What kind of nation is a first nation? We need to decide

[puckstopshere]

Three hundred and sixty-five years ago, a group of prominent Europeans gathered in the city of Munster and invented something that would change history: the modern nation.

The Peace of Westphalia created a set of institutions that reshaped the world: national self-determination, exclusive sovereignty of governments over agreed-upon territory, fixed borders and the citizenship rights of people living within those borders. But this new invention failed to take into account groups of people who had lived in the same territory, often longer than the Europeans, but did not necessarily see themselves as members of the Westphalian nation: the indigenous tribal and nomadic peoples.

That omission is behind some of the most painful political confrontations of our age. The Sami, Roma, Sinti, Pavee, Bedouin, Bushmen, Nenets, Inuit, and the numerous native bands of North America have lived in a marginal, sometimes deadly relationship with the modern state from the beginning. These groups often recognize themselves as “nations” – in Canada, the term “first nations” has been widely used, accurately, to describe non-Inuit indigenous groups since the 1980s – but the nature of that nationhood has not been fully defined in a mutually agreeable way.

This question is at the root of the new wave of activism, centred around the Idle No More protests. The uniting factor is a desire for a new relationship between Canada and the indigenous nations within its borders. While there’s a lot of disagreement about what this means, there’s near-unanimous consensus that the current, paternal, federally-run system does nobody any good.

To make such a relationship work, we will need to define what an indigenous nation really is, and how it works. This year happens to be the 400th anniversary of the first attempt: the Two-Row Wampum Treaty of 1613, which predates the birth of the Westphalian state by half a century. Its distinct purple and white beads declared, visually, that the Iroquois nations and the European colonial government were parallel, equal, independent, and not to interfere with one another’s paths.

Such treaties, including the Royal Proclamation of 1763, established that indigenous bands have some of the features of modern nations: control over their agreed-upon territory and its resources, de facto citizenship and the right to govern themselves. For the past 40 years, Canadian courts have recognized these treaties (and land claims yet to be settled) as legally binding; they became part of the Constitution in 1982.

That means that there is no question indigenous peoples have a right to be self-determined nations. But what kind of nation? A full-fledged Westphalian state? An ethno-territorial nation like Scotland and Wales in Britain, or Quebec in Canada? Or some less concrete form of nation built on traditions?

One problem is that those treaties, while allowing independence, also all but guarantee dependence, because they obligate the Canadian state to provide compensation and services. One promising thing about this new protest movement is that it’s aimed in part against band councils and their relationship with Ottawa, in hopes of putting independence in the foreground.

That points to another pitfall. Whatever form it takes, an indigenous nation will generally be what is known as a rentier state: its degree of independence hinges on the extent to which it can extract natural-resource and property rents from its land, as well as grants from outside. So environmentalists who have joined this movement in hopes that sovereign native bands will be better ecological stewards than Ottawa may be disappointed: The most independent and successful post-Indian Act nations could well resemble other post-colonial states with natural resources. The Inuit of Greenland, for example, have concluded that their independence from Denmark can best be achieved through aggressive deep-sea oil drilling.

Despite these paradoxes, there is a workable path to autonomy. We’ve known it for decades. It was recognized by the 1983 Commons special committee on aboriginal self-government and the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: a new order of government, parallel to the provinces and Ottawa, run by indigenous peoples on land they legally own and control. After four centuries of ambiguity, this would allow these nations-within-nations to decide what they are.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/what-kind-of-nation-is-a-first-nation-we-need-to-decide/ar...

[puckstopshere]

Large elements of aboriginal Canada live intellectually in a dream palace, a more comfortable place than where they actually reside.

Inside the dream palace, there are self-reliant, self-sustaining communities – “nations,” indeed – with the full panoply of sovereign capacities and the “rights” that go with sovereignty. These “nations” are the descendants of proud ancestors who, centuries ago, spread across certain territories before and, for some period, after the “settlers” arrived.

Today’s reality, however, is so far removed in actual day-to-day terms from the memories inside the dream palace as to be almost unbearable. The obvious conflict between reality and dream pulls some aboriginals to warrior societies; others to a rejection of dealing with the “Crown” at all; others to fights for the restoration of “rights” that, even if defined, would make little tangible difference in the lives of aboriginal people; and still others, such as Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence, to go on a hunger strike.

Chief Spence, leading a group or “nation” of about 1,500 people on the shores of James Bay, demanded at the beginning of her strike a series of meetings with the Governor-General and the Prime Minister. This demand reflected a very old and very wrong idea (part of dream-palace thinking) that the “Crown” is somehow an independent agency with which aboriginal “nations” have a direct relationship, whereas the “Crown” is nothing of the sort.

The “Crown” is the Government of Canada, a matter of clearly established constitutional law, which is why Chief Spence made her demand to meet the Prime Minister, too. Stephen Harper was correct in refusing a face-to-face meeting, since a prime minister should not be blackmailed into doing what any group or individual wants. On Friday, however, he did agree to meet soon with a group of aboriginal leaders that could include Chief Spence.

Chief Spence has attracted various predictable public adherents to her cause. Something that calls itself the Idle No More movement has sprung up here and there – a rather unfortunate name if one thinks that it might suggest previous idleness. Some chiefs have welcomed the movement; others have distanced themselves from it, either because they prefer to control aboriginal politics themselves or because they understand that scattered incidents of protest that inconvenience others are a surefire way of dissipating support for the aboriginal cause.

Much of the rhetoric surrounding Chief Spence is of the usual dreamy, flamboyant variety, a mixture of anti-capitalism and anti-colonialism, blended with the mythology (blasted by the reality of what one actually sees on too many reserves) about environmental protection and the aboriginals’ sacred link to their lands.

To this is then added a desire to protect “traditional” ways, which in some cases means hunting, fishing and trapping, noble ventures that can lead economically to something only slightly better than subsistence. Without a wage economy beyond these “traditional” ways, the path lies clear to dependence on money from somewhere else, namely government, which, in turn, leads to the lassitude and pathologies that plague too many aboriginal communities.

Of course, there are some communities that offer the antithesis of dependency. They benefit from participating directly in the exploitation of natural resources near their communities, which should be the driving thrust of all public policy.

These communities have decided collectively to integrate to varying degrees with the majority cultures, to form business arrangements (where possible) in a vital attempt to create own-source revenues that will dilute or end the spirals of dependency.

But too many communities remain within the dream palace, hungering for a return to a more separate existence, even if the lands on which they sit are – and likely always will be – of marginal economic value. Attawapiskat, Chief Spence’s community, is subject to severe flooding, given its location on the James Bay plain, but it refused to consider moving farther upriver or near Timmins, where there might be employment opportunities.

To imagine that isolated communities of a thousand or so people can be vibrant and self-sustaining, capable of discharging the panoply of responsibilities of “sovereignty,” is to live within the dream palace of memory.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/too-many-first-nations-people-live-in-a-dream-palace/artic...

[puckstopshere]

After being immersed in the euphoric coverage surrounding the Idle No More movement, it is refreshing to see that a rational assessment of it is beginning to emerge. Jeffrey Simpson’s recent column, which alerted readers to the “dream palace” mentality of the movement, was insightful.

The column correctly points out that aboriginal groups are too small, isolated and unproductive to ever achieve what the movement is demanding – sovereignty. It points out that a return to aboriginal traditions can only result in a life of poverty in the modern context. Finally, it recognizes the mythology of assertions about an indigenous environmental consciousness. The lack of environmental degradation before contact was obviously due to the primitive technology and subsistence economies of hunter gatherers and horticulturalists, not some kind of “sacred link” to the land.

There are two problems with his analysis, however. The first is that he does not ask why such a “dream palace” exists, or reveal the political forces behind the construction of aboriginal tribal leaders’ unrealizable demands. Secondly, Mr. Simpson himself constructs a “dream palace” – the notion that aboriginal peoples’ salvation lies in “participating directly in the exploitation of natural resources near their communities.”

The increasing fantastical character of the aboriginal rights movement, epitomized by Idle No More, is the result of the influence of the ‘Aboriginal Industry’ – the group of lawyers and consultants who benefit financially from keeping aboriginal peoples in a state of segregated dependency. This industry has encouraged unrealistic hopes in the aboriginal population by fuelling resentment towards the “white man” and promising “compensation” for past wrongs.

Meanwhile, unrealizable demands for sovereignty, robust “aboriginal rights” and the quest for a “nation-to nation relationship” keeps aboriginal policy in a perpetual state of suspension, where never ending negotiations always result in more demands for legal clarification and “consultation”. The continuation of aboriginal deprivation that results from such obfuscation then justifies the need for the distribution of more government transfers.

While Mr. Simpson correctly argues that aboriginal marginalization cannot be addressed by greater autonomy or revitalizing “traditional ways,” more aboriginal participation in the exploitation of natural resources also will not be the panacea for aboriginal ills. The real target of aboriginal policy, after all, should be native youth, many of whom are victims of abuse, educational malpractice and fetal alcohol syndrome. How will the lives of this substantial segment of the population be improved by promoting participation in resource exploitation?

There are two opportunities that resource exploitation brings – employment and rentierism. Rentierism is the major preoccupation of aboriginal groups, because it results in infusions of cash into the pockets of the native elite and the Aboriginal Industry. Receiving resource rents also reinforces the aboriginal perception that they are the aristocratic “owners” of the land, not workers, and should be paid for its use. But cash transfers do not result in social development; they create a circulation economy where powerful community members and their associates compete to gain access to the rent circuit. This will provide trucks, drugs and gambling opportunities for native elites, and fees for hucksters of all kinds, but it will not improve education, health or housing on reserves.

Employment in resource industries will be beneficial for some aboriginal people, but it should be recognized that most Canadians do not earn their living in this sector. They are employed in the service industries, which require extensive education and social skills. These cultural prerequisites for modern employment are not being facilitated by the current circumstances in isolated aboriginal communities. Aboriginal peoples even have difficulties taking advantage of preferential hiring practices in the resource industries because native traditions do not prepare youth to work by the clock, to plan for the future, or to take instruction from others (especially from those who are not related to themselves).

Mr. Simpson’s liberal proposals, as well as conservative arguments for using aboriginal lands as “collateral” to start businesses, are almost as much of a “dream palace” as aboriginal sovereignty. Liberal and conservative commentators on aboriginal affairs assume that the market will solve aboriginal problems, when actual economic activity in most communities is impossible. Privatization also does not benefit people who are economically dependent and socially dysfunctional.

What liberals and conservatives do not want to face is the amount of government intervention that is necessary to actually address aboriginal deprivation. Providing the intensive services needed to bring education, health and housing levels up to the Canadian average will require a well thought out strategy and more resources being provided to aboriginal communities. The expense that this will entail is alarming to right-wing governments, which are intent on cutting taxes, shrinking government, and running their affairs like a business.

Recognizing that additional resources are required to solve aboriginal problems does not mean writing larger cheques to aboriginal leaders. Most of these leaders have little interest in improving the lives of the marginalized; their concern is gaining control over government funds, which results in unqualified friends and relatives “delivering” low quality services. Untold millions are also provided to lawyers and consultants in the Aboriginal Industry to perpetuate grievances and justify a return to a romanticized past.

The resources that are required in aboriginal communities consist of the human assistance that will aid the transition from pre-literate tribal subsistence to actual participation in Canadian society. This should come not in the form of transfers, but in high quality services provided by the Canadian government. Increased numbers of specially trained teachers are desperately needed, as well as medical personnel and housing construction initiatives.

Aboriginal deprivation is one of the most serious problems in Canada today. Unfortunately, a realistic assessment of the causes of this problem has been stalled by the aggressive tone and feigned righteousness of aboriginal leaders and their Aboriginal Industry “helpers”. Mr. Simpson has done a great service by exposing the wishful thinking behind these initiatives. It would be a pity to allow his own “dream palace” to obscure the real challenges that remain in addressing aboriginal deprivation.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/a-dream-palace-built-on-gas-and-gold-wont-solve-aboriginal...

[puckstopshere]

GlobeDebate: 20 views on Canada's first nations

These three articles are part of a series in the Globe And Mail.  Some are written by natives, some by non-natives.  They offer a number of different views on the aboriginal situation in Canada.

Well worth the read if you have the time.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/globedebate-20-views-on-canadas-first-nations/article73551...

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

A lot to read. Thankfully I had read some of it previously.

The thing I find about a lot of writers and legalities is they can, a majority of the time, be compacted into a very simple form. The First Nations situation in Canada (and some other countries) is for all purposes easy to understand. I often compare it to a court case where you have the complainant and the defendant. As the case proceeds little details are brought into the fray and then each detail is dealt with repeatedly. These details are meant to divert and confuse, they are nothing more than a parlour game. An example would be that this tribe did this and another tribe did that. There are about 600 tribes in Canada, to speak of two, three or whatever does not even show up on the scale.

The bottom line is:

a)      The First Nations people are recognized as the owners of this land.

b)      There are treaties and agreements in effect and they cannot be broken.

Those who want more land and want more resources wish to change these agreements and at times in the past have just done it out of pure..... greed. The First Nations people and their supporters have had enough.

The one mistake that the First Nations people made long ago is allowing the government of Canada to hand out the money due to the Native people from the Crown. Now the government and the fanatics and racists and bigots in Canada are asking …..”are you using your money properly”? Technically………..it’s not the business of the government or the other people. The money coming to the Native people is theirs through treaty. It would be like a white person renting an apartment or a house and the rent they give the landlord they suddenly start asking “are you using the money I give you the way I would like you to use it”? Do you know what you would say?………..”it’s none of your business”.

With regards to the money the Native people are not getting near what is rightfully theirs. Land is being used without compensation and land where there is compensation the government is not giving them near what they would give their own people in the same circumstances.

Technically, the First Nations people could shut down Canada’s major economy rather easily. Of course who would be blamed?……the Native people of course….the landlords. Many people in Canada would not blame the government because they belong to the same herd. They would ignore the repeatedly broken agreements with the landlords and they would ignore the countless thefts from the landlord and they would ignore the terrorism that was inflicted on the landlords. Would these people want to be treated the same way if the same situations happened to them? No, of course not. However the herd complex and of course humankind’s major weakness that we can never seem to exorcise from our DNA …….greed…..always seems to control them. I refer to it as ‘the original sin’…..which if someone is a Christian and remembers that little incident in the Garden of Eden…..it was humankinds first sin. Nothing seems to have changed. When will people ever learn? I only mention this because a majority of people who dislike Native people and seem to want to break the treaties are…..Christian. Some openly profess to be while others…..well lets just say when the day comes and they are about to take in their final breath on this mortal plane….we know who they will be praying to. What I have often found with most ‘Christ’ians…..is they are not very Christ like.

''A king may move a man, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.''