I recently came across a call for papers from Indigenous Policy Journal for their “Special Issue of Indigenous Policy, Spring 2012.”
This was of great interest to me because it treats the subject of a current court case in Alaska where Indigenous people there are literally fighting in the courtrooms for the recognition of their existence.
The story starts back in 1989. Exxon Valdez, an oil company had been responsible for a serious oil spill in Alaska on March 24, 1989. Between 260,000 and 750,000 barrels of crude oil had been spilled. According to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (www.evostc.state.ak.us/History/FAQ.cfm). The immediate effects were wildlife deaths in the hundreds of thousands and the complete destruction, permanently, of the fisheries in the region.
The local economy, environment and entire way of life had been completely and utterly destroyed in a single devastating event. Many people, including the mayor of one town in the region, committed suicide after the spill. Even now, 22 years later, the toxins have not been removed and the environment has not been restored. The economy still remains in ruin. Because the Indigenous communities there are remote, fishery and wildlife was the cornerstone of the local economy. Now, there are limited economic options or hopes.
Exxon should have fairly compensated the local people for the destruction they caused, right? Apparently, many others thought so too. They took it to court. Exxon ultimately won by “proving” that the Indigenous people there (the Alutiiq people) were no longer Indigenous people by the time of the spill and, therefore, their culture could not have been damaged. So, no compensation required.
How did they prove this? They argued that the Alutiiq people were no different than average middle class Americans because they had been observed using Betty Crocker cake mix.
In a second trial regarding hunting and fishing rights in 2008, the US government denied the Alutiiq people their rights, arguing that they did not exist as a pan-Alutiiq people prior to contact (they were several groups who amalgamated in identification) and so they could not possibly have Alutiiq rights.
Although these are American court systems and laws, the approach of trying to deny Indigenous people their rights on the basis of “modern” practices is well used by colonial governments all over the world.
Pamela Palmater, in her blog, summarized many of the key points to this backward way of thinking. The main point that applies here is that the rights of Indigenous peoples can NOT be “frozen” to pre-contact times, as repeatedly clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada
Consider the ramifications of the Exxon and the US government’s flawed logic. If what they say were to be relevant, then USA and Canada have no rights selling computers, electronics, automobiles, modern housing (with drywall and vinyl and the many modern materials) because all of these items were no traditionally traded by these colonial governments pre-contact. Skyscrapers, subways, and all the modern conveniences would all need to be torn down and done away with as they are irrelevant to traditional Americans and Canadians. Obviously, this is ridiculous.
The problem comes from a flawed understanding of what trade and economics truly mean. Usually it is Wall Street thinkers that struggle to wrap their heads around the broader, more accurate understandings of trade and economics. Allow me to illuminate so that we are all on the same page.
Wall Street thinking of “trade”: financial transactions
True understanding of trade: any exchange of goods or services whether or NOT they make use of a common trade medium such as currency. If I catch a fish and trade it with my uncle for his solar-powered calculator, this is trade. It is a transaction. No money was employed, but it is an economic activity and it is a commercial activity regardless of whether the two parties or related or not.
Wall Street thinking of “economics”: currency, GDP, financial profit
True understanding of economics: the process by which people obtain what they need or want. This is often done through the science of incentives (I want something, an incentive, so I need to negotiate how I will obtain it). An economy can exist and be thriving and successful and never ever involve money. In fact, currency (money) is an imaginary system created to simply facilitate easier trade (See my earlier post on barter systems and discussions on the meaning of economy here, and here).
So a community that had fished for consumption in the past did in fact, have an economy. Fishing for consumption is an economic activity and just because it did not involve the exchange of money or a direct trade between two people, it did involve a trade of time and skill for an economic reward (fish). In this way, this economic activity was also a commercial activity.
Furthermore, just because a people did not engage in one specific form of economic activity in the past, does not mean that they have no right to do so in the future. To deny them that right means that every nation on this planet must be denied their right to produce and trade every modern product.
What about the question of culture?
Are our rights, our ways of life and our very culture itself restricted to historical stereotypes and caricatures? If I am not living in a teepee year round and wearing buckskin clothing, do I cease to be Ojibwe? Do my rights cease?
Naturally, the answers are a resounding NO. For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that this is the case universally. I will liberally borrow an idea from one of Dr. Pamela Palmater’s presentation of the “traditional” Canadian.
The traditional Canadian historically wore black robes, sported long locks of white or grey hair and was white. Their traditional way of life included squatting, consuming massive amounts of alcohol (Sir John A McDonald was a well documented drunk), arguing over legal terminology, and judging other people. In their traditional culture, homosexuality was criminalized and punished, people suspected of witchcraft could be burned at the stake. Now, if Canadians cease to practice these traditional ways and dressing, their rights are null and void. They are no longer Canadian citizens.
Since Canadians no longer outlaw homosexuality or burn people at the stake their Canadian culture is dead and no longer exists. Therefore they have no rights any longer and America may take the land, for example.
Ridiculous, no? Yet this is exactly what the white colonial governments attempt to do to Indigenous people in order to justify their continued expropriation of land and resources. Just as Canadians have been allowed to evolve as a culture and change over time, so must we be allowed.
The fundamental problem is when the colonials attempt to treat our nations as a culture or a race. We are neither; we are nations. Our nations do have a specific culture and majority of our citizens are of a specific ethnicity, but that does not deny the fact that our nations were historically and are now still nations.
So, let’s have a Betty Crocker revolution! Let us hold a box of Betty Crocker cake mix in the air and proudly proclaim that we still retain our cultures and our inherent rights as Indigenous peoples!
