The Natives
James Davis Nicoll
position:
They are outnumbered by everyone else in Canada (I think ~3%
of our population is native).
As far as I know, that 3% is further scattered across Canada, so
a unified 'homeland' will exclude many of them unless migration occurs.
That 3% includes several cultures who have had histories of mutual
hostility: the region I live was once occupied by the 'neutral Indians' who
do not exist any longer because of conflicts with their native neighbors.
They lack wealth, to bribe elements within the government to
negotiate in good faith with them, or to bribe foreign allies to help
them or to puchase sufficient weapons to take what they feel is theirs.
Judging from the lack of World reaction to the events in Bosnia,
East Timor and Myanmar (sp), the natives cannot reply on 'moral issues'
to acquire foreign allies. Kuwait had oil.
Judging by what happened to groups like the Lubicon, they can't
expect provincial and Federal governments not to manipulate events and
law to prevent native groups from acquiring what they feel is theirs.
Is there any particular reason for natives to expect matters
to change, or obvious strategies they can be expected to try which
might actually work?
James Nicoll
--
"Captain, I can't help but feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
league."
"Hence the explosives."
Wayne Smith
> Is there any particular reason for natives to expect matters
>to change, or obvious strategies they can be expected to try which
>might actually work?
Although the public seems to champion the native cause in way similar to
the environment, I think that there are only 2 logical and fair ways to
deal with the current group of people who claim "native" ancestry...
1) Acknowledge the fact that the natives rely heavily on "our" health,
education, and social infrastructure, and although they have the
freedom, and inclination to practice their customary rituals, they
now at this point could be viewed as just another ethnic group amoung
many in this country. Even if given autonomy and "our" form of self
government, that would bring them no closer to the heritage and life-
style that is their claim to uniqueness.
2) Give the natives some kind of land settlement that would be used as
some kind of internal "homeland", a region that would be representative
of the climate/geography/resources of the country as a whole, even
partly based on historical land claims. This land would be off limits
to "Canadians", except to deliver humanitarian aid (should the need
arise). The natives who would live there would do so at their own
choice and use their own wits to survive. This would restore to the
natives something that they have lost some time ago: a continuation
of their original lifestyle, with all its traditions, lifestlyes, and
values, and the ability to evolve on their own, without "our"
interfearance. The natives would do what they wished with the land,
except that natural resource extraction for sale to "us" would not
be permitted, as there is no past native evidense for that kind of
practice.
If native leaders would not agree to the (2) option, then they would
nessesarily implicate that their culture has irreversably become
intertwined with our's, and the changes that have befallen them are
in most ways desirable if not irreversable.
(Would this indicate that they are not the "natives" that they claim to
be?)
If they turn their backs on their fore-fathers way of life (if given the
option of living such a life as a permanent settlement), then their
continued status of being neither fully (and only Canadian) or being
fully indepandantly native is not a satisfactory situation for "us" or
"them".
Charles Jobagy
> James Nicoll
Go to the Grizzly House in Swan Hills, Alberta on a saturday night and give
this speech. It isn't the 3% but where they are that gives them power. After
all, sometimes all you need to win is the desire to fight for your beliefs..
>--
> "Captain, I can't help but feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
> league."
> "Hence the explosives."
Charles Jobagy
cha...@cs.ualberta.ca
James Davis Nicoll
>jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>
>> It strikes me that the natives are in a very poor bargaining
>>position:
Reasons (lack of geographical and cultural unity, lack of numbers
lack of wealth, weapons and powerful allies, etc) deleted
>> Is there any particular reason for natives to expect matters
>>to change, or obvious strategies they can be expected to try which
>>might actually work?
>
>Go to the Grizzly House in Swan Hills, Alberta on a saturday night and give
>this speech. It isn't the 3% but where they are that gives them power. After
>all, sometimes all you need to win is the desire to fight for your beliefs..
Nice sentiment, and I'm sure the folks at Masada thought something
similar. While I don't doubt the people at Swan Hills can beat me into
silence for my previous posting, that is not as useful for my purposes
as having them point out actual flaws in my comments.
The events of 1970 suggest violence against a Canadian government
will not result in compromise. The recent unpleasantness in Quebec appears
to support that. I expect general violence by the natives against their
current neighbors is a foolish tactic, given the logistics of the situation.
James Nicoll
Ken Mcvay
> It strikes me that the natives are in a very poor bargaining
>position:
Boy, you've got that right.
> As far as I know, that 3% is further scattered across Canada, so
>a unified 'homeland' will exclude many of them unless migration occurs.
The Natives would never accept a 'unified homeland' anyway, as there really
isn't a single, cohesive Native nation. Language differences alone would
insure failure of any such scheme...
> They lack wealth, to bribe elements within the government to
>negotiate in good faith with them, or to bribe foreign allies to help
>them or to puchase sufficient weapons to take what they feel is theirs.
Their wealth, of course, has already been stolen from them, with some rare
exceptions.
> Judging by what happened to groups like the Lubicon, they can't
>expect provincial and Federal governments not to manipulate events and
>law to prevent native groups from acquiring what they feel is theirs.
The Lubicon young people have been speaking of taking their message to the
bush, and retaliating through violence, and in this they have not been
alone. (How many troops do you think it would take to track down a single
brave in the northern bush?) Only through the efforts of their Elders has
such violence been averted, but that may not be enough in the future.
From what I have been told, they have not planned to visit violence on the
population at large, but rather they plan to destroy power pylons and oil
rigs in the bush, where they are difficult if not impossible to protect.
A single man, carrying plastic explosives, could do a lot of damage to the
infastructure - hundreds could create enough destruction to deny hydro power
to population centres.
> Is there any particular reason for natives to expect matters
>to change, or obvious strategies they can be expected to try which
>might actually work?
The _only_ way change will come is through the education of the Canadian
mainstream, and that does seem to be happening, albeit slowly, here in B.C.,
where there seems to be more sympathy for Native rights than one might find
elsewhere.
In Alberta, however, I believe the Lubicon are seen as nothing more than
troublemakers, trying to shut down pulp mills and eliminate jobs, and I
doubt they will be saved - the population doesn't give a damn, and the
government continues to deny them basic living rights promised over fifty
years' ago.
We have already seen how the Mohawk deal with the problem, and we may well
see more of that sort of violence as governments at various levels continue
to treat Natives with paternalistic contempt.
--
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
(604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
< IT'S A GRANDSON! >
Ken Mcvay
> The events of 1970 suggest violence against a Canadian government
>will not result in compromise. The recent unpleasantness in Quebec appears
>to support that. I expect general violence by the natives against their
>current neighbors is a foolish tactic, given the logistics of the situation.
My Cree sister-in-law has told me that when Elders point this out to young
folks, the common response is "We're going to die at thirty anyway, so why
not take a white man with us?"
If you can understand the hopelessness that breeds that kind of thinking,
you're halfway home.
Don't forget the real lesson coming out of Oka - the Mohawk Warriors broke
no laws, committed no crimes, and were still imprisoned for two years.
Chris Retterath
> It strikes me that the natives are in a very poor bargaining
>position:
>
> They are outnumbered by everyone else in Canada (I think ~3%
>of our population is native).
I consider any person born in Canada a 'native' Canadian. Visitors
and immigrants aren't native..
Why don't you use the term 'status Indian'? After all, that is
what the Indian Act defines. This distinguishes them from the Metis,
who have no such clear definition.
Chris Retterath
James Davis Nicoll
>
>Why don't you use the term 'status Indian'? After all, that is
>what the Indian Act defines. This distinguishes them from the Metis,
>who have no such clear definition.
Because it doesn't distinguish them from folks like my
girlfriend's parents, who came from Kerala, and who outnumber
the people defined in the 'Indian Act' by rather a lot.
James Nicoll
Nick Janow
> It strikes me that the natives are in a very poor bargaining position:
>
> As far as I know, that 3% is further scattered across Canada, so a unified
> 'homeland' will exclude many of them unless migration occurs.
Distances are not as critical today as they were in the previous century. In
a manner of speaking, the Earth has shrunk.
The government could provide for better communications between native groups
as part of the self-government package. The natives have some things in
common.
> They lack wealth, to bribe elements within the government to negotiate in
> good faith with them, or to bribe foreign allies to help them or to
> puchase sufficient weapons to take what they feel is theirs.
They have unresolved claims to land and the resources on/under them. That's
an unknown potential for wealth. The governments so far have tried (and
succeeded I think) appropriating the native lands whenever possible where
mineral valuable resources were discovered. Depending on the limits on
control over taxes, environmental restrictions, etc, on native lands, they
could provide a tax haven, or a good economic and political climate for
industry, etc.
> Is there any particular reason for natives to expect matters to change, or
> obvious strategies they can be expected to try which might actually work?
The attitude towards the natives has changed, both in Canada nad the rest of
the world. Canada can no longer hide the native problem from world view,
especially with politicians like Mulroney going around the world decrying the
other governments' treatment of their natives.
Personally, I think BC could benefit from settling the claims and giving the
natives self government. We'd lose some resources (minerals, trees,
hydropower potential, grazing land), but those resources are not going to be
an important resource in the future. What will be valuable is trained people
in a good (physically and socially, economically, politically, etc)
environment. Settling the claims could improve the political and social
climate for non-natives, improving the economic climate. Furthermore, a
self-governed native community, with their own economic activity and a
healthy, educated, proud population, could increase the non-native economic
activity by being a trading partner or a partner in cooperative ventures.
If handled as poorly as the CA (motivated by short-term self-interest by the
politicians), settling the claims and agreeing to native self-government
could be a disaster--for both natives and non-natives. It could also be a
disaster for one side only.
A well-designed agreement could be great for both sides; better than the
status quo for either or both sides.
I limited my posting to issues regarding BC natives, since I don't know any
of the differences with regards to other provinces.
--
Nick Janow
> Although the public seems to champion the native cause in way similar to
> the environment, I think that there are only 2 logical and fair ways to
> deal with the current group of people who claim "native" ancestry...
>
> 1) Acknowledge the fact that the natives rely heavily on "our" health,
> education, and social infrastructure, and although they have the freedom,
> and inclination to practice their customary rituals, they now at this point
> could be viewed as just another ethnic group amoung many in this country.
> Even if given autonomy and "our" form of self government, that would bring
> them no closer to the heritage and life-style that is their claim to
> uniqueness.
Unfortunately, that comes down to stealing their land: something frowned on
by the world community these days. Our ancestors didn't wipe out the natives
or sign firm agreements about the land, as the Americans did. Thus, we have
problems the Americans don't.
> 2) Give the natives some kind of land settlement that would be used as some
> kind of internal "homeland", a region that would be representative of the
> climate/geography/resources of the country as a whole, even partly based on
> historical land claims. This land would be off limits to "Canadians",
> except to deliver humanitarian aid (should the need arise). The natives
> who would live there would do so at their own choice and use their own wits
> to survive. This would restore to the natives something that they have lost
> some time ago: a continuation of their original lifestyle, with all its
> traditions, lifestlyes, and values, and the ability to evolve on their own,
> without "our" interfearance. The natives would do what they wished with
> the land, except that natural resource extraction for sale to "us" would
> not be permitted, as there is no past native evidense for that kind of
> practice.
I disagree with that too. The natives exploited their natural resources for
trade with other people. They didn't put up hydroelectric dams to power
lumber mills or aluminum smelters, but there's no reason they couldn't have
developed it. By not wiping them out or signing agreements, we allowed them
to retain the rights to use their resources however they wished.
International law would prevent them from polluting our water (and us from
polluting theirs), but we couldn't prevent them from mining copper or
whatever from their own land.
> If native leaders would not agree to the (2) option, then they would
> nessesarily implicate that their culture has irreversably become
> intertwined with our's, and the changes that have befallen them are in most
> ways desirable if not irreversable. (Would this indicate that they are not
> the "natives" that they claim to be?)
I'm impressed that they resisted our culture for so long. If they are given
full rights to their land, they would have to sign agreements with Canada if
they wish to remain as part of Canada, and accept the benefits and costs of
that (taxes, medicare, etc).
--
Wayne Smith
>
>Unfortunately, that comes down to stealing their land: something frowned on
>by the world community these days. Our ancestors didn't wipe out the natives
>or sign firm agreements about the land, as the Americans did. Thus, we have
>problems the Americans don't.
We only have 1 planet to live on. I'm sure that there were many displaced
people all over the world at different times as different land conflicts
occurred. The only steadfast rule that could be applied to humans every
where, at any time in the past, is that a people's perceived right to the
land they occupy is directly related to their ability to defend it.
>> 2) Give the natives some kind of land settlement that would be used as some
>> kind of internal "homeland", a region that would be representative of the
>> climate/geography/resources of the country as a whole, even partly based on
>> historical land claims. This land would be off limits to "Canadians",
>
>I disagree with that too. The natives exploited their natural resources for
>trade with other people. They didn't put up hydroelectric dams to power
>lumber mills or aluminum smelters, but there's no reason they couldn't have
>developed it.
They've been here for 5 to 10k years. They had practically no written
language. Their farming and animal husbandry abilities were not well
developed. And that was only 150 years ago. It would take quite an
imaginary stretch to see them developing resource processing and hydro-
electric plants in the forseeable 2 or 3 hundred years.
>By not wiping them out or signing agreements, we allowed them
>to retain the rights to use their resources however they wished.
>International law would prevent them from polluting our water (and us from
>polluting theirs), but we couldn't prevent them from mining copper or
>whatever from their own land.
Let's say that they get land claim settlements, and self-gov't in those
lands. I predict that the situation would eventually resemble what is
now occurring in (say) Kuwait. The indians would milk the land for natural
recources and sit back and relax with a comfortable life style while the
money flows in. Canadians would come to resent this.
Sure I would let the indians do what ever they wanted in their land, but
I would forbid any economic contact between them and the rest of the world
(or at least between them and us). That removes the incentive from them
to live off our economic strength, and it gives them back their way of
life that continues to be their reason for their claim to country-hood.
If they want to mine or forest for their own use, then that's fine. If
they want to do so for our material benefit and for their economic benefit,
then they should state that goal, and then we'd see just what kind of
support they'd get from the people.
>> If native leaders would not agree to the (2) option, then they would
>> nessesarily implicate that their culture has irreversably become
>> intertwined with our's, and the changes that have befallen them are in most
>> ways desirable if not irreversable. (Would this indicate that they are not
>> the "natives" that they claim to be?)
>
>I'm impressed that they resisted our culture for so long. If they are given
>full rights to their land, they would have to sign agreements with Canada if
>they wish to remain as part of Canada, and accept the benefits and costs of
>that (taxes, medicare, etc).
Yes, I am too impressed that they seem to maintain many elements of their
original culture (albeit while driving around in their GMC's and ATV's and
snow-mobiles).
But I disagree with the second part of your statement. Their claim to
the land is based on their distinctly unique (and primitve) original
lifestyle. The only correct and logical way to settle the score is to
turn back the clock and let them continue their lifestyle as it was
before our interfearance. If they develop taxation and a medical system,
then they do so for their own internal use, again without our involvement.
In short, I believe that if given autonomoy in one or more regions, without
enforced isolation, that the indians would use that position to their
fullest economic potential, as they currently do by offering gambling
on their reserves, and by selling gas, alcohol and tobacco sans tax.
If they see no reason not to use their autonomous position in such a
way, then they should state publically that they would probably do so.
Ken Mcvay
>jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>> It strikes me that the natives are in a very poor bargaining position:
>> As far as I know, that 3% is further scattered across Canada, so a unified
>> 'homeland' will exclude many of them unless migration occurs.
>Distances are not as critical today as they were in the previous century. In
>a manner of speaking, the Earth has shrunk.
>The government could provide for better communications between native groups
>as part of the self-government package. The natives have some things in
>common.
The government has done everything in its power to destroy Native
communications - witness the PM's first budget (I think it was the first),
in which $5,000,000 was cut from Native radio, television, and newspaper
projects. Although women's groups also suffered cuts, along with others,
everyone but the Native organizations eventually saw their funding restored.
The Natives, of course, did not. The Natives I have talked about this with
clearly feel they were targets for continuing government oppression.
>> They lack wealth, to bribe elements within the government to negotiate in
>> good faith with them, or to bribe foreign allies to help them or to
>> puchase sufficient weapons to take what they feel is theirs.
>They have unresolved claims to land and the resources on/under them. That's
>an unknown potential for wealth. The governments so far have tried (and
>succeeded I think) appropriating the native lands whenever possible where
>mineral valuable resources were discovered. Depending on the limits on
>control over taxes, environmental restrictions, etc, on native lands, they
>could provide a tax haven, or a good economic and political climate for
>industry, etc.
Native land claims will never be resolved unless and until the government
removes the "6 per year" restriction, so whatever resource base might be
available will forever be held just out of reach. Again, the Lubicon
situation provides a near-perfect example of this.
>> Is there any particular reason for natives to expect matters to change, or
>> obvious strategies they can be expected to try which might actually work?
>The attitude towards the natives has changed, both in Canada nad the rest of
>the world. Canada can no longer hide the native problem from world view,
>especially with politicians like Mulroney going around the world decrying the
>other governments' treatment of their natives.
Canada is still doing a first-class job of oppressing the Lubicon, not to
mention the Mohawks and the Northern Cree - even with United Nations
condemnation.
>I limited my posting to issues regarding BC natives, since I don't know any
>of the differences with regards to other provinces.
I heard an interesting tale about how the reserves in BC were established...
it is an interesting example of the disdain with which they have been
viewed. My understanding is that the first provincial government decided to
permit Natives to file for land under the new homestead act. Because the
Natives could get "their own" section of land, the reserves were created
with restricted precision... the assumption, perhaps, was that no reserves
would be needed, and the Natives would all become Gentleman Farmers on their
own land.
The Natives, of course, had no agricultural or cultural history with regard
to farm tracts, and ignored the opportunity - hunters do not need to "own"
their land.
The second provincial government apparently decided that Natives were NOT
eligible for homestead land, and removed them from the act. The reserves, of
course, weren't renegotiated.
Typical, eh?
James Davis Nicoll
>
>>> 2) Give the natives some kind of land settlement that would be used as some
>>> kind of internal "homeland", a region that would be representative of the
>>> climate/geography/resources of the country as a whole, even partly based on
>>> historical land claims. This land would be off limits to "Canadians",
>>
>>I disagree with that too. The natives exploited their natural resources for
>>trade with other people. They didn't put up hydroelectric dams to power
>>lumber mills or aluminum smelters, but there's no reason they couldn't have
>>developed it.
>
>They've been here for 5 to 10k years. They had practically no written
>language. Their farming and animal husbandry abilities were not well
>developed. And that was only 150 years ago. It would take quite an
>imaginary stretch to see them developing resource processing and hydro-
>electric plants in the forseeable 2 or 3 hundred years.
That depends on whether or not they have access to the know-how
in our culture, not in the sense of hiring our engineers but in the
sense of schooling. My impression is that funding for native schools
is piss-poor.
>>By not wiping them out or signing agreements, we allowed them
>>to retain the rights to use their resources however they wished.
>>International law would prevent them from polluting our water (and us from
>>polluting theirs), but we couldn't prevent them from mining copper or
>>whatever from their own land.
>
>Let's say that they get land claim settlements, and self-gov't in those
>lands. I predict that the situation would eventually resemble what is
>now occurring in (say) Kuwait. The indians would milk the land for natural
>recources and sit back and relax with a comfortable life style while the
>money flows in. Canadians would come to resent this.
So what? Are we obligated to keep natives impoverished to prevent
envy? Is that a two-way street?
>Sure I would let the indians do what ever they wanted in their land, but
>I would forbid any economic contact between them and the rest of the world
>(or at least between them and us). That removes the incentive from them
>to live off our economic strength, and it gives them back their way of
>life that continues to be their reason for their claim to country-hood.
Trade is *not* 'living off our economic strength' the last time
I checked. Isolation on the small areas natives are likely to get will
prevent further development: our current economic and industrial systems
did not form in tradeless vacuums. This *would* be an effective way of
keeping them at low population levels, though.
James Nicoll
Wayne Smith
>>They've been here for 5 to 10k years. They had practically no written
>>language. Their farming and animal husbandry abilities were not well
>>developed. And that was only 150 years ago. It would take quite an
>>imaginary stretch to see them developing resource processing and hydro-
>>electric plants in the forseeable 2 or 3 hundred years.
>
> That depends on whether or not they have access to the know-how
>in our culture, not in the sense of hiring our engineers but in the
>sense of schooling. My impression is that funding for native schools
>is piss-poor.
So we give them the benefit of our education and knowledge base, let
them develop a (hopefully) democratic style of gov't (like ours?),
let them participate in our economic market place? Where does our
culture and society end and theirs begin?
Why do we (and they) base their current standard of living on ours?
They may complain about how their children aren't getting the fullest
benefit of our educational system, but are they complaining that
there's not enough bison to hunt on the open plains? Do they want
the best of our world, or the best of their old world? Do you think
they can, or should, have both?
>>Let's say that they get land claim settlements, and self-gov't in those
>>lands. I predict that the situation would eventually resemble what is
>>now occurring in (say) Kuwait. The indians would milk the land for natural
>>recources and sit back and relax with a comfortable life style while the
>>money flows in. Canadians would come to resent this.
>
> So what? Are we obligated to keep natives impoverished to prevent
>envy? Is that a two-way street?
They consider themselves sufficiently different AND indiginous to warrant
special status within this country. They diminish those qualities by
continuing to ask for the best of what we offer TO OURSELVES.
Would indians of 150 or 250 years ago consider the indians of the present
to be impoverished?
>>Sure I would let the indians do what ever they wanted in their land, but
>>I would forbid any economic contact between them and the rest of the world
>>(or at least between them and us). That removes the incentive from them
>>to live off our economic strength, and it gives them back their way of
>>life that continues to be their reason for their claim to country-hood.
>
> Trade is *not* 'living off our economic strength' the last time
>I checked. Isolation on the small areas natives are likely to get will
>prevent further development: our current economic and industrial systems
>did not form in tradeless vacuums. This *would* be an effective way of
>keeping them at low population levels, though.
Their lifestyle of 200 years ago (ie lack of industrialization) and their
constant battle with the environment kept their population low. Maybe
even battles between themselves helped accomplish the same thing.
We give them far more than we took if we give them the benifit of using
our machines and technology and knowledge AS WELL AS complete control
of natural resources that fall under their jurisdiction. ANY group of
people within Canada that claim an iota of uniquness would love and
fight to be in a similar position (kinda like Quebec, huh?)
Ken Mcvay
>So we give them the benefit of our education and knowledge base, let
>them develop a (hopefully) democratic style of gov't (like ours?),
The Natives have had a democratic (consensus) form of government for
thousands of years. It was the government that forced them to abandon it.
(Check the Jake Fire story about the Mohawk chief murdered when he refused
to accept this)
Charles Jobagy
>>Go to the Grizzly House in Swan Hills, Alberta on a saturday night and give
>>this speech. It isn't the 3% but where they are that gives them power. After
>>all, sometimes all you need to win is the desire to fight for your beliefs..
> Nice sentiment, and I'm sure the folks at Masada thought something
>similar. While I don't doubt the people at Swan Hills can beat me into
>silence for my previous posting, that is not as useful for my purposes
>as having them point out actual flaws in my comments.
What I was trying to illustrate is the reality of Canada. Go to the remote
areas of your country and then see who the majority in that area is.
> The events of 1970 suggest violence against a Canadian government
>will not result in compromise. The recent unpleasantness in Quebec appears
>to support that. I expect general violence by the natives against their
>current neighbors is a foolish tactic, given the logistics of the situation.
I should have used the term struggle instead of fight as I didn't wish to
make the phrase violent. But since you opened the door I'll clue you in a
little. As a member of the army reserve I took part in field exercises that
were designed to test a newly formed unit (1st Special Service Force) that was
supposed to be the elite of our army. The test was to catch a bunch of poorly
trained guerillas operating in the base at Meaford, near Owen Sound. It's a
small forested area that you could walk in a day. They had all week and failed
the test. I must admit though the second year they ran the exercise the enemy
was lead bye real soldiers, British SAS troopers. All these Georgian Strike
exercises proved is that we had better learn to deal with our differences in
a non-violent manner because we don't have the manpower to guard every
airport terminal or patrol every mile of power-line.
> James Nicoll
Charles Jobagy
cha...@cs.ualberta.ca
Wayne Smith
>In article <1992Oct30.1...@julian.uwo.ca> wls...@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>
>>So we give them the benefit of our education and knowledge base, let
>>them develop a (hopefully) democratic style of gov't (like ours?),
>
>The Natives have had a democratic (consensus) form of government for
>thousands of years. It was the government that forced them to abandon it.
>(Check the Jake Fire story about the Mohawk chief murdered when he refused
>to accept this)
And I'm sure that the cast-aways on Gilligan's Island had a democratic
(consensus) gov't as well. When you turn the clock back, and have a
look at a day-in-the-life-of an indian settlement...
-> Just how many people are we talking about?
-> How were decisions made?
-> Did people vote? Did they know the issues? How did they vote?
-> What kinds of democratic-type-decisions were made? Many or few?
-> Were all members able to vote?
I'm not trying to poo-poo how they governed themselves in the past. I'm
just trying to say that it was *probably* a rather loose form of democracy,
more like a rather close form of cooperation. I think it would be a stretch
to say that they had any kind of gov't at all. They had customs, not laws,
and social/peer pressure, not police...
James Davis Nicoll
>
>> The events of 1970 suggest violence against a Canadian government
>>will not result in compromise. The recent unpleasantness in Quebec appears
>>to support that. I expect general violence by the natives against their
>>current neighbors is a foolish tactic, given the logistics of the situation.
>
> I should have used the term struggle instead of fight as I didn't wish to
>make the phrase violent. But since you opened the door I'll clue you in a
>little. As a member of the army reserve I took part in field exercises that
>were designed to test a newly formed unit (1st Special Service Force) that was
>supposed to be the elite of our army. The test was to catch a bunch of poorly
>trained guerillas operating in the base at Meaford, near Owen Sound. It's a
>small forested area that you could walk in a day. They had all week and failed
>the test. I must admit though the second year they ran the exercise the enemy
>was lead bye real soldiers, British SAS troopers. All these Georgian Strike
>exercises proved is that we had better learn to deal with our differences in
>a non-violent manner because we don't have the manpower to guard every
>airport terminal or patrol every mile of power-line.
The problem is, would that sort of violence give the government
an excuse to use the tactics used in other conflicts where a relatively
powerful central government attempted to subdue insurgents? The natives
could be stuffed into 'holding regions' and denied basic civil liberties
for the duration of the 'emergency', as insurgents and their kin have
been in other wars (The Boer War comes to mind). It isn't like corralling
people because of their ethnicity isn't something Canadians do: look at
the Japanese in WW II. I don't deny that native insugents could cause
immense havok, but I do suspect that the long run result wouldn't be
native independence, but instead heavy-handed rule from Ottawa, and a
lot fewer natives at the end.
I can't think of an instance where someone won against opponents
better armed and more numerous by 30-1. I suppose we could end up with
a certain level of unpreventable violence, as is the case in Northern
Ireland, or Lebanon, but I find very difficult to see a result which
either the majority or the natives would find desirable.
James Nicoll
Ken Mcvay
>In article <1992Oct30....@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>>The Natives have had a democratic (consensus) form of government for
>>thousands of years. It was the government that forced them to abandon it.
>>(Check the Jake Fire story about the Mohawk chief murdered when he refused
>>to accept this)
>And I'm sure that the cast-aways on Gilligan's Island had a democratic
>(consensus) gov't as well. When you turn the clock back, and have a
>look at a day-in-the-life-of an indian settlement...
>-> Just how many people are we talking about?
>-> How were decisions made?
>-> Did people vote? Did they know the issues? How did they vote?
>-> What kinds of democratic-type-decisions were made? Many or few?
>-> Were all members able to vote?
I am not an expert in Native culture, but it is my understanding that most
Native bands practiced consensus government - decisions were arrived at in
the longhouse, as I recall. I suggest you contact a band council near you
and ask the folks there about their tradition - your cracks about a defunct
television show suggest you would benefit from doing this.
>I'm not trying to poo-poo how they governed themselves in the past. I'm
>just trying to say that it was *probably* a rather loose form of democracy,
>more like a rather close form of cooperation. I think it would be a stretch
>to say that they had any kind of gov't at all. They had customs, not laws,
>and social/peer pressure, not police...
I thought I'd include this brief bit from DRUMBEAT, in the hope it might
provide you with enough information to take a closer look at Native
tradition. If you can shed the paternalistic attitude expressed above, you
may find yourself wondering what led our government to believe it had any
business telling the Native folks how to run their nations in the first
place. (It is precisely that paternalism which still governs DIAND today,
which suggests we haven't learned a damned thing about dealing with the
Natives to this day.)
A Fruitless Attempt to Impose "Democracy"
The most serious imposition began with the Indian Advancement Act of
1884, passed by the Government of Canada to allow native people to elect
chiefs "with a view to training them for the exercise of municipal
powers." The wording was peculiar: "The object of the department is to
endeavor to promote their [the Indians'] advancement in civilization and
intelligence with a view to eventually attaining to an equality in those
respects with the white portion of the population." Though we had long
governed ourselves under a constitution on which the Americans modelled
theirs, we were not, according to this act, intelligent!
Almost immediately in Akwesasne, the Indian agent began to meddle in the
election, declaring that he would reserve to himself "the right to allow
or disallow" the election of one nominated candidate, who he did not,
apparently, approve of. As I will show later, Indian Affairs has been
active in "disallowing" our wishes, right up to the present day.
All of the Mohawk people in Canada declared their preference for our
traditional system and, in petitions to the government, recalled ancient
obligations undertaken by the British Crown that "each side would remain
in its own vessel," that the British would not make compulsory laws for
us, and that, as promised in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the land
held by us would be secured free from molestation.
"What is your power and authority to rule our people?" asked one
petition to the governor general.
Another Akwesasne petition read:
The Indian Act breeds only sorrow, contention, hatred,
disrespect of family ties, spite against one another,
and absence of unity among us Indians. It also creates
two distinct parties at the elections. The law was
never authorized in its adaptation among Indians... There
is only one way to recover brotherly feelings, that of
substituting the seven lords appointed by each of the
seven totems according to the ancient customs which we
know gave us peace, prosperity, friendship and brotherly
feelings in every cause, either for personal good, or to
the benefit of the whole community.
This petition was signed by more than 1,000 people from Akwesasne,
Kanesatake (Oka), and Kahnawake. It is as true today as it was a hundred
years ago, when it was written.
When all such appeals were rejected, the Clan Mothers of Akwesasne
declared their intention to elect their chiefs by traditional methods in
a letter to the governor general:
The ancient custom of creating life Chiefs is that they are
selected according to the different clans, there being
three from each clan, also three women who each selects her
special chief from among her clan. Of these chiefs, one is
considered the Head Chief, the second is the "big man" and
the third is the "crier". As there are four distinct clans,
there are twelve life chiefs.
...But if any misdemeanour shall offend their clans, these
women first hold Council with the women of their own clan,
and if they find his offence of sufficient strength to
warrant his resignation, these women will call upon the men
members of their clan and they meet and select another member
to represent them. They turn the newly selected member to the
twelve life chiefs for their confirmation and ratification.
The women concillors each watch over their special charge and
inform them of the rules of their chieftainship.
The women went ahead with their own meeting, appointed and confirmed
their chiefs, set up their government, and advised Ottawa of the names.
This took place in 1898, and the department's response was predictable:
"The department is determined not to allow any of the Indians to set its
authority at defiance."
A police force was sent to Akwesasne to enforce the election, but the
people forcibly prevented the election from being held. "They [the
Indians] might as well look for the falling of the sky," reported a
police officer who had tried to impose the new law, "as to expect
recognition of their claim to hold the position of a practically
independent state." We are still waiting for the sky to fall, but we
have not ceased the battle taken up by these Clan Mothers.
Nine months later, the Canadian authorities tried again, but two hundred
people surrounded the schoolhouse where the election was to take place,
locked up the Indian agent, and drove the police away.
Two months later, at 4:00 A.M. on May 1, 1899, Colonel Sherwood,
commissioner of the RCMP, came to Akwesasne, leading a contigent of
police across the St. Lawrence River. They occupied the Council Hall,
where they sent a message to the chiefs to attend a special meeting
regarding the buying of stone to build the collapsed piers at the
Cornwall Bridge. As the chiefs walked into the council office, they were
thrown to the floor and handcuffed. One of the women notified the Head
Chief, Jake Fire, and as he came through the door demanding the release
of his fellow chiefs he was shot twice, the second shot being fatal. The
police marched their prisoners to the tugboat and left the village. Jake
Fire was shot down in cold blood while fighting for Mohawk Indian
government.
Later the government issued warrants for the arrest of more of the
chiefs. The seven chiefs who went voluntarily were imprisoned. Five of
them were kept in jail for more than a year. Fifteen Akwesasne men were
eventually charged and then released.
Immediately after this affair, the representatives of the government
took fifteen Indians over to Cornwall and provided them with alcohol.
The Indian agents told them each to nominate one of the others present.
This is how the elective government under the Indian Act system was
implemented at Akwesasne.
This is the way Canada introduced our people to the principles of their
democracy. It is little wonder that we found the institution meaningless
and completely ignored it for many years. For some twenty years the
traditional council continued to be our government, but Canada would not
recognize or deal with them. Then, when money started coming our of
Ottawa, they gave it to members of the elective system. This continued
until the late 1940's or early 1950's. People didn't vote in those
elections; sometimes only twenty votes would elect a man to the St.
Regis Band Council, as it was known then. Naturally, such a system had
no moral stature in the community. Moral leadership continued to flow
from our traditional chiefs, who have our continued respect. In 1986,
"in honour of Jake Fire and his gallant efforts to preserve the Mohawk
government, our Chiefs declared a national holiday which we now observe
May 1st. of each year.
===
Grand Chief Michael Mitchell, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne (Reprinted by
permission from "DRUMBEAT - Anger & Renewal in Indian Country, ISBN
0-929091-03-5, Published by Summerhill Press Ltd., Ontario. Copyright
1989, Assembly of First Nations. pp116-119)
John Stewart
>I am not an expert in Native culture, but it is my understanding that most
>Native bands practiced consensus government - decisions were arrived at in
>the longhouse, as I recall.
That is certainly my impression of Native culture. The problem I see
is that this form of government doesn't scale well. Once the number of
people involved becomes too large to meet in one place, there is really
no choice except to appoint/elect leaders and delegate decision making
authority to them.
To use the recent constitutional talks as an example, it was necessary
for band appointed leaders to meet and appoint a few representatives to
participate in the negotiations with the Federal and Provincial governments.
The decision making was thus several levels removed from the people.
The unpopularity of the deal negotiated by Ovide Mercredi and the other
aboriginal negotiators suggests to me that aboriginal people are not
comfortable with this form of government in which they do not have a
direct role in developing a consensus.
--
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jste...@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Can...@algonquin.carleton.ca
"Why can't we just forget about our constitutional problems and go canoeing?"
James or Brian
>In <1992Nov02....@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>>I am not an expert in Native culture, but it is my understanding that most
>>Native bands practiced consensus government - decisions were arrived at in
>>the longhouse, as I recall.
>
>That is certainly my impression of Native culture. The problem I see
>is that this form of government doesn't scale well. Once the number of
>people involved becomes too large to meet in one place, there is really
>no choice except to appoint/elect leaders and delegate decision making
>authority to them.
Heh. How large is each band and how hard would it be to them
to deploy 1-band bbses? Technolgy exists now which might be applicable
to scaling up consensus rule.
James Nicoll
Ken Mcvay
> Heh. How large is each band and how hard would it be to them
>to deploy 1-band bbses? Technolgy exists now which might be applicable
>to scaling up consensus rule.
To quote my sister-in-law, who has had a high speed communications system in
her home since 1986, "I won't talk to a box that talks back."
You can forget trying to use this sort of technology - trust me - I spent
five years and a lot of money setting up a dos-based Native network, only to
watch it fail through disuse. It is so foreign to the culture that it may be
(literally) several generations, if not centuries, before it is adopted on a
scale large enough to be useful.
Even when it was embraced (I believe their are still two systems running in
Haid Gwai, used to administer a Haida fisheries project) by one band, it was
for "in house" use (like the Haida case), and the Haida did not want to
communicate with the prairie Cree, for reasons which do not matter here, but
which would not go away (and have not gone away).
The United Native Nations had one node, and they turned it off the day they
received a rebuke from some loudmouth at UBC about a job posting I had
forwarded to can.jobs for them - it required a Native applicant. When they
received the flame, which told them their ad was illegal, they turned the
computer off and forgot it - instantly. Culture shock. (The fact that the
job required absolute fluency in a specified Native language, and an
intimate knowledge of a specific band's history and culture, was of no
consequence whatsoever to the asshole that flamed them, but he set Native
communications back at least twenty years with his cute litte asswipe of a
flame.
My sister in law still won't talk to boxes that talk back.