Kwakwaka'wakw

A Tight Race

2011-05-16T20:39:00.000-07:00

First I want to give a heartfelt congratulations to Chief Bill Cranmer. I also want to congratulate Robbie Mountain for a hard fought battle that went right to the wire and the graciousness in which he accepted defeat. I was disappointed to see negative attack ads. Considering their source and the impressive commercial quality of the ads (American-style federal politics would be impressed with this work), I am concerned that we may have non-‘Namgis people that may be interfering with internal affairs. I am NOT in any way attaching these actions to Bill Cranmer, but to me this gives all the more reason to look into who did it so that we can protect the ‘Namgis Chief councillor’s integrity as our elected representative.

As a political science major, this election was very interesting to watch unfold. A question inevitably comes up, what does the result mean? First, close to half of eligible voters cast a ballot in this election, which is fantastic. It means that Bill will be able to finish on his own terms. To finish a admirable career in politics that we can all agree to differing degrees has benefitted our people. But let us think about how close it was. The results were incredibly close - 15 votes can easily be captured by two short lineups at Shoprite at 5:45... Votes that would haunt me in a world of what-ifs if I was Robbie. What if I picked up the phone and called that many more people? What if I picked up more people on voting day? What if I talked to one more group? Focused on urban voters? Etc... The results show Robbie presented a convincing alternative to the status quo. There seems to be a real yearning for change - not in our representative, but in our direction. Put another way, there are at least 184 people who agreed with Robbie Mountain’s focus on accountability in the form of increased meetings, AGMs and quick and consistent communication with members.

This election brought about another debate that I want to touch on - whether or not urban ‘Namgis should be accommodated by having voting stations in Victoria and Vancouver (and then undoubtedly Nanaimo and perhaps Campbell). In my opinion this would cost far too much for our nation to pay each time there is a councillor or Chief councillor election. It is an unfeasible idea with our small population. With our low voter turnout, would having the option to drive into a select building to vote increase numbers? I doubt it. This problem does not just exist on our reserve and with our people. Western governments around the world are struggling with this phenomenon. But the problem does need to be solved. How do we include urbanites into the mix? Voting from all segments of our population is important. For now this is the only way we are choosing to use that informs our government of where we need to go. One thing I can say without a doubt: this generation and the generations that follow us are and will be wholly intertwined by the internet. It is our primary means of communicating with each other as a people. Why then, do we not consider using secure online voting services that would deliver results at a click of a button? This would reduce the barriers of most non-interested voters out there and those who prefer the physical vote and mail-in ballots can still use it. There are services available that are cost effective and secure. Furthermore, the last time I gassed up I noticed the computer terminal took my status number into record. Can we not use similar means to register our votes for online voting? This would mean we could forget about “see through ballots” and the huge costs associated with 3-5 additional voting stations. Let us reach out to the internet generation and engage the youth that have so little vested interest in ‘Namgis politics.

The Illusory Boundaries of Politics

2010-11-21T13:41:00.000-08:00

The issue of resident requirements for the upcoming band election has been going on for several weeks now (years if we count other issues unresolved in previous elections). I have been trying to understand the issue and listen to as many people as possible before weighing in. Both sides have valid points, but it seems to be degenerating into increasingly personal attacks of the people involved. This serves to divide our people, not bring us together as the best public policies can and must. Let me try to quickly summarize the debate in as neutral of terms as possible and hopefully refocus the argument back on the issues and less on the people putting their opinions forth.

In this election there are members who according to the election officer have failed to meet the minimum resident requirement in order to run for the open councilor positions currently up for election. These individuals had been properly nominated, except for 'Namgis election policies that are being challenged by these members. The debate starts from the diverging opinions on what court cases apply to each party. One naming the Charter of Rights of Freedoms as the ultimate determinant of their right to be included in this election and the other saying that the current band policies as well as being classified under the custom membership code, exempt the band from these court cases. An additional consideration is that the 'Namgis First Nation is a sovereign entity separate from the Canadian state. Now before this ends in a costly, lengthy and needless court action against the band, let us have a public discussion that includes all membership, since it is the membership that ultimately must decide.

Before members feel forced to resort to a court challenge, let us re-examine why we are not being more inclusive of all of our band members in the first place. It is my understanding that there is a general concern that if we were to have off-reserve members running and getting elected, that the focus of limited funds would be directed off reserve. Furthermore, off-reserve members do not fully understand the island life with its many complexities and unique challenges. A reverse angle would prove that on-reserve councilors do not fully understand the urban challenges to over half of the 'Namgis population as witnessed by consistently low turnout to urban meetings. The band receives funding per capita, or per person, and some argue that this means funding should be more evenly split. I do not agree. The main reason people move off reserve is to find employment and many find it. Also, since there are many services available to off-reserve members that support these members, it makes sense that the funds should rightfully serve the members living in our territories. Funding that does support off-reserve members, like education for example, should be directed towards those willing to improve 'Namgis community wellness with the end goal of being able to support members willing and able to move back home and contribute. This means that our policies need to accommodate the people that actually make this effort to return, free from discrimination. This can be done in many ways, but should be a directive of the post-secondary and other policies. Of course there will be unique cases that prevent members from moving back for health or family reasons, but in general I think this provides a proactive long-term approach to improving our community well-being.

(To find the full debate I would recommend visiting the official facebook page of the 'Namgis First Nation.)

Discussion:

It is my understanding that our membership has grown over the past few years and that the population numbers can support two more councilors. Perhaps a good compromise on this long standing issue is to accommodate our off-reserve families by allowing them to occupy the two additional seats that according to our own policies, we should have available anyway. This way those living off reserve or just across the border, but still on-island, can still represent their people and segments of the population that have so far gone ineffectively represented. Having people represented in our governance may help increase voter participation (over half of our membership lives off-reserve). It may engage some of the young bright minds of our nation and assure our membership that we are changing with the times, that their government is still relevant. We need to recognize our unlimited potential by utilizing the best resource we have, our people.

There is no question that our urban membership needs a voice. It seems to me that the most effective way to accomplish this would be through representation. This does not have to threaten the lifestyle of those living on-reserve and any change must keep in mind our responsibilities to our lands within the 'Namgis territories. It is my firm belief that all members of a nation should have the ability to voice their opinion and be heard, represented and accountable to the nation itself. Otherwise we are saying that over half of our population does not matter, that their voices do not count and if we are not willing to give a voice to our urban populations, then what are we offering them? Many have made known that accountability is a primary concern of our current system of government in its lack of mechanisms to hold those in power effectively accountable to the people. Our system of governance must evolve with the changing times to stay relevant. Much has changed in the last two decades and if we are to not only survive economically, but thrive as a people, we must change to meet current challenges.

Elusive

2010-08-26T14:24:00.000-07:00

It starts. I am here and yet unsettled. Cars drive by with curious faces, as I write in the spattering rain. Who is that?... I listen as the tide sounds of lapping waves underneath the boardwalk, calmly, certainly. I feel sad. Having left my papa's grave with peace and purpose, I walk on. I can now say I am practicing what I have preached from distant lands. A land to which I am attached by blood and childhood upbringing, yet was safely sheltered from the realities of everyday living. I was always meant to come home and make it remember my name.

The community is still on a high from the abundance of Sockeye we have "been allowed" to catch. A dangerous development no doubt and a sign of the changed times. So quickly. Asking to feed ourselves from our own country. Nonetheless, a profound gratefulness is felt throughout. Not to a dysfunctional government who feigns management of our sacred resources, but to Mother Earth for being resilient and continuing the struggle to feed our people. I look across the Bay and see the scarred hillsides from hungry timber firms chasing a dream of prosperity that elusively slinks deep in the shadows of North American Citizenship. Will they ever stop pushing, taking? Certainly not until the first generation is wiped out and along with it the memories of generations past. With no ties to this place, foreign ownership will leave when Indian Country is exhausted and can take no more. A collapse that will have to occur in an effort to regain the natural balance that we are meant to live within. Things that are so easily forgotten within civilization are typically and so unfortunately the very principles of sustainability. A newfound buzz word, hijacked as a noble goal on a distant horizon.

I have answered the call to come home by those closest to my heart, possessing wisdom far beyond my years. A duty and a dream I have held close since the passing of my papa. A man who helped instill the teachings that shaped me to become the man I am today. I am to write a book of their stories. Stories that must be remembered.

Laugh, Love, Live. I am absolutely sure that this world's foundations are based upon uncertainty as fact. That the only constant is change and it is with this in mind that I realize the more I learn, the less I truly know. For the truth is elusive…Despite it all, thoughts, words and poetic phrases will come and go till the pen runs dry. Despite it all, we rebuild upon remembered principles almost forgot. Despite it all, we are empowered to remember Laughter, Love and Life...Despite it all.

Inequities: from top to bottom

2010-03-11T11:36:00.000-08:00

With capitalism structured so thoroughly towards enhancing and protecting ever more concentrated wealth, it is a wonder First Nations communities are blindly signing on to 'economic development' without taking a closer look. I am all for making a living for First Nations communities and with this comes some difficult choices. Do we mine, or don't we? Clearcuts? Cultural tourism? Dams? The list of exploitables goes on and on, while our people remain, with less and less. I have been thinking about globalization lately. Kind of a higher level view of how state governments of the developed world, use the inherently exploitive (and dogmatically accepted) structure of economics we recognize as capitalism to control and coerce other less powerful governments. In the end, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is easy to parellel this to Indigenous economies and how state governments, utilizing capitlism, partnered with liberal statism, to control, steal and exploit lands and resources, with no long term investment in the local territories. As we have witnessed, this lack of connection only exasperates the problem by taking away any accountability to the land. When the land is exhausted, the companies and its management move to the next territory, while the people remain.

Introduction:

Globalization has sparked a heated debate among globalists and skeptics about whether liberalizing trade produces a net economic benefit to the overall international community as it is claimed by its proponents. The primary claims are that of increased wealth and a reduction in poverty. There is a growing body of evidence that challenges these assumptions, however, which highlight the growing wealth disparity between developed countries and those that are in the unenviable category of developing. It is important to remember the origins of today’s economic policies and realize the very principles espoused by the developed world are not followed domestically. Uncovering the current hypocritical attitudes of the richer countries exposes the motives underlying their platitudes; that of enhancing their wealth while minimizing competition.

Washington Consensus

“As economic activity becomes increasingly concentrated in the regional cores of the OECD, the result is to limit or block the development prospects of many less develop states” – Held & McGrew

The Washington Consensus is a set of economic policies that are prescribed to developing countries as part of a reform package that comes conditionally with development loans through institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). The past twenty years have provided many opportunities to witness the effects of these policies on improving the lives and economies of the developing world. Unfortunately the results are uninspiring. It seems the more purely that a country follows the conditions attached to the loans the worse off their economy becomes. Argentina and Bolivia are examples of ardent followers. They signed on to privatization, deregulation, trade liberalization, tax reform in the early 1990’s. In 2001 Argentina’s economy collapsed (Finnegan 42). Although rich in natural resources after forced structural adjustment Bolivia began its decline and after 15 years it remained the poorest country in South America. It is now paying more to service its debt than it does on health care (Ibid. 45). Even with a diverse clientele located throughout the world (states in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the ex-Soviet Union), the development loan conditions are surprisingly similar and equally ineffective (Held & McGrew 17).

One of the examples usually given for the promotion of globalization lies in Asia, but if we look at these economies, which are supposedly the “best-performing globalizers” according to a WB study (Taming Globalization 41), we run into countries such as China and India who remain highly protective of their economies and maintain policies that the WB would readily denounce if they had not been growing as fast as they are (Ibid. 31). Even the Four Tigers’ (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) success has been largely attributed to “highly protective tariffs around infant industries, which is contrary to the dogma of the Washington Consensus” (Finnegan 46). These developed countries promote neoliberalism, while their domestic policies are often significantly different.

Hypocrisy

“States matter, above all other political entities, and world order is decisively shaped by the most powerful states” – Held & McGrew

During the industrial age nations maintained protective trade barriers around their infant industries and as their growth continued they slowly liberalized their trade, which is the “basis for the common misunderstanding that trade liberalizing fueled their growth” (Taming Globalization 32). As examples have previously shown, for any country to be able to compete with other developed nations, they need to protect their vulnerabilities against external threats. So why does the WB and IMF insist on developing countries eliminating these protections as a precondition of any development loans? It seems that all of the virtuous talk about liberalized free trade reducing poverty and increasing wealth may not be the primary reason after all. As William Finnegan notes, “the US shoves free trade doctrine down the throat of every country it meets while practicing, when it pleases, protectionism (49)…It is a system of control. It is an economics of Empire” (42). Open markets mean more buyers for the rich countries at a time when the industries within the poor countries cannot compete against sophisticated mass-produced competitors.

Wealth and Power

“The truth is, no government practices free trade…it is a credo, a chimera, a utopian conceit” - Finnegan

It is all about wealth and power. Neoliberalism is conditionally forced on developing nations by the very parties that will benefit from it the most. Naturally since they have most of the world’s wealth, they can afford to lend money to ‘help’ other poorer nations, but everything in capitalism comes at a price. Liberalized markets concentrate benefits among the wealthy, which only further solidifies historic inequalities of dominance and dependence (Finnegan 45; Held & McGrew 85). The IMF and WB externally control nations by threatening to withdraw funding if countries fail to change their policies toward creating “import-replacing” industries that do not challenge those of the West (Taming Globalization 39). The US has created a profitable industry out of these loans. It is estimated that for every dollar contributed to these organizations, American corporations receive $1.35 in procurement contracts (Finnegan 45). To ensure that developing countries continue only to export raw materials, instead of creating even the beginning stages of industrial development by adding value to their products, rich countries charge tariffs in the aggregate four times higher against products coming from other rich countries (Ibid. 50). This condemns these poor countries to be the supplier to the developed world, a form of economic slavery with little recourse under the current system.

Discussion

It becomes clear that this system has no other drive than the control of capital into the hands of a few. We have an ultimately limited world economy due to the very simple fact that there is only one earth, so the need for constant growth in Gross Domestic Product (measure of economic activity within a country) cannot last forever. Even with services or businesses that do not process resources directly from the earth depend on money coming from companies and people that do. The same can be applied nationally. Indigenous peoples have long dealt with the blunt tools of capitalism in regards to their livlihoods within local territories. So is capitalism the way to go in repairing the damage or, as it has been framed, a way of regaining our self-determination as Indigenous peoples? In light of our current standard of living, capitalism is a real part of our lives and as with all things it is not completely all bad, although this is hard to realize when analyzing the forces at work within its system. The question becomes: are there ways of working to minimize capitalism's destructive force, while strengthening more equitable means of wealth distribution that take Indigenous values into account or will the system have to collapse before this becomes a viable possiblity?

References

Finnegan, W. (2003, May). The economics of empire. Harper’s Magazine. Available at http://ezproxy.tru.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9519699&site=ehostlive.

Held, D. & McGrew, A. (2007). Globalization/anti‐globalization: Beyond the Great Divide. Oxford: Polity Press.

Rose, Andrew K. (March 2004). Do We Really Know that the WTO Increases Trade? The American Economic Review. Vol. 94, No. 1, 98-114.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2003). Globalization and Development. In D. Held & M. Koenig‐Archibugi (Eds.), Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance. Chapter 2, 47–67. Polity Press.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (April 2000). Two Principles for the Next Round or, How to Bring Developing Countries in from the Cold. World Economy. Vol. 23, Issue 4, 437-455.

Anarchy: an exploration of alternatives to the status quo - November 29, 2007

2009-04-10T21:00:00.000-07:00

Intro: I wrote this paper as a brief exploration of resistance models available to our nations. I have always found it difficult to navigate within the Indian Act band governments and if passed, a treaty government will still be an extension of this dependency that breeds corruption and works for the very Canadian governments that have and continue to support the theft of our lands and benefit directly from its exploitation. This should not read: lets devote more resources to 'economic development' in large scale exploitation of natural resources ourselves. Rather, we should focus our attention on realizing and strengthening our collective identity as Kwakwaka'wakw by actively discussing it within our communities, incorporating Western ideas that are a net-benefit to humans and the animal kingdom, while ignoring those that do not (heavy economic exploitation and disparate wealth distribution that favors the already rich and those in power). I sincerely hope it encourages debate on these alternatives.
_______________________________________________________________________

This paper will briefly highlight the Anarchist critique of Statist forms of governance. Several examples will provide the Anarchist critique of Statism in all forms as well as the effectiveness of each argument. Kant will be used as an example of liberal-capitalist thought, which views the State as a necessary form of coercion to achieve the noble purpose of Perpetual Peace. Marxism will represent communist thought, which views the bourgeoisie as hindering the ultimate progress of man from a capitalist State to one of Communism. This revolution would first involve the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ but eventually would lead to a classless society ruled by the working classes.

Violence and coercion is central to all forms of State structures and based on the false foundation or ‘manufactured ‘consent of the people. Anarchy is opposed to the existence of the State altogether. The use of violence in revolution as advocated by leading Anarchists, however, should be avoided in favour of a more Prefigurative movement, which factors in the ends and means of its actions. During a violent revolution it will be difficult to decipher when the State and its underlying support have been defeated and since forms of domination and coercion will always challenge Anarchism, this could lead to perpetual war. The possibility of constant violence will drive people away from supporting Anarchism and endorsing it only serves to confirm State propaganda that frames the movement itself as a terrorist organization bent on violence and destruction. Another way must be found in which to resist coercive forces by taking the power from the State and returning it to the people. This will be viewed through its affects on Indigenous peoples of the world as they struggle for self determination under the oppressive States occupying their territories.

Indigenous peoples are increasingly rejecting the legitimacy of colonial governments and are returning to traditional forms of governance. Each nation has their own distinct governance structures which contain anarchistic tendencies, which can include minimally or non-coercive forms of governance, consensus models of decision-making and a profound respect for individual self-determination. History has shown that nation-States are structurally unable to change their coercive ways and accommodate Indigenous peoples on their own terms. Since violent revolution is morally wrong and also militarily unfeasible for most Indigenous peoples, alternative ways of reclaiming Indigenous self-determination must be explored. Ultimately, total non-violence may work for situations in which the majority of a country sympathizes and participates within the struggle, but it is arguable that the same does not apply to the world’s Indigenous peoples who, for the most part, find themselves the minority in their own lands. Since the main aim of the colonial State is the control of Indigenous lands, backed by the use of extreme force, complete non-violence would only seem to unfairly invite more suffering to already downtrodden peoples. It is from here that the Anarcha-Indigenist movement called Wasáse will be introduced as an alternative solution to the violent resistance found within Anarchist thought.

The Statist argument is that the historical development of man has brought us to our current position and the ultimate end-point, be it perpetual peace or communism, is the last step on man’s journey to enlightenment. Each claim their way of viewing the world, be it through man’s unsocial sociability or the bourgeoisie’s exploitation of proletariat labour, is the proper way of identifying all of history preceding them and the anticipated inevitability that follows. Anarchy works to expose the structural limitations the theories have placed themselves within. The immense diversity of group affiliations and self-identified nations seems to contradict any limitation or definition of a predetermined historical path, especially when limiting critical thought only to European nation-States. Rather, it seems to point to the immoral acts, backed by Euro-centric theories that assume there is a hierarchy of man placing them as a superior race of people, therefore giving them dominion over other nations. Ironically, these various States believed their crude actions were in the name of civilization.

Liberals believe there can be no freedom without the State and that everyone must give up some of their freedom in order to ensure protection under the law. For them the “only alternative to this pact is to be abandoned to a nasty, brutish, life of deadly competition over the means of bare subsistence.” Marxists see the State as a tool and the ultimate governance structure in which to seize power from the Bourgeoisie and thereby freeing the working class from its exploitation, but as the Anarchist critique goes, the new working class is only to become another ruling class with absolute powers over its population and history seems to proves this correct. Anarchists believe that freedom can only be realized by eliminating the State.

Capitalists support and protect the State’s institutions with the idea that change can happen from within. Kant believed that the State was instrumental to achieving Perpetual Peace. In order for mankind to realize this peace, he must make a “decision to renounce his brutish freedom and seek calm and security within a law-governed constitution.” Underlying this seemingly worthy goal of world peace is extreme coercion and domination of citizens by their States as well as the continuous disruption of nations outside of the State. These disruptions operate under the premise that Europeans have a duty to ‘civilize,’ which includes forced trade and commerce with subsidized industries, enslaving labour, and a heavy focus on individual liberty at the expense of community. In response to the resistance of these international ‘rights,’ States use force and coercion. This serves to enrich Western countries instead of the local economies based on self-reliance.

Kant argued that the State must treat its people as inherently bad or that there needs to be a level of coercion on all to ensure ‘freedom’ to all. These controls tend to favour the elite and ruling classes of society over others. Kant believed the State operates on the hypothetical consent of its citizens. That full agreement can never happen within a country; therefore, the legislators must create laws with an eye to what a fully rational man would consent to. This arbitrary use of power in the name of rationality, even when the people protest, is a dangerous use of power. Richard Day notes that “given the generative powers claimed for it, the state so conceived does not in fact give anything to its citizens; rather it takes away something that should be rather precious – their ability to govern their own lives.” Anarchists generally believe that people are inherently good and cooperative with each other and that the use of coercion must be proven to be for the common good of all people. When critiquing the liberal structure of governance within a representative government “Bakunin saw that the ‘representative system, far from being a guarantee for the people, on the contrary, creates and safeguards the continued existence of a governmental aristocracy against the people.’” This is despite the belief that liberals believe that this system, in which the vast majority delegates its power to a few people, is termed ‘democracy.’

Through sophisticated labour management techniques, the bourgeoisie are disintegrating the very class distinctions that gave it stability in earlier times, yet Marxists are still trying to call for class solidarity. So instead of creating real change from within State institutions, Marxist parties become just another voice fighting for the rights of workers, becoming an ineffectual counterbalance in western societies instead of a revolutionary force. Upon criticizing authoritarian socialism Bakunin states, “I am not a communist because communism concentrates all the powers of society and absorbs them into the State, because it leads inevitably to the centralization of property in the hands of the State, while I want to see the State abolished.” Despite objections by Marxists to the ‘top down’ criticism of revolution through a highly centralized structure, even with a temporary socialist government with elected officials or party members, the proven coercive consequences of such governmental powers within a segment of the population has lured previous socialists to support State oppression under the guise of socialist ideals. Lenin and Mao are not considered true socialists by Marxists, yet the pull of its theory towards these corrupted ends still bases its foundation within Marxism and must be addressed. Marxist theories have not yet been able to prevent the dictatorship of the proletariat from keeping the State’s coercion and control mechanisms in existence for its own privilege and survival.

The State relies on violence and coercion to achieve its ends. It should be noted that all three schools of thought presented advocate violence either in maintaining the State structures against threats or by use in revolution. Kant argued for the use of force when protecting the State’s institutions and Marx believed that violent revolution was the only way to commit real change within a country.

Kant expected State violence because of man’s ill disposition toward one another. Also the need to suppress citizens and colonies is just because if fully rational, he believed that these laws and coercion would be agreed to. Kant believed violent revolution or rebellion toward the head of State and therefore its laws, is morally reprehensible and punishable by death. He believed in the pacifying effects of the legal order, which he attributed to the attainment of Perpetual Peace. Kant argued against the use of force by rebellion because “it denies government the right to govern…therefore [it is] self-contradictory and renders the existence of the state impossible.” Ironically, this does not explain why generations of people have to suffer the consequences of unremitting war until Perpetual Peace is finally achieved. Kant believed that coercive laws are irresistible because if not through imposed laws the same effect would come from outside the state through war and it is in the citizen’s interest to obey laws instead of fighting in wars.

When the Marxist revolution replaces the Bourgeoisie with the ‘necessary dictatorship of the proletariat’ it automatically becomes the ruling elite through the extensive use of bureaucracy, which has a highly centralized form of control over its population. Engels argues “that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation — unfortunately, because all use of force demoralizes, he says, the person who uses it. And this in Germany, where a violent collision — which may, after all, be forced on the people — would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality.” This seems to position violence in a positive light, as if to say that with their immanent victory over the Bourgeoisie, their demoralized mental state will be addressed at the insignificant price of thousands of labour exploiters!

Anarchists that endorse violence believe the only way to eliminate the State is through its destruction. Anarchy opposes coercion, but the use of violence in revolution should be avoided. Instead consideration of the ends and means of the actions in revolutionary practice should be explored. In the face of consistent Statist pressures, Anarchists will require constant defense against military attacks and coercive tactics by the State. Ambiguity is abound when using violence as self-defense because there is no distinguishing characteristic in the heat of battle when self-defense turns into an ‘eye for an eye’, which Gandhi famously replies, ‘makes the whole world blind.’ Once people start using violence it becomes very difficult to stop because violence leads to more violence and Anarchists will have a hard time deciphering whether the opposing powers are coercive or a legitimate threat in maintaining security. Since Anarchy is anti-State, it follows that the basic tenet of the State, that of violence, should be opposed as well. By advocating violence, the Anarchist movement may be in danger of becoming the very evil it is fighting against. To prove that man can work together for the common good or the ‘mutual aid’ of one another, it would be contradictory to achieve these ends by means of violence. Also, it would be easy for the State to counter a violent Anarchist revolution if attacked because the people would be easily convinced that the only way to guarantee protection against the unknown, the Anarchist terrorists, is if they got behind its military might. With the world’s Indigenous peoples still internally colonized within States, a new approach that rids them of the oppressive actions and opposing worldviews needs to be explored.

An Indigenous approach to resisting the State through a form of non-violence will be shown through Taiaiake Alfred’s Wasáse, a movement that combines elements of anarchistic theories with Indigenous ways of being. There is a growing resistance to the internal colonization of Indigenous peoples. Taiaiake’s movement is built upon a spiritual foundation that can set communities free from the State’s subtle but pervasive attacks on Indigenous identities. This emerging movement has “found common ground in the rejection of arbitrary authority, a preference for direct action and local, consensus-based decision-making processes, and the use of non-statist federations to link communities and nations.” This mode of resistance is imperative to any long term success and survival of Indigenous peoples.
According to Taiaiake, “being Indigenous means thinking, speaking and acting with the conscious intent of regenerating one’s indigeniety.” It is important to rebuild a strong sense of community identity before addressing the oppressive colonial State. Without this Indigenous peoples are “building not on a spiritual and cultural foundation provided to us as the heritage of our nations, but on the weakened and severely damaged cultural and spiritual and social results of colonialism.” Alfred advocates focusing Indigenous resources to rebuild and strengthen our own communities.

Based on moral principles of traditional teachings, Indigenous peoples need to challenge the State and assert their rights, instead of depending on the State to grant them. This can be done by creating cultural space free from State interference. This space from State domination can be conceptualized by Hakim Bey’s theory of Temporary Autonomous Zones (TAZ). The TAZ theory concerns itself with the temporary space created by its participants who are free from the domination of State control and interaction. The TAZ model of social change does have its limitations when applied to Indigenous struggles; the obvious being the explicit non-permanence of Bey’s theory contrasts with Indigenous peoples’ intimate connection to their territories and because “an indigenous anarchism is an anarchism of place,” it demands a more lasting presence within this theoretical framework. To escape the State’s determined targeted destruction of any autonomous space that withdraws power from the neoliberal order, total non-violent permanence is a current improbability that must be addressed. Day criticizes Bey’s TAZ applicability to identity groups, stating that perhaps it is “a little too reliant upon what seems to be an ethos of fleeting, individualistic encounters…amenable to young White men with no attachments to such banalities as partners, children or broader communities.” Day expands on the TAZ concept through the Semi-Permanent Autonomous Zone (SPAZ), which “allows the construction of non-hegemonic alternatives to the neoliberal order here and now, with an eye to surviving the dangers of capture, exploitation and division, inevitably arising from within and being imposed from without.” Being Indigenous here and now is a central component of Wasáse and creating space free from State domination allows Indigenous communities to build a strong sense of identity long distorted by colonial regimes. This move will be opposed by the State and, since Indigenous peoples are deeply connected to their land, will need to be defended when challenged.

Since the space free from State coercion is minimal, Wasáse must work to challenge the State’s claim to legitimacy. This is done through active resistance, but not through the aggressive use of violence. Taiaiake terms this approach “non-violent militancy” which he calls for during the process of decolonization. He argues that “revolutionary struggles using direct armed confrontation have failed to stop capitalism’s expansion.” He further argues against the use of violent resistance by pointing out that [v]iolence forces people to choose sides, and because it is repugnant to so many people, it causes them to disavow the cause; it limits potential allies; and it is as addictive as a drug – its immediacy and paraphernalia are seductive and intoxicating in the short term, and in the long term, the inevitable cycle of repression creates a situation justifying further violence.” The negative consequences of violence cause too much damage to Indigenous communities to make it worth engaging in the first place, but the moral imperative of culturally strong nations will also force Indigenous warriors to address their actions.

When analyzing violence that causes suffering as morally wrong Taiaiake points out that “the responsibility for violence begins and ends with the state, not with the people who are challenging the inherent injustices perpetrated by the state and who are seeking to alleviate their own present suffering under the state’s existing institutions and practices.” Through this ‘non-violent militancy’ Taiaiake advocates the resistance of the authority of the State’s institutions, through non-cooperation and challenging the legitimacy of the State itself through Gandhian tactics such as “civil disobedience, boycotts, strikes, sit-downs, and sit-ins of all kinds, protest marches, and rallies.” Although acknowledging Gandhi’s circumstances were different, Taiaiake nevertheless advocates Gandhian tactics in Indigenous resistance.

Perhaps where his military training kicks in however, is when he argues that taking up arms is ‘certainly necessary, only because we must protect ourselves from violent attack and survive in a physical sense, but we should have faith in the power of our ideas and in our abilities to communicate our ideas without resorting to the mute force of violence…” It matters how violence is approached. It should be used as a last resort to the defense of physical survival and never before. The non-violence approach should be central in the movement’s contention of State legitimacy and its authority.

Anarchy effectively challenges the coercion and existence of the State. It highlights the arbitrary use of its power to force its own citizens to obey laws skewed in favour of the ruling elite. Kantian ideals of strengthening and seeing the State as the only vehicle in which to achieve a higher purpose, that of Perpetual Peace, has proven to be a fundamentally flawed perspective based within a limited Eurocentric superiority complex suffered by so many ‘enlightened’ scholars before him. Marx also tried to encapsulate his theory within a historical framework. He believed that the only way to free the working class from their exploitation is to band together and overthrow the ruling elites. Unfortunately, Marx believed that the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was an effective vehicle to achieve a classless society. In reality, the State itself corrupts any ruling group with the amount of power it possesses. This is especially true of the highly centralized Communist State. Anarchy is free from these bonds with its theoretical framework, but has its challenges to overcome.

Despite Kant, Marx and the Anarchists Bakunin, Proudhon and Kropotkin advocating violence as a means, modern theorists increasing have looked into non-violence as a viable means of resistance for their cause. None of the previously mentioned theorists could have imagined the huge success in the mobilization of India’s population against the mighty British Empire through non-violent resistance. By utilizing Gandhian approaches, Taiaiake advocates Wasáse, an Anarcha-Indigenist movement aimed at ridding Indigenous peoples of their oppressed circumstances. The exploration of answers within the system has been exhausted to no real end; rather we have seen a further entrenchment of peoples within an oppressive system. Movements like Wasáse offer realistic hope to nations looking for an alternative to the status quo. Through non-violent contention, these Indigenous nations may be able to find a way of effectively resisting the colonial State and free themselves from oppression. A path toward freedom based on their own collective self-determination.

Bibliography (Footnotes in original):

Alfred, Taiaiake and Jeff Corntassel. Being Indigenous: resurgences against contemporary colonialism, Blackwell Publishing: MA, 2005.

Alfred, Taiaiake, Glen Coulthard, and Deborah Simmons eds. New Socialist: Special Issue on Indigenous Resurgence. No. 58, 2006, 26-7.

Alfred, Taiaiake. Wasáse: Indigenous pathways of action and freedom. Broadview Press, 2005.

Andrew. “The Zapatistas, anarchism and ‘direct democracy.’” Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, (1999), 27 .

Aragorn!, “Locating An Indigenous Anarchism” .

Chomsky, Noam. “An Exchange on Manufacturing Consent.” In Understanding Power. The New Press, 2002.

Couch, Jen. “Imagining Zapatismo: The Anti-Globalization Movement and the Zapatistas”, Communal/Plural. 9:2, 2001, 243-260.

Day, Richard. Gramsci is dead: anarchist currents in the newest social movements, London; Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press; Toronto: Between the Lines, 2005.

Guerin, Daniel. Anarchism, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1970.

Humphrey, Ted. Kant Perpetual Peace and other essays, Hackett, Cambridge, 1983.

Kant, Immanuel, and Hans Siegbert Reiss. Kant: Political Writings. 2nd, enl. ed. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution, 1902.

Malatesta, Errico. Life an Ideas, 142.

McLellan, David. “Marx to Weydemeyer, 5 March 1852.” Karl Marx selected writings.

Mohandas Karamchand, Gandhi. My Experiments with Truth – the autobiography of Gandhi.

Another opinion about the Tsawwassen Treaty signed.

2009-02-25T15:38:00.000-08:00

Discussion on both Tsawwassen and Nisga'a Final Agreements. I encourage all to look into the possible agreements that 'Namgis members would be presented with. The "bargaining" the government does is based on an unmovable equation that gives more-land-less-money or more-money-less-land (all valued before negotiations start). Land which will see us sign away over 90% of it with the "more-land" choice. Why are we borrowing millions of dollars that we have to pay back and at the same time giving them 90% of our traditional territories? The Nisga'a are now paying taxes for the land that they all owned outright. Do we really want to give our band chief and council more power with our own scarce money supply through taxation?

The letter below by Bertha Williams has been reposted from Stephen Reese's Blog HERE.

To view an interview with Bertha Williams HERE.
-------------------------------------------
A dissenting voice is raising serious concerns about how the Province of BC is seeking to influence the key vote of the Tsawassen First Nation on the treaty that would make port expansion possible.

A substantive piece from the Province newspaper - the only one that prints on Sunday. It’s a tabloid but it gave Bertha Williams’ letter to the Premier and the Prime Minister some prominence. And Damien Gillis has produced a short video so that Bertha’s own voice can be heard.

There is definitely something not right about a process which first of all still has some court proceedings under way after the privatization of the rail spur that is crucial to the plan had to be stopped, because of a corrupted process. And now the province getting involved in using public funds to try to make sure it gets the vote it wants.

The idea that BC needs to secure a greater percentage of the cross pacific container trade is itself dubious. But the lengths to which the BC Liberals seem to be going to ensure that they get what they want leaves a nasty taste. The original Roberts Bank terminal put an end to the TFN’s traditional way of life. The environmental impact of this new expansion - removing the mitigative measures put in place to lessen the impact of the existing port facilities, seems to make a bad situation worse. And it is hard to see that the economic benefits for BC as a whole - or even the region - are worth this kind of impact.

Bertha Williams on TFN Vote (from the LRC General email list) updated July 19, 2007

The hand of skullduggery is at play. The chief and council of our band are bouncing around like rabbits after a carrot on a string that the federal and provincial governments are dangling. They use such trickery as an enrollment application? In order to vote on the treaty. In the application is a section where we have to relinquish our right to claim. If we don’t enroll, we are not allowed to vote. This would pave the way for a more secure “yes” vote. This is an infringement on our sovereignty as first nation people. Our native status is handed down by our forefathers, which I do not believe may be voted on by other band members, may not be bartered by a treaty team, or taken by any government. Our birthright has to be surrendered by the holder. If this is not true, then why do they resort to such extortion tactics as to blackmail the native population out of their unique status. Once this is proven, and the treaty is pushed through, then it will not be worth the paper it is written upon. Past and present governments realize we are the true owners of the lands where our ancestors thrived. What better way to usurp the people of their position then to utilize the greed or ignorance of our leaders. Which ever it may be, it shows gross incompetence and they should be immediately removed from office.

Another scheme in their bag of tricks from the Tsawwassen First Nation, to witness first hand the prosperous Nisga’a Agreement. One should only imagine the perfect picture that will be painted. What they will not show is that after seven years of treaty, 70 to 80% of the Nisga’a people are on social assistance. And, that the young men have to travel from their homeland, as far away as Calgary in search of employment. Also, will not speak of pending lawsuits and investigations of the misappropriation and mismanagement of funds. So much for prosperity at home! Now the Nisga’a descendants may look forward to possible expropriation when the tax kicks in
next year, and is in full swing 12 years from their signing in 2000. The Tsawwassen treaty will only ensure the demise of our people, where the fat cats have been feeding for the past 14 years of negotiations. To enable an extra jingle in the deep pockets of the already rich. The Tsawwassen treaty wished us to surrender our traditional territory, our right to claim from our inheritable status, and for that we will receive 0.2% of our lands and have the opportunity to pay taxes on our own lands. Something sure stinks with this deal! Speaking to a TFN elder she said “the treaty is a short term gain for a long time misery!” They may shove this treaty down our throats today with their conniving schemes, but tomorrow our case will be proven that they never had the authority to bargain away our birthright. Accountability will be made to the aboriginal peoples and the healing process will begin.

Yours truly,

Bertha Williams
(604)943-9470

Tsilhqot’in (Chilcotin) Landmark court decision

2009-01-13T14:14:00.000-08:00

I asked a Tsilhqot’in friend to write about the how the court decision impacted his people and by extension all negotiating Kwakwaka'wakw Nations under the BC Treaty process. Russell is finishing up his Masters thesis in Indigenous Governance at the University of Victoria. His response is broken into several sections that outline the court case, how it impacts the BC treaty process and finally Russell's personal reflection on the subject. I want to extend my gratitude for this important piece of writing. It will be helpful in further understanding our position as a Nation negotiating under a illegitimate treaty process.
_________________________________________

To Chiinuuks & people of the land

I want to express my thoughts and share information concerning two divergences that have yet to converge. The BC Treaty Process and the Supreme Court decisions resemble two routes to playing politics in trying to gain recognition for the land that we still belong. While the province of BC holds onto power and its identity as colonizers, the Supreme Court decisions are attempting to get meaningful negotiations on track.

I am Tsilhqot’in. I have followed the stories and recent activities of my nation. In 1992 Xeni leaders established a road block to preserve the forests along the Tsilhqox and Dasiqox (rivers) from unsustainable logging practices. Soon afterwards, the Xeni people were rejected by the provincial government in attempts to creating a management plan to protect hunting and trapping in the area. As a last resort, the Xeni Gwet’in sought the courts to gain access to managing the land.

Meanwhile, the provincial government told the Tsilhqot’in they would only consider co-management of the forest if the nation settled through the BC Treaty Process. However, as Tsilhqot’in, we have maintained that we cannot allow a thief make a judgment of its own theft and therefore legitimize stolen lands.

In November 2007, BC Supreme Court Justice Vickers issued his decision on whether Aboriginal Rights and Title exists within the Xeni claim area. Although the declaration failed on a minor technicality, thus not making the decision legally binding, the text concludes that Aboriginal Title does exist in 50% of the land claimed or about four thousand square kilometers. In addition, although Aboriginal Title possesses a test (as provided in the Delgamuukw decision), Aboriginal Rights was found to exist in 100% of the area claimed.

A year has passed, and while Nenqayni nations (Nenqayni meaning ‘people of the land’) have claimed a small ‘victory’ in affirming and recognizing rights and title, it is apparent that our nation is struggling with settlers, governments and corporations to fully understand the significance of what this means. In October 2008, the BC Provincial government failed miserably to offer anything substantial in an initial-agreement, and it was rejected. Meanwhile, the Federal government remains silent. And the lack of progress invites the nation to return to the Courts through the Appeal process to render the technicality.

***
Now what I wanted to present was the ways in which I thought this court decision would shake the whole province, especially for the BC Treaty Process. What is significant in the Tsilhqot’in court decision is the way in which it frames meaningful negotiations, granting Nenqayni nations more leverage.

First and foremost, Justice Vickers is re-asserting the need for nation-to-nation negotiations with the Federal government. I believe this is done in respect to the treaties that have been conducted all across Canada – this is an established legal norm where Nenqayni nations dialogue with the Canadian State, setting up treaties as international arrangements. I am making no comment on if this is better, as I see the species of one coyote and two coyote as very similar, but the reason for this is groundbreaking.

Aboriginal Title is akin to fee simple private lands, although held collectively. Because Canada is responsible for “Indian” lands, Aboriginal Title falls into their jurisdiction. This means that all provincial government legislation is absolutely void, possessing no jurisdiction on Aboriginal Title lands: the Forestry Act, Mining Act, Licenses, Permits, etc. Moreover, the provincial government cannot extinguish actual or potential Aboriginal Title lands; only the Federal government has the power to do so. In addition, private lands held by settlers are not exempt from being Aboriginal Title lands. This is quoted several times in Judge Vicker’s court decision:

[997] Given that the jurisdiction to extinguish (Aboriginal Title Rights) has only ever been held by the federal government, the province cannot and has not extinguished these rights by a conveyance of fee simple title to lands within the Claim Area: see Delgamuukw

[998] Thus, regardless of the private interests in the Claim Area, those interests have not extinguished and cannot extinguish Tsilhqot’in rights, including Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal Title.

[1047] I am aware of the serious implications this conclusion will have on the British Columbia. However, I agree with Professor Kent McNeil when he explains that long established principles have been conveniently ignored. At p. 194 of “Aboriginal Title and Section 88 of the Indian Act”, he states:

Ever since the Catherine’s Milling Decision in 1888, it has been apparent that exclusive federal jurisdiction over “lands reserved for Indians” might well include jurisdiction over Aboriginal Title lands. So in acting as though it had constitutional authority over Aboriginal title lands in British Columbia, the province has skated on thin constitutional ice for over a century. In reality, it appears that the province has been violating Aboriginal Title in an unconstitutional and therefore illegal fashion ever since it joined Canada in 1871. What is truly disturbing is not that the province can no longer do so, but that it has been able to get away with it for so many years.

The BC Supreme Court is commenting on the BC government’s inadequate position of denial, and in almost every account, explaining why the BC government is wrong. Moreover, the court decision suggests that the BC government has never possessed jurisdiction over Nenqayni lands. This analysis may also be extended towards the BC Treaty Process.

From one perspective, the principles guiding the BC Treaty Process have not changed in lieu of the recent BC Supreme Court decisions, decisions which continue to acknowledge and (re) affirm Aboriginal Title and Nenqayni nations as the proper right holders of the land. For example, the Haida, the William, the Delgamuukw cases all exemplify Aboriginal Rights and Title that have been ignored, misrecognized, infringed, and laws that have failed to give Nenqayni the meaningful ability to manage and benefit from the land that they belong to. So while the courts uphold the laws protecting Nenqayni interests, the BC government continues to deny Aboriginal Rights and Title – or diminish the significance of these rights.
***
In the William case (2007) concerning the Tsilhqot’in, the BC Supreme Court suggests that the reconciliation through treaties is the proper avenue to address historical injustices. There is no doubt that the court room is ill-equipped to mediating two sovereign claims. McLachlin’s notes in the Haida case that “Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty” and to guarantee rights that are guaranteed. In addition, the Supreme Courts continue to refer to “the Honor of the Crown” in securing and protecting Aboriginal interests that are being negotiated, claimed or proven.

So in understanding all of this, the BC government and the BC Treaty Process is unable to address or negotiate the historical injustices, the fact that there is no consent or legitimacy in Crown sovereignty amongst Nenqayni, respect rights and title that is guaranteed, or act in preserving the land that is in question. Why? This requires serious justification.

What is also significant in Judge Vicker’s response is that he applies the critics who have reflected most on the ill approaches that the provincial and federal governments have advanced. Take John Borrows’s disdain for the courts and governments in their ideas of reconciliation:

[1342] …Courts have read Aboriginal rights to lands and resources as requiring a reconciliation that asks much more of Aboriginal peoples than it does of Canadians. Reconciliation should not be a front for assimilation.

Reconciliation should be embraced as an approach to Aboriginal-Canadian relations that also requires Canada to accede in many areas. Yet both legislatures and courts have been pursuing a course that, by and large, asks change only of Aboriginal peoples. Canadian institutions have been employing domesticating doctrines in their response to the [Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples]. This approach hinders Aboriginal choice in the development of their lands and resources, rather than enhancing it.

Take Gordon Christie’s emphasis on the role of the courts:

[1358] …The practical outcome of this should be clear – this should bring the governments of Canada to the negotiating table, and would give Aboriginal peoples the sort of strength they need to work out a fair accommodation, a resolution of the ills caused by centuries of colonialism. This is as it should be, for from the perspective of the theory and principles underlying the superstructure of Canadian society and Canadian law there is no other way to work out an appropriate place for Aboriginal peoples in contemporary society. For Canada to advance to maturity, for the social compact to welcome within all those currently living within Canada’s geographic boundaries, Aboriginal peoples must be able to bargain their way into a fair constitutional contract. This can only happen with the recognition on the Canadian side of the table of the position occupied by Aboriginal peoples: they come to these negotiations in the same state they were in 500 years ago, as organized societies existing prior to the assertion of Crown sovereignty, societies organized according to separate and distinct conceptions of the good and of how to lead good lives.

Over and over it is stated that reconciliation must be conducted by the federal legislative authority in regards to its constitutional responsibilities. The BC Treaty Process continues to relegate Nenqayni nations into a domestic position within the Canadian framework. The process seeks to extinguish land that is not in their power to extinguish.

***

What does this mean for the BC Treaty Process?

1. Negotiating Treaties should not be conducted by the Provincial government.
2. The Canadian federal government and Nenqayni nations should be relating to each other on a nation-to-nation basis. Therefore, recognition of this international status would provide a starting point towards looking at each other as equals.
3. Treaties can embrace the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal Title or Rights, section 35. Extended from this, Nenqayni nations resemble proper holder of generative land rights that pass over time.
4. Land that is recognized as Aboriginal Title should be rendered ineffective by provincial government legislation. Therefore, the Mining Act, Forestry Act, permits and licenses, etc. do not apply.
5. Aboriginal rights exist within 100% of the territory to which the Nenqayni nation belongs (fishing, hunting, trapping, etc.), requiring the duty to consult and possibly accomodate when Nenqayni interests (i.e. potential infringements) are concerned. ‘Modified’ rights diminish constitutionally recognized rights.
6. The extinguishment of land should not be the government’s primary legal initiative; land should be shared (the idea of rights attempt to address this); guidelines on how to accommodate rights and interests should be established.
7. There should be no absolute limitations placed on negotiations – negotiations should allow for free negotiation; in this case, private lands are not exempt.
8. Reconciliation should include full acknowledgement of historic injustice to make applicable action plans to directly address those injustices (land thievery and damages, violating grave sites, residential school abuse, etc.).

***
Personal Reflection:

I chose to write to show how there is some leverage in the court arguments that allow Nenqayni nations to advance in this colonial game of denial. While Nenqayni continue to succeed in the moral and legal fronts, honesty and respect remains absent in the political arena. Nenqayni are dealing with an enemy that does not even respect its own laws. If it did, the BC Treaty Process would change its principles to honor the conclusions that come from these successive court decisions.

I continue to be extremely weary of the BC Treaty Process and its effects on all Nenqayni within British Columbia, especially internally within each community due to the lack of dialogue and divisions the process creates, but also to the external, where the energy in forming Nenqayni alliances with each other has diminished in favor of trying to gain resources or seeking recognition from colonial governments who want to relinquish their responsibility and limit our autonomy.

I am also weary of the Court decisions, as lawyers have perpetuated a language game that ultimately neglects the full incorporation of Nenqayni philosophies and language. The failure of both these processes lies in the fact that, as institutions, they do not receive Nenqayni legitimacy due to the lack of participation, understanding and consent with the people/land that it will affect for years and many generations.

Again, the Tsilhqot’in court case offers political strategies that challenge the provincial government; it illustrates the various ways in which the BC government is wrong. It is our responsibility to hold them to account. So while the courts slowly transform their colonial biases, the BC government retains its rigid and static view, greedily clutching its dominant position over Nenqayni, exemplified perfectly by the conservative BC Treaty Process and its inability to change.

As a last word, my position is not final; I am always open to critique, as I only hope to contribute to a healthy dialogue concerning the fate of Nenqayni land. My email is rossr@uvic.ca

Sechanalyagh, thanks

Russell Samuel Myers Ross

Sea Lice, Aquaculture and 'Namgis Resistance

2008-12-09T13:33:00.000-08:00

Introduction
It is important to introduce my background so that the reader can fully understand my position and where I come from. My lineage derives from the 'Namgis and Kwagu’ł First Nations of the Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwak’wala speaking peoples). The Kwakwaka’wakw are located on the North East of Vancouver Island as well as part of the adjacent mainland. The traditional Kwakwaka’wakw diet includes salmon, herring, eulachon, halibut, berries and to a lesser extent, goats, seals, and porpoises. The contemporary diet has recently integrated western foods to complement the collapsed fisheries that was heavily relied on and effectively stewarded for thousands of years (Heaslip, 2008).

The Kwakwaka’wakw, described as the Salmon People, have witnessed profound differences since the fish farms started appearing in their territories (Cranmer, 1998). Some of these changes include blackened clam beds, increased sea lice infestation and sea vegetation changes (Richard et al, 2005). The 'Namgis First Nation has always maintained a zero-tolerance policy towards fish farms ('Namgis First Nation). Community interviews reveal that risks to the environment, the local economy, and health and well-being as primary reasons for this opposition (Richard et al, 2005). Richard also links salmon farms to the fact that the 'Namgis have experienced decreased access to and control of resources within their territories (2005).

The Broughton Archipelago, an area this paper focuses on and which currently holds 28 open-net cage sites (BC is approving more licenses), is situated within 'Namgis territories (PFRCC, 2002; Statistic Canada, 2004). According to 'Namgis members, there are effects from the farms that are not yet being researched or its impacts fully understood and action must be taken before its too late (Heaslip, 2008). One of the concerns regarding these farm sites, sea lice and its impact on wild salmon stocks, will be explored in greater detail. It is the position of the 'Namgis First Nation that sea farms are a significant cause for among many things, increased numbers of sea lice ('Namgis First Nation).

The salmon aquaculture industry and several scientists have critiqued the available peer-reviewed evidence linking fish farms to the decline in wild stocks, which if correct could lead to the decimation or extinction of pink salmon populations. The industry objects to further regulation or any drastic actions without more in-depth studies. Although it is agreed that further research is needed to further understand this complex issue, action should be taken immediately to reduce the risks and protect wild salmon stocks.

Increasing numbers of people have come to understand that salmon farming in its current form is unsustainable and a great danger to surrounding ecosystems. It is the intent of this paper to convince the reader that despite disagreements about the extent of the impact sea lice are causing, the negative effects of sea farming practices alone are reason enough to demand change. This debate will be examined from a 'Namgis perspective and recommendations will be put forth for action within the next six months.

Sea Lice
Sea lice are crustacean parasites that commonly live and feed on salmon and other fish species. Of the thirteen species of sea lice only three, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, Lepeophtheirus cuneifer and Caligus clemensi, have been known to attach themselves to farmed and wild salmon in BC waters (Watershed Watch Salmon Society, 2004). The sea louse eats the mucous, blood and skin of salmon and naturally appears within tolerable levels on salmon in the wild (Watershed, 2004). If infestation is high enough, salmon will die. These load limits are still under intense investigation, which is further complicated by the different responses of each salmon species. Female sea lice can lay between less than a hundred to hundreds of eggs at one time with up to six laying cycles per lifetime (Bjorn & Finstad,1999). This means that given the right conditions and an ample supply of hosts, that sea lice can multiply quite readily. Depending on location within the Broughton Archipelago, juvenile salmon sometimes have to navigate through as many as four salmon farms to get to the open ocean (Morton, 2004). This can dramatically increase the chances of infestation at a time when protective scales have not fully developed.

When salmon return to fresh water to spawn, the attached sea lice die after several weeks (Watershed, 2004); therefore, it is logical to assume that salmon farms are a main cause for sea lice infection around farms, which provide many host opportunities because of their year-round activities (Costello, 2006). Sea farm operators use a drug called Slice (emamectin benzoate), which effectively kills most lice present (Stone et al. 2000). It is not a silver bullet however and studies have shown that other crustaceans are impacted by the drug (Waddy et al, 2002; SEPA, 1999). The drug also has low solubility in water and is very likely to accumulate in marine sediments (Brooks, Mahnken & Nash, 2002).

Dwindling Wild Salmon Numbers
The article entitled Epizootics of Wild Fish Induced by Fish Farms states that there is a chance of between 9-95% mortality rate in several pink and chum populations in the Broughton Archipelago (Krkosek, Lewis, Morton et al, 2006). Under normal conditions juvenile salmon would not be infested because sea lice cannot live in water with low salinity for more than three weeks and the previous group of sea lice would have died off (Gillibrand & Willis, 2007). Juvenile salmon enter the sea in the spring without lice several months before the return of wild adult salmon, which commonly return infested within tolerable levels (Morton, 2004). The farms act as incubators for lice that remain in the areas surrounding spawning grounds. (Krkosek, Lewis Morton et al, 2006). Even a few remaining lice can produce large numbers of infectious larvae and eggs during the spring (Orr, 2007) and salmon farms provide an ideal overwintering habitat not naturally available (Morton et al, 2004). Significantly, Morton rejects the hypothesis that the sea louse L. Salmonis naturally occurs at higher levels in the Broughton Archipelago (Morton et al, 2004) and research suggests that infestations of sea lice regularly occur in juvenile wild salmonoids near farms, dramatically increasing the chances of infestation and death (Morton et al. 2004, 2005; Krkosek et al. 2005).

Furthermore, Morton was able to provide a link between the infestation levels and mortality of juvenile salmon, while providing a correlation between fallowed farm sites and a decline in copepodids (parasitic stage of louse) within 1km, which has prompted further studies (Morton & Routledge, 2005). Ultimately, Krkosek and Morton utilized the Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s (DFO) escapement data that suggests farms can cause infestations of sea lice that decrease capacity of coastal habitats to support wild salmon numbers and warns that it could lead to 99% pink salmon collapse within four generations (Krkosek & Morton, 2007)! This figure has come under intense scrutiny.

Industry-led Opposition
The BC salmon farming industry employs approximately 2800 people, is the largest agricultural exporter in BC, the fourth largest producer worldwide and contributes $800 million to the provincial economy (BC Salmon Farmers Association). It is important to note that initially the fish farm supporters did not counter the peer-reviewed scientific process with studies and evidence of their own. This evidence does not refute the linkage between sea lice and salmon farms, rather it works to uncover other possible reasons that contribute to the decline of salmon stocks near salmon farms, while working to challenge the scientific methods of published studies.

Brooks has challenged the growing anti-farm group by examining historical returns to the Broughton Archipelago and pointing out where evidence does not take all factors into consideration. His article states that following years of abundant populations typically fall to lower levels for several years (Brooks & Jones, 2008). A primary factor that was not included in Krkosek’s 2007 article was the use of emamectin benzoate (Slice) on farm populations (Brooks & Jones, 2008). Another factor is the evidence of pink salmon resistance against sea lice that has shown an effective defense that accelerates the rejection of lice from their skin once their weight reaches 0.7g, calling for further research on juveniles weighing less (Jones et al., 2007). Brooks argues that the DFO database actually shows a positive trend since 2003 and that returns are within historical variability (Brooks & Jones, 2008). Both Brooks and Harvey call for more research (Brooks & Jones, 2008; Harvey, 2008a), but Harvey later clarifies his position by stating it is not just a matter of whether or not the science is clear yet, but whether there is enough evidence to prompt action (Harvey, 2008b).

There are several factors that have been identified as possible contributors to wild salmon declines. Beamish speculates that the salinity of the ocean can impact the survival rates of sea lice because they cannot live in salinity levels below 30% (Beamish, Jones et al, 2006a; Morton, Routledge & Williams, 2005). Beamish et al call for better measurements of salinity levels in the Broughton Archipelago (2006). Jones has brought attention to the fact that there are several sources transmitting sea lice besides farmed salmon. It becomes apparent that both farmed and wild salmon may become infected by sea lice from a variety of sources such as over-wintering Coho and Chinook salmon and wild sticklebacks, but this possible transmission needs further study (Jones et al, 2006b).

Brooks challenges Krkosek and Morton’s work as they go back and forth in their debate, each side minimizing the other’s assumptions. In 2005, Brooks responded to Krkosek’s rebuttal by stating that his literature does not take into consideration the life cycle of sea lice and the ideal/adverse living conditions present during his studies. In 2008 Brooks further states that pink salmon are highly variable in the area and that Krkosek should not have excluded major pink salmon producing systems in his analysis. Brooks also questions the mathematical model Krkosek used.

Even though the research debate is still ongoing, the pro-farm group has not disproven that sea lice is reducing numbers, just that the evidence does not necessarily point to substantial losses and therefore drastic action may not be necessary. This is not in line with the precautionary principle (Lauck, Clark, Mangel & Munro,1998). If Krkosek and Morton are correct, it may be too late to effective counter this threat of extinction or drastically reduced numbers. It is clear that the adaptive management being employed by the BC Government is not effectively managing farmed nor by extension wild fishery numbers (BC Government). The provincial and especially federal governments’ tacit support of fish farms by failing to act according to precautionary principles means that for the time being, change will not be demanded from lawmakers. With this in mind, it is important to minimize the risks to the environment.

Among all of this scientific study, which is meant to divorce emotion from the debate and look exclusively at the evidence uncovered, the 'Namgis ‘non-scientific’ observations become ever more important. They are the people who are directly impacted by these events and ongoing debates. The 'Namgis have long held disdain for the atrocious management of fisheries within their territories and the apparent abandonment of the Broughton Archipelago. This has prompted the 'Namgis to fill the research and management gaps left by the DFO, while simultaneously fighting for guaranteed fisheries access and decision-making powers over their territories ('Namgis First Nation). The 'Namgis have considered the concerns of members employed by local salmon farms and believe that they will be just as useful working on closed containment farms. Although a majority disagrees with the industry’s current operations, split opinions start to occur in some communities where employment levels (economic need) start to outweigh the negative impacts of sea farms (Gerwing & McDaniels, 2006).

Recommendations
There are scientists that wish to debate the potential causes that may be attributable to other factors. It is also understood that the entire salmon fishing industry and its supporters have much invested in the form of employment, public relations, government remittances in the form of taxes and the brand of farmed salmon itself (BC Salmon Farmers Association). It is clear that this is a sometimes emotional issue that has polarized communities. In considering recommendations, the first question needed to be asked is: are farmed salmon capable of being sustainable in its current form? The short answer is no. There are many actions that must be taken to alleviate environmental stresses and to turn the industry into a sustainable, profitable business. It is important to understand that salmon itself is not sustainable. As a carnivorous species, salmon consume 3-3.5kg of fish meal for every 1kg of salmon that reaches market (Naylor, 2000). To give an example of the resources needed, the European salmon farming industry needs an area for feed estimated at 40,000 to 50,000 times the surface area of farms, which is equal to about 90% of the primary production of the fishing area of the North Sea (Naylor, 2000).

We must look at lower trophic level fish species that are herbivorous and require fewer resources to grow such as carp, tilapia and catfish. Countries should encourage production of fish other than shrimp and salmon that are fed diets containing little or no fishmeal (Skretting, 2008) and since there currently is a huge market for salmon that is not abating, several things must be done to minimize the current impacts. Scientists need to research alternative ways to reduce the fish meal, fish oil and heavy usage of energy inputs that are needed, possibly toward natural and safe plant proteins (Skretting, 2008), while simultaneously establishing fines that reduce escapes and increasing regulation of environmental safety measures like feed and drug usage as well as the recirculation of waste water (Naylor et al, 2000). Studies demonstrate a correlation between fallowing farm sites and a decline in numbers of copepodids on wild pink/chum juveniles within 1 km of farms and although further studies need to be done, fallowing farms along migratory routes should be a mandatory measure until proven otherwise (Morton & Routledge, 2005).

Sea lice have a negative impact on wild salmon and must be addressed immediately. Salmon are a keystone species and the reduction of wild salmon has wide implications to the surrounding ecosystems (Willson & Halupka, 1995). Until sustainable alternatives have been implemented, Slice treatments must happen weeks before March 1 to reduce sea louse numbers (Orr, 2007). It is important to move regulation away from industry self-policing and have government staff conduct increased and continual random checks without any notice to salmon farm operators. It is hoped this will maintain the highest of standards until more efficient means are implemented.

The 'Namgis want the farms to be land-based, close contaminant tanks ('Namgis First Nation; The Province, February 24, 2008), which could be publically funded to help with the transition. This has support among environmentalists and the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture (British Columbia, 2007), but is thought of as too costly by the BC Salmon Farmers Association and industry. During this transition, biological barriers should be implemented that separates farmed salmon from the surrounding ocean, while a moratorium on any new farm licenses should be put into place. Designs should be energy efficient and process all wastes. The benefits of closed containment include an ‘eco-salmon’ marketing opportunity, substantial food savings, and control of growing conditions such as temperature, disease and water chemistry (Georgia Strait Alliance & David Suzuki Foundation, 2008). Major hurdles to overcome are the substantial start-up costs, cleaning (in a tank system), as well as ongoing energy costs and impacts (Canadian Geographic). Despite these concerns, there have been many examples of viable closed containment fish farming and with appropriate government support, the salmon farm industry will be able to transition to a more environmentally sustainable operation.

References

'Namgis First Nation. Marine Resources. Retrieved November 27, 2008, from http://www.namgis.bc.ca/resource/Pages/Fisheries.aspx

BC Salmon Farmers Association. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.salmonfarmers.org/

British Columbia. Adaptive Management. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/Admin/index.htm

British Columbia. (2007) Legislative Assembly. Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture. Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture final report, Third Session, Thirty-Eighth Parliament Legislative.

Beamish, R., Jones, S., Neville, C., Sweeting, R., Karreman, G., Saksida, S. &
Gordon, E. (2006a). Exceptional production of pink salmon in 2003/2004 indicates that farmed salmon and wild Pacific salmon can coexist successfully in a marine ecosystem on the pacific coast of Canada. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 63, 1326–1337.

Bjorn, P. & Finstad, B. (1999). The development of salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) on artificially infected post-smolts of sea trout (Salmo trutta). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76, 970-977.

Brooks, K., Mahnken, C. & Nash, C. (2002). Environmental Effects Associated with Marine Netpen Waste with Emphasis on Salmon Farming in the Pacific Northwest, in Responsible Marine Aquaculture. CAB International.

Brooks, K. (2005). The effects of water temperature, salinity and currents on the survival and distribution of the infective copepodid stage of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) originating on Atlantic salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia. Reviews in Fisheries Science 13, 177-204.

Brooks, K. & Jones, S. (2008). Perspectives on Pink Salmon and Sea Lice: Scientific Evidence Fails to Support the Extinction Hypothesis. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 16(4), 403–412.

Gray, M. Raising a Fish Out of Water: A look at Canada's only land-based salmon farm that's taking small fry to full-sized. Canadian Geographic. Retrieved November 28, 2008 from http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/

Costello, M. (2006). Ecology of sea lice parasitic on farmed and wild fish. Trends Parasitol, 22, 475–483. DOI:10.1016/j.pt.2006.08.006).

Cranmer, G. (1998). The Salmon People of Alert Bay Proceedings of the 12th International Abashiri Symposium, Abashiri, Japan.

Foreman, M., Stucchi, D., Zhang, Y. & Baptista, A. (2006). Estuarine and Tidal Currents in the Broughton Archipelago. Atmosphere-Ocean, 44 (1), 47–63.

Gerwing, K., & McDaniels, T. (2006, March). Listening to the Salmon People: Coastal First Nations' Objectives Regarding Salmon Aquaculture in British Columbia. Society & Natural Resources, 19(3), 259-273. Retrieved November 27, 2008. DOI:10.1080/08941920500460864.

Harvey, B. (2008a, February). Science and Sea Lice: What do we Know? B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum.

Harvey, B. (2008b, October 20). On science, sea lice and sitting on the fence: Biologist believes there's more to issue of salmon farming than easy generalities. Times Colonist. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/index.html

Heaslip, R. (2008). Monitoring salmon aquaculture waste: The contribution of First Nations' rights, knowledge, and practices in British Columbia, Canada. Marine Policy, 32(6), 988-996. ISSN 0308-597X, DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.02.002.

Georgia Strait Alliance & the David Suzuki Foundation on behalf of CAAR (2008, May). Global Assessment of Closed System Aquaculture. Ecoplan International Inc. Retrieved November 28, 2008 from http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/

Gillibrand, P. & Willis, K. (2007). Dispersal of sea louse larvae from salmon farms: modeling the influence of environmental conditions and larval behavior. Aquatic Biology, 1,63-75.

Jones, S, Prosperi-Porta, G., Kim, E., Callow, P. & Hargreaves, N. (2006b). The occurrence of Lepeophtheirus salmonis and C. clemensi (copepoda: caligidae) on three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus in coastal British Columbia. J. Parasitol, 92, 473–480.

Jones, S., Fast, M., Johnson, S. & Groman, D. (2007). Differential rejection of Lepeophtheirus salmonis by pink and chum salmon: Disease consequences and expression of proinflammatory genes. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 75, 229–238.

Krkošek, M., Lewis, M., Morton, A., Frazer, L. & Volpe, J. (2006). Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 15506-15510. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0603525103.

Krkošek, M., Ford, J., Morton, A., Lele, S., Myers, R. & Lewis, M. (2007, December). Declining Wild Salmon Populations in Relation to Parasites from Farm Salmon. Science, 318(5857), 1772. DOI: 10.1126/science.1148744.

Lauck, T., Clark, C., Mangel, M. & Munro, G. (1998, Feb). Implementing the Precautionary Principle in Fisheries Management Through Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, 8(1), S72-S78.

Morton, A., Routledge, R., Peet, C., & Ladwig, A. (2004). Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infection rates on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (Oncorhynchus keta) salmon in the nearshore marine environment of British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61(2), 147-157. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from CBCA Reference database.

Morton, A., Routledge, R. & Williams, R. (2005, August). Temporal Patterns of Sea Louse Infestation on Wild Pacific Salmon in Relation to the Fallowing of Atlantic Salmon Farms. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25(3), 811-821.

Naylor, R., Goldburg, R., Primavera, J., Kautsky, L., Beveridge, M., Clay, J., Folke, C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H. & Troell, M. (2000, June). Effect of Aquaculture on World Supplies. Nature, 405, 1017-1024.

Orr, C. (2007). Estimated Sea Louse Egg Production from Marine Harvest Canada Farmed Atlantic Salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, 2003–2004. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 27, 187–197. DOI: 10.1577/M06-043.1.

Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (PFRCC). (2002, November). 2002 Advisory: the Protection of Broughton Archipelago Pink Salmon Stocks. PFRCC, Vancouver. Retrieved November 27, 2008 from www.fish.bc.ca/

Richmond, C., Elliott, S., Matthews, R. & Elliott, B. (2005, December). The Political Ecology of Health: Perceptions of Environment, Economy, Health and Well-Being Among `Namgis First Nation, Health & Place, 11(4), 349-365. ISSN 1353-8292, DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.04.003.

SEPA. (1999). Emamectin benzoate - an environmental risk assessment. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Fish Farm Advisory Group.

Skretting. (2008, September 28). Skretting Fed Salmon Yield More Fish Protein Than They Consume. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.skretting.com/
Statistic Canada. (2004). Aquaculture, Production and Value, Annual: Detailed Information for 2003. Statistic Canada, Ottawa.

Stone, J., Sutherland, I., Sommerville, C., Richards, R., & Endris, R. (2000, May). The Duration of Efficacy Following Oral Treatment with Emamectin Benzoate Against Infestations of Sea Lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer), in Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Diseases, 23(3), 185-192. Retrieved November 29, 2008. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2761.2000.00233.x.

The Province. (2008, February 24). A sea-friendly way to farm fish: salmon in Closed Containers Won’t Interfere with Natural Stocks. The Province. Retrieved November 27, 2008 from http://www.theprovince.com/

Waddy, S., Burridge, L., Hamilton, M., Mercer, S., Aikon, D. &Haya, K. (2002). Emamectin benzoate induces molting in American lobster, Homarus americanus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1096-1099.

Watershed Watch Salmon Society. (2004). Sea Lice and Salmon: Elevating the Dialogue. Watershed Watch Salmon Society. Retrieved November 25, 2008 from http://www.watershed-watch.org

Willson, M. & Halupka, K. (1995, June). Anadromous Fish as Keystone Species in Vertebrate Communities. Conservation Biology, 9(3), 489-497.

Forestry ruling acknowledges individual clan territories

2008-08-28T15:32:00.000-07:00

This can have a dramatic impact on the way we deal with forestry and other industries within our territories. Individual clan territories must be considered before outside companies extract resources. This is to ensure that no one clan bears the burden of the extraction.
__________________________________________________

FORESTRY - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080828.BCTREE28//TPStory/National

Natives gain more influence over logging
Province failed to adequately accommodate Gitanyow when issuing licences, court rules
ROBERT MATAS
August 28, 2008

VANCOUVER -- Natives will have significantly more clout over forestry in British Columbia after a court ruling that found the provincial government renewed licences granting the right to log in public forests in northern B.C. without meaningful consultation or adequate accommodation of aboriginal interests.
The B.C. Forestry Ministry failed to acknowledge the distinctive political features of the Gitanyow First Nation's aboriginal society when issuing the licences, Madam Justice Kathryn Neilson stated in one of her final rulings as a B.C. Supreme Court judge. (Judge Neilson was appointed to the B.C. Court of Appeal earlier this year.)
The Forestry Ministry also failed to recognize the aboriginal right to expect the forest would not disappear while disputes over their claim to ownership of the land continue, Judge Nielson stated in a 43-page ruling distributed this week.
Consultation did take place between the government and the native band, she stated. "The issue is whether that consultation process was reasonable and whether any resulting accommodation was adequate," Judge Neilson wrote. "The Crown's obligation to reasonably consult is not fulfilled simply by providing a process within which to exchange and discuss information."
The ruling is the most recent in a series of court decisions over the past decade that require the federal and provincial governments to consult with natives and accommodate their interests.
Vivian Thomas, a Forest Ministry spokeswoman, said yesterday the government was reviewing the implications of the court decision and could not make any further comments. Glen Williams of the Gitanyow First Nation was not available yesterday for comment. The judge has asked for further submissions before ruling on the consequences of her decision.
Natives in B.C. have unresolved land claims to almost the entire province. The current court ruling dealt with six 15-year licences issued in February, 2007, that granted the right to log in the Kispiox and Nass regions of the northwestern part of the province in exchange for complying with government forest-management objectives and paying stumpage fees.
Judge Neilson stated that issuing the licences was the first step in permitting the removal of a claimed resource in limited supply. The annual allowable cut in the area would be about one million cubic metres of timber, the equivalent of about one million telephone poles. The licences covered almost half of the 16,800 square kilometres of territory claimed by the Gitanyow as their traditional lands.The Gitanyow, with a population of about 700 people, have been in treaty negotiations since 1980, but the process stalled in 1996, Judge Neilson stated. "Nevertheless, there is no question that substantial logging and road building have occurred on those lands and that these activities have had a significant impact on the sustainability of timber resources and on other aspects of Gitanyow tradition and culture."
Land was clear-cut and the mature old-growth forests were replanted. But the Gitanyow were denied for many decades the use of large areas of habitat required to support plants, birds, fish and animals that they traditionally had for sustenance and for cultural purposes, the court heard. Unable to draw on the resources to maintain their culture and traditional activities, the native band suffered financial hardship, pain and shame, the Gitanyow told the court.
The Gitanyow is organized into eight matrilineal wilps (clans), each with their own territory. Each wilp has a hereditary chief who has authority over the group's land. Judge Neilson found that the government did not accommodate the concern that the wilp system be recognized in the licences. Logging timber in the traditional territory without reference to the wilp boundaries "could result in the effective destruction of individual wilps."
Judge Neilson also said that each of the companies that held forestry licences in the area in the previous 15 years had financial difficulties leading to receivership or a government bailout. As a result, some of the companies exceeded logging allowances and failed to fulfill obligations to replant the forest, she said.
She also said the government did not adequately address silviculture - issues regarding the maintenance of a healthy forest - adding that the government's position on silviculture liabilities amounted to no more than "trust us."
"The honour of the Crown and the importance of the sustainability of the resource to Gitanyow clearly required more."

Kwakiutl featured on UVic website

2008-07-22T23:56:00.000-07:00

Tom Child is being featured on the UVic website for his work on determining the quality of the traditional foods we eat (https://www.uvic.ca/current/):

Sea of concern

Does local seafood pose a health risk for Vancouver Island’s First Nations people?

by Jessica Gillies

When Tom Child was growing up in the Kwakiutl community of T’saxis on northeastern Vancouver Island, gathering traditional foods from the ocean was as natural as the rhythm of the seasons.

It still is. But now there are concerns about the quality of the food First Nations communities are harvesting and whether the health risks posed by environmental contaminants outweigh the known benefits of a traditional seafood diet.

“All the origin stories and legends that exist for First Nations on the coast involve the natural world, so our culture itself is dependent on a healthy environment,” says Child, a graduate student in the University of Victoria’s School of Environmental Studies.

“Our elders are worried about the rapid changes to their local environment and important food-gathering sites,” says Child. “They want to know what pollution levels are out there, and they want to understand the risks these bring to their grandchildren.”

For his master’s degree, Child is working with Dr. Peter Ross, a wildlife toxicologist at the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, on the first-ever major study of the health benefits and risks of the seafood diet of BC’s coastal First Nations.

The study is a partnership among five First Nations communities, the Vancouver Island Region Wildlife Management Society, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and UVic.

The study focuses on four groups of contaminants—flame retardants (PBDEs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and furans, and heavy metals. All of these chemicals bio-accumulate in the food chain and can cause developmental, reproductive, immune and nervous system problems.

The team selected four traditional food species to study—harbour seals, sockeye salmon, Dungeness crab and butter clams.

To find out how important seafood is in contemporary First Nations diets, Child organized surveys of more than 300 people in the five communities. The results show that a typical survey respondent eats as much seafood in one month as the average Canadian eats in an entire year.

“It shows you how important this food source is,” says Child. “Coastal people aren’t just eating salmon; they’re taking advantage of a whole host of traditional resources, such as barnacles, chitons, seaweed, herring roe, halibut, prawns and more.”

To determine contaminant levels, Child and the study team tested food fishery salmon, and traditional shellfish harvesting and crabbing sites in each community. To test seals, they used a non-lethal method of collecting seal pups for blubber and blood samples.

Preliminary results suggest that PCB levels are low in all the species they studied except for harbour seals, which are high up on the food chain and live longer than fish, crabs or clams. PCBs accumulate over time in the seals’ fatty tissues.

Once contaminant analysis is complete, the next step is to determine the health risks of consuming traditional foods.
“We’re working on a risk assessment,” says Child. “But assessments don’t take into account the cultural importance of traditional foods. You have to weigh everything. Also, there are pollutants in all of our modern foods. They’re not isolated to traditional seafoods.”

In the end, it may turn out that the health and cultural benefits of eating traditional seafoods outweigh any potential harm. “We want to raise awareness,” says Child, “but we don’t want to create extra fear that will cause people to stop eating their traditional foods.”

Edgewise

The mainstays of the traditional seafood diet of Vancouver Island’s coastal First Nations are salmon, halibut, rockfish, seals, ooligan, crab, prawns, mussels, clams and cockles. Delicacies include seaweed, sea urchins, chitons and barnacles.
About 90 percent of seafood consumed by First Nations communities is gathered locally, rather than purchased at supermarkets or restaurants. Older generations consume more seafood than younger generations.
The study, titled “Traditional Seafoods of Vancouver Island First Nations: Balancing Health Benefits with Pollution Risks,” is funded primarily by the National First Nations Environmental Contaminants Program, a partnership between Health Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. For more information on the project, visit www.snuneymuxw.ca/seafood.htm.
UVic researchers were awarded more than $71 million in external research grants and contracts in 2006/07, doubling the research support of the previous five-year period.

To download the pdf version please visit:
http://communications.uvic.ca/edge/pdf/v8n06_june08.pdf

Economic Development

2008-07-19T15:10:00.000-07:00

I have been reflecting for the past few months on my treaty stance. I believe that instead of just stating the negative side of signing a treaty in its current form, I should also provide alternatives to explore deeper. One topic that keeps coming up in my mind is economic development. Coming from a business background I can understand the concepts, but when it comes to treaty negotiations I have yet to transform these words into action in the real world. It seems to me that the number of job possibilities that are talked about in treaty discussions may be clouding our judgment. It is almost like some spontaneous event will make us economically free from government handouts - if we just get this treaty signed. I wonder if this is the case… A good question to ask is: will these jobs be around for our children? Because signing a treaty is more than what is immediately in front of us. More than a $10,000 cheque. More than lofty promises that have no plan to be achieved because, as we know, promises have been made in the past. It is about forever prospering on our own lands with our own resources. At least it should be.

I do not believe that the current Canadian-style consumer society we live in today is the answer to our long term survival as Kwakwaka'wakw. How can spending all of our hard earned resources outside of our territories, from non-Kwakwaka'wakw peoples, help us to become the wealthy nation we once were? We were respected by our neighbours because of the strength we had in unity. Our potlatch system allowed us to support one another by sharing our wealth within the Kwakwaka'wakw nation. We became rich and powerful because the great chiefs before us spent this wealth supporting their community in exchange for witnessing birthrights and inheritances. Let me say this: I don't think 'going back to the bush' is going to bring back some perfect life that we left behind. Things were very tough, but they were also very rewarding. There is a way to balance our ways with sustainable economic development. Let us take care of our environment, be leaders and stewards of our territories and instead of buying products and services from others, lets consider supporting one another by buying locally and from fellow Kwakwaka'wakw people whenever possible.

What is economic development from a Kwakwaka'wakw perspective? I do not claim to have the answers that will solve our valid concerns for the future. I do, however, want to discuss it fully and be a part of what my unborn children will live through. May that future provide prosperity as Kwakwaka'wakw people. Our choices now will directly impact the next generation and the generations to come. Let us come together and support one another.

An exploration of obstacles to successful treaty negotiations

2008-01-27T12:54:00.001-08:00

There are a few items up for negotiation that are disagreeable within the BC Treaty process and I believe should be opposed by our people. I will expand these topics over the upcoming weeks to elaborate my stance and how they will negatively impact us and more importantly, our future generations.

Taxed! - Need I go further? Well I will soon enough...
Private Property - the issues that arise out of private property.
Becoming more western and exploitative rather than sustainable and more Kwakwaka'wakw
Municipal style government - a look into self government
Sell off 90%+ of our lands for a rock bottom, dirt-cheap price…and then the Canadian government can still legally infringe on what little we have left after.
Withdraw from future legal claims despite recent successes in going the legal route (Chilcotin have regained 50% control over their lands, a landmark case that still needs in depth study).
Put control of fishery limits forever in government hands and DFO, with their headquarters way over in Ottawa and therefore will never have a real understanding of our local needs and circumstances, both food and cultural.
The "'Namgis claim" - did we settle here on British lands a couple hundred years ago or did they? This agreement's language treats the land as if they were giving it to us. We must focus on language putting any agreement as a transfer from us to them. It will put the issue in perspective considering we will be selling over 90%+ of our lands to the Canadian government. We own this land - the Canadian and Provincial governments would not spend $1 Billion if they thought otherwise.
"Certainty" - meaning we will never be able to change as 'Namgis. No matter what changes in the future our rights will always be the same. We will be frozen in time as if the Kwakwaka'wakw never changed before the Europeans came. What other people on earth are forced to act a certain way to be part of a nation? Any evolution would be treated as Canadian influenced by the courts, making assimilation the ultimate goal of this process. No other nation has to go through this because it goes directly against the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. The reason Canada is making certain it remains this way through the treaty process is because it keeps us dependent on the Canadian government despite their claims of independence after signing with them.
Debt - every year we are going $500,000 dollars further into debt. I encourage all members to look at our financial statements and ask questions on our spending.

This is not a comprehensive list as there are many things to disagree with, but I will start with the most obvious and important. Something to think about: What about those who have signed treaty already? Are they happy and does the Canadian government abide by these older treaties? According to our Kwagu'ł brothers and sisters, they have consistently failed to honour their agreement with them. Why would our agreement be any better?

A brief look at the impact of the potlatch ban on the Kwakwaka'wakw

2008-01-27T12:16:00.000-08:00

The Kwakwaka’wakw are located on the North East of Vancouver Island as well as part of the adjacent mainland. The traditional Kwakwaka’wakw diet includes salmon, herring, eulachon, halibut, berries and to a lesser extent, goats, seals, and porpoises. The Kwakwaka’wakw social structure was organized into extended family units or ‘na’mima, which means “of one kind”. Each ‘na’mima had ranked positions or offices that came with many responsibilities and privileges. There were approximately four ‘na’mima to each of the seventeen tribes. The Kwakwaka’wakw had a comprehensive and stable governing process prior to the Indian Act, in which they successfully managed limited resources, settled legal matters and disputes within a constantly evolving traditional culture. Despite the focused legislative campaign against the core of their identity, the Kwakwaka’wakw continue to thrive and practice the traditional ceremonies given to them by their ancestors.

The Kwakwaka’wakw trace their origins back to their ancestral creation. The lower ranked chiefs within a ‘na’mima owe their creation to the ancestral chief. A head chief gave roles and responsibilities to the families within his ‘na’mima in which no two people were of equal rank. These positions were filled according to primogeniture, with the eldest son of the line to a particular rank assuming the title. His younger brothers stood as his potential successors, in case the heir died without a son. The brothers of chiefs were considered secondary nobility and were given respect for the possibility of being given the chief’s title. Each ‘na’mima had several sub-chiefs ranked second, third and fourth, who also received their title through their own family group primogeniture. These chiefs mobilized their family to harvest the lands given to them by the head chief. ‘Na’mima chiefs had three main administrative responsibilities which included economic organization, management of his territory and directing ceremonial obligations.

The Creation of Kwakwaka’wakw:

"The Kwakwaka’wakw creation story is that the ancestor of a ‘na’mima appeared at a specific location by coming down from the sky, out of the sea, or from underground. Generally in the form of an animal, it would take off its animal mask and become a person. The Thunderbird or his brother Kolus, the Gull, the Killer Whale (Orca), a sea monster, a grizzly bear, and a chief ghost would appear in this role. In a few cases, two such beings arrived, and both would become ancestors. There are a few ‘na’mima that do not have the traditional origin, but are said to have come as human beings from distant places. To this group belong the Si’santla’, at one place, their ancestor is called “Son of the Sun” who traveled to as far north as Bella Bella. These ancestors are called “fathers” or “grandfathers,” and the myth is called the “myth at the end of world.”[i]

Surplus from harvests were given to the chief to perform these ceremonial obligations, which were made up of potlatches and feasts. All elements of Kwakwaka’wakw life culminated in the potlatch. Spiritual, economic, judicial, social and political organization, performing arts and the major events of an individual’s life were all integral parts of the potlatch. External disputes that were beyond a chief’s singular authority were settled at potlatches. Potlatches were also a means of ensuring all members of the larger Kwakwaka’wakw society were living well under their chief.

The potlatch was a public view into the legal transactions of a ‘na’mima. The people that witnessed these transactions were paid through gifts of food and material wealth. Reasons to potlatch included naming, marriages, births, initiation into secret societies and other ceremonial transfers. By accepting the payment and witnessing these events the guests gave assent to the claims. Traditionally, the ‘na’mima could only potlatch through the office of the chief because he owned all of the wealth within his territories.

Another important reason for the giving of property during potlatches was to ensure that the “Kwakwaka’wakw noble showed himself to be a worthy vehicle for the soul of an ancestor-spirit and thereby validated both his social status and his claim on supernatural powers believed to be essential for the regeneration of the natural realm.”[ii] Due to wealth restraints, traditional potlatches tended to be limited to the head chief with the assistance of the entire ‘na’mima. The giving of gifts was reserved for the high ranking chiefs in attendance to honour them for witnessing and validating the family’s claims.

The potlatch was a “process of winning names through inheritance, marriage, and warfare, divesting them over the course of his life to his heir and, finally, having preserved all his names for another generation, dying as a commoner.”[iii] The class distinctions were hereditary, but nobility still ended their office by joining the rest of society as a commoner. It was a spiritual journey devoted to ensuring the regeneration of the physical world for the survival of his people. There existed a reciprocal dependence between noble and commoner. The commoner needed a good harvest to survive and “the noble was recognized as the literal conduit between the social and spiritual domains, birth right alone was not enough to secure rank: only individuals displaying the correct moral behavior throughout their life course could maintain ranking status.”[iv] Social status and ranking proved to be effective mechanisms within Kwakwaka’wakw society.

Social rank of the ‘na’mima and its chief played a large role in accountability and stability of Kwakwaka’wakw society. If a chief had poor governing skills members would move to another family’s ‘na’mima and contribute their labour to that group. This gave incentive to continually maintain a ‘na’mima’s social rank and favour within society. It was therefore very important to improve living conditions and to consult with council, the sub-chiefs, on management issues within the ‘na’mima. If the chief lost support of the heads of the families within his ‘na’mima, they could withhold their payments and paralyze the ‘na’mima’s governing ability. This would then threaten the rank of the chief and ‘na’mima within the larger Kwakwaka’wakw society, making the ranking system an effective means of resource management.

A loss of rank was a threat that hung over the heads of chiefs and commoners alike. A council of head chiefs would decide the loss of rank in a ‘na’mima, which occurred infrequently and would mean that one or two other ‘na’mima would increase their rank within the tribe. The social and economic organization was a means to balance the conflicts within human nature and a way to have law and order prevail. Kwakwaka’wakw traditions are “based on a philosophy of there being two opposing forces in human relations: self-interest, greed/hunger and desire, on the one hand, and social cooperation and good-will, on the other.[v] The system of governance tied together the ranking system and potlatch system to harness this self-interest and produced a peaceful, managed life for its people. A chief’s power was counterbalanced by the freedom of choice in ‘na’mima and the competitive nature of the ranking system unified the clans of a tribe to cooperate in maintaining their tribal status. This traditional structure would change drastically upon European contact.

Part of the assimilation agenda of the government officials and missionaries was to make the natives more European and the potlatch was viewed as a hindrance to these efforts. Missionary William Duncan wrote in 1875 that the potlatch was “by far the most formidable of all obstacles in the way of Indians becoming Christians, or even civilized.”[vi] As time passed the Kwakwaka’wakw utilized western wage labour to further potlatching practices and instead of becoming more western, the potlatching increased. In 1885 the first piece of legislation would be introduced to make the potlatch illegal. The legislation read:

“Every Indian or other person who engages in or assists in celebrating the Indian festival known as the "Potlatch" or the Indian dance known as the "Tamanawas" is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not more than six nor less than two months in a jail or other place of confinement; and, any Indian or other person who encourages, either directly or indirectly an Indian or Indians to get up such a festival or dance, or to celebrate the same, or who shall assist in the celebration of same is guilty of a like offence, and shall be liable to the same punishment.”

This was later amended to become more inclusive as the earlier prosecutions brought to court were dismissed on technicalities. The legislation was extended to include guests who participated in the ceremony were also subject to up to six months in jail. The Kwakwaka’wakw were too numerous and the agency too large for effective enforcement. Duncan Campbell Scott convinced Parliament to change the offense from criminal to summary, which meant ‘the agents, as justice of the peace, could try a case, convict, and sentence.”[vii] This provided agents enough power to enforce the potlatch law.

Up until 1919 the Kwakwaka’wakw openly and defiantly practiced the potlatch. Between 1919 and 1927 there was an increase in prosecutions. A famous example is Dan Cranmer’s potlatch which sent 26 people to prison and propelled the confiscation of sacred potlatch artifacts that saw over four hundred items taken. The renewed prosecutions forced the potlatch underground. In 1927, when Jimmy Sewid married Flora Alfred his grandfather gave a potlatch, but instead of gathering in a bighouse “he just went around to the houses and gave money and other things to the people to honor” Jimmy, while his mother gave the ladies of Alert Bay various small gifts at her home.[viii] Some families would go to inaccessible winter villages to do their potlatching. Another method was called the “disjointed potlatch,” which split the potlatch ceremony in two. One part was just the dancing and at a later date the other allowed for the distribution of gifts, usually around Christmas time. This made it difficult for the Indian agents to prove the potlatch law had been broken.

Agnes Alfred, a Qwiqwasutinuxw noblewoman upon learning that her husband, Moses Alfred, had been picked up by the police for questioning responded in the following way:

“I just snatched my shawl and ran out. They had brought him to Indian Agent Halliday’s office. I did not bother to knock. I just walked into Halliday’s office and there stood Moses, at the front. They were questioning him. ‘What are you doing here?’ I said. “We are accused by Ganao. She said you are responsible for all the arrests,” I said. I grabbed him and dragged him out. They said it really shocked Dave Shaughnessy [a police officer]. He was standing by the door when I dragged Moses out. He did not try to stop me. I brought Moses home. I literally dragged him out when they were questioning him at the Indian Agent’s office.”[ix]

This was a classic case of resistance in the face of police force with little regard for the possible consequences. It also shows the resolve of Kwakwaka’wakw women, countering the passive nature the Indian Agents portrayed them to hold.

The dramatic population losses made the Kwakwaka’wakw increasingly vulnerable to outside influences. Increased pressure came “when the sudden economic power of commoners required a new distribution of ritual authority, when missionaries were actively pursuing converts, and when capitalism was dislocating villages and threatening to destroy traditional community ties.”[x] Kwakwaka’wakw population dropped by 75% between 1830-1880.[xi] This threatened the very survival of the Kwakwaka’wakw as a people. With more vacancies in the potlatch system and with the increased wealth from the wage economy, competition for prestige increased potlatches both in number and size.

Indian agents began pressuring Parliament again to further amend the potlatch law, but soon after this amendment was introduced in the House of Commons it had to be withdrawn because it came under heavy opposition from all sectors of society. Enforcement as a policy was effectively stopped, but much damage had been done. Even with “the end of enforcement, the potlatch declined, victim to alterations of the structure of the fishing industry, to the Depression, to the Anglican persuasion and Pentecostal evangelization, and to the lack of interest among the young people.”[xii] The Kwakwaka’wakw were faced with a tough choice: join Canadian society and forget about their history or rebuild and work to save the precious knowledge that remained with the few elders still alive in the communities.

The Potlatch law split families, expropriated sacred cultural possessions, criminalized traditional leaders and undermined Kwakwaka’wakw self-governance. Add to this the residential schools and its abuse or ‘civilizing’ as it claimed for so long. These institutions were made to make the Indian in the white man’s own image. No Kwak’wala could be spoken and children were alienated from family which heavily impacted the ability of traditional transmission of potlatch knowledge to the next generation.

The steady commoditization of art forms through their sale to art collectors has changed the way of the pre-colonial religious order drastically. The art was viewed by the ancestors as spiritual property that “symbolized the essential consanguinity of all living beings beneath the mask of their particular species.”[xiii] To sell a mask is to sell the soul that it embodies, a soul that comes alive during potlatch ceremonies.

Without the respect of the spiritual connection with the natural world and the secularization of every day Kwakwaka’wakw life the chief’s role has changed from the “explicit demonstration of the spiritual and economic strength of the entire ‘na’mima” to being based on the “noble’s personal productive ability [which] was now on display, and commodity-capitalism was now the means of achieving social success.”[xiv] The means of securing wealth for distribution went from “a religious covenant with nature to the capitalist free market, an evolution with profound cosmological impact.”[xv] It was a response to the changing times and the evolution of the potlatch during the ban was a way of ensuring the survival of the Kwakwaka’wakw way of life.

The potlatch law had taken its toll and the political will for the repeal of the potlatch was “overshadowed by questions about land, enfranchisement, education, taxation, welfare, fisheries and trapping.”[xvi] Regardless, In 1951 the law was dropped from the Indian Act and it was once again legal to potlatch.

Soon after the potlatch Law was dropped from the Indian Act, Mungo Martin held a potlatch in Victoria in his newly built bighouse named Wawaditla. The Kwakwaka’wakw have since openly held potlatches to reaffirm their commitment to their ancestors and also to pass on positions to the next generation. The frequency of potlatches has also increased as more families are reclaiming their birthright and returning to the old ways.

The bighouse is a spiritual place that was built on ‘Namgis territory for the benefit of all Kwakwaka’wakw. The ancestors are calling their ‘na’mima to remember their place in this world. The increasing reincarnation of our ancestor spirits has brought higher participation rates among our youth and our future looks secure.

The potlatch is a celebration of the strength of my people in their identity, but we must realize the work that needs to be done in regaining a healthy balance of traditional concepts and the need for the evolution of outdated or no long applicable practices. There are many values entrenched into the traditional system of Kwakwaka’wakw governance that need to be relearned in many cases and reevaluated in others. Without interruption or external political interference, the Kwakwaka'wakw government would still be in existence today. Kwakwaka’wakw spiritual obligations to the land need to be remembered to ensure the protection of ‘na’mima territories and all of its inhabitants. Much has changed since contact, but it is important to remember our old ways now that the legislative attacks have abated. Although set back a generation because of the ban and other assimilation attempts like the residential school and Christian missionary pressures, the Kwakwaka’wakw are slowly finding their way home. The ultimate price has been paid through epidemic disease and ‘gun boat diplomacy,’ but potlatch is here to stay.

[i] U’Mista Cultural Centre, (December 1, 2007)

[ii] Joseph Masco, “It is a Strict Law that Bids Us Dance”: Cosmologies, Colonialism, Death, and Ritual Authority in the Kwakwaka’wakw Potlatch, 1849 to 1922”, University of California, San Diego.

[iii] Boas, Contributions to the Ethnology of the Kwakiutl, Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 3, New York: Columbia University Press, 1925: 229-30;

Goldman, The Mouth of Heaven: an Introduction to Kwakiutl Religious Thought, 1975, 58-59.

[iv] Joseph Masco, “It is a Strict Law that Bids Us Dance”: Cosmologies, Colonialism, Death, and Ritual Authority in the Kwakwaka’wakw Potlatch, 1849 to 1922, 48.

[v] Stanley Walens, “Review of the Mouth of Heaven by Irving Goldman,” American Anthropologist, 1981, 98.

[vi] Robin Fisher, Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890, Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 1977, 207.

[vii] Aldona Jonaitis, Chiefly Feasts: the Enduring Kwakiutl Potlatch, Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1991, 159.

[viii] James Spradley, Guests Never Leave Hungry, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969, 71.

[ix] Martine Reid and Daisy Sewid-Smith, Paddling to Where I Stand, Vancouver, UBC Press, 2004, 205-6.

[x] Chiefly Feasts, 65.

[xi] Duff Wilson, The Indian History of British Columbia, 38-40; Sessional Papers, 1873-1880.

[xii] Chiefly Feasts, 165.

[xiii] Chiefly Feasts, 67.

[xiv] Chiefly Feasts, 70.

[xv] Chiefly Feasts, 70.

[xvi] Chiefly Feasts, 166.

Works Cited:

Boas, Contributions to the Ethnology of the Kwakiutl, Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 3, New York: Columbia University Press, 1925, 229-30.

Fisher, Robin. Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1977, 207.

Goldman, Irving. The Mouth of Heaven: an Introduction to Kwakiutl Religious Thought, New York: Joh Wiley and Sons, 1975, 58-59.

Jonaitis, Aldona. Chiefly Feasts: the Enduring Kwakiutl Potlatch, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991, 159.

Masco, Joseph. “It is a Strict Law that Bids Us Dance”: Cosmologies, Colonialism, Death, and Ritual Authority in the Kwakwaka’wakw Potlatch, 1849 to 1922, San Diego: University of California.

Reid, Martine and Daisy Sewid-Smith. Paddling to Where I Stand, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004, 205-6.

Spradley, James. Guests Never Leave Hungry, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969, 71.

Umista Cultural Society. Creation myth of Kwakwaka’wakw (December 1, 2007).

Walens, Stanley “Review of the Mouth of Heaven by Irving Goldman,” American Anthropologist, 1981, 98.

Wilson, Duff. The Indian History of British Columbia, 38-40; Sessional Papers, 1873-1880.

The masters of our own domain

2008-01-14T15:00:00.000-08:00

Everything the Creator gave to us in the beginning is ours. We need to start asserting ourselves as a people, as a nation. But through this treaty process instead of taking ownership and taking control of our lives as a people, we are bargaining our rights away. Its like we have been given scraps from the 'masters' table for our whole life and suddenly we hear a knock on the door and we are told that the food, the table and the whole place actually belongs to us. I use 'master' simply because as a community we have come to think that we are dependent on the government and cannot get out from underneath it.

What would you do when you found this out? Probably kick them out, a totally justifiable action considering! But no, we are an incredibly generous people. We don’t want to kick them out because they are our neighbours and the Settlers that live among us deserve respect, just as we demand respect for ourselves. This is despite everything we have gone through, all of the trauma, residential school abuse and continued racism. The hard thing for me to accept is that instead of giving us the control over our lives back, this 'master' wants us to borrow millions of dollars to sit down at the table and negotiate the kind of rights we can have on our own land! The Canadian and BC governments are saying that instead of just the scraps from our own table, and from our land, they are throwing in a shiny apple, or a whole lot of shiny promises. Then they say we are supposed to be reasonable and let them continue to control our house, our food and our lives. That is the treaty negotiation as I see it.

We must assert ourselves to have real change. Most people are scared of this idea because we as a people have come to believe all of the 'masters'' lies: that they own the land, resources and the right to control of our food. That it is up to them if we can fish or hunt for the food we need for our very survival. It is not too late though, we can remember what our ancestors fought against when they decided against treaty in the old days. Be proud of who you are and where you come from.

Besides the ridiculousness of the treaty process itself, look at the record of Canada and BC in honouring their past and still valid treaties with other First Nations. I marched on the BC Legislature twice this year in support of the Kwakiutl, protesting infringements on the Douglas Treaties they signed in the 1850's. The rights of the Coast Salish in Victoria are constantly being threatened as well. Does this really sound good to anyone?

NO to the current treaty process!

2007-09-18T23:21:00.001-07:00

The treaty process in its current form legitimates a theft of land and violation of our basic human rights. What will our children say when they realize how we have sold out for a paltry $10,000, which is what is currently being discussed as an incentive to vote for the treaty? Why would we negotiate the limitations of our basic human rights to food, identity and the safety and viability of our future generations? The individualization of 'Namgis rights takes away from our inherent collective cultural traditions. We are first and foremost family members, clan members, tribe members and then individuals with rights. Our cultural practices revolve around collective leadership and cooperation. So the legal cementing of rights at an individual level infringes on our sovereignty and our way of thinking and being that is unique in Canada. This is yet another way the Government is trying to divide and separate us into the smallest unit so as to have maximum control with the least amount of resources expended in achieving this end.

We must ensure that any treaty encompasses our right to determine our own destiny. We should be discussing a common legal strategy in defense of treaty rights, but the current treaty speaks to the complete withdrawal of challenges to the processes between us and the government. This is like volunteering to tie our hands behind our backs, much like when we were prohibited by law to raise funds for legal challenges. The individuals that have been wronged in a meaningful way should be supported by our people, again, collective responsibilities that are integral to the strength of our way.

The fact that most non-‘Namgis economic development activities can be justified in taking from Aboriginal rights means that the First Nations have to fight for participation or control over industry within their territories. This should be done through political organizing. The fisheries are part of our right as First Nations belonging to this land. The fact that sports fisheries were allowed to continue operating this summer while the 'Namgis were waiting for their small share of a declining fishery is appalling. The management of the white 'authorities' has so far been proven to be a complete and utter failure. We can and must do better.

The proposed privatization of our communal lands on reserve territory would only serve to send us further into poverty. Sure the rich would get richer, but those who can barely afford rent payments under our current system would be forced into bankruptcy with the purposed changes in treaty, which include property taxes on our own land that would go to the Provincial government. So only the well off would benefit from such a system while the majority of less well off would be forced to pay the consequences. Do we really want to copy this aspect of Western land governance?

Current treaty negotiation documents speak of a 'special tax agreement' which boils down to us paying for the very land we own outright. The money would go to what I consider a foreign government that will run it through a system of bureaucracy before supposedly giving it back. But these services are already guaranteed currently. I say we keep money in our pockets because we know how to spend it better than any foreign government can. The answer lies not in the magic treaty process that will miraculously make us more proactive towards meeting stated economic goals or create jobs out of thin air. How these goals can become reality need not wait for the signing of a bunk treaty agreement that only serves to limit our lives and severely hinge upon our cultural freedoms as a people. Even the trumpeted Nisga'a citizens have largely viewed their signing as a mistake. They are soon going to be paying taxes on their own land! Not only are they taxed, but the money goes to the government not the First Nation, further taking away what little we are already owed through the Federal government's current fiduciary duty to us.

We have to keep in mind that a signed treaty under its current form will not guarantee that the federal or provincial government will not still be able to 'justifiably" infringe on our negotiated treaty rights. There is no sovereignty or permanence of our rights under the current Treaty process. Not only are we negotiating 85%+ of our territories away, after ceding this incredible amount through treaty, the federal government can later take even more away through any economic activity it sees fit and this is supported by the Canadian court system!

Why are we fast tracking through a process without proper consultation of community members? Just because there is low participation at meetings does not mean the members are at fault. Part of the consultation duty on the council is to ensure the proper information is given to the community. I have heard of stories of the avoidance of certain questioners, having members shot down because 'they are misinformed,' and where a lawyer glosses over the facts with legal jargon that no one else understands precisely because they want to maintain the elitist, backdoor negotiating policy that the BC Government is trying to facilitate with willing bands.

The money we get as settlement may seem big, but it is only a temporary influx of cash aimed at buying the surrender of our lands, the territories given to us by the Creator for our children and our children's children…till the end of time. They say it will help with economic development and we will be set after this because we will have 'certainty'. Well if we are tossed a bunch of money and not properly on our way to sustainable economic initiatives before we get this money it will go to waste anyway. It can be likened to not learning how to fish, but waiting for the government to hand us our catch, but instead of the usual one salmon we are being 'given' a one time bonus of a halibut, but then that’s it. Looking at it this way lets you realize that the resources, no matter how big, will mean nothing if we do not first stop depending on the government to hand us our destiny and learn economic development now before we agree to a treaty. We are in control, we can learn to come together and actively pursue a direction that lessens our dependence on the government. We can start community initiatives aimed at a more sustainable approach to our economic futures now. As can be seen through our cultural foundations as Kwakwaka'wakw, there is much power in community. When we come together we have resisted unjust laws such as the Potlatch Ban which was geared to take away our very identity and threatened our survival as Kwakwaka’wakw. This is one example of what we can accomplish if we come together and put our minds to it. Just look at our new big house, look at our religious soccer community, or the irresistible resurgence of families re-entering the potlatch system of governance. Why then would we settle for anything but the best in negotiations? Why would we sign a shoddy deal now at the expense of our children? We can do better and I say we engage the community actively and truly learn what the members feel about the process before rushing to sign a settlement temporary in benefit - even if it means knocking on every ‘Namgis door to find the truth!

And why are we getting propaganda in the mail for pro treaty news? We are paying for the 'yes' side of the equation, but I would argue that we are not being properly educated about the negative consequences of the current agreement. If we are exposed to the 'yes' side of the treaty process at our expense, doesn't the very democratic process demand that resources are allocated towards those who believe the current process needs major overhaul? An unfair one-sided representation of an agreement that has serious consequences for our future generations should be well balanced at the very least.

Let me speak to the 'anti-progress' comments that someone always responds to anyone against treaty. Not only do I view our nation as one of the most progressive culturally and economically, through my studies of our history as a people I know we can do so much better than what we are bargaining for currently. We are talking about the rights to our own resources and lands that the Creator gave US at the beginning of time, NOT the colonial government. The government would not spend $1 Billion on negotiations if they thought the land was theirs. Others say that I must be 'pro-Indian Act,' which of course is ridiculous, but I will respond anyway. As it stands currently, we are receiving monies as part of the Government's legal fiduciary responsibility, which means it is obligated to provide us with these services because of the infringement upon our lands and the decimation of our resources, namely the salmon and eulachon fishery which is part of the very foundation which our identity rests upon. I am not in favour of the status quo and continuing the dependence we have on the government. In fact, I am very much of the opposite opinion. I think we should show the world what we are made of by resisting the government’s economic power over us by controlling our affairs through a more sustainably oriented approach to living.

The recent visit from the Federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice was a show that the government wants to fast track our treaty. Out of all the First Nations in Canada he chose to come to us. This is because the government is watching our gung-ho leadership and is salivating. It has seen our current leadership being so pro-treaty that even when the majority of BC First Nations were questioning the legitimacy of the recent Tsawwassen Band's acceptance of the preliminary treaty vote, our leadership was one of very few coming out in full support. If you follow these events you will know the surprise that the other First Nations felt in response. One step further and I find the very coverage of this support in news articles at my doorstep as an advertisement from the ‘Namgis First Nation! I found an article in the Globe and Mail (which was not in the mailing), that is better balanced (Below). I feel these statements take the power out of our bargaining position. At another angle, think of the billion dollar surpluses the Federal government has been awash in for the past decade. It becomes obvious that they are trying to buy the surrender of our lands through short term payments so that they can start privatizing our lands, selling it off and start the taxation of First Nations. Things need to change fundamentally with the current process and until then, I proudly say no to treaty.

(Globe and Mail article)

New treaties raise hope but process still has harsh critics

ROD MICKLEBURGH

August 2, 2007

VANCOUVER -- The family of Chief Bill Cranmer and members of the Namgis First Nation know first hand the damage done by the way things were.

In the days when British Columbia's indigenous people were considered fit only for assimilation, governments stripped away their land, virtually wiped out their language by shunting them to hated residential schools, and devastated their long, rich culture by outlawing the potlatch and carting off their treasured masks and artifacts to far-away museums and private collectors.

In 1926, to avoid being sent to prison for ignoring the potlatch ban, Mr. Cranmer's father, also a chief, was forced to renounce the ceremony, promising never to hold one again.

That long-ago humiliation still festers, and the Namgis continue to seek compensation for a loss that the younger Mr. Cranmer says "disrupted the whole economic structure of our people."

But now, according to the veteran native leader, it's a new era. It's time for the Namgis to stand up. And the way to do that is through a negotiated treaty.

"After all these years, a treaty will allow us to be a distinct people again within our traditional territory," Mr. Cranmer said. "No longer will we be under the Indian Act."

In fact, few seemed more enthusiastic at the historic urban treaty ratified last week by the Tsawwassen First Nation than the 68-year old chief of a people hundreds of kilometres away on the remote northwest shores of Vancouver Island.

"Their courage and vision is an inspiration to other first nations all across British Columbia," Mr. Cranmer declared.

Yet, for all his zeal, the chief remains a minority among B.C. native leaders.

Despite the mini-momentum of successful treaty ratifications by the Tsawwassen and Huu-ay-aht First Nations within days of each other, a large number of native bands in the province remain soured over the 14-year, billion-dollar process.

In addition to 45 aboriginal groups that have boycotted treaty talks from the beginning, 60 other bands still at the table have signed a sweeping "unity protocol" that there will be no deals unless governments change their negotiating tune.

Specifically, they want governments to end their insistence that all treaties must include the ceding of further aboriginal rights and land claims, an agreement to pay government taxes and a switch of native land ownership to the provincial system of fee simple.

For a growing number of native bands, these factors are non-starters, says Robert Morales, lead organizer of the unity protocol and chief negotiator for the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group on Vancouver Island.

"The Crown still wants to control the agenda, while our resources disappear," Mr. Morales said. "They continue to deny that aboriginal title and rights exist."

These pivotal issues need to be hammered out at a huge policy forum, attended by both government and native leaders, he said.

"So many of us have the same concerns that it's time for the key players to discuss whether there is any way to move forward. There needs to be a breath of life to the process."

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, meanwhile, has spurned the treaty process since it was launched, arguing that treaties cut into aboriginal title already recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Nonetheless, UBCIC president Stewart Phillip has thrown his weight behind the unity protocol.

"The governments are seeking extinguishment of our rights. ...They're saying: 'Here's a bag of cash and a bit of land. Now get lost,' " he said. "The entire process is fundamentally flawed."

So far, the provincial and federal governments have rejected all calls for common negotiations at a big table, and Mr. Phillip predicts no more than a handful of treaties - if that - will be reached in the next year or so.

But that kind of talk doesn't deter Mr. Cranmer and the 1,800-member Namgis band. They are determined to reach an agreement-in-principle within the next few months. The longer it takes, the more resources disappear from their traditional territory, he said.

"You've got to be realistic in this day and age. Non-natives are here to stay and they're going to increase. If we wait and wait and wait, it's going to be even harder to negotiate a treaty," he said. "I don't think there's any other time in recent history when both governments have agreed to negotiate our land claims."

Governments can only hope that Mr. Cranmer's treaty enthusiasm is catching. As one federal negotiator put it: "Having spent all that money, with these first two treaties, are governments finally starting to collect the fruit, or are they flukes?"

At the moment, a process that caught the country's imagination early on for its bold goal to negotiate treaties in a modern age has precious little to show.

Pasted from <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070802.BCTREATY02/TPStory/National>

Book Review: Smoke from their Fires: the life of a Kwakiutl chief by Clellan S. Ford.

2007-07-15T20:52:00.000-07:00

It is important to describe my familial connection to Charles James Nowell, a point that brought me to read this book and no doubt influenced my understanding of it. My Great Great Grandfather was Owadi (Thomas Nowell) and was born in 1840 and died in 1921. Owadi was Charles’ older brother who took the role of raising him because their father, Malitsas, went blind. The name Nowell came from an Englishman who wanted a godson in Canada. After being baptized the name Nowell was born. Owadi was the head chief of the first clan of the Kwixa tribe. Owadi’s grandfather (mother’s father) was the younger brother of Tlakodlas (Tlakwudlas), the head chief of the second clan of the ‘Namgis (41). My grandfather, Joseph Lewis Isaac, was the son of Dorothy Isaac (nee Nowell) and Benedict Isaac.

Image: Great Great Grandfather O'wadalagalis (Thomas Nowell).

Smoke from their Fires offers a very brief introduction to the Kwakwaka’wakw culture followed by a first-hand account by Charles of his life. Clellan Ford successfully showed the life of a Kwagu’ł man through the narration of Charles James Nowell with minimal anthropological ‘analysis.’ Charles tells his story after a lifetime of learning the English language and experience studying through the lens of an ethnographer. This undoubtedly influences his mostly objective, detached delivery, instead of a personal accounting that would have provided more emotion and connection to his life. I found Ford’s footnotes and introduction to be very Eurocentric in nature, which was typical of anthropologists at the time where the conjured threat of extinction of a dying race was consistently put forth to fuel interest in a superfluous research field. Although one must consider the popular theories of the time, the book is filled with references to the ‘primitive, inferior ways’ of the Kwagu’ł. In fairness, Ford’s work could be considered on the progressive side of a flawed argument based upon the hierarchy of man and the perceived eventuality of Kwagu’ł assimilation. This challenges the reader to find meaning within today’s more progressive thought on Indigenous peoples, while not eliminating the underlying importance of Charles’ experiences.

Smoke from their Fires provides a valuable accounting of the responsibilities and system of governance of a Kwagu’ł tribe through the perspective of a noble family during a difficult period of Western assimilative attempts. Despite these pressures, Charles James Nowell skillfully masters elements of Western culture, especially those of speaking and writing English, that benefit him and his people most. He finds himself a leader in the fight against the potlatch ban (along side William Roberts and Moses Alfred). Charles was a skillful advocate and traditionalist for the cultural integrity of his people, all the while maintaining European allies whose mandate was to eliminate the practices considered backward at the time. I encourage those interested in the personal accounts of the Kwakwaka’wakw to find (it is out of print) and read this book.

Statement against the Cultural Appropriation of the Kwakwaka'wakw

2007-07-09T13:38:00.000-07:00

A solid friend with several familial links has written the following statement to which I have received permission to post on this blog. Cultural appropriators beware!

____________________________________________________

Gilakas’la Nał’namwiyut / Welcome Friends

I have been asked to write a statement on behalf of my fellow artists and Kwakwaka’wakw “Kwakwala Speaking People” relations. Our nation would like to share our feelings about people who imitate our traditional art forms and label their work as coming from our respected tribes.

Kwakwaka’wakw artwork, which includes carving, painting, designing, weaving, singing, dancing and story telling, are traditions that have been passed on amongst our nations from generation to generation from the beginning of our existence. The teaching of these “talents” or “skills” or as we call them “gifts”, are through mentorship and only select people are chosen to apprentice. Young people, who are recognized as carrying “natural talent” or gifts, are often selected or taken to a master in the specific art form and groomed to fulfill that role. Only chosen students, especially in earlier times, are allowed to learn these skills that we as Kwakwaka’wakw consider sacred.

As with many of our sacred teachings, artwork was done in secrecy. Only members chosen to learn these skills were allowed to witness their teachers at work. To the Kwakwaka’wakw, especially the artwork of creating masks, regalia and designs for ceremonial use are sacred and only brought out during the appropriate ceremonies.

We as Kwakwaka’wakw honour our neighbouring villages and tribes and do not duplicate or create artwork that does not belong to us or have not received proper permission from the rightful owners to do so. All Kwakwaka’wakw artwork represent crests and designs that belong to specific families who have inherited the right to create and wear these ancient symbols.

Our beginnings predate the Great Flood when we first transformed from our supernatural forms to our human state as we are today. We are taught that before the deluge, it was the mythical Raven named “Umeł”, that was the first supernatural creature to give us our first ceremony; and taught us how to make the regalia that is necessary for us to carry out this scared dance. We are still carrying on this tradition and our neighbouring tribes do not imitate or copy the rights and artwork that accompanies the dance. This is out of utmost respect for traditions that are scared to us, and were given exclusively to our forebears by the Creator.

Our ancestors were blessed with a beautiful art form that was bestowed upon us by the Creator. We find it necessary to inform people that there are other people not from our nations that imitate and duplicate our artwork especially for the commercial market. We want to encourage these people to search into their own traditions, as we would not disrespect them by copying their artwork and cultures. All people on this earth were given teachings and traditions that make us all individual and unique. When we are able to fully understand our roots and our own history, we are able to find “oness” within our spirits and souls; it is only then that we will be able to find balance and live in harmony with all things in this great universe.

We are respectfully informing people that there are traditional Kwakwaka’wakw artists that have been groomed and have the inherent right to carry on the legacy of creating authentic Kwakwaka’wakw artwork. We must protect these gifts and gifted people that we now call “artists”. Our art was given to our ancestors for us to express ourselves and identify who we are as Kwakwaka’wakw. Only we can truly continue this tradition, as we are the Kwakwaka’wakw.

He’am / That is all.

Chief Waxawidi - ‘Namgis Artist, Singer, Composer and Story Teller.

The U’mista Cultural Centre encourages all Collectors and Gallery Owners to refer to the following list of artists as those we verify as authentic Kwakwaka’wakw artists.

U’mista – the return of something valuable to the rightful owner.

Summer Internship Project

2007-06-12T18:42:00.000-07:00

Community Internship:

I have decided that to start assisting the Victoria Kwagiulth Urban Society (VKUS) during my academic studies will be a challenging, but rewarding experience. My original intention was to work on a semi-annual newsletter to improve communications between members. Upon closer examination, this project would not only surpass the internships hour maximum, but the continual demands of this project would amount to more than a full time student should realistically devote to extra-curricular community volunteering. I will defer this important project to the future when I can properly devote my time to it. In place of this project I have proposed two shorter term projects that will fall nicely between breaks in my academic schedule: the graduation honouring dinner in June and an August decolonizing project – the latter of which I will explain in further detail.

Decolonization project:

The annual trip home will tour several Kwakwaka’wakw territories each year for 8-12 days. This will be at the completion of the week long Kwak’wala seminar language class held in Victoria in August. The focus of this trip will be to reinvigorate both language usage and cultural meanings behind these studies and separate this knowledge from Western philosophies to gain respect for the value of Kwakwaka’wakw traditional knowledge. Also, the trip would serve to connect people with their traditional territories and the land that nourishes our cultural knowledge. Each destination will be organized well in advance and transportation will be arranged. Participants would bring camping gear and appropriate dress, but it is my hope that the costs of the trip will be covered by donations, fundraising and band sponsorships. Applications would include reasons why they should be part of this annual event and geared toward how the applicant can assist their home communities in the future.

The internship would be spent planning and setting up a structure to allow the following year to flow as seamlessly as possible. The first year would be a pilot travelled by myself and/or one other person while setting up contacts and soliciting the idea to bands and contacts. Itineraries for three trips will be planned to allow for cancellations and other unforeseen circumstances. The participants will contribute something to each community they are welcomed into by requesting to help through traditional protocols. Elders will be invited to provide teachings to participants about their traditional territories and storytellers will share creation stories. A handbook of each territories history will be provided by Band website introductions and provided documentation that will be requested. The instruction will be traditionally passed on but will provide for the history of each place visited, the protocols in place that should be respected and traditional foods eaten, prepared and if possible harvested. A major component will be to build upon the Kwak’wala learned in the week long language course. There will be a recreational activity daily that will utilize local events, fields, community recreation centres or trails to hike, etc. Participants will be encouraged to keep a journal of daily events as well as provide a reflection paper at the end of the tour that will serve to measure the success of the program.

Later tours will include themes that are currently plaguing the communities. A march will be organized through communities in the name of a chronic disease or other health and social problems. Hopefully this will turn into a youth movement that will have great force within the communities and serve to act as a powerful lesson about what our young people can accomplish.

I understand there may be similar initiatives out there and I do not want to duplicate anyone's hard work. If you are interesting in helping to move this project forward or know of anybody that might be interesting in contributing, please contact me: josephisaac01@hotmail.com

BC Treaty Process - present

2007-06-08T22:38:00.000-07:00

I have spent many hours studying legal texts, academic papers and opinion pieces on the BC Treaty Process. Throughout this research my ideas have evolved considerably. I have come to the conclusion that unless the structure itself is altered significantly, there can be no just negotiations between the Governments of Canada and First Nations. The only agreements that can come out of the current process will be skewed unjustifiably in favour of Canadian business interests aimed at further degrading the Earth, our mother. And for our people, a temporary cash flow and a mere fraction (less than 7%) of our land that cannot even guarantee us one generation of 'prosperity,' the very reason we are negotiation in the first place. Let me explain.

Although extinguishment is no longer official policy of the Crown in treaty-making, the BC Treaty Commission (BCTC) explains its new policy as “a modification model. Under this model, aboriginal rights are not extinguished but are modified into those rights that are defined in the treaty.”^{^[i]} It is difficult to see modification as anything else but a surrender of rights (extinguishment) in the name of economic ‘certainty.’ This is important to know because the extinguishment of our rights means that our traditional ways of being in this world are limited and sometimes rejected outright. This directly counters the recognized human right of self-determination. Rights practiced by our people since time immemorial.

The BCTC states “the Government of Canada recognizes that aboriginal people have an inherent, constitutionally-protected right to self government—a right to manage their own affairs.^{^[ii]}” Self government will be negotiated on its own unique terms. Self government is important, but current models are nothing more than delegated authority from the Crown. According to the BCTC, administration of the governments will include “education, language and culture, police services, health care and social services, housing, property rights, child welfare and other provisions agreed to by the three parties.”^{^[iii]} The problem is that legally, justifiable infringements are currently allowed on First Nations’ treaty rights and title and there is little guarantee the current levels of exploitation will abate even with a constitutionally protected agreement. This one-sided power equation reads to First Nations: join the BCTC process and get a piece of the economic development while it lasts.

First Nation self government has legal support among experts and through political acknowledgment. Many First Nations believe that their laws supersede federal/provincial laws because they existed before the imposition of Canadian laws. The Nisga’a’s modern day treaty is an example of the First Nation right to self government, although this agreement is widely seen as nothing more than a municipal, delegated authority. A number of legal experts believe that S.35(1) includes a right to self-government.^{^[iv]} In 1985, Quebec National Assembly passed a resolution for self-government within Quebec and as of 1991 Ontario recognized the inherent right to self-government.^{^[v]} Even the Charlottetown Accord had agreement from all parties for First Nation self-government. The real question should be not what level of autonomy the Crown is willing to release, but how to restructure the negotiation process to produce more equitable and just treaties, leaving governance up to the nation in question.

Unless things are fundamentally altered, the BC treaty process will not achieve its primary goal of certainty for the BC economy. As Richard Day points out, “policy statements from the federal government are clear: self-government will be exercised within the existing Canadian Constitution.”^{^[vi]} This overriding authority of the Constitution means that treaties will be subject to the same mediocre protections of their lands and rights as older treaties. The difference is that First Nations in BC are drowning themselves in millions of dollars in debt only later to be susceptible to infringements on those very negotiated agreements. This creates certainty for BC business in exchange for the continued uncertainty in First Nations communities. The controversial policy of excluding the province’s history in treaty negotiations is answered by “the Province’s resources are not usefully spent in a lengthy exploration of historical and archaeological evidence…The Province is not interested in recreating the past.”^{^[vii]} Yet the treaties are obligations on the Crown which are based on historical injustices. Taiaiake Alfred argues “there is no concept of redress, responsibility, reform or even true reconciliation in the BCTC process because there is no questioning of the assumptions about the justice of the past and the present.”^{^[viii]} Avoiding First Nations’ history also means the Crown does not have to divulge how it initially obtained title to claimed lands and therefore, conveniently bypassing the question of sovereignty altogether.

Although the BC treaty process is built on a colonial foundation made to perpetuate the status quo and domesticate Indigenous nations, a treaty is still the best instrument to negotiate coexistence between two peoples. Suggestions of improvements to the BCTP only serve to make a faulty system slightly more palatable, while falling short of addressing the very structures of domination built into the negotiation process itself. I believe that only after a cultural renewal based in Indigenous spirituality can nations legitimately negotiate the lands of their ancestors for future generations. But Ill save that for later.

[i] Can be found at: http://www.bctreaty.net/files_3/faqs.html.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Imai, Shin. Aboriginal Law handbook, page 315.

[v] Ibid., 315-16.

[vi] Day, Richard. The BC land question, liberal multiculturalism, and the spectre of Aboriginal nationhood, page 13.

[vii] Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, 1995.

[viii] Alfred, Taiaiake. Deconstructing the British Columbia Treaty Process, page 4.

Uqalurait - An oral history of Nunavut

2007-06-08T22:05:00.000-07:00

I found the reading to be extremely interesting. This is the first time I have read about the Inuit as an oral accounting. As this is how it should be, I felt honoured to learn some history. I found the culture difference between the Inuit and the “Indians” they encountered to be especially important. I feel it further supports our rights as the First Nations of Turtle Island. The customs for the far north are different from the Kwakwaka'wakw and of course they would be. The dramatic differences in geography and spiritual beliefs warrants such variance. I found the spouse swapping of particular interest, simply because it was an aspect so far from current accepted Westernized culture that I actually re-read the section because I was so surprised.

We have always acted in our own interests, had protocols and made love and war with the tribes around us. The romanticized Indian story is getting tired. We are nations coming together through much suffering, yet so far from the pan-Indigenous 'Aboriginalism' that government policies thrust upon us. Much like Western nations who came to the aid of Europe during the World Wars, we too are banding together for survival against tyrannical rule that seeks to destroy our way of life.

Source: Uqalurait - An oral history of Nunavut. Compiled and edited by John Bennet and Susan Rowley. McGill-Queen's University Press.

BC Treaty Process - past

2007-06-08T22:00:00.001-07:00

Reflection: BC Treaty Process

I wanted to reflect upon a question regarding the BC treaty negotiations.

"The new tone of the BC Government regarding treaty obligations is a good chance for renewal, but should the Indigenous nations be bargaining for the scraps left after decades upon decades of exploitation of our lands for colonial interests? If not, what can be done or should be done that will satisfy a divided Indigenous populace?"

I thought that with so much of our lands gone and the unequal negotiations that is Canada’s treaty making process, why do First Nations bother making treaties at all? Especially considering there are a number of cases in which the treaties the Canadian government signed, but did not honour. I know it brings finality and secures at least a small percentage of traditional lands, but that to me is an acceptance of colonial conquest. I am not on the opposite side of the argument either. I do not think that First Nations should get all of the lands back. It is unfeasible and I believe naïve of current realities. Canadians are here to stay, but they are visitors. I believe self-government should be the norm among our Nations. Our people have the right to self-determination, to control our own destinies. I guess the rate of progression with treaties these days is at such an agonizingly slow process and it is based upon unequal power relations. Having First Nations bear such a large portion of legal costs and fees within the negotiation process also unfairly puts pressure on the First Nation to settle under high debt loads, or to shortchange themselves within the treaty framework.

I know that it is different in each region depending on resources, settlement and various other reasons. For the Namgis First Nation we are currently in the fourth stage – Negotiation of the Agreement in Principal. We are having consultations and informational meetings within our Nation to finalize the details of the treaty. I find myself torn between supporting a treaty and following an alternative route. We have already spent a lot of money on the process up to this point, so pulling out would seemingly be a waste of time and money. I guess the common response is we have little to lose and the possibility of gaining something. I am extremely interested in the possibilities of self-governance. The possibilities to live under our own governance system, based on traditions and past ways of governing on our lands. Since we are one tribal group among the Kwakwaka'wakw Nation, the system of governance would only be reflective of a part of our grouping, but it is a start. I hope for a resemblance of how things were governed in the past, to be implemented with a modern day sense. Our tribal group is based on a historical hierarchy, which although can be accepted traditionally, would be a hard sell to modern day citizens among important issues. It has been about five years since the Nisga’a signed their treaty and many are judging it to be a failure. Government negotiation officials have been quoted to say that Nisga’a is as good as it will get for the First Nations of BC. From what I have read, even its citizens are divided as to the success of the agreement. Again, is this a sign of things to come, another way of appeasing the ‘Aboriginals’ of Canada with no intention of real negotiation?