hmmm… which one do i like?

There are five candidates confirmed, set to run against each other and eventually replace Phil Fontaine at the Assembly of First Nations. Two are considered front runners, possible or likely to win. Two others are considered never-minds; not even also-rans. And one is a bit of a dark horse with a slim chance of moving up to serious contender. Their names are here, and you can decide for yourselves who fits my three categories.

Clue? Which candidates does Indian Affairs consider the least offensive. That, sadly, is one of the prerequisites for the job, and the band council chiefs with an AFN vote know it. Don’t believe me? Remember how quickly Ovide and Matthew found themselves on the government’s shit list, leading to cuts to programs, which precipitated grumbles within the ranks. It’s called a pattern of behaviour, behavioural conditioning, and some other much less polite terms that I can think of.

teabaggers and… indians??

heap big bullshit going on here

Rob Schmidt didn’t mince words on his blog about Wednesday’s (Apr 15) “national teabag day” in the U.S. of A. He didn’t like it. But he was incensed that some of the protesters would “misuse Indian imagery” with insulting (if not laughable) results. I figure you sometimes gotta laugh or… well, club a seal or something. (stop.  i take that back).

Take a gander at some of the slogans he saw on their signs and you’ll see what he means:

“On Warpath Against More Taxes!”
“Paleface Taxes Too High”
“Let Little Brave Keep Wampum”

Yeah.  O…kay. What to say about stuff like that.

Read the whole post at his site.

Schmidt publishes several sites including Blue Corn Comics, Indian Comics Irregular, and Pictographs (on Indigenous languages) – and more. I stumbled across them some time ago but lost touch. His post on the “teabaggers” and their flop of a national protest brought me back. He has an Indigenous following and wrote this about one question from a Native American:

One person even asked what tribe I am. I smiled and said the tribe of Anglo-Saxons. I then explained how writing about Indians lets me address the political, social, and cultural issues I care about.

I think I’ll just mosey on over there a bit more from now on. Yup.

defending the despicable

A 7-year-old girl shows up in class with a nazi swastika drawn on her arm. The teacher washes it off. The next day, the mother has redrawn the swastika on her daughter’s arm and sent her back to school. Provincial child welfare authorities show up at their home, find nazi flags and other symbols of neo-nazism, and decide to take the girl and her 2-year-old brother into custody. 

“It was one of the stupidest things I’ve done in my life but it’s no reason to take my kids,” the mother told CBC News at the time.

The mother is fighting Manitoba child welfare authorities who have applied to take permanent custody of the children. She says that while she possesses neo-nazi and “white pride” symbols, she is not a white supremacist. 

“A black person has a right to say black power or black pride and yet they’re turning around on us and saying we’re racists and bigots and neo-Nazis because we say white pride. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.”  

Consider whether the state should have the right to remove children from their families because the state deems the parents’ thoughts or beliefs unsuitable, unacceptable or dangerous. Then consider what you would do as a Mohawk parent if the state decided that possession of red power literature, symbols or a Warrior flag were justification for apprehending your children? 

Is it instilling pride or conditioning racial hatred?

good gawd awmighty

Who writes this stuff? Do they actually get paid for this drivel? Does he actually speak like the phone book? Where the hell is the Obama Factor??

Sorry. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Well it ain’t me that don’t make sense. Here. Take a look for yourself. Then let me know what you think. 

“We all agree that investing in First Nations is the pathway for economic and social prosperity for both First Nations and Canada. Investing in First Nations benefits all Canadians and builds a stronger Canada,” the National Chief said. “The Alternative Federal Budget released today is consistent with the AFN’s own proposal for a First Nations economic stimulus plan.”

Yes, this is just a sample but a mind-numbing example of what passes for oratory at the top of the national Aboriginal organizations (or NAOs as they like to say, but we’ll tackle those nasty acronyms some other time). Whoo-hoo! Sure makes me wanna slip on my demonstrating shoes, knock down a tree, set up a blockade. (yawn) Excuse me while I just take nap first. Those words are better than counting sheep.

I’m not advocating an ear-drum rattling burst of rhetoric. Nor a down-and-dirty slip into street lingo.  But – fer chrine-dine sakes – there not a single bit of passion in there. No sense that the words come from a human being or are meant to be heard (much less understood) by the same.  It’s the kind of boring, sleep-inducing, bureaucratese that permeates everything and everyone who stays in Ottawa too long. They not only begin to look like Ottawa bureaucrats, dress like them, sound like them, but eventually even think like them. 

Which is one reason why folks back on the rez don’t have any connection to these guys in their fancy suits and ties. And why those suits cannot understand why no one listens to them.

Now, your thoughts?

check it

Balbulican at StageLeft has something of interest. It’s about the not-so-invisible Reform-Conservative party’s Aboriginal policy. If you’re thinking “deny, deny, deny” then you’re only partly right. Here a sample, then why doncha just head on over.

Their actions since their election, however, have all been completely consistent with the views of Tom Flanagan, Harper’s professor and key policy advisor.

In 1999 Flanagan published “First Nations, Second Thoughts”. In that book he argues that the presence of Aboriginal people in the new world doesn’t give them any legal or constitutional rights. The fact that the Canadian Constitution, the Supreme Court of Canada and the UN all disagree with him didn’t phase Flanagan. He also argues that:
• Aboriginal culture is inherently inferior to European culture, and always was;
• Métis are not Aboriginal people;
• Because Aboriginal didn’t haven Westminster style parliaments, they are incapable of governing themselves;

Flanagan’s conclusion: the only (final?) solution for Canada’s Aboriginal Problem is Assimilation.

How should that assimilation be accomplished?
- Land Claims and Treaties should be made subsidiary to Canadian laws.
- Nation-to-Nation relationships should be terminated. Self governments should be reduced to the level of municipal governments.
- Every incentive should be presented to move natives off reserves and into the cities; the land base should be diminished to the extent possible.
- Special programs of support for Aboriginal people are discriminatory, and should be eliminated.

questions unasked, answers avoided

A few years ago in Ottawa, something strange happened. What took place had all the earmarks of open democracy in Indian country but with few of its safeguards. It touched upon fundamental questions for Indian nations – and for Canadians – but avoided debating them. Shining lights in Indian country produced a glitzy report with a foregone conclusion. It was promoted by an expensive PR firm, hired to sell it to Canadians – if not to Indians. It raised more questions than it answered; some of them uncomfortable questions that have been around for a long time.

The effort cost the Assembly of First Nations lots of money, but went absolutely nowhere. It was supposed to reform the AFN; to transform it from an “organization of chiefs” into something else. The report fudged what that “something else” might be. It left Indians, and the chiefs, guessing when it should have proposed something definite. If that weren’t bad enough, journalists (native and non-) across Canada failed miserably to ask basic questions before, during and after this fiasco. Here’s a rough sketch of what happened.

The AFN chiefs dumped Fontaine in favour of Matthew Coon Come eight summers ago. The chiefs felt Fontaine was too cozy with the federal government. A career civil servant and closet Liberal, the chiefs considered him soft on Indigenous rights, someone who would compromise rather than fight. Coon Come, though hailed by the chiefs as a tough advocate, was a lame duck almost before he began. His “rights-based” approach angered the federal government. He insisted that government road blocks could only be broken once Canadian governments acknowledged and recognized nation-to-nation relationships domestically, and Indigenous rights internationally.

Ottawa made clear it had no time for Coon Come. “Nation-to-nation” recognition was the opposite direction that the federal government wanted Indians to go. It launched a hugely successful PR campaign to spin Coon Come from a Cree lawyer and peaceful environmental activist, into a dangerous radical who could not be trusted. Indian Affairs slashed the budgets of both the AFN and band councils. The federal government gave the chiefs a choice – dump Coon Come or face even more cuts.

At the next AFN election, Ottawa also made clear it wanted Fontaine back. Coon Come had refused to run again. Although five candidates, one a woman, ran for the job only Fontaine had Ottawa’s nod. It was no surprise when Fontaine was elected. This is not a comment on Fontaine’s integrity. It is a statement on the degree of manipulation by the federal government on the internal affairs of the national Indian organization in Canada, and how easily it was for Ottawa to do so. It did not stop there either.

Fontaine had chafed at comments during his first term that he was little more than a national figurehead, a national spokesperson and chief lobbyist employed by band council chiefs across Canada. Ever since the days of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, which Fontaine had helped scuttle, a couple of basic but key questions kept popping up: What kind of organization was the AFN? More to the point, what was the role of the “national chief”? Was he the “eleventh premier,” as the Canadian media had tagged the position ever since Meech Lake? Or was he merely a national mouthpiece, with no real power; able to act only on direction from the chiefs?

To answer these questions and more, the AFN commissioned a “blue ribbon” panel to examine the issues, hold regional hearings, commission research, and produce a report. Some of the questions facing it and Indians across the country: Was the AFN structure, as an organization of band chiefs, still relevant or workable? Was the AFN an assembly of “first nations”? To what degree did “residual sovereignty” of Indian nations, such as the Mi’kmaq, Mohawk, or Nisga’a, continue to apply? Was the AFN, as an organization bound by the Indian Act, helping to erode that “residual sovereignty”? Was the AFN evolving into, or was it preferable to become, a national government (displacing Indian nations in the process)? Should each registered status Indian have a direct vote to choose a national chief?

But there was a problem. The commission paid lip service to the key questions in favour of superficial ones. Questions to be avoided: On residual sovereignty, were Indian nations still nations in the context of international law? Were Indians citizens of their Cree or Nisga’a nations? Or were they compromising their citizenship by participating as “status Indians” and band councils, both creations of the Indian Act? In short, how far along to assimilation were Indians in Canada?

Instead of tackling these larger questions and possibly sparking a national debate that might have gone far beyond Indian country, the report concentrated on questions that stayed within the safe, narrow confines of the Indian Act. It asked the same question over and over, but with different words. As a national organization of band council chiefs, what was the best administrative model to follow? How to change the AFN from an “organization of chiefs?” How to increase the executive power of the national office? Were direct elections by every registered status Indian across Canada the answer?

There were problems. The commissioners and their report chose to answer what the national chief wanted to know — not what Indians wanted and desperately needed to know. Could the national chief change the balance of power within the organization, stripping the chiefs of much of their power, without provoking a major fight? Could the national office get rid of constraints so it could make deals and sign agreements without seeking the support of a majority of chiefs first? Fortunately, for the federal government, this was exactly what Ottawa wanted and what it was prepared to pay for. Funding for the AFN increased, with former cuts largely restored with one important difference.

From that point on, how Ottawa funded native organizations would change. Core funding was out. Funding by specific projects was in, with clear restraints in place to ensure the AFN and other native organizations could not wander off-track anymore. Project funding has become the main source of income for native organizations ever since.

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.

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.

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…

your thoughts?

On Wednesday, June 11, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood in the House of Commons to deliver an apology to Aboriginal peoples - in particular survivors of native residential schools – with these words:

“I stand before you, in this chamber so central to our life as a country, to apologize to aboriginal peoples for Canada’s role in the Indian residential schools system.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to offer an apology to former students of Indian residential schools. The treatment of children in Indian residential schools is a sad chapter in our history.

For over a century, the residential schools separated over 150,000 native children from their families and communities.”

Were you in Ottawa, on Parliament Hill, watching TV from home, listening to it on radio, reading about it the next day? What did you think? After a while to let things sink in a bit, what DO you think now?
Any thoughts?