Truth and Reconciliation: Binding a seeping wound

Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) gets underway later this month.

I can barely bring myself to write about it, but feel I must. We all must face this horrible past that has such a profound impact on our present and will continue to affect us into the future if we don't put honest words to it.

The TRC has been set-up to create an accurate historical account of the residential school experience and to allow a period of healing to begin.

But I can't help but wonder if anything has really changed since the last residential school closed in the mid-90s.

This afternoon, I drove down Gottigen Street to Cornwallis -- the street named after our hero, General Cornwallis, the man who offered a bounty on Mi'maq scalps and the man who issued smallpox infested blankets to the few who remained. I wondered why we haven't changed the name of that street. I wondered why we haven't removed his statue. It couldn't be because we don't really care, could it?

It gave me pause to contemplate, in complete wonderment, the tenacity and enduring strength of First Nations Peoples to have survived so much evil -- purposeful starvation, degradation, overwhelming loss, murder, hate and so much more.

Nearly every time I attempt to discuss such issues with others of my race, I am met by such staggering ignorance that I often retreat -- too overcome by the task of informing the uninformed. Because the history leading up to today is vast and complex.

I hear statements like: "I don't mind helping those who have been hurt by the residential school system, but the others? They need to quit complaining and shape up." Those who haven't been hurt? Who can't have been damaged by that system?

An estimated 80,000 children went through the IRS system. Some estimates claim that as many as 50 per cent of these children died or were murdered. Ninety per cent of legal claims cite physical and/or sexual abuse.

I can't begin to comprehend such horror.

And others can't bother to begin to contemplate it.

I have pondered at length about what to write about the Commission. Words fill my head in volumes, but here I sit knowing that nothing can articulate the suffering that has been caused and that continues.

Instead of many words, what I will offer is my respect to the many individuals and tribes who have survived to tell their tales. You and your ancestors have prevailed. The truth will be heard. You will live on.

Colleen

Webcast: Native American traditions

Native American traditions and the climactic struggles between Native Americans and the white man in the American West.

INTERACTIVE WEBCAST NOVEMBER 29, 2007, 8:30 a.m.

www.cpcwebcast.com/state

US Consulate General Vancouver invites you to join a webcast November 29, 2007, to hear and interact with speakers:

Dennis Zotigh, nationally renowned Native American storyteller, author of “Moving History: The Evolution of the Powwow” and Native American Research Historian from the Museum of the American Indian and

Peter Cozzens, U.S. State Department IIP/WHA Office Director and author of definitive five volume work on the Indian Wars of the American West.

Hope you tune in,
Colleen

Indigenous Land Rights Pt IV

III. FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS REGARDING INDIGENOUS LAND RIGHTS (Cont)

C. Failure to demarcate

"... the greatest single problem today for indigenous peoples is the failure of States to demarcate indigenous lands... Purely abstract or legal recognition of indigenous lands, territories or resources can be practically meaningless unless the physical identity of the property is determined and marked.

"Where such laws [demarcation enforcement laws] are lacking or weak, problems arise because, not having demarcated indigenous land,the State cannot identify what is indigenous land and what is not. As a result there are conflicts with indigenous communities.

"An important case now before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights raises the
issues of States’ obligations to recognize and respect the lands, resources and territories of indigenous peoples, and States’ obligations to demarcate those lands and territories. The case is that of the Mayagna indigenous community of Awas Tingni against Nicaragua...

"The case before the Court asserts, among other things, that Nicaragua has a legal obligation to demarcate and respect the traditional lands of Awas Tingni by reason of article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights (“Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property ...”) and article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides: “In those States where ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.” Nicaragua is a party to both the Convention and the Covenant. It is argued, with considerable authority, that traditional indigenous land tenure systems and patterns of land use are an aspect of culture that is protected by article 27 of the Covenant. This case is the first to raise indigenous land rights issues and the obligations of States to respect these rights. The decision of the Inter-American Court may have a far-reaching impact in determining the present scope of international legal obligations to respect and demarcate indigenous lands and resources under the American Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

D. Failure of States to enforce or implement laws protecting indigenous lands

"Some of the most grave situations, such as the massive invasion of Yanomami lands in
Brazil and the resulting deaths of thousands of Yanomami Indians, came about in large part because of the State’s failure to enforce existing laws. Even after demarcation of the Yanomami territory, the Government of Brazil has not devoted the resources necessary to prevent the illegal invasion of thousands of gold miners. Gold miners have recently been responsible in part for the unprecedented fires that have burned extensively within the Yanomami territory, destroying vast areas of forest and food crops. The fires caused widespread outbreaks of disease that resulted in the deaths of more than 100 Yanomami in 1998. In other situations, indigenous peoples find they cannot protect their rights to lands and resources because they do not have effective recourse to the courts or other legal remedies. In the worst situations, violence, intimidation and corruption prevent effective legal action by or on behalf of indigenous peoples. This was reported, for example, concerning efforts by Macuxi Indian communities in Brazil to protect their lands.

"As with other human rights, the poverty, geographical remoteness and cultural and linguistic differences of indigenous peoples create severe impediments to the protection of their land, territorial and resource rights."

E. Problems in regard to land claims and return of lands

"The long and painful history of the unjust and inhuman dispossession of indigenous peoples from their territories has resulted in many indigenous peoples having no land or resources or too little land and resources to sustain their communities and their cultures.

"A particular problem that has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission is the use or misuse of claim procedures to deprive indigenous peoples of their rights or their claimed rights to land and resources. Numerous such problems have been reported by indigenous peoples in many countries. The problems may be summarized as follows: in some cases, an unauthorized or mistaken claim is made to a court or administrative body that the State has taken or paid an unfairly low price for an area of land originally owned by an indigenous people, whereas in fact the land has not been taken but is still owned by the indigenous people. In other cases, the land has been taken but the indigenous
people concerned does not want compensation but return of the land. Fraudulent or mistaken claims are sometimes, in effect, encouraged by legal provisions that permit a lawyer to earn a fee of as much as 10 per cent of the money award recovered. When such claims are taken to conclusion and an award of compensation is made, the payment of the award effectively extinguishes the indigenous title to the land in question. This has occurred even in situations where the Indian nation or tribe is still in possession of the land. Thus, these 'claims' processes are depriving Indians of their lands.

"The problems created by fraudulent and improper claims are aggravated by the lack of
proper legal procedures in the claim process. Processes such as that of the now defunct Indian Claims Commission in the United States did not ensure that claimants had proper authority to act for the tribe concerned. Procedures did not give the tribes concerned proper notice or an opportunity to be heard. The above-mentioned Commission in more than one case permitted lawyers to act in direct opposition to their supposed or nominal client tribes and even permitted lawyers to carry on money compensation claims after the claimant tribes had dismissed the lawyers in an effort to stop the claims.

"Although the Indian Claims Commission no longer exists, the cases that it handled and the problems it created continue. Some notable cases that remain unresolved are the Black Hills claim (in which the Sioux tribes have refused to accept the compensation awarded and seek a return of portions of the land) and the Western Shoshone case (in which the Western Shoshone tribes also refuse payment and seek a restoration of some of the land). In the latter case, some Western Shoshones have remained in possession of certain areas of the land supposedly taken by the United States and are resisting government efforts to interfere with their use of the land. The extensive and disruptive problems relating to the Indian Claims Commission have been given scholarly attention. These problems have also been the subject of complaints to the
United Nations and other bodies.

"Many of the problems discussed in the preceding paragraphs have been raised in a formal human rights complaint filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States by two Western Shoshone Indian women on behalf of their Band. They assert that they are and have always been in possession of parts of the territory of the Western Shoshone Nation, an area recognized by the United States in the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863. They use the land for ranching, for religious purposes, for hunting and gathering, and other purposes. The United States claims that it now owns nearly all the land at
issue and that the Western Shoshone rights to the land were extinguished by the Indian Claims Commission process more than 15 years ago. The United States claims that these Western Shoshones are trespassing on the land, and the United States has taken various measures to
remove them and their livestock. In recent years, the discovery of one of the largest gold ore bodies in North America on this land has led to even greater pressure on these Western Shoshone people, who oppose open-pit gold mining.

"The complaint asserts that the United States has never lawfully extinguished the Western Shoshone title and that the Indian Claims Commission process was discriminatory and lacking in due process of law. The principal allegations are summarized as follows.

• It is alleged that the attorneys prosecuting the claim falsely stated and agreed that the land had been taken and Western Shoshone title extinguished long ago, when in fact it had not.
• The lawyers were permitted by the Commission to represent all Western Shoshones when in fact they did not.
• The Commission refused to permit any other Western Shoshone tribe or group to object or to be heard in the proceeding.
• The Commission entered its award, although by then not a single Western Shoshone tribe approved of the claim.
• The United States Government encouraged and participated in the proceedings throughout.
• The Claims Commission award amounted to about $0.15 per acre for the land supposedly taken.
• The United States asserts that the complaint is inadmissible on various procedural grounds and on the ground that the facts do not constitute human rights violations.
• The Inter-American Commission issued precautionary measures against the United States, requesting that the Government stay its actions against the complainants pending a full investigation of the case by the Commission. Later that same year, the Inter-American Commission declared the Danns’ case admissible, finding that the Danns had
  met all procedural requirements and had raised a prima facie violation of their human rights.

"It is apparent from the proceedings in this matter that the United States has ostensibly extinguished the rights of Western Shoshone Indians to a large area of their ancestral land without according the ordinary rights of due process of law and fair market compensation that
would have been accorded to non-Indian landowners. This is the more notable because the land at issue had been recognized as Western Shoshone land by the United States in a treaty it signed with the Western Shoshones in 1863. The Indian Claims Commission process appears to have been lacking in fundamental fairness in many respects, particularly the failure to assure proper representation of the supposed claimants, the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard for other Western Shoshone parties, the failure to require proof of the supposed taking of the land, and the award of just a few cents per acre for the land at issue. The Claims Commission process in this case, and reportedly in other cases as well, appears to violate the fundamental requirements of non-discrimination and equality before the law. In all events, this case seems to demonstrate that for any claim process to be effective in resolving indigenous land rights issues it must be fundamentally fair.

"The central legal problem in this case appears to be the doctrine, which has been discussed above... that the State can extinguish Indian or indigenous land rights without due process of law and without fair market compensation. This frankly discriminatory doctrine should be rejected by the United States, and by all countries where it is found, as a violation of existing human rights standards requiring equality before the law.

"There have also been complaints about land claim mechanisms in other countries. In
Canada, the process has been reported to be extremely time consuming. In New Zealand, anger has been expressed over allegedly unauthorized settlements of claims. In Australia, the provisions of the 1993 Native Title Act were drastically changed in 1998 to make native title claims significantly more difficult, particularly by providing a substantially higher threshold test for the registration of claims. These provisions have been found racially discriminatory."

F. Expropriation of indigenous lands for national interests, including development

"The legacy of colonialism is probably most acute in the area of expropriation of indigenous lands, territories and resources for national economic and development interests. In every part of the globe, indigenous peoples are being impeded from proceeding with their own forms of development consistent with their own values, perspectives and interests.

The notion of development can be linked directly to the affirmation of “permanent sovereignty over natural resources” and the rights of States to “freely utilize and exploit” their natural resources. Of particular relevance in this context is the State assertion that it has complete rights to subsurface resources. This view has had numerous unfortunate social, economic,
environmental and cultural consequences. This is especially true in the case of the world’s indigenous peoples, who have until recently perceived development as a very negative concept. Much large-scale economic and industrial development has taken place without recognition of and respect for indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories and resources. Economic development has been largely imposed from outside, with complete disregard for the right of indigenous peoples to participate in the control, implementation and benefits of development.

"For years, non-governmental organizations have been saying that indigenous peoples have been deprived of much or all of their land and that it has been turned over to commercial use or for development projects. In addition, development projects designed to benefit or which affect indigenous peoples have been carried out without the peoples concerned being consulted.

"The Working Group on Indigenous Populations has also been informed of development projects and activities that were initiated with international assistance and without the involvement, consent or consultation of indigenous peoples. Examples include State initiatives to build roads and highways with the financial assistance of the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Bank’s support for the building of dams in India and elsewhere. Other projects include the construction of dams that flood lands and terminate traditional economic practices of indigenous peoples, deforestation and gold-mining projects. National economic development schemes not only dispossess indigenous peoples of their lands, but also convert indigenous peoples into cheap labourers for industry, because the exploitation of their lands and the environmental degradation have deprived them of their livelihood.

"Even in areas where economic development has resulted in the transfer of lands to
indigenous communities, they have been unable fully to control such development. Specific examples include the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975.

Oil and gas exploration and exploitation, geothermal energy development, mining, dam
construction, logging, agriculture, ranching and other forms of economic activity ostensibly in the national interest have had an adverse impact both on indigenous peoples who have already suffered from contact and colonialism, and on indigenous peoples in areas long isolated.
Often, development takes place without indigenous peoples’ consent, consultation, participation or benefit.

To be continued...

Colleen

Indigenous Land Rights Pt III

Notes from the third section of the U.N. report: PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND MINORITIES.

Because this is a particularly long and important section, I will break it down over two or three days.

____________________________


III. FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS REGARDING INDIGENOUS LAND RIGHTS

A.) Failure of States to acknowledge indigenous rights to lands, territories and resources

• This most fundamental and widespread problem is divided into two parts: the failure of States to recognize the existence of indigenous use, occupancy and ownership, and the failure of States to accord appropriate legal status, juridical capacity and other legal rights in connection with indigenous peoples’ ownership of land.

1. Failure of States to recognize the existence of indigenous use, occupancy and ownership

"Countries in many parts of the world are unaware of or ignore the fact that communities, tribes or nations of indigenous peoples inhabit and use areas of land and sea and have done so, in many cases, since time immemorial. These areas are typically far from the capitals and other urban areas of the country and typically countries regard these lands and resources as public or government lands. Although the indigenous people concerned regard themselves, with good reason, as owning the land and resources they occupy and use, the country itself, typically, disposes of the land and resources as if the indigenous people were not there. These
governmental tendencies are further exacerbated in federations such as Canada and the United States, where state/provincial and even municipal governments sometimes pursue such actions, either in coordination with the central or national Government, or independently and in pursuit of their own policy.


2. Failure of States to accord appropriate legal status, appropriate juridical capacity and other legal rights

"This problem is closely related to the one discussed above. Although States know that indigenous communities, nations or groups exist and have exclusive use and occupancy of an area, some States do not acknowledge that the indigenous peoples concerned have legal entitlement or rights to the land or resources. In some situations, the indigenous peoples are regarded as using the public or national lands at the sufferance of the Government.


"The concept of aboriginal title and the relationship of this legal concept to the human rights of indigenous peoples is centrally important. In many countries, particularly those of the British Commonwealth, exclusive use and occupancy of land from time immemorial gives rise to aboriginal title, a title that is good against all but the Sovereign, that is, the Government of the State. Where aboriginal title is recognized, indigenous peoples have at least some legal right that can be asserted in the domestic legal system. However, aboriginal title is often subject to the illegitimate assumption of State power to extinguish such title, in contrast to the legal protection and rights that, in most countries, protect the land and property of non-indigenous citizens, their individuals and corporations ... This single fact probably accounts for the overwhelming majority of human rights problems affecting indigenous peoples.


B.) Discriminatory laws and policies affecting indigenous peoples in relation to their lands

• "In those States that have developed a body of positive law and a body of jurisprudence in regard to indigenous peoples... the most significant problems appear to arise because of persistent discriminatory laws and legal doctrines that are applied to indigenous peoples and their lands and resources.

1. Laws regarding the extinguishment of indigenous peoples’ land and resource rights

Practically all countries where indigenous peoples live assert the power to “extinguish” the land titles and rights of the indigenous peoples within their borders, without the consent of the indigenous peoples. The concept of extinguishment includes voluntary purchase and sale of title, but more commonly the term “extinguishment” is used to mean outright taking or expropriation, most often without just compensation. Like the concept of aboriginal title, extinguishment is a term that came into prominent use during the colonial period.

"One particularly clear example of the problem of extinguishment is provided by the case of the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States. In this case the Supreme Court decided that the United States may (with limited exceptions) take or confiscate the land or property of an Indian tribe without due process of law and without paying just compensation, this despite the fact that the United States Constitution explicitly provides that the Government may not take property without due process of law and just compensation. The Supreme Court found that property held by aboriginal title, as most Indian land is, is not entitled to the constitutional protection that is accorded all other property. The racially discriminatory nature of the Tee-Hit-Ton decision can be seen in the opinion, an extract of which follows:

“No case in this court has ever held that taking of Indian title or use by Congress required compensation. The American people have compassion for the descendants of those Indians who were deprived of their homes and hunting grounds by the drive of civilization. They seek to have the Indians share the benefits of our society as citizens of this Nation. Generous provision has been willingly made to allow tribes to recover for wrongs, as a matter of grace, not because of legal liability.

“'... Every American schoolboy knows that the savage tribes of this
continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that, even
when the Indians ceded millions of acres by treaty in return for blankets,
food and trinkets, it was not a sale but the conquerors’ will that deprived
them of their land.'”

"The legal doctrine created by this case continues to be the governing law on this matter in the United States today."


"[Canada's] Constitution Act of 1982, section 35 (1), recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights. By reason of the Constitution Act of 1982, courts in Canada no longer acknowledge government power to “extinguish” aboriginal rights. Instead, the courts have decided that aboriginal rights, including aboriginal land title, are not absolute but may be “infringed” by the federal or provincial governments when the infringement is “justified” by the needs of the larger society. In a recent case, Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote: 'In my opinion, the development of agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds of objectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify the infringement of aboriginal title.' (Delgamuukw v. The Queen, paragraph 165 of the Chief Justice’s opinion, unpublished decision, 11 December 1997). It remains unclear whether this new requirement of “justification” will in fact provide greater protection to indigenous land rights than previous law... [I]t also remains doubtful whether the law accords an equal, non-discriminatory level of legal protection to indigenous property rights as compared to the property rights of others.

2. Plenary power doctrine

Another discriminatory legal doctrine that appears to be widespread is the doctrine that States have practically unlimited power to control or regulate the use of indigenous lands, without regard for constitutional limits on governmental power that would otherwise be applicable. In the United States, this is known as the “plenary power doctrine” and it holds that the United States Congress may exercise virtually unlimited power over indigenous nations and tribes and their property. No other population or group is subject to such limitless and potentially abusive governmental power.

3. Treaty abrogation and land rights

"... Treaties have been used, among other purposes, as mechanisms for gaining cessions of indigenous land and for ostensibly guaranteeing rights to the remaining lands held by the indigenous nation. The problem of discrimination arises when the State later abrogates or violates the treaty. In the typical case, the injured indigenous nation or tribe has no legal remedy against the State either in domestic law or under international law. The denial of any remedy under international law is inconsistent with the use of treaties as a legal mechanism and with the status of indigenous peoples as subjects of international law. Thus, indigenous peoples appear to be unique in being denied legal remedies for violation of their rights where the State abrogates or violates a treaty between the State and an indigenous nation, tribe or peoples. Certain States, including New Zealand and the United States, regard treaties as instruments of domestic law as well as international law and accordingly do not believe a remedy under international law is necessarily appropriate. The question, in such cases, remains whether a just remedy is provided for treaty violation or abrogation, and whether the use of the treaty mechanism in domestic law is non-discriminatory."

The next post will begin with the failure of States to demarcate indigenous lands.

This is all something to think about, yes?

Colleen

Indigenous Land Rights Pt II

In case anyone out there who thinks that discrimination towards Indigenous peoples or Eurocentrist beliefs which harm Native peoples are things of the past, please read on.

(Bullets and highlighting are mine added for ease of the reader.)

II. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND: IMPACT OF THE DOCTRINES OF DISPOSSESSION

"The gradual deterioration of indigenous societies can be traced to the non-recognition of the profound relationship that indigenous peoples have to their lands, territories and resources, as well as the lack of recognition of other fundamental human rights.

"The colonization of indigenous territories has affected indigenous peoples in a number of ways.

• Demographic deterioration occurred through maltreatment,enslavement, suicide, punishment for resistance, warfare, malnutrition due to destruction of the natural environment or over-exploitation of natural resources, disease and outright extermination. Rodolfo Stavenhagen states that “the entire population of the Americas decreased by 95 per cent in the century and a half following the first encounter”.
• The intent to convert indigenous peoples to Christianity and bring them under the “sovereignty” of foreign monarchs created widespread havoc, despite some early attempts at “friendly treatment”.
• With population decline came the destruction of the traditional social order, due to the efforts of missionaries and Western attitudes towards the divisions of labour and of gender, among other things.
• The introduction of the practice of attaching a monetary value to things and of buying and selling things previously considered non-merchantable, including land, added the stress of an economic environment quite opposite to the traditional economic order of most indigenous communities.
• These concepts were all alien to the collective social organization of indigenous communities.

"It is safe to say that the attitudes, doctrines and policies developed to justify the taking of lands from indigenous peoples were and continue to be largely driven by the economic agendas of States.

"In most situations, it was only through rationalization and military domination that colonizers secured “ownership” of the lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples. The territories of indigenous peoples in the Americas and elsewhere were taken through many means, but largely by military force. Where “just war” could not be waged, treaties sometimes were concluded. In regard to North America, Vine Deloria, Jr. wrote:

"Treaty-making was a feasible method of gaining a foothold on the continent
without alarming the natives. Treating with the Indians, then, brought an air of
civility and legitimacy to the white settlers’ relations with the Indians and
provoked no immediate retaliation by the tribes. Instead of the Indians being
subjected to bondage or their lands merely seized through the use of force,
which Spain eventually did, civility reigned in North America. Indian land and
the rights to live in certain areas were purchased at formal treaty sessions.”

"The doctrines of dispossession which emerged in the subsequent development of modern
international law, particularly terra nullius and “discovery”, have had well-known adverse effects on indigenous peoples. The doctrine of terra nullius as it is applied to indigenous peoples holds that indigenous lands are legally unoccupied until the arrival of a colonial presence, and can therefore become the property of the colonizing power through effective occupation. Strictly speaking, in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, the doctrine of “discovery” gave to a discovering State of lands previously unknown to it, an inchoate title that could be perfected through effective occupation within a reasonable time. The doctrine, as it has come to be applied by States with little or no support in international law, gives to the discovering colonial power free title to indigenous lands subject only to indigenous use and occupancy, sometimes referred to as aboriginal title. Only recently has the international community begun
to understand that such doctrines are illegitimate and racist."

Here's an example:

"The High Court of Australia in its 1992 decision in Mabo v. Queensland discussed the
legal and other effects of the doctrine of terra nullius. The Court denounced the doctrine by concluding that this “unjust and discriminatory doctrine ... can no longer be accepted”. This decision gave rise to the Native Title Act, adopted by the Government of Australia in 1993, which established a framework and mechanism by which Aboriginal peoples in Australia could secure land rights. However, Australian Aboriginal peoples have reported to the Working Group that they have great difficulties with the Act, and regard as unjust and ill-founded the State’s asserted authority, recognized in the Mabo decision, to extinguish indigenous land rights.

"To what extent the Government of Australia can continue to extinguish indigenous land title through legislation that discriminates against indigenous title is a matter of ongoing debate. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, on 18 March 1999, issued a decision finding that provisions in the 1998 Native Title Act Amendments extinguish or impair the exercise of indigenous title rights and interests and discriminate against native title holders (A/54/18, para. 21, decision 2 (54))... It demonstrates that Eurocentrist and discriminatory ideas continue to be evident in legal theory and action and that such attitudes in national legislation and court decisions may trap indigenous peoples in a legal discourse that does not embrace their distinct cultural values,beliefs, institutions or perspectives."

Tomorrow, I'll post excerpts from part III: FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS REGARDING INDIGENOUS LAND RIGHTS

Colleen

A good read for those interested in indigenous land rights...

Angelique Eaglewoman sent me this U.N. Report by Special Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes. It is on the relationship Indigenous People have to land.

It goes far beyond what many non-Indigenous people understand -- or think we understand -- this relationship to be. The difference in our cultures' connection to land is profound.

I hope you take the time to read through the following comments that I've pulled from the document. I will cover one chapter per day. I am also trying to find a link to the original that I can post here. In the meantime, here is a link to the UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.

All highlighting below is mine.
_________________________

PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION OF INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES AND MINORITIES (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21 11 June 2001)

"Reports and statements by indigenous peoples from all parts of the world delivered
during sessions of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and information received in
the preparation of the working paper have made it clear that land and resource issues,
particularly the dispossession of indigenous peoples from their lands, are issues of the most
urgent and fundamental nature. At the same time, there has been great concern on the part of
certain States, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals
that the recognition of the human rights of indigenous peoples would supposedly require that all
the lands and resources ever taken from indigenous peoples be returned...

"There are an enormous number of problems and issues relating to indigenous land rights,
so many that no study or paper could give them all full consideration within the time-frame
allowed for this initiative. Any attempt to deal with all of the land and resource issues would
necessarily be superficial and lengthy. The better course, adopted here, is to sort and organize
the multitude of issues into an analytical framework and to attempt to identify those issues or
problems which are the most fundamental or most severe and, of these, the most deserving of
attention in the search for means of alleviating the suffering and injustices endured by
indigenous peoples.

"What core values should guide our judgement in this work? First, the great human rights
principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenants on Human Rights, particularly the principles of equality and self-determination and
the prohibition of discrimination. In addition, we must be guided by the fundamental values and
interests that form the foundation of the draft United Nations declaration on the rights of
indigenous peoples: among others, the preservation and well-being of indigenous cultures and
communities, the elimination of poverty and deprivation among indigenous peoples, and the
great goals of equality before the law and justice for indigenous peoples and all peoples....


I. RELATIONSHIP OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO THEIR LANDS, TERRITORIES AND RESOURCES

"In order to understand the profound relationship that indigenous peoples have with their
lands, territories and resources, there is a need for recognition of the cultural differences that
exist between them and non-indigenous people, particularly in the countries in which they live...
"The relationship with the land and all living things is at the core of indigenous societies. For example, the land tenure system, known as Kipat, of the Limbu indigenous people of Nepal provides a means of belonging to a place and to a distinctive community - the one not separable from the other...

"Professor James Sakej Henderson attempts to illustrate this distinct relationship and
conceptual framework by stating that 'the Aboriginal vision of property was ecological space
that creates our consciousness, not an ideological construct or fungible resource ... Their vision
is of different realms enfolded into a sacred space ... It is fundamental to their identity,
personality and humanity ... [the] notion of self does not end with their flesh, but continues with
the reach of their senses into the land'. Such a relationship manifests itself in the elements of
indigenous peoples’ cultures, such as language. For example, an Inuit elder tried to articulate
this relationship by stating that 'our language contains an intricate knowledge of the Arctic that
we have seen no others demonstrate.'”

"Mr. Martínez Cobo [author of the Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations] states:

'It is essential to know and understand the deeply spiritual special relationship between indigenous peoples and their land as basic to their existence as such and to all their beliefs, customs, traditions and culture.

'For such peoples, the land is not merely a possession and a means of production. The entire relationship between the spiritual life of indigenous peoples and Mother Earth, and their land, has a great many deep-seated implications. Their land is not a commodity which can be acquired, but a material element to be enjoyed freely.'

"In summary, each of these examples underscores a number of elements that are unique to
indigenous peoples:

(i) a profound relationship exists between indigenous peoples and
their lands, territories and resources;

(ii) this relationship has various social, cultural, spiritual,
economic and political dimensions and responsibilities;

(iii) the collective dimension of this relationship is significant; and

(iv) the intergenerational aspect of such a relationship is also
crucial to indigenous peoples’ identity, survival and cultural viability.

"There may be additional elements relating to indigenous peoples and their relationship to their lands, territories and resources which have not been captured by these examples."

It really makes you think about the impacts of taking land, doesn't it?

I'll highlight the second section next: HISTORY AND BACKGROUND: IMPACT OF THE DOCTRINES OF DISPOSSESSION.

Colleen

Canada's first Indigenous Lieutenant Governor

I must apologize for neglecting this blog as I have done over the past month. Deadlines of many sorts are upon me and I've had to let a few things slide. It will be a few weeks until things get any better.

That said, there is some news that bears mentioning...

Steven Point -- one of only a handful of Indigenous judges in Canada, is the Chief Commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission, and is an elected chief of the Skowkale First Nation -- has just been named Canada's first Indigenous Lieutenant Governor. Check out Shelagh Roger's interview with the Honourable Steven Point here.

Imagine that! Someone from a First Nations' community representing the Queen. There's a certain irony in that, don't you think?

Also, Shelagh will be focusing on the lives of Native individuals in a segment called Our Home and Native Land. Here's a link to info from the first show last week on Dan Christmas, Calvin Helin and Ellen Gabriel. Sadly, the links aren't the most informative, but lead to links where you can find information related to these individuals or the work they do. However, I think the program is worth watching for. I believe it will be on weekly.

All the best,
Colleen

Racism alive and well

While searching for something else, I happened across this 2004 news item from The Turtle Island Native Network. (For those who may not be aware, Turtle Island is the original name of North America.)

"Discrimination against Native people is widespread according to Three City Anti-Racism Initiative. Anti-racism educators in Northeastern Ontario have known for years there is a serious issue that must be addressed, but they have never had the data to prove it. Until now."

A nine-month study of racism in Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay and Timmins has concluded the "discrimination against Native people is widespread."

"Don Curry, the project director read all the questionnaires and listened to all the taped interviews from each city, and said he noted racist comments made by people who claimed not to be racist."

If you ever want to hear how racist a supposed non-racist is, just let him talk. Here are a couple of fine examples from white, male respondents in North Bay.

“I don’t think what I’m discussing with you is racism. I don’t believe I’m a racist. There is racism, with the Ku Klux Klanfor example. We can tolerate all the different ethnic nationalities but we single out different groups. If that’s racism, then we have it. I’ve never seen a racial incident and I’ve lived here all my life. I hear people make fun of natives,and of black people, and of Chinese people. I suppose that’s a form of racism. Native people get treated differently in North Bay because they’re special. They have special status. Everyone has special status except we, the white, middle class, working taxpayer. The only reason governments give this special treatment to everybody is to buy votes. Everyone should be equal. Period. There’s more and more hatred. I can see it. When you sit down and have a beer that’s when you hear most of this stuff. If you want to find out just go sit in the hotel for a while and talk to people. It comes up time after time after time. Especially if you talk about hunting or fishing.”

“There is not enough racism in North Bay for it to be an issue. If anything, it has gone too far the other way. Natural born, working Canadians pay for everybody else. Aboriginal people get too many handouts. Racism would disappear if government favouritism would stop.”

Now, to be fair, there were also many comments from white males and others against the racist comments they hear. I cite the examples above as I believe that we too-often pretend that racism is a thing of the past when it is not.

"He [Don Curry] said he also read comments from Native people who have heard and seen enough and don't even react to racism anymore. But then there are the fighters -- the Native people who speak out when they are being discriminated against and contact the store manager, the school board director, the hospital CEO and demand an apology..."

"Maurice Switzer, director of communications for the Union of Ontario Indians and a project leader said, 'Virtually every Aboriginal person I know has had issues in stores related to the status card. This study documents what all of us have known for years. The general public is not very knowledgeable about treaty rights. Racism is an issue and we must work together as a community to create solutions.'

"Aboriginal comments... [in the survey include:] 'The Sault has two faces and hides one very well. . .' 'Discrimination against native people in North Bay is widespread. In finding an apartment, going shopping, eating out, playing sports. . .' 'It happens once a week or every two weeks. I'd be walking with my girlfriend and people driving by or stopped at a light would bang the side of their car and say something. I get that a lot. It doesn't surprise me because I hear it so often.'

"The nine-month project, named Debwewin, the Ojibwe word for [to speak from the heart or] truth, involved the dissemination of questionnaires to the public, printing the questionnaire in local newspapers, follow-up interviews, cross-cultural training sessions in each community, media relations training for anti-racism practitioners, creation of a new web site at http://www.debwewin.ca/ full of resources, and a print media monitoring project."

You can find the full studies at the above link, but before I sign off, I'd like to share some scientific info on the notion of race as taken from the final report.

"Scientists and social scientists have shown consistently that race is a false concept. Conferences convened by the United Nations since the late 1940s have established that there is no genuine basis to differentiate any human attributes as functions of skin colour, eye shape, forehead slope or other physical characteristics collectively associated as characteristics of “race” (Celious and Oyserman, 2001; Henry et. Al. 1995; Johnson, Rush and Feagin, 2000; Twine and Warren, 2000.) Blackburn (2000) explains how the differences in DNA between humans are less than 0.6%. The widest variation is between ethnic groups of Africans; the variation between so-called “Caucasians” and either Africans or Asians is less."

So much hatred and derision over such an insignificant difference.

If you'd like to check out the Turtle Island Native Network for late breaking news, click here.

Colleen

Millbrook Powwow 2007

I had the pleasure of attending a Powwow last Saturday. Although I wasn't familiar with the customs of such an event, Cathy Martin, an independent filmmaker and member of the Millbrook community, was on hand to provide visitors with an orientation -- the do's and don'ts, and some background on various elements.

(Orientations are arranged through the Tatamagouche Centre -- tata.ca -- for all Powows in NS and NB.)

Helpful tips included not asking to use someone's drum -- it'd be like asking to borrow someone's toothbrush. We were also warned away from picking up any feathers that we might see on the ground although it'd be a good idea to point it out to someone who could do something about it. Because eagle feathers are sacred -- the eagle soars high and is, therefore, closer to the Creator -- a ceremony must be performed before an eagle feather can be lifted from the ground. Everyone tries to never allow their feathers touch the ground. It was also pointed out to us that no one with alcohol or drugs in their system is allowed to dance or approach the sacred fire.

The atmosphere was extremely welcoming. There were people in attendance from around the world, literally. Young people from the YMCA's multi-cultural society were there as was a group from Africa organized through St. FX University.

The Powwow took place in an open field. Vendors set up their displays along the perimeter. The sacred fire was off to one side. A circular roped off area provided an area for Powwow dancers and in the centre was the arbor -- a round, outdoor room that housed the drummers. There were four groups of drummers, the host drummers who kicked things off and drummers from other communities. This last area was off-limits to visitors as it is sacred and one would need to be somehow prepared to be there -- cleansed, perhaps? I'm not sure. However, drumming is extremely important and represents the heartbeat of Mother Earth.

The MC was terrific. He announced the dances and let us know when photos were allowed or not allowed. He cracked a lot of jokes too which added to the friendly atmosphere.

The ceremony began with the grass dancers. Long before the invention of lawnmowers, these energetic, young men would be responsible to stomp down the long grass to prepare for the Powwow dancers. Traditionally, this would have happened the day before the Powwow, but today it is ceremonial rather than practical in nature.

The host drummers provided the drumming and singing that accompanied the parade of elders and veterans carrying flags, and dancers as they entered the dance circle. Visitors were also allowed to participate in this ceremony. Flags represented various nations and groups including Mi' mkaq, Mohawk, American Indian Movement, Native Veterans, and so on. These flags were placed around the arbour.

After prayer, dancing begins. There are shawl dancers, fancy dancers, bell dancers, among others. It was great to see younger ones participating either as babes-in-arms or as junior dancers. Periodically, an inter-tribal dance is announced at which time everyone is invited into the circle to hold hands and dance. Given the number of nationalities represented there, it was pretty cool to watch.

Asides from being a social gathering, a Powwow is a place for contemplation and healing. Dancing is considered to be prayer in motion. Dancers can pray/think/focus on themselves or others. Singing is the same. The sacred fire is another opportunity for prayer. Anyone may approach the fire to pray and offer tobacco to the flames. (If you are a woman, you should wear a skirt if you want to approach the sacred fire.)

I should comment on the use of tobacco since, if you are like me, you may be wondering why it is considered to be so important. Tobacco is one of four sacred plants. Sweetgrass, cedar and sage are the others. Tobacco was the first plant given by the Creator and is used to communicate with the spirit world. An offer of tobacco opens the door to prayer and communicating feelings. If you want to approach an elder to ask something, offer tobacco. Your request will be considered appropriate. Pouch tobacco is preferred.

To round out our understanding of the other sacred plants, sage is used to prepare people for ceremonies and teachings. It is also used for cleansing homes and sacred items and has medicinal properties. Sweetgrass is the hair of Mother Earth. Its sweet scent reminds people of her kind ways and gentleness. Cedar is used to purify the home and for curative purposes.

But tobacco is key and used for all things including activating the spirits of other plants.

Here are some photos of the Powwow. If you have the opportunity, I encourage you to attend a one this summer.


Arbour with drummers

Thanks to the Cathy Martin for her time in sharing a bit of her culture with us.

Colleen

Native vs Non-Native Culture

I am heading out to a Powwow this weekend and was informed that it will get underway at noon "Indian time." That's okay, I wanted to say, I've already had to get used to Nova Scotia time, could Indian time be any worse? Apparently so, at least for someone like me who likes things to start at the appointed hour. I will, however, deal with it.

The comment about time reminded me of a website I'd come across some months ago: Sota Lya Ye Yapi . This site outlines history and culture of the Dakota tribes including a section that compares Native and Non-Native values.


As I wrote on Wednesday, learning how we communicate helps us bridge our differences. I hope you find this interesting.

Here are a couple of examples of the differences as posted on the site.



Time


Native Values: Time is unimportant. Clocks are not watched. Things are done as needed. Often the family gets up as the sun rises and retires soon after the sun sets. "Indian time" means when everyone gets there. A community meeting may be set for 1:00 p.m., but people come as much later as they wish, so the meeting may begin an hour or two later. This bothers no one. (Additional: If people gather before a scheduled event, it may begin earlier than announced...)

Non-Native Values: Time is important. Time is of the utmost importance. When someone says they will be somewhere at 10:00 a.m., they must be there at ten. Otherwise, it is felt they steal another person's time. More and more, non-Indians rush. In these cultures, it is felt that using time to its fullest extent is good.


Today vs Tomorrow


Native Values: Today concept. Indian people generally live each day as it comes. Plans for tomorrow often appear to be left until the future becomes the present -- although gathering, harvesting, and storing of foods for winter months was a traditional method of survival for many tribes.


Non-Native Values: Tomorrow concept. Non-Indians constantly are looking toward "tomorrow." Such items as insurance, saving for college, planning vacations, and so on, suggest to what extent non-Indians hold this value.


Patience vs Action

Native Values: Patience. To have much patience and to wait is considered to be good and respectful.

Non-Native Values: Action. The person admired is the one who is quick to act. They get things done and move on quickly to the other things. To sit idly, and let the competitor pass by acting more quickly, is considered bad.


Shame vs Guilt

Native Values: Shame. The Indian community groups often shame an individual (to instruct, or encourage re-entry into what is considered by the group to be acceptable behavior), but once this is accomplished, no lingering guilt is felt by the individual.

Non-Native Values: Guilt. After a non-Indian commits an act that he or she believes to be wrong, he/she carries inside the burden of having done something wrong. This terrible feeling may make them ill mentally and physically.

There is also a section on differing communication behaviours that you may find interesting.


Differing Communication Traits


"Another way of assessing differences is in how people communicate with one another, their body language for example.


"Here are several generalizations concerning differences between indigenous and non-Native cultures:


Eye contact during conversion

Native: Very little eye contact; most conversation conducted while looking away from each other; direct eye contact may be considered disrespectful to other person.

Non-Native: Eye contact is continuous or nearly continuous during conversation; lack of eye contact considered lack of respect, not paying attention to the other.


Manner in speaking voice

Native: Tends to pitch voice lower and speak more softly and slower.

Non-Native: Tends to speak with a higher pitch and faster and louder.


Custom of handshake in greeting others

Native: Traditional handshake is soft with only one or two "pumps" of a gentle nature, gentle pressure.

Non-Native: Handshake is firm, with several "pumps" of the hand; premise is that the firmer and longer the handshake, the more sincere the greeting.



A Native and Non-Native try to communicate

Native: Is in no hurry to begin a conversation, is not uncomfortable with periods of silence at the beginning of, or during, conversation.

Non-Native: Feels must get conversation going quickly, is uncomfortable with silence, thus tends to be over-talkative.



Answer to a question

Native: Reply is delayed until facts are sifted through; thus, a few moments of "silence" may be appropriate before making a reply.

Non-Native: Reply is immediate although the first words of a conversation often contribute little to the answer; may talk while formulating answer.


An anxiety provoking social situation

Native: Remains motionless and watches for cues from others or from the situation; once the pattern, or situation is interpreted, only then is action taken.

Non-Indian: uses "aggressive experimentation," to try again, until the pattern is discovered and/or the situation no longer exists or is a threat.



Colleen

An end to The Indian Act?

Provincial premiers agreed yesterday to play a bigger role in Indigenous affairs with the death of the $5 billion Kelowna Accord earlier this year.

Under The Indian Act, the feds are responsible for everything to do with Aboriginal peoples including health and education, issues for which the provinces control for the non-Native population.

I wonder if this might not be the first step in abandoning an Act which has been responsible for entrenching dependency, poverty and abuse; stealing status from Indigenous women and their families; and creating on-reserve hierarchies that, in some cases, have led to corruption.

I hope that provincial involvement will not spawn more delays in progress and encourage you to follow up with your provincial premier to demonstrate your support of provincial action and to let him know your vote is predicated, at least in part, on his action in this area.

Here's a link to the CBC story.

Colleen

Mi' kmaq: a language of interconnectedness

I am fascinated by the way language shapes the way we think and so, was interested in yesterday's Daily News which ran a series of articles on the Mi' kmaq language. I believe when we work at understanding how someone communicates, we begin to learn who they are and to bridge cultures.

"Statistics Canada says Mi'kmaq is the sixth most widely spoken of Canada's 50 aboriginal languages, with almost 9,000 reporting they understood it in 2001. That's remarkable, considering the Mi'kmaq might have been the first aboriginal people in Canada to encounter Europeans.(*) They were almost killed off by imported disease and state-sponsored murder. The government in Halifax put a bounty on the head of all Mi'kmaq men, women and children in the 1750s."

(** I would guess it was more likely the Beothuk in Newfoundland who would have encountered the Vikings who landed there. The Beothuk where wiped out.)

"Anna Nibby Woods, a Mi'kmaq master's student at Mount Saint Vincent University, said people who grew up with an aboriginal language find it difficult to express themselves in English. They find English words are inadequate, because they have little relationship with other words, or with the environment.The Mi'kmaq words for headache and the cure for headache are related to the word for a plant that cures headaches, she said. In English, there is nothing in common between the words 'headache' and 'aspirin.'"

"[Eskasoni resident Joel] Denny said he has been studying Mi'kmaq for 20 years, collecting old songs and figures of speech. He's convinced it originates from the sounds heard in the environment, and is vital to understanding the environment. The meaning of words is embedded in those sounds.'When you talk Mi'kmaq, you talk feelings, you talk description, you talk what happened and what's going to happen,' Denny said. 'We don't name stuff. We describe stuff.'"

"'There's no good or bad in Mi'kmaq. There's just consequences,' Nibby Woods said. 'Everything is interconnected and interrelated. That's why there is respect for everyone around you.'"

You can link to the full article on the link above. The text below is a reproduction of Brian Flinn's article on sample words.

Mi'kmaq words are more descriptive
'Skunk' gets to the point
BRIAN FLINN

Like many people who speak Nova Scotia's native language, Joel Denny bristles at the word "Mi'kmaq." He finds himself saying it, but the first time Denny remembers being identified with that word was 1973, when he was in his early 20s.

Mi'kmaq means "friend" or "ally." It's the word Acadians adopted to describe their relationship with the native people.

"There's no such thing as a nation of friends," Denny said.

The word preferred by many Mi'kmaq speakers is "Lnu." It sounds almost the same as the word "Innu," used by native people in Labrador and eastern Quebec, and "Inuit," used by people in the Arctic.

And it means the same thing: human.

Here are some other words in Nova Scotia's native language:

Springtime: siwkw, "time of draining out."
Summer: nipk, "the time when everything turns green."
Autumn: toqwa'q, "cold weather has arrived."
Winter: kesik "the slippery time."
Skunk: abigjilu "an animal that steps backward and farts."
Caribou: kalibu "an animal that scrapes snow."
Dog: imu'j "an animal that howls"
Wolf: paqtesm "an animal that's echoing all over the place."
Halifax: Jipugtug (often Anglicized as Chebucto) "the greatest harbour."
Cape Breton: Unamagi, usually translated as "foggy land," Denny says it actually means "land of the white dolphin."

(Spelling from various sources. Definitions from Joel Denny).

Here's another article on Mi' kmaq language in schools.

Colleen

Call to Aboriginal media artists

The following was sent out by the Writer's Federation of Nova Scotia:

Métis Media Festival call to Aboriginal media artists: This is a call for all forms of media work, including digital photographs, videos, radio plays, websites in a variety of styles from documentary to experimental in common digital formats such as JPEGs, MP3s, Avis, Moves, DVDs and Audio CDs.

Visit http://www.graham.gs/metis_media_fest_2007_p2.html to submit.

Deadline: August 15.

For more information, please email: graham@graham.gs

Colleen

UNREPENTANT: Kevin Annett and Canada's Genocide

When I was a little girl, I was pretty cute, if I do say so myself with my blond, curly hair, blue eyes, shy smile and friendly nature. My biggest worry was finishing homework early enough so I could go outside and play. My life was made up of going to school with teachers whom I mostly adored; having fun at a free day camp during the summer; camping; piano, tap dance and swimming lessons; sleepovers; learning how to sew with my mom; pick-up sports with the other baby boomer kids on the block; and family board game nights.

That was life in small town, white Canada.

Had I been copper skinned, I would have known none of these things. Despite my black, silky hair, brown eyes, shy smile and friendly nature, my worries would have been many. I would have been taken from my parents somewhere between the age of three and seven. I would have been sent to a school run by people I didn't understand and who didn't understand me. Punished for speaking my language or following my culture's rules of courtesy, I would have been sexually, physically and emotionally abused. At least fifty per cent of my friends and siblings would not have made it through school alive. When I made it out of school, my relationship with my family would have changed, we may no longer have spoken the same language or had the same values. My community would have been broken as it could only have been when abused people fill the houses.

That was life in small-town, red Canada.

The residential school system in Canada -- where Native children were taken from their parents and sent to live in schools runs by religious orders -- was made possible by the Indian Act. This Act became law in 1876 and stemmed from the Bagot Commission . Legislation was guided by the Catholic and Anglican Churches.

The Indian Act makes Native peoples legal wards of the Canadian State with the same status as children or those who are mentally incompetent. One of its goals was the Christianizing and assimilation of Native peoples into white society.

One of the tactics used for assimilation were residential schools established in the 1840s. Native parents were forced to surrender the guardianship of their children or face jail. The last residential school was closed in 1990.

While the Canadian government and religious groups have recently apologized for the abuse and other suffering that took place at residential schools, no one has admitted to the murder, medical experimentation and sterilization that also took place.

These are the facts and stories featured in one of the most disturbing documentaries imaginable, Unrepentant: Kevin Annett and Canada's Genocide which you can watch online.

The documentary was the winner of Best International Documentary at the 2006 Los Angeles Independent Film Festival and Best Director for an International Documentary at the 2006 New York International Film Festival.

"This documentary reveals Canada's darkest secret - the deliberate extermination of indigenous (Native American) peoples and the theft of their land under the guise of religion. This never before told history as seen through the eyes of this former [United Church] minister (Kevin Annett) who blew the whistle on his own church, after he learned of thousands of murders in its Indian Residential Schools..."

According to Wikipedia: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group.[1] While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the most prominent definition in international law is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as 'any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• killing members of the group;


• causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;


• deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


• imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]


• forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'"

It isn't important to know our history so we can point fingers at each other. Unless we know what has happened, we can't understand the present or move into the future. I invite you to sit back and watch the documentary. (The information shared is disturbing but not graphic.)

To find out more, including what has taken place since the documentary came out, visit Hidden From History.

The United Church's rebuttal is posted here.

Colleen

White vs Native Morality

Someone near and dear to me has accused me of the following thinking:

White = Bad
Native = Good

This is an odd notion at best, inflammatory and devious at worst.

There have been and are many whites who help Native peoples, whites who care about the environment, whites who fight for justice, etc. I am white. I am not bad, flawed certainly, but not bad. Therefore, it follows that white can't equal bad. At least not all the time.

There are also examples of Natives who don't respect the environment, Natives whose self-interest harms their people, Native communities where violence against women is a big problem and so on.

But what is the value or goal of this trajectory? In my view, it serves one purpose only and that is to take attention away from the real issues that must be addressed. Native poverty, education, health, land rights, self government, restitution, reclamation, among others.

Sidelining the discussion by debating inconsequentialities achieves nothing more than foot-dragging and carries the depredations of the past and present into the future.

So, let's agree to not waste any more time on such nonsense.

When Euro-Canadians and Americans look around the globe at the atrocities committed against other country's aboriginal peoples, we are appalled and often driven to action. Why then, do we hunker down allowing our sense of what's right to shrivel up when these same things are happening in our own backyards?

It's easier to point the finger at someone else, isn't it?

It's easier to read something in the newspaper and fire off a cheque to the Red Cross or Amnesty International or some other non-profit, than to try to figure out what the hell we can do here. (And keep sending those cheques to the non-profits, they do good work and need whatever help we can provide.)

We can make a difference here too. Here's a list. Pick one thing off it, and do it.

1) Get educated. Stop complaining about Natives getting free graduate education without knowing the facts or the context. Stop complaining about inadequate housing despoiling your view as you drive down the highway before you understand why.

Here are some resources:

Check out the links to the right for the American Indian Movement, The Assembly of First Nations, the Aboriginal People's Congress.

Read: Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, considered a classic by any account; and I Have Lived Here Since the World Began by historian Arthur Ray.

From there, you may wish to expand your reading to include, among others: Iskwewak: Neither Indian Princesses nor Easy Squaws by Janice Acoose, We Were Not the Savages by Daniel Paul, and Native America: Portrait of the Peoples by Duane Champagne.

If you get through even some of these references, you'll be better educated about history -- past and and current -- than most non-Native people.

2) Follow the news. Find out what's happening today. Here's a great link to the CBC where information is organized and easy to find on Ipperwash and Caledonia, as well as Native rights and health care. You will also find information at the links to the right.

3) Get active. Start talking. Share your knowledge. Write letters and let your MP and MLA, your Governor, Senator, or other representative know that you care about his or her voting record on Native issues. Believe me, when you care, they'll care.

4) Don't give up. Keep at it. Native peoples have been fighting this battle for hundreds of years, mostly alone.

Let's see if white morality and stamina is up to the challenge.

Colleen

Amnesty International: If we don't do it, who will?

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am very interested in First Nations issues and have attempted to offer my communications services to various groups -- all to no avail. Apparently, the while girl isn't welcome. And I get that. But I'm not giving up; I will continue to try to find a way in.

I am meeting with the regional coordinator for Amnesty International (AI) this afternoon to discuss pulling together a communication plan for Nova Scotia/New Brunswick. The central issues for AI include Indigenous land issues and action on violence against women. Since Canada is not a country where AI volunteers are at risk, Canadians are able to work on Canadian issues. (In many other countries, AI volunteers focus on issues outside their borders for their own security.)

Maybe I have found my backdoor.

AI's Mission is as follows:

• Protect physical and mental integrity: Every person has a human right to physical and mental integrity: the safety and well-being of one’s body, mind and whole person.
• Freedom from discrimination: The right to enjoy human rights without discrimination - Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - is one of the most fundamental principles underlying international human rights law.
• Justice for all -- end impunity: The failure to bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations is called “impunity” - and it’s one of the greatest obstacles to stopping human rights abuses today.
• Fair trials for political prisoners: Amnesty International calls for fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners - or else their release from prison. Amnesty does not work for fair trials in most criminal cases, unless the accusation of having committed an “ordinary” crime is an excuse for political imprisonment.
• Protect refugees: There are many different circumstances that lead people to seek refuge. Amnesty International’s refugee work is focused on people who are escaping human rights violations associated with our mission.
• Abolish the death penalty: Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception.
• End political killings: Political killings are extrajudicial executions - that is, killings outside the official legal system. They are unlawful and deliberate.
• End disappearances: The term “disappearance” is used when a person is detained or kidnapped by government agents, and where the authorities then deny they are detaining the person or know of their whereabouts. “Disappeared” individuals are often tortured or killed.
• Stop torture: Amnesty International condemns torture in all cases. One of our key goals is to see torture abolished.

One of Amnesty's missions in Canada is at Grassy Narrows (Reference was made to this issue in a comment by fellow-blogger Katou here.)

From the IA website:

"The flooding of their lands. The poisoning of their waters. And now the clear cutting of their traditional hunting and trapping territories.

"The people of Grassy Narrows — an Anishnabe community in northwest Ontario, Canada — have repeatedly suffered the impact of government decisions made without their consent, or even adequate consultation.

"In 2002, community members launched a blockade to stop logging in the area. The blockade, which still stands, is now one of the longest running Indigenous land protests in Canadian history.

"In January, 2007, the community called for a moratorium on further logging or granting of licenses in the area"

You can read about Grassy Narrows here including a historical perspective.

I'll be blogging about my activities with AI over the coming months and seeking a way to work on the issues closest to my heart.

Colleen

The Way Forward

(A day late, here is the final segment of Federal Government Funding to First Nations
The Facts, the Myths, and the Way Forward.)

Process

"... the Federal Government states that funding to First Nations is intended to provide comparable services, meet lawful obligations and support self-government. However, the funds that First Nations currently receive are insufficient to achieve the goals for which they are intended.

"Waste is not the issue; process, sustainability and jurisdiction are the issues.

"No matter how much is spent by the Federal Government, there will always be opportunities to improve the effectiveness of that spending.

"... there are 14 different departments and agencies of the Federal Government that provide some funding to First Nations. [Personally, I find it hard enough when I have to deal with one!]

"Both in her December 2002 report on Streamlining First Nations Reporting to Federal Organizations and in her December 2003 report on Economic Development of First Nations Communities: Institutional Arrangements, the Auditor General identified opportunities to integrate and streamline administrative arrangements between first Nations and the Federal Government. The 2002 report identified a minimum of 168 different reports required by the four main funding organizations. As pointed out earlier, these requirements are especially burdensome when one considers the small size of most communities.

"Problems cited in the Auditor General’s 2002 report include:

• overlap and duplication among the required reports;
• limited use being made of reports;
• reporting requirements dictated with insufficient consultation;
• information reported not being used to set funding levels;
• reports that do not reflect community priorities;
• insufficient feedback to First Nations; and,
• a lack of information on program performance or results.
  

"The 2003 report identifies similar issues of complexity and administrative burden. That report states that: “federal support for institutional arrangements is not yet sufficient to help First Nations overcome barriers and take control of their economic development. Federal organizations need to:

• consolidate the administrative requirements and improve the adaptability of business support programs;
• help First Nations identify and build consistent and fair institutional arrangements in a timely way; and,
• use a more horizontal approach for economic development programming”
  

"In its response to this report, the Government of Canada agreed to its recommendations and has committed to undertaking such changes."

"The reports of the Auditor General have examined just two areas of the many in which such an approach would be a distinct advantage. This paper has also identified protracted litigation and delay in resolving both comprehensive and specific claims as perhaps the most egregious areas of waste.

"... integrated and streamlined processes [must] not leave programs open to abuse and that, where problems arise, appropriate remedies are identified. Therefore, the Federal Government should work with First Nations, in consultation with the Auditor General of Canada, to create a general audit function for First Nations.

"Clearly, integration and streamlining will make program delivery cheaper. In addition, putting an end to administrative barriers to progress is a necessary first step in unlocking the positive
and constructive work of First Nations themselves, allowing those most directly affected to seize control of their own destinies and build a productive future."

Sustainability

"... funding levels [to First Nations] are declining when examined against population growth and inflation.

While "legislation ... protects core program funding to provinces through the [Canadian Health and Social Transfers] CHST, core [funding to] First Nations programs [is] “discretionary”, [this] must be changed. This legislation means that the Federal Government need not keep First Nations funding current with inflation and population pressures, nor is it protected from being transferred from core services to meet other needs. This is a glaring inequity.

"The solution is funding that meets need, with a formula for increases to match both inflation and population growth. This is what is meant by sustainable funding and it is essential to counter the otherwise inevitable negative outcomes.

These outcomes include:

• worsening of health, education, housing and other environmental factors
• "no reliable predictability of conditions such as is necessary to support a positive economic climate for investment"
• "greater political instability"

Jurisdiction

"First Nations jurisdiction in those areas that are essential to economic self-sufficiency, social health and political stability stems from the inherent right to self-determination.

According to an important study of First Nations in Canada by members of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, there are three factors that are critical to economic self-sufficiency. Following extensive research over the past fifteen years, researchers have been able to demonstrate that economic development is closely linked to the existence of the following:

• practical sovereignty, meaning genuine decision-making power
  over internal affairs, governance, resources, institutions, and
  development strategies;
• capable governing institutions, which exercise power effectively,
  responsibly, and reliably; and,
• cultural match, which are formal institutions of government that
  match Indigenous conceptions of how authority should be
  organized and exercised.

"On the social side of the equation, according to a ground-breaking study by psychologists at the University of British Columbia, the presence or absence of certain factors have a significant role as predictors of suicide among youth. Each of these relate specifically to the degree of self-government being exercised at the local level, the control over institutions and the cultural sensitivity with which those institutions are run.

"The six factors are: the attainment of self-government; the pursuit of land claims; band control over education; band control over health services; the presence of cultural facilities; and, band control over police and fire services.

"Looked at in the inverse, not only does self-government produce success, but the cost of the status quo is unsustainable. Those who are concerned about costs to the Canadian taxpayer of maintaining the current system would do well to read the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996:

“The first and largest cost results from the economic marginalization
of Aboriginal people. We have shown that under better conditions
Aboriginal people could contribute an additional $5.8 billion to the
Canadian economy."

"... the way forward is through investing in self-government. That will allow First Nations to
develop economically and to create services that are sensitive and responsive to the needs of the communities. However, greater investment is needed to make self-government a reality, to develop the appropriate institutions and to build the capacity needed to carry out the daily business of a First Nation. Investment is also required to create a favourable climate for economic development and to build toward sustainable self-sufficiency on reserves.

"Self-government is the hope for the future. It is critical to both economic and social progress. It is self-government that will lead First Nations out of the negatively reinforcing cycle of poverty that has marked our history since the arrival of the Europeans. Full funding and recognition of First Nations jurisdiction will break this cycle. Investment is cheaper than the status quo."

Conclusion

"More cost-effective programs and services and more effective governance can be
facilitated through:

• integrating programs and streamlining processes to remove overlap
  and accelerate decision-making;
• improving dispute resolution mechanisms that recognize the
  inherent injustice in delaying the settlement of lawful claims and
  meeting historic treaty obligations;
• amending reporting requirements to provide relevant information
  about outcomes to the communities involved while reducing the
  burden on them;
• inverting accountability practices to allow First Nations governments
  to account to their members first and other governments
  second;
• enhancing accountability by establishing a general audit function
  for First Nations;
• establishing sustainable funding, with an escalator formula that
  mirrors the true cost drivers of need, inflation and population
  growth;
• providing sufficient funding to support the development and
  implementation of First Nations governments; and,
• establishing fully inter-dependent governments, within a constitutional
  framework which appropriately reallocates governance
  jurisdictions according to the rights and capacities of each
  government to discharge them best.
  

"These are the choices will help to stem the vicious cycle of poverty that continues to drive costs higher. These are the steps that will serve people best and enable real progress to be made. These will not be wasted dollars. This is what is meant by the term self-government.

"It is time now for real, transformative change. The myths can be put behind us. The
way forward is evident."

I hope that by sharing this information, we can begin to understand the current context and desires of First Nations peoples. I believe that if we are educated and vocal, we can help to make a difference within our lifetimes.

Colleen

Where does the money go?

Ever wonder where the money earmarked for First Nations goes? Tired of having your tax dollars squandered?

Would it surprise you to learn that of the "estimated $8 billion in spending on policies and programs relating to aboriginal people in 2003-2004, approximately $5.36 billion were allocated to First Nations in grants or contributions, or just over $7,200 per person."

Compare this to $14,900 the government spends per non-native person living in Ottawa. (Amounts vary by community because of provincial and municipal funding.)

The Assembly of First Nations has pulled together a funding primer to help us understand where the money goes and who spends what. A link to the full report is below.

1) What is the money for?

"The majority of funds that actually find their way to First Nations through grants or contribution agreements are related to the provision of basic services such as health, education, roads and drinking water, to name a few of the most significant. The provision of these services is intended to be comparable to what non-aboriginal Canadians already receive from the federal, provincial and municipal governments. However, as the Prime Minister has admitted, the Federal Government is not meeting this standard.

"It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide these basic services to First Nations because the Crown has created laws that allow and require the Federal Government to do so, and laws that prevent First Nations from doing so unless that authority is delegated from the Crown."

2) Where does the money go?

"In order to understand these numbers better, it is critical to understand the reason for this spending; its intended purpose. To assist the reader, the following categories apply to the funds that are spent by DIAND on the Indian and Inuit Affairs Program (IIAP): comparable services (79%); lawful obligations (12%); and, self-government (2%). The remainder goes to the Northern Affairs Program or to pay for regional direction and administration."

3) What are the government's lawful obligations?

"International and domestic law defines the obligations of the Government of Canada in general. The obligation of the Federal Government to First Nations has roots that are widely varied and dating back several hundred years. They arise from sources such as the Royal Proclamation of 1763, from the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, from treaties between the government and First Nations, and from the decisions of Canada’s own courts.

"...the lawful obligations the Crown owes to First Nations take various forms, but they stem from four broad categories of obligation: comprehensive claims; specific claims; treaties; and, litigation."

4) What is a comprehensive claim?

"Comprehensive claims arise where the Crown has not signed a treaty with a First Nation. The Crown’s obligation arises from the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This Proclamation requires that First Nations be undisturbed in the enjoyment of their lands unless and until they sign a treaty with the Crown. Where a First Nation has never signed a land treaty with the Crown, the First Nation holds unextinguished aboriginal title to the land and has the sole legal right to possession and occupation of their traditional land."

5) What is a specific claim?

"Specific claims are even more varied, but always arise where the Crown has breached the Indian Act, a treaty or other agreement."

6) What is a treaty obligation?

"Treaties are agreements signed between the Crown and a First Nation and could relate to any variety of issues from land use to the use of natural resources, to the provision of services by either party. The debt the Crown owes is the enforcement of an ongoing promise under the terms of a treaty."

7) What's a litigation obligation?

"Litigation creates an obligation in the way with which many Canadians are familiar. Someone, in this case a First Nation, can sue the Crown and, if they win, the Crown owes them compensation such as money, or the return of land, or the provision of a service. The costs of the court case as well as the compensation ordered represent the lawful obligations arising from litigation."

8) Why aren't these obligations begin met?

"It is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that, historically, First Nations could not rely on the media and public support to compel governments to resolve injustice against them. A lack of broad understanding of the issues throughout the general public and a lack of interest in the mainstream media still renders public sentiment a tool that is only rarely of use to First Nations. The courts were no help as it was illegal for First Nations individuals to raise funds for land claims until relatively recently." [I highlight this last point as being one that most non-Natives are unaware. Imagine this: you are living in your own country and it's against the law to obtain legal representation to argue your side of a legal dispute. That was a fact of law for First Nations.]

"The Federal Government has taken an approach to resolving its lawful obligations that costs First Nations and the Canadian public large sums of money and produces no benefits to either
group..."

The Myths

1) What's the issue?

"For the past few years, as legitimate public demands for responsible spending by government have increased, some have chosen to paint funding to First Nations as a key part of the problem.
It is said that the funding is either:
• extravagant—growing rapidly and exceeding need;
• misused—lacking accountability and subject to malfeasance; or,
• squandered—spent without purpose or result.

These myths are spread by critics who balk at the $8 billion budget..."

2) Is the budget extravagant?

"To reflect what is actually spent on people, numbers must be adjusted for inflation and population increases over time. When that is done, the total budget for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (DIAND) is shown to have decreased by 3.5% since 1999-2000. In fact, the per capita figures would be even lower if the funds that go to others than First Nations were also factored into the calculations. As discussed earlier, other recipients include Inuit programs, DIAND administration, other government departments, other levels of government, and
non-governmental organizations."

3) Is the budget mismanaged?

"Among the 557 audits conducted by DIAND of First Nations financial management in 2002-03, auditors found only 16 cases (less than 3%) where it was necessary to register an adverse opinion or denial of the band council’s financial statement. The reasons for some of these opinions are as simple as a lack of adequate documentation for some transactions or a departure from generally approved accounting procedures.

"According to a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Resource Development, that committee estimates that 96% of First Nations have no accountability issues at all, meaning that they are fully compliant with a set of rules and regulations that greatly exceed those under which private enterprise operates."

4) Is the money being squandered?

"Certainly, one can not argue that meeting lawful obligations is squandered spending. No matter how those funds are in turn used by recipients, the money is legally owed by the government and, therefore, must be paid out to the rightful party. As noted, funding for comparable services represents the vast majority of spending.

"... these funds could be spent with greater effect [see: The Way Forward]; that integrated and streamlined processes could improve observed results. However, these services are part of the fundamental infrastructure meant to keep communities alive and, perhaps, to help them thrive. As such, they can not be reduced from what is already demonstrated to be an inadequate level."

The Way Forward

"... the Federal Government states that funding to First Nations is intended to provide comparable services, meet lawful obligations and support self-government.

"However, the funds that First Nations currently receive are insufficient to achieve
the goals for which they are intended.

"Waste is not the issue; process, sustainability and jurisdiction are the issues."

___________________________________

Stay tuned for The Way Forward on Monday.

I hope this gives everyone food for thought. Please check out the full report at: Federal Funding to First Nations: The Facts, the Myths and the Way Forward

Colleen