Check the tag on that “Indian” story.

Stories and sayings attributed to Native Americans have been floating around probably since settlers stopped spending all of their time and energy on not dying. I am not entirely certain why stories that never originated in any indigenous nation are passed around as “Native American Legends”, but listener beware.

"Hey so are you Cherokee?" "Na, I'm Irish, you?" "Well my great grandmother was a Cherokee princess..."

You’ve probably seen this one at least once:

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy.

“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” He continued, “The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?”

The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

Wow, I’m just shivering with all that good Indian wisdom flowing through me now.  Give me a moment.

Okay.  I’m better now.

Well recently a tumblr blogger Pavor Nocturnus did the world an enormous favour and dug into the real origins of this ‘Cherokee wisdom’, providing some excellent sources.

This story seems to have begun in 1978 when a early form of it was written by the Evangelical Christian Minister Billy Graham in his book, “The Holy Spirit: Activating God’s Power in Your Life.”

"Hey cheer up, one day everyone is going to say they are related to us! And they'll honour our culture with Christian-style parables!"

So wait…this is actually a Christian-style parable?  Let’s just quickly read the story as told by Minister Billy Graham.

“AN ESKIMO FISHERMAN came to town every Saturday afternoon. He always brought his two dogs with him. One was white and the other was black. He had taught them to fight on command. Every Saturday afternoon in the town square the people would gather and these two dogs would fight and the fisherman would take bets. On one Saturday the black dog would win; another Saturday, the white dog would win – but the fisherman always won! His friends began to ask him how he did it. He said, “I starve one and feed the other. The one I feed always wins because he is stronger.”

Oh oh oh!  I get it!  Black is evil, and white is good! Traditional indigenous wisdom galore!

Um…wait a second.  Do indigenous cultures also believe in black=evil, white=good?  I mean, pre-Christianity?  Anyone?  No?  I didn’t think so.

This kind of thing is harmful

These misattributed stories aren’t going to pick us up and throw us down a flight of stairs, but they do perpetuate ignorance about out cultures.  Cultures.  Plural.

Not only do they confuse non-natives about our beliefs and our actual oral traditions, they confuse some natives too.  There are many disconnected native peoples who, for a variety of reasons, have not been raised in their cultures.  It is not an easy task to reconnect, and a lot of people start by trying to find as much information as they can about the nation they come from.

It can be exciting and empowering at first to encounter a story like this, if it’s supposedly from your (generalised) nation.  But I could analyse this story all day to point out how Christian and western influences run all the way through it, and how these principles contradict and overshadow indigenous ways of knowing.  Let’s just sum it up more quickly though, and call it what it is: colonialsim.

And please.  It does not matter if this sort of thing is done to or by other cultures too.  The “they did it first” argument doesn’t get my kids anywhere either.

The replacement of real indigenous stories with Christian-influenced, western moral tales is colonialism, no matter how you dress it up in feathers and moccasins.  It silences the real voices of native peoples by presenting listeners and readers with something safe and familiar.  And because of the wider access non-natives have to sources of media, these kinds of fake stories are literally drowning us out.

Start asking questions

If you are at all interested in real aboriginal cultures, there are some easy steps you can take to determine authenticity.  I guarantee you that three short questions will help you weed out 99.9% of the stories plain made-up-and-attributed-to-a-native-culture.  Ready?

  1. Which native culture is this story from? (Cherokee, Cree, Dene, Navajo?)
  2. Which community is this story from? (If you get an answer like the Hopis of New Brunswick you can stop here.  The story is fake.)
  3. Who from that community told this story?

You see, our stories have provenance.  That means you should be able to track down where the story was told, when, and who told it.

There are specific protocols involved in telling stories that lay this provenance out for those listening.  There are often protocols involved in what kinds of stories can be told to whom, and when.  Every indigenous nation is going to have their own rules about this, but all of them have ways of keeping track of which stories are theirs.

If you cannot determine where the story came from, then please do not pass it on as being from “x nation”.

Literary examples, problems with attribution

Authentic, or fantasy?

A friend picked this book up for me during a library sale.  I immediately became uneasy when I read the inside covers.  Here are some partial quotes that stood out for me:

This book contains nine stories about the wily Raven…” No mention of where those stories originate other than from “the North West coast of the Pacific Ocean“.

“..the tales collected and retold here by Gail Robinson, a distinguished Canadian poet who has lived among the North American Indians and listened first-hand to the stories they tell…”

No actual communities are listed.  No actual native people are named.  There is zero attribution here.  I have no idea if these stories are made up, mistranslated, or ripped off wholesale and profited from without any recognition given to those who carry traditional stories from generation to generation.

The stories are interesting, just like the “Cherokee” Two Wolves parable is…but I’m not presenting this to my children as authentic, nor should it be accepted as such without a heck of a lot more research into the origins of these tales.

Get the real stories!

An absolutely excellent resource for those seeking authenticity, is a blog called American Indians in Children’s Literature.  There is a tonne of information there, which may be a bit overwhelming, but I urge you to start with the section on the right labelled “If You’re Starting a Library”. In this section are a selection of authentic books for different age levels and links for annotated reviews of each book.

There is also information on how to evaluate “American Indian websites“.  A truly fantastic resource.

Another link available brings you to A Critical Bibliography on North American Indians, for K-12.  Split into regions, you can find reviews of books which highlight any problems with the stories or the manner in which they were collected.  There is also great information for educators and those wanting to understand how authenticity is important.

A Tlicho (Dogrib/Dene) story

I also have a partial list of publishers who produce authentic indigenous literature.  Some of it will even be available bilingually (English or French and in the original indigenous language).  If I were to recommend something off the top of my head, I’d start with an absolutely fantastic series published by Theytus Books, published in English and Tłıchǫ Yatıì (Dogrib).  All three of the books come with an audio CD as well.

I warn you, however.  Authentic indigenous stories come from a different cultural context than you may be familiar with.  That should be obvious, but I think that it bears noting.  If you go into these stories expecting to have your cultural beliefs and norms reinforced, you’re doing it wrong.  Trite western moral lessons are not going to be handed to you in our stories.

Listening to or reading authentic aboriginal stories means you are accessing different cultures.  Please don’t forget that.  And the next time someone tells you a “Native American” saying or story, ask yourself if it resonates with you because it’s really “indigenous wisdom”…or if it’s just a western story wrapped up in a cloak of indigeneity.

A shorter version of this article was published on rabble.ca on February 21st, 2011.

Posted in Cultural appropriation, Culture, Decolonisation, Pan-Indian, Representation of natives | Tagged , , , , , , | 32 Comments

Experiencing the digital revolution with my moccasins on.

Some people in the NDN tumblr community have coined a new meaning for the acronym NATO.  Forget the imperialism, there is no room for that in the new NATO.  Now it means Native Americans Take Over.

yourmommakesthebestfrybread even made a shirt you can buy!

There are a lot of concepts this acronym can stand for, but right now it makes me think about the presence of native peoples on the internet.

Some technology has been very slow to reach our communities, particularly those in the north where certain kinds of infrastructure is prohibitively expensive to build and maintain.  Some communities still run on dial-up internet connections, a thing that most southern kids probably haven’t even heard of!  Cell phone service continues to be spotty once you’re north of Edmonton.  For much of the southern population, only having access to a computer via a youth centre or a public library is an antiquated notion, but until very recently (and in some areas this remains true, even outside the north) this was literally the only option for a lot of us.

In the old days, there were elaborate ceremonies involving 'handshakes' required before you could connect to the internet.

That absence due to a lack of access has had a palpable effect on the kinds of information and resources ‘out there’.  Indigenous voices have not been particularly represented online, in social media or elsewhere.  I’ve had spotty access myself over the past 10 years, but during that time I have consistently scoured the interwebs for resources, particularly linked to language development.

The pickings were pretty slim.  Until now.

The last two years alone has resulted in an explosion of authentic indigenous language and culture resources on the web… and by authentic I mean ‘actually produced by native communities’.  My list of ‘indigenous bookmarks’ grew from a handful of sites, to a list it now takes me forever to scroll through.  There is so much new stuff going up that I’m struggling to find the time to review everything and put it up here.  Unfortunately, the digital divide still exists, but the gap is narrowing quickly.

From the Native American Encyclopedia's Facebook page.

We’ve also taken to social media in a way that should surprise no one who is familiar with native peoples.  As I’ve noted before, traditions are not technology dependent.  We have always had an amazing series of informal networks to pass along information.  That this now involves social media is irrelevant to the tradition of interconnectedness.  By the way kids, FBI used to mean something besides “Facebook Indian”!

Satellite internet connection, widening cell-phone coverage and the plunging cost of personal computing devices has finally made these platforms more accessible to us.  We’ve been quick to use these technologies to our advantage, which again should surprise no one who is familiar with the ways in which our cultures have always integrated new technologies into our traditions. 

Access is a serious obstacle to the development of online resources and communities.  It doesn’t matter how fantastic your website or online learning platform is when you can only reach a very small percentage of your native audience.  But the tide is turning.

Tens of thousands of Canadians who never even heard of Attawapiskat until recently, have visited this community site in the past few months.

More importantly, the access we now have is not mediated or funnelled through non-natives.  It’s no longer the case that we are merely being talked about.  Now natives are talking to one another.  Interconnections are being made and strengthened. Inaccuracies are being directly challenged.  Most non-aboriginal people may still never step foot on a reserve or a Settlement, but pretty much every native community has a community website now.

Some argue that having so much more information online means it will be easier for fakes and profiteers to rip us off.  I would argue it also makes it much more difficult for that kind of person to get away with it.

Take heed, Mr. Shaman Starshine Blanket Glowing Feather.  The NDNs are online now, and when you claim to be a member of the Seneca Nation of Alaska, you’re going to get called out on it.

Posted in Culture, Decolonisation, First Nations, Inuit, Métis | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

From emergency to catastrophe. Lack of addictions programming a national shame.

I don’t usually do ‘breaking news’ stories…and well I guess I’m not doing it now either.  This news isn’t new at all, it’s just finally getting some mainstream attention as the situation is set to get exponentially worse.

The problem with OxyContin

OxyContin, also known colloquially as hillbilly heroin, is a powerful and potentially addictive painkiller.  As has been noted in a number of other news reports, abuse of this drug is a Canada-wide problem.

A study on the use of opioids (including OxyContin) among beneficiaries of Ontario’s public drug plan highlights a number of concerns.  More and more prescriptions are being written, and the doses are getting higher, leading to an increase in opioid-related deaths.  And this is what we know about legal sales.

Recently Purdue Pharma Canada has announced it is releasing OxyNEO, a supposedly harder to tamper with version of OxyContin that has been available in the US since April of 2010.  ‘Regular’ OxyContin will no longer be available in Canada as of March 1st when stocks are expected to run out.

A crisis is declared

In November of 2009, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN), which represents 49 First Nations in northern Ontario (a population of about 45,000 people) declared a “Prescription Drug Abuse State of Emergency“.

This resolution notes that prescription drug abuse, particularly of opioids like OxyContin, is an escalating crisis and calls upon both levels of government to immediately enhance community-based programming to deal with it.

By September of 2011, policing and addictions were stretched to the breaking point in many NAN communities and the response from provincial and federal governments is described by NAN as ‘minimal‘.

Another First Nations crisis ignored.

Responsibility for health care services

In Canada, most people access health care services through provincial programs and infrastructure. Status Indians and ‘recognised’ Inuit are a federal responsibility when it comes to health care.

Health Canada provides First Nations and Inuit with “a limited range of medically necessary health-related goods and services to which these individuals are not entitled through other plans and programs”.

Under this Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program, certain prescription and over the counter drugs are covered (paid for) if the patient does not have private insurance.  Only drugs on the NIHB Drug Benefits List are eligible for this coverage.

No OxyContin for First Nations/Inuit

On February 15 of this year, Health Canada announced that all “long-acting oxycodones” such as OxyContin have been removed from the NIHB Drug Benefit List stating*:

NIHB will consider requests for long-acting oxycodone on a case-by-case basis and coverage may be granted in exceptional circumstances (e.g. cancer or palliative pain) when alternatives on the NIHB DBL have failed or are not appropriate.  Continued coverage of long-acting oxycodone will be permitted for clients who have received coverage of long-acting oxycodone through NIHB in the three months prior to February 15, 2012 (i.e. these clients will be grandfathered).

Thus legal sources of OxyContin will become unavailable to all Status Indians and recognised Inuit across Canada through the NIHB.  Those who legitimately need this medication will not be able to receive it in the future.

Still available to non-natives

In most of the rest of the country, OxyContin or its replacement OxyNEO will continue to be available to those who need it.  There are some provincial exceptions.

PEI has recently instituted similar measures as those taken by the NIHB, pending a review of treatment with oxycodones compared to other drugs.  Newfoundland heavily restricts access to OxyContin, but allows at least 15 other oxycodone drugs under its public drug plan.

More worrisome is the example of Manitoba, where access to OxyContin was restricted last year, reserved for patients with specific ailments only.  Fears of this leading to a surge in crime was quickly confirmed as desperate people with OxyContin addictions  unable to get into treatment programs turned to armed robbery.  This in a urban centre with considerably more addictions resources than isolated First Nations or Inuit communities.

UPDATE: Ontario and Saskatchewan are both taking a similar approach to PEI and Health Canada, and severely restricting OxyContin/OxyNEO from now on.  However, similar concerns about lack of addictions programming for populations in these areas are being raised.

A dam about to burst

The situation in many Nishnawbe Aski Nation communities has been already bad enough to warrant the declaration of a State of Emergency.  Now the NAN is warning of even worse.

Without OxyContin available, individuals will experience withdrawal.  Symptoms may range in severity from stomach upset, muscle and bone pain, anxiety, restlessness, increased heart rate and blood pressure to depression and suicidal ideation.

“In the absence of any regular treatment, a public health catastrophe is imminent, as there are thousands of addicted individuals with rapidly shrinking supplies – likely leading to massive increases in black market prices, use of other drugs, needle use/sharing, and crime,” said Dr. Benedikt Fischer, a senior scientist at the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health.

Health Canada acknowledges that most people in NAN communities are not getting the drug through legal prescriptions funded by the government.  How withdrawing OxyContin from the Drug Benefit List will in any way address abuse is unclear.

Despite a stated willingness by Health Canada to fund drugs used to treat opioid dependence such as methadone (which is not available in most remote communities) and suboxone (but only on a case-by-case basis), no mention is made of what addictions programming will be put into place to deal with the worsening situation.

In short, the resources are not there to help deal with what is about to be a flood of people with addictions going through serious withdrawal in these communities.

From emergency to catastrophe

Action needs to be taken now to ensure that adequate resources are provided to communities struggling with such severe addictions problems and lack of treatment programs. It is unacceptable that an emergency gone unheeded should be allowed to turn into a catastrophe, yet again.

The Nishnawbe Aski Nation has developed a Prescription and Drug Abuse framework focused on four areas:

  1. Treatment
  2. Security
  3. Prevention
  4. Addressing root causes

However, with the exception of $100,000 from Health Canada and INAC for Prescription Drug Abuse Coordinator for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, no support has been given by provincial or federal governments to support this framework.

Learn more

A online documentary titled The Life You Want provides a stark view of how lack of access to addictions treatment is already affecting many First Nations and Inuit people in remote communities.

Also available for download attached is a copy of a Marten Falls Ogoki Report to Community (Word document). Chief Eli Moonias, NAN Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force representative has given permission for this report to be shared with others to create awareness about the impacts of PDA in a remote First Nation.  I warn you, this is not light reading.

My thanks to the Health Policy & Planning Department of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation for sharing this information.

 

 

*Health Canada press release provided by Stéphane Shank, Media Relations, Consultation and Communications Branch, Health Canada

A shorter version of this article was published on rabble.ca on February 19th, 2012.

Posted in First Nations, INAC, Injustice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Why so quiet lately?

Well, quiet for me!

I wanted to let everyone know that I’m in the process of transferring this blog to the newly registered www.apihtawikosisan.ca (and .com), and the logistics involved in this is what has diverted my attention lately.  I’d like to pretend that I can take credit for all the complex technical details, but I’m as tech savvy as a muskrat.  Mostly I’ve been mentally reorganising and compiling excellent links and resources for both language learning and general education on indigenous issues.

All that to say, I’ve been doing a lot of web-surfing lately, and having my socks blown off by just how much native peoples are accomplishing and developing in so many fields.  I want to bring those achievements to a wider audience, and WordPress is just getting too confining.

I’m trusting that the transition will go smoothly and as time goes on there will be some visual changes to the site as well as a lot of new content.  I hope you bear with me.  In addition, it’s possible that this blog will be cohosted by rabble.ca in the near future which should nicely offset the fact that some articles are also on HuffPo!

Don’t worry, I’ll be running my mouth off again in a very short time.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Nimama, are they going to take me away too?

My youngest daughter was six years old when she asked me this, clinging to me in desperation, her face distorted and her eyes full of tears.  I hadn’t expected such a visceral reaction, and before I could say something intelligent and soothing, I started crying.

I rocked her on my lap say ‘moya ‘moya ‘moya (no no no) over and over again.  Just as I had not anticipated her terror, I was taken by surprise by my own.  Just thinking about someone taking my child from me is enough to cause my throat to close in fear.

Teaching children about Residential Schools

So how do you tell your children about Residential Schools without scaring the crap out of them?

To be honest, I’m not sure you can avoid it.  I certainly did not set out to scare my girls.  They had heard me talking about Residential Schools before and asked me what they were.  As a parent, I made the decision early on to answer my children’s questions honestly.  I believe that if they are old enough to ask you the question, they are old enough to get an answer, presented clearly and simply so they understand it.

I chose to explain Residential Schools to my daughters via a children’s book by Nicola I. Campbell titled Shi-shi-etko.  There is a forward to the book that gives some brief background to the reader on the Residential School system, and I’d begun by reading it to them. I hadn’t even gotten into the actual story, and this was how frightened they became.

Some truths are ugly

I believe you cannot avoid scaring children, and even adults, when you talk about Residential Schools for one simple reason: it is a scary topic.

The book Shi-shi-etko (which was also made into a film) and its sequel, Shin-chi’s Canoe, depict Residential School experiences from a child’s perspective, without dwelling on the more horrific details of abuse.  If you think this presents children with a sanitised version, think again.  Children live so much in their imaginations that a brief description of being fed watery soup while the teachers feast on meat and potatoes, is all it takes for them to launch themselves into the scene.  They feel the outrage keenly and their sadness and anger are real.

When we finished the books, they had a million questions.  Why did they take children from their families?  Why didn’t the children hide in the bush?  Why couldn’t their families hide them?  Why were the children treated like that?  And again, despite my reassurances…will they take us away too?

Exploring this topic with children is powerful

I discovered that exploring the history of Residential Schooling with my children was a very different experience than speaking about it to adults.

You see, adults can compartamentalise in a way that children don’t.  When you are speaking to adults who know little or nothing about Residential Schools, they are able to imagine it in the distant past in a way that shields them from the full horror of the system. They can agree that it was wrong, but they can avoid the kind of visceral reaction my daughter had.  Which is good in one way, because I’m not so great with the spontaneous clinging if the person doing it isn’t my kid.  It’s not so good when it allows people to ignore the impact Residential Schools have had on people who are still living today.

If you are a parent who does not have the answers to your child’s inevitable questions once they learn about Residential Schools, then there are many resources you can access to learn more about it yourself so you can teach them.

- people like to diss wikipedia, but it’s a good place to start when you are unfamiliar with a topic.  The article on Residential Schools in Canada is a pretty good overview and there are many external links provided if you want more information.

Some resources to access with your children

- I find that kids become very absorbed in the pictures out there of Residential Schools, particularly those showing children.  It seems simplistic perhaps, but the many archival photos are very powerful.

- this is an interactive website that provides information on the history of Indian Residential Schools in Canada, as well as features such as a 3D interactive tour of the Mohawk Institute in Brantford, Ontario.  Some of the information will be interesting to younger children, but the site is aimed mostly at children in highschool.

- despite decades of stories of the high mortality rates in Residential Schools, only recently has an investigation been launched into just how many Aboriginal children died, how they died, and where they are buried.  This news article gives a brief background on the Missing Children Research Project.

- this project is aimed at commemorating the thousands of deaths in Residential Schools, and as the site states: “to encourage “ownership” of this historic injustice by the non-Indigenous community. By doing so, non-Aboriginal Canadians can then be moved to take responsibility for the continued oppression of Indigenous people in Canada, and be inspired to take action.”  There are some suggestions for activities on this site as well.

- autobiographical or fictional, these books for young readers can help children explore the history of Residential Schooling from the perspective of children their own age.

-pictures and information leading you through the Red Lake Residential School experience.

Do you have more suggestions?

I’m not sure I’m ever going to go in depth into Residential Schools on this blog.  It’s too draining.  But if you have more suggestions for resources (online or in print) that would be appropriate for children, please feel free to post them!

Posted in Injustice, Residential schools | Tagged , , , , | 32 Comments

The do’s, don’ts, maybes, and I-don’t-knows of cultural appropriation.

Cultural appropriation is a seriously hot-button topic.  It ranges from the aggressively entitled stance of, “I can do whatever I want!” to the perpetually angry approach of “everything is cultural appropriation!”.  Of course, the former is a much larger portion of the debate, and the latter is almost always a huge straw-man argument that few people actually make, but serves to bolster the idea that anyone who takes issue with cultural appropriation is a hysterical hater.  That might not be clear when you first start looking into the issue, however.

I bring this topic up precisely because it does scare and confuse and inflame.  Except I want to avoid all that negative stuff as best I can.  I won’t be completely successful, but that is because there are no set-in-stone rules here.  There is no ‘common’ sense, because our viewpoints on the subject can and will diverge radically and we lack a common understanding.

It shouldn’t need stating that I am not presenting myself as an authority on this, but I’ve found that I do need to include this disclaimer.  Much like in the post on what to call us, I present you with my thoughts on the matter, recognising that there are legitimate arguments for and against my various positions.  In short, nitôtêmitik, this issue isn’t easy for anyone.  Not for me, not for you.  If easy answers is what you seek, I shall leave you disappointed.  Promise.

Because so much has been said on this topic about colonialism and racism and marginalisation and so forth, I wanted to add in a few points from a related but slightly different perspective than I often see discussed.  To cut down on verbiage (too late), consider this entire post an ‘add-on’ to the larger discussion, rather than a complete encapsulation of it.

First, some resources

A lot has been said on this issue, and although I do a lot of in-my-head work, I also read what other people have to say about these things.  You should too.

You don’t have to read it all right this second, but I want you to have a few more resources to access if this topic interests you. I tend to focus on cultural appropriation as it relates to native peoples, though this issue is hardly limited to us.

The blog Native Appropriations is a great place to do some reading.  The post “But Why Can’t I wear a Hipster Headdress?” deals explicitly with the kinds of things you’ll see in the Hall of Shame.

Tumblr user adailyriot put together a good list of links to read and check out.  I would ask that you not go into this exploration expecting everyone to speak softly and politely.  You may not understand why some of these behaviours impact us so deeply, but that lack of understanding does not justify rejecting our words if they are not delivered in a certain tone. Remember that this is me at my calmest.  I have been moved to tears of helpless rage more than once over these things…and my words are not always polite when I am processing that sort of thing.

So a guy walks into a bar and asks…

What does the Victoria Cross, the Order of Canada, a framed Bachelor’s degree, the Giller Prize and an eagle feather all have in common?

There is no punchline actually. Each one of these things is a symbol, a visual recognition of a certain kind of achievement.  I’m sure you can think of many more of these symbols of military, humanitarian, academic, literary or what-have-you achievement.

The symbol is important, but only because of what it represents.  Without that deeper meaning, the Victoria Cross is gaudy jewellery, a Bachelor Degree is just a piece of paper, the Giller Prize is abstract art and an eagle feather is just ornamentation.

These symbols are restricted to those who have fulfilled certain criteria.  Yes, there are people out there who would mock the symbols and wear representations of them for kicks.  They’d get some odd looks though…I mean, how ironic can you claim to be, lugging around a fake Giller Prize?

There are also people who would lie about their achievements and pretend to have earned what the symbols represent.  You can imagine the reaction to someone pretending they’d earned the Victoria Cross…or someone claiming they have a degree in medicine when they do not.  Sometimes these kinds of claims are met with criminal sanction, so seriously do we take this sort of thing.

Restricted versus unrestricted

So there are a category of symbols in Canadian culture which are restricted within that culture.  Not everyone can use those restricted symbols.  There are rules about how you have to earn them, who can fashion the symbols themselves for you, who can present you with these symbols, and even sometimes what you can do with the symbols.  And always behind that material, physical symbol, is the oft-times intangible ‘thing you achieved’ that is linked to the symbol itself.  Obviously, other cultures also have restricted symbols linked to deeper, less obviously visible achievements.

Then there are symbols in Canadian culture which are not restricted to those who have achieved specific things.  Every Canadian is entitled to use the Canadian flag for example, and the meaning behind the use of that flag will vary depending on what a person individually wishes to symbolise.  A connection to the country?  A call for unity?  A protest against some action or policy?  Questionable fashion?

The meaning varies though the symbol stays the same, and we can (and do) alter that meaning with how we use the symbol.  We express different ideas with how we use the symbol, and we do not generally punish people for doing what they want with that symbol.

If someone unfamiliar with Canadian culture were to decorate herself with a string of fake Victoria Crosses, the reaction would be different than if the same person draped a Canadian flag over her non-Canadian shoulders.

In the case of the Victoria Cross, there is a possibility that the person wants to make a statement about what the Victoria Cross represents.  That would require understanding what the medal represents of course. Simply choosing it because it ‘looks nice’ and wearing it out to a party, does not a statement make.

Since the Canadian flag does not have such a clear cut meaning, there is not as much need to ‘get what it means’.  Its meaning can vary just as much outside of Canadian culture as within it.  Canadians might be offended with how someone outside the culture uses the flag…but they can also just as likely be offended by how someone within the culture uses it.

Cheapen the symbol, cheapen the achievement

In case it wasn’t extremely clear, eagle feathers are restricted symbols in the many indigenous cultures found throughout Canada and the US.  They represent various achievements made by the person who is presented with the feather.  Being presented with a feather is a great honour.  Many indigenous people will receive only one in their life-time, or perhaps never have that opportunity.

Because of the significance of the eagle feather, very few native people would display feathers they haven’t earned.  It would be like wearing that Victoria Cross I keep mentioning.  Someone outside the culture might not realise what the symbol means and perhaps would not call that person out in disgust for wearing it…but those from within the culture probably would.  It would be shameful.

It also cheapens the symbols earned by others.  Oh, those who earned the symbol would still know what they did, and that would never go away, but part of the power of a symbol is what it says to others.  These kinds of symbols are not for our own, personal recognition of our achievements alone.  They say, “here is a visual representation of the honour bestowed upon this person for their achievement”.  When everyone is running around with a copy of that symbol, then it is easy to forget that some people have to earn it and that it means something.  In fact…when many people run around with copies of restricted symbols, there may never be widespread understanding that the symbol ever meant anything.

And that is exactly where we are at with so many symbols from cultures other than our own.  No understanding of all what they mean, and if they are restricted or not, and why.

And hipsters?  In most of our nations, women do not wear feather headdresses.  Ever.  Stop it.

How do I know what’s restricted and what isn’t?

Ask.

Ha, okay, of course I have more to say on the subject.  But it really can be as simple as asking sometimes, or even just doing a little research on the ye olde interwebs.

I find nothing wrong with someone wearing beaded Métis moccasins, for example.  Moccasins are not restricted in my culture.  They are often beautiful works of art, but they are not symbols of achievement beyond the amazing work put into them by the artisan.

I would not be okay with someone wearing a Métis sash if they are not Métis, however.  The sash has become a symbol of identity and achievement. Perhaps it was not always that way, because in the past it was a very utilitarian thing used to carry all sorts of things (including infants), or tie your coat together, or what have you.  But it is a powerful symbol now, and sometimes presented to Métis in the same way the eagle feather is presented.

Stop rolling your eyes at the term ‘sacred’ and think ‘important’ instead

Before I go on, I want to discuss something.  I do not care if you are religious, spiritual, or atheist.  These are choices you make, and I respect them.  However, because of the turbulent history of religion in western settler philosophy (and in many other parts of the world, from whence Canadians come), the translation of terms from our languages into the word ‘sacred’ can sometimes cause trouble.  Let’s talk about that for a second.

I feel that when other cultures discuss ‘sacred’ things, some people feel obligated to reject or elevate those things because of how they feel about their own religious traditions, or their atheism.  The issue gets confused as being about ‘religion’, when that is not necessarily what is going on.

Usually when we say ‘sacred’, there are more complex terms in our own language that apply…all of which basically mean to impart that the thing in question is ‘important and meaningful in a specific way’.  When you see the term ‘sacred’, please remember that.

Adapting to the interest

The Maori have sacred tattoos called tā moko. As I note above, this is not just some religious mumbo-jumbo with no further meaning.  The tattoos are specific symbolic representations of relationships, often kinship relationships.  In addition, they no doubt have all sorts of meanings I don’t have a clue about.  The point is, they aren’t just pretty designs.  They are designs with restricted, important meaning.

But they are nice.  And humans like nice things and want them for themselves.  So when non-Maori started copying these tattoos, a decision was made to promote kirituhi.  These are designs similar to tā-moko, but without the specific important meanings.  The kirituhi are not restricted, and are specifically designed to accommodate interest in the style of tattoo, without violating the meaning of the tā-moko.

More importantly, the decision to create a non-sacred version of the tattoos was made within the culture.  It is very likely that not every Maori person agreed this should be done at all, but you will never have complete agreement in any community.

Legitimate access

I would be uncomfortable wearing a sari.  For one thing, I have no idea how to put one on and would end up looking terrible…

But they are truly beautiful, aren’t they?  Amazing fabrics I can drool over all day.  Yet my discomfort is not really about how to wear them, nor is it based on the sari being a restricted form of dress, because as far as I know it is not.

I would feel uncomfortable because I know very little about the cultures from whence the sari comes.  I have not attended an Indian wedding, or other occasions where wearing a sari makes sense.  I do not believe I would be disrespecting Indian cultures by wearing a sari (unless I chose the very unfortunate day of Halloween to put it on as a ‘costume’ in which case, please feel free to slap me).  Nonetheless, my lack of any real connection to Indian cultures makes the entire thing awkward.

Other people have experiences with and within the culture that mean they can wear the sari and not feel strange.  I think that some people from outside a culture can have legitimate access to these things, without it being cultural appropriation.

But it is a minefield, because thoughtless cultural appropriation of meaningful symbols is still very much the status quo in settler cultures.  Thus it is still more reasonable to assume someone has little real understanding of the culture from the symbol originates from, than to assume they have a meaningful connection to that culture.  This can be very frustrating for people who have learned a lot about another culture, and who are even integrated into it.  But until things change, and thoughtless (and even mean-spirited) appropriation is a fringe behaviour, this is something you may have to live with if you do not come from the culture you so admire.

That there are examples of people with legitimate access to the cultures of others, does not mean you personally are not engaged in cultural appropriation if you do the same as they do.

If you admire a culture, learn about it

It does not take long to find out that certain modes of so-called ‘geisha’ dress are restricted in Japanese culture for example.  The common ‘geisha costume‘ attempts to imitate the maiko.

The bastardisation of geisha culture is not a happy history, and these abuses do not mean that the symbolism has lost meaning within Japanese culture even if some Japanese play into the stereotypes.  To put it another way, just because many people before you have ignored the symbolism and importance of geisha styles of dress, does not mean it is okay for you to do so. We’re trying to become better people aren’t we? There are many other beautiful, unrestricted Japanese styles that you can access an integrate into your own personal style.  Please don’t claim  you are honouring someone else’s tradition or culture when you fail to learn even this much about it.

Combating misinformation

Recently on tumblr, a platform I am still getting to know, there was a concerted effort made by aboriginal people to take back certain categories which were seen as misrepresenting indigenous culture.

On January7, the Native/First Nations Tumblr community came together as a unified force and took back our tags: #Native American, #NDN, and the ridiculous #Indian Hat.

Prior to that day, and most likely going back to the dawn of Tumblr, the #Native American tag had been one which none of the native/first nations people could go to and not cringe and get pissed looking through.

Tumblr is a vast blogging site that consists of nearly 40 million blogs and over 15 billion posts. Anyone can post whatever they like to Tumblr, although most posts tend to be images. And bloggers can tag these posts by subject matter, thus enabling other users to browse all posts on Tumblr by tag.

For many Natives, it was a very frustrating experience to click on tags such as #Native American and find the material to be mostly very UN-Native. The tags were filled primarily with images of non-native hipsters in various stages of being clothed and soberness wearing headdresses, skewed ideas of natives, dream catchers, that damned two wolves story, and other racist stereotypical imagery of Native Americans and First Nations peoples. The tag that ought to belong to us, and that ought to help us find each other, was being used by others, slapped insensitively onto images and ideas we actively dislike.

The emergence of social media platforms like tumblr, Facebook, twitter and yes, blogs, has created amazing possibilities for aboriginal people to combat centuries-old stereotypes and misconceptions.  However, we are up against the sheer volume of those stereotypes and sometimes it can feel like a losing battle.

But actions like that described above are not just a way of lashing out at people engaged in cultural appropriation.  There is a real desire to get accurate information out there, for natives and non-natives alike to access.

Many aboriginal people have been disconnected from their own cultures because of Residential Schools, the 60′s Scoop, and continuing ‘fostering-out’ into non-native families.  When these people want to learn more about their own culture, they have to wade through so many inaccuracies that it can feel impossible at times to reconnect. Non-natives with a real interest in aboriginal cultures face this as well.

For example, when artwork is mistakenly represented as Dene, Ojibway AND Cree, the viewer does not have an opporutnity to see how the styles are different, contributing to an inaccurate ‘pan-Indian’ view of our cultures. All the misinformation out there is a serious impediment to having Canadians understand who we are.  It is a serious impediment to understanding ourselves.

Try celebration, instead of appropriation

It’s okay to love our stuff.  You can even have a whole lot of it, legitimately and guilt-free! Take a look at the artisans/clothing page for some legitimate native swag.  Notice that none of these places are going to sell you eagle feathers or war bonnets.

There are a lot of knock-offs out there, and regardless of your views on pirated-anything, the fact is, buying cheap imitation “native stuff” hurts our communities and quite often perpetuates stereotypes and cultural confusion.

A lot of work and high quality materials go into aboriginal ‘stuff’.  Carvings, woven baskets, clothing…there are skills and training involved in producing this sort of thing that can be imitated, but not matched.  You can’t afford $200 for beaded and fur-trimmed moose-hide mocs?  Perhaps you should consider going without until you can.  Can’t afford an original piece of aboriginal art?  Buy a print. You can support aboriginal communities in a real, tangible way by supporting our artisans.

A lot of fakes are being produced both here in Canada and overseas.  Yes, that shit is offensive.  If you like our stuff enough to want it, then please.  Get it authentically.  Know what nation it comes from (Cree?  Dene?  Inuvialuit?) and who the artisan is.  If you’re buying art, find out what it means.  Does it represent a traditional story, or a modern one?  I mean…if you’re buying this stuff, don’t you want to know about it?

*sigh* I know that’s expecting a little much when you’re looking at a dream-catcher print t-shirt from H&M, but hopefully this will at least help people avoid buying stupid ugly fake headdresses from online and retail stores. This is a great article on approaching questions about fashion, btw, if you’re worried about feathered earrings and so on.

Anyway.  There is a lot more to be said on this topic, but I’m going to leave it there because holy, ever longwinded!

ekosi

Posted in Cultural appropriation, Culture, Decolonisation, Metis beadwork, Pan-Indian, Representation of natives | Tagged , , , , , , | 43 Comments

No offense but…

I recently had a fight with someone I consider a friend, and day three after the event, I am still trying to deconstruct how it all went so wrong.  This ordinarily would not be blog material, except that the situation is all too familiar, for me, and no doubt for many others.

I think these situations can come about in three different ways:

  • Someone says something she or he knows is offensive, with the intent to offend (honest bigotry).
  • Someone says something he or she is pretty sure is offensive, but feels that others will understand because it really wasn’t meant that way (dishonest “no offense but” bigotry).
  • Someone says something she or he honestly doesn’t know is offensive (unaware bigotry).

Let me state for the record, that being a bigot is not an incurable disease.  It is not everything you are.  It doesn’t necessarily move you from the ‘good’ column into the ‘bad’ column. In fact, I feel strongly enough about this that I want to shift the dialogue a little, in order to focus on people’s behaviours which are bigoted, rather on them as bigots.

The bigot

To me, a bigot is someone who has consciously chosen to remain prejudiced, either by omission (not trying to learn more) or by commission (learning, rejecting, rooting).

Someone who is unaware that there is any problem with their behaviours is not necessarily a bigot, imo.  Their behaviours are bigoted, yes…but the magical alchemy that changes someone from a person who does/says bigoted things into A Bigot, happens after their attention is drawn to to problem. It happens when that person either decides not to do anything about it (omission) or decides to learn more and then chooses to continue doing and saying those things (commission).

You can rant and rail all you want (I’ll be your willing chorus line) about systemic bigotry and how it is perpetuated in socio-political structures.  But I honestly believe on the individual level, people can change if they are given the opportunity…or else I wouldn’t even put the kind of effort into this blog that I do.  Nonetheless, I absolutely need to stress that it is not the job of the targets of bigotry to change minds.  The commitment has to come from within.

Short version?  Don’t be a bigot.

I’m a lover, not a fighter

Breaking bigoted behaviours into categories is useful for me, because it helps me determine my approach.  Dealing with full on bigots is something I try to avoid.  It’s too scary, honestly.  I shouldn’t be expected to try to ‘educate’ someone who straight up hates me because of the group I am a part of.  No one should be expected to  expose themselves to that level of psychological, emotional and even physical violence.  That’s ‘last resort’ stuff, in my opinion.

It’s shocking how often people do expect us to confront these kinds of people, however.  As though a failure to do so is the cause of the bigotry.  No lie.  And if it’s unclear here, this expectation is not restricted to indigenous peoples.

We are also expected to address bigoted behaviours, often for the same reason (if you don’t, it’s kind of your fault that they keep believing that).  This can actually be more traumatising, because rational people will understand why I’m loathe to go toe to toe with a swastika-tattooed woman in a “I hate Indians” t-shirt…but they might not understand why I’m pulling away from a discussion with a friend.

I feel that lack of understanding is at the root of ‘how things went so wrong’ recently.

So because I’m calmer today, I’m going to try to explain this, and hopefully when someone out there experiences the same sort of thing, they can avoid the anger and guilt and read this and go…I’m glad it’s not just me!

I can’t believe you just said that!

Here’s where it begins.  You’re blithely going about your day (or perhaps you’re even being a bit bitchy on an online forum) and then boom.  Someone says or does something that stops you in your tracks.  Fight or flight response, the adrenaline surges!  And maybe you don’t deal with it well.  You give into the anger and you attack, because it hurts.

Now let’s talk about spaces and armour.  Because there are certain spaces which aren’t safe, and you go into those spaces knowing this.  You prepare for what feels inevitable sometimes…you prepare for the thoughtless and incredibly discriminatory statements or actions.  It can be exhausting to be in these spaces, but maintaining your armour also becomes a bit of a habit.  When people say or do heinous shit in those spaces, it might still trigger you, but you’ve probably got a battle plan.

Then there are spaces which ought to be safe.  Even if intellectually you recognise they aren’t guaranteed to be.  The classroom for example.  You want it to be a safe space, but often it is anything but.  Or being around friends.  Even when you know that they aren’t the kind to pussy-foot around their opinions (and neither are you).

Being in places where you feel ought to be safe, you end up not necessarily as prepared.  Less armour.  Things can get to you in a way they might not when you’re expecting it.  Your reaction may be less ‘smooth’.  You might just fly off the handle.

You know.  Not that I’ve ever done this.  Repeatedly. *innocent eyes*

That’s so messed up, I can’t even talk to you about it.

So what do you do?  Different responses flood your mind.  Generally I have a burning need to be very clear that whatever was done or said isn’t okay.

But you also might be too shocked, and too angry to deal with the incredibly long and complex process I described in bullet form in the last post.  Or you might not have the opportunity to get into it (e.g. you’re in class or at work).  Or you might resent the fact that just pointing out that something was not okay too often means you are the ‘bad guy’ until you convince everyone otherwise.  And if you have anything like the burning need for vindication that drove me through high-school, a degree in Education and then a degree in Law, you’ll understand why it’s hard for some of us to ‘let it go’.

Sometimes these considerations cause you to remain silent and fester about it for a while.

Sometimes you blurt out the equivalent of “I can’t believe you just said that” and then you run, for all the reasons listed above.

That’s not my argument!

Almost invariably in these situations, someone makes your argument for you, either in their heads, or out loud. And almost invariably, it’s completely and utterly divorced from your actual concerns.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there about certain topics.  A lot of those misconceptions centre around what people believe you (as a group and as an individual) want/think/advocate.

Not understanding our concerns is a root cause of bigotry.

The difficult in addressing this is one of the big reasons so many of us choose to disengage…because this is freaking HUGE.  Someone makes a comic or a statement or an argument that is bigoted, and instead of just being able to bring that to the person’s attention, you now have to also address the argument they’ve assigned to you.

It goes like this.  Someone disagrees that indigenous people have any more right to the land than someone who has been born there.  That’s a pretty fundamental issue for indigenous people, but the person saying this probably isn’t aware of just how fundamental it is.

So if you wanted to take on the monumental task of straightening out this confusion, you already would have to go into a lot of background about what land means to indigenous peoples, and about the plethora of ways in which people deny indigenous rights to land (any one of which could be motivating this person’s rejection of indigenous rights to land).  That’s a big task, right there.

Except you can’t even get to that part yet, because you have to wade through the things the other person thinks are ‘inherent to your position/argument’ first…because quite often, the person in question is going to throw these things in your face like facts, and then base their argument on your supposed position.

Maybe they think you want to kick all non-aboriginal people off the land and go back to living like we did pre-Contact (a fucking ridiculously common assumption that drives me up the wall every time).   And this is where things so often get turned around, and you get called the bigot.  That’s right.  This person doesn’t even actually know what your position is, but they think they do, and now if you don’t want to look like a bigot, you have to refute their false assumptions.

*throws hands up in air*

Sure, you win, whatever.

I’ve gotten good at spotting this problem, so I don’t get confused anymore when it comes to:

  1. recognising that someone has constructed a strawman argument (often without even realising it) and,
  2. fundamentally does not understand the initial position.

And I can basically say, sorry, that’s not my argument and you don’t actually understand the situation…

But that isn’t going to satisfy the other person. They’re going to want you to prove it.  Both that this is not your argument (by presenting what is often a complex argument) AND by refuting the initial statement/whatever.

If you can, walking away from this crap is a good idea.  The person you are dealing with does not understand what they are asking you to do, and just how much work would have to go into fulfilling that expectation. Even explaining to them what is involved in addressing their accusations requires you to deconstruct the power dynamic involved in this confrontation.

Not understanding how hard it is to deconstruct bigotry, and expecting the targets of it to do this for you, is an exercise in privilege.

This matters to me.

The issue in question is probably just an idle thought in the other person’s mind.  For you, it might be central to who you are.  And if it’s one of those ‘common beliefs’ people have about you and the the group you are a part of, you’ve probably had to go through this same dance so many times that your feet are just plain sore.

Talking about this stuff is hard.  No matter how safe the space.  Don’t understand why?  Go read the comments on any of the Huffington Post articles I’ve submitted, and you’ll see the level of evil shit people hurl at us all the time.  Someone suggested that maybe this was making me sensitive, and I had to laugh.  That statement assumes this is a recent thing I’ve been exposed to, rather than something I have spent my entire life immersed in.  Does it get to me more at some times than other times?  Sure.  But it is always there.  A background of hatred.

Not understanding how deeply these issues impact our daily lives is an exercise in privilege.

Not understanding how often we are called upon to defend ourselves on these issues, is an exercise in privilege.

I am willing to talk to people about these things.  I am willing to spend a lot of time doing it.  But I am not willing to have someone waste my energy when they don’t actually care about the issue; they just like arguing.  I am not willing to talk to someone who disrespects me by telling me what my argument is, rather than asking me.

I am not willing to go through all this effort with someone who demands I do so according to settler rules of adversarial debate. Particularly not when that person is a friend.

Requiring us to speak to you on your terms (or risk being dismissed), is an exercise in colonialism.

And there is another layer you might feel you need to point out to the person in question…but at that point, it’s often easier to just give up.

You have to want to understand.

Not everyone cares about your issues.  Some have never really encountered them before, so their behaviour falls into the ‘unaware bigotry’ category.

Others want to piss you off and make no bones about it.  These are the ones with behaviours that are in the ‘honest bigotry’ category…but encounters like these tend to be pretty rare, because it’s often the full on bigots that do this.

Some don’t understand the issues and perhaps haven’t made much effort  to learn more because these things do not impact them personally.  A lot of these people have behaviours that fall into the ‘dishonest “no offense but..” bigotry’ category.  Unfortunately, a lot of people believe that they have some sort of special exemption that absolves them of their bigoted behaviour.  Sometimes they think they have this exemption, because they are close to you and you know them better than that.  Broaching these subjects with friends can be even more stressful than bringing it up with a stranger.

Demanding that the targets of bigotry convince you to care about their situation, is oppressive.

I like to believe that people don’t want to be assholes all their lives, so when they find out they’re doing something bigoted, they will work to figure out how not to do that anymore.

It doesn’t always work this way, I get it.  But I can only do so much to persuade people to engage in the work necessary.  The rest of my energy must be spent on those who are trying already.

If you just don’t care about what matters to me, I’m not necessarily going to hold it against you.  I don’t need the whole world to be as interested in these issues as I necessarily am.

But I will not accept that not engaging immediately in all of the above work with someone who just made a bigoted comment, means I am just being a bitch for no reason.

I do expect others to learn enough to avoid engaging in active bigotry.  That may require learning something about the topic…or it may just mean not saying things about the situation when you don’t know anything about it.

Sometimes, silence is golden, people.

Solidarity

One last thing, before I present you with a little review.  There have been some excellent things written about solidarity movements, which by definition are made up of people who are not part of the group they are in solidarity with.  I bring this up, because some of the principles (such as decolonisation) involved in solidarity movements might help people understand what is involved in engaging actively in deconstructing bigotry.

Being supportive, or going further and being in solidarity with other people, requires that you do a lot of internal work.  That isn’t something you can expect other people to lead you through.  There are many resources out there for those interested in anti-racism, anti-colonialism, anti-sexism, etc etc etc.  Find them.  Learn from them.

Some things to think about.

So let’s review:

  • It is not the job of the targets of bigotry to change minds.
  • Not understanding our concerns is a root cause of bigotry.
  • Not understanding how hard it is to deconstruct bigotry, and expecting the targets of it to do this for you, is an exercise in privilege.
  • Not understanding how deeply these issues impact our daily lives is an exercise in privilege.
  • Not understanding how often we are called upon to defend ourselves on these issues, is an exercise in privilege.
  • Requiring us to speak to you on your terms or be dismissed, is an exercise in colonialism/oppression.
  • Demanding that the targets of bigotry convince you to care about their situation, is oppressive.

For more detailed information on how conversations get derailed into being about what the person exhibiting bigoted behaviours feels and wants, please check out Derailing for Dummies.

Thanks for your time, nitôtêmitik.

Posted in Alienation, Decolonisation, Injustice | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

No soup for bigots.

I feel a need right now to discuss privilege.  It is a complex issue, and I have a lot to say about it, so this may end up being more than one post.  This is me attempting to rationally approach something that from time to time ambushes my life and hijacks my attention and emotional energy.  It is my attempt to articulate what I am unable to say when I am angry.

When it comes to friendships, some things are deal-breakers.  For me, it’s bigotry.  Can’t stop trash talking homosexuals?  No soup for you.  Hate and mock transgendered people?  No soup for you.  Sexist?  Ha ha a sandwich joke…no freaking soup for you.

That’s not a definitive list either.  The kind of person who treats someone disrespectfully because of a disability or illness (mental or physical) or is great in every other way except for a rabid hatred of Ukrainians…I consider these serious character flaws, and when I discover them, I definitely reconsider whether I can continue to be friends with someone like that.

It’s not as clear cut as it sounds though.  Sometimes you can know someone for a while before you see this side of them.  Or you believe that because they are admirable and intelligent in so many other ways, they must be saying those things sarcastically, mocking the stereotypes rather than perpetuating them. You have to decide whether or not you can handle talking to your friend about what they did or said or apparently believe.  This can be particularly hard to do that when you are part of the group in question.  The added sense of betrayal can make it feel even worse than if a random stranger walked up to you and said or did something similar.

Because contrary to popular bigot belief, most ‘minorities’ (how I hate the term, but trotting out a series of descriptors so that I can be inclusive invariably leaves me winded) don’t ‘pull the race/gender/whatever’ card out at the drop of a hat.  Nope.  Sorry.  There is so much actual crap hurled our way constantly, that if we called out ever instance of it, we’d get nothing else done.  And making up extra heaps of it?  No time folks, busy living over here.  For reals.

People who aren’t targets of bigotry don’t really grasp this.  I am a fair skinned Métis. I do not get targeted for my skin colour the way darker skinned people (native and non) do.  I don’t get pulled over for Driving While Indian, and when both my daughters cracked their heads open in the kitchen one day apart from one another, no one at the hospital accused me of child abuse as a default.  That is my fair-skinned privilege, and a lot of people don’t have it.

Thus it would be very easy for me to minimise the frequency of discrimination based on skin colour, if I were to compare other’s experiences to my own.  And to some extent, I am certain I do this.  It is not always there in my mind as a gnawing worry when I go out into the world.  My preparations are based on other characteristics I have which to some, render me less capable, less worthy of respect…less.  Always less.  Yet my experiences do not mean other people’s experiences are ‘exaggerations’.

When we do call someone on their bigotry, the proverbial shitstorm is unleashed.  Is there anything more offensive to a person’s sense of who they are than being called a bigot?  I mean this seriously.  Think about it. We all of us have ways of rationalising our behaviours, good or bad.  Bigotry isn’t a socially-accepted character trait.  Oh, the practice of bigotry is all around us regardless, but being labelled a bigot is a big social no-no.  It often doesn’t matter if what you really said was, “that thing you just did or said was discriminatory in this way…”, because what the person is often hearing is “YOU BIG JERKY BIGOT CREEPFACE!”

So it’s not a situation where ‘the card’ gets pulled too often.  Most of us don’t call people on their bigotry enough because we don’t want to deal with the long drawn out fallout.

Because when you call someone on their bigotry, in action or thought, suddenly it is your job to:

  • prove that the action or thought was actually bigoted which requires you to:
  • explain how it was bigoted, which requires you to:
  • go into a long historical exploration of socio-political structures which requires you to:
  • take a long freaking time deconstructing shit for someone else.

Don’t get me wrong.  I have a number of friends who don’t make you do this.  Who don’t go on the defensive, and who will think about it and figure out for themselves what wasn’t okay about that thing they said or did.  And if they still aren’t 100% sure about it, they’ll ask in a way that doesn’t demand you discuss it western-style debate form, bang bang someone’s a winner and someone’s a loser.  Oh Great Freaking Frybread of Awesome, I love you people for this.

The bulk of my experiences with identifying bigotry is much less pleasant.  In fact, it’s exhausting.  I didn’t sign up to be a professor in Decolonisation 101, here to give lessons in under 10 minutes at the drop of the hat, while being aggressively ‘debated’ and yes, even sometimes called a racist for bringing it up.

Now I’m going to flesh this out more in another post, because otherwise this is going to turn into a novel, but I want to end this post with a bit of a suggestion.  If someone tells you that what you did was disrespectful, please don’t immediately get your back up.  Yes yes, you have the right to be disrespectful if that’s really what you want to do and go you, exercising your freedom and all that…just state for the record you don’t give a shit about how other people feel and move on if that’s your thing.

For those of us who aren’t so silly, it can be jarring to have someone call you out on your behaviour, because it’s embarassing.  We don’t generally go around trying to be jerks, and when it happens and we honestly didn’t intend it, having it pointed out may trigger your fight or flight response.  But if I can get over the ‘shame’ of being lectured by an 8 year old about letting the nasty term ‘retard’ slip, you can get over your ego enough too.  None of us are perfect, and we can all work at being better people, every day.

Posted in Alienation, Decolonisation | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Speaking different languages at the CFNG

Well folks, there was a lot of ‘speaking two different languages‘ going on in Ottawa yesterday.

For me, the highlights of the Crown-First Nation Gathering held yesterday in Ottawa came from the mouths of two women, Dr. Pam Palmater and Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould. Dr. Palmater provided commentary during the opening and closing of the Gathering on APTN while Chief Wilson-Raybould addressed the Gathering itself.

I’ll admit that I didn’t exactly have high hopes about this summit, for reasons that Dr. Palmater laid out far more explicitly and thoroughly than I have room for here.  Harper’s opening speech confirmed that the Canadian government has no intention to abolish or even change the Indian Act (it’s a tree, after all, with deep roots) and National Chief Shawn Atleo‘s speech (scroll down for the full text in that link) though at odds with Harper’s in certain areas, didn’t exactly knock my socks off.

Granted, these were clearly all prepared speeches being essentially ‘read into the record’ by politicians who have be very careful about how they phrase things.  Lots of references to ‘a new day’ and such. People will analyse their words to death over the next months and even years, so expecting ground-shaking statements might be naive.

But when Chief Wilson-Raybould finished with her opening pleasantries and then tackled some tough subjects, my ears stopped dozing. Her speech prompted the first rounds of spontaneous applause heard after over two hours of speeches.  She said a lot of important things, and I urge you to listen to her words (at 2:24:30).

After giving a series of concrete examples of the obstacles to self-governance and economic development, and offering clear instructions on how to overcome those obstacles, she accepted Harper’s Indian Act-as-tree metaphor, and stated:

“We need core governance reform. When we do, the Indian Act tree will topple over. No gaping hole Mr. Prime Minister, but strong and self-determining First Nations.”

In the privacy of my living room, I was able to jump up and pump my fist like crazy without the least bit of embarrassment. Maybe you had to be there.

During and after the Gathering, Dr. Palmater (along with Doug Cuthand) provided razor sharp analysis of some of the issues raised which had me thinking that no wonder CSIS apparently has a file on her.

I particularly liked Ovide Mecredi recounting what a respected Elder told him to do about the Indian Act, advising Mecredi to “act Indian, not Indian Act.”  Again, this might not make sense to everyone reading this, and I think that is because just as was highlighted at the CFNG, we are often speaking two different languages.

Doug Cuthand pointed out that for most First Nations people, it’s “family first, community second, individual third” and noted that Harper had focused strongly on the individual first.  This is not the only instance of how we aren’t speaking the same language.  Chief Wilson-Raybould and Ovide Mecredi both gave plenty of other examples related to governance and the Treaties.

What strikes me as the most obvious difference in language and meaning however, is highlighted by the traditional acknowledgement of the territory one is on. In this case, the CFNG was hosted on Algonquin territory.

When Prime Minister Harper or Minister Duncan or the Governor General acknowledge they are on Algonquin territory, they don’t mean it.  They really don’t.  Why?  Because it would require acknowledging the sovereignty of the Algonquin people over those lands, which is something Canada steadfastly refuses to do.  To these people, the words are just platitudes.  Something you say when you’re dealing with Indians.  Empty phrases.

It is not an empty phrase for us.  It is an important affirmation of another nation’s territory, a recognition of the reciprocal obligations between hosts and guests, and it is also a constant modern-day assertion of indigenous sovereignty.

So when I read the CFNG outcome statement, I can’t help but feel that sure, it really would be a good step if we could manage to speak the same language.

So how about it, Canada?  Time for some national language lessons?

Posted in First Nations, INAC, Injustice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Guest Blog: Don’t give up on Attawapiskat!

The following article is my first ‘guest blog post’, by David Schulze, a partner in the law firm of Dionne Schulze in Montréal, which specializes in representing Aboriginal communities and individuals.  I think it is important to remember that the immediate problems facing Attawapiskat are still not resolved.

(This article may be linked to or reprinted, but must not be altered.  Proper attribution must be made to the author, David Schulze.  Images and links were inserted by âpihtawikosisân.)

What About Attawapiskat?  Why the situation is not hopeless if we make better choices.

David Schulze, 21 January 2012

Several yeas ago my daughter and I took the ferry from Prince Edward Island to the Magdalen Islands, a small chain of islands in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, which are part of the Province of Quebec.

The Magdalen Islands

Only 13,000 people inhabit the islands year-round, but tourists flock there in the summer. Most of the islands are connected by land bridges, but sailing in from P.E.I., as the main archipelago comes into view, a ship passenger sees Entry Island, unconnected to the rest of the chain and separated by 12 km of water.

Entry Island has about 130 inhabitants and can only be reached by sea or air. A ferry arrives twice a day from May through December and the island has regular airplane service from January through April.

While in the Magdalen Islands, my daughter and I visited the Anglican priest, whom we knew from Montreal, and he told us that about once a month he went to Entry Island, where all the families are English-speaking, to hold services. Our friend also explained that the provincial government pays for a teacher to live year-round on Entry Island and offer elementary school education to the local children.

As we sailed away from the Magdalen Islands, it occurred to me that in Canada, we see it as reasonable and proper that families like those of Entry Island should have regular transportation services and a public school in their own community, yet similar spending on Aboriginal communities is often viewed as a waste.

As a lawyer, I work almost exclusively for Aboriginal communities. An increasing amount of my time is spent dealing not with land claims or hunting or fishing rights, but funding for programs and services.

Since sailing past Entry Island, I no longer see a reason why my clients should apologize for the amounts their communities cost the taxpayer. Unfortunately, I now think that when Canadians complain these communities cost too much, they are demonstrating an unconscious form of racism.

These thoughts came back to me during the recent controversy about Attawapiskat, a Cree community of 1,900 people situated on the western coast of James Bay in Ontario. It is connected to the outside world only by air, water and an ice road accessible in the winter.

Attawapiskat attracted national attention after declaring a state of emergency on October 28, 2011, due to a severe housing shortage. Many Canadians were shocked when the Red Cross was called in to help.

Several commentators were quick to suggest that the best solution for Attawapiskat would be to shut the community down and move residents to the south, near urban areas.

It seems obvious that this would simply move the poverty elsewhere. The residents of Attawapiskat are predominantly Cree speaking. They live some 1,000 km north of Toronto. The nearest town of any size is Moosonee, which has only 3,500 inhabitants itself, is not connected to the rest of Ontario by road (only by rail and air) and had an unemployment rate three times the provincial average in 2006.

Moreover, Aboriginal leaders have asked why their people should be moved off their land at the precise moment when hundreds of millions of dollars can be made from its resources.

Paying jobs are finally available near Attiwapiskat because the mineral wealth of the Crees’ traditional lands is now being explored and exploited. Only 90 km from the reserve, De Beers has opened an open-pit diamond mine employing over 500 workers. Thanks to an impacts and benefits agreement negotiated by the band council, about 100 of those workers are from Attiwapiskat.

Attawapsikat is closer to the James Bay itself than it seems on this INAC map.

Another fundamental question for me is why so many believe we owe so little to the people of Attawapiskat, despite the fact that our federal government entered into a solemn agreement with them in the form of Treaty 9.

Treaty 9 was among the last in a series of “numbered” treaties signed by Canada from the 1870s till the 1930s, with First Nations from northern Ontario to the Rocky Mountains. First Nations surrendered their title to land and in return, the federal government promised them small annual payments, reserves, and the right to hunt and fish throughout their territory.

Representatives of the Crown met with chiefs who usually could not speak English and had them sign legal documents, usually with an “X”. From the government’s point of view, the land had been cleared of competing claims and was ready for settlement. From the Aboriginal point of view, the Crown had promised to protect their way of life.

The Attawapiskat Cree only “adhered” to Treaty 9 in 1930 and in Ontario’s far north, settlers did not follow negotiation of the treaty. As a result, little changed for the Attawapiskat Cree so long as they could still live off the land by hunting, fishing and trapping.

But the 1950s and 1960s saw a terrible combination of circumstances for remote Aboriginal communities like Attawapiskat. The fur trade ceased to offer a viable livelihood at the same time that the federal government pressed the Cree to settle permanently on reserves and enforced attendance for their children in residential schools. The communities were emptied of their children and the parents sat on the reserves waiting for them to return.

Community members had little else to do if they could not hunt, fish or trap. In Canada, infrastructure of all kinds (railroads, highways, schools, hospitals) has always been built for white settlers, for their farms, mines and factories. If Aboriginal communities happened to be nearby (like the Mohawk communities of southern Quebec and Ontario for instance), they benefited from that infrastructure, but if they lived in remote areas like Attawapiskat, they remained isolated.

Even the Indian residential school experience reflected this reality: attendance was most widespread in remote communities were the government did not want to build schools. The federal government took the children out of these communities to more centrally-located residential schools and left them there, sometimes for the school year, sometimes for years at a time.

Since the 1950s, the federal government has progressively provided Indians on reserve with most of the services the provinces provide to other Canadians, such as health care, education, and social assistance. Since the 1970s, service delivery has been progressively delegated to the First Nations themselves.

However, the federal government does not usually take on services to First Nations as binding legal obligations: funding depends on the annual budget and on a Minister’s discretion. Services such as local policing, for example, may simply stop from one year to the next, to be replaced by a distant provincial police detachment.

Moreover, federal funding for services to First Nations does not have to match the level of provincial funding for the same services off reserve. Often, federal funding is lower, even though the First Nations who administer programs are expected to meet provincial standards.

The result in an area such as education is that Indian Affairs provides per capita budgets below the provincial averages to reserves where needs are greater than the in the rest of the province. Communities already faced with the challenge of serving deprived populations in remote locations like Attawpiskat become trapped in a downward spiral of underfunding and underperformance.

During the Attwapiskat controversy, the Prime Minister cited the $90 million in funding provided to the community during the preceding five years and called the results inadequate. But how generous was this funding when Council was providing municipal, educational and health care services, as well as housing, all at a location no car or truck can reach in summer and where the cost of building a single home is $250,000?

Nor are First Nations unaccountable. The Auditor General has reported that their councils file literally hundreds of financial reports every year to various federal government departments. The Minister of Indian Affairs reacted to Attiwapiskat’s crisis by placing the council under “third party management”, a form of trusteeship the Minister reserves the right to impose when a First Nation’s deficit reaches a set proportion.

The most important point, however, is that things do not have to be this way. Clear evidence contradicts the commentators who insist that the problems of remote First Nations can never be solved, that no amount of money will make things better, that we must shut down communities like Attawapiskat and encourage their residents to leave their traditional lands.

Just across James Bay, on the east coast, the example of the Cree and the Inuit living in Québec proves that life could be much better for communities like Attawapiskat. Life in the Cree and Inuit villages of Québec is far from perfect, but it is significantly better than in the Cree communities of northern Ontario.

Unlike the James Bay Cree of Ontario, no-one asked the James Bay Cree and Inuit of Québec to sign a treaty as a pre-condition to development. On the contrary, the Québec government announced in the early 1970s that the James Bay hydro-electric project would flood their traditional lands without even informing them of its plans.

The Québec Cree and Inuit went to court to stop the James Bay hydro project and obtained an injunction, though it was quickly set aside on appeal. Settlement negotiations with the federal and provincial governments led to the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA), the first modern land claims agreement, signed in 1975, after which the project went ahead.

Among other things, the JBNQA left the Cree and the Inuit with regional school boards, health and social services agencies, police forces and local government structures under their control. These institutions are funded jointly by the federal and provincial governments, to the same level as comparable bodies in the rest of the province.

The JBNQA also recognized their right to hunt, fish and trap and provided the Cree and the Inuit with a role in wildlife management and environmental assessment on their territory.

With the compensation paid to them for settling their land claims, the Cree and Inuit bought the airlines that serve their communities, among other businesses. Where Attawapiskat derives benefits from a single mine, the crucial role played by the Québec Cree and Inuit in deciding on the development of their territory has led to a growing role in many areas of the regional economy. In businesses such as mining, forestry or commercial fisheries, the Cree or the Inuit participate through royalties, employment, or ownership.

The question raised by the example of the Cree and Inuit of Québec is why they had to go to court and accept massive development on their lands in order to obtain the benefit of adequate locally-controlled services and economic opportunities of the kind we would consider a minimum for other Canadians?

The real question raised by Attawapiskat is whether all we promised its people in Treaty 9 were underfunded resources on unsustainable reserves and an invitation to move elsewhere if it does not suit them? Or is it possible that we owe them institutions and services of at least the same quality we take for granted in the rest of Canada and a chance to participate in the economic benefits that can be derived from their lands?

Posted in Aboriginal law, First Nations, Injustice, James Bay Cree, Treaty 9 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment