FNs: Don't Vote For Canada!

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

we can't hope to know what's going on in our territory and land if we hold ourselves separate and apart from the current governing structure.

if we want to be full partners in Canada it means being a part of the current governing structure in place. to hold ourselves apart is to relinguish building the future we want in OUR lands and territories.

in a proportional represention style of government we could even have our own representatives voted in our own electoral areas.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

quizzical wrote:

we can't hope to know what's going on in our territory and land if we hold ourselves separate and apart from the current governing structure.

if we want to be full partners in Canada it means being a part of the current governing structure in place. to hold ourselves apart is to relinguish building the future we want in OUR lands and territories.

in a proportional represention style of government we could even have our own representatives voted in our own electoral areas.

..i suspect that the struggle is to survive until a time when there is a real partnership. imho no one can afford to wait. it may take 10 years or more to get a decent prop rep that filters down to the grassroots. and even then there are no certainties. i spent the winter of 2009-10 in new zealand and they have prop rep. the maori held a respectable portion of seats. yet i participated with thousands of others in demos around climate and war just like i do in canada under harper. there is nothing magical about prop rep if all else stays the same. 

swallow swallow's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Don't know; not Tibetan.

Well, you enjoy reductio ad absurdum. If the USA invaded and annexed Canada, should Canadians vote in US elections? 

quizzical

what are you advocating swallow? war?

if so, are we waiting until the FN population has grown enough to have a war?

or are you expecting all the non-First Nation people here to pick up and go without beng forced?

meanwhile, FN's and Metis would still be standing outside and not participating in what is going on affecting our lives.

imv your comment is as much reductio ad absurdum as Magoos

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

swallow wrote:

Well, you enjoy reductio ad absurdum. If the USA invaded and annexed Canada, should Canadians vote in US elections? 

I wouldn't be happy if the U.S. did that, but I would certainly vote in U.S. elections if I were given the chance. This year, I'd be voting for Bernie Sanders in the Ontario Democratic primary.

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Don't know; not Tibetan.

Well, you enjoy reductio ad absurdum. If the USA invaded and annexed Canada, should Canadians vote in US elections? 

A very interesting speculation.

Obviously in the aftermath of an invasion there would likely be widespread boycotts, civil disobedience, protests specific to inclusion of Canada into the US. There might even be fighting in places. Many of our people would not be debating so much our treatment in a US but the very idea of our inclusion.

There would be a pointed separation campaign with significant numbers (enough to measure in a vote boycott) advocating non-participation in US electoral functions out of a desire to not be included rather than a desire to be treated better. A boycott would be in this context. A boycott might be a very useful tool -- in this context.

Assuming nothing helped and after over 100-200 years Canada was still a part of the US, and we were no longer protesting our inclusion but looking for policies within the US that were better for us, things would be different. If we were looking for more support from the US government, less prejudice, recognition of whatever agreements we had, even protesting how we became included but not arguing that we should leave completely, a boycott would no longer be sensible. If we did not consider it a viable option to become independent (either militarily or economically). It would be better to elect those who would represent us better.

What if the context for the vote was so far removed from an invasion in a time that many of our people were suffering from policies that offered us less health care and education -- water and housing -- that everyone else in the country were getting? I can’t see me promoting non-voting.

A more relevant question could be -- if we were having this debate with most of our leaders encouraging us to elect people to get a better relationship, how would we then react to some website in the Southern US encouraging us not to vote?

How would we feel about US people who had their own reasons for encouraging non-voting, using our particular debates and concerns to advance their cause with other US people? What if this were happening while US republicans were trying to win a close election by taking steps to prevent independent-minded Canadians from voting hoping that these local elections would be won by republicans (of the ilk of Harper)?

Might some of us want to tell the US to butt out of our debate and let us decide on our own if we prefer a boycott to an effort to win races to make a difference? Would we not prefer our debate about what would advance our cause be centred more on our concerns and grievances than the context of US people who think voting is a bad idea for anyone?

If we wanted a boycott we would probably only want it in the context of widespread calls for separation. And I sincerely doubt we would appreciate -- even well-meaning  -- non Canadian participation from US people who were not first advocates of ours. I doubt we would want our call for a boycott to be taken out of a context of our grievances and placed into a context of non-voting for the sake of non-voting.

I think I'd, personally be pretty rude to US people wanting to use our suffering and boycott campaign, for their campaigns that have nothing to do with us -- even if I believed in a boycott myself.

But there you go that's speculation for you.

 

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Don't know; not Tibetan.

Well, you enjoy reductio ad absurdum. If the USA invaded and annexed Canada, should Canadians vote in US elections? 

Interestingly we actually do have a real historical example. Ireland when it was trying to become independent started a campaign to elect nationalists to the British parliament that they wanted out of. The attention they were able to raise was significant and part of the movement to independence. The Irish would have acted with hostility to any English people encouraging them not to vote.

In later years, after partition, they elected people who protested not by refusing to stand, and the people refusing to vote, but by refusing to take their seats. Arguably, this could be another approach -- have elected MPs decide not to take their seats but to use their status as MPs to call for independence.

Of course that makes more sense if the boycott intends to advocate independence. It makes a lot less sense if the boycott is to change the relationship to protest inequality. In that case you would think that the protest from a small number of MPs -- at every bad legislation would be much, much louder.

As call to elect people to a party that represents the oppressed people rather than the mainstream parties is another approach. Examples -- from Irish nationalists -- to the BQ exist.

For the record there is a First Peoples Party in Canada. In this thread we have not discussed this option (because the point is not the benefit of FN people but the desire to hijack the voting question for something that has nothing to do with them).

Sean in Ottawa

My own political preferences have been raised and I have kept them out of this thread in spite of people hypocritically using a FN debate to help their preferred approach (non- voting) and suggesting I was trying to advocate that they vote for my "brand" -- ie the NDP – even though I did not advocate for the NDP in this thread at all – and have never advocated a particular party to FN people.

There are reasons for this in addition to what I have stated (that I do not want to tell FN people how to vote). One reason is that I do not know how I would vote (even as a Non-Aboriginal person) if I were in a FN community with significant numbers and the potential to elect a person representing the First People’s Party or even a Candidate who is Aboriginal standing for another party. I likely would see significant value in electing a FPP candidate where possible. Such a person would be able to raise a profile on many issues and seek alliances to actually pass legislation -- even as a single MP. As well I would have to consider, seriously, individual candidates over parties. I may support the NDP, but would I vote for a white NDP Candidate in a FN community over an Aboriginal candidate who was Liberal or Green? I don't think so. I may prefer the NDP but I think the value of greater FN representation in the House of Commons trumps that difference (unless there were something I really objected to in the particular candidate. The decision would be personal. I would not vote for a Conservative -- even if they were FN. I amnot being hypocritical either -- I believe in affirmative action. I believe that the relationship between Aboriginal people and the rest of Canada is the most serious issue Canada faces right now (and that all the other serious issues we face are related in some way or can be improved through greater Aboriginal representation).

So, not only am I not in this thread to support the NDP, -- If I were in a riding where there was a real chance of an Aboriginal candidate winning against a non-Aboriginal New Democrat Candidate, I would have first tried to make sure the NDP had an Aboriginal Candidate, and second I would seriously consider trying to elect the Aboriginal candidate that was available to me. I am not advocating FN communities to necessarily vote NDP, particularly when in their location, I, myself, might not. I say this -- even though I think that among the parties the NDP would be the best for government.  I could not say -- if the NDP candidate were not Aboriginal -- that this would be a better choice in a riding where there would be an opportunity to elect an Aboriginal candidate.

I would very much appreciate those questioning my motives in this thread to stop doing that since they are making many, many false assumptions.

swallow swallow's picture

quizzical wrote:

what are you advocating swallow? war?

if so, are we waiting until the FN population has grown enough to have a war?

or are you expecting all the non-First Nation people here to pick up and go without beng forced?

meanwhile, FN's and Metis would still be standing outside and not participating in what is going on affecting our lives.

imv your comment is as much reductio ad absurdum as Magoos

It is indeed reductio ad absurdum, as I in fact said. 

I'm not advocating anything. I'll be voting. I do think the First Nations campaigners who advocate non-voting for their nations have a good point, though, and I would not condemnd them or those who share their views here. 

quizzical

ok, i so read your post wrong.....

i think 'condemn' is a strong word.

reminding my cousins who were more than a bit radical back in the day, for example,  of the reality check of our numbers needing to grow not decline by our own actions is not condemnation.

 

 

kropotkin1951

swallow wrote:

Should Tibetans vote in China's elections? 

Do you mean these elections? 

Hard to say it depends on whether their vote actually has any effect on the central government. Much like any Canadian they have to decide as individuals whether they will take part in the governance system in their country.

http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/last/l-1.htm

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
If the USA invaded and annexed Canada, should Canadians vote in US elections?

I might.  It's that, or others call all the shots.

You?

swallow swallow's picture

Not, I think. 

Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I might.  It's that, or others call all the shots.

In that event you would be a collaborator.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I might.  It's that, or others call all the shots.

In that event you would be a collaborator.

And would you be a heroic resistance fighter? I sure wouldn't, nor would I encourage my family and friends to be so foolish.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If the USA invaded and annexed Canada, should Canadians vote in US elections?

I might.  It's that, or others call all the shots.

You?

I think it depends on the time period we're talking about. If the US invaded Canada in 2015, and the next election was in 2016, I would hope that I'd be a member of an ongoing resistance movement, and not vote in the American election.

If, however, it is 2316(or whenever the election will be held in that century), and 99% of people living in the territory formerly called Canada are content to regard themselves as citizens of the USA, and no one can present an argument that my standard of living will be better as a result of "Canada" coming back into existence, then, yes, I would probably vote in American elections.

And certainly, there's a grey area between "the year after the invasion and everyone's still mad" and "300 years after the invasion and nobody cares anymore", where the assimilation process is still an open question(eg. maybe 50% of people in the formerly Canadian territory stiil consider themselves Canadian), and I have to decide whether I'm going to oppose the process, help it along, or just sit back and watch TV. I can't say I've ever lived in that kind of ambiguous situation, so I don't know how I'd react. It would probably depend on a realpolitik analysis of just how likely the independence movement was to succeed.

None of this is meant as a comparison to FN people in Canada circa 2015. Just as an answer to the hypothetical scenario in the ad absurdum.

Mr. Magoo

To keep the analogy relevant to the thread, I assumed that it's been 480 years since Canada was claimed by the United States.  Will the resistance still be going strong?

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

To keep the analogy relevant to the thread, I assumed that it's been 480 years since Canada was claimed by the United States.  Will the resistance still be going strong?

Who knows? There was armed conflict between the Irish and the English(granted, it ebbed and flowed) since at least 1536, and the Good Friday Accords in 1997.

Sean in Ottawa

White people struggle when they try to imagine a context where they are in the position that Aboriginal people are in. The idea of an invaded Canada shows how silly it is to make any comparison.

As discussed, we would be speaking of a new event with no comparison to the generations of institutionalized discrimination Aboriginal people face. Imagining the kind of racism that exists following is impossible since the US is a country with a large white population where the power is concentrated in the hands of other white people of European ancestry. White Canadians enjoy historical advantages Aboriginal people have not had (putting it mildly). The options for resistance would be different. The amont of wealth in the hands of individuals would also be different. To imagine an experience they thnk is comparable, white people imagine being conquered by other white people and then just skip over the entire racist basis of the oppression Aboriginal people face.

The one question where it is valid is how the debate is framed. Is it framed as a general don't vote argument or is it framed in the context of the value of that particular protest within a given context of injustice, alienation and grievance? Is it motivated from an anti-vote perspective or as one option of resistance to a specifc structure? You can see that the question of the specific utility of non-voting to a campaign of resistance is the necessary context when the situation of a people is desperate.

**

Then we have the distinction that a few people are choosing to ignore. This is the difference between, on the one hand, reporting a point of view while genuinely trying to explore where it comes from with a full respect for its context, which this thread clearly has not set out to do. Or, on the other hand, taking an opinion out of context for the purpose of trying to influence a campaign of non-voting that has nothing to do with the reasons the quoted writer cites, while clearly not stopping at reporting -- but straight up advocating as the thread title is doing. The thread title sets the tone, context and intention of this thread.

Non-Aboriginal people should well read the quoted article and others this writer has written and ask themselves -- as they participate in the racist structure that has created this desperation -- why. Rather than using the FN reaction for an anti-vote campaign, those outside this community should be asking first why are these individuals saying this and secondly what they can do to change that.

It is not up to non-Aboriginal to examine the take-away of voting or not for FN people. What is relevant is the consensus behind it. FN people may debate whether they should vote of not, but what they agree on is far more significant to us. Those who advocate voting and those who advoacte non-voting among Aboriginal people have the same message that should be the focus of a thread that seeks to report on what they are saying. FN people are in a power structure that operates against them, fails to respect the most fundamental of agreements, disrespects the most basic of human rights -- discrminates as a matter of public policy.

FN find themselves with a stutus of a conquered people asked to vote in elections that formalize the dishonesty of treating them as a conquered people when many of their nations were never conqured and in fact signed treaties designed by white people that remain valid in law, yet are ignored.

The foundation for a Non-voting argument among Aboriginal people exists in logic in a way that it does not for any other residents of Canada. But the evaluation of this argument is to be examined in their context in their communities in the context of the realities of what a change of government might mean, what potential value some influence over the national government might mean or any other realities and contexts they apply to the discussion. They have the options of non-voting, trying to elect their own people within the majority party structure that exists, or outside it in FN parties like the FPP or independents.

As part of the society that oppresses FN people, we have to be careful about not endorsing specific reactions when we should be not interfering in those. Non Aborignal Canadians have a responsibility to listen to the overwhelming consensus about the nature of the injustice they face rather than participate in promoting one of their response for our own self-serving reasons. There is a huge take-away from the opening post -- and the thread title does not reflect that -- and, as such, is disrespectful.

Non-Aboringal people can respect those FN people calling for a boycott, those calling for greater participation, those calling for votes for Aboriginal candidates regardless of part, or those calling for support of independent or First Peoples' parties. And we can take their common messages that all of these are in the context of responses to what colonials are imposing on them.

This should be the focus of this thread.

When non-Aboriginals decide not to vote they are not showing solidarity with Non-voting Aborignal people. They are in fact endorsing passively the status quo for Aboriginal people. Non Aboriginal non-voting sends no message of rejection in the way the opening post quote implies because these are non Aboriginal people. Non-voting, non Aborignal people calling for Aboriginal people not to vote is more in line with the suppression tactics of the current government than any kind of support for an Aboriginal debate on the issue. Our reporting must not be a call to inaction but rather a call for more awareness and action. That action might actually be through our votes. But that is of course not enough it must be through our responses to discussions like these, our protests and whatever else we can do.

It cannot be support if we seek to associate and absord the non Voting Aboriginal protest into a non voting campaign because by doing so we devalue, degrade and bury their message -- and that is the one we should be hearing.

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I do not consider an FN vote against Harper to be an endorsement of the Canadian Empire.

Slumberjack

First Nations and the Election - boycott or engage? - CBC Radio

Quote:
The Assembly of First Nations, The Native Women's Association of Canada and other groups are calling on Indigenous people to get out and vote during the upcoming federal election. National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Perry Bellegarde says it's critical for First Nations to vote, at a time when Canada is poised to begin the era of reconciliation. But not everyone agrees. Activist, lawyer and professor Pam Palmater says First Nations people shouldn't vote, run or participate in the election because doing so won't result in any tangible benefits for First Nations communities. 

quizzical

Pam what benefit is not voting going to get us?

quizzical

still waiting to hear what benefit we will get if we don't vote or participate?

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

Pam what benefit is not voting going to get us?

In case Pam Palmater isn't following this babble thread, here is her blog post on this topic - I'll just quote the concluding section, but the whole thing is well worth a read (as one would expect from Pam Palmater):

[url=http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2015/08/the-source-of-our-power-... Source of Our Power Has Never Been Voting in Federal Elections[/url]

Quote:
I would never tell someone not to vote, nor would I tell them not to run for a position as MP. I’m just saying that I won’t do that and if someone asked me what they should do, I would tell them that the best place to put all our energy is into our Nations. We should use all our education, skills, experience, knowledge, time, money and energy into advocating for our people, supporting our activists and leaders, healing our illnesses, rebuilding our communities, protecting our cultures and identities, defending the health of our lands and waters, and strengthening our Nations.

Some Indigenous peoples believe that voting is the best way to address Harper’s frightening dictatorial regime, while others believe that resisting and withdrawing from Canada’s oppressive processes and strengthening our Nations is a better focus for our energy. That debate won’t be settled any time soon, and that’s okay. I think most of us can agree that the power of our people working in solidarity together – Canadians and First Nations – can force the changes we need to turn this ship around and restore justice in Canada for the benefit of our current and future generations. My actions don't include voting, but I stand in solidarity with First Nations and civil society groups who are calling on Canadians to vote out Harper and demand better of whatever political party succeeds.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Activist, lawyer and professor Pam Palmater says First Nations people shouldn't vote

Quote:
I would never tell someone not to vote

Geoff

Given that Bill C-51 criminalizes environmental dissent, I would think First Nations people would have a stake in defeating the Conservatives.  Not voting helps to set the table for another Harper majority, which is the worst possible outcome for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike.

quizzical

it's not like its either or.  Nations are strengthening as they participate.  a few years ago it was unthinkable my family would be recognized and now we are after Nation strenthening and participating in the world and making our voices heard.

what should we all not go to school as it is a colonialist trapping? or participate in the work force?

i find her being extremely inconsistent in this.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
it's not like its either or.

Let's assume it takes a whole hour to go vote, and that elections are every four years.

That means voting takes 0.003% of your time.  The other 99.997% of your time can be used for whatever else you wish.

BRF

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'm not here to tell FNs what they should or shouldn't do.  But it's also hard to see how sitting this one out would end up helping them best.

Whether or not a FN person votes is beside the point; especially considering the limited hangout with all right wing gate keepers of various stripes that this election really is. The message is the First Nations derive their power from the people. This is something other Canadians need to pay attention to as voting every so often at the different levels of governance does not represent much political power at all locally or any at all Federaly. Only political activism extends any political power to a person or people. What does anyone think would get the attention of a Prime Minister more;  the four million votes that got him elected or four million people in the streets demanding lets say the restoration of the Bank of Canada to its Constitutional role as provider of debt free money/loans to our governments and economy as a balance to the debt based banker's money system.?

BRF

Geoff wrote:

Given that Bill C-51 criminalizes environmental dissent, I would think First Nations people would have a stake in defeating the Conservatives.  Not voting helps to set the table for another Harper majority, which is the worst possible outcome for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike.

In a backhanded manner it might almost be better to have another neo con Fascist Harper government instead of the slow motion slide into the hands of the international banking cabal we have now.These financial predators with debt as their principal weapon will subjugate the Federal government of Canada no matter who is making the laws eventually if we remain on the present monetary and economic course and I don't hear anyone proposing anything to reverse the present course. That way the Canadian people would see in a hurry what waits for them and their children, debt inservitude in 2nd or 3rd world status as in Greece, while the nation's resources and infrastructure is sold for pennies on the dollar to the financial vulture class that sits atop the human pyramind and who will descend to pick over the Canadian carcass in time. Then Canadians might finally awake to fight for their very economic freedom and survival for themselves and children...or not... and become the slaves of satanic pedophilic bankers in perpetuum depending on the character of the people. As it is the sleeping electorate is going to be picked off one by one, and law by law with any of the political entities presently seeking a career within the parameters Parliament must adhere to by current its financial masters under such trappings as CETA and the coming TPP. We do have the means to be our own economic masters within the Bank of Canada and the law surrounding its beautiful creation and intended use if we and a leader has the courage to make it so as little Iceland and her people have.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..cross posted with brf

..i have followed pam palmater for a long time now. yes she has contradictions and sometimes i think she exaggerates to make her point. i've been squeezed into a corner more than once in labour disputes. i would be honoured to have pam in my corner at times like that. she is an awsome warrior. she is human like us all. but her contradictions are garden variety and don't harm us like the more systemic contradictions like the nato alliance or support for the tarsands project. or trade deals negotiated in secret with corporations.

swallow swallow's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Activist, lawyer and professor Pam Palmater says First Nations people shouldn't vote

Quote:
I would never tell someone not to vote

The first is a CBC paraphrase of her views. The second is her own words. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Activist, lawyer and professor Pam Palmater says First Nations people shouldn't vote

Quote:
I would never tell someone not to vote

The first is a CBC paraphrase of her views. The second is her own words. 

Thanks, swallow, just noticed Magoo's post and was going to comment along the same lines. The reason I linked to Palmater's blog post was so that people could read and evaluate her actual position, as expressed by herself, rather than through the filter of the mainstream media, which have always had a tough time accurately explaining anything.

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

it's not like its either or.  Nations are strengthening as they participate.  a few years ago it was unthinkable my family would be recognized and now we are after Nation strenthening and participating in the world and making our voices heard.

what should we all not go to school as it is a colonialist trapping? or participate in the work force?

i find her being extremely inconsistent in this.

 

Quizzical, I was wondering what you thought of this:

Pam Palmater wrote:
I understand the urgent call for everyone who possibly can vote, to vote out Harper. I think we can all agree that getting rid of Harper is one of the most important things Canadians can do to save their democratic institutions. . Harper is, after all, enacting unconstitutional laws, selling natural resources to foreign countries, and committing grave injustices and human rights abuses in our territories. As treaty signatories, we committed to protecting settlers from harm. Some of us feel that we have an obligation to act – the only difference of opinion is what that action should look like.

Doug Woodard

Up until now, the First Nations have made gains by insisting that treaties and settler law be applied to them like anyone else, in a time when race prejudice and willingness to ignore the law where First Nations are concerned has weakened. Harper is already trying to ignore the Charter and the Supreme Court. He strikes me as an Andrew Jackson type: "John Marshall [Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1830's] has made his judgement, now let him enforce it." The Trail of Tears followed.

Palmater says the First Nations made their treaties with the Crown. The Governor-General of Canada is now the Prime Minister's creature, and the Queen cannot act herself. The First Nations like the the rest of us depend on having a government that will operate democratically under the rule of law. That means getting rid of Harper.

quizzical

Unionist wrote:

quizzical wrote:
it's not like its either or.  Nations are strengthening as they participate.  a few years ago it was unthinkable my family would be recognized and now we are after Nation strenthening and participating in the world and making our voices heard.

what should we all not go to school as it is a colonialist trapping? or participate in the work force?

i find her being extremely inconsistent in this.

Quizzical, I was wondering what you thought of this:

Pam Palmater wrote:
I understand the urgent call for everyone who possibly can vote, to vote out Harper. I think we can all agree that getting rid of Harper is one of the most important things Canadians can do to save their democratic institutions. . Harper is, after all, enacting unconstitutional laws, selling natural resources to foreign countries, and committing grave injustices and human rights abuses in our territories. As treaty signatories, we committed to protecting settlers from harm. Some of us feel that we have an obligation to act – the only difference of opinion is what that action should look like.

i read  the whole blog post and stated my opinion of belieiving her to be inconsistent. she is a politician and her comments  about the AFN  indicate clearly how much of a politician she is. 

iyraste1313

yes it´s sad to read Pam Palmater´s wishy washy analysis re voting (especially given the rich indigenous history of self governance), as so many writing in these pages...

The democratic? system is controlled lock stock and barrell, by corporate money, with back up control over control.

The process of communications over what is politically correct, thereby electability is under corporate control, backed up by an authoritarian Party system to guarantee that control.

Until a movement comes along, in Canada, to challenge the legitimacy of this so called democracy, the status quo will remain, the government, whatever Party will be under corporate control (the definition of fascism!).

But if som fluke in the system happens and a renegade takes power to challenge the corporate state, of course they will squash such a leader-Party with their control of the finances and economics.....

But there is hope! The corporate media as suggested in last weeks Wall Street market debacle is now in big financial trouble, the finances and economics in Canada is in danger of collapse.

As another recent thread suggests, the Precariat Class of Canada is about to mushroom out of control of the system´s social security, reinforced by a collapsing Canadian dollr respecting purchasing power. (A necessary but not total conditionality for transformation!)

So the movement that must develop must not just challenge the media corporatocrocy and support an alternative media. But challenge the economics and finances both through direct actions and the development of our own experimental alternative  models, from base rural and urban neighbourhood community and up.

The indigenous communities in canada are way ahead, not just with their own media alternatives, but with their cultural forms of production and distribution!
(While of course their political organization remains still under the control of the Indian Act and Government-Corporate money.)

What with the deepening of the crisis of the corporatist system, especially in these past weeks, with the bursting of financial bubbles in the emerging stock and bond markets, the commodities markets, the media, the biotecks ad nauseum, it behooves us to build such a holistic movement, to delegitimize the system of corruption. yesterday! Or as a community of intellectuals, analysts and activists we will have failed our Canadian peoples, not to mention our responsibility to end the toxic waste dump we´ve allowed this country to be turned into! 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The first is a CBC paraphrase of her views. The second is her own words.

Fair enough.

Interesting that it was presented in this thread as a quote.  Not as a misquote.

Slumberjack

I believe it would be a worthwhile gesture if people from all communities were to reach the same conclusion and provide statements to that effect.

Mr. Magoo

Slumberjack wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I might.  It's that, or others call all the shots.

In that event you would be a collaborator.

So similarly, I guess any FNs who vote in the settler's government are also collaborators.

That, or I'm overlooking some huge difference.

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Slumberjack wrote:
Mr. Magoo wrote:
I might.  It's that, or others call all the shots.

In that event you would be a collaborator.

So similarly, I guess any FNs who vote in the settler's government are also collaborators.

That, or I'm overlooking some huge difference.

i've looked for this in this thread i can't find it?

good to know i get to have some white guy calling me a collaborator.

Slumberjack

I suppose we all are to a certain extent.  I believe it was the French who established that collaboration occurs if one is occupied by a foreign presence, but nevertheless willingly partakes in the mechanisms of occupation for the purpose of assisting it.  Race baiting doesn't advance the conversation, but stiffles it.  Is that your intent here because it seems like it?

quizzical

oh you make the collaborator  comment and are now blamming me for trying to stiffle debate by "race baiting" because i take exception to your calling me in essence a collaborator

Slumberjack

Get over yourself.  The subject matter here is broader than you.  Also, stop referring to people by the colour of their skin.

quizzical

it's not me who needs to get the hell over themselves slumberjack. how about you get the hell over  your unearned sense of privilege?

JKR

Slumberjack wrote:

I suppose we all are to a certain extent.  I believe it was the French who established that collaboration occurs if one is occupied by a foreign presence, but nevertheless willingly partakes in the mechanisms of occupation for the purpose of assisting it.

One difference between Canada and occupied France is that people in occupied France were not allowed to establish political parties opposed to their occupation while here in Canada people are free to establish political parties that are free to run in elections opposing the government.

By there very nature, free democratic elections run counter to occupation. If we had PR, political parties representing FN's could be established in much the same way the Maori Party was established in New Zealand.

Slumberjack

JKR wrote:
One difference between Canada and occupied France is that people in occupied France were not allowed to establish political parties opposed to their occupation while here in Canada people are free to establish political parties that are free to run in elections opposing the government.

Well let freedom ring.  Not.  By and large there are no indigenous parties and everyone under the sun are only offered the stoogeocracy as their options.

Slumberjack

Slumberjack wrote:
Get over yourself.  The subject matter here is broader than you.  Also, stop referring to people by the colour of their skin.

And stop stalking me from thread to thread.

kropotkin1951

I find this whole us/them debate interesting and troubling at the same time. I have FN's relatives including Grandchildren. They are in a blended family and two of the four kids are FN's with some settler blood while the other two are fully settler. Do they have different obligations in this country based on race or should they be pulling together as one family? 

I also have nieces and nephews who are black and proud of it. My favourite line from one of them was about our shared Acadian history when I was relating the story of the Grand Dérangement. He said; "just my luck even the white side of my family were persecuted."

Personally I think my obligation is to teach my grandchildren about their history.

 

JKR

Slumberjack wrote:

JKR wrote:
One difference between Canada and occupied France is that people in occupied France were not allowed to establish political parties opposed to their occupation while here in Canada people are free to establish political parties that are free to run in elections opposing the government.

Well let freedom ring.  Not.  By and large there are no indigenous parties and everyone under the sun are only offered the stoogeocracy as their options.

If we had electoral reform, indigenous parties could form much more easily since there would be no vote-splitting. As it is, most indigenous people who participate in formal politics seem to gravitate to the NDP and/or Liberals.

If the stoogeocracy is ever replaced, I suspect it will be replaced by a system that also contains voting and elections.

Pages