This is Great: My "Ally Bill of Responsibilities" is on the Move

I am very happy to learn that Indigenous people and organizations are finding my “Ally Bill of Responsibilities” a useful tool in their work and effort that strives for a better world for Indigenous people. Indeed it is an honourable effort to endeavour toward a world where Indigenous knowledge is valued as legitimate in its own right and where Indigenous self-determination is the goal.  Certainly I agree allies need structure and guidance that prevents them from further causing us harm.  It is precisely for this reason that I took the time to collect my thoughts on my experience with non-Indigenous allies and organize them in a way that would be meaningful to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

While my “Ally Bill of Responsibilities” addresses many issues another phenomenon that I found disturbing was the many moments when non-Indigenous people took or borrowed knowledge that was not theirs, and further without crediting the original Indigenous source.  Indeed this is something we should be concerned with.

While I am happy my “Ally Bill of Responsibilities” is gaining currency, I request all people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, who opt to reproduce and share it with others to credit me as the intellectual property owner.

Here is the link to the original publication:

http://www.lynngehl.com/uploads/5/0/0/4/5004954/gehl_in_can_dim_jan_feb_2011.pdf

Here is the link to its poster form:

http://www.lynngehl.com/my-ally-bill-of-responsibilities.html

Crediting me as the intellectual property owner I feel is particularly important with Indigenous organizations and Indigenous people. Indigenous people must realize that non-Indigenous people look to us for guidance in terms of how to respect and honour knowledge. Indeed we are their role models.  As such we need to treat each other’s work and accomplishments in a good and respectful way. Otherwise we risk non-Indigenous people acting as appropriators and an interference which of course is contrary to the very goal of the “Ally Bill of Responsibilities.”

Chi-Miigwetch!

An Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe View of the Nuclear Industry

Contrary to what the television commercials and the nuclear industry would like us to believe the nuclear fuel cycle is far from safe and green.  The process of mining, milling, and building nuclear power plants requires huge amounts of energy obtained from fossil fuels.  Thus, this process alone produces carbon dioxide emissions and is not green.

The nuclear fuel cycle is harmful in other ways.

Nuclear energy depends upon elemental uranium 235, which is naturally radioactive and undergoes decay, meaning it spontaneously radiates or ejects radioactive energy.  Once uranium 235 is removed from the earth and extracted from the ore that once cradled it, much soil and dirt is left behind.  These tailings are loaded with other radioactive elements such as radon 222 and radium 226, which contaminate the air, land, and water tables in the surrounding areas for many years.

People need to know that there are three forms of radiation that consists of both particles and waves:

1.      Alpha particles

2.      Beta particles

3.      Gamma photons

Radiation is undetectable through the human senses and this works against us in our learning and knowing process.  Radiation harms us through ionizing the atoms and molecules that comprise our body cells, hence the term “ionizing radiation.”

There are three ways that radiation harms us:

1.      Radiation is carcinogenic, meaning it causes cancer.  It only takes one radioactive particle, for example, to damage a human cell.  Children are particularly vulnerable because their bodies are “containers” of much cellular growth.

2.      Radiation is mutagenic, meaning it mutates our egg and sperm cells and causes birth abnormalities.

3.      Radiation is teratogenic, meaning it has the ability to infiltrate the mother-child placenta barrier.  Unborn babies are particularly vulnerable because their bodies are “containers” of much cellular growth.

Uranium 235 is a gamma ray emitter, is carcinogenic, and causes bone cancer.  Radon 222 is an alpha emitter, is carcinogenic, and causes lung cancer.  Radium 226 is both an alpha and gamma ray emitter, is also carcinogenic, and causes bone cancer.  These are the radioactive elements we are exposed to simply through the act of mining uranium.

In addition to these radioactive elements, creating nuclear energy through uranium fission produces additional radioactive elements such as strontium 90, iodine 131, cesium 137, and plutonium 239.  Strontium 90 is both a beta and gamma ray emitter and causes bone cancer and leukemia.  Iodine 131 is both a beta and gamma ray emitter and causes thyroid cancer.  Cesium 137 is also both a beta and gamma ray emitter and causes muscle and brain cancer.  Plutonium 239 is an alpha emitter that is both mutagenic and teratogenic and causes genetic mutations and gross deformities in our newborns.

Disturbingly, through the process of “venting,” nuclear reactors routinely release these radioactive by-products into the atmosphere.  In this way too our air, land, and water becomes contaminated for many years.

In summary, uranium mining and processing produces carbon dioxide. While this in itself means that it is not a green process, uranium mining also contaminates the air, land, and water with radon, radium and other radioactive elements.  Furthermore, through the process of generating energy through uranium fission, additional radioactive elements are created.  We simply cannot afford to limit discussions about safe and green energy to carbon dioxide emissions.  We must also consider radioactive emissions.

In the Anishinaabe tradition a speaker’s face is an important element of learning the intended knowledge.  When someone tells a story the process of listening involves watching the facial expressions of the speaker as they convey if the speaker is happy or sad or in a state of wonder.  If the speaker is sad the listener not only hears it in the stated words but also reads it on the speaker’s face.  The same goes for joy and wonder. Through watching the emotions on the speaker’s face listeners feel what the speaker feels through a process of physiological synchronization.  It is because of this process that it is stressed that listening in the Anishinaabe sense involves good eyes and a good heart rather than merely good ears.  Many people skilled at the oral tradition rely on facial expressions when conveying knowledge.

Further, in the Anishinaabe tradition there is a teaching that encourages people to show the good side of their face.  Mshkoziwin is an Anishinaabemowin concept that references “the Art of Being Brave” and the process of finding one’s true face, or alternatively the need to get to know our core selves.  It is often said that at times our greatest enemy is our self.  To help remedy this there is the need to get to know our core being.  Anishinaabe wisdom informs us that our essence is made up of two parts.  While one part is positive, the second part is negative.  Given this, there is the need for individuals to travel deep within themselves and get to know both their positive and negative sides.  This requires bravery as the negative side is indeed difficult to befriend.  Regardless, if we fail to befriend our negative side it could very well take over who we are.  Alternatively, although our true face is the positive side of who we are, we must befriend our negative side and manage it in a way that allows our true face to manifest in the way we walk through the world.

In the Anishinaabe tradition people also expressed times of bereavement through the practice of Mkadengwe which translates to Black Face.  This tradition involved painting one’s face with black ash or paint to signify one’s state of being.  In reading the person’s face members of the community were better able to affirm the mourner’s feelings and accommodate their needs when required.

In following this later tradition of Mkadengwe over the next few months I will offer Black Face blogging as my way of expressing matters that I feel require thought.

Recently, inspired by this video clip of Elijah Harper on the need for the governments of Canada to honour their treaties via resource revenue sharing, I have decided to post this blog, my goal being to raise greater awareness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFtG8o-8MgQ

As an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe who has never received a share of the wealth of my ancestral land I have asked myself the question, “What kind of dollar amounts are extracted out of Algonquin lands?”  Eventually, I went in search for an answer.

In 2005, the provincial Ministry of Northern Development and Mines gained $4.8 billion from metals, such as cadmium, cobalt, copper, silver and zinc, which were extracted from the land in southern Ontario.  In the same year, $2.4 billion in non-metals, such as cement, clay products, lime, quartz, salt, soapstone and stone, were extracted.  In addition, in 2004, $1.6 million in natural fuels were extracted.

While these initial figures are huge and provide an idea of the revenues that the Algonquin and other Indigenous Nations have been excluded from, I must also consider the revenues the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) generates from angling and hunting.  In 2006, hunting licenses sold included; small game hunting $19.00, farmer’s deer $21.50, wild turkey $22.50, deer $36.00, bear $36.00, moose $43.00, as well as fishing licenses for $23.00 and $13.50 for a conservation fishing license.  In addition, the mandatory accompanying outdoor card sold for $6.00 each.  During the fiscal period of 2005-2006, Ontario-wide MNR sales statistics reported that the provincial government generated over $58.9 million. 

I must also consider the revenue generated from the forestry industry.  The 2003-2004 29th annual Algonquin Forestry Authority reported Algonquin Park generated $152.8 million toward Ontario’s economy.  Further, today traditional Algonquin territory in Ontario has been re-mapped and re-named with the establishment of an additional seventeen provincial parks.  These parks include, but are not limited to, 1958, Sharbot Lake Provincial Park; 1967, Samuel de Champlain Provincial Park; 1970, Mattawa River Provincial Park; 1971, Bonnecher Provincial Park; 1971, Bon Echo Provincial Park; 1989, Ottawa River Provincial Park; and 1989, Upper Madawaska River Provincial Park.  While I do not provide the total revenue generated from these parks, in 2005, Algonquin Park alone generated over $13.5 million from visitors, campers, concessions, and commercial leases.  This figure of course would substantially increase if the revenue of all seventeen parks were considered.

When reviewing these figures, I must also appreciate the revenue generated from water power created by the many hydroelectric dams built within Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.  In 1999, the estimated gross value of the hydroelectric energy produced by the Madawaska River system, a tributary of the Ottawa River, was worth about $45 million.

While in no way do I profess to provide a comprehensive analysis of resources generated from the Indigenous lands in Ontario, these figures of $4.8 billion, $2.4 billion, $1.6 million, $58.9 million, $152.8 million, $13.5 million, and $45 million gained from metal extraction, non-metal extraction, natural fuel extraction, angling and hunting license sales, the forestry industry within Algonquin Park, from other Algonquin Park revenues, and hydroelectric energy respectively, provide concrete figures and an understanding which serves to inform us that indeed economic development projects within southern Ontario have been bountiful for the governments of Canada.  This discussion should serve well in challenging the belief by many that Indigenous Nations are an unproductive drain on the public purse.  After all, we all live on Native land.

This discussion of resource revenues is particularly significant when one considers Russel Lawrence Barsh’s analysis.  Succinctly, Barsh makes the connection between the practical manifestation of Indigenous self-government, power, and natural resources, when arguing; Indigenous power sources are the natural resources.

Unfortunately, past practice has proven that when Indigenous Nations do obtain a limited amount of resource revenue sharing through the current land claims and self-government process these revenues are not provided the constitutional protection required.  One such example is the Nisga’a Nation who in 1996 received 1/4 of the salmon resources extracted from the Nass River.  This lack of constitutional protection is problematic practice in that, as Michael Asch has argued, rights not constitutionally entrenched can be easily taken away.  Given that resources are what guarantee the long-term viability of Indigenous self-government, this practice of denying constitutional protection by the provincial and federal governments lacks both genuine good faith and political will.

Lastly, certainly what Alice Williams offers us is truth telling statement.  Williams argues, "Every Aboriginal Nation has proprietary rights that underlie all title in this country.  The Canadian state has created this as a burden that it has yet to address" (personal communcation).

(This story was previously published as: Gehl, Lynn. “First Nations not sharing in wealth.”  Anishinabek News Dec. 2006: 22.) 

I hope you find this is useful - please let me know...

Many have asked me to explain my process of knowledge production at the doctoral level.  Others have asked me to explain the academic peer-review process.  This short blog should help.

On Knowledge Production:

Ph.D. students are expected to create knowledge.  As a matter of fact, adding to the lineage of knowledge, along with course work and comprehensive examinations, is a criterion for obtaining a Ph.D.  In most university departments during the process of creating knowledge doctoral students are expected to choose and articulate explicitly a method and theoretical framework.  This methodology (method plus a theoretical framework) sets the parameters of knowledge production.

For the purpose of conveying information I will simplify this process.  While sociologists use interviews as their method, historians use primary source documents, and anthropologists use participation - observation.  Applying a theoretical framework to one's method also guides the knowledge creation process.  For example, a sociologist who allows a feminist theoretical framework to shape their thinking will use interviews to look at women’s issues.

These methodological approaches are rooted in western knowledge philosophy.  Most Indigenous scholars today continue to use these same western approaches through applying an Indigenous theoretical framework.  For example, an Indigenous historian would apply an Indigenous theoretical framework to produce their knowledge creation on the effects of colonization in Indigenous Nations.

As an Indigenous scholar I sat in a very unusual place.  I did not rely on western philosophy to guide my thinking and knowledge creation process.  As such, in my dissertation work I also developed an Anishinaabeg methodology of knowledge production, and then I used this same methodology to produce my knowledge on the Algonquin land claims and self-government process.  Indeed it is unusual for a Ph.D. student to make two major contributions like this. As stated, a doctoral student only has to add to the lineage of knowledge versus make two major contributions.  I, though, am not a sociologist, historian, nor anthropologist.  Rather, I am Indigenist.

Most people, even professors, do not understand my process of knowledge creation.  When I speak publicly about my work they immediately ask me, “where do you sit in terms of the western disciplines?”  They ask this question because they need to know where and how to assimilate my knowledge in their own thinking process.  Most assume I am a political scientist because my topic was the Algonquin land claims and self-government process.  When I respond that my work does not fit within western disciplinary parameters they are at first taken back.  I then re-stress that my knowledge production relied on an ancient Indigenous methodology titled “Debwewin Journey” (which is both a method and a theoretical framework) that I developed from traditional Anishinaabeg teachings.  At this point, some, not all, do begin to understand my process.

The Peer-Review Process:

The peer-review process is a long and grueling process where academic peers read, judge, and comment on your scholarly work in terms of its process of citation, intellectual and academic rigor, contribution, and usefulness.  If the work passes the test of peer-review it is accepted for publication.  Peer-review journal writing and publishing is the primary process of fostering intellectual inquiry and debate that potentially leads to policy, legislative, and institutional change.

I hope this helps.  Let me know.

This is a photograph taken in  2006 of  Algonquin Grandfather William Commanda and me.  In this photograph Grandfather is sharing his personal photographs of sacred places within Algonquin territory such as the South March Highlands that Daniel Bernard and Bob Lovelace have been struggling to protect from so-called development.  One such location had a huge turtle petroform which to him marked and indicated its sacredness.  He was particularly enamored with this formation and talked about it at length.  For me this was a very special teaching moment as indeed he was a great teacher.
 
Grandfather was really concerned that the Algonquins of Ontario (AoO), under the current land claims and self-government regime, were moving toward extinguishing their land and land related rights.   Through my own Ph.D. process I learned that Grandfather's concerns were valid and legitimate.  For  example, the AoO are currently negotiating under unilaterally constructed policies that place absolute dollar and resource revenue caps on all potential settlement agreements.  In this  way Indigenous self-government will continue to remain within a colonial  model and be based on our continued subjugation. 

During my learning process Grandfather also shared with me his traditional Wampum Belt Bundle.  In particular he explained the importance of the Sharing Wampum Belt that to him meant that the British, Indigenous, and French Nations are supposed to share equally the land and all the inherent resources.  Grandfather was deeply saddened that the government  of Canada has not honoured this sacred political agreement and will also avoid honouring this agreement through the current land claims and self-government process.

I feel honoured to have had Grandfather William Commanda as one of my teachers.

Whenever a policy or law is written the first thing people need to do in order to interpret the policy or law properly is they need to become familiar with the key terms and the definitions that will be relied upon. Otherwise they risk and error of interpretation.

Key Word: Appeal – to a protest to the addition of a beneficiary to Algonquin Enrolment Law.

Two members of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation appealed the Algonquin Law Enrolment acceptance of four people whose root ancestors are the Thomas-Foy and the Hanna Mannell line.

A board was established of five members (Terry Charbonneau, Gary Eady, Robert Majaury, Donald Paquette, Gordon Whiteduck) to address the appeal.

On this particular matter the board’s decision, based on a majority rule, dismissed the appeal (4 dismissed; 1 granted).  Meaning the board denied the appeal made by the two members of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation.  This decision was made on November 23, 2010 at Pembroke Ontario.

Then the Algonquins of Ontario comprised of Algonquin Negotiation Representatives (ANR) overruled this more favourable board decision and removed the Thomas-Foy and Hanna Mannell line and all their descendants that were enrolled through Algonquin Enrolment Law.  It has been estimated that 500-600 people were removed as electors and beneficiaries in the Algonquin land claims and self-government process.

You can read this appeal decision yourself.  Just remember to understand the word appeal and who was doing the appeal.

Click here for the board's decision

July 26, 2011

Re: South March Highlands – Traditional Algonquin Territory

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Premier Dalton McGuinty
Michael Chan, MPP
Mayor Jim Watson

Prime Minister Harper, Premier McGuinty, Minister Chan, Mayor Watson,

According to Algonquin Anishinaabe tradition the universe was created in four orders.  The first order of Creation involved the emergence of fire, rock, water, and wind.  The Algonquin Anishinaabe consider these four elements sacred.  It is during the first order of Creation that the universe, the sun, the earth, and the moon were created and where what is now called the “Canadian Shield” first emerged from the great sea.  Interestingly, western scientists agree that it was this great rock that first emerged from the ancient sea.

The second order of Creation involved the creation of trees, plants, vegetables, and fruits.  This order brought all the members of the Tree Nation such as the maple, birch, and butternut.  It also brought medicines found in the hemlock tree, the strawberry as well as other berries, and cat tails for example.  The third order of Creation brought to the world the four legged, the winged, and the swimmers such as the bear, the owl and eagle, and the salmon and pike.  It is these animal beings that taught humans the knowledge about medicines and how to use them.  According to Algonquin Anishinaabe tradition it is said that these three orders of Creation thrived and lived together for a very long time before the fourth order was brought into existence.

The fourth order of Creation is where humans were lowered to the earth.  Our stories tell us that although humans are born with the wonderful gift and ability to dream and imagine we are also the most pitiful.  Humans are pitiful in that we are the most dependent on the other three orders of Creation.  While the plants and animals lived here on earth for a very long time without us, and thus can continue to live without us, humans cannot live without them, as it is these other three orders of Creation that provide us with the protection and subsistence we need to survive on earth.  In addition to this we are also pitiful in another way as our ability to dream and imagine is also our biggest burden in that our ability to dream and imagine unchecked and un-moderated through a moral code – that is a moral code that is broad and ensures the wellness of all other beings of Creation – puts our very own existence at risk.  It is in this way that our ability to create through dream and imagination is indeed a paradox.  Respecting this paradox, is a fundamental Algonquin Anishinaabe teaching.

Through the Algonquin Anishinaabe worldview and our particular and last place in the four orders of Creation, we are well aware that the paradigm of human economics has huge limitations.  Western economics we know is merely an anthropomorphic creation based on a human-centric understanding of the world that is not at all a sophisticated way of knowing and being.  Rather it is narrow and selfish.  Not only does the human-made economic model fail to consider the other three orders of Creation – but it is also rooted in short term gain versus considering all future generations within the four orders: rock, plant, animal, and human.  The Algonquin Anishinaabe call this short term need for economic gain the “contagion of wiindigo” which is a self-destructing beast.

Traditional Algonquin Anishinaabe are guided by natural law and thus deeply respect the other three orders of Creation that came before us.  We are fully aware of the fact that our gift of dreaming and imagination has the potential to move us several steps away from natural law, women less so though because of the work they do as life givers and nurturers.  It is for this very reason that the Anishinaabe keep in the forefront of our minds and in the forefront of our practices, through ceremony and ritual, our place within all of Creation.  We know all too well that as pitiful creatures we need to constantly renew our existence within the four orders of Creation, and further we need to constantly give thanks for all that Creator has given us to survive here on earth.  Otherwise we will forget and create models of the world and institutions that are destructive to our very existence as humans.  In destroying the trees such as the maple and the butternut, and forests where the animal beings such as the bear and deer live, we destroy ourselves through wiindigo psychosis.

The practice of developing the South March Highlands through a ridiculous policy where potential developers themselves are the very bodies that hire and pay the wages of archeological consultants, and thus for their assessments, is an unacceptable conflict of interest.  As well-known archeologist Robert McGhee has previously argued, the South March Highlands and its previous ancient shoreline within the Champlain Sea, where the sea and fresh water intersected, is potentially the oldest site of human occupation in Ontario, thus requiring additional research.  Further, relying on an archeological assessment that did not look for pre-contact sites is simply illogical and pitiful human behaviour.  It does not take much to reason and ask, what is the point of an archeological assessment where pre-historic sites do not fall with the parameters of analysis?

Moreover, refusing to consult with the Algonquin Anishinaabe who reside outside of the Algonquins of Ontario (AoO) institution is also ridiculous.  Many Algonquin Anishinaabe in Ontario are not in agreement with the AoO’s mandate where their sole purpose is the negotiation of a land claims and self-government agreement with the provincial and federal governments.  It is apparent to many that the current land claims and self-government process is guided by unilaterally constructed colonial policy versus one of true reconciliation.  It is for this very reason that many Algonquin have completed the necessary ratification forms so they can categorically vote “no!”  To be enrolled with the AoO does not equal support and a “yes” vote.  To be clear, one should not conflate Algonquin enrolment with the AoO ratification process with agreement with the AoO “leadership” and the pitiful AoO mandate.  To do so would be a gross error.  Communities such as Ardoch First Nation, Kichesipirini First Nation and other individuals such as myself have a right to be consulted on the matter of the South March Highlands.

Grandfather William Commanda supports Daniel Bernard’s ability to dream and imagine a world where all four orders of Creation thrive and are happy.  This is in line with Anishinaabe tradition.   Grandfather does so because he values the South March Highlands as a spiritual place.  In 2006 I witnessed Grandfather receive the key to the City of Ottawa from then mayor Robert Chiarelli.  Certainly reconciliation must move beyond that of mere rhetoric and meaningless symbolic rituals such as giving away a “plastic” key.  The South March Highlands require an archeological review that is not confounded by the bias of developers who are rooted in their own pitiful economic view of the world.  Furthermore, all Algonquin, beyond the colonial constructed institution known as AoO, have a right to be consulted in this matter.

Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. – Turtle Clan
Algonquin Anishinaabe
Gii-Zhigaate-Mnidoo-Kwe

Like many  people, along  my life's path  I come  across many people offering  traditional Indigenous knowledge.  While indeed sometimes the knowledge is valid, oftentimes I come across situations where I am doubtful.   Because I am an Indigenous scholar I also come across situations where people ask me a particular question that is yet vague in that it seems to have no grounding in a particular Indigenous knowledge tradition.  Part of the reason for this, I think, is that sometimes people are engaging in a thought process that is rooted in pan-Indianism versus being rooted in a particular Indigenous knowledge tradition.

As a learner-reseacher, when I listen to people and the Indigenous knowledge they provide, share, or claim to be an expert about, I always do so through a critical lens as I have learned that being romatic is a foolhardy way of learning.  By critical lens I mean that I do not simply accept their knowledge blindly.  Rather, some of the questions I ask myself before accepting the knowledge someone offers consist of the following:

1. Does the person explain where they are from, where their ancestors are from, and where their home territory is in a clear and consistent way?  For me this comes first because Indigenous knowledge is always localized in that for the most part knowledge emerges from the relationship between the land and the cosmos.  If they are not rooted in their own knowledge tradition such as their own creation story and other sacred stories I question all they provide.

2. Is the person sharing the knowledge in a respectful way versus through a lens of nastiness, sexism, racism, or through an air of arrogance?  And are they treating all people in a good way?  If not - I question their knowledge.

3. Is the person sharing knowledge from their heart as well as from their mind?  Or is the knowledge well thought through versus only felt?  For the most part both heart and mind should be present.  While of course there are exceptions to the rule most of the time both should be present.

4. I ask myself, are their teachers known and respected people?  Having a respected teacher is an indication of valid knowledge.  Keep in mind though that being a politically controversial person is different than not being respected.

5. I also pay attention and look to see if they put down others.  If they put down others I question the knowledge provided.  A good and confident teacher will have no need to elevate their knowledge by putting down others.
 
6. I ask myself, does this person have integrity?  Meaning do they follow through with what they say, and do they meet their deadlines.  While it is unreasonable to expect people to always be able to do what they said, if they have a pattern of not coming through and thus dropping the ball I question their knowledge.

7. I ask myself, does the person have any credentials?  Although not without limitations, indeed credentials are an indication of valid knowledge.  By credentials I mean do they speak the language and / or do they have institutional credentials such as Mide or university training?

8. If the knowledge is emerging from a printed source such as a website or a book, additional  questions apply.  I ask,  is the knowledge organized, well presented, done in a good way, look professional, and is there a bibliography available so you can check their sources.
 
As suggested, although there are limitations to these questions, and while certainly there are additional questions one can ask themself before accepting another person's knowledge, thinking through these questions  is where I begin my process of determinining if the knowledge is worthy of further thought.  Finally I offer these questions as a guide, and also to encourage your own critical thinking, versus offering a panacea.