Their Fight Is Our Fight

We should deal with the fact that the European invader stole the Native People's land and practiced genocide, not out of guilt, but out of solidarity. Their fight is our fight, if they win we win too. Why? To start off with, we of the immigrant population, whether European, Asian or African, have also had similar things done to us in the past, by the very same people, the European ruling classes and their contemporary manifestations in the New World. We, the descendants of the European peasantry, were the group that the rulers practiced on before they set out to conquer, enslave and murder in the rest of the world. If the FN get justice, why not the rest of us? What we need is a Biblical Jubilee, all the wealth that has been stolen over the centuries should be divided up and given back to its rightful owners, the Aboriginal people, the descendants of slaves, indentured servants and pillaged peasants.

A great project and wise use

A great project and wise use of the fellowship. keep going

reconciliation versus conciliation

By way of introduction I have spent 25 years working within the Council of the Haida Nation governmental structures in various delegated roles.

Reconciliation essentially speaks to a set of actions designed to repair that which was once joined but subsequently estranged. As such "reconciliation" hides the critical fact that Indigenous and Canadian constitutional and sub hierarchical structures were never joined.

The current moment of Treaty making in BC is not a re engaging or re uniting or re affirming....not returning, recovering or re doing anything of comparative substance. This is something new.

This new thing has been avoided so vigorously that we can still statistically measure the destructive costs.

Arguably for the first time in the vast majority of lands claimed as British Columbia, the government of the Province has committed to engage in a formal process that may create legal bridges between these differences. Treaties.

We, both Indigenous and Settler populations are building a proper legal relationship between two fundamentally foreign constitutional realities.

Regardless how we may view the substance and positions in the dispute the fact that both parties appear prepared to work to settle the dispute is a significant moment.

Every opportunity to draw attention to the fact that we are committing to lose our virginity may mean that in future times we will have greater cause to celebrate. Better that than spending time regretting how we conducted ourselves the very first time.

"Reconciliation" does not properly describe that we are preparing to commit ourselves to a relationship that will endure as long as we both shall live.

"Conciliation" is a more honest description.

michael nicoll yahgulanaas

Some concerns for yahgulanaas

Michael,

I think your contribution to the debate here is interesting and insightful. Especially this:

You'll notice I've emphasized two words in your text and I guess that's the key to my query.

From virtually everything I've read on this subject the emphasis has not been on legal bridges but upon economic and business 'opportunities'. Many of these appear to have as much or more in them for the non-native participants than they do for First Nations people themselves. Is this a mistaken impression?

Secondly, I noticed that, in January of 2006, a good many of the most advanced treaty tables had already incurred expenses (for the bands involved) which were, cumulatively, running to an amount that represented between 40 and 60 percent of the eventually anticipated cash settlement that such treaty settlements might entail. This situation can only have gotten worse in the year just past.

Thirdly, I have also heard native spokespeople express the view that there is an aspect to many of the potential agreements that amounts to a mortgage on each band's future.

If some or all of these things are factual, doesn't that indicate that what you see as the basis for a new legal relationship between separate constitutional entities may also lead to an even more problematic long-term conclusion to these efforts.

Legal contracts can work both ways and, given the fact that many of these agreements (I'm thinking of the Tsawwassen one at the moment) also set up a process whereby certain of the traditional rights and priviledges natives have had (I won't insult you by saying enjoyed) will be extinguished by the agreement when it is approved, is it possible that this new relationship may be characterized by binding agreements with a lot of interested commercial, governmental and business entities and a huge burden of new debt for new native governments?

I doubt that it's an accident that one of the big drivers of treaty negotiation has been a push by business and commercial interest who have their eyes on the resources that are, for much of the province's lands, part of First Nations' patrimony.

It is something that bothers me quite a bit.

I sense some of the same sort of concern might be behind these words of yours:

I hope you'll see this comment and won't mind responding.

GWest

http://mny.ca/

michael nicoll yagulanass

wow

error

should be yahgulanaas

my apologies Michael

I admire your work very much!

yahgulanaas

Hi, nice work you have on your site, very cool. I lived up on your islands recently, what a unique awesome place. Now, about treaties, the Haida Nation wants it all, both Graham and Moresby islands as well as all the little ones, the whole Charlottes, is that not so? And what else?

climber

He wouldn`t take the bait huh?

The bait?

Bob, do you have any idea about what I am asking?

well..I can guess

You`re asking a Haida about wanting it all...?

The Charlottes?
Its Haida Gwaii climber
"And what else?"

A little in your face rude wouldn`t you say?

Its a no brainer to whom it has in past, does now and will in future belong to.
How can anyone even conceive that Haida Gwaii is not Haida land?
Maybe its about minding your own business.

Queen Charlotte Islands

In fact, it is officially known as the Q.C.I., in law and on maps, a.k.a. Haida Gwaii. Where do you live? I am sure thats claimed too, the Natives were moved out of the major centers to reserves, and its ok to claim bush and remote islands but not downtown Vancouver. The whole lower mainland was Native land, why don't the guilty whites posting here tear thier houses down, plant trees and move thier sorry asses out? Minding my own business?, I worked on the Q.C.I. along with many Haida, it is my business, I have right to be anywhere in Canada and to survive, its in the Constitution. Do you have a problem with that Bob?

Thank you Tyee for this

Thank you Tyee for this series; thank you yahgulanaas for your comments.
Climber...relax. It has never been the intention of aboriginal peoples to take settled lands back - ie., Vancouver, etc. As a people, they are not into the "tooth for a tooth" philosophy. That is why treaties reached in urban areas will have a high ratio of money to land, while those in rural areas will be the reverse.
I have no worries that aboriginal folks will shaft "us" in treaty negotiations; unfortunately, it will be the other way round.

Land is cheap in rural

Land is cheap in rural areas, expensive in cities, land is land, money is money. Money for land-same thing. Listen to what you are saying, sounds like a politician. And, the Haida do claim the entire Q.C.I., although they respect private land there (which is less than 1%). I am relaxed about the Haida, they are calm, decent people, they are not really going to screw people over there, its too small of a place, people there get along even with thier differences (for the most part).