Idle No More

645 posts / 0 new
Last post
lagatta

Iyraste, since Oka, the Zapatistas and making the Indigenous question a central facet of the struggle in Andean countries, there has been a growing solidarity among struggles of Indigenous peoples of the Americas and beyond. 

Rebecca and Maysie, I find the approach in that blog useful mostly for confronting those who assert that "civilised" people are supporting them lazy Natives. Most of the Indigenous activists I know and have worked with have a far more generous approach. I liked the counterpoint in Dammit Janet!: 

http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.ca/2013/01/on-necessary-for...

Something sweet: the red feather supporting INM (from Montréal) http://instagram.com/p/UJ5N90i6k-/

onlinediscountanvils

Dru Oja Jay: [url=http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/dru/15493]What if Natives Stop Subsidizing Canada?[/url]

Quote:
There is a prevailing myth that Canada's more than 600 First Nations and native communities live off of money -- subsidies -- from the Canadian government. This myth, though it is loudly proclaimed and widely believed, is remarkable for its boldness; widely accessible, verifiable facts show that the opposite is true.

Indigenous people have been subsidizing Canada for a very long time.

Quote:
From the days of beaver trapping to today's aspirations of becoming an energy superpower, Canada's economy has always been based on natural resources. With 90% of its settler population amassed along the southern border, exploitation of the land's wealth almost always happens at the expense of the Indigenous population.

Canada's economy has been made with massive subsidies: of land, resource wealth, and the incalculable cost of generations of suffering.

Overall numbers are difficult to pin down, but consider the following: Canadian governments received $9 billion in taxes and royalties in 2011 from mining companies, which is a tiny proportion of the overal profits; $3.8 billion came from exports of hydroelectricity alone in 2008, and 60 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from hydroelectric dams; one estimate has tar sands extraction bringing in $1.2 trillion in royalties over 35 years; the forestry industry was worth $38.2 billion in 2006, and contributes billions in royalties and taxes.

By contrast, annual government spending on First Nations is $5.36 billion, which comes to about $7,200 per person. By contrast, per capita government spending in Ottawa is around $14,900. By any reasonable measure, it's clear that First Nations are the ones subsidizing Canada.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Former babbler and current rabble blogger Chelsea Vowel just said some real smart things on As It Happens about the leaked audit just now.

Maysie Maysie's picture

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win."

- Mahatma Gandhi

ilha formosa

Maysie wrote:

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

Well, INM has pushed things past the first stage.

This Jan. 11 meeting may be worse than no meeting. It will fall short of satisfying what aroused the movement, but the government and mainstream media will portray it as a reasonable government effort to resolve grievances. It will be used to drive wedges into any kind of unity or broad coherence that exists among aboriginal groups and factions.

Unplacated by the government, INM activities will continue, including possible blockades. The media war will intensify, government and industry attacks will sharpen. INM could indeed be painted as violent or at least economically disruptive, and be met with state force. I still feel a key factor will be the non-indigenous support and alliances built up by then. (to repeat once again: support ≠ approval/permission)

Jeffery Simpson makes sense if one believes a fundamental change in thinking is not required because the planet is in fine shape.

I predict that the emergent meme, namely that treaties with some FNs were fundamental in the founding of Canada, will over the longer term seep into Canadian consciousness and prove to be one of INM's biggest successes.

takeitslowly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9OP6WmRLgY

 

 

Annoynomous released a video on the omnibus bill and the Idle No More movement.

MegB

Maysie wrote:

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win."

- Mahatma Gandhi

Most excellent.

arielc

Like most of the opinionators, Jeffrey Simpson didn't do his homework ... doesn't know that Attawapiskat sits on diamonds:
But too many communities remain within the dream palace,hungering for a return to a more separate existence,even if the lands on which they sit are –and likely always will be –of marginal economic value. Attawapiskat,Chief Spence’s community,is subject to severe flooding,given its location on the James Bay plain,but it refused to consider moving farther upriver or near Timmins,where there might be employment opportunities.

Unionist

Idle No More Quebec faction vows to sustain pressure

Quote:

Melissa Mollen Dupuis, who co-founded Idle No More’s Quebec branch, says she’s skeptical about the prime minister’s meeting.

“I think Harper was trying to wait this out, seeing if the movement would just die, but it hasn’t and now he’s been forced to negotiate,” said Mollen Dupuis, a 34-year-old Innu artist and teacher. “We’re going to stay active, we’ll keep protesting until we see a better way forward.”

Mollen Dupuis and members of her group are organizing a protest slated for Friday in downtown Montreal. The aboriginal campaign has been gaining support from Quebec’s student activists and the members of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

“It’s astounding how much support we’ve had from outside of the native community,” Mollen Dupuis said. “In a way, we’ve sort of borrowed some of the organizational structure from the Occupy and student movements. The student unrest we saw last year has really inspired us. We figure, if collective anger can make a premier disappear, then maybe it can have the same effect on Harper.”

theleftyinvestor

Both Wab Kinew and Gabrielle Scrimshaw were wonderful on CBC last night. Both excellent articulate voices that cut right through the BS.

theleftyinvestor

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Dru Oja Jay: [url=http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/dru/15493]What if Natives Stop Subsidizing Canada?[/url]

Damn, their server appears to be down this morning and it's not Google cached. Would have loved to read the whole article.

onlinediscountanvils

theleftyinvestor wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Dru Oja Jay: [url=http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/dru/15493]What if Natives Stop Subsidizing Canada?[/url]

Damn, their server appears to be down this morning and it's not Google cached. Would have loved to read the whole article.

Here you are:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww....

6079_Smith_W
Otavano

I'll admit that I'm not big on going out to protests. However, I decided to go to one on Parliament Hill a while back with Idle No More and later on Victoria Island. I can't say I was a 'participant', but more an information-seeker. On Victoria Island I managed to get in touch with an Algonquin who was interested in a funding proposal whereby we could set up automatic direct monthly contributions to a fund to promote the Algonquin language. Still no response yet, though he did say that because he's busy on Victoria Island that he won't be contacting me for awhile, but I'm definitely looking forward to a response.

kropotkin1951

The highest rated comment about this piece that says both non-status Indians and Metis have as yet undefined rights under the Charter shows the effect of MSM propaganda and misinformation about Canada's history. If you took a poll it seems most Canadians would support a program that takes kids away from their parents so they can be "educated" and assimilated faster.

CBC wrote:

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and several Metis and non-status Indians took the federal government to court in 1999 alleging discrimination because they are not considered "Indians" under a section of the Constitution Act.

They argued they are entitled to some or all of the same rights and benefits as on-reserve First Nations members.

They say that includes access to the same health, education and other benefits Ottawa gives status Indians; being able to hunt, trap, fish and gather on public land; and the ability to negotiate and enter treaties with the federal government.

The congress and the Metis and non-status Indians involved in the case alleged in court documents that they've been the victims of "deprivations and discrimination" by the federal government.

The decision is widely expected to be appealed, and the federal government's reaction on Thursday suggested it was contemplating taking another go at it.

drhoule wrote:

When will we wake up and make everyone the same, a Canadian. Without regards to origins?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/08/pol-cp-metis-indians-fe...

autoworker autoworker's picture

Is INM just the latest iteration of the anti-globalization/Occupy movement, or is it uniquely indigenous?

theleftyinvestor

Fully unique. The other movements you've mentioned may have some ideals in common with INM, but INM is much more focused on specifically being about the relationship between aboriginals in Canada and the federal government, and the challenges that are not being addressed.

Remember Occupy was about the "99%". INM is not about the 99%. It's about minority groups on whose unceded land stands a country.

iyraste

re laggat´s mention of the growing international solidarity with Indigenous People´s struggles in Canada, I just wish to point out that I am talking about effective mutual strategic actions between indigenous populist movements globally with such movements in Canada.

The purpose of my post was to alert people as to some potentially powerful actions between our Maya partners here in Guatemala with the groundswell of activism now taking place in Canada

sknguy II

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The highest rated comment about this piece that says both non-status Indians and Metis have as yet undefined rights under the Charter shows the effect of MSM propaganda and misinformation about Canada's history....

drhoule wrote:

When will we wake up and make everyone the same, a Canadian. Without regards to origins?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/08/pol-cp-metis-indians-fe...

I suppose drhoule and his 2000+ raters don't think the social engineering project that's been going on for the past 150+ years wasn't meant to do just that. Can't change 150 years of prejudice with just one teach-in. INM needs to keep the wind in its sails.

On another note. This communique came out from the AFN. I think the Friday meeting betwen the delegated First Nations leaders and Harper will probably result in at least putting some issues on the table. But I honestly don't know what can be accomplished with Harper though. In order to really acheive self determination any changes to the relationship will need to represent very profound changes and require innovative thinking. Unfortunately, I'm more of a cautious supporter of the AFN only because they're all we got that the Feds will talk to. Of late, I just haven't seen them as being much of a vehicle for change.

It's good that INM and Chief Spence are forcing the politicians to act. And I thank the women who started INM. Because traditionally, it's women who actually lead our societies and probably why those women felt their responsibilities to act. There's a few thousand years of wisdom in those governance structures... and I think INM's a good example of why women ended up leading them.

pookie

Breaking: Chief Spence won't attend unless the GG does.  He has already indicated he will not, and I cannot imagine him changing his mind. 

 

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/01/09/attawapiskat-chief-spence-wont-atte...

Serviam6

pookie wrote:

Breaking: Chief Spence won't attend unless the GG does.  He has already indicated he will not, and I cannot imagine him changing his mind. 

 

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/01/09/attawapiskat-chief-spence-wont-atte...

There is something weird going on.

http://www.globalnational.com/pages/blogs.aspx?id=6442784673&blogid=6442...

Apparently Chief Spence called the acting Chief and told her to kick Global news reporters off the reservation.  The reporters were threatened with jail if they didn't leave.  The cop in the video clip seems pretty nervous. What's going on?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

What's going on? Are you serious?

 

If I repeatedly reported lies about you are you going to let me walk into your house to look around?

autoworker autoworker's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

What's going on? Are you serious?

 

If I repeatedly reported lies about you are you going to let me walk into your house to look around?


Why not sue them?

ilha formosa

drhoule wrote:

When will we wake up and make everyone the same, a Canadian. Without regards to origins?

Where is this quote from? In any case, I ask people who say this: *who* is to define Canadian, and *for whom*? "Make everyone the same" sounds not only scary, but deathly boring. A flexible, open idea of Canadian identity, often in the negative (ie, not Usians) has served Canada well since the Pearson era. Uniqueness, difference and diversity does not have to mean divisiveness. There's plenty to bind people in Canada together without having to impose some kind of sameness on the whole population.

What a shameful, incalculable loss - and crime against humanity - it would be to erase the wisdom of the people who have been on this land the longest.

Quote:
Article 8 1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

Put the UNDRIP beside C-45 and dissect.  

NDPP

Negotiating Tables -

http://aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058

Canada frequently refers to this process as 'extinguishment with consent'...

as for the CBC quote - it is not all that different from that of an Indian Affairs bureaucrat of yesteryear

'Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian that has not been absorbed into the body  politic of Canada and there is no more Indian problem. That is the whole purpose of our legislation..' Duncan Campbell Scott, Indian Affairs Canada, 1920

lagatta

iyraste, that is exactly what I'm talking about - solidarity among struggles of different Indigenous peoples in the Americas (and even beyond). 

Qualitative growth since Oka, Chiapas etc. 

theleftyinvestor

Serviam6 wrote:

There is something weird going on.

http://www.globalnational.com/pages/blogs.aspx?id=6442784673&blogid=6442...

Apparently Chief Spence called the acting Chief and told her to kick Global news reporters off the reservation.  The reporters were threatened with jail if they didn't leave.  The cop in the video clip seems pretty nervous. What's going on?

RevolutionPlease wrote:

What's going on? Are you serious?

 

If I repeatedly reported lies about you are you going to let me walk into your house to look around?

I'll preface this by saying I rarely watch Global News so I have no idea what their coverage of INM has been like. But at a time when the message is about listening and engaging in conversation, the optics of expelling reporters are not good.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Global News is a corporate mouthpiece for the staus quo. 

Here's Jennifer Tryon last year in Attiwapiskat. The anti-Indigenous bias is built right in. The carefully selected quotes meant to stir up shit are excellent journalism too. 

P.S. T.V. news is vile.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Slumberjack

Of the journalists, I used to think how is it that they continue to walk around in society and not have to go into hiding after doing what they do for a living, day in and day out?  But then they are merely entrepreneurs after all, responding to the demands of the customer.  They have no interest in speaking the truth because of the complete lack of interest from people who stand to lose from it.  Society itself is vile, which largely accounts for the fact that the journalists who trade in vileness experience no particular anxiety for the most part when swaggering about in public.

Otavano

autoworker wrote:
Is INM just the latest iteration of the anti-globalization/Occupy movement, or is it uniquely indigenous?

 

Is INM necessarily anti-globalist? If you consider that many nations straddling the Canada-US border acknowledge the border as a mere administrative hurdle, and that there are global indigenous organizations, I don't see how they're necessarily anti-globalist?

sknguy II

That's a good point Otavano. INM is uniquely Indigenous, and I'd probably add that tradtional values could be anti-globalization insofar as capitalism is concerned. All these corporations and their shareholders do need to have some "give-aways" and feasts because they're hoarding way too much and not sharing enough with communties. Seriously though, how can that traditional principle express itself in a modern context? I think it can, but smarter people than me could probably suss it out.

theleftyinvestor

sknguy II wrote:

That's a good point Otavano. INM is uniquely Indigenous, and I'd probably add that tradtional values could be anti-globalization insofar as capitalism is concerned. All these corporations and their shareholders do need to have some "give-aways" and feasts because they're hoarding way too much and not sharing enough with communties. Seriously though, how can that traditional principle express itself in a modern context? I think it can, but smarter people than me could probably suss it out.

Also let's not conflate the distinction between colonialism and globalization. They have a thread in common but they are distinct. An anti-globalization activist, for example, might be concerned about the loss of sovereignty inherent in the latest trade agreement with China, which allows them to secretly sue our governments and thus undermines our ability to determine our own regulations democratically. An anti-colonialism activist may point out that the feds did not have any legitimate right to sign that agreement conferring domain over unceded territory to someone else.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Karl Nerenberg: The true scandal of First Nations' funding

It's sad to report, but the strategic leak of the Deloitte & Touche audit of Theresa Spence's Attawapiskat band seems to have had its desired impact.

The leak has tarnished the reputation of a woman who has only been Chief since 2010 -- the audit goes back to 2005 -- and it has significantly distracted national attention from the fundamental issues at stake....

And, by the way, of the 409 transactions in Attawapiskat that Deloitte and Touche said lacked proper documentation, only about 30 were conducted on Spence's watch -- pretty small beer for the current band Chief, and nothing approaching any sort of scandal, let alone crime!

But that's not the real point. The real point is the way in which the system for providing First Nations services is fundamentally flawed.

When she was Auditor General, Sheila Fraser repeatedly warned that the management and funding system the Government imposes on First Nations would almost inevitably lead to problems of the sort Deloitte and Touche identified in Attawapiskat.

Fraser's most recent damning report on the entire system came out in June of 2011.

It got some scattered media attention at the time, but was generally treated as "same old, same old" -- not as the unmitigated scandal Fraser evidently thought it was.

In the fall of 2011, when Aboriginal Affairs officials went before the Commons Public Accounts Committee to answer to Fraser's charges, no media -- except for rabble.ca -- thought that worthy of any coverage.

A leaked auditor's letter to Chief Spence -- dated last August and lacking any specific detail -- gets breathless "CBC has obtained a copy" coverage.

A departmental response to a thoroughgoing critique of First Nations funding and services throughout Canada gets zero coverage.

Sadly, it seems the best way to get the mainstream media's attention is to make them believe you've given them some kind of "scoop." It sure worked for this week's leaker.

The fact is, however, that the only way to make sense of the Attawapiskat audit is to read it in the context of what Fraser says about the whole system.

So, for those who missed it the first time, here are some of the former Auditor General's key points.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

pookie wrote:
Breaking: Chief Spence won't attend unless the GG does.  He has already indicated he will not, and I cannot imagine him changing his mind.

I'm confused by the strategy of this move. Has anyone read or heard any analysis of this decision? I had vainly hoped that the other chiefs would withdraw in solidarity, forcing Harper to meet with Chief Spence alone, but this move strikes me as strange. Not that INM needs or desires my approval -- I'm just curious as to the tactics at play here.

kropotkin1951

I found this decision by the Chief to be rather strange but it is hers to make. As a negotiator I always wanted to not box myself into a corner with ultimatums that the other side will not accept. I presume her and her advisers have figured out an exit strategy and I will be interested to see it unfold.  

The INM movement would not be involved in this decision since they are allies and distinct from the specific FN that the Chief speaks on behalf of and where her advisers are mostly from.

theleftyinvestor

The difficulty with any decentralized movement is the extent to which potential leaders will actually agree with each other on what approach to take. I'm sure the further along this process goes, the more disunity we will see, but that's why opening up a dialogue was important in the first place.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

The INM movement would not be involved in this decision since they are allies and distinct from the specific FN that the Chief speaks on behalf of and where her advisers are mostly from.

Quite right. Forgive the ellision. The same conflation I just warned against making in the Federal Court ruling thread!

Otavano

tthe problem I see with the terms "globalization" and its derivatives is that their definition has always been so general as to include all kinds of sub-definitions, some quite negative, others quite positive. As a result, it ends up not meaning much. I know some who identify themselves as being globalist-transnationalist-internationalist-world-federalist-universalist-etc.etc.etc. have come up with various terms to avoid the potential negative definition, such as "world-federalist", "universalist", etc.

Whatever you call it though, I would not be surprised to find that indigenous peoples would tend to be more so than the majority population. If we take the example of the UK, Englishmen tend to be more anti-EU whereas scots tend to be more so. Part of the reason is that in a sovereign UK, the English have the political power for the most part owing to their population and seats in Parliament; the Scots are more equal at the EU level since Scottish MEPs can alsways form alliances with other MEPs to counter English MEPs.

In the same way, in a world federation, indigenous Canadians could get more support from other parliamentarians to counterbalance the Anglo-French vote, something they cannot do in a totally sovereign Canada. Natually French and English Canadians would tend to oppose this since it would eliminate their majority.

Looking at it that way, total sovereignty tends to benefit the majority within that respective nation, but hurts the minority. A larger federation would eliminate any ethnic majority.

 

MegB

Most of the original treaties were negotiated with the crown, so it makes sense that if the crown's rep won't attend the meeting, then neither should Chief Spence.

Unionist

This conversation has taken a very strange turn. Why are we talking about globalization and federation and all the rest? There is a concrete uprising of Indigenous peoples taking place right now, with a series of demands relating to their inalienable rights. I opened this thread to provide a channel for news and support for that movement. Idle theorizing about the shape of world government could probably go in the Utopia forum.

quizzical

i don't get why some don't get why Chief Spence is demanding a meeting with the GG.

the GG's refusal says a lot.

etd.... i posted this after i posted another post in another thread and didn't read Rebecca's prior. exactly! and canada even though people wanna ignore it  is 'the crown's' not settler canadians.

though really it's First Nations and First Nations  will have to make "the crown" recognize this to the rest of the world.

hint...resource extraction takes place on 'crown land" (unrecognized FN land) or in some cases FN recognized land.

Serviam6

Catchfire wrote:

 I had vainly hoped that the other chiefs would withdraw in solidarity, forcing Harper to meet with Chief Spence alone,

 

On what grounds do you feel Chief Spence makes the best choice for a sole representitive to meet with Harper?

Serviam6

theleftyinvestor wrote:

But at a time when the message is about listening and engaging in conversation, the optics of expelling reporters are not good.

 

I feel the same way.  I want to say it looks very bad. It is easy to counter that opinion by saying it doesn't matter what it looks like to anyone else but I think that is the difference between Canadians in general tuning in, listening and putting pressure on their politicans and skipping to the next news story.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Serviam6 wrote:
On what grounds do you feel Chief Spence makes the best choice for a sole representitive to meet with Harper?

I don't, of course -- it's none of my business who "the best" choice is. But in terms of tactics, it would be one way for the chiefs to show solidarity in the face of Harper's dirty tricks and make him do what he is trying to avoid doing, in the face of international public opinion, political responsibility and ethical propriety.

At any rate it was just a musing I had. It doesn't matter what I think, what matters is the decisions indigenous people come to collectively, my approval or comprehension notwithstanding.

I would like it however, if those who agree with Spence's latest move might take the time to explain their approval, or what they expect to happen if the GG ultimately rejects the meeting.

Unionist

God, if only those poor Indigenous folk had the benefit of such wonderful optics advice from the very start, why, the people of Canada would have embraced them long ago and given them EVERYTHING!

Otavano

Rebecca West wrote:
Most of the original treaties were negotiated with the crown, so it makes sense that if the crown's rep won't attend the meeting, then neither should Chief Spencer.

correct me if I'm wrong here, but even the original treaies wer not negotiated directly with the King nor even the governor general of the time. I'm not even sure if the Prime Minister of the time would have been directly involved or if other agents may have been appointed for the task.

 

Looking at it that way, if chief Spence wanted to put herself on an equal footing with the Crown, she too would have to not meet with harper but send a representative to meet with him.

quizzical

Serviam6 wrote:
theleftyinvestor wrote:
But at a time when the message is about listening and engaging in conversation, the optics of expelling reporters are not good.

I feel the same way.  I want to say it looks very bad. It is easy to counter that opinion by saying it doesn't matter what it looks like to anyone else but I think that is the difference between Canadians in general tuning in, listening and putting pressure on their politicans and skipping to the next news story.

wanna know something? no grass roots FN's give a shit what settlers view as good optics. the good optics to us are she threw the lying liars off.

we don't have to tolerate attempts to create more anti-First Nations propaganda by global news. no explanations would be good enough for you whites and good example is right here and now in this thread. your not listening to or reading what's been  given to ya and ya just blather on like your opinions are the best eva and we should be listening to ya. those days are gone!!!!!!!

quizzical

Catchfire wrote:
I would like it however, if those who agree with Spence's latest move might take the time to explain their approval, or what they expect to happen if the GG ultimately rejects the meeting.

i personally don't think she or any of the "Chiefs" should meet with harper without the GG present. but that's up to them. their 2nds should be meeting with harper telling him to get the queen on the line if the GG is not up to doing his job.

imv she should continue until this happens. again her choice and i wouldn't judge.

if the media in canada were doing their job right they would be hounding the GG if not the queen over this. 

pookie

I believe that the Crown in Canada generally is understood to be an institution of governance rather than a single person. The Crown is not the Queen.

Pages