Idle No More

Catchfire wrote:

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.

I totally took the context of your post wrong sorry about that.

I was surprised by Chief Spence's decision. I'm trying to understand. By choosing not to meet the Prime Minister she is making a point but at the cost of being involved in the meeting. Harper would have never got away with not letting her go to the meeting but now he can keep her out in the cold.

Serviam6 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

wanna know something? no grass roots FN's give a shit what settlers view as good optics.

You're speaking for all grass roots FN people?

Seems to me that not giving a shit about what settlers think is part of the definition of a grass roots FN's activist.  Otherwise they would just have to give up and agree that assimilation is the best thing for everyone concerned.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Serviam6 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

wanna know something? no grass roots FN's give a shit what settlers view as good optics.

You're speaking for all grass roots FN people?

Seems to me that not giving a shit about what settlers think is part of the definition of a grass roots FN's activist.  Otherwise they would just have to give up and agree that assimilation is the best thing for everyone concerned.

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 think it's right that the Chief is sticking with her original intentions of meeting with both the PM and the GG. A few years ago our community was holding an outdoor meal at a learning camp. There was rain in the area and several camp participants thought it a good idea to move the meal to the community hall. In other words, to avoid the rain. The camp was intended to involve the learning and teaching of traditional practices. And one of the Knowledge Keeper/Elders of the camp became upset with the moving of the meal, stating that "in the old days when people said they were going to do somethings they went ahead with it no matter". We could've eaten in the tents we had, and I also understood deep down what the Knowledge Keeper was actually saying.

I'm Nakawe and the Chief is Cree so our perspective might be a bit different. But, commitments, like Chief Spences are sacred things. And commitments, like the ones in the treaties are sacred things. We tend to think of treaties as promises which are made stricktly among peoples/nations. It's a contemporary view. But to Indigenous people they are also about commitments that are witnessed by the environments around us, and to whom our relationships generally impact anyway. Our promises are less towards each other than they are towards the things we humans really have obligations towards. Chief Spence has made her commitment. I can only respect that and not stand in the way of her relationship with that commitment. When you say your going to do something (like the Knowledge Keeper had said) you have to go through with what you say you're going to do. Commitments are a very imporntant part of any ceremony. Even the ones between you and a child, a sibling, a stranger, a pet or whatever.

But from a cultural perspective it's ultimately Chief Spence who is the only one who can decide what she needs to do with that commitment and that relationship. And she'll need the advice from Knowledge Keepers on whether or not she's done enough to honour that commitent. Commitments can't be politicised like what's been done to the treaties. And what some try to do with Chief Spence''s fast. I can't say one way or another what she should do. That would imply me stepping in between the Chief and her commitment, if you know what I mean.

Thanks anvils for the Charlie Angus facebook post.

sknguy II wrote:

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 think it's right that the Chief is sticking with her original intentions of meeting with both the PM and the GG. A few years ago our community was holding an outdoor meal at a learning camp. There was rain in the area and several camp participants thought it a good idea to move the meal to the community hall. In other words, to avoid the rain. The camp was intended to involve the learning and teaching of traditional practices. And one of the Knowledge Keeper/Elders of the camp became upset with the moving of the meal, stating that "in the old days when people said they were going to do somethings they went ahead with it no matter". We could've eaten in the tents we had, and I also understood deep down what the Knowledge Keeper was actually saying.

I'm Nakawe and the Chief is Cree so our perspective might be a bit different. But, commitments, like Chief Spences are sacred things. And commitments, like the ones in the treaties are sacred things. We tend to think of treaties as promises which are made stricktly among peoples/nations. It's a contemporary view. But to Indigenous people they are also about commitments that are witnessed by the environments around us, and to whom our relationships generally impact anyway. Our promises are less towards each other than they are towards the things we humans really have obligations towards. Chief Spence has made her commitment. I can only respect that and not stand in the way of her relationship with that commitment. When you say your going to do something (like the Knowledge Keeper had said) you have to go through with what you say you're going to do. Commitments are a very imporntant part of any ceremony. Even the ones between you and a child, a sibling, a stranger, a pet or whatever.

But from a cultural perspective it's ultimately Chief Spence who is the only one who can decide what she needs to do with that commitment and that relationship. And she'll need the advice from Knowledge Keepers on whether or not she's done enough to honour that commitent. Commitments can't be politicised like what's been done to the treaties. And what some try to do with Chief Spence''s fast. I can't say one way or another what she should do. That would imply me stepping in between the Chief and her commitment, if you know what I mean.

Thanks anvils for the Charlie Angus facebook post.

This is a beautiful post and has given me much to think about thank you. With that i will step away from this thread for a time while I consider these words.

Not the first time the Queen or GG has been solicited: In 1995, at Gustafsen Lake,  BC NDP AG Ujjal Dosanjh responded that if the grassroots people in the camp wanted to speak to her majesty they could buy themselves a stamp and write to her, but BC would not be involved in any alien intervention in the affairs of this state...

Wolverine Calls for National Protest

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/court/mar27wol.html

"...Is the popular assumption that the Canadian Courts and Police have jurisdiction legal or is that assumption criminally treasonable, fraudulent and complicitous in the Genocide of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada as alleged in the petition?"

EZLN comunicado: Zapatistas announce next steps

Following the largest mobilization since its uprising of January 1, 1994, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation releases the following communiqué.

Mexico.

December 30 2012.

To the People of Mexico:

To the People and Governments of the World:

Brothers and Sisters:

Compañeros and Compañeras:

In the early morning hours of December 21, 2012, tens of thousands of indigenous Zapatistas mobilized and took, peacefully and silently, five municipal seats in the southeast Mexican state of Chiapas....

http://roarmag.org/2013/01/ezln-zapatista-subcomandante-marcos-communique/

This is the logical next step for the Indigenous movement here as well...

Is there any word as whether Chief Spence will attend? 

I just watched Gerry Caplan distinguish himself by proving to be a bigger piece of shit than Tom Flanagan and John Ivison. He called Spence "intransient." Nice one, asshole settler.

If he had called her intransigent then it would have been an insult.  Which word did he use?

[url=http://www.toboldrollo.com/2013/01/04/a-dogs-breakfast-of-paternalism-ho... Dog’s Breakfast of Paternalism: How not to be an ally of the Idle No More movement[/url]

babble alumnus, Tobold Rollo wrote:

Social movements expect to elicit both derision and sympathy in the course of their struggles. Paradoxically, it is often the sympathetic voices of concerned outsiders that are the most exasperating, especially when genuine concern takes the form of counsel that is inappropriate or ill-informed. Adam Goldenberg’s recent Op-Ed, “Idle No More needs to go over Harper’s head” offers a good illustration.

Goldenberg points out that the ‘Idle No More’ movement needs to make itself politically relevant if it is to be successful. Because First Nations are not high on the Prime Minister’s priority list, activists must carefully craft their messaging and direct it at those whom Harper identifies as legitimate stakeholders: the voters. Accordingly, activists must avoid “squandering public sympathy for Chief Spence and her cause,” which means they must abjure activities that threaten Canadians since these will be “unlikely to win friends or influence people.” That sounds reasonable.

There is no doubt that Goldenberg intends like so many others to be a sympathetic ally of this Indigenous rights movement, but his piece nevertheless exhibits the classic soft paternalism that drives social movements crazy. I say ‘classic’ because the piece rehearses the same misplaced pattern of unsolicited (and just plain bad) advice that has obstructed virtually all political struggles. It  echoes, for instance, the counsel directed at Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders in 1963 by sympathetic white clergymen in Birmingham, Alabama. In a letter titled ‘A Call for Unity’, the clergymen cautioned against non-violent demonstrations, referring to them as “unwise and untimely” given their propensity to backfire and “incite hatred and violence” within their intended audience. They urged King and others to seek out “proper channels” for negotiation and resolution.

In response, King penned the now famous ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’, wherein he expressed his severe disappointment in those who supported civil rights for blacks while demanding that such rights be pursued in terms that were palatable to white society. One cannot help but cringe when members of dominant society tender their prudent instructions to the oppressed. I could not help but cringe when Goldenberg expresses anxiety that Idle No More may devolve into an unpalatable “dog’s breakfast of protest and pageantry” so distasteful that it “alienates the very Canadians who should be its audience.” The message to Indigenous peoples here is that their expressions of cultural resurgence and resistance may be a big turn-off for nervous Canadians, in much the same way I suppose as the genres of jazz, blues, and hip-hop in black cultures of urban resistance were so threatening to white society. I suppose that’s why they disappeared.

But the biggest fear among allies like Goldenberg seems to be that the movement will become politically ineffectual as it resorts to direct action, as activists “overplay their hand”. This is an empirical claim, and it is one that appears inaccurate given, for example, the context of direct action and confrontation that precipitated the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Moreover, it does not seem to reflect the realities of past struggles. It was King’s belief that seeking to educate white society through civil discussion – the program preferred by many of his white allies – had failed to move a society steeped in racism. He believed that a more fundamental unsettling of white perspectives through civil disobedience was required before dialogue could gain any traction. That unsettling would occur as black activists “preset our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community.” Many white allies continued to argue against direct action on the grounds that white audiences found it discomforting. To that end, King suggested that his self-appointed advisors, however well-intentioned, were some of the movement’s greatest obstacles: “the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate.”

I don’t wish to overdraw the parallels between the ‘Idle No More’ Indigenous rights movement and other movements. Naturally, there are important differences, not the least of which is that blacks and women sought meaningful equality under the law, whereas Indigenous activists seek meaningful self-determination. The one thing these movements agree on, however, is that our responsibility as members of the dominant society is to listen and learn, and that if we insist on offering prescriptions, to advance these within the privileged circles to which we belong. To be an ally means applying your acumen and expertise appropriately, to your own house, while others put their bodies on the line.

[apologies for quoting the entire piece, but I couldnt decide what parts [i]not[/i] to highlight]

Who is Tobold Rollo? I don't place him, as a babbler. Good piece. 

I do want to add that I don't think all tactical and strategic advice is necessarily paternalistic, as long as we recognise the autonomy and self-determination of Indigenous peoples and their movements, including this one. 

NDPP wrote:

This is the logical next step for the Indigenous movement here as well.

Certainly the situation in Chiapas is related, but it's hard to draw tight parallels between the Zapatistas and the entirety of all indigenous groups across Canada.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples looks worthy of more attention and discussion. I've been hoping there would be more commentary on its current relevance on this thread. People like Jeffery Simpson and Terry Glavin, who get paid to call themselves journalists, seem not to have heard about it at all. ...they're going to get left in the dust by what is the emergence of the world's largest and most powerful social movement...

Quote:

(Clayton Thomas-Muller:)...this movement is part of a global social movement that is taking a look at the neo-liberal free market economic agenda...and saying we want another world...with catastrophic climate change, with issues of the loss of natural capital to sustain our ridiculous economic system, the end of the era of cheap energy...the world sees the correlation between these types of neo-conservative policies and this never-ending war for energy that has been going on for the last generation...We are living in a time of reconciliation and whether or not this government is on our side of history or is going to stay on their side, they're going to get left in the dust by what is the emergence of the world's largest and most powerful social movement, and I know that the viewers all across the globe watching Al-Jazeera know what I'm talking about, and they want that same world as well. 

It's not difficult to draw a connection between INM and sizzling Australia - unless you write for a rag dependent on the auto/fossilfuel industry for a huge chunk of ad revenue (ie, the MSM).

Here is a precis from a government site. Note the emphasis on a government to government relationship which is behind the demand for a meeting with both the GG and the PM.

Instead of these they got changes to the Indian Act buried in a an Omnibus Budget  bill that in law changes the sui generis nature of the FN's land holdings. The treaty process in BC has been dragging on for over 20 years because the government wants extinguishment of aboriginal title in return for signing treaties.  If one looks at what happened in the Sliammon nation one can see how this issue is at the core of the debate in this province over treaty agreements.  Harper has unilaterally legislated what the governments treaty negotiators have been unable to get at the treaty table here except with a minority of the FN's in the process. 

Quote:

The report centred on a vision of a new relationship, founded on the recognition of Aboriginal peoples as self-governing nations with a unique place in Canada. It set out a 20-year agenda for change, recommending new legislation and institutions, additional resources, a redistribution of land and the rebuilding of Aboriginal nations, governments and communities. Recognizing that autonomy is not realistic without significant community development, RCAP called for early action in four areas; healing, economic development, human resources development, and the building of Aboriginal institutions. The Commission’s implementation strategy proposed that governments increase spending to reach $1.5 billion by Year 5 of the strategy, and $2 billion in the subsequent 15 years. The report argued that the additional investment over 20 years would save money in the long term.

Major recommendations included the following:

• legislation, including a new Royal Proclamation stating Canada’s commitment to a new relationship and companion legislation setting out a treaty process and recognition of Aboriginal nations and governments;

• recognition of an Aboriginal order of government, subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with authority over matters related to the good government and welfare of Aboriginal peoples and their territories;

• replacement of the federal Department of Indian Affairs with two departments, one to implement the new relationship with Aboriginal nations and one to provide services for non-self-governing communities;

• creation of an Aboriginal parliament;

• expansion of the Aboriginal land and resource base;

• recognition of Métis self-government, provision of a land base, and recognition of Métis rights to hunt and fish on Crown land;

• initiatives to address social, education, health and housing needs, including the training of 10,000 health professionals over a ten-year period, the establishment of an Aboriginal peoples’ university, and recognition of Aboriginal nations’ authority over child welfare.

The report highlighted several realities of importance to legislators and policy-makers. For example, today a significant percentage of Aboriginal people in Canada live in urban areas. Questions of urban self-government and disputes over government responsibility for the provision of services are therefore becoming increasingly prominent. A second demographic fact is that the Aboriginal population is currently growing at about twice the rate of the Canadian population; over half the Aboriginal population is under the age of 25. This has accentuated the need to address education, job creation, justice, health and recreation for Aboriginal youth.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb9924-e.htm

Ah so refreshing to join a commentary section based on respectful dialogue, and a true engagement of the issues..I am a grassroots actiivist in the INM movement with more questions than answers, Im a bit weary of trying to defend the cause on MSM sites, and am looking forward to asking questions here..Woliwon to Rabble for hosting  the forum

FYI I posted it in another thread already but Romeo Saganash is coming back from sick leave Monday. I can't imagine him not having something to say.

On the question of divisions over whether one group of chiefs was wrong to attend the meeting rather than boycott... I plead no opinion as it's a question of self-determination. It's not up to me to decide how FN wants to be represented.

What does put me off is the complete intransigence of Harper on the omnibus environmental changes. That's completely unacceptable.

Blockades Set to Hit Three Provinces Wednesday

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/01/13/mass-blockades-set-for-wednesday/

"Mass blockades are expected to hit at least three provinces this coming Wednesday..."

Quote:

Blockades Set to Hit Three Provinces Wednesday

Grand Chief Gordon Peters of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians told reporters Friday that economic disruptions were in the works for Wednesday.

“We can’t live in poverty anymore while Canadians live this great life,” said Peters, whose organization is based in Ontario. “We’ll stop it the only way we can stop it…Stop the roads, stop the rails, stop the transportation of goods.”

Onion Lake Cree Nation Chief Wallace Fox said during a chiefs’ meeting Thursday night that economic disruptions loomed.

“No longer will the prime minister dictate to us. If we have to shut down this economy, then we will,” said Fox, whose community is part of Treaty 6 in Saskatchewan.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/01/13/mass-blockades-set-for-wednesday/

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/12/pol-the-house-matthew-c... Quebec Grand Chief calls on Theresa Spence to end Hunger Strike [/url]:

Quote:

Coon Come told Solomon he thinks Spence has been successful in her demands, and that it's time to put her health first.

"I would hope that she would [end her hunger strike.], for her health. I think she has succeeded. The Governor General responded by saying I will meet. Maybe not the way she wanted it. The Prime Minister said he was going to meet with First Nations. I think both have been done."

But in a written statement released Saturday, Spence said "we are deeply disappointed that my efforts to bring both the Governor General and Prime Minister of Canada with our First Nations leaders has been compromised while my life along with Raymond Robinson and Jean Sock lives hang in the balance."

Coon Come, a long-time advocate for the rights of indigenous peoples in Canada, is also best known for his fight against the Quebec government's James Bay hydroelectric project.

The Langevin block?! Are they serious? Hector Langevin was the Minister of Public works under John A. Macdonald, and the one who approved the establishment of the Residantial School System. I'm sure every single indigenous Canadian noticed the irony in that.

Serviam6 wrote:

Is there be a point where doctors can order her to start eating, or be physically forced to start eating or something?

WTF are you advocating government initiated physical force to stop her protest? Fortunately for her she is not attending a residential school because they would have fixed her. 

You should know that was a tactic used in the USA and UK against the suffragettes and almost killed some of them. Your statement no matter what its intent reads like one that would only be made about a "fragile" woman and not a man.

Quote:

From 1905 until the outbreak of the first world war, about 1,000 "suffragettes", as they became known, were sent to prison where, from 1909, many used the hunger strike as a political tool. Rather than concede to their demands, however, the government responded with forcible feeding. Under the notorious "Cat and Mouse" Act, rushed through parliament in April 1913, the vicious circle of hunger striking and forcible feeding became even more of an ordeal since prisoners who had damaged their health through their own conduct could be released into the community and then, once fit, rearrested to continue their sentence.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=93438

Quote:

In the early 20th century in the U.S., suffragettes engaged in hunger strikes while in prison, following the lead of British suffragettes several years earlier — threatening to martyr themselves unless they were allowed to participate in politics. Alice Paul, one of the American suffragettes, also pressured Woodrow Wilson on his involvement in the war. As in Britain, the government treated them brutally while in prison, in many cases force-feeding them. The latter resulted in a public outcry against treating educated women fasting for political purposes as if they were criminally ill or insane. The public response to this direct action caused Woodrow Wilson to announce his support for the 19th amendment, which was passed three years after the then-famous actions of Alice Paul, Lucy Burns and many others. These suffragettes were later commemorated in the film "Iron-Jawed Angels."

http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=1025