Continued from here.
Issues Pages:
Kahnawake evicting non-Natives III
Sun, 2010-05-09 15:22
#1
Catchfire
Kahnawake evicting non-Natives III
Sun, 2010-05-09 15:31
#2
E.Tamaran wrote:
Look up the definition of traitor and see if it matches the actions of people who advocate allowing settlers to overrun FN territory. And it's no more "divisive" than forcing non-FNs to leave FN territory. In fact it's less "divisive" because it's only words while actual expulsions involve real people. Not that I'm against the expulsions, just making a point.
There is a difference between being overrun and driving your own people away. Somewhere in the middle is where things generally play out.
The Indian Act waits joyously for us to marry out, because the Indian Act is set up to breed us out. Why play that game? There are ways to integrate non-natives, or FNs from other nations into our home communities. When we struggle to impose narrow restrictions on ourselves to avoid falling afoul of the Indian Act, we're accepting their rules.
Perhaps right now, the problem is that the people 'marrying in' aren't aware of the serious nature of the commitment required. That should change. Not giving them a chance at all simple means we accept the blood quantum the Indian Act was set up to enforce.
Sun, 2010-05-09 16:47
#3
I'm glad that people from the actual community in question are talking about it though. It's a wider issue, this is one of the only communities that has consistently dealt with evictions of non-natives. For whatever reason, it's one of the most publicised communities as well, and there is a constant stream of misinformation about it.
Sun, 2010-05-09 18:24
#4
lonewolfbunn
I'm glad that people from the actual community in question are talking about it though. It's a wider issue, this is one of the only communities that has consistently dealt with evictions of non-natives. For whatever reason, it's one of the most publicised communities as well, and there is a constant stream of misinformation about it.
Yeah, and there is a Babble poster that likely knows her - since he's "a spokeman" for her people. He has been a little silent though since KahnawakeMohawkLady showed up.
Sun, 2010-05-09 18:42
#5
Refuge
Perhaps right now, the problem is that the people 'marrying in' aren't aware of the serious nature of the commitment required.
I agree with this. I have been friends with FN and involved with FN protests for years and always shyed away from any relationships within these circles mainly because I realized the commitment I would have to make to my children, if the relationship lead to children, and the commitment to my family. My current partner swept me off my feet and I was willing to make that commitmentment to him and our family. I personally have no culture left. I am a mixture of 7 or 8 different European countries and grew up with no traditional ties with any of them. All of my culture can be learned in living in Canada. My children technically will be 50% Cree but they will be Cree. Just as if my partner was full Italian, full Mexican, full Irish then I would consider them Italian, Mexican etc. I made the conscience choice to become the partner of and the mother to a Cree person and intend on following through on this commitment.
I have told my partner I am not Cree so these traditions, language etc will never be mine but they will have a profound affect on my life because I have a responsibility to support and teach these things to our child and support him in his learning and carrying
out the traditions.
I am not sure if I feel comfortable commenting on if there should be a ban on non natives or not, especially if this were to come into affect in my partners community because I would be directly affected by it but I do know that taking the commitment to become involved with a FN person who is traditional or trying to get back to their traditions, when you are not FN, lightly is not something I feel comfortable with.
Sun, 2010-05-09 21:31
#6
First of all settlers have a long history of moving onto, then stealing land away from First Nations. They makes illegal claims to ownership, or perpetual leases, and then have the government create land titles in their names.The proposed changes to the Indian Act with regard to matrimonial real property rights, would give non-native spouses rights over lands and real property in the event of a divorce or separation, that would undermine the sole possession of First Nations lands belonging exclusively to Indians. This would be a backdoor way of chiselling reserves down to postage stamps which would further erode the land bases of the FN. So from a protection of the land base basis, Kahnawa'ke'raonha have a good reason for their suspicions and trepidation.
Secondly from a cultural basis, the Mohawks of Kahnawake Citizenship requirements allow the residency and inclusion of non-native or non-Mohawks to coninute to reside so long as they agree to support the culture and language, by learning Kanyenke'haka'owen:na and participating openly in ceremonies and traditional events. If I understand the issue correctly, this is one of the issues that supports the prohibition of the woman's husband being rejected as a resident.
Lastly, Kahnawa'ke'raonha have the right to determine who can and can't be on their territory. The rules are probably more clear on this territory than they are on any other Mohawk territory. Either one complies with the residency code or they do not, and if not then they are not permitted to live there.
I would agree that to outsiders this looks like an affront to the rights of people, Mohawk or not. However it is not. It is clearly within the rights of a sovereign nation to decide who can and can't be residents, and to forcefully remove (if necessary) those who do not comply. In order to insist that they are a sovereign people Kahnawa'ke'raonha must conduct themselves as sovereign people and citizenship codes (and the enforcement of said codes) are one of the defining qualities of a nation. Certainly those who support FN should not complain.
Sun, 2010-05-09 21:37
#7
How many Mohawk people speak their language?
Language revitalisation is something that is of paramount importance. I agree that non-Mohawk people should be part of that if they wish to reside on Mohawk lands, or work with the Mohawk. However, I also think that if language and culture are the most important issues, then there should be a very strong focus on promoting those things. What opportunities do people in the community have to learn the language? What kind of support is in place? How are the non-natives and non-Mohawk currently residing on Mohawk lands being included so that they are able to engage in the necessary learning?
Granted, there should be a fairly large onus on the person bringing in someone from outside, but the community has a stake in keeping their present membership, and effectively integrating those who are marrying in.
Yes, I support aboriginal sovereignty, but I do not support unbridled sovereignty. I think that we as aboriginal people have to be very careful when it comes to sovereignty. Not because we aren't capable, or 'ready' or any other crap that gets thrown our way, but rather...so we don't enact internalised colonialism in the guise of traditionalism.
Sun, 2010-05-09 21:46
#8
By the way, Charter...you claimed to speak for the Mohawk ealier. I was just wondering if you wanted to narrow that claim down to Tyendinaga, or if you'd like to maintain it's a broader 'right' you have. The claims you made were very strong which is what triggered people here to raise their eyebrows...and my inquiries have raised some more. It might be nice if you could clarify your position, to clear up any confusion. Is it that you share a common opinion with Mohawk because you have interacted with them extensively? That is perfectly understandable, and a very valuable point of view. Perhaps the talk about 'officially speaking for' was meant in a very narrow, specific context and has been misinterpreted since then to mean more than you intended it to.
Sun, 2010-05-09 21:46
#9
"Certainly those who support FN should not complain."
Sure they can. Thats what free speech is. Theres a difference between voicing opposition or offering a dissenting opinion and forcing chance or an opinion.
Enforcing only one 'correct' view on anything is fascist and quite frankly asinine since no one thinks the same about anything. As all the diverse FN in this forum show.
Sun, 2010-05-09 21:59
#10
Overall, I believe that there are only about 2% of original Kayenke'haga'owen:na speakers left, and with the revitalization of the language it has increase those who understand ne owen:na as a second langage in increasing to about 15%. I once met a family there whose children were brought up in hte langauge - a first generation where English was not the primary language - and the parents were not original speakers.
I'm not sure about the resources at Kahnaw'ke but there are lots of language resources in other Mohawk communities, and I am aware that some of the leading teachers of Kanyenke'haka'owen:na come from Kahnawake. I am also aware that there are many traditional people living at Kahnawake so the culture would be prominent, as well.
"Yes, I support aboriginal sovereignty, but I do not support unbridled sovereignty. I think that we as aboriginal people have to be very careful when it comes to sovereignty. Not because we aren't capable, or 'ready' or any other crap that gets thrown our way, but rather...so we don't enact internalised colonialism in the guise of traditionalism."
Unless you support complete (unbridled) sovereignty then you are merely supporting another form of colonization. One cannot choose to be "a little bit" sovereign, and either we support self-determination, or we support interference, and oppression of independence. While you may think that your own nation "must be careful" it is not so with the Mohawk, since they have never given up, relinguished, or capitulated their sovereignty in all the history of contact. They are simply exercising their inherent right to be self-determining and self-propagating, just as any other nation has the same rights. Those who have created the Citizenship Code ( it originated almost 150 years ago, and was initiated by the "traditional" people at Kahnawake) know what they are doing. The modern version of that code, has relaxed some of the cuase for eviction, inserting the ability for non-residents to become Mohawk, trhough observance of the culture and through learning the language.
I don't see any problem with that.
Sun, 2010-05-09 22:02
#11
By the way, Charter...you claimed to speak for the Mohawk ealier. I was just wondering if you wanted to narrow that claim down to Tyendinaga, or if you'd like to maintain it's a broader 'right' you have. The claims you made were very strong which is what triggered people here to raise their eyebrows...and my inquiries have raised some more. It might be nice if you could clarify your position, to clear up any confusion. Is it that you share a common opinion with Mohawk because you have interacted with them extensively? That is perfectly understandable, and a very valuable point of view. Perhaps the talk about 'officially speaking for' was meant in a very narrow, specific context and has been misinterpreted since then to mean more than you intended it to.
Go back an re-read what I said earlier. There is no confusion about what I intimated.
There was misinterpretation and I can give you the reason for it.....if you care to see this thread fall away into a shouting match.
Sun, 2010-05-09 22:33
#12
By the way, Charter...you claimed to speak for the Mohawk ealier. I was just wondering if you wanted to narrow that claim down to Tyendinaga, or if you'd like to maintain it's a broader 'right' you have. The claims you made were very strong which is what triggered people here to raise their eyebrows...and my inquiries have raised some more. It might be nice if you could clarify your position, to clear up any confusion. Is it that you share a common opinion with Mohawk because you have interacted with them extensively? That is perfectly understandable, and a very valuable point of view. Perhaps the talk about 'officially speaking for' was meant in a very narrow, specific context and has been misinterpreted since then to mean more than you intended it to.
Go back an re-read what I said earlier. There is no confusion about what I intimated.
There was misinterpretation and I can give you the reason for it.....if you care to see this thread fall away into a shouting match.
What you said can indeed be interpreted poorly. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for clarification, rather than trying to interpret it further.
One thing I really dislike about this written communication is the way that some people use it as a way to go back, find all your words, line them up and repost them whilst offering various interpretations of what you must have meant with some particular turn of phrase, and so on. I've seen some really, really bizarre things come out of that. People being told they said 'red' when they actually said 'dog'. That's simplifying it really, but I hope you can understand what I mean.
I would prefer to not do that and instead ask, like I would in person.
Sun, 2010-05-09 22:41
#13
The case has been closed by the moderator back in the previous thread. If you want to discuss something of that nature then we were instructed to take it to personal mail.
However, I do not respond to PMs unless they are relevant to some sensitive issue. My identity, or qualifications do not fit into that category, so any PM would be ignored. That means the case is closed. Do try to curb your speculation.....It has no bearing on the truth, or to FN issues.
Sun, 2010-05-09 22:42
#14
Overall, I believe that there are only about 2% of original Kayenke'haga'owen:na speakers left, and with the revitalization of the language it has increase those who understand ne owen:na as a second langage in increasing to about 15%. I once met a family there whose children were brought up in hte langauge - a first generation where English was not the primary language - and the parents were not original speakers.
I'm not sure about the resources at Kahnaw'ke but there are lots of language resources in other Mohawk communities, and I am aware that some of the leading teachers of Kanyenke'haka'owen:na come from Kahnawake. I am also aware that there are many traditional people living at Kahnawake so the culture would be prominent, as well.
"Yes, I support aboriginal sovereignty, but I do not support unbridled sovereignty. I think that we as aboriginal people have to be very careful when it comes to sovereignty. Not because we aren't capable, or 'ready' or any other crap that gets thrown our way, but rather...so we don't enact internalised colonialism in the guise of traditionalism."
Unless you support complete (unbridled) sovereignty then you are merely supporting another form of colonization. One cannot choose to be "a little bit" sovereign, and either we support self-determination, or we support interference, and oppression of independence. While you may think that your own nation "must be careful" it is not so with the Mohawk, since they have never given up, relinguished, or capitulated their sovereignty in all the history of contact. They are simply exercising their inherent right to be self-determining and self-propagating, just as any other nation has the same rights. Those who have created the Citizenship Code ( it originated almost 150 years ago, and was initiated by the "traditional" people at Kahnawake) know what they are doing. The modern version of that code, has relaxed some of the cuase for eviction, inserting the ability for non-residents to become Mohawk, trhough observance of the culture and through learning the language.
I don't see any problem with that.
I do not support unbridled sovereignty anywhere. Not for any people. Blame the Charter for that, I believe in checks and balances, even if they are imperfect. Or perhaps blame my status as a woman, because aboriginal women face a double whammy of racism and sexism, and too often, that sexism is coming from our own men, who have been influenced by colonial perspectives. Injustice does not become justice simply because a sovereign nation decides to exercise its power.
The fact is, colonialism is not something you can claim has slid off like water off a duck's back. It has most certainly permeated.
Ultimately, this is a matter for the Mohawk. There are people within the community with strong opinions on this matter, and it is their opinions that will decide the question, not mine, not anyone else's. I support that. I can support that process without giving my ideological support.
I do think that all nations need to be careful, not because what they do will somehow invalidate their sovereignty, but again as I said, the care needs to be exercised that those in power aren't simply recreating colonial structures under the guise of traditionalism.
Sun, 2010-05-09 22:44
#15
The case has been closed by the moderator back in the previous thread. If you want to discuss something of that nature then we were instructed to take it to personal mail.
However, I do not respond to PMs unless they are relevant to some sensitive issue. My identity, or qualifications do not fit into that category, so any PM would be ignored. That means the case is closed. Do try to curb your speculation.....It has no bearing on the truth, or to FN issues.
Fair enough. If however, in the future similar claims are made, the matter will be reopened.
Sun, 2010-05-09 22:47
#16
I can assure you that we are very careful when dealing with colonials over the assertion of Mohawk sovereignty. However, one must understand the nature of Mohawk sovereignty to understand it, where it is derived from, where its protections are and where the enforcenment comes from.
There is not enough space here to do that. I would sugget that you contact a history keeper at Kahnawake for the information. Be prepared the last time the Great Law was recited it took about 10 - 8hr days.
Sun, 2010-05-09 22:48
#17
The case has been closed by the moderator back in the previous thread. If you want to discuss something of that nature then we were instructed to take it to personal mail.
However, I do not respond to PMs unless they are relevant to some sensitive issue. My identity, or qualifications do not fit into that category, so any PM would be ignored. That means the case is closed. Do try to curb your speculation.....It has no bearing on the truth, or to FN issues.
Fair enough. If however, in the future similar claims are made, the matter will be reopened.
No threats kapeesh? The case is closed. Now and forever.
Sun, 2010-05-09 22:55
#18
I can assure you that we are very careful when dealing with colonials over the assertion of Mohawk sovereignty. However, one must understand the nature of Mohawk sovereignty to understand it, where it is derived from, where its protections are and where the enforcenment comes from.
There is not enough space here to do that. I would sugget that you contact a history keeper at Kahnawake for the information. Be prepared the last time the Great Law was recited it took about 10 - 8hr days.
lol, and even then I suspect the full story would require the explaining of certain concepts beyond that time that would make it an exercise which would extend far beyond 10 days. You can't make someone from outside your culture understand an entire socio-legal system without serious training. In the white world, you get a PhD to have that kind of knowledge. In the indigenous world, the training is no less rigorous, but there's no fancy piece of paper to go with it.
No threats kapeesh? The case is closed. Now and forever.
I'm sorry you took that as a threat. I do indeed hope the 'case is closed'. I've stated my intentions to refrain from further comments on past references.
Sun, 2010-05-09 23:42
#19
OHow many Mohawk people speak their language?
Language revitalisation is something that is of paramount importance. I agree that non-Mohawk people should be part of that if they wish to reside on Mohawk lands, or work with the Mohawk. However, I also think that if language and culture are the most important issues, then there should be a very strong focus on promoting those things. What opportunities do people in the community have to learn the language? What kind of support is in place? How are the non-natives and non-Mohawk currently residing on Mohawk lands being included so that they are able to engage in the necessary learning?
Granted, there should be a fairly large onus on the person bringing in someone from outside, but the community has a stake in keeping their present membership, and effectively integrating those who are marrying in.
Yes, I support aboriginal sovereignty, but I do not support unbridled sovereignty. I think that we as aboriginal people have to be very careful when it comes to sovereignty. Not because we aren't capable, or 'ready' or any other crap that gets thrown our way, but rather...so we don't enact internalised colonialism in the guise of traditionalism.
very good points.
Please correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but I'd assume any child living on Mohawk territory is obligated to receive Mohawk-medium instruction, or at least Mohawk-immersion, or at the very least, Mohawk lessons in school. Certainly if one of the parents knows the Mohawk language, he ought to be required to receive Mohawk-medium instruction.
I'd like to know too if non-Mohawk families living near Mohawk reserves have the option of sending their children to receive Mohawk-immersion instruction?
These are just questions.
Mon, 2010-05-10 06:46
#20
"I'd like to know too if non-Mohawk families living near Mohawk reserves have the option of sending their children to receive Mohawk-immersion instruction?"
No. Education is funded by INACthrough local school boards and then through the Band Council. Typically, FN schools are underfunded at only about 30%-40% of mainstream schools and at the end of the day there is little left over for those children that attend from the reserve. INAC only funds status members.
However, some 85% of FN families live off reserve in major centres and there few even receive accurate education of their real history and culture.
Mon, 2010-05-10 08:25
#21
Edmonton began offering Cree immersion in about six of its public schools about 4 years back. There are many other languages offered in immersion or as a second language there as well. I suspect though that a huge stumbling block to setting up a similar system here in Montreal is the French language focus. Someone would probably have to set up some sort of Charter or private school here with Mohawk immersion, and who the heck has the funds for that? The schools with Cree immersion in Edmonton, tend to be found in the poorer 'native' neighbourhoods. I'm not sure if Montreal has enough of an aboriginal population to even have that sort of geographic concentration, and there seems to be quite a mixture of Cree/Mohawk/Inuit here, whereas Cree is the clear majority in Edmonton.
If we were talking about a bunch of well-to-do families, having private lessons or after school programs wouldn't be a problem. But that isn't what we're talking about, unfortunately, and there is little impetus outside the community to push for language retention, or language learning by non-aboriginals.
Wed, 2010-06-09 10:00
#22
How many Mohawk people speak their language?
Language revitalisation is something that is of paramount importance. I agree that non-Mohawk people should be part of that if they wish to reside on Mohawk lands, or work with the Mohawk. However, I also think that if language and culture are the most important issues, then there should be a very strong focus on promoting those things. What opportunities do people in the community have to learn the language? What kind of support is in place? How are the non-natives and non-Mohawk currently residing on Mohawk lands being included so that they are able to engage in the necessary learning?
Granted, there should be a fairly large onus on the person bringing in someone from outside, but the community has a stake in keeping their present membership, and effectively integrating those who are marrying in.
Yes, I support aboriginal sovereignty, but I do not support unbridled sovereignty. I think that we as aboriginal people have to be very careful when it comes to sovereignty. Not because we aren't capable, or 'ready' or any other crap that gets thrown our way, but rather...so we don't enact internalised colonialism in the guise of traditionalism.
I don't have an exact number. Guessing at least 60% of our population speak Mohawk or understand it. We have several schools that teach us how to read, write and speak Mohawk. We have a radio station with air time for Mohawk Speakers. We have adult education for those wishing to learn. Many of our signs, even our stop signs are in Mohawk. In addition, the Mohawk Language has been made available on the Rosetta Stone (interactive language learning software).
How are the non-natives being included? They are allowed to visit, they are allowed to work here, but not allowed to reside here. Even though all the non-natives prior to our referendum in the 1980's were allowed to continue to stay and reside here.
The ones that are currenlty living here AFTER our referendum, never asked our Traditional People of the Longhouse ,Band Council, or Community Members if they could be residents.
Oh I already see Canada trying to take our self-determination away from us. Here is some examples of what is to come about.
The members of the Iroquois Caucus have been unanimously opposed to the Matrimonial Real Property Law – which would see non-Native spouse being able to acquire rights and interests in houses and lands on reserves. This piece of legislation would also give provincial courts the jurisdiction to decide on these matters, which could result in Natives being evicted from their own homes. <<< Guess the non-natives won't be screaming racist to us then. When we have no where to go.
Since the Indian Act gives Band Councils specific authority to develop their own membership rules and make by-laws and regulations related to a number of areas, complaints could arise if membership codes, band by-laws, regulations, or their enforcement resulted in individuals believing that their application exposed them to discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability, pardoned conviction or sexual orientation.
Bill C-21 (to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act) provides for a three year transition for Band Councils to prepare for the changes that the repeal of Section 67 will have on their operations. This transition period will end in June, 2011. Until this transition period is over, the Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot deal with INDIAN ACT related complaints against Band Councils.
I feel like I'm standing at the edge of the cliff with a handful of my people left, crying while looking at the oil spill in the water and the pollution of the world, while Canada is chipping away our cliff. Waiting for our extinction.
Fri, 2010-06-11 11:29
#23
How many Mohawk people speak their language?
...
Depends on the age group. According to this article that appeared in THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF NATIVE STUDIES, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1992, (http://www2.brandonu.ca/Library/cjns/12.2/hoover.pdf), 90% of those sixty or over, speak it. Only about 20% of those in their twenties and thirties speak Mohawk, while 50% of children under ten can speak Mohawk due to recent attempts at revitalising the language.
See page 6/19 of the PDF for the information.
Fri, 2010-06-11 16:11
#24
I feel like I'm standing at the edge of the cliff with a handful of my people left, crying while looking at the oil spill in the water and the pollution of the world, while Canada is chipping away our cliff. Waiting for our extinction.
I have nothing to say here, I just wanted to acknowledge this.
Fri, 2010-06-11 16:43
#25
Wow--even I (Slavic-Jewish/Irish) look more 'naitive' than people like Shawn Brant...
It's pretty amazing that ethnic cleansing is going on in 21st Century Canada. Let's call this what it is, instead of whitewashing it.
Sun, 2010-06-13 07:24
#26
Dude. Looks do not make you Mohawk.
Get a lesson. There are about as many true Mohawks with blond or fair hair and blue eyes as there are in Italy. Shawn Brant IS a Mohawk - a true Mohawk - because his mother says so.
Of course Gary McHale on the other hand is about as Christian as Hitler was to the Jews.
Sun, 2010-06-13 11:58
#27
Catchfire
Wow--even I (Slavic-Jewish/Irish) look more 'naitive' than people like Shawn Brant...
Agent666, this comment is highly offensive. You have no right to delare whom you think are "authentically" First Nation based on some outdated logic. You have now been disinvited from the Aboriginal forum. Don't post in here again until you have taken the time to educate yourself on first principles. I would suggest starting with Maysie's stickie in th AR Forum: Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression 101
Sun, 2010-06-13 14:19
#28
Edmonton began offering Cree immersion in about six of its public schools about 4 years back. There are many other languages offered in immersion or as a second language there as well. I suspect though that a huge stumbling block to setting up a similar system here in Montreal is the French language focus. Someone would probably have to set up some sort of Charter or private school here with Mohawk immersion, and who the heck has the funds for that? The schools with Cree immersion in Edmonton, tend to be found in the poorer 'native' neighbourhoods. I'm not sure if Montreal has enough of an aboriginal population to even have that sort of geographic concentration, and there seems to be quite a mixture of Cree/Mohawk/Inuit here, whereas Cree is the clear majority in Edmonton.
If we were talking about a bunch of well-to-do families, having private lessons or after school programs wouldn't be a problem. But that isn't what we're talking about, unfortunately, and there is little impetus outside the community to push for language retention, or language learning by non-aboriginals.
I do see this as a concern, especially when the Assembly of First Nations states clearly that one of its goals is to:
Foster among First Nations and Non-First Nations a positive attitude towards, and accurate beliefs and positive values about First Nations languages so that multi-lingualism becomes a valued part of Canadian society.
http://www.afn.ca/misc/nfnls.pdf
How do we do this among non-First Nations when the provincial government in whatever province will not grant each school within its jurisdiction the freedom to teach the local First Language. In fact, one would think that this could be integrated with promoting other objectives. For instance, if French-medium schools in Quebec could do so, this would also go hand in hand with protecting the French language by not requiring them to teach English as the school's chosen language. Sure most schools would choose English anyway, butgranting schools the choice between English and the local First Language would still be a symbolic victory that woudl help to 'foster... among Non-First Nations a positive attitude towards... First Nations Languages'.
And of course I don't see why other provinces would not allow their schools to choose between First Languages and French. It woudl be a very, very small step indeed, but at least in the right direction.
Sun, 2010-06-13 14:32
#29
Another possible infinitessimally small step I could see would be, with the approval of the local band council, providing Non-First Nations people residing withing let's say one Kilometer from the reserve a school voucher for their children which could be cashed in either at the local off-reserve public school or at the local on-reserve school.
Then again, techinically the provicne would not need the band council's approval to adopt such a voucher programme, though it would be up to the band council to decide whether the on-reserve school would be allowed to accept such a voucher.
At least this would remove any obstacle on the part of the provincial governmnent standing between Non-First-Nations living near the reserve, leaving it up to he local First Nation to decide whether to accept it.
Another possibility I could see would be to require all off-reserve private schools to at least offer let's say a two-hour-per-week course in the local First Language starting at the age of 11 at the latest for a period of no less than three years. Again, a very, very small step, but in the right direction anyway.
Since all of this legislation would be occurring off-reserve, it would give First Nations people who are married to Non-First-Nations who are not accepted on-reserve to still maintain their roots off-reserve.
Sun, 2010-06-13 15:12
#30
My point about Shawn Brant is that he would not pass the 'blood quantum' rules of the band:
http://nonstatusindian.blogspot.com/2010/02/mohawks-or-canadas-disappear...
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays-paper/Mohawks+kicking+natives...
Call this what you wan't, but it's racial/ethnic-cleansing, pure and simple. Whether-or-not his "mother says so" isn't adequate for the purposes of Kahnawake's 'blood quantum' rules--something that has affected spouses and children, of mixed parentage. This isn't pre-ANC South Africa, or even the Jim Crow South, but 21st Century Canada. That people tolerate something like this is absolutely scandalous.
Sun, 2010-06-13 15:36
#31
absorption or eviction; tough choice
Sun, 2010-06-13 15:47
#32
absorption or eviction; tough choice
Why must a choice be made? Could it not be both? Let's say they decided that those who learn the Mohawk language and culture will be accepted, and those who don't will be evicted. That way, a person has a choice. If he wants to be accepted, then he integrates.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:12
#33
"Apart-heid-era South Africa ould not be a good parallel since those in power were not aboriginal."
A very good point. There was a (white-Jewish, South African--can't recall his name) author of a book, being interviewed on the CBC, who said something along the lines of "what you did to the native people was similar to what we did in South Africa...but the numbers are different." Assimilation was certainly the preferred tactic of the French Monarchy. Genocide was the unhappy accident of cootie-ridden settlers. ('Guns, Germs and Steel' is an interesting book.) The residential school was a cultural assimilation tool, based on the English Bording school, complete with sexual abuse. (As we see today with the Yob culture in Britain, it also screwed up generations in that country.) Later governments tried to make amends, with social programs and Naitive autonomy. But, as that guy said, "the numbers are different." Here, unlike South Africa, the first nations are the minority. This makes the survival of First Nations cultures precarious, leading to extreme measures like evictions and 'blood quantum' testing. However--like South Africa's 'coloreds'--there are many mixed-heritage people on native reserves. Can anyone honestly say that there's anything ethically-justifiable about ethnic cleansing, even if it means 'national survival'? This isn't right in Britain, to 'save the English', and it isn't right in Canada, to 'save the Mohawk nation'.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:28
#34
You don't have to worry FFS. It isn't like the government cares whether FN and metis culture survives. Your whiteness is going to live long past my famiy's nativeness.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:35
#35
Apart-heid-era South Africa ould not be a good parallel since those in power were not aboriginal.
So let's take a closer paralle example:
The British National Party supports tougher ethnically-based immigration rules so as to protect 'British identity' and the indigenous peoples of teh British isles. If you listen to his rehtoric on youtube, he often uses the phrase 'indigenous peoples'. So now let's make a parallel with that:
If we say that the Mohawk Nation has ever right to decide who can or can't live on the reserve on the grounds that they are the indigenous peoples of that land, then the same applies to the BNP in the UK. If we say that the BNP is out of line and should not be allowed to base immigration rules on ethnicity, even if the BNP represents indigenous Britns, then we must say the Mohawk Nation does not have that right either.
If we way that the BNP can reasonably expect immigrants to know the local language and culture before being granted citizenship (acceptance based on integration), then we'd have to conclude that the Mohawk Nation likewise has a right to expect integration of new residents.
And if we say the BNP must allow all into the UK, then we'd have to say the same applies to the Mohawk Nation.
Personally, I lie in the middle whereby the BP has every right to expect cultural integration but ought to leave immigration open otherwise. Along the same lines, I'd say the Mohawk Nation ought to accept new residents as long as they accept to integrate culturally too.
Different people might hold different views of course, and I'm sure even among the Mohawks themselves there is likely a wide range of views on this. But whatever view you take, it ought to be consistent for any nation.If you insist that it's wrong for the UK to base immigration on ethnicity, but that it's OK for the Mohawk to do that, then you must define the criteria on which you're basing this so as to allow us to understand the reason you make such a distinction.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:35
#36
Sorry I'd posted the wrong link in my last post, but have just edited it.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:42
#37
"Apart-heid-era South Africa ould not be a good parallel since those in power were not aboriginal."
A very good point. There was a (white-Jewish, South African--can't recall his name) author of a book, being interviewed on the CBC, who said something along the lines of "what you did to the native people was similar to what we did in South Africa...but the numbers are different." Assimilation was certainly the preferred tactic of the French Monarchy. Genocide was the unhappy accident of cootie-ridden settlers. ('Guns, Germs and Steel' is an interesting book.) The residential school was a cultural assimilation tool, based on the English Bording school, complete with sexual abuse. (As we see today with the Yob culture in Britain, it also screwed up generations in that country.) Later governments tried to make amends, with social programs and Naitive autonomy. But, as that guy said, "the numbers are different." Here, unlike South Africa, the first nations are the minority. This makes the survival of First Nations cultures precarious, leading to extreme measures like evictions and 'blood quantum' testing. However--like South Africa's 'coloreds'--there are many mixed-heritage people on native reserves. Can anyone honestly say that there's anything ethically-justifiable about ethnic cleansing, even if it means 'national survival'? This isn't right in Britain, to 'save the English', and it isn't right in Canada, to 'save the Mohawk nation'.
All good points. Now if the argument is to promote the indigenous culture, then just as the Uk has every right to require all immigrants to speak English and learn English culture, so we'd have every duty to promote the local First Nations culture, which could mean, as a small first step, that all public schools be gradually required to at least offer the local First Language.
Politically though, I think this is totally unrealistic at the moment. Heck, even getting us to agree to upholding the smallest concession to First Nations concerns is next to impossible poltically. A politician promising this would be crushed at the polls.
The question then is how to get around this political obstacle.
But I figure that at a minimum, people living on the First Nation reserve should be expected to integrate into the indigenous culture.
Sun, 2010-06-13 17:47
#38
bagkitty
[...]
The residential school was a cultural assimilation tool, based on the English Bording school, complete with sexual abuse. (As we see today with the Yob culture in Britain, it also screwed up generations in that country.)
[...]
WTF? British boarding schools (Public schools) exist as bastion of class privilege... they train the next generation of "haves". You seem to be confusing the public schools of North America with the Public schools in the U.K. (the different case used for the initial letter is important, British Public schools are in fact private institutions... again, bastions of class privilege). Yobs (as you refer to them, currently the term Chav is more frequently employed) are hardly the result of the Public schools (boarding or day), there is no way their parents could have ever afforded to send them off to Public school. You are making arguments based on assumptions that are not merely erroneous, they are out and out wrong. If you are going to paint such large sociological pictures, you should take the time to make sure you dipping your brush in paint first.
Sun, 2010-06-13 18:11
#39
bagkitty--the British prep schools 'professionalized' the raising of children, in the same way that the residential schools did. This model was based on religious schooling systems in Europe, which were also copied for reform schools (for low-income, non-native kids). Another example are the Janissaries (Christian kids kidnapped by Muslim armies, and raised as the Caliphate's soldiers), which separated children from their parents and culture. These sort of religious-run brainwash academies are rife with sexual abuse, as they attract pedophiles and sadists. Islamic Madrassas and the Hare Krishna schools, with horrific sexual abuse issues, are some other examples. Along with a massively expanded foster care system (coming after the Residential Schools), this broke the link between parent and child. When they hit adulthood, the survivors of these professional parenting institutions often have serious issues with raising their own children, as you learn to parent from your parents. Kids should not be raised by institutions, or the state. School and social-worker meddling in parent-child relations has been blamed for the huge problems with juvenile delinquency in Britain, particularilly Scotland. The youth gang and crime problems in Britain and North American first nations communities are very similar.
"But I figure that at a minimum, people living on the First Nation reserve should be expected to integrate into the indigenous culture."
At the very least, government officials working on reserves should be able to function in the native language. Maybe funding for indigenous language instruction should be given a priority. Most first nations languages in Canada have codefied grammars and dictionaries, recorded exemplars of speech, and orthographies, even if there aren't many native speakers left. Culture, religion and language--NOT 'blood quantum'--are really what define nationhood.
Sun, 2010-06-13 19:55
#40
Maysie
Agent666, you were asked not to post in this forum or thread again. You then proceeded to post 3 more times.
This is your last warning before a suspension.
Sun, 2010-06-13 22:59
#41
Actually Shawn Brant would be allowed to lilve at Kahnawke. He is 100% Mohawk. speaks fluently, knows his culture and can trace his ancestry to 7 generations of Mohawk Women.
The evictions have nothing to do with blood-quantum. It is all about who is a real Mohawk. The Kahnawake Citizenship Code would qualify him as full Mohawk.
Thu, 2010-10-14 08:59
#42
All Kahnawake Wants to do is Run Its Own Affairs
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/14/michael-ahrihrhon-delisle...
"The Post neglects to mention that the persons who were reminded of their ineligibility to live in Kahnawake are actually a small percentage of non-native people who have chosen (with their native partner) to break a law that was developed and passed by the community itself...
It's not a blanket condemnation of relationships between our people and our neighbours. In many ways it's really a matter of space. While Canada still has vast [stolen] spaces that are unsettled, all we have is 35,000 acres or so, half our community's original size..."