It is often said that one of the culprits of Western culture and the process of colonization is the way it converted larger communities and families into nuclear homes with individualistic and/or egotistical values.  Historically and traditionally here on Turtle Island we lived within communities where we were all related to one another and where we all had a role in teaching children values and morals.  For the most part these values and morals were embodied through teachings, songs, and rituals.  Once these values and morals were embodied, during times when our bodies and minds failed us, family and community members would remind one another of their collective obligations.  In this way family and community members were an important element of Indigenous governance tradition.

Oftentimes some people will actually excuse a family member’s lack of good moral judgement through statements such as, “I am not responsible for her actions” or “she is doing her job and she really is a nice person”.  This line of reasoning, though, is rooted in an oppressive governance structure that relies on individualistic and/or egotistical values, and must be reconsidered; this is especially so if one claims to be leftist.  Said another way, family and community members who remain silent as they stand beside violators of human rights are themselves complicit in the violation.  And further, through their silence they remain stuck within an oppressive governance system; an oppressive system that is comparable to the system that has forced many families to find refuge in Canada.
​
The contradiction of a young family finding refuge in Canada, yet that same family then denies Indigenous women and children their land and treaty rights, exists in plain sight for all to see.

​​​​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com

All too often settler people say to me, “The Algonquin have to get it together and stop being so divided”.
 
Although I am Algonquin Anishinaabe, a person does not have to be Algonquin to carry a critical thinking lens or framework in understanding that the issue with the denial of Algonquin rights, the destruction of our land, the pollution of the Ottawa River, and the destruction of our sacred places is in fact a settler issue and a settler government issue.  It is not an Algonquin issue; not at all.
 
It is not too difficult to reason that here in what has become the nation state called Canada, settlers have benefited from colonization in enormous and lucrative ways; in more ways than the Algonquin have.  Through the construction of Canada settler people have had greater access to Indigenous land and settlers have benefited more from the resources mined and pilfered from the land.
 
There are more settlers on Indigenous lands, and it is their settler government that continues to spend millions and millions of dollars to ensure the Algonquin remain in hardship, in poverty, and divided.  Let’s face it, as long as the Algonquin remain divided Canada can, and will, blame us for the very divide Canada has manufactured ‒ again through the resources pilfered from Indigenous land.
 
Through the settler court system, from the 1973 Calder decision through to the 2017 Tsilhoqot’in decision, Indigenous people have won the recognition for our rights yet Canada continues to deny these rights to us.
 
Indigenous people have also placed their bodies on the land over and over and over again.
 
It is about time settler people stop with the practice of blaming Algonquin people for the ongoing desecration and pollution of the land and water that we all need; trees and animals included. Said another way, the time is ripe for settlers to stop blaming Algonquin ancestors and fellow Algonquin who walk the earth today for what their ancestors did and their current settler government continues to do to the Four Orders of Creation.
 
Too many so called friends and acquaintances continually say ignorant things to me over and over again about the Algonquin.  They blame us.  This has to stop. Settlers, you own this situation.  It is time for you to put your bodies on the land and on the line.  Mortgage your homes; sell you summer homes too; then there is the content of those homes, it can all go too. Really serve the cause.  You can do this.  Whatever steps you take to generate the change you seek and the change we all need, stop with the excuse of blaming on the Algonquin for the continued pilfering of the land that you mostly benefit from.
 
Settlers stop externalizing your responsibility.  Settlers, you own this; not the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.

​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com

Settler people must stop judging Indigenous women in petty and dismissive ways such as nasty name calling.
 
Recently, I had a few experiences that were really telling of questionable settler thinking and a sure indication that they remain unaware and ignorant of the legitimate manifestations of structural oppression and how best to address it.
 
One individual called me “needy”, another called an Anishinaabe women “a wimp” and further “too angry”. There is so much I could say that is wrong about settler people name calling, regardless I will remain with offering a bulleted point list as I am sure I can make my position succinctly.

1. Settler people need to remember that they have lived the privilege of colonization and that their privilege has come off the backs of Indigenous people.
2.  Settler people need to remember that your homes and all your material possessions stuffed within it are on land, and off the land, that we were and continue to be denied.
3.  Settler people need to remember that in the summer, it is you who go off and vacation in your summer homes that also reside on Indigenous lands.
4.  Settler people need to remember it is Indigenous women and their families who are dealing with pedophiles and sexual offenders at a higher rate in our collective communities.
5.  Settler people need to remember that Indigenous women are missing and murdered in much larger numbers.
6.  Settler people need to remember that it is the sons of Indigenous families who are filling up Canada’s jail industry in much larger numbers.
7.  Setter people need to remember that Indigenous families have a higher rate of disability, both physical and mental.
8.  Settler people need to remember that it is the poverty that has been imposed on Indigenous people, and again that settlers gained from and continue to gain from, that result in us making decisions that in many ways harm us in the long run.
9.  Settler people need to remember that it is our families that continue to be destroyed and divided so Canada can thrive.
10.  Settler people need to remember that it is our communities that lack clean water and who live boil water advisories.
11.  Settler people need to remember that it was our culture that was criminalized, and further it is our culture that continues to be appropriated by settler people.
12.  Settler people need to remember that it is members in our communities that are pooping in buckets.
13.  Settler people need to remember that is our family members who are dying homeless on the streets.
14.  Settler people need to remember that it is Indigenous knowledge that continues to be reduced to “elderism” and that Indigenous knowledge holders and intellectuals continue to be ignored and dismissed through “elderism”.

 Morals move through the heart, they take the same path the human spirit does, and the same path emotions take. The people we should all fear are the people who lack the moral, spiritual, and emotional intelligence to speak up about the injustice Indigenous women face on a daily basis. It certainly is not Indigenous people who are righteously sad or angry. In short, look out for the “nice” accommodating, subservient and obliging people.
 
If you lack the intellectual ability to understand Indigenous women and ALL the knowledge we have, have the intelligence to listen versus silence them through name calling.

​​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com

​As many know, one of the main differences between Indigenous people and most if not all settler Canadians and our knowledge philosophies is that Indigenous people value the original dream of the Creator and Creator’s natural law. Another way to understand this difference is to value that Indigenous assumptions, beliefs, knowledge, teachings, and rituals are intentionally and consciously designed around natural models and features. This serves to keep us rooted within the naturalistic tradition. In short, the naturalistic tradition places natural law at its core where humans are placed within the context of all the other beings.
 
The naturalistic tradition is different from the humanistic tradition. The humanistic tradition places humans above the natural world and above all the other beings. This includes all of humanity’s creations such as governance and economic traditions. They are not designed to work with Creation; rather they are designed to control and monopolize Creation. While humans are smart beings and we are able to create amazing things with the gift of our mind, our egos and blind selfishness of the paramount importance of the natural world, and that humans too readily default to, is our own worst enemy. This is what is meant by the Anishinaabe philosophy and saying, ‘humans are pitiful’.
 
As we all know the humanistic tradition and inventions that emerge from it is devastating our collective land and waterscapes, so much so that our water is polluted with layers and layers of different kinds of pollution: debris such as plastic and other forms of garbage; chemicals such as organic compounds like dioxins, heavy metals, and pharmaceuticals; sewage and biological waste; and radioactive particles. Again, this is the result of human beings placing their needs over and above all the beings within the natural world.
 
The problem is that most people are suffering from ‘cognitive paradigm paralysis’, meaning they are unable to think conceptually about the paradigm they live within, and thus unable to think critically about the limitations of their paradigm ‒ the humanistic paradigm ‒ and value that there is a better more intelligent option waiting for them to shift into. The culprit is the pitifulness of human cognition.
 
A telling example of people’s inability to understand that they are stuck within the irrational humanistic tradition / paradigm is the fact that when a brick and mortar Church, Mosque, or Synagogue is damaged, people are disgusted and outraged and they call it a hate crime; yet when a natural Indigenous sacred place such as Akikodjiwon and Akikpautik located within the natural world of the land and waterscape of the Ottawa River is further desecrated these same people are unable to shift conceptually and value that this too is a hate crime. This inability continues to harm Indigenous people as well as all people and Creation.
 
Akikodjiwon and Akikpautik are the very land and waterscapes where Creator placed the First Sacred Pipe, the ultimate ritual and ceremony of reconciliation. The Spirit of the West Wind gifted his son Nanaboozo with the Sacred Pipe for fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, and citizens of all nations to assist in reconciliation. Sadly, Akikodjiwon and Akikpautik are slated for further desecration through the construction of Windmill’s condominium and retail complex. This is happening just upstream from Parliament Hill.

As many know I have been on a long learning journey piecing together what Canada has done, and continues to do, to Indigenous peoples. What I know for sure is the most effective way to destroy a people is to destroy their sacred beliefs, stories, and places. It is an abomination that the further desecration of this sacred place of reconciliation is happening during the time of the Liberal government’s reconciliation platform.
 
You are likely more familiar with my recent work challenging the sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Over the last few years I have also been working with allies from Free the Falls and Stop Windmill and Indigenous people and Elders regarding the need to respect Akikodjiwon and Akikpautik. We are at a loss about where to turn and so I turn to members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal People.
  
Additional resources:

• http://anishinabeknews.ca/2015/05/26/opinion-lambert-on-free-the-chaudiere-falls-and-save-the-islands/
• http://albertdumont.com/dreamkeepers-politicians-chaudiere-falls/
• http://muskratmagazine.com/celebrating-canadas-150th-featuring-the-desecration-of-an-indigenous-sacred-place/
• http://albertdumont.com/asinabka-impossible-to-buy/
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/windmill-to-unveil-domtar-land-plan-1.2460753

​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com

​Many Layers of Structural Oppression
 
The knowledge of living as a structurally oppressed person is foremost held within the everyday lived experiences of the oppressed. The location of the knowledge of oppression resides within the bodies and hearts of the very people. As such, the wisdom needed to remedy structural oppression is located within the critical thinking minds of the oppressed themselves. Not all structurally oppressed people are able to move the knowledge from their bodies and hearts to the location of their minds. Remember that critical thinking is a gift and a skill.
 
Most people know we live in a society that oppresses women. Few people will deny this. But we need to keep in mind that heterosexual, able-bodied, white women only experience one layer of structural oppression, and therefore only know one layer of the knowledge. Further, they lack the intersectional knowledge located within the spaces of having more than one layer of structural oppression.
 
It can be said that the level of knowledge within the “Well of Wisdom”, needed to challenge oppressive structures that white women have, is not deep and murky. This sounds unkind but this is true. This is one reason why older white feminism was critiqued by women of colour. While white women were happy with the shifts made, women of colour were not ‘celebrating the continuation of the oppression’ as the shifts were mostly the assimilation of white women into patriarchal systems.
 
Intersectional Feminism
 
While white women do have some of the knowledge of structural oppression and the wisdom of how to address it, it stands to reason that women of colour will have more. What is more, women of colour will also have the intersectional effects of being both a woman and a woman of colour; where the experience of intersectional effects mean they also know the inter-acting results of experiencing two levels of structural oppression. What this means is the level of knowledge in the “Well of Wisdom” that women of colour hold to challenge oppressive societal structures is deeper and more murky than the level white women have.
 
While women of colour know more than double the knowledge of structural oppression over white women, it stands to reason that women of colour with a disability embody even more of the knowledge and wisdom: more than three times the knowledge in that again they also hold the intersectional effects contained.
 
We can keep adding to this. For example, a woman of colour with a disability and who is gender non-specific will even have more of the knowledge and wisdom needed to address structural oppression.
 
In sum, the knowledge of structural oppression is located within the lived experiences of the oppressed where the multiply oppressed have more of the knowledge and wisdom needed to challenge it. My goal here is not to set up a knowledge competition but rather to illustrate why it is that people under more levels of oppression are able to identify the limitations of the less oppressed, that being white women. It is because they hold more of the knowledge.

Cognitive Dissonance is Unpleasant
 
All too often when white women take on a social justice issue, where they lack a deeper understanding of the knowledge of structural oppression, they are then faced with situations of cognitive dissonance when a person who is more oppressed speaks up letting them know they are not addressing issues in a way that the more oppressed need them to be addressed. Experiencing cognitive dissonance is emotional and the feelings that emerge are negative: embarrassment, shame, anger, hate, toxicity, lateral violence, arrogance, and ignorance. The good thing is the best learning is emotional; not nice though.
 
What happens all too often when white women are informed or told about their ignorance they become reactionary so much so that they can and will rely on and hurl nasty adjectives to describe the person who was brave enough to speak up. Interestingly, I have come to know that the nasty adjectives actually best describe the less oppressed person’s emotional state brought on by their cognitive dissonance rather than the more oppressed brave person. The emotions are a result of them being challenged in ways they are ignorant about; or result from them being called out about their unspoken political agenda that further oppresses such as them supporting the current Minister of Status of Women Maryam Monsef who is not addressing sex discrimination in the Indian Act, the land claims process, and the destruction of sacred Indigenous land and waterscapes.
 
On White Privilege; We Need White Women, But …
 
While it is indeed a wonderful thing that white people are now learning about, reading about, thinking about, and talking about white privilege, white people do not have the everyday lived experience of being at the back end of white privilege where as such they do not hold the monopoly of knowledge on white privilege. It is crucial to keep in mind they do not and cannot ever hold the depth of knowledge and wisdom that people of colour hold on this topic. In short, because it is not their everyday lived misery they do not know it wholistically, deeply, or completely.
 
Some people may be inclined to think, if white women do not hold enough of the knowledge of structural oppression, and if people who are more oppressed are not happy with the actions of white women, then they need to take a lead role in the process of challenging structural oppression and forget about white women. This line of thought is reactionary and not the thinking of a genuine social justice seeker, not at all. Asking white women to reflect on who has more of the knowledge is valid; it does not mean the more oppressed don’t need them in the struggle. Of course we do. What we need is for them to take a back seat or follow and serve the more oppressed.
 
What is more, the less oppressed people who argue there is the need for the more oppressed to be nicer when they encounter settler ignorance really need to think critically about intersectional feminism, and stop burdening more oppressed people with settler emotions.
 
I have produced a large volume of short reading materials that enhance the knowledge shared in this blog:
 
Intersectional Oppression:
https://journeymagazineptbo.com/2016/09/14/2830/
Follow the Turtle:
https://www.lynngehl.com/follow-the-turtle.html
Critical thinking and the Charity Model:
​www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/critical-thinking-and-the-charity-model-of-social-justice
Kawartha Truth and Reconciliation Support Group on Maryam Monsef:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lynn-gehl/canada-is-carrying-out-cultural-genocide-with-a-smile_a_23204482/
http://www.windspeaker.com/news/opinion/opinion-minister-monsef-disappoints-on-bill-s-3-and-continues-the-discrimination/
White Woman’s Gaze:
https://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/that-white-womans-gaze
On Nice People:
https://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/nice-people-scare-me
On Reconciliation:
http://muskratmagazine.com/celebrating-canadas-150th-featuring-the-desecration-of-an-indigenous-sacred-place/

Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com

Critically thinking people in Peterborough have been working long and hard on issues of social justice from the perspective of multiple intersectional oppressions, meaning colour, gender, disabilities; yet it appears that not much progress is being made. Of course this has to do in large part with oppressive power, but it also has to do with a lack of critical thinking about the limitations of the Charity Model of social justice. While compassion is valued and needed, the Charity Model is for the most part a back-end focus to social justice issues and thus not capable of addressing the deeper structural issues oppressed people face. In short, back end compassion alone is not enough; front end solutions are needed.
 
Further, oppressed people want and need more than being patronized with small tokens of charity at the back-end. They also want more than being someone’s “feel good moment” where they are offered charity so a privileged person can feel that they did a good thing at Christmas time. Yes, this actually continues to happen.
 
It is often said that social justice awareness, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, and actions must emerge from the location of intersectionally oppressed people. This is mostly true as they embody, live, and have much of the knowledge of oppression. But it is also said there is the need to embrace genuine critical thinkers to guide processes of social justice efforts to a real and more meaningful place. Unfortunately critical thinking is also not well understood where as a result sometimes a “token critical thinker” is relied on when addressing social justice issues.
 
Critically thinking (with some criticizing too) about critical thinking?

1. Criticizing is not critical thinking
2. Not all people are critical thinkers
3. Not all people of colour or people with disabilities are critical thinkers
4. Critical thinking exists on a continuum where sometimes the most oppressed holds more of the skill
5. Being involved with social justice for a long time in itself does not make a person a critical thinker
6. Being an older person does not mean that said person holds the wisdom of critical thinking
7. Critical thinking can be taught and honed through critical thinking disciplines and training such as sociology, anthropology, African Studies, and Indigenous Studies ... .
8. Saying someone is not a critical thinker is not arrogant, not at all
9. Everyone has gifts, critical thinking is just one that we need to value rather than assuming we all have this skill
10. Thinking all people are critical thinkers is an act of anti-intellectualism

When it comes to addressing social justice issues, critical thinking is a process of thinking deeply about the limitations of society's oppressive structures such as employment standards and requirements, standard operating procedures, policies, and legislation that are causing certain people from living a good life.  Critical thinking is also a way of being and acting that challenges, at the front end, oppressive structures for the purpose of serving people. Critical thinking and acting on it is much more than relying on the Charity Model at the back-end. Here is a short video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLyUHbexz04

What has caused me to think about this issue of the limitations of the Charity Model and the need for genuine critical thinking in social justice? Recently a video was posted in a facebook group titled “Carol's Place” that was clearly rooted in the Charity Model of social justice. In this video a privileged person was walking around a city offering small tokens to homeless people thinking he was doing a good thing when in fact what he was really doing was exploiting the homeless for the purpose of his own “feel good moment”. Sadly a few members of the Peterborough community clicked like on this posting thus endorsing the Charity Model. This small example of a misplaced facebook posting is a sure indication that some people in Peterborough remain stuck in a Charity Model and further, lack the gift of critical thinking. (I have chosen not to post this link here as I do not want to give it anymore currency than it is already gaining.)
 
It is my thought that the Charity Model of social justice emerges from: the inability to really value where structures of oppression come from; the inability to really value that oppressed people are indeed consciously oppressed through standard operating practices, policies, and laws; and the inability to perceive that Indigenous people do indeed have a valid knowledge system and paradigm that is being actively thwarted and denied by the government of Canada. As a result, sometimes the Charity Model marches forward only addressing back-end solutions and failing to address the root causes of structural oppression.
 
Here are two insightful videos that address the deeper issues with the Charity Model. In the second video the speaker uses the anger that exists between “the haves” and “the have nots” to perform what he knows. As a man he is more easily afforded the right to be mad.
​
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wmtjnp-7wg
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=telgvKBdY9E
 
The City of Peterborough can do better.

​​​​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com

On Tuesday October 17, 2017 the Standing Committee of Indigenous and Northern Affairs discussed the specific claims and the comprehensive land claims process.  In this short video clip conservative MP Kevin Waugh asks Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Treaties and Governance and Joe Wild of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the question, “What is nation to nation anyway?”  Wild’s response is telling.  Wild explains that Canada defines nation to nation only in terms of the Indigenous people sitting at the table with Canada.  He offers no discussion at all in terms of it meaning sharing the land and resources with Indigenous nations on a more equal basis which is what genuine nation to nation has to mean.

Watch the entire meeting at this link:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20171017/-1/28107?Language=English&Stream=Video&useragent=Mozilla%2F5.0%20(Windows%20NT%2010.0%3B%20Win64%3B%20x64)%20AppleWebKit%2F537.36%20(KHTML%2C%20like%20Gecko)%20Chrome%2F62.0.3202.94%20Safari%2F537.36

​​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

This is an excerpt from my book The Truth that Wampum Tells: My Debwewin on the Algonquin Land Claims Process.
 
How land claims settlements are achieved is arguably the biggest issue. Essentially, they require the parties to agree on a set of rights, compensation and other benefits. It is John A. Olthuis and H.W. Roger Townshend’s (1996: 10) contention that negotiations guide the process to finalizing settlements.
 
Coyle explains that the central component of settlements is land and land-related rights, where the latter may include “sub-surface resources, waters in the claim area, forests, wildlife and fisheries, protecting cultural artifacts, rights of access and rights of the Aboriginal group to manage and govern settlement lands.” Coyle notes that land acquisitions are achieved through First Nations using settlement money to purchase their land on the open market, or by some other means such as the province transferring Crown lands to Canada in trust for the First Nation. Interestingly, in assessing monetary compensation amounts, there are no criteria in Canada’s land claims policy. However, the policy does suggest that compensation can be resolved through cash, resource revenue sharing and even government bonds (Coyle 1997: 67-68).
 
That said, in actuality, it is Andrew Woolford’s (2004: 121) contention that settlement mandates are actually handed down to federal and provincial negotiators from upper echelons who in reality negotiate with their own government in terms of moving outside of the relegated mandate parameters. This of course implies that the land claims process is not really a negotiation process between Indigenous nations and the governments of Canada. Rather, the negotiating occurs between government employees.
 
References:
 
Coyle, Michael. 1997. “Land Claims Negotiations in Canada.” In Stephen B. Smart and Michael Coyle (eds.), Aboriginal Issues Today: A Legal and Business Guide. North Vancouver: Self-Counsel. 53-78.
 
Olthuis, John A., H.W. Roger Townshend with contributions by Roger A. Justus, Nancy J. Kleer and Evelyn J. Baxter, Morris/Rose/Ledgett. 1996. “Is Canada’s Thumb on the Scales? An Analysis of Canada’s Comprehensive and Specific Claims Policies and Suggested Alternatives.” For Seven Generations: An Information Legacy of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. cd-rom. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group-Publishing. 1-118.
 
Woolford, Andrew John. 2004. “Negotiating Affirmative Repair: Symbolic Violence in the British Columbia Treaty Process.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 29, 1: 111-44.

Please like and share this blog.

Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the land claims process. Her book The Truth that Wampum Tells: My Debwewin of the Algonquin Land Claims Process  offers an insider-Indigenous analysis of the Algonquin land claims process in Ontario.  She has is new book titled Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit with the University of Regina Press scheduled to be published in the fall of 2017. You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

Who is historian Lindsay Lambert?
Who is film maker Andrée Cazabon?
Who is lawyer Michael Swinwood?
Who is the group Free the Falls?
Who is the group Stop Windmill?
 
The Algonquin Anishinaabeg are in pretty dire conditions.  We have never had a treaty and our nation has been divided by imposed British and French laws, imposed English and French language, and imposed religions, as well as imposed provincial borders.  The situation of the Algonquin was largely accomplished through do-gooders also known as people with so-called good intentions.  One example is the residential school system imposed by Canada and the churches.  Another example is and continues to be “helping” Indigenous people become more civilized through the land tenure system.  In addition there are all the earlier anthropologists who were actually agents of the state.
 
Through decolonization and Indigenous awareness of these do-gooder agents of the state, and the birth of theoretical frameworks such as feminism, critical theory, anti-colonialism, allyship, and more recently Indigenism many people are now asking tough questions about people who come in to our communities claiming to be a helper.
 
Being a shkaabewis or in English "a helper" is a place of honour and a place of humbleness where it is now expected that they must tell us: Who are they? Who are they related to? What do they want? Why do they want it? How did they determine and define the help they seek to offer? Who is funding their efforts? How do they plan to meet our needs? What are their unstated political affiliations? What is their strategy? Who are they accountable to? How will they allocate funds the process may generate? How are they assuring that friends have not biased them?
 
Asking these questions are now the accepted way to protect community members and assuring the community’s needs are paramount, but also as a way of assuring that the effort being taken is indeed genuine and legitimate.  In terms of the latter, if the effort is not viewed as legitimate community support for the effort and the mobilization of the effort will be hindered.  This would be counter-productive to the goal.
 
Contrary to what many may think I ask these questions not to be harmful.  Rather, I ask for valid reasons.  I ask because I want the larger Algonquin Anishinaabeg to be able to trust these people if they are indeed worthy, and I also ask these questions as a measure to assure what they are doing is a good thing.  As I have said legitimacy is important.  If Algonquin do not see the person or the effort as legitimate this is not a good thing.  If these helpers are genuine they will appreciate the need to assure that their role and effort is genuine and legitimate.  In short, they will value the questions.
 
We have all heard of, and many of us personally know, individuals who come into our families and into our communities offering us help, such as giving us their services, time, shelter, food, clothes, and money.  Unfortunately, what some of these “helping people” count on is for members to be too busy where as such they are unquestionably grateful for the help being offered.  This is the ultimate of vulnerability.  As a result of the great need, and the imposition of the survival mode imposed on them by Canada, many of us cannot stop, think, and ask these hard questions.  But some can and this is a good thing not a bad thing.
 
Poor families and Indigenous communities are particularly vulnerable.  We all know this and so do others.  Even today our families and communities continue to be infiltrated by outsiders who are selfishly seeking research needs, the need for a spiritual experience; the need to be perceived as a good person; and there are people who want to sexually exploit the exotic and young girls and boys, persons with disabilities, the elderly, sometimes even babies.
 
As suggested helpers are not limited to what is obviously evil.  Some are sociologists and anthropologists; where others are reporters, journalists, and media and film makers.  They are all looking for their stories to fulfill their own needs.  Still further, others are activists, both charitable and social.  But of course the worst are the pedophiles.  There are also the land claims and legal industries where people are seeking and gaining huge financial rewards and/or media fame in the realm of legal precedent from the Aboriginal law industry.  They all want something, some more sinister, some less sinister.  Our Needs Matter More!
 
The point is, Indigenous families and communities have been the fodder of much questionable practice.  Fortunately academics are now more ethical in their research where many, if not all, now allow us to shape the research process, its goal, and the direction of the knowledge produced.  But there is more work to do in our journey forward to liberation, freedom, and self-determination.  Indigenous families and communities need to put in place within our minds and practices the confidence that we do indeed have the right ask hard questions.
 
Helping people who claim they wish to serve our families and our communities, yet who fail to tell us: Who are they? Who are they related to? What do they want? Why do they want it? How did they determine and define the help they seek to offer? Who is funding their efforts? How do they plan to meet our needs? What are their unstated political affiliations? What is their strategy? Who are they accountable to? How will they allocate funds the process may generate? How are they assuring that friends have not biased them? – are potentially dangerous people.
 
If they are genuine people with integrity they will be respectful of our need to know the answers to these questions, and they will appreciate that they need to be transparent on these issues and respect our need to know.  We have a right to protect our communities and assure all political and legal actions are legitimate and will be perceived as legitimate.
 
When helping people respond to our questions in a way that implies they are insulted and possibly say things such as: “I am volunteering my time, be grateful”, or similarly with “No one is paying me, be grateful”, these are individuals who are not deserving of the privilege of being “helping people”.  Another more disturbing response is they may move into a character attack or assassination of the person who has taken on the hard job of asking the questions.  The helping person who takes this reactionary response should be avoided.
 
To be a Shkaabewis is a place of honour and humbleness.

Please like and share this blog. Chi-Miigwetch!

​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the land claims process. Her book The Truth that Wampum Tells: My Debwewin of the Algonquin Land Claims Process  offers an insider-Indigenous analysis of the Algonquin land claims process in Ontario. You can reach her through, and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

There are at least five layers of water pollution:

1 Debris such as plastic, glass, tires, planes, cars ...
2 Toxic metals such as mercury, lead ...
3 Toxic organic such as dioxins, pesticides, herbicides ...
4 Sewage and biological waste.
5 Radioactive particles.

People should never be satisfied with the corporate deception of development through "greening up" a space such as removing old buildings, adding sod, and planting trees.

The eye must not be allowed to appropriate reality. Like reality, most of the pollution is invisible to the eye.

Ask a blind person. They know.

​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the land claims process. Her book The Truth that Wampum Tells: My Debwewin of the Algonquin Land Claims Process  offers an insider-Indigenous analysis of the Algonquin land claims process in Ontario. You can reach her through, and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

Why Does Joe Garden?

​A useful definition of hegemony is “knowledge” that is manufactured through oppressive power, or knowledge that is common to the people, rather than knowledge that is well thought-out ideology.  A powerful example of the relationship between hegemony and material culture becomes apparent when we ask the question, “How is it that peasant societies are able to revolt?”  Peasant societies are able to revolt because they do not rely totally on wage labour as they have alternate means of subsisting and surviving in the world.  As a result, this means they are not materially dominated by the owners of their production as they have a dual relationship to the economy.  Because of, and through, this dual relationship to the economy they are able to exercise their human agency and initiate revolution worldwide.  They cannot be controlled by money losses.
​
Another example of the relationship between hegemony and material culture becomes apparent when one asks, “Why are the working classes unable to successfully revolt?”  Due to material domination and the relationship to ideological domination they cannot revolt because they have no alternate lifestyle to place their human agency into action.  They are totally dependent on their income.  Hence they are trapped, unlike members of peasant societies.
​

​The Land is Intelligent and Makes Joe Think
​
There is another interesting dynamic of hegemony within class domination of capitalism that becomes apparent when we ask, “How is the domination and subordination of the working class reproduced and sustained?  It seems that most people are not puzzled by their lack of control over their lives, but rather mostly we actively and contradictorily express “resistance” to the very thinkers that could lead to our freedom in various ways.  One way is through anti-intellectualism where as a result we prevent ourselves from developing a full critique and understanding of the structures of domination.  Through anti-intellectualism we actually celebrate and perpetuate our domination, thus successfully preserving the status quo for our oppressors.  In this way, as a force of hegemony, we further embed ourselves in the very world that we wish to escape from.  

​Other Ways the Oppressed “Celebrate” Their Oppression

We celebrate hegemony and our oppression in many ways: through nationalism, shopping, silicone implants, inappropriate shoes, fashion slavery, Tim Hortons, purchasing on credit, diamond rings, endless materialism, big homes with big mortgages, and gluttony.  Can you think of others ways?  We need to learn from the turtle who teaches us there are two ways to get rich: one way is to work hard until you die hoarding a lot on the way, and the other way, which leads to ultimate freedom, is for us to desire little.  The turtle is so smart.

Note: This blog is influenced by the anthropological theory I was exposed to as an undergraduate student, in particular the work of Jean and John L. Comaroff and Tom Dunk. In the work regarding Indigenous rights I find my mind always moves in the direction of hegemony and anti-intellectualism where as such I decided to write this short blog.

Please like and share this blog, and subscribe and donate.  Miigwetch!

Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the land claims process. Her book The Truth that Wampum Tells: My Debwewin of the Algonquin Land Claims Process  offers an insider-Indigenous analysis of the Algonquin land claims process in Ontario. You can reach her through, and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

​1.  The land claims process is an  industry for lawyers and a job creation program for a few Algonquin people and nothing more.

2.  Canada has huge amounts of money to craft policy and legislation that will forever prevent the Algonquin from unifying.  The argument that the Algonquin must first come together before settlers act is incredibly misinformed and not at all rational.

3.  Canada, like all oppressors, intentionally obfuscates and confounds things.  Through this process oppressors gain agency in their oppressive acts.  Do not fall for this.
​
4.  Including oppressors, such as the police in your effort will thwart momentum.  Make no mistake, it will.  While at some point they may have a role in the final acceptance of structural change, this is near the end of the journey, not at the beginning.

5.  Elders are ONLY one element of community governance traditions.  It is community members – who have watched the child be socialized and shaped, grow up, and be valued as a person with good moral standing and integrity – who know who the genuine Elders are.  Settler people need to stop interfering with identifying and calling people Elders.  You do not have an Elder as in “my Elder”.  If you want Indigenous people to get our act together, settlers must stay out of our traditions.  Alternatively stated, Elderism has to end. For the most part Elders are for ceremony.

6.  While sometimes an Elder is also an Intellectual, settlers need to understand that Indigenous communities also have philosophers and intellectuals.  It will be the intellectuals that put concrete discourse to the policies and legislations that will motivate people and generate momentum.  This is not a devaluation of Elders; it is an appreciation that Indigenous knowledge is also in the intellectuals.  Alternatively stated, Elderism has to end.

7.  All people are Indigenous to Mother Earth.  Do not let oppressed Indigenous people who are laden with internalized oppression and lateral violence take this away.  Settler people can, and must, stand up in a good kind way and defend their right to clean air, water, and land.  We all have this responsibility.
​
8. Genuine action is not a festival, nor is it a tourist attraction, or a photographer’s / videographer’s opportunity.  It is real hard work and some of us have been working on Indigenous rights for over 250 years.  Yes, that is what I wrote, 250 years.

9.  Knowledge is not in the majority and not held in consensus.  Sometimes the most important knowledge is in the one person or the minority.  We must listen to all the voices paying attention to experiential knowledge, intellectual knowledge, and the person’s critical training to determine if hegemonic forces have placed the knowledge in the minority.  Alternatively stated, stop allowing the tyranny of the majority and the need for a consensus thwart people’s needs.  Always think critically; move away from criticizing.

10.  Settlers need to act strategically and think about who they are creating space for.  Local Indigenous people and their intellectuals need to be central, and an effort must be made to include them at all levels such as who speaks when and for how long, who is the master of ceremonies, who are the advisers, and who are the helpers … .

11.  Know that oftentimes the most important knowledge is not flattering nor will it be candy-coated.  In the context of structural oppression knowledge can and will be angry, frustrated, and depressed.  If all you listen to is happy knowledge you are making a grave mistake.  Generally speaking it is a good thing to look out for “nice” people as they very likely are manipulating you for personal gain.  Listen to authentic people.  As an example, if you do not like the knowledge in this blog, this in itself does not make it wrong.  Learn to be more objective.

12.  The argument that the best speakers are free is completely incorrect.  Find speakers with the knowledge and support their hard work, time, thinking, and ideas.  If what you want is genuine change, this Truth is a no-brainer.

More ally resources are posted here.

Please like and share this blog.

​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the land claims process. Her book The Truth that Wampum Tells: My Debwewin of the Algonquin Land Claims Process  offers an insider-Indigenous analysis of the Algonquin land claims process in Ontario. You can reach her through, and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

I was fortunate to have spent some time with the late Algonquin Anishinaabe Grandfather William Commanda (1913 - 2011), who lived in Maniwaki Quebec and who was the last keeper of three traditional wampum belts. Grandfather Commanda taught me via the oral tradition about the significance of the Chaudière Falls, best known as Akikpautik, located in the Kiji Sìbì, now known as the Ottawa River, and adjacent to Canada’s parliament buildings. He told me why Akikpautik – which translates to “Pipe Bowl Falls” – and the islands located just downstream are sacred.
 
Interestingly the significance of Akikpautik was observed and recorded in 1613 in Champlain’s Journals where he witnessed the Anishinaabeg ceremonially offering tobacco to the pipe bowl. [see note 1]. This was before the time when settler people imprisoned Akikpautik within the cement walls of a huge hydroelectric dam. When reading Grandfather’s face, as he told me the story, I could feel that he was sad.
 
While many Canadians understand the Ottawa River as the border between what colonial officials created and call the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, it must be appreciated that prior to contact the river was the uniting feature of the larger Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation who reside on both sides of the river. In addition, it must be appreciated that the river, Akikpautik, and the islands are indeed the jurisdiction of the larger Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation as we have never ceded or extinguished our land and water rights.  I must stress here that this includes the much larger population of the non-status and the status Algonquin.

A central Anishinaabe figure and philosopher, Wìsakedjàk (also Nanaboozo), the son of the Spirit of the West Wind and Mother Earth’s first woman Winona, had many responsibilities, one of which was the naming all the beings on Mother Earth. Wìsakedjàk is also credited for bringing forth a special gift from his father, the First Sacred Pipe. As an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe community member rooted in my ancestral oral teachings I have heard that Wìsakedjàk’s footprints remain inscribed along the Ottawa River and so we know he was at Akikpautik.
 
Many people know that Grandfather Commanda held a special vision and plan, “Asinabka the Sacred Chaudière Site”, that included re-naturalizing Pipe Bowl Falls and the three islands downstream. His plan included the removal of the large ring dam imposed, and the creation of a park, historic interpretive centre, peace building meeting site, and an Indigenous centre [see note 2 and 3]. But since capital trumps reconciliation between the Canadian state and Indigenous Nations, a well-supported development corporation known as The Windmill Development Group has momentum in moving ahead with building a “waterfront community” on this very sacred land and water space, despite sustained protests by community members, both Indigenous and settler people, as well as the opposition of most of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Chiefs in Quebec. These people want Grandfather’s plans to be implemented over more corporate destruction.
 
Canada’s parliament buildings, the Prime Minister’s residence, the Governor General’s residence, and the entire National Capital Region reside on traditional Algonquin territory. As a result of this reality a major component of Canada’s nation-building strategy is dedicated to inventing and promoting a collective Canadian consciousness that rests on the erasure of Indigenous peoples and seizure of their territories [see note 4 and 5]. Sadly, many critical theorists realize that Canada has control and access to the resources to do this all too well. Canada's control of the resources is the very problem in that through this control they are able to manufacture a particular mindset that denies the need for valuing what is sacred.​

For Indigenous people our water and landscapes are very much storied as this is one way that we preserve important sacred beliefs, teachings, and knowledge for future generations to come. The short story is we want our descendants to embody and feel love for the land and the gifts it provides. For example, places such as Oiseau Rock, in Quebec, tell our story of Creation when the four sacred elements of rock, water, wind, and fire first came together.  Through these stories we learn to honour the Earth for future generations.  This is the very value of sacred beliefs; They are not trivial, silly, and primitive relics of the past that need to go away.
 
In addition the location where waterways meet are valued as special meeting places in that it was through the gift of water that we were able to travel great distances to meet our relatives. One such location, situated between Quebec and Ontario, is in the Kiji Sìbì, where the Gatineau and Rideau Rivers join and where the three islands − Chaudière, Albert, and Victoria − are located downstream of the Chaudière Falls [see note 6 and 7].
 
Grandfather Commanda told me about the special features of Akikpautik / Chaudière Falls’ that have spiritual meaning for the Anishinaabeg, as well as for all the nearby and visiting Indigenous Nations such as the Cree and Blackfoot Nations. These features consist of a horseshoe falls, shaped as a near-circle (representing a pipe bowl); and an area where great amounts of water travel through an underwater cavern, re-emerging downstream (a pipe stem). The constriction of the river represents the narrowness of the pipe stem when it meets the bowl. Collectively, these features represent Creator’s First Sacred Pipe given to us by Wìsakedjàk [see note 8]. As I listened to Grandfather’s story my heart and mind swelled with pride and joy. This is what sacred stories and beliefs should do: fill you with the love of knowing how special you are, how special your ancestors are, and how special the land and water are. 

​Meaning is not something you casually find on the ground. Rather, we are all born into meaning systems and socialized to love them. Unfortunately, power mediates the process where consequently oppressive cultures collapse sacred and moral meaning.  In doing this they destroy the world.​

Notes/links of interest:

1. Champlain, Samuel de. 2000. Algonquians, Hurons and Iroquois: Champlain Explores America 1603–1616. Edward Gaylord Bourne (ed.), Annie Nettleton Bourne (trans.). Dartmouth, NS: Book House Press

2. http://www.asinabka.com/geninfo.htm

3. http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2010/11-19/cpsc/02-%20report%20on%20the%20vision%20for%20the%20Askiabka.htm

4. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

5. Gehl, L. (2014). The Truth That Wampum Tells: My Debwewin on the Algonquin Land Claims Process.  Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.

6. http://albertdumont.com/the-kettle-of-boiling-waters-chaudiere-falls-algonquin-territory/

7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeFqbRBU5mk

8.​ Google Map

Please share and like this blog.  If you value my work and want to support it the donation button is below.  Miigwetch.

The TRC Identifies Three Forms of Genocide … .
 
For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada.  The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as “cultural genocide.”

Physical genocide is the mass killing of the members of a targeted group, and biological genocide is the destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity.
 
Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of the targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And, most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next. In its dealing with Aboriginal people, Canada did all these things.
 
To read more: click here
 
The Heartbreak of Algonquin Genocide ... .
 
Eventually, after generations of petitions and only after we were in a particularly pitiful state of poverty and division, Canada entered into a land claims and self-government negotiation process with the Algonquin of Golden Lake, now Algonquin of Pikwàkanàgan First Nation. In this process only the Algonquin living in Ontario are involved, where through this process all Indian status members, approximately 1,800 members, are accepted as beneficiaries. So too are the approximately 6,000 non-status Algonquin accepted as beneficiaries.
 
Through two federal government policies - the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy and the Inherent Rights Policy - our jurisdiction, land, and land related rights are not protected but rather continue to be denied and placed within the confines of a small b□x. Through these policies Canada has imposed on us what it thinks we are entitled to: a very small percentage of our traditional territory and a one-time buy-out. This deal was tabled in November 2012. Clearly 117,000 acres which amounts to only 1.3 per cent of our traditional territory and $300 million is a bad deal.
 
To read more:
http://rabble.ca/news/2013/03/heart-break-algonquin-genocide
 
http://www.lynngehl.com/open-letter-to-prime-minister-justin-trudeau.html
 
http://www.lynngehl.com/open-letter-to-dr-bennett.html

Like and share this blog.

Regarding this coverage: http://aptn.ca/news/2016/02/11/non-aboriginals-on-list-of-ontario-algonquins-set-to-vote-on-treaty-deal-covering-ottawa-report/
 
The Algonquin land claims settlement is a pitiful settlement: $300 million one-time buy-out and 1.3% of our traditional territory. We need to focus on this and stop with the identity politics.
 
I am a non-status Algonquin in Ontario. Many people know I have a long standing Charter challenge about the issue of unknown and unstated paternity and the Indian Act. I completed my Masters work on Indigenous identity and so I am well versed on the issues related to Indigenous identity politics. I also completed my doctoral work on the Algonquin land claims processing where I decided to walk away from it because I learned it is rooted in colonial policy that serves the nation state of Canada and not Indigenous Nations.
 
Like all Algonquins in Ontario I went through the lengthy and rigorous Algonquin Enrolment Law process which requires Algonquin link themselves to an ancestor on an official list. There are many issues with the ancestral list in that they have been shaped by census records and thus patriarchy, and also there is the issue that many Indigenous people know who they are via the oral tradition. It must be valued that many Algonquin had to push who they were underground to survive the onslaught of colonization. Further it must be valued that despite our ancestors’ efforts only one reserve community was created: Pikwakanagan First Nation. These realities, though, do not mean that non-status people are not Algonquin. Of course we are Algonquin. It was precisely for these reasons that an additional mechanism was put in place in the land claims to make sure the process was inclusive of all Algonquin. While I am no fan of the land claims process this inclusivity was a good thing.
 
Yes, there was a time in the Algonquin land claims process where some “leaders” began to manipulate the Algonquin Enrolment Law process with hunting rights in their favour so they would be voted in as a representative and thus gain a paycheck from the process. While I could talk more about this, I cannot do it here as it requires a lengthy discussion. I posted links below for people who are interested in learning more. It is important to know that eventually many people enrolled, and whose identities were not confirmed rigorously, had to undergo a hearing to determine if they would remain included. It is my understanding that eventually approximately 300 people were removed from the Algonquin Enrolment Law process where as such they cannot vote on the final agreement.
 
When Quebec chiefs argue the larger body of non-status Algonquin in Ontario are not real Aboriginal people when in fact it is well known that there are more non-status than status Algonquin they offer a critique that has many limitations and an argument that can be easily discredited. The real issue and critique must focus on the colonial policies that set us up for pitiful settlements.
 
Alternatively stated, while I stand with the Algonquin Chiefs on the horrors of the land claims process, we need to focus on the termination of Indigenous rights and jurisdiction through unilaterally constructed colonial polices, rather than engage in a process of discrediting Indigenous people with a weak understanding and argument of identity politics.
 
What is more, it should not be assumed that non-status people will vote yes. I am hearing that many are voting no. I am sure the same applies to the status Algonquin.
 
I am hopeful that this vote is successfully ratified as a no vote. This is where my tobacco offerings are directed toward.

​#truththatwampumtells
 
Related links:
 
http://rabble.ca/news/2013/03/heart-break-algonquin-genocide
 
https://ricochet.media/en/318/first-nations-finance-their-own-demise-through-land-claims-process
 
http://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/long-live-the-algonquin-frauds
 
http://www.lynngehl.com/2-truth-that-wampum-tells.html
 
http://www.lynngehl.com/talking-radical-radio.html
 
http://indigenouswaves.com/2013/07/17/dr-lynn-gehl-on-ally-responsibility-community-citizenship-treaties-indigenous-knowledge/

​Please like and share this blog.

In this short video and recent article - http://linkis.com/nationalpost.com/36W4R-  dated January 15, 2016, professor Akhavan offers a narrow understanding of what is genocide and then he proceeds to argue Indigenous people of Turtle Island don’t really understand the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  I have a few issues with his reasoning as it is presented.

First, a professor of law as he is, Akhavan roots genocide in intent with this statement: “provided the specific genocidal intent was in place”.  Intent is too narrow a place to locate the practice of genocide.  Placing knowledge, and consequently genocide, in the mind or in one’s intent is a myopic understanding of what knowledge is and where knowledge is located.

It is well understood that proponents of western positivism of law and science must awaken to the limitations of their own knowledge paradigm.  Clearly it is not working,  especially so for the water and the trees and the other beings, never mind what it is doing to humans.  This should come as no surprize in that western positivism is manmade law.

Second, a professor of law as he is, Akhavan is unable to perceive the cultural aspects of genocide as it is written in the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide.  While subsection (a) discusses direct killing, the UN definition moves on to talk about cultural aspects of genocide, thus expanding the definition beyond that of direct killing: (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  While the word “culture” may not be in the text, cultural elements of genocide are inherent.

Culture is all that humans are.  Culture is much more than icons and books as the news article suggests.  Culture includes the laws, policies, and institutions that humans create.  Without cultural teachings, knowledge, and structures we are not human at all.  Cultural genocide is genocide in that it is culture that makes us human.

Cultural genocide, as it is placed within Canadian laws and policies, such as the land claims policy which forces Indigenous Nations to extinguish our jurisdiction and rights, and Aboriginal Affairs’ unstated paternity policy which assumes unstated fathers are non-Indians, are much more insidious and devious forms of genocide.  They are more insidious and devious in that many people are unable to perceive them for the genocide they are where, as such, the genocide is able to go on and on and on.

Third, in making the argument that the recent use of the concept “cultural genocide” was more about a need for recognition and mourning is offensive and incorrect.  Akhavan is incredibly assumptive in his analysis.  Akhavan assumes Indigenous thinkers, ceremonialists, traditionalists, scholars, and philosophers are unable to really understand what they mean when they use the concept “cultural genocide”.  This assumption in itself is an act of colonialism.

Law is not a science that seeks to understand the nature of the human condition and as such law, as it is defined by western positivism, needs to move over and allow other knowledge systems the space required in the discussion of what is genocide.
​
For more of my thoughts on genocide and cultural genocide:  http://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/the-insidious-nature-of-cultural-genocide

Please like and share this blog. Miigwetch

"If Natives had been left to themselves, the situation would naturally have led to direct action and a mass struggle for social change.  By intervening with money, the government was able to determine the kind of politics that would be employed by grassroots Aboriginals." (64)

"Canada is one of the most hypocritical and sanctimonious nations of the world.  It is continuously bragging about its humanitarian services and peacekeeping efforts." (125)

"Power over oppressed people can be maintained through 'non-decision' that is through silencing of voices before they are even heard. Ideas are smothered before they are even given consideration." (141)
​
From Tortured People: The Politics of Colonization, 3rd Ed 2002
​
Like and share this blog post.

This lecture by legal scholar Robert A. Williams on his book titled “Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization” is excellent.  In fact, it is so excellent I have decided to annotate it and post it as a blog.
 
Williams traces the invention of the discourse of the savage with its inherent practices back 3,000 years to Greek and Roman times where the definition consisted of a people who did not plough and plant food.  It was through the invention of the savage that the Greeks and Romans structured their societies denying many their human rights to land and resources in the process.  This discourse of the savage and subsequent practices is also the foundation of the Doctrine of Discovery which denies people who they are as human beings.

Williams argues the 1763 Royal Proclamation, one of Canada’s founding constitutional documents, embodies this tradition of the savage, and as such the savage tradition remains a part of Canada’s constitutional jurisprudence; it is a part of Canada’s cultural DNA.

Relying on the research he did for his book, Williams then argues that this tradition of the savage extends in very real ways into Canada’s Comprehensive Land Claims process. 

As I have in my book “The Truth That Wampum Tells: My Debwewin on The Algonquin Land Claims Process” Williams discusses in detail the Comprehensive Land Claims (CLC) process that First Nations involved in the British Columbia Treaty Commission and the Algonquin in Ontario of which Pikwakanagan First Nation is a part, are participating in. CLC processes result in nothing more than a contract, not a treaty, between a sovereign and their subjects.  Under the CLC process First Nations are reduced to a municipal form of government and as such there is no real self-determination.  Through the CLC process compensation and private lands are not on the table, and also First Nations are forced to pay back the provincial and federal loans required to negotiate for their own land and resource rights.  It is through this federal land claims policy that the tradition of the savage continues to harm contemporary Indigenous people.

Cultural Genocide versus Mass Murder Genocide

While many people are of the thought that we need to distinguish between what is cultural genocide, where a people are denied their culture, and mass murder genocide, where people are killed on mass, and further that cultural genocide is less destructive than mass murder genocide, this is a naive understanding and an erroneous analysis of what constitutes genocide and also the role that cultural teachings have in making us human beings.   First and foremost it is important to acknowledge that Raphael Lemkin, the person who created the very term, defined genocide in socio-cultural-political terms as having two phases: one, the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; and two, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.  Mass murder of a group of people is actually not a part of the definition.  This is not to say mass murder is not genocide.  Of course it is and both forms of genocide are included in the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

On the Word Choice of “Cultural”
 
With the tabling of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Executive Summary Report and Recommendations there is a buzz about the use of the word “cultural” when discussing genocide, as in it was cultural genocide.

Many are of the thought that the use of the word “cultural” as an adjective to qualify the type of genocide that took place implies that a softer form of genocide and as such the word use offends them.  These people also likely to argue there is no such thing as cultural genocide.

Then there are other people who argue genocide is genocide, it really does not matter if the word “cultural” is used to denote what kind of genocide it was.

Further, there are people who know that the use of the word “cultural” actually implies that the type of genocide that took place is a more systemic, all pervading, and thus omnipresent form, and as such adding the word “cultural” carries important meaning.

Our Cultural Teachings; All that We Are

The main difference between human animals and all the other beings is that humans are dependent on the cultural teachings and knowledge that our parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and community members pass on to us once we are born and as we grow up into adulthood.  Without our cultural teachings we are not human beings.  Rather, we are failed humans in that we are unable to move forward in a good way.

Anishinaabeg cultural teachings, for example, guide us through the seven stages of life.  These teachings are our medicines in that they serve to protect us from wandering off the path of life into dangerous directions such as places of extreme isolation, gluttony, materialism, and drug or alcohol addiction.

A Teapot Teaching of Cultural Knowledge
 
As an Anishinaabe-kwe dedicated to honouring Anishinaabeg knowledge and dedicated to the process of creating new Anishinaabeg knowledge, my mind moves to what I call “A Teapot Teaching of Cultural Knowledge”.  This teaching is short and simple, yet clear in what I want to convey about the role that culture has on the human condition.

Our teachings are all that we are as a people.  Our teachings are what make us the human beings that we are.  In fact it is our dependence on cultural knowledge that differentiates us from the other animal beings and all the other beings.  For example, moose and trees are so smart; they are born with all their knowledge.  People, though, are like a ‘teapot of culture’ where once you pour out the cultural knowledge the people are gone.  There may be a corporeal being but not much else as the people and their cultural teachings are synonymous.  Again, our teachings are all that we are.  At the same time people are not like a ‘teapot of culture’ where someone can pour out the cultural knowledge and simply pour in new cultural knowledge and stir.  Again, when you pour out the cultural knowledge the people are gone.
 
We need to remember that it is the formative years where we absorb our cultural teachings.

That said, for someone to suggest that mass murder genocide is worse, and as such the only definition of what is genocide, is to allow the eyes to appropriate and define what can be known, what becomes truth, and consequently what is reality.  What I mean by “it allows the eyes to appropriate reality” is that in actual fact genocide achieved through the denial of a people’s cultural knowledge and teachings is much more slithery and insidious in the way it does what it is intended to do, that being terminate the people, yet it is harder to see and perceive.
 
It is my view that genocide by cultural means is more insidious because most people, and for that matter popular culture in general, are unable to perceive and conceptually value the role that culture actually has in terms of making us the human beings we are, and also unable to value who it is that teaches people their cultural knowledge.  Being unable to perceive and value the role of culture in a conceptual sense, and thus being unable to think critically about the role it has on shaping and making us the humans we are, results in a misconstrued view that a genocide that relies on destroying a people’s culture is a softer form of genocide, if it is genocide at all.

Cultural Genocide Means Sinister not Softer

So while people think it is important to distinguish between what is cultural genocide and what is mass murder genocide, because the latter is worse, a genocide through imposed cultural denial that occurs right in front of society’s eyes is in some ways more sinister in that it can go on and on and on and on, sometimes for centuries, in the form of culturally destructive, and thus genocidal, educational and health care systems.  In fact it can be so insidious that the cultural genocide can be codified in law and policies such as the Indian Act and the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy that are imposed on Indigenous people. Cultural genocide is not softer, in actual fact it is more sinister.

Genocide is Genocide

I need to say one last thing on this topic.  When someone offers the comparative argument that genocide by mass murder is the only genocide that exists because there is tangible proof and evidence, thus implying that genocide by cultural denial is not genocide because it is harder to prove as there is no real evidence, this is rooted in a very narrow understanding of what can be known, what becomes truth, and consequently what is reality.  Western philosophy and its practices and processes of knowledge, such as what constitutes evidence and what is truth and reality, is no longer acceptable.  It is making a mess of Mother Earth and all the beings, humans included.  More enlightened people no longer value knowledge in these narrow terms.

It is clear to me that University of Manitoba Professors Rodney E. Clifton and Hymie Rubenstein, and Conrad Black are all in need of enlightenment.  To read their disgorge, versus some steeped tea wisdom, here are the links:
 
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/clifton-rubenstein-debunking-the-half-truths-and-exaggerations-in-the-truth-and-reconciliation-report

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-canadas-treatment-of-aboriginals-was-shameful-but-it-was-not-genocide

23. Get over your dislike for the word disability and your dislike when a person with a vision disability opts to use it.  You can be sure that many are not thrilled with the word either.

24. Do not assume a person who uses the term disability does not know what their gifts are.

25. Understand that the use of the word disability does not mean they want to be pitied.

26. Do not assume a person with a vision disability is on a disability pension.

27. Understand that many of the expenses that a person with a vision disability has are not covered by insurance plans and in this way their medical expenses are higher even though their income, if they have one, is more likely than not less than average.

28. When a person with a vision disability bumps into you or falls down for what appears to be no reason at all, do not assume they are being abusive or that they are intoxicated.

29. When a person drops an item and it breaks or they make a mess such as their spilling coffee, do not assume it was because they were careless.

30. When cooking with a person with a vision disability allow things to get a little bit sloppy.  Do not judge them for being careless.

31. Value that a vision disability, like many disabilities, manifests in fluid ways and as such shifts on a day to day basis.  While things may be good on one day, they may be worse the next day.  This is the way it is.  Period.

32. Value that a vision disability, like all disabilities, synergistically interacts with other forms of structural oppression such as class, racism, and sexism.  The sum total of the effect is always greater than the addition of the individual structural oppressions, making reality harder.

33. Understand that no two people have the same disability.  Again, it is best to understand a disability as fluid, meaning it shifts from one person to another.  A person who has more structural privilege will be better off than a person with less privilege.  While a privileged white family may be able to afford a tutor and adaptive equipment, a poorer family will not.  What is more, a white person with a disability navigates white structures where as such they will be better off than a person of colour with a disability.

34. Value that when you engage in ableist ways you are also racist and sexist.  Keep in mind that racial minorities, Indigenous people, and women, (especially women of colour and Indigenous women) have higher rates of disabilities.

35. Do not excuse your ableist ways with saying “that was not my intent”.  It is now valued that intent is far too narrow a criterion for what is knowledge.  Become informed and put the knowledge into concrete practice.

36. In the event that you are speaking to a family member of a person with a vision disability and they are not aware of the vision disability, do not assume the person is a liar.  Many family members do not accept or understand the limitations of a disability that is not visible to the eyes.  Family members do not always know what truth is.

37. Stop using ableist language in the metaphors you use when conveying ignorance.  This includes, but not limited to, “are you blind” and “turning a blind eye”.  People with vision disabilities are much more than what these offensive metaphors imply.

38. Keep in mind that people are gifted with two eyes, not just one eye, where the two eyes working together create three dimensional vision.  Three dimension vision is much different than what a person with one eye sees.  In this way, to reference “eye” rather than “eyes” is ableist language.

39. Keep in mind that people with vision disabilities are targeted by sexual offenders.  This is because they are viewed as vulnerable, as well as because they are unable to see the abuser approach them.

40. Understand that many people with vision disabilities have skewed body postures that over time result in serious physical pain and deformations and as such further limitations.

41. When inviting a person with a vision disability to speak at an event rely on an intersectional framework in terms of the amount of time they are granted and in terms of covering their expenses.  Remember equity not equality.

42. Always value an intersectional, meaning greater, level of understanding and compassion.  People with vision disabilities, really any disability, are navigating structures that have been constructed for able-bodied white people.  This means their everyday life experiences are particularly laden with ignorance, non-sense, assumptions, barriers, and expenses.  Your level of understanding and compassion must adjust.

 43. Do not add to their frustration and exhaustion with your selfish needs, ignorance, and exploitation of the knowledge that they embody.  Sometimes you just need to listen and/or go away and think and read and learn in some other way.

44. Do your best to think critically and do not allow your eyes to appropriate reality.  Value that things are much more complex than what you are able to see with your two eyes.

Two really short (a few minutes) videos on what blindness can look like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvooNPvyvjo&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHxxMUQDIwM

Two articles on what is an intersectional framework:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/why-our-feminism-must-be-intersectional/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255.html

Note: If there is a typo, grammatical error, or sentence structure error in my work and it is offending you greatly to the point that you are tempted to dismiss my knowledge offered and possibly even begin to poke at my education, please take the time to remind yourself not to be an ableist when reading about issues of colonization and structural oppression.  Also keep in mind that inherent in ableism is both sexism and racism.  Adopting an intersectional framework is a best practice approach when reading and learning.  That said, please do not hesitate to report an error as this is always valued.  Chi-Miigwetch

There are many reasons why the Anishinaabeg trust grandmother moon and experience Her evocatively so.  One reason is that She is consistent in Her way of always showing us the same side of who She is as a being of Creation.  In this way She does not pretend and perform as many humans do.  In always showing us the same side of who She is, She teaches us integrity.

Questions that help decipher who has integrity

1. Do they treat other people differently than the way they treat you?  Some people are only nice when they need you.  This is a sure sign of a lack of integrity.

2. Do they treat other people in disrespectful ways or undermine another person for no real good reason?  This is a sure sign of a lack of integrity.

3. Do they undermine knowledge holders through the use of unnecessary subtle comments and facial expressions?  This is a sure sign of a lack of integrity.

4. Do they seek out nice people, thus avoiding hard core knowledge holders, to make it appear that they are serving the less fortunate and doing good work?  Tokenism is a sure sign of a lack of integrity.

5. Do they demonstrate overly exaggerated disingenuous kindness to someone of authority yet not to other people?  This is a sure sign of a lack of integrity.

6. Do they have any credentials or qualifications in the area they claim to have knowledge about or have expert knowledge of?

7. Do they self-identify as an ally?  Like Eldership, this is not a title people claim.  Rather, it is bestowed and continually achieved.

8. Do they appropriate an oppressed nation’s cultural icons and symbols for economic reasons?  This is not acceptable.

9. If they are a woman, do they stand behind women and the work women do?  They should.

10. Do they do what they say they are going to do?  While it may not always be the case, the consistent inability to do so is a sure sign of a lack of integrity.

11. Do they share confidential knowledge that is not their knowledge to share?  This is a sure sign that they should not be trusted.

12. Do their theories match their practices?  Does a man who claims to care for the earth treat women well?  If not, this is a sure sign of a lack of integrity.

​13. If they are an advocate of human rights, do they practice an intersectional awareness and lens?  If not, this is a sure sign of a lack of integrity.

14. Do they live with unchecked privilege?  If so, this is a sign of a lack of integrity.

Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process.  She has three books: Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts, The Truth that Wampum Tells: My Debwewin of the Algonquin Land Claims Process, and Mkadengwe: Sharing Canada's Colonial Process through Black Face Methodology. You can reach her at [email protected] and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

Adoption or Allyship in the Contemporary Algonquin Context

I am of the thought that in the contemporary context community adoption as a cultural practice must be reconsidered, where principled allyship is the better alternative.  Otherwise, the practice of community adoption will exist only to be spun by spin doctors as the new form of interference.

Learning through Introspection is Indigenous

Before I begin it is important for me to offer that existing within the context of a section 15 Charter challenge, and within the context of the contemporary land claims and self-government process best known as a termination process (Russell Diabo), I have been exposed to some very grounded and puzzling human dynamics.  When I introspect on these dynamics, and the things that puzzle me the most, sometimes knowledge emerges that will not be received well.  Many people will not immediately understand the deeper meaning inherent and therefore will not understand why I offer my insights gained.

Ultimately, knowledge is a relationship and as such I ask that readers take the time and establish a relationship to this knowledge rather than being quick to judge.

We Adopted Historically

Historically, Indigenous nations readily adopted other people into their nations in that, among other things, they greatly valued the alliance gained and the genetic diversity that came with the new members.

While historically Indigenous nations adopted and assimilated other people, in a contemporary sense I have noticed that this practice of adoption embodies an undermining contradiction, and thus has limitations.  I say this because in the contemporary context adopted people are challenged by jealous or dissenting community members and easily discredited as not really being speakers for the nation.  In this process of discrediting adopted members it becomes apparent that they are not really accepted as full members.

Outrageous Initiation Requirements

I have found that when people are adopted they are placed in the situation where they have to do outrageous things, as a rite of passage so to speak, to prove their loyalty to the nation.  This exists, I have noticed, as an unspoken requirement.  One such example is the new member ends up in prison in defending the nation’s rights.  Through these “initiation requirements”, these adopted people are vulnerable, become symbolic icons of the nation, yet contradictorily they lack the genuine power needed when speaking for pressing issues of the nation.

Today We Discredit Adopted Members

One of the most well known Algonquin today is retired Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies Chief Robert (Bob) Lovelace, and rightly so as he has certainly proved his loyalty to the Algonquin and our land and waterscapes when in 2008 he went to prison to protect it from uranium mining and its ill effects.  Lovelace has also encouraged and guided the production of several academic research projects that will serve future generations of Algonquin.  It is important, though, that I point out here that as an adopted Algonquin Lovelace does not have the lived knowledge of being Algonquin since childhood, or the lived knowledge of being Algonquin inter-generationally speaking.  Regardless, he does have knowledge of colonization and what it has done to the Algonquin.

Despite his proven loyalty I have noticed that when Lovelace speaks up on Algonquin issues, many people – Algonquin included – are far too quick to discredit him as not really being an Algonquin in terms of his genetic material and blood lines.  This is because we no longer really value adoption as a governance tradition.

This situation of discrediting, I think, is a barrier and stifles Lovelace’s potential from doing what he could do best: speak out against the current Algonquin land claims and self-government settlement offer of 1.3% of the land and a $300 million one-time payment, and being heard and understood in a way that other Algonquin cannot.

A Limiting Contradiction

While this is the situation, at the same time many people gravitate toward Lovelace as a knowledge holder of Indigenous knowledge and truth - even on an international sense.  Certainly in some ways he has been a teacher to me.  It is in this way that he, and his adoption, embodies a very limiting contradiction, and it is in this way that in the contemporary context, adoption is a barrier to hearing what he has to say about Algonquin issues and concerns.  It is precisely for this reason that it is my contention that principled allyship versus adoption is the better choice in the contemporary context.  We need to remove the barriers that are silencing important voices such as Bob's.

This blog requires a huge qualification.  Robert Lovelace is an important person and his commitment to the Algonquin, Indigenous cause, and the earth is clear to me.  This analysis should not be interpreted as me not valuing who he is and what he has done for the Algonquin.

Lastly, it is Robert’s thought that I should offer this analysis.  More precisely it is his thought that this blog could stimulate the needed discussion, which could then lead to collective thinking, where collective thinking could lead to consensus, and so on … 

I had an experience that is telling in terms of a white woman’s interference in the relationship between Indigenous knowledge holders and Indigenous community members.  I offer my story as it is illustrative of what many Indigenous women, Indigenous communities, and Indigenous organizations are contending with.  It is worthy of noting here first, though, that this experience of mine happened within a very politically powered and gendered, and thus a very socially stratified, organization.

White Woman Gaze Switching

On this particular occasion I found myself in one of life’s special moments walking with an Indigenous elder and wisdom holder.  Building relationships, I have come to know, sometimes take place in fleeting moments such as these.  Walking side-by-side in the direction of the building we were heading toward, we exchanged small yet heartfelt pleasantries.  As we entered the doorway and began to walk down the ramp deeper into the interior of the building a white woman was situated at the bottom of the ramp.  This white woman looked at me and then at the elder and then back at me.  My process of observing this woman looking back and forth was disturbingly telling.  Through this process of observing her gaze-switching back and forth, I was able to observe how some white women look at Indigenous elders, in comparison to how they look at other Indigenous people such as me.

As this white woman looked at me her face was pretty much neutral and not too expressive.  Yet when her gaze shifted to look at the Indigenous elder her entire facial expression turned to one of juvenile happiness and joy.  Again, when this white woman looked at me her face shifted to the more neutral expression.  Then, as she once again shifted her gaze to look at the Indigenous elder, her facial expression once again shifted – again and again to one of childish adoration.  By the time we made it to the bottom of the ramp, I had the opportunity to watch this cycle of her shifting gaze three times.

How Her Gaze Switching Made Me Feel

Although I knew this white woman, and I did have a somewhat friendly relationship with her, when we arrived at the bottom of the ramp, the Indigenous elder stopped to speak with this ever adoring fan.  I, though, feeling ill, kept on walking.  I was ill with disappointment because it was at that very moment that I realized I could never do for an Indigenous elder what this needful and pitiful white woman was able to do.  Oh how I loathed this woman’s pitifulness, a pitifulness that any man would enjoy.

As an Indigenous woman I have a right to, and need of, the Indigenous knowledge I seek.  Indigenous communities are very much dependent on the emancipation of Indigenous women.  The problem is that sometimes when we encounter elders we are unable to engage in the same pitiful childish adoring way that white women, and for that matter white men, are able to.  And when our neutral facial expressions are compared to one such as this white woman’s expression, we are perceived as not deserving of the knowledge that may emerge.

White Gaze of Interference

When I think about my experience further, I recognize this white woman’s behaviour for what it is: an interference.  Although there are many other reasons, a huge barrier in the transmission of Indigenous knowledge within Indigenous communities is what I call “white-woman-settler-gaze-of-interference”.  This ramp experience with a white woman’s gaze was the moment when I realized how it is that white women are sometimes able to gain greater access to Indigenous knowledge than indigenous people.  White women should not be impinging on the relationships that Indigenous knowledge holders have with Indigenous community members in this way.  Indigenous people and Indigenous communities are dependent on the re-building of our nations and knowledge structures.  Certainly, the white-woman-settler-gaze-of-interference should not be the mortar that solidifies and fortifies yet another inadequate patriarchy.

Indigenous Women Are Vulnerable Enough

In further thinking, I have also come to understand that within any organization where one resides at the lower end of the social stratification hierarchy, one is as vulnerable, if not more vulnerable, than the most vulnerable person.  Clearly this white woman was needful and the problem is that through her pitifulness, she makes other people, such as myself, more pitiful as we are not able to compete in terms of offering juvenile adoration to an Indigenous knowledge holder.

The Privilege of a White Woman’s Gaze

Later I came to realize that in fact this white woman comes from a very privileged family and position in society.  She has had, and continues to have, the love, support, and guidance of her parents, grew up in a home in a nice area of town, and thus had great access to economic resources.  Regardless of her privileged position over Indigenous women this white woman is selfish.

There is the Need to End the Selfishness of the White Woman’s Gaze

White women, and white men, need to critically reflect on, and be cognizant of, their actions and respond in a way that assures they do not hurt Indigenous women and people in their emancipation efforts.  In Indigenous women’s goal for emancipation we need genuine allies and collaborators, not women who interfere through their white-woman-settler-gaze-of-interference.

Related Black Face Blogs:
http://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/unhinging-settler-consciousness
http://www.lynngehl.com/gehl-ally-bill-of-responsibilities.html
http://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/on-indigenous-knowledge

Feminist Wire article:
http://thefeministwire.com/2013/04/clearing-the-path-for-the-turtle/

Shall I Bake a Cake?

On this day − January 11, 2015 – of Sir John A. Macdonald’s 200th birthday anniversary I want to offer something special, something that may be remembered for the truth that Canada is.

The Algonquin of Ontario offer

After more than two decades since the Algonquin land claim was first accepted in 1991/2 as valid by the provincial and federal governments, it finally happened: the Algonquin of Ontario (AOO) agreement-in-principle (AIP), also known as a settlement offer, was finally tabled.  The Algonquin Anishinaabeg are entitled to a pitiful 1.3% of our traditional territory, which amounts to 117,000 acres and a measly $300 million one-time buyout.  Keep in mind here that the Department of Justice’s budget for 2014-15 is $662 million.

I can’t and won’t read the AOO AIP.  Reading policy, legislation, and legalese is not one of my gifts.  There is no point in reading the details anyway.  Let’s face it, it is only gaining access to land and resource rights that will lead to the emancipation of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.  I know many Algonquin people who have been, and some remain, both homeless and hungry.  I also know many Algonquin Anishinaabe who have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the loss of their cultural meaning field.  You can be sure that 1.3% of our traditional land base and $300 million is not going to resolve this suffering and make it go away.

Harper, Taiaiake, Ladner, Diabo, and Palmater

I am not alone in making this argument about the role of land and resources in Indigenous people’s ability to live a mino-pimadiziwin (good life).  Elijah Harper, Alfred Taiaiake, Keria Ladner, Russell Diabo, and Pam Palmater, have argued this as well.  We make this argument as we know it is only through land and resources that we will be able to set up meaningful institutions that are rooted in and emerge from our worldview.

Honouring Indigenous Rights has Broader Implications

It is no mystery that western cultural structures don’t work for us – and for that matter the rest of the natural world such as the water, the trees, the fish, and the birds included.  I really need to add here that it should also be clear to everyone by now that the current economic model which lacks a moral code is inadequate for all people: heterosexual able-bodied white men included.  Let’s face it, trees clean the air we breathe, and money is simply not nutritious.  Yet, for some reason many people continue to think through an “us versus them”, meaning the Indians against the settler Canadians, cognitive model, and in this way they become complicit in their own domination.

A Land Claims is Not a Class Action

Unfortunately some people, Algonquin Anishinaabeg included, actually view the land claims process as analogous to a class action suit against a corporation such as Loblaws, where a final settlement is all that is required.  Actually, these people have been encouraged to think of it through this line of pitiful reasoning.  Through this, many people are inclined to think that $300 million is a good deal.  Sir John A. Mcdonald, my parents and their children as all Algonquin Anishinaabeg deserve so much more.

Resources Extracted

To get a better handle on whether this is a good settlement offer one has to ask, as I have, “how does $300 million compare to the dollar amount of resources that have come out of Indigenous land?”  Further, I have tossed these numbers around before and some people may be inclined to argue they are old and require updating, but who has the time?  In the Indigenous knowledge tradition repetition is valued as an important and significant way of knowing.

In 2005, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines gained $4.8 billion from metals, such as cadmium, cobalt, copper, silver, and zinc 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, was extracted.  That is billions of dollars in a single year folks.

Remaining closer to Algonquin territory, during 2003 the forestry industry of Algonquin Provincial Park generated $152.8 million toward Ontario’s economy.  In 2005, Algonquin Park alone generated $13.5 million from visitors, campers, concessions, and commercial leases.  Further, 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.

In reviewing these numbers, one has to wonder what would these numbers total when considering the last 500 years of colonization?  Although I am not sure there is such a thing, it is my guess the total number would be in the mega zillion dollar range.  Okay, I admit maybe I am exaggerating here but for goodness sake, the point is Indigenous people have financed the construction of Canada and its settler population, yet benefited little in the process.  Canada was built on the backs of Indigenous people.  No thanks John A. Macdonald!

Acreage Offered

In terms of the acreage the Algonquin Anishinaabeg are offered, Algonquin Park consists of 1,891, 097 acres.  This is sixteen times larger than the 117,000 acres offered to the Algonquin.  There are seventeen provincial parks in Algonquin territory in Ontario.  These parks include but are not limited to Silver Lake Provincial Park, Bonnechere Provincial Park, Bon Echo Provincial Park … .  Canada, are you getting the idea here?  I really hope so.

Since the Algonquin land claims process began it has been plagued with racism, sexism, anti-intellectualism, a pitiful hunting interim agreement, faulty election processes, and White interference.  Yes, that is right, White interference.  When I reflect on this pitiful process it becomes more obvious to me that the land claims process is nothing more than a federal and provincial job creation project, where legal advisors, a few Indigenous people, and the Canadian government benefits at the expense of too many, mostly women and children.

As an Algonquin Anishinaabe, Sir John A. Macdonald, I wonder how many good and loyal settler Canadians are set to celebrate the anniversary of your birthday, knowing this history of the country you founded?  Rest assured, I won’t be baking a cake.

Related Links:
http://rabble.ca/news/2013/06/genocide-racism-and-canada-day-algonquin-anishinaabekwe-love-letter
http://rabble.ca/news/2013/03/heart-break-algonquin-genocide
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/canada-is-not-the-arbiter-of-what-is-genocide
http://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/three-of-canadas-genocidal-policies
http://anishinabeknews.ca/2014/11/27/algonquin-chiefs-say-tsilhqotin-supreme-court-decision-is-no-more-than-colonial-policy/