Anishinawbe Blog

Just recently something happened in our Political Office that has not been seen for a long time.  We received a nasty note printed around the margins of an article in the July issue of First Nations Voice.  I’m not exactly sure what to call it.

It did not contain X-rated slogans, and there were no swastikas scrawled on the note, but it did include statements such as:

“This is Canada why don’t you call yourselves Canadians”,

“…then we would all be equal…No more favoring you people.”

“You would all pay taxes, earn a living, and any free handouts would be to all Canadians.”

“We’re tired of so many years of this palaver.”

While the anonymous message may not legally qualify as “Hate Mail”, it does smack of ignorant perceptions which many of us who are in political positions hear all too often.  The note was written around an article from First Nations Voice concerning the Anishinabek Nation’s decision to outlaw the term “aboriginal” when referring to our citizens.  It described our process for moving forward in eliminating trappings of colonialism and our issues by the creation of “pan-aboriginal” approaches to dealing with issues affecting First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Peoples.

We are trying for the most part to create our own way, devise our own government processes and our own self-determining road to a better future for our children.  By doing things our way and removing ourselves from stereotypes, recognize that we are rocking the canoe.

We have rights affirmed within the Canadian Constitution.  We have rights affirmed by many Supreme Court decisions.  We have rights affirmed within our treaties, and we also have rights provided to us by the Creator, which may be referred to as our inherent rights. The treaties also lay out our special relationship with the Crown, a relationship that was originally based upon Nation-to-Nation negotiations.  This is a relationship that for over a hundred years has been very one-sided in terms of who derived the most benefit.

In talking about self-actualization, self-determination and self-government, we know we are making some people nervous.  There are many who have derived a great deal of benefit from our lands and territories over the years.  There are many who would like us to stay right where we are – poor and always in need of government largesse.  By being needy, we are always responding to rules imposed by other governments if we want to make use of their programs and services.

I sometimes refer to Joe and Edna Anishinabe as the average First Nation couple.  Perhaps every now and again I should refer to Bob and Bertha Smith as the typical non-native Canadian.  These are people comfortable with the status quo, who work and pay their taxes, and sometimes vote in federal or provincial elections.  They are people who believe that everybody should be equal under the law.  But their world is one where being equal means that if you’re poor you should stay poor, Indians should stay on reserves and not talk about things that make Canadians uncomfortable.

One of the things some have learned when moving with our “Rights-Based Agenda” is that some Canadians are fearful about what effect the essential change in the relationship between First Peoples and Canada will have on them.  We are going to put forward ideas that do not conform to a colonialist attitude.  We are not going to sit idly by and let the next 100 years reflect the last 100.

As for taxes, an overwhelming majority of the 60% of First Peoples in Canada who are lucky enough to be employed do pay taxes.  But we are also taxed in other ways.  Every day as millions of dollars of resources are taken off our territories with no benefit to the original owners of the land, it may rightly be said that our communities are being collectively taxed.  Many Canadians past and present have become very rich off the land that our ancestors shared with theirs.  Each year we see Canada’s Gross Domestic Product increase, yet the people who allowed development to occur still live in abject poverty.  Yes sir, we contribute a great deal for Canada’s benefit. 

I certainly wouldn’t describe First Peoples as “favored”, given that we experience the highest rates of infant death, youth suicide, and the lowest life expectancy in Canada.

I, like many, are tired of saying this year after year.  I, like many others, wish we didn’t have these kinds of conditions in our communities.  I, like many others, wish that we were at least equal to many other Canadians.

First Nations peoples look forward to the day where we all enjoy true equality , when we have the same access to education, health care, and economic opportunities as others enjoy in Canada.

John Beaucage
Grand Council Chief
Anishinabek Nation

Letter to the Editor:

I’m writing to offer some constructive corrections to your use of certain terminology.  I’m also hoping that this action will lead to changes in your respective publishing style guides.

There are no aboriginal reserves or aboriginal Chiefs.  Aboriginal people did not sign the treaties.  There is no aboriginal language nor is their an aboriginal culture.  The word aboriginal is not a proper noun and I would suggest that it not be capitalized.

The word “aboriginal” refers to the collective of First Nations, Metis and Inuit people.  Use of this term began during the Constitutional talks of the early 1980s.  What most people don’t know is that it is a term that was imposed on our people.  While at the very same time, we had come to a collective consensus and insisted that we be referred to as “First Nations”, as opposed to native, Indian, indigenous, aboriginal, etc.

In June, the 42-member First Nations of the Anishinabek Nation outlawed the use of the term aboriginal, citing the latin origins or the pre-fix “ab” – meaning something that is “away from”.  First Nations are nothing less than the ORIGINAL people of this continent.  The resolution, which was passed unanimously, also stated that First Nations are now improperly and disrespectfully being lumped into a homogenous group with service providers, NGOs, special interest groups, non-status, the Metis and the Inuit under the broad spectrum of “aboriginal”.

Society has become so politically correct many people are forgetting to simply ask or go out of their way to find out what terminology ought to be used.

For us, we now officially consider the use of the term “aboriginal” offensive when specifically referring to First Nations.

For our Nation, we prefer to be called “Anishinabek”, which is our word that refers to collective of the Ojibway, Odawa, Pottawatomi, Chippewa, Mississauga and Algonquin.  Other Nations have different terms.  In telling the sad story of violence on the Hobbema Reserve, not once were the people referred to as who they are: Cree.  Even when you seem to get it right – you don’t.   The media often use “Mohawk” frequently to refer to those responsible for the occupation and dispute in Caledonia.  In reality, the occupation is being led by the full spectrum of the “Haudenasaunee”:  Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Cuyuga, Onondaga, and Tucarora.

Unbenownst to the editors, producers, readers and audience, the use of the term “aboriginal” by the media in it’s improper context contributes to the assimilation of our people – and the negative impacts resulting from our loss of identity.

It is definitely complex.  But it is no more complex than learning about the many other beautiful people and cultures within Canada.  Learning of this nature is indeed a worthwhile pursuit.  In this era of apologies, responsibility, respect and learning perhaps it is time to really get to know Canada’s First Nation, Metis and Inuit people.  It starts by knowing how to respectfully address us –  individually, collectively and as Nations.

Bob Goulais
Anishinabek Nation

Above:  Arnold May – Water Working Group co-chair, myself
and Charles Faust – Water Working Group co-chair.

Everyday is full of surprises.  Today, I was presented with a gift of appreciation from the Anishinabek-Ontario Resource Management Council Water Working Group.  It says: “With deep appreciation and heart-felt thanks on behalf of the Water Working Group for your excellent facilitation of the Anishinabek Traditional Knowledge & Water Policy Forum…”  It was my pleasure to help out.  Thank you so very much.

Citing PM’s apology for residential schools, provincial leaders urge Harper to take next step by tackling native child poverty, education

KAREN HOWLETT and RHÉAL SÉGUIN AND BILL CURRY
Globe and Mail
July 17, 2008

QUEBEC AND OTTAWA — Canada’s premiers are calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to build on his historic apology to survivors of residential schools by meeting with the provinces to tackle child poverty and other social problems afflicting the country’s native communities.

In essence, the premiers suggested the reinstatement of the Kelowna Accord is the next logical step. While they have not broached the topic with the Prime Minister, they are offering to work with him in restoring many of the promises laid out in the 2005 accord.

“In the aftermath of the 11th of June apology, I think everyone now expects us to enter into a new period in which we will want to focus on new issues and take advantage of the momentum that’s created,” Quebec Premier Jean Charest said Wednesday. “This is an extended hand to the Prime Minister.”

Mr. Charest, speaking on behalf of all the premiers and territorial leaders at their annual meeting in Quebec City, said their invitation to Mr. Harper was not about confronting or embarrassing him. He and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell went out of their way to praise the federal government for embarking on a new era in its relations with Canada’s aboriginal communities.

“I think the Prime Minister will welcome constructive suggestions on how we can close the socio-economic gap for aboriginal people across the country,” Mr. Campbell said Wednesday.

However, the Harper government expressed little interest Wednesday in revisiting the Kelowna Accord.

Kory Teneycke, a spokesman for Mr. Harper, said the government would wait to receive a formal request from the premiers before responding to the call for a first ministers meeting on aboriginal issues.

“I think our position on the Kelowna Accord has been clear and consistent and is unlikely to change,” he said.

The accord was signed by then-prime-minister Paul Martin, the premiers and native leaders in Kelowna, B.C., just before the federal election campaign in which the Liberals were defeated by the Conservatives in January, 2006. The culmination of more than a year and a half of negotiations, the accord pledged to bring aboriginal living conditions up to the national average within 10 years. More than $5-billion in federal spending was promised over five years for housing, education, governance and health.

The Harper government said it supported the Kelowna goals, but could not commit to the new spending because it was not properly studied in detail. Conservatives derisively dismiss the accord as a “press release.”

Mr. Charest said yesterday that Ottawa cannot ignore the accord any longer. He also suggested that it was not the place of the Harper government to cancel it.

“The Kelowna Accord is not the propriety of any given individual or government,” he said. “It’s something that we together worked to put forward.”

The premiers are seeking to bring Ottawa to the table to reintroduce certain elements of the Kelowna Accord without tackling all the issues in the agreement. According to a source, discussions with Mr. Harper would focus exclusively on education and child poverty as a means to persuade the federal government to come to the table.

However, for Assembly of First Nations leader Phil Fontaine, the objective would be nothing less than full implementation of the accord some time soon, noting that it was adopted by this minority Parliament as part of a private member’s bill introduced by Mr. Martin.

“The Kelowna Accord is now Canadian law. What is missing is the financial commitment to implement the Kelowna Accord. When we talk next steps, that is the most important step we can take.”