Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
December - 2002 The boys are back in townNovember - 2002 Solidarity with Columbian sisters
October - 2002 Recovering without the needed help
September - 2002 No benefit for Canadians
August - 2002 Peace in the land of Kanaan
July - 2002 Burnt Church ready to deal
June - 2002 Just call 1-800-RED-NECK
May - 2002 War on terrorism a U.S. ploy
April - 2002 The denigration of 'a great national question'
March - 2002 Traditional food: the rabbit
February - 2002 Where do our bodies end?
January - 2002 A tribute to Eric, my friend
2001 Guest Columns 2000 Guest Columns
1999 Guest Columns
The boys are back in town
Samuel Houle, Guest ColumnistMy friend's name is Halfmoon. He is in his sixties. He was nicknamed Halfmoon because he always wore his pants halfway down, showing half of his butt. And why not! It was the style in those days.
Halfmoon and I were very much alike and during our drinking days we would do almost anything to cure that hangover feeling.
We had a little dog that we found on one of our trips and named his Sam. Sam learned to go wherever we went and probably liked bumming too, because he stuck with us all the time.
One day as we were listening to some old Hank Williams tunes on CFWE, a group of young thugs stopped by. They thought Halfmoon was into be-bop-hip-hop music, because he wore his pants half down his butt. As they approached we both looked up and the little dog Sam went over to them wagging his tail, hoping for some attention.
One of the thugs stopped their 32X15 boombox and said, "Snoopy doggie." Halfmoon thought he was talking about our dog Sam, so he got very angry.
With a sudden reflex action, Halfmoon was on his feet, barely able to stand, and accidentally kicked the boys' stereo.
He said, "The dog's name is Sam, not Snoopy! You can tease me by wearing your pants down like me, but don't make fun of my dog.
The noodles we had for last night's supper kicked in and S...mack! His right leg kicked over their heads and he yelled out "GA-YA!" Then he did another move, which he probably learned from watching TV.
He got their attention because they thought he knew some kind of self-defence technique. They ran off like scared rabbits leaving their stereo behind.
Halfmoon turned up the radio and he was back listening to Hank Williams singing those love sick blues. Sam started howling to the music.
The next day we went into a pawn shop with plans to steal something. Halfmoon grabbed a guitar and proceeded to walk out with it, but was immediately stopped by a security guard at the door. Halfmoon was pushed back into the store by the guard and before I could intervene, a fight broke out. Well, before you could say GA-YA, we were back behind bars, and once again eating noodles for supper.
The next morning we were rudely awakened by a guard yelling, "Hey, beer belly. Time to go to court." Halfmoon couldn't let that go without a response.
"It's not beer belly buster! It's noodle belly and it's paid in full."
In court neither one of use knew much of what was being said, because we only knew a few English words like hello and goodbye. The charges against Halfmoon were read out. The prosecutor claimed that Halfmoon tried to steal a guitar and also did some violence against the security guard.
Halfmoon began knocking his head on the table in total frustration and began to mutter, "I'm being framed! All I tried to do was walk out with a guitar. I know nothing about no stinkin' violins!
Finally, the judge ordered Halfmoon to stand.
"This time I am only going to fine you...And sir, please pull up your pants. Next case.
I was walking along a narrow road one day and out of nowhere my old friend Koom-Nuck jumped out from behind an old tree shouting, "Supplies!"
He was always doing foolish things like that and with his broken English he would come up with the funniest sayings. His broken front tooth didn't help much either.
After the surprise, he told me he had a wipe, which I finally figured out he meant he had a wife.
The truth was he almost had a wife. He tried to get her in the old traditional way by promising her father he would support her with three horses. But his mouth got him in trouble because he proceeded to brag about his hunting skills. He claimed he could call a moose in one try, even in the dead of winter, and was so good at shooting with a bow and arrow that he could kill two moose with one shot! Not only that, but he actually bragged that he would have moose-hide moccasins by evening!
Of course, the old man didn't fall for it. He figured for sure that Koom-Nuck would starve his daughter. Obviously there would be no wedding.
I tried to cheer up my distraught friend by inviting him to town for a feed of Kentucky Fried Chicken. After a feast on chicken, he finally smiled.
Then we went for a stroll to the ball park and came upon a ball game already in progress.
Koom-Nuck and I joined in and he was first to bat. He stood there at home plate, looking like he didn't have a clue what to do.
To our amazement he hit the ball with a mighty whack and sent it flying across the nearby lake. After losing a beautiful girl, this helped him get over the pain.
He took off running to third...to second... to first and home. Of course, the ball couldn't be found, so what the heck.
After the game, all the boys went to the bar and we tagged along. Parked outside was a '79 black Trans Am. Koom-Nuck seemed preoccupied and kept looking at the Trans Am and down at his moccasin-clad feet.
"Who owns the Trans Am? He shouted over the noise of the crowd. No one answered. He shouted again. "Who owns the Trans Am?"
Finally a young fellow answered from the back of the room, "It's mine."
Koom-Nuck shouted back, "Do you want to race?"
"No," came the reply.
Koom-Nuck wasn't the kind of fellow who gave up easily, so he persisted until the guy said yes.
As they went outside, the owner of the Trans Am asked Koon-Nuck, "Where's your vehicle?"
"I don't have one," Koom-Nuck replied.
"You don't have a vehicle to race with me?" the man asked in disbelief. "How in the heck do you plan to race me?"
Without saying a word Koom-Nuck stooped to tie up his moccasins.
"You mean to say you plan to race my Trans Am on foot?"|
"Yep," came the reply.
"Get on your mark, you fool," a bystander shouted.
"Get set," he bellowed.
BANG! Went the starting pistol and off they raced.
I wanted to cheer for my friend, but the odds were so against him, I simply kept quiet.
At first the driver of the Trans Am teased him by slowly driving and coming around the track, pretending that Koom-Nuck had a chance to beat the car. Finally he floored the gas pedal and left Koom-Nuck in a cloud of dust.
As the dust settled, Koom-Nuck was seen weaving back and forth out of control and finally falling to the ground.
"What happened! What's wrong?" we all asked at once.
Koom-Nuck looked up with a stupid grin on his face.
"Just flew a moccasin!"
November - 2002Solidarity with Columbian sisters
Rebeka Tabobondung, Guest Columnist
In case it wasn't reported in any of our respected mainstream Canadian press, I want you to know that on July 28 some 60,000 Colombian women converged at the capital of Bogota for an unprecedented peace march.
Thanks to the Canada Columbia Solidarity Campaign (CCSC) the march included a show of Canadian solidarity (Toronto-style) in which four other women and I joined women from the Colombian Postal Workers Union for this massive mobilization.
Our delegation was diverse and included a human rights lawyer and legal representative for the Canadian Arab Federation, an advocate for anti-violence and representative from the Ontario Public Interest Research Group, the group leader from the CCSC, a union activist, and myself, a dedicated community activist and member of Wasauksing First Nation.
Prior to leaving for the march, the CCSC briefed us on security issues and the history and political situation of Colombia. Like Canada, Colombia has experienced the legacy of colonialism, which left the Indigenous population a marginal three per cent. Thirty per cent of the population is made up of Afro-Colombians, whom the Spanish brought as slaves, but who still maintain a distinct culture and have established territories along the coast.
This leaves the mestizos, who form the majority of Colombians and are a mix of Spanish and Indigenous descent that identify with their European roots.
In 2001, the CCSC reported that 5,000 individual mestizos own 40 per cent of Colombia's land base and rich resources. It is a myth that Colombia is a poor country. It is one of the wealthiest countries in the world because of its resources, and no doubt one of the wealthiest nations in the Americas. Like most of the developing world, what makes Colombia poor is that its wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few elite politicians and corporations.
As our plane descended upon the capital, security issues were at the forefront of my mind. Last year the late Rodney Bobiwash, activist and member of the Mississagi First Nation, introduced me to the brutal reality that Colombians face daily. He told me about his friend, Indigenous brother and activist Kimy Pernia Dominco of the Embara Katio region who was kidnapped and killed (disappeared) by armed paramilitaries for speaking out against a plan to dam his nation's main river.
Kimy's murder is far from unusual. One person in Colombia is killed every 15 minutes due to their political positions. To my discomfort, international solidarity delegations are not excluded from this grisly statistic. In 1999, two Native American leaders who were doing solidarity work with the U'wa Indigenous nation against Occidental Petroleum were also kidnapped and 'disappeared.'
After spending a day in the capital, I wondered what all the fuss was about.
The city of Bogota is fairly developed and boasts a modern bus system and even Moses Znaimer's City TV was everywhere. One could live and work in the capital and be practically oblivious to the horrors of the war and daily terror that many Colombian women face and shared with me.
The term "invisible struggle" has been coined to describe this situation and the many blatant and hidden paradoxes that exist within the context of this complex war. The peacefulness I discovered in the city was both comforting and disturbing.
In the two days that led up to the march, our delegation participated in an Afro-Columbian women's conference, as well as an Indigenous women's conference. Both days were filled with listening to testimonials of discrimination based on race, sex, poverty, and culture.
The Afro-Colombian and Indigenous women share many similarities within their struggles and point out that they have a lot still to learn and share with each other.
Attending the Indigenous women's conference was a highlight with representatives from many diverse nations and regions of Colombia in attendance. Once they heard I was Indigenous from Canada, they were eager to hear about the Canadian experience and called on me to speak.
I offered them some of our general history and the host organization a gift of sweetgrass. The women then requested that I smudge the conference attendees. (Indigenous groups in Colombia also burn medicines in much the same way we do in Canada).
During the Conference of Indigenous Women, we met a group of women from the Putu Mayo region.
They live in rural mountain communities and are facing serious threats to both their lives and traditional lands. The threats are exacerbated because they are directed not only by one source but many. There are the FARC (the armed insurgency), the paramilitaries (armed government-sponsored forces formed to quash the FARC), and multi-national corporate interests.
Each group has interests in controlling the Indigenous Putu Mayo territories. To make matters worse, there's the most popular problem that comes to mind when one thinks about Colombia: the illicit coca and poppy crops that eventually produce cocaine and opium to North America's flourishing drug trade and dependency.
My Indigenous sisters tell me that the coca plant is actually a sacred medicine they have harvested since time immemorial. Traditionally, coca was never chemically altered for abuse in the form of cocaine. The women also recount the story of how they have been forced to grow the coca plant, not as a sacred medicine, but as a cash crop to be exported for the drug trade.
According to the women of Putu Mayo, this is because their traditional lands have been expropriated (stolen) and contaminated to such an extent that they can no longer live self-sufficiently as they once did and now depend on the money they make from growing and selling the crops.
The FARC formed in the 1960s as a response to the unequal wealth distribution and resulting poverty in the country. Unfortunately, like many insurgency movements that formed in Latin America during that era, the FARC is mestizo-led and fails to acknowledge the autonomies, culture, and diversity among the Indigenous and Afro-Colombian population. This led to the rejection of the FARC by many Indigenous groups.
The result is that Indigenous nations are not represented by the FARC or the Colombian government, and in a climate of violent insurgency and state repression, Indigenous communities are caught in the middle. While the government accuses Indigenous communities of growing the illicit coca plants to fund the FARC, the FARC accuses Indigenous communities of siding with the government and its paramilitaries because they refuse to use the FARC as a means for change.
International states (such as the U.S.) and multi-national corporations take advantage and agitate the situation by formulating and funding 'anti-drug' schemes such as Plan Colombia, which is a front to get access to what they really want: Colombia's energy resources. Sadly, as is the case with the Lubicon Cree in Alberta, the traditional land base known as the Putu Maya is the heartland of Colombia's rich resource base.
A delegation of Putu Mayo women tell me the final result of all the violence, poverty, and capitalist-driven foreign interests is that their communities are being fumigated by air with deadly pesticides. This fumigation program is part of Plan Colombia. When one reads between the lines and talks to the people directly affected by it, it is really a horrific plan to kill the land (and therefore the people) of the Putu Mayo region.
To the international community the justification of the fumigations appear valid. They will put an end to the illicit drug trade, and quash the insurgency and end violence in Colombia. However, this justification can be no further from the truth. Once the Indigenous people and their lands are dead, there will be no one to stop the corporations (many of which are Canadian) from reaping the final resources from the land.
The Putu Mayo women know exactly how they are going to face this problem. They refuse to abandon their land at any cost. Indigenous people the world over know that abandoning access to a land base also means extinction. As I heard the women speak, I felt like I was listening to their final plea for help. Perhaps in a year or two, Plan Colombia's fumigation program will be fully implemented and they will no longer be here to make this plea.
October - 2002Recovering without the needed help
Barbara Harris, Guest Columnist
While seeking a master's degree in social work, I became glaringly aware of the invisibility of Aboriginal women in society generally, but in research, specifically. I am also aware of the complexity of issues faced by urban Aboriginal people, many of which are far from being adequately addressed.
As an urban Native woman in recovery from addictions, I faced a multitude of challenges in trying to rebuild my life. As such, for my master's research, I decided to focus on urban Native women in recovery from addiction, to determine the issues they face, and whether their needs are being met by service providers.
This research validates the fact that urban Native women face tremendous and complex challenges in spite of having years of recovery, and that, essentially, there is a failure to meet their needs from a health services perspective. This fact is evidenced by their solid critique of services, and is supported by the struggles they still face, in spite of having between eight and 12 years of total abstinence from substance abuse.
This qualitative case study was focused specifically on what their lives have been like since getting into recovery, and on a critique of services, based on their experiences. Qualitative interviews were conducted with each participant, followed by grounded theory analysis. Grounded theory is an approach used to reflect the participants' views in reporting the findings. Since the study is based on interviews with five urban Native women in recovery from addiction, the research cannot be generalized as reflecting the experience of all urban Native women in recovery; however, an indepth analysis of the interview data provides a definitive case for the argument that this population's needs are not being met.
It is important to keep in mind the general status of Aboriginal women in Canadian society, particularly in the urban context. A study conducted in Vancouver in 1999 attests to the challenges faced by urban Native women. Healing Ways, published by the Vancouver Richmond Health Board, highlighted the need for more services for Aboriginal women in Vancouver. Seen as an area of priority, the report mentioned that "women's health concerns relate to consequences of poverty, substance abuse, being a single parent, having a history of sexual abuse, being isolated, and living in an environment of domestic violence." The report goes on to provide statistics to back up these claims, statistics which reinforce the need to provide more culturally appropriate services to urban Native women, generally.
Importantly, the negative effects arising from a lack of adequate services are reflected in the articulate responses of participants during the interviews conducted for my research. From an external perspective, the women spoke to ongoing issues related to relationships, within the familial, community and societal contexts, touching on issues of identity, ongoing oppression, education and culture. Furthermore, the respondents were able to reflect their internal experiences related to the external challenges they face, indicating ongoing difficulties connecting with themselves and others, in addition to facing grief and loss, depression and anger, and identity issues. Dominant themes throughout the interviews related to isolation, and issues related to safety and comfort.
The results of this research show that, from an individual perspective, the respondents face ongoing challenges that affect their ability to make positive changes in their lives. Rather than facilitating growth and freedom, much of their experience is characterized by stigma and ongoing isolation. In fact, the overwhelming lack of support, compiled with ongoing racism and discrimination, and the lack of both education and culturally appropriate services, makes the prospect of developing healthy and satisfying lives seem a formidable task, and progress is far slower than need be. Respondents referred to self-harming behaviors, which occurred even after two or more years of recovery, including self-mutilating, thoughts of suicide and unhealthy if not destructive relationships. Ongoing depression, anger, frustration, and isolation were also prominent.
From a family perspective, the respondents talked openly about the need for education and support for their families.
Relevant were issues related to the resistance of family members in accepting change, and of facing the dilemma of trying to maintain recovery in spite of family members addictions, and/or violence in the home. Also mentioned were a multitude of issues relating to the generational impact of the residential school system and foster care, as well as men's loss of roles as providers, and internalized oppression as Aboriginal people.
From a community perspective as well, education and support were mentioned as critical, as is the need to develop reciprocal relationships aimed at providing ongoing support between community members. Lack of understanding about First Nations history, and about the recovery process, as well as stereotypes, and the lack of education and awareness relating to parenting and communication skills, are augmented by the need for improved access to employment and education generally. Also mentioned is the need for more activities within safe and sober environments, and the need for childcare supports.
From a societal perspective, I have already made mention of the ongoing racism and discrimination, factors which are exemplified by the failure to act on the priorities mentioned in studies, such as the Healing Ways document previously referred to here. Regardless, it is important to consider the critique of services that was compiled from my research. The respondents in the research spoke to the lack of culturally appropriate services, including the lack of First Nations service providers, and the culturally inappropriate use of an individualistic approach to services. In terms of the inadequacy of services, mentioned is the lack of funding in order to access services, the lack of treatment matching-referrals to services to meet their needs, inappropriate referrals, the gate-keeping process to access services, and the lack of flexibility of services. Gaps in services include the lack of resources for single mothers, and the lack of gender and culture sensitive services. Last but not least is the inadequacy of service providers the respondents have dealt with; of mention was the failure to acknowledge positive changes, the need to educate the service providers about First Nations, and the unwillingness to address trauma that clients were trying to cope with.
Ultimately, even with long term recovery, the respondents still find themselves struggling with a multitude of issues, many of which could be mitigated through the provision of services that actually meet their needs. Urban Native women need to be at the forefront in the development of policies and programs, as well as in determining funding priorities. They have the wealth of experience required to develop programs and services that will facilitate a better quality of life, and lead to a meaningful movement away from their current status as the most invisible, isolated and marginalized group in Canadian society.
September - 2002No benefit for Canadians
Lloyd Augustine, Guest Columnist
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines Duress as forcible restraint or restriction, compulsion by threat; specifically: unlawful constraint or coercion.
I am a hereditary chief of the Mi'kmaq Grand Council. I am also a member of Esgenoopetitj community. Non-natives know us as Burnt Church First Nation. There was recently an agreement signed concerning lobster fishing, between the federal government of Canada and the Band Council appointed under the Indian Act to act as Indian Agents on our reserve.
The Mi'kmaq have been exercising the right to fish, hunt, gather and harvest since time immemorial. What the Euro-Canadian have failed to see is that these rights were not based on the covenant chain of treaties that were made between the Crown, Mi'kmaq, and other nations, but rather, the peace and friendship treaties. These treaties identified the inherent right to fish, gather, and harvest. They identified and clarified boundaries for the foreigners, specifically their involvement with Indians, in order to maintain peace. The Crown and its subjects were forbidden to interfere with Indians in their natural habitat. Belchers Proclamation on May 4, 1762 and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 restated this fact.
Before the ink dried, the Crown started violating these treaties. The Mi'kmaq continued to honor the treaties that were made in the name of peace, and at no time surrendered or ceded territory, government, or the inherent right to sustain themselves. However, the occupiers/ squatters have done nothing but to try to starve the Indian out of his existence by denying him what is rightfully his.
To keep peace, when denied our inherent right, we took it to Euro-Canadian courts to find a solution. This turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes my people ever made. For those making the judgments were more than willing to change the laws and turn them against my people.
One example is the Donald Marshall ruling which was made by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999. This ruling affirmed the Mi'kmaq right to fish, hunt, gather, and harvest. The judgment came down as if it were a treaty right when in all reality it was and is an inherent right. After the court had made the ruling, we once again came under attack when we tried to exercise our rights. The first assault was by non-Native fishermen and then by the government agents themselves under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As the pressure began mounting from these attacks, Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities started signing agreements with the government. These agreements deny the Mi'kmaq the right to make a living, or provide for their families.
My community of Burnt Church felt that this right was meant not just for the individual, but for the entire Mi'kmaq Nation and especially for our community. We decided to develop our own community-based management plan in harvesting fish. This plan was reviewed and highly supported by conservation and environmentalist groups. Violence began as soon as we decided not to sign away our rights. Our gear was cut out in the waters, costing my community more than $200,000.
The government utilized an addendum to the ruling by doing a study on what might threaten conservation. They went to the courts and lied, stating that according to their study any additional fishing would jeopardize the stock. Thus, conservation became a just cause to stop Indians from exercising the right to fish.
The DFO started buying out licenses from the non-Native fishermen to make room for the Indians. A specified amount was set aside for my community. We declined these licenses and went with our plan, a plan based on conservation to protect the species for the seventh generation of yet unborn. Since we did not accept the licenses, they sat idle, so in no way did lobster fishery increase. With our management plan we realized that with what had been allotted to our community, only 75 per cent would have been utilized.
The government's approach, as before, has been to "negotiate" agreements with poverty-stricken Indian communities and by carefully wording the agreements and offering monies, they devised a way to deceitfully take away the rights of the Mi'kmaq people.
The latest agreement was signed by a small number of Band Council people, its Indian Agents, in a room without even a lawyer present to advise them. This new fishery agreement is already being represented as a historic breakthrough.
The agreement was entered into under duress. The government of Canada used our hunger and poverty, violence against us, our vulnerable position, the threats of the Crown, the charges against all of our people who were defending our rights, as coercion against us. All this was used to get our people to "agree" to a fishery agreement that the community did not want.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has ruled that the extinguishment of our Aboriginal and treaty rights is violation of fundamental human rights. History will show this present injustice and it will be said that the Mi'kmaq people signed under great duress. Peace cannot arise out of injustice and no "certainty" can result from the imposing of an unequal agreement.
The Crown, and Canadians, will get no lasting benefit from these "deals" involving the annihilation of our rights, except the despair and resentment of generations of our children and people.
August - 2002Peace in the land of Kanaan
Jack D. Forbes
Guest Columnist
The dispute between Jews and Arabs in the ancient land known variously as Kanaan (Canaan), Palestine (Filistina), and Israel seems to be irresolvable, but I believe that one can find solutions.
From a Native American Indian perspective we are able to sympathize with both the need to return to, and to have, a homeland of one's own, and the desire not to be displaced by "settlers."
I have great respect for the contributions made by Jews to the struggle for justice, in the United States and elsewhere. Still, the history of settler-colonialism teaches us that virtually any ethnic group can be corrupted by becoming engaged in the process of occupying lands, homes, and towns formerly possessed by a different ethnic group.
This corruption happened to British settlers in North America, Dutch settlers in South Africa, and French settlers in Algeria.
Settlers, often literally with guns in hand, behave in surprisingly universal modes of aggression, self-justification, rationalization, assertions of racial and/or cultural superiority, doctrines of divine favor or manifest destiny, and, of course, extreme anger and hatred at the efforts made by the displaced populations to assert rights or to resist.
The resulting struggle remakes the colonial-settler's culture into a classic one of superiority and imperialism, with justification often for the use of terror, mass expulsions, overwhelming retaliations, torture, and, in general, the temporary (or permanent) suspension of the higher religious and ethical values which may have formerly prevailed among the settlers. Thus the settlers become a new kind of people, as do those who are displaced.
The basic principle of my plan is that every person having a stake in Kanaan/Palestine/Israel must be treated as having rights: what is offered to one must also be offered to the other.
This is a principle of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and of international laws and treaties. In practical terms, this means that if "the right of return" and assistance is to be available to Jews, it must also be available to Muslims, Christians, and others of Palestinian/Kanaanitish origin.
A second principle is that the several regions of Kanaan are so intimately connected, economically, geographically, historically, and spiritually, that an entity must be established which brings together all peoples of the land and which enables them to deal with issues of trade, water, irrigation, pollution, sewage, waste, development, protection of historical and religious places, etc.
I suggest the formation of an all-Kanaan entity which might be called the Organization of Kanaan or the Union of Kanaan or the Commonwealth of Kanaan. Kanaan is suggested as the name because of the neutrality of this ancient name.
A third principle is that contested areas, (places where Jews, Christians, Muslims, Samaritans, or other peoples have joint or conflicting claims, or where the control over a vital natural resource [such as water] is central to the well-being of all parties), shall be placed under the jurisdiction of the Organization of Kanaan rather than under the jurisdiction of Israel or a Palestinian state.
This means that Kanaanitish authority would exist over the contested holy sections of Yerusalem and also probably over highways connecting Gaza and the West Bank, and perhaps over port facilities needed by both entities, along with the vital watersheds used by both member entities.
A fourth principle is that the Organization of Kanaan would be constituted in such a way that gradually its functions might expand to include jurisdiction over commerce and related matters so as to lead to the existence of a common economic community, but that would be for much later.
A fifth principle is that some form of arbitration or neutral judicial entity be created so as to deal with questions of land seized illegally, persons ousted from their homes by violence, the restitution of lost property, et cetera, based upon principles of fairness without regard to the religion or language spoken by claimants, but with due regard to the principle that equity requires a balancing of interests in a supremely humanistic manner.
In 1879, Nez Perce chief Joseph said: "If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace.... Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.... Let me be a free man-free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade, where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself-and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty".
Isn't this a recipe for peace in Kanaan?
Jack Forbes, Powhatan-Delaware, is a historian, social critic, and poet, covering issues of international and inter-ethnic relations for 45 years.
July - 2002Burnt Church ready to deal
James Ward
Burnt Church First Nation
Guest ColumnistThe community of Burnt Church, the Mi'kmaq people and their nation stand at a crossroads. Burnt Church has been the focal point of a struggle for Indigenous self-determination and the preservation of Indigenous inherent rights. The future of the inherent rights of our children and the generations unborn hangs in the balance.
More than two years ago, the people of Burnt Church made an historic decision and united as a community to stand against the colonial legacy of injustice, to stand against the government campaign of extinguishment of their inherent rights.
The people of Burnt Church did something that many Indigenous communities could not; they banded together and chose to make a sacrifice for the sake of their future generations. They stood defiant before an entire nation, the Canadian nation.
Many of us have paid a price: permanent injuries, prison terms, criminal records, and great loss of personal material wealth. My people have made great sacrifices during this conflict. They are noble sacrifices. I personally do not regret a single moment of it. Because of the government's illegitimate claim to Mi'kmaq natural resources, I stood many nights side by side with my Mi'kmaq and Indigenous brothers and sisters, looking out across our ancestral home, over our bay, geared up and standing guard against the next DFO and RCMP raid, guarding against the next non-Native fishermen incursion into our waters to destroy our gear, shoot at us and attempt to terrorize our people.
I look back with awe upon those chaotic late nights and early mornings, the times when the DFO/RCMP would launch raids on us. And I look with awe upon my people who selflessly came together, assembled at the foot of the shores, loaded up their boats and took to the waters to defend our way of life. They fully knew that they were outnumbered by an approaching threat that had 10 times the manpower, resources and equipment at their disposal.
Stand after stand was made on Burnt Church Bay. This was truly an inspiring example of Indigenous courage, valor, honor, gallantry and self-sacrifice.
I know that most people won't understand this. I know that it would be a lost cause to try to explain it to them. I know that there will be all kinds of non-Native critics who will condemn our actions for not making the assimilation and cultural genocide of my people any easier for them. The best I could do is to ask them to look down at their children, look into their eyes and tell me I am wrong for being willing to defend my children's future. Would you not do the same for yours?
In time when the Canadian government feels that this issue is no longer a threat to its political and social order, then the stories of Mi'kmaq courage will be told. Then people may begin to understand that the Mi'kmaq people of Burnt Church were not criminals, as the government would have you believe. They were and are heroes for my people. The stories of each battle, each conflict, the gathering of other Indigenous warriors from across Canada and the many summer love affairs will be told over and over again at powwows, family gatherings, and Indigenous political events for a very long time.
My community had a chance to do something so prestigious for their people and nation in this generation. They set the example for other Indigenous communities across Canada to stand up for their rights and freedoms, to exercise true self-determination, not to ask and beg the colonizer for it, and to preserve the dignity and honor of a people.
All these acts of self-sacrifice made by so many, all the effort, all the pain, misery and frustration endured and, in John Dedams' case, the loss of liberty, might be in vain because the chief and council of Burnt Church are giving in to the government's tactics of bribery. They want to compromise the rights and freedoms of the Mi'kmaq people by cutting a deal with the government.
We all know the outcome of this action.
The Native reserve feudal order will be empowered and entrenched. Nepotism and patronage will ensue and the majority of the people on the reserve will suffer.
The community of Burnt Church is at that crossroads. We as a community have a choice; to give up all that we stood for, all that we sacrificed and turn our backs on our children by endorsing the chief and council's desire to sell out to the government, or we can make it clear to the chief and council and to the government that the rights and freedoms that we have fought so dearly for are not to be sold for personal gain.
June - 2002Just call 1-800-RED-NECK
Brennan Clarke, Guest Columnist
I'm not the kind of person to spoil a ballot, any kind of ballot.
In fact, my reverence for the democratic process is so unwavering that I'll vote for anything-prime minister, premier, city council, school trustees, parent advisory committee, board of directors at the local Elks Lodge-you name it.
So when I spoiled my ballot in the Liberal government's long-promised referendum on treaty negotiations, I did so with great regret.
But after reading the list of eight questions mailed to me by Elections BC, I was appalled and disgusted on so many different levels that there's no way I could cast my ballot with a clear conscience.
The so-called questions are nothing of the kind. They're statements of general principle that offered little chance for voters to clearly express themselves.
For example, Question 1 which read "Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements," came out the same no matter how I answered it. Yes, private property should not be expropriated. No, private property should not be expropriated.
Question 2, besides being vague to the point of absurdity, contained two broad statements of principle and asks for one answer. "The terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured."
What if I supported one concept and not the other? Whose leases and licences are we talking about? Am I to understand that corporations should be compensated if Aboriginal land issues affect their ability to do business? Isn't the treaty process supposed to be based on the idea of compensating Native people, not the companies who are inconvenienced by Native people's Constitutional rights.
As someone who once spent a year working in communications at the B.C. Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (under former premier Mike Harcourt) I know these issues well enough to have extrapolated some meaning from the loaded jargon on the ballot.
But how can the masses of voters with little more than a basic understanding of the topic possibly grasp the complex legalities of First Nations government?
Imagine 10,000 unemployed loggers mulling over Question 7: "Treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between aAboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments."
And if they voted no, did they vote for disharmony in land use planning?
Not to pick on loggers, because anyone without a degree in law or public administration would have had trouble offering an informed opinion on Question 6: "Aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia."
But if I answer no to Question 6, am I saying that local government powers are too much for First Nations? Or would I be saying they're not enough? How could I vote if I didn't know what my vote meant?
If the referendum looked anything like a realistic blueprint for improving the treaty process, I wouldn't have judged it so harshly.
But at least four of the eight questions were mirror images of policies that were entrenched in the NDP treaty process back in 1991, including the notion of excluding private property from negotiations, as referred to in Question 1.
Part of my job at Aboriginal Affairs was to answer the treaty information line, which quickly earned the nickname 1-800-RED-NECK.
People would phone from Fort St. John, Williams Lake, Cranbrook or Oak Bay, and say things like: "I'm not letting no Indians come and take my house."
And I would tell them, over and over again, "private property is not on the table." That was one of the founding principles of the entire treaty process and it figured prominently in the ministry's communications messaging at the time.
Not only is it inaccurate to imply that private property ever was on the table, it's irresponsible to spend $7 million on a mailout to confirm already existing principles.
Question 5: "Province-wide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply" isn't an original idea either.
Under the NDP, government negotiators always insisted that self-governing First Nations be subject to the same environmental and resource management standards as the rest of the province.
At the ministry, we had fact sheets saying exactly that, and the topic often arose during calls to 1-800-RED-NECK.
A sample conversation: "Well, what if we give 'em all the trees and they just clear-cut the whole damn thing?" To which I would parrot something like: "Existing environmental standards will continue to apply in areas covered by treaty settlements."
(It's not mentioned on the ballot, but we said the same about the Criminal Code.)
Question 4: "Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians" also mimics NDP policy.
If memory serves me correctly, provincial parks and protected areas were never up for negotiation, and any parks that overlapped into traditional territories had to remain as such, treaty or no treaty.
Question 8 stood alone as the only straightforward, answerable question on the entire ballot, and yet it too was fraught with complexities.
Should the existing tax exemptions for Native people be phased out? Perhaps, since that what the Nisga'a agreed to in their treaty, but under what circumstances? The exemptions, which European settlers enshrined in the Indian Act around 1886, are lucrative and won't be given up without considerable compensation.
With all its wishy-washy platitudes and sweeping generalizations, there was a general theme wafting odorously from the ill-conceived ballot.
The Liberal push for "municipal-style" powers is a tactic for watering down the degree ownership that Native people will be granted in treaty settlements.
The references to parks, protected areas, hunting and fishing "for all British Columbians" is a way of telling First Nations that the government, not First Nations, will decide who comes and goes on Native land.
This leaves me with the impression that the Liberals will refuse to negotiate any kind of title to the Crown land under dispute, a position deeply at odds with the cultural relationship between Native people and the land.
It's also at odds with Supreme Court rulings clearly recognizing that Native people held a form of title to the land prior to European contact. The courts have further ruled that Aboriginal title still exists in most of B.C. where those rights have never been extinguished by treaties.
So refusing to negotiate some kind of land title is a recipe for endless lawsuits that will cost the government countless millions and ultimately leave the province's land question unresolved.
A good friend who shares my opinion of the referendum's absurdity nevertheless had no trouble filling out his referendum ballot.
"It was easy," he explained. "They've worded the questions to get people to answer 'yes', so I just answered every question 'no.'
"It's like dealing with a three-year-old. They want to hear you say yes, and you just have to say no."
For me that's not enough reason to vote, especially when I see Premier Gordon Campbell saying he will only listen to people whose votes can be counted.
So, not only has the Premier insult my intelligence by mailing me a biased, confusing and ill-conceived referendum ballot, he questions my commitment to change for refusing to take part in such a phony democratic charade.
Anyway, when you have a 77-seat majority, you don't have to listen to anyone. So I've responded by spoiling my ballot and slipping this column in the envelope along with it. Both, I'm sure, will be dutifully ignored.
May - 2002War on terrorism a U.S. ploy
Jack D. Forbes, Guest Columnist
The so-called war on terrorism has now been changed to an alliance with terrorism and terrorist states, judging from George W. Bush's apparently absolute support of Israeli aggression against Palestinian territory (which each day witnesses new terrors for Palestinian civilians, as well as for foreign observers, news people, medical personnel, and international relief people).
Bush's recent visit to Red China where he sought to develop close ties with one of the most oppressive states on the globe has underlined concern that Bush's "war" is actually a thinly disguised excuse to advance U.S. corporate and military interests without having anything to do with terrorism as such.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) is charged with currently being engaged in terrorism against Tibetans, against Uighur people of Sinkiang, against followers of the outlawed Fulan Gong spiritual movement, as well as against various Christian and other religious denominations. In Tibet, for example, the Indigenous culture is being actively suppressed by armed force while Chinese settlers are moved in. The Chinese are reportedly already a slight majority but new plans indicate a big push to move more settlers in. Discrimination against Tibetans is enforced by terror.
But Bush's love affair with Beijing is not his only collaboration with terrorism. In the Middle East, the U.S. supports Israeli expansion into what was to be Palestinian territory, in violation of international law. In fact, Palestine is like the "Old West" with Israeli settlers being moved by the tens of thousands into armed settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, constantly forcing the relocation of Palestinians to ghettoes or "reservations" (refugee villages), with the seizure of Palestinian fields, trees, and water resources.
These Israeli settlers, like white settlers in the Old West, are often armed and are always protected by the troops of the Israeli Army (in tanks and in "Apache" helicopter gunships, instead of on horseback).
The push of settlers into the West Bank and Gaza, which has already taken up a great part of these areas, is precisely like white settlers moving into U.S. or Canadian Indian Country and, in fact, the Palestinians are now "Israel's Indians."
This aggression is apparently supported by Bush, perhaps because it so nicely mirrors Texas' policy towards Native people (which was, very simply, "ethnic cleansing"). As governor of Texas, Bush was hostile towards the states' two surviving Native communities.
Of course, the Israeli settlers are being attacked by Palestinians, just as white settlers along the frontier were attacked sometimes by Native Americans, but in both cases, the settlers could easily remove themselves from the zone of conflict by leaving the others' homelands alone. (I do not condone the slaughter of innocent civilians by either side, but the armed settlers do have a choice, after all, which the defenders do not. That is, they can stop being armed invaders).
Bush has also developed apparently good relations with Russia, a country with a very grim record of terrorism against the Chechen people.
The Chechens wanted an independent state of their own, after a long period of Russian imperial rule. The refusal of Russian leaders to allow the Chechens the self-determination favored by international law has resulted in a bitter struggle with terrorism on both sides. More recently, brutality has typified the Russian military behavior with terror used as an ordinary mode of operation.
The U.S. under Bush is also maintaining or even strengthening ties with several other states guilty of repressive and/or terrorist policies. This list includes Colombia where right-wing paramilitary forces, allied, it is said, with the army, have massacred large numbers of Natives and others. Even worse is Turkey, a consistent recipient of U.S. aid, where the Kurds and other non-Turkish groups have been viciously suppressed by years of terrorist oppression. But we never hear Bush criticizing Turkey as a part of an "evil axis" even though the treatment of the Kurds (such as even forbidding the use of the Kurdish language or the name "Kurd") goes far beyond the crimes charged to bin Laden and Al Queda.
The United States long supported Indonesia in its armed terror attacks upon the East Timor people. Even now, Bush does not speak out against the Indonesian suppression of the rights of the people of Irian Jaya (Papua New Guinea). Nor do we hear him mentioning the Burmese war against the Karen people nor many other examples of the use of terror for political purposes by powerful military cliques or colonizing governments.
Indeed, by Bush's embracing and support of oppressive regimes practicing violence he has brought an end, morally speaking, to the "war on terrorism."
It's all over but for the burial of dead victims of violence and expansionism-Jews, Christians, Muslims and others going into the Mother Earth together, all victims of the blindness of rage, greed, and fanaticism.
Professor Jack D. Forbes, Powhatan-Delaware, is the author of Red Blood, African and Native Americans, Apache, Navaho and Spaniard, and other books. He is professor emeritus of Native American Studies, University of California, Davis.
April - 2002The denigration of 'a great national question'
Anthony J. Hall, Guest Columnist
Professor, Department of Native American Studies
University of LethbridgeThe referendum on sovereignty-association in Quebec has found a kind of weird mirror image in British Columbia. Try as the Gordon Campbell Liberals might to deny it, they are no less anxious than Quebec's separatists to exempt their provincial government from those aspects of Canadian law they find inconsistent with their own vision of local autonomy.
Calling on B.C.'s voters to produce a set of predictable answers to a series of loaded questions aimed at sabotaging treaty negotiations with First Nations, B.C. is apparently taking its lead from the U.S. In 1871, Congress passed a law that unilaterally exempted the United States from adhering to the international law of Aboriginal title. All future treaty negotiations with First Nations were thereby prohibited, elevating the doctrine of "conquest" over the rule of law as the basis of future relations with Indigenous peoples.
The Chretien Liberals came to understand their responsibility to invoke federal authority to demand some clarity on any future referendum on Quebec's relationship with the rest of Canada. But their silence on the referendum on Aboriginal rights in B.C. is deafening and exposes to national and international view the very deep streak of Canadian ethnocentrism towards First Nations. Is it conceivable that Canada would allow the human, civil and property rights of any minority other than Aboriginal peoples to be made hostage to the will of the majority?
There is nothing new in a B.C. government with a reactionary unwillingness to adhere to those aspects of international, British imperial and Canadian law that recognize and affirm the existence of the shared title of First Nations in their unceded lands and waters. One provincial regime after the next has resisted all pressures from the imperial and federal governments as well as from the First Nations and the courts to adhere to the Crown laws of Aboriginal and treaty rights. In the 1997 Delgamuukw ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada removed any doubt that B.C.'s constitutional status within Confederation will always be problematic until some political accommodation is reached through a treaty process giving practical expression to the co-existence of Crown and Aboriginal title.
Not all Liberal regimes in Ottawa have been as timid as the Chretien Liberals when it comes to leaning on B.C. to pressure its leaders to adhere to the Crown law of Aboriginal title. In 1874 the Liberal regime of Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie invoked the Dominion government's constitutional power to disallow provincial legislation. With a view towards upholding the federal government's explicit legal obligation to safeguard "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians," Mackenzie made use of his powers derived from the British North American Act to prevent a misconceived BC statute on public lands from becoming law.
During a period when the federal government was busy negotiating seven of Canada's numbered treaties, the Mackenzie Liberals disallowed the B.C. bill because of its failure to recognize that Indian title to most of the province remained intact. The same constitutional inconsistencies between the province's land laws and the Dominion's law of Aboriginal and treaty rights persist to this day except in those areas of B.C. covered by Treaty 8 in 1899 and the Nisga'a Treaty in 2000.
Referring to the tradition of Crown military alliances with the First Nations, a heritage that was crucial to the defense of Canada from annexation by the Indian fighters of the United States in the War of 1812, Mackenzie's Justice Minister explained the federal disallowance of the B.C. law in 1874 as follows. He noted, "there is not a shadow of doubt, that from the earliest times, England always felt it imperative to meet the Indians in council, and obtain surrenders of tracts of Canada, as from time to time were required for settlement."
Even within B.C., many have attributed the local government's unwillingness to live within the Crown law of Aboriginal and treaty rights to the role in the province's formation played by immigrant miners from the U.S. As New Westminster journalist, John Robson, noted in the British Columbian in 1864, "There are those among us who are disposed to ignore the rights of Indians and their claim upon us, who hold the American doctrine of 'manifest destiny' in its most fatal form. Under the pretext of this unchristian doctrine the cry for 'extermination' is raised at every pretext."
In 1874, the Mackenzie regime followed up in its disallowance of B.C.'s land legislation by calling on the B.C. government "to reconsider in the spirit of wisdom and patriotism the land grievances of which the Indians of that province complain, apparently with good reason, and take measures as may be necessary promptly and effectually to redress them."
In promoting this policy Mackenzie's minister of the Interior, David Laird, referred to the Indian title issue in British Columbia as "a great national question . . . involving the possibility in the very near future of an Indian War."
"To the Indian," Laird pronounced,"the land question far transcends all others." David Mills, Laird's successor, took the matter further. In 1877, Mills noted that "Indian rights to the soil have never been extinguished." If an Indian war did result from this failure to develop B.C. within the law, Mills indicated the federal government would be obligated to take the Indian side in the conflict.
Such an Indian war finally came to pass near the shores of Gustafsen Lake in 1995. The Canadian government participated in the conflict by committing weaponry and armed personnel including members of Joint Task Force II. As at Oka in 1990, the deployment of the national armed forces in a dispute over Indian rights to land and resources highlighted Canada's move away from the Crown tradition of treaty alliances with the First Nations towards the U.S. dependence on conquest as the basis of its Indian policies.
According to a recent court ruling on an extradition matter involving an Indian veteran of the Battle of Gustafsen Lake, the Canadian government also participated in a concerted campaign of psychological warfare aimed at disguising the true character of the constitutional dispute over the status of the legal title to the lands and waters of British Columbia.
As Judge Janice Stewart ruled in Portland, Oregon in November 2000 in the case of U.S. versus James Pitawankwat, the "defendant has submitted uncontradicted evidence that the Canadian government engaged in a smear and disinformation campaign to prevent the media from learning and publicizing the true extent and political nature of the events."
The case marks the first time in the entire history of Canada-U.S. relations that the political offenses exception clause in the extradition treaty between our two countries has ever been successfully invoked. In overruling the request for extradition originating in the executive branch of the US government, the superpower's judiciary agreed that Canadian authorities had been motivated by political objectives in their wrongful persecution of the Gustafsen veteran. In language that resembled the description by some international jurists of Israel's relationship to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of Palestine after 1967, the U.S. judge noted that "the Gustafsen incident involved an organized group of Native people rising up in their homeland against occupation by the government of Canada of their sacred and unceded tribal land."
The protesters at Gustafsen Lake were motivated in part by an intense distrust of the treaty process in British Columbia. The nature of their disagreement with the format of the negotiations, however, was extremely different from the kinds of criticisms directed at the same process by the Gordon Campbell Liberals and their right-wing allies in the federal Alliance Party. The position taken by the Gustafsen protesters, however, has never to this day received fair and unbiased coverage in the B.C., national or international media. Instead the dispute over the land question in British Columbia remains shrouded in the same dense fog of government smear and disinformation that has consistently been delivered to the Canadian public by a biased media apparently uninterested in addressing the damaging condemnations directed at it in the landmark Pitawanakwat ruling.
The referendum on the issue of Aboriginal title in B.C. is proceeding without a sufficient framework to make this exercise a credible experiment in direct democracy. The Campbell Liberals, who are by no stretch of the imagination neutral bystanders in this referendum, are asking a series of manipulative questions that leave no room for the champions of fair and equitable treaty settlements to mount a coherent "no" campaign. In seeking a popular mandate to sabotage the treaty process with First Nations by placing it within unworkable constraints, the Campbell Liberals embody the ongoing Americanization of Canadian politics. They advance a well-developed political heritage in the U.S., a country that has frequently rewarded its most ruthless Indian fighters, including William Henry Harrison and Andrew Jackson, with the keys to the White House.
The current right-wing attack on Indian Country, as embodied in Campbell's referendum aimed at extinguishing Indian rights in the name of majority rule, continues the Americanization of Canada.
One of the many serious flaws in this ill-conceived process is that the B.C. electorate are being asked to give their opinion about what they would like the law to say without being given ample opportunity to become reasonably well informed about what the existing law of Aboriginal and treaty rights now says.
Canadians outside B.C. have every right to ask why our opinion is not being sought in an unresolved matter which the government of prime minister Alexander Mackenzie identified as early as 1874 as "a great national question." Like the future of Quebec, the future of the First Nations affects us all and we must insist that our federal politicians acknowledge the existence and role of a national political will in seeing that the desire of some to create a New Canada does not disenfranchise, fragment and alienate the oldest constituencies in the country.
March - 2002Traditional food: the rabbit
Lindsay Cote, Guest Columnist
When we think of traditional food, some folks get a vision of a big bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken and a family box of fries. However, we are going to go right back to square one, back to a time when we didn't have any teeth, or should I say babyhood. It was kind of hard to chew the old bird then, wasn't it?
To many of us who came from families who lived partially off of the land, our first food was probably the brains of small game animals. It may sound kind of gross to some of you folks, but it really is quite the delicacy. If you can get over the fact that your meal is looking up at you while you're cooking it, then you've got it licked.
My children have had the privilege of starting out life eating traditional meals and they started right from the word go, or should I say, right after the breast-feeding thing. In the first year of our children's lives we introduced them to the soft, somewhat sweet-tasting brains of small game. The hard part was keeping up with their little Aboriginal appetites.
I set rabbit snares here, there and everywhere. The whole rabbit experience made me stop and recite the Aboriginal version of William Shakespeare's "to snare or not to snare."
The trick to cooking rabbit is to let it cook slowly. It isn't really a fast food thing. Although it was fast food when the hopper was still alive or up until you've put it in the old pot. Next, all the bunny needs is patience, a little tender loving care and a few choice spices. Once you have slow cooked it for an hour or so then you can thicken the broth up and make it into a fine stew. All you need is flour or corn starch or in some cases, maybe both.
I guess the first thing a person should know before trying out this recipe, is where to look for the main ingredient. Rabbits can be found all over our great continent, therefore you shouldn't have to go too far to find one. Rabbits like vegetation, both for food and shelter. The easiest time of the year to catch rabbit is winter. They make small trails through the bush and these trails are easy to recognize.
Snaring rabbits is probably the easiest way to catch them. When snaring rabbit, you'll need a role of copper-type snare wire that you can purchase at your local hardware store. Cut the wire into about fifteen inch lengths. Twist one end of the wire to make a small loop. Slide the other end through the loop and there you have it. Once you have repeated this process a few times, you are ready to go out and set the snares.
To set a rabbit snare, you have to find a nice well-packed rabbit trail in the bush and locate a good sturdy tree to tie the snare to. Make sure the tree that you're tying the snare to is beside the rabbit trail or you'll be waiting a long time for your stew to come in. Wrap the loose end of the wire around the tree, about six inches off of the ground. You will have to wrap the wire around the tree at least twice before twisting it off because rabbits do jump around a little before passing away and they might shake your snare loose.
Make the loop in your snare just big enough for you to slip your fist through and set the snare three to five inches up off of the trail.You can add a few guide sticks on each side of the snare and one underneath it to make sure that his head goes through the snare first. When setting snares for rabbits try not to walk right down the middle of the trail, the rabbit may become suspicious and avoid your snares.
All small game especially rabbit, can be made into a variety of stews. Just remember to cook them with their heads on. Children like the taste of boiled brain.
February - 2002Where do our bodies end?
Jack Forbes, Guest Columnist
Most of us have been taught to think of our body as a physical structure, isolated from everything else. But if we think of it as a living system, then a different picture emerges.
Traditional Indigenous thinking points towards an open system, connected with the universe and the Creator.
In the mid-1970s I wrote down what I had been saying in many Indian gatherings:
"I can lose my hands, and still live. I can lose my legs and still live. I can lose my eyes and still live. I can lose my hair, eyebrows, nose, arms, and many other things and still live. But if I lose the air I die. If I lose the sun I die. If I lose the earth I die. If I lose the water I die. If I lose the plants and animals I die. All of these things are more a part of me, more essential to my every breath, than is my so-called body. What is my real body?
We are not autonomous, self-sufficient beings as European mythology teaches.... We are rooted just like the trees. But our roots come out of our nose and mouth, like an umbilical cord, forever connected to the rest of the world.... Nothing that we do, do we do by ourselves. We do not see by ourselves. We do not hear by ourselves.... That which the tree exhales, I inhale. That which I exhale, the trees inhale. Together we form a circle."
When I was growing up, I had a strong feeling of relatedness to the earth, to the animals, and to the trees and plants. At age 22 I wrote a poem which expressed my feelings of wonder, and of relatedness, as regards the non-human world. But it wasn't until I read some of the teachings of Black Elk, the Lakota holy man, that I started thinking deeply about "nature" as being part of us, and we being part of nature. He told a British writer, John Epes Brown, in 1947, that ...peace comes within the souls of men when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all of its powers, and when they realize that at the centre of the universe dwells Wakan Tanka, and that this centre is everywhere, it is within each of us.
As published in The Spiritual Legacy of the American Indian, as well as Sacred Pipe.
He also said, on many occasions, that humans and animals are to be relative-like and that we humans were like a suckling child, all of our lives, in relation to the Mother Earth. And then, too, I remember reading of what Pete Catches and Lame Deer both said: that all of nature is in us. (Lame Deer: Seeker of Visions)
Gradually, I began to understand that our relationship with the earth, with the air, with the water, and with all of the living creatures of the world, is more than simply a relationship of mutual dependence, kinship, and respect. I began to see that "our body" is bigger than what we normally think of as our physical body; that we have such absolutely essential connections with air, water, plants, earth, and animals, and also with the Sun and Moon, that we literally have a physical body which embraces all of these things.
From about 1967 on I began to give lots of talks to Native audiences, from Virginia and New Jersey to Seattle and the Southwest. In these lectures I often focused on the "Greatness of the Native Mind," and one of the major aspects of this greatness was the idea of unity between humans and other living creatures.
"If we lose the water we die. If we lose the plants and animals we die."
In the early 1970s, while struggling with racism in the university, I experienced a spiritual transformation. I began to write in a manner quite different from most of my earlier books, incorporating many of my deepest feelings and insights even if they might be very displeasing in Eurocentric and materialistic academic circles. I wrote a book which was originally called "The Wetiko Psychosis" (about the cultural disease of cannibalism, or conscious exploitation of others, which I believed was dominating much of the world). When published it was called A World Ruled by Cannibals. This book was to have been printed by Akwesasne Notes in 1976 but they had insufficient funds. It came out in 1978 instead (from D-Q University).
In this work I gave written expression to the idea that our bodies included more than simply our arms, legs, head, and trunk. It is certainly true that we can lose part of our "flesh" and go on living, but we cannot lose the air, the sun, the animals, the plants, or pure water. These gifts are not simply added to us, they are the core of our flesh. We are made of these things.
Still further:
"Our eyes are not clear-glass windows. We do not look directly out upon ... the world surrounding us...." We must therefore eliminate "...the border between mind and universe...." (What is Space? by Jack Forbes). I have also written that "We and all the animals and living things , we complete the world. If the world be a drum, we are its taut skin vibrating with its messages.... (Forbes, "The Universe is Our Holy Book," unpublished poem, 1993).
We are, indeed, bodies without borders.
[Professor Jack D. Forbes, Powhatan-Delaware, is the author of Red Blood, Africans and Native Americans, Only Approved Indians and other books. He is professor emeritus, University of California, Davis. His Web site is www.cougar.ucdavis.edu/nas/faculty/forbes/jfhome.html
January - 2002
A tribute to Eric, my friendGuest Column
Lindsay Cote, North Bay Ontario
It has been a short time since my little cousin, Eric, died in a car accident. As with many who have passed on in similar circumstances, he did not have to die.
Eric was a passenger in a van heading home after a party. The intoxicated driver lost control of the vehicle and it rolled over. My cousin, who was not wearing his seat belt, was thrown from the van. He died instantly when his body slammed into the pavement, crushing the back of his skull and breaking his neck. Just like that, Eric became a statistic.
Sure, tears rolled down my cheeks as well as those of the other 200 or so people who came to see him off on his spirit journey. This incident shook up our whole community and it left everyone in a state of shock.
Eric was in his twenty-second year of life. He always had a smile and a kind word when you ran into him. He was respected by everyone. He left behind a partner and a small, four-year-old daughter.
He was raised in the bush; this week he and his dad, brother, uncles, grandfather and cousins would be moose hunting. He worked in the bush on the same forestry crew as me. He was hard-working and consistent-who could ask for more?
Eric was one of the first people to come and sit at the drum when I brought it back to my community some 12 years ago. Even back then, as young as he was, he stood out because of the respect that he showed for the drum and its teachings. He was someone who I could trust.
Eric was not an everyday drinker but indulged when the rest of the youths in his age group got together. Most of the time the parties took place in the community; other times they traveled to neighboring communities to party.
It's not just down-and-out, wino-type people who die alcohol-related deaths. In this case alcohol took a young man who thought that it was all right to get in a car with others who had been drinking.
The final outcome of the night of good times was one dead, three others seriously injured, one little girl whose father will never play or hold her again, and a young man charged with the death of another. Eric's partner and his daughter's mother almost died. The driver and his partner, who was the fourth passenger, have two small children together. Last but not least, two communities are looking for answers while dealing with tremendous grief.
You may think that I am resentful and angry that my beautiful cousin had to die this way-damn right I am! But having achieved sobriety in my life I have an understanding of what happened. I'm also looking at the good that I see can come out of this tragedy.
Up until this incident happened, our younger generation thought that they were invincible and that nothing could happen to them. On the contrary, I sat looking into the faces of dozens of young people who sat stunned, looking at an open casket and at the body of a person who was supposed to live out his life as a part of their group.
There is, however, a positive side to this story. There are many of us men in our community who will step forward and be that father figure for Eric's little girl. The whole community will do our best to ensure that she knows her father.
I saw our community pull together and perform a totally traditional burial ceremony, the first of its kind in well over 100 years in our community. I saw the young men and women taking on their traditional roles with 150 per cent effort.
What was beautiful to watch was a few of the four- and five-year-old girls (my own daughter included) perform their own ceremony utilizing our spiritual leader's medicine bundle. His bundle was open on the floor. The girls walked over, sat and kneeled on the floor, and with his Eagle feather smudged themselves with the sage that was burning in his smudge bowl, and proceeded to carefully and respectfully go through every item in the bundle. They then approached the casket and had their own little meeting and discussion. Coming to their own understanding of the situation they then went outside to play.
Every age group had its support system, from the young to the old, with the exception of the infants-their job was to remind us that death is a part of life and that life does go on. The children performed without a flaw for the larger audience. The older children, youth and young adults talked about changes to come, and that alone is good.Eric's death symbolizes the beginning of change, we hope for the best, for our community. Many people touched by Eric's death will find that their lifestyles will change. Programs addressing alcohol awareness will resurface in our community. Over time, Eric's family will become stronger and the current excruciating pain will lessen.
Eric's daughter will know who her father was and that his death marked the beginning of a new direction for many people in our community. She will know little of Eric's alcohol behavior but lots about his compassion towards people, his great sense of humor and his kindness and gentleness.
Eric's partner, who was critically injured in the accident, is starting to physically heal; she will be strong for her daughter. She has the support of family, friends and community. She will hear and read the police report-the part that says that she "and Eric were kissing when the driver lost control of the van." Knowing that her last moment with Eric was one of love-a kiss shared-will, we hope, bring her some comfort.
Eric did not have to die, but that is the way that alcohol works. Alcohol does not discriminate and is not prejudiced; it doesn't care if you are good or bad. I've looked for and found the good in this tragedy and I have my closure. Now I can only watch and wait and see how our community deals with this, and of course I'll assist where I can.
Good-bye Eric. This cousin will truly miss you.