h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The thing I find particularly interesting in all this Mudhooks (apart from the phenomenal distance this thread has drifted) is that, speaking as a Canadian, my reaction is something like "well, no kiddin' eh?"

On a different thread (attached to the Tlicho entry) Vestboy asked whether First Nations people got involved in mainstream politics in Canada. Part of my answer was that First Nations politics *is* mainstream politics in Canada. Just like "Women's" politics or "Children's" politics or Quebecois politics or Western politics or Maritime politics or . . . .

It's all part of being Canadian.

(another bit attached to the Tlicho thread was the rather brief statement by someone I won't name that "it seems that the tichoo[sic] get all" to which I replied "No. It seems that what they have always had gets recognized." That's what it's really all about: the people in power simply recognizing the truth.)

Well, and apart from First Nations politics, Native people vote and run for office.

Of course, if you have ever had any exposure to First Nations politics, you know that it is about as political as it gets. My ex's father was the Chief Electoral Officer for the 1991 election and it just about killed him with all the infighting and backstabbing going on.

Sorry, that was for the 1991 AFN election.

I was thinking about that point and, I think my response reverts back to the topic of the thread, in a way.

I would venture that Canadians are, by and large, more informed about issues, both inside and outside their country than are some others I could mention. As a result, rather than never having heard of issues such as land-claims, the average person has at least a basic knowledge about the issues. Of course, there is polarization of opinion. The majority of Canadians are, I feel, in support of the First Nations fishing rights, land-claims, right to self-determination. A minority do not and are vehemently opposed, and a very small percentage have no opinion one way or another.

Ask and American about the same issues and you get a blank look and the response "Well, we defeted the Indians, so they don't have any rights."

How does this relate to the topic of the thread?

In Canada, we are exposed to opinion from all sides. While our mainstream press might, more often than we would like, choose to ignore certain issues, we at least have the option of having access to alternative press. Our journalists can feel free to write the truth (should they choose) and, for the most part, our Government is not so paranoid of its citizenry hearing the truth that it doesn't kill its journalists, doesn't shut down media outlets, and doesn't strongarm its way into offices in a foreign country in order to silence opposition.

Ah, but the ability to drift wherever we feel like is one of the great h2g2 things is it not? It means that someone like me, thousands of miles away from where the particular actions happened, is now better informed on these subjects. I mean I knew tha lots of unsavoury practices occurred in this area, but I never realised that people were so insensitive at such a late stage as to actually enshrine such a concept in official language.
It is interesting how Canada, from what the Canadians on this site say, has a far more enlightened approach. And yet, when I was in Calgary, it was noticable that nearly all of those begging on the streets seemed to be first nations people. I realise of course that 1 week in the life of 1 city does not equate to a representative sample of an entire country.

Oh, and thankyou to Mudhooks for the replies, very informative. One day I'll learn joined up thinking and get everything into 1 post

Your absolutely right about Calgary, Ictoan. And probably any large Canadian city. And there is a very simple explanation. As Mudhooks wrote: "The trouble for Canada is that the Government often failed to uphold aspects of the treaties and failed to give real and lasting value to the lands signed over in treaty." This failure seems now to have turned around, but we are still living with the results of generations of abrograted treaties. Since 1982, the primary law of Canada make it much more difficult for the Government to fail the future generations. And since 1982 there seems to have been a frantic, and hugely successful, effort to do the right thing.

A2963775 for example.

(A note from Edmonton: to be honest, I'm not sure of the ethnic background of the deaf guy I gave two bucks to yesterday. And if you go down Whyte Avenue on a Saturday afternoon in July, most of the beggars are rich white kids from Sherwood Park.)

I mean, of course, "you're absolutely right" , not "your"

Unfortunately, in less "enlightened" times, the Government, as part of their effort to "civilize the savages", made them dependent on a system that, instead of allowing them to create their own lives within society at large or within their own society.

They took their children away from their families and put them in Residential Schools, erased their ties to their culture, taught them "white ways", told them that "Indian ways" were dirty and evil. beat their languages out of them, beat them and sexually abused them, made sure that they had no parenting skills, and tried to make nomadic peoples servants and farmers, and them dumped them back on the Reserves where they no longer fit in and where there was no work for them.

Damaged people with no parenting skills, with no self-esteem, dependent on welfare, abused and unable to find a place with their own people, many ended up in the margins of white society which, by and large did not accept them, and where their dependence on welfare and alcohol re-enforced the opinion of many that "Indians are lazy drunks".

Unfortunately, while society as a whole has grown more aware of the realities of the troubled history of the Frist Nations and come to generally understand the issues affecting them, there is a segment of society which still views Natives as lazy drunks. They are in the minority.

Another aspect of the predjudice that Native peoples face is that in certain places in Canada, Native peoples have, on the whole, done very well for themselves.

The Six Nations of the Grand River and Thayendanegea, and the Mohawk of Kanesetake, because of their long history of contact with whites and their recognition as allies of the British during the Revoutionary War and the War of 1812, lived lives much more prosperous than those of the majority of Native peoples in Canada. The Six Nations living in the Grand River and at Thayendanegea were also farmers and had been granted large tracts of rich farmlands by the Crown in gratitude of their alliance.

Many of the Mohawks and others from these reserves early on made carreers in Government and led lives on a par with their White neighbours. They are also, by tradition, a very conservative and stoic people. In fact, they are almost Calvinistic.

However, the same cannot be said about the Plains peoples, those from the Atlantic and Pacific regions, as well as the North. In some cases, nomadic peoples were discouraged from living off the land or forced off the land into reserves which were either to marginal or to remote farm and they didn't have traditions of farming. In the case of the West Coast, peoples with a rich cultural heritage and a long-established political and social system were divested of their heritage, denied the right to conduct business in the historical manner, and forced to beg for their livings.

The difference between the general prosperity of the Six Nations and poverty and marginalization of the majority of other First Nations people is vast. It is also easily seen.

In the Prairie canbtres such as Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg, and centres such as Halifax on the East Coast and Vancouver on the West Coast, and Thunder Bay, one sees large numbers of Native People living on the margins, often begging. As pointed out by Anhaga, you also see white people living on the margins and begging, but most people point out the Natives, and for many decades, it these were the only Native people many non-Natives would have seen, so it was easy to make the assumption that ALL Native people are the same.

In the Prairie CENTRES such as Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg.... yeesh!

It's funny. I go to Lake Louise, north of Banff several times a year. There's not too much to the Village of Lake Louise: hotels, a few walkup apartments for the people who work at the hotels, an RCMP detachment, a gas station. And, at the heart of the village is the Sampson Mall. There's a liquor store in the Sampson Mall, but the only drunks you see in that neighborhood are the white people after their shifts at the hotels. The big point of this story is that the Sampson Mall was built and is owned by the Sampson Cree band of Hobema, Alberta. This band was forcibly settled just south of Edmonton about a hundred years ago and had to give up their traditional nomadic life which took them from the northern forests to the mountains and south into the U.S. in pursuit of the Bison. Now the band is wealthy due to a dogged pursistance and business savvy.

It's funny how a small proportion of the white population of Edmonton still persists in thinking that the Hobema Cree are lazy drunks.

My general impression of a lot of Edmonton whites is that they are a bunch of lazy drunks. Especially on Whyte Avenue on Saturday night.

Three or four generations ago, the Sampson Cree lived a traditional life with few possessions and a rich culture, now, despite the deprivations and degredations that Mudhooks describes, they own a mall in a tourist resort (among other things) and still have a rich culture.

Most of the drunks on Whyte Avenue on Saturday night are descended from people who were given huge tracts of land by the government free of charge. Now, three or four generations later, they each have a walkup appartment, a few possessions, and nothing better to do in their spare time than get drunk and spit on the cops. Never mind culture.

You have to shake your head when you hear someone talking about how "Indians are given everything by us".... The irony is that whites were the ones who were given this country on a plate. And then they have the nerve to complain that the First nations want to be compensated....

I certainly don't hear it very often any more, but it was one of the stupid things that some non-Natives were prone to saying during the Oka crisis.

I have to tell you something that someone near and dear to me once said when I first told her that I was dating my ex. She said "The government gives every Indian in Canada a free snowmobile and a case of beer every year...." I was, needless to say, flabbergasted and immediately set her straight. My ex, when I told him, said "Gee! I don't need the snowmobiles, but the government owes me a hell of a lot of beer!"

This person was young and naive. She is now very well informed on many issues.

Another person asked me if I would take her children down to Six Nations the next time we went so that they "could see the Indians in their Teepees." I had a great deal of explaining to do about Native dwellings across Canada.

I have to say that these are exceptional experiences and don't reflect the sort of opinion I normally find when discussing Native issues.

Another point about Oka is that there was great hue and cry over looting and destruction to houses and property on the gold course. It was the Mohawk who got the blame for doing this damage.

However, I read an article by an Ottawa Sun reporter who was outraged that reporters would continue to print these accusations. He alleged that it was not the Mohawks, but the reporters and other media personnel who did the damage. He said that he could name names on some of the more egregious acts. For some reason, the rest of the media was uninterested in following this story up and continued to print the lies, and the police didn't seem interested in pursueing this particular line of investgation.

"I would take her children down to Six Nations "
Sparked a thought. What sort of education, formal or informal, is there about the first nations tribes and cultures for kids? I mean although the assumption in that request is incredibly blinkered, presumably an actual visit would have gone a long way to dispelling them. In the same way that I advocate travel to the various countries that make up the UK and Europe so one knows who and what makes up my local neighbourhood of nations, I'd have thought that the same would apply in Canada, but to the indiginous peoples as well as to the settled peoples. Although it would have to be carefully done as I think any sort of "come on kids, we're off to see the natives" style approach would be incredibly insulting and counter productive. But if they don;t experience the reality then the such opinions as you have mentioned are bound to fill the vacuum of knowledge. People, and kids, love to make up stories about that which is unknown.

Here's an interesting story related to the subject of this thread drift:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/041017/w101768.html

As for school: I don't remember a whole lot of education specifically about First Nations stuff in school. I did elementary school in Ontario where local history necessarily entails learning about the First Nations who were allies of the British and French.

I did Junior High and High School in Alberta where they don't teach history for fear that young people will find out that someone other than the Conservatives once ran the province.

But you don't need to learn about Cree history in school to appreciate the Cree if there's a Cree kid sitting next to you in science class. (or if you put saskatoons on your cereal and pick up bison steaks at the IGA).

It hasn't always been the case, but you have to be a real red-neck to be unaware of the Aboriginal thread weaving through Canadian society.

Actually, most school borads now have curriculi which do include pre-Contact history and

Native Languages curriculum 2004 (grades 1-8): http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/native/index.html
Social Studies 2004 (grades 1-6): http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/social/social1998.html
Province of Ontatio's Grade 9-10 Native History Curruculum (1999):
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/native/natiful.html
Their Canadians and World Studies, which includes a module on Native Studies 2004:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/canadian/canaful.html (Under Social and Political Movements: "describe the contributions of Aboriginal peoples in forming national organizations (e.g., National Indian Advisory Council, National Indian Brotherhood, Assembly of First Nations) to gain recognition and rights for Aboriginal peoples"

As well, in various subjects, such as philosophy, they review the approaches that other cultures have to the subject, including First Nations

I meant to say that when I was in school, the only time Native people were mentioned were when Champlain went on his journeys, Radisson and Groseilliers (Radishes and Groceries), and the Iroquois murdering the Huron.... I seem to recall that any depictions usually showed them skulking through the woods in a sneak attack.

Certainly, according to our textbooks, the British did everything without the help of Native people and the French allied with the Iroquis to kill everyone in sight.

Regarding Indymedia:

I noticed a banner on the site asking for "solidarity for the Iraqi resistance". The word that's important here is "resistance". The insurgents in Iraq are both the remants of the Ba'athist government and the Islamist terrorists.

Now, apart from the gross hypocrisy of a site that thinks itself leftwing and yet urges solidarity with both extreme-right fundamentalism and the supporters of a government that persecuted and murdered their comrades on the Iraqi left for decades (oh, and prints holocaust-denying and racist material), doesn't anyone think that assuming such a site would have terrorist links or support terrorists might not be such a foolish assumption?

I find the desire to defend Indymedia here a little strange. Here is a site that, as I've said, urges solidarity with extreme-right religious and nationalist totalitarians, prints holocaust-denying material complete with a reference to a purely "Arab" Palestine (a blatant support of racism) and yet manages to kid you all it's progressive, even liberal, simply by pushing a few anti-American and anti-globalisation buttons?

You say it publishes stuff that won't be printed elsewhere? Why not? In Britain we have plenty of newspapers that will print radical and anti-globalisation tracts by writers from any country? Why does Indymedia claim that it's writers voices can't be heard? Could it be that what they have to say isn't quite as true or as progressive as it claims?

As Alan Bleasdale said in GBH, the more you veer to the left the more rightwing you become.

Let's see. Fox publishes lies about everything from Iraq to Canada to just about everything else. It is still allowed to publish.

Indymedia contains a few voices which support the Iraqis and denounce the US's actions in Iraq amongst the multitude which have nothing whatever to do with Iraq or Iraqi "resistence, and don't censor the crackpots because to do so would also censor the 99% of other voices which have nothing whatever to do with Iraq or Iraqi "resistence" and you accuse them of collusion with al Queda.

Hmmmmm.... which is hypocritical?

"Let's see. Fox publishes lies about everything from Iraq to Canada to just about everything else. It is still allowed to publish"

What the hell has this to do with Fox? I think Fox is rubbish too, but then I'm not defending it so why are you bringing it up?

"Indymedia contains a few voices which support the Iraqis and denounce the US's actions in Iraq amongst the multitude which have nothing whatever to do with Iraq or Iraqi "resistence, and don't censor the crackpots because to do so would also censor the 99% of other voices which have nothing whatever to do with Iraq or Iraqi "resistence" and you accuse them of collusion with al Queda."

You try and make out that support for the "resistance" is some minority, minor thing on the site by a few cranks. It's not. It's on a banner on the site therefore it is part of the site's political philosophy.

I didn't accuse them of collusion with Al-Quaida specifically. I pointed out the banner on their site and said urged solidarity with terrorists in Iraq (I defy you to argue that the insurgents are not terrorists) and that would mean believing there were terrorist-supporters on the site wasn't such a silly idea.

I'll ask again - since the site supports the far-right in Iraq and publishes holocaust-denying material why do you, as a leftwinger (I assume would claim to be) insist on defending it?

nb please reply to my points directly, don't sidetrack about America or Fox News. It's a diversionary tactic.

This has everything to do with Fox, just as it has everything to do with every media outlet in the World, just as it has to do with US suppression of free speech inside and outside its borders, just as it has to do with Guatemala's suppression of its media and journalists. The point would be that if Fox has the right to publish biased and dangerous crap and keep its credentials as "Press" then, I see no reason why opposing voices don't have the same right. Crap is crap.


I am sorry if you completely miss the point.

Indymedia has links to all stripes of indipendent media. When I go to Indymedia, I see no banners whatsoever. There may be banners on the sites it links to. However, this is the internet and you are bound to come across sights which offend someone. In which case, I suggest that they turn off the computer and lock themselves in a closet if they aren't capable of weeding out the propaganda from the truth.

When I go to Indymedia, I see links to hundreds of sites which, as Indymedia states, have nothing to do with Indymedia but are listed for the specific reason that they are suppressed, for whatever the reason, in their countries of origin. Out of the hundreds of media represented, I would venture that an infitesimal number of them have anythiong whatever to do with Iraq, al Queda, Muslim extremeism, anti-"Zionism" or the like.

Given the choice of silencing hundred of media, of which the majority are from countries which supress free speech for the sake of silencing a single nut-case, I choose Indymedia's open policy.

The fact is, if you have a problem with the political agenda of a particular site, it should be taken up with that site, and not Indymedia.

As for my reference to your linking this to al Queda, as you say you do not "specifically" say al Queda.

However, you do "insinuate" as much in. Since, according to various reliable sources such as Amnesty International and a number of other independent (ie unbiased) sources, the "insurgents" are, by and large people pissed off with the US killing civilians indiscriminately and justifiably pissed off at having another nations soldiers waging an illegal war on them, not to mention a number being civilians going about their daily business when they get blown out of their shoes for no other reason than that they were walking down the street being labelled that by the US military. Yes, there are "terrorists" amongst them, and a growing number of those civilians who are "insurgents" are being drawn to those groups, whose fault is that?



Funny, I didn't realize I hadn't but, then again, I wasn't specifically "replying" to you.