It’s not just the Indigenous people

15 Mar 2013

Courtesy of Canada.com

A forum on Aboriginal issues was held late February at Douglas College, in support of Idle No More. Flavoured on the sidelines by bannock and cheese slices, the forum featured old and new activists involved in the Indigenous movement. The unchanging Aboriginal issues were discussed on the forum. They included infringements on First Nations concerns brought by the federal government’s omnibus bills, the past-and-present colonial relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian government, and current issues faced by Aboriginal individuals and families. Moderated group conversations after the panel talk discussed each attendee’s own feelings and opinions about the stories and issues said by the panel. By the end of the event, it seemed that most of the individuals present agreed on the necessity of solving the Aboriginal problem, and that this won’t come through government or settler paternalism but through self-made actions by Aboriginal peoples themselves. Self-determination, in their own words. It was a triumphant and jubilant night for those involved.

Since I failed to ask everybody on that auditorium whether they shared my opinions, once can only speak for oneself. In divergence from the wide agreement among the auditorium population, unanswered questions held me back from joining the euphoria. While the issues discussed were important, the nature of those issues in relation to the larger, outside context prevented me from fully accepting their cause.

The group discussion I joined involved each of us saying two words we took from what the panel said. Most of those “two words” were sympathetic and supportive of the Indigenous movement. My two words were “understanding” and “distance.” “Understanding” in that many of the issues discussed were reasonable and the injustices done against Aboriginal peoples really unjust, and “distance” in that certain questions made me skeptical from full support. It’s doubtless that injustices were done against Indigenous peoples in this country. Musqueam elder Larry Grant talked about his family’s expulsion from present-day Sapperton to make way for a military base. The youngest panellist mentioned a sister’s death in the hands of Indo-Canadian youths at night due to wearing Idle No More apparel. Stories of the colonial relationship between First Nations and European settlers and governments were told: displacement of First Nations from their traditional lands, attempts at destruction of their identity through assimilation, and the consequence of all these tragedies in everyday Indigenous life. Threats of the omnibus bills on traditional life and the environment were also said by the panel. But it didn’t end with sighs of passive hopelessness. Idle No More was bannered as a historical moment of Indigenous peoples rising up to fight for their rights. All the guests displayed confidence, insisting that now is the time Indigenous peoples take back what was stolen from them.

Yet some of the things said and shown during the event bothered me. The emphasis on “colonialism” and the dominated situation of Indigenous peoples, despite proclamations of triumph, made me think of this as solely an Indigenous matter, concerning First Nations alone. Why does it matter and how does this relate to us non-Indigenous persons? Does the emphasis on Aboriginal self-determination mean the original inhabitants will kick the settlers out of the land someday? One of the panellists who appeared at the group discussion talked of Indigenous history as a way to prevent a myopic view of Indigenous people, and putting ourselves in their shoes to better understand their situation – the answers weren’t satisfying. The question here is how does this Aboriginal movement fit in the bigger Canadian situation. Being an Indigenous-centred affair runs the risk of neglecting the other parts of the national population. It could be that this movement forms one part of the wider Canadian movement against erosion of public welfare by moneyed interests, but that has yet to be seen.

Perhaps there is nothing bad with an Aboriginal-centred movement. They have taken the extra mile to accommodate non-Indigenous peoples and help them understand what the movement is about. The event itself was targeted at newer immigrant communities in BC. The important question here is its relation to the wider Canadian movement for the national good.


“Spratlys” at suberanya

11 May 2012

Ngayon aminin ko na wala akong alam masyado sa mga detalye tungkol sa kasalukuyang alitan ng Filipinas at ng Republikang Bayan ng Tsina (RBT o “People’s Republic of China”) tungkol sa Spratlys, partikular sa babaw (“shoal”) ng “Scarborough” o Panatag. Ang sasabihin ko lang dito ay ang panganib na dala ng mga panggigipit ng RBT.

Ang pangunahing panganib na dala ng mga nakalipas na aksyon ng “Tsina” ay hindi ang pwersahang pag-angkin nito ng mga teritoryo na kasalukuyang pinag-aawayan ng mga sangkot na bansa. Kung tutuusin, ang panganib ay hindi lang sa mga aksyon sa Spratlys. Kasama rin ang ngayo’y malaking impluwensiya ng “Tsina” sa mga ugnayang pang-ekonomiya (“economic affairs”) ng mga karatig bansa nito sa Asya, mula Burma hanggang Filipinas – kahit na rin sa mga medyo mas angat na mga ekonomiya tulad ng Hapon at Timog Korea – kundi man sa mga ugnayang pulitikal (“political affairs”) nito. Mula nang umangat ang ekonomiya ng RBT simula mga dekada 90 dala ng mga repormang pinatupad ng Partido Komunista nito noong mga huling taon ng dekada 70, ang impluwensiya nito sa kalakarang ekonomiko at pulitikal ng daigdig at lalo sa mga bansang malapit nito ay naging malaki. Pangahas ko itong sasabihin, ang “Tsina” ngayon ay ang Hapon noong ika-19 hanggang ika-20 siglo bago 1945. Sinumang bansa sa silangang Asya na nagmamahal sa sariling suberanya’t kasarinlan ay kailangang maging maingat ngayon sa kapangyarihang kasalukuyang hawak ng Republikang Bayan.

Ang nakataya sa tungggalian sa Spratlys, sa away ng Filipinas at RBT sa Panatag – bukod sa isyu ng teritoryo na maaaring pag-usapan lang sa pagitan ng magkapantay na mga bansa – ay ang pangangailangan na pigilin ang pagkalat ng kapangyarihan ng isang estadong hanggang ngayo’y may konsiderableng hawak sa mga taong nakatira sa loob nito. Huwag nating bigyang katuwiran ang diktadurya.