http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/09/joseph-quesnel-some-reserves-can-t-be-fixed.aspx

I recently had a column published in the National Post about the existence of what I call "non-viable" reserves. These are First Nations that possess very little hope of becoming economically viable. Even if reforms were made to the Indian Act in the way of helping them succeed at business, it seems some of these communities are affected by their geography, which places prohibitive costs on their costs of doing business. High costs must be slapped on goods that are shipped in and these communities, mainly fly-in reserves, are very isolated from highways or other means of access to the commercial market.

I argue these communities may have to think about relocating (hopefully within their traditional territory) to an area closer to an urban centre to take advantage of economic and educational opportunities.

This is a voluntary move that would not affect Aboriginal title or treaty rights. First Nations would always have access to their territories for social and cultural purposes.

Anyways, response has been interesting. My favourite negative response has been that, "well, this is the same as non-Aboriginal rural communities, so why are we talking about this?" reaction. This has been almost exclusively raised by Aboriginal reporters or people responding to the study.

My first response is yes, there are parallels. So??? This doesn't mean my study or recommendations no longer apply. There are also significant differences between reserves and non-Aboriginal rural communities. For one, the Indian Act places many burdens on economic and political activity. There are significant benefits to staying on reserves that aren't there with rural towns, such as access to band council housing and other services. The most you can get in a rural community is social assistance and maybe social housing, but it is no where near the benefits that FNs provide to band members.

Anyway, I haven't been called a "racist" yet, so I think that is hopeful. I think we may have reached the point where certain provocative policy proposals do not generate that kneejerk response.

My next column will look more closely at the state of aboriginal issues within academia. This is a particular concern of mine, given what I have seen to any scholars who challenge current thinking on Aboriginal issues.

Stay tuned!

Strike while the iron is hot

It appears that AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo may be more open to progressive proposals for change than originally thought.

In a recent story published in the National Post, it was stated that, "Mr. Atleo did indicate he would not stand in the way of moves allowing native Canadians to own freehold title over more on-reserve property, which has been suggested as an encouragement to entrepreneurship."

Here's the column in reference: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2461464#ixzz0deqXKmE5

If this is true and Atleo is open to radical proposals like increased private property ownership on Indian Act reserves, then it makes sense that the federal government run with this and develop proposals for the AFN to study and perhaps support.

It would be great for the national chief to lead a campaign in support of on-reserve private property as a means of encouraging entrepreneurship. This is the only way First Nation communities are ever going to hope of putting a dent into poverty. No one is saying private property rights will transform reserves into meccas of opportunity overnight, but they will open up new possibilities for investment and opportunity that hitherto did not exist.

If I was the Minister of Indian Affairs I would seek discussions with Atleo and develop proposals that be supported by band governments.

Prof. Tom Flanagan and Prof. Chris Alcantara of Wilfrid Laurier University are coming out with a new book (with a foreword written by Manny Jules, a lifetime indigenous proponent of First Nation self-taxation) in March. In this work, the authors propose a First Nation Land Ownership Act where title to reserve lands is removed from the Crown and given over to First Nation governments, who in turn have the option of handing that over to individual band members.

Perhaps the time has come for this Conservative government to work with this particular national chief in delivering lasting change for all Indian Act bands by working to pass this land ownership legislation. This would require an amendment to the Indian Act. If the Tories had a majority government, they could likely expend the political capital to work with Atleo in passing this.

I have no faith in the other parties to do the right thing. They always seem to equate band leaders with indigenous opinion. They always come down on the side of vested Indian Act interest over democratic change on First Nations.

I will be watching Chief Atleo much more closely now and hope that he continues along this progressive path.

Avatar

For the past while I have been fuming about something. 

It's not a particular policy issue, but a film.

On Christmas Day, I watched the movie Avatar. Besides being a breathtakingly beautiful picture, it is also a clear example of pure political propaganda, which makes it that more insidious. 

Of course, how do we accept negative or even evil things if they are not packaged in beautiful wrapping.

I bring this review here because the movie attempts to make a parallel between an alien civilization encountering humanity and European contact with indigenous peoples.

First of all, I do not make any pretense that indigenous-European relations have been peachy over the last century. Often times, relations were deceptive and downright coercive. 

What makes Avatar wrong is its over-simplified portrayal in order to form some kind of critique of Western civilization and modernity in its entirety. 

First of all, Europeans did not enter into a war of destruction from the start against indigenous people. Historically, relations were characterized by trade relations and later treaties that allowed First Nations to remain largely on their traditional territories. Thus, the portrayal of those relations is misleading.

The problem is some people learn history from films and this film teaches false history. 

The second problem is it over-romanticizes indigenous peoples. There is no violence. There are no gender relations problems. There are no issues over individual rights. Torture and violence were pre-dominant among some indigenous peoples. Of course, you wouldn't know that watching Avatar. You leave with the false impression that indigenous people lived an idyllic existence and Europeans were all evil. Also, a principle problem is the way it romanticizes primitive spirituality and appears to disparage science and modernity. A belief in a pantheistic deity is apparently much more important than science, medicine and technology. I am theistic, but I find this simple-minded dichotomy to be inaccurate and childish and ignores the infinite benefits modern civilization has brought to all of us, indigenous people included. 

One friend of mind commented that the movie would be quite long if it featured all the true nuances of history. Respectfully, I disagree fully. I have a large collection of films and one can capture points of nuance in half-hour sit coms better than Avatar. 

The other point is the cheap shots against American foreign policy. The one line "fight terror with terror" is an obvious cheap shot at the Bush Administration. This, of course, misses the entire nuances of why America and Canada went to war against the vicious Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. 

Thus, I think the negative effects of its propaganda far outweigh its artistic and aesthetic value. I think this cartoonish and simple-minded crap is one of the reasons relations between indigenous people and newcomers continue to be mired in misunderstanding and deception. 

Contact between indigenous and Western societies was not perfect, but it was one of give and take, where technologies and concepts were shared. Native people still live here. They still have a civilization worthy of honour. They can maintain their language and their culture, as well as their spirituality. 

Like I said, things ain't perfect, but modern civilization has brought many blessings to indigenous peoples. 

I rarely think of walking out of movies, but Avatar was a close-call exception. The propaganda became almost too much to bear. 

I hope and pray if people see it, especially indigenous people, they realize it is far from the reality of history, but is more about a constructed reality Hollywood liberals want to impose on all of us. 

 

Coercive vs. voluntary assimilation?

I am a regular follower of other Aboriginal blogs. One is by a Mohawk blogger (and former or current journalist Shmohawk). He prefers anonymity, so I will not begrudge him that. His site can be accessed here: http://shmohawk.wordpress.com
Anyway, on a recent post, he reminisced about a past offer of employment at Indian Affairs. Given the British Crown's history with FN peoples and that of the Canadian state in certain respects, I understand his reluctance about this job offer.
He doesn't want to become part of the system that he perceives to be the problem. Hey, I support that sentiment.
Where I find his argument puzzling, and that of so many others, is the whole issue of assimilation. Indian Affairs seems to be fingered as the main culprit for assimilation. The post then goes on to look at the White Paper and various forced attempts at "assimilation."
Here is where I strongly differ. If funding for First Nation programs eventually ceased, would that mean assimilation for First Nations? I mean seriously, is cultural preservation tied to funding programs? Are we just a few program dollars or programs away from a fully-restored ingenous identity?
I submit we are not. I submit cultural and identity preservation is a matter of family and community will, with some government help, but not in the form some Native activists want.
I attended a symposium years ago in Winnipeg on indigenous languages. It was very interesting and revealed the sad reality that many indigenous languages were threatened with extinction. Ojibway and Cree were two of the strongest languages, but many others were losing speakers all the time.
At the symposium, funding and government recognition seemed to be the favourite approach. I disagree with the first, but could support the second.
Quebec is a good model for understanding language retention. However, I am sure I will lose readers for all sorts of different reasons, but bear with me.
For language to survive, it must become a lived reality. It must be public. There is nothing preventing First Nations (and many do) from trying to use their state powers to post signage in their language or ensure minutes are available in indigenous languages.
Here is where I will lose some. I support government, even constitutional, support for indigenous languages. To me, this makes perfect sense. Why should be pretend there are only Two Founding Nations anymore? I am French-Canadian, but I think it makes sense to preserve these languages even sometimes more than my own. The reality is you can't say to an indigenous person, "go back to where you come from if you want to preserve your language." Even if you accept the scientifically-based Land Bridge Theory, this still places indigenous people here well before everyone else.
Before I continue, I say this does not necessarily funding for language programs. I oppose those largely even for my own language group. This means public documents would be recognized as official if they are written in some Native dialects.
Ok, but there are hundreds of indigenous dialects and languages, you may scream. But, this is why indigenous languages cannot be treated like English or French. This is a largely moral and symbolic change and would mean any indigenous person could speak in his or her original language in Parliament.
Anyways, this means language preservation will fall on the indigenous governments and communities. Obviously, English and French needs to be put first in education curricula, given the needs of our country, but a public face to these languages could be achieved, all within the legitimate jurisdiction of FN governments.
The other reality is that language loss will change because of many non-coercive changes. Natives are marrying and raising kids with non-Natives. This is a voluntary move. How they retain language is not a legitimate area of the state.
Some language loss will be inevitable as First Nations access modern Canadian life. Jobs, education ae chiefly done in English or French. The main job must be at home or within a community. Even studies show that urbanization does not mean one loses one languge, it just becomes a secondary language.
I have seen whole First Nation community meetings conducted completely in Cree. This is a matter of passing on the tongue and ensuring it is respected.
Spirtuality and other cultural values are also tough issues. Obviously, coerced attempts to deny indigenous people their spirituality are wrong, such as the residential schools system approach in many instances.
The question becomes once the coercive policies are lifted, where does responsibility lie? I submit it lies with individual and community. The challenge is that in modernity, it is not possible or moral to impose a public indigenous religious order, any more than forcing mass on a whole community. There is not unanimity among FNs about religion and even if there was, it is not moral to force rituals or beliefs. FNs in large numbers have decided to return to the old traditional ways. That is their choice. No one ought to prevent that. First Nation voluntary associations should play the role of promoting spiritual values, just like churches. The problem is the horribl historic example of churches in these matters. Through coercion and abuse of position, these bodies have given Christianity a very bad reputation on many reserves. Many are completely turned off from the organized churches. I don't blame them. The question, however, is not that that pressure is gone, where is the role of individuals now?
Indigenous traditionalists need to realize that many First Nations have opted for a different way, either Christianity, atheism (I am meeting many atheist FNs these days), or whatever. This may mean that the definition of what is means to be "Indian" needs change. They need a more secular, inclusive definition.
Anyways, the only problem then is political, values orientation. Some would say that assimilation could result from changing what makes indigenous people indigenous. Well, this comes back to what makes indigenous. At its root, it is an ethnic category or a matter of descent. A lot of what we package into what we mean by indigenous or Indian is subjective and debatable. It would be hard to say it is a way of life or mode of existence, given that FNs today live in totally different conditions. Hunting, fishing and trapping are not all shared by all indigenous peoples. The most contested definition is communal ownership of land. Many argue the Creator puts indigenous peoples on their lands, so that has to stay. However, looking back to the discussion on spirituality, it is not clear this is share by all FNs. Many reserves look towards private property as a good. Moreover, some FNs (like Nisga'a) have gone the whole distance in allowing land to be alienated from the community (although still subject to indigenous law). No one an argue these people are no indigenous.
So, given the complexity of even understanding what is "indigenous," how can we say definitively what assimilation is when we do not know from what proper image people are assimilating from? I submit there is no true copy of Indian out there, or proper representation. I think it was either Plato or Aristotle who referred to the image of some object that exists in pure form in our minds. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong.
So, I live with this thought: the only people who can assimilate First Nations are First Nations themselves. If they fail to exercise individual, family and community will. If they fail to use the jurisdiction over language and culture they already have to their advantage. If THEY fail, "assimilation," whatever that means, is a virtual certainty.

Baby Steps

I am convinced more than ever that history will favour those who advocate political and economic freedom for First Nations.
The Nisga'a property rights step is a small one, but I believe it will erode the will of the Native leaders who will not be able to silence the band members who want change.
I think sheer numbers will achieve this. As more FNs leave reserves and see the outside world, they will want to come back to their community to see changes and will become increasingly jaded at leaders as they deny them.
I see a new generation of indigenous youth who are respectful of their traditions and past, but who refuse to take the lack of opportunity and the corruption of the old boys club on reserves.
As more bands clean up their act and these stories get to mainstream attention, more reserves will know there is a better way forward.
Ever notice how most of the big shot Aboriginal leaders don't leave permanently on reserves? Yes, they probably spend most of their time on reserves, but do they live there? Probably not. They believe they are advocating for their people, but in reality, they have one foot in each world and if they had to choose, they would probably stay in the colonial world. Why? Because of the jobs, income, mobility, and opportunity.
No one predict how the demographics will go completely, but I believe things will come down to a heavily urbanized FN population and an increasingly dissatisfied, but younger and more demanding, on-reserve population. They will want to have the best of both worlds. They respect their traditional homelands, yet want the prosperity and cleaner politics of the mainstream. From there, I predict, will emerge a critical class of people open to changes, including property rights, in order to have reasons to stay.
I hope this newer class works with the government and mainstream society, but there are no guarantees they will.
This is why indigenous youth need to be engaged and encouraged in expressing themselves. Unfortunately, militant groups like Wasase are taking over this role, but these organizations are about tuning yourself away from modernity and towards antagonistic rhetoric.
My greatest fear are the urban Aboriginals who have never really experienced reserve life and visit a few times a year and get angry at any discussion about Aboriginal accountability. I met one such youth at a conference in Calgary. They are eager to show their "Indian" credentials to everyone, they hate the Flanagans and Widdowsons of the world they they think they are supposed to, and they respond to any discussion of FN governance issue in the same negative kneejerk fashion.
These people are disconnected from the reserve people who see corruption every day, want change, and are listening to accountability advocates. They are also generally moderate and conciliatory.
If I am correct, these "two-row wampum belt" (one foot in reserve and one in urban setting) urban activist Indians are going to be the greatest threat to political and economic freedom for First Nations.
I could be all wrong, but I am interested to see how things go.. My experience as a policy analyst who travels to reserves convinces me of the basic truthfulness of the descriptions.

Nisga'a move

As many may now be aware, the Nisga'a Nation of British Columbia has moved to liberate its citizens from the shackles of enforced poverty (read: lack of property rights). Nisga'a citizens will have the opportunity now to voluntarily own small parcels of land in fee simple (about half acre plots, so mainly their home and yard).
The difference is they can put up their home as security as it is truly theirs. They can bring that to the bank and secure loans. They can lease their home for income. They can leverage their equity for investments. In other words, they can do the things that most Canadians take for granted.
I have written about this before, so I won't go in complete detail. I have posted this in a past blog post here.
What is most impressive is this is the first step along a journey. All the naysayers cannot say that all First Nations are in love with collective land ownership. This shows that if given a chance, a voice and an opportunity, First Nations opt for something better.
I think this land system will be studied closely. Other Indian bands will be able to see how a functioning First Nation fee simple system works. All of the land, even if it is lost to outsiders for some reason, will remain Nisga'a land and be subject to Nisga'a land. So, we will see what happens. It will be very interesting. I know I will watching and hope to conduct empirical analyses within the next few years about how it is working.
For now, I lift my glass in praise to this courageous indigenous community for taking this step. I wish them well!

War on First Nations??

I receive periodic policy updates from a First Nation individual named Russell Diabo. He publishes a regular update on recent news that pertain to Aboriginal peoples. I have also debated with Diabo on an APTN public affairs panel I am involved with. Diabo seems to advocate a hardcore sovereigntist position within indigenous discourse.
Just recently, I received an update from that worried me somewhat. It was a .pdf document containing presentation notes and it was entitled "Canada's War on First Nations."
Now those who have read this blog or my other writings know I have never tried to deny Canada's shameful history when it came to dealing with indigenous peoples. However, this kind of rhetoric attempts to bring some of the old struggles into the present and even the future. In other words, it wants to make this metaphorical war with the Canadian state the dominant paradigm of indigenous-newcomer relations.
I would have loved to have post it here, but apparently posting pdf documents is an issue on this blog format, so I will just invite you to Google (or your choice of search engine) "Canada's war on First Nations" + "Russell Diabo." I am sure something will come up eventually..
The problem is the choice of words. I find this strategy or way of thinking to be at best counter-productive and at worst, highly dangerous and inflammatory.
While saying First Nations should continue on land and treaty land entitlement claims that they believe they are entitled to, I think adopting a martial rhetoric prevents finding common ground.
Diabo assumes in his writing that because successive governments have not accepted a "third order of government" type way of viewing Aboriginal self-governent, they must be about co-opting and eventually secluding FNs into "ethnic municipalities" as it put it.
First of all, adopting this model of a new order of government is not the only way forward for First Nations. There are many First Nations who I'm sure in the end would not prefer this model. Some First Nations don't want to re-constitute themselves and join other communities to form contiguous nations. This is the reality out there.
The government opposes this because it is a fundamental paradigm shift and would change the way government works completely. More importantly, it would mean changes and complications in how money is collected and re-distributed.
I think this objection on their part is more about state survival logic, rather than a deep-seated prejudice against First Nations or a colonial-like desire to assimilate all First Nations. Diabo is also convinced this means "emptying of Section 35 rights."
In particular, he asserts that all modern treaty arrangements are about surrending Section 35 rights and giving into colonialism.
I think for these self-governing communities is not about giving in. These agreements allow them to maintain their governing structures and continue to live as Indians, while receiving funding to continue.
For them, it is a good bargain.
Why do some of these indigenous writers assume that negotiating or making deals with the government is capitulation? Weren't the historic treaties about engaging the state? Finally, and most controversially for some, why is there this eternal fear of becoming involved within the Canadian state? I mean, why is the "Two-wampum"model of governance the eternal default model for all First Nations, where one can never be both an Indian and a Canadian at the same time?? The Two Wampum model is one model among many and does not have to be the model for all.
In his paper, Diabo mentions the important role of indigenous youth. This is one area I agree with him. But, I worry that if youth read Diabo or other like-minded indigenous writers like Gerald Taiaiake Alfred, they will assume the only model available for First Nations is permanent antagonism. You stay on your side and I'll stay on mine. Already, this model falls apart given that indigenous communities are financially dependent on the colonial federal government.
I am not arguing that all First Nations should jump onto USS Canada and forget their grievances over legitimate policy areas. Engaging Canada must mean it is done on just terms. But, just terms does not mean that any engagement with Canada is somehow seen as treasonous, or an act of capitulation, or whatever. It is just logical to accept that we are all in this together and need to work together..