Tag Archives: First Nations

Canada and Israel: our shared apartheid histories

22 Feb

One of the most effective graphic representations of Palestine is the map that demonstrates the changing of its borders as Israel has expanded itself over many decades. You know the one. It’s a reminder that most often, a slow, decades-long war of attrition can be the most destructive to a people than a war in the sense that many of us would imagine first.

When rendered in this way, Canada’s map looks strikingly similar to the link above. Through its own genocidal policies, war of attrition and slow-paced though violent land grab, Canada stands as a map for what Israel is doing currently. It’s hard to imagine how their construction of illegal settlements is any different than the settlement policies of Canada during the 1800s to fill Turtle Island with Ango-Saxons. That’s how my family came to Canada.

Unfortunately, Canada’s too big for the image to be as easy for me to render (especially since my design skills aren’t so good). But I offer the image below as a starting point for others to use and change.

The past week, the Canadian Press reported that 3000 kids can be confirmed as having died at Residential School. Considering the fact that many schools’ designs included cemeteries in their plans, I’m sure we should assume that number to be much higher. But regardless, when I think back to my elementary school, and how not only did we not have a cemetery on our grounds, but that none of the kids in my school died while I was there, one kid’s death is too many.

3000 confirmed by the state; some of the manifestation of genocide.

Apartheid

Notes from the Canada-Québec-First Nations social forum

28 Jan

Progressive activists may not agree on much, but there is a broad consensus that capitalism and its attack on the earth and its people has to be stopped. To do this, we have to organize differently. Somehow.

In the wake of global social uprisings that have emerged over the past three years, old models relied upon by progressives are being re-imagined by new and old activists alike.

Occasionally, opportunities emerge for activists to get together: individuals mix with union presidents; sectors interact; regions break apart.

This was the backdrop for the Canada-Québec-First Nations social forum, hosted by Alternatives from January 26-27.

In a lecture hall at the University of Ottawa, more than 120 people, many representing more than 80 organizations, gathered to discuss the utility of social forums as tools for social change.

The forum began with presentations from Jeremie Bédard-Wien from ASSE and Russell Diabo. Diabo talked about the role of Indigenous activism in progressive struggles. Bédard-Wien linked the lessons of the Québec student movement to broader organizing against neoliberalism, in Québec and across Canada.

Jessica Gordon and Sheelah McLean, two of the four Saskatoon-based activists who co-founded Idle No More discussed the challenges and successes that have emerged from the Idle No More movement.

Each of these presentations offered inspiring stories of social movements, politicization, enfranchisement and empowerment.

The most impressive aspect of the social forum was the high participation of Indigenous activists from nations across Turtle Island. Many people remarked that it had been the best participation of Indigenous people in a non-Indigenous-organized event they had ever seen.

Alternatives hosted the forum to solicit the involvement of the diverse group in planning a future, larger social forum. Participants were presented with three visions of possible organizing models, each that extended beyond a social forum alone.

Alternatives staff argued that the social forum model, with a parallel forum of social movement organizations, was the next step necessary to continue this process. While there was some disagreement about whether or not a social forum needed to have a parallel structure, activists generally welcomed the opportunity for discussion that comes with a social forum structure.

Anil Naidoo and Gary Neil presented about Common Causes, an initiative lead by the Council of Canadians and several national unions. Through this network of progressive organizations, they plan to organize online and on the ground to defeat Harper in 2015. Again, activists generally agreed that this group could create an important organizing space for progressive organizing.

The third model emerged from another convergence of progressive groups hosted by the Canadian Autoworkers in November. Called the Port Elgin meeting, organizers brought together activists from social movements and labour to identify new ways of working together. With an emphasis on grassroots organizing, one of the working groups established in Port Elgin proposed that a broad coalition structure should both centralize and decentralize organizing across Canada.

While the Port Elgin process was somewhat vague and confusing, activists also generally agreed that such a network could be an important space for progressive organizing.

Unfortunately, the forum did not provide mechanisms for voting or to discuss these options in smaller workshops, so much of the response to the proposals were aired in plenary-style interventions from the floor, or informal and caucus discussions.

Despite the lack of an inclusive debate structure, poor facilitation, an obtuse, consistent refusal to properly ensure gender parity and the last-minute meetings that many people could not attend, the social forum brought people together so that ideas and approaches can collide, mix and hopefully evolve a political project into an effective strategy.

The emergence of the three models as non-competitive, complimentary progressive strategies was the final result of the weekend. Rather than raging debates about which model is more useful, activists tried to better understand how these models should be interpreted.

Perhaps backwards, activists who are interested in these initiatives will have to identify the common goals if any of these are going to be a success. As identification of common goals was not embedded into the program of the weekend, this work will have to continue online, over Skype and at blogs, like Rabble.ca.

What activists who were present at either the Port Elgin meeting or this weekend’s social forum will have to figure out will be how to actualize the discussions that have been had.

It wasn’t clear how to engage with these processes now that the social forum has ended. But, as always, the work continues.

Idle No More Québec and national myths

17 Jan

Screen shot 2013-01-17 at 11.08.52 AMLast week, I attended a presentation on Idle No More in Québec City. It was the first time I heard about Indigenous solidarity in a Québec context.

For the most part, it was very similar to other events I’ve attended. The crowd had a lot of questions and the two presenters did their best to explain the complex and difficult relationship between First Nations people and the Crown.

There was one intervention made, though, that I would have never expected to hear in Toronto, not because I don’t think this opinion exists, but because I don’t think anyone that has this opinion would be interested in attending an event about Idle No More. His words reminded me that with Québec comes a different kind of relationship and sometimes, a particular mentality toward Indigenous people.

The older man insisted that the history of colonialism in Québec is not the same as the rest of Canada. Where genocidal policies may have decimated language and culture, in Québec the relationship between Indigenous people and the Québécois was congenial, even mutually beneficial. As such, Idle No More’s demands are more of a “Canada” thing, rather than a “Québec” thing.

The intervention caused people to express their disagreement. I wondered though, how widespread is this belief?

On Wednesday, Lysiane Gagnon wrote a piece for the Globe and Mail about Idle No More that sounded like the intervention that I had witnessed a week earlier. Gagnon argued that Québec has had a “more serene relationships with its aboriginal population than many other provinces.” She says this despite referencing Oka in the same sentence as “one of the worst standoffs between aboriginal militants and the authorities in Canada’s recent history.”

This analysis directly clashed with everything I’ve seen posted by Idle No More Québec on Facebook. It contradicted everything I witnessed at the round-dance at Place Laurier in Ste-Foy and the January 11 rally where a few hundred people marched to Québec’s National Assembly.

Of course, Gagnon is not necessarily representative. One person on Facebook likened her to Margaret Wente. But, just like Wente, she needs to be challenged for the content of her columns.

It’s true that Québecers, through their descendants’ first points of contact, have had a longer relationship with First Nations people in this region of Turtle Island than, say, in British Columbia.

It’s also true that, like with Indigenous people, the British colonization of New France imposed assimilation policies on Québecers who resisted these colonial pressures so impressively that the province remains remarkably French today.

There are some similarities between the colonial experience of Québecers and Indigenous peoples. But to suggest that the relationship was harmonious, or as Gagnon argues, that Indigenous people in Québec were co-founders of the province, not victims (words that are all-around loaded) is misleading.

In fact, it hides the truth.

Québec was not immune to the genocidal policies inflicted against Indigenous peoples. Residential schools operated here. Pretending that First Nations in Québec are treated differently completely ignores the fact that the Indian Act is still present and still controls the lives of First Nations people in this province just like in the rest of Canada.

Yes, Québec and Indigenous people have a common enemy in the federal government. But Québecers, as citizens of Canada, also have a responsibility to demand that the federal government change its approach to First Nations relations. They should fight together as allies, and this means using the power mechanisms available to them. Québec commentators like Gagnon should not gloss over the history of this territory and argue that somehow the colonization of Indigenous people stopped at New Brunswick and restarted at Ontario.

Gagnon’s approach further colonizes Indigenous people, a dangerous approach for a province with a strong independence movement. While the colonized-turned-colonizer paradigm exists in nations around the world, Québecers must be careful to not take that path as the province evolves. Discussions about independence, for example, cannot be premised on the notion that the Jesuits brought education and order to a wild territory (one of the comments that I heard here, for example) because policies that flow from this belief will re-colonize Indigenous people.

Her column is also an attempt to silence the impressive work that activists have undertaken in this province. Blockades, round-dances and rallies have happened here just as they have happened in other provinces. She ignores this fact and instead highlights a few dissenting Indigenous voices, including a seemingly random letter to the editor.

The civil rights movement that has crystallized under the banner of Idle No More has created a space for White commentators from all regions of Canada to dredge up myths and lies about Canada’s history. Just like Tom Flanagan’s revisionist histories, Gagnon’s article (written for an anglo, Globe and Mail-reading crowd) tries to undermine the movement by claiming that the problems that have identified don’t really exist.

Luckily, their versions of the truth wont change the facts: Idle No More allows Québecers (and Canadians) to be better allies to Indigenous people; to build the bridges necessary between nations and to collectively fight for self-determination and independence.

That’s its strength, regardless of what the settler punditry says.

Idle No More: Resisting divide and conquer tactics

3 Jan

Screen shot 2013-01-03 at 12.09.36 PMNearly a month has passed since several Chiefs were physically denied access to the House of Commons to voice their concerns about changes that were about to be forced upon First Nations communities in the federal budget bill.

This, combined with the work done through teach-ins in cities in Saskatchewan throughout the Fall culminated in the first day of action called for Dec. 10 in the name of Idle No More.

With journalists slow on covering the Idle No More movement, the privacy offered by this group (sometimes mistaken for vultures) helped ensure that the grassroots could quietly develop the confidence needed to organize creative actions. No questions about leaders. No divisions magnified. No media tricks.

Amid stories about shopping and Christmas, the mainstream press awoke to find a groundswell of support and action in communities across Canada. It was national. It was leaderless. It was grassroots. It was everything that the mainstream media is not equipped to write about.

Then it started: The errors. The questions about leaders, chiefs and the cracks in the movement. The racist comments.

The current state of shorthand journalism dictates that every story should have two sides: one side is the little guy and the other is the powerful guy, as if the biblical tale of David and Goliath is an allegory for every single political conflict that may arise.

While there are parallels between this narrative and Indigenous struggle against colonialism, it isn’t the story of two people. It’s the story of hundreds of nations, millions of people dead, millions of survivors, hundreds of languages, one Crown with hundreds of agents, thirteen provinces and infinite excuses. This is too complex for a soundbite. This is too complex for a 30-second TV spot.

It is under these conditions that divisions start to surface, exploited both by accident by these constraints and on purpose by columnists who intend to dismiss or dehumanize Indigenous people and their movements.

On one hand, this story of genocide, colonization and neo-colonization is simple: settlers were brought by colonizing empires to settle “Canada” and push away the Indigenous populations. The result was centuries of government-sponsored murder or forced assimilation. As communities evolved to better resist this legacy, the Federal government looked at ways to take even more of their lands because of the mining, oil, gas or forestry opportunities that exist above or below. The result is a lopsided arrangement where few benefit and many suffer.

But this story is laden with complexities: complex identities and players, roles, legal statuses, histories, denial, exploitation, exploited divisions, bribery, theft, bureaucracy, legislated identities, apartheid.

Idle No More is compelling partly because it is so complex. It implicates everyone living in Canada. If we have ancestors who lived here, it implicates them too.

Idle No More risks being written off by the mainstream press much in the way that Occupy Wall Street was; sure, the campaign has noble goals but its leaderless, multi-issue approach will ensure that it fizzles out.

Activists need to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of other social movements and already, its clear that mistakes made by Occupy are not being reproduced. Spokespeople have emerged who are talented speakers and who are generous enough with their time to do the all-consuming TV circuit. Like during the Québec student strike, events are springing up across Canada daily, keeping the momentum of the movement alive.

Idle No More is strong because it is a grassroots movement. As long as people continue to demonstrate it will remain a grassroots movement. And, the longer these events go on, the more vicious the attacks against Indigenous people and the movement will become.

Unfortunately, federal politicians know this terrain; they have had centuries of learning how to most effectively divide Indigenous communities and people and foster in-fighting. Just look at Jason Kenney’s Twitter feed to see how this plays out. And when the mainstream press views the roles of chiefs as being to control their people, as stated in a Globe and Mail headline, the analysis of the complex issues is nearly always to be just as offensive and fall just as flat. Both forces will be working in different ways to ensure Idle No More goes away.

The resilience of the movement will lie in the resilience of people to continue to rally, to flashmob, to write letters, to interrupt economic activity and to ensure that “life as usual” ceases to exist for the folks in Ottawa. We need to expose attempts to divide or co-opt the movement in a way that is accessible and easy for people to understand.

Through our collective creativity, our thirst for justice and our desire to fight the powers who are imposing their agendas on us all, the attempts to break Idle No More that will inevitably come cannot be successful.

Idle No More: non-Indigenous responsibility to act

10 Dec

Today, thousands of Indigenous activists and their allies will march, demonstrate, blog, tweet or starve to get their message to Stephen Harper: enough is enough.

Normally, enough being enough isn’t enough and it hasn’t been for centuries.

Enough is the point at which people united, absolutely refuse to be subjugated. They refuse to be dominated, colonized and re-colonized. Enough looks different than a protest.

In Canada, I don’t think any social movement has reached the breaking point where “enough” truly has been enough.

But Idle No More could be the spark needed for a movement is built to truly say “enough.” Idle No More could be the rally call, the inspiration. The parental shove into the lake that all people who fight to uphold and honour the Treaties need.

Idle No More is a movement that was called after the news circulated that First Nations leaders were denied entry to the House of Commons to discuss the federal budget bill. This bill makes sweeping changes to hundreds of regulations that will affect all Canadians and Indigenous people in particular.

Born on social media networks, it calls for peaceful protests in towns and cities across Canada, and online.

Resistance will take many forms. From mass rallies, protests outside politicians offices to Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike, activists will challenge the decisions of our unaccountable and undemocratic government.

When I say “our,” I refer to Canadians, descendants of settlers and for who, on this land, the current government is the only (federal) government we have. When Stephen Harper breaks his promises, lies about fighter jets or sells a part of Alberta to China, our political system works such that, while we may disagree, this government has been elected and they have the authority to pass this massive budget bill. We should voice our opposition and have a range of legal and less-than-legal options for how to do this.

But for Indigenous communities, this relationship is different. The lies of the federal government aren’t part of the regular [dis]functioning of their government system. It’s a break in the legally-binding Treaties that were signed between national governments.

When considered in these terms, the actions of the Harper government aren’t just another example of our broken democracy, it’s a break in the formal and legal responsibilities that the Crown has with Indigenous people.

These responsibilities are the flip-side of the rights that the government seems to have no problem helping themselves to: access and exploitation of land and resources for example. But there are no rights without responsibilities and the current lot has shamefully ignored the “responsibilities” aspect of the Treaty arrangements.

When Joe Oliver or Jim Flaherty refuses to meet with First Nations Chiefs in Ottawa, that’s a high insult. That is an action that signals that our government has no interest in meeting with the representatives of the people on who’s land we live, we pillage, we profit and we steal.

Of course, this isn’t really new in the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous people. What might be new, though, is the nationally-coordinated, sophisticated response that will coalesce around Idle No More.

Canadians: we have a responsibility to honour the Treaties, understand the Treaties and demand (vocally, physically, however we can) that our government honour the Treaties too.

I’m sure that today isn’t going to be the last that we hear of Idle No More and I’m excited to watch how the campaign unfolds in the communities that I’m connected to.

But, just as it will take unity and solidarity among First Nations people to fight for their rights, non-Indigenous activists have a role to play too. This is our government and we are partly to blame for allowing the current pack of wolves access to the hen house.

I hope you can participate in an Idle No More event either today or in the coming days. But more important than that, I encourage all non-Indigenous people to:

Know the history and the stories of elders of what has happened on this territory.

Place decolonization at the centre of all progressive/social justice organizing you do.

Read and understand the Indian Act and how this racist piece of legislation is used today.

Don’t be afraid to make mistakes. Be humble. Walk softly. Be kind. Be bold.

Fear not a discussion on sovereignty.

4 Sep

“If you look at Québec solidaire, they’re a hard left political party that believes in the separation of our country” –unhelpful rhetoric from Ian Capstick, former NDP staffer, this morning on The Current.

Tonight, eyes across Canada will be on Québec. It’s nice to have everyone pay attention. I didn’t feel like during the last Ontario election the outcome mattered all that much and so no one was watching. It was clear that the PCs had fumbled and the NDP would pick up a few protest votes cast to spite the Liberals more than support the NDP. In retrospect, there probably would have been no difference between a McGuinty ultra majority, or a Conservative majority, so Québec’s election is a good reminder that sometimes, yes, elections matter.

There’s been a lot of scary writing by people about how we’re all doomed if (when) the PQ wins.

In the Kitchener-Waterloo by-election, the best insult Liberals could hurl at Mulcair is that he’s a separatist (which, to argue this must ignore nearly all of his political past).

Inspired by what I’ve seen online this past week, I’m writing to assure you, dear Canadian, that there’s no reason to be worried about the future of Canada as it may or may not hinge on tonight’s results. No, you should worry about the future of Canada for other reasons.

Some people use Québec to scare non-Québec Canadians to whip up nationalistic feelings of patriotism so that we simply fall in line. Just like Marois has done to avoid talking about real policies, commentators in the ROC are doing the same thing. It’s easy to scare people with the belief that Canada is about to collapse because of Québec than to allow Canadians to see which public policies are possible, like 7$/day daycare. If Canadians knew about Québec’s approach to social programs they might just start demanding them in Nova Scotia or Ontario. They might start taking to the streets in the hundreds of thousands.

Instead: fear separation. Fear the separatists who hate Canada like terrorists hate freedom.

I can’t bring myself to the level of nationalistic, Canadian fervor to become concerned with the protection and maintenance of Canada’s borders. Despite being an Anglophone living in Québec, studying in Saskatchewan and with all my family in Ontario, I don’t understand the fear that it seems folks have with having this discussion.

Our borders are invented. They run through national lines that had evolved through war, cooperation, familial lines and trade. We had no part in shaping them. They were imposed upon this land by a few people in England and a few people in Canada. Like the myths that surround Pierre Trudeau, our borders have taken on a place in our consciousness that builds them up to be something that they aren’t really.

Québecers have a history of being hyper aware of their place, or non-place, in the Canadian confederation, so it’s no surprise to me that the conversation has traditionally been of sovereignty or federalism. But this dichotomy isn’t good enough. It’s clear to me that we have to evolve this discussion beyond “will I need a passport to visit Québec?”

Québec isn’t going to change the make-up of this Canada. New models of self-governance emerging from First Nations communities are the biggest “threat” to Canadian federalism, and I support these struggles. If First Nations communities can succeed in winning their autonomy from local authorities, and if they can enter into new kinds of relationships with existing provinces or municipalities, well then, we will have a new model on our hands. And it may work for the rest of us too. It would change the face of the Canadian federation for the better.

When I hear about sovereignty, I hear people who are legitimately frustrated and angry with a federal government that they, by in large, did not elect. I hear people outraged that their money is being spent on war rather than education or pharmacare. I hear people who are scared that the relentless drive toward English that exists around the world through the movement of global capital will also wash out the French from this province.

I hear similar frustrations in Ontario and Saskatchewan too. The difference is that the answer isn’t to have a full-scale reexamination of our borders. Instead, there is no answer. It’s normally just sighing, disenfranchisement and anger washed down by a beer.

Our people make up Canada: WE are Canada and people are hurting, bad. When can we talk about the hurt that our borders and our political system have inflicted upon us? And, for the ROC, when can we/you ask the question, what must change to make it better for our communities?

I’ve avoided dissecting the problems with the PQ version of sovereignty so far, of which there are many, just because it’s another post altogether. But the PQ’s wants the easiest path to a free Québec: have a vote, win, declare independence. This isn’t sufficient. It takes on the same nationalistic xenophobia that exists in the rest of Canada, translates it, and uses it to create a mini, French version of what Québec just ceded from. Parizeau’s “money and the ethnic vote” comment in 1995 was a good indication of the problems with how the last push for sovereignty was formulated. I wrote an essay on it in Grade 10 history.

But the current rhetoric from Marois is just real politik. She’s trying to get elected. Her polls are saying that this rhetoric will work in target ridings and she’s going for it. That’s how our democracy works. She’s playing by the same rulebook as all the other mainstream parties. Taking issue with Marois’ approach is to take issue with the manifestation of Canadian democracy itself.

This is why new discussions emerging from Québec solidaire, for example, are so important. Their’s is a new way to approach this issue. It’s inclusive. It offers the rest of Canada a potential model for the reenfranchisement of people everywhere.

Why are partisan political commentators so concerned when we talk about changing those borders?

These debates are dangerous because they threaten the only thing that gives our federal government its legitimacy. Partisans know that if Québec has this discussion, confederation is threatened. Alberta will go next. Then Newfoundland. Then Northwestern Ontario. Political parties could no longer fight each other for total control of the world’s second-largest land mass, the home to 20% of the world’s fresh water.

As you’ve probably heard from an ex…this isn’t about you. It’s about them.

Handwringing over sovereignty is a game of political elites. Don’t get caught up in this debate on their terms. Redefine the terms of the debate and ask yourself critical questions: is there a better way to organize ourselves? How does it look? What would it take to move us there?

As a progressive person, I have to believe that the local decision-making of engaged and involved communities is the most important node of power. I have to believe that community empowerment is the first line of defense in the struggle to take back our democracy and I have to believe that this may result in a rejection of the borders that were imposed on all of us by people we didn’t elect.

I also have to believe that people are near-universally awesome and solidarity means that we create experiences for us to travel, live among communities that we’re unfamiliar with, explore landscapes where we’ve never been and honour the traditions that have come from these lands regardless of the political structure that exists around us.

Controlling borders, granting access to some to enter and imprisoning others is all about power. I don’t want to be part of a system that treats people this way and I’m prepared for the challenge and the work it will take to change this.

To end, I want to acknowledge how painful a process of going through a discussion like this is. I imagine that for many Québecers, the thought of enduring a referendum process is worse than the possible outcomes and the anticipation of this pain (and the memory of it from 1995 and 1980) is enough to not want to touch this question ever again. The question of sovereignty divided people here: neighbours, families and communities. It wasn’t the process that I advocate above. Québecers who endured these campaigns are right to be nervous, frustrated and angry with the PQ’s rhetoric.

But all ye in the rest of Canada do not have a similar right. It’s like feeling like you earned a gold medal when you’re watching someone on the TV flip back and forth on a trampoline. You didn’t earn it. You can’t even flip once on a trampoline.

Don’t fear conversations about sovereignty. Instead, use this discussion to open a space in your community have your own discussions: does the political system we have, accompanied by the borders created to control our movement, our identities and commerce, serve us or oppress us?

And what about for people who aren’t “us”?

Buying land and other myths we tell ourselves

13 Aug

I’m trying to figure out how to take a cubic metre of air and sell it to someone.

How much should I sell it for? How should I transport it?

Don’t worry about how stupid a question this is, someone’s willing to buy, for some reason, and I’ll get some money out of it. I just need to package it up right.

* * *

There’s a river that’s running outside my back porch.

Someone approached me to purchase 10 cubic metres of it (so, where the river bends and where there are two rocks that break a path). He’s going to pay me $500 a month for two years, and promises to not walk through my house to get to the back yard.

* * *

Now, I’ve purchased a property up North. I’m going to buy some lumber and build a cottage. I’ll put a fence around it too, for some reason.

—-

Why are my first two scenarios really strange, but my last one is totally normal?

We’ve been conditioned to believe that we can buy land. We can control land. We can stick shit into it, pull shit out of it, cut down trees, plant new ones and control it. Forget about things you can’t control, those rare occurrences like earthquakes or storms, for nearly all the time we need to, we can control the land how we’d like.

Maybe this reality isn’t that weird because there are people with a lot of money who do believe they can control the land. Many of us are also used to our bodies being controlled too. But, we know that even though we may be used to it, it doesn’t make it right.

No one controls the land. We, in fact, owe our entire livelihoods to the land and it controls us. But, we’re so disconnected from the source of production for the items we consume, we forget this.

Land becomes something to parcel, sell, fence off and exploit, rather than that big thing that, you know, gives us food, shelter and the other things we really love. Just like water and air. 

One of the biggest fights of the past few decades is brewing over this issue in First Nations communities. Unlike many of us, First Nations communities have not bought into the idiotic notion that one can “purchase” land. (In the end, we’re going to figure this out the hard way, fellow settlers).

Now, this issue is complicated and I’m nearly certain that I will screw up in this post. It will be oversimplified, it will ignore something important that I didn’t know. I’ll likely need a few follow up posts. But I’m going to try.

No one can own land. This is a simple truth that once the scales fall from our Capitalist eyes, we will see one day. But, I’m going to say this in a different way. If you don’t live on reserve in Canada, you can own land. On reserve, the land is controlled and cannot be owned by any individual living there. The determinants of land ownership/transfer/procurement etc. can be read in the colonial and racist Indian Act.

So, the government of Canada (always too ready to play God/Crown/Father in their relationship with First Nations communities) has decided to act on an idea that’s been kicking around for a while now: they intend to change the Indian Act to allow for the private sale and purchase of reserve land. This, they hope, will kickstart economic activity, solve housing crises that exist in many communities and show everyone that though Capitalism all things are possible.

Why is this bad?

1. It’s not being called for by First Nations themselves. It’s a move that’s widely opposed by Indigenous leaders and imperfect representatives (like the Assembly of First Nations).

2. It’s exploiting a problem (or, many problems) that exist on many reserves, to likely end up benefiting corporations who would use every tactic imaginable to purchase lands that could be atop, oh let’s say, a bunch of diamonds, or uranium, or some other metal that will make some dude(s) rich.

3. It will most likely result in even more internal chaos as the struggle between honouring the land, economic development, resource extraction and money gets multiplied by the millions of dollars at stake.

4. Despite the many, many other problems with the colonial and racist Indian Act, it further seeks to change the relationship with the Crown and First Nations (that exists because Treaties were signed that were entered into as bi-national agreements) and erode the rights guaranteed to First Nations through these Treaties.

5. Basically everything that Stephen Harper supports is most definitely evil and will lead to the profit of a few at the expense of many.

6. This is left blank for you to imagine other reasons.

Could this be turned into something useful or scrapped entirely? Potentially. But it will take a massive, united movement from organized First Nations leaders and communities in all regions of Canada.

Harper intends to put this into action one year from September. So, while communities are contending with fighting for access to clean water, protecting traditional lands, promoting and teaching culture, educating their youth and everything else that occupies so many peoples’ time, people will also have to add this to their list to fight.

It will also take a mobilized, coordinated movement of organizations and people standing with First Nations communities in a campaign, taking their lead on the tactics, the message and the goals.

To start, First Nations sovereignty and self-determination should be at the centre of any social justice organizing that you’re involved with (*ahem* amazingly inspiring student movement in Québec, and every other awesome movement in Canada…)

I’m somewhat lost on what I can do personally. I’m totally disconnected from any community right now, let alone working in solidarity with First Nations people and organizations in Québec. So, I’ll try to keep writing, but I invite your ideas and examples of what you’re working on where you are.

Settlers (and settler descendents…I don’t care if your family’s been here since the first colonizers landed) are Treaty people too and, you know what? We’ve benefited way beyond what we were entitled to from those agreements.

We have a responsibility to tip the scales in the other direction by working in solidarity with and along side First Nations people wherever in Canada/Turtle Island we’re located.

My gut feeling is that it’s going to take every trick in our collective toolkits to fight back against this. If not, it will be “the issue” that causes even more havoc for First Nations communities in Canada for decades to come.