Kahnawake FN evicting non-Natives

IMV, this goes back to the law the government imposed in the 80's, in respect to status, and I believe it needs to repealed.

 

Having said that it is up to FN's to decide to have it repealed, or leave it alone.

ElizaQ wrote:

No that's not what I'm saying it does in terms of specifics. It's not about specifics because it's a hella lot more complex then just interpreting some lines, in an idealist fashion of an internet google search and passing judgement on what for most here are nameless people. My point was about the powers of soveriegnty and determination that are inherent in the law and your charge that it is a betrayal and they've gone racist. My point is only that there are other ways of looking at it, some actual people look at differently and that jumping to a charge of 'betrayal' and 'racism' as a result of what you might think....'or seems to me...' isn't a great thing. Can we get anymore paternalistic here. Ugh.

If we can try to avoid the ad hominem attacks we might be able to help each other to arrive at some clarity here.

I would like to understand how determining membership of a community/band/nation/country/confederacy or any other grouping that humans care to arrange themseves in is not racist when the decision is made by those in power within that group to exclude someone because of their racial origins. I understand that it is not racist when an oppressed person hates the oppressor because racism is clearly a product of power politics and only those in positions of power are strictly racists in their dealings with those they oppress.

It still seems to me that the power structure that is the band council is racist when it denies residency to someone on the basis of their race. I accept that I may not be understanding something here but I would appreciate help with clarifying my thinking rather than calling me paternalistic. I consider myself your equal, whoever you are, and neither your superior nor your inferior because of my particular background, cultural roots and genetic make-up.

ElizaQ wrote:

 My biggest issue are judgements being made about outright 'racism' being a major motivation.  It's crap on a whole number of levels.

My arguments are not derived from the belief that racism is a "major" motivation or even a minor motivation for the band council's decision. I am sure that these desicions or calls for decisions like these arise out of frustration with a long history of racist discrimination against First Nations that has defined the last 500 years of experience throughout the Americas. It is simply my opinion that these measures are racist in character and not really a happy solution to the problems that they are intended to address. People make mistakes; that is our lot in life no matter what society we belong to; I think this is a mistake. I understand that I might be mistaken but I have seen nothing yet that clarifies for me why I may be mistaken.

Al_Ar_Bee wrote:

If we can try to avoid the ad hominem attacks we might be able to help each other to arrive at some clarity here.

I would like to understand how determining membership of a community/band/nation/country/confederacy or any other grouping that humans care to arrange themseves in is not racist when the decision is made by those in power within that group to exclude someone because of their racial origins. I understand that it is not racist when an oppressed person hates the oppressor because racism is clearly a product of power politics and only those in positions of power are strictly racists in their dealings with those they oppress.

It still seems to me that the power structure that is the band council is racist when it denies residency to someone on the basis of their race. I accept that I may not be understanding something here but I would appreciate help with clarifying my thinking rather than calling me paternalistic. I consider myself your equal, whoever you are, and neither your superior nor your inferior because of my particular background, cultural roots and genetic make-up.

Al_Ar_Bee: I'll hazard proposing an answer to the question in the second paragraph of your post. It is just a possible answer though -- and being offered solely from my own perspective.

If you look at the first paragraphs of the article Ghislaine is quoting in the OP, you will see that the reference is to non-native people, and I believe this can and should be interpreted even more narrowly as "non-Mohawk". It can, I would suggest, be validly interpreted as referring to anyone (including other FN people) whose upbringing was not Mohawk. The defining characteristic is culture, and obviously that is not necessarily determined by descent. In all likelihood, I would interpret the policy of the band council as also applying to the hypothetical situation where a "native" person (let's say Dene for the sake of an example) were to be cohabiting with someone who was Mohawk -- the policy would seem to indicate that both parties are free to pursue a relationship, but the fact that there is a relationship does not grant the right of residency to person who is Dene. Like any other Nation (First or otherwise) the council is merely asserting its right to determine citizenship rights (including the right to residency) on its own territory.

The policy being discussed does not, to me anyway, seem to be making any suggestion that Mohawk culture is in any way superior or inferior to any other, it is merely asserting that such a culture is distinct and is attempting to address the risk of it being destroyed by assimilation into the dominant culture surrounding it.

bagkitty wrote:

Al_Ar_Bee: I'll hazard proposing an answer to the question in the second paragraph of your post. It is just a possible answer though -- and being offered solely from my own perspective.

If you look at the first paragraphs of the article Ghislaine is quoting in the OP, you will see that the reference is to non-native people, and I believe this can and should be interpreted even more narrowly as "non-Mohawk". It can, I would suggest, be validly interpreted as referring to anyone (including other FN people) whose upbringing was not Mohawk. The defining characteristic is culture, and obviously that is not necessarily determined by descent. In all likelihood, I would interpret the policy of the band council as also applying to the hypothetical situation where a "native" person (let's say Dene for the sake of an example) were to be cohabiting with someone who was Mohawk -- the policy would seem to indicate that both parties are free to pursue a relationship, but the fact that there is a relationship does not grant the right of residency to person who is Dene. Like any other Nation (First or otherwise) the council is merely asserting its right to determine citizenship rights (including the right to residency) on its own territory.

The policy being discussed does not, to me anyway, seem to be making any suggestion that Mohawk culture is in any way superior or inferior to any other, it is merely asserting that such a culture is distinct and is attempting to address the risk of it being destroyed by assimilation into the dominant culture surrounding it.

THank you kindly, bagkitty. I can appreciate the fear of assimilation (which is in reality the effective destruction of a culture) that seems to be the motivating factor. I still think, however, that this policy addresses genetic rather than cultural qualifications for membership in the band.

Would banning people whose upbringing is not Mohawk include banning a full-blooded Mohawk who was adopted by a Chinese family and brought up "Chinese" so that they have no knowledge of Mohawk culture at all?

If it is the culture that is to be protected, why should not those non-native spouses who are prepared to assimilate into Mohawk culture and allow their children to be educated within Mohawk traditions be acceptible to Mohawk society? I'm still concerned that the community values I admire in First Nations culture is not being fully served here.

Insofar as that racist Indian Act is concerned, we should all be addressing the injustices being perpetrated by the hegemonic society against the FNs in spit of all that hoopla of an apology that happened in the Canadian parliament. We live in a society that oppresses FNs’ at home and is complicit in injustices perpetrated against indigenous people all over the Global South. Canada's complicity in oppression in Haiti and Afghanistan are only two of the most graphic examples that come to mind, but there are plenty of examples where Canadian corporations are pillaging the natural resources of oppressed people around the world.

Neo-liberal globalization allows for the possibility that land claims will be settled and First Nations quickly given independence because international trade laws will prohibit national governments from preventing corporations from taking over the affairs of countries.

When apartheid ended in South Africa, rather than the legacy of apartheid being addressed and past injustices being righted, international corporations were able to come in and pauperize the majority of people even more than during apartheid while making millionaires out of a handful of the former victims of apartheid. The Canadian state is a strong supporter of those neoliberal policies which favour corporations above all else and it is this reality that FN have to face. To face this sort of power on your own in small political and cultural groupings all over the country is not a recipe for overcoming injustices. Canada does not recognize the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. This refusal to sign should be seen as a threat against all ordinary people, FN and non-Native alike—It is symptomatic of the intentions of those in power. This power can only be dealt with by masses of people joining together and yet that is an extremely difficult task to achieve.

For the masses of the people to unite against the oppressor, we need to become habituated to respecting each other as fellow creatures of the earth. We can have our self-determination, and we can have our cultural integrity safely secured only when we have joined together to overthrow the oppression that keeps us divided against each other.

I am still saddened by the fact that anybody can point to bloodlines as a reference for who is allowed to be part of a group or not.

Al_Ar_Bee wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

First Nation communities are for First Nation people....Having said that,I find it interesting that in the 1980's,Mohawk women were banished from the reservation for marrying non-Native significant others while Mohawk men were free to live on the reservation with their non-Native wives.There shouldn't be a double standard.

People are free to marry or bed anyone they like....Mohawks from Kahnawake all know that white girls throw themselves on their men.Joe Delaronde has a point...Native blood is drying up and the survival of their community relies on the Mohawks to keep their culture and very existance alive.

I see nothing morally wrong with protecting one's identity or survival.

Is identity a “blood” issue? I really don't believe there is any such thing as racial purity except in the minds of racists. The issue would seem to me to be one of preserving cultural traditions that are dynamic and changing with time. The schools on Kahnawake and the lessons of the elders would seem to me to be the way of ensuring the survival of a cultural identity. If a Mohawk man or woman marries someone from off the reserve and brings their spouse to live with them on the reserve, the children of that marraige can be brought up within the cultural traditions and be fully part of the Mohawk Nation irrespective of what their bloodlines are.

Long before any outsiders appeared from Europe, a dynamic culture evolved over hundreds of years here and was perpetuated by education. White education attempted to destroy that culture while still maintaining a racist divide. Traditional education is now attempting to restore that culture and it saddens me that there are racist elements in the response to the threats posed by the white racist culture. While the band council has legal rights in accordance with Canadian law to make these decisions, it is an unfortunate decision which ultimately will not serve the Mohawk Nation well.

Kahnawake has its own school called 'Survival School'...before that school existed Mohawks attended schools off the reserve and were educated in a white curriculum.Schools teached history in the point of view of the European settlers that made up New France and Lower and Upper Canada.It's a shame that Mohawk culture is not taught in those schools seeing that Mohawks played a vital role in the history of Canada.

Educating Natives about their language,culture and heritage is imperative in the survival of their identity.But education alone will not protect their race.Why should a non-Native have status while a Native loses her status? This is why the double standard has to go.

There is nothing racist about protecting a community or a people from extinction.Today,more than ever in recent history,Natives must protect themselves and strengthen their sovereignty and independance from the federal government.

It's not just their bloodlines at risk...The federal government wants to scrap alot of the Treaties,strip Natives of their status and assimilate them into 'Canadians'.White society holds enough influence as it is.....As a people,you have to protect your existance by any means possible.

another major question has to be that if first nations are indeed to be viewed as nations (they are not really viewed as such by canada) why are they not afforded the rights of a nation in respect to immigration, setting their own citizenship policies etc?

1. if a child is born of two foreign parents on canadian soil it is automatically granted canadian citizenship, in effect the reverse is true for FN, they are immediately stripped of reserve rights (national rights) as soon as they enter into a relationship with a non status person....you can even be born outside of canada and still claim citizenship if one of the parents is canadian, no?

2. canada has provisions for immigration that provide canadian "status" to non canadians with full legal rights, why can't first nations do the same?  It in effect refuses the right of their nations to grow.  Perhaps if they could define themselves and their national interest as opposed to the canadian government being the sole authority the situation would be different.

3. also the canadian position demonstrates an inherent lack of understanding of FN history.  If a child is born from cree and mohawk parents and raised as mohawk that would not presumably change anything with regard to status, but if a child is born from say, a "canadian" and mohawk and raised mohawk in a mohawk nation somehow that child is not considered a "real" mohawk in the eyes of canada and would eventually lose status if for example they had a child with a non mohawk.  By this logic a good portion of canadians would never qualify for citizenship if we applied the same rules to ourselves we impose of FN's

 

 

 

Come on people!

The Kahnawake Membership Law has been around since about 1984 and it was by custom before that. It has nothing to do with racism but was created as an attempt to maintain Mohawk as a viable independent nation. They are not excluding based on skin colour, but on the basis of entitlement to residency based on defined criteria.

 

As well it is not the Band Council that is causing this. The Kahnawake Membership Law was enacted with the majority consent of the people themselves. And while there might have been some self-interest by community members in supporting such a code, generally speaking the community wanted it. It was 15 years in the making and not imposed on Kahnawake by "leadership.

 

They are a Nation of people whom have never given up or capitulated their soveriegnty. Just as our govenrment has the right to define who are Canadian, and then expell those who are in our country illegally, Kahnawake people have the right to decide their own citizenry and likewise demand illegal aliens leave. We may not like it but we have to accept it. It is their business and has nothing to do with us.

A lot has been written on the subject of FN (or, here, "Native American" or "American Indian") identity.  Is identity based on blood quantum, culture, or some combination of those two factors?

This piece in High Country News illustrates the contentious, and complex, "question of identity" facing tribes.  Demographically, intermarriage with other ethnic groups continues to steadily dilute blood quantum.  If blood quantum standards remain relatively high (say, a minimum of 1/4th), most tribes will soon cease to exist.  If blood quantum standards are lowered (e.g., a minimum of 1/256th), the microscopic fractional amount makes a classification as FN (or "American Indian") almost seem absurd (especially if a particular individual has little cultural ties to a tribe).

There is no easy answer.

First of all in Haudenosaunee culture, there is no such thing as "mixbreed" and I find your use of the term offensive.

Second of all they are not being removed because of their skin colour or any other racial trait. They are told to leave because they do not meet the requirements of the Kahnawa:ke  Membership Code (residency requirements). Therefore they are foreigners according to the Code and therefore are not entitled to live at Kahnawa:ke.

Now, that does not preclude those who are not elegible from transferring their membership to another Territory. From what I am told, it happens all the time. However, it is not our business to even discuss the legitimatcy of the Kahnawa:ke people to determine their own destiny. They are a sovereign people and as such do not your permission or mine to include or exclude people from their territories.

If people do not meet the requirements for entry into the territory, then they are indeed "illegal aliens". It is just that simple.

 

 

 

Al_Ar_Bee wrote:

... I am always suspicious of these "seperate but equal" arrangements that have a long tradition in British imperial policy of divide and rule—buy off a ruling elite and syphon away the natural heritage of the locals. That is to say, steal the commons that ordinary people need to make a decent living.

Not sure how you see this manifested in Kahnewake. Are you comparing it to a bantustan?

Quote:

Another issue that also needs to be considered is that majority decisions are not necessarily democratic decisions. A system where a majority is not constrained by human rights principles can easily become majority tyranny.

Warning about unconstrained majority rule seems odd coming from a white South African, if you don't mind my saying so.

But the basic point remains: How the Mohawk run their affairs is really none of your affair.

 

I think our conversation is now complete.

 

Wow, a dude from a minority persecuting a majority thinking he can discuss a minority persecuted by the majority.  What irony.  Or not.

 

Has nothing to do with a birthright, it has to do with having a clue.

I agree j.m., I'm certainly willing to engage in a thread of my privilege.  I started a thread in Canadian Politics about a poll on what whiite canadians think of one another.  The facts are being laid bare here.

 

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/poll-looks-what-canadians-...

Thanks for having more courage than I, LWB. 

Stargazer wrote:

But in protecting that community they are also destroying it. The mixed kids from these marriages will be banished. These kids are also FN. Families will be torn apart. Some of these mixed kids may have more Mohawk culture than full bloods. So the determining factor is blood? That's it?

 

I am unsure why everyone has skipped past Joey's posts above, which speak about the heart of this whole mess.

 

Hi Stargazer, I've been trying to stay out of this one but I'll just say I saw it too.  Has anyone thought of asking these "Mohawk" chiefs if they themselves are anything close to "fullblood" (whatever that really means) or why their definition of "status Indian" is still bound by a patriarchal double standard that is at odds with their traditionally matrilineal society, not to mention values?

Erik Redburn wrote:

Hi Stargazer, I've been trying to stay out of this one but I'll just say I saw it too.  Has anyone thought of asking these "Mohawk" chiefs if they themselves are anything close to "fullblood" (whatever that really means) or why their definition of "status Indian" is still bound by a patriarchal double standard that is at odds with their traditionally matrilineal society, not to mention values?

 

Has anyone thought why the racist Indian Act forces this?

 

Fuck...

 

Wake up folks.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Hi Stargazer, I've been trying to stay out of this one but I'll just say I saw it too.  Has anyone thought of asking these "Mohawk" chiefs if they themselves are anything close to "fullblood" (whatever that really means) or why their definition of "status Indian" is still bound by a patriarchal double standard that is at odds with their traditionally matrilineal society, not to mention values?

Blood quantum is a colonial construct and as such has no place in this discussion. In fact I find the whole term offensive.

As a matrilineal society those people who claim ancestry and therefore membership in Kahnawa:ke trace their connection to their nation through their mothers. It would seem to me that this is a valid method of determining membership, since well how many Canadians can guarantee that they know who their daddies are. Just because one finds a name on their certificate of birth does not mean they are the legitimate father. However, it isn't that hard to know from birth who our mothers are. The are the ones who suffered through the childbirth....right?

So from a membership perspective, using lineal identification for the security of the nation helps guarantee that culture, tradition, language and other nation identification will be maintained. In Haudenosaunee culture, land, language, and ceremony is passed down through the women along with their clans, chieftan titles and traditional names (which are preserved generation after generation). Without some kind of law such as their Great Binding Law of Peace, there would be no way to identify them from everyone else. I think we would all agree that the Canadian definition of what an Indian is, is racist. So why not let them self-identify? It is clearly within their Charter rights, which we all hold in high esteem as Canadians.

Quote:

Blood quantum is a colonial construct

 

Exactly correct, which is why IMV, it needs to be struck from the Indian Act.

 

 

 

E.Tamaran wrote:

1. Interesting concept. Only people who use their actual names should be allowed a real "voice" on discussion boards. How would you go about "proving" the name was real? FWIW, my first name does start with E. My second name isn't Tamaran but sounds something like it. 

I think that if you are a voice that is viewed as representing our people than you should put your name behind your words.  Whether it is your intention or not it is possible that your opinion is interpreted as the opinion of all of us. 

I am not saying that you are one of the Nazi's that go online pretending to be FN to brew animosity but I had to raise the question because it does happen and I saw a pattern.
If you are a FN expressing your opinion about a controversial topic regarding our people than it should be made clear that it is your opinion.  As it stands you could be anyone. 

Though by your response my suspicion has wavered.  The CIO trolls that I have dealt with reacted much differently.  
They attacked with words so foolish that they exposed themselves likely because they couldn't careless about their reputation and sounding foolish would only fulfill their goal.  

E.Tamaran wrote:

2. I've already discussed my ancestry and home in NB.

I could discuss my ancestry as an albino pigmy and my home planet Neptune but it would be hard to prove with a screenname like whitemidget789.
Sorry my sarcasm knows no limits.  I am not referring to you.  But believe it or not I am attempting to make a point.

E.Tamaran wrote:

3. So you don't disagree with the concept of limiting or denying non-FN residency on FN territory. That's good. 

No I don't but as a FN person I am careful not to make statements that could portray my people as hateful.  I do not see my self as a spokesperson for my people but you must understand that with so few vocal FN people on the internet the inevitable result is that any negative words spoken by a FN person reflects negatively on all of us.

E.Tamaran wrote:

4. Maybe we can exchange PMs and emails and have a talk. I'll even give you my ISP email so you can see what my name is if you promise not to share it with others

I'm still not sure what's up with the secrecy 007.  But I know first hand that removing your anonymity gives you the benefit of proving that someone impersonating you is not you. 

I had someone steal my password to my web-archive and post a ridiculous statement under my name that was moronic and racist.  A month later when I stumbled onto it I was able to prove that it was not me.  If I had a different screenname every week it would be difficult to do.
I have nothing to hide and I stand behind my words. 

If I am proven wrong about something it is a real person admitting it and taking responsibility.  I do not start fresh with a new screenname the next day.

As for you giving me your email address that wouldn't really prove anything.  I can register a new email account within minutes.  Myspace and facebook is one way for someone to prove who they really are because there are other people that can verify it.  I don't expect you to publicly post it but if you like you could give it to me through a PM.
Don't worry James I won't blow your cover.

But in all seriousness it's not really necessary but please heed my response to your third point.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Has anyone thought why the racist Indian Act forces this?

 

Actually, it doesn't.  Since 1985 the Indian Act has allowed FNs to control their own membership.  Some have opted to be inclusive, others have chosen to enforce narrow, discriminatory rules based on racist Indian Act divisions between "status Indians" and "non-status Indians".  Some communities, such as the Ardoch Algonquin FN, have rejected the Indian Act entirely.  They have refused to live on a bantustan "reserve", refused to divide their community into "status" and "non-status", and have welcomed settlers who respect their customs and want to live side-by-side with them.  Of course this is a tough road - they get no funding whatsoever and must constantly fight for recognition as a FN community.  The Indian Act "Chiefs" of Kahnawake have chosen to enforce racist, divisive colonial rules against some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of their community because this allows them to pose as anti-colonialists when in reality they are doing the dirty work of colonialism, as they do on a daily basis.

Sorry Eric, I agree and was getting upset at some of the poisoning of this thread, not you.  Anyway, I've taken up enough space and thanks Joey Ramone for your explanation but it still left me confused considering the lack of funding for the Ardoch Algonquin. 

Charter Rights wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Hi Stargazer, I've been trying to stay out of this one but I'll just say I saw it too.  Has anyone thought of asking these "Mohawk" chiefs if they themselves are anything close to "fullblood" (whatever that really means) or why their definition of "status Indian" is still bound by a patriarchal double standard that is at odds with their traditionally matrilineal society, not to mention values?

Blood quantum is a colonial construct and as such has no place in this discussion. In fact I find the whole term offensive.

 

 

Tell that to the Chiefs who are using just such a 'construct' to deport members because they don't conform to their notions of racial purity, an even older racial construct, and ironically a notion that they too would likely fall short of.   That IMO is unjust regardless of ones particular or shared identity and values. 

Look, everything we think could be said to be a mental "construct", if it is not directly tied to immediate experience or universal instincts or needs perhaps, but the concept "blood quantum" is often used to question these same constructs, unlike the old fashioned racist notion of "purity".

 

Quote:

As a matrilineal society those people who claim ancestry and therefore membership in Kahnawa:ke trace their connection to their nation through their mothers. It would seem to me that this is a valid method of determining membership, since well how many Canadians can guarantee that they know who their daddies are. Just because one finds a name on their certificate of birth does not mean they are the legitimate father. However, it isn't that hard to know from birth who our mothers are. The are the ones who suffered through the childbirth....right?

So from a membership perspective, using lineal identification for the security of the nation helps guarantee that culture, tradition, language and other nation identification will be maintained. In Haudenosaunee culture, land, language, and ceremony is passed down through the women along with their clans, chieftan titles and traditional names (which are preserved generation after generation). Without some kind of law such as their Great Binding Law of Peace, there would be no way to identify them from everyone else. I think we would all agree that the Canadian definition of what an Indian is, is racist. So why not let them self-identify? It is clearly within their Charter rights, which we all hold in high esteem as Canadians.

 

Charter rights are also a colonial construct and not necessarily in opposition to the "Indian Act" which is indeed one of the most racist going, (although most outsiders looking to "free" First Nations from it now are only looking to free them from their last few acres of land and last few shreds of self determination, so traditional as well as 'progressive' Chiefs often feel theyre still better off working within its confines --its complicated --and beyond my own limited knowledge and non-existent rights to declare one way or another on this issue as a whole) but again, one member kicking another off the reserve with only ten days notice, for the sin of having a relationship with a non-member, can hardly be described as "self-indentifying".   

Self identify by definition means something you decide for yourself.  Whether others accept this designation is between you and them, and not something that can easily be enforced on another, one way or another.  I know of nowhere where that is the case.  If I call myself "Metis" for example, the government might recognise that "status" but other Metis may not.    OTOH, other Metis might see me as a member but the government may not.   The tribal councils may get caught between the two at times.

The issue of how to keep reserves from being swamped by those who may not identify as members and presumably less likley to hold to the community/s shared values or laws --whatever they are-- could be dealt with in more constructive, less divisive ways IMO.  I believe that is all others are saying here, but they're free to correct me on that too.  You aren't.  Not on that anyhow.

Erik Redburn wrote:

 Joey will have to explain about the Ardoch Algonquin as I know nothing about them.

I learned a lot from Joey on previous threads - [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/divide-and-rul... one in particular[/url].