|
The new federal
Indian Affairs Minister has promised to "modernize" the Indian Act. He
knows, and Canadians have been trained to know, that this won't involve natives
having the rights you and I have, but will grant natives lucrative land
settlements and segue them into sovereignty. For all of which you will pay.
Because, ridiculous as it should seem, the multitude of bands hold up on
reserves; each sometimes numbering only a couple hundred people, consider
themselves, and in turn are considered, full-fledged nations. Can a small group
be a sovereign nation while being funded by taxpayers at large? Yes. Never
before has nationhood meant so little -- never before has it come with such a
price.
You should care; no
you should be up in arms with outrage. Mostly because your elected government
does not represent your interests in the matter of native issues. How do you
explain the plan to create a new native-directed and elected court in place of
the current courts? Modeled on the time-honored judicial tradition of the fox
guarding the coop, judges will be selected by natives and "bestowed with
powers equal to federal courts". This court may also be entrusted with
finalizing land claims. And why not? In British Columbia, a militant Haida
leader and activist now serves as Chief Treaty Commissioner. The same man is on
record for saying he does not consider himself a Canadian. Still, with your tax
dollars you will pay obeisance to these processes; with your tax dollars you
will fund bureaucrats and lawyers and activists to further take your money to
support a self-perpetuating, incestuous Wheel of Fortune.
You pay for land
deals and you pay the $7 billion or so a year that goes towards aboriginal
affairs. And still your generosity is abused. You are told that despite the huge
sums of money apportioned to natives, the poverty on reserves is because you
don't give enough, because of the sins of your forefathers, or because of your
Eurocentric origins. This, your children learn in the schools you fund.
But why would natives
need another court system? The courts, mostly The Supremes, seldom rule against
natives. In "Delgamuukw" the Supreme Court of Canada decided that to
prove title on land, natives do need some evidence of continual occupancy, but
the evidence can consist of myths, stories, legends and oral hand-me-downs. So,
to lay claim to vast resources and huge swaths of land, natives need rely on no
more than folklore. What a deal. Can any court do better? Why mess with a good
thing?
The SCC has recently
upheld a 1760 aboriginal treaty, giving natives "unlimited year-round
fishing rights". The seabed along the Maritimes is now being
voided---off-season---of its lobster. Unfolding on the Fraser River is a scene
of another native triumph over Department of Fishery officials. Silly sorts,
instead of sticking to their instructions to document only, but not stop,
illegal fishing, DFO officials got carried away, and actually removed the
illegal native-owned nets. You won't be seeing the officials on the Fraser, but
in court. Neither will you be seeing too many returning salmon. The illegal
logging operations in south central B.C. are gaining momentum with more bands
jumping on board. Why not? Implicit in the law of the land is that natives are
exempt from its strictures.
Indeed, the
creativity of the courts has been remarkable. Can you get more creative than
mandating that a person's "Indianness" be considered during
sentencing? Thus an Indian woman recently walked after six months for killing a
spouse, and another native got rapped on the knuckles for doing a Hannibal
Lector on someone's finger.
Native sexual abuse
industry is also forging ahead courtesy of the taxpayer. Will there be an
examination of the merits of each case of alleged abuse of native children?
Don't be silly; experts say all were abused. Besides, the government knows it
can't win. It lay the grounds, after all, for native legal invincibility. It
will settle with the aid of $1.2 billion of your money. Just for good measure,
it will throw in another $350 million for a "healing fund".
So set aside the
romantic misty eyed notions of Indian activism; the kind the Canadian
Broadcasting Corp. parlays with close-ups of bandanas and fatigues; the kind
that suggests that in his natural state the native exists in harmony with
nature; his spirituality of a magnitude you cannot attain. Listen closely to the
cant of native militancy, and what you hear are demands borne of petulance;
demands borne of never being told: ENOUGH. Lay the sugarcoated mythology of the
Nobel Savage to rest. Take a good look. Where do you see natives existing in
harmony with mother Gaia and communing with the Great One? Sadly, what remains
of native culture is a powwow-type admixture; what remains of native nationhood
are economic fiefdoms funded by you.
Heed what cultural
critique Robert Hughes writes: "Historical evidence shows that the people
of the Americas had been doing very nicely for centuries and probably millennia
when it came to murder, torture, materialism, genocide, enslavement and sexist
hegemony". In our silly view of native Americans we have, says Hughes,
perpetrated a stereotype in which European man has become the demon, and the
native has been canonized. Now, drop the eternal mea culpa. The truth about the
social decay among natives is to be found in the cradle-to-grave arrangement
with you the Canadian taxpayer: It's like manna from heaven, but it is deadly,
breeding nothing but more of the same.
©1999 Ilana Mercer
The
North Shore News
October 1
|