Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Idle No More: Canadian Aboriginals Fed Up

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Montipithon, Dec 28, 2012.

  1. Montipithon

    Montipithon Member New Member


    8

    0

    0

    Oct 27, 2012
     
    For those who don't know, in my home country of Canada there is currently an omnibus budget bill being discussed (I think it passed second reading in the senate). It is called bill C-45 and has caused a lot of controversy amongst the Aboriginal community as part of the bill opens water way and fishing access on what was protected Aboriginal waters (rivers/lakes and such) and makes it a lot easier for non-Aboriginals to buy reserve land. The main controversial part is that these changes were not in any way discussed with the Aboriginal community prior to the introduction of the bill or even presented to them until the bill was tabled in parliament.

    In response, several Aboriginal groups and leaders have been protesting. Chief Theresa Spence is going into the third week of her hunger strike. The main Aboriginal group taking action in this case is called Idle No More. There have been several flash mobs and other forms of protest, fairly peaceful in nature thus far, though that may change very quickly depending on which groups take action.

    So I'm curious, what do you guys think about Aboriginal rights in general? Should they get special recognition as a distinct society? I mean obviously in an anarchist system they would have the rights to maintain their way of life and culture, but in the democratic, capitalist society in which we live, are they more entitled to autonomy than others? Also, what do you think of the idea of their rights of ownership to the land?

    Bill C-45: Mostly long-winded budget bull-shit, but has the relevant legislation
    http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Pub ... e=E&Mode=1

    Some News Sources:
    http://www.anarchistnews.org/content/id ... -45-canada
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... forgotten/

    Idle No More:
    http://idlenomore1.blogspot.ca/
     

  2. PoshyX

    PoshyX Experienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Nov 17, 2012
     United States
    what a coincidence we have the same avatar...
    anyway, i don't see them being more entitled to any sort of special recognition, at least by the government. all earth in general belongs to no one and everyone at the same time, a piece of fucking paper doesn't give someone "ownership." that's how i've always thought, but aboriginals have always had a special place in my heart. however, that doesn't mean i feel they deserve the right to reservations. on the otherhand, i do believe they deserve some amount of respect for the very fact that they ARE aboriginals since essentially all caucasians living in north america basically barged in and said "this is mine because i'm white and god says so, fuck you" hundreds of years ago. but i mean, you can't really impose that respect for their culture onto everyone. so i guess people will do as they wish as they always do.
    as for the entitlement to land in our capitalist/democratic society, i'm neither a statist nor a capitalist, so i have little regard for government-granted rights (although i don't really know what capitalism has to do with that, no offense).
    that's my two cents. anyone else care to join in?
     
  3. crustybeckham

    crustybeckham Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    358

    4

    13

    Jan 22, 2012
     
    Would you care to clarify your view that Aboriginals don't "deserve" the right to reservations?

    Tribal land and rights are tied to treaties that the government (be it US or Canadian) signed with the tribes. They are supposed to be nations, therefore it makes sense that their status is different to the average Canadian. The argument that "the Earth belongs to everyone, I don't believe in ownership" can be dangerous when you are dealing with such issues as it can be an open door to tribal lands being bought off by the State or corporations.
     
  4. nclpw

    nclpw Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    1

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    They deserve those reservations more than anyone else, but I can understand the skepticism when the government is involved(in giving them special "rights"), that however is better than not acknowledging them at all. Pieces of paper have great significance in a capitalist society, even though they might not mean much to you or someone else. Its true that giving a group their own rights doesn't necessarily change peoples attitude towards them though, that takes time.

    The natives here have their own "government", but as far as I can see that doesn't really change much for them, which shows how much you can "fight the system from the inside". Its still better than it used to be, and it seems like its what they want, to live alongside today's society. Even though that might go against our political views on this forum, we can't do anything but respect their demands. I don't believe anyone can own a piece of land, but its logical to me that someone that's lived there for years has the right to protect it and live there in peace. Besides, they do a much better job not destroying land and forests than we do.
     
  5. PoshyX

    PoshyX Experienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Nov 17, 2012
     United States
    yeah, i guess i was a little vague. what i was trying to say was that no one deserves the ownership of land, as i don't believe in private ownership of anything in the first place, no matter how you define "private." a government may claim that private ownership exists because it's supposedly willing to defend a person's ownership of an item, but as an anarchist, i choose not to respect that (at least, i try not to). in this instance, a government "gives" the "rights" of land to an aboriginal society, but like i said, i don't acknowledge private ownership when i can, regardless of any amount of respect and/or sympathy i may have for the person or group, in this case the canadian aboriginals. but that doesn't mean i go out of my way to snatch things out of people's hands when i see them using them or to take a laptop or something someone frequently uses to my home for good. treaty or no treaty, that land belongs to no one.

    true... i guess i'm being a little too objective. if something like this were to happen to me on land that i lived on or frequently used, i'd get pretty pissed and probably try to do something about it. i mean, i wouldn't really want something like a highway or railroad tracks at my cave hole, but then again i don't feel like i really SHOULD do anything about it ideally. i wouldn't like it if someone legally owned something that i get more use out of than him/her either.
    who knows how i'd react? i've never been faced with this kind of decision. :/ i'm pretty conflicted about this thing too.
     
  6. crustybeckham

    crustybeckham Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    358

    4

    13

    Jan 22, 2012
     
    Traditionally, in most tribal cultures, there is no notion of individual ownership of the land. The land doesn't so much belong to the tribe as the tribe belongs to the land. Native cultures are land-based, their whole culture, their system of knowledge, are tied to the land they live on. That is why the many displacements they have had to endure have been so damaging. The people and the land are one. More land-keepers than land-owners if you want.
    Obviously, this is the traditional way of seeing things and the notion of private ownership has been imposed upon them with dreadful results (see the General Allotment Act of 1887 for instance). While I disagree with the notion of private ownership of the land as well, given the current context, I think it is wiser for them to be the legal owners of their ancestral land.
     
  7. PoshyX

    PoshyX Experienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Nov 17, 2012
     United States
    i suppose it wouldn't be the best idea for them to just stay on the land anyway, right?
    i'd like to think you're wrong, but... legally owning it would have its advantages. i think my only real problem with the idea is that they're still a part of the system. though i don't really know anything about canadian law to confidently say much else.
     
  8. crustybeckham

    crustybeckham Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    358

    4

    13

    Jan 22, 2012
     
    Native resistance has been going on for hundreds of years so if the government tries to take their land or rights away, they can expect a fair amount of resistance (see the Mohawk revolt of the early 90's).

    I understand the "you still take part in creating this fucking system" argument, but as long as the system pervades all aspects of our lives, we have to deal with it the best we can. If someone gave me a house tomorrow, making me its legal owner, I would take it in a heartbeat since it would keep me from having to pay a ridiculous rent every month. From the Native point of view, one could venture that trying to legally own their land is perfectly understandable as it is more likely to ensure that they will be able to keep it. As long as Indigenous people didn't have any legal claims to the land they had been living on for centuries (aka "a piece of paper"), colonial forces were able to steal the land on the basis that it wasn't legally owned and therefore was "terra nullius", meaning "up for grab for capitalistic exploitation". Technically, the tribes are much safer with a legal piece of paper, although if tribal lands happen to be located right over some profitable natural resources, the state won't be long to declare that they should be evicted in the name of "the nation's greater interests".

    But I suppose the best thing is to read what the Natives themselves think about it as I am sure it will be much more accurate and relevant than my rants. ;)
     
  9. crustybeckham

    crustybeckham Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    358

    4

    13

    Jan 22, 2012
     
    Just a last comment. As you may know, France still a couple of colonies in South America and the West Indies. French Guyana actually has a substantial Indigenous population. But because of the French sacred principle of Equality (which is a lot of bollocks as you can guess), the state refuses to give the Natives a special status and even denies that they are Indigenous at all. They are just "French citizens". Being very poor, they don't legally own the land they have been living on for thousands of years and therefore, since they don't even have a special status, the state or the capitalists can buy and exploit their ancestral lands in all legality (there's gold over there... bad luck indeed).
     
  10. Montipithon

    Montipithon Member New Member


    8

    0

    0

    Oct 27, 2012
     
    The way I see it, there's more to the issue than just whether or not they have an inherent right to land ownership. The part that I think is more relevant is the separation of their culture from modern society. Whether that separation was naturally occurring based on the differences between the Aboriginals and the Europeans or was an enforced separation by the Europeans as part of their attempt to assimilate Aboriginals, they are a distinct group of people that have fundamentally different points of view on how a society should function. As a result, I think the question here is more whether or not they have the right to autonomy and self-government to a greater degree than other definable cultural groups (such as French-Canadians).

    One also has to consider the negative environment Aboriginal people have been forced into by the Canadian government over the past several hundred years. There are a lot of social problems in Aboriginal communities, like unemployment, drug usage, domestic violence, and a whole ton of other bad things resulting from residential schools and the constant restrictions on Aboriginals in the pursuit of their inherited culture. Where it gets really tricky is whether the Aboriginal peoples have the ability to combat these problems on their own, as they've had control over their own reservations both legally and financially for some time without any real results in the way of fixing those social problems. So should they keep the autonomy they already possess, receive more autonomy, or give some of it up in favour of (hopefully) beneficial social programs?
     
  11. THEBLACKNOVA

    THEBLACKNOVA Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    965

    1

    0

    Aug 11, 2011
     Mexico
    MMM i was unaware of this until this thread...

    Canada's indigenous movement gains momentum...

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO7kVQGeTas[/video]
     
  12. THEBLACKNOVA

    THEBLACKNOVA Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    965

    1

    0

    Aug 11, 2011
     Mexico
  13. THEBLACKNOVA

    THEBLACKNOVA Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    965

    1

    0

    Aug 11, 2011
     Mexico
    or any group of people living on a giving piece of land?

    I believe they have, as any community has the right to self determination, outside capitalism.

    I don't know what kinds of social programs they have, or how much "modern problems" their community have as compared to any other community in any other "modern capitalist country".

    It would be interesting to compare them or any other community to another autonomous community living outside of capitalism, like the zapatistas... and those "problems" ( :/ i'm thinking ha)
     
  14. RorytheRocket

    RorytheRocket Member Forum Member


    10

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2012
     
    They should have been consulted since it was on their land. But honestly I don't see the real big problem with it.
     
  15. miss.defarge

    miss.defarge Member Forum Member


    15

    0

    0

    Jan 7, 2013
     
    This morning on the radio, John Bennett, the director of the Canadian chapter of the Sierra Club responded to the organization’s American chapter’s official endorsement of “an act of peaceful civil disobedience” (as a total Thoreau fan-girl, “civil disobedience” is pretty loaded phrase to me). He landed a jab against Idle No More, saying that if Sierra Club Canada were to take action it would be “targeted and direct” in contrast to Idle No More. When Anna Maria Tremonti pushed the topic, he admitted that he doesn’t see the point in protesting to close municipal bridges (or similar) and that he only sees the utility in taking targeted action, for example, blocking pipeline construction vehicles.

    Do you agree with him?
     
  16. Spike one of many

    Spike one of many Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,976

    420

    456

    Aug 14, 2012
    Banana Republic  South Africa
    I think both are necessary. 1. be seen & heard, 2. take action!
     
  17. miss.defarge

    miss.defarge Member Forum Member


    15

    0

    0

    Jan 7, 2013
     
  18. Spike one of many

    Spike one of many Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,976

    420

    456

    Aug 14, 2012
    Banana Republic  South Africa
    Oh, I misunderstood your question. I thought you meant protesting as opposed to direct action or vice-versa. Yeah I think I'd be pretty annoyed by people blocking a bridge & even if I support their cause!
    So yes, I do agree with him. If the kind of civil disobedience is only gonna piss the wrong people off, that's not gonna help their cause.
     
  19. THEBLACKNOVA

    THEBLACKNOVA Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    965

    1

    0

    Aug 11, 2011
     Mexico
    Does the Sierra Club have a critique of capitalism?? Do they have plans to take it down?? If they do could someone post post the link. Sounds like they are trying to divide peeps and maybe get more funds into the Sierra Clubs coffers :ecouteurs:

    Blocking??? Is that it??? So don't annoy all types of wage slaves maintaing the system that makes this all possible but a specific type of wage slave working on a particular job??? I wonder if there are spikes in donations when they get "media" attention for trying to stop something...

    I dont agree with him :ecouteurs:

    [​IMG]
     
  20. deadsmart

    deadsmart Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    106

    0

    0

    Nov 19, 2009
     
    Lots of good points in this thread. I've lived in Canada my entire life and here's my opinion so far (on Idle No More in Canada):

    As Idle No More grows, i agree, theres more to it than land ownership. It seems to be, mainly, about the aboriginal people of Canada wanting their issues to be heard. Issues ranging from that Bill C45 to issues with the government and its spending or poor use of funds.

    I live in Alberta (in Canada) so theres a lot of talk about the tar sands and the scientific facts coming out about how horrible the process is for the environment. The government can finally no longer cover up proof of chemicals in streams, cancerous fish, etc. And a large part of this stuff is affecting some aboriginal groups that live near those areas. People are becoming ill due to this and are very worried.

    As for the land ownership aspect, even though I agree it isnt right to claim ownership of the land, in our current system these people were legally promised areas that they could practice their way of life. Over many years that is slowly being taken from them illegally by the government.

    Also I am very surprised and disgusted at the amount of racism all this has brought out of people (not in this forum but where i live). People where i live aren't going by facts, they just get angry and claim ridiculous and racist things about First Nation folk! ITS DRVING ME CRAZY !!

    But yea, so thats my two cents
     
Loading...