Post by blackcrowheart on Jun 1, 2006 15:21:04 GMT -5
Our home on native land?
By RACHEL GIESE
www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Giese_Rachel/2006/05/26/1598278.html
Now that Six Nations protesters have removed another barricade, tensions may have eased in Caledonia, but the battle is far from over. Even as the media cautiously announced an "uneasy peace" in the area, the months-long dispute has pulled back the curtain on governmental incompetence, ugly racial biases and a widening gulf between First Nations people and non-natives.
Watching the events at Caledonia, I'm not surprised that so many people disapprove of the blockade. Acts of civil disobedience have always been unpopular, even when they're effective. But I am astonished by how little sympathy there's been for the protesters and how quickly derogatory stereotypes have been dredged up to dismiss their cause, from oh-so-polite columnists who advise them to "join the mainstream of Canada" to out-and-out bigots who've taunted the protesters with name-calling. Even the local mayor joined in, accusing the people of Six Nations of being welfare recipients who were preventing hard-working people from getting to their jobs.
This situation is about a lot of things: Long-simmering frustrations with the federal government, an ugly history of oppression and the dawning of a new era of self-determination.
But the heart of this dispute is land. Specifically, it's the question of whether the Six Nations people agreed to give up the area now slated for a housing development. The case goes back almost 200 years and the claim has dragged out for a decade.
Compared to some other cases -- there are about 1,000 land claims currently before the government of Canada -- that's not even that long. I once met a negotiator from a native band council who was involved in a 30-year-old claim.
His grandfather had been involved with the initial petition to the government.
Complicating matters is a crucial difference in philosophy. While the Canadian government and courts uphold a legal system of individual rights and property ownership, many native people take a different view of the world. For instance, most First Nations didn't traditionally believe in land ownership. So when treaties were signed 200 and 300 years ago, many First Nations leaders didn't think that they were selling land (they didn't believe it was theirs to trade), but rather hunting and fishing rights on that land.
And, today, after being alternately betrayed or neglected by the federal government, many First Nations, whose own political and legal systems predate European contact, increasingly don't recognize the authority of the governments or the police. And when the law has more often than not been used against them unfairly, it's hard to blame them.
That's one of the reasons why land claims disputes are so drawn-out and complicated. That, and political inertia. Negotiators have to take both European and native worldviews into account to figure out what exactly was understood by both sides at the time, as well as translate old methods of measurement, like "the distance a man can walk in a day," into contemporary figures.
Still, ten years and counting to settle a claim? No wonder the situation escalated. First, a decade of government dithering and, then, the land in question was sold to a developer. Who wouldn't have taken matters into their own hands?
It's true the non-native residents of Caledonia faced a major disruption in their lives as a result of the natives' actions.
This week, their anger and frustration boiled over when they stormed the native barricades and threatened the protesters.
But imagine what they might have done if they'd had to wait 10 years for a resolution of their grievances.
Then you'll have a better understanding of where the native protesters were coming from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to editor@tor.sunpub.com
By RACHEL GIESE
www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Giese_Rachel/2006/05/26/1598278.html
Now that Six Nations protesters have removed another barricade, tensions may have eased in Caledonia, but the battle is far from over. Even as the media cautiously announced an "uneasy peace" in the area, the months-long dispute has pulled back the curtain on governmental incompetence, ugly racial biases and a widening gulf between First Nations people and non-natives.
Watching the events at Caledonia, I'm not surprised that so many people disapprove of the blockade. Acts of civil disobedience have always been unpopular, even when they're effective. But I am astonished by how little sympathy there's been for the protesters and how quickly derogatory stereotypes have been dredged up to dismiss their cause, from oh-so-polite columnists who advise them to "join the mainstream of Canada" to out-and-out bigots who've taunted the protesters with name-calling. Even the local mayor joined in, accusing the people of Six Nations of being welfare recipients who were preventing hard-working people from getting to their jobs.
This situation is about a lot of things: Long-simmering frustrations with the federal government, an ugly history of oppression and the dawning of a new era of self-determination.
But the heart of this dispute is land. Specifically, it's the question of whether the Six Nations people agreed to give up the area now slated for a housing development. The case goes back almost 200 years and the claim has dragged out for a decade.
Compared to some other cases -- there are about 1,000 land claims currently before the government of Canada -- that's not even that long. I once met a negotiator from a native band council who was involved in a 30-year-old claim.
His grandfather had been involved with the initial petition to the government.
Complicating matters is a crucial difference in philosophy. While the Canadian government and courts uphold a legal system of individual rights and property ownership, many native people take a different view of the world. For instance, most First Nations didn't traditionally believe in land ownership. So when treaties were signed 200 and 300 years ago, many First Nations leaders didn't think that they were selling land (they didn't believe it was theirs to trade), but rather hunting and fishing rights on that land.
And, today, after being alternately betrayed or neglected by the federal government, many First Nations, whose own political and legal systems predate European contact, increasingly don't recognize the authority of the governments or the police. And when the law has more often than not been used against them unfairly, it's hard to blame them.
That's one of the reasons why land claims disputes are so drawn-out and complicated. That, and political inertia. Negotiators have to take both European and native worldviews into account to figure out what exactly was understood by both sides at the time, as well as translate old methods of measurement, like "the distance a man can walk in a day," into contemporary figures.
Still, ten years and counting to settle a claim? No wonder the situation escalated. First, a decade of government dithering and, then, the land in question was sold to a developer. Who wouldn't have taken matters into their own hands?
It's true the non-native residents of Caledonia faced a major disruption in their lives as a result of the natives' actions.
This week, their anger and frustration boiled over when they stormed the native barricades and threatened the protesters.
But imagine what they might have done if they'd had to wait 10 years for a resolution of their grievances.
Then you'll have a better understanding of where the native protesters were coming from.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to editor@tor.sunpub.com