Hunger Strikes are Terrorism and Other Racist Bullshit: A Brief Primer on Aboriginal Affairs in Canada
There’s nothing like some Injuns getting uppity and demanding political rights, etc., to draw out the kooky, paranoid racism from their fellow Canadians, including those who write about politics for a living. To wit, I give you Postmedia’s version of General George Custer, Christie Blatchford:
Already, there is much talk of smudging ceremonies, tobacco offerings, the inherent aboriginal love for and superior understanding of the land, and treaties that were expected to be in place “as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the river flows”… It is tempting to see the action as one of intimidation, if not terrorism: She is, after all, holding the state hostage to vaguely articulated demands.
Yes, you read it at Postmedia first: Attawapiskat chief Theresa Spence might be a terrorist! Hunger strikes are like hostage-taking!
As I write these words, Attawapiskat chief Theresa Spence is starving to death in Ottawa. Her hunger strike was sparked by a year’s frustration and resentment after the Harper government attempted to impose a third-party dictatorship in place of the duly elected government of her band last winter, and since then refused to grant her a meeting with Stephen Harper to discuss her people’s admittedly desperate poverty. We’re a couple of weeks into that hunger strike now, and Stephen Harper is presently testing the theory that one more dead Indian won’t make much of a difference in this country. Not enough of a difference, in any case, that he ought to take a few hours out of his very busy schedule to meet with her, duly elected prime minister to duly elected chief.
Even Blatchford seems to realize that Harper’s theory is wrong here. She closes with a comparison to the Irish hunger strikes of 1981 — which resulted in the deaths of the men involved, a wave of Irish republican terrorism, a corresponding wave of British military suppression, a near-successful assassination attempt against the British Prime Minister, and the rise of Sinn Fein. That was the result of another rather headstrong right-wing prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. Food for thought.
Incidentally, the phrase “as long as the sun shines and the river flows” isn’t simply a latter-day aboriginal myth about how long “treaties were expected to be in place.” It’s an official statement, informing First Nations how long the treaties would be in place. These words are spoken in the context of, and included within, treaty agreements. I might just as easily say “it’s only the Constitution. It’s unrealistic to expect we’d follow the letter of such an old document in modern times.”
Maybe it’s time for a quick primer on aboriginal affairs. What follows is, basically, current legal fact. I’m sorry if you don’t agree with it, but it doesn’t rely on your agreement or disagreement. It’s what is written in treaties and upheld in courts.
First, all First Nations have had pre-existing sovereignty recognized by the courts and their current status is recognized in the Canadian Constitution. It’s become a commonplace statement from the right that aboriginality is racist in and of itself, and that the sooner off we can abolish separate status for First Nations, the better off everyone will be. It’s a point worth taking very seriously, and I’ll come back to it in a moment, but the first thing to realize is that before the courts and under the Constitution, First Nations really do exist.
Whether you think this is “racist” is really up to you. But before you come to a conclusion, I would urge you to think about your own status. Is it wrong, say, for the Chinese government to send into Canada Chinese workers for its newly acquired Canadian corporations? Should such temporary foreign workers promptly, upon their arrival, be given all the rights and privileges we enjoy, purely by virtue of them being present here? If you don’t think so, if you believe that citizenship is an exclusive category to which only properly screened immigrants and refugees might gain access, then by your own language, you would also be a racist. Statistically, only a small minority of my readers have actually immigrated to Canada. Like me, most of you acquired your citizenship purely by birth, and you probably also believe that certain special rights and privileges should be granted to other people purely by virtue of their birth, too.
Now, it’s another commonplace myth that there are no “real Indians” anymore — they eat pizza, drive trucks, and don’t have “pure blood.” This is irrelevant for the same reason that it’s irrelevant what “blood” new Canadians have. If the band recognizes them as members, and especially if the Canadian government agrees with that recognition, then they’re members, for the same reason that people get to be “Canadian” regardless of where they were born or what their skin colour is or what’s in their driveway, so long as they follow the appropriate legal process for gaining membership in our national community.
It also follows from the above that, since aboriginal peoples had pre-existing sovereignty over the land, that sovereignty must be extinguished and the land formally ceded to the government of Canada by means of treaties. That’s not their law, or a made-up modern myth: it’s our law. In the Western legal tradition, cession must occur either by formal agreement or by military conquest. Conquest didn’t happen in Canada, and it has been a war crime since 1945, so that option’s out. The only alternative is treaty. This principle was established as legal precedent in Canada by the British after the Seven Years’ War, and it has at least in theory applied ever since.
To that end, and leaving aside some fairly huge additional complications, there are basically two types of First Nations in Canada: ones that have ceded their territory to Canada by means of a treaty, and ones who have not done so. In the latter case, which covers most of British Columbia, for instance, technically “Canadian” society is an extra-legal occupation of aboriginal land. Of course, recognizing this, the First Nations have little incentive to settle for relatively low compensation (the way bands on the Plains did), and the federal government has little incentive to agree to high compensation now, as opposed to kicking the can down the road. As a result, the treaty process is basically a quagmire.
In Ontario and on the Prairies, though, land treaties were signed. The Attawapiskat Cree’s relationship with the Crown was laid out in Treaty Nine. That treaty states, among other things, that in exchange for surrendering all lands, the “Indians” will have continuing hunting, trapping, and fishing rights; that they will have reserves equal in size to 128 acres per capita; that they get $4 each per year in perpetuity; and that the cost of all aboriginal education will be covered by the government. There is no promise to provide healthcare in the written text of the treaty, but it was probably guaranteed verbally, and in any event by the time Treaty Nine was signed the federal government had already agreed to cover the medical costs of all aboriginal people living on reserves as a matter of course.
So there you have it. You can’t abolish reserves, or aboriginal welfare programs, unilaterally and without their consent. I’m sorry. It’s out of my hands, and it’s out of your hands. Now, you may feel — as I do — that we should abolish the Indian Act, shut down the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, get rid of reserves, and do any number of other things, and that as long as things like reserves and the Indian Act and Aboriginal Affairs persist in their present form, aboriginal peoples can never be truly free and their status will always be in some sense colonial as a result.
But none of those things can be done unilaterally. Ironically, the people presently braying that we get rid of the Indian Act and “make the Indians” modernize are doing exactly the same thing as the people who passed the Indian Act in the first place: saying that we know what’s best for aboriginal people in this country, and we’re going to provide it for them, whether they want it or not.
No. The way forward is through negotiation and compromise. It will be long, it will be painful, and there will have to be concessions on both sides.
It’s strange to find that the conservatives are my enemies in this. Usually, they insist that big government is never the answer, that people should be allowed to decide for themselves rather than having their choices dictated to them by the state, and that this country upholds the rule of law and the importance of tradition rather than strictly doing what seems expedient in the moment.
Except, apparently, when it comes to aboriginal affairs.
Tweet
Troy
People are always sayin, we need to abolish the Indian Act. Do away with it. Get rid of it.
But, when people say that, it can mean different things depending on who’s saying it.
When it’s an Indian hater like Bletchford saying it, they’re really saying they want for the government to do away with “Indian privileges”, whatever that is. Considering First Nations have been suffering under a century long austerity, it’s a bit rich to suggest First Nations have any privileges. Just treaty rights that haven’t been honored (and my own people don’t have a treaty with the government, either, Technically, I’m not a Canadian nor US citizen).
When someone like Atleo says it, he’s really saying he wants for the current relationship between the Canadian government and First Nations to change. He wants for the Canadian government and provinces to sit down with First Nations and hammer it all out so that a system can be designed that’ll work. A Meech Lake Accord, but with First Nations also sitting at the table.
But I say, that’s way too idealistic. It’ll be up to First Nations, in the end, to render the Indian Act irrelevant. First Nations will have to fight for their own destiny, because that’s how it’s always been.
harebell
Terrorism is another word like anti-Semetism that is losing all its meaning
Whenever I hear a right winger using either of those words I know it is an attempt to stifle dissent and prevent discussion of a topic. The idiot Kent over the pipeline inquiry, any Harper party puppet on Israel etc.
Blatchford, a woman who has fought for nothing, criticises other women who do using half truths. | voice from the pack
[...] 6th sense Share this:PrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]
Kim
Thank you for the Primer. Well said.
I wrote an open letter to the Queen yesterday…shameless plug alert.
http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2012/12/28/a-crisis-in-canada-an-open-letter-to-her-majesty-queen-elizabeth-the-second/
the salamander horde
Our current government struggles with the deep & troubling concept of a wild salmon fishery, fresh flowing waters, clean air.. caribou habitat that is not stamped on a 25 cent piece of silver.. aging pensioners, wolves and Israel..
There also seems to be ministerial confusion or off planet conceptions about dinosaurs walking with men.. presumably before women were hatched or created in time to be confronted by an immaculate nasty snake in an olive tree.. and a shameful dude named Adam.
Thankfully we have Jason Kenney to give us the official religious stance of Canada and The Harper Party Government of Canada and the heathen Territories. I don’t recall that being part of his job description at Immigration.. but whatever..
Let’s face it Sixth .. as ordinary citizens of Canada, we have ZERO say or input on how Canada’s resources are ripped and stripped and delivered to China. As Flaherty said ‘we have no skin in the game’. Thus on matters of environment we should go sit in the corner.
But the First Nations do have a say.. a right… and that just gets Stephen Harper, Flanagan, Manning’s carpet bagger racist anger flowing. I doubt Stephen Harper could read or comprehend Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee. That would be like a vampire embracing a sharp wooden stake with an embedded crucifix and a Bushmaster clip of silver bullets.
Substitute the flowing blonde locks of George Custer, hair weave Harper is storming a grassy boreal knoll with his jowly Minister cavalry to extinguish and silence whomever is on the other side.
Oops .. its approx 70% of the population of Canada and 100% of the First Nations.. and the rest of the world is watching via Youtube, Twitter as you clatter over the crest, pull up stunned and ask Peter Mackay to order up a helicopter for your immediate hasty withdrawal needs.
Mark Warburton
What amazes me about Harper and his henchman is their total lack of compassion for all Canadian citizens. I saw him interviewed on Global two days before Christmas where he talked about his family plans for the holidays at home in Calgary and later at Meech Lake. He even made reference to his Faith and suggested that he prays for guidance in matters of the country. He later offered a Happy Holiday wish to the Global family and that was the extent of it. No mention of Canadians and certainly not the family of Chief Spence. Which brings me to my point. What possible fall out could he have suffered if he went with some of his family and pleaded with the Citef go home for Christmas with her family and a promise to resume some kind of dialogue as tthe “Great White Father” is supposed to do. As for that Git The Governor General, well he represents nothing except partisan bull shit
Sixth Estate
I think you’re wrong there. Harper did make a statement, via Twitter, on December 21:
“Mm… bacon.”
https://twitter.com/pmharper
Sandy
I’ve spent the morning fuming about Christie Blanchford’s piece. You’ve provided a brilliant rebuttal. Thanks.
Martin
I saw a Christie Blatchford piece (not sure it was the same one) yesterday on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen. It’s disappointing that her racist and ignorant opinion piece constituted front-page “news” in the national capital.
Holly Stick
Good post, though I think you are wrong about closing down the reserves. Tossing the people who do live on reserves out of their home would do more harm than good, and I doubt that most First Nations would ever accept the idea. Reform reserve governance, yes, throw the land open to outside profiteers, no.
But you are quite correct about the Government of Canada having no right to opt out of the treaties.
Julie
Harper has no right, to even live in this country, let alone govern us. Harper is giving this country to, Communist China. Harper is a traitor. Canadians do not like, Fascists, Communists nor Dictators. None of them are welcomed by true Canadians.
We forced the F.N. people onto reserves. We took their children away from them. We forced their children in those evil Residential Schools. Those kids were denied, their language, culture and beliefs. Those kids were physically abused, emotionally abused, sexually abused and even murdered. Those kids had to cope with PTSD. I would drink and do drugs too, if I was forced to endure, what those kids endured.
The F.N. sent their sons to war, right along side our own sons. The Canadian government, didn’t even recognize the F.N. for their service to a country, that treated them like dirt , and still does.
The F.N. have been cheated out of their, natural resources on their lands. They are still cheated out of jobs, on their own damned land. In BC. China went to court, to take all of the mining jobs in BC. Harper has permitted Red China to sue any Canadians, blocking China’s takeover of Canada.
It would be wonderful, if the F.N. could mix in with the rest of us. But they can’t. They are the last to be hired for any jobs. How would their kids be treated in our schools? I don’t doubt for a minute, they would be bullied.
Harper has lead Canada into, shame and disgrace. Instead of offering the F.N. a hand in friendship? We offer them, our hand in hate.
Sixth Estate
Martin — It probably was. They get circulated.
Holly — Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t for a moment advocate “tossing people out of their homes” — just the opposite. I said that the way forward had to be through negotiation and reconciliation.
But at the same time, reserves as they now exist are an archaic relic of a colonial institution. The purpose of the reserve wasn’t to give First Nations control over a piece of land — it was to give governments control over them on that land. I think the basis on which they have control over their land should be reformed and strengthened.
The current legal reforms by the government unfortunately go in the opposite direction, making it easier to take control of land away from First Nations, and I will be writing about that shortly.
Holly Stick
Well I think the reserves are home to them, even though many FN people live away from the reserves these days. I grew up on a farm and have lived in a city more than half my life, but I still feel cut off from my real home.
Sixth Estate
The reserves are home to a lot of people. Which is why it seems a little bit screwy to me that the federal government still claims to have so much legal power over how reserves are run. The current amendments to the Indian Act to make it easier to alienate land from reserves are a good example of that.
There are, incredibly, some prominent people who still believe that Native people can be subjected to anything up to and including forced relocation if the settler majority wants it, if the new Toronto Sun position is any indication:
“Perhaps it’s time pack up both Attawapiskat and Kashechewan, and raze both communities on the way out.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/24/time-to-break-first-nations-cycle-of-misery
Holly Stick
Well they have an ideological bent against the idea of communally-owned land; but that is a part of how Canada’s land history developed, just like the divide between surface and sub-surface rights is. (as far as I can tell we invented that idea; US didn’t do it until 1916)
Holly Stick
I was just reading about how Frank Oliver kept trying to change the Indian Act so only a majority at a meeting was needed to alienate land, not a majority of the eligible voters of a band. Apparently Oliver did not succeed in getting that past the bureaucrats of the day, though he did pass other measures to make land surrenders easier to get.
Apparently that is one of the things C-45 does, make it so just a majority at a meeting can vote to alienate land.
http://www.tekanews.com/more-first-nations-news/
Sixth Estate
That is one of the things C-45 does, yes. I had planned to discuss it in a future post, since as usual the media has done an appalling job on this (“Aboriginal spokespeople say it weakens the surrender laws,” etc., etc., instead of actually telling us what the law says in plain language). Basically they are creating a new procedure under which consent can be given by a majority of people who cast a vote rather than a majority of band members period.
The move brings surrender votes basically into line with the way democracy is practiced at other occasions in Canada, but to me, the most disturbing part about it is that once again we have done it without consultation. As I tried to point out, my position is that any such moves must be led by First Nations people themselves, or they shouldn’t happen at all. In this case, they are simply being dictated to First Nations by the colonial government. Again.