Wednesday, December 19, 2012
A Contemporary Morality Story
For the past four years, I have been actively involved in assisting in the implementation of organic market gardens on First Nations territory. For three growing seasons I have lived and worked with members of the Flying Dust First Nation near Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, starting with 2 acres of chemical-free vegetables and fruits, then 7 and 12 acres in subsequent years. With the financial assistance of Heifer Canada International, Inroads to Agriculture Institute, EI training dollars and provincial work opportunity money in the first year, more than 20 people received training and made a living doing the work involved in preparing the earth, planting, nurturing, harvesting, storing, distributing and marketing the produce created. They now have legally established a workers co-op which has continued the market garden program on their own over the past year.
I should add that the initial concern of those who spear-headed this impetus at Flying Dust First Nation was both health related and economic self-sufficiency. Many of the diseases First Nations people are suffering are diet-related (e.g., diabetes) and the goal of the organic, non gmo market garden was to get people used to eating fresh vegetables and fruit that was immediately available. Furthermore, to counter the culture of dependency, this was an attempt to produce healthy foods on First Nations land by Band members who were formerly dependent on social assistance. This resulted in the trainees distributing produce to other Flying Dust members, trying to engage the schools in the area in field days, providing food for lunch programs and getting parts of their own training curriculum into the school curriculum, selling produce at the local farmers market and grocery stores, and engaging the community in the work of the market garden or planting their own backyard gardens.
The success of this venture at Flying Dust as well as the longer history of accomplishments by the Muskoday First Nation in organic potato production prompted the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) to ask me to develop and implement a proposal which would spread this organic market garden venture to all First Nations in Saskatchewan who wanted to be a part of this project. The proposal was developed over this past year, along with a detailed budget and workplan as well as a five-year budget plan indicating growth and self-sufficiency timelines. Upon completion, this program proposal was presented to Aboriginal Affairs officials of the Government of Canada, and it was rejected. The excuse given was that it did not fit with their program guidelines, even though I looked up their program guidelines on a government website and found they fit perfectly.
Being convinced of the merit of the vision, goals and principles of the program, and confident in our strategy for making this project work, we went with enthusiasm to over 40 of the top and largest corporations in Saskatchewan asking them to support the proposal through their community investment and corporate donations activities. Once again, our professional appeal fell on deaf ears. The only corporation that provided a bit of seed money to the tune of $5,000 was the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Association. One of the several potash companies in this province was interested enough to call for a meeting with FSIN to discuss a substantial contribution but they insisted that we drop the organic aspect of our operation. Fortunately, FSIN had the guts to say, "Thanks but no thanks".
Even though FSIN has used some of their own money to support the development of the Indigenous Market Garden Program, recently they had to let it go due largely to the diminishing of federal funding to tribal councils and provincial representative organizations with further cuts pending in the coming fiscal year. Another Aboriginal funding agency, Inroads to Agriculture Institute of One Earth Farms, is interested in funding this project but the amount of funding they can contribute is not sufficient to get this project of the ground.
This scenario has happened many times over the past several decades, and at least four times in projects that I have been directly involved with (traditional justice projects, self-governance in policing, indigenous peacemaking training, etc.). What lessons can be learned from such stories, something that is more than merely anecdotal? There are several conclusions that can safely be reached but the most overwhelming one is that governments and corporations do not want First Nations or Metis people to succeed. At least, not on their own terms, not if its based on traditional cultural values, not if it may result in genuine self-reliance.
There is plenty of willingness and money to get First Nations involved in oil, gas, uranium and other resource exploitation or devolution of certain government services, but here government and corporations can dictate the terms and conditions. Such co-optation involves working within existing capitalistic models of business and marketing, accommodation to the organizational or procedural values of the dominant society, surrender of land and treaty rights, and various "co-management" and "partnership" arrangements. All of these attempts to involve Aboriginal people have as their goal the assimilation of participants to the status quo (read, white) model of doing things. There is even some tolerance or accommodation for First Nations to run their own casinos.
There is a collusion between corporations and government to deal with "the Indian problem". In essence, the intentions, and even many of the methods, of the corporate state are no different than it was during the heyday of colonialism in Canada. In my view, we are not in a post-colonial period, we are still in the midst of it. The code of conduct put forward by this society by its actions and omissions with respect to Aboriginal peoples is clearly a colonialist morality. It reminds of an old truth: if you want to know by what morals or code of ethics someone lives by, look at their actions, not what they say.
The cruel irony of it all is that First Nations were growing vegetables on Turtle Island long before white people became aware of North America. Squash, pumpkins, beans, corn, Jerusalem artichokes, even wild potatoes and onions, and all sorts of berries were nurtured and gathered here prior to "discovery". And, they were shared, along with wild game, with scurvy-ridden "discoverers" and other white settlers, so primitive to this land that they would not have been able to survive. Maybe the corporate state doesn't want First Nations to use their territory to grow healthy food so they can use the land for more resource exploitation or store uranium waste. Maybe they don't want Aboriginal people to get healthy and become self-reliant so that they continue to be dependent, so that movements such as Idle No More will not get full momentum. Maybe traditional culture of indigenous peoples is a threat to the status quo economy and power arrangements. Maybe there are too many people who would lose their position of privilege if First Nations actually demonstrated that they could be successful using their own land and become self-sufficient and healthy. Definitely maybe.
I should add that the initial concern of those who spear-headed this impetus at Flying Dust First Nation was both health related and economic self-sufficiency. Many of the diseases First Nations people are suffering are diet-related (e.g., diabetes) and the goal of the organic, non gmo market garden was to get people used to eating fresh vegetables and fruit that was immediately available. Furthermore, to counter the culture of dependency, this was an attempt to produce healthy foods on First Nations land by Band members who were formerly dependent on social assistance. This resulted in the trainees distributing produce to other Flying Dust members, trying to engage the schools in the area in field days, providing food for lunch programs and getting parts of their own training curriculum into the school curriculum, selling produce at the local farmers market and grocery stores, and engaging the community in the work of the market garden or planting their own backyard gardens.
The success of this venture at Flying Dust as well as the longer history of accomplishments by the Muskoday First Nation in organic potato production prompted the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) to ask me to develop and implement a proposal which would spread this organic market garden venture to all First Nations in Saskatchewan who wanted to be a part of this project. The proposal was developed over this past year, along with a detailed budget and workplan as well as a five-year budget plan indicating growth and self-sufficiency timelines. Upon completion, this program proposal was presented to Aboriginal Affairs officials of the Government of Canada, and it was rejected. The excuse given was that it did not fit with their program guidelines, even though I looked up their program guidelines on a government website and found they fit perfectly.
Being convinced of the merit of the vision, goals and principles of the program, and confident in our strategy for making this project work, we went with enthusiasm to over 40 of the top and largest corporations in Saskatchewan asking them to support the proposal through their community investment and corporate donations activities. Once again, our professional appeal fell on deaf ears. The only corporation that provided a bit of seed money to the tune of $5,000 was the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Association. One of the several potash companies in this province was interested enough to call for a meeting with FSIN to discuss a substantial contribution but they insisted that we drop the organic aspect of our operation. Fortunately, FSIN had the guts to say, "Thanks but no thanks".
Even though FSIN has used some of their own money to support the development of the Indigenous Market Garden Program, recently they had to let it go due largely to the diminishing of federal funding to tribal councils and provincial representative organizations with further cuts pending in the coming fiscal year. Another Aboriginal funding agency, Inroads to Agriculture Institute of One Earth Farms, is interested in funding this project but the amount of funding they can contribute is not sufficient to get this project of the ground.
This scenario has happened many times over the past several decades, and at least four times in projects that I have been directly involved with (traditional justice projects, self-governance in policing, indigenous peacemaking training, etc.). What lessons can be learned from such stories, something that is more than merely anecdotal? There are several conclusions that can safely be reached but the most overwhelming one is that governments and corporations do not want First Nations or Metis people to succeed. At least, not on their own terms, not if its based on traditional cultural values, not if it may result in genuine self-reliance.
There is plenty of willingness and money to get First Nations involved in oil, gas, uranium and other resource exploitation or devolution of certain government services, but here government and corporations can dictate the terms and conditions. Such co-optation involves working within existing capitalistic models of business and marketing, accommodation to the organizational or procedural values of the dominant society, surrender of land and treaty rights, and various "co-management" and "partnership" arrangements. All of these attempts to involve Aboriginal people have as their goal the assimilation of participants to the status quo (read, white) model of doing things. There is even some tolerance or accommodation for First Nations to run their own casinos.
There is a collusion between corporations and government to deal with "the Indian problem". In essence, the intentions, and even many of the methods, of the corporate state are no different than it was during the heyday of colonialism in Canada. In my view, we are not in a post-colonial period, we are still in the midst of it. The code of conduct put forward by this society by its actions and omissions with respect to Aboriginal peoples is clearly a colonialist morality. It reminds of an old truth: if you want to know by what morals or code of ethics someone lives by, look at their actions, not what they say.
The cruel irony of it all is that First Nations were growing vegetables on Turtle Island long before white people became aware of North America. Squash, pumpkins, beans, corn, Jerusalem artichokes, even wild potatoes and onions, and all sorts of berries were nurtured and gathered here prior to "discovery". And, they were shared, along with wild game, with scurvy-ridden "discoverers" and other white settlers, so primitive to this land that they would not have been able to survive. Maybe the corporate state doesn't want First Nations to use their territory to grow healthy food so they can use the land for more resource exploitation or store uranium waste. Maybe they don't want Aboriginal people to get healthy and become self-reliant so that they continue to be dependent, so that movements such as Idle No More will not get full momentum. Maybe traditional culture of indigenous peoples is a threat to the status quo economy and power arrangements. Maybe there are too many people who would lose their position of privilege if First Nations actually demonstrated that they could be successful using their own land and become self-sufficient and healthy. Definitely maybe.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Corporate Coup-de-tat
Two weeks ago I heard an interview on The Current (CBC) with Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, about social bonding or contracting. This scheme would have the Government of Canada contracting out social justice type of services to major corporations such as banks and resource extractors and insurance providers instead of non-profit agencies. At first, I had to mentally re-orient myself - I thought I was listening to another CBC program called "This is That" on Saturdays at eleven. Checked the calendar and it was indeed a weekday, time for The Current and it was not a spoof interview. So, what this means is that the Government is seriously exploring having banks, Cameco, Power Corp. and others take care of services for homeless people, prisoner rehabilitation, victims of child abuse, etc. This means that the very forces which encourage poverty, crime and inequality are going to be responsible for services related to these such social concerns, AND they will be paid by government to do so.
Last week I saw another story on CBC regarding how the Harper government is cutting back on CIDA funding and instead working with mining corporations to deliver the services that NGO's and CIDA personnel were delivering previously overseas. If you don't believe me, look it up and weep. Sometimes I find it impossible to believe what I am hearing. What made this story even more surreal is that the day before this story came out, CBC reported that group from Guatemala had come to Canada to challenge the activities of a Canadian mining company operating in Guatemala, including reports of theft of property, physical violence and rape.
Two different news items in two different weeks. The common thread here is that so-called free enterprise corporations have not only gained a firm grasp over our lives in terms of commodities and the market, they will soon be able to dominate our whole lives. No longer will anyone look at root causes of poverty, crime, abuse, sickness and inequity, such as seasoned social justice activists would, but we will only deal with the symptoms, the same way the medical institutions have done. To control our economic lives was not enough for the corporations, they now want to control every aspect of our humanity.
"We asked for signs
the signs were sent:
the birth betrayed
the marriage spent
Yeah the widowhood
of every government --
signs for all to see." Leonard Cohen, in "The Anthem"
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Semantics and Environmental Groups
Ever since I began to promote restorative justice principles as a better way to do justice in the mid-1970's, I have been outraged at the use of the word 'radical'. Because some of us had the audacity to suggest that both victims and offenders would be better served by having dialogue and identify ways in which the offender could take responsibility and repair the damage done, we were called "radical". Indeed, we saw ourselves as radical as well but when our critics used the word, they meant it in a derogatory way. We had done our research and began to realize that the current retributive justice system was an aberration derived from the feudal and monarchic systems and notions about a vengeful God. By advocating a more equitable, fair and reasonable way of doing justice, we were labelled as "radicals".
The same thing happened as a result of my involvement with the peace movement, traditional Aboriginal justice and self-governance, and advocacy of recycling, energy conservation, elimination of hazardous waste and promoting alternatives to nuclear power. Whenever you examine the roots of an idea or practice, go back to the source and the origin, instead of glibly and blindly accepting the way things are or appear to be on the surface, and then suggest a more wholesome or human way, or even more scientific way to do it, you are doing something radical. Copernicus suggested the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth as was commonly understood. He, too, was a radical in his time.
Most recently, the federal Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, used the word "radical" when referring to environmental groups who plan to submit briefs to the environmental hearings on the Gateway oil pipeline project running from the Edmonton area in Alberta to Kitimat, B.C. The primary definition of the word 'radical' is to proceed from the root of a plant. Mathematicians know what the term radical really means. And so do surgeons who perform radical surgery in order to remove all the tissue affected by a disease. But what the Harper government means by the word radical is extreme, threatening, even dangerous, almost insane.
Now I realize that the meaning of words do change over time and that we cannot always insist on linguistic purity. But in this case, the use of the word radical by the Harper government to describe environmental and Aboriginal groups is far more Orwellian than simply a linguistic and social shift in semantics. In 1984, the Ministry of Truth was really the ministry of propaganda and lies and the Ministry of Peace conducted perpetual war. To be radical, to go to the root of a matter, is truly a good thing. To avoid deeper issues and embrace superficial fixations such as the economy without any protection of the environment is destructive and will eventually mean the end of life as we know it. In fact, as David Suzuki pointed out in an e-mail to CBC, environmentalists are true "conservatives" because they are the ones who wish to conserve life on this planet.
Calling for more radicals - there are not enough of them.
The same thing happened as a result of my involvement with the peace movement, traditional Aboriginal justice and self-governance, and advocacy of recycling, energy conservation, elimination of hazardous waste and promoting alternatives to nuclear power. Whenever you examine the roots of an idea or practice, go back to the source and the origin, instead of glibly and blindly accepting the way things are or appear to be on the surface, and then suggest a more wholesome or human way, or even more scientific way to do it, you are doing something radical. Copernicus suggested the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth as was commonly understood. He, too, was a radical in his time.
Most recently, the federal Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, used the word "radical" when referring to environmental groups who plan to submit briefs to the environmental hearings on the Gateway oil pipeline project running from the Edmonton area in Alberta to Kitimat, B.C. The primary definition of the word 'radical' is to proceed from the root of a plant. Mathematicians know what the term radical really means. And so do surgeons who perform radical surgery in order to remove all the tissue affected by a disease. But what the Harper government means by the word radical is extreme, threatening, even dangerous, almost insane.
Now I realize that the meaning of words do change over time and that we cannot always insist on linguistic purity. But in this case, the use of the word radical by the Harper government to describe environmental and Aboriginal groups is far more Orwellian than simply a linguistic and social shift in semantics. In 1984, the Ministry of Truth was really the ministry of propaganda and lies and the Ministry of Peace conducted perpetual war. To be radical, to go to the root of a matter, is truly a good thing. To avoid deeper issues and embrace superficial fixations such as the economy without any protection of the environment is destructive and will eventually mean the end of life as we know it. In fact, as David Suzuki pointed out in an e-mail to CBC, environmentalists are true "conservatives" because they are the ones who wish to conserve life on this planet.
Calling for more radicals - there are not enough of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)