Max Forte's List: AJP--Indigenous Resistance

• 23 November 2011

• First Nations Under Surveillance in Canada 

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   
  

   In our continuing coverage of reports of surveillance and domestic forms of counterinsurgency in Canada, we present this material, first aired on the CBC's radio program, The Current, from Thursday, 17 November, 2011.
• It demonstrates the state's continuing efforts to spy on the public sphere and to treat Aboriginals as if they were a potential insurgent threat, a domestic implementation of espionage techniques that tie in with the "return investment" on Canada's participation in foreign counterinsurgency wars, as first demonstrated by the inclusion of First Nations in the draft counterinsurgency manual of the Canadian Forces. For more background, see the prior reports we published on these topics:
• • Domestic Surveillance in Canada: Suspicious Incident Reporting -- 22 November 2011
   
  • Militarization, Decolonization, and Indigenous Sovereignty -- 19 October 2011
   
  • For the Sake of Mining Interests and "Security": Canadian and U.S. Surveillance and Suppression of Indigenous Communities in the Americas, as Revealed by Wikileaks -- 29 June 2011
   
  • Domestic Counterinsurgency in Canada -- 13 June 2011
   
  • First Nations Under Surveillance: Harper Government Prepares for First Nations “Unrest" -- 08 June 2011
   
  • Counterinsurgency: From Afghanistan to First Nations Resistance in Canada -- 03 July 2010
• From the CBC:
   
   Why is the govt spying on Cindy Blackstock? Cindy Blackstock is an advocate for First Nations children and youth. She has an email trail that shows bureaucrats from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are tailing her, showing up at more than 70 speeches and appearances, taking notes, following her Facebook page and sharing what they find with their Dept and the Dept of Justice. She calls the surveillance, chilling and politically motivated.
   
   Canada spends millions of dollars each year monitoring and tracking individuals and groups thought to threaten national security. Law abiding citizens aren't typically under the government's microscope. But when Cindy Blackstock applied for access to government documents, she received a fat folder that showed she was being watched. Cindy Blackstock runs The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society.
• In 2007, her organization filed a human rights complaint against the federal government, alleging under-funding of child welfare services on reserves. Her Access to Information request revealed, the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has amassed a large file on her activities, much of it based on first-hand accounts from government employees who tailed her at public appearances. Cindy Blackstock joined us from our studio in Ottawa.
   
   Martin Papillon is a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa. Among other things, his research focusses on Aboriginal self-determination and he was in our Ottawa studio.
   
   For his take on whether and when the federal government should monitor native groups and why it might be keeping tabs on Cindy Blackstock, we were joined by Tim Powers. He's the Vice President of Summa Communications and a Conservative Party strategist. He also worked in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the mid 1990s. Tim Powers was in Ottawa.
• The Current asked to speak to someone from the Prime Minister's Office. We did not receive a reply. We asked to speak to Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan. Neither he nor anyone else from the department was available this morning, but Minister Duncan's spokesperson did provide us with this statement. It reads:
   

   I can tell you that our government takes Canadians' privacy very seriously. The Minister has asked the Deputy Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to report to him on whether privacy rules were respected.

   We also asked to speak to someone from the Department of National Defence. We received no response. The Government's Leader in the Senate, Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton, was not available to speak to us this morning.

5 more annotations...

• 03 July 2010
• Counterinsurgency: From Afghanistan to First Nations Resistance in Canada
• Canada's brewing 'insurgency'

  By Jon Elmer

  (Originally published by Al Jazeera, 26 June 2010)
• Canada's native communities are using the G20 and G8 gatherings to bring attention to land rights issues, poverty and poor living conditions

  
   

  As leaders of the richest nations gather in Toronto for the annual G8 and G20 summits, Canada has mounted an unprecedented security operation that stands to go down as the largest in the country's history.

  
   

  The local and federal governments have resorted to significant measures: barricading the downtown core behind a massive galvanised perimeter fence, erecting checkpoints with x-rays, uprooting trees that police say could be used by demonstrators, and converting a sound stage into a massive temporary detention facility in preparation for mass arrests of protesters.

  
   

  But with Canadian soldiers, snipers, commandos and police tactical units representing the sharp end of a security budget that is poised to top $1bn, the most significant threat to business as usual for the summit may turn out to be far-flung rural blockades enacted by Canada's long suffering native communities.
• "It's a very dangerous situation," said Douglas Bland, a retired Canadian forces lieutenant-colonel who is now the chair of defence management studies at Queen's University.

  
   

  In recent years in particular, Canada's indigenous communities have shown the will and potential to grind the country's economic lifelines to a halt through strategically placed blockades on the major highways and rail lines that run through native reserves well outside of Canada's urban landscape.

  
   

  "The Canadian economy is very vulnerable," said Bland.
• "More than 25 per cent of our GDP comes from exports of raw materials, but especially oil, natural gas and electricity to the United States."

  
   

  "It's undefended and undefendable infrastructure, the pipelines and power lines and so on, and it runs through great spaces of open countryside and they run through aboriginal territories.

  
   

  "It would take a very small number of people very little time to bring [it] down," said Bland, who is the author of a "barely fictionalised" account of native insurgency in Canada, entitled Uprising.
• Blockades

  
   

  In 2007, the Mohawk community at Tyendinaga, 200 kilometres east of Toronto, blocked the trans-continental rail line and Canada's largest highway in protest at the government's failure to address land rights and basic issues of survival within First Nations - including safe drinking water, which the community lacked.

  
   

  That episode was a hint of the leverage indigenous peoples in Canada possess, as hundreds of millions of dollars in cargo was stalled by simple barricades placed across a rural stretch of the Canadian National railway's mainline between Toronto and Montreal.
• "The message resounded," said Shawn Brant, a high profile Mohawk activist involved in the 2007 blockades.

  
   

  "We are not going to live in abject poverty, to have our children die, to have our women abducted, raped and murdered without any investigations. We are not going to live with the basic indignities that occur to us daily. We would bring them to an end."

  
   

  In 2007, Brant characterised the blocking of the 401 highway and CN main rail line as a "good test run".
• "We showed that we would meet the severity of what was happening to us with a reaction and a plan, a strategy that would be equally as severe," Brant said.

  
   

  Last week, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network broadcast footage of Canadian intelligence agents threatening a native activist ahead of the G8 summit.

  
   

  "I will tell you straight up," said an agent of the Canadian security and intelligence service to an indigenous activist, "there [are] other forces that are from other countries that will not put up with a blockade in front of their president".
• The twin summits, held in Toronto and Huntsville, a rural community that lies 225 kilometres north of Toronto, are separated by a major highway that runs through large swathes of indigenous territory adjacent to the major travel arteries.

  
   

  A determined blockade could wreak havoc on the summit and cast light on Canada's darkest shame.

  
   

  Blockades, said Harrison Friesen, a spokesperson for native rights movement Red Power United, would be intended to show the world that "everything is not okay in Canada for native people".
• Insurgency?

  
   

  Bland argues that the situation within First Nations in Canada has all the attributes of an insurgency.

  
   

  "These root causes, these abysmal conditions for some of the aboriginal people are serious."

  
   

  There are more than 800 outstanding native land claims held against the Canadian government. And in many First Nations communities there is deep crisis, with poverty, unemployment and overcrowding the norm.
• According to figures from the Assembly of First Nations, more than 118 First Nations lack safe drinking water and some 5,500 houses do not have sewage systems.

  
   

  Almost one half of homes on native reserves are in need of "major repairs", compared with 7 per cent of non-native homes.

  
   

  Natives suffer a violent crime rate that is more than 300 times higher than Canada's non-native population, while natives represent 18.5 per cent of the male prison population and one-quarter of the female population, although natives only constitute 4 per cent of the total population.
• In some provinces, the incarceration rates are starker.

  
   

  In Manitoba, 71 per cent of prisoners are native, although natives represent only 15 per cent of the province's population; in Saskatchewan, the number is even higher, with natives accounting for 80 per cent of prisoners but only 11 per cent of the population.

  
   

  The Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently characterised the prison system as "community colleges for [native] gangs".

  
   

  These "gangs" are increasingly politicised and some of Canada's leading military planners are warning that a full-blown uprising is gathering.
• The groups operate in what the military calls "ungoverned spaces" that are increasingly difficult to police.

  
   

  They are also sophisticated, operating under the "Robin Hood" principle of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, say military planners.

  
   

  When combined with their tangible grievances, "you have the root causes which can be the fuel for an insurgency. It's entirely feasible," said Bland.
• Counterinsurgency posture

  
   

  In 2007, a draft edition of Canada's army counterinsurgency field manual highlighted the Mohawk Warrior Society as a case study insurgency.

  
   

  But after the excerpt was made public by media reports, Gordon O'Connor, the then defence minister, issued a statement saying that the reference would be removed from the final draft, which was released in 2008.

  
   

  "The withdrawal of the topic out of the counterinsurgency manual was typical of the reaction by government for fear of upsetting the precarious status quo of relations in the country right now," said Bland.
• "It is an example of a trend in Canadian political leadership.

  
   

  "There is a great reluctance to name, point to, suggest that we have an internal security problem in Canada based in either the aboriginal communities or in what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police call the aboriginal based criminal organisations.

  
   

  "One of the difficulties of discussing the issue and more seriously acting against it," said Bland, "is that by acting against an individual native protest or activity, you might incite the entire community across the country".
• Political leaders "fear baiting what they don't want to happen, so you see them backing off all the time".

  
   

  Indeed, the threat of blockades by more than 40 First Nations communities this week forced the provincial government in Ontario to back down on a plan to enforce a new harmonised sales tax on native communities, in contravention of longstanding treaty agreements.

  
   

  The message has been received, said Brant. "We've shown that, unified, we are capable of not just disruption, not just protest, but a willingness to use the economy as a tool in the arsenal to fight."

  
   

  "The government ran its infrastructure through our land because no one else wanted it to run through theirs," said Brant.
• "Now it serves as an incredibly power[ful] tool of influence that allows us now as a society to engage government in a dialogue, a relationship based on us having power."

  
   

  In 2007, Chief Terrance Nelson of Manitoba's Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation made headlines when he told a television reporter that "there are only two ways of dealing with the white man ... either you pick up the gun or you stand between him and his money".

  
   

  There is no shortage of examples of either tactic of native resistance in recent Canadian history.

  
   

  In 1990, an historic armed standoff between Mohawks and the Canadian army near Oka, Quebec lasted more than two months when the provincial government tried to convert a native burial ground into a golf course.
• Five years later, in 1995, the Canadian government used helicopters, armoured personnel carriers, improvised explosives and more than 77,000 rounds of ammunition during a three-month standoff over land title at Gustafsen Lake, in British Columbia.

  
   

  Speaking at a senate hearing in May, Canada's top general in Afghanistan suggested that the country's counterinsurgency war in Kandahar and its "whole of government" strategy has helped prepare Canadian forces and its civilian partners for such eventualities.

  
   

  "If Canada were having an issue of insurgency," said Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance, "there would be a multi-discipline, multi-department operation with the government managing and directing carefully what its military and police forces would do".

  
   

  "We experienced a little of that ... with the events at Oka." But now, said Vance, "the government is engaged".
• Bland agreed, saying that the counterinsurgency experience fighting the Taliban in Kandahar is "completely relevant to what might happen here, and to what happened at Oka".

  
   

  That posture, Brant said, is a "grave mistake".

  
   

  "Since Oka, we've evolved from being reactionary to instances that occur to having a strategy. We've become communities that have embraced the injustices of the past and combined them with the indignities of the present. We have been able to inspire all elements in our communities," said Brant.

  
   

  "We've created a unity that they don't have the military or policing capabilities to confront."

18 more annotations...

• 13 June 2011

• Domestic Counterinsurgency in Canada 

   

   

   

   

    

  By Walter Pels via Marion Doss from Scranton, Kansas, USA (080727-N-1974P-046) [Public domain or CC-BY-SA-2.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
• We have previously posted on Canadian counterinsurgency with an article by Jon Elmer--see: "Counterinsurgency: From Afghanistan to First Nations Resistance in Canada." Now we want to feature extracts from the controversial 2005 draft Counterinsurgency Operations manual (leaked in 2007) and the final 2008 version, both produced by the Department of National Defence (and available below). We will also underline some key points of public discussion that have transpired, which we think help us to understand the significance of these documents, and add some further analytical considerations of our own.
• The Counterinsurgency Manuals

  
   To begin, the draft Counterinsurgency manual contained the following section on page 11, in paragraph 37, in Section Three (Overview of Insurgencies and Counterinsurgencies):

  The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims. Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ("First Nation") level, through the threat of, or use of, violence.
• This is the paragraph that attracted a lot of controversy and condemnation. The DND appears to be accusing the Mohawks of being guilty of wanting self-determination. It alleges they do not seek "complete control" of the federal government, as if they ever mention wanting any such control. The language used ensures heightened alarm, even when speaking of goals that are not Mohawk goals, while delegitimating their demands that treaties be respected by calling these "concessions." Nor does the document address the excessive violence routinely used against Aboriginal persons and communities by the authorities. What is also instructive is that the above paragraph, highlighted as a box quote in the document, follows paragraphs that suggest violent insurgencies may use "terrorism" against the civilian populace and, interestingly enough, that they emerge in failed and failing states that ignore the basic needs of the populace. Perhaps it was the placement of a Canadian example in that context that led to the erasure of the box quote from the final draft, more than any concern for having offended Aboriginals.
• [As a side note, like its American counterpart which has been accused of containing numerous plagiarized sections, the block quote above was lifted directly, and without credit, "from the master’s thesis of military historian Timothy Winegard who has written a book on the 1990 Oka Crisis" (APTN).]
• The revised and finalized version, issued on 13 December 2008 (the second document below), removed the Mohawk example, but still distributed the key ideas of indigenous self-determination as insurgency, across several paragraphs. For example, the new document now refers to these elements:
   
  • occupying authority (par. 1, p. 11)
   
  • nationalist desires for independence or autonomy (par. 4, p. 12)
   
  • inherent racial, cultural, religious or ideological divisions that lead to a lack of national cohesion (par. 5, p. 12)
   
  • acquire specific but limited political advantages or control (par. 7, p. 12)
   
  • may only require the support of a powerful portion of the populace (tribe, business class, ethnic minority (par. 10, p. 13)
• Thus the document manages to preserve and even amplify the typical traits associated with indigenous self-determination movements, without mentioning Mohawks, but retaining a sense of broad applicability to an even wider variety of Aboriginal organizations in Canada--which struggle against what they identify as occupation, seek greater autonomy, emphasize cultural difference, seek limited control, and are based on support within their nations. In other words, Canada's Department of National Defence manages to effectively criminalize what is in the UN Charter on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, even while the reluctant federal government eventually signed on to that same Charter. The final document is arguably more disturbing than the draft.
• Afghan Blowback or Canadian Colonial Continuity?
   
   The Counterinsurgency Operations handbook appears at a particular time and within a specific context. It follows Canadian participation in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, counterinsurgency in Haiti and the overthrow of President Aristide, and Canadian involvement in Iraq. It also comes as Canada has effectively eliminated its engagement in peacekeeping and ended its posture as a more or less neutral party in international affairs. It closely follows the turn to counterinsurgency in U.S. foreign policy and military doctrine. However, it also comes after the deployment of Canadian soldiers during the 1990 Oka crisis, and the 1995 Ipperwash conflict, on top of a long history of Canadian suppression of Aboriginal resistance, including outright warfare. It therefore becomes a challenge to understand whether counterinsurgency doctrine in Canada reflects part of the blowback of Canadian intervention in Afghanistan and Haiti, reflecting an importation and application at home of what has been learned and practiced abroad, or whether it manifests a further articulation of experience gained at home in ongoing internal colonialism, or both. The drive to dominate on all fronts, military, political, economic, and cultural, with so-called "whole of government" approaches, "three block war," and "full spectrum" dominance is apparent in varying degrees in both, and they may be reinforcing each other.
• Either way, it seems clear with the production and adoption of this document that the Canadian state has made war central to its policy in confronting substantive difference and opposition outside of parliament. It shows a weakening ability to secure legitimacy and negotiate resolutions. As much as the counterinsurgents appeal to "culture," the doctrine manifests a failure to understand or respect difference in the first place, with the eventual resort to violence coming into play. At best, it offers partial diplomatic approaches after the fact of war, which is a failure of diplomacy itself. This development also reflects the growing militarization of public policy at home and foreign relations abroad, alongside an even tighter alignment to U.S. and NATO imperialism. It stands as an affront to peace, and it should worry all Canadians, because while one might argue that the state has exported its war against "the Indians" to places such as Afghanistan, it seems that the state is equally willing to "bring back home" what it has done abroad.
• Some of the steps taken can be seemingly innocuous, but are part of the counterinsurgency doctrine's "winning hearts and minds" and employing propaganda: deploying Canadian troops to Manitoba and Quebec to assist victims of flooding (when the government always has the option of using civilian public workers instead) is part of a plan to raise the profile of the Canadian military in local communities, to heighten military visibility, and to ensure a presence that seeks to win support and build respect for the institution. This tool is used to remove beyond question the significantly increased resources devoted to a military buildup, and to make the military look like a natural, and thus inevitable, part of Canadian social life. The result is to make local and present what was for a while marginal and justified for defense from foreign attack. Regimentation of politics and mindsets is the apparent, sought after outcome of keeping Canada in a permanent "state of exception," and that too should worry Canadians.
• To read more on this subject, see:
   
  • Military to say sorry for Mohawk inclusion in counter-insurgency manual, APTN, Jorge Barrera, 07 December 2010
   
  • The Future of Warfare: Canadian counterinsurgency manual reflects US-Canada "synergy", The Dominion, Anthony Fenton, 11 July 2009
   
  • Canada's Plan Exposed to Assassinate Mohawks, Censored News, Brenda Norrell, 01-02 April 2007
   
  • Counterinsurgency Manual Shows Military's New Face, IPS, Jon Elmer, 22 March 2007
   
  • The Empire’s "Good Cop": Canada's New Counter-Insurgency Doctrine, GlobalResearch.ca, Steven Da Silva, 27 April 2007

10 more annotations...

• 24 September 2010
• The State, Anthropology, and the Recolonization of Australia's Aboriginals
• “Embedded Anthropology and the Intervention,” in the September 2010 issue of Arena, is an important article by Barry Morris and Andrew Lattas “on cultural determinism and neo-liberal forms of racial governance,” in broad terms (thanks to Uriohau for this excellent recommendation). The article focuses on what was effectively a new colonization of Australia’s Northern Territory, the militarization of Aboriginal policy, and a liberal interventionist doctrine that exploited fears of pedophilia. As Morris and Lattas point out, few of the measures taken had anything to do with pedophilia—the measures imposed included:
• “the appointment of managers to oversee seventy-three prescribed communities; additional restrictions on alcohol and kava; quarantining of a proportion of welfare income; the introduction of an electronic card to monitor and restrict everyday purchases to licensed stores; suspension of the need for permits for entry to prescribed Indigenous areas; the abolition of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP); the compulsory acquisition of townships through five year leases; and the removal of traditional cultural considerations from judicial-criminal proceedings.”
• Morris and Lattas rightly argue that this project is about racial governance, aiming at disciplining and assimilating Aboriginal communities, and attacking indigenous self-determination by denying that Aboriginals have the ability to self-govern. However, what is also critical about their article is the focus on anthropologists serving the state in this effort:
• “Some anthropologists have actively embraced the public limelight to articulate cultural determinist arguments which criticize both customary and contemporary Indigenous culture as the true, hidden source of Indigenous problems. Whereas culture, especially ‘traditional’ culture, was previously seen as the salvation of Indigenous remote communities, the focus now is on uncovering and eliminating the dysfunctional aspects of Indigenous culture. Under the Intervention, the rise of cultural determinist arguments has operated as a form of psychological reductionism that allows for the internalisation of moral fault. Cultural determinism has worked to relocate the internalised sources of racial dysfunctionality from the realm of inherited biology to the realm of inherited culture. In terms of the history of anthropology, this is paradoxical for cultural analyses were once embraced and used to escape the reductionisms of biology and psychoanalysis, which posited their own internalised forms of dysfunctionality.”
• The authors specifically criticize anthropology professors Peter Sutton (resident in my department at the time I was doing my PhD) and Francesca Merlan. As with the Human Terrain System, vast areas of anthropological knowledge have been dismissed, in favour of a revival of the colonizers’ theory of choice: functionalism. Morris and Lattas explain how the realignment of academics with state interests has taken place in Australia, in what should be a warning (or reminder) to the rest of us.

5 more annotations...

• 17 May 2010
• Ostwelve: Aboriginal Hip Hop Against War
• Ostwelve is an Aboriginal hip-hopper in Vancouver, born in the Coast Salish - Sto:lo Territory of British Columbia, Canada. You can learn more about him on his ReverbNation page, see his MySpace page, or visit his YouTube channel. He offers this powerful video, titled "Boom Crash Bang!!!":

1 more annotation...

• 04 July 2011
• A Dangerous Place to be a Human Being
• Contributed by AJP's Robin Oakley
   
   In this odd article in The Globe and Mail ("Afghanistan Most Dangerous Country for Women," by Lisa Anderson, 15 June 2011) a number of claims are made about Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and India being the most "dangerous" countries for women. For one thing, it is written without any reference to the methods of data collection, neither of the actual quantification of data, that these countries are dangerous because of rape, genital mutilation and female infanticide,  health threats, sexual violence, non-sexual violence, cultural or religious factors” and so on.
• Dangerous Places to be a Woman?

   

   
   

   

   Violence

   

   
  

   

   Lisa Anderson writes in the article above:

   

   

   “Violence, dismal health care and brutal poverty make Afghanistan the world’s most dangerous country for women, with Congo a close second due to horrific levels of rape, a Thomson Reuters Foundation expert poll said on Wednesday. Pakistan, India and Somalia ranked third, fourth and fifth, respectively, in the global survey of perceptions of threats...”
• How odd for them to begin with violence and then to note “Ongoing conflict, NATO air strikes” and just leave it at that without mentioning the statistics involving the deaths of civilians due to NATO--please see, as just some examples:
   
   
  • Afghan president warns NATO: Stop killing civilians
   
  • NATO apologizes for Afghan civilian deaths
   
  • International forces in Afghanistan apologise for air strike that killed at least nine civilians
   
  • UN attempts to whitewash US-NATO civilian killings in Afghanistan
   
  • Afghan civilian deaths caused by allied forces rise
   
  • NATO: Hits on Afghan houses to continue
   
  • A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting
   
   
   After rather downplaying the cause of the purported “violence”, the author turns to more juicy topics such as rape, poverty and the be all and end all of outrages: “genital mutilation”.
• “Dangerous Brown Men”

   

   
  

   

   First, we would encourage the reader to examine G. Bhattacharya's Dangerous Brown Men, in which she addresses the uses of feminism in the interests of imperialist wars and especially the Eurocentric interpretations of sexuality, marriage and intimacy that are used to justify the wars on the basis of empowering women. Believe it or not, the way of “being” ones gender differs cross culturally. Feeling like a man or a woman in one’s body, in one's clothes in ones kitchen, workplace or on the bus, is not universal. Wearing a miniskirt or a nightdress to sleep is an historically and culturally specific phenomenon. My great grandmother, being the good Christian that wanted to show the world she was, interpreted the bible in the way typical of young Canadian girls at the time (and her mother, a Miqmaw woman whose people lost their protected reserve lands in the 1800s in Nova Scotia also felt the same), always covered her head with a scarf if she went outside of the house and into the public domain. It was a signal that she was a good Christian woman. Her daughters rejected this and wore miniskirts. Norms are in flux and the supposed norm in Canada is the middle class white cosmopolitan woman. An entirely historically and culturally specific “type” of woman is being defended against all the supposed “others” in the world. This “type” reminds one of Natalia Molina’s Fit to Be Citizens: Public Health and Race in Los Angeles where she writes about the uses of the “good white mother” in the US, who was juxtaposed by the public health apparatus in the U.S. 1870-early 1900s as “the bad mother”. Policy that denied basic amenities to Mexicans, Japanese and Chinese informal workers in the U.S. during that time was based upon defending a historically and culturally specific notion of “the good white mother”
• How far has the Canadian bourgeois media come since those early days of imperialism in the U.S.? Let use see.

   

   
  

   

   Some may recall, about six months after Canada's entry into Afghanistan, that there was a CBC documentary noting that now women were finally empowered in Afghanistan because one woman had opened a beauty shop and women could now paint their nails, wear make-up and have their hair styled. They were finally “empowered”. It was fascinating to observe the concept of "empowerment" that the CBC was promoting: one which privileges the visual and the public visual, one which is centered around objectification of women and one based upon a multibillion dollar cosmetic-chemical industry to enable women to conform to a standardized Euro-beauty concept. That this concept is historically and spatially peculiar, that it promotes the self hatred of women in their bodies, seems never to pass any one's minds. 
• Lack of Access to Resources

   

   
  

   

   Let us deal with the claim of “danger” due to “lack of access to resources. The Globe article claims: “Afghanistan emerged as the most dangerous country for women overall and worst in three of the six risk categories: health, non-sexual violence and lack of access to economic resources”. Even a casual glance will show that all these same problems exist in Canada at chronic levels. A recent study done by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, asks: Who is likely to be poor in Canada?
• Here is their answer:
   
   
  
   
   “A newborn child, just because she happens to be born female, is more likely to grow up to be poor as an adult. Women form the majority of the poor in Canada. One in seven[2] (2.4 million[3] ) Canadian women is living in poverty today. 
   
   
  • Women raising families by themselves: 51.6% of lone parent families headed by women are poor[4] .
   
  • Senior women: Almost half (41.5%) of single, widowed or divorced ("unattached") women over 65 are poor[6] .  While the poverty rates for all seniors have improved overall, there is still a large gap between men and women. The poverty rate for all senior women is 19.3%, while that for senior men is 9.5%[7] .
   
  • Aboriginal women: The average annual income of Aboriginal women is $13,300, compared to $18,200 for Aboriginal men, and $19,350 for non-Aboriginal women.[11] 44% of the Aboriginal population living off reserve lives in poverty, but things are worse on reserve: Almost half (47%) of Aboriginal persons on reserve have an income of less than $10,000.[12]  Aboriginal women are also more likely than Aboriginal men to be trapped in low-paying jobs[13] , and because of the continuing effects of the Indian Act, they face insecurities related to housing, access to services and abuse both on and off reserve[14] .
• • Women of colour: 37% of women of colour are low income, compared with 19% of all women. The average annual income for a woman of colour in Canada is $16,621, almost $3000 less than the average for other women ($19,495) and almost $7,000 less than that of men of colour ($23,635).[15]   Women of colour are also overrepresented in precarious (part-time and temporary) work and often have to live in substandard, segregated housing. They are also more vulnerable to violence and other health risks[16] .
   
  • Immigrant women: Education does not reduce the income gap between immigrant women and Canadian-born women. New immigrant women between the ages of 25-44 who have a university degree and who worked full-year, full-time earn $14,000 less than Canadian-born women. [17] This is partly because of overt racism, but also the structural racism of lack of recognition of foreign credentials and experience. New immigrant women, suffering from abuse, may have few options to escape this, if they are financially dependent on their male relative sponsors in Canada.
• • Migrant Women: Migrant women who are often refugees or foreign domestic workers are also particularly at risk of poverty and exploitation, as they are often forced to work in unregulated or hidden employment. Women make up the majority of migrant workers from Asia and many work here to sustain their families back home. They are paid low wages, and despite the fact that they contribute significantly to the Canadian economy, they are not entitled to many benefits such as EI[19] .
   
  • Full- or part-time. [21] Poverty level wages are a particular problem for women. Women and youth account for 83% of Canada's minimum wage workers.[22] 37% of lone mothers with paid employment must raise a family on less than $10 per hour. 
   
  • [23]Women also make approximately 71%[24] of what men earn for full-year, full-time work...Canada has the largest wage gap between women and men full-time workers out of world's 29 most developed countries. Only Spain, Portugal, Japan and Korea have larger wage gaps.[29]
   
   
    (http://criaw-icref.ca/WomenAndPoverty)
   
• Given the above facts, is Canada dangerous for women?  Is it dangerous for women’s health?
• Rape and Sexual Assault

   

   
  

   

   Let us look at the claim of rape. The article claims that there are “horrific levels of rape” in the Congo. Yet how about in Canada? It is interesting to note that it is commonly known that rape statistics in Canada do not represent the reality and that 1 in 4 women can expect to be sexually assaulted in their lifetime in Canada that “Of every 100 incidents of sexual assault, only 6 are reported to the police”  (http://www.sexassault.ca/statistics.htm).

   

   
  

   

   So why is not Canada on the list of dangerous places to be a women based on the above? How about for aboriginal women? How about the Highway of Tears and the aboriginal women targeted in other cases? IOne wonders if the women who walked that highway realised the danger that they were in?
• Was it safe for Kimberley Rogers who died eight months pregnant while under house arrest for trying to get and education while collecting welfare? Did she realise the danger that she was in? (http://www.elizabethfry.ca/rogers/2.htm)

   

   
  

   

   Was it safe for Harriet Nahanee who died of pneumonia after being incarcerated for defending her aboriginal lands? Was she aware that she was in grave danger? (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/03/05/Eagleridge/)

   

   
  

   

   Is it safe for the very young and very old (some elderly) women working in service sector throughout Canada who barely make a living wage or pay into a pension scheme? Are they in any danger from this? Food insecurity is a major issue in Canada (see Chapter 8, http://intraspec.ca/The_Canadian_Facts.pdf), and one must wonder if these women find it hard to buy nutritious food on the wages they earn?

   

   
  

   

   Who decides what is and what is not safe? Who contributes to making places unsafe? Who has the voice to assert to the world that certain countries are unsafe?
• Genital Mutilation?

   

   
  

   

   Let us look next for a moment at "genital mutilation". Here in Canada  we might refer to "vaginal beautification", "vaginal rejuvenation", "vaginal tightening", "genital cosmetic surgery", “vaginoplasty” and the like. It is a profit-based industry that is built upon internalized conceptions of what it means to be a woman and so on.  But the media does not talk about it as "genital mutilation".  A casual glance at the internet and some print media will show a proliferation of the industry. It is used by young women as well as old women. It is invasive and painful. It is all about women feeling shame about their own bodies. At an early age many girls and women in Canada are taught that their female body parts are shameful, dirty and in need of a wide range of cosmetics to conceal this pollution. Anyone who read Mary Douglas Purity and Pollution or Sherry Ortner’s The Virgin and the State could make a fine study of any “drug store” cosmetic section in Canada to get an indication about how many women feel in their own skin. At a pool recently a toddler, maybe age 2 or so had a bikini on and the top of the bikini fell off and with light speed her mother ran over to tie it back on her and turned her flat chest away from the other parents lest anyone get a glance! What does this act do in the mind of a female toddler? What other things are done in the course of a day to send the message that her body is a shameful thing? In other words, from birth onward, many women in Canada get the idea that something is wrong and shameful about being a woman to the point that as they develop an industry is waiting on the sidelines to model their bodies into that internalised ideal.
• Racist Stereotyping of Entire Nations: Sexist, Patriarchal, Overpopulated, Diseased or Violent...

   

   
  

   

   Media tend to represent non-European nations in terms of one of the above stereotypes. Yet the reality does not match these stereotypes. While in India at age 19, more than twenty years ago, I stayed in a North Indian village. The mother f the house wore a sari but only if I was coming near or was around did she cover her breasts. She and many like her did not learn to have any shame about their breasts. This type of view of the female body was foreign and an introduced concept. Another observation I made in South India a couple of years ago was the significant role that men play in the household and in the care of babies and children. It is usually the male who carried the infant and not only that during lunch time the parents normally bring a hot lunch to their school children until after grade five. Everyone spreads out a mat or a blanket and takes their meal together and the younger children are fed by hand. Over  a period of seven months I tracked how many males and how many females were coming to perform this role and the average was that it a 50/50. After feeding the children the caregiver, both men and women, would provide water to drink, wash the face and hands of the child, apply some baby talc to the face and neck, re-tie the children’s shoes, tuck in the shirt and so on. So this is patriarchy and sexism of India, the most dangerous place for women?
• It is also highly and grossly objectionable that the author of The Globe article would generalise about “India” in relation to female infanticide. In South India, actually much has been done in recent years to deal with this practice. But if we do talk about reproductive health in general, let us think about the enormous amount of money that prestigious foreign funders have thrown to India toward population control under the guise of empowering women when in reality it is nothing more than racist and Eurocentric Malthus-based tactics.  (http://www.womenstudies.in/elib/ethics/cp_neo_eugenics.pdf) I wonder if Britain building its capitalist wealth prior to and during the Industrial Revolution affected women’s status? Indeed, it was the British who favoured the North Indian Vedas over the Dravidian texts, and who used Brahmins to interpret the Vedas’ along the Victorian-era sexist laws in which women could neither hold land nor divorce whereas in practice a woman could divorce multiple times without a stigma in some parts of pre and post-colonial India. Was it not the British who established shop mathematics in place of the “every village should have a mathematician” motto of pre-colonial South India? What it not also the British who dismantled the system of social medicine of free hospitals and dispensaries and instead instituted a system of racist tropical medicine for treating British people whose weak systems could not withstand the normal conditions of the land they were raping? Mohan Rao, who wrote about all this, uttered, “we live in shamelessly ahistorical times”.  Let’s do a reality check guys! 
• If India is unsafe for women as this Globe article notes, who keeps it that way? Jump up to the 1980s, was it not the WHO who agreed with the World Bank that the Alma Ata declaration  was not viable and advocated selective high tech health care instead? In other words, who made it possible to have the mass sterilisations, biopower of so-called “reproductive rights” (internalising the idea that India has to damn many people and that is a civic duty to limit ones offspring and concealing the fact that actually Canada’s scant forty million consume more, waste more, and so on that most India ever do) and the like in the first place. It was all done on the back of reinvoking Malthus and that if nature did not cull the population through pestilence, then war and political policy ought to. Who currently funds, designs and implements high-tech, profit oriented “Global Health” projects aimed at diagnostics and vaccines for diseases that are not much of a problem (http://iphpartnership.org/index.php?title=Top_ten_biotechnologies_for_improving_health_in_developing_countries)? Or helping out private interest “stakeholders” (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-7-346.pdf) to endorses private sector high tech militarised “solutions”

   

   (http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html) rather than questioning institutions like the G20 and helping the pharmaceutical and genomic industries in monopoly building?
• So where is more dangerous, actually? The article misleads readers to think that the problems are “over there” somewhere, and that here in Canada there are no such problems. The article is also attempting to reify racist stereotypes of other nations. But even more than all this, the article focuses on women as a way of reifying the false notion that there are only interest groups rather than a society with human beings in it, all of whom have basic needs such as food, shelter and a livelihood among other things. The structural violence of an economic system built upon the exploitation of human labour, of reducing existence to the illogic of the market makes the world a dangerous place for everyone, men, workers, and the youth and yes indeed, women. Given this context it might be a good time to Fight for a Society Fit for Humans to Live in and to Resist the Racist Imperialist Media!
• A Dangerous Place to Be a Human Being

18 more annotations...

• 11 June 2011
• Spying on Indigenous Groups, Defending Mining Companies: The U.S. and Peru, What Wikileaks Tells Us
• First published as:

   

   
  

   
   

   Wikileaks on the US and Peru: Spying on Indigenous Groups, Defending Mining Companies 

   

   FRIDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2011

   

   By BRENDA NORRELL
• A Wikileaks cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Quechua activist Miguel Palacin Quispe and community leaders.

   

   
  

   

   Since the writing of this cable, the bonds with Native Americans and First Nations have grown stronger in the struggles for justice. Bolivian President Morales and Ambassador Solon were in the forefront of the Indigenous global climate change efforts in 2010. Palacin was in Tucson for an anti-mining conference in 2007, and more recently with Indigenous Peoples from around the world at the climate summits in both Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Cancun, Mexico, in 2010.
• The US Embassy report dated March 17, 2008, focuses on Indigenous activists and their supporters who, the cable states, were organizing "anti-summit" protests against the European Union-Latin American Heads of State summit scheduled for mid-May of 2008 in Lima.

   

   
  

   

   James Nealon at the US Embassy in Lima wrote the cable released Sunday, Feb. 13. "The greatest concern among our European Union mission colleagues is the threat that radicals could hijack the protests by aggressively confronting ill-prepared security forces, as occurred in Cusco in February."

   

   
  

   

   The US Embassy's espionage of the Indigenous Peoples and their supporters is obvious in the cable, which is designated "secret."
• Nealon wrote, "A variety of radical Peruvian social movements and European anti-globalization NGOs have been planning protests against the May European Union-Latin America summit since at least early 2007 under the slogan Linking Alternatives 3 ("Enlazando Alternativas 3"), according to internal planning documents shared with poloffs," Nealon said.

   

   
  

   

   "The documents show that organizers have held a series of workshops and meetings among dozens of social movement leaders to coordinate roles and international fundraising efforts. On the European side, principal groups include Attac -- an anti-globalization organization that has led protests against several European summits -- the leftist solidarity group France Amerique Latine, the Spanish environmental organization Ecologistas en Accion, the Amsterdam-based scholar-activist Transnational Institute, and many others," Nealon wrote.
• Along with naming the names of support groups in Europe, the US Embassy also named other Indigenous activists and community organizers opposing mining in South America.

   

   
  

   

   The US Embassy's insult of Bolivia Ambassador Solon reveals the US bias. It refers to Solon as an "anti-free trade and globalization guru."

   

   
  

   

   US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a separate cable, states that the Intelligence Community relies on biographical information from US diplomats. In cables to Africa and Paraguay, Clinton asked US Embassy personnel to collect address books, e-mail passwords, fingerprints, iris scans and DNA. In other words, Clinton asked US Ambassadors to engage in espionage.
• "The intelligence community relies on State reporting officers for much of the biographical information collected worldwide," Clinton said in a cable on April 16, 2009. Clinton said the biological data should be sent to the INR (Bureau of Intelligence and Research) for dissemination to the Intelligence Community.

   

   
  

   

   The cable released from Lima, which insults and targets world leaders and Indigenous activists, fails to describe the underlying reasons why Indigenous Peoples are fighting to protect their land, resources, families and communities.

   

   
  

   

   There is no hint in the cable of the fact that multi-national corporations are responsible for widespread displacement of Indigenous Peoples, the poisoning of the land, water and air and the assassination of Indigenous community leaders opposed to mining.
• Instead, Nealon focuses on Palacin in the report.

   

   
  

   

   "Anti-summit leader Miguel Palacin complained to the EU mission that the GOP (Government of Peru) appears intent on criminalizing democratic protests, which makes dialogue useless; the government in turn argues that protesters want only to undermine the government and to sully its international image."

   

   
  

   

   Palacin is the president of Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indigenas (CAOI) the Andean Coordination of Indigenous Organizations and a Quechua Indigenous leader. Palacin was also president of the National Confederation of Communities Affected by Mining in Peru (CONACAMI) which was instrumental in uniting communities affected by mining in Peru.
• In the theme that runs throughout the leaked Wikileaks diplomatic cables, the United States focuses criticism on President Morales and President Chavez, tracking their activities, naming their associates and undermining their efforts.

   

   
  

   

   In a previously released cable, the US Embassy in Lima reveals its bias against Indigenous Peoples protecting their homelands, and in favor of mining.

   

   It reveals that a core group of diplomats formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. The diplomats were from the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa.
• The US and Canadian Ambassadors met with these mining companies: Antamina, Newmont (Minera Yanacocha), Minera Quellaveco, Barrick, BHP Billiton (Tintaya mine).

   

   
  

   

   The diplomats were from the US, Canada, the Swiss Charge, the new Australian Consul General, and the British Embassy Trade and Investment. "A representative from the South African Embassy, which forms part of this diplomatic mining group, was unable to attend," the cable said.

   

   
  

   

   The cable states that their goal was to improve the climate for investments and security around mines.
• The cable exposing the diplomatic mining group does not describe the devastation of Indigenous lands by mining. Two of those corporations targeting Indigenous lands globally -- Newmont and Barrick -- targeted Western Shoshone lands for gold mining in Nevada. A federal lawsuit remains before the court to halt Barrick from coring out sacred Mount Tenabo for an open pit gold mine.

   

   
  

   

   In September of 2007, about six months before the Lima cable was written in March of 2008, Palacin was in Tucson, along with Native American and First Nations activists opposing mining on their lands.

   

   
  

   

   Speaking out against mining, Quechua leader Palacin said Andean Peoples from Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina have organized to protect Indigenous territories in this region. Palacin spoke of his work as coordinator of the Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indigenas (Andean Federation of Indigenous Organizations.)
• "This group is working to protect Indigenous rights," Palacin said, speaking with Brenda Norrell, publisher of Censored News, at the Western Mining Action Network Conference 2007, held in Tucson on Sept. 28 – 29.

   

   
  

   

   Palacin said the concept of Indigenous territories does not only refer to the lands of Indigenous Peoples, but also to Indigenous' languages, cultures, values and clothing. Indigenous territories include the right to autonomy and self-governance based on Indigenous Peoples' own legal systems and principles.

   

   
  

   

   "This is a fundamental right, a right that is being offended by the politics of globalization, the invasion of transnational corporations and the contamination that is damaging the life and culture."

   

   
  

   

   Palacin said it is essential to grow in visibility and expose the mining, energy and hydroelectric corporations seizing Indigenous territories for profit.
• He said Indigenous territories are under attack by governments. "The governments are campaigning against the social movement." This is particularly true in Colombia, where Indigenous Peoples are confronted by the federal government, FARC and the paramilitaries.

   

   
  

   

   "In Colombia, there has been a lot of death and displacement."

   

   
  

   

   However, Palacin said there is also hope. In both Bolivia and Ecuador, new Constitutional reforms propose changes that respect Indigenous Peoples rights.

   

   
  

   

   Further, the Andean Federation of Indigenous Organizations is now proposing the establishment of Indigenous Diplomats, to meet with governments to explain their positions. These include opposition to Free Trade agreements and militarization. Further, concerns are arising because of new visa and passport requirements.

   
• In support of these struggles, Indigenous Peoples plan mobilizations throughout South America on the "Day of Genocide," October 12, followed by a delegation to Europe on Oct. 13, he said.

   

   
  

   

   "The Indigenous movement has power in the south. We want to be included in the transformation of our countries. Indigenous Peoples have the right to govern their countries," Palacin said.

   

   
  

   

   Attorney Javier Aroca of Lima, Peru, said the government of Peru has criminalized the social movement to protect the land. "Mining is very strong. The government really supports this industry because they view it as a means of receiving a lot of revenues.
• "Whoever opposes mining is seen as a terrorist and anti-patriotic," Aroca said, during an interview in Tucson at the anti-mining conference in 2007.

   

   
  

   

   At issue now are the mining companies who obtain their leases from leaders without consultation of the community, including copper mines.

   

   
  

   

   "The biggest concern is water," Aroca said, pointing out that water from the mountain tops flows throughout the region. Where copper mine exploration is being carried out, there are natural protected reserves in the high mountain region. "These mountain top areas are the source of water."

   

   
  

   

   Aroca said the Peruvian government supported the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to free, informed and prior consent and Indigenous Peoples' rights to their territories.

   

   
  

   

   "But in practice, the Peruvian government is doing the opposite."

14 more annotations...

• 08 June 2011

• First Nations Under Surveillance: Harper Government Prepares for First Nations “Unrest" 

   

   

   

   

   

    

  Quebec riot police advance on Barriere Lake community members after a peaceful blockade in October, 2008 in north-western Quebec.
• By Russell Diabo and Shiri Pasternak
   Published on 07 June 2011 in The Media Co-Op
• Internal documents from Indian Affairs and the RCMP show that shortly after forming government in January of 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the federal government tighten up on gathering and sharing intelligence on First Nations to anticipate and manage potential First Nation unrest across Canada.

   

   
  

   

   Information obtained by Access to Information requests reveals that almost immediately upon taking power in 2006, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) was given the lead role to spy on First Nations. The goal was to identify the First Nation leaders, participants and outside supporters of First Nation occupations and protests, and to closely monitor their actions.
• To accomplish this task, INAC established a “Hot Spot Reporting System.” These weekly reports highlight all those communities across the country that engage in direct action to protect their lands and communities. They include Tobique First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) First Nation, Six Nations, Grassy Narrows, Stz’uminous First Nation, the Likhts’amsiyu Clan of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, Gitxaala First Nation, Wagmatcook First Nation, Innu of Labrador, Pikangikum First Nation, and many more. They include bands from the coast of Vancouver Island to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean.

   

   
  

   

   What we see in these documents – from the hot spot reports themselves, to the intelligence-sharing between government and security forces – is a closely monitored population of First Nations, who clearly are causing a panic at the highest levels of Canadian bureaucracy and political office.
• Fear of Aboriginal "Hotspots"

   

   In 2006, INAC gave the name “hot spots” to those First Nations conflicts of “growing concern” due to “unrest” and increasing “militancy.” In a briefing presentation that INAC gave the RCMP that year, they identified certain communities as hotspots: Caledonia, Ontario (Douglas Creek Estates occupation); Belleville, Ontario (Montreal/Toronto Rail Blockade in sympathy to Caledonia); Brantford, Ontario (Grand River Conservation Authority Lands); Desoronto, Ontario (Occupation of Quarry); Grassy Narrows (Blockade of Trans Canada Hwy by environmentalists); and Maniwaki, Quebec (Blockade of Route 117).
• But the “hot spot binder” prepared each week by INAC officials closely monitors any and all action taking place across the country and names dozens more communities as sources of potential unrest. A particular concern of the federal government is that these “hotspots” are unpredictable protests because they are led by what the federal government labels as “splinter groups” of “Aboriginal Extremists.”  As INAC describes in the same presentation to the RCMP:

   

   “Incidents led by splinter groups are arguably harder to manage as they exist outside negotiation processes to resolve recognized grievances with duly elected leaders. We seek to avoid giving standing to such splinter groups so as not to debase the legally recognized government. Incidents are also complicated by external groups such as Warrior Societies or non-Aboriginal counter-protest groups.”
• Telling in the INAC statement above is that the identified protests are “outside of negotiation processes” with elected councils. Canada is clearly spooked by the spectre of First Nations demanding Crown recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, as well as Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, beyond the narrow confines of Crown land claims and self-government policies. These so-called “splinter” groups also threaten the status quo by demanding their own First Nation leaders, staff and advisors to pull out of the compromising negotiations.

   

   
  

   

   Also telling here is the cozy cooperative relationship between INAC and the RCMP. The INAC briefing to the RCMP is almost indistinguishable from a presentation one would expect to see from security forces, rather than from a government ministry. Contrary to their claims, Indian Affairs is not an institution of reconciliation and negotiation, but rather appears to be a management office to control the costs of Native unrest, and they are willing to work closely with law enforcement to accomplish this task.
• In addition to the hotspot reporting, the Deputy Ministers of Public Safety Emergency Preparedness Canada and INAC directed that a summer operational plan be prepared in 2006 to deal with Aboriginal occupations and protests. A progress report on the operational plan reveals the blueprint for security integration on First Nations issues.

   

   
  

   

   The “Standing Information Sharing Forum,” for example, is Chaired by the RCMP and includes as its members the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Department of Fisheries, Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transportation Canada, and involves weekly conference calls and continuous information dissemination by INAC to its partners.
• Harper is moving towards a security paradigm familiar since the War on Terror was launched in 2001. The inclusion of Transportation Canada at the Information Sharing Forum should also alert us to the commercial threat of blockades to the free trade agenda.

   

   
  

   

   Aboriginal people who are defending their lands are now treated on a spectrum from criminals to terrorists. On either side, under Harper, an intensification of intelligence gathering and surveillance procedures now govern the new regime.
• Haudenosaunee/Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy

   

   It is also clear from INAC’s presentation to the RCMP that they are particularly worried about the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. They mention “Warrior Societies” and an “illicit agenda,” referring at several points to concerns around smuggling. The federal government deems the tobacco/cigarette trade as “illicit” because Canada is not getting paid taxes by the Mohawks who are operating the businesses.
• However, the 1995 federal Aboriginal Self-Government policy, which was developed unilaterally by the federal government, does not allow for sharing jurisdiction with First Nations for real powers over trade and commerce matters.  The federal self-government policy only allows small business operations on-reserve. Historically, the federal government has used the Indian Act to control and manage on-reserve economic development so there was no real competition with surrounding non-Indian businesses and towns. On the prairies, First Nations agriculture was undermined and led to the failure of farming on-reserve because of complaints from non-Indians. This policy of non-competition is still the reality today.

   

   
  

   

   The federal government is particularly concerned about the Haudenosaunee/Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy actions at Caledonia, as the INAC 2006 report describes it: “Caledonia was and remains a significant event in risk management.”
• The RCMP agree. In a 2007 report to CSIS, they state: “Caledonia continues to serve as a beacon on land claims and Aboriginal rights issues across Canada.”

   

   
  

   

   Canada is extremely worried about First Nations taking back lands and resources outside the scope of their one-sided land claims and self-government “negotiation processes,” as was done at Kanenhstaton/Caledonia.
• In order to contain the situation, the Crown governments have dispatched hard-nosed, experienced negotiators who have presented unmovable positions from the Harper government, which is likely why there hasn’t been any negotiated resolution of the situation at Kanenhstaton/Caledonia to this date. The Crown government obviously remain worried more lands will be “occupied” by the Six Nations “extremist” “splinter groups.”

   

   
  

   

   Ever since the 1990 stand-off in Kanesatake and Kahnawake, the federal government, the security and police agencies, and the Canadian army have been worried about a repeat of coordinated First Nation political actions across Canada.
• The 2007 National Day Of Action 

   

   Specific information about policing First Nations was obtained in a series of Access to Information requests about the AFN National Day of Action that took place on June 29th, 2007. A 2007 RCMP brief to CSIS lays out a number of concerns regarding the National Day of Action.

   

   
  

   

   First of all, the RCMP is mainly concerned about protecting their men and women in uniform, both from the perspective of First Nations confronting the police on front lines, and from the perspective of negative public sentiment for their potential handling of the event: “The often disparate and fractured nature of these events can lead the police to become the proverbial ‘meat in the sandwich’ and the subject of negative public sentiment.”
• The RCMP also show concern that a lack of coordination, or “a fractured and inconsistent approach” by police forces, could “galvanize Nations throughout Canada.” Is this to say that violence instigated by police could lead to solidarity actions by First Nations across the country? Or that perceived weakness in policing could lead other First Nations to take a stand? Either way, in response, cooperation between departments, security forces, and ministries are deemed to be necessary to provide a strong united front against First Nations protest.

   

   
  

   

   The RCMP also caution that, “Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal extremists often see these events as an opportunity to escalate or agitate the conflict.” By inference, we can guess that they may be referring to groups unaffiliated with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), unwilling to negotiate under Crown policies, or prepared to engage in tactics not sanctioned by the official leadership, such as property destruction and armed conflict. Non-Aboriginal groups are also cited here as potentially threatening, giving credence to recent targeting of G20 “ringleaders” who feel their Indigenous solidarity work has made them targets of the Crown and police forces.
• Cost is a serious concern to the RCMP, as well. Not only is the price tag for policing these nation-wide events “exorbitant,” and therefore can lead to rash policing decisions to use force in order to bring a quick end to conflicts, but the economic risks of blockades are themselves potentially catastrophic. As the RCMP warn, “The recent CN strike represents the extent in which a national railway blockade could effect the economy of Canada.”

   

   
  

   

   The RCMP also express this curious concern: “The police role may be complicated by the conventional and sometimes political view that there is a clear distinction between policy and police operations.” Clearly, where the distinction slips between police and policy roles, the RCMP become simply Indian Agents, carrying out the colonial work of the department. Given the information disclosed here, this distinction is impossible to maintain. Where police intimidate and arrest Indigenous peoples on their own lands, there is no law on the police’s side.
• There is also a considerable public relations issue at stake here. The RCMP displayed concern at the potential fall-out of a number of “perception” problems that could befall the forces:

   

   

   “Perception of a two-tiered approach to enforcement can generate significant criticism and motivate non-Aboriginal activists.”

   

   

   

   “An intense and protracted event may lead to long-standing erosion of relationships for the police and the community – they are usually always the victims.” 

   

   

   

   “Because there are limitations on what the police can negotiate and success often depends on others, the role of the police can become frustrating.”
• The RCMP realize to some extent that they must choose between First Nations approval of their policing tactics and the wrath of a public convinced that blockades are criminal, rather than political acts. The police, however, contrary to their assertions, are not the victims here. They are just the dupes in a much older game of cowboys and Indians.

   

   
  

   

   The above RCMP statements show that even with all of the federal financial and managerial control over First Nation Chiefs and Leaders, except, apparently for the former AFN National Chief, Phil Fontaine, the Chiefs and Leaders were still not entirely trusted by the federal government and that a large concern in 2007 was the potential for a broad national coordinated series of local and regional political actions by First Nations.
• One insight emerges strongly here: most threatening of all to security and government forces is coordinated First Nations action. This can be seen clearly from the reports. At one point in the 2007 INAC to RCMP briefing, concern is expressed about a First Nations conference because, “The 2006 Numbered Treaty Conference proposed a ‘national’ movement of independent actions to express discontent.”

   

   
  

   

   Their fear is palpable where they follow the trajectory of the Day of Action. It was first proposed by Chief Terrance Nelson at the Assembly of First Nations' general assembly, where the motion carried. The nation-wide event was later confirmed in a personal meeting between the RCMP Commissioner and then-National Chief Phil Fontaine. “Mr. Fontaine expressed his concern over the sense of frustration that seems to exist among First Nation leaders and the growing resolve to support a June 29th blockade,” a memo states.

   

   
  

   

   The growing unrest, of course, cannot be resolved through greater coordination of security and government forces. First Nation frustration with this strategy will only continue to mount.
• Crown Reward-Punishment System Divides Leaders and People

   

   If coordinated action gets the goods, special attention must be paid to the government’s particular interest in “splinter” groups.

   

   
  

   

   Under Canada’s colonial system, the struggle for Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, Aboriginal and Treaty rights has historically been undermined by First Nations who cooperated with the Crown government turning in those First Nations who were resisting the Crown’s colonial system.

   

   
  

   

   Over time this evolved into the Crown dividing First Nations into the “progressive” Indian Bands and the backward or “traditional” Indian Bands. The federal government through the various Indian Affairs departments, developed an approach to reward the “progressive” Indians and punish the “traditional” Indians.
• This federal reward-punishment approach still exists, though the “Indian Agents” have been replaced by the Band Councils who now deliver Crown programs and services to their community members. The Band Councils and other First Nation organizations’ formula-funding are controlled by a system of legislation, policies, terms and conditions – all designed, controlled and managed largely by the federal Crown bureaucracy and politicians in Ottawa.

   

   
  

   

   The First Nations Chiefs and Leaders who become more known and prominent are largely the individuals who have been trained and supported by federal bureaucrats. These individuals become known for their seeming ability to get federal capital dollars to build new houses, schools and other community infrastructure, or additional program dollars for enhancing Band programs.
• However, the point is, none of these individuals would have gotten anywhere without federal support to advance their political careers. This is the reward system at work. For those Chiefs and Leaders who don not cooperate with the federal government, they can be ignored and/or stalled on funding requests. In some circumstances the federal government will even support “splinter groups” to take out the offending Chief or Leader. A current prominent example of this is the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in Western Quebec, but this also occurred historically at the Six Nations Grand River Territory.

   

   
  

   

   The INAC and RCMP documents make it clear that while the Canadian State Security Apparatus is concerned about “splinter groups,” they also are somewhat concerned about Chiefs and Leaders from Indian Act Band Councils and First Nation establishment organizations like AFN and their Provincial/Territorial Organizations becoming Aboriginal “extremists.”
• What the INAC and RCMP briefings show is that there needs to be unity on the ground with coordinated political actions between First Nations Peoples in order to protect, defend and advance First Nation pre-existing sovereignty, and First Nation Aboriginal and Treaty rights to lands and resources. Divide and conquer tactics can only be met with new strategies of alliance-building, and by bringing the leadership back down to the land.

   

   
  

   

   An earlier version of this article appeared in the First Nations Strategic Bulletin.

22 more annotations...

• 19 April 2011
• Paths Out of Empire: Anthropologies of Resistance and Prefiguration -- AJP Symposium at CASCA 2011 in Fredericton
• Anthropologists for Justice and Peace looks forward to meeting you at the annual conference of the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA), held this year in Fredericton, New Brunswick. For this event, AJP is presenting a symposium within the larger program, consisting of two panels, under the title of "Paths Out of Empire: Anthropologies of Resistance and Prefiguration." Here are the details and abstracts:
• Wednesday, May 11 / mercredi, 11 mai

  9:00 – 10:30 am
• A.1.2 Symposium: Paths Out of Empire I: Anthropologies of Resistance and Prefiguration

  Organizer(s) / Organisation: Alex Khasnabish (Mount Saint Vincent University)

  Chair / Président: Alex Khasnabish (Mount Saint Vincent University)

  Room / Salle: JDH G1

  
   

  Anthropology's historical imbrication with colonialism and imperialism has been well documented and the discipline's current relationship to the 'National Security State' and a reinvigorated imperial project is also being critically illuminated. Beyond deconstructing this legacy and its contemporary incarnation - worthy as this project is - what about an anthropology that not merely seeks to critically explore complicity with Empire but to trace paths beyond it? Beyond well-worn calls for a "public", "engaged", or "applied" social science in the context of an evermore technocratic academy this panel takes up a critical and experimental exploration of what anthropology can and might offer to struggles for radical social transformation and liberation. What are the promises and possibilities of such a commitment and what are its pitfalls? How might anthropology contribute to critical struggles for resistance and how might it assist in prefiguring alternatives beyond them?
• Toward an Anthropology of Prefiguration

  Alex Khasnabish (Mount Saint Vincent University)

  Prefiguration – living in ways that embody the kinds of transformations being struggled for – is a principle woven deeply through the fabric of radical social justice activism. From anarchism’s insistence that the means of social struggle be commensurate with the desired ends to feminism’s assertion of the personal being political, the traditions of radical movements remind us that social transformation is not something that simply happens, it must be called into being. Reflecting critically upon an ongoing research project in Halifax, NS about the radical imagination and social movements, this presentation takes up the possibilities and limitations of a research methodology that seeks to take part in a politics of prefiguration. Eschewing well-worn debates over “public” or “engaged” research, this presentation takes up the politics of knowledge production about social movements and discusses what radical research within the context of the academy can offer to struggles for social transformation.
• The Heroic Poet and the Anthropologist

  Robin Oakley (Dalhousie University)

  Oral verse making during the Heroic age in South India offers a glimpse of work by cultural experts from the past. The wandering bards reminded leaders that the measure of good leadership was whether they manifested benevolence and exercised their duty to redistribute resources equitably. As the intellectual workers of the day, bards drew upon discursive rules of production to communicate that leaders were there to serve society and not the other way around. Anthropology can learn a lot from this historical memory even if only to ask the question: Who are we serving? What is our role in the arrangements being made by of the owners of capital on the new territorial division of the world in all its guises? The Heroic poets also remind us to deepen our disciplinary gaze beyond the Greeks to its South Indian origins, from whom the Greeks borrowed extensively.
• Enduring Pasts and Denied Presence: Mi’kmaw challenges to continued marginality in Western Newfoundland

  Angela Robinson (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

  Historically, the Ktaqamkukeweq (Newfoundland) Mi’kmaq were subjected to imposed ideologies and

  institutions that precipitated invasive systemic changes to their traditional belief systems and lifeways. More notable, however, is the fact that the Ktaqamkukeweq Mi’kmaq faced a complete extinguishment of their rights as Aboriginal peoples, a fact which resonates strongly among their descendants today. Here, I argue that, the Ktaqamkukeweq Mi’kmaq continue to be subjected to forms of marginalization that began with the repressive policies and procedures that accompanied the colonization/settlement process and were reinforced, perpetuated and sustained by subsequent state governments. This paper identifies the struggle of Ktaqamkukeweq Mi’kmaq as a process of decolonization which challenges the repressive institutions that have denied, and continue to deny, the history, heritage and culture of Ktaqamkukewwq Mi’kmaq.
• Engaged Anthropology and Caste in India: Social Transformations in the Academy

  Reddi Sekhara Yalamala (Dalhousie University)

  The low caste, Dalit and Tribal social movements in India have reconfigured the fabric of Indian society in significant ways over the past decade. Likewise, the movement of these same groups into Anthropology, a discipline previously dominated by upper caste intellectuals, has created a dynamic force for change in the academy. At a time when India is vying with the global economic powers for supremacy, the people severely affected are Dalits, low caste and Tribal peoples who see their lands being lost and their lifestyles in rapid transformation. These same groups are also seeing some of their daughters and sons pursuing higher studies and entering into the social sciences. The entry of these young scholars not only challenges the status quo in the academy but also forces them to question their own position in relation to the social movements in relation to the wider society.
• 11:00 am – 12:30 pm

  
   

  A.2.2 Symposium: Paths Out of Empire II: Anthropologies of Resistance and Prefiguration

  Organizer(s) / Organisation: Alex Khasnabish (Mount Saint Vincent University)

  Chair / Président: Alex Khasnabish (Mount Saint Vincent University)

  Room / Salle: JDH G1

  
   

  Patterns of Cultural Violence: Canadian Militarism and the Public Sphere in Quebec from 1969 to Today

  Martin Hébert (Université Laval)

  This paper presents a case study that aims to contribute to a broader anthropology of militarism, and to our empirical understanding of cultural violence. Combining social discourse and ethnographic approaches, we look at the changing ways in which Canadian military institutions have come to bear on civilian political processes, ethical debates, and attitude formation in Quebec. From the War Measures Act of 1970 to contemporary “connexion” operations aiming to create enthusiasm for, and familiarity with the military, we highlight the variety of ways in which the military has engaged Canadian civil society in general, and the public sphere of Quebec in particular. Special attention will be paid to contemporary forms of militaristic discourse, such as the playful engagement, and the construction of a scripted intimacy between the soldiers and the public.
• Contesting “Full Spectrum Dominance”: Social scientists' role in the struggle against US counterinsurgency

  Conor Brown (Dalhousie University)

  Because anthropologists and sociologists often study people actively resisting the capitalist social order, we have been sought by militaries to aid in counterinsurgency. This puts anthropologists and sociologists in a unique position to either aid or obstruct states' efforts at social control. Counterinsurgency, that set of tools of control used by the US and other militaries against non-state actors, is at the core of states' strategies to thwart the attempts of people to create alternatives to capitalism. As such, “countering counterinsurgency” is an essential part of projects of radical social transformation. In this paper, I examine the current and historical relationship between anthropologists and sociologists and the struggle against the US government's counterinsurgency campaigns. I argue that this project is a crucial and necessary companion to the constitution of anticapitalist communities and the expansion of the autonomy of social movements here in North America and around the world.
• The Anthropology of Militarism/The Militarization of Anthropology

  Maximilian Forte (Concordia University)

  Taking up the challenges posed by Hugh Gusterson, for anthropology to become more cognizant of how militarism often shapes research topics and field sites, and to make militarism a subject of theoretical and empirical inquiry as much as colonialism or post-colonialism have been, we examine what an anthropology of militarism would encompass, and what its methods and aims should be. However, we couple this with scrutiny of the militarization of anthropology as one of the current reincarnations of anthropological support for empire, rendering anthropology one of the front-lines in the confrontation with militarism. We examine the import of diffused, outsourced modes of enlisting support and service to empire by contracting service for military goals. If no one in the world is untouched by militarism, we need to understand the nature of that “touching” and its limits, and here anthropologists can speak as insiders.

10 more annotations...

• 19 October 2011
• Militarization, Decolonization, and Indigenous Sovereignty
• (1) Winona LaDuke on the Militarization of Indian Country
• (2) More on Domestic Counterinsurgency in Canada: Military Intelligence Unit Keeps Canadian First Nations Under Surveillance
• From: "Military intelligence unit keeps watch on native groups," by Steve Chase, The Globe and Mail, 12 October 2011:
   

   

   The Canadian military is keeping a watch on aboriginal groups through an intelligence unit that is meant to protect the Forces and the Department of National Defence from espionage, terrorists and saboteurs. 

   

   

   

   The Canadian Forces’ National Counter-Intelligence Unit assembled at least eight reports on the activities of native organizations between January, 2010, and July, 2011, according to records released under access to information law. 

   

   

   

   When told of the documents, one aboriginal leader said the thought of the military keeping tabs on natives was “chilling.” 

   

   

   

   The Department of National Defence denies it obtained the intelligence itself, and says the information, which cites confidential sources with apparent inside knowledge of native groups, came from other government agencies. 

   

   

   

   Referred to as Counter-Intelligence Information Reports, the documents alert the military to events such as native plans for a protest blockade of Highway 401, and the possibility of a backlash among aboriginal groups over Ontario’s introduction of the harmonized sales tax.

   

   Continue reading here
• This is an issue that we continue to monitor at AJP--see our previous posts on this subject:
   
   
   
   
  1. Counterinsurgency: From Afghanistan to First Nations Resistance in Canada - Jul 2, 2010 - Speaking at a senate hearing in May, Canada's top general in Afghanistan suggested that the country's counterinsurgency war in Kandahar and its "whole of government" strategy has helped prepare Canadian forces and its civilian partners for such eventualities. "If Canada were having an issue of insurgency," said Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance, "there would be a multi-discipline, multi-department operation with the government managing and directing carefully what its military and police forces would do". "We experienced a little of that ... with the events at Oka." But now, said Vance, "the government is engaged".
   
  2. First Nations Under Surveillance: Harper Government Prepares for First Nations “Unrest" - Jun 8, 2011 - Internal documents from Indian Affairs and the RCMP show that shortly after forming government in January of 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the federal government tighten up on gathering and sharing intelligence on First Nations to anticipate and manage potential First Nation unrest across Canada.
• • Spying on Indigenous Groups, Defending Mining Companies: The U.S. and Peru, What Wikileaks Tells Us - Jun 11, 2011 - A Wikileaks cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Quechua activist Miguel Palacin Quispe and community leaders. 
   
  • Domestic Counterinsurgency in Canada - Jun 14, 2011 - We have previously posted on Canadian counterinsurgency with an article by Jon Elmer--see: "Counterinsurgency: From Afghanistan to First Nations Resistance in Canada." Now we want to feature extracts from the controversial 2005 draft Counterinsurgency Operations manual (leaked in 2007) and the final 2008 version, both produced by the Department of National Defence (and available below). We will also underline some key points of public discussion that have transpired, which we think help us to understand the significance of these documents, and add some further analytical considerations of our own.
   
  • For the Sake of Mining Interests and "Security": Canadian and U.S. Surveillance and Suppression of Indigenous Communities in the Americas, as Revealed by Wikileaks - Jun 29, 2011 - How Canada and the U.S. worked globally to undermine indigenous rights, engage in surveillance of aboriginal communities, and protect corporate mining interests, as revealed by Wikileaks.
• (3) Decolonize Wall Street
   
  
   

   

   

   “The ‘OCCUPY WALL STREET’ slogan has gone viral and international now. From the protests on the streets of WALL STREET in the name of ‘ending capitalism’—organizers, protestors, and activists have been encouraged to ‘occupy’ different places that symbolize greed and power. There’s just one problem: THE UNITED STATES IS ALREADY BEING OCCUPIED. THIS IS INDIGENOUS LAND. And it’s been occupied for quite some time now,” stated Jessica Yee (Mohawk), the executive director for The Native Youth Sexual Health Network, in a blog post originally posted on Racialicious.

   

   
  

   

   “I also need to mention that New York City is Haudenosaunee territory and home to many other First Nations, ” Yee wrote.
• Still, Yee clarifies that she supports the mission and integrity of Occupy Wall Street. “I’m not against ending capitalism and I’m not against people organizing to hold big corporations accountable for the extreme damage they are causing,” Yee wrote. “Yes, we need to end globalization. What I am saying is that I have all kinds of problems when to get to ‘ending capitalism’ we step on other people’s rights—and in this case erode Indigenous rights—to make the point.”

   

   
  

   

   Yee goes on to excerpt a blog post from “An Open Letter to the Occupy Wall Street Activist” published by JohnPaul Montano in Unsettling America: Decolonization in Theory & Practice. Montano describes himself on his Twitter account as a “Nishnaabe-language acquirer naïvely believing that multilingualism, JavaScript and respect for indigenous sovereignty lead to less crabbiness and more peace.”

• I hope you would make mention of the fact that the very land upon which you are protesting does not belong to you – that you are guests upon that stolen indigenous land. I had hoped mention would be made of the indigenous nation whose land that is. I had hoped that you would address the centuries-long history that we indigenous peoples of this continent have endured being subject to the countless ‘-isms’ of do-gooders claiming to be building a “more just society,” a “better world,” a “land of freedom” on top of our indigenous societies, on our indigenous lands, while destroying and/or ignoring our ways of life. I had hoped that you would acknowledge that, since you are settlers on indigenous land, you need and want our indigenous consent to your building anything on our land—never mind an entire society.

   

   The blog People of Color details the history of the occupation of Wall Street, in which enslaved African peoples constructed the wall “that barricaded the land white men had seized from native peoples.”

   

   
  

   

   Continue reading here
• (4) Indigenous Sovereignty Week
   
   INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY WEEK 2011: November 14-20
   

   
  

   

   Celebrating community victories - standing up to the Harper threat

   

   
  

   

   Indigenous Sovereignty Week 2011, scheduled for Nov. 14-20, will be the third annual week of educational events on Indigenous issues called by Defenders of the Land, a network of First Nations in land struggle. This year we call on communities and supporters to celebrate, remember, and learn from community victories, recent and historic, while looking forward to discuss how best to organize against the threat to Indigenous Peoples posed by Harper’s anti-Indigenous rights agenda.

   

   
  

   

   Read more here

9 more annotations...

• 30 June 2011
• Border Militarization Destroys Indigenous Communities

• Alex Soto, Tohono O’odham:

  "...the Border Patrol troops are the real trespassers, not us. How can I, a Tohono O'odham person, be trespassing on my own land? Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Border Patrol, Immigration Custom Enforcement and their corporate backers such as Wackenhut, are the true criminals. Troops and paramilitary law enforcement, detention camps, check points, and citizenship verification are not a solution to ‘issues’ of migration. Indigenous Peoples have existed here long before these imposed borders, and Elders inform us that we always honored freedom of movement. Why are Indigenous communities and the daily deaths at the border ignored? The impacts of border militarization are constantly being made invisible in and by the media, and the popular culture of this country. Even the mainstream immigrant rights movement has often pushed for 'reform', which means further militarization of the border, leading to increased suffering for Indigenous communities. Border militarization destroys Indigenous communities." (see: O'odham: Border Patrol Lock Down Trespassing Charge Dropped, CENSORED NEWS, 23 June 2011)
• In Arizona, O'odham have been mobilizing against the Border Patrol that has disrupted and displaced indigenous communities and militarized their space. As Alex Soto explains, "Currently the state of Arizona is pushing for the construction of the South Mountain Loop 202 freeway extension on Akimel O’odham land (Phoenix Area). The Loop 202 is part of the CANAMEX transportation corridor, which is part of the larger NAFTA highway project. The two proposed routes will either result in a loss of approximately 600 acres of tribal land, and the forced relocation of Akimel O'odham and Pee-Posh families or would gouge a 40-story high, 200-yard wide cut into Muadag Do'ag (O'odham name for South Mountain), which is sacred to all O'odham and Pee-Posh."

• With the construction of the current fortified U.S./Mexico border, 45 O’odham villages on or near the border have been completely depopulated. According to No More Deaths, from October 2009 to April 2011 there have been more than 338 deaths on the Arizona border alone. In addition, 1,200 National Guard troops have been stationed along the southwestern border since June 2010. Also, the state of Arizona recently passed a bill which will allow for Arizona to build its own border wall. The law goes into effect July 20 of this year. The video below was produced as part of the O'odham mobilization against the militarization of their border areas:

  In connection with this, please see the O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective, and the Border Opposition Action Fund.
• Regarding border militarization, see Brenda Norrell's "Hacked data reveals US Marines as contract killers, hunting migrants on the border." Thanks to the hacktivism of LulzSec which penetrated the Arizona Department of Public Safety last week, just before the group closed down, we learn of the hunting and murder of migrants by U.S. Marines along the Arizona border.
  
  Arizona law enforcement officers were aware that migrants were being hunted by off-duty Marines patrolling the border with assault weapons. The information was contained in a report from October 2008 by Arizona's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative Support Center:

• "In other incidents reported in October, U.S. Border Patrol agents encountered two subjects who claimed to be members of the Border Watch Group the Blue Lights based on the Caballo Loco Ranch. The subjects, armed with pistols and at least one M4 rifle, were dressed in full desert camouflage uniforms, similar to those of the United States military. They stated they were not members of the Minutemen, but paid contract employees who ‘get the job done’ and ‘were not just volunteers.’ They possessed valid United States Marine Corps identification cards."

  As Norrell explains, "Arizona and federal agents have largely ignored the militia and white separatist groups patrolling this area, along the border of the Tohono O’odham Nation, south of Three Points, and southwest of Tucson."

5 more annotations...

•  

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   <!-- corrects IE6 width calculation --> 

   

   

   

   

   <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=default) -->  

     

  29 June 2011
• For the Sake of Mining Interests and "Security": Canadian and U.S. Surveillance and Suppression of Indigenous Communities in the Americas, as Revealed by Wikileaks
• First, from Brenda Norrell's exceptional effort to keep us all abreast of a wealth of daily news concerning indigenous struggles--CENSORED NEWS: Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights--some extracts (please see the complete articles at the links below), with the most recent articles listed first:
• Wikileaks: Top six ways the US and Canada violated Indigenous rights--Wikile

• • The United States worked behind the scenes to fight the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In Ecuador, the US established a program to dissuade Ecuador from supporting the Declaration. In Iceland, the US Embassy said Iceland's support was an "impediment" to US/Iceland relations at the UN. In Canada, the US said the US and Canada agreed the Declaration was headed for a "train wreck."

  • The United States targeted and tracked Indigenous Peoples, community activists and leaders, especially in Chile, Peru and Ecuador. A cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Mapuche and Quechua activists and community leaders. President Chavez and President Morales were consistently watched, and their actions analyzed. Indigenous activists opposing the dirty Tar Sands were spied on, and other Indigenous activists in Vancouver, prior to the Olympics.

• • The United States was part of a five country coalition to promote mining and fight against Indigenous activists in Peru. A core group of diplomats from U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. In other illegal corporate profiteering, Peru’s government secretly admitted that 70-90 percent of its mahogany exports were illegally felled, according to a US embassy cable revealed by Wikileaks. Lowe's and Home Depot sell the lumber.

  • Canada spied on Mohawks using illegal wiretaps. Before Wikileaks hit the headlines, it exposed in 2010 that Canada used unauthorized wiretaps on Mohawks. Wikileaks: "During the preliminary inquiry to Shawn Brant's trial, it came out that the Ontario Provincial Police, headed by Commissioner Julian Fantino, had been using wiretaps on more than a dozen different Mohawks without a judge's authorization, an action almost unheard of recent history in Canada." The United States and Canada tracked Mohawks. In one of the largest collections of cables released so far that targeted Native people and named names, the US consulates in Montreal and Toronto detailed Mohawk activities at the border and in their communities.

• • The arrogant and insulting tone of the US Embassies and disrespect for Indigenous leaders is pervasive in US diplomatic cables. The US Embassy in Guatemala stated that President of Guatemala, Álvaro Colom, called Rigoberta Menchu a "fabrication" of an anthropologist and made other accusations. Menchu responded on a local radio station that Colom was a "liar."

  • The collection of DNA and other data, makes it clear that US Ambassadors are spies abroad. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states that the Intelligence Community relies on biographical information from US diplomats. In cables to Africa and Paraguay, Clinton asked US Embassy personnel to collect address books, e-mail passwords, fingerprints, iris scans and DNA. “The intelligence community relies on State reporting officers for much of the biographical information collected worldwide," Clinton said in a cable on April 16, 2009. Clinton said the biographical data should be sent to the INR (Bureau of Intelligence and Research) for dissemination to the Intelligence Community.

• Wikileaks: Canada says UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights headed for 'Train Wreck'

  In a diplomatic cable marked 'sensitive,' US Ambassador David Wilkins states that the US and Canada agree that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is 'ill conceived and is headed for a train-wreck.' It was written five weeks after the United Nations adopted the Declaration.When the United Nations adopted the UN Declaration, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia were the four countries that voted against it. Although the four countries later took action on it, the US and Canada gave only lip service and did not sign on to it, or fully endorse it.

• Wikileaks Quito: US worked against UN Indigenous Rights Declaration in Ecuador--US Ambassador in Quito carried out US mission of working against adoption of UN Declaration:

  "Wikileaks reveals that US Ambassador Jewell in Quito, Ecuador, described steps taken by the US to dissuade Ecuador from supporting the Declaration in 2006, the year before it was adopted by the UN. Jewell stated the government of Ecuador was inclined to support the Declaration in 2006. She said, however, that the US took steps to present papers to show that the UN Declaration 'is fundamentally flawed'."

• Wikileaks Peru: US feared Indigenous power--US Ambassador in Peru obsessed with fears of Venezuela, radicalism and Indigenous rule:

  "Wikileaks releases from Peru once again reveal the pro-copper mining and anti-Indigenous sentiment of the US Embassy in Lima. Former US Ambassador Curtis Struble in Peru expresses fear that Indigenous may once again govern Peru. Struble is again on the look-out for Venezuela's "meddling," and again is tracking Indigenous activists. This time, on the US watch list, is Aymara activist Felipe Quispe of Bolivia, leader of Pachakuti Indigenous Movement, according to the June 19, 2007 cable. In one of six cables released Friday, Feb. 25, from Lima, Ambassador Struble writes of the regions of Peru. He said the southern highland province of Puno has an 'affinity for far-left radicalism.' Struble fears Venezuela is involved here and fears the movement of Bolivarism. 'Evo Morales is widely popular, but he is admired for his poor, indigenous background, not for his political views,' Struble wrote. Continuing his obsession with the feared 'radicalism' and Indigenous rule in Peru, Struble writes of the 'ethnocacerism' of Antauro Humala. He calls this 'a murky philosophy that seeks to return Peru to a past when only indigenous persons wielded political power'."

• Wikileaks: US engaged in espionage of Indigenous activists

  "A Wikileaks cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Quechua activist Miguel Palacin Quispe and community leaders. Since the writing of this cable, the bonds with Native Americans and First Nations have grown stronger in the struggles for justice. Bolivian President Morales and Ambassador Solon were in the forefront of the Indigenous global climate change efforts in 2010. Palacin was in Tucson for an anti-mining conference in 2007, and more recently at the climate summits in both Cochabamba and Cancun. The US Embassy report dated March 17, 2008, focuses on Indigenous activists and their supporters who, the cable states, were organizing "anti-summit" protests against the European Union-Latin American Heads of State summit scheduled for mid-May of 2008 in Lima. James Nealon at the US Embassy in Lima wrote the cable released Sunday, Feb. 13. 'The greatest concern among our European Union mission colleagues is the threat that radicals could hijack the protests by aggressively confronting ill-prepared security forces, as occurred in Cusco in February'."

• Wikileaks Peru: US Ambassador targeted Indigenous activists, promoted mining--Diplomats protecting mining interests of Barrick, Newmont, BHP; US, Canada, Australia, UK, Switzerland and South Africa:

  "...The diplomatic cables reveal the US promoting multi-national corporations, while targeting Indigenous activists and their supporters. The new cables reveal that a core group of diplomats formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. The diplomats were from the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa."

• Wikileaks on Indigenous Peoples: US white privilege:

  "The most disturbing aspect of the US State Department cables on Indigenous Peoples is the haughtiness and white privilege that bleeds through the print. The cables make it clear that to the United States, Indigenous Peoples are annoying, even potential terrorists, and must be dealt with. Along with the Mapuches defense of their land and environment, the Wikileaks cables released so far [to December 2010] show the United States’ obsession with Bolivian President Evo Morales and his growing popularity. In the Bolivian cables, the incorrect facts, poor content and unreliable sources are the most glaring aspect."

  Chile: "The US spy in Santiago said, 'Secretariat General of the Presidency Minister Viera Gallo told the Ambassador January 30 that the GOC – and Chilean society - are only belatedly taking seriously a growing problem with Chile's indigenous (largely Mapuche) population, which has never been fully integrated and is becoming increasingly radicalized. Mapuche alienation and protest activity could impact on issues such as terrorism, energy, and development in environmentally sensitive regions.' This cable, and other cables, show the growing concern by the United States of the rising collective power of Indigenous Peoples, it terms of uniting with other groups and stopping the development of enormous development projects such as dams that destroy Indigenous lands. With the Mapuches, the US is concerned about connections to the Basque and NGOs (non-governmental organizations.)"

• Iceland's support of Indigenous Declaration an 'impediment' to US relations

  "The United States scrutinized Iceland's support of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, according to new cables released by Wikileaks. The US cables reveal the behind-the-scenes maneuvers of the United States, the last country in the world to support the Declaration. US Ambassador Ambassador Carol van Voorst said Iceland's support of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was an 'impediment' to full cooperation between the US and Iceland at the United Nations. Van Voorst said Iceland is the only country in the Nordic that does not have Indigenous Peoples. Iceland officials, however, said they would join other Nordic countries in support of the Declaration, Van Voorst wrote to the US State Dept."

  Second, from APTN:

• U.S. considers ‘Native Canadian groups’ as possible terror threats: embassy cables

  "The U.S. has been keeping regular intelligence on potential security threats in Canada, including the activities of unnamed First Nations groups, according to two cables sent by the U.S. embassy in Ottawa and obtained by APTN National News....The cables, sent from the U.S. embassy in Ottawa, and titled, Security Environmental Profile Response For Mission Canada, appear to be part of regular updates on the situation in the country. The U.S. identified the involvement of Aboriginal groups in anti-U.S. demonstrations and as possible terror threats in a Feb. 27, 2009 cable."...'Human rights groups, small political protest/grass roots organizations and Canadian Aboriginal groups are prone to carrying out demonstrations aimed at the host government and sponsor anti-U.S. demonstrations,' reads the cable from 2009....The cables also list potential terrorist threats in Canada. Under the heading 'Indigenous Terrorism,' the cables outline several subgroups of interest, including Anti-American Terrorist Groups and Other Indigenous Terror Groups....The cables...include Aboriginal groups under the heading of 'Other Indigenous Terror Groups'..."

  Third, from rabble.ca:

• Wikileaks comes to Canada: Federal failure on aboriginal rights

  "You just know things are bad when the U.S. criticizes Canada for its treatment of Indigenous people. Wikileaks late last week released a memo from the American Embassy in Ottawa to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, outlining a land claim process that is hopelessly mired in bureaucracy, costly court cases, allegations of the mismanagement of First Nations funds and assets, and the lack of any lucid definition of aboriginal rights. The disparaging memo, which dates back to August of 2009, ends rather pessimistically. 'As long as Canada lacks a clear definition of aboriginal rights or a uniform model for negotiations, effective mechanisms to resolve aboriginal grievances in a timely manner will remain elusive'...."

14 more annotations...

• 06 July 2010

• Indigenous Resistance is Growing in Canada 

   

   

   

   

   

  

  First Nations protest on Yonge Street, Toronto, in advance of the recent G20 summit. 24 June 2010. Photo on Wikimedia Commons, provided with a Creative Commons License.
• For the full report, please see:

  This Land is Still Stolen: The G20 and Aboriginal rights

  by Hillary Bain Lindsay, The Dominion

  July 5, 2010

• Canada still has not signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; 584 Aboriginal women are still missing and murdered; and many of us still live on unceded First Nations territory—and are exploiting it. The list could go on.
   
   On the other hand, Indigenous resistance is growing in Canada; so too are solidarity movements.

  
   

  For the second time in 2010 (the first being the Vancouver Olympics), First Nations rights were at the forefront of a major convergence of social justice activists.
   
   "No G20 on stolen Native land," chanted demonstrators throughout the week of protests leading up to G8/G20 meetings, and warrior flags were flying at all the marches—whether led by environmental justice advocates or anti-poverty organizers.

• And on June 24, more than 1,000 people flooded the streets of downtown Toronto for the "Canada Can't Hide Genocide" march and rally.
   
   The crowd did not gather on June 24 to protest the G20 so much as to reject it entirely.

  
   

  "Fundamentally, we reject the G8 and G20 as decision-making bodies over our peoples," Ben Powless, a Mohawk from Six Nations, told a cheering crowd. "These are the illegitimate organizations of the colonial states that seek the further exploitation of our peoples."
• Marilyn Poucachiche, an Algonquin from Barriere Lake First Nation, drove nine hours from her community to attend the rally and knows that story well.
   
   "The government has been trying to assimilate or has been assimilating [our] people for a long time," she says.
   
   Barriere Lake First Nation has a traditional governing system, a system that the Indian Act does not recognize. "The Canadian government have been trying to impose Section 74 in our community from the Indian Act," says Poucachiche. Section 74 would require the community to hold band elections. "It favours the Canadian policy on how we should govern and select our leaders."

• "That will extinguish our Aboriginal title and treaty rights," she says. "They're trying to select their Chief according to their law. But we're saying it's our way, not your way."

  
   

  Whether or not Canadians choose to support Indigenous struggles, the state, as Powless points out, has certain obligations.
   
   "Fundamentally," says Powless, "Canada must live up to its international and domestic treaty obligations and respect self-determination, the right for free, prior and informed consent and the sovereignty of our peoples."

5 more annotations...