From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Aboriginal nationalism?
Keywords: oka
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 16:59:58 GMT

In article <hlindley.702422784@cunews> hlindley@alfred.carleton.ca (Hugh Lindley) writes:
>In <1992Apr03.213722.22384@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>>First off, (and I am sure this will be forgotten if this debate
>>goes on  a bit), I think that lands claimed by treaty by aboriginals
>>are legitimate in as far as the bands, councils, nations or organizations
>>have use of these lands by right of these treaties. I would hope that
>>access to the land (ie immigration to the bands' lands) is not restricted
>>on the basis of *race* or aboriginalness.
>
>It would seems that we Canadians, like it or not give
>white-anglo-saxon-protestants prefered access to land in metropolitan
>areas so why shouldn't aborignies do the same?

Well first of all, although people describe me as a WASP, I am neither
anglo-saxon nor protestant and I don't define myself either by skin colour.

There are no metropolitan areas or anywhere else to my knowledge (with the
exception of so-called reserves
and ethnic laws in Quebec) that are defined in law by race or
waspishness. If there were, we would be (and justifiably) 
under international sanctions.


>>AND opt out of the Charter and the rights and obligations of citizens
>>because of some ethnic characteristic. It would appear that many aboriginal
>>women think likewise.
>
>Why not? Even if they are descendents of original inhabitants of this
>land, their culture is still inherently different than *multicultural*
>Canada. 
                

Just a minute, now. EVERYBODY's culture is different. 
That is supposed to be what multiculturalism is all about,
although it is more often used as a means of division, instead
of celebration of diversity. Why would a particular
culture justify exclusionary legislation? Just as I refuse to be categorized
as a colonialist because of some ethnic tie to Europe that someone may
want to draw, so I refuse to accept some tie to originalness, based on
historic claims of race.


>>Thus I have worries, when I hear Ovide Mercredi refer to the Aboriginal
>>Nation when aboriginals are NOT one nation in the typical concept, although
>>they could become so if they occupied common land. 
>>But let's say, for the sake
>>of argument, that Aboriginals from across the land perceived themselves
>>as one nation. 
>
>I am afraid that it would be difficult to speculate on your argument
>because native people across Canada acknowledge the differences
>between their groups. 

Some do and some like not to. Mercredi has been talking about ONE aboriginal
nation (one of the so-called 3 nations), as if the Ojibway have something
in common with the Inuit and the Haida.
The only common thread here is the ETHNIC historical link to originalness.
Which was my argument.




>They have common interests because the Indian
>Act (a document prepared by White people) 

It was defined by colonizers. Their skin colour is not an issue, surely.

>legally, thus Aboriginals have a common interest in getting the rest
>of Canada to realize that their rights have been minimized since
>colonization. 

 We all have a common-ness of interest in this regard, just in terms of
being democratic. I am the first to demand recognition of title and fair
settlement of land claims based on TREATY not RACE, ie based on who lives
there, not what was so-and so's bloodline.

>I don't think aboriginals are asking for a parallel
>systems of government that would unify all of the different tribes. I
>don't think aboriginal self-rule has to be centralized like the
>Canadian system of government (federally at least). 


Some are and some are not. This is the right of all peoples to decide for
themselves. I only refuse to accept that only Aboriginals have hereditary
rights. All peoples do.
They may wish centralized forms of government for their lands claimed by
treaty. They may wish to secede and form nation states (I don't recommend
it.) They may want decentralized networks. This is up to every people.


>   
>>This is why I think  Mercredi refers to the *francophone* nation
>>instead of Quebec. The francophone nation would exclude anglos in Quebec
>>and would embrace francos outside Quebec? It would also exclude
>>aboriginals. Is this view of nationalism ethnic too? It would seem so. 
>
>Yes, but there is a difference. I would argue that the native
>population has been systematically oppressed by the white man (and
>women for that matter) whereas Quebec feels that its rights have been
>minimized because of a lack of recognition of their right to cultural
>determination. 

What is The White Man? Do I fit in that category? If so, am I 
oppressing the aboriginal peoples when I call for recognition of
their legitimate land claims? It's time to drop these racial labels.
Your distinction between oppression of aboriginals and oppression of
Quebecois seems a bit inconsistent here. I don't follow the distinction.



>In my opinion aborignals have suffered a greater
>oppression than the Quebeqouis. It should be noted that my opinion
>does not state that Quebecers don't have the right to claim their own
>distinct society. I think their claim is just, what some of the
>politicians are asking for is unrealistic and downright dangerous. 


 Aboriginals certainly live in miserable circumstances (at least
a disproportionate number do.) A lot of people live miserably.
However, I refuse to "solve" that problem by falling into ethnic
apartheid, where aboriginals have one law and non-aboriginals have 
another.

Frank.