Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
August - 2007
The national day of action: Was it enough?Windspeaker Editorial
The most important debate that could have - or should have - been sparked by the Assembly of First Nations' June 29 national day of action had still not seen the light of day as Windspeaker went to press on July 11.
If the First Nations' national leadership and many others were warning their people not to antagonize the mainstream Canadian population on this day of action, were they wrong? Is the situation bad enough to require wide scale civil disobedience? And if it's not, why bother?
There were a lot of very serious preparations going on as the day approached. Aboriginal people sent us, among other things, internal memos issued to employees working in government buildings regarding emergency plans, and invitations issued to oil and gas workers to attend security briefings just in case someone tried to really disrupt things.
The harsh and threatening words of Chief Terrance Nelson of Manitoba's Roseau River First Nation clearly had the Canadian political and business establishment feeling exposed.
Nelson used that leverage to extract an agreement for his community. More important on the national front, he got the minister of Indian Affairs to step in and end a longstanding impasse in the treaty land entitlement (TLE) talks in Southern Manitoba. Government officials had been refusing to allow TLE lands to be converted to reserve status.
Nelson got the government to budge on that and in the process revealed that a demonstration of just a little political will from a federal cabinet member can go a long, long way - and very quickly, too.
Some will say Nelson sold out. We say that as a local leader, he was successful in addressing a longstanding local problem. The optics stunk, we'll agree.
Meanwhile, back in Ottawa, National Chief Phil Fontaine repeatedly called for cooler heads to prevail even as he relied on the anger of First Nations' people across Canada as the principle selling point for his plan to force the government to move towards the implementation of First Nations self-government and to dedicate more financial resources to impoverished and marginalized First Nation communities.
To use anger as a lever and then ask that it be kept in check is a very dangerous thing to do. To be fair to Fontaine, the chiefs' resolution that eventually led to the day of action was not something he came up with, as far as we know.
Luckily for Canada, the day of action did not get out of control, although it easily could have. We got the sense Fontaine was quite aware of that and, judging by the tone of his comments, even a little worried as well.
At the risk of being seen as inciting insurrection, we wonder what message the call to not make any serious waves was sending to First Nations people. When the root issue is the ongoing Canadian attempt at assimilation, of forcing Indigenous people to resign themselves to the reality that they must function within the Canadian context or else, being easy to get along with does not seem to be a defensible long-term strategy.
As usual, the mainstream press completely missed that point, praising the non-threatening "Natives" (we prefer "Native people") and demonizing the likes of Shawn Brant, who led the only major example of civil disobedience that came out of June 29. The question of whether Brant was doing something that needed to be done because of Canada's recalcitrant approach to "Indian Affairs" wasn't discussed.
John Lagimodiere, publisher of the Saskatoon Aboriginal monthly, Eagle Feather News, echoed the "don't make waves" message in his June editorial. He was then besieged with what can only be described as hate mail.
The angry and personal attacks on Lagimodiere screamed out,'"We're angry. We're fed up. We're tired of the slow motion cultural genocide. We're dissatisfied with our leaders who are way too easy to get along with and way too fat and comfortable in the status quo."
It's a message of which all parties should take careful note. If June 29 was a shot across Canada's bow, future more aggressively aimed shots can only be avoided if real action follows the national day of action.