UN Declaration

Hi all:

I have just released a new column for the Frontier Centre about why I do not support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2946
To to be honest, my biggest complaint about the UN Declaration it is an easy diversion from important work that needs to be accomplished at home. During the negotiations over this document, indigenous leaders from all over Canada (and elsewhere) were taken away from Canada, shuttled around on flights and put in expensive hotels, to negotiated for a non-binding legal document that already overlaps with so many court judgments pertaining to Aboriginals in Canada already.
I also strongly oppose it because it provides, once again, illegitimate moral cover, for leaders to avoid band accountability issues in Canada.
This is all besides the legal and constitutional issues that the document presents.
Canada has constitutional protection for First Nations, thank you very much, they do not need a one-size-fits-all approach from Geneva, Switzerland or New York City.

Some good news in Indian Country.
Apparently, AFN national chief Shawn Atleo has stated that he will push for First Nation economic self-sufficiency, as he recognizes that political independence and economic independence are inescapably linked.
This is from a recent news story in the Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/afn-chief-vows-to-push-economic-self-sufficiency/article1290784/
This is encouraging news and I wish the best to Atleo in his plans to work towards FN self-sufficiency.
It's funny how I was called a right wing crank on APTN for suggesting this by First Nation journalist and co-panelist Trevor Greyeyes.
I have said that PM Stephen Harper could truly be a transformational leader in this area as Trudeau was with the Charter if he took this issue as his own and expended political capital.
The debate over ending the Indian Act and freeing up First Nation business activity should start now.

The need for polling in First Nations

In my job as a policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, I help distribute and conduct analysis on surveys for our Aboriginal Governance Index. We ask questions about all areas of band governance, economic development and service delivery. One thing we are looking into is gauging opinions on abstract questions. One area I want to explore are notions of individual rights and opinions about the limits on government. We could even ask band members how they feel about how regional grand chiefs or even the national chief of the AFN is selected.
One thing that has always bothered me are grand statements made by indigenous leaders and academics about how different First Nations are from everyone else. We need culture-specific programming for everything. Aboriginal philosophers assert that there is an "Aboriginal way of knowing" or Aboriginal epistemologies (study of knowledge).
I don't doubt that First Nations have different opinions and values than perhaps other Canadians. They have a different understanding of Canadian history; there is no doubt.
However, I am not as convinced that their commitment to individual rights, their basic beliefs about government, are as different as they are made out to be. I believe First Nations would also show support for individual property rights on-reserve, if given the opportunity to voice their opinions.
This is why I believe there need to be more polls done of on-reserve First Nation populations to discover these things. Let's settle some of these issues of whether Natives have different values once and for all.

APTN panel

Hello everyone:

Sorry for the delay in posting! I have been uber busy recently with different work and home-related issues.
I was on APTN tonight. This is actually the second time I have been on this national news show.
The show can be viewed here: http://www.aptn.ca/pages/news/index.php?wmv=monday/six
It is hosted by the talented Patrice Mousseau. Patrice is an excellent host/producer. She allows her panelists the freedom to explore different areas, yet manages to keep things under control!
Tonight, I was debating the relevancy of the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The whole issue went off the handles when we discussed First Nation housing and I raised the issue of (cue ominous music) private ownership of homes and the condition of housing.
One panelist I argued with was journalist Trevor Greyeyes. For those in Manitoba, Greyeyes is a reputable First Nation reporter. He now freelances at the Drum/First Perspective (www.firstperspective.ca), my old stomping ground. The Drum is an Aboriginal newspaper that is committed to Aboriginal governance reform.
I was very disappointed that Greyeyes felt he had to be argumentative with every point I made. Greyeyes has written in support of accountability measures for bands, so I am surprised he felt he had to attack me because I work for the Frontier Centre being as we promote such measures. This is the evil "right wing" he was referring to in his commentary.
Anyways, I think it is accurate to mention that private ownership is a key component of any successful housing strategy. I mean urban Aboriginals have access to individual housing, so why should on-reserve First Nations be excluded from the benefits? There are MANY bands out there that are experimenting with private housing.
I wanted to ask Greyeyes whether or not he felt that if a First Nation person owned their own house they were somehow less indigenous than someone who did not.. I think this is the crux of the issue. Certain indigenous activists like Greyeyes have this pre-conceived, deterministic image of what an Indian is and has to include ideas of collective land ownership. There is no room for change in their view. I wonder what this means for urban Aboriginals who own their own home? What about the New Zealand Maori who do not live on reserves and live in cities? Are they not indigenous?
The bottom line for me is does a system work or not.. And if it does work, why can it not work for everybody? Why would the benefits of capitalism all of a sudden stop working for Indians? Because there is some magical force that makes indigenous people so much different than anybody else?
I like to compare it to technology. When one particular society comes up with a great new invention or new labour-saving technology, we do not obsess over where it came from, like we do with certain ideas. This whole "I can't support this because it is Western or Eurocentric and we are indigenous" argument is very unconvincing and silly. When we invent new technologies, we allow all humanity to benefit from it, regardless of their background or culture. The same can be said for conceptions of individual human rights or the free market.
Are they good ideas or not? If so, why are they applicable to some groups and not others. I am not arguing we should impose ideas on people, but I feel that the truth or utility of something can be verified empirically irrespective of its origins.
I argue that First Nations should embrace individual rights and capitalism because I believe fundamentally it will create the conditions to stop group oppression and in the case of capitalism, it will enlarge their material conditions which will allow them to prosper.
Please tell me why arguing for this is evil..

Being called an "assimilationist" seems to be one of the worst criticisms levelled by certain First Nation activists. I have been called such by one blogger. I was accused of being a part of the "assimilationist" crowd.
The problem is I do not really understand this criticism. Most First Nation people have become integrated into the Canadian Western mainstream over the last several generations. This does not mean they have forgotten their languages, their history or do not practice some form of indigenous spirituality.
This means they have integrated to some degree into the market economy (they buy things from non-Aboriginal businesses, they do not all engage in traditional subsistence economic activities, like hunting, trapping and fishing). This also means they have adopted some mainstream values as their own. This also in most instances means they do not dress or necessarily act as their ancestors did.
But, this is all a part of the natural, inevitable process of cultural contact. European societies all changed as they encountered different peoples and value streams.
In the words of the post-modernist, let's "deconstruct" or "unpack" this concept of "assimiliation." In the way that indigenous critics use it, it is as term of derision for someone who has adopted European ways. But, as I explained above, this is illogical as ALL indigenous peoples (with the exception of the most remote Inuit or First Nations) have "assimilated" to some degree. This is the case of the pot calling the kettle black. I mean, I always find it funny, that these Native Studies-types criticize others for being "assimilationist" when they are part of a "colonialist," white-initiated university system.
Here is my view: Everyone has a right to retain their culture and be proud of it. I have never told an indigenous person to forget their roots, to abandon their language or even encourage them to move off the reserve.
My only concern is with values. I make no bones about it, I don't accept the notion that all cultural values or practices are equal. Some practices in our modern context are downright despicable. When I call for First Nations to respect a regime of individual rights, that may mean some practices have to go. I believe individual rights must include the right to dissociate yourself from a community. Thinkers like Taiaiake Alfred define freedom for indigenous peoples, but only freedom as connected to one's place within indigenous community (this is how I read his arguments in his good book Wasase). I believe you can accept that, but it is not necessary. There must be space for all First Nations to view themselves as humans first and foremost. I say the same thing for my own French-Canadian heritage. I am a human deserving of certain rights and then a member of a community, which I can associate with or not associate with.
This is why I argue that the rights of the individual need to be fleshed out BEFORE self-government arrangements are figured out. Why? Because I think without that, you exchange one form of oppression for another. You go from being under the subjection of the Indian Act and under oppressive chiefs, to under a self-governing system where you still have oppressive chiefs. You need to figure out the package of rights for all citizens first. I also believe accountability measures need to be figured out now before the great self-government experiment. Ultimately, I think that is best for indigenous communities.
So, I do not accept the label of "assimilationist." I am a human rights advocate over a cultural advocate. Let people practice their culture, language and religion as they see fit, but do not use any of those things as a cover for individual oppression.
'Nuff said.

Simpson column on Aboriginal education

Excellent column yesterday in the Globe and Mail about First Nations and the education system. Jeffrey Simpson, in lauding recently-elected AFN head Shawn Atleo, discusses the challenges in closing the gap between Aboriginal Canadians and the mainstream when it comes to education. Read it here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/atleo-sets-an-example-for-indian-education-reform/article1232880/

Some interesting points. Simpson challenges the traditional AFN call for more funding for First Nation education. Yes, there is a funding gap as far as we can see and it should be dealt with. Anything less is discriminatory. But, Simpson raises important points about other factors that place First Nations behind, such as living in an isolated reserve enviroment. There are also issues of how much parental involvement one has in their education and the how much community and family value formal education. Those aspects would need to change as much as per capita education funding.
Simpson also points to the amazing role model that Atleo would be as an accomplished educator in B.C. He earned his master of education and gave a high ranking to education in his AFN platform. I think education is absolutely critical for First Nations, but I would add the priviso that it depends on what First Nations are being educated in.
At the recent AFN annual general meeting, I heard an excellent talk from a representative with the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association. He mentioned the problem being that indigenous youth all wanted to go into law, social work or another similar field, whereas the needs on reserves are in financial managers (self-serving to his point but nonetheless spot on). This lack of capacity could explain what become financial impropriety. I would add to his list entrepreneurs and business leaders. First Nation parents should encourage their children to go into these useful roles, as these are the true "nation building" functions.

The debate over the representative nature of the AFN continues.
One blogger named Shmohawk thinks that it is a travesty to even consider one member, one vote for the AFN.
His big argument is, "The AFN has never been an organization of individual status Indians." Profound, eh?
Of course, not having a history of being representative must mean it must forever be that way. Shmohawk is one of those indigenous activists who believe that indigenous culture must never change.
To add more fun to the discussion, Shmohawk compares the AFN to a national union: "The AFN’s structure is closer to that of a national union, like CUPE, for instance. The union’s membership in a local (say Local 233) vote for a local representative, much like band members vote in band council elections.Local reps may then elect regional or provincial representatives, similar to the way in which John Beaucage was elected to head up one of the regional Indian organizations in Ontario."

And then he goes on:

"Local and regional union reps then get to select the national executive for CUPE. (Correct me here, but I don’t believe every member has a direct vote for national president of CUPE.) Similarly, every now and then, the chiefs cluster to select a new head of their national organization, the AFN. It was never meant to be a “one member, one vote” system."

Of course, all of these theorizing ignores the AFN's own Renewal Commission of 2005 which called for a change in the AFN's internal structure, including a move towards a one member, one vote system.
One of my good indigenous friends, Annette Cyr, has even provided some excellent other suggestions, such as referenda at the band level, so that at least the chief is voting for who the average people want.
People like Shmohawk do not understand the difference between what things were intended to be and what they could become.
No one argues the AFN is an indigneous government. It does not have governmental powers. It is a registered lobby group. But, if it affects the national Aboriginal agenda and sways legislation that affects the lives of everyday indigenous people, don't those people have a say?
Especially if their chief does not consult with the membership on who they should vote as national chief, this institution needs to be reformed.