Letter to MPs RE: Attawapiskat First Nation

Undoubtedly, you will likely have heard of the plight of one of our communities, living in worse than Third World conditions and ignored by the Canadian and Ontario governments for years. I decided not to be idle. Among other things, I wrote a letter to all the MPs to pressure them to action.

Below is a copy of my letter and below that, the emails I sent it to. Each party has one email that will automatically send your email letter to every member of that party. I hope you will join me in flooding their inboxes on this issue.

Dear MPs,

I recently read the article regarding the State of Emergency in Attawapiskat First Nation and the complete failure of governments and aid agencies to respond (www.huffingtonpost.ca/charlie-angus/attawapiskat-emergency_b_1104370.html#s487209).

Admittedly, the article greatly angered and distressed me. I cannot begin to express how shameful it is for a 1st world country that prides itself on Human Rights to then turn around and deny the basic human rights of an entire community of people.

The people of Attawapiskat First Nation are denied proper housing, electricity, heating, water, plumbing. Many are living in mere tents in a nation whose temperature plummets well below 0, to temperatures that cause illness and death.

Canada gives billions of dollars in foreign aid to nations that are not even experiencing half of the horrendous conditions as the people of Attawapiskat First Nation, and even offers aid to wealthier nations like China, yet turns a blind eye domestically.

I implore you to lay aside your political differences and agendas to do what's right. Take action with appropriate responsive measures and aid. If it means redirecting foreign aid budgets to do this, then so be it. Please make this a priority. It should not come from AANDC budgets. This is a Human Rights issue, not a First Nation issue.

If this were suburban Toronto, I am certain your response would be swift with a budget determined by need rather than by artifical caps. Please act with the same level of dedication and commitment.

Thank you,

Ken Sanderson


Here are the emails (feel free to comment and add to the list):

• libmem@parl.gc.ca (Liberal MPs)
• cpcmem@parl.gc.ca (Conservative MPs)
• ndpmem@parl.gc.ca (NDP MPs)
• elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca

Last few pieces of advice. MPs are most likely to read your letter if they are well thought out and rant free. This can be the most challenging part. Make sure you take the time to process your emotions first, then write several drafts and get feedback from firends, mentors, etc. Since it is email, delivery is instant, so you can afford to take the few days to get your message right.

Happy activism!

Ken

Indigenous People and the Betty Crocker Axe at Our Necks

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!

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.