Idle No More movement faces internal struggles

[Sleipnir]

OTTAWA — In a matter of weeks, a series of teach-ins on a small Saskatchewan reserve took on a life of their own — becoming a nationwide aboriginal protest movement.

But now it appears the rapidly growing Idle No More movement is experiencing its first real growing pains. On Monday, the founders of Idle No More issued a statement distancing themselves from native chiefs who claim to be acting on behalf of the campaign.

“The Chiefs have called for action and anyone who chooses can join with them, however this is not part of the Idle No More movement as the vision of this grassroots movement does not coincide with the visions of the Leadership,” said the statement, released on Idle No More’s official website.

Read more at:

http://news.national...es-from-chiefs/

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

This is inevitable with these things, but it's good that they're guarding against the "OWS effect."

[August1991]

OTTAWA — In a matter of weeks, a series of teach-ins on a small Saskatchewan reserve took on a life of their own — becoming a nationwide aboriginal protest movement.

"A life of their own"? That's solely in the mindset of CBC producers, and a few aboriginal "leaders".

In the broader Canadian world, this is a PR disaster. Looking at Therese Spence, one sees a fat Indian on a hunger strike (while still consuming food) who wants more taxpayer money.

-----

Once upon a time, people said that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Spence, and people like her, are part of the problem.

Canada's aboriginals deserve far better.

This is inevitable with these things, but it's good that they're guarding against the "OWS effect."

Apparently even Cybercoma understands this.

PS. What is the "OWS effect"?

Edited January 3, 2013 by August1991

[DogOnPorch]

Cute that she ...errr...owns...I guess...the same vehicle as Tony Soprano.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the OWS effect is the 'Occupy Wall Street' example - whereby consensus failed and radical elements dominated the group, thereby marginalizing them.

I, for one, feel that this issue is one of the messiest and densest issues to try to get information on. I think that the process is utterly broken and needs a restart.

[Canuckistani]

I think the OWS effect is the 'Occupy Wall Street' example - whereby consensus failed and radical elements dominated the group, thereby marginalizing them.

I, for one, feel that this issue is one of the messiest and densest issues to try to get information on. I think that the process is utterly broken and needs a restart.

What process, the resolving native issues one? It's certainly broken, but I can't see any good ideas for a restart. I'm not sympathetic to the FN cause, but this idle no more might be a good thing, at least get people talking and thinking about it. For too long we've tried to buy FN silence with a few bucks. That just creates terrible conditions for them, and gets them hooked on complaining to get a few more bucks. Not a good way to go. I understand that Alaska dismissed all native claims to the land, gave every one of them 100,000 as compensation. I'd would go for something like that. If the natives were smart, they could take that money and pool it and buy reserves back if they wanted or start corporations (pay taxes) or what have you. AFAIK, Canada has to own Canada - we can't run a country by renting it from the special people.

[Michael Hardner]

What process, the resolving native issues one? It's certainly broken, but I can't see any good ideas for a restart.

Me neither. Maybe a new initiative that just addresses the root problems rather than decades-long dialogue.

I'd would go for something like that. If the natives were smart, they could take that money and pool it and buy reserves back if they wanted or start corporations (pay taxes) or what have you. AFAIK, Canada has to own Canada - we can't run a country by renting it from the special people.

Settlements like that have happened in the past, though, and I wonder how they turned out.

[Canuckistani]

Well, I was wrong. The US also signed over 1/9th of the Alaskan land to the natives, as well as nearly a billion 1971 dollars, when that was real money. Seems to me the natives actually got a very good deal, doubt we could afford that in Canada.

[TimG]

Well, I was wrong. The US also signed over 1/9th of the Alaskan land to the natives, as well as nearly a billion 1971 dollars, when that was real money. Seems to me the natives actually got a very good deal, doubt we could afford that in Canada.

$1 billion 1971 dollars is $5.5 billion today - less than the Canadian government spends in 1 year on financial support of reserves. In additional all of the land given to natives was fee simple owned by a regulation corporation which the bands owned. Each band member is given shares.

We can't do a similar deal in Canada not because of the cost but because natives groups don't want a 'final resolution' that normalizes their status in Canadian society - they want to be tin pot feudal lords who live off the work of others and want non-native Canadians to bear all of the risk associated with any deal (i.e. if they make bad investments and lose their lands they want the Canadian government to bail them out - as many times as necessary - forever).

Edited January 3, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

$1 billion 1971 dollars is $5.5 billion today - less than the Canadian government spends in 1 year on financial support of reserves. In additional all of the land given to natives was fee simple owned by a regulation corporation which the bands owned. Each band member is given shares.

We can't do a similar deal in Canada not because of the cost but because natives groups don't want a 'final resolution' that normalizes their status in Canadian society - they want to be tin pot feudal lords who live off the work of others and want non-native Canadians to bear all of the risk associated with any deal (i.e. if they make bad investments and lose their lands they want the Canadian government to bail them out - as many times as necessary - forever).

We can swing the 5 billion, except we have way more natives - it would be way more money. Also we'd have to give away 1/9th of Canada - that's a good chunk of real estate.

But no, even if we could afford it, it will never happen. Natives refuse to sign extinguishment clauses on the settlements they do make in BC. An we just go along.

[August1991]

MONTREAL—At first glance, Chief Therese Spence — the hunger-striking Attawapiskat leader who has become the de facto face of the Idle No More movement — and Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois — the fiercely articulate Quebec student leader who was cast in a similar role last spring — have little in common.

But first impressions are often misleading.

Yes, Spence is as soft-spoken as Nadeau-Dubois was fiery and yes, their causes could not be more different.

Chantal Hébert

Sorry Chantal, you're wrong. You're wrong about Quebec, and you're wrong about Canada.

True, there is a noisy minority. It's noisier in Quebec than in Canada. Chantal, I think that you are wrong to pay attention.

I recall Lucien Bouchard's famous comment (surely you know it) that as PM, many people supplicated him for favours - and when they did, he always thought of the others, silent, who were not there.

I hope that Stephen Harper thinks as Lucien Bouchard; indeed, I suspect that Bouchard and Harper speak together every so often.

-----

More generally, Chantal (and Jeffrey Simpson) and many other columnists, you have been replaced by websites.

For example, if an anglophone wants to understand a francophone: http://jomarcotte.wordpress.com/

Edited January 5, 2013 by August1991

[Eyrie]

Personally, my take on Spence is that she should be allowed to protest, no matter how ridiculous we think it is or otherwise. She claims that Prime Minister Harper is infringing on a treaty with the Natives, and if she truly believes that, and is not just trying to garner public attention or taxpayer dollars, I think she should be allowed to show her displeasure in a peaceful way. Albeit, this way is slightly self-destructive, but as long as she doesn't harm another person, I think she should.

[Smallc]

She is harming other people though. She is not setting a positive example for the rest of her community, and seems to be trying to show that the squeaky wheel will always get the grease. That's not moving forward.

[Canuckistani]

Personally, my take on Spence is that she should be allowed to protest, no matter how ridiculous we think it is or otherwise. She claims that Prime Minister Harper is infringing on a treaty with the Natives, and if she truly believes that, and is not just trying to garner public attention or taxpayer dollars, I think she should be allowed to show her displeasure in a peaceful way. Albeit, this way is slightly self-destructive, but as long as she doesn't harm another person, I think she should.

Who's stopping her? It's a free country. I'm all for protests of any sort - doesn't mean anybody else has to respond if they don't agree. She wants to starve herself to death in her teepee, that's her prerogative, tho it must be tough compared to the nice house she lives in and all the food she usually eats.

[blueblood]

She is harming other people though. She is not setting a positive example for the rest of her community, and seems to be trying to show that the squeaky wheel will always get the grease. That's not moving forward.

Not to mention set a dangerous precedent.

Sends the message if any mayor or reeve wants an audience with the prime minister to complain about funding, that's how you go about it.

She's upset the money is slowing down and her dirty laundry is public.

[cybercoma]

I think the OWS effect is the 'Occupy Wall Street' example - whereby consensus failed and radical elements dominated the group, thereby marginalizing them.

Sorry I didn't come back to this thread sooner, but you're exactly right.

[August1991]

Sorry I didn't come back to this thread sooner, but you're exactly right.

WTF? "Radical elements"?

Here is what the CBC once reported about Spence. The CBC!

[bTW, I easily found this video on the CBC website a few hours ago. Now, it's hard to find.]

----

Spence is not a "radical element". She and her partner are crooks.

Edited January 7, 2013 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Thee big problem I see with this whole movement, for lack of a better word, is the disorganization, confusion and lack of objective. Just like OWS.

Part of that includes the revelation that Spence isn't actually part of Idle No More.

[Bryan]

The biggest problem I see is INM's stance on Bill C-45. Considering the passages they are opposed to were included specifically because of longstanding requests by aboriginal leaders, you'd think they'd at least get it straight WHO they are upset with.

[August1991]

Part of that includes the revelation that Spence isn't actually part of Idle No More.

MH, you arrived at this conclusion because of the label on the hat Chief Spence was wearing at the end of the CBC newsreport?

[it was a De Beers hat. Check at 7:30 in the CBC clip above.]

The biggest problem I see is INM's stance on Bill C-45. Considering the passages they are opposed to were included specifically because of longstanding requests by aboriginal leaders, you'd think they'd at least get it straight WHO they are upset with.

Harper is an incrementalist.The key Indian change in C-45 is voting procedures: a majority is now based on those present, not those registered.

Unlike Mulroney, Harper doesn't go for the big score.

Edited January 7, 2013 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

MH, you arrived at this conclusion because of the label on the hat Chief Spence was wearing at the end of the CBC newsreport?

That was made clear to me during Cross Country Checkup today.

[August1991]

That was made clear to me during Cross Country Checkup today.

I downloaded and I'll listen to it tomorrow in the centre sportif. I can imagine.