Thanks for linking back to that thread Unionist and Joey Ramone and others for your words.
Kahnawake FN evicting non-Natives
Sat, 2010-02-06 23:54
#102
RevolutionPlease
Sun, 2010-02-07 00:09
#103
... 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?
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 don't mind you saying anything you like. What I'd like you to explain is what is odd about a white South African warning about unconstrained majority rule that would not be odd coming from a Canadian of indeterminate race.
How the Mohawk run their affairs is not my affair in the sense that I have no right to intervene in the running of their affairs, but I believe I have the right to discuss the running of the affairs of any group anywhere on the planet. It astounds me that so many people are saying that we have no right to be having a discussion because we don't have some kind of heritage or birthright to the discussion.
I completely agree. I am not white or native and I found the said ruling to be racist and offensive. There must be a better way to fight against the federal government for stripping native rights.
Sun, 2010-02-07 04:41
#104
lonewolfbunn
This information isn't so much regarding Kahnawake but addresses questions about a double standard between FN men and women who lose their status due to marrying a nonnative.
http://www.abo-peoples.org/programs/C-31/c-31-1.html#C-31
"What is Bill C-31?
On June 28,1985 Parliament passed Bill C-31, "An Act to Amend the Indian Act". Because of a presumed Constitutional requirement, the Bill took affect as of April 17, 1985. The Bill has amended the lndian Act in a number of important ways.
1. It ends many of the discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act, especially those which discriminated against women;
2. It changes the meaning of "status" and for the first time allows for limited reinstatement of Indians who were denied or lost status and/or Band membership in the past, and;
3. It allows bands to define their own membership rules.
How will Bill C-31 affect you?
If you are a person of Canadian Indian descent (even if you are not a Canadian Citizen), you are probably affected by the changes to the Indian Act in one of three ways:
...1.
2. If you are or will become a registered Indian then you can no longer have your status taken away for any reason, even if you choose to marry a non-lndian.
...3.
http://www.abo-peoples.org/programs/C-31/c-31-2.html#who
...1.
2. Who is Entitled to Status (S.6)
...3.
If you fall into one of the 13 categories listed below, you are entitled to apply for status. People in the first 8 groups also have an automatic right to Band Membership and will receive Band membership upon application for status. People in groups 9-13 are only entitled to registered status and will not receive Band Membership automatically.
Entitlement to Status and Band membership
...1.
...2.
...3.
...4.
5. Children who lost status when their mother was enfranchised
for marrying a man who was not a registered lndian (s.6(1)(c));
...6.
7. Illegitimate children whose registration as status Indians was rejected because their mother was status but their father was not or because they were female children of only one status parent (s.6 (1)(c));
...8.
Entitlement to status but not to immediate Band membership
1. Any Indian who voluntarily enfranchised, including wives or dependent unmarried children who lost status because of a man's enfranchisement (s.6 (1)(d));
2. Anyone who lost status for residing outside the country for more than 5 years prior to 1951 without consent of an Indian agent (s.6 (1)(e)(i));
3. Anyone wno lost status as a result of becoming a lawyer, doctor, minister or university graduate before 1920 (s.6 (e)(ii));
Sun, 2010-02-07 07:55
#105
This eviction notices at Kahnawa:ke have nothing to do with status. It is about residency and the Band list. Every band has a right to decide who they want living in the community. Many simply have basic rules which prohibit non-natives from living there alone. There are also tresspassing laws that prohibit non-natives from being on the territory under certain conditions.
This issue is not about race, or prejudicial treatment. It is about who can live on the reserve and who can be on the reserve. It is based on a code put forth and ratified by the community. It stems from the common law that has been in place at Kahnawa:ke since the 1850's and earlier.
Anyone who tries to make this a race issue is IMO, mischief making or outright ignorant. There is no problem with having and enforcing a citizenship law. We do, and we expell people everyday for not be ~enough~ of a Canadian. And only Canadians and those with special permission are allowed to live in Canada. It is one of the basic fundementals of being a sovereign nation.
I would also say that just because someone might be ~native~ they can't understand the whole problem. Being Mohawk is not the same thing as being Algonquin or Cree. In my experience they each have different world views that are mutally exclusive even to the point that those who have not grown on a reserve really don't have a clear picture of the problems that originate on reserve. So unless there are Mohawks here to speak out on the issue, I take even what other ~natives~ have to say with a grain of salt.
Sun, 2010-02-07 11:39
#106
It is indeed based on race - read the law: http://www.kahnawake.com/council/docs/MembershipLaw.pdf
For example, a person who is not of Mohawk blood but was adopted and raised as a Mohawk, is fully Mohawk culturally and raises Mohawk children cannot be a member and is liable to be evicted: http://www.kahnawake.com/council/docs/MembershipLaw.pdf
Sun, 2010-02-07 12:59
#107
You might want to read the entire document sunshine before you present something that defeats your assertion. It confirms what I have been saying. It is not raced based. There are many criteria underwhich non-Mohawk people can live in Kahnawa:ke and you are simply stuck in your own prejudice to not have seen that.
Sun, 2010-02-07 14:07
#108
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 the racist Indian Act divisions...
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.
Joey, can I get some clarification?
By referring to those who reproduce colonialism as Indian Act "Chiefs", are you referring to the historic racism in that policy being reproduced by Chiefs or are you identifying the chiefs as given power through that policy, or are you referring to something else?
Thank you for teasing out the other nuances of how the Indian Act works in regards to colonialism.
Sun, 2010-02-07 15:10
#109
I used to think that ignorant drivel was a trait of the extreme right. I now stand corrected. It is pervasive even in the modest left.
I trust that it is this bad because of world view differences and find that most who claim to have an opinion on the subject, lack sufficent understanding to formulate a proper thesis.
Fair enough, but I think you are quite hard on the left in general. I have not seen any moderate or right-wing Canadians - or elsewhere - be as reflexive of their positions as I have the posters on Babble.
Also, I think that many people on the left are critical of the histories of nation-states and their production of inequality through discourses of race. Obviously this perspective can be impoverished in viewing community dynamics, which many non-FN people are not aware of (whether due to their lack of exposure or the choice to ignore the perspectives of FN peoples - i don't think these two phenomena are radically different). But I would be careful in making the comparison with a dominant group of people who think condemning and berating FN peoples is the best way to include them.
Sun, 2010-02-07 15:11
#110
Joey, can I get some clarification?
By referring to those who reproduce colonialism as Indian Act "Chiefs", are you referring to the historic racism in that policy being reproduced by Chiefs or are you identifying the chiefs as given power through that policy, or are you referring to something else?
Both. There are principled, respected FN leaders who have earned the title of "Chief". In Haudenosaunee communities the real Chiefs are selected by clan mothers, who also have the power to replace them. The Indian Act band council "chiefs" are elected, but voter turnout in Haudenosaunee communities is generally very low because the band councils are not regarded as real "governments" - they are seen more as the local branch of the colonial government.
The powers of the elected band council chiefs are set out in the Indian Act, which they operate under. Funding for programs and services flows through the Indian Act band council and its' "chiefs". In the case of Kahnewake's divisive, racist membership and residency laws we see these Indian Act chiefs, who are accountable to their masters in Ottawa, applying the narrowest Indian Act rules, dressed up in anti-colonial rhetoric and hypocritical claims that this crap is somehow related to preserving Haudenosaunee culture.
Sun, 2010-02-07 15:14
#111
You might want to read the entire document sunshine before you present something that defeats your assertion. It confirms what I have been saying. It is not raced based. There are many criteria underwhich non-Mohawk people can live in Kahnawa:ke and you are simply stuck in your own prejudice to not have seen that.
Well sunshine, you can defend it if you want, but the fact that they allow for some rare exceptions to the rules does not change the fact that the membership and residency rules being enforced by Kahnewake's Indian Act band council are fundamentally race based.
Sun, 2010-02-07 15:46
#112
RevolutionPlease
Fortunately, my reading has helped me realize how clueless I was on FN issues. Glad to see this topic having some interest and seemingly, positive discussion without too many personal attacks. Well done, babblers.
Sun, 2010-02-07 15:55
#113
What a great note upon which to close for length
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3