The single greatest cause for confusion among Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike is identity. How do you define it? What is an Indigenous person? And if 100% of the population does not agree on a single definition, which one is the "true" definition?
Do we define Indigenous identity in the negative? That is to say, I am not white, therefore I am Indigenous. Or, I am not Canadian, therefore, Indigenous.
When we opt for a specific definition, do we need to be an exclusive group? That is to say, reject participation with the world or with anyone outside our own little cliques?
Can an Indigenous root for a sporting team that is not racially their own, yet refer to the team as "their" team? Does this mean they are not Indigenous or that they are not a credible voice for Indigenous issues?
Suppose the Olympic team try outs for Canada declared that no Indigenous person may be on the team... Would we not angrily cry out "Racism!"? When Waneek Horn Miller, prominent Mohawk voice, made the Canadian Olympic team for water polo... Did she refuse to call it her team? No! She referred to the team as her team. Would she have wanted Indigenous people to reject supporting the team? No! Did this make her "colonial," "collaborationalist," "uncredible as an Indigenous voice," "un-Indigenous"?!?
So what is an Indigenous person? Is it by blood? Then there are no Indigenous nations, only ethnicity.
Is it by geography? Then what of those living off reserve or who were born off reserve or never lived on reserve or were taken from birth mothers and adopted out to white families?
Is it by recognized special "status"? Then our identity is entirely dictated by the Federal government.
What about identity by following a spiritual path? Then we have no nations, only a religion and anyone, even a person of Asian, African, or European descent can be Indigenous simply by making a 'religious' choice.
What about citizenship? I have yet to see this implemented, but would this not make more sense. Then we would need our own citizenship codes and immigration laws.
Now, whatever becomes the defacto standard definition - if ever one can be possible even - is part of that identity dependent on how much hate and rejection of non-Indigenous people we demonstrate? Must we always refer to non-Indigenous people as "the enemy" and "them"?
In all honesty, I don't think we can form a single identity for "Indigenous" people. In fact, as I pose these questions and ponderings, I think "Indigenous" is just as bad a term as the Canadian use of "Aboriginal." In fact, a Haida or a Cree or a Mohawk has no right to accuse an Ojibway or Blackfoot or Assiniboine of not being "Indigenous."
In fact, I believe so called "Indigenous" people who do this are practicing assimilation (perhaps without realizing it), but rather than forcing people to be Canadian or British, they force them to be whatever group they themselves are from (I.e. Mohawk, Anishinaabe, Innu, etc.).
If you are reading this, maybe someone once called you Apple, or Trading Post Indian, or Indian Agent, or colonial, or some other crude derogatory term. Take heart, for those are assimilationist terms and you are who you are despite what others may say. Nobody can control your identity. If you wish to seek your own identity - go back to your own Elders, for only your own people can determine if you are "Indigenous" or not.
I am Anishinaabe. No Blackfoot, Cree, Mohawk, Innu, Dakota, Dene, Maliseet, etc can tell me I am not Anishinaabe. And not a single one of them can tell me I lack credibility to speak for my own people.
Likewise I cannot tell them the same, nor can any of us give "approval" for it either. Only Anishinaabe can respond to Anishinaabe on identity.
What does this mean going forward? I'm not fully sure. I just know I am not sure umbrella terms are doing any of us any favours.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Friday, August 3, 2012
Economic Ecosystem
A truly sustainable economy is not purely manmade. It is a breathing entity with seasons and fluidity. It is something we work with, something we try to synchronize with as we might do with a regional climate. We fail when we try to control it as western economists do.
Companies always view a quarterly "loss" or stagnation of profit as a bad thing. I think that's wrong; it is a necessary season as the daylight hours lengthen or shorten; or rainfall increases or decreases; or temperature rises or lowers. But when we push too hard for artificial and continual growth we end up with exhausted resources, over-saturated markets, mass consumption culture, etc.
Rather than thinking of economy as some lifeless abstract concept, think of it as living ecosystem. Now imagine what would happen to any ecosystem if we tried to artificially control some aspect of it. Say we found a way to artificially super heat all the lakes and waterways in a region to force evaporation/condensation, and hence, rain. The ecosystem would experience continual rains, but at what cost?
Or what if we somehow figured out a way to make it daytime 24 hours a day. Party time! No night! Of course, if we did that, the scorching sun would damage plants, reducing food sources for humans and animals alike. Then entire food chain would begin to fall apart. Not to mention the net negative psychological effect on people and animals with respect to sleep patterns.
With virtually any aspect of an ecosystem, too much of something is damaging, if not destructive, to the entire ecosystem itself. This is no different when we consider economies. Economies are not simply about money, jobs, businesses; they are holistic in nature. Economies are not rigid structures, but rather, they are fluid, moving, breathing, changing ecosystems. Economies are not one size fits all, but are unique for every region and community, each possessing distinct identities and features.
This is crucial to understand if we wish to create true sustainable, meaningful community economic development. Too many communities look to mega-corporations from outside that ecosystem to come in and wave a magic economic wand (perhaps a benefit agreement of some sort), expecting that this will fix everything. Benefit agreements or partnerships are not bad, but they cannot be the driver and shaper of local/regional ecosystem (i.e. economy). The mega-corporations lack the understanding, the connection, and the personal stake in caring for the local ecosystem to adequately be able to "develop" it. They often come in with cookie cutter approaches to what the economy is "supposed" to look like.
This, generally will not be sustainable. They are there to extract maximum benefit as quickly as possible without regard to natural cycles within the ecosystem. They come in like a wooden stake driven into the chest of a local ecosystem and stay until they have taken literally everything they want and then move on, leaving a gaping hole behind. It is not often easy or swift to heal from the hole left behind and often results in communities bleeding their residents who move away to follow the jobs.
Some may call me idealistic in my thinking, but be that is it may, there a number of actions that people can take.
On the "idealistic" side, it is an outright rejection of capitalism and its mass-consumption artificial culture. More pragmatically, it means exploring alternative methods for local trade and production and only producing as much as is needed for living. Local farms and gardens, barter exchanges, local stores, locally produced goods, etc. are all parts of the solution. If natural resources are to be developed, then less excessive extraction methods need to be considered and longer term thinking is required versus the short term "extract it all now" type of thinking.
Coops, worker coops, social enterprises are all tangible mechanisms that can help create a better balance with a greater level of synchronization with the natural rhythms of the economic ecosystem.
All said, at the core, pure capitalism is inconsistent and at odds with true community economic development in my humble opinion.
Companies always view a quarterly "loss" or stagnation of profit as a bad thing. I think that's wrong; it is a necessary season as the daylight hours lengthen or shorten; or rainfall increases or decreases; or temperature rises or lowers. But when we push too hard for artificial and continual growth we end up with exhausted resources, over-saturated markets, mass consumption culture, etc.
Rather than thinking of economy as some lifeless abstract concept, think of it as living ecosystem. Now imagine what would happen to any ecosystem if we tried to artificially control some aspect of it. Say we found a way to artificially super heat all the lakes and waterways in a region to force evaporation/condensation, and hence, rain. The ecosystem would experience continual rains, but at what cost?
A little rain is great for growing crops or ensuring lush vegetation, but if we force it to a level that denies natural cycles, we end up with:
- flooded land
- nutrient stripped soil (as the water run off would leech out the nutrients)
- disrupted river and lake beds
- dying or dead aquatice life, which then affects the food chain
- etc.
Or what if we somehow figured out a way to make it daytime 24 hours a day. Party time! No night! Of course, if we did that, the scorching sun would damage plants, reducing food sources for humans and animals alike. Then entire food chain would begin to fall apart. Not to mention the net negative psychological effect on people and animals with respect to sleep patterns.
With virtually any aspect of an ecosystem, too much of something is damaging, if not destructive, to the entire ecosystem itself. This is no different when we consider economies. Economies are not simply about money, jobs, businesses; they are holistic in nature. Economies are not rigid structures, but rather, they are fluid, moving, breathing, changing ecosystems. Economies are not one size fits all, but are unique for every region and community, each possessing distinct identities and features.
This is crucial to understand if we wish to create true sustainable, meaningful community economic development. Too many communities look to mega-corporations from outside that ecosystem to come in and wave a magic economic wand (perhaps a benefit agreement of some sort), expecting that this will fix everything. Benefit agreements or partnerships are not bad, but they cannot be the driver and shaper of local/regional ecosystem (i.e. economy). The mega-corporations lack the understanding, the connection, and the personal stake in caring for the local ecosystem to adequately be able to "develop" it. They often come in with cookie cutter approaches to what the economy is "supposed" to look like.
This, generally will not be sustainable. They are there to extract maximum benefit as quickly as possible without regard to natural cycles within the ecosystem. They come in like a wooden stake driven into the chest of a local ecosystem and stay until they have taken literally everything they want and then move on, leaving a gaping hole behind. It is not often easy or swift to heal from the hole left behind and often results in communities bleeding their residents who move away to follow the jobs.
Some may call me idealistic in my thinking, but be that is it may, there a number of actions that people can take.
On the "idealistic" side, it is an outright rejection of capitalism and its mass-consumption artificial culture. More pragmatically, it means exploring alternative methods for local trade and production and only producing as much as is needed for living. Local farms and gardens, barter exchanges, local stores, locally produced goods, etc. are all parts of the solution. If natural resources are to be developed, then less excessive extraction methods need to be considered and longer term thinking is required versus the short term "extract it all now" type of thinking.
Coops, worker coops, social enterprises are all tangible mechanisms that can help create a better balance with a greater level of synchronization with the natural rhythms of the economic ecosystem.
All said, at the core, pure capitalism is inconsistent and at odds with true community economic development in my humble opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)