SA’s great ladies

We were having a conversation about the passing of Miriam Makeba, or “Mama Afrika” as many called her with great affection. What can I say about such a woman, such a symbol, such a voice. Everyone everywhere was telling their stories about meeting her, her early times, that zest for life. I had my own story but felt it paled in comparison.

So I began to tell my friend about the Bassline jazz club when it was located in Melville, a suburb in Joahnnesburg not that far away from the SABC. I complete that story here.

I spent one winter a few streets away in a freezing little flat that I’d rented. This explains my frequent visits to the Bassline on those freezing evenings; to escape the cold, y’see.  There was even a huge blizzard while I was there that time. But I don’t need excuses to explain my dropping into a jazz club in Johannesburg, having a few beers, and listening to some fantastic musicians. The weather couldn’t keep me away.

I saw the name on the billboard that night: Dolly Rathebe. A few months earlier, I had gone out with one of the SABC crews to get a better idea how they worked.  We went to the home and studio of a photographer named Schadeburg. I introduced myself to him and spent the next hour or so talking to the “father of South African photojournalism” about his work, his life, his highs and lows.  Dolly’s name came up several times.

Jurgen showed me a lot of pictures of her when she was a big name in SA music. As a black woman, a gorgeous black woman, he told me she was also sought after as arm candy by many bigshot white politicians and policemen too. It was a dangerous world in a dangerous time for someone like Dolly who tread a fine line between being too cozy with the oppressor and too big for her own people. The fact she survived when so many were attacked, killed, or disfigured like Thandi Klaasen, says volumes about Dolly. But that was the past, Schadeburg said. So I was surprised when he told me she was still alive and well, and still singing.

I must have met her before, probably with my friends, Sylvia Vollenhoven or Basil Appollis, at one time or another. That night when Dolly Rathebe hopped up on stage at the Bassline, I recognized her face even if I couldn’t place the time of our meeting. I sat at the bar, nursing a beer, drinking in the music. It was a mixture of township jazz, American jazz and western pop. The musicians were fabulous. the music spellbinding. I decided to re-introduced myself to Dolly after the second set, and just entering that euphoric stage when my shields are going down instead of up (as they should).

We sat there and spoke awhile, in between fans and friends dropping by the table to chat with her and ignore me. I bought her a drink, she bought me one in return, and so on. By the time she rose for the next set, I was smitten and well on the way to stupidity. When she sat down again, there I was. We spoke some more. Then the Mohawk put on his gravest face and explained (in slightly slurred English) that if she, Dolly Rathebe, would be interested… ummm… would she… uh… be interested in marrying him?

Of course, she said. She would love to. But only after the last set.

So I went back to the bar. Dolly Rathebe hopped back onto the stage. It was one fantastic night with a woman who burned up the SA jazz scene during the 40’s and 50’s and could still kick up dust in the 90’s.

Our affair was short, doomed to failure, and fantastic while it lasted.

May she rest in peace.

anxious about SA

I wanted to find something to underline my feelings about a previous post, one on Ahenakew, to buttress my stand against his current criminal prosecution. I check my newsreader for likely headlines and, lo and behold, I scan a story in the Mail & Guardian newspaper from South Africa. What I read sends shivvers down my spine.

I have read comments from the ANC’s Youth wing in a couple of stories that capture the increasingly harsh attitudes within the ANC about a breakaway group. The breakaways are led by former ANC stalwarts, like “Terror” Lekota, who disagree with the direction of the ANC particular under control of a faction that tossed out former SA President Thabo Mbeki in favour of Jacob Zuma.

There’s a lot of backstory here that time and space won’t allow, and would lead this post into alleys it should not go right now. Before you follow that link above, I offer this chilling excerpt from a recent interview. It underlines my feelings why Ahenakew’s trial is not justified, but it also explains my increasing unease with recent developments in South Africa.

The Mail & Guardian spoke to the 30-year-old former student leader and former ANC ward councillor in the Emfuleni municipality, who holds a degree in logistics management from the Vaal University of Technology and now works in the municipality as a senior administration officer.

Any change of heart on the “cockroaches” statement?
I’m not feeling bad about that statement. All these people in Cope are behaving like cockroaches and should be destroyed.

Why “cockroaches”?
By distorting the history of the organisation, by behaving as if history started yesterday, they are behaving like cockroaches and cockroaches should be killed.

League leader Julius Malema got into trouble for using the word “kill” and your colleague Themba Ndaba used the same word in the Al Jazeera interview …
We’re not talking about killing human beings here, we’re talking about cockroaches. When you see a cockroach in your house what do you do? You kill it.

Now where have I heard those words used before? My feelings go beyond disillusionment – to shock, sadness and even horror. I don’t want to believe that this is the same ANC that so many of us supported, the party of Mandela, Tambo, Sisulu, Slovo, Hani and so many more. The silence from Zuma et al, their failure to condemn the ANC Youth wing, speaks volumes about its intentions as well.

Ahenakew’s hen-pecking media

David Ahenakew is the former head of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and of the Saskatchewan Federation of Indian Nations (FSIN).  He’s on trial again for anti-semitic and racist statements that he made six years ago as a speaker during a public dinner in Saskatoon, and again in a follow-up interview for the Saskatoon Star Phoenix.

A Saskatchewan appeals judge overturned his conviction in 2005 and ordered a new trial on grounds that the trial judge may not have taken into account the circumstances during which Ahenakew uttered his comments and therefore may not have “willfully” promoted hatred.

Ahenakew loses his first trial

The case had people wringing their hands (and still does) for all kinds of reasons. The one I find most difficult to comprehend is the one that implies that victims of racism somehow cannot possibly be racist. But I’m also confused by something else – the media’s insistence for a conviction in this particular case.

Why? Because there are so many other similar situations where people are not charged, do not face anything more than a bit of embarrassing news coverage (if the media bothers at all), are permitted to continue on, or are even promoted despite their despicable statements.

Let me make clear that I detest Ahenakew’s comments. I believe they came from a sick mind. I don’t care to try to understand the cause of that sickness. I am satisfied that they reflect the attitudes and beliefs of a racist and bigot. I don’t believe, as sick as those statements are, that Ahenakew should be tried for them under the Criminal Code of Canada.

It isn’t a question of “has he suffered enough?” His views have been judged for what they are. Ahenakew has been stripped of the Order of Canada and of his seat in the FSIN Senate. He is viewed by many the object of pity and even derision. But all of that has nothing to do with it. Or does it?

In the Regina Leader Post, columnist Murray Mandryk writes that it isn’t enough. Mandryk doesn’t suggest in his column (spread far and wide via the CanWest system) what Ahenakew’s punishment should be. For me, though, there is a clear line between someone who is a washed-up loud-mouth as opposed to someone who openly advocates or incites violence against another group in society. For the first, we (the media) should shine the light of publicity upon such words and the person behind them, and hope that society is sane enough to find them as despicable as we do. In the latter case, we need the Criminal Code. Ahenakew is the first instance, not the second. Ahenakew is a danger only to his own reputation.

But, as I noted earlier, Mandryk wants something more. Public humiliation? Time behind bars? He never comes right out with specifics, although he spends a lot of column space going over the possible defences (too much wine, diabetic reaction, fatigue, etc).

All this may constitute a legal defence during a trial, but it doesn’t suggest Ahenakew is remorseful or has truly taken responsibility for these hateful words.

To listen to testimony so far, it’s as if some people don’t understand that it’s actually Ahenakew and his words on trial, rather than the drive-by smear we heard in FSIN chief Lawrence Joseph’s testimony that he thought Parker to be an “arrogant, uncaring” reporter who “tripped over himself running” toward Ahenakew following the speech to get the interview.

Set aside the fact that Parker didn’t interview Ahenakew until an hour later, would any credible reporter not be eager to talk to someone after such a speech?

It’s more than a little disturbing that there are those who believe Ahenakew has been hard done by, or that he has suffered enough and now deserves a pass.

Perhaps a second trial is needed to underscore the consequences of such words.

I disagree. I think the appeals judge gave the Crown Attorneys prosecuting this case an excuse to condemn Ahenakew and his words, as is just and fair, but avoid a persecution. The Star Phoenix did a good job reporting the original incident by shining a light upon this individual’s racist attitudes. The public has been alerted and is now very much aware.  We will never see Ahenakew the same way ever again.  Job done.

Mandryk and others advocating more should consider their own backyards though. I can think of several bloggers, newspaper columnists and broadcast commentators who, judged by the same standards as Ahenakew, will never face the same amount of media attention and condemnation, nor similar charges under the hate provisions of the Criminal Code. Why? Because they are “us.” And Ahenakew is “them.”

If Ahenakew is found guilty and is punished, may I suggest the Canadian media conduct a similar compaign to root out similar miscreants within its own profession.

isn’t it funny?

That I have more access to high speed Internet and other forms of communications when I travel than when  I’m at home, on the rez, in the very shadow of one of Canada’s truly great metropolises and a major communications hub.

That is to explain why I am absent so much on this site.  And why your comments go without reply for many days.  Not an apology. Or an excuse.  An explanation.

more hot stuff

After lunch, the grind continues. People deal with “Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic” (aka VACCA) See what I mean about acronyms? The SAOs are concerned with the impromtu dance that takes place at these meetings. Most of the hard thought and consideration has already taken place back home, before these guys even show up. What they’re on the lookout for is the unexpected, the unplanned for, the surprise that comes out of left field.

The topic may be contaminants or emergency preparedness. Take this last one. Russia (with the U.S., Norway, Sweden and Canada observing) conducted a controlled oil spill then cleaned it up to a carefully crafted plan. They recorded the results under as controlled circumstances as possible to study whether they could handle an oil spill in Arctic waters. Given the increasing pressure put upon the North as oil prices skyrocket in the south, and everyone scrambles for more stable energy resources, this is heavy stuff. Then the unexpected.

Inuit Circumpolar Conference asks whether the study can be expanded due to increased uranium mining in the north. The “what if” the worst happened and they didn’t know what to do? Backs stiffened. Brows furrow and knit. Jaws tighten. Then the reaction as one country after another, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden tell the assembled that there’s no need for the emergency preparedness study to broaden the mandate to include nuclear accidents or problems with uranium mining pollution. Russia has set up adequate safety regimes, as have other countries. This is an internal situation and they see no reason to bring nuclear radiation into an international forum. Why add this topic to an already broad mandate?

What is really going on is the individual countries, Canada included, really prefer to keep the doors closed when it comes to atomic energy or uranium mining. Okay, oil and gas exploration and development is one thing, but step back when it comes to that other thing.

Very interesting conference.

hot stuff

In Kautokeino, Norway, there’s a community centre at the northern end of town, at the top of half-kilometer climb. It’s snowing great big fat flakes outside. Inside there are a couple of hundred people from around the world attending a conference of the Arctic Council, Senior Arctic Official’s meeting (SAO). I know, I hate the acronyms too but there are so many groups here with huge multi-worded titles running five or six or seven long that (sigh) even I have to agree that alphabet soup works.

The topic climate change, a phrase that captures so many things that include global warming, how it’s affecting people already, the push to explore and exploit new energy sources, the impact on fish, the oceans, birds an other wildlife. Dammit, the whole enchilada. Climate Change.

The U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland Homerule – all are part of this. They make up the nation states within the Arctic Council. The Saami would argue with that last sentence and insist on inclusion as an Indigenous state, but a state nonetheless. Those nation states did slam the door and exclude the Indigenous peoples from the polar regions for decades until finally the created the Permanent Participants, or the Indigenous delegations. After all, how dumb was it to keep them out of discussions on Arctic issues when the majority of the Arctic populations (Indigenous peoples) were left out.

I love the feeling of the Indigenous groups that include the Aleut International Association (Alaska), the Arctic Athabaskan Council (NWT), the G’wichin Council (Yukon), Inuit Circumpolar Conference (Greenland, Canada, International), Saami Council (founder), RAIPON (Indigenous peoples in Russian Federation, founder), and the Indigenous Peoples Secretariat (IPS) – the administrative arm for Indigenous representation at the Arctic Council.

More later…. just wanted to let you know about some of the things up here, where working groups are delivering papers and reports and basically shmoozing with each other and with government officials.  The highlights so far?

Arctic warming twice as quickly as the rest of the world, partly due to the the large land masses in the northern polar region. If something isn’t done quickly, the rate of warming might increase but they don’t know by how much. The effects are being felt already. Greenland’s ice cap is melting and the breaking off of icebergs, more loss of the ice cap, is outpacing the amount of new snow and ice. The result, Greenland’s icecap is disappearing from its western and southern areas perhaps by as much as 20 per cent with 10 years. If worst cases come true within the next decade, the ocean levels might rise by a meter resulting in dramatic impacts on fisheries, birds species, human sustainability, and the disappearance of complete oceanic nations like the Maldives which at its highest point is just more than a meter higher than sea level.

Scary stuff. The guys here seem to know it. Their futures depend on it. They seem serious.

mind games

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is the national status Indian organization in Canada. It has never taken criticism very well. When I worked there for a short time many years ago, I noticed that the organization spent more time trying to control and restrict the flow of information out of the place than telling people what it was doing and why. Admittedly, that experience has coloured my perspective of the AFN ever since regardless who heads it.

National chiefs have come and gone, usually seeking the position with big promises for more openness and transparency. They have all apparently forgotten that promise once in the job. Then again, what politician hasn’t done the same regardless of race, colour or political party? There are certain things that must be done behind closed doors if anything is ever to get done.

Instead of drawing the blinds when absolutely necessary, the AFN (and it isn’t the only national Indigenous organization that does this) routinely adopts a “need to know” policy even among its own staff. For some reason, organizations like the AFN form protective rings around their national mouthpieces. That’s because of the complicated and convoluted nature of their jobs. These guys (usually guys except at the Native Women’s Association of Canada) believe their own propaganda. They believe they head up national governments already, and expect to be treated as such.

This is not to say that these groups don’t do valuable work – they do. Nor is it to say that they cannot or should not aspire to establish real national political entities with real political power. There are examples around the world of Indigenous groups working on these objectives. Some are building their governments from the ground up. Others retain and revitalize governments that have suffered under years of colonial rule and policies aimed at stamping out any notion of self-rule. But there is a big difference between image and substance.

The AFN is not a national government, or a parliament, or a house of representatives. It is an office that was planned for two purposes – to support the lobbying efforts of band council chiefs across the country and to provide a national spokesperson for their voices. You can blame the Canadian media for much of the confusion about the AFN’s role, and that of its national spokesperson. This similarly confused bunch did not want to be faced with diversity; 630 or so chiefs, some claiming nation status, speaking dozens of languages, dozens of nationalities like Ojibway and Mi’kmaq. Journalists and editors demanded – and got – neat, simple, simplistic symbols such as one generic spokesthingy called the national chief. Saved time.  Saved the reporters the effort of thinking.

That is one reason some reporters still quote the head of the AFN on issues concerning Inuit, or the Métis. These reporters don’t know any better. Believe me. I’ve seen it.  I’ve seen reporters walk in for interviews at the AFN on an issue particular to the Métis or the Inuit, and expect the head of the status Indian organization to provide a quote. Or to answer generic questions on behalf of all Indigenous peoples in Canada as though he (usually he) has a clue, or represented and could speak for all Indigenous peoples. He can’t, but he also doesn’t want to disappoint the reporter either (a sign that he doesn’t know what he’s doing). So he answers the question, and the illusion continues.

In order to maintain the illusion, groups like the AFN draw curtains around the office of the national spokesperson. This is one of the reasons for such secrecy at these organizations. Another is self-delusion and a misplaced sense of noblesse oblige. Some of these guys (usually guys) begin to believe their own bullshit. They actually believe they have real power, not just scraps from the federal government’s table. This is one of the reasons why they get so tetchy when people begin to criticise or to question them.

So in conclusion for anyone interested in studying or learning more about Indigenous peoples in Canada, remember this:  (to paraphrase Yogi Berra) Indigenous politics in Canada is 90 per cent half mental.

Consider Justice Harry Laforme…

What a long, strange trip it’s been. And it ain’t over by a long shot.

Remember the illusory euphoria of last June? Remember the national apology to the survivors – and the Canadian people – for native residential schools delivered in the Canadian House of Commons by Prime Minister Harper? Remember the heads of various national Indigenous organizations sitting in the centre, along with one or two residential school survivors?

Why illusory? Because even the survivors said back then that words were cheap. They wanted to see if the federal government would act – actually do something – to begin the reversal of the awful legacy of that period in history. What they got instead was a soap opera, and a failed attempt by Harper to convince the majority of Canadians that he really was a nice guy, and that his party meant to do right and well by Indigenous peoples.

Shortly before the apology in mid-June, the federal government appointed Justice Harry Laforme, an Ontario judge, to the truth and reconciliation commission it had begun to set up. But even before the apology, Laforme was muttering about the connivance of some people, in some sectors. Later, he complained publicly that he was struggling against pressure from both the federal government and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). He said both were trying to influence himself and the work of Canada’s truth and reconciliation commission on Indian residential schools.

Then Laforme resigned, suddenly, citing differences with his co-commissioners; a lawyer from British Columbia named Jane Brewin Morley, and a nurse from Algonquin Territory at Kitigan Zibi, Quebec, Claudette Dumont-Smith. Some news reports portrayed it as a fundamental difference in approach with both women pushing for “reconciliation” while Laforme wanted “truth.” Other reports decribed a power play with both women refusing to knuckle under to Laforme. Later, a teary-eyed Laforme would say it boiled down to a moral question, and his own personal integrity. But most of us ordinary folks could only shake our heads in confusion and shame. Meanwhile, the folks that really mattered – the survivors – just kept dying at the rate of four more every week.

For decades, the federal government refused to deal with or even acknowledge complaints from survivors of the native residential school system. The feds and the churches shifted people around, covered tracks, overlooked malfeasance and even criminal acts in order to maintain the honour of the crown and uphold the sanctity of whatever church. Whenever a survivor refused to go away, or managed to actually get a lawyer to listen, the government built a wall of denial to anything resembling responsibility or accountability for the damage wrought to native lives. Then, in the face of more than a billion dollars in civil and class action law suits, and decisions awarding increasingly large settlements to the victims, Ottawa pulled a 180-degree turnabout.

What the feds came up with was a type of “no fault” insurance deal for itself and the churches. The deal went something like this: Okay, you have to prove that you went to residential school. You have to do the research.  You have to pay for the records. Then you have to prove that you were there when whatever you claim took place. Then your claim will go for evaluation. If you haven’t proved your position to our satisfaction, you will be denied. What’s that? Can you opt out and go back to your lawsuit after going through all of this time and expense?  Sorry.  You signed a waiver before you began this alternative dispute resolution process.

Naturally… this only angered the victims because it required them to sign away any legal options – even before they had told their stories. The federal government really tried to get the survivors to believe that it would do right by them. It held conferences on the ADR process. It hired tons of lawyers to advise groups on how to apply and sign the waivers. But, well, there was that credibility thing. The survivors just weren’t buying it, even if the AFN did.

The feds still faced a billion dollars or more in legal suits and Canadian opinion was beginning to solidify behind the victims. So Ottawa then moved to settle the law suits out of court with these conditions: minimum payments to all survivors; additional damages would be awarded on a sliding scale for a long list of abuses that included beatings and rape among other things; the creation of a truth and reconciliation commission. An official apology was not promised, nor denied, but a possibility was left hanging.

Meanwhile, the three big churches involved in this “crime against humanity” (as some would have it) faced the same individual and class action law suits as the federal government. Individual churches within the Catholic, Anglican and United Churches faced bankruptcy for a lot of reasons, including these residential school damage awards, but also due to falling numbers as members left in droves, perhaps even as they became more sceptical about their spiritual leaders and the houses they built. The churches pushed hard for Ottawa to do something, including taking most of the blame and at least half of the cost for settling. Did they say “half”? They meant two-thirds. Going… going…

The third party in this triumvirate was the Assembly of First Nations, which the media (and the government) accorded official status as representatives of the victims, even though residential schools scooped up Métis and Inuit as well as Indians, and the survivors had their own organizations – thank you very much. The vast number of survivors were Indian, so that confusion made some sense. Still, the AFN was given a leading role in setting up the trc – not the survivors themselves.  Phil Fontaine, the head of the AFN, is a survivor. But he is also the head of a national Indian organization with an increasingly angry bunch of voting chiefs who’ve seen lots of give from Fontaine and the AFN on issue after issue but very little gimme heading into the national chief’s mid-term. In other words, Fontaine needs some love.

Enter Laforme. Chosen among a short list of candidates suggested mainly by the triumvirate (federal government, churches and AFN) that cannot and will not put vested interests ahead of those of the survivors. The survivors’ groups grumble about the process, which they feel has been shanghaied. But they’re old and more die every day. The survivors hope Laforme will do right by them, because they have been given little choice but to hope. The question, and the survivors know it, is whether Laforme can become more than a token elevated by the old boy network into their stuffy little club?  Can Laforme – will Laforme- take on the triumvirate and risk all for a bunch of dying old people?

Stay tuned.

What is so difficult?

I just read two magazine articles and one newspaper story on the long plane ride over to London. I’ll talk about one to show why I get so frustrated with Canadian journalists and journalism. It has to do with umbrella terms, one-size-fits-all phrases, generic words that lose all meaning and only confuse. If you want to know what I mean, pick up the latest Walrus (November 2008).

Alright, the story is compelling. The writing is nice, good, really good. It’s about Louie Sam, a Sto:lo in southern British Columbia who was lynched in the late 1800s. Yet despite all of the good things I have to say about the story, I stumble time after time over the words “aboriginal.”

Why? Well, for one thing, what the hell is an “aboriginal?” I thought the word is used to describe all three of the main groups of Indigenous peoples in Canada. You know. Indians, Inuit and Métis. But I flinch every time I read the word, or hear aboriginal used in broadcasting to talk about any one of these groups of peoples singly. What do I mean?

Take that story in The Walrus magazine. The writer is telling a story about a Sto:lo. Louie Sam was not Inuit. He was not Métis. He was clearly Indian, a perfectly good legal term that may be  the only legal term recognized in Canadian law. Regardless, he was not an “aboriginal” – an amalgam of all three of the groups. He was a Sto:lo – an Indian. So why do so many Canadian journalists think it’s okay to just throw in this one word even though it will confuse things, lose meaning, and mean something else.

I see the word “aboriginal” used in the North as well when some journalists insist on referring to Inuit as (you got it) “aboriginals.” They ain’t. They’re Inuit, and probably proud of it too.

I know. What’s the big deal? Right? Who is it hurting? Well, my sister feels much the same way but explains the problem this way. “What is a white person? Imagine somebody wearing Dutch clogs, a Scottish kilt, part of a lederhosen, and any number of other national dresses that come from the Caucasian peoples. then expand it to include an Indian sari, a Japanese kimono, and so on. That is one confused bugger. That is the equivalent of what the word ‘aboriginal’ does to us.”

See? We Mohawks had our very own style of national dress. We had a very distinctive hair style but also a very distinctive headdress that set us apart from anyone else. It was our national dress. We didn’t have those big war bonnets that you found out weswt with the Sioux and Blackfoot. Neither did we dress like Inuit or Métis. We were disticntive from the Mi’kmaq or Ojibway.

So you see what bugs me? Words is important. But so many Canadian journalists just don’t seem to understand the tremendous role they play in keeping the vast majority of Canadians so bloody ignorant.

I’m just saying…

Whassup.

I have a short-term contract with the Arctic Council/Indigenous Peoples Secretariat. The big issue confronting these folks, and the eight member states around the North Pole, is climate change. Some of the stories and situations facing Indigenous peoples came out during a September meeting in Copenhagen. an entire lake in the Northwest Territories in Canada disappeared — not in years or months — in a single day.  The family who had lived on, depended upon, made their lives working on the lake were in traumatic shock. They probably still are. The perma frost melted. The water, usually contained above ground by the perma frost, seeped into the soil. Gone. Just like that.

New asphalt roads melting. Buildings slipping into the perma frost. Bugs and parasites that had never been seen before by the elders suddenly appear. Water sources contaminated. Herds changing their migratory patterns. Birds no longer showing up or showing up earlier or later than expected. Life turned upside down. The potential cost in human terms is incalculable. The cost of adapting to the changing environment huge – and rising.

I once thought the North was so clean and untouched and impervious to pollution and climate change.