Esoterica's avatar

Esoterica

ihavethisblog

Hey there Muslim, Asian, Native, African, Pacific Islander, and Aborigine followers

ihavethisblog:

So, my professor for this class called “Responding to Non-Western Art” has been pretty overachieving in the level of fetishizing she’s managed to inject into the class material. The prompt for our final paper is horrendous so my plan is to write the paper she wants me to write and then deconstruct it and explain why those things are not okay, tumblr style. But, additionally, I want to give anyone who wants to respond directly a chance to do that. So, if you have any input you want to get back to my professor (and, later, the Dean when I try to get this class cancelled forever and always) please feel free to respond to this post or send me a message. I’m going to include the responses at the end of my paper (anonymously, for your safety). IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, PLEASE RESPOND! The more responders, the easier it will (hopefully) be to get this class cancelled.

Here’s the final paper prompt I referenced:

“All of the non-western art we’ve seen over the semester has been supportive of a profound set of beliefs, providing a sense of reassurance, a sense of markings to the mind and spirit.  Certainly in Islamic, Himalayan, and Asian art, there are visual splendors large and small, utterly quiet or raucous that underscore the goal towards enlightenment, towards balance, a sense of reassurance.

In a 4-5 page paper, tell me what of this last set of art speaks to you.  Why is it powerful? Is it size? Silence? Force? Absence? why is it worth looking at?  Can you sense the goal of the artist? the mind-set?  Please give 2-3 examples. And can you think of equivalents in our lives now?  Does any form of such an old and yet still relevant approach feel relevant to your own life?”

If you haven’t been following this whole charade, see: the beginning here, the syllabus here, some slide handouts from the prof here, my first paper with her responses, a recap of my meeting with her about how problematic her class is, recap of my first project presentation, an angsty post I made during our “African” art unit, and my second paper (responding to William Rubin’s “Modernist Primitivism”).

And please don’t be shy about reblogging.

Evelyn Blanchard went beyond the notion of culturally-determined best interests in asserting that “the question of best interests is much broader in Indian country than it is elsewhere. Termination hearings sever not only rights of parents but rights of children and rights of tribes.” She is referring here, like Jimson, to the right of parents to follow culturally-specific child-rearing practices, but also to the right of children to be affiliated with their tribes and the right of tribes to ensure their cultural and demographic survival- that is, in Lurie’s terms, the right “to persist as distinctive social entities.” The spirit of the Indian Child Welfare Act is not only to broaden the principle of best interests beyond its individualistic basis but also to assert that the balancing act that any determination of best interests entails should be the responsibility of the tribal community in question.
Blanhard, Jimson, Abourezk, and others argued that the best interests of the Indian child could only be ascertained in tribal terms, not in the indivualistic terms of the dominant society. While arguments for the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act stressed primarily the destructive consequences of extensive extra-tribal adoptions upon children, the devastating impact of these adoptions upon the families and tribes was also emphasized. Building on the principle of tribal self-determination, the ICWA offered a radical challenge to an individualistic concept of best interest by recognizing the interest of tribes in their children and of children in their tribes.

Pauline Turner Strong, What is an Indian Family? The Indian Child Welfare Act and the Renascence of Tribal Sovereignty (via adailyriot)

(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

selchieproductions

kuavsui:

selchieproductions:

tropylium replied to your post: Dear non-indigenous linguists

Wait… how is “the speakers themselves rarely have access” a relevant objection to _publicly_ posting materials?

  • Because what’s *publically* accessible to white academia is not *publically* accessible to the majority of the community where the language is spoken. What’s publicly accessible to middle class westerners is not publicly accessible to marginalised minorities. It’s called no Internet access because of abysmal living conditions, courtesy of colonisation - if you can’t pay for food, you can’t pay for printing PdFs, let alone use the Internet.
  • Because if it’s not yours to share, it’s not yours to share, no matter how much of a favour you think you’re doing people.
  • Because if members of the community need to register on a site, attend a course and pay for the material, it is illegal, dishonest and douch-baggish to use your computer skills to unlawfully access the material and make it available, not actually to the public, but primarily to your exclusive little clique of linguist friends because you think VSO languages are so rad.
  • Because non-members of indigenous communities do not dictate the ways in which indigenous communities get upset by how non-indigenous majority communities appropriate and exotify indigenous languages and cultures.

reblog for truth

(via biyuti)

On the (Electric) Pow Wow Trail With A Tribe Called Red - ICTMN.com

adailyriot:

I caught up with Indian country’s new supergroup, DJ trio A Tribe Called Red on the road (literally) while they were making their way into Edmonton Alberta for what would be the 3rd to last gig on the Canadian leg of their European and Turtle Island tour. The Ottawa-based electronic and media music artists began their tour on Oct. 12th 2012 in Toronto, Ontario.

The tour itself may have been prompted by recent notoriety and success as they continue to set precedent in the electronic music scene having been the first group of indie DJs to receive a nomination for the coveted Polaris Music Prize with their free downloadable album Electric Pow Wow (get it at electricpowwow.com). Through their collective mixing and mash up skills they have introduced a whole new genre of music to the world; “Pow Wow Step”. This new term is a by-product of the EDM (Electronic Dance Music) era in which we are rapidly becoming enveloped in and is their contribution to cultural retention in an ever-watered down version of “Indian-ness”.

Be that as it may, the kids can’t get enough. And that’s all kids, Black, White, Yellow, and especially the Red. These three large gentlemen strike a powerful image together on the DJ deck in clubs and at festivals. DJ Bear Witness reaches into his massive video library and mashes together moving imagery syncopated to their sounds that range from thought provoking to the ridiculous. Bear resurrects old westerns and re-appropriates new Indian representation in the media. Lucky for him, those images of mis-appropriation keep coming. He admits, he’s just waiting to get his hands on the new No Doubt video Looking Hot, recently pulled from YouTube due to numerous out-cries of racism and offensive cultural appropriation from native communities on both sides of the white man’s line.

I personally look forward to seeing how Bear is going to shred the not yet released Tonto movie starring (is he or is he not?) Native actor Johnny Depp.

To the hipster club-going regular, what A Tribe Called Red is doing appears “cool” and “happening” and definitely something to get with in a pseudo-political way. Ask the guys themselves and they are very aware of what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. Is it irony when they use Brad Pitt’s speech in the movie Inglorious Bastards? Brad’s character makes the claim “I’ve got a little Injun in me” and inspires his troops to capture 100 Nazi scalps.

ATCR say they are “indigenizing” and “decolonizing” with their tracks. DJ NDN further explains; “If there was any concern about people not getting the humour and sometimes blatant political messages, we have the opportunity through media to articulate what we mean and help people to understand. Bear Witness reports; “Enough people are getting it and they seem comfortable with it” This begs the question, is it the responsibility of these three visibly native men to make it as comfortable as possible for the listener to digest their commentary, leaving them feeling like they’ve just eaten a bag of rice cakes only to get hungry again a half hour later? I want to be fed something more substantial, at the dinner table and on the turntables.

ATCR is not comfortable to rest on the laurels of their recent successes. They have a vision for the next year to bring more Indians into the mix by collaborating with some of their favorite native artists for a new 2013 release. Who’s on that list of favorites? Cree rapper and CBC 8th Fire front man Wab Kinew, creative mix-tape master Lorenzo Sumner, that pioneer of native hip hop Hell n’ Back. Women artists include Ekwol and the incredible other-worldly Inuit style throat singing queen Tanya Tagaq.

Most of their favorites are prairie-based talent, so to spread things out a bit, both Bear Witness and DJ Shub will access their Haudenonsaunee roots to incorporate Iroquois Social Dance songs. I’m sure their promoters are busy tracking a route for their next tour which will include live sets by some of the aforementioned talent.

We’re talking role models in night clubs. That’s radical, isn’t it?

Janet Marie Rogers, Mohawk writer from the Six Nations territory in southern Ontario, is Poet Laureate of Victoria, British Columbia. To learn more about her, visit janetmarierogers.com



Read more:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/11/23/on-the-electric-pow-wow-trail-with-a-tribe-called-red-147292 http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/11/23/on-the-electric-pow-wow-trail-with-a-tribe-called-red-147292#ixzz2D83JkjKU

(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

Flickr / rizzolo
queennubian:

alostbird:


Pow Wow Roger Williams Park, Providence, RI :: 1


OMG THE CUTE!!!!!

queennubian:

alostbird:

Pow Wow Roger Williams Park, Providence, RI :: 1

OMG THE CUTE!!!!!

(via blueklectic)

Harper Launches Major First Nations Termination Plan: As Negotiating Tables Legitimize Canada’s Colonialism - Gitxsan Unity Movement

adailyriot:

On September 4th the Harper government clearly signaled its intention to:

1) Focus all its efforts to assimilate First Nations into the existing federal and provincial orders of government of Canada;

2) Terminate the constitutionally protected and internationally recognized Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations.

Termination in this context means the ending of First Nations pre-existing sovereign status through federal coercion of First Nations into Land Claims and Self-Government Final Agreements that convert First Nations into municipalities, their reserves into fee simple lands and extinguishment of their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.

To do this the Harper government announced three new policy measures:

  • A “results based” approach to negotiating Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements. This is an assessment process of 93 negotiation tables across Canada to determine who will and who won’t agree to terminate Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights under the terms of Canada’s Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies. For those tables who won’t agree, negotiations will end as the federal government withdraws from the table and takes funding with them.
  • First Nation regional and national political organizations will have their core funding cut and capped. For regional First Nation political organizations the core funding will be capped at $500,000 annually. For some regional organizations this will result in a funding cut of $1 million or more annually. This will restrict the ability of Chiefs and Executives of Provincial Territorial  organization’s to organize and/or advocate for First Nations rights and interests.
  • First Nation Band and Tribal Council funding for advisory services will be eliminated over the next two years further crippling the ability of Chiefs and Councils and Tribal Council executives to analyze and assess the impacts of federal and provincial policies and legislation on Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

These three new policy measures are on top of the following unilateral federal legislation the Harper government is imposing over First Nations:

  • Bill C-27: First Nations Financial Transparency Act
  • Bill C-45: Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 [Omnibus Bill includes Indian Act amendments regarding voting on-reserve lands surrenders/designations]
  •  Bill S-2: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act
  •  Bill S-6: First Nations Elections Act
  •  Bill S-8: Safe Drinking Water for First Nations
  •  Bill C-428: Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act [Private Conservative MP’s Bill, but supported by Harper government]

Then there are the Senate Public Bills:

  • Bill S-207: An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights)
  •  Bill S-212: First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill

The Harper government’s Bills listed above are designed to undermine the collective rights of First Nations by focusing on individual rights. This is the “modern legislative framework” the Conservatives promised in 2006. The 2006 Conservative Platform promised to:

Replace the Indian Act (and related legislation) with a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course “modern” in Conservative terms means assimilation of First Nations by termination of their collective rights and off-loading federal responsibilities onto the First Nations themselves and the provinces.

One Bill that hasn’t been introduced into Parliament yet, but is still expected, is the First Nations’ Private Ownership Act (FNPOA). This private property concept for Indian Reserves—which has been peddled by the likes of Tom Flanagan and tax proponent and former Kamloops Chief Manny Jules—is also a core plank of the Harper government’s 2006 electoral platform.

The 2006 Conservative Aboriginal Platform promised that if elected a Harper government would:

Support the development of individual property ownership on reserves, to encourage lending for private housing and businesses.

The long-term goals set out in the Harper government’s policy and legislative initiatives listed above are not new; they are at least as old as theIndian Act and were articulated in the federal 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, which set out a plan to terminate Indian rights as the time.

Previous Termination Plans: 1969 White Paper & Buffalo Jump of 1980’s

The objectives of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy were to:

  • Assimilate First Nations.
  • Remove legislative recognition.
  • Neutralize constitutional status.
  • Impose taxation.
  • Encourage provincial encroachment.
  • Eliminate Reserve lands & extinguish Aboriginal Title.
  • Economically underdevelop communities.
  • Dismantle Treaties.

As First Nations galvanized across Canada to fight the Trudeau Liberal government’s proposed 1969 termination policy the federal government was forced to consider a strategy on how to calm the Indian storm of protest.

In a memo dated April 1, 1970, David Munro, an Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs on Indian Consultation and Negotiations, advised his political masters Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau, as follows:

… in our definition of objectives and goals, not only as they appear in formal documents, but also as stated or even implied in informal memoranda, draft planning papers, or causal conversation. We must stop talking about having the objective or goal of phasing out in five years… We can still believe with just as much strength and sincerity that the [White Paper] policies we propose are the right ones…

The final [White Paper] proposal, which is for the elimination of special status in legislation, must be relegated far into the future… my conclusion is that we need not change the [White Paper] policy content, but we should put varying degrees of emphasis on its several components and we should try to discuss it in terms of its components rather than as a whole… we should adopt somewhat different tactics in relation to [the White Paper] policy, but that we should not depart from its essential content. (Emphasis added)

In the early 1970’s, the Trudeau Liberal government did back down publicly on implementing the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, but as we can see from Mr. Munro’s advice the federal bureaucracy changed the timeline from five years to a long-term implementation of the 1969 White Paper objectives of assimilation/termination.

In the mid-1980’s the Mulroney Conservative government resurrected the elements of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, through a Cabinet memo.

In 1985, a secret federal Cabinet submission was leaked to the media by a DIAND employee. The Report was nicknamed the “Buffalo Jump of the 1980’s” by another federal official. The nickname referred to the effect of the recommendations in the secret Cabinet document, which if adopted, would lead Status Indians to a cultural death — hence the metaphor.

The Buffalo Jump Report proposed a management approach for First Nations policy and
programs, which had the following intent:

  • Limiting & eventually terminating the federal trust obligations;
  • Reducing federal expenditures for First Nations, under funding programs, and prohibiting deficit financing;
  • Shifting responsibility and costs for First Nations services to provinces and “advanced bands” through co-management, tri-partite, and community self-government agreements;
  • “Downsizing” of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) through a devolution of program administration to “advanced bands” and transfer of programs to other federal departments;
  • Negotiating municipal community self-government agreements with First Nations which would result in the First Nation government giving up their Constitutional status as a sovereign government and becoming a municipality subject to provincial or territorial laws;
  • Extinguishing aboriginal title and rights in exchange for fee simple title under provincial or territorial law while giving the province or territory underlying title to First Nations lands.

The Mulroney government’s “Buffalo Jump” plan was temporarily derailed due the 1990 “Oka Crisis”. Mulroney responded to the “Oka Crisis” with his “Four Pillars” of Native Policy:

  • Accelerating the settlement of land claims;
  • Improving the economic and social conditions on Reserves;
  • Strengthening the relationships between Aboriginal Peoples and governments;
  • Examining the concerns of Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples in contemporary Canadian life.

In 1991, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney also announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which began its work later that year; the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission to review Specific Claims; the establishment of a BC Task Force on Claims, which would form the basis for the BC Treaty Commission Process.

In 1992, Aboriginal organizations and the federal government agreed, as part of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, on amendments to theConstitution Act, 1982 that would have included recognition of the inherent right of self-government for Aboriginal people. For the first time, Aboriginal organizations had been full participants in the talks; however, the Accord was rejected in a national referendum.

With the failure of Canadian constitutional reform in 1992, for the last twenty years, the federal government—whether Liberal or Conservative—has continued to develop policies and legislation based upon the White Paper/Buffalo Jump objectives and many First Nations have regrettably agreed to compromise their constitutional/international rights by negotiating under Canada’s termination policies.

Canada’s Termination Policies Legitimized by Negotiation Tables

It has been thirty years since Aboriginal and Treaty rights have been “recognized and affirmed” in section 35 of Canada’s constitution. Why hasn’t the constitutional protection for First Nations’ Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights been implemented on the ground?

One answer to this question is, following the failure of the First Ministers’ Conferences on Aboriginal Matters in the 1980’s, many First Nations agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by entering into or negotiating Modern Treaties and/or Self-government Agreements under Canada’s unilateral negotiation terms.

These Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements not only contribute to emptying out section 35 of Canada’s constitution of any significant legal, political or economic meaning. Final settlement agreements are then used as precedents against other First Nations’ who are negotiating.

Moreover, Canada’s Land Claims and Self-Government policies are far below the international standards set out in the Articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Canada publicly endorsed the UNDRIP in November 2010, but obviously Canada’s interpretation of the UNDRIP is different than that of most First Nations, considering their unilateral legislation and policy approach.

Canada’s voted against UNDRIP on Sept. 13, 2007, stating that the UNDRIP was inconsistent with Canada’s domestic policies, especially the Articles dealing with Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determination, Land Rights and Free, Prior Informed Consent.

Canada’s position on UNDRIP now is that they can interpret it as they please, although the principles in UNDRIP form part of international not domestic law.

The federal strategy is to maintain the Indian Act (with amendments) as the main federal law to control and manage First Nations. The only way out of the Indian Act for First Nations is to negotiate an agreement under Canada’s one-sided Land Claims and/or Self-Government policies. These Land Claims/Self-Government Agreements all require the termination of Indigenous rights for some land, cash and delegated jurisdiction under the existing federal and provincial orders of government.

Canada has deemed that it will not recognize the pre-existing sovereignty of First Nations or allow for a distinct First Nations order of government based upon section 35 of Canada’s constitution.

Through blackmail, bribery or force, Canada is using the poverty of First Nations to obtain concessions from First Nations who want out of theIndian Act by way of Land Claims/Self- Government Agreements. All of these Agreements conform to Canada’s interpretation of section 35 of Canada’s constitution, which is to legally, politically and economically convert First Nations into what are essentially ethnic municipalities.

The first groups in Canada who have agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent and Aboriginal rights through Modern Treaties have created an organization called the Land Claims Agreement Coalition. The Coalition Members are:

  • Council of Yukon First Nations (representing 9 land claim organizations in the Yukon)
  • Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)
  • Gwich’in Tribal Council
  • Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
  • Kwanlin Dun First Nation
  • Maa-nulth First Nations
  • Makivik Corporation
  • Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
  • Nisga’a Nation
  • Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
  • Nunatsiavut Government
  • Sahtu Secretariat Inc.
  • Tlicho Government
  • Tsawwassen First Nation
  • Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

The Land Claims Agreement Coalition Members came together because the federal government wasn’t properly implementing any of their Modern Treaties. So the Coalition essentially became a lobby group to collectively pressure the federal government to respect their Modern Treaties. According to Members of the Coalition Modern Treaty implementation problems persist today.

The fact that Canada has already broken the Modern Treaties shouldn’t inspire confidence for those First Nations who are already lined up at Canada’s Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiation tables.

According to the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs there are 93 Modern Treaty and/or Self-Government negotiation tables across Canada [http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058].

Those First Nations who are negotiating at these 93 tables are being used by the federal government (and the provinces/Territories) to legitimize its Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies, which are based upon extinguishment of Aboriginal Title and termination of Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

The First Nations who have been refusing to negotiate and are resisting the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiating policies are routinely ignored by the federal government and kept under control and managed through the Indian Act (with amendments).

Attempts by non-negotiating First Nations to reform the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies aren’t taken seriously by the federal government because there are so many First Nations who have already compromised their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by agreeing to negotiate under the terms and funding conditions of these Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies.

For example, following the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision, which recognized that Aboriginal Title exists in Canada, the Assembly of First Nations tried to reform the Comprehensive Claims policy to be consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukwdecision.

However, the then Minister of Indian Affairs, Robert Nault on December 22, 2000, wrote a letter addressed to then Chief Arthur Manuelthat essentially said why should the federal government change the Comprehensive Claims policy if First Nations are prepared to negotiate under it as it is?

A fair question: why do First Nations remain at negotiation tables that ultimately lead to the termination of their peoples Inherent and Aboriginal rights, especially since it appears that Modern Treaties are routinely broken after they are signed by the federal government?

Many of these negotiations are in British Columbia where despite the past twenty years of negotiations the B.C. Treaty process has produced two small Modern Treaties, Tsawwassan and Maa’Nulth. The Nisga’a Treaty was concluded in 2000, outside of the B.C. Treaty process.

All of these Modern Treaties have resulted in extinguishing Aboriginal Title, converting reserve lands into fee simple, removing tax exemptions, converting bands into municipalities, among other impacts on Inherent and Aboriginal rights.

The Harper Government’s Termination Plan

Aside from the unilateral legislation being imposed, or the funding cuts and caps to First Nation’s and their political organizations, the September 4, 2012, announcement of a “results based” approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations amounts to a “take it or leave it” declaration on the part of the Harper government to the negotiating First Nations.

Canada’s Comprehensive Claims Policy requires First Nations to borrow money from the federal government to negotiate their “land claims”. According to the federal government:

To date, the total of outstanding loans to Aboriginal groups from Canada to support their participation in negotiations is $711 million. This represents a significant financial liability for the Aboriginal community. In addition, the government of Canada provides $60 million in grants and contributions to Aboriginal groups every year for negotiations.

It is Canada’s policies that forced First Nations to borrow money to negotiate their “claims”, so the “financial liability” was a policy measure designed by the federal government to pressure First Nations into settling their “claims” faster. As the federal government puts it, the Comprehensive Claims negotiation process has instead “spawned a negotiation industry that has no incentive to reach agreement.”

This accumulated debt of $711 million along with the $60 million annual in grants and contributions have compromised those negotiating First Nations and their leaders to the point that they are unable or unwilling to seriously confront the Harper government’s termination plan.

Over 50% of the Comprehensive Claims are located in B.C. and the First Nations Summit represents the negotiating First Nations in B.C., although some negotiating First Nations have now joined the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), thus blurring the historic distinctions between to two political organizations. The latter organization previously vigorously opposed the B.C. Treaty process, but now theUBCIC remains largely silent about it.

These two main political organizations — the First Nations Summit and the UBCIC — have now joined together into the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council, further blending the rights and interests of their respective member communities together, not taking into account whether they are in or out of the B.C. Treaty process.

This may partially explain why the Chiefs who are not in the B.C. Treaty process also remain largely silent about the Harper government’s “results based’ approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations.

First Nations in British Columbia are failing to capitalize on that fact, that since the Delgamuukw Decision, the governments have to list unresolved land claims and litigation as a contingent liability. Such liabilities can affect Canada’s sovereign credit rating and provincial credit ratings. To counter this outstanding liability, Canada points to the British Columbia Treaty Process as the avenue how they are dealing with this liability, pointing to the fact that First Nations are borrowing substantive amounts to negotiate with the governments.

Another recent example of how disconnected B.C. First Nations and their organizations are on international versus domestic policy and law, is the First Nations’ outcry over the recent Canada-China Treaty.

The B.C. Chiefs and their organizations are publicly denouncing the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement as adversely impacting on Aboriginal Title and Rights, yet they say or do nothing about Harper’s accelerated termination plan. It seems the negotiating First Nations are more worried about the Canada-China Treaty blocking a future land claims deal under the B.C. Treaty process.

The Chiefs and their organizations at the B.C. Treaty process negotiation tables have had twenty years to negotiate the “recognition and affirmation” of Aboriginal Title and Rights, but this continues to be impossible under Canada’s policies aiming at the extinguishment of collective rights. As a result only two extinguishment Treaties have resulted from the process. Even Sophie Pierre, Chair of the B.C. Treaty Commission has said “If we can’t do it, it’s about time we faced the obvious - I guess we don’t have it, so shut her down”.

By most accounts the twenty year old B.C. Treaty process has been a failure. It has served the governments’ purpose of countering their contingent liabilities regarding Indigenous land rights. Yet it seems the negotiating First Nations are so compromised by their federal loans and dependent on the negotiations funding stream that they are unable or unwilling to withdraw from the tables en masse and make real on the demand that the Harper government reform its Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies to be consistent with the Articles of the UNDRIP.

The same can also be said for the negotiating First Nations in the Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic regions.

The Chiefs who are not in the B.C., Quebec or Atlantic negotiating processes have not responded much, if at all, to Harper’s “results based” approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government. The non-negotiating Chiefs seem to be more interested in managing programs and services issues than their Aboriginal Title and Rights. As one federal official put it, the Chiefs are involved in the elements of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy like economic and social development while ignoring the main White Paper objective—termination of First Nations legal status.

Conclusion

Given their silence over the Harper government’s “results based” “take it or leave it” negotiations approach, it seems many of the negotiating First Nations at the Comprehensive Claims and/or Self-Government tables are still contemplating concluding Agreements under Canada’s termination policies.

This can only lead to further division among First Nations across Canada as more First Nations compromise their constitutional and international rights by consenting to final settlement agreements under the terms and conditions of Canada’s termination policies, while undermining the political positions of the non-negotiating First Nations.

In the meantime, Harper’s government will continue pawning off Indigenous lands and resources in the midst of a financial crisis though free trade and foreign investment protection agreements, which will secure foreign corporate access to lands and resources and undermine Indigenous Rights.

Some First Nation leaders and members have criticised AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo for agreeing to a joint approach with the Harper government, including the Crown-First Nations Gathering (CFNG), but to be fair, the Chiefs across Canada did nothing to pressure Prime Minister Harper going into the CFNG. Instead, many Chiefs used the occasion as a photo op posing with the Prime Minister.

The negotiating First Nations who are in joint processes with Canada seem to be collectively heading to the cliff of the “Buffalo Jump” as they enter termination agreements with Canada emptying out section 35 in the process.

Much of the criticism of AFN National Chief Atleo has come from the Prairie Treaty Chiefs. Interestingly, if one looks at the federal chart of the 93 negotiation tables [http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058] not too many First Nations from historic Treaty areas are involved in the Self-Government tables, except for the Ontario region where the Union of Ontario Indians and Nisnawbe-Aski Nationare negotiating Self-Government agreements.

As a result of the September 4, 2012 announcements regarding changes to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations, cuts and caps to funding First Nations political organizations and unilateral legislation initiatives, it is obvious that Prime Minister Harper has tricked the AFN National Chief and First Nations by showing that the CFNG “outcomes” were largely meaningless.

One commitment that Prime Minister Harper made at the CFNG—which he will probably keep—Is making a progress report in January 2013. The Prime Minister will probably announce the progress being made with all of the negotiating tables across Canada, along with his legislative initiatives.

It appears First Nations are at the proverbial “end of the trail” as the Chiefs seem to be either co-opted or afraid to challenge the Harper government. Most grassroots peoples aren’t even fully informed about the dangerous situation facing them and their future generations.

The only way to counter the Harper government is to:

  • have all negotiating First Nations suspend their talks; and
  • organize coordinated National Days of Action to register First Nations opposition to the Harper government’s termination plan;
  • Demand Canada suspend all First Nations legislation in Parliament, cease introducing new Bills and
  • Change Canada’s Land Claims and Self-Government Policies to “recognize and affirm” the Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of First Nations, including respect and implementation of the Historic Treaties.

If there is no organized protest and resistance to the Harper government’s termination plan, First Nations should accept their place at the bottom of all social, cultural and economic indicators in Canada, just buy into Harper’s jobs and economic action plan—and be quiet about their rights.

*

The First Nations Strategic Bulletin is a publication of the First Nations Strategic Policy Counsel, an informal group of individuals who are practitioners in either First Nations policy or law. The publication is a volunteer non-profit effort and is part of a series. For Back Issues Go To: Canada Library & Archives - Electronic Collections.


(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

sinidentidades
sinspookycosas:

On the Amtrak from Boston to New York City
The white woman across the aisle from me says, ‘Look, look at all the history, that houseon the hill there is over two hundred years old, ‘as she points out the window past meinto what she has been taught. I have learnedlittle more about American history during my few daysback East than what I expected and far lessof what we should all know of the tribal storieswhose architecture is 15,000 years olderthan the corners of the house that sitsmuseumed on the hill. ‘Walden Pond, ‘the woman on the train asks, ‘Did you see Walden Pond? ‘and I don’t have a cruel enough heart to breakher own by telling her there are five Walden Pondson my little reservation out Westand at least a hundred more surrounding Spokane, the city I pretended to call my home. ‘Listen, ‘I could have told her. ‘I don’t give a shitabout Walden. I know the Indians were living storiesaround that pond before Walden’s grandparents were bornand before his grandparents’ grandparents were born.I’m tired of hearing about Don-fucking-Henley saving it, too, because that’s redundant. If Don Henley’s brothers and sistersand mothers and father hadn’t come here in the first placethen nothing would need to be saved.’But I didn’t say a word to the woman about WaldenPond because she smiled so much and seemed delightedthat I thought to bring her an orange juiceback from the food car. I respect eldersof every color. All I really did was eatmy tasteless sandwich, drink my Diet Pepsiand nod my head whenever the woman pointed outanother little piece of her country’s historywhile I, as all Indians have donesince this war began, made plansfor what I would do and say the next timesomebody from the enemy thought I was one of their own. 
                                  — Sherman Alexie

sinspookycosas:

On the Amtrak from Boston to New York City

The white woman across the aisle from me says,
‘Look, look at all the history, that house
on the hill there is over two hundred years old, ‘
as she points out the window past me

into what she has been taught. I have learned
little more about American history during my few days
back East than what I expected and far less
of what we should all know of the tribal stories

whose architecture is 15,000 years older
than the corners of the house that sits
museumed on the hill. ‘Walden Pond, ‘
the woman on the train asks, ‘Did you see Walden Pond? ‘

and I don’t have a cruel enough heart to break
her own by telling her there are five Walden Ponds
on my little reservation out West
and at least a hundred more surrounding Spokane, 

the city I pretended to call my home. ‘Listen, ‘
I could have told her. ‘I don’t give a shit
about Walden. I know the Indians were living stories
around that pond before Walden’s grandparents were born

and before his grandparents’ grandparents were born.
I’m tired of hearing about Don-fucking-Henley saving it, too, 
because that’s redundant. If Don Henley’s brothers and sisters
and mothers and father hadn’t come here in the first place

then nothing would need to be saved.’
But I didn’t say a word to the woman about Walden
Pond because she smiled so much and seemed delighted
that I thought to bring her an orange juice

back from the food car. I respect elders
of every color. All I really did was eat
my tasteless sandwich, drink my Diet Pepsi
and nod my head whenever the woman pointed out

another little piece of her country’s history
while I, as all Indians have done
since this war began, made plans
for what I would do and say the next time

somebody from the enemy thought I was one of their own. 

                                  — Sherman Alexie

(via deliciouskaek)

jalwhite
jalwhite:

tw: suicide
Entire Indian tribe threatens to commit mass suicide after Brazil court rules they must leave sacred burial land
A entire tribe of 170 Indians have vowed to commit mass suicide after a court in Brazil ruled they must leave what they believe is sacred land, it was reported today.
The community of 50 men, 50 women and 70 children from the Guarani-kaiowa tribe are camped inside a ranch in Brazil’s southern state of Mato Grosso do Sul.
The Indians claim the land has been the graveyard of their ancestors for centuries, according to Brazil’s Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI).
A Guarani Indian family ride a horse-drawn cart in southern Brazil in 2004. The Indians claim the disputed land has been the graveyard of their ancestors for centuries
But this week, Judge Henrique Bonachela upheld a petition made by the ranch’s owner to have the tribe evicted from the land.
He decreed a fine of £150 for every day the tribe remains on the land, on the banks of Brazil’s Joguico River.
A spokesman for the tribe today said they do not intend to fight the judge’s decision but would rather die on the land than be made to leave.
And in a letter the tribe called on the Brazilian government to respect their wishes to be buried there along with their ancestors.
It read: ‘Because of this historic fact, we would prefer to die and be buried together with our ancestors right here where we are now.
‘We ask, one time for all, for the government to decree our extinction as a tribe, and to send tractors to dig a big hole and there to throw our dead bodies.
‘We have all decided that we will not leave this place, neither alive nor dead.’

Battle: A spokesman for the tribe said they do not intend to fight the judge’s decision but would rather die on the land than be made to leave.



Remote: The tribe is camped inside a ranch in Brazil’s southern state of Mato Grosso do Sul


A spokesman for CIMI described the development as of ‘exceptional seriousness’.
And Federal Deputy Sarney Filho warned of the ‘extremely worrying’ situation.
In a letter to Brazil’s Justice Minsitry, he wrote: ‘This tribe has had its culture and lands attacked for centuries. They could now go down in history as being the tribe which wiped themselves out by committing collective suicide.
‘We must take the necessary measures to avert the worst.’
Indian tribes in southern Brazil have for years been fighting for the country to recognise their traditional lands, many of which now belong to farmers and rich landowners.

jalwhite:

tw: suicide

Entire Indian tribe threatens to commit mass suicide after Brazil court rules they must leave sacred burial land

A entire tribe of 170 Indians have vowed to commit mass suicide after a court in Brazil ruled they must leave what they believe is sacred land, it was reported today.

The community of 50 men, 50 women and 70 children from the Guarani-kaiowa tribe are camped inside a ranch in Brazil’s southern state of Mato Grosso do Sul.

The Indians claim the land has been the graveyard of their ancestors for centuries, according to Brazil’s Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI).

A Guarani Indian family ride a horse-drawn cart in southern Brazil in 2004. The Indians claim the disputed land has been the graveyard of their ancestors for centuries

But this week, Judge Henrique Bonachela upheld a petition made by the ranch’s owner to have the tribe evicted from the land.

He decreed a fine of £150 for every day the tribe remains on the land, on the banks of Brazil’s Joguico River.

A spokesman for the tribe today said they do not intend to fight the judge’s decision but would rather die on the land than be made to leave.

And in a letter the tribe called on the Brazilian government to respect their wishes to be buried there along with their ancestors.

It read: ‘Because of this historic fact, we would prefer to die and be buried together with our ancestors right here where we are now.

‘We ask, one time for all, for the government to decree our extinction as a tribe, and to send tractors to dig a big hole and there to throw our dead bodies.

‘We have all decided that we will not leave this place, neither alive nor dead.’

Battle: A spokesman for the tribe said they do not intend to fight the judge’s decision but would rather die on the land than be made to leave.

Remote: The tribe is camped inside a ranch in Brazil’s southern state of Mato Grosso do Sul

A spokesman for CIMI described the development as of ‘exceptional seriousness’.

And Federal Deputy Sarney Filho warned of the ‘extremely worrying’ situation.

In a letter to Brazil’s Justice Minsitry, he wrote: ‘This tribe has had its culture and lands attacked for centuries. They could now go down in history as being the tribe which wiped themselves out by committing collective suicide.

‘We must take the necessary measures to avert the worst.’

Indian tribes in southern Brazil have for years been fighting for the country to recognise their traditional lands, many of which now belong to farmers and rich landowners.

(via snarkbender)

Native People Are Still Being Misinterpreted and Misunderstood - ICTMN.com

adailyriot:

In an attempt to expose a character flaw in Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown revealed his own. During their debate Scott Brown said: “Look at her; as you can see, she doesn’t look Indian.” Suzan Shown Harjo’s recent column lays it out precisely how both candidates have walked back and sullied the discourse concerning Native Peoples. Their clash has put the ignorance and ugliness that continues to plague Indian Country once again on the world stage.

Native Peoples face the never-ending torrent of racial stereotypes, misconceptions and sports logos. When Natives are discussed outside of cultural understanding, there is the caricature of the intrepid warrior making his last stand, the government dependent and the victimized Indian who needs to be saved. Or simply the belief that Natives don’t exist.

At the nucleus of this abridged definition lies a host of complex issues that are inextricably linked to long-standing issues Indians continue to confront while many others ignore.

Fueling that insidious trope is centuries of warped inculcations making the North America Indian the last vestige of racism without consequence.

However I would argue that today, the vast majority of these affronts and inaccuracies are out of ignorance. I believe most people of all walks of life are reasonable when presented with new information. But evidence suggests there is a portion of the population unwilling to separate from an ethnocentric state of mind. This lends credence to our present dilemma and continues to keep the grounds of bigotry fertile.

The American workplace, schools and other public venues have promoted the “diversity” philosophy but persist to sorely lack in the understanding and education of Native Peoples of this land.

Recently while I was among colleagues, I learned of two terms. Just when I thought I heard them all, I was introduced to: “Indian runs” and the “Tonto dance.” No, they weren’t in the same conversation but the same day. They were said by people I respect and consider friends. Though I didn’t know what these terms meant, my intuition was not far off when surmising they were derogatory, baseless or just plain stupid.

I knew my friends didn’t make these remarks just to offend me. There was something else occurring that goes to the heart of the problem: there is a shocking number of non-Natives from G.E.D to Ph.D level who don’t have the slightest clue about the original inhabitants of this land. This is a shameful fact.

There are certainly numerous reasons for that but in order for a worthy reciprocity to take place, our plight must be taken from the surreal to the tangible.

It must be noted here, Indians are not one size fits all. Some Natives may not take issue with such terms or mascots. I enjoy laughing at good Indian jokes. Those incidents occurred while everyone was having a good time socializing. Nobody seemed to have a problem with the terms except me, the Indian in the room.

So at that moment, I asked myself: Do I confront them, and change the mood from jovial to admonition? A teaching moment?

The answer was yes. In order to eliminate those archaic false tales, a new and factual account needs to be put in its place. Surely though, that could be a laborious task. On another occasion a non-native person told me he can “speak Indian.” But after listening to him “speak,” I was certain it was in Klingon. But being a huge Star Trek fan, I restrained my comment and figured this guy had just been smoking far too many dilithium crystals.

To a more disturbing incident: several months ago I was giving a talk at a nearby university when during the Q&A segment a gentleman stood up and asked:

“Why are all Indians drunks and gambling addicts?”

In a pure human to human moment they all seem to recoil in embarrassment that a fellow classmate would insult a guest who came to share in his culture.

Nonetheless I calmly responded to the student: ‘That is false. As you can see I’m not a drunk, nor do I even drink. Secondly, I haven’t gambled since I was 12 years old when my older brother Charles won my jar of pennies in a bingo game.’

As an aside my observation of the audience was confirmed at the conclusion of the lecture. That student’s fellow classmates sharply addressed him.

After over a decade of public speaking I’ve had to respond to some bizarre and outlandish questions but this gentleman’s calumny was by far the worst.

But talk about turning corn into succotash; his savage remarks provided a stellar example of the depth of prejudice that still lingers within Indian country. But on the contrary, the hundreds of other students in attendance underscored an intrinsic connection to all life in a unifying expression of civility: It’s not okay to offend people.

What all those examples illustrate is that this dilemma has numerous facets that must be earnestly addressed by all.

Every culture has their own unique narrative but they all should merge at the cross roads of understanding and equal veneration. It should be imperative citizens become more proactive in learning about the country they call home.

Although there remains many concerns to tackle, Natives are at an exciting and progressive time in all aspects of society. And a compliment of mutual respect is essential.

Thankfully we have seen a move in that direction but much more needs to be done.

Larry Spotted Crow Mann is a writer, performer, Nipmuck cultural educator and citizen of the Nipmuck tribe of Massachusetts. He was applauded for his role in the PBS Native American film, We Shall Remain, directed by Chris Eyre, and In 2010 his poetry was a winner in the Memscapes Journal of Fine Arts. His recent book, Tales from The Whispering Basket continues to receive excellent reviews.



(via rematiration-deactivated2013111)

highwaysunset

Another Proclamation - Sherman Alexie

When
Lincoln
Delivered
The
Emancipation,
Who
Knew

that, one year earlier, in 1862, he’d signed and approved the order for the largest public execution in the United States History? Who did they execute? “Mulatto, mixed-bloods, and Indians.”
Why did they execute them? “For uprising against the State and her citizens.” Where did they execute them? Mankato, Minnesota. How did they execute them? Well, Abraham Lincoln thought it was good.

And
Just
To
Hang
Thirty-eight
Sioux

simultaneously. Yes, in front of a large and cheering crowd, thirty-eight Indians dropped to their deaths. Yes, thirty-eight necks snapped. But before they died, thirty-eight Indians sang their death songs. Can you imagine the cacophony of thirty-eight different death songs? But wait, one Indian was pardoned at the last minute, so only thirty-seven Indians had to sing their death songs. But, O, O, O, O, can you imagine the cacophony of that one survivor’s mourning song? If he taught you the words, do you think you would sing along?

Sherman Alexie, from War Dances (via highwaysunset)

(via yakuntiklaylie)