Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Saturday, January 12, 2013

First Nations’ grievances deeply rooted in history

EDMONTON - If you want to understand the anger of Canada’s First Nations on display at protests in Edmonton and Ottawa and around the country on Friday, you need a long memory. A history book would help, too.

Their frustration with the federal government goes back a ways, long before Stephen Harper became prime minister.

Oh, the Harper government has certainly irritated aboriginal people on many fronts, including with its omnibus bills C-38 and C-45 that are now facing a court challenge from two of Alberta’s First Nations — the Mikisew Cree and Frog Lake — on the grounds that the legislation endangers the environment by weakening the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The First Nations’ application also complains that the government enacted its legislation improperly by not first consulting with aboriginal peoples as required by the Constitution and legal precedent.

Harper is merely the most recent in a long line of prime ministers who have frustrated, angered and disappointed our aboriginal peoples. Given that the prime ministers derive their power from the ballot box, you can argue that, in fact, it is Canadians who have for decades been the source of that frustration, anger and bitterness.

Just take a look at our little corner of the world.

For most people, Edmonton’s Klondike Days celebration (that morphed into Capital Ex and is now the ambiguously named K-Days) was simply a fun excuse to hold a parade, go on a midway ride and, for those inclined, dress up like a dandy of 1890.

Edmonton’s connection with the Klondike Gold Rush has always been a bit of a stretch but is based on the historical fact that about 2,000 prospectors used the city from 1896 to 1899 as their gateway to the treacherous and ultimately futile overland route to the gold fields.

A fact often overlooked is that the gold rush kick started protests from First Nations. K-Days, thus, has its roots deep in historical dirt.

The opening of the Klondike, and similar historic episodes across the country, helped create some of the very problems the chiefs have been talking about this week, including their long-standing distrust of the federal government and their frustration over how to improve relations with Ottawa.

The gates to the Klondike were thrown open with the signing of Treaty 8 in 1899 that “extinguished” the rights of aboriginals and Métis to a huge portion of land encompassing northern Alberta as well as adjoining areas of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

Until the gold rush captured Ottawa’s imagination, the federal government had little interest in the region or in local natives.

With the allure of gold in the Yukon, rumours of oil in Athabasca, the promise of rich agricultural land in the Peace district and the threat of violence everywhere, Canada’s Northwest was suddenly of great interest to Ottawa.

In Treaty 8 the federal government acted as “buyer” of the land as well as official protector of native interests. Ottawa knew about the potential wealth of the land, but as agent for the natives it did nothing to alert them to its value. Conflict of interest is an understatement.

First Nations saw the deal as a “peace” treaty, a contract to share the land equally with the newcomers.

Ottawa viewed Treaty 8 as the largest treaty deal of the 19th century — some 325,000 square miles — which included the overland route through British Columbia to the Klondike.

The Indian Act only made things worse as aboriginals were physically forced to stay on poverty-ridden reserves. In Alberta, they weren’t allowed to vote until 50 years ago. It is no wonder aboriginals have rarely seen eye to eye with Ottawa for the past century.

Maybe that’s all about to change. On Friday, Harper met with chiefs in Ottawa — at least with those who didn’t boycott the meeting after they learned the Governor Ggeneral wouldn’t be there.

In Edmonton last month, Premier Alison Redford and a dozen cabinet members met with chiefs representing Alberta’s three Treaty areas to find ways to improve the social and economic life for people on First Nations communities, with an emphasis on education and health care.

As Redford pointed out, it was the first meeting of its kind in decades. There’s no doubt Redford is sincere in her goals but unspoken is the fact the meeting was a public relations exercise, too.

Improving relations with First Nations — along with improving our environmental image — is part of building a “social license” to convince the world in general, and our customers in particular, that Alberta is exploiting its natural resources responsibly.

A thorny issue, however, is that those are the very same natural resources that our First Nations say they intended to share, not give away, a century ago.

Original Article
Source: edmonton journal
Author: Graham Thomson

No comments:

Post a Comment