Monday, January 30, 2006
God, in your grace, tranform the earth...
The theme of the 9th Assembly of the World Council of Churches is "God, in your grace, transform the world." As part of a 6 person panel speaking on the theme during a plenary session, I've been asked to speak on one topic: "God, in your grace, transform the earth."
Part of the process has involved writing a position paper which I've sent to the moderator of the plenary so that she can develop questions to ask me. It also goes to the translators so they can get a head start on accurately translating my live speech (which won't be written until I'm actually in Brazil at the assembly). I'm posting the position paper online, and if anyone has comments for my further reflection I'd appreciate them - it is truly a work in progress.
“Man is above, outside, and against nature. Man is part and product of nature. These two visions of man... represent the two contrasting philosophies of our time.”
-Mario Palmieri
This thought, articulated by Palmieri in the early 20th century, continues to hold true. Perhaps the scales have been unevenly weighted: for more than focusing on our being part and product of nature, humankind has focused on being above, outside, and against nature. We have objectified, violated, oppressed and negated the earth. Not only have we been perpetrators of destruction in the name of development and progress, but we have done it despite warning signs which foreshadow the disruption of the delicate ecological balance which supports life on earth.
I speak from the context of having grown up in North America. Not all cultures or societies share the Western worldview of economic development through domination of resources. Sadly, the world I see through 30 year old eyes is taking lessons from the economic superpowers and their reckless endangerment of the delicate balance of life in God's creation.
This assembly's focus on “Water” as an environmental concern, as an acknowledgment of the basic dignities necessary to human life, as a symbolic metaphor used to express our faith in the Christian tradition, leads us to the impossibility of further ignoring our relationship with the Earth. The call for the WCC programme emphasis on water states that reasons for the present water crisis include, “ increased and unsustainable agricultural and industrial use of water, deforestation and land degradation that seriously change the water cycle, over-consumption and waste, pollution and population growth.” Every one of these factors listed is the result of human behaviour affecting the earth. To pray to God for grace to transform the earth requires the ability to be accountable for our part as humankind in creating an earth that needs to be transformed.
Ecological theology has been influenced by feminist and liberation theologies. Feminist theologies would stat that in order to act with integrity and justice with regards to the earth, we must stop making the earth an objectified “other” and instead allow the earth to become a subject, just as we are subjects. This subject-to-subject interaction is the basis for a sound ethical treatment of the earth: one which will embody justice without the power imbalance of humankind always acting against or on-behalf-of the earth.
Renowned theologian Sallie McFague has this to say about Christian nature spirituality:
-Sallie McFague, Super, Natural Christian p. 12.
The ways in which we objectify the earth are infinite. The persistent worldview that humans are “above, outside, and against nature” has allowed us to take from God's creation at an unprecedented rate. We have created environmental catastrophes of which we even still cannot begin to comprehend the magnitude. This is becoming common knowledge. The awareness that something must change is juxtaposed against the belief (which has not significantly altered) that God has given humankind dominion over the earth. It is true that the book of Genesis states that people should have dominion over the earth. A quick look to the dictionary will define dominion as the exclusive right to have “control over”. But a second definition will state that dominion can be a self-governing entity within a larger whole. Perhaps this is the definition which we ought to move towards. The earth has powerful abilities to regenerate, to recreate, to resurrect. Recognizing these powers may allow us to enter into renewed relationship with the earth recognizing that God is, and has been, always answering our prayer. If the earth is constantly transforming, then perhaps we need to pay attention to how our prayers are already being answered.
I acknowledge that the word “dominion” as translated from the Hebrew does, in fact, mean to have rule over. The Wester world, however, has appropriated that term for the exclusive use of economic development, when it was written as a liberation theology by the biblical writers. The people of Israel were oppressed and did not have access to land on which to subsist. It is still, then, appropriate to use the traditional definition of “dominion” in the case of the disenfranchised and oppressed in the world as a liberation text. It is no longer acceptable, however, to use it as a coercive force of human power over creation. To do so any longer is to deny that the whole of God's creation has inherent worth and is deserving of our embodied Christian love. One North American preacher wrote:
taken from http://www.godalming.org.uk/13-2-05.html)
The inability to see how God's spirit moves in creation is not new to us as humans. Throughout history we have often prayed for salvation, prayed for God's intercession in our lives, yet remained blind to see God's grace and radical love incarnate in the world. John 3:31-36 tells the story of John's testimony to Jesus as the messiah. The people of Israel prayed and prayed and prayed for a messiah. People were following Jesus and the disciples in their ministry, yet there were still those who could not see Jesus' true nature. It wasn't only the Pharisees and those with authority. Jesus and John's own disciples are described as been consistently unable to fully comprehend Jesus as messiah. John 3:32 states that, “He has testified to what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his testimony.” Is this not what we are doing with our inability to see the earth as inherently worthy in God's creation?
Even our focus on nature as a means for spiritual connection to God can be, in a way, an objectification of the earth. For rather that using the earth for the extraction of resources, we are using it for the creation of personal pleasure – as if the earth exists solely for our use and sense of beauty. Even those who are responsible for decisions that create destruction in the environment have a sense of the aesthetic beauty in the world. It is not that each decision we make as individuals is catastrophic in itself, but rather the use of earth as pleasure which allows the denial of accountability for our use of the earth. If I was the CEO of a large manufacturing corporation, and my hobby was hiking in the mountains on the weekend, I can see how it would be difficult to admit that I was not loving the earth. For I would be just one person, and standing on a lush mountain top looking at the glory of God's creation below me, how could I not want to deny the fact that my actions at work were contributing to the destruction of what I held most dear?
Again, I turn to the Gospel of John (6:60-63a). “When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?' But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life;”.
What the Spirit is calling us to is a re-evaluation of our global economic paradigm and how it affects God's creation. Theologians are beginning to learn that being able to speak to economists in economic jargon is a way to make progress in this area. Rather than viewing this form of dialogue as submitting to the status quo, it can and perhaps should continue as a form of resistance. Resistance which is consistent with our Christian heritage. Post-colonialist theologian R.S. Sugirtharajah writes that,
- R.S. Sugirtharajah The Bible and the Third World p. 74.
The work of economists such as winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, Amartya Sen, encourages us as Christians to advocate on behalf of nature. If nature is not viewed as inherently worthy, then it becomes simply a utility for the use of humankind. Sen clarifies something implicit in the global economic model: economic evaluation based upon utilitarian principles excludes any non-utilitarian information. That means the exclusion of information such as the inherent worth of creation. It is sometimes easy to view the workings of global corporations as separate from the actions of individuals – indeed, that is why they were created. But the people in corporations who are making decisions which dictate our interactions with the earth are, in fact, people we know. Some of them are sitting in the pews of our congregations and worshiping with us. Our working theologies of how we take our faith out into the world need to be modernized to include a 21st century understanding which overrules the misappropriation of a utilitarian “dominion”-based theology. And those in our communities who are making good/healthy decisions about how to interact with the earth need to be held up as living examples of Christ's ministry.
Our faith is one based upon the rebellious love of those excluded by society. Jesus ate, served and taught those who would have been considered the margins of society – those who could not speak for themselves. The earth has, with regards to its inherent worth, become disenfranchised. Our faith, through prayer for the earth, calls us to accept the Spirit says through our environment: to refuse to be offended by the need to look at the world as an intricately woven ecological web; to walk with grace and humility in creation; to show an incarnate love for the earth as a renewed form of Christian praxis devoted to the One concerned with the whole of creation. May it be so. Amen.
Part of the process has involved writing a position paper which I've sent to the moderator of the plenary so that she can develop questions to ask me. It also goes to the translators so they can get a head start on accurately translating my live speech (which won't be written until I'm actually in Brazil at the assembly). I'm posting the position paper online, and if anyone has comments for my further reflection I'd appreciate them - it is truly a work in progress.
“Man is above, outside, and against nature. Man is part and product of nature. These two visions of man... represent the two contrasting philosophies of our time.”
-Mario Palmieri
This thought, articulated by Palmieri in the early 20th century, continues to hold true. Perhaps the scales have been unevenly weighted: for more than focusing on our being part and product of nature, humankind has focused on being above, outside, and against nature. We have objectified, violated, oppressed and negated the earth. Not only have we been perpetrators of destruction in the name of development and progress, but we have done it despite warning signs which foreshadow the disruption of the delicate ecological balance which supports life on earth.
I speak from the context of having grown up in North America. Not all cultures or societies share the Western worldview of economic development through domination of resources. Sadly, the world I see through 30 year old eyes is taking lessons from the economic superpowers and their reckless endangerment of the delicate balance of life in God's creation.
This assembly's focus on “Water” as an environmental concern, as an acknowledgment of the basic dignities necessary to human life, as a symbolic metaphor used to express our faith in the Christian tradition, leads us to the impossibility of further ignoring our relationship with the Earth. The call for the WCC programme emphasis on water states that reasons for the present water crisis include, “ increased and unsustainable agricultural and industrial use of water, deforestation and land degradation that seriously change the water cycle, over-consumption and waste, pollution and population growth.” Every one of these factors listed is the result of human behaviour affecting the earth. To pray to God for grace to transform the earth requires the ability to be accountable for our part as humankind in creating an earth that needs to be transformed.
Ecological theology has been influenced by feminist and liberation theologies. Feminist theologies would stat that in order to act with integrity and justice with regards to the earth, we must stop making the earth an objectified “other” and instead allow the earth to become a subject, just as we are subjects. This subject-to-subject interaction is the basis for a sound ethical treatment of the earth: one which will embody justice without the power imbalance of humankind always acting against or on-behalf-of the earth.
Renowned theologian Sallie McFague has this to say about Christian nature spirituality:
“To those who say, “But Jesus did not extend this love to nature,” we reply, “But neither did he extend it explicitly to slaves, women, or people of colour.” Christians in subsequent generations have done so, however, because “the oppressed” change over time. If God the redeemer is concerned for the well-being of all creation, then we have to extend the line we have drawn which puts us within the circle of divine concern and the rest of creation outside. And we must do this, first of all, for theological reasons. It is what Christian praxis demands. We do not do it because unless we care for nature, humans cannot survive or because Christianity had better get on the environmental bandwagon, but because commitment to the God of Jesus Christ demands it. A Christian nature spirituality is the logical next step away from a tribal God toward the universal God, away from a God concerned with “me and my kind,” toward the One concerned with the entire creation.”
-Sallie McFague, Super, Natural Christian p. 12.
The ways in which we objectify the earth are infinite. The persistent worldview that humans are “above, outside, and against nature” has allowed us to take from God's creation at an unprecedented rate. We have created environmental catastrophes of which we even still cannot begin to comprehend the magnitude. This is becoming common knowledge. The awareness that something must change is juxtaposed against the belief (which has not significantly altered) that God has given humankind dominion over the earth. It is true that the book of Genesis states that people should have dominion over the earth. A quick look to the dictionary will define dominion as the exclusive right to have “control over”. But a second definition will state that dominion can be a self-governing entity within a larger whole. Perhaps this is the definition which we ought to move towards. The earth has powerful abilities to regenerate, to recreate, to resurrect. Recognizing these powers may allow us to enter into renewed relationship with the earth recognizing that God is, and has been, always answering our prayer. If the earth is constantly transforming, then perhaps we need to pay attention to how our prayers are already being answered.
I acknowledge that the word “dominion” as translated from the Hebrew does, in fact, mean to have rule over. The Wester world, however, has appropriated that term for the exclusive use of economic development, when it was written as a liberation theology by the biblical writers. The people of Israel were oppressed and did not have access to land on which to subsist. It is still, then, appropriate to use the traditional definition of “dominion” in the case of the disenfranchised and oppressed in the world as a liberation text. It is no longer acceptable, however, to use it as a coercive force of human power over creation. To do so any longer is to deny that the whole of God's creation has inherent worth and is deserving of our embodied Christian love. One North American preacher wrote:
“The Genesis stories were written to exemplify the deep truths about how creative and purpose-filled God’s acts were, and are. That God’s willingness to consult and share power, and our human responses, sometimes lead to messy and less-than –desirable outcomes and to recognize that everything does not always turn out as God planned. Yet, through it all, God remains a faithful, covenant-making, covenant keeping God”
taken from http://www.godalming.org.uk/13-2-05.html)
The inability to see how God's spirit moves in creation is not new to us as humans. Throughout history we have often prayed for salvation, prayed for God's intercession in our lives, yet remained blind to see God's grace and radical love incarnate in the world. John 3:31-36 tells the story of John's testimony to Jesus as the messiah. The people of Israel prayed and prayed and prayed for a messiah. People were following Jesus and the disciples in their ministry, yet there were still those who could not see Jesus' true nature. It wasn't only the Pharisees and those with authority. Jesus and John's own disciples are described as been consistently unable to fully comprehend Jesus as messiah. John 3:32 states that, “He has testified to what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his testimony.” Is this not what we are doing with our inability to see the earth as inherently worthy in God's creation?
Even our focus on nature as a means for spiritual connection to God can be, in a way, an objectification of the earth. For rather that using the earth for the extraction of resources, we are using it for the creation of personal pleasure – as if the earth exists solely for our use and sense of beauty. Even those who are responsible for decisions that create destruction in the environment have a sense of the aesthetic beauty in the world. It is not that each decision we make as individuals is catastrophic in itself, but rather the use of earth as pleasure which allows the denial of accountability for our use of the earth. If I was the CEO of a large manufacturing corporation, and my hobby was hiking in the mountains on the weekend, I can see how it would be difficult to admit that I was not loving the earth. For I would be just one person, and standing on a lush mountain top looking at the glory of God's creation below me, how could I not want to deny the fact that my actions at work were contributing to the destruction of what I held most dear?
Again, I turn to the Gospel of John (6:60-63a). “When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?' But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life;”.
What the Spirit is calling us to is a re-evaluation of our global economic paradigm and how it affects God's creation. Theologians are beginning to learn that being able to speak to economists in economic jargon is a way to make progress in this area. Rather than viewing this form of dialogue as submitting to the status quo, it can and perhaps should continue as a form of resistance. Resistance which is consistent with our Christian heritage. Post-colonialist theologian R.S. Sugirtharajah writes that,
“Resistance... is a 'rediscovery and repatriation of what had been suppressed in the natives' past by the process of imperialism.' Seen within the colonial context, resistance meant not simply a repudiation or rejection of Western rule or Western discursive practices. Rather, it was a profitable use of paradigm provided by the colonizer, in that it was successfully turned against him.”
- R.S. Sugirtharajah The Bible and the Third World p. 74.
The work of economists such as winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, Amartya Sen, encourages us as Christians to advocate on behalf of nature. If nature is not viewed as inherently worthy, then it becomes simply a utility for the use of humankind. Sen clarifies something implicit in the global economic model: economic evaluation based upon utilitarian principles excludes any non-utilitarian information. That means the exclusion of information such as the inherent worth of creation. It is sometimes easy to view the workings of global corporations as separate from the actions of individuals – indeed, that is why they were created. But the people in corporations who are making decisions which dictate our interactions with the earth are, in fact, people we know. Some of them are sitting in the pews of our congregations and worshiping with us. Our working theologies of how we take our faith out into the world need to be modernized to include a 21st century understanding which overrules the misappropriation of a utilitarian “dominion”-based theology. And those in our communities who are making good/healthy decisions about how to interact with the earth need to be held up as living examples of Christ's ministry.
Our faith is one based upon the rebellious love of those excluded by society. Jesus ate, served and taught those who would have been considered the margins of society – those who could not speak for themselves. The earth has, with regards to its inherent worth, become disenfranchised. Our faith, through prayer for the earth, calls us to accept the Spirit says through our environment: to refuse to be offended by the need to look at the world as an intricately woven ecological web; to walk with grace and humility in creation; to show an incarnate love for the earth as a renewed form of Christian praxis devoted to the One concerned with the whole of creation. May it be so. Amen.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
For people who think there is less racism against First Nations than there used to be...
Not unlike my open letter to Dr. Jim Pankiw, this is from one of my strong Heiltsuk sisters who wanted to respond to racism she found unacceptable. WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE!
"Greetings, this is my rebuttal to a message from this person who is obviously uneducated when it comes to Native issues in Canada. I will respond to each paragraph he has written, my comments will be the ones that are in [bold], and his original comments are the ones in [italics]. First off, I will start out by saying that I can understand how this individual came to have such a view that he has expressed, because he comes from a little hick town called Vanderhoof, a place, which a lot like other towns like Prince George, has a history steeped with racism against Native people. Please beware that I use a fair bit of profanity in my rebuttal I’ll admit that my blood was absolutely boiling when I read this forward. Feel free to forward this on to other people.
Did you know that native americans in canada have a card that
allows them to buy things at a cheaper price. Its called a status card. It also lets them hunt
and fish as much as they want without a license. Its not even just left at that, they have
special educational programs at school as well. That fucking cards gives them tons of
advantage over white people andeveryone else.
Did you know that Native Americans in Canada had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the National registry of Status Indians? This idea was completely the idea of the Federal Government, who believed that it would be necessary in order to regulate Indian Rights, which has been part of Canadian federal law since before Confederation. You see, there is this certain piece of law called the Royal Proclamation, which made it law for all British Colonies to ensure that all Indigenous peoples of lands they colonized keep their rights to hunt and fish as they always have, and that the Crown (aka the Federal Government) would have to look in the best interests of it’s Indian peoples for all time. This law is applicable to many other countries as well. On top of this, the law also made it a requirement for British colonials to sign treaties that would surrender the land PRIOR to settling upon it. Which, in turn, means that millions of non-Aboriginal people live in the province of British Columbia as illegal aliens, as the great majority of Native nations throughout British Columbia never had a treaty signed that surrendered the land, that means that the land is still THEIRS. The way I see it, no non-Aboriginal person should have the right to bitch and complain about the Native right to hunt and fish, especially since they themselves at this point are ILLEGAL ALIENS. Letting Aboriginals do their MINIMAL amount of hunting and fishing is a small price to pay to live on land which to this day is not legally theirs to live upon. Oh also, we only get to buy things at a cheaper price on RESERVE and NO WHERE ELSE, and now many places on reserve charge a special tax for Native purchasers which go towards development of their own lands and programs.
How can a government promote equality, how can anyone promote equality
(seeing as how natives always complain about how they want to be
treat the same as "US FUCKIN WHITIES"), when they're giving or getting free shit for
being a certain race.As a white person I find it very difficult to treat some drunk
homeless fucking indian, the same as I'd treat a drunk homeless white
person. And,let me clarify, that is not because of the colour of their skin or any other
reason. It is because I know they'd had a huge advantage over that homeless white
person.
Natives, in general, have no wish nor desire to be treated the same as the “FUCKIN WHITIES” as you so bluntly put it. If that were the case, then Canadian Natives wouldn’t have rallied so heavily against Jean Cretien’s “White Paper” in the late 60’s, which would essentially made all Natives in Canada the same as the “FUCKIN WHITIES”. Generally, what Native peoples want is this: Control over the resources in their traditional territory, the chance to self-govern their own Nations, and aid in preserving the culture and language which the Canadian State had tried SO HARD TO ABOLISH. So don’t fucking talk to me about equality when Native’s over the past 200 years have gone through massive spurts of cultural genocide, and horrible acts of violence. Which brings me to my next subject: Residential Schools. It is obvious that you know nothing of Residential Schools, which were operational up until thirty years ago since the mid-1800’s. These schools were made specifically to completely break up the Native family structure, so that the schools could have all Native children from a young age, and they could assimilate them into “mainstream” Canadian Culture. Unfortunately, this failed miserably. Many Native people’s were treated like animals, and were raped, starved, and at times mutilated. Then, upon release from residential school, many Native people’s didn’t know how to act in the real world. Many didn’t know how to raise a family, and they didn’t know how to take care of themselves, which in turn had a multi-generational effect where this dysfunctional behaviour was passed down to the next generation. So next time you see a homeless Native person, try to understand the social circumstances that landed him there in the first place. Don’t agree with me? Well let’s do an experiment, let me rape you for ten years, starve you, lock you up in small, dark, cold places, beat the shit out of you for speaking English or talking with relatives or people of the opposite sex, and let’s see if you and any of your descendants end up on East Hastings Street, drunk and homeless.
Im not going to lie. I'd feel that the native person, was probably a
shitload scummier, and i can definately say that I'd feel alot less sorry for them. It is
conditional,it depends on what has happened to the person, but in general,
at first glance that would be how I feel. ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE FUCKING
PROGRAMS SPECIFICALLY TO HELP HOMELESS INDIANS (NO ONE ELSE JUST
INDIANS!!!!), AND GODAMMIT THEY SHOULD APPRECIATE IT, GET
THEY'RE FUCKING SHIT TOGETHER. If I was homeless I'd have a hell of alot harder
time getting help then some lazy native person.And, as a majority, they really do
not look good as race by the way theypresent themselves. Have you ever been to canada.
The majority of the bums are native. In BC that is. So how am I supposed to feel about
them when the majority of them are poor and homeless, even after they've
gotten all these benefits.
Refer to the previous paragraph, where I talked about residential schools and the sociological circumstances that land Native people on the streets in the First Place. You will see less non-Aboriginal people living on the streets only because for the most part they do not have these dysfunctions that were passed on to our family structure by the GOVERNMENT. The Government is required to set up these programs because it is their DUTY and OBLIGATION by LAW to look in the best interests of its Aboriginal population. Besides, seeing as the ratio of homeless Aboriginal people to Homeless non-Aboriginal people is so lop-sided towards Aboriginal people, doesn’t it make sense to make these programs to handle the specific situation? Just because there are homeless programs geared towards Aboriginal people, it does not means there are not programs for people who are not Aboriginal. There are literally TONS, and they offer all the same services that Aboriginal people receive, only difference is one is geared toward Aboriginal culture so that they can have something to relate to. So please do not spread these lies about homeless Aboriginal people having a so-called “HUGE” advantage.
SO, I think the government should quit. Let everyone be equal,
let there be no reason for racism and see how all the native americans fair
without there free fucking shit. We could be putting money into so much
better things.Now, I'm sure you're all thinking. BUT LOOK AT HOW POORLY THEY
WERE TREATED. WHITE PEOPLE STOLE THEIR LAND. Yes, that was terrible.
But thathappened over 200 years ago. And I'm not going to, nor should anyone else,
feel guilty for a crime they did not commit. I dont feel that I
should have to pay for something I did not do. But that is what our
government is teaching us, feel bad that your white, and that is just as bad
as a white person making some one else feel like shit for being, native, asian, black ect.
“BUT LOOK HOW BADLY THEY WERE TREATED”. Shit, look how badly they are still treated, by ignorant, ill-educated shit-heels such as yourself, who know nothing of Native issues and basically speak out of their asses because they feel that they are being gypped by the Government and are think that everything happened “200 years ago”. How about the Government stop dragging its heels on the ongoing treaty negotiations in BC, that would essentially abolish many of the government-run “programs” you are bitching and complaining about, as well as tax-exemption on reserve, it is after all something that must be done and should have been done before settlers came to British Columbia, by law.
And, all the native kids that I'vetalked to, who come from well off families
(and, let me clarify, these are people that would've made it whether they had
these advantages or not). Saythat they would be just fine if they didnt have a status card,
they dont really care who's land they live on, and they certainly do not
want to be on some fucking reserve eating ferns and hunting for their food.
They are perfectly happy being Canadian.These people, native people, who are
looking for these free benefits and causing shit because they want there land back,
dont have any ground.They're just looking for a free ticket. Its not because they
think they'd be better off if they had they're own land, its because they're
too fucking lazy to work like ever other fucking person in Canada.What the fuck
would they do if they got their land back anyways? They wouldnt set up teepees
and have pow wows they'd just open up acasino or bar and probably manage it
poorly. That's not expressing appreciation for your culture. Thats getting a handout
for doing fuck all.
Native kids that come from “well off” families, are usually the descendants of people who had a positive experience in Residential school (meaning their teachers were not sex-crazed violent psychopaths), or descendants of people who were strong enough to endure the hardships and stay strong and level-headed despite what they experienced throughout their lives, such as my late father. “WE DON’T HAVE ANY GROUNDS TO WANT OUR LAND BACK?” Read the Royal Proclamation. It is our right, and you, as an illegal alien, should probably understand that by now. “WHAT WOULD WE DO IF WE GOT OUR LAND BACK?”, perhaps a casino would be built, perhaps we’d have pow-wows, perhaps we will use it to try and bake the worlds largest pizza, in the end, that shouldn’t be any of your damn business. The economic gain from a casino has proven to be a huge help in a great deal of instances across north America. Profits have been used to buy more land, to set up social and educational programs, and create more employment opportunities. For a prime example, do a little internet research on the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in Washington State. OH, AND PLEASE TELL ME HOW HAVING A POW-WOW ISN’T EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR NATIVE CULTURE? Oh, and how is a Native owned and operated casino a HANDOUT? If it is built from money that is paid in the signing of a treaty, then I assure you that it was fully paid for, in blood, and tears.
Thats my opinion. If you want me to elborate even more. Ask.email
address:night_scream9@hotmail.com
I’d rather you not elaborate even more because it is apparent to me that you know absolutely fuck-all about what you were talking about in the first place. So I will end my rebuttal with my obligatory FUCK YOU, AND HAVE A NICE DAY.
Sincerely,
C’aaqayuush of the Mowachaht and Heiltsuk First Nations."
While not everyone spouts off the same ignorance as this person to whom Jean was responding, sometimes this overt racism is the easiest to respond to. Jean's response is essentially the same as what I wrote to Dr. Jim Pankiw, and it's what I would say to anyone who has a problem with "native homelessness" or "educational handouts" for First Nations peoples. Think it's easy to be a "well-adjusted" person who's half-Native? Then you don't know what it's like to grow up with comments like these uneducated ones which leave your heart open and bleeding, not to mention the more covert criticisms that stereotyped, try to put you in a box, and give you the subliminal message that it's "well-adjusted" if you can survive in the "white world" and that being Native is not quite o.k..
No one, NO ONE, unless you have lived this life, can understand why we are the way we are. Too militant for your comfort? Think Jean was out of line to suggest treating people the way natives have been treated? Then go and talk to the drunks in Port Hardy - talk to the man whose heart broke when he was 6 and he saw his older brother being raped by a teacher. Then whose spirit shattered when that same brother he looked up to raped him. Then whose spirit died when his brother forced him to eat a dead rat. This didn't happen to him 200 years ago. It happened to him in the 60's.
The last residential school closed in 1980. That means I could have started kindergarten in residential school. Terrible, I know.
Most of the time I wish wish wish that things were different - that there wasn't sooooo much healing to be done before Native people could have the same starting point in life. It breaks my heart when I'm reminded of the reality. When I'm reminded that no matter how hard I've worked, this history is so close behind me, and I haven't a clue how to try and help.
"Greetings, this is my rebuttal to a message from this person who is obviously uneducated when it comes to Native issues in Canada. I will respond to each paragraph he has written, my comments will be the ones that are in [bold], and his original comments are the ones in [italics]. First off, I will start out by saying that I can understand how this individual came to have such a view that he has expressed, because he comes from a little hick town called Vanderhoof, a place, which a lot like other towns like Prince George, has a history steeped with racism against Native people. Please beware that I use a fair bit of profanity in my rebuttal I’ll admit that my blood was absolutely boiling when I read this forward. Feel free to forward this on to other people.
Did you know that native americans in canada have a card that
allows them to buy things at a cheaper price. Its called a status card. It also lets them hunt
and fish as much as they want without a license. Its not even just left at that, they have
special educational programs at school as well. That fucking cards gives them tons of
advantage over white people andeveryone else.
Did you know that Native Americans in Canada had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the National registry of Status Indians? This idea was completely the idea of the Federal Government, who believed that it would be necessary in order to regulate Indian Rights, which has been part of Canadian federal law since before Confederation. You see, there is this certain piece of law called the Royal Proclamation, which made it law for all British Colonies to ensure that all Indigenous peoples of lands they colonized keep their rights to hunt and fish as they always have, and that the Crown (aka the Federal Government) would have to look in the best interests of it’s Indian peoples for all time. This law is applicable to many other countries as well. On top of this, the law also made it a requirement for British colonials to sign treaties that would surrender the land PRIOR to settling upon it. Which, in turn, means that millions of non-Aboriginal people live in the province of British Columbia as illegal aliens, as the great majority of Native nations throughout British Columbia never had a treaty signed that surrendered the land, that means that the land is still THEIRS. The way I see it, no non-Aboriginal person should have the right to bitch and complain about the Native right to hunt and fish, especially since they themselves at this point are ILLEGAL ALIENS. Letting Aboriginals do their MINIMAL amount of hunting and fishing is a small price to pay to live on land which to this day is not legally theirs to live upon. Oh also, we only get to buy things at a cheaper price on RESERVE and NO WHERE ELSE, and now many places on reserve charge a special tax for Native purchasers which go towards development of their own lands and programs.
How can a government promote equality, how can anyone promote equality
(seeing as how natives always complain about how they want to be
treat the same as "US FUCKIN WHITIES"), when they're giving or getting free shit for
being a certain race.As a white person I find it very difficult to treat some drunk
homeless fucking indian, the same as I'd treat a drunk homeless white
person. And,let me clarify, that is not because of the colour of their skin or any other
reason. It is because I know they'd had a huge advantage over that homeless white
person.
Natives, in general, have no wish nor desire to be treated the same as the “FUCKIN WHITIES” as you so bluntly put it. If that were the case, then Canadian Natives wouldn’t have rallied so heavily against Jean Cretien’s “White Paper” in the late 60’s, which would essentially made all Natives in Canada the same as the “FUCKIN WHITIES”. Generally, what Native peoples want is this: Control over the resources in their traditional territory, the chance to self-govern their own Nations, and aid in preserving the culture and language which the Canadian State had tried SO HARD TO ABOLISH. So don’t fucking talk to me about equality when Native’s over the past 200 years have gone through massive spurts of cultural genocide, and horrible acts of violence. Which brings me to my next subject: Residential Schools. It is obvious that you know nothing of Residential Schools, which were operational up until thirty years ago since the mid-1800’s. These schools were made specifically to completely break up the Native family structure, so that the schools could have all Native children from a young age, and they could assimilate them into “mainstream” Canadian Culture. Unfortunately, this failed miserably. Many Native people’s were treated like animals, and were raped, starved, and at times mutilated. Then, upon release from residential school, many Native people’s didn’t know how to act in the real world. Many didn’t know how to raise a family, and they didn’t know how to take care of themselves, which in turn had a multi-generational effect where this dysfunctional behaviour was passed down to the next generation. So next time you see a homeless Native person, try to understand the social circumstances that landed him there in the first place. Don’t agree with me? Well let’s do an experiment, let me rape you for ten years, starve you, lock you up in small, dark, cold places, beat the shit out of you for speaking English or talking with relatives or people of the opposite sex, and let’s see if you and any of your descendants end up on East Hastings Street, drunk and homeless.
Im not going to lie. I'd feel that the native person, was probably a
shitload scummier, and i can definately say that I'd feel alot less sorry for them. It is
conditional,it depends on what has happened to the person, but in general,
at first glance that would be how I feel. ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE FUCKING
PROGRAMS SPECIFICALLY TO HELP HOMELESS INDIANS (NO ONE ELSE JUST
INDIANS!!!!), AND GODAMMIT THEY SHOULD APPRECIATE IT, GET
THEY'RE FUCKING SHIT TOGETHER. If I was homeless I'd have a hell of alot harder
time getting help then some lazy native person.And, as a majority, they really do
not look good as race by the way theypresent themselves. Have you ever been to canada.
The majority of the bums are native. In BC that is. So how am I supposed to feel about
them when the majority of them are poor and homeless, even after they've
gotten all these benefits.
Refer to the previous paragraph, where I talked about residential schools and the sociological circumstances that land Native people on the streets in the First Place. You will see less non-Aboriginal people living on the streets only because for the most part they do not have these dysfunctions that were passed on to our family structure by the GOVERNMENT. The Government is required to set up these programs because it is their DUTY and OBLIGATION by LAW to look in the best interests of its Aboriginal population. Besides, seeing as the ratio of homeless Aboriginal people to Homeless non-Aboriginal people is so lop-sided towards Aboriginal people, doesn’t it make sense to make these programs to handle the specific situation? Just because there are homeless programs geared towards Aboriginal people, it does not means there are not programs for people who are not Aboriginal. There are literally TONS, and they offer all the same services that Aboriginal people receive, only difference is one is geared toward Aboriginal culture so that they can have something to relate to. So please do not spread these lies about homeless Aboriginal people having a so-called “HUGE” advantage.
SO, I think the government should quit. Let everyone be equal,
let there be no reason for racism and see how all the native americans fair
without there free fucking shit. We could be putting money into so much
better things.Now, I'm sure you're all thinking. BUT LOOK AT HOW POORLY THEY
WERE TREATED. WHITE PEOPLE STOLE THEIR LAND. Yes, that was terrible.
But thathappened over 200 years ago. And I'm not going to, nor should anyone else,
feel guilty for a crime they did not commit. I dont feel that I
should have to pay for something I did not do. But that is what our
government is teaching us, feel bad that your white, and that is just as bad
as a white person making some one else feel like shit for being, native, asian, black ect.
“BUT LOOK HOW BADLY THEY WERE TREATED”. Shit, look how badly they are still treated, by ignorant, ill-educated shit-heels such as yourself, who know nothing of Native issues and basically speak out of their asses because they feel that they are being gypped by the Government and are think that everything happened “200 years ago”. How about the Government stop dragging its heels on the ongoing treaty negotiations in BC, that would essentially abolish many of the government-run “programs” you are bitching and complaining about, as well as tax-exemption on reserve, it is after all something that must be done and should have been done before settlers came to British Columbia, by law.
And, all the native kids that I'vetalked to, who come from well off families
(and, let me clarify, these are people that would've made it whether they had
these advantages or not). Saythat they would be just fine if they didnt have a status card,
they dont really care who's land they live on, and they certainly do not
want to be on some fucking reserve eating ferns and hunting for their food.
They are perfectly happy being Canadian.These people, native people, who are
looking for these free benefits and causing shit because they want there land back,
dont have any ground.They're just looking for a free ticket. Its not because they
think they'd be better off if they had they're own land, its because they're
too fucking lazy to work like ever other fucking person in Canada.What the fuck
would they do if they got their land back anyways? They wouldnt set up teepees
and have pow wows they'd just open up acasino or bar and probably manage it
poorly. That's not expressing appreciation for your culture. Thats getting a handout
for doing fuck all.
Native kids that come from “well off” families, are usually the descendants of people who had a positive experience in Residential school (meaning their teachers were not sex-crazed violent psychopaths), or descendants of people who were strong enough to endure the hardships and stay strong and level-headed despite what they experienced throughout their lives, such as my late father. “WE DON’T HAVE ANY GROUNDS TO WANT OUR LAND BACK?” Read the Royal Proclamation. It is our right, and you, as an illegal alien, should probably understand that by now. “WHAT WOULD WE DO IF WE GOT OUR LAND BACK?”, perhaps a casino would be built, perhaps we’d have pow-wows, perhaps we will use it to try and bake the worlds largest pizza, in the end, that shouldn’t be any of your damn business. The economic gain from a casino has proven to be a huge help in a great deal of instances across north America. Profits have been used to buy more land, to set up social and educational programs, and create more employment opportunities. For a prime example, do a little internet research on the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in Washington State. OH, AND PLEASE TELL ME HOW HAVING A POW-WOW ISN’T EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR NATIVE CULTURE? Oh, and how is a Native owned and operated casino a HANDOUT? If it is built from money that is paid in the signing of a treaty, then I assure you that it was fully paid for, in blood, and tears.
Thats my opinion. If you want me to elborate even more. Ask.email
address:night_scream9@hotmail.com
I’d rather you not elaborate even more because it is apparent to me that you know absolutely fuck-all about what you were talking about in the first place. So I will end my rebuttal with my obligatory FUCK YOU, AND HAVE A NICE DAY.
Sincerely,
C’aaqayuush of the Mowachaht and Heiltsuk First Nations."
While not everyone spouts off the same ignorance as this person to whom Jean was responding, sometimes this overt racism is the easiest to respond to. Jean's response is essentially the same as what I wrote to Dr. Jim Pankiw, and it's what I would say to anyone who has a problem with "native homelessness" or "educational handouts" for First Nations peoples. Think it's easy to be a "well-adjusted" person who's half-Native? Then you don't know what it's like to grow up with comments like these uneducated ones which leave your heart open and bleeding, not to mention the more covert criticisms that stereotyped, try to put you in a box, and give you the subliminal message that it's "well-adjusted" if you can survive in the "white world" and that being Native is not quite o.k..
No one, NO ONE, unless you have lived this life, can understand why we are the way we are. Too militant for your comfort? Think Jean was out of line to suggest treating people the way natives have been treated? Then go and talk to the drunks in Port Hardy - talk to the man whose heart broke when he was 6 and he saw his older brother being raped by a teacher. Then whose spirit shattered when that same brother he looked up to raped him. Then whose spirit died when his brother forced him to eat a dead rat. This didn't happen to him 200 years ago. It happened to him in the 60's.
The last residential school closed in 1980. That means I could have started kindergarten in residential school. Terrible, I know.
Most of the time I wish wish wish that things were different - that there wasn't sooooo much healing to be done before Native people could have the same starting point in life. It breaks my heart when I'm reminded of the reality. When I'm reminded that no matter how hard I've worked, this history is so close behind me, and I haven't a clue how to try and help.
Monday, January 23, 2006
The 911 Love Challenge
I've decided what I want for my birthday.
I want you all to take the 911 Love Challenge.
Click here to find out what it is.
PS... my birthday is 9-11.
I want you all to take the 911 Love Challenge.
Click here to find out what it is.
PS... my birthday is 9-11.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Be Where You're At...
This morning I'm preaching on the lectionary passages for the third Sunday after the Epiphany (if you're from Marengo Pastoral Charge, I may ask again this morning what epiphany is - so you have fair warning - granted it's only an hour, but it's still warning!). The lectionary readings are: Jonah 3:1-5 & 10, Psalm 62:5-12, 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, and Mark 1:14-20.
The basic message is to put God first, and to be present in the moment. After I finished writing my sermon, I had time to take Zen out for a long walk (the irony of her being named Zen when she is, in fact, NOT, was especially intense today since one of my sermon illustrations is Zen monks whose meditation focuses on being in the moment). I was thinking as I was walking with her....
"Where am I at this morning?" I am in a small farming village in rural Saskatchewan, just after sunrise, all of my preparation for today's service is finished, I've eaten my breakfast, and am outside enjoying my first "real" Canadian winter, walking my dog. What a glorious place to be! Here are some pictures of what it's like in my world this morning:
Friday, January 13, 2006
Macleans Magazine Election Forum 2006
Encouraged by the number of people who have forwarded my Open Letter to Jim Pankiw on to friends/family/politicians, I sent it off to the editor of Macleans Magazine.
I also discovered, while online, that Macleans has an online forum for public posts regarding the election. So.... of course I posted my letter! I had this great response tonight (first one so far):
Date
17:24:24 Fri. 13 Jan., 2006
From: DennisP
Subject: Thank you for this post
I've not understand the First Nations' position. Your post has helped me to improve my understanding. I think I'll read the Royal Commission Report next.The troubles and trials of native peoples have seemed far from my day to day experiences. But now I realize that Canada's treatment of any of its citizens affects me directly.
DennisP
For anyone interested in the online forum, you can check it out HERE.
I also discovered, while online, that Macleans has an online forum for public posts regarding the election. So.... of course I posted my letter! I had this great response tonight (first one so far):
Date
17:24:24 Fri. 13 Jan., 2006
From: DennisP
Subject: Thank you for this post
I've not understand the First Nations' position. Your post has helped me to improve my understanding. I think I'll read the Royal Commission Report next.The troubles and trials of native peoples have seemed far from my day to day experiences. But now I realize that Canada's treatment of any of its citizens affects me directly.
DennisP
For anyone interested in the online forum, you can check it out HERE.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
It's Clear Who the Racists Are
When I arrived back in Alsask this evening from Saskatoon, I went straight to my post office box, as usual. All I had were flyers, three of which were political advertisements for local candidates in the upcoming election. You can feel it already can't you - yes, I got activist again!
Most shocking was a pamphlet from local indepedent candidate Dr. Jim Pankiw. Apparently he was a member of the former Alliance party, elected as an MP for Saskatoon, and was asked to leave the party due to his views being too conservative. So, lucky us, he's moved to West Central Saskatchewan! *Grin*
His pamphlet is entitled, "It's Clear Who the Racists Are" and gracing the cover is a photo of a face to face standoff: "Militant Indian Confronts Canadian Soldier at Oka, 1990." It's actually pretty funny, since the position of the two in the photo actually makes it look as if a militant soldier is confronting an Indian, but that is just semantics. The real goods are inside.
I'm assuming it's public property to state verbatim what was in the pamphlet since there was one in every P.O. Box in this riding today. Anything italicized in this posting is quoted directly from this pamphlet. Anyways - in it he states that "Common sense, fairness and equality demand that special race-based privileges be scrapped. Doing so is in the best interest of our children and future generations. - Dr. Jim Pankiw" That gives you the general feel of the pamphlet. He also states that Canada needs: "[To] abolish the Indian Act; Equality of opportunity and merit-based hiring; restore the criminal justice system to ensure that all criminals are treated the same regardless of race; end special privileges and race-based government policies; eliminate special tax exempt status for Indians." He argues that the three mainstream political parties are wasted votes because they advocate: "Segregationist plicies of the Indian Act which isolate and divide society; race-based hiring quotas for Indians; Two-tier Criminal Code sentencing provisions that give lenient sentences to Indian criminals; Special hunting and fishing privileges for Indians; Indians exempted from paying taxes."
Now - none of this surprises me. I hear these arguments all the time. What was especially offensive were partial quotes of former First Nations leaders set next to their photos, under the banner "Racism". He includes the following:
Perry Bellegarde, Former FSIN Chief "...the NON-FIRST NATIONS people are indeed treaty beneficiaries in their continued use and enjoyment of the Treaty/Indian lands NOW CALLED Canada."
Chief Bill Wilson, Former Chairman of BC First Nations Congress "...homely diseased people on boats... because you were the lowest of the low. You came here because you couldn't make a living, and you had nowhere else to go. And did we do? Well, we welcomed you. Stupid mistake. Really silly mistake. We should have kicked your ass for a hundred years. And we really should have killed you all for a hundred years, and hopefully, selective breeding could have produced some decent people."
... as well as other quotes by Melvin Laboucan, Mathew Coon Come, and David Ahenakew. Granted, some of what he printed was inflammatory and racist. No doubt about it - but they were also a generation of door-bashing political activists who HAD to talk like that to get attention. They were the first generation of enfranchised First Nations people in Canada. And they were responding to "white" society the same way as they were treated.
Anyways- en route to the local news media as we speak is my open letter in response to Dr. Pankiw, which you will find below:
An Open Letter to Dr. Jim Pankiw
January 12, 2006
Dear Dr. Pankiw:
As a resident of the riding in which you are running for election as an independent MP, I received your most recent campaign flyer. I have to say that I was shocked to the point of feeling physically ill that you would so blatantly single out First Nations people in your campaign.
People who visit Saskatchewan praise the hospitality and openness of the people here, so your biased and ignorant propaganda is surprising to say the least. My greatest comfort is that soon there will be enough First Nations to make up the majority population in Saskatchewan after which we hope we can count on no more of this type of infection in our political discussion.
You speak of ending special privileges and race-based government policies. You speak of equality of opportunity- yet that is to singularly ignore the history of interaction between First Nations and the rest of Canadian society throughout the past 500 years. The fact that you refer to First Nations as “Indians” is testament to your ignorance in itself for we are not an “internally, homogeneous, unchanging society” (Crawford), but rather distinct societies of people each with their own history, language, culture, world view, and theology. To argue that there is an “Indian problem” persisting into the 21st Century is to perpetuate the intentional denial which argues that colonization and oppression are things of the past. There is no Indian problem. There is a broken relationship between Canada and its indigenous peoples. To quote former U of S student James Crawford:
In promoting the idea that First Nations in Canada are “privileged” by their legal uniqueness in Canada is ignorant. The Indian Act is no benefit to the aboriginal peoples of this country, but in fact the remnant of an archaic legally mandated plan to eradicate First Nations from Canadian society en masse. The intention of the authors of that Act was not to create special privileges for “Indians” but to create a micro-managed life which either forced them into oppressive conditions which would result in their extinction, or to conform completely and assimilate into mainstream (translation “white”) Canadian society in the late 19th Century. The “plan” of the Indian Act was that there would be NO “Indian problem” into the 20th Century since its success (ie: the eradication of Natives) was expected no later than 1920. If you do your historical research and spend some time in the national archives, you will find internal documentation to back up these facts from the early years of the Department of Indian Affairs.
As far as special tax exempt status is concerned, that is another leftover from the same piece of institutionalized racism. A close reading of the Indian Act will reveal that native peoples in Canada were “protected from” tax liability and were also not allowed to be sued in a civil law suit. The purpose of those clauses were to limit aboriginal peoples from borrowing capital to create any sound independent corporations. “Protection” was provided at the cost of submission to the other requirements of the Indian act – which was to choose to be disenfranchised (status Indians were not allowed the vote until the 1960's) and economically dependent on the government.
If you did your homework and checked out the facts you would not be printing misguiding information. Your campaign makes it seem as if all native people are non-taxable. This is far from the case. Since the 1983 Supreme Court case Nowegijick v. The Queen, tax rulings have become more and more conservative in their interpretation of the “protection from taxation” provided in the Indian Act. There are now no less than 5 connecting factors which only Native peoples with their status must meet in order to keep tax exempt status. Those who do not have status are never tax exempt. These connecting factors include: being considered legally “Indian” under the law (having Indian “status” as defined in the Indian Act) residing on reserve, working on reserve, having your paycheck issued on reserve, working for a business which is principally located on reserve and whose governing persons make all business-related decisions on reserve, keeping all income in a bank whose head office is situated on reserve, not earning any interest income off reserve, not owning any property off reserve, and picking up your pay on reserve. Since there is high unemployment on reserve, I can guarantee you then number of people who “benefit” from your supposed “special exemptions” is far far less than you would argue.
Special hunting and fishing privileges have been hard won in the courts, at great expense to tribal councils and individuals, by proving legally that the Indian Act never extinguished those rights in the first place. I refer you to the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples for historical background on this issue.
Abolishing the Indian Act would mean settling Land Claims. I'm sure that is not something that you wish to see happen anytime in the future. The truth is, Canada is one of the only remaining countries with such an atrocious piece of institutionalized racism. Most Canadians were supportive of economic sanctions against South Africa during the Apartheid period. What most Canadians don't know is that the white minority government of South Africa came to Canada to study the Indian Act as an effective tool of oppression against non-Caucasian peoples, and took its underlying principles and some specific clauses back to South Africa as the basis for Apartheid.
I am not denying that there are truly “racist” First Nations individuals and groups in Canada. Just as there are racist individuals from every other racial group in this country. However, it would be just as easy to create inflammatory propaganda containing statements that are racist in the opposite direction.
Rather than promoting ideas and attitudes which create division and hostility, I would see you focusing your platform on sound bases which included economic development for all Canadians, integrity in government, responsible spending, appropriate socialization of safety net services, and the opportunity for diverse peoples to coexist in a peaceful manner affording each other dignity and respect.
I'm not saying to throw a bunch of money at “the Indian Problem” and hope it goes away either. For true healing cannot come from government spending. It has to come from individuals and groups in our great country opening their minds and hearts to one another. It has to come from being willing to hear the stories of oppression and be accountable for our corporate sins as a country, without reacting in anger or shame. It means rebuilding trust with one another, and neighbours helping neighbours. I see you doing nothing to promote the kind of Canada in which I'd like to live. So, you asked me not to waste my vote, and I can guarantee I won't be wasting it on you.
Sincerely,
Carmen Lansdowne.
Alsask, SK
Most shocking was a pamphlet from local indepedent candidate Dr. Jim Pankiw. Apparently he was a member of the former Alliance party, elected as an MP for Saskatoon, and was asked to leave the party due to his views being too conservative. So, lucky us, he's moved to West Central Saskatchewan! *Grin*
His pamphlet is entitled, "It's Clear Who the Racists Are" and gracing the cover is a photo of a face to face standoff: "Militant Indian Confronts Canadian Soldier at Oka, 1990." It's actually pretty funny, since the position of the two in the photo actually makes it look as if a militant soldier is confronting an Indian, but that is just semantics. The real goods are inside.
I'm assuming it's public property to state verbatim what was in the pamphlet since there was one in every P.O. Box in this riding today. Anything italicized in this posting is quoted directly from this pamphlet. Anyways - in it he states that "Common sense, fairness and equality demand that special race-based privileges be scrapped. Doing so is in the best interest of our children and future generations. - Dr. Jim Pankiw" That gives you the general feel of the pamphlet. He also states that Canada needs: "[To] abolish the Indian Act; Equality of opportunity and merit-based hiring; restore the criminal justice system to ensure that all criminals are treated the same regardless of race; end special privileges and race-based government policies; eliminate special tax exempt status for Indians." He argues that the three mainstream political parties are wasted votes because they advocate: "Segregationist plicies of the Indian Act which isolate and divide society; race-based hiring quotas for Indians; Two-tier Criminal Code sentencing provisions that give lenient sentences to Indian criminals; Special hunting and fishing privileges for Indians; Indians exempted from paying taxes."
Now - none of this surprises me. I hear these arguments all the time. What was especially offensive were partial quotes of former First Nations leaders set next to their photos, under the banner "Racism". He includes the following:
Perry Bellegarde, Former FSIN Chief "...the NON-FIRST NATIONS people are indeed treaty beneficiaries in their continued use and enjoyment of the Treaty/Indian lands NOW CALLED Canada."
Chief Bill Wilson, Former Chairman of BC First Nations Congress "...homely diseased people on boats... because you were the lowest of the low. You came here because you couldn't make a living, and you had nowhere else to go. And did we do? Well, we welcomed you. Stupid mistake. Really silly mistake. We should have kicked your ass for a hundred years. And we really should have killed you all for a hundred years, and hopefully, selective breeding could have produced some decent people."
... as well as other quotes by Melvin Laboucan, Mathew Coon Come, and David Ahenakew. Granted, some of what he printed was inflammatory and racist. No doubt about it - but they were also a generation of door-bashing political activists who HAD to talk like that to get attention. They were the first generation of enfranchised First Nations people in Canada. And they were responding to "white" society the same way as they were treated.
Anyways- en route to the local news media as we speak is my open letter in response to Dr. Pankiw, which you will find below:
An Open Letter to Dr. Jim Pankiw
January 12, 2006
Dear Dr. Pankiw:
As a resident of the riding in which you are running for election as an independent MP, I received your most recent campaign flyer. I have to say that I was shocked to the point of feeling physically ill that you would so blatantly single out First Nations people in your campaign.
People who visit Saskatchewan praise the hospitality and openness of the people here, so your biased and ignorant propaganda is surprising to say the least. My greatest comfort is that soon there will be enough First Nations to make up the majority population in Saskatchewan after which we hope we can count on no more of this type of infection in our political discussion.
You speak of ending special privileges and race-based government policies. You speak of equality of opportunity- yet that is to singularly ignore the history of interaction between First Nations and the rest of Canadian society throughout the past 500 years. The fact that you refer to First Nations as “Indians” is testament to your ignorance in itself for we are not an “internally, homogeneous, unchanging society” (Crawford), but rather distinct societies of people each with their own history, language, culture, world view, and theology. To argue that there is an “Indian problem” persisting into the 21st Century is to perpetuate the intentional denial which argues that colonization and oppression are things of the past. There is no Indian problem. There is a broken relationship between Canada and its indigenous peoples. To quote former U of S student James Crawford:
An area of growing concern to me is the very common practice of blaming
Native peoples for their socioeconomic conditions. Blaming
“forgets” that racism has also been institutionalized in
government policies of assimilation, paternalism, and the
historical and continuing confiscation of Native lands and
resources. These policies have had a devastating impact on Native
peoples but the fallout has been explained away as stemming
from “cultural differences.” In turn “cultural differences” are
reduced to stereotypes such as “Indians can’t or won’t adjust” to
city life. In other words, Indian “culture”, rather than colonization
or racism, is blamed for whatever has happened to Native peoples.
(Taken from Media, Stereotypes and the Perpetuation of Racism in Canada, May 1998)
In promoting the idea that First Nations in Canada are “privileged” by their legal uniqueness in Canada is ignorant. The Indian Act is no benefit to the aboriginal peoples of this country, but in fact the remnant of an archaic legally mandated plan to eradicate First Nations from Canadian society en masse. The intention of the authors of that Act was not to create special privileges for “Indians” but to create a micro-managed life which either forced them into oppressive conditions which would result in their extinction, or to conform completely and assimilate into mainstream (translation “white”) Canadian society in the late 19th Century. The “plan” of the Indian Act was that there would be NO “Indian problem” into the 20th Century since its success (ie: the eradication of Natives) was expected no later than 1920. If you do your historical research and spend some time in the national archives, you will find internal documentation to back up these facts from the early years of the Department of Indian Affairs.
As far as special tax exempt status is concerned, that is another leftover from the same piece of institutionalized racism. A close reading of the Indian Act will reveal that native peoples in Canada were “protected from” tax liability and were also not allowed to be sued in a civil law suit. The purpose of those clauses were to limit aboriginal peoples from borrowing capital to create any sound independent corporations. “Protection” was provided at the cost of submission to the other requirements of the Indian act – which was to choose to be disenfranchised (status Indians were not allowed the vote until the 1960's) and economically dependent on the government.
If you did your homework and checked out the facts you would not be printing misguiding information. Your campaign makes it seem as if all native people are non-taxable. This is far from the case. Since the 1983 Supreme Court case Nowegijick v. The Queen, tax rulings have become more and more conservative in their interpretation of the “protection from taxation” provided in the Indian Act. There are now no less than 5 connecting factors which only Native peoples with their status must meet in order to keep tax exempt status. Those who do not have status are never tax exempt. These connecting factors include: being considered legally “Indian” under the law (having Indian “status” as defined in the Indian Act) residing on reserve, working on reserve, having your paycheck issued on reserve, working for a business which is principally located on reserve and whose governing persons make all business-related decisions on reserve, keeping all income in a bank whose head office is situated on reserve, not earning any interest income off reserve, not owning any property off reserve, and picking up your pay on reserve. Since there is high unemployment on reserve, I can guarantee you then number of people who “benefit” from your supposed “special exemptions” is far far less than you would argue.
Special hunting and fishing privileges have been hard won in the courts, at great expense to tribal councils and individuals, by proving legally that the Indian Act never extinguished those rights in the first place. I refer you to the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples for historical background on this issue.
Abolishing the Indian Act would mean settling Land Claims. I'm sure that is not something that you wish to see happen anytime in the future. The truth is, Canada is one of the only remaining countries with such an atrocious piece of institutionalized racism. Most Canadians were supportive of economic sanctions against South Africa during the Apartheid period. What most Canadians don't know is that the white minority government of South Africa came to Canada to study the Indian Act as an effective tool of oppression against non-Caucasian peoples, and took its underlying principles and some specific clauses back to South Africa as the basis for Apartheid.
I am not denying that there are truly “racist” First Nations individuals and groups in Canada. Just as there are racist individuals from every other racial group in this country. However, it would be just as easy to create inflammatory propaganda containing statements that are racist in the opposite direction.
Rather than promoting ideas and attitudes which create division and hostility, I would see you focusing your platform on sound bases which included economic development for all Canadians, integrity in government, responsible spending, appropriate socialization of safety net services, and the opportunity for diverse peoples to coexist in a peaceful manner affording each other dignity and respect.
I'm not saying to throw a bunch of money at “the Indian Problem” and hope it goes away either. For true healing cannot come from government spending. It has to come from individuals and groups in our great country opening their minds and hearts to one another. It has to come from being willing to hear the stories of oppression and be accountable for our corporate sins as a country, without reacting in anger or shame. It means rebuilding trust with one another, and neighbours helping neighbours. I see you doing nothing to promote the kind of Canada in which I'd like to live. So, you asked me not to waste my vote, and I can guarantee I won't be wasting it on you.
Sincerely,
Carmen Lansdowne.
Alsask, SK
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Blessed is the nation whose god is Jehovah.... (Psalm 33:12) OR.... "I acknowledge your position... this is my position....."
That scripture quote came to my attention this afternoon in the following letter which I received from a random couple in Regina:
"Dear Reverend,
My wife and I take this opportunity, at a critical moment in Canada's history, to encourage you to exert your influence to restore a strong and upright government for our country.
You have the responsibility for the soul welfare of others, and we entreat you as fellow-believers on our Lord Jesus Christ. We must reverse the rapid moral decline that is advancing like a cancer and overtaking our country, both in Parliament and the courts.
Our prayer is for GOD to intervene by establishing persons in Parliament who will honor and respect the opening words of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God..."
We must also ACT - 'the people that do know God shall be strong, and shall act.' (Daniel 11:32)
There are MP's and candidates who share your right convictions and fear God. We urge you to motivate your members to identify who they are and help them succeed in their campaign for office. Ask the youth to be active in supporting persons who will raise the banner to protect the moral standards for oncoming generations! The future of Canada is in the balance....
January 23, 2006 is rapidly approaching, and may prove to be a point of no return if we fail our country now!
'Blessed is the nation whose god is Jehovah....' (Psalm 33: 12)
May God bless and keep you and your family,
J&A H______
Regina, SK."
WOW. Keep in mind I have no idea who these people are, but they sound to me vaguely reminiscent of the conservative Christian right in the U.S. that terrify most Canadians.
Here was my response:
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. H______,
RE: Election in Canada 2006
Thank you for your letter dated January 1, 2006. It is my hope, also, that persons elected to Canadian Parliament will be guided by their faith, regardless of tradition. Each of our religions in Canada recognizes the supremacy of God, and are guided by their own ethical principles which center on living in community, respect and dignity with each other. It is my hope that regardless of race or religion that MP's in this country will be informed by their faiths as they endeavor to make the country a better place.
I have met with the local MLA in this riding, but not the MP, and voiced my opinion that governments need to meet with leaders of religious institutions to consult about the pastoral effects of Canadian policies on its citizens. For it is religious leaders who best understand not the bottom lines but the true (and sometimes intangible) pastoral needs of Canadian constituents.
If you are interested at all, the United Church of Canada has issued a non-partisan “Federal Election Kit” for its members to inform their voting considerations. It does not tell our members how to vote, but rather outlines the official policies of the Church at a national level, and makes suggestions for how to ask questions of candidates. Our hope is that voters who belong to the United Church will then be able to make decisions about which candidate they would like to support that is based on faithful discernment. The kit is available online at http://www.united-church.ca/election/ .
If you are not United Church members, perhaps encouraging your church to pursue a similar initiative will aid you in your mission to see Canada restored to a strong and upright government. I close with the prayer included in our election kit, and thank you for your concern and the action you've taken in what I can assume is a broad outreach ministry to Saskatchewan churches.
We pray for those who seek public office
We know it is not an easy path
We give thanks for those willing to make the journey
Give them strength and passion for their work
Grant them your wisdom and counsel
Open their eyes to hear rightly the cries of those whom we have forgotten
And admonish us all when we waver in fear or in cynicism or in despair
to be vigilant in upholding them to lead the community you want
and we desire. Amen. (Written by David Pfrimmer, Waterloo Lutheran Seminary)
Yours in faith,
Carmen Lansdowne
Marengo Pastoral Charge
Intern Minister "
Now - it is my guess that perhaps these folk weren't expecting a reply back - and certainly not one from the likes of me. But I decided since they had written nothing that I could overtly contest, I would acknowledge their letter by stating my own position. In fact, I don't imagine that I can't do what they've asked me to do, although I do suspect that my theology is so entirely different from theirs it would abhor them to realize they've given me free reign over the spiritual welfare of my pastoral charge.... *grin*
I also realize that not "every" religion in Canada recognizes the supremacy of God - Buddhists and the majority of Unitarians are not theists, but given the context, I wasn't going to argue that point with these people. My point was, however, that all religions in Canada exist (in theory - sometimes the reality is far far different) for the purpose of establishing ethical consideration of how to live in this world - a set of guidelines by which to hold ourselves accountable in this world.
I wonder if these folk realize how truly "United Church" parts of their letter was.... "We must also ACT - '... the people that do know God shall be strong, and shall act.' (Daniel 11:32)" The United Church is such a social justice seeking church - that scripture verse may as well have been in our Basis of Union. And it certainly articulates the sense of advocacy we had in supporting ordination of gays, as well as same-sex marriage. We knew what we felt the Spirit calling us to do - and we acted!
The H______'s also stated that "[t]he future of Canada is in the balance...." I believe this to be true. The future of Canada is in the balance displayed by our ability to be inclusive, to be accountable for the past in a way that prepares for the future. Balance must be struck if we are to have a peaceful and righteous government which is accountable to the voters. Sometimes the pendulum swings so violently back and forth in our society I feel like it's the only thing in this world actually capable of making me motion sick. Yes.... balance would be good.
Hmmm... I wonder if this bright couple from Regina is willing to convert?
Seriously though - as diplomatic as my answer was - it was an exercise in saying "I acknowledge your position, this is my position." I have a feeling that our theologies might be diametrically opposed, but I have done and will continue to do what they have asked of me. Jokes on them that it's not what they expected. And the truth is, they are doing what I have asked of my congregations - they are not complacent, but advocating for what they believe in. It would be hypocritical of me to argue for an inclusive society if I cannot accept the beliefs which they are sharing with me in their sense of ministry. At least they are doing something - which is more than can be said for the majority of Canadian voters.
I congratulate them for being willing to take a stand, and on matters theological and political... we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"Dear Reverend,
My wife and I take this opportunity, at a critical moment in Canada's history, to encourage you to exert your influence to restore a strong and upright government for our country.
You have the responsibility for the soul welfare of others, and we entreat you as fellow-believers on our Lord Jesus Christ. We must reverse the rapid moral decline that is advancing like a cancer and overtaking our country, both in Parliament and the courts.
Our prayer is for GOD to intervene by establishing persons in Parliament who will honor and respect the opening words of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God..."
We must also ACT - 'the people that do know God shall be strong, and shall act.' (Daniel 11:32)
There are MP's and candidates who share your right convictions and fear God. We urge you to motivate your members to identify who they are and help them succeed in their campaign for office. Ask the youth to be active in supporting persons who will raise the banner to protect the moral standards for oncoming generations! The future of Canada is in the balance....
January 23, 2006 is rapidly approaching, and may prove to be a point of no return if we fail our country now!
'Blessed is the nation whose god is Jehovah....' (Psalm 33: 12)
May God bless and keep you and your family,
J&A H______
Regina, SK."
WOW. Keep in mind I have no idea who these people are, but they sound to me vaguely reminiscent of the conservative Christian right in the U.S. that terrify most Canadians.
Here was my response:
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. H______,
RE: Election in Canada 2006
Thank you for your letter dated January 1, 2006. It is my hope, also, that persons elected to Canadian Parliament will be guided by their faith, regardless of tradition. Each of our religions in Canada recognizes the supremacy of God, and are guided by their own ethical principles which center on living in community, respect and dignity with each other. It is my hope that regardless of race or religion that MP's in this country will be informed by their faiths as they endeavor to make the country a better place.
I have met with the local MLA in this riding, but not the MP, and voiced my opinion that governments need to meet with leaders of religious institutions to consult about the pastoral effects of Canadian policies on its citizens. For it is religious leaders who best understand not the bottom lines but the true (and sometimes intangible) pastoral needs of Canadian constituents.
If you are interested at all, the United Church of Canada has issued a non-partisan “Federal Election Kit” for its members to inform their voting considerations. It does not tell our members how to vote, but rather outlines the official policies of the Church at a national level, and makes suggestions for how to ask questions of candidates. Our hope is that voters who belong to the United Church will then be able to make decisions about which candidate they would like to support that is based on faithful discernment. The kit is available online at http://www.united-church.ca/election/ .
If you are not United Church members, perhaps encouraging your church to pursue a similar initiative will aid you in your mission to see Canada restored to a strong and upright government. I close with the prayer included in our election kit, and thank you for your concern and the action you've taken in what I can assume is a broad outreach ministry to Saskatchewan churches.
We pray for those who seek public office
We know it is not an easy path
We give thanks for those willing to make the journey
Give them strength and passion for their work
Grant them your wisdom and counsel
Open their eyes to hear rightly the cries of those whom we have forgotten
And admonish us all when we waver in fear or in cynicism or in despair
to be vigilant in upholding them to lead the community you want
and we desire. Amen. (Written by David Pfrimmer, Waterloo Lutheran Seminary)
Yours in faith,
Carmen Lansdowne
Marengo Pastoral Charge
Intern Minister "
Now - it is my guess that perhaps these folk weren't expecting a reply back - and certainly not one from the likes of me. But I decided since they had written nothing that I could overtly contest, I would acknowledge their letter by stating my own position. In fact, I don't imagine that I can't do what they've asked me to do, although I do suspect that my theology is so entirely different from theirs it would abhor them to realize they've given me free reign over the spiritual welfare of my pastoral charge.... *grin*
I also realize that not "every" religion in Canada recognizes the supremacy of God - Buddhists and the majority of Unitarians are not theists, but given the context, I wasn't going to argue that point with these people. My point was, however, that all religions in Canada exist (in theory - sometimes the reality is far far different) for the purpose of establishing ethical consideration of how to live in this world - a set of guidelines by which to hold ourselves accountable in this world.
I wonder if these folk realize how truly "United Church" parts of their letter was.... "We must also ACT - '... the people that do know God shall be strong, and shall act.' (Daniel 11:32)" The United Church is such a social justice seeking church - that scripture verse may as well have been in our Basis of Union. And it certainly articulates the sense of advocacy we had in supporting ordination of gays, as well as same-sex marriage. We knew what we felt the Spirit calling us to do - and we acted!
The H______'s also stated that "[t]he future of Canada is in the balance...." I believe this to be true. The future of Canada is in the balance displayed by our ability to be inclusive, to be accountable for the past in a way that prepares for the future. Balance must be struck if we are to have a peaceful and righteous government which is accountable to the voters. Sometimes the pendulum swings so violently back and forth in our society I feel like it's the only thing in this world actually capable of making me motion sick. Yes.... balance would be good.
Hmmm... I wonder if this bright couple from Regina is willing to convert?
Seriously though - as diplomatic as my answer was - it was an exercise in saying "I acknowledge your position, this is my position." I have a feeling that our theologies might be diametrically opposed, but I have done and will continue to do what they have asked of me. Jokes on them that it's not what they expected. And the truth is, they are doing what I have asked of my congregations - they are not complacent, but advocating for what they believe in. It would be hypocritical of me to argue for an inclusive society if I cannot accept the beliefs which they are sharing with me in their sense of ministry. At least they are doing something - which is more than can be said for the majority of Canadian voters.
I congratulate them for being willing to take a stand, and on matters theological and political... we'll just have to agree to disagree.
