Article in question:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/property-rights-the-nisgaa-pave-the-way/article1209809/
_________________________
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Taiaiake Alfred wrote:
If you misrepresent my words again I will take action against you.
Saying that I don’t offer alternatives to First Nations poverty and suffering is a lie - I have published many articles and two books containing a whole plan for resolving these problems. Just because you don’t understand or appreciate my solutions doesn’t give you the right to say they don’t exist.
Again, you have proven through your ignorant and unethical writings that you are a know nothing tool of the Conservative Party posturing as an expert. It’s surprising that the Globe and Mail would publish anything you’ve written on First Nations issues, given that you have no training (BA degrees don’t stand up a as qualification) or experience on these matters.
_______________________________________
From: Joseph Quesnel [joseph.quesnel@gmail.com]
Sent: July 8, 2009 2:32 PM
To: Taiaiake Alfred
Cc: jstackhouse@globeandmail.com; nhassan@globeandmail.com; joseph.quesnel@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Quesnel article in G&M today
Dear Prof. Alfred:
I thank you for your feedback to my piece in the Globe and Mail. However, I will stand by everything I mentioned in my piece, including my criticisms of yourself. That is what we do in a democratic society. You may threaten as you wish. I offered my opinion about what your opposition to capitalism would actually mean for First Nation communities who have absolutely no access to economic opportunities.
My point was to stress as an analytical point that arguing for First Nations to avoid the economic mainstream and opposing any commercial development of indigenous territories is a recipe for disaster. You have criticized First Nations who do this in all of your books, including Wasase, and you have jeered at Calvin Helin, an indigneous proponent of First Nation development of traditiona lands. So, I think the criticism is valid.
You may argue for returning to traditional indigenous economic activities, but this will not allow First Nations to develop the capital necessary to enjoy the advantages of modern life, which they insist they wish to have.
If that is your solution or a commitment to statism, I believe those are not good solutions. The literature on developing economies has revealed that command and control economics or returning to self-sufficiency are not good systems to model.
I believe it is not fair for you to argue for them to live without modern capitalism.
Most jobs in this society are created in the private sector. First Nations have a right to an equal shot at these jobs. They cannot all be tenured academics, with all due respect to yourself.
If you think this makes me a stooge of the Conservative Party, then so be it. I am simply articulating modern economic thought. I am a part of a non-partisan, independent think tank that precludes me from holding membership in any political party of advocating any political candidacy. If you actually look at our website, you will see ample criticism of the Harper government (www.fcpp.org<http://www.fcpp.org/>).
I find it odd that you seem focused on formal education as the only qualifying factor for studying and commenting on Aboriginal issues. I would think someone who so opposes the “system” would have a more negative impression of “higher” education.
I have a B.A. and a master of journalism from Carleton University.
In terms of my experience, much of my experience in First Nation issues was learned through studying political science at McGill University, where I specialized in constitutional issues where indigenous issues were prominent. Second, my experience stems from over two years as editor of a national Aboriginal publication and over two years as a policy analyst researching indigenous issues, where I visited First Nation communities, spoke with dozens of leaders, and researched the Indian Act, all constitutional provisions pertaining to First Nations, and studied on-the-ground band politics.
For our Aboriginal Governance Index, I have travelled to well over 20 First Nation communities, spoke with hundreds of grassroots indigenous people (many of whom support the things I say) and leaders, and studied their structure.
I possess a master of journalism degree, where I also attended Senate and House of Commons committee that pertain to Aboriginal issues.
Anyways, that is a full account of my experience. No, I do not have a master of indigenous governance, although I am interested in the subject obviously. However, it silly to think that you need one to intelligently and truthfully discuss Aboriginal issues.
I would like to discuss this with you further if you wish. I wish you a great day and honest peace and the hope of reconciliation over this issue.
________________________________________
From: Taiaiake Alfred
Sent: July 8, 2009 10:47 PM
To: Joseph Quesnel
Cc: jstackhouse@globeandmail.com; nhassan@globeandmail.com
Subject: RE: Quesnel article in G&M today
Sekon Mr. Quesnel,
Your response engaging with one of the alternative pathways offered in my work validates my original point. In the G&M article you stated that I did not offer alternatives to capitalist development. I have never stood for people giving a false slant to my message.
As well, you miscast my message as strictly focused on returning to land-based traditional economies. While I certainly see this path as ideal in economic, cultural and spiritual terms, you ignore the practical realizations and heavy emphasis on higher education as a means of developing capacity and for generating the means of asserting political freedom that forms the core message of my book, Peace, Power, Righteousness.
Your interest in Indigenous issues is admirable, and your limited education (in the full sense, not the academic, though McGill University is hardly a place offering a real education about First Nations) and the short experience you have give you some ability to relate to these issues, obviously. But you have failed the first test of someone who has genuine knowledge of Indigenous cultural ways: you are speaking with a falsely claimed authority to a large audience even before you have listened enough to understand the basic perspective of First Nations people. This undermines any credibility you may claim.
By the way, I am not a member of a political party and I don’t advocate political candidates either, just like you and your colleagues at the Frontier Institute. But do you doubt that because of this I don’t have an affinity with and work in league with socialists, anarchists and Mohawk Warriors? Of course not. So spare me the “non-partisan” BS please. I’ve been in politics since the mid 1980s, and I know a capitalist tool when I see one.
I thank you for your respectful if ill-informed and badly reasoned response.
I wish you skennen, peace, and not “reconciliation” but realization.
Taiaiake
July 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Quesnel does not represent natives. As a native, it is a joke to read this guy’s speculation. I feel so incredibly embarrassed reading the junk Quesnel put on the globe.
His attempt to intelligently respond by stating his expertise is laughable. His expertise is validated by talking to “grassroots indigenous people”? I don’t remember the last time I asked any “grassroot” indigenous person to talk to this spineless narrow mind on my behalf.
He speaks on behalf of 20 native communities and leaders who probably acted agreeable to what he said because they knew it would be the only way to shut him up.
I read this article in the globe before coming to this site and I caught his misrepresentation of Taiaike. And I also noticed that most of what he said was limited by an overall inability to comprehend reality beyond the money-now rationale that got us in this problem in the first place.
I believe one day we will all look back at this Quesnel guy’s ideas and share in laughter.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
You are right on with your comment, Steven. Niawen. The Money Mind is the new mainstream for today’s aboriginals. “Frontier” glorifiers can’t stand it that there are still some Natives holding out for the old, true Indigenous ways of being instead of jumping into the white man’s sinking ship.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Hello Taiaiake:
I hope you would post this response to Steven’s posting.
I never stated that I “speak on behalf” of these indigenous communities or their leaders. Nor, did I say I represent Natives.
At the Frontier, we are sought out by First Nation individuals and leaders who are interested in: 1) what we do on indigenous issues; and 2) support access to economic development through the increased reliance on the private sector. We are invited into homes on many reserves where people tell us their ideas. Often times, we wish we could stay longer in their homes, but have to go to finished our survey works. We maintain relationships with these people. There is an elder’s group on Blood Tribe that I maintain contact with.
Taiaiake, I don’t chastise those who hold onto the “old ways”, as you put them. I argue that if First Nations want the capital necessary to obtain the material comforts of modern living, they would need to take a step towards the market economy. I argue the same thing for developing countries. There is always ways to be both faithful to old economic activities and live in the modern economy.
I also ask Steven what is more likely: the return to low-capital, subsistence agriculture and traditional economic activities or the growth of capitalism? Where is the world going? Where is the growth coming from and where are people emigrating to? I think the laughter will not be over my ideas.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Haven’t you read the news lately? Capitalism isn’t growing. And that’s a debate that starts from a faulty premise morally, certainly from an Indigenous worldview.
Let’s take this a bit further… In my books, I name the people who share their thoughts and guidance with me. Who are the elders in the Blood Tribe that you say support your notion of development?
July 14th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Haven’t you read the news lately? Capitalism isn’t growing. And that’s a debate that starts from a faulty premise morally, certainly from an Indigenous worldview.
Let’s take this a bit further… In my books, I name the people who share their thoughts and guidance with me. Who are the elders in the Blood Tribe that you say support your notion of development?
July 14th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Quesnel,
I’m sure you’ll be back so I’ll respond to you for entertainment sake, and this is not to assume you know anything about this topic outside of money.
“…but this will not allow First Nations to develop the capital necessary to enjoy the advantages of modern life, which they insist they wish to have…”
That is sort of speaking on behalf of all natives. You’re obviously too busy thinking about money to keep track of your lies.
Listen man, I make fun of you because you’re completely missing the point about native traditions - that means I mock you because you are not to be taken seriously on this topic at all. You have no idea how easy it is for natives to see through people like you.
The truth is that you belong to a force that has been in full affect since colonization. That force is the final destruction of native traditions, particularly the one that says it is not right to be dependent on raping the earth. As a native, I can see the ugly face of Canadian history when I read your garbage.
Another native tradition you do not understand is the tradition of leadership. Leaders like Alfred speak on behalf of those who choose to restore their own traditions in all its forms. As a true leader should, Alfred speaks to the general public on my behalf using the position of power he is in.
As a native, I read Alfred’s book with a feeling like I’m listening to someone who understands. This is something you can never offer my friend. I’m sorry if it angers you to know you are inept in offering anything useful to natives.
I also want to make one thing clear. I was taught by the elders of my community a long time ago that it is dangerous to give information to people like you. So dont you ever try probing at me again. This is the last time I’ll waste time writing anything to you.
P.S. I don’t want to leave on a bad note so I’ll just end in saying that the moment you build credibility is the moment I’ll consider mocking you again.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Quesnel:
Hey man, I’m that guy who sent you that comment on Taiaiake’s site. I was just going to say that my response to you, although rude, was not intended to deter you from giving your opinion to my remark - I was actually interested in hearing how you’d respond to it. I was merely making an ass out of you in a public place because I read over some of what you wrote on Alfred’s site, especially your comment on Alfred’s review of Widdowson, but I was angrier about your suggestions on the globe (I’ll get back to that later). You said the words “you don’t do anything for natives.” I’m sorry to tell you this but he does. That’s why he is a well known author and respected by many natives. The only difference between Alfred and an isolated reserve native is that Alfred has learned to communicate his feeling in a language that she/he hasn’t learned yet. The similarities they have are that they are both discontent and they both seek justice in the ways they believe are affective. That’s why I say that Alfred, using his position of power, speaks on my behalf. He speaks about an emotional reality that few people know, understand, accept; and sadly, he speaks of a reality that many claim doesn’t exist. The attitude he portrays is real. He is not just some politically motivated guy who just wants to “cash in” on his history. At least I’m not, nor is my grandmother, uncle, brother, sister, father, mother, cousins, or friends, or any of the people you insult.
You’d be surprised to know how many natives are actually really angry still about their history. The reason is that those same historical problems seep into our contemporary world. In particular, a few historical trends are: (1) taking land by legal means including exploiting cultural weaknesses (recent examples are drug addiction, welfare dependence, and illiteracy), (2) attempting to destroy or denying the existence of certain inconvenient cultural traits, and (3) the insidious forced “integration” into a system of government that does not allow traditional ways of governing for natives. To understand the last point you need to understand that the native way of life is still very much alive (note that understanding does not include denying this fact). My reserve’s way of life would not quite fit into a “state” system - a point that Alfred makes very clear in a chapter of his book peace, power, and righteousness titled “sovereignty: an inappropriate concept” (note the practicality of the facts he presents that you say don’t exist in that chapter). So you can see that being denied of your existence as valid.
I promised I would not give valuable information to any capitalist obsessed scum because they tend to distort everything, but I’ll take a chance on you. The attitude that history is the cause of all natives’ problems is still alive in reserves - very much more then you would like to know. It is simple common sense to know that life has to be a product of one’s choosing and the same goes for governing. Even in a social contrast it is important that those under the rules set by that contract abide by them and do so by choice. The attitude that natives have only two choices, either choosing between remaining in poverty or assimilating, is not just, nor does is represent the intent of a social contract. The natives had and still have a way of life that is appropriate to them. To make the statement that native’s have two choices can be logically supported but it can also be proven wrong, and we can expect that this logic will continue to be proven wrong until the truth is exposed. That truth is that there is a third alternative, and it must be discovered and developed; this ought to be a priority before dealing with money issues. I know your knee jerk reaction to this would be to applying the money-now concept that makes you so famous and say “well discovering that third option would cost money.” Yes, you’re right, but so would inaction.
This is the only time I’ll write anything to or about you respectfully. You have to understand that I know for a fact that you are wrong in what you suggested in the globe. You can pull that “prove is empirically” bullshit on me but it won’t change anything. The fact remains that the “native problem” makes up a complex that is not easily deciphered; therefore, the solutions are not simple nor can they be recommended until the truth is properly exposed. That reason why reading your opinions makes me sick is because they are dangerous. You are a dangerous man, so I will treat you accordingly as you make the suggestions you are making. I know what will happen to my people if we tested your hypothesis on them. The same resistance that I, Alfred, and many others “insist” on giving will not stop. Once natives like us gain power, they will expose the truth. You can’t attack all the traditionalists out there – you’d be in over your head if you did that; in addition, that would contradict your very position of speaking in defense of natives. I am evidence that the will to repair tradition is still alive. What you need to do is realign your perspectives with the reality I just presented. Speak in defense of native traditions, stop attacking them, and then you will be affective – less importantly, you will be free of your guilt. Your opinions will be based out of the real world and you will be at peace, brother.
In peace and realization,
Steven
July 19th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Steve you’re good. And I see Taiaiake is up to his usual self. Heart of a warrior. Sometimes even I underestimate this heart because so many indigenous people have bought into the western social contract system. I just got through reading the “Native Newsletter” what joke it is to read about some phony leader stating what a modern warrior is. “Warriors are people who make an honest living and provide for their family. Economic Development is our new battleground.” This quote is tied into the social contract and Steven already made it clear on what the social contract means for indigenous people. But if Quesnel who seems to be our Canadian Do-gooder needs a reminder, the social contract does not suit indigenous people because it is simply asking us to give up our identity so we can succeed in this failing capitalist society.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Ha! I read Roger Smith’s posting that provided the quote: “Warriors are people who make an honest living and provide for their family. Economic Development is our new battleground.”
I can only guess that those words were uttered by Clarence Louie. I’m sure the venerable Chief Louie could find a moment to pull his face out of Chuck Strahl’s cheeks to say something like that.
As for Quesnel, well he can keep knocking on doors trying to sell the capitalist snake oil of magical wealth creation through exploitation; this indian ain’t buying.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I thought about mentioning Clarence’s name, but I forgot it because I am not familiar with him. Now that I read about Clarence I will keep an eye on the work he does. Anyway, alot of our leaders are eager to sign away our rights so they can benefit from the profits and leave the rest of the community poor, uneducated, and unhealthy etc. Not too mention the struggle to self identify who they are as indigenous people. I hope one day Clarence realizes the decision he makes on behalf of his people will catch up to him.
As for Quensnel, he’s a typical white man making a leaving off of our struggles and he comes into our communities with a smile on his face but with intention to wipe us out.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Roger Smith:
Thanks for your feedback on my note to Quesnel. I put a lot of time into it and I was really genuine about trying to make him see the reality of what he represents to a number of natives like you and I. I think the point he misses is that you can’t just make some financial plan and apply it to every reserve native in this country. In Quesnel’s article he says “the federal government must develop a more robust means to transfer land to first nations. Then a real revolution for all indigenous people can occur.” What about education? And what about the other many things that needs to be taken care of as well to ensure they sustain and build from that financial base and relate to the rest of society. You can’t say to do one thing (fix money issues) then a revolution will happen for all native people. And you certainly can’t say for “all” natives either. After making a statement like that, he says “scholars such as Gerald Taiaiake Alfred rail against development on indigenous lands and argue that capitalism is “colonialist” while they offer no alternative to first [nation’s] poverty.” Then he publishes a two page article and claimed a revolution would happen for “all” natives if they act on his opinion. He says he work’s for a think-tank. That goes to show that people who run those kinds of tanks are best suited by hiring people who can’t think - or at least people who can’t think with a conscious. At least he’s good at counting dollars without consideration of ethics. He’ll never be out of work in this country.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Man,I hate it when people wrongly assume that if you’re against capitalism, you’re for Command economics. It’s as if Syndicalism,Mutualism,Libertarian Marxism, Collectivism etc etc etc etc don’t exist. Quesnel shouldn’t make such stupid assumptions about people.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:08 am
To Justin Tucker: They call Command Economics as they do because they are still able to use it as a scare word. For the older generation the Red Scare, and the mistaken threat of the Soviet Union still loom in the background of their minds. So that when any person calls for a return to traditional ways, they have a way to word it so that their hold through conquest will not be loosened in the bit.
Thank You Professor Alfred for your unflinching stance on our rights and sovereignty.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:19 am
As someone working in media, being aware of what unbiased journalist is suppose to be… let me say that I see Quesnel has no problem making statements (which are his own opinion) in his articles as if they are facts rather than quoting some other person who, that has some sort of professional or political or social status with the public, to make those claims. Thus, most of the articles have the basis of Quesnel’s opinion. Doesn’t that make him more of a columnist than are reporter? In the old world of journalistic endeavours, Joseph wouldn’t have a job and at this point, I really wonder about the editors who approve and edit his submissions who allow these articles to be published as news without removing his own statements.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Sheko:li
I would like to add, much to the Chagrin of Mr. Quesnel, that what he presents in the Globe and Mail and elsewhere as ECONOMIC theory is not economics and it is actually social evolutionary theory.
I mean social evolutionary theory in the sense whereby it is “ássumed”, usually by white/privileged academics, that it is a natural progression for human civilizations to move from hunter/gatherer, to agriculturalist, to modern civilized capitalist society. And yes, it has already been pointed out, that this theory is taught in many first year university humanities courses.
I would really like to see the Globe and Mail be fair and balanced and present the other side(s)that Taiaiake and others represent. We are not radicals or romanticists caught up in the ideas of the noble savage in having a certain disapproval for capitalism to date. Rather, after being educated in our own culture and in universities, how could we give 100% support for an economic model that is based on cultural bigotry. How can we wholeheartedly support a model that has been ‘’subsidized” by cheap labour, stolen lands, and the pollution/pillaging of Mother Earth (who may no longer be able to carry us)?
As for the suggestion in Mr. Quesnel’s article that fee simple ownership is the big solution to our problems…I don’t think so. I am an Iroquois person who has lived in a few cities and even when we detach ourselves from the “reserves” poverty remains a common denominator.
In my own life I research and network with others and I question: what are the alternatives to this capitalistic model that has been presented as the be all and end all? Within the options I have looked at, the idea of advising my relatives and fellow nation members to put up their remaining reserve lands up as collateral for loans and financing to participate in it is not a choice because it is not an automatic ticket to unshackling one’s self from poverty. There are so many other factors and variables to success in a free market society.
Moreover, as I recall, even the most right wing spokesperson for all things conservative Mr. Tom Flanagan has proposed that if he had his own aboriginal policy way, one option was that the Indian reserves could become like a “homeland”. Contrary to what Quesnel has said, Flanagan said that while natives go out and get jobs, the reserves could be like a homeland. [Much like other mammals who return to their spawning grounds or birthplace I guess. Heh, heh.] I haven’t touched base with any writings of Mr. Flanagan any time recently but I do recall this from Second Thoughts; and maybe since then he has had second thoughts to SECOND THOUGHTS? The point being, that I don’t think it is politically shrewd for Mr. Quesnel to suggest putting up lands as collateral and then risk natives becoming completely dispossessed of all lands. I don’t think Mr. Flanagan was being compassionate in his wanting to allow us to continue to have a reserve base, rather he was avoiding a political minefield of total dispossession and the unrest that it would create. And of course a caucasian man would agree to keep some notion of a reserve because it is his ancestor’s social and legal construct for us. This is totally unsurprising.
Finally, “there are many misdeeds of western civilization” the renowned John Mohawk said in one of his last recorded interviews. According to Mohawk, these misdeeds were based in the thinking and assumptions that the original white conquerers had about humans and the natural environment. It started by dehumanizing our fellow human beings and the earth and notions of PROGRESS.
In not wanting to give up and exploit the land, we acknowledge our humanity and our connection to the land. It is very offensive for Mr. Quesnel to suggest that native people who resist are offering no hope and no solutions. Our beliefs and values, going back to the old ways as Quesnel puts it, are the hope because we see how flimsy capitalism is. And, what was once old becomes new again……
I repeat, there is no enlightened ECONOMICS being presented by Mr. Quesnel, just a form of cultural bigotry disguised as such. At least that is my own take on it.
I cannot believe that Quesnel would have pointed the finger at Taiaiake and try to put some kind of blame on him for “holding us back” as there is 1000 other fingers pointing to those who ran governments and the legal system that created this situation in the first place.
If you have not seen the interview with John Mohawk, I highly recommend it and it is very relevant to this discussion:
http://intercontinentalcry.org/a-conversation-with-john-mohawk
August 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Yotwaniyohste
I totally agree with what you say, especially about the presumptions behind social evolutionary theory. It is believed that man evolved to become state societies. Theories such as this serve to legitimize the very existence of the state regardless of its many inconsistencies and imbalances in justice. I personally seek to break the cycle of believing that natives were just stuck at a point in evolution. Instead I try to discover the truth: native people had a way of life that ought to be taken seriously for once. There is great value found in the institutions that were established over thousands of years in indigenous societies. I find it saddening to believe that our way of life is only accepted to the extent that it does not inconvenience this hegemonic state. If we look closely enough we can find that it is state societies that seek to extinguish alternative forms of governing – even the ones that have proven to be functional – to ensure its supposed legitimate existence. It is disappointing to see people like Quesnel who do not understand these values assert their unilateral opinions into native communities. He ought to (above all) understand and accept the alternative paths to peace that are presented in native traditions before expecting to have anything to offer native people; especially when many of those traditional values are still alive in the minds and spirits of those community members. Quesnel really needs help in basic communication (or thinking) skills and learn to be more respectful to people who see value in native traditions. Thanks for giving your opinion on here. It is a great encouragement for me to see other people express an interest in and understanding of traditional values.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Steven Martin:
My point was never to denigrate those who choose traditional economic activities. Moreover, my Globe and Mail piece is not about social evolutionary theory; it is about economic theory and overcoming the belief that engaging in modern capitalism somehow makes one not indigenous.
I quote the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, who when looking at the impoverished masses of South America, noticed that a key determinant of that poverty was the lack of enforceable property rights.
First Nations in Canada are faced with the same dilemma where land is owned by the Crown. They lack the tools to raise capital on their own because they do not have assets that they can use to leverage loans.
I think if this system works, it should not matter where the idea comes from. If it works for “White people,” it can work for indigenous peoples.
As for dispossession, the Nisga’a proposal that I evaluate in my column involves the voluntary transfer of half-acre lots to members of the Nisga’a Nation. This is hardly a scheme for dispossessing them out of their land.
My arguments are aimed at improving the prospects of First Nations so that they do not have to leave their homelands. As it is, First Nations must contend with very limited opportunities on reserve. Why? Because businesses are not permitted to live and grow. The only opportunities are band office or service jobs.
First Nations deserve better.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Quesnel:
I didn’t say your article was about social evolution theory. My exact words were, “it is disappointing to see people like Quesnel who do not understand [native traditional] values assert their unilateral opinions into native communities. He ought to (above all) understand and accept the alternative paths to peace that are presented in native traditions before expecting to have anything to offer native people.” What I meant by that was that you need to take traditionalist perspectives more seriously before prescribing a (capital based) universal solution to all native people, which would result in a revolution for all natives as you believe.
My statement regarding social evolution theory was in response to Yotwaniyohste’s comment. Although, in the past, you did defend Widdowson in saying “you do not honour Dr. Widdowson, so I do not extend to you what you deny her” (your response in regards to Taiaiake’s book review of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry in which you showed great disapproval of Taiaiake’s perspective and support for Widdowsons). That book is the most racist piece of trash I have ever attempted to read. I cannot even begin to describe how insulted I am about that book. I made it through 2 pages before I figured out they were total racists. There was a chapter in that book titled “Denying the Developmental Gap” which discusses the validity behind the claim that indigenous people were stuck in a stage of evolution – which, of course, means they have less to offer now. So when you stand up for trash like that then you should expect responses such as mine. You can’t avoid being accountable to your statements or the reactions they illicit.
As for your comment that, “overcoming the belief that engaging in modern capitalism somehow makes one not indigenous,” is engaging an argument that no one here has made, or at least not directly. Either way, you cannot deny that there is a fundamental inconsistency between capitalist values and indigenous traditions. I personally don’t believe they can coexist. Capitalism (even modern capitalism) is still rooted in entrusting power to individuals and is still premised on a hierarchy as it always has. This means that power is given to less people by virtue of “having capital to invest in the first place,” which makes them more bourgeois then traditional leaders. To say that the relationship between those (bourgeois) leaders and the rest of the community is still likely based on exploiter/exploited or ruler/ruled relations is an argument that is historically sustainable – given the history of capitalism. This kind of relationship is not consistent with traditional notions of leadership which requires a great deal of accountability and service of its leaders to the community. So how is advocating the insinuation of a capitalist system on reserves not denigrating native traditionalists who understand and address the fundamental inconsistencies of capitalism and native traditions?
When you address the problems of economic development in native communities, it is absolutely essential that you address other key factors involved in their lack of economic development; in large part because those problems can interfere with the establishment of capital based economies. I think that your suggestions are only appropriate after dealing with the other major issues that hinder economic growth on reserves: issues such as drug addiction, violence, deculturization and its affects, residential school traumas, unmet treaty obligations by the government, many years of this governments’ attempts at ethnocide, bureaucracies who use threats and disable communities who seek independence, the healthy mistrust of the Canadian government, and many other factors that make up the complex of these issues. It is not enough to assume that fixing money issues will eliminate these problems. There is evidence which indicates that communities who have more wealth are actually experiencing an increase in drug users. The reason is because they have more money for drugs. Another issue is that some communities, including my own, have many work opportunities which are not being filled. The reasons for that, unfortunately, are related to the aforementioned factors.
When you say, “I think if this system works, it should not matter where the idea comes from… If it works for ‘White people,’ it can work for indigenous peoples,” you are omitting important background information. White people, historically, forced a faulty system in this country; either way, this system belongs to their nation, not ours; in that sense it does matter. I do accept and appreciate your suggestion that we should not use race alone as a measure of what is good or bad – though, it is equally unwise to assume that native people will accept this foreign system regardless of clear evidence that it is doing a great deal of harm. However, I cannot agree with your logic in stating that if this system works then it shouldn’t matter where it came from. Native people who oppose this government and this system do so because of its origins in history, and that does matter when trying to understand why (historically and arguably today) native people don’t want to assimilate into the mainstream.
The resistance that native people display now has its origins in history. This Western Capitalist State system was forced onto native people. This system, obviously, stood in sharp contrast to native traditional ways of life. The white people at that time did not accept this difference, and did a great deal of harm to the native race because they did not. So you cannot blame the natives for resisting this government. And you especially can’t blame native people who have experienced reserve life to resist capitalist systems. I’ve experience firsthand how cruel these corporations are. Forcing people (even by telling them they have no other choice) into a system of exploitation will produce these kinds of residual problems as history has shown us. There are traces of these histories that seep into the present which are also the source of this resistance. This system, not just “white people,” is where the problem lies. I would regard white people only to the extent that they “tend” to be intolerant (especially those in power) toward native rights.
When you state that “first nations must contend with very limited opportunities on reserve…because businesses are not permitted to live and grow,” again is reducing the many factors involved which cause a lack in growth in any area. I believe that the road to peace is not solely based on more jobs; the road to peace will be discovered with the empowerment of first nations. Empowerment will be discovered with the revival of traditions. I personally believe that once native people become empowered through things such as education and the self-respect that comes with valuing their traditions, it is more likely that they will pursue self-government over assimilation. Once native people are empowered, they will have a choice between two paths: assimilation or revitalization of traditional forms of governing. I personally believe that once the possibility that alternatives are possible is understood by natives, they will begin progressing toward revitalization of traditional ways over assimilation. I am one of the few native people in my community who is graduating from university. Take a look at what I am here. This is what happens (and will happen) when native people who lived through the ills of reserve life gain knowledge, especially knowledge about politics. So stop attacking us. Don’t think that your attacks on Taiaiake are isolated only to him. Your attacks are on many others who agree that native traditions hold a valuable and great promise to those who pursue them.
Near the end of Taiaiake’s book, ‘Peace, power, and Righteousness,’ he made the comment that injecting education into communities is an alternative path. I do not believe there is an over-night solution to this problem. Many of these problems are complicated and can only be dealt with through creative solutions which originate through time and progression. Moreover, it is essential that those creative solutions occur within those communities and amongst those involved. Education makes alternatives to capitalism (and the many problems that follow it) possible. First comes education, and then comes solutions. It’s like the alphabet: you can’t go from “A” straight to “Z” without the preceding letters. “A” would be empowerment (in this case through education which would help deal with the social ills on reserves and help improve the relations between those reserves and outside forces) and “Z” would be a revolution - financial solutions would be somewhere in the middle but still doesn’t have to involve capitalism in the way you advocate it. If Taiaiake suggested education as an alternative then that means that he did in fact present a practical alternative to capitalism as you stated he did not. Get that chip off your shoulder and go down the path of understanding the realities of these issues. And stop attacking people who understand and respect traditional ways. Native people do deserve better. But that is not going to be accomplished through capitalism alone; there are in fact alternatives that will be discovered and developed. So get on the right train. On a final note, I wanted to ask, if you are writing another column in the G&M, please have enough guts to retract your lie about Taiaiake. Thanks
October 19th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Attention all you malcontents. Les miserables.
Dis is nobody. Just call meh Dr. Feelgoof.
Sewakwe:kon, you all listen up carefully to what Taiaiake related in his books. He knows what he’s blabbing about. He’s gonna be yur Frankenstein. Hahahahahaha.
His book [u]Wasase[/u] was super interesting. Me liked le parts of it dat I read.
It brought le Thunder out in meh. And provided meh with the phots I need to know how the game is played. Or smthng like dat.
Awwww S0.
Kneel down ya sinners to street wise religion, greed’s been crowned the new king.
Hollywood dream teams,
yesterday’s trash queens…
January 24th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Dear Mr. Quesnel,
As an indigenous person who is fortunate to reside in the Kingdom of Hawaii and whom is not Hawaiian – I think I have a lot to say on this topic. First, have you ever considered that there is a possible way of knowing, learning and viewing the world from beyond the Western construct? As they say in Native Hawaiian “auwe.” Meaning exasperation – you don’t ‘get it.’ It is the native perspective and the connection to the land that will save all those whom are wasteful, constantly consuming stuff, and place importance on acquiring “stuff” while trashing the aina (land). So there are those of us who know that the right way is preserving mother earth, connecting to people, recognizing the insidiousness of colonization and capitalization and the resultant hurt and harm. Never criticize the truth.
Lisa Uyehara, Esq. (Imagine that…an indigenous person who can actually attain a law degree and is in the process of attaining a Ph.D. ….no less from a WESTERN University! Must come as a bloody shock to you.)
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:06 pm
As Kanaka Maoli from Kaua’i,Hawaii and limited in my understandings of the situation endured by the first peoples Nisgaʻa I still feel compelled to share this. In the Hawaiian context, land was converted from the traditional ahupua’a system of holding land in common to an Americanized system of identifying land through private title in 1848 during the so called “Great Mahele”. I do not think it is questionable that this event did not eventually lead to the almost complete dispossession of Kanaka, physically and spiritually, from the land along with the resulting traumas that exist today. Not to mention the disconnect settlers (and now even many native Hawaiians) have to witnessing the absolute raping of the land and do not see it as such. The term “mahele” means: division.