Hope for Indigenous people?

Our peoples face unprecedented challenges and have for a long time. When the Vikings first set foot in North America, their first act was to attack our people for blood. Our peoples drove them off. Then came christopher columbus (and yes I wrote his name in small letters, because his does not deserve capitalized names), whose first act was wholesale slaughter of every Indigenous person he could find, approximately 250,000 by conservative estimates.  But by then, we could not drive them off fast enough as other “explorers” came in droves.

Those who came after columbus came less violently and gained friendships with our peoples. Our first mistake. After contact, we were subjected to purposeful biological warfare, “ethnic cleansing”, genocide, unending war, land infringements, residential schools (aka death camps where nearly half of all children sent to these schools died of torture, starvation, beatings, freezing, etc. with those that survived being subjected to degradation, sexual, physical, emotional and psychological abuse), sixties scoop (where mothers were lied to that their babies were still births, and then the babies, very much alive, were adopted out to white families), the Indian Act legislating reserves to become concentration camps where people were arrested and beaten if they were caught leaving the camps and many were intentionally starved to death, outlawing of our languages, outlawing of our cultures, etc.

The list can go on and even today our struggles are no less:

·         Our children are denied equitable access to education – often funded and 50% less per pupil that white children

·         We are denied equitable access to health care – often forced off our own communities for treatment

·         Our babies suffer the highest infant mortality rates in Canada

·         Many of our communities have no running water and many that do are chronically underfunded by the Federal government so that they are under “boil water” advisories

·         We have some of the highest rates of TB in the world – primarily due to Federal underfunding of adequate housing causing multiple families to live in houses that are often no more than shacks

·         Some of the highest rates of suicide in the world

·         High rates of chronic diseases due to lack of access to healthy foods

·         Shorter life expectancies

·         A  rate of incarceration that is 5-6 times the national average; filling up to 50% of Prairie prisons even though we make up less than 15% of the population.

·         Our peoples are often judged harsher and given stiffer sentences

·         We suffer police brutality unparalleled by another group in Canada

·         Our lands are raped by transnational corporations for mining and oil, leaving us with NO benefits, NO equitable royalty payments, and devastating pollution causing disease and illness

·         We face continuous racism and prejudice by the public and media

·         We have higher rates of unemployment and economic exclusion

Reading all of that is depressing. However, there is one important fact to remember.

WE ARE STILL HERE!

That is a powerful fact. Despite 300 years of genocide, we are still here. Despite all the challenges levelled against us, we are still here. In the face of everything that the colonial government seeks to do to us, we are not only still here, but we are gathering strength.

The colonial governments are teetering on the verge of economic collapse:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-05/news/30363948_1_barack-obama-debt-crisis-financial-crisis

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1083622

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577027560761445968.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://seekingalpha.com/article/305746-an-economic-recovery-that-s-moving-sideways

The Occupy movement gathering around the world is an example of the failure of the colonial system. The global recession, started by greedy colonial men in Wall Street, is an example of the failure of the system.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2011/11/20111106-095133.html

Yet, there are more and more examples of our Indigenous peoples beginning to rise up in strength. Some examples include:

·         Westbank First Nation

·         Oosoyos Indian Band

·         Tsawwassen First Nation

·         Membertou First Nation

·         Buffalo Point First Nation

·         Opaskwayak Cree Nation

·         And many more

Our path to victory and to strength will come from DOING the right things and not waiting for permission or approval or funds from the Federal government. Yes we will fight for those things, but we must not wait for them to be concluded before doing anything. Our destinies lie in our own hands. If we have survived 300 years of oppression, then really, nothing can stop us.

This is the irrational fear that has Canada ordering spies and military monitoring of our peoples.

http://www.socialist.ca/socialistworker/SW2011/issue533/NAT-Spying.html

http://www.stopracism.ca/content/spying-first-nations-harper-prepares-unrest

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/515.php

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/06/secret-agent-harper-conservative-spy.html

Harper, the conservatives, the elite, the colonials all see that we are beginning to rise to our feet and they fear it. They are afraid that they will no longer be able to sit upon the top of the teetering ladder. They are afraid of losing their privileged, exclusive position. They are likely afraid of the tables turning and becoming oppressed themselves.

It is an irrational fear because we are not seeking to oppress them, despite all that they have done to us. We are not seeking to impoverish them or take anything away from them. We simply seek our rights, fairness, and control of our own destinies. We seek respect for our peoples, our land, our rights, our cultures, our sovereignty.

We are not asking to make them our enemy, even though they see us as theirs. We have a higher vision of the spirit of cooperation, friendship and human harmony.

Is there hope for us? Yes. We must support one another and support our young generation rising up. We must mentor them, encourage them, and stand with them as we lift the yoke of oppression from our backs.

We are still here.

Miigwech

Indigenous balance

As Indigenous people in the economy, it can be a real challenge to find the balance between activism and development.

First, let's be sure we're on the same page here. By "in the economy" I mean either working for someone, running your own business, or even living off the land. To be honest, unless we are sitting on our behinds and literally doing nothing productive, we are all in the economy - it just might not be recognized by the mainstream, somewhat short-sighted economists.

By activism, I am referring to the inevitable calling, we as Indigenous people, have to stand up for our peoples, our rights, and the environment (aka all creation).

By development, I mean the processes by which we harness the gifts of the Creator (be those gifts of the land, gifts of knowledge or skill, etc.) in ways that maintain integrity and honour (aka "sustainability"). This can be developing these gifts and includes our career development too.

So the question is, how do we maintain balance when we see injustices again our people? Do we quit our jobs and make a stand at a blockade? Do we ignore the plights of our people for the sake of some form of socio-economic stability?

As many have shared with me, it's not an either/or situation. However, this is precisely where the challenge comes in. How much activism do I engage in?

Our lives are complex intersections of so many factors, each of which take time. We have to juggle business or career, family, education, community, physical and spiritual development, etc. This, of course, is common to all, including non-Indigenous people. For Indigenous people, though, we add to that the quest for our own identity, our fight for our rights to even exist, and of course our struggle against racism, discrimination, colonialism, assimilation, seemingly unending injustices and a whole host of challenges.

I am not going to say that this or that way is the right balance. Each of us must find our own balance, our own path with this regard. One thing for certain, there will be a cost. If there is no cost at all, then we must ask ourselves if we are standing for anything. We must ask if we are even holding on to our identity, or simply succumbing to assimilation.

The weight of the cost will depend on what we are willing to pay and what we must balance in providing for our children &families and standing for our people. The cost might mean losing a job or simply not being able to work for certain employers (their position on Indigenous issues might be irreconcilable with your own belief or identity). The cost may mean the breaking of brotherhood or friendship with those whose hearts are so hardened against our people that they will hear no reason. The cost may be our time, dedicated to the struggle on a specific issue.

Whatever the cost you deem willing to pay, count it well as you run with the rat race towards the cliff of integrity. Will you stop and hold fast to integrity? Or will you, like so many in the western society, leap off the cliff of integrity into the depths of injustice?

Globalization Versus Localization

There are many elements of Globalization whose discussion and debates could fill a book. I thought I would focus on a couple key elements.

There is a false notion that Globalization will mean fair economic opportunity for all, greater efficiencies in product development and distribution and higher standards of living world-wide.

1. Fair economic opportunity for all

Global trade is one thing, but what acolytes of the globalization movement are pushing is not global trade. What they are pushing for is a global open market for the largest companies of the world to operate in. This means that well established companies that have been started decades ago by people from privileged classes and races (typically upper class white businessmen) during times where diversity was not an important social issue, nor was social justice or fair trade.

Now, when many people and nations are starting to rise out from under oppression, colonial rule, and decades of intentional economic exclusion by the privileged classes, the same people who created the unfair advantages are pressing for the opportunity for them to unfairly compete globally.

Consider it like a race. The starting pistol fires and the privileged class runs off down the track. Meanwhile, the remaining runners try to start running only to realize that someone chained their ankles to large stakes in the ground. The privileged class runners, miles ahead finally hear the concerned voices of spectators calling out that it is not fair. So they order their henchmen to go unlock the chains.

As they are running along, the privileged class, now miles and miles ahead, feeling good about themselves, think, “I am so glad I levelled the playing field for those poor people.”

This is the position many of our Indigenous nations are put under. To make matters worse, we are criticized for not winning even after the playing field was “levelled.” This is same position that all “developing” nations are placed under.

These nations, only now starting to form businesses and economies after a long time of oppression, colonialism and exclusion, now must compete against transnational corporations that have had decades to build their vast empires and resources. These same transnational corporations have received corporate welfare for decades in the forms of grants, tax breaks, incentive packages, waived fees, waived regulatory requirements, etc. The moment government or philanthropists consider offering some meagre support to young businesses from the non-privileged classes, the privileged ones rise up and cry foul.

“That’s not fair to give them welfare” they say. “They should stand or fall in a free market economy!”

Is it a noble goal? Yes. Is it fair economic opportunity for all? No.

2. Greater efficiencies in product development and distribution

The basic concept of globalization is that the processes used in producing a product and subsequently distributing will be more efficient. This, in term, will reduce overall consumer prices.

The problem with this thinking is that somebody is going to have to pay. Either front line workers will endure poor conditions with poor pay, or businesses in the middle of the supply chain will have to suffer cuts into their financial sustainability, or taxpayers will need to be put on the hook for corporate welfare. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to pay for the grossly undervalued products we buy at discount rates.

Another problem with this basic concept is that, in theory, it is supposed to make it easier to acquire the products we cannot produce domestically. In practice, we end up paying others for the right to use our own products!

An example will suffice. We have trees in Canada. We cut them and load them on trucks and trains, ship them to the U.S. where American businesses then do “value-added” work to the lumber. This lumber is then shipped back to Canada, and we buy it for a highly inflated price. Why are we not doing the work ourselves?

This phenomenon is not limited to forestry. It happens with fruits and vegetables, resources and products of all types. For many products, we export as much as we import. It is utter ridiculousness when we could be producing and prepping our own products for our own consumption. Only the excess of what we require should be exported.

Think for the moment. How can apples still be low priced, if we grow them, then transport them to another country (typically the US), transport them back and then sell them to our own people? Taxpayer funded subsidies given over to private companies as corporate welfare. This is part of the anger among the Occupy movement around North America right now.

In this day, when we are concerned with CO2 emissions, we are actually creating a worse problem through the traffic that comes from globalization.

3. Higher standards of living world-wide

The premise behind this claim is that globalization brings about increased living standards. Does it really? There are a number of key questions that need to be asked.

-          Who defines what the living standard should be?

-          How do you measure living standard?

-          How is living standards monitored?

-          Are living standards truly “one size fits all”?

Often, living standards are defined as the white, English-speaking, North American lifestyle. This lifestyle is essentially based on material wealth, consumption, individualism, and artificially high value on intangible (ie. Low practical value) knowledge economy careers. In this system, a CEO doing only a fraction of the work that the cashier working at the front end of his business empire does. In practical terms, the CEO’s job is of so little value that he should hardly be paid more than the front line employees. Yet, CEO’s often make anywhere from 10-1000 times what their front line employees make.

A computer technician is often valued in school, while teachers frown upon farmers or hunters or fishermen. Yet, in practical terms, the latter are infinitely more valuable in terms of what they produce than the former.

This is not to say there is no place for CEO’s and leaders and technicians, but it is to say that they are artificially valued above the more practical occupations.

Western lifestyle is also characterized by consumption and waste. Why should we impose such a backward value upon other peoples? Why should a developing nation be measured by how much they consume and waste? Yet, this is precisely what our current economic measurements do.

Living standards cannot be defined by the elite, nor one specific culture. They must be defined at local levels.

Globalization will not lead us to economic fairness. Localization is what is required. This is the process of making local economies strong and sustainable. It is not against global trade, but does insist that we engage global trade in a balanced manner. We trade the excess of what we produce. Why on Earth would one trade away that which one needs and then live in lack?

Global trade, without strong local economies, is an illusion built upon the backs of communities exploited for the benefit of the elite.

Ideas for change and how you can resist an unjust Global economy are here:

http://www.theeconomicsofhappiness.org/generate-alternatives-take-back-the-economy

The Economy of Language

I want to talk about the effect of language on culture and culture on economy. I have been on a linguistic and cultural journey throughout my life. As a background I will explain where I am coming from, the culture that is embedded into language, and then how that affects our ways of viewing the world around us and our approach to economic development.

My Background

My first language was French, taught to me by my father. My mother had already lost her own language, Ojibwe, by that time. When the day came to start school, it was around the era in the early 80's when the French had begun fighting in the Supreme Court for their linguistic rights. They had suffered decades of oppression and assimilatory practices (sound familiar?) by the hands of the English. French school children had to hide their books in ceiling panels when English inspectors came.

As the court case was working its way through, the hatred and aggression against the French by English people was at an al time high. My father feared that if he continued teaching me French, I would never get a job when I got older. So, well meaning, he placed me in English school and I lost everything.

Fast forward. Years later, after growing up entirely in the city, disconnected from my community, I set out on my own distancing myself from extended family and met the woman who would become my wife. I eventually immersed myself into her French language and culture, being fully accepted with wide open arms by her family. Her family became my family and her language became a beautiful gift to me.

Fast forward. Although I have spent most of my career involved in Indigenous business development, economic development and employment; it has only been in the past year I have begun having inexplicable longings to return to my home community. I say inexplicable because I have never actually lived there, only visited. Nonetheless, without going into too much detail, I have begun forming connections and friendships with my fellow Anishinaabe citizens*, reconnecting with relations, and now pursuing my native tongue.

Throughout this linguistic and cultural journey, I have learned a great deal. Through looking at 3 languages, I have seen how embedded and inseparable the culture is from the language and vice versa. Let's explore this together.

English Language and Culture

What do we know of the culture of English speakers here in Canada? With some modest generalizations I note the two common points: 1) there is one way to do things right, all others are either inferior or less effective; 2) in the mainstream English speaking world of Canada, we are taught to be bold, aggressive, and confident, sell yourself in job hunting

The English language is such that consonants are very hard sounding; bold, in-your-face. I know this after seeing how the same consonants in other languages (French, Spanish, Ojibwe) are often softer, smoother, and generally more gentle sounding. This makes sense when we consider the pervasiveness of English culture and language globally.

With English, grammar is such that there is a rigid structure in place with complex rules and syntax. This results in a rigid structure that leaves only one "correct" way of saying something. You might change the vocabulary, but the structure must always be in that one way. Anyone speaking like Yoda (Star Wars), would not be viewed as intelligently as someone with a "commanding" grasp of the English language.

One other embedded cultural element contained in the language is that of assimilation. The very language itself assimilates words of other languages, English-icizes their pronunciation, and more often than not, replaces the Indigenous language that was there first.

The English language is based on a subject-object relationship where, philosophically, they are independent of one another and the subject “does” something to the object as though the object has no role or say in the matter. In Ojibwe and many other Indigenous languages, subject and object are interdependent and not differentiable. They are not doing something “to” one another, but having an experience together.

Naturally, you can see how historic and contemporary English-speaking culture parallels these elements of the language. In fact, so embedded is it that the influence of the language construct sub-consciously reinforces specific world views and approaches to treating people. From English tendency to assimilate people, to viewing themselves and their ways as superior, to their views of dominance over the environment and the exploitation of natural resources, to their ways of interacting with one another, we can see the culture influenced by the language.

French Language and Culture

In the French language, there is also some rigid structure involved in how you say something, but with one key difference than that of the English language. In French, you have several options of how you wish to say something. I am not talking simple vocabulary switches here either, I mean complete phrase structure changes between these options.

The language is still based on subject-object, but sometimes the subject come after the object and in many cases, the phrases are indirect. With English, it is subject does something to object. In French, there are forms in that structure where object is affected by subject in such and such a way, rather than strictly "subject does action to object". Culturally, there is some acceptance of different ways of being (as there are some options of different ways of speaking a phrase). However, it is limited acceptance.

One very interesting difference is that in English, emotion is all but stripped out of the language so that English speakers are forced to use descriptor words to explain emotion. In French, emotion and romanticism is embedded. The French culture has always been noted for their romantic natures, charm, and often their seductiveness (not saying this in a negative way). These cultural tendencies are rooted in the very language itself.

There is no way to say “I like you” in French. You either LOVE them or ADORE them, nothing less. Pronouns and adjectives for people are often terms of endearment, embedded into the language. Even the method in which the words are spoken involve animated hand motions to the point that expression is a well known trait for French people.

Ojibwe Language and Culture

In Ojibwe, there is an interesting trait of the language. The word order does not matter in most cases. Rather than a rigid, “one right way,” structure, an Ojibwe speaker may use whatever order they wish. It is, in many ways, like the cultural view that one must find their own way. It is truly a liberating feeling coming from the rigidity of the English language.

Consonants in Ojibwe are ALL much softer than in English. A “g” is spoken closer to a “t” sound and a “b” closer to a “p” sound, etc. This is very much in parallel with our culture of being softer spoken, more tentative and respectful, and exhibiting gentleness. As our language is not at all “in your face,” our culture is very much about humility.

In English, we operate under the rigidity of subject + action +object. The philosophical underpinning of that structure is that subject and object are independent of one another and the subject may do as it pleases (action) to the object (ie. Environment), with or without consent.  In Ojibwe and many Indigenous languages, there is little difference between subject and object. One is not “doing” something TO the other, but rather they are sharing an experience together.

Practically, English speakers (subject, ie. Government) wish to do something (action, ie. Improve social-economic status) to Indigenous people (object, as though they are separate and apart from English speakers and no interdependency). This is why such efforts ultimately fail. The subjects are not sharing in the experience, good or bad. As a result, it is impossible to effect real change.

In that same example, from an Ojibwe linguistic and cultural perspective, the solution lies in both “subject” (ie. Government) and “object” (Indigenous people) to have a shared experience improving socio-economic status. This approach means it is not just a job some hired bureaucrat does, but rather it is a whole community (both English speaking mainstream Canadians and Indigenous people) approach that transcends a 9-5 job. It becomes something that we live. It means we are not going to talk about how bad poverty is and then go home at the end of the day to our Steak dinner in front of our 60" flat screen tv and 6.0 surround sound system.

Culture and Nationhood

I have learned a great deal from the French people, whose culture I was happily accepted into. The French in Canada also have a history of oppression and persecution at the hands of the English. They had lost the war against the British (which, sadly was about controlling a land that did not belong to either of them) and suffered as the losers of the war at the hands of the victors.

One thing I had learned was the way they had maintained their culture and nationality over time. They did this through the protection of their language above all else. Not land, not programs, not individual communities could have enabled the French in Canada to survive to the point where they are today. I have observed when French people hear another person speak French, even a complete stranger, and the instant sense of connection that they demonstrate.

I have felt this connection as well. It is these lessons that have shown me the critical importance of our Indigenous languages to protecting our cultures and identities. These identities, cultures and linguistically influenced world views are absolutely critical to cultivating the wisdom required to recreating local, national and global economies that are better integrated and interconnected with the land, the environment, people and animals.

I feel this connection again as I am in the process of learning my own native tongue.

Effect on Economic Development

Now we can see how language intrinsically influences and shapes culture (and vice versa). Together, language and culture influence and shape our world views and hence, our approach to economic development.

The mainstream approach to economic development has been driven, in large part, by the English speaking world. As a result, consciously or not, people have adopted a separated view of themselves and our environment – a philosophy of disconnect between all that exists in this universe. This has led to exploitation of resources, harmful corporate practices, even genocide (when the perpetrators view the victims as disconnected from themselves). This philosophy has led to the belief that animals and resources exist to be dominated by humans without the acknowledgement of the interconnectedness that exists.

(NOTE: this is not to say that there are not many English speaking people who have altered their perspectives on these issues. Certainly there are many who have and many who are champions for a new way of developing and approaching this world - but these shifts in perspective generally have come from education and awareness, not from intrinsic and subconscious influence of their spoken language)

The alternatives to this approach stem from our Indigenous languages. The embedded cultural world views are full of the wisdom required for the changes this world is going through. Economic Development can be done in a different way than exploitation and profit above all else. The key to finding these alternatives lie in our understanding of the world views that come from our languages.

Concluding notes:

There are gifts that can come from every language. The trouble begins when we allow for one language (any one) to dominate the others. The same global issues could have stemmed from a different language if it had gained dominance. Our global strength lies in our diversity.

Notes:

*I say citizens because our nations are not simply communities, but nations with the power of citizenship, even if our current leaders are not exercising that power.

Economic Re-visioning

It has been over a year now since the elite of the world nearly destroyed the global economy for their own greed. Recession, fears, cut-backs, debts all have become regular words in our vocabulary. In fact, sad to say, so has greed, corruption, injustice. The very people who caused the recession by nearly bankrupting the system to line their own pockets, have since been rewarded with bail out packages that they have used to give themselves bonuses in the millions of dollars.

How did this all begin? How were they allowed to do this? What implications does this have for Indigenous economy?

To start with, we need to examine the colonial economic system – that is to say, the current mainstream economic system that North America inherited from the British Empire so long ago. That system, thanks to the industrial age, set, as its foundation, efficiency, money, and material wealth. The system was designed to exploit everything and everyone around it for the singular goal of profit.

While forms of banking had existed for a long time already, they had at one time only been a type of safe storehouse. Originally, a “bank” or moneylender would hold people’s money or valuables in a secure place for safekeeping. A fee would be applied to pay for this safeguarding (ie. The salaries of guards and staff to operate the bank). A bank, originally, could only ever lend out as much money the banker him/herself actually possessed personally. Of course with a little interest and safe lending, the banker would earn some profit.

Over time, the bankers became greedier, realizing that people rarely ever withdrew ALL of their money all at once. So they began lending out money that was not theirs in order to earn even more profit. Naturally, this is somewhat a breach of trust, so the bankers appeased their clients (the depositors) by paying out a meagre interest rate for all monies deposited in the bank. Even after this, a bank could only ever lend out as much money as it actually possessed in its vault.

However, this was not enough to satisfy the greed of the private bankers. They exploited a regulatory void whereby they had been given the power to create money. They no longer have to limit their lending power to reality. Now, bankers simply, as though with magic, write into their books additional monies as revenue when someone asks for a loan and then assign that imaginary money to the borrower.

In the past the value of money was based on tangible goods and services, but today, money is rooted in debt. So, when bankers make a loan, they create debt. If that debt is paid, ONLY the bankers profit. If the banker makes a bad loan, they lose nothing. There is no risk.

After the financial meltdown, we have seen that not only do they bear no risk and no loss, they become rewarded for their work through taxpayer funded bail outs and subsequently give themselves bonuses so big that the average North American would have to work 50 full years to earn that amount.

This system of debt and infinite profit seeking is not sustainable. Such a system cannot continue indefinitely and will, at some point, reach complete system collapse. What does this mean for Indigenous economies?

Indigenous nations have always been pushed out to the margins of the mainstream economy. This was done, originally, to harm our nations. However, as we observe the intrinsic failures of the system, perhaps what was meant for bad may well be that which offers us an opportunity.

Our nations have the opportunity to create our own economies in a way that does not bring injustice to our nations. We have a way to create an economic system that does not give banks the power to enslave us and be our masters. We have an opportunity it create a system that ensures people are valued over money.

For example, who says that I must only buy clothes through a retail store? Can I not trade my services or goods that I have with one who has the skills to make clothes? I am talking a barter system here. Barter systems are already being used all over the world and even in urban North America. Barter systems cut out the needless intermediary of a bank and all of the economic leakage into the banks pockets that comes with it. The power to define the value of goods and services is restored to the people themselves. Wealth is returned to its connection to tangible goods and services rather than abstract meaningless numbers that are all too easy for white collar criminals to meddle with.

Practically, how do we do this?

As there are already many communities that have successfully applied some of the mainstream economic tools in their communities, the answer, I believe, is in balance. A blended approach of Tribal/First Nation owned businesses (that are not set-up to compete with any existing member owned business), entrepreneurs, barter exchanges, and other “out of the box” thinking. Perhaps a community owned co-op bank could be created.

Having the mix of options could allow a community to take each of these elements and emphasize those which fit best with their communal/cultural values. It allows communities to gradually shape their economies and take the best elements from a variety of options and approaches to economic development.

The resources are out there too. Google has many resources for setting up a barter exchange, for example.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/creating-community-currency-a-bartering-system.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1471533/how_to_set_up_a_bartering_exchange.html

The main element required for making practical changes to a failed economic system is not to import those failures, but to think creatively about alternatives that are fair for people.

Economic success in a community

Success. What does this even mean? In today’s world of ever increasing accountability and public scrutiny, we seek to measure the success of every activity. Community economic development is not exempt from this either. But how do you measure the success of a community?

There are over hundreds and hundreds of First Nation, Métis, and Inuit communities across Canada. Some are a couple dozen people big, while others number in the thousands. Some are remote, others are situated on main highways. Some have traditional occupations (hunting and trapping), while others have CEOs and large corporations. Which ones are successful? How do you define it?

Some have tried to take the “socio-economic conditions” approach. There is some merit in this approach where people are compared against the ideals of urban life. Here we look at access to health care, access to clean water, access to transportation, access to markets, employment rates, income levels, education levels, perceptions of safety, etc. Certainly some of this can shed a bit of light on the issue, but it does not tell the entire story.

People have tried to use the “economic measures” approach, whereby they examine how many local businesses are in operation, GDP, local revenues, income levels, employment rates, etc. In reality, this is limited to looking at economic activity, which is still useful information. However, it does not tell the entire story either.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of our approaches are comparative in nature to some ingrained ideal. These ingrained ideals are taught to us, culturally, by mainstream society from a very early age. Some of these include:

·         For Individuals:  

o   personal wealth

o   home ownership or size/appearance

o   type of car or truck

o   employer or position at work

·         For communities:

o   Entertainment options

o   Shopping centres

o   Traffic

o   Number of BIG businesses located in the community

Granted these types of “indicators” are mostly taught to children growing up in urban centres. However, the people working in governments, making program and policy decisions, conducting ‘research,’ are typically those in urban centres.

For some, these indicators might resonate. For others, they may leave a bad taste in the mouth. The key here is that people do not define what they mean by economic development. They do not define what success looks like to them, and they do not ensure their views are in alignment with the underlying values of the community.

I have seen many communities, including one First Nation that is a fly-in community (call it community A) with plenty of access to in-home running water. In this community, there are almost no employment options, rampant welfare, violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, marital unfaithfulness to the extreme, child neglect, etc. I have seen another community that is also a fly-in community (call it community B), but that has less than half their people connected to running water. Despite the employment options being few, this community does not share the same level of social dysfunction.

Why? What causes one to have different results than the other? Many people use some of the aforementioned approaches to defining economic success and conclude that both communities are failing. While community B certainly has its challenges, I disagree. I believe that community B is a successful community. Many of the people there are happy in spite of the challenges of water access and distant health care.

What happened to community A? Did they lose hope when outside urbanites came in and repeatedly told them they are failures and that they must strive to be like the big cities? Were they driven to despair when their own definitions of success was trampled on by well-meaning, but misguided bureaucrats, and replaced with an urbanite definition of success?

Often the presence of a flat screen TV or IPod Touch or IPad in the home is a sign of individual economic success. But is it really? Is it a success when we spend more of our time melting into a couch in a zombie like state while being spoon fed mental fodder? Is it truly a success when our children turn away from their soccer balls and become sedentary in front of their tech toys and video games?

Or is it more successful when they do not have these distractions and instead, walk along side the older generations, learning skills and knowledge?

There is no single answer, as it will vary person to person according to their cultural upbringing, personal and communal views. One thing for certain, measures of success are pointless if success has not been defined.

For program or project managers, and especially for government workers, it is absolutely critical to listen to a community about how THEY define success and shape the measurement of success from that.

Staying the Course in the face of Disaster

Well, perhaps symbolic of this year's scourge of natural (and not so natural) disasters and their effect on our ability to stay focused on economic development, I have not posted in awhile as I have been distracted.

This year, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec have been hit particularly hard by severe flooding. Communities have been washed out, many have declared states of emergency at various times and more than a few have had evacuation orders. Alberta wild fires have threatened many communities, forced evacuation of others and destroyed at least one. Oil spills in northern Alberta have cause untold damage to the environment and nearby communities, severe storms have battered a number of communities and regions and tornadoes have damaged cities and communities in the USA.

This is perhaps the most challenging pressure on a community's planning. How can a community remain focused on the plans they worked so hard to develop when natural disasters make day to day living a challenge?

There is no easy answer. However, the work put into a plan need not be wasted. The plan represents the community's vision of what they hope to achieve. When a natural disaster hits, these plans are still valid.... except, there may need to be a few more steps at the front end added into the plan. If I had a community vision of a supermarket and a flood recently destroyed the main road into my community, the vision still stands, but now, instead of developing supply lines as my first step, getting the road repaired or rebuilt will be my first step.

One thing that will have been affected though, is the capacity of the community to engage in community economic development. There will be a need to re-assess this capacity after a disaster has struck. It is only when a community fully understands where their capacities lie that they can accurately plan for the future. I have been working on a tool to do just that and will post it soon (like in the next month or so).

In the meantime, if you are facing a disaster, be encouraged - all of your previous planning efforts are not wasted.