole that is the problem.

That was a very interesting video. Thanks Fidel. It was fascinating that neither of the commentators got the point of the chief's actions and instead tried to frame him as an opportunist. Obviously, enlisting the help of a known oppressor is not the ideal, but when nobody listens to you, who do you turn to?

I'll take a look at this one later. Looks like a fun night of reading!

It is apt to blame our government for their action (or inaction) regarding the indigenous issue. However, aren't we complicit in this as well? In buying or renting a residence on occupied land, aren't we guilty parties? Everything we do on lands that may have been expropriated would then constitute some sort of crime of occupation, no?

Ha ha. The "problem" as Einstein said is trying to solve problems with the same kinds of thinking that caused them in the first place. Ha ha.

In all due respect, it is impossible for us to "apply our sentiments universally." Our colonial legacy tend to view things on a basis of hoarding and greed. We see things pretty much in black and white terms, "with us or agin't us" thinking.

On the other hand the Mohawks I know tell me they believe more in inclusion rather than exclusion and sharing rather than owning. However, in order to establish their sovereignty and rights they have had to demand land and rights back as if they hold exclusive ownership, solely because as colonials we see that this is the only way one can have a relationship with land.

Ask a farmer if we can dump pesticides in his hay field that one day he will feed to his cattle. His relationship with the land is not monetary per se but symbiotic. He doesn't mind sharing the hay with horses, goats or sheep (well sometime cattle farmers don't care for sheep) as long as one does not deplete the resource. But when corporations come knocking promising money to kill his cattle and poison the land, he might take exception.

So if we are going to involve ourselves in "getting along" with native people, we have to take another look at land and resources, wild life and the environment AND it can only be done through the guidance of native people from the area. Otherwise we are doing nothing other than prolonging the problem we started in the first place with our way of thinking. It requires a shift in paradigm worldview before we have the capacity to even begin to understand where native people are in the 21st century. Of course if we decolonize then we have to replace that worldview with another and that opens us to the possibility of assimilating into native culture and worldview. Most people would object, but then again most people deny we are the cause of their problems...

For my part, and although a usable tool, I can't see paradigm thinking being entirely a fete de compli. It is a problem having to function within the legal framework of another society/culture. I think that a system of legal plurality would be an only solution. Both cultures seek to establish social systems that express the desire for human justice. Which I'm pretty sure is a common human goal. But it is only the strategies that are employed by the two worldviews which are different. If you tell Canada that your society doesn't believe in institutions like property and ownership, human right, or equality, those conjectures simply wouldn't compute in current thinking. These are ideas that several elders have told me are incompatible with their understandings of Anishnabek law. Canada can only step outside "its" own box of conceptual thinking to achieve a paradigm perspective. Unfortunately the systems of the two worldviews are paradoxical. Entirely different boxes. Canadian law cannot test for things outside that toolbox, outside the conceptual thinking.

But how does one proceed? There's no question that Indigenous people need to reestablish an "unencumbered" relationship with the land. There's both the resolution of land claims and dealing with the Crown's interest in current reserve land. The relationship with land is a part of the obligatory worldview, and an important source of the legal system. There's also the need to renew this other relationship with Canada, and establish the dialogue of legal pluralism (companion constitutions). In terms of "kicking" the settlers out... our relationship with the land has always compeled us to share it. That's not a question. And there's also things that Canada has to respect as part of our relationship and obligations. But you are right that it should start with at least paradigm thinking. But that challenge will only get us so far.

Although it may open a door for critical thinking, to compare Indigenous struggles with those of the Palestinian struggles could not sufficiently compliment the complexities of the two realities. It confines any real solutions to the expectations to those who created the "problems". Our relationship with Canada hasn't changed over the past hundred and fifty years. Even though the relationship has certainly evolved, the nature of it continues. Canada has gained much through the years by maintaining the control and dependency of Indigenous peoples and has a tough time stepping beyond the conditions of that relationship.

I wasn't suggesting that competing worldviews was in anyway a solution but no less than the problem from an aboriginal perspective. To test legal frameworks within a single system has limited aboriginal political and economic freedom, and left the protesters of oppression criminalized for their objections.

From my perspective, enlightened settlers want the same thing from government as native peoples do - non-interference and sharing of land and resources. This was the relationship established for the most part on the original settlement frontiers until the Family Compact movement with its greed and self-serving ambitions soured it. So obtaining ~some~ settler support as allies goes back to the heart of the issue.

I think the Royal Proclamation 1763 provided the necessary tool for moving forward. Unfortunately the lower courts still do not recognize the rights recognized under it, or the future that it projects as an inclusion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And. We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements. "

Confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, this recognizes that aboriginal title is a sui generis (unique title not described under common law" and remains so unless and until surrender to the Crown. This is not a final outcome it is the beginning of any discussion on land rights and title since most of Canada was never ceded to the Crown, and some that was, was done improperly. So the starting point is recognition and affirmation by all of us that there must be the assumption that lands were never surrendered or failed the tests for surrender set out in the RP 1763.

{As a quick sidebar to this point, the "surrender" of sui generis title is not a surrender of land, since that is impossible where land was jointly occupied and titled by other First Nations. The any intention through treaty or otherwise of a surrender could only be a surrender of that particular nations rights to the land, not the physical transfer of land title.}

While the government refuses to acknowledge fully the Royal Proclamation 's establishment of rights, and the lower courts tend not to get into constitutional issues outside of their scope of knowledge, it is fruitless to approach the problem of recognition of rights and title either politically or legally.  That leaves only with education as a mainstream institution where commonality can be found, critically analyzed and reconciled. There needs to be education on the real istory between the settlers and native peoples prior to the 1840's Family Compact. And the information must be disseminated to more students, and scholars such that the debates on aboriginal issues and solutions are filled with facts and experiences and not the typical racism, is-identification, hyperbole and pejoratives we often see comment sections and forums peppered with. Rather, facts and references are the best tool against that mass ignorance that exists in Canada today.

In terms of justice, I don't believe that is what is intended- at least by my Mohawk friends who regularly teach me my important lesson - in any reconcilliation. I would suggest that the best word to describe it in English would be balance....although they often refer to it as a skanna (not sure of the spelling). While I have been told that it means peace, it also envelopes the concept of security and good thinking, which are all interdependent. So "balance" between competing principles is my 'Anglish twang on the concept conveyed to me.

I tend to agree that comparing native struggles here in Canada to Palestinian issues in the middle east presents the same problem we have in competing worldviews. To top it off, doing that from my perspective adds a third dimension in presenting analysis from a western worldview, which also competes with an aboriginal, and eastern / Hebrew / Christian worldview. It would be disengenuous to attempt such a venture without first acknowledging our failures from the beginning. So for this I will not venture into that discussion other than to say that is has no constructive purpose in my opinion.

Charter Rights and sknguy II, I appreciate your highly developed opinions on this matter. I think this topic needs to be broadcast to a wider audience. Would you two consider collaborating on some sort of op-ed that could be pasted on Rabble's home page? I don't make the decisions around here, but this seems to me a topic that is past due for discussion. Considering the popular calls for revision of the human - earth relationship around the world, this could very well be a prime launching pad for critical thought.

I'm guilty of buying into the Western paradigm. sknguyII, your posts are very insightful. Can you recommend any sources to help me understand this perspective more clearly?

There's another book that might be of interest to you. Earth to Property: Colonization, Decolonization and Capitalism by Anthony Hall, McGill-Queen's press. I didn't realize it was just last spring when it was published. From his bio, Hall was at one time a native studies prof who now teaches globalization studies at the U of Lethbridge. It's apparently quite an ambitious book at 1000 pages. I haven't read it myself but I believe it's mainly a critical look at the historical western relationship with economy and the Earth.

I think that explosure to Indigenous perspectives helps a person look critically and in very different ways at the institutions of society. The matter of factness of things like property, and say apartheid, exemplifies the fact that sometimes we need something of shock value to get beyond our daily preoccupations. I am curious about his treatment of Indigenous thoughts on the concept of property and whether this is simply a byline for the usual western narative.

Anishinabek Mourn Passing of Grandfather WIlliam Commanda

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2011/03/c9117.html

"Commanda is the carrier of three wampum belts of historical and spiritual importance: the Seven Fires Prophecy Belt - which represents choice, the 1700s Welcoming Belt - which represents sharing our grand natural resources and values of First Peoples with the newcomers, and the Jay Treaty Border-Crossing Belt - which recognizes Turtle island as a coherent entity.."

Condolences

Just to share a reflection on what I've learned about the "us" and "them" relationships we have with the rest of Canada. There's much ado about racial distinctions between different peoples. Much of the world would relate identity in those terms. For we in Canada thinking in racial terms, such as the process of defining Indian Status for example, is principally an introduced practice. But from my ancestry, I've come to learn that the term Anishnabek, or Anishnabe the singular, of itself makes no racial distinction. To be Anishnabe is simply to be human. If you speak an Inuit language, or Cree, or Navaho your Anishnabe. If you spoke English, German or Cantonese you’re still Anishnabe. I'd probably refer to my own ancestry as Nakawe Anishnabe, which would reflect the language my ancestors and community spoke. Nakawe is a prairies dialects of Ojibwe.

When the newcomers arrived, the stories are that they were to be thought of as our brothers and sisters. As humans we’re all related. The term Anishnabek is really just an expression of the way in which we see humanity’s place in the world. Anishnabek are distinct from the land, environment and the creatures that populate it. In modern times, we've come to see being Anishnabe as a specific identity with a specific cultural heritage, which doesn’t really reflect what I’ve come to understand it to mean. My ancestors expected that all humans shared in the same obligations and responsibilities that they themselves lived by. And many of their neighbours certainly shared their worldview perspective. Those kinds of expectations could probably apply in the same manner that Canada may have expected Indigenous peoples to understand European ideas, like that of the concept of property in relation to the land.

It concerns me when people try to define and label a collection of specific concepts or ideas as being universally human. Because such intents can actually be exclusory. The treaties that were negotiated contain many culturally specific concepts that don’t work well in another social system. This was so mainly because Canada was the dominant partner and author of the treaties. I'm reflecting specifically on my own prairie treaty area. In a modern context even ideas, like universality and equality, may be ideas that don't conceptually translate. Much of what we negotiated in the treaties likely didn't translate conceptually either and are, more likely than not, actually paradoxical in fundament substance and nature.

Why are the old ideas and concepts of my ancestors important to hold on to? As an indigenous person, not only do I personally have responsibilities to carry on these ideas, but they are a part of what defines me as a human, carrying distinctly human responsibilities. Canada has taught us to think mainly in terms of our human entitlements. To un-think that will be a part of the decolonization we'll have to come to terms with. And in order to better appreciate the values and many conceptual realities that our ancestors lived by and worked to preserve, we need to decolonize and un-think many modern things.

Recently I attended a forum where the AFN’s Yukon Regional Chief, Eric Morris, spoke about a process whereby a number of Yukon First Nations were negotiating a self-government agreement with Canada. Last winter the group concluded an agreement on the administration of Justice. Mr Morris went on to described that the group had determined that it was important to tackle the issue of Justice administration first before anything else because such a system would be needed in establishing reconciliation and dispute settlement mechanisms before proceeding to finalise the other areas of self-government.

As a part of the requirements that Canada had placed on the negotiations, the subsequent Justice agreement was to include consideration and protection for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As Mr Morris was noting this reality the thought brought a wry smile to his face. At first I though the smile was a response to the irony of Canada’s continuing habit of placing conditions on what is suppose to be a self-determining process. But the smile was actually related to something else that Mr Morris immediately described.

Mr Morris went on to explain how, during the negotiations, he sought the advice and knowledge from Elders. He went on to note how he also sought the advice from one uncle in particular. On one occasion his uncle told him “You know what they [Canada] mean by rights is like...” and he recited a Tlingit expression that I can’t recall. Mr Morris went on to explain that the Tlingit expression meant “the way we treat the things we use”.

I can’t claim to understand Tlingit practices but I think I can relate to that meaning. I know that supposed universal concepts like “rights” are foreign and have no expression in traditional thinking. The Tlingit expression didn’t seem to say anyhing about the substances of our relationships with things; but importantly it referred to the use rather than the ownership of things. From what I’ve come to understand, “things” in my own life are a part of my relationships. If not in some cases a part of a tangible and unique relationship. I have accountabilities for such things in the same manner that I have accountabilities and responsibilities for all my relationships.

“Things” are a part of my burden of responsibilities to care for, maintain and make use of responsibly. Accountabilities and the burdens of our undertakings are a part of what makes us human. An idea that I’m sure my ancestors thought was another "universally" human concept. We all have to be responsible for our actions and noone should be able to remove me from my own accountabilities in my relationships. The things I use don’t belong to me specifically other than that which represents the burden of the undertaking.

Had such an idea been expressed at the treaty negotiations the likelihood would have been their dismissal as unpractical and inferior to European ideas. Such thoughts would not have translated. In fact I don’t think they can translate into today’s legal systems, simply because everything today serves Eurocentric traditions. We're stuck having to accommodate the traditions of another system, such as accomodateing the ideas contained in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as in the Yukon Justice experience. There’s so much more I've yet to learn and understand. But what stikes me most of what I’ve learned is the inadequecies of having a single system of Laws. At some point Indigenous ideas will have to find their expressions in their own form of written Law because it will be difficult to find a host within Western conceptual traditions.