It has also brought us pragmatic politics, where getting in or close to power is most important. Pragmatic politics bring us the status quo, such as funding of public and separate schools, where we accept discrimination on the one hand (fund only catholic schools) and on the other, don't push for progressive policy such as one school system. Don't rock the boat, and the beat goes on....
Great post Dr. Dawg
I think that activists increasingly make the choice to behave as a way to have some sort of longevity for their funded organizations. I was born in the sixties and raised in the seventies. Reading back, I understand that there was a point when activist orgs weren't so deeply and well linked to conservative monies in the form of government and foundation funding. It's changed the tone of what it means to resist. Of course, we all as individuals have the option, regardless of whether Native people (who have already risked and lost so much) show us the way or challenge our sensibilities, to infuse our politics with passionate, vociferous, defiant resistance that opts to not back down. We are our own examples. We are the fierce orators, fighters and leaders we've been looking for, no?
If you can get your hands on an old VHS copy of `Clearcut`, you should Dawg.
I`ve sat down and watched this movie about 20 times with non-natives and this movie is like an acid test of people`s true sensibilities when it comes to native issues.
Classic line from the movie is when Arthur skins the plant-managers leg. The liberal lawyer Peter is just outraged and really freaked out. Arthur the `activist` recounts horror after horror that has occured to and continues to occur towards natives... and prefaces each remark with a `you``ll forget... the babies born stupid from mercury poisoneing...`` etc --- and finishes with `this is just one man`s leg. Boy you sell cheap``
There`s also a continual line by the plant-manager about `co-operatin` injuns` - which every native I have watched the film with giggles about.
We all know who the `co-operating injuns` are, and we all know that despite all the noise made to the contrary the only thing that many non-natives hold for `co-operating injuns` is contempt.
You write about activism and you know about it. It`s amazing how schizophrenic non-natives in Canada are when it comes to native people on this subject.
If natives aren`t doing stuff to fix things -- we are accused of indolence, lazyiness and so on, and non-natives whine that we `need to solve our problems ourselves
And yet when we take steps to solve the problems, educate, empower, inform, raise a fuss, draw attention to horrible situations -- or take part in `the Day of Action` -- we are no longer `co-operating injuns`. We are ``scary injuns.``
Seriously, when you are simultaneously accused of both NOT doing enough and Doing too much in the space of days by people of various stripes for your activism it makes things more obvious.
It`s weird how, having spent 5-6 years solidly fighting the corruption on my reserves and others makes me the target of so much contempt from non-native right wingers who complain the loudest about corruption in Indian affairs.
Seriously... there`s simply no pleasing the dual-reality perception that exists in this country. You are only allowed to stand up to power if you do it the way the non-natives want, like or don`t feel internally upset by.
And here`s the kicker... these non-natives that simultaneously demand that natives be more active, but not too scary all have the SAME solution for native people... it`s always the same message `-- Assimilate, deny your heritage, give up your rights, become part of the borg.
In other words the mainstream wants Indians to have died out a hundred years ago, and a lot of people are really angry that it didn`t happen that way and they have to contend with native people who won`t be hoodwinked, won`t be stifled, and won`t be `co-operating injuns`.
Say what one will about Mr.Brant... he aint much of one of those ``co-operating`injuns``
Seriously -- Dawg, get a hold of that movie. It`s an incredible bit of art and social commentary.
jfthb--many thanks. And Meaghan, be assured that I'll look up the film.
DarkDaughta, welcome to the site. I agree that we as individuals need to stand up and resist (well, my late partner hated the word "resist," because she felt that it meant not changing anything, being on the defensive, so I'd better say) move forward. But I still believe that the best way to do this is collectively. Those brave individuals that you speak of will be the natural leaders in such collectives, representative--but accountable.
I enjoy your site, btw--mind-blowing.
Oddly, over here on the right we have much the same problem. We are blessed with Liberals-Lite in office and hordes of political advisors urging caution.
The idea of actually taking a stand is entirely alien to the CPC; instead they are desperately trying to be sufficiently inoffensive so as to win a majority.
So, instead of a Canadian Reagan or Thatcher moment we are left with the Liberal Party in blue clothing.
And this permeates the right activists as well. The entire notion of standing up for what one actually believes in is subsumed to the calculus of "offense". And given the predilections of sections of the Canadian media, any conservative who, to coin a phrase, jumps the reservation, and actually takes a position, it is a safe bet that the interview will be with some very decent person who is shocked and appalled.
It makes for a very boring politics and an endless affirmation of the bland middle.
Good post Dawg.
I like that term 'co-operatin injuns'. I think there are more than a few 'co-operatin Inuks' too.
I was really happy to see Brant all over the media like he was, if only for a few days. I was actually hopin to run into them that day, as I was driving from Ottawa down to Wasaga Beach, but by the time I was getting near the blockade had been lifted.
I also agree with MWW on some of her comments. However, I say that I try to draw a little from both 'sides' of this A vs. B dialogue in Canada.
I'm a firm believer that the Canadian government should live up to it's obligations, and needs to own up to some past injustice. On the other hand, I think that Inuit youth especially (and I'm sure a few First Nations youth) do need to own up to and deal with our problems. Neither side on it's own is correct, but both sides have (some) merit.
Commenting by HaloScan
