Protest for what?And by whom?

Page 6

When we wrote in this spot two months ago about the potential for protests, blockades and stand-offs in B.C. this summer, we had in mind peoples and nations driven to civil disobedience over legitimate issues. Recent developments have raised two troubling questions that weren't part of that column. In a strange way, two months ago seems like a more innocent time.

Since then, we've seen the Mohawk flare-up over marijuana, the Micmac conflict over fish and the James ranch clash over . . . what exactly? Each of these is disturbing in ways that, say, Adams Lake was not.

Oka was a powder-keg. We know that. And all sides feel very strongly about the situation, which carries excess baggage into every new conflict. But when Kanesatake and Canadian land is being used to grow literally tons of pot, and when sovereignty issues are tied up and confused by those who at least seem to be involved in profiteering from drug distribution, then the legitimacy of all Native protests is tainted in the public eye.

We see the same thing now on the James Ranch in B.C. It looks as if a bunch of rebels without a cause ? both Native and non-Native, apparently ? are dancing about shouting slogans which in other mouths have been proud statements for the rights of Native peoples.

What does the placard "This land is not for sale" signify? The land, sacred or not, isn't being desecrated by a condo development. Native people have always been given unlimited access to the property for sacred ceremonies. And ownership hasn't been an issue, but it will eventually be decided at a land claims negotiation table, not some barricade.

It's beyond us what this is all about, but there seems to be little question that Native people, let alone society as a whole, will question the legitimacy of "Wolverine" and his armed-to-the-teeth buddies. And we need to say this loud and clear: illegitimate stands damages the effectiveness of legitimate ones.

Which brings us to the other point: since when does protest mean bringing in mercenaries from the outside? Local leaders in New Brunswick last month, and now in central B.C. , have claimed that protesters don't speak for them. Who do they speak for? To put it another way, who's in control?

This reminds us of the house parties we remember from our long-lost teens. Remember? Somebody's parents are away for the weekend, and so the kids tell a couple of buddies at school. Friday night comes, and something like 70 kids show up. As the party progresses, the hosts see people they don't know, and then notice adults, maybe members of some gang. Control of the house is now out of the hosts' hands. We remember more than one calling the police on his own party so the house wouldn't get (any more) wrecked.

The problem is that there's a tendency for mercenaries to have "graduated" from one of the so-called civil defence programs run by lunatic former colonels and so on in the U.S.

Some of these people couldn't get into the armed forces in the States, or were tossed out of them. If the marines can't deal with these guys, what's a Chief and group of Elders going to do to control them?

We can think of nothing, absolutely nothing, more likely to damage First Nations causes than some unholy alliance with the gun-totin'loony American far right.

There have been, are, and will be situations which call for resistance. Native people have already made that decision in many parts of this country. But when it's made, that resistance should be made by those intimately involved with the issue ? people from the communities involved.

Bringing in outsiders does little to help in the long run, and may result in some of us having to pay a terrible price.