Immigration and Indigenous solidarity and how they intersect

Stargazer wrote:

No, ET is right about some things but ET is not right in saying that all FN's think all people should be removed from Canada. You'll notice he isn't the only FN on this board. WE all do not think the same eh?

I don't believe that ET at any point in this thread said that all FN people think a certain way or even that he speaks for all FN people.  I do see a lot of people in this thread who are looking at what ET is saying and assuming that he is speaking for all FN people.  Maybe babblers should remember that when he is posting his ideas he is speaking for himself and others who hold his perspective but there are others like the person who Michelle mentioned in her original post, JR and Stargazer who hold views that see the situation differently.  Michelle asked what people thought of immigrants being allies and when ET responded his viewpoint as a FN person on them being allies and it was very different than what the FN person in the opening post talked about.

What I do see is a lot of dismissive attitudes, on both sides.  On one side people dismissing settlers talking about a FN perspective that they haven't heard before or are interested in learning about because they don't like what they are hearing from a FN perspective and on the other side people dismissing FN views because they don't like what they hear. 

Funny how religion has been so dismissive of FN spirituality and the government have been so dismissive of FN voices to do with land rights and caretaking of the land amongst other things and how this thread is rife with the same dismissive tone on all sides.

To do with the topic personally I think that both have valid points, that people who are suffering from similar circumstances can come together, and sometimes need to come together to help each other but it is hard to trust allies when they come into the situation with their own agenda's.  It is much easier dismiss the need and the worth of working together and only focus on the ally as untrustworthy in general or to dismiss the trust issue and only focus on why they should be working together when both factors will play a part in whether the situation will or won't work.

It is a delicate subject and the thread drift hasn't helped move the ideas in the OP along......

Let me see if I can expand the ideas a little....

There is a difference between "the colonizers", "immmigrants" and "settlers" Settlers were/are the people who come here, attempt to fit in and recognize their obligation and responsibilities to their hosts. In this sense, once educated, it is easy for an immigrant to be considered a settler, if they understand the indigenous land issue struggle. That isn't to say that they must agree with all of it, but they recognize that aboriginal people do have a claim to complain about their treatment and loss of land.

For the most part settlers are not feared. Under the Haudenosaunee custom that Lee Maracle mentioned, settlers were welcomed in the beginning because they essentially wanted the same things as Six Nations people, and working together helped them achieve their livelyhoods and security. There was no need as the early Christians thought to remove obstacles between them, but as put forth in the Two Row Wampum, it was possible for each to go in the same direction and not interfere with each others customs and beliefs. Even today given all the conflict that has arisen, the Haundenosaunee still maintain that their argument is not with settlers and they are not interested in evicting or displacing us from our homes and livelyhoods. 

However, there is a problem with colonists, who still exist more or less as corporatists. The goal of corporatists is to exploit goods, people, and resources for profit at any cost. They are only concerned with their bottom line - which in their mind is their own personal wealth. The Haudenosaunee do not extend their hospitality to the corporatists and whenever a developer, industry or corporation sets themselves up as owners of parcels within Haudenosaunee Territory (which is all of southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River), they will be challenged and confronted. The agreements made under the Silver Covenant Chain with the British does not include providing industry and corporations a place to exploit the resources and people. it is this reason that the Supreme Court of Canada, holds consultation, accommodation and reconciliation as a protected Charter Right vis a vis the Royal Proclamation 1763. The Haudenosaunee complained about the exploitation of their lands way back in the early 1600's and have maintained this assertion ever since.

Now we must be careful not to assume that all First Nations have similar prinicples. Six Nations has a completely different relationship with the Crown than other FN and their recognized sovereignty over land is protected by legal instruments that weave a complicated relationship. Generalization is not useful here.

So my point is that at least from the Six Nations (Haudenosaunee) perspective that I am familiar with, there has been accommodation of settlers for centuries, but corporatists (colonizers) are still not openly welcomed. As settlers, we need to understand that we are in common with Six Nations since Haudenosaunee opposition to destruction of land and resources is something we all should be concerned about. We do not have property rights, or settlement rights except those recognized and protected by First Nations, whose territories we occupy and we all should be unified against the government and corporations that refuse to recognize, consult and accommodate as they are required under the law. First Nations issues can only be resolved once we understand that we are in the same canoe, and not in the boat of the colonists as we are often led to believe.