First Nations / Prime Minister January 11, 2013 meeting

110 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2013-01-10 12:53

sknguy II

This is a seperate topic from the Idle No More thread.

The AFN has set a time for a news conference to take place today at 2:00p ET, ahead of tomorrow's meeting First Nation's / Prime Minister's meeting with this Communique.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, had issued a statement on January 8th, 2013 supporting the need for "meaningful dialogue" through this meeting.

Many have publicly expressed their expectations for this meeting and are too many to reference. Suffice it to say they are expressions of everything from hopeful to scepticism.

It also turns out the Governor General will be holding a meeting with First Nations after all, but only after the January 11th meeting as explained in this article. And to complicate things even more, the PM will only be attending portion of the meeting.

Quote:
“It is disappointing that the Prime Minister has not committed to attending the full three hours of this meeting,” said the AFN in the document.

The group said it was attempting to secure a meeting with a smaller delegation, including Harper, for a more focused discussion later in the day.

The PM just couldn't afford the three hours that were planned?

Thu, 2013-01-10 23:08

sknguy II

There's a lot of mistrust among the parties to this meeting. And it does look like many Chiefs will be boycotting it by withdrawing their involvement with the planning processes that were held today by the AFN, as indicated in this APTN story. Can’t locate Shawn Atleo’s evening news conference, but this story indicates that he is continuing to work towards unifying the Chiefs. But I think the chances of this are slim, but we'll see. One of the big stumbling blocks for this process arose right out of the gate when the GG referred to a possible meeting as a political one, undermining any notion that the intent was based upon principles.

I didn't appreciate Flanigan's gloating attitude about the First Nations' disunity, or particulalry in his mockery of Chief Spence's fasting when he was on Evan Solomon's Power and Politics show this evening. But, I guess one should have expected nothing less from him. Will this be another monumental opportunity squandered by politics? Guess we'll see tomorrow.

But the fact remains that there's a lot of mistrust for the PM. And that, I think, is the main obstical for the AFN's unity. Really dissappointed in Nelinak's appropriation of the INM movement with this threat:

Quote:
...Derek Nepinak said the Idle No More movement has enough people to "bring the Canadian economy to its knees."

The quote is from this CBC story that explains a bit of the day as well. I knew that unity on the matter of simply opening a dialogue with Harper would be tough to acheive. There is a lot of sentiment that this formula's been tried before, and a fear that we'll end up with all the same proplems under new names.

There was a lot of frustration about what hasn't happened since last years "monumental" meeting. Will we need to do like American Idol and try to reinvent our superlatives year after year in describing these opportunities? With all that went on, really got tired of trying to focus on what was actually happening... and going to happen tomorrow.

Thu, 2013-01-10 23:16

6079_Smith_W

Things are so in flux that CBC has a live twitter feed running on it:

(see link, above)

This from kady o'malley, earlier this eve:

I get the sense PMO was sort of hoping for a half-day closed-door chat followed by a vague but positive joint statement.

Fri, 2013-01-11 04:03

NDPP

January 10, 2013

Terry Nelson Writes to Stephen Harper

http://rightojibwe.blogspot.ca/2013/01/terry-nelson-writes-to-stephen-ha...

"...Blockades will occur on January 16th if you do not succeed tomorrow. Bloodshed will occur, make no mistake. The level of hatred that one third of white Canada has against indigenous people is real and if you cannot manage this situation, you will go down in history as the Prime Minister that turned Canada from the most peaceful country in the world to another Yugoslavia.

The Americans are not going to let this continue without some security for trade. The time to dismantle the Indian Act is now..."

Atleo To Take Chiefs' Case to Harper in 11th Hour Attempt to Salvage Friday's Meeting

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/01/11/atleo-to-take-chiefs-case-to-harper...

"No longer will the prime minister dictate to us. If we have to shut down this economy, then we will,' said Onion Lake Cree Nation Chief Wallace Fox, whose community is part of Treaty 6 in Saskatchewan. 'We need to stand united, we heard that all day, no more, Harper no more, idle no more.'

Serpent River First Nation Chief Isadore Day said First Nations had reached a 'moment of truth' and there was no going back. 'Prophecy said there would a time on Turtle Island when our people would rise up,' said Day, in an interview with APTN National News. 'We will fight to raise our nations out of the ashes. We are being relied on to protect our land, our children, and our treaties..."

Fri, 2013-01-11 08:58

6079_Smith_W

I'm not sure why Nelson is speculating about others shedding blood or what the Americans are going to do, or balkanizing the country or Harper's legacy. Racist sentiments, and the possibility of those things exists no matter what today's outcome is.

What I heard from a speaker downtown last night is a reminder that this affects all people, and that it is important that we remain peaceful and united. I pay more attention to that than claims that a decision has to be made based on fear of how the worst are going to react.

Fri, 2013-01-11 10:11

sknguy II

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This from kady o'malley, earlier this eve:

I get the sense PMO was sort of hoping for a half-day closed-door chat followed by a vague but positive joint statement.

This probably would've clarifed a few things somewhat. Maybe it was communicated before? Guess we'll know more today. For my part, I think it's only important to get the expectations out in the open... not necessarily a positive joint statement. But something clear.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...What I heard from a speaker downtown last night is a reminder that this affects all people, and that it is important that we remain peaceful and united. I pay more attention to that than claims that a decision has to be made based on fear of how the worst are going to react.

Well, it probably is best that INM just keep doing its thing. I just wish more people, including our politicians, would use INM more as an opportunity to listen, and not just react to the movement. Hopefully that'll come with time.

Fri, 2013-01-11 10:42

Serviam6

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm not sure why Nelson is speculating about others shedding blood or what the Americans are going to do, or balkanizing the country or Harper's legacy. Racist sentiments, and the possibility of those things exists no matter what today's outcome is.

What I heard from a speaker downtown last night is a reminder that this affects all people, and that it is important that we remain peaceful and united. I pay more attention to that than claims that a decision has to be made based on fear of how the worst are going to react.

I'm trying to read more and post less on this topic but saying there will be bloodshed and referencing mass rape and murder? Aren't we trying to get away from that?

Fri, 2013-01-11 11:14

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Serviam6 wrote:

I'm trying to read more and post less on this topic but saying there will be bloodshed and referencing mass rape and murder? Aren't we trying to get away from that?

Well, Canada did close the residential schools recently and the RCMP recently admitted some faults. So perhaps Canada is trying Serviam6. There's still much work for Canada to do though to get away from it.

Fri, 2013-01-11 11:42

kropotkin1951

You may not understand but this Chief knows his community understands.

Fri, 2013-01-11 11:56

#10

Unionist

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Serviam6 wrote:

I'm trying to read more and post less on this topic but saying there will be bloodshed and referencing mass rape and murder? Aren't we trying to get away from that?

Well, Canada did close the residential schools recently and the RCMP recently admitted some faults. So perhaps Canada is trying Serviam6. There's still much work for Canada to do though to get away from it.

Lovely, RP! Thank you.

Fri, 2013-01-11 12:14

#11

kropotkin1951

The level of hatred that one third of white Canada has against indigenous people is real. This is merely a statement of fact. The rock throwing mob pelting FN's vehicles during the Oka crisis should not be forgotten. Time for white people to make sure their neighbours don't become violent and that starts with calling out racists as they opine on what to do with those F'ing Indians.

I have nothing to offer the FN's people except my support no matter what direction this takes. This Harper government is not beyond arresting peaceful protestors and this could get ugly. The RCAP came about because the grassroots across the country rose up in response to absurdities like a golf course expansion taking precedence over FN's claim to a burial ground. That generation of young activists from Oka and Gustafsen Lake are still alive and they are being joined by the 20 some year old people who were born in the early '90's. The FN's community spent a lot of time and energy to reach out to Canadians and the recommendations are the fruit of that labour.

Canada had a chance to do it right but instead of introducing the most important RCAP recommendations subsequent governments have ignored it. Harper on the other hand is actually not just refusing to acknowledge rights he is actively trying to unilaterally extinguish them. He must be stopped and that means the we are going to see a lot of economic disruption and that will fuel our societies inherent racism that says what's the fuss we stole that land ages ago so just get over it.

Fri, 2013-01-11 12:26

#12

6079_Smith_W

@ RevolutionPlease

Sure. I don't think anyone should ignore violence in Canadian society, and I don't have any problem with Nelson saying that it might happen again.

I just don't see the connection between his speculation and the outcome of this meeting. Fact is, it's not going to end racism or violence, and there are enough cases in which progressive social change has resulted in a greater backlash.

If we thought violence might result from a favourable outcome is that a reason for not going through with this meeting?

I just don't feel that the threat of violence is good justification for doing or not doing anything, especially a matter like this which depends on greater understanding, and personally, I am taking my lead from other counsel.

Fri, 2013-01-11 13:11

#13

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnFQT1-zlBw]Matthew Coon Come entering the meeting[/url]

Fri, 2013-01-11 13:35

#14

sknguy II

Was following the CBC news tweets from those tagging along with the INM march. Coon Come was the only one actually seen entering the Langevin building for the meeting. Can only assume that others, including Atleo, had arrived previously, 12:30ish ET? Some of the tweets noted that there were Manitoba Chiefs in among the INM marchers.

Fri, 2013-01-11 17:06

#15

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

@6079

Where did I indicate I supported anything Nelson said? I was responding to a bit of hyperbole by our friend Serviam6 who is trying to understand why our First Nation allies are as frustrated as they are.

Fri, 2013-01-11 17:19

#16

Unionist

Terry Nelson is entitled, I suppose, to speak on behalf of the First Nation that he represents. He does seem to provide a handy foil for anyone who wants to diminish Indigenous struggles, however.

And I hailed RP's comment precisely because he focused the discussion back where it belongs - on the ongoing and unresolved violence of the colonial state against Indigenous peoples, and not on the imaginary dangers of chaos and bedlam about to be inflicted upon "us" by the victims.

Fri, 2013-01-11 17:41

#17

6079_Smith_W

@ RP

I responded to you in part because I was the first one to raise a the question about Nelson's letter, and as near as I can see neither my point nor Serviam's questioned or denied the existence of violence and racism. We all know it is there. And I didn't say you supported the letter. For that matter, I didn't say I condemn it. I sympathise with some of his concerns and his fears. But I think my question is a valid one.

And Unionist, likewise. Who has made any of the assertions you are talking about?

I am just hoping that something productive comes out of this day. Reading that CBC article about Chief Spence's news conference - in which the hecklers got more priority, and her words were refered to as a "rant" made me sick at heart. Never mind the trolls who seem to be working overtime on their comment section.

Fri, 2013-01-11 18:15

#18

sknguy II

Unionist wrote:
Terry Nelson is entitled, I suppose, to speak on behalf of the First Nation that he represents. He does seem to provide a handy foil for anyone who wants to diminish Indigenous struggles, however.

And I hailed RP's comment precisely because he focused the discussion back where it belongs - on the ongoing and unresolved violence of the colonial state against Indigenous peoples, and not on the imaginary dangers of chaos and bedlam about to be inflicted upon "us" by the victims.

I too despise the political gamesmanship. I think that if one listens to these same people in a few days one might hear some backtracking going on through their statements. But more to the point I want to mention about Terry Nelson’s statements. We are in a treaty relationship. My ancestors respected and did their part to honor those commitments, even when it meant they were suffering because of it.

Not only did Canada have responsibilities to live up to, but so do we Indigenous people... just as out ancestors did. I’m from the treaty 4 area in Saskatchewan. In the treaty it mentions that we must honor and respect the laws of Canada. And, the expectation was that Canada would honor ours as well in reciprocity. Of course this hasn’t happened. But that doesn’t relieve us of the commitments that our ancestors made. We have to respect Canada’s laws. But on the other hand, I pray that one day Canada will realise that it must also respect ours.

What a confusing day this was. And it's not done yet.

Just to add... although we know that Canada has never fully respected the treaty commitments, sometimes we Indigenous people also forget that we have our own treaty responsibilities to maintain as well. And that our ancestors maintained those sacred commitments in light of their own suffering.

Fri, 2013-01-11 18:30

#19

6079_Smith_W

sknguy II wrote:

I’m from the treaty 4 area in Saskatchewan.

I didn't know you were a neighbour. I hope you are riding out the other storm safely . We haven't seen any snow up here at all.

And regarding committments. One of the drummers at the round dance last night had "Loyal til Death" on his hat, and it reminded of the sacrifices many FN people made during the rebellion, standing with Canada, against their own interests (and how they got rewarded for it).

I hear you about committments on both sides, but at least I think your people generally have more of an understanding of the seriousness of this process, why the GG should be there, and why it's not as Murray Mandryk said this morning "all about jobs". The way many non-FN people are writing, talking about erasing our committment and making racist slurs, is absolutely shameful.

Fri, 2013-01-11 21:10

#20

sknguy II

@ Smith_W, Yeah, it was blizzarding here in the south. And has only letting up a bit an hour & a half or so ago.

The violence of racism I could never understand. Hate for the sake of hate is hurtful and incomprehensible. Chantel Hebert last night on the National's At Issue panel said that there's some realities that Canada will need to deal with. Likening the First Nations issues to the Quebec seperatists debates of the past concerning the nature of a pluralist society in Canada.

Indigenous people didn't choose a feduciary reelationship with Canada. They thought they were negotiating to establish a diifferent treaty/nations based relationship. Howver, Canada had foregone this treaty relationship in favour of "fiduciary" one which began the moment it undertook to control Indigenous peoples and deal with the "Indians" as a problem. The articles of the treaties wasn't sufficient as a tool for Canada to do that. So it undertook to regulate and legislate the lives of Indigenous peoples.

That fiduciary commitment has left us with the situation we're in now. With Canada still in control of Indigenous peoples lives, and Indigenous peoples trapped and dependent on this legislative relationship. Our leadership is accountable to Canada alone, and not their own peoples, Self determinstion means that we would be responsible for ourselves. We would be in control of our own lives. Our leaders would then be accountable to their own people. We need to be released from this rediculous, oppressive relationship.

The intent to free us from the "funding problems" and become self determined is one of the reasons Indogenous people want to talk about resource revenue sharing. We don't need taxpayer dollars this and tax payer dollars that. It an all too easy way of maintaining the oppression. But, because of our interests in the resources, Canada still needs some manner of control over us so that it can continue to develop and extract as it sees fit through legislation.

I'm tired of hearing in the news how the federal government needs to do this or that "for" us. And I'm also tired of hearing the news stories talking about how the federal government will need to do this or that "for" us. We need to be self determined and doing these things for ourselves because Canada has been trying to solve the problem of "us" for the past hundred and fifity years, and more. I don't think that we can ever share the same identity as the rest of Canada. Our needs are simply too divergent. And as time goes on this cultural uniqueness will require expression, in new laws and social institutions. We can't forget that Indigenous people see their relationship with land and water differently. And is one of the core motivating issues of the women who started INM.

Fri, 2013-01-11 22:33

#21

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

sknguy II wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Terry Nelson is entitled, I suppose, to speak on behalf of the First Nation that he represents. He does seem to provide a handy foil for anyone who wants to diminish Indigenous struggles, however.

And I hailed RP's comment precisely because he focused the discussion back where it belongs - on the ongoing and unresolved violence of the colonial state against Indigenous peoples, and not on the imaginary dangers of chaos and bedlam about to be inflicted upon "us" by the victims.

I too despise the political gamesmanship. I think that if one listens to these same people in a few days one might hear some backtracking going on through their statements. But more to the point I want to mention about Terry Nelson’s statements. We are in a treaty relationship. My ancestors respected and did their part to honor those commitments, even when it meant they were suffering because of it.

Not only did Canada have responsibilities to live up to, but so do we Indigenous people... just as out ancestors did. I’m from the treaty 4 area in Saskatchewan. In the treaty it mentions that we must honor and respect the laws of Canada. And, the expectation was that Canada would honor ours as well in reciprocity. Of course this hasn’t happened. But that doesn’t relieve us of the commitments that our ancestors made. We have to respect Canada’s laws. But on the other hand, I pray that one day Canada will realise that it must also respect ours.

What a confusing day this was. And it's not done yet.

Just to add... although we know that Canada has never fully respected the treaty commitments, sometimes we Indigenous people also forget that we have our own treaty responsibilities to maintain as well. And that our ancestors maintained those sacred commitments in light of their own suffering.

Please speak more, I interjected with a bit of gamesmanship, but the semantics are frustrating. I will listen to my Allies for guidance.

And thanks Unionist for helping me express what I meant to say.

Sat, 2013-01-12 05:55

#22

sknguy II

There’s a lot of stories about the conflicts surrounding the numbered treaties. It was all a time of a great conflict. The buffalo were gone, the United States was warring with Indigenous peoples there. The ink wasn’t even dry on the treaties they signed and Canada was proceeding to dictate to communities where they could locate their reserves. Even though the process was suppose to be freely exercised through site selection. There was a lot of active management of what community could live where and even involved the eventual moving of whole communities to new locations.

There were small rebellions and armed conflicts brought on by both a lack of food and dissatisfaction over the breaking of treaty promises. Even my own community had its activists who took the local Indian Agent hostage and later broke into local general stores. All because the treaties just weren’t working out. In northern Saskatchewan Big Bear, who tried to reopen treaty negotiations, had the most notable conflicts with Canada during the North West rebellion. But there were many who had their struggles. For the most part, and aside from the events I mentioned, most in our area had honored the treaty commitments. Even though there was so much to be angry about.

Canada wasn’t honoring the treaties, and was proceeding to overstep the treaties by implementing direct control over Indigenous communities and people. You can research some of the old NWMP reports that closed with “calmer heads prevailed”. But there was a lot of frustration and uncertainty over the loss of a way of life and a lack of treaty commitment on the part of Canada. Canada really played the snake oil salesman to a tee on these agreements.

If you read through some of the treaty transcripts or stories surrounding the treaty negotiations one thing that stood out for me was the concerns of the translators who were involved. There were concerns about the inability of Indigenous people to fully understand what was being discussed. And the concern that the translations themselves weren’t going well. There really was some conceptual divides going on at that time.

We talk these days about the legal requirements for full disclosure when negotiating contracts. Well at the time of the treaties I think there was the added challenge of even simple meeting-of-the-minds regarding concepts and details of what was being negotiated. Could the unfairness of the Treaties (or contracts) render them null and void? I don’t know, but I’d hazard a guess that they probably could. But would one really want to go there?

Anyway.... regardless of the honesty, or dishonesty of them, Indigenous people tried to uphold what they felt were the agreed to terms. Unfortunately, Canada later sidestepped those and proceeded to add a whole raft of other “fiduciary” undertakings in order to exert further controls, through the Indian Act and other legislation.

A return to a treaty relationship is one of the goals being pressed by First Nations. That means eliminating legislative controls and conceding that even new legislation would not hold juridiction on First Nations unless "agreed" to, implying an agreement. Only the treaty relationships apply. Anything else would be an agreement associated with the treaties.

Sat, 2013-01-12 10:29

#23

ilha formosa

sknguy II wrote:

What a confusing day this was. And it's not done yet.

Just tell that one-third of "white Canada" to think of the recent NHL negotiations as a warm-up exercise for the much larger and far more consequential task of honourably re-setting the treaty relationships within Kanata. I'm not trying to be flippant, just attempting to get through to that 'one-third'. And trying to get through to them is better than talking about division and bloodshed, which we know would only spiral the wrong way for all sides, including innocent bystanders and moderates in the middle. That said, the history of things like residential schools and smallpox infected blankets helps one understand the palpable rage behind Terry Nelson's statements. Truth, reconciliation - and reparations - must be part of the process.

I believe the RCAP has already begun some of the work.

Quote:

Some of the major recommendations included the following:[1]

Legislation, including a new Royal Proclamation stating Canada’s commitment to a new relationship and companion legislation setting out a treaty process and recognition of Aboriginal nations and governments.[1]

Recognition of an Aboriginal order of government, subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with authority over matters related to the good government and welfare of Aboriginal peoples and their territories.[1]

Replacement of the federal Department of Indian Affairs with two departments, one to implement the new relationship with Aboriginal nations and one to provide services for non-self-governing communities.[1]

Creation of an Aboriginal parliament.[1]

Expansion of the Aboriginal land and resource base.[1]

Recognition of Métis self-government, provision of a land base, and recognition of Métis rights to hunt and fish on Crown land.[1]

Initiatives to address social, education, health (Indian Health Transfer Policy) and housing needs, including the training of 10,000 health professionals over a ten-year period, the establishment of an Aboriginal peoples’ university, and recognition of Aboriginal nations’ authority over child welfare.[1]

Sat, 2013-01-12 10:55

#24

6079_Smith_W

@ sknguyII

Not to mention that FN people could not even vote, were penned in on reserves, and subjected to the horrors of the residential system, which non-FN people still have no real understanding of.

And that when a Native representative - Louis Riel - was actually elected, he wasn't even allowed to take his seat in the House of Commons. He had to sneak into the parliament in disguise to sign the register to legalize his election.

I'm sure people today are mystified at that incident at Battleford when people showed up starving and sick and the whites were so full of themselves and full of hatred and fear that they called it a seige, and didn't even consider that we were the ones causing the starvation.

But when I read and see some of the ignorant reactions to what is happening now, I don't think anything has changed; it's worse, actually. What astonishes me most is that most people in this province don't see it. Given how FN and Native population is growing, the good news it that it is only a matter of time before that change is inevitable.

And from what I have heard from yesterday - the fact that they have not budged on the new legislation - I think this is far from settled.

(edit)

Thomas King, in today's globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/thomas-king-the-conservativ...

Quote:

Practical sovereignty is the sovereignty that any nation, no matter what size, has. Look at Canada: We think of ourselves as sovereign, and yet when it comes to border security, we have to work with the U.S. if we’re going to be friends with them. Is that an invasion of sovereignty? In pure terms, yes. But in practical terms, it’s not. Every nation develops their own sense of “practical sovereignty.” The Mohawk, for example, produce their own passports. Not many places accept them, but that’s not the point. The point is control of our own lives. I think that’s what native bands and tribes will be looking at as these discussions go on. For instance, completely controlling our own membership. Controlling our land base and controlling any profits that come from that land base or any use of that land base. Right now, the federal government can force leases on tribes. That can’t keep happening if we expect to succeed as nations.

Sat, 2013-01-12 11:33

#25

Boom Boom

I think Harper will continue to stonewall, maybe throw a few crumbs here and there to Atleo - but as we saw yesterday when John Duncan said C-38 and C-45 will stand unchanged, the government has NOT had a change of heart.

Sat, 2013-01-12 13:36

#26

Tommy_Paine

From a strategic point of view, it seems to me that the Native Leadership that has always attempted to work within the system and have gotten little to show for it in the eyes of many Natives has once again gone to a meeting and will walk out-- as it seems right now-- empty handed.

It seems to me a vindication of those Natives who don't see the system as being a way to change things.

Sat, 2013-01-12 14:02

#27

6079_Smith_W

Tommy_Paine wrote:

It seems to me a vindication of those Natives who don't see the system as being a way to change things.

Really?

I can't imagine that anyone who understands the cost of confrontation and violence would take any pleasure in that (or take it as a sign that negotiation cannot work).

I can see that there are some people itching for it, though.

But I think we have talked that difference of opinion to death elsewhere.

Sat, 2013-01-12 14:06

#28

quizzical

vindication? puttung white man's thoughts and action types upon us really isn't a gd thing

Sat, 2013-01-12 14:20

#29

Matuwehs

A restrained militancy focused on treaty education, communiques that explicitly state goals and time-frames for achieving them,That inform the general public of Directed protests that bring attention to treaty violations.This is what escalation means for IdleNoMore. The seriousness of this situation cannot be overstated,The govt is only paying lip-service to our demands, with the intent to provoke violence. In order for us to maintain the moral high ground, we can not be manipulated into random acts of violence against the state. Social Media is our ally, we need to film and record our people and our heartfelt desire for justice. We must gather all our resource people and utilize their gifts to articulate our shared path forward. #indigenousrightsrevolution #Wolastoqiyik #IdleNoMore

Sat, 2013-01-12 14:31

#30

Tommy_Paine

Smith, you are taking vast liberties with what I observe, and ascribing to me ideas that are wholly without foundation.

But then, it is Babble.

Sat, 2013-01-12 15:02

#31

quizzical

Matuwehs wrote:
A restrained militancy focused on treaty education, communiques that explicitly state goals and time-frames for achieving them,That inform the general public of Directed protests that bring attention to treaty violations.This is what escalation means for IdleNoMore. The seriousness of this situation cannot be overstated,The govt is only paying lip-service to our demands, with the intent to provoke violence. In order for us to maintain the moral high ground, we can not be manipulated into random acts of violence against the state. Social Media is our ally, we need to film and record our people and our heartfelt desire for justice. We must gather all our resource people and utilize their gifts to articulate our shared path forward. #indigenousrightsrevolution #Wolastoqiyik #IdleNoMore

gr8 description!!!!! i think some are waking to the fact it's serious. and some people are even getting it no matter how much the msm is trying to turn events against us.

Sat, 2013-01-12 15:25

#32

6079_Smith_W

Sorry if I misunderstood Tommy, I'm not saying there is never a time to stand up to violence, but I think the point is to solve the problem by the best means necessary, not prove someone's political philosophy.

@ Matuwehs

"Restrained militancy" and a refusal to be manipulated into violence - well said. All of it, well-said actually. THanks.

I am just thinking of the situation in Sarnia which was resolved despite a judge wanting the cops to go in and bust heads:

http://www.theobserver.ca/2013/01/09/aamjiwnaang-chief-praises-police-di...

In one article the police chief said he was aware they had the shadow of Dudley George's death hanging over the situation. It's not to say that there won't be more tense confrontations than this one, or that it may not come to violence, but the fact they were able to resolve it the way they did makes me hopeful.

(edit)

and sorry for getting this off the specific topic.

Sat, 2013-01-12 15:47

#33

sknguy II

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...It's not to say that there won't be more tense confrontations than this one, or that it may not come to violence, but the fact they were able to resolve it the way they did makes me hopeful.

It was scary to see the efficiency with which the smear tactics played out. Shameful to see the heckling at Spence's address. For sure I don't know what can be advanced with the Harper government. Last year's First Nations Summit produced some hopeful words. But the results of it were the introduction of more legislative controls and government dictated solutions. More government controls is likely all we could expect from this government. One can only hope that INM is able to maintain its success in working with the public to push for positive change.

Sun, 2013-01-13 06:07

#34

kropotkin1951

ilha formosa wrote:

How fair would it be to say Shawn Atleo is playing an "Uncle Tom" role?

If you are FN's you can say anything you want about the AFN leader if you are not then please don't bother with cheap insults. It would be in very very very bad taste and would just prove the person saying it knows nothing about either the AFN or slavery. I didn't think that Uncle Tom was an elected leader of an Assembly that has always had divisions within its internal politics and obviously still does.

Sun, 2013-01-13 11:55

#35

ilha formosa

How fair would it be to say Shawn Atleo is playing an "Uncle Tom" role?

[eta: This is a question, not an insinuation.]

Sun, 2013-01-13 12:00

#36

kropotkin1951

Well I hope you learned that it was an inappropriate question and should not have been raised. I thought I was being polite by not accusing you of trolling. But since I honestly presumed your good intent I did not go there. However IMO you should not question allies by asking whether they are sellouts.

Sun, 2013-01-13 12:11

#37

kropotkin1951

I think that this the wrong question to be asked. Most FN's that I know respect the autonomy of other FN's to make their own decisions. If you had not noticed the AFN is split. Discussing whether people are sell outs is not helpful because it implies that all FN's leaders should be homogenous and think alike.

Chief Spence is fasting to try and get her First Nation's and other FN's treaty rights respected. That is her primary focus. In BC most of the FN's are in treaty negotiations and the rest are asserting their sovereignty without going through the treaty process. The Grand Chief is from BC and most of the BC Chiefs supported his going to meet with the PM. The issues involved are complicated and therefore not as red and white as they might appear.

Sun, 2013-01-13 12:11

#38

ilha formosa

It was a question, not an insinuation. I read this thread to learn, and learn from discussion. I'll admit I don't know a lot about AFN and the situation of FNs, Metis, Inuit, non-status, etc. This was always something that I wanted to learn more about. The INM movement has been educational.

So I worded the question too provocatively. Try this: Is there a large number of indigenous people who think Shawn Atleo is selling out? I'm not saying that he is. Just trying to better understand the dynamics at play.

Sun, 2013-01-13 12:26

#39

ilha formosa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think that this the wrong question to be asked. Most FN's that I know respect the autonomy of other FN's to make their own decisions. If you had not noticed the AFN is split. Discussing whether people are sell outs is not helpful because it implies that all FN's leaders should be homogenous and think alike.

Thanks for the insight. I'm following this news from an ocean away, from where I can't get much feel for what's going on, never mind go to teach-ins in person. I'll take care to consider how loaded terms and phrases can be.

Sun, 2013-01-13 12:27

#40

Matuwehs

This situation has more dynamics and variables than are readily apparent , my feeling is that Atleo is not a sellout, it to me, showed a sense of responsibility and good faith. I understand i am in minority on this ,and i have argued others on INM sites with me feeling that a power play is in effect at AFN and Pam and the MB chiefs are making a move,and that Spence is the chesspiece they are using to maintain ABO sympathies. My feeling is that a meeting was necessary to show that good faith, and that if measurable results are not noticed soon then more radical elements can take over show.

Sun, 2013-01-13 17:04

#41

quizzical

i don

Matuwehs wrote:
This situation has more dynamics and variables than are readily apparent , my feeling is that Atleo is not a sellout, it to me, showed a sense of responsibility and good faith. I understand i am in minority on this ,and i have argued others on INM sites with me feeling that a power play is in effect at AFN and Pam and the MB chiefs are making a move,and that Spence is the chesspiece they are using to maintain ABO sympathies. My feeling is that a meeting was necessary to show that good faith, and that if measurable results are not noticed soon then more radical elements can take over show.

i don't know if you're in a minority or not. i'm in agreement with you. i know i'm thinking more of the Haudenosaunee's story of Dekanawida.

too many are trying to play politics with our lives. i might have to stop coming here until this is over.

Chief Atleo is Nuu-chah-nulth and none i know are the extreme militant in any aspect of their lives. unless pushed too far aka Meares Island, taking a white slave ;)

i see Atleo as having to walk a fine line.

Sun, 2013-01-13 18:23

#42

sknguy II

Matuwehs wrote:
This situation has more dynamics and variables than are readily apparent , my feeling is that Atleo is not a sellout, it to me, showed a sense of responsibility and good faith. I understand i am in minority on this ,and i have argued others on INM sites with me feeling that a power play is in effect at AFN and Pam and the MB chiefs are making a move,and that Spence is the chesspiece they are using to maintain ABO sympathies. My feeling is that a meeting was necessary to show that good faith, and that if measurable results are not noticed soon then more radical elements can take over show.

I respect your opinions and your support for Atleo and the AFN, And I honestly don't intend to offend you concerning that. And I'm deeply sorry if I have. But I think it's miscommunication and false to say that Pam Palmater is motivating discontent among the AFN. I'm from Saskatchewan and of the 76 communities represented in this province I beleive there were just three Chiefs whom supported, and I beleive attended, the meeting. Our Provincial Chief of the FSIN, Perry Bellegarde, was suppose to attend the meeting but was instructed by our Chiefs not to. But in any event, suggesting that Ms Palmater is motivating the discontent is offensive to my own wishes and my personal perspective actually.

There is sentiment, for which I agree, that we need to move away from these contemporary institutions and start to rebuild our traditional institutions and take back our inherent responsibilites. But we have difficulty doing that when we remain accountable to the federal government. In that respect, I beleive that the AFN has been a part of a system that has maintained the status quo, at least for my own community, and maintained the problems we face. Here in Saskatchewan our local governing institutions are members of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN). Even this is an institution which is a colonial institution funded by provincial and federal governments. And our Chiefs and Councils are elected by systems forced upon us by the colonial government. Our own Chief has admitted as much on several occasions.

Is the AFN the vehicle to acheive the change we seek? It may be for some communities. And that's fine if that's what some communities see as a viable course. But some communties see their solutions through the revitalization of our inherent responsibilities. They see freeing themselves of the accountabilities towards the federal government through its funding agreements. We want to persue the next step. Not self government, but self determination. We want to define the solutions to our struggles on our own terms, and not through those negotiated with the federal government. We want to revive our responsibilities towards our traditional Laws.

There are so many issues concerning Indigenous communities from all corners of this country. We just see our relationships with the land as the primary source of our struggles. We just need to be able to express our traditional obligations in some modern context. And for our community it means reestablishing our clan systems of governance. But can we revive those ways of relating if they remain accountable to the federal government. First thing we want to do is reestablish the Treaty (nation to nation) relationship. Secondly, we need to recover our traditional ways of governing ourselves. I honestly say this with respect.

EDIT: Just to add that I don't mind and encourage others (of non-Indigenous ancetry) to express themselves as well. Living in Canada includes our evolving relationships.

Sun, 2013-01-13 21:00

#43

NDPP

Consolidating Around the Weakest Policy: A Message from Arthur Manuel, Spokesperson, Defenders of the Land

http://www.scribd.com/doc/120215022/Message-From-Arthur-Manuel-Re-Afn-pm...

"It is clear that the AFN again consolidated around the weakest again. Needless to say the stronger elements of the AFN who did not want to meet did not attend the meeting, but the ones who wanted to meet did meet. Decision making in the name of the AFN is not designed for fighting government but merely consulting with government. That is how the weak elements take control in a controversial situation [like] we had in Ottawa last week..."

Sun, 2013-01-13 21:19

#44

Boom Boom

One of the folks on QP today - either Craig Oliver or Bob Fife - said the combination of AFN chiefs who support Shawn Atleo, the AFN chiefs who do not support him, and Idle No More - are all putting so much pressure on Harper that he simply can't ignore them any longer. Not to mention all the federal law cases the First Nations are winning. And, if massive blockades all across the country start up, then that (and public opinion) are going to force Harper into a corner. Oh, and Bob Fife said John Duncan is totally out of his depth and needs to be replaced.

Sun, 2013-01-13 22:14

#45

epaulo13

..huge, powerful corporations are coming for the resources. for them governments aren't the problem, people on the ground are. pipeline blockades, enacting soverenty rather than negotiating for it. growing populations opposing all this because of what it is doing to the enviroment..then acting on it.

..there is no inkling of even a possible negotiated settlement being offered that will satisfy the concerns on the ground. only the promise of countless more years of the same..probably worse. it's time that our imagination begins looking at the world we would like to see then hook up with others and begin building. there is no advantage to remaining isolated from one another. this is one of the ways we are controlled. we need look no further than to ourselves if we want things to change.

Mon, 2013-01-14 09:29

#46

NDPP

MNN: Indigenous Proclamation 2013

http://mohawknationnews.com/blog/2013/01/12/mnn-indigenous-proclamation-...

"Canadians, everything belongs to your Indigenous landlords, your cities, towns, municipalities, every piece of land and everything below, on and above it. Rent and taxes will be paid to us. You are one of our resources..."

a modest proposal...?

Mon, 2013-01-14 09:47

#47

Boom Boom

Federal-First Nations relations yet to reach an all-time low, but ‘with continued stupidity we could make it that way’: former Indian Affairs DM

Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations accused the government of trying to delegitimize First Nations leadership ahead of the Jan. 11 meeting.

“I think the timing of the release, of course is to detract from what we’re trying to do regarding inherent and treaty rights,” Chief Bellegarde told The Hill Times following a meeting with First Nations chiefs ahead of last Friday’s meeting. “If you can muddy waters and throw mud and try to make the First Nations leadership painted with a negative brush—that’s what governments always try to do. Strategic words and tactics. They’ve got a strong media communications strategy and the timing is suspect. No question.”

Mon, 2013-01-14 10:02

#48

arielc

Every PM has sought extinguishment of Aboriginal peoples and your rights.

Harper continues the game, some nice words signifying nothing.

The Crown-First Nations Outcomes from last year simply extinguished, and I see nothing new here.

Very disturbing, disheartening for Canadians who hope for a respectful resolution and want to share the resource revenues fairly, and all that the land provides.

But predictable. Harper won't implement any progressive solutions ... because then Flanagan and the racist heckler types would be all over him.

Idle No More is wise to focus on education, winning hearts and minds of those who have them. :)
And imo those who focus directly on the industries, developers, etc that impinge on their rights and territories will have more success.
The feds will do nothing but extinguish.
Imo.

Mon, 2013-01-14 10:11

#49

NDPP

Atleo Humbled, Native Solidarity Shattered - Advantage Harper - by Michael Harris

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/01/13/atleo-humbled-native-solidarity-shatt...

"The very least Stephen Harper can do for Shawn Atleo is give the poor man a job in the PMO..."

Mon, 2013-01-14 11:45

#50

ilha formosa

mis-post

Mon, 2013-01-14 12:04

#51

6079_Smith_W

NDPP wrote:

Atleo Humbled, Native Solidarity Shattered - Advantage Harper - by Michael Harris

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/01/13/atleo-humbled-native-solidarity-shatt...

"The very least Stephen Harper can do for Shawn Atleo is give the poor man a job in the PMO..."

From reading certain blogs and posts I get the feeling that some are truly happy at the prospect of this initiative failing and that, by contrast, for these meetings with governments to achieve some success would somehow be a tragedy.

First Nations / Prime Minister January 11, 2013 meeting

Pages