James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi
Summary of Qualifications:
Work Experience:
Clark College; Vancouver, WA; Professor of Economics/Geography (tenured); 9-2002 to Present
Duties:
· Executed daily operations of teaching, scheduling, hearing student grievances, employee evaluation, budgeting and discipline recommendations;
· Performed administrative duties such as serving as department head and division chairman (8 years);
· Designed developed and produced new courses;
· Wrote grant proposals to procure external research funding;
· Was instrumental in the development of the Economics program from course loads sufficient for one full-time teacher in 1992 to the present four full-time teachers (two tenured) and four adjunct instructors;
· Provided professional consulting services to government, Native American nations and industry;
· Trained and managed 15-20 full-time and part-time teachers and cited for significant improvements in their productivity;
· Planned, evaluated, and revised curricula, course content, and course materials and methods of instruction;
· Supervised undergraduate and graduate teaching, internship, and research work;
· Conducted research in economics, geography, aboriginal studies, research methods and statistics, history, political economy, aviation, business, environmental studies and published findings in professional journals, books, and electronic media;
· Lived and worked outside of the U.S. in languages other than English: French, German, Malayalam; Spanish, Korean and Blackfoot at working knowledge levels;
· Represented employer in negotiations with the Chinese Government and Chinese educational institutions on developing China-U.S. scholar and student exchange programs;
· Taught: microeconomics, macroeconomics, public policy toward business (mba), analysis of financial markets (mba), economic geography, research methods and statistics, business law, regional economics, urban economics, labor economics, economic development and planning (grad), economies of the pacific rim, private/commercial/instrument pilot ground school;
Tsinghua University; Beijing, China; Visiting Professor, Economics (PhD students) 7-2009 to 9-2009
Clark College; Vancouver, WA Professor of Economics/Geography (tenured) 9-02 to Present
Addison-Wesley-Pearson and McGraw-Hill Publishers; Consulting Economist/Text Reviewer; 1989, 1992 to Present
Awards:
Invited biographical subject in Marquis Who's Who in: The World (16th to 18th; 20th; 22nd to 25th editions); America (51st to 61st; 63rd editions); The West (24th to 27th editions); Science and Engineering (3rd to 6th editions); Finance and Industry/Business (29th to 37th editions); American Education (6th edition)
All Canada Graduate Fellowship in Economics 1973-74
Licenses: U.S. Commercial and Instrument Pilot; U.S. Aviation Ground Instructor (Advanced and Instrument)
Full Curriculum Vitae (35 publications) available upon request
Other:
Invited Keynote Speaker: 1) Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, August 1, 2009, Beijing, China; 2) Center for Political Economy, Tsinghua, University, August 1-16, 2009 Beijing, China; 3) 16th International Congress of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences; Yunnan University, Yunnan, China; July 25-31, 2009; 4) Graduate Faculty of Anthropology and Ethnology, Yunnan, University; Yunnan, China; July 29, 2009; 5) China-Canada Symposium on "Managing Ethno-Cultural Diversity: Comparison of Approaches to Multicultural Diversity; Yunnan University, Yunnan, China; July 29, 2009; 6) Third Annual Conference on Aboriginal Studies and Issues; Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Beijing, China; May 18-21, 2005; 7) Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, May 24, 2005, Beijing, China 8) International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights and Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries; Tsinghua, University; Beijing, China; Sept 1-2, 2004; 9) Second International Conference on Self-determination and Sovereignty of Indigenous Nations; Geneva, Switzerland; Aug. 19-25, 2004;
References: Available upon request
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES M. CRAVEN
1. The Tao of Crisis: Midwest Flooding Offers Lessons, in The Columbian, July 29, 1993
2. Culture of Entitlement Greatest Threat of All, in The Columbian, Sept. 1998
3.Supply-side Economics is Paint-By-Numbers Art in The Columbian June 2000
4. Totem Poles, the Medicine Wheel and the Sacred Tree, published by Clark College Press, 1998
5.Interview, First Voices, WABI Radio, New York City, 11-27-03
6. Marxism and Indigenous Struggles: A Case Study of the Blackfoot Nation; Speech to The Marxist School of Sacramento, 11-21-2002
7. Koreans and American Indians (English and Korean), in Pacific Life Magazine June 1995
8. A Checklist for Small/All Businesses (English and Korean) Parts 1,2,3 in Pacific Life Magazine, Part 1 (November 1994), Parts 2 and 3 (January 1995)
9. Genocide and U.S. Indigenous Peoples, in Because People Matter (journal), Jan/Feb. 2003
10. Open Letter to the Chinese Government (in Chinese), in China Daily Press, 6-22-1999
11. Some Elements of Critical Thinking in various venues
12. Imagine in Eastern Door Vol. 8 No. 16
13. You’ve Come a Long Way—But From What to What? In Pacific Life Magazine August 1994
14. Residential Schools: The Past is Present in Dark Night Field Notes No. 17, Annual Issue, 2001; http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati...
15. Aboriginal Justice in Dark Night Field Notes No. 17, Annual Issue, 2001
16. Chronicles of Ecoimperialism: Real Whales, Real People in Dark Night Field Notes No 14, 2000; http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati...
17. Draft Constitution of the Blackfoot Nation see Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota, http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati...
18.Indictment of the Federal Government of the United States of America, The Federal Government of Canada et al For the Commission of International Crimes… see Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota; http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati...
19.Interview: Economics and Politics with Doug Henwood, WBAI, New York City, 2-15-98
20.Judicial Findings: UN Inter-Tribal Tribunal on Residential Schools in Canada, Parts 1-3, June 12-14, 1998 see Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota ; http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati... http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati... http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati...
21. Lewis and Clark Tributes Must Tell the Truth in The Columbian Nov. 24, 2000
22.The Development of the Blackfoot Nation paper delivered at 3rd Annual Conference on Aboriginal Studies and Issues, Beijing China, May 18-21, 2005; http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati...
23.The Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-based Processes and Socialist Construction, Paper delivered Sept 1-2, 2004 at the International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights and Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, Sept 1-2, 2004
24.On the Political Economy of Genocide, Presented at the Second International Conference on Self-Determination and Sovereignty of Indigenous Nations, UN/IHRAAM, Geneva, Switzerland August 19-25, 2004
25.Indian Affairs Head Makes Apology with Eugene Johnson, AP, Sept. 2000; http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Documents_on_Nati...
26.Paper “The Survival and Sustainability of the Blackfoot Nation” presented at the 16th Congress of the IUAES (International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences”), at the China-Canada Symposium “Managing Ethno-Cultural Diversity: Comparison of Approaches to Multicultural Diversity”, Yunnan University, Kunming, China, July 27, 2009;
27.Paper and Workshop on “Indigenous Epistemology and Science” presented at the 16th Congress of the IUAES, Yunnan University, Kunming, China, July 29, 2009
28.Lecture and Paper on “Indigenous Approaches to Economic Development and Sustainability”, presented to the Graduate Faculty and Students of Anthropology and Ethnology, Yunnan University, Kunming, China; July 25, 2009
29. Lecture and Presentation on “Neoclassical Economics and Neo-liberalism as Neo-imperialism” presented to the Academy of Marxism, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Beijing, China August 11, 2009
30. Lectures and presentations on “Critiques of Neoclassical Economics” presented to graduate students of the Center for Political Economy, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, August 2-7, 2009
31.Economics 2-4th Edition for Michael Parkin; Technical Reviewer/Editor (Micro/Macro)
32.Economics 3-4th Edition for David Colander; Technical Reviewer/Editor (Micro/Macro)
33. Author, Test Bank Questions for Economics: A Tool for Critically Understanding Society, 11th Edition,
by Riddell, Schackelford, Stamos and Schneider; Pearson-Addison-Wesley Publishers.
34.”An Historic Non-Apology, Completely and Utterly Not Accepted” with Roland Chrisjohn, Andrea Bear Nicholas, Karen Stote, James Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi), Tanya Wasacase, Pierre Loiselle, Andrea O. Smith in “Upping the Anti: A Journal of Theory and Action”; August 22, 2008
35. Paper and Lecture on “Socialism vs Capitalism: Who Will Win?” presented at Tsinghua University, Graduate Faculty of Economics, May 26, 2005
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Paper delivered Sept 1-2, 2004 at the International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights and Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
The Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-Based Processes and Socialist Construction
By James M. Craven (Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi)
Professor, Economics; Chairman, Business Division, Clark College, Vancouver, WA.
“Every nation in the world has its own history and its own strengths and weaknesses. Since earliest times excellent things and rotten things have mingled together and accumulated over long periods. To sort them out and distinguish the essence from the dregs is a difficult task…Of course this does not mean that we do not need to learn from foreign countries. We must learn many things from foreign countries and master them…We learn foreign things because we want to study and develop Chinese things…We must not be like the Empress Dowager Tz’u-hsi who blindly rejected all foreign things. Blindly rejecting foreign things is like blindly worshipping them. Both are incorrect and harmful…In learning from foreign countries we must oppose both conservatism and dogmatism…To study foreign things does not mean importing everything, lock, stock and barrel…We must give our attention to the critical acceptance of foreign things, and especially to the introduction of things from the socialist world and from the progressive people of the capitalist world…”
(Chairman Mao Zedong, “Talk to Music Workers”, pp. 85-88, in Chairman Mao Talks to the People: Talks and Letters 1956-1971, Stuart Schram ed., Pantheon Books, N.Y. 1974)
Introduction
The People’s Republic of China stands as one of the major political-economic powers and social formations in the world today; it ranks about sixth place in terms of most economic aggregates commonly used to rank-order different economies in size and influence in the global economy. For a nation that had been kept backward, fragmented, feudal and colonized by foreign imperial powers and internal contradictions until the People’s Revolution in 1949, and, for a nation that has been subject to imperial encirclement, threats of nuclear annihilation, destabilization campaigns and demonization and ostracization in the global economy for many years, with a large population of 1.4 billion people with myriad wants and needs awaiting fulfillment, the present level of development and standing of China is no small achievement And there is no doubt, in the opinions of many observers, that “socialist values and consciousness”, created and reinforced by the developing “social capital” of Chinese socialism, have constituted a significant and material force in those achievements—often against overwhelming odds and against technologically-sophisticated and vicious foreign forces bent on isolating, demonizing, destabilizing and sabotaging socialist construction in China.
Yet despite the tremendous advances made by the Chinese people, much work remains to be done and many wants and needs remain unfulfilled causing China to explore, at various periods of Chinese history, diverse approaches, models, instruments, measures and paths of growth and development. According to the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2002:
“We must be aware that China is in the primary stage of socialism and will remain so, for a long time to come. The well-off life we are leading is still at a low level; it is not all-inclusive and is very uneven. The principal contradiction in our society is still one between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and the backwardness of social production. Our productive forces, science, technology and education are still relatively backward, so there is a long way to go before we achieve industrialization and modernization.” 1
Since 1978, China has experienced the progressive widening of markets, market relationships and categories along with some changes in political, economic, cultural, legal and social institutions and superstructure necessary to facilitate widening and deepening market involvement in socialist construction. Some of these policies and initiatives have included: export-led growth; increasing reliance on long-term foreign direct investment (FDI both into and originating from China); increasing privatization; lowering of trade barriers; decentralization of planning; increased authority for (and responsibilities on) local governments; increasing integration into global networks of manufacturing, finance, trade; critical technology transfers; new forms of enterprise organization (e.g. Individual Family Contracts (IFCs) in agriculture, Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), privatization and self-financing of state-owned enterprises(SOEs) and SBCs or share-based cooperatives); labor market reforms; currency exchange-rate stabilization; etc.
But the debates, inside and outside of China, have continued to rage: Does this emerging market socialism model represent simply a necessary—and necessarily hybrid—model that is based upon, and is addressing, the myriad real-world legacies, constraints, conditions and forces with which China has to deal, and that will, or can possibly, result in using markets and capitalism to build socialism in China?. Or, as some would argue, does this hybrid model represent the reverse of using socialism (real or nominal) to build and extend markets, market-based processes and wholesale capitalism thus subjectively or objectively sabotaging long-run conditions and prospects for ongoing socialist construction throughout China?
The Allure of Neo-Liberalism
The neo-liberal narrative, and the narrative of neoclassical economics upon which it is largely based, are quite alluring and seductive. Starting with some unproved—and largely metaphysical—“axioms and postulates that form a view of eternal and immutable “human nature”, basic economic—and even non-economic—outcomes are said to be the inevitable and predictable results of the unfolding or playing-out of human nature—on both the supply and demand sides of a given market—under “given” conditions, institutional arrangements and constraints; and the macro is said to be nothing more than the sum of the aggregated micro. What could be more natural and “efficient”, the neoclassicals argue, than a system (Capitalism) that, rather than trying to deny or suppress or change eternal and immutable “human nature”, instead, harnesses, celebrates and utilizes human propensities and instincts that form human nature in order to produce optimal social outcomes not even intended by the “Economic Man” (who is asserted to be atomistic, calculating, rational, selfish, competitive, egoistic, materialistic) “agent” who is owning, buying or selling only for himself/herself in accordance with his or her own “rational self-interest? It of course never occurs to the proponents of neo-liberalism and neoclassical economics (who have only recently got around to the concept of social capital) that maybe what they are observing is not some eternal and immutable “human nature”, but, rather, the social capital of capitalism doing one of the things it is supposed to do: creating and reinforcing the very “human nature” (and associated human values, behaviors and proclivities) that is necessary for the functioning, imperatives (e.g. mass consumption, markets, profits, market shares etc) and expanded reproduction of capitalism itself. These proponents also deny that these supposed eternal and immutable propensities and proclivities of “human nature”, operating on the micro levels of the economy, when aggregated to the macro levels, can, rather than producing optimal macro outcomes, instead, produce social chaos, instability, mass alienation, environmental degradation, hollowing-out of industrial bases, involuntary unemployment, lack of mass access to health care, loss of mass acceptance of the system, etc.
Here we have systems through which forces of supply and demand for various commodities interact—markets. They are often portrayed as rather technical, mechanical, impersonal and endogenously self-equilibrating (in response to “exogenous” shocks) sub-systems that are relatively value-free, requiring only supporting institutions of private property and a relatively business-friendly and non-interventionist state. Markets are said to represent the most superior (in terms of narrow and contrived definitions of “efficiency” and the greatest good for the greatest number) mechanisms (that stand opposed to the mechanisms of tradition and command) for posing and solving the classical “What”, “How” and “For Whom” questions faced by all societies at all levels.
The neo-liberal and neoclassical narratives operate like “String Theory” (“The Theory of Everything”) in Physics. Where the narratives and visions of Quantum Mechanics at the micro or particle level (focusing on micro chaos and only probabilities and no certainties) contradict the narratives and visions of General Relativity on the macro levels (focusing on general order, equilibrium, stability, symmetry and certainty) the claim is made that String Theory bridges and reconciles the two contradictory visions and narratives. The same claim is made by the neo-liberal and neoclassical theorists. When markets are allowed to do what markets do, when they are left relatively free and unfettered by over-regulation, when they are supported by “given” and “appropriate” politico-legal-cultural-social policies and institutions (superstructure or social capital), then, out of the potential chaos of greed/selfishness/profit/utility-driven interactions at the micro level, we get stability, equilibria, efficiency, growth, development, employment, incomes, global competitiveness, comparative-advantage-based trade, invention/innovation, etc on the macro level. The macro “order”, “stability” and “certainties” will supposedly follow from the potential chaos and “probabilities” at the micro level in the long-run; that is, if short-term adjustments and “sacrifices” can be accepted and handled by the masses and the state. The greatest good for the greatest number, consumer and producer “sovereignty”, efficiency, demand and supply reflecting revealed preferences of those with the most dollar votes, political as well as economic democracy and “rising tides lifting all boats” or the so-called “trickle-down effects” are but some of the promises of neo-liberalism and the neoclassical paradigm. As Edward Luttwak, put it:
‘At present, almost all elite Americans, with corporate chiefs and fashionable economists in the lead, are utterly convinced that they have discovered the winning formula for economic success—good for every country, rich or poor, good for all individuals willing and able to heed the message, and of course, good for elite Americans: PRIVATIZATION + DEREGULATION = TURBO-CAPITALISM = PROSPERITY’ 2
Markets, the neo-liberal and neoclassical proponents argue, are the ultimate in democratic institutions; even more democratic than de jure institutions such as legislatures, voting, elections, government etc. Consumers, looking to maximize total utility, with given incomes, expectations, information about prices and preferences cast their dollar votes while producers, driven by the imperatives to maximize and realize total profits, with given technologies, information about prices, and given resources respond to those with the most dollar votes; they act like ongoing public referenda according to this narrative. And then, markets do what market do:1) commodification; 2) price determination; 3) act as information systems (about conditions, trends and profit/utility opportunities); 4) resource allocation; 5) rationing; 6) clearing surpluses and shortages.
Supply and demand interact and prices are determined. Prices communicate information about market conditions, trends and possibilities and allow calculation/estimation of comparative profit or utility potentials by sellers and buyers in order for them, as “sovereign individuals”, to determine what is likely to maximize total profits or utility and thus What shall be produced or consumed. Prices of inputs and outputs, along with the imperatives to minimize total cost on the supply side, or maximize total utility on the demand side, then allow determination of “optimal” production and utility functions and thus “How” to produce or consume and the allocations of given resources. Further, prices and relative prices of commodities answer the “For Whom” question through rationing (those willing to pay the most are most likely to get the commodities being supplied) while the relative “incomes” of inputs (land, labor and capital) and supposedly based upon their relative marginal contributions to the value of total output, reflect and shape the distributions incomes and wealth among the owners and sellers of those inputs.
It is all a nice and neat narrative. In the neoclassical theory and narrative: all exchanges are “voluntary” and mutually beneficial to the participants otherwise they would not have occurred; causality is unidirectional with “ultimate” independent variables (e.g. tastes and incomes on the demand side and technology and input costs on the supply side) acting as “exogenous variables” that trigger endogenous and self-equilibrating responses in and through markets; the economy is thus propelled from equilibrium state (harmony and balance of contending interests) to equilibrium state in response to exogenous shocks and variables.
The determinants of those “exogenous independent variables” are not the subject of inquiry for the neoclassical/neo-liberals. They have little or nothing to say about the real-world of monopolies, oligopolies, engineered supply and demand magnitudes and elasticities (e.g. Enron), administered prices, imperialism, social systems engineering, ideologically-driven embargos, asymmetric information, asymmetric ownership, asymmetric powers in international organizations like the UN or WTO, asymmetric access to political influence and justice, etc. These real-world phenomena are never even discussed in their textbooks let alone seen as inexorable or likely outcomes of the systemic structures and survival imperatives of capitalism itself. If these phenomena are ever even recognized, they are dismissed as simple anomalies and exceptions not disturbing the overall narratives.
When the widening and deepening of markets, market relations and market institutions result in such crises as recurring and mounting unemployment, environmental degradation, wealth and income inequality, alienation among the youth, commodification of the “sacred”, inflation, loss of mass access to health care, increasing capital and labor migration, losses of traditional societies, budget and trade deficits, exchange-rate instability, etc, such outcomes are typically characterized by the neo-liberals and neoclassicals as either “growing pains” in countries like China3, or, in market-based economies, that have been “growing” for some time and in which some of the same crises are nonetheless evident, such crises are said to be the result of excessive government intervention and regulation, lack of appropriate and supporting politico-legal institutions (the subject of this symposium), imperfect information, non-market (government) corruption, trade protectionism, etc—not letting markets freely do what markets do.
Systemic Imperatives of Market-based Economies
Under market-based—capitalist—economies and processes, all entities, whether individuals, firms, organizations or even whole economies in global competition, are locked into certain fundamental and interrelated imperatives that shape what might be termed the “teleological logic” of capitalism. These fundamental survival-competitive imperatives also apply—in varying degrees—to socialist social formations when operating in global markets governed by capitalist institutions as well as to entities operating in and through markets within socialist social formations. These interrelated fundamental imperatives are:
1) Realization of Maximum Possible Total Profits;
2) Accumulation of Capital: Expanded Reproduction (Widening and Deepening) of the Capital Base and the Capital-Labor Relationship;
3) Maximization of Productivity and Enhanced “Efficiency”;
4) Effective Competition.
These competitive entities (individuals, groups, firms and whole national economies) must attempt to produce and actually realize maximum possible profits in order to have the retained earnings and/or creditworthiness as a necessary—but not sufficient—condition for continual expanded reproduction of their productive bases. These entities must continually attempt to reproduce and expand (widening and deepening) their productive bases and relations as a necessary—but not sufficient—condition of maximization of productivity and overall efficiency. These entities must attempt to maximize productivity and enhance overall efficiency as a necessary—but not sufficient—condition of effective competition (leading to expanded market share and power, name recognition, etc). And these competitive entities must attempt to effectively compete as a necessary—but not sufficient—condition of further production and realization of maximum possible total profits. Further, these fundamental imperatives of survival and effective competition create further derivative imperatives that shape the content, parameters and effects of human behavior as well as of “human nature” itself. For example, tactics such as outsourcing, union busting, not paying true costs of profits/benefits received and/or not receiving true profits/benefits for costs paid, or environmental degradation, flow from the imperative to minimize total costs (along with the greed and selfishness celebrated by the social capital of capitalism) that itself flows from the imperative to effectively compete that flows from the imperative to realize maximize possible total profits.
Different systems embody, create and reinforce different structures, contradictions, conditions and imperatives of survival within those structures and under conditions that in turn shape the content, frequency, effects and “permissibility” or taboos of human behavior. One of the purposes of social capital is to create, teach, reinforce, sanction, celebrate, legitimate or de-legitimate certain relationships, values, norms, customs, institutions, habits, myths, traditions, ideologies and paradigms in accordance with certain systemic imperatives among which is the imperative for expanded reproduction of the whole system itself. Sometimes, however, the types of habits, norms, values, paradigms and behaviors most necessary on the micro level, may, when aggregated, produce macro effects or contradictions opposite of those intended or predicted from behaviors on the micro levels.
From the perspective of the “profits-for-power-and-power-for-profits” and competitive imperatives of a typical businessperson or entity in a market-based/driven economy, the type of person/customer that would be ideal would likely possess the traits and proclivities of Homo Oeconomicus incarnate. This person would typically be: narcissistic; highly subject to fads and peer pressure; unable to delay gratification—wants it all and wants it now; predatory and calculating—for the next profit or utility opportunity; unable to assess real and long-term costs and benefits—caught-up in the illusory, the superficial and in the moment; a pleasure-obsessed conspicuous consumer— acquiring and expressing identity and “individuality” through consumption and types of commodities consumed; highly competitive; materialistic; acquisitive; rational—but only in the narrow and bounded sense; self-centered and self-absorbed; unwilling to sacrifice in the short-term for long-term goals or a transcendent causes; willing to go into debt to finance current conspicuous consumption; ultra-individualistic equating individualism with “individuality.”;etc.
This type of “Homo Oeconomicus”, celebrated by and the cornerstone of neoclassical economic theory, is, however, for most people, not the type of person one would like to have as a son or daughter-in law, friend, mother or father, husband or wife, brother or sister, member of a military unit in combat, voter, public servant, neighbor during a natural disaster or someone involved in or guiding socialist construction. Indeed, even within capitalist social formations, the requisite social capital of markets and capitalism, without which markets could not do what markets typically do—and that is necessary for the expanded reproduction of capitalism as a whole—involves potentially contradictory missions or purposes. On the one hand, the purpose of social capital in market-based societies is to teach, legitimate and reinforce those ideas, values, norms, habits, myths, traditions, behaviors, proclivities, institutions and productive and other relationships necessary for creating and expanding markets, profits, capital accumulation, etc—e.g. values and proclivities such as ultra-individualism, conspicuous consumerism, etc. On the other hand, the purpose of social capital also involves teaching, legitimating and reinforcing certain forms and levels of social awareness and concern, cohesion, cooperation, reciprocity, civic engagement, personal sacrifice for the nation, buying into the system, etc.
When markets are introduced and expanded within socialist social formations, the requisite social capital of markets becomes potentially not only internally contradictory with respect to expanded reproduction of markets and market-based processes, but also, such requisite social capital can—and will likely—become a destructive and sabotaging force against socialist construction and the expanded reproduction of socialist relations and institutions—even allowing for some varying and diverse definitions of what socialism is about and the positive effects of markets in terms of building productive forces rapidly.
The Evolving Concept of Social Capital
The term social capital was first coined in 1916 by L. Judson Hanifan4 to refer to social networks and institutions/norms of reciprocity (goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse) associated with them. Hanifan, by his own admission, employed the term “capital” (anything that has been produced and used to produce—for profitable exchange—something else) to catch the eye--and patronage--of the business community. Hanifan suggested that these social networks and institutions could, on micro as well as macro levels, enhance productivity, competitiveness, employment and income creation, etc. in some of the same ways that physical capital and human capital can, also, produce the same effects.
Subsequent to Hanifan’s apparent coinage of the term social capital, the term and concept was reintroduced—and partly redefined—at least six times up to the present: 1) in the 1950s by sociologist John Seeley5 to refer to ‘memberships in clubs and associations’ that act just like negotiable securities in producing career advancement and tangible returns to individuals; 2) in the 1960s, by urban economist Jane Jacobs6 to refer to the collective value and effects of informal neighborhood ties and associations; 3) in the 1970s by economist Glenn Loury7 to refer to wider social ties lost by African Americans as one of the legacies of slavery; 4) in the 1980s by social theorist Pierre Bourdieu8 to refer to the actual or potential resources linked to durable networks of institutionalized relationships of mutual recognition and assistance; 5) in the mid-1980s by economist Ekkehart Schlicht9 to refer to the economic value and productivity-enhancing effects of organizations, moral order, cooperation and cohesion; 6) in the late 1980s by James Coleman10 to refer, as Hanifan had done, to the social arrangements, relationships and institutions creating and shaping the environment or social context of education.
The above-mentioned definitions of social capital are all closely related and narrow in their focus. They focus on immediate relationships—institutionalized or informal—and the networks, and norms of reciprocity that serve as tangible assets and have economic impacts not only on the micro level (personal career advancement, obtaining employment, political influence, personal safety etc) but also on the macro level in terms of enhancing productivity, reducing information and transactions costs, enhancing competitiveness, enhancing community safety and reducing crime, encouraging cooperation, limiting destructive forms and levels of competition etc.
A wider definition of social capital, one employed in this paper, is closely akin to the concept of Social Structures of Accumulation (SSA)11 which involves a complex of institutions (political, social and economic) and domestic and international relations supporting and legitimating the process of capital accumulation (which includes not only accumulation of wealth and physical/human capital but also expanded reproduction of fundamental and defining socio-economic-political relationships of the whole system itself. This is also close to the classical Marxist concept of “Superstructure”.
Even allowing for the more narrow definition of social capital employed by Putnam et al., recent studies reveal the steady erosion of social capital in the U.S. in the last thirty years. They have more or less consistently documented solid trends reflecting steady declines in various indices of: political and civic engagement (voting, contributions, electoral participation, signing petitions, writing polemics, working on political campaigns, running for political office); community involvement ( charitable work and donations, blood donations, religious participation, memberships in professional associations, clubs and societies). These studies have also documented steady increases in various indices of alienation and apathy among various age cohorts of the U.S. population (dinners outside the home, incidents of road rage, polling on social trust and trust in political figures, daily television viewing and percent of population using television as central form of entertainment, percent of population disobeying traffic signs and rules, polling on greed trumping community involvement among college freshmen, suicide rates in various age cohorts, percentage of population reporting frequent malaise—headaches, insomnia, indigestion—and percentage of population reporting overwork and multiple jobs as a matter of necessity rather than choice).
These trends in the U.S., revealing steady erosions of social capital with the ripening of U.S. capitalism, are highly correlated with other social outcomes: increases in child abuse; decreases in quality and effectiveness of educational institutions; increasing television watching and reduced effective literacy among children; increases in crime; decreases in health and perceptions of being healthy among the general population; decreases in perceptions of social-connectedness among the general population; increasing membership in dangerous cults like offering messiahs, instant gratification and easy answers to complex problems; increasing divorce rates; increasing tax evasion, anti-statism and distrust of politicians or political solutions to current problems; decreasing percentages of the population willing to trust or help fellow citizens who are strangers.
When the work of Putnam et al was extended to the international level, exploring similar data and trends in eight major capitalist societies (Australia, France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Great Britain and the United States), in all cases, except Sweden, the trends in social-capital-erosion in countries other than the United States strongly paralleled (in timing and patterns of change) those of the United States.12 Also paralleling these trends, and consistent with the wider definition and socializing-ideological functions of social capital, in all of these countries, the central themes of culture (television, movies, literature, games, art, music, etc) are increasingly centered on and around promoting and celebrating narcissism, ultra-individualism, competition, ruthlessness, duplicity, pleasure maximization, instant gratification, materialism, luck, returns without sacrifice, predatory calculation and manipulation and other concepts and values definitely useful from the standpoint of mass consumption and profitability but also definitely inimical to socialist construction however one may define socialism.
Conclusion
China has come a long way in promoting levels and forms of human progress for the broad masses of people that were simply unknown in the China before 1949. This achievement is truly remarkable when one considers the legacies that were inherited along with the extent to which China has been subject to imperial aggression, isolation, ostracization, embargos, social systems engineering campaigns, demonization and even outright threats of nuclear annihilation—causing diversions of precious and scarce resources for defense instead of directly into development. The current problems that China faces simply cannot wait and the imperative to develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible to deal with the myriad issues, constraints, inequalities and crises faced by China should be evident to all but the most insulated and callous of observers and critics. Certainly socialism cannot be built and defended without the participation and allegiance of the broad masses of Chinese people who must, first of all, simply survive in order to participate in socialist construction.
On the other hand, socialism is not simply about building productive forces or dealing with the “What, How and For Whom” questions differently than they are dealt with under capitalism. Socialism is not an end-state but rather a long protracted process and it is also about teaching and reinforcing human values and relationships that are very different from—and stand in contradiction/opposition to—the types of values and relationships embodied in the social capital of capitalism and most conducive to the expanded reproduction of capitalism: greed, selfishness, ultra-individualism, competition, narcissism, instant-gratification, predation for profit/utility opportunities, inequalities of wealth and incomes, commodification of everything including the sacred, etc. As William Hinton summed it up:
“Socialism is after all not something given, something fixed. It is a process, a transition from one state to another…As such it bears within it many contradictions, many inequalities that cannot be done away with overnight or even in the course of several years or several decades…Yet as long as these inequalities exist they generate privilege, individualism, careerism, and bourgeois ideology. Without a conscious and protracted effort to combat these tendencies they can grow into an important social force. They can and do create new bourgeois individuals who gather as a new privileged elite and ultimately as a new exploiting class. Thus socialism can be peacefully transformed back into capitalism.”13
The basic values, institutions and relationships most conducive to the expanded reproduction of capitalism act as weeds in the garden of socialism threatening to choke off the new flowers in the emerging garden. That is precisely why the introduction and expansion of market and market-based institutions, values, relations and imperatives within the framework of a socialist social formation, which may be tactically necessary as was the case with the NEP in the Soviet Union, must be handled carefully and from a position of strength and willingness to sacrifice if necessary. This is especially the case when it is clear that the major capitalist power, the U.S., seeks hegemony in the global community of nations and regards itself as locked into a global war of conflicting systems and ideologies (Capitalism versus Socialism) in which it is prepared to use cultural, political, economic and military means—covertly or overtly—to ensure the victory of neo-liberal capitalism and its associated institutions, values and relationships on a global scale. As James Petras put it:
“U.S cultural imperialism has two major goals, one economic and the other political: to capture markets for its cultural commodities and to establish hegemony by shaping popular consciousness. The export of entertainment is one of the most important sources of capital accumulation and global profits displacing manufacturing exports. In the political sphere, cultural imperialism plays a major role in dissociating people from their cultural roots and traditions of solidarity, replacing them with media created needs which change with every publicity campaign. The political effect in to alienate people from traditional class and community bonds, atomizing and separating individuals from each other.” 14
No doubt that significant changes in institutions—political, legal, social, cultural and economic—will take place as markets and market institutions/relations/values are introduced more and more in China to help to handle domestic conditions and facilitate China’s increasing integration into a global economy organized on capitalist foundations and categories. The real challenges will be not to lose sight of the ultimate goals and necessity of socialism, to appreciate the roles and effects of social capital (along with physical and human capital—under socialism as well as under capitalism), to assess and appreciate the true costs (private plus social) and true benefits (private plus social) of markets, market relationships, values and institutions under socialist construction, and, not to wind up “bringing a tiger in through the back door to chase out the wolf at the front door.”
Footnotes
“Report of the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of China”, 2002 quoted in “Some Basics on China “(online edition) by D. Raja and He Yong, Political Affairs Net, at http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/256/1/32, p. 1
Edward Luttvak quoted in Frank, Thomas, One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism and the End of Economic Democracy, Anchor Books, N.Y. 2000, p. 17
“China’s Growing Pains” in The Economist, August 26, 2004
Hanifan, Lyda Judson, “The Rural School Community Center”, Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 67 (1916): pp. 130-138. Note: An excellent overview of the development of the concept of social capital, for which I am indebted, can be found in: Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, N.Y. 2000 and also in Putnam, Robert D (ed), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, N.Y. 2002
Seeley, John R, Sim, Alexander and Loosley, Elizabeth; Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban Life, Basic Books, N.Y. 1956
Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, N.Y. 1961
Loury, Glenn, “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences” in Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination, Wallace, P.A. and LeMund, A (eds),
Lexington Books, Lexington Mass. 1977
Bourdieu, Pierre, “Forms of Capital” in Handbook of Theory and Research for The Sociology of Education Richardson, John (Ed), Greenwood Books, N.Y. 1983
Schlicht, Ekkehart, “Cognitive Dissonance in Economics” in Normengeleitetes Verhalten in den Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, 1984
Coleman, James, “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital” in American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1988)
see Diebolt, Claude, “Towards a New Social Structure of Accumulation” in
Historical and Social Research, Vol 27, No. 2/3 2002; also see Gordon, David M:
“Stages of Accumulation and Long Economic Cycles” in Hopkins, T and Wallerstein, I (eds) Processes of the World System, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1980; Bowles, S “Social Institutions and Technical Change” in Di Matteo, M; Goodwin, R.M. and Vercelli, A. (eds) in Technological and Social Factors in Long-Term Fluctuations, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1989; and Kotz, D.M; McDonnoug, T; Reich, M (eds) Social Structures of Accumulation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994
Putnam, Robert (ed) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in
Contemporary Society, Oxford Univ. Press, N.Y. 2002
Hinton, William Turning Point in China, p. 20 quoted in Monthly Review , July
-August 2004, Vol. 56, No. 3 p. 128
14. Petras, James, “Cultural Imperialism in the Late Twentieth Century”, internet Ed
The Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-Based Processes and Socialist Construction
By James M. Craven (Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi)
Professor, Economics; Chairman, Business Division, Clark College, Vancouver, WA.
“Every nation in the world has its own history and its own strengths and weaknesses. Since earliest times excellent things and rotten things have mingled together and accumulated over long periods. To sort them out and distinguish the essence from the dregs is a difficult task…Of course this does not mean that we do not need to learn from foreign countries. We must learn many things from foreign countries and master them…We learn foreign things because we want to study and develop Chinese things…We must not be like the Empress Dowager Tz’u-hsi who blindly rejected all foreign things. Blindly rejecting foreign things is like blindly worshipping them. Both are incorrect and harmful…In learning from foreign countries we must oppose both conservatism and dogmatism…To study foreign things does not mean importing everything, lock, stock and barrel…We must give our attention to the critical acceptance of foreign things, and especially to the introduction of things from the socialist world and from the progressive people of the capitalist world…”
(Chairman Mao Zedong, “Talk to Music Workers”, pp. 85-88, in Chairman Mao Talks to the People: Talks and Letters 1956-1971, Stuart Schram ed., Pantheon Books, N.Y. 1974)
Introduction
The People’s Republic of China stands as one of the major political-economic powers and social formations in the world today; it ranks about sixth place in terms of most economic aggregates commonly used to rank-order different economies in size and influence in the global economy. For a nation that had been kept backward, fragmented, feudal and colonized by foreign imperial powers and internal contradictions until the People’s Revolution in 1949, and, for a nation that has been subject to imperial encirclement, threats of nuclear annihilation, destabilization campaigns and demonization and ostracization in the global economy for many years, with a large population of 1.4 billion people with myriad wants and needs awaiting fulfillment, the present level of development and standing of China is no small achievement And there is no doubt, in the opinions of many observers, that “socialist values and consciousness”, created and reinforced by the developing “social capital” of Chinese socialism, have constituted a significant and material force in those achievements—often against overwhelming odds and against technologically-sophisticated and vicious foreign forces bent on isolating, demonizing, destabilizing and sabotaging socialist construction in China.
Yet despite the tremendous advances made by the Chinese people, much work remains to be done and many wants and needs remain unfulfilled causing China to explore, at various periods of Chinese history, diverse approaches, models, instruments, measures and paths of growth and development. According to the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2002:
“We must be aware that China is in the primary stage of socialism and will remain so, for a long time to come. The well-off life we are leading is still at a low level; it is not all-inclusive and is very uneven. The principal contradiction in our society is still one between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and the backwardness of social production. Our productive forces, science, technology and education are still relatively backward, so there is a long way to go before we achieve industrialization and modernization.” 1
Since 1978, China has experienced the progressive widening of markets, market relationships and categories along with some changes in political, economic, cultural, legal and social institutions and superstructure necessary to facilitate widening and deepening market involvement in socialist construction. Some of these policies and initiatives have included: export-led growth; increasing reliance on long-term foreign direct investment (FDI both into and originating from China); increasing privatization; lowering of trade barriers; decentralization of planning; increased authority for (and responsibilities on) local governments; increasing integration into global networks of manufacturing, finance, trade; critical technology transfers; new forms of enterprise organization (e.g. Individual Family Contracts (IFCs) in agriculture, Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), privatization and self-financing of state-owned enterprises(SOEs) and SBCs or share-based cooperatives); labor market reforms; currency exchange-rate stabilization; etc.
But the debates, inside and outside of China, have continued to rage: Does this emerging market socialism model represent simply a necessary—and necessarily hybrid—model that is based upon, and is addressing, the myriad real-world legacies, constraints, conditions and forces with which China has to deal, and that will, or can possibly, result in using markets and capitalism to build socialism in China?. Or, as some would argue, does this hybrid model represent the reverse of using socialism (real or nominal) to build and extend markets, market-based processes and wholesale capitalism thus subjectively or objectively sabotaging long-run conditions and prospects for ongoing socialist construction throughout China?
The Allure of Neo-Liberalism
The neo-liberal narrative, and the narrative of neoclassical economics upon which it is largely based, are quite alluring and seductive. Starting with some unproved—and largely metaphysical—“axioms and postulates that form a view of eternal and immutable “human nature”, basic economic—and even non-economic—outcomes are said to be the inevitable and predictable results of the unfolding or playing-out of human nature—on both the supply and demand sides of a given market—under “given” conditions, institutional arrangements and constraints; and the macro is said to be nothing more than the sum of the aggregated micro. What could be more natural and “efficient”, the neoclassicals argue, than a system (Capitalism) that, rather than trying to deny or suppress or change eternal and immutable “human nature”, instead, harnesses, celebrates and utilizes human propensities and instincts that form human nature in order to produce optimal social outcomes not even intended by the “Economic Man” (who is asserted to be atomistic, calculating, rational, selfish, competitive, egoistic, materialistic) “agent” who is owning, buying or selling only for himself/herself in accordance with his or her own “rational self-interest? It of course never occurs to the proponents of neo-liberalism and neoclassical economics (who have only recently got around to the concept of social capital) that maybe what they are observing is not some eternal and immutable “human nature”, but, rather, the social capital of capitalism doing one of the things it is supposed to do: creating and reinforcing the very “human nature” (and associated human values, behaviors and proclivities) that is necessary for the functioning, imperatives (e.g. mass consumption, markets, profits, market shares etc) and expanded reproduction of capitalism itself. These proponents also deny that these supposed eternal and immutable propensities and proclivities of “human nature”, operating on the micro levels of the economy, when aggregated to the macro levels, can, rather than producing optimal macro outcomes, instead, produce social chaos, instability, mass alienation, environmental degradation, hollowing-out of industrial bases, involuntary unemployment, lack of mass access to health care, loss of mass acceptance of the system, etc.
Here we have systems through which forces of supply and demand for various commodities interact—markets. They are often portrayed as rather technical, mechanical, impersonal and endogenously self-equilibrating (in response to “exogenous” shocks) sub-systems that are relatively value-free, requiring only supporting institutions of private property and a relatively business-friendly and non-interventionist state. Markets are said to represent the most superior (in terms of narrow and contrived definitions of “efficiency” and the greatest good for the greatest number) mechanisms (that stand opposed to the mechanisms of tradition and command) for posing and solving the classical “What”, “How” and “For Whom” questions faced by all societies at all levels.
The neo-liberal and neoclassical narratives operate like “String Theory” (“The Theory of Everything”) in Physics. Where the narratives and visions of Quantum Mechanics at the micro or particle level (focusing on micro chaos and only probabilities and no certainties) contradict the narratives and visions of General Relativity on the macro levels (focusing on general order, equilibrium, stability, symmetry and certainty) the claim is made that String Theory bridges and reconciles the two contradictory visions and narratives. The same claim is made by the neo-liberal and neoclassical theorists. When markets are allowed to do what markets do, when they are left relatively free and unfettered by over-regulation, when they are supported by “given” and “appropriate” politico-legal-cultural-social policies and institutions (superstructure or social capital), then, out of the potential chaos of greed/selfishness/profit/utility-driven interactions at the micro level, we get stability, equilibria, efficiency, growth, development, employment, incomes, global competitiveness, comparative-advantage-based trade, invention/innovation, etc on the macro level. The macro “order”, “stability” and “certainties” will supposedly follow from the potential chaos and “probabilities” at the micro level in the long-run; that is, if short-term adjustments and “sacrifices” can be accepted and handled by the masses and the state. The greatest good for the greatest number, consumer and producer “sovereignty”, efficiency, demand and supply reflecting revealed preferences of those with the most dollar votes, political as well as economic democracy and “rising tides lifting all boats” or the so-called “trickle-down effects” are but some of the promises of neo-liberalism and the neoclassical paradigm. As Edward Luttwak, put it:
‘At present, almost all elite Americans, with corporate chiefs and fashionable economists in the lead, are utterly convinced that they have discovered the winning formula for economic success—good for every country, rich or poor, good for all individuals willing and able to heed the message, and of course, good for elite Americans: PRIVATIZATION + DEREGULATION = TURBO-CAPITALISM = PROSPERITY’ 2
Markets, the neo-liberal and neoclassical proponents argue, are the ultimate in democratic institutions; even more democratic than de jure institutions such as legislatures, voting, elections, government etc. Consumers, looking to maximize total utility, with given incomes, expectations, information about prices and preferences cast their dollar votes while producers, driven by the imperatives to maximize and realize total profits, with given technologies, information about prices, and given resources respond to those with the most dollar votes; they act like ongoing public referenda according to this narrative. And then, markets do what market do:1) commodification; 2) price determination; 3) act as information systems (about conditions, trends and profit/utility opportunities); 4) resource allocation; 5) rationing; 6) clearing surpluses and shortages.
Supply and demand interact and prices are determined. Prices communicate information about market conditions, trends and possibilities and allow calculation/estimation of comparative profit or utility potentials by sellers and buyers in order for them, as “sovereign individuals”, to determine what is likely to maximize total profits or utility and thus What shall be produced or consumed. Prices of inputs and outputs, along with the imperatives to minimize total cost on the supply side, or maximize total utility on the demand side, then allow determination of “optimal” production and utility functions and thus “How” to produce or consume and the allocations of given resources. Further, prices and relative prices of commodities answer the “For Whom” question through rationing (those willing to pay the most are most likely to get the commodities being supplied) while the relative “incomes” of inputs (land, labor and capital) and supposedly based upon their relative marginal contributions to the value of total output, reflect and shape the distributions incomes and wealth among the owners and sellers of those inputs.
It is all a nice and neat narrative. In the neoclassical theory and narrative: all exchanges are “voluntary” and mutually beneficial to the participants otherwise they would not have occurred; causality is unidirectional with “ultimate” independent variables (e.g. tastes and incomes on the demand side and technology and input costs on the supply side) acting as “exogenous variables” that trigger endogenous and self-equilibrating responses in and through markets; the economy is thus propelled from equilibrium state (harmony and balance of contending interests) to equilibrium state in response to exogenous shocks and variables.
The determinants of those “exogenous independent variables” are not the subject of inquiry for the neoclassical/neo-liberals. They have little or nothing to say about the real-world of monopolies, oligopolies, engineered supply and demand magnitudes and elasticities (e.g. Enron), administered prices, imperialism, social systems engineering, ideologically-driven embargos, asymmetric information, asymmetric ownership, asymmetric powers in international organizations like the UN or WTO, asymmetric access to political influence and justice, etc. These real-world phenomena are never even discussed in their textbooks let alone seen as inexorable or likely outcomes of the systemic structures and survival imperatives of capitalism itself. If these phenomena are ever even recognized, they are dismissed as simple anomalies and exceptions not disturbing the overall narratives.
When the widening and deepening of markets, market relations and market institutions result in such crises as recurring and mounting unemployment, environmental degradation, wealth and income inequality, alienation among the youth, commodification of the “sacred”, inflation, loss of mass access to health care, increasing capital and labor migration, losses of traditional societies, budget and trade deficits, exchange-rate instability, etc, such outcomes are typically characterized by the neo-liberals and neoclassicals as either “growing pains” in countries like China3, or, in market-based economies, that have been “growing” for some time and in which some of the same crises are nonetheless evident, such crises are said to be the result of excessive government intervention and regulation, lack of appropriate and supporting politico-legal institutions (the subject of this symposium), imperfect information, non-market (government) corruption, trade protectionism, etc—not letting markets freely do what markets do.
Systemic Imperatives of Market-based Economies
Under market-based—capitalist—economies and processes, all entities, whether individuals, firms, organizations or even whole economies in global competition, are locked into certain fundamental and interrelated imperatives that shape what might be termed the “teleological logic” of capitalism. These fundamental survival-competitive imperatives also apply—in varying degrees—to socialist social formations when operating in global markets governed by capitalist institutions as well as to entities operating in and through markets within socialist social formations. These interrelated fundamental imperatives are:
1) Realization of Maximum Possible Total Profits;
2) Accumulation of Capital: Expanded Reproduction (Widening and Deepening) of the Capital Base and the Capital-Labor Relationship;
3) Maximization of Productivity and Enhanced “Efficiency”;
4) Effective Competition.
These competitive entities (individuals, groups, firms and whole national economies) must attempt to produce and actually realize maximum possible profits in order to have the retained earnings and/or creditworthiness as a necessary—but not sufficient—condition for continual expanded reproduction of their productive bases. These entities must continually attempt to reproduce and expand (widening and deepening) their productive bases and relations as a necessary—but not sufficient—condition of maximization of productivity and overall efficiency. These entities must attempt to maximize productivity and enhance overall efficiency as a necessary—but not sufficient—condition of effective competition (leading to expanded market share and power, name recognition, etc). And these competitive entities must attempt to effectively compete as a necessary—but not sufficient—condition of further production and realization of maximum possible total profits. Further, these fundamental imperatives of survival and effective competition create further derivative imperatives that shape the content, parameters and effects of human behavior as well as of “human nature” itself. For example, tactics such as outsourcing, union busting, not paying true costs of profits/benefits received and/or not receiving true profits/benefits for costs paid, or environmental degradation, flow from the imperative to minimize total costs (along with the greed and selfishness celebrated by the social capital of capitalism) that itself flows from the imperative to effectively compete that flows from the imperative to realize maximize possible total profits.
Different systems embody, create and reinforce different structures, contradictions, conditions and imperatives of survival within those structures and under conditions that in turn shape the content, frequency, effects and “permissibility” or taboos of human behavior. One of the purposes of social capital is to create, teach, reinforce, sanction, celebrate, legitimate or de-legitimate certain relationships, values, norms, customs, institutions, habits, myths, traditions, ideologies and paradigms in accordance with certain systemic imperatives among which is the imperative for expanded reproduction of the whole system itself. Sometimes, however, the types of habits, norms, values, paradigms and behaviors most necessary on the micro level, may, when aggregated, produce macro effects or contradictions opposite of those intended or predicted from behaviors on the micro levels.
From the perspective of the “profits-for-power-and-power-for-profits” and competitive imperatives of a typical businessperson or entity in a market-based/driven economy, the type of person/customer that would be ideal would likely possess the traits and proclivities of Homo Oeconomicus incarnate. This person would typically be: narcissistic; highly subject to fads and peer pressure; unable to delay gratification—wants it all and wants it now; predatory and calculating—for the next profit or utility opportunity; unable to assess real and long-term costs and benefits—caught-up in the illusory, the superficial and in the moment; a pleasure-obsessed conspicuous consumer— acquiring and expressing identity and “individuality” through consumption and types of commodities consumed; highly competitive; materialistic; acquisitive; rational—but only in the narrow and bounded sense; self-centered and self-absorbed; unwilling to sacrifice in the short-term for long-term goals or a transcendent causes; willing to go into debt to finance current conspicuous consumption; ultra-individualistic equating individualism with “individuality.”;etc.
This type of “Homo Oeconomicus”, celebrated by and the cornerstone of neoclassical economic theory, is, however, for most people, not the type of person one would like to have as a son or daughter-in law, friend, mother or father, husband or wife, brother or sister, member of a military unit in combat, voter, public servant, neighbor during a natural disaster or someone involved in or guiding socialist construction. Indeed, even within capitalist social formations, the requisite social capital of markets and capitalism, without which markets could not do what markets typically do—and that is necessary for the expanded reproduction of capitalism as a whole—involves potentially contradictory missions or purposes. On the one hand, the purpose of social capital in market-based societies is to teach, legitimate and reinforce those ideas, values, norms, habits, myths, traditions, behaviors, proclivities, institutions and productive and other relationships necessary for creating and expanding markets, profits, capital accumulation, etc—e.g. values and proclivities such as ultra-individualism, conspicuous consumerism, etc. On the other hand, the purpose of social capital also involves teaching, legitimating and reinforcing certain forms and levels of social awareness and concern, cohesion, cooperation, reciprocity, civic engagement, personal sacrifice for the nation, buying into the system, etc.
When markets are introduced and expanded within socialist social formations, the requisite social capital of markets becomes potentially not only internally contradictory with respect to expanded reproduction of markets and market-based processes, but also, such requisite social capital can—and will likely—become a destructive and sabotaging force against socialist construction and the expanded reproduction of socialist relations and institutions—even allowing for some varying and diverse definitions of what socialism is about and the positive effects of markets in terms of building productive forces rapidly.
The Evolving Concept of Social Capital
The term social capital was first coined in 1916 by L. Judson Hanifan4 to refer to social networks and institutions/norms of reciprocity (goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse) associated with them. Hanifan, by his own admission, employed the term “capital” (anything that has been produced and used to produce—for profitable exchange—something else) to catch the eye--and patronage--of the business community. Hanifan suggested that these social networks and institutions could, on micro as well as macro levels, enhance productivity, competitiveness, employment and income creation, etc. in some of the same ways that physical capital and human capital can, also, produce the same effects.
Subsequent to Hanifan’s apparent coinage of the term social capital, the term and concept was reintroduced—and partly redefined—at least six times up to the present: 1) in the 1950s by sociologist John Seeley5 to refer to ‘memberships in clubs and associations’ that act just like negotiable securities in producing career advancement and tangible returns to individuals; 2) in the 1960s, by urban economist Jane Jacobs6 to refer to the collective value and effects of informal neighborhood ties and associations; 3) in the 1970s by economist Glenn Loury7 to refer to wider social ties lost by African Americans as one of the legacies of slavery; 4) in the 1980s by social theorist Pierre Bourdieu8 to refer to the actual or potential resources linked to durable networks of institutionalized relationships of mutual recognition and assistance; 5) in the mid-1980s by economist Ekkehart Schlicht9 to refer to the economic value and productivity-enhancing effects of organizations, moral order, cooperation and cohesion; 6) in the late 1980s by James Coleman10 to refer, as Hanifan had done, to the social arrangements, relationships and institutions creating and shaping the environment or social context of education.
The above-mentioned definitions of social capital are all closely related and narrow in their focus. They focus on immediate relationships—institutionalized or informal—and the networks, and norms of reciprocity that serve as tangible assets and have economic impacts not only on the micro level (personal career advancement, obtaining employment, political influence, personal safety etc) but also on the macro level in terms of enhancing productivity, reducing information and transactions costs, enhancing competitiveness, enhancing community safety and reducing crime, encouraging cooperation, limiting destructive forms and levels of competition etc.
A wider definition of social capital, one employed in this paper, is closely akin to the concept of Social Structures of Accumulation (SSA)11 which involves a complex of institutions (political, social and economic) and domestic and international relations supporting and legitimating the process of capital accumulation (which includes not only accumulation of wealth and physical/human capital but also expanded reproduction of fundamental and defining socio-economic-political relationships of the whole system itself. This is also close to the classical Marxist concept of “Superstructure”.
Even allowing for the more narrow definition of social capital employed by Putnam et al., recent studies reveal the steady erosion of social capital in the U.S. in the last thirty years. They have more or less consistently documented solid trends reflecting steady declines in various indices of: political and civic engagement (voting, contributions, electoral participation, signing petitions, writing polemics, working on political campaigns, running for political office); community involvement ( charitable work and donations, blood donations, religious participation, memberships in professional associations, clubs and societies). These studies have also documented steady increases in various indices of alienation and apathy among various age cohorts of the U.S. population (dinners outside the home, incidents of road rage, polling on social trust and trust in political figures, daily television viewing and percent of population using television as central form of entertainment, percent of population disobeying traffic signs and rules, polling on greed trumping community involvement among college freshmen, suicide rates in various age cohorts, percentage of population reporting frequent malaise—headaches, insomnia, indigestion—and percentage of population reporting overwork and multiple jobs as a matter of necessity rather than choice).
These trends in the U.S., revealing steady erosions of social capital with the ripening of U.S. capitalism, are highly correlated with other social outcomes: increases in child abuse; decreases in quality and effectiveness of educational institutions; increasing television watching and reduced effective literacy among children; increases in crime; decreases in health and perceptions of being healthy among the general population; decreases in perceptions of social-connectedness among the general population; increasing membership in dangerous cults like offering messiahs, instant gratification and easy answers to complex problems; increasing divorce rates; increasing tax evasion, anti-statism and distrust of politicians or political solutions to current problems; decreasing percentages of the population willing to trust or help fellow citizens who are strangers.
When the work of Putnam et al was extended to the international level, exploring similar data and trends in eight major capitalist societies (Australia, France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Great Britain and the United States), in all cases, except Sweden, the trends in social-capital-erosion in countries other than the United States strongly paralleled (in timing and patterns of change) those of the United States.12 Also paralleling these trends, and consistent with the wider definition and socializing-ideological functions of social capital, in all of these countries, the central themes of culture (television, movies, literature, games, art, music, etc) are increasingly centered on and around promoting and celebrating narcissism, ultra-individualism, competition, ruthlessness, duplicity, pleasure maximization, instant gratification, materialism, luck, returns without sacrifice, predatory calculation and manipulation and other concepts and values definitely useful from the standpoint of mass consumption and profitability but also definitely inimical to socialist construction however one may define socialism.
Conclusion
China has come a long way in promoting levels and forms of human progress for the broad masses of people that were simply unknown in the China before 1949. This achievement is truly remarkable when one considers the legacies that were inherited along with the extent to which China has been subject to imperial aggression, isolation, ostracization, embargos, social systems engineering campaigns, demonization and even outright threats of nuclear annihilation—causing diversions of precious and scarce resources for defense instead of directly into development. The current problems that China faces simply cannot wait and the imperative to develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible to deal with the myriad issues, constraints, inequalities and crises faced by China should be evident to all but the most insulated and callous of observers and critics. Certainly socialism cannot be built and defended without the participation and allegiance of the broad masses of Chinese people who must, first of all, simply survive in order to participate in socialist construction.
On the other hand, socialism is not simply about building productive forces or dealing with the “What, How and For Whom” questions differently than they are dealt with under capitalism. Socialism is not an end-state but rather a long protracted process and it is also about teaching and reinforcing human values and relationships that are very different from—and stand in contradiction/opposition to—the types of values and relationships embodied in the social capital of capitalism and most conducive to the expanded reproduction of capitalism: greed, selfishness, ultra-individualism, competition, narcissism, instant-gratification, predation for profit/utility opportunities, inequalities of wealth and incomes, commodification of everything including the sacred, etc. As William Hinton summed it up:
“Socialism is after all not something given, something fixed. It is a process, a transition from one state to another…As such it bears within it many contradictions, many inequalities that cannot be done away with overnight or even in the course of several years or several decades…Yet as long as these inequalities exist they generate privilege, individualism, careerism, and bourgeois ideology. Without a conscious and protracted effort to combat these tendencies they can grow into an important social force. They can and do create new bourgeois individuals who gather as a new privileged elite and ultimately as a new exploiting class. Thus socialism can be peacefully transformed back into capitalism.”13
The basic values, institutions and relationships most conducive to the expanded reproduction of capitalism act as weeds in the garden of socialism threatening to choke off the new flowers in the emerging garden. That is precisely why the introduction and expansion of market and market-based institutions, values, relations and imperatives within the framework of a socialist social formation, which may be tactically necessary as was the case with the NEP in the Soviet Union, must be handled carefully and from a position of strength and willingness to sacrifice if necessary. This is especially the case when it is clear that the major capitalist power, the U.S., seeks hegemony in the global community of nations and regards itself as locked into a global war of conflicting systems and ideologies (Capitalism versus Socialism) in which it is prepared to use cultural, political, economic and military means—covertly or overtly—to ensure the victory of neo-liberal capitalism and its associated institutions, values and relationships on a global scale. As James Petras put it:
“U.S cultural imperialism has two major goals, one economic and the other political: to capture markets for its cultural commodities and to establish hegemony by shaping popular consciousness. The export of entertainment is one of the most important sources of capital accumulation and global profits displacing manufacturing exports. In the political sphere, cultural imperialism plays a major role in dissociating people from their cultural roots and traditions of solidarity, replacing them with media created needs which change with every publicity campaign. The political effect in to alienate people from traditional class and community bonds, atomizing and separating individuals from each other.” 14
No doubt that significant changes in institutions—political, legal, social, cultural and economic—will take place as markets and market institutions/relations/values are introduced more and more in China to help to handle domestic conditions and facilitate China’s increasing integration into a global economy organized on capitalist foundations and categories. The real challenges will be not to lose sight of the ultimate goals and necessity of socialism, to appreciate the roles and effects of social capital (along with physical and human capital—under socialism as well as under capitalism), to assess and appreciate the true costs (private plus social) and true benefits (private plus social) of markets, market relationships, values and institutions under socialist construction, and, not to wind up “bringing a tiger in through the back door to chase out the wolf at the front door.”
Footnotes
“Report of the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of China”, 2002 quoted in “Some Basics on China “(online edition) by D. Raja and He Yong, Political Affairs Net, at http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/256/1/32, p. 1
Edward Luttvak quoted in Frank, Thomas, One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism and the End of Economic Democracy, Anchor Books, N.Y. 2000, p. 17
“China’s Growing Pains” in The Economist, August 26, 2004
Hanifan, Lyda Judson, “The Rural School Community Center”, Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 67 (1916): pp. 130-138. Note: An excellent overview of the development of the concept of social capital, for which I am indebted, can be found in: Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, N.Y. 2000 and also in Putnam, Robert D (ed), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, N.Y. 2002
Seeley, John R, Sim, Alexander and Loosley, Elizabeth; Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban Life, Basic Books, N.Y. 1956
Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, N.Y. 1961
Loury, Glenn, “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences” in Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination, Wallace, P.A. and LeMund, A (eds),
Lexington Books, Lexington Mass. 1977
Bourdieu, Pierre, “Forms of Capital” in Handbook of Theory and Research for The Sociology of Education Richardson, John (Ed), Greenwood Books, N.Y. 1983
Schlicht, Ekkehart, “Cognitive Dissonance in Economics” in Normengeleitetes Verhalten in den Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, 1984
Coleman, James, “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital” in American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1988)
see Diebolt, Claude, “Towards a New Social Structure of Accumulation” in
Historical and Social Research, Vol 27, No. 2/3 2002; also see Gordon, David M:
“Stages of Accumulation and Long Economic Cycles” in Hopkins, T and Wallerstein, I (eds) Processes of the World System, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1980; Bowles, S “Social Institutions and Technical Change” in Di Matteo, M; Goodwin, R.M. and Vercelli, A. (eds) in Technological and Social Factors in Long-Term Fluctuations, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1989; and Kotz, D.M; McDonnoug, T; Reich, M (eds) Social Structures of Accumulation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994
Putnam, Robert (ed) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in
Contemporary Society, Oxford Univ. Press, N.Y. 2002
Hinton, William Turning Point in China, p. 20 quoted in Monthly Review , July
-August 2004, Vol. 56, No. 3 p. 128
14. Petras, James, “Cultural Imperialism in the Late Twentieth Century”, internet Ed
James Craven教授教学大纲
|
课程中文名称 |
新古典经济学批判 |
授课语言 |
英文 | ||
|
课程英文名称 |
Critiques of Neo-classical Economics | ||||
|
课内总学时数及其分配 |
32 |
讲课 |
15 |
开课学期 |
夏季 |
|
讨论 |
3 |
周学时数 |
6 | ||
|
实验 |
|
上课起止周 |
2008年5月
第2周 | ||
|
其他 |
|
|
| ||
|
课外学时数 |
6 |
考核方式 |
考试 考查 | ||
|
课程简介
|
本课程旨在学生已经掌握了西方主流经济学（即新古典经济学）和马克思主义经济学基本原理的基础上，分析新古典经济学的内在的逻辑矛盾及其意识形态的特点，介绍马克思主义经济学和非主流经济学对新古典经济学的批判，揭示新古典经济学作为经济全球化和新帝国主义理论基础的基本特征及其在西方世界的主导地位，对新古典经济学做出总体评价，并指出今后经济学研究和创新的方向。
该课程有助于学生全面把握新古典经济学和马克思主义经济学的本质，它们各自的科学性和局限性，它们各自的意识形态属性以及对中国转型经济的借鉴意义。该课程是“马克思经济学与西方经济学比较”课程的姊妹篇或续篇。
| ||||
|
教学大纲
|
Lectures 1-3: Introduction and Overview of Neoclassical Economics
Discussion Class
Lectures 4-6: Metaphysics, Rhetoric and Internal Contradictions of NC Theory
Discussion Class
Lectures 7-9: Marxist and Heterodox Critiques of NC Theory
Lectures 10-12: Neoclassical Theory as a Cornerstone of the Social Capital of Capitalism, Globalization and Imperialism
Lectures 13-14: The Dominance and Hegemony of NC Economics in Western
Economics
Lecture 15: Final Comments, Summing Up, Directions for Future Research/Investigation
Discussion Class
Lecture and Discussion Classes will involve:
1. Class Lectures (Socratic Style of Teaching)
2. Handouts of Relevant Background Materials
3. PowerPoint Presentations of Key Concepts
4. Team Teaching with Dr. Cai Jiming
5. Discussion Classes for detailed exploration of issues presented in lectures
6. open debates of issues from diverse perspectives
| ||||
|
预备知识
或先修课程要求 |
中级微观经济学和宏观经济学，或经济学原理，《资本论》研究，经济思想史 | ||||
注：电子版文件命名规则：院系名称（联系教师姓名）
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The Development of the Blackfoot Nation: Paper Delivered to the 3rd Annunal Conference on Aboriginal Studies and Issues, Beijing, China, May 18-21, 05 The Development of the Blackfoot Nation
By James M. Craven/Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi and Lori Hanson
Introduction
The existence, status and sovereignty of the Blackfoot Nation
Long before there were recognized nations called The United States of America and Canada, and for many years since the genesis, development and recognition of those nations, Blackfoot People lived as and formed a Whole People and Nation. By any and all criteria under international law that legitimate and mandate recognition of The United States of America and Canada as sovereign nations, that have their own unalienable rights to recognition, security and self-determination as nations, Blackfoot People have collectively constituted a “People” and Nation. Specifically, Blackfoot People historically and in the present-day possessed--and still possess—“Recognized”—by Blackfoot and non-Blackfoot:
1) Commonly-shared Territory;
2) Commonly-shared History, Culture, Spirituality and Language;
3) Commonly-shared Legal and Political Institutions, Processes and Traditions;
4) Commonly-shared Economic Institutions, Processes and Traditions;
5) Commonly-shared Mechanisms and Institutions for Determination of Membership in and Leadership/Composition of the Nation;
6) Commonly-shared Ancestors and Ties of Blood--Family, Clan and Tribe;
7) Capacity to Enter Into Relations with Other Nations;
8) Expressed Common Will of Blackfoot Individuals to Live Together in Collectives Forming Whole Societies Greater Than the Sums of the Parts;
9) Close Attachment to Ancestral Lands and their Resources;
10) Self-identification and Identification by Others as Members of a Distinct Nation or Cultural Group;
11) Expressed Desire to Remain Distinct as Blackfoot and not to be Assimilated;
As in the case of any Nation, the status and legitimacy of the Blackfoot Nation and the unalienable rights of the Blackfoot Nation and its members to security, peace, prosperity and self-determination do not depend upon any degree or kind of recognition or non-recognition by any other Nation or entity. The objective reality and status (under international law and as a defacto reality) of Blackfoot People as a Nation, and the derivative rights of the Blackfoot Nation to security, peace, prosperity and self-determination demand—rather than depend upon—recognition by all those Nations seeking or asserting similar recognition ( often with less authority) for themselves.
-
Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in international law that no members of one nation can be summarily declared to be members or citizens of another nation without their consent. Blackfoot Peoples and members of the Blackfoot Nation were summarily declared to be “citizens” of the United States of America in 1924 without their consent and were summarily declared to be “citizens” of Canada in 1963 without their consent.
-
Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in International law, that no nation or representative government of any nation makes “treaties” with its own citizens; treaties are instruments and agreements (covenants) between and among sovereign nations and, each treating nation tacitly, if not explicitly, in the act of treating or proposing to treat, recognizes the nationhood, sovereignty, co-equal status and system of government producing the authority—to form and keep the terms of a treaty—of the other treating party .
-
Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in international law, that nations have the right to seek, expose and indict those who commit crimes in the name of/against members of a nation and/or against international law, and to prosecute, on their soil, or in recognized international venues, those alleged to have committed such crimes.
-
Prior to the precedents set at the Nuremberg and other International Tribunals, it was thought that “established and customary” practice of international law, and the whole of international law itself, applied only between nations. It was the “customary and established practice” in international law that what governments or parties of nations did or didn’t do to their “own citizens” or their “own national minorities” that caused harm to these “citizens” or “national minorities” was not a matter for or concern of international law. Documents of and research on, the periods during which the U.S. and Canadian Governments summarily declared Blackfoot Peoples to be “citizens” of the United States and Canada without their consent, reveal that one of the clear and stated motives and intent of summary declaration of citizenship was to summarily declare removed—and to remove—certain “national minorities” of the United States and Canada (including Blackfoot People) from any protection, coverage or application of international law or conventions or treaties to which the U.S. and Canada were signatories, and were bound by summarily changing their status to that of “citizens”; thus, making their status and treatment an “internal matter” and supposedly not subject to international law; this is in violation of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-
Any extent to which any of the core elements of the Blackfoot Nation have been diminished or extinguished as a result of conquest, occupation, and ethnocidal/genocidal policies and practices; does not, and should not, in any way call into question the existence, legitimacy, or fundamental rights to sovereignty and self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation and its members. Were it not so, those who sought to eliminate Indigenous Peoples in general and Blackfoot in particular, would be rewarded for/and assisted in the commission of the very genocidal crimes against Blackfoot People and International Law.
-
Indigenous Nations in general, and Peoples of the Blackfoot Nation in particular, have recognized, established and codified rights to national recognition, national sovereignty, national preservation and protection of lands and resources, national self-determination and the national right to take any and all measures necessary to preserve and protect the Nation against genocide, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, war crimes or any other kinds of crimes or threats against the existence and survival of the Nation as a whole or its members. Legal support for and/or codification of these fundamental rights are to be found in:
-
· The Nuremberg Charter;
· The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide;
· Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States Dec. 26, 1933 (to which Canada was not a signatory);
· Charter of the United Nations, Article I (2) and Article 55;
· United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles I and 27;
· the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article I;
· UN General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations;
· UN General Assembly’s Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations;
· Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (e.g. “the right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the ‘imperial power’ is ‘now undisputed’.”);
· UN General Assembly Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (GA Res. 1803, XVII, 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15 U.N. Doc. A/5217, 1962);
· Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 15 and 17;
· UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514, XV (Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14.12.1960) and 1541;
· UN GA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24.10.1970, Annex, “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
· Basket I, Final Act, Article VIII of the Helsinki Conference on Cooperation and Security in Europe;
· Article 38 no. 1 b of ICJ Statute ( two elements needed to create valid customary law in international law: general customary practice and opinio juris);
· Article 38 para. 1 d) of the ICJ Statute (judicial decisions can be used as “subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law”);
· the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Namibia in 1971 (“Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia);
· ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara (Order of 22 May 1975 ICJ Rep. 1975);
· ICJ Judgment on U.S. Military and Paramilitary Activities Against Nicaragua, ICJ Rep. 1986;
· ICJ Judgment on East Timor (Portugal v Australia), ICJ Rep. 1995;
· Permanent ICJ Ruling in the Case of Greco-Bulgarian Communities, P.C.I.J. [1930], Series B, No. 17,21;
· International Commission of Jurists, East Pakistan Staff Study, 1972 ( “ a people begins to exist only [and] when it becomes conscious of its own identity and asserts its will to exist”, p. 47);
· International Labor Organization Convention 107;
· the draft “Inter-American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” by the Organization of American States;
· declaration of President Richard Nixon, 1973(“self-determination as the key concept that would govern relations between Indian tribes [sic] and the government of the U.S.”);
· declaration of President Ronald Reagan in 1983 (“…the government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and Indian tribes had endured…consistently recognized a unique political relationship between Indian Tribes and the U.S. which this Administration pledges to uphold”);
· declaration of President William Clinton in 1994 (“This is our first principle: respecting your values, your religions, your identity, and your sovereignty…[We want to]…become full partners with the tribal nations.”);
· memorandum of the U.S. Department of Justice (opinio juris) ([Clinton’s position] “builds on the firmly established federal policy of self-determination for Indian tribes.”);
· Helsinki Final Act; “Fulfilling Our Promises: The United States and the Helsinki Final Act” by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in the U.S., 1979;
· “Compact of Self-governance Between the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe and the United States of America”;
· Article I, Section 10 and Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States;
From the fundamental right of the Blackfoot Nation to survival and self-determination, other facts and conclusions flow inexorably. For example, Canada’s Indian Act, and the Indian Reorganization Act of the U.S., strip recognized Indigenous sovereign nations, such as the Blackfoot Nation, with its recognized right to self-determination, of the power to govern the internal affairs of the Nation and transfer that power to entities of a foreign power (DIA , Minister of Indian Affairs and their “Band Council” creations in Canada and the BIA, Department of the Interior and their “Tribal Council” creations of the U.S. Government) thus summarily eliminating the right of self-determination as a prelude to and instrument of elimination of the Nation itself. The paternalistic policies of the Canadian and U.S. Governments purporting to “protect” Indigenous Peoples through a “trustee relationship”, have demonstrably created, and inexorably create, not “protecting powers”, but rather, powers, exploitative relationships and indeed genocidal policies from which Indigenous Peoples need protection through the exercise of the right of self-determination and through international law.
-
For the above-mentioned and other clear reasons, agencies such as the BIA and DIA, and their creations the “Tribal Councils”, whose policies and actions are all subject to final approval and ratification by the BIA and DIA, can never be recognized as the legitimate leadership and political authority of the Blackfoot Nation. The mechanisms through which the Blackfoot Tribal Councils are selected are non-Blackfoot in nature and in terms of the “final authority” conducting and sanctioning them. Indeed historically and in the present, corrupt Tribal Councils (not an indictment of every person serving or who has served on a Tribal Council) have been selected, used and run by the Canadian and U.S. governments as key instruments of genocide. It would be absurd and inherently illogical to suppose that only those same Band Councils could have the authority standing to bring charges against those who have committed crimes against the Blackfoot Nation—crimes in which they were often intimately involved as co-conspirators and key instruments of genocide.
-
The Historical Blackfoot Nation
-
The Blackfoot comprised primarily of the Kainai (Many Chiefs), Siksika (Blackfoot) and Apatohsipiikani (Northern Piikani) and Amskaapipiikani (Southern Piikani or Blackfeet in Montana) Bands (along with the smaller Bands of the Sarcee, Stoneys and elements of the Gros Ventre or Atsina who were members of The Blackfoot Confederacy formed in 1871) have occupied territory in what is now known as Canada since time immemorial.[1][2]
-
After Europeans began migrating to the so-called New World, indigenous populations throughout the continent were often forced to migrate to new homelands. “It is . . . probable that the Blackfoot occupied the region from the Bow River to the North Saskatchewan for countless generations before they moved south.”[3] Well before the Blackfoot were approached by agents of the Crown regarding treaty negotiations, the Blackfoot occupied an established region, which they—and other non-Blackfoot nations—considered their traditional territory. The Blackfoot territory during the historic period after 1750 was vast: it ranged from the North Saskatchewan River to the Missouri River and from the Rocky Mountains to the present Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary. Near the latter part of the nomadic era, the northern range shrank to the Battle River, as the Blackfoot withdrew in the face of Cree pressures and as the decreasing buffalo herds congregated farther south.”[4]
-
Ongoing contacts with Europeans, coupled with the nature of those contacts, altered the world of the Blackfoot forever. In 1870, it is estimated that Aboriginal peoples living on the Plains of western Canada outnumbered whites by more than two to one. Within a few short years of signing Treaty 7, however, disease and western expansion left the Blackfoot and other First Nations of the Canadian West “heavily outnumbered” by whites.[5] By 1880, all the buffalo had been wiped out, so the Blackfoot were forced to move to the reserves.[6] “The Indian Administration, the North West Mounted Police (N.W.M.P.), and the extinction of the bison, along with four separate smallpox epidemics, wiped out the rapidly evolving Plains Indian culture.”[7] This story is common to all indigenous peoples of the Americas, as illegal encroachments on land by whites, government sanctioned expansionism, destruction of natural resources, the spread of exotic diseases, and outright genocide were common themes resulting from the essentially involuntary contact with Europeans. Within the context of these ordeals the Blackfoot and other First Nations’ leaders reluctantly agreed to negotiate what became known as Treaty 7 with Her Majesty’s Canadian representatives.
-
Voluntary Consent
-
“In spite of the high-toned rhetoric about tribes and First Nations freely signing treaties, the land acquisition policy was only occasionally accomplished by fair, arms-length transactions. Most of the time the government acquired lands by a combination of coercion, fraud, threat of force, or actual military force. . . . It is absurd to argue that Aboriginal tribes knowingly and voluntarily gave up their claims to these lands.”[8]
-
Evidence of bad faith negotiating on the part of the Canadian officials is present. Questionable tactics were used to “persuade” the First Nations to agree to the treaty. The Mounties intimidated many of the Blackfoot people by assuming a military function during the Treaty 7 negotiations, “as in their dress and discourse they played the part of a military colour guard for the government officials present.”[9] For instance, the Mounties had aimed cannons right at the camps where the people stayed.[10] Other accounts support the claim that the N.W.M.P. used intimidation tactics to coerce the already suspicious people to enter the treaty: “‘They were parading and marching around and shooting their cannons.’”[11]
-
The Treaty 7 leaders felt there was no alternative to signing the agreement.[12] They were threatened by the N.W.M.P.’s show of force. It was indicated to the First Nations that unless they signed the treaty, war would erupt.[13] “The power relationship between the Aboriginal government and the Canadian government was not equal, and leaders such as Crowfoot and Red Crow were aware that military force was being used to slaughter indigenous people in the United States.”[14] Threat of force was not the only stratagem employed to coerce the Treaty 7 leaders into signing the treaty. Duplicity played a major role as well.
-
The people of the Blackfoot Nation record their history through the oral tradition; a system for writing Blackfoot language was not developed until 1963. For many Native cultures in which the oral tradition is used to record history, communicate spiritual doctrine or simply entertain, the spoken word is considered something tangible just as much as the written word can be considered tangible by a European.[15] Canada’s Supreme Court has recognized the validity of oral histories as admissible testimony in court.[16] Considering that “Canadian policy on Aboriginal people has been based on terrible distortions of history,”[17] the incorporation of oral testimony into that history could not do any more than adjust its accuracy. Thus, some of the following accounts, which have been passed down orally, of what actually transpired at Blackfoot Crossing in September 1877, should be accorded no less credibility than if these accounts had been transcribed onto paper. Indeed the authorized carriers of oral history among the Blackfoot must undergo extensive preparation and testing for accuracy and details before being designated as carriers of oral histories.
-
“It is questionable whether a ‘mutually understood agreement’ was ever arrived at between a people representing a written culture on the one hand, and a people representing an essentially oral culture on the other.”[18]
-
“[T]he oral tradition of our nations has preserved many accounts of the circumstances surrounding the making of Treaty 7 and the subsequent fulfillment of the treaty.”[19] These accounts evidence the significant problems encountered by the Blackfoot when faced with the mandate to enter into Treaty 7. In 1877 – otsisti pakssaisstoyiih pi, or the year when the winter was open and cold – Treaty 7 was negotiated between Her Majesty through Canadian officials and the Blackfoot and other nations. The Blackfoot Nations had no word for “treaty,” and they therefore considered the process istsist aohkotspi or iitsinnaihtsiiyo’pi (the time when we made a sacred alliance).[20] Treaty 7 elders “do not remember ever being told that the Treaty 7 First Nations had agreed to land surrender.”[21] They thought they were entering a peace treaty. “The elders all agree that there is a fundamental problem with the written treaty because it does not represent the ‘spirit and intent’ of the agreement . . . .”[22] For instance, the text of the treaty does not include specific terms the signatory First Nations expressly required before they would agree to the final contract.[23]
-
In 1874, the North West Mounted Police (N.W.M.P.), commanded by James Macleod, arrived and were welcomed in Blackfoot territory. The Blackfoot granted their request to stay one winter in the territory, but “it’s been a long winter.”[24] In the fall of 1875, the First Nations identified among themselves the critical issues; they passed on the substance of these issues to Jean L’Heureux, who then included them in a petition, which was then passed on to Alexander Morris, Canada’s chief negotiator.[25] The issues identified concerned the encroachment onto their lands by Cree and Métis hunters, and the increasing scarcity of buffalo, problems that would not have arisen but for the Blackfoot promise to end warfare with the other nations.[26] The N.W.M.P. met with the Bloods, Blackfoot, Peigan and Sarcee because those peoples suspected the N.W.M.P. was expediting white settlement on the First Nations’ lands. Commissioner Macleod promised that these issues would be fully discussed before any land would be taken,[27] and that he had no intention of taking the First Nations’ lands, but he apparently changed his mind.[28] Finally, the year 1877 “saw the alliance of peace between [the Treaty 7 Nations] and the Queen’s representatives at Blackfoot Crossing. The promises again were to be quickly broken.”[29]
-
The expectations of the chiefs at the negotiations seemed simple and unselfish enough: they wanted to ensure that the Canadian authorities would repress encroachments onto Native land, restrain American traders, and protect the buffalo. These problems had resulted in the larger problem of widespread hunger in the aboriginal communities.[30] The First Nations believed that an agreement with the Canadians would occasion a peace alliance to control these problems, to “safeguard their territory and to protect their way of life.”[31] The Treaty 7 First Nations had four specific goals. “[T]hey hoped to establish peaceful relations with the colonial government, to establish a relationship of equality between nations, and to create an atmosphere of respect.”[32] They certainly wanted to ensure “the physical survival of their people, especially in face of the devastation suffered in the wake of disease and disappearing buffalo herds.”[33] A related wish was that the cultural and spiritual well being of their people was secured by maintaining their systems of government, languages and traditional ceremonies. Finally, while not anticipating full assimilation into Canadian society, they hoped to integrate some new aspects of that society into their own by sharing their land with the newcomers.
-
The commissioners, on the other hand, expected the negotiated agreement to achieve the extinguishment of all Indian title to the area, and the relocation of the aboriginals onto reserves, thus opening the way for settlement[34] and the construction of the railroad.[35] The “overarching goal of realizing the ‘purpose of the Dominion’ as expeditiously as possible” (eschewing “any vision of a future for Aboriginal people”),[36] included five particular objectives: acquiring legal title to the land; encouraging non-native settlement; removing Aboriginal title cheaply; terminating American intrusion; and responding to Aboriginals’ purported requests for treaties.[37] Therefore, it is no surprise that “although each side had voiced its concerns, neither had heard the other.”[38]
-
“[M]isunderstandings, due partly to inadequate interpretation and/or a deliberate attempt to mislead” characterized the treaty-making process, as “there was a tremendous distance between the two perspectives.”[39] Many of the interpreters involved in the treaty negotiations were not fluent in the various languages used in the process.[40] More than eighty errors in the translation and spelling of Blackfoot names have been identified in the document.[41] These mistakes are not surprising, given the shortcomings of the interpreters: one interpreter, Jerry Potts, was drunk at the negotiations and did not clearly explain the substance and process to the participating chiefs; Jean-Baptiste L’Heureux’s credibility is suspect, as he habitually, falsely claimed to be a priest; and a third interpreter, Father Constantine Scollen, while somewhat familiar with the Cree language, did not understand the Blackfoot languages sufficiently to competently and clearly convey some of the simplest concepts.[42] Father Scollen mistakenly informed the Canadian authorities that the Blackfoot desired to make a treaty, when in reality, the leaders merely desired to discuss the problems they faced with respect to encroachments onto their land. They never asked to make a treaty.[43] Furthermore, Scollen himself suggested that at least the Bloods were never clearly informed about the precise meaning of the treaty.[44]
-
Another major problem at Blackfoot Crossing was the fact that no single person present could speak all of the languages of the people in attendance. . . . Questions arise such as: Could all the First Nations people assembled, who represented four distinct languages, have understood the same thing when words like ‘surrender’ or ‘cede’ were used? This would be especially doubtful for words that did not exist in the various Aboriginal languages; the very concept of landownership, for example, was completely foreign to a number of the nations present.[45]
-
Thus, the translation process suffered further because there were no words in the native languages for concepts such as “title” or “surrender,” or “reserve” three words with definite and powerful implications in the English language.[46] “It seems that the question of language is much more at issue for Treaty 7 than for any of the other numbered treaties.”[47] For example, “[t]he Stoney elders were particularly emphatic about the consequences of their people’s not understanding what a square mile was, especially after it was explained to them how little land was being surveyed for them.”[48] The Native people expected “that what the officials were saying about the land they would get would correspond to what they had described as territory they wanted.”[49] Because they did not understand the measurement concepts, they could not have knowingly agreed to specific treaty terms corresponding to those foreign concepts. Indeed, concepts such as “fee simple” and “rights of occupancy” derive from European law, and one wonders how a number of incompetent interpreters could clearly explain these foreign concepts to the leaders of such divergent cultures over the short time frame in which the agreement was negotiated.
-
Interpretive deficiencies in the negotiation process and present understanding involve additional cultural elements. “Perhaps most importantly, the two sides had different cultural traditions for remembering their history. In the Euro-Canadian cultures, history was written down, whereas in the First Nations cultures, history was transmitted orally in stories passed on by the elders.”[50] These cultural differences may account for interpretive inaccuracies. Furthermore, the “fundamental assumptions underlying European and Aboriginal languages are so radically different that simple translation is impossible.” Again, the mere fact that Blackfoot accounts of the treaty negotiations are preserved primarily in oral form does not render them any less legitimate, credible or reliable than if they had been reduced to writing. The methodology is simply different, not necessarily better or worse. “It is questionable whether a ‘mutually understood agreement’ was ever arrived at between a people representing a written culture on the one hand, and a people representing an essentially oral culture on the other.”[51]
-
The deficiencies in the translators’ abilities, together with the discordant language conceptualizations and the disparate expectations of the parties to the agreement were not the only reasons the First Nations understood the process differently than did the Canadians. These First Nations were not unfamiliar with the process of entering agreements, as they had been parties to such agreements with other First Nations prior to their contact with Europeans.[52] “The leaders who accepted Treaty 7 believed that it was first and foremost a peace treaty.” [53] Additionally, because warring among the First Nations and between the First Nations and the Canadians was not uncommon, the Treaty 7 First Nations were led to believe that by signing the treaty, they were merely agreeing not to fight any longer, and that “peace would be preserved between the First Nations and the Canadian authorities.”[54]
-
Nevertheless, the wishes of the First Nations’ leaders were ignored by the condescending and paternalistic government agents, who decided for themselves what the best interests of the First Nations really were.[55] The Canadians’ lack of respect for the expectations of the Aboriginal leaders resulted in a significant disadvantage for the First Nations, “who came to negotiate Treaty 7 in good faith.”[56]
-
“The point to be understood here is that the translation process failed at Blackfoot Crossing. . . .[T]he official records of the narrative indicate that the chiefs were only given one-sixth of the presentation of the commissioners.”[57] Although Canada’s Indian Act[58] had been passed the year before Treaty 7 was completed, the commissioners did not inform the Treaty 7 nations of its purposes and provisions. Thus, the First Nations were given the impression that the treaty, rather than a general codification of Canada’s Aboriginal policy, would govern their future relations with Canadian individuals and government. The Aboriginal leaders who negotiated Treaty 7 explicitly expressed their specific aspirations regarding the treaty, and they therefore expected those aspirations to be fulfilled by the very officials who promised to recognize and fulfill them. Commissioner Laird “was evasive in not explaining to Treaty 7 First Nations that the government intended to restrict and control Aboriginal people through the provisions of the Indian Act.”[59] Nevertheless, the Indian Act provisions, which were contrary to the wishes the Treaty 7 Nations had articulated, eclipsed even the terms of the treaty itself.[60]
-
In addition to being unfamiliar with European terms and concepts, which were poorly explained in translation as well, the relational arrangements were not clearly laid out to the leaders who signed Treaty 7. “Evidence that the Treaty 7 nations thought that they would share – not surrender – the land can be seen in their testimony about how the land was to be used.”[61] The nations indicated that they would only share the top two feet of soil with the newcomers.[62] The terms dictated by the First Nations were never written down, however, and considering that those who agreed to the terms in the treaty’s text could not read English, they had no way to confirm that their expectations had been omitted from the document. “The leaders of the treaty believed Jerry Potts’s interpretation of the Crown’s promises and everything else he told them, even though he spoke very poor Blackfoot . . . .”[63] The Treaty 7 leaders had no other choice, however. They had to believe what the interpreters told them about the treaty’s terms because there was no other way to obtain this information.
-
Furthermore, the commissioners employed certain tactics to impress upon the Treaty 7 leaders the absolute necessity of entering the agreement. While many of the First Nations’ leaders harbored some suspicions about the process and some of the officials involved in that process, they were assured that their requests would be honored. They were also the victims of artful maneuvering.
-
Notwithstanding the controversies surrounding the making of the treaty and its text, the Canadian government has not dealt seriously with these issues. “[A]reas of the treaty that are clearly problematic have been glossed over and the discourse of those who hold power has allowed authors to ignore difficult issues.”[64] This policy appears contrary to the fiduciary obligation owed to First Nations. “The Crown was left with legally enforceable fiduciary duties: ‘[f]ailure of the Crown to perform the obligations would cause the jurisdictional interests over the land to revert to the First Nations.’”[65]
-
Canons of Treaty Construction
-
Even if one could argue successfully that Treaty 7 is not invalid, Canadian law itself imposes on the Canadian government an obligation to construe such treaties as the First Nations understood them.[66] It is no longer acceptable to rely on the plain meaning of the terms used in the treaty document for controlling interpretation.[67] Therefore, the terms of Treaty 7 do not control current interpretations. What the Blackfoot and other Treaty 7 leaders understood as the treaty’s terms controls how the document is to be interpreted. Because the Blackfoot construed Treaty 7 as a peace agreement, whereby they were to receive certain compensations in exchange for sharing their land with the newcomers, that is all to which they agreed, and that is all to which the Canadian government is lawfully entitled to receive. The Canadian government, however, has appropriated vast tracts of Blackfoot land, and has usurped the inherent sovereign right of Blackfoot to govern themselves. The Blackfoot never knowingly, voluntarily or lawfully relinquished these lands or their self-governing prerogatives. The Canadian courts and administration violate Canada’s own rules of treaty construction when Treaty 7 is interpreted in a contrary manner. Relations between the Blackfoot Nation and the Canadian government are based on the terms of Treaty 7 as interpreted are in apparent violation of Canada’s canons of treaty construction, and governed by imposition of the Indian Act.
-
The Indian Act
-
“[G]overnmental action taken ‘for the good of the Indians,’ effectively abolished Indian religion, culture and lifestyle.”[68]
-
The Chief Justice of Canada’s Supreme Court has acknowledged the real threat to Aboriginal interests by governmental intrusion into their affairs:
Our history has shown, unfortunately all too well, that Canada’s aboriginal peoples are justified in worrying about government objectives that may be superficially neutral but which constitute de facto threats to the existence of the aboriginal rights and interests.[69]
-
The terms of the Indian Act infringe on the Blackfoot Nation’s right to determine its internal affairs and thus its right to self-determination. The paternalistic provisions strip the power to govern from the Nation and place that power in the hands of the Crown or the Minister of Indian Affairs.[70] Without some of its provisions, however, all Native peoples under its jurisdiction would suffer. It typifies the proverbial double-edged sword. The Indian Act is a symbolic manifestation of the conflicting objectives of Aboriginal policy. The act and the policy it codifies recognize the distinctiveness and inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples vis à vis the colonizing government on the one hand, but oppress them by imposing foreign law on the other. The policy that purports to “protect” Aboriginal peoples while at the same time creating a source and nature of power from which they need protection which imposes unjustifiable restrictions on the peoples’ rights to self-determination recognized by both Canadian and international law.
-
While some of the Indian Act provisions may not apply to all First Nations,[71] the existence of the act itself interferes with the exercise of self-determination. Section 18(1) of the Indian Act provides as follows:
-
“Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which land in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band.”[72]
-
This provision may provide protection with one hand, but with the other it takes away the inherent right of the Blackfoot to make their own determinations regarding how their own land and internal relations will be governed.
-
A Nation cannot exercise self-determination when an ostensibly higher power enjoys the discretion to repudiate that Nation’s law. The act also provides for the mechanisms through which First Nations will select their band councils.[73] When a First Nation chooses to employ its traditional governance structures, the Minister still may step in and impose his or her will on the Nation. If, for instance, any by-law passed by the band council, whether elected under Indian Act provisions or by “custom,” is inconsistent with the Minister’s views, he may disallow the by-law under s. 82(2). This system is wholly inadequate for the Blackfoot to manage its internal affairs, and it is disruptive to the Reserve community. Among many Blackfoot, this arrangement is seen as exactly analogous to that of the Vichy Government of occupied France during World War II and the occupying forces of Germany that set up and controlled it.
-
The Blackfoot Nation Today: At a Crossroads of Survival
-
The definitive law governing—and definition of—genocide can be found in Article II of the 1949 UN Convention on Genocide to which Canada became a signatory in 1953. According to Article II, any (not all) of the following acts constitute genocide: a) Killing Members of a Group; b) Causing Serious Mental and Bodily Harm to Members of a Group; c) Deliberately Inflicting Upon a Group Conditions of Life Calculated to Bring About its Physical Destruction in Whole or in Part; d) Imposing Measures Intended to Prevent Births Within the Group (Sterilization); e) Forcibly Transferring Children of the Group to Another Group. There is extensive documentary and other evidence that Blackfoot have been subject to all five types of genocidal acts throughout Canadian and U.S. histories and stand today on the verge of extinction as a “Whole People” or Nation.
-
It was through the Indian Residential School system that Blackfoot children were “forcibly transferred from one group to another” through a system designed to “Kill the Indian, [in order to] Save the Man”. Blackfoot children, from about 1880 up until 1989, were routinely taken by force, under the color of the Indian Act, to isolated Indian Residential Schools where: their traditional long hair was cut; where they were beaten for speaking native languages and practicing traditional spirituality; where they were abused in various ways and “trained” to become domestics and unskilled farm hands (it was thought Indians would only be capable of the most menial tasks) and their ties to traditional lands, communities and culture were progressively broken. It was through the 1928 Alberta Sterilization Act, seen by the German Nazis as a model for their 1933 “Race Hygiene Law” and 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws, that Blackfoot children were routinely sterilized under the premise that to be Indian is to be “feebleminded” and likely to pass on “bad genes.” Blackfoot children were routinely used for medial experimentation (e.g. Hepatitis-B vaccine and studies allowing dental diseases to progress without intervention—like the Syphilis studies done on African-Americans at Tuskegee, Alabama in the U.S.—to study the pathodynamics of the disease).
-
The present-day conditions on the Blackfoot Reserves at Gleichen, Cardston and Brocket, Alberta, as well as those at Browning, Montana certainly qualify as conditions likely—and foresee ably (for an average reasonable and prudent person) to be likely—to cause serious mental and bodily harm as well as cause physical destruction of the group in whole or in part. Unemployment rates on the Reserves are estimated to range between 65% to around 90% with the majority of jobs in government—Band, Provincial or Federal—and often handed out through patronage, cronyism or nepotism.
-
On the Reserves, infrastructure (roads, sewage, telecommunications, fresh water, education, health care etc) is typically poor; the few businesses found on the reserves are typically non-Blackfoot owned; Blackfoot Reserves—along with other non-Blackfoot Reserves—have been targeted as sites for dumping waste from non-Indigenous communities; the average Reserve Blackfoot lives on about $229.00 (Canadian) a month to cover all expenses (lodging, food, utilities, etc); suicide and homicide rates on the Reserves stand at about 5 to 15 times the overall Canadian suicide and homicide rates—even higher for teenagers; allegations of systemic corruption by certain Band authorities and their relations are pervasive, credible and longstanding; rates of teenage pregnancy stand at five to seven times the overall Canadian rate; saving rates are low or non-existent and financial intermediaries are typically non-Blackfoot and found off the Reserves taking the little saving off the Reserves to be invested elsewhere. These are but some of the myriad problems and nation-extinguishing conditions found on the Blackfoot Reserves.
-
Of the estimated fifty or so thousand Blackfoot remaining, many living off the Reserves, over 95% are considered “mixed race.” This is important in that Indigenous Peoples, in the U.S. and Canada are considered “status” Indians, entitled to certain “services” and entitlements from the trustee relationship with the government, on the basis of being at least “quarter-blood” (Blackfoot). Ignoring the problems associated with race as a biological construct for the moment, and the whole notion of one’s “blood” being divisible into portions or quantums, it is clear that blood-quantum requirements may be used and have been used as instruments of assimilation and extinguishment. According to one document from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs: “Set the blood-quantum at one-quarter, hold to it as a rigid definition of Indians, let intermarriage proceed, and eventually Indians will be defined out of existence; when this happens, the federal government will be finally freed from its persistent Indian problem.”
-
At present, there are actual examples of non-enrolled or non-status Blackfoot who are considered “full-blood” Native but who cannot be enrolled as they lack “quarter-blood” from any one particular group. This not only decimates the Band roles of those designated as “Status Indians” but it also disrupts and divides whole families into “status” versus non-status. Further, there is the problem of Blackfoot identity and Band status being defined by a foreign and occupying power with vested interests in how and on what basis “status” is defined.
-
Legal Issues
-
In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issued a report containing the following statement: “‘Canadians need to understand that Aboriginal peoples are nations . . . To this day, Aboriginal people’s sense of confidence and well-being as individuals remains tied to the strength of their nations. Only as members of restored nations can they reach their potential in the twenty-first century.’”[74] Given that this report was commissioned by the Canadian government, it seems curious that the government refuses to heed its observations. Instead, the “government has insisted on dominating governance and land rights of First Nations, severely limiting First Nations’ rights and abilities to self-government.”[75] The honor of the Canadian government and the Crown itself could be at stake if recognition of these principles does not occur.
-
Although the Canadian government would argue that a right to self-determination does not directly translate into an unlimited right to sovereignty for the Blackfoot Nation, legal authority supports the exercise of sovereignty by the Blackfoot.
-
Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. This is merely saying that the question of government ought to be decided by the governed. One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do, if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate themselves.[76]
-
The Blackfoot Nation is not required to ask permission from the Canadian government to declare its independence, because their right to self-determination as a people, under the provisions of the United Nations Charter, allows them to exercise that right notwithstanding the views of the colonizing nation. Because the Blackfoot territory is illegally occupied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, however, it is incumbent upon the Canadian government to recognize the right to proclaim independence and remove the illegal occupiers presently.
-
Characteristics of a State
-
The inherent powers of Indian self-government include, among others, the power to determine the Nation’s form of government, the power to define conditions for membership, and the power to regulate domestic relations between members, but the Indian Act denies these claims.[77] “[T]he Crown officers utilized the traditional government only for land surrenders and treaties, and otherwise deprived that traditional government of any powers of management or control.”[78]
-
Although Canada is not a State Party to the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States,[79] the guidelines provided therein illustrate that the Blackfoot Nation exhibits the four characteristics of a “state as a person under international law . . . : (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.”[80] As mentioned above, the Blackfoot peoples have existed since time immemorial. They have not allowed themselves to be assimilated into the larger Canadian society, even though the assimilationist agenda of the Canadian government has been imposed upon them from the beginning of relations between the two peoples.
-
The Reserves themselves are testimony to the existence of a defined territory. Additional lands illegally acquired by the Canadian government are included in this territory. Blackfoot government is illustrated by the organization of “chiefs” who entered into treaty negotiations with the treaty commissioners. Historical forms of self-governance continue, through recognition of and participating in traditional societies, such as the Brave Dog Society.
-
Furthermore, although the Indian Act places restrictions on the exercise by First Nations of many self-governing powers, a declaration of independence would not issue without some form of organized governance. Finally, the capacity to enter into relations is illustrated by the many treaties the Blackfoot formed before Treaty 7.
-
Reference Re Secession of Quebec
-
In Reference Re Secession of Quebec[81] the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted international law in a manner entirely consistent with the Blackfoot Nation’s declaration of independence and right to sovereignty. One of the central questions answered by the Supreme Court involved whether the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec had the right, under international law, to secede unilaterally from Canada. Although the Court answered in the negative, the facts presented in Reference re Secession of Quebec are distinguishable from the facts involved in the Blackfoot Nation’s decision to declare its independence from Canada, and the legal analyses support that declaration.
-
Although the Court found that “[i]t is clear that international law does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their ‘parent’ state,”[82] the Court stated that the legal right would be conferred on peoples in certain circumstances not present in that case. The Court analyzed alternative propositions offered in support of Quebec’s right to secede: absence of a specific prohibition on unilateral secession implied permission; and the duty of states to recognize secession as part of the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.[83] In reference to the first proposition, the Court observed that international law neither expressly grants nor denies a right to unilateral secession, but that “international law places great importance on the territorial integrity of nation states and, by and large, leaves the creation of a new state to be determined by the domestic law of the existing state of which the seceding entity presently forms a part.”[84] Because the Blackfoot at no time consented to become part of the Canadian state, and because the Blackfoot inhabited the territory that was eventually, illegally subsumed within that state, their sovereign rights are both pre- and extra-constitutional. Furthermore, the Court added that the second proposition involving the right of peoples to self-determination would not necessarily implicate the Constitution and other domestic laws of Canada.
-
“While international law generally regulates the conduct of nation states, it does, in some specific circumstances, also recognize the ‘rights’ of entities other than nation states -- such as the right of a people to self-determination.”[85] The Court cited several international documents that specifically recognize the right of peoples to self-determination. “The existence of the right of a people to self-determination is now so widely recognized in international conventions that the principle has acquired a status beyond ‘convention’ and is considered a general principle of international law.”[86] The documents codifying the recognition of this right primarily include the Charter of the United Nations,[87] the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),[88] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[89]
-
Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, Can. T.S. 1945 No. 7, states in part that one of the purposes of the United Nations (U.N.) is:
-
Article 1
. . . . .
-
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace[.]
-
Article 55 of the U.N. Charter further states that the U.N. shall promote goals such as higher standards of living, full employment and human rights "[w]ith a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well- being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples".[90]
-
Article 1 of both the ICCPR and the ICESCR provide that “‘[a]ll peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’”[91] The Court also cited the United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which states:
-
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.[92]
-
Thus, under these international law provisions, the Blackfoot peoples possess the right to determine their political status without interference from the Canadian government. They have determined their political status as an independent, sovereign nation, and every nation, including Canada, has an obligation to honor this exercise of the Blackfoot Nation’s internationally recognized right. The Canadian Supreme Court cited additional international legal authority that would support the sovereign right of the Blackfoot peoples to declare their independence from their colonizers. Under the General Assembly’s Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, “the U.N.’s member states will . . . reaffirm the right of self-determination of all peoples, taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, and recognize the right of peoples to take legitimate action . . . to realize their inalienable right of self-determination.”[93] Under the circumstances created by the Canadian government through its illegal occupation of Blackfoot territory and imposition of the Indian Act, the only action available to the Blackfoot Nation for realization of their right to self-determination is that which has been executed, a declaration of independence.
-
Although this provision ensures that the territorial integrity of independently sovereign states will not be disturbed by application of its terms, that reservation only applies when the state complies “with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind. . . .”[94] In the case of the Blackfoot, Canada has not complied with the principles of equal rights and self-determination, and the Canadian government does not represent the Blackfoot people in any meaningful way. The illegal occupation of Blackfoot territory, improperly justified by the invalid terms of Treaty 7, and imposition of the Indian Act evidence noncompliance with the principles of equality and self-determination. Employment opportunities are scarce for Blackfoot individuals, on and off the Reserve, even in a business conducted on Blackfoot land, administered by employees of the Alberta government.[95] Furthermore, how many Blackfoot individuals are members of Parliament? What is the proportion of Blackfoot individuals to non-Aboriginal (i.e., white) individuals employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
-
These circumstances do not provide the sole or even primary basis for the Blackfoot Nation’s assertion of sovereignty vis à vis the Canadian government, however. The territorial integrity of a state becomes virtually irrelevant under certain circumstances. As quoted above, special consideration is given in cases of colonization, alien domination and foreign occupation. The Supreme Court of Canada explicitly recognized a people’s international legal right to secede under these exceptional circumstances, when it is not possible for the people’s right to self-determination to be exercised “within the framework of existing sovereign states and consistently with the maintenance of the territorial integrity of those states.”[96] Thus, under international law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada itself, the Blackfoot possess a right to secede from the Canadian state, which they have exercised through the declaration of their independence.
-
A threshold question in determining whether a group may exercise its right to self-determination in this way and under these circumstances is whether the group purporting to exercise the right constitutes “a people.” The Court, while noting that the “precise meaning of the term ‘people’ remains somewhat uncertain,”[97] indicated that this threshold question could be answered by determining whether the population shares certain characteristics, such as a common language and culture. While the Treaty 7 Nations did use varied dialects, the Blackfoot language is part of the Algonkian language group.[98] Their cultural histories are undeniably common, as discussed above in reference to the making of Treaty 7. Furthermore, they have maintained aspects of their cultural traditions, such as their special relationship with the land and natural resources,[99] and internal governance structures, such as the functioning of the Brave Dog society, despite attempts by the Canadian government to destroy their culture and assimilate their people into the dominant colonizing society. They continue to live in relatively self-contained social arrangements on the reserves. It is doubtful that any person or tribunal would deny that the Blackfoot constitute a people in the international legal sense of the term.
The next step in the Court’s analysis described the scope of the right to self-determination. Internal and external versions of self-determination were delineated. The usual route to realizing self-determination is through internal functions, which involve political, economic, social and cultural pursuits within the existing state’s governmental infrastructure.[100] The Indian Act represents a most flagrant interference with internal self-determination. When, as here, internal self-determination is inadequate because the meaningful exercise of the right is blocked, a right to external self-determination materializes. This right to external self-determination would include unilateral secession.[101] The position of Quebec in this regard is distinguishable from that of the Blackfoot because, as the Court observed, the Quebec people have not suffered attacks on their physical existence, and they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy considerable representation in the Canadian government.[102] “The population of Quebec is equitably represented in legislative, executive and judicial institutions.”[103] The population of the Blackfoot is not.
-
Again, recognition of this right is not intended to facilitate the destruction of a state’s territorial integrity, political independence or domestic unity, but these entitlements are conditional.[104] In the case of the Blackfoot, Canada has never enjoyed a valid claim to the Blackfoot’s territory, because the Blackfoot never surrendered the land; exercise of sovereignty by the Blackfoot Nation is irrelevant to Canada’s political independence; and Blackfoot secession would not affect the unity of the Canadian state. Lack of Blackfoot participation in Canadian governance, and the relative detachment of the Blackfoot from the whole of Canadian society suggest that the unified Dominion is uninterested in whether the Blackfoot are unified with the rest of Canadians or not.
-
Furthermore, the “maintenance of the territorial integrity of existing states, including Canada” is incompatible with “the right of [the Blackfoot] to achieve a full measure of self-determination.”[105] Again, the illegal occupation of Blackfoot land occasioned by the invalid Treaty 7, imposition of the Indian Act and the lack of meaningful representation of the Blackfoot in Canadian governance cause this incompatibility.
-
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s analysis of colonial and oppressed peoples presents an authoritative legal framework in which the Blackfoot declaration of independence should be recognized.
-
[T]here are certain defined contexts within which the right to the self-determination of peoples does allow that right to be exercised "externally", which, in the context of this Reference, would potentially mean secession:
-
“...the right to external self-determination, which entails the possibility of choosing (or restoring) independence, has only been bestowed upon two classes of peoples (those under colonial rule or foreign occupation), based upon the assumption that both classes make up entities that are inherently distinct from the colonialist Power and the occupant Power and that their "territorial integrity', all but destroyed by the colonialist or occupying Power, should be fully restored [.]”[106]
-
Thus, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, the “right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the ‘imperial’ power is now undisputed.”[107] In situations of former colonies, the right to external self-determination includes the right of a people to declare its independence from the colonial power.[108] Canada is but one former colony in North America, and the Blackfoot were and continue to be “inherently distinct” from the European-derived colonial powers. Their territory was “all but destroyed” by that colonial power and it thus should be “fully restored.”
-
Additional Sources of International Legal Authority
-
Violations of international human rights law have been and continue to be committed against the Blackfoot Nation by the Government of Canada. It is within the context of these violations that the Blackfoot Nation has declared its independence. By the terms of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,[109] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[110] and the Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources,[111] the actions of the Governments of Canada and Alberta have violated the rights of the Blackfoot Nation as recognized under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[112] to which Canada is a party.
-
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides, inter alia:
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
-
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. . . .
-
Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. . . .
-
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. . .
-
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family. . . .
-
The current state of affairs existing between the Blackfoot and the Canadian government is contrary to these principles. First, the Blackfoot are effectively denied their nationality by their forced integration into the Canadian governmental structure. They have not indicated a desire or consent to becoming part of the Canadian polity. Second, the Blackfoot have been deprived of their property by operation of Treaty 7, which is invalid and unenforceable. Thus, their territory is being occupied illegally. Third, protection against unemployment is virtually nonexistent for the Blackfoot: “[w]elfare and a lack of employment on the reserves also continue as major difficulties.”[113] Similarly, the standard of living for most Blackfoot people is so low; one Blackfoot member indicated he could not afford to purchase a shovel to straighten up his yard. The same Blackfoot member indicated he is physically able to work, but because employment opportunities on his Reserve are not available to him, he is forced to live off welfare checks of $229.00 per month. His wife currently receives a disability pension, but she would lose her entitlement if he ever did secure employment and receive adequate compensation. He has tried to make a living on his own, but certification is needed for the jobs for which he is qualified. Certification requires the expenditure of money he does not have.[114]
-
These problems implicate additional sources of international legal authority. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[115] declares that states party to the Covenant, including Canada, recognize the right to work. Concomitant to this recognition is the state’s duty to take steps to safeguard this right, including “technical and vocational guidance.”[116] The Covenant further provides that all people have a right to an adequate standard of living.[117] The inability to afford a simple tool like a shovel does not indicate an adequate standard of living.
-
This right to an adequate standard of living includes rights to adequate housing and “the continuous improvement of living conditions.” The man who could not afford a shovel encountered similar problems when he needed to repair his tin roof. Two pieces of tin were blown off the roof, but he did not have the tools necessary to make the repairs himself. He contacted the Housing Department in Brocket to ask for assistance. A man visited his house, took a picture of the damaged roof and left. Six months passed, but the Housing Department had done nothing to repair the roof, supply tools or even contact the homeowner. After the homeowner contacted the Housing Department again, the employee returned and took more photographs of the roof. Three months later, four men arrived with a scaffold to repair damage that had never required more than one man and a ladder, which still cost more than the homeowner could afford. Because these four men spent most of their time sitting and smoking cigarettes, eight days passed before two pieces of tin were replaced on the roof.
-
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[118] binds the States Parties, including the Governments of Canada and Alberta, to certain duties.
-
Article 9. (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. . . .
(2) Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
-
Article 17. (1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
-
There is evidence that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have detained persons in violation of these provisions. For instance, an elderly Blackfoot man was arrested and requested the services of an attorney. He had not retained one, nor did he regularly employ the services of an attorney. Because he did not “have” a lawyer, the police told him he had waived his right to an attorney. The man, whose formal, western education was limited, did not understand the concept of waiver. Nevertheless, the concept was not explained to him. He was told to sign a paper regarding this waiver, so he signed it. Although he did not understand what had transpired, partly because the process was inaccurately explained to him, if explained at all, he never received the assistance of an attorney.[119] Recently, a young man was stabbed to death on the Reserve. The police arrested a suspect in connection with the murder, this time a young citizen of the Blackfoot Nation, but neither informed him of the charges against him nor explained his rights.[120]
-
As discussed above, the practices of the Blackfoot Band Council have been corrupted by imposition of the Indian Act, which paternalistically regulates council elections and structure at the same time it implicitly sanctions, by the Minister’s inaction, behavior that is inconsistent with the self-defined interests of the Blackfoot Nation. These circumstances violate the following provision of the ICCPR:
Article 25. Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
-
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
-
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
-
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
-
International Law and the Canadian Land Claims Process
-
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[121] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[122] both recognize, inter alia, the following principles.
-
“Article 1. (1) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. . . .
-
(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
-
Implementation of these rights is addressed in each Covenant’s article 2. Thus, the Government of Canada is obligated under the terms of these Covenants, to which it is a State Party, to establish national systems and procedures that protect these rights and provide effective remedies. No system exists, however, that adequately implements these rights. These rights involve far more than the simple land claims available to some First Nations occupying territory within the external boundaries of the Canadian state. The comprehensive land claims process implemented by the federal government, for instance, does not cover land claims by First Nations who entered treaties with the government.[123] Even if the invalidity of Treaty 7 is presumed, this process in no way attempts to restore the right to self-government possessed by the Blackfoot. Similarly, the specific land claims policy, while purporting to resolve issues relating to the illegal occupation of reserve lands,[124] would not address the right of the colonized people to external self-determination described by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Reference Re Secession of Quebec case.
-
Finally, by the terms of the Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over natural resources,[125] the General Assembly declared that “[t]he right of peoples . . . to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned.”[126] The Resolution further provides that “[t]he free and beneficial exercise of the sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural resources must be furthered by the mutual respect of States based on their sovereign equality.” It is “contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the Untied Nations” when violations of these rights of peoples occur.[127] These provisions apply with particular relevance to the Blackfoot people. As explained in their declaration of independence, the Blackfoot people relate to the land and natural resources in a manner distinct from European notions of property.
-
At the root of many disputes about land is a fundamental difference about the meaning of land. Many First Nations . . . referred to the land as Mother Earth. They did not view land as something which could be owned or sold. Most Europeans, on the other hand, viewed land as property which could be bought and traded like any other commodity.[128]
-
Viewed in concert with the misconceptions apparent at the making of Treaty 7 and this resolution, these divergent conceptualizations of land indicate that no land claims policy, comprehensive, specific or otherwise, will effectuate the exercise of the Blackfoot people’s fundamental right to self-determination. In other words, a successfully negotiated land claim, if it were even possible, would only recognize European-derived notions of land tenure. It would express a one-sided solution to a multifaceted problem. The Blackfoot people, or any people, can not be viewed as exercising the right to self-determination if their fundamental philosophies are ignored in this manner.
-
Canada’s Reputation as a Human Rights Vanguard
-
“In international circles, Canada is regarded as a world leader in the promotion of human rights. Canadian leaders and ambassadors have consistently pressed for protection of high standards on the human rights issues of marginalized and vulnerable populations.”[129]
-
Notwithstanding Canada’s reputation in the international human rights community as a leader in protecting human rights, its reputation for protecting the human rights of First Nations within its borders leaves much to be desired.[130] For instance, in its 1999 review of Canada’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Committee “repeatedly criticized Canada on its handling of First Peoples’ issues.”[131] The mechanisms needed to respond to and correct these criticisms are nonexistent in Canada, however. Considering the support given First Nations in the United Nations, it would behoove the Canadian government to consider these issues more seriously.
-
Furthermore, if the Canadian government follows its current path by disregarding the Blackfoot’ decision to assert their sovereign rights, the reputation of Canada in the international human rights community will be threatened further. If a human rights vanguard is viewed by other nations as slipping from its commitment to human rights principles, those other nations may follow suit. “Some nations even take refuge in Canada’s shortcomings, saying the continued poor treatment of First Peoples across Canada invalidates Canadian moral authority to speak about human rights abuses internationally.”[132] If Canada loses its persuasive supremacy internationally, it is alarming to consider what abuses other, less humane nations will consider within the bounds of morals and the law. If Canada truly has an interest in the promotion of human rights on an international scale, it would do well to promote human rights in its own territory.
-
On the national front, Canada would benefit from recognizing the Blackfoot Nation’s declaration of independence. The stability stemming from resolving such a claim would make it clear to other First Nations living within Canada’s borders, although they are Nations without the same claims to sovereignty as the Blackfoot, that Canada is committed to recognizing their grievances in a meaningful way. Different peoples employ different methods for resolving various political, social and legal claims. The fact that the Blackfoot Nation has declared its independence should not concern Canada with respect to other First Nations following the lead. The Blackfoot have specific claims that other Aboriginal peoples would find irrelevant or inappropriate to their needs. Therefore, recognition of Blackfoot sovereignty would not threaten to introduce a “slippery slope” to Canada’s Aboriginal affairs, because if other First Nations had desired to follow the same path, they would be expected to have done so already. Recognition of Blackfoot sovereignty would only strengthen Canada’s relations with other First Nations and restore Canada’s reputation in the international human rights community as an advocate of human rights.
-
Conclusion
-
The Blackfoot Nation has declared its independence from Canada because the Blackfoot people possess a fundamental right, recognized at international law, to self-determination. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that this right includes a right of unilateral secession from a colonizing power. It has been impossible for the Blackfoot Nation to exercise any meaningful form of internal self-determination because their lands have been illegally appropriated and occupied by the Canadian government, and Canadian law has been imposed on them without their consent. The illegal occupation of Blackfoot lands results from the invalid Treaty 7, entered into between Her Majesty the Queen by Her commissioners and the Blackfoot and other Nations in 1877. The treaty commissioners employed duplicitous tactics to coerce the First Nations’ leaders to agree to the terms of a written document they did not fully appreciate. Their lack of complete understanding of these terms resulted from inaccurate interpretations, promises that were never intended to be fulfilled, and fundamental differences in the conceptualization of land use and ownership, and the purpose of a treaty.
-
In signing Treaty 7, there is no evidence to support a contention that the Blackfoot and other First Nations’ leaders ever consented to surrender their lands or submit to colonial rule. Nevertheless, the Indian Act has been imposed on these peoples, and operates to strip the Blackfoot of any meaningful control over their lands, their governance and their daily lives. They have the right to control these aspects of their existence, and Canada has an obligation, under international and domestic law and the most basic principles constituting moral integrity, to recognize this right by accepting the Proclamation Restoring the Independence of the Sovereign Nation State of Blackfoot.
-
1. Blackfoot Nation, Declaration of Independence (November 29, 1999) (on file with Blackfoot Nation).
2. R.S.C., ch. I-5, ss.1-122 (1985) (Can.).
3. C. Roderick Wilson, The Plains – A Regional Overview, in Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience 353, 355 (R. Bruce Morrison & C. Roderick Wilson, eds., 1986); see also Olive Patricia Dickason, Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples From Earliest Times 44-45, 194-95 (1992).
4. Hugh A. Dempsey, The Blackfoot Indians, in Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience 404, 427 (R. Bruce Morrison & C. Roderick Wilson, eds., 1986).
5. Dempsey, supra note 4, at 404.
6. Dickason, supra note 3, at 297.
7. Dempsey, supra note 4, at 430.
8. A.D. Fisher, Great Plains Ethnography, in Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience 358, 359 (R. Bruce Morrison & C. Roderick Wilson, eds., 1986).
9. Ralph W. Johnson, Fragile Gains: Two Centuries of Canadian and United States Policy Toward Indians, 66 Wash. L. Rev. 643, 649 (1991).
10. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 134-35.
11. Id. at 136.
12. Id. at 137.
[13]. Dickason, supra note 3, at 282.
14. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 73.
15. Id. at 198.
16. Although Europeans and other western peoples may regard this system of documentation as a manifestation of unreliable hearsay, when considered within the larger context of Aboriginal cultures, this characterization misinterprets the essence of its use. Because oral documentation is communicated to other individuals from the same cultural tradition, the speaker and the listener will understand what is being communicated from the same point of reference. Additionally, the spoken word is as powerful and meaningful to the listener as it is to the speaker.
James Axtell, After Columbus: Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America 92-93 (1988).
17. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, 1075-76.
18. Shin Imai, Aboriginal Law Handbook 13 (2d ed., 1999), quoting R v. Sparrow, [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 160 (S.C.C.) at P81.
19. Walter Hildebrandt et al., Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council, The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7 195 (1996).
20. Id. at viii.
21. Id. at 4.
22. Id. at viii.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 230.
[24]. Id. at 9.
[25]. Id. at 240.
[26]. Id. at 240-41.
[27]. Id. at 240.
[28]. Id. at 9.
[29]. Id. at 10.
[30]. Id. at 25, 75.
[31]. Id. at 25.
[32]. Id. at 210.
[33]. Id. at 210.
[34]. Id. at 25, 304.
[35]. Dickason, supra note 3, at 282.
[36]. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 211.
[37]. Id. at 211-212.
[38]. Id. at 25.
[39]. Id. at 15.
[40]. Id. at 20-23.
[41]. Id. at 230-31.
[42]. Id. at 20-22.
[43]. Id. at 22.
[44]. Id. at 58.
[45]. Id. at 124; see also Dickason, supra note 3, at 194.
[46]. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 24.
[47]. Id. at 124-25.
[48]. Id. at 143.
[49]. Id. at 143.
[50]. Id. at 124.
[51]. Id. at 195.
[52]. Id. at 108.
[53]. Id. at 67, 111.
[54]. Id. at 111.
[55]. Id. at 197.
[56]. Id. at 197.
[57]. Id. at 23 (emphasis added). Blackfoot elders describe the process with the phrase, “Anahka aipoihka iipitsinnim aniistoohpi,” which roughly translates to “The person speaking has choked considerably that which is spoken.” Id. at 23.
[58]. R.S.C., ch. I-5, ss.1-122 (1985) (Can.).
[59]. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 218.
[60]. Id. at 219.
[61]. Id. at 144.
[62]. “Two feet were given up – one for ploughing and two for post holes.” Additional accounts of the negotiations support the assertion that the government officials agreed to this detail. Id. at 143-45.
[63]. Id. at 69.
[64]. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 199.
[65]. Id. at 206, citing Sakej Youngblood-Henderson, Land in British Legal Thought, unpublished
manuscript prepared for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Affairs at 203 (1994).
[66]. Johnson, supra note 60, at 670-71 (citing R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387, 402).
[67]. Johnson, supra note 60, at 670.
[68]. Id. at 649.
[69]. Shin Imai, Aboriginal Law Handbook 13 (2d ed., 1999), quoting R v. Sparrow, [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 160 (S.C.C.) at P81.
[70]. See, e.g., R.S.C., ch. I-5, ss. 18(1), 74, 79, 81- 83, 88, 90(2) (1985) (Can.).
[71]. Imai, supra note 89, at 166.
[72]. R.S.C. ch I-5 (1985).
[73]. Id. s. 74.
[74]. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, People to People, Nation to Nation x-xi (1996), quoted in Imai, supra note 89, at 28.
[75]. Johnson, supra note 60, at 669.
[76]. Diane F. Orentlicher, Separatism and the Democratic Entitlement, 92 Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. 131, 132 (1998), quoting John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (1861), quoted in Utilitarianism, on Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government 392 (1993) (emphasis added).
[77]. Richard H. Bartlett, The Indian Act of Canada 13 (1980).
[78]. Id. at 14.
[79]. The Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States, Dec. 26, 1933, 165 L.N.T.S. 19.
[80]. Id. at art. 1.
[81]. [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, 161 D.L.R. (4th) 385.
[82]. 161 D.L.R. at 433-34.
[83]. Id.
[84]. Id. at 434 (citations omitted).
[85]. Id.
[86]. Id. at 434-35 (citations omitted).
[87]. U.N. Charter art. 1, para 2, art. 55.
[88]. 993 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966), art. 1, para (1), (3).
[89]. 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966), art. 1, para (1), (3).
[90]. 161 D.L.R. at 435.
[91]. Id., quoting 993 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 1, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 1.
[92]. G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), U.N. GAOR, 25th Sess., Supp. No. 28, at121, U.N. Doc. A/8028 (24 October 1970).
[93]. 161 D.L.R. at 436, quoting U.N. General Assembly’s Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 50/6, 9 November 1995, art. 1 (emphasis added).
[94]. 161 D.L.R. at 436.
[95]. Telephone interview with Sikapii-Whitehorse, member of the Sovereign Nation of Blackfoot (February 1, 2000).
[96]. 161 D.L.R. at 436.
[97]. Id. at 437.
[98]. Dickason, supra note 3, at 124.
[99]. Imai, supra note 89, at 65.
[100]. 161 D.L.R. at 437-38.
[101]. Id. at 437-38, 440-441.
[102]. Id. at 441.
[103]. Id. at 441-42..
[104]. Id. at 438-39.
[105]. Id. at 439.
[106]. Id. at 440, citing A. Cassese, Self-determination of peoples: A legal reappraisal (1995), at pp. 171-72.
[107]. 161 D.L.R. at 440 (emphasis added).
[108]. Id. at 442.
[109]. 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966).
[110]. 993 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
[111]. G.A. Res. 1803 (XVII), 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15, U.N. Doc. A/5217 (1962).
[112]. U.N. GAOR, 3rd Sess., Pt. I, Resolutions, at 71, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948).
[113]. Dempsey, supra note 4, at 432.
[114]. Telephone interview with Sikapii-Whitehorse, member of the Sovereign Nation of Blackfoot (February 1, 2000).
[115]. 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966).
[116]. Id. art. 6(2).
[117]. Id. art. 11(1).
[118]. 993 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
[119]. Telephone interview with Sikapii-Whitehorse, member of the Sovereign Nation of Blackfoot (April 3, 2000).
[120]. Id.
[121]. 993 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
[122]. 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966).
[123]. Imai, supra note 89, at 71-72.
[124]. Id. at 74.
[125]. G.A. Res. 1803 (XVII), 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15, U.N. Doc. A/5217 (1962).
[126]. Id., ¶ 1.
[127]. Id., ¶ 7.
[128]. Imai, supra note 89, at 65.
[129]. Ann Pohl, Citizens for Public Justice, Building International Awareness on Aboriginal Issues 7 (March 2000) .
[130]. Id. at 7.
[131]. Id. at 17.
[132]. The following account portends an unsettling future:
The 1998 APEC meeting provides an example. Prime Minister Jean Chretien spoke at a public social event about international human rights concerns vis-à-vis Malaysia, which at that time included child labour exploitation and the violations of rights of opposition politicians. Reporter John Stackhouse captured Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad shrugging off this criticism with the following remarks: “‘I’m concerned with human rights world-wide, including Canada . . . I’m concerned with the red Indians, I don’t see them at APEC.’” Id. at 7, citing The Globe and Mail, November 16, 1998.
The Development of the Blackfoot Nation: Paper Delivered to the 3rd Annunal Conference on Aboriginal Studies and Issues, Beijing, China, May 18-21, 05 The Development of the Blackfoot Nation
By James M. Craven/Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi and Lori Hanson
Introduction
The existence, status and sovereignty of the Blackfoot Nation
Long before there were recognized nations called The United States of America and Canada, and for many years since the genesis, development and recognition of those nations, Blackfoot People lived as and formed a Whole People and Nation. By any and all criteria under international law that legitimate and mandate recognition of The United States of America and Canada as sovereign nations, that have their own unalienable rights to recognition, security and self-determination as nations, Blackfoot People have collectively constituted a “People” and Nation. Specifically, Blackfoot People historically and in the present-day possessed--and still possess—“Recognized”—by Blackfoot and non-Blackfoot:
1) Commonly-shared Territory;
2) Commonly-shared History, Culture, Spirituality and Language;
3) Commonly-shared Legal and Political Institutions, Processes and Traditions;
4) Commonly-shared Economic Institutions, Processes and Traditions;
5) Commonly-shared Mechanisms and Institutions for Determination of Membership in and Leadership/Composition of the Nation;
6) Commonly-shared Ancestors and Ties of Blood--Family, Clan and Tribe;
7) Capacity to Enter Into Relations with Other Nations;
8) Expressed Common Will of Blackfoot Individuals to Live Together in Collectives Forming Whole Societies Greater Than the Sums of the Parts;
9) Close Attachment to Ancestral Lands and their Resources;
10) Self-identification and Identification by Others as Members of a Distinct Nation or Cultural Group;
11) Expressed Desire to Remain Distinct as Blackfoot and not to be Assimilated;
As in the case of any Nation, the status and legitimacy of the Blackfoot Nation and the unalienable rights of the Blackfoot Nation and its members to security, peace, prosperity and self-determination do not depend upon any degree or kind of recognition or non-recognition by any other Nation or entity. The objective reality and status (under international law and as a defacto reality) of Blackfoot People as a Nation, and the derivative rights of the Blackfoot Nation to security, peace, prosperity and self-determination demand—rather than depend upon—recognition by all those Nations seeking or asserting similar recognition ( often with less authority) for themselves.
-
Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in international law that no members of one nation can be summarily declared to be members or citizens of another nation without their consent. Blackfoot Peoples and members of the Blackfoot Nation were summarily declared to be “citizens” of the United States of America in 1924 without their consent and were summarily declared to be “citizens” of Canada in 1963 without their consent.
-
Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in International law, that no nation or representative government of any nation makes “treaties” with its own citizens; treaties are instruments and agreements (covenants) between and among sovereign nations and, each treating nation tacitly, if not explicitly, in the act of treating or proposing to treat, recognizes the nationhood, sovereignty, co-equal status and system of government producing the authority—to form and keep the terms of a treaty—of the other treating party .
-
Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in international law, that nations have the right to seek, expose and indict those who commit crimes in the name of/against members of a nation and/or against international law, and to prosecute, on their soil, or in recognized international venues, those alleged to have committed such crimes.
-
Prior to the precedents set at the Nuremberg and other International Tribunals, it was thought that “established and customary” practice of international law, and the whole of international law itself, applied only between nations. It was the “customary and established practice” in international law that what governments or parties of nations did or didn’t do to their “own citizens” or their “own national minorities” that caused harm to these “citizens” or “national minorities” was not a matter for or concern of international law. Documents of and research on, the periods during which the U.S. and Canadian Governments summarily declared Blackfoot Peoples to be “citizens” of the United States and Canada without their consent, reveal that one of the clear and stated motives and intent of summary declaration of citizenship was to summarily declare removed—and to remove—certain “national minorities” of the United States and Canada (including Blackfoot People) from any protection, coverage or application of international law or conventions or treaties to which the U.S. and Canada were signatories, and were bound by summarily changing their status to that of “citizens”; thus, making their status and treatment an “internal matter” and supposedly not subject to international law; this is in violation of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-
Any extent to which any of the core elements of the Blackfoot Nation have been diminished or extinguished as a result of conquest, occupation, and ethnocidal/genocidal policies and practices; does not, and should not, in any way call into question the existence, legitimacy, or fundamental rights to sovereignty and self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation and its members. Were it not so, those who sought to eliminate Indigenous Peoples in general and Blackfoot in particular, would be rewarded for/and assisted in the commission of the very genocidal crimes against Blackfoot People and International Law.
-
Indigenous Nations in general, and Peoples of the Blackfoot Nation in particular, have recognized, established and codified rights to national recognition, national sovereignty, national preservation and protection of lands and resources, national self-determination and the national right to take any and all measures necessary to preserve and protect the Nation against genocide, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, war crimes or any other kinds of crimes or threats against the existence and survival of the Nation as a whole or its members. Legal support for and/or codification of these fundamental rights are to be found in:
-
· The Nuremberg Charter;
· The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide;
· Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States Dec. 26, 1933 (to which Canada was not a signatory);
· Charter of the United Nations, Article I (2) and Article 55;
· United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles I and 27;
· the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article I;
· UN General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations;
· UN General Assembly’s Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations;
· Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (e.g. “the right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the ‘imperial power’ is ‘now undisputed’.”);
· UN General Assembly Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (GA Res. 1803, XVII, 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15 U.N. Doc. A/5217, 1962);
· Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 15 and 17;
· UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514, XV (Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14.12.1960) and 1541;
· UN GA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24.10.1970, Annex, “Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
· Basket I, Final Act, Article VIII of the Helsinki Conference on Cooperation and Security in Europe;
· Article 38 no. 1 b of ICJ Statute ( two elements needed to create valid customary law in international law: general customary practice and opinio juris);
· Article 38 para. 1 d) of the ICJ Statute (judicial decisions can be used as “subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law”);
· the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Namibia in 1971 (“Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia);
· ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara (Order of 22 May 1975 ICJ Rep. 1975);
· ICJ Judgment on U.S. Military and Paramilitary Activities Against Nicaragua, ICJ Rep. 1986;
· ICJ Judgment on East Timor (Portugal v Australia), ICJ Rep. 1995;
· Permanent ICJ Ruling in the Case of Greco-Bulgarian Communities, P.C.I.J. [1930], Series B, No. 17,21;
· International Commission of Jurists, East Pakistan Staff Study, 1972 ( “ a people begins to exist only [and] when it becomes conscious of its own identity and asserts its will to exist”, p. 47);
· International Labor Organization Convention 107;
· the draft “Inter-American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” by the Organization of American States;
· declaration of President Richard Nixon, 1973(“self-determination as the key concept that would govern relations between Indian tribes [sic] and the government of the U.S.”);
· declaration of President Ronald Reagan in 1983 (“…the government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and Indian tribes had endured…consistently recognized a unique political relationship between Indian Tribes and the U.S. which this Administration pledges to uphold”);
· declaration of President William Clinton in 1994 (“This is our first principle: respecting your values, your religions, your identity, and your sovereignty…[We want to]…become full partners with the tribal nations.”);
· memorandum of the U.S. Department of Justice (opinio juris) ([Clinton’s position] “builds on the firmly established federal policy of self-determination for Indian tribes.”);
· Helsinki Final Act; “Fulfilling Our Promises: The United States and the Helsinki Final Act” by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in the U.S., 1979;
· “Compact of Self-governance Between the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe and the United States of America”;
· Article I, Section 10 and Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States;
From the fundamental right of the Blackfoot Nation to survival and self-determination, other facts and conclusions flow inexorably. For example, Canada’s Indian Act, and the Indian Reorganization Act of the U.S., strip recognized Indigenous sovereign nations, such as the Blackfoot Nation, with its recognized right to self-determination, of the power to govern the internal affairs of the Nation and transfer that power to entities of a foreign power (DIA , Minister of Indian Affairs and their “Band Council” creations in Canada and the BIA, Department of the Interior and their “Tribal Council” creations of the U.S. Government) thus summarily eliminating the right of self-determination as a prelude to and instrument of elimination of the Nation itself. The paternalistic policies of the Canadian and U.S. Governments purporting to “protect” Indigenous Peoples through a “trustee relationship”, have demonstrably created, and inexorably create, not “protecting powers”, but rather, powers, exploitative relationships and indeed genocidal policies from which Indigenous Peoples need protection through the exercise of the right of self-determination and through international law.
-
For the above-mentioned and other clear reasons, agencies such as the BIA and DIA, and their creations the “Tribal Councils”, whose policies and actions are all subject to final approval and ratification by the BIA and DIA, can never be recognized as the legitimate leadership and political authority of the Blackfoot Nation. The mechanisms through which the Blackfoot Tribal Councils are selected are non-Blackfoot in nature and in terms of the “final authority” conducting and sanctioning them. Indeed historically and in the present, corrupt Tribal Councils (not an indictment of every person serving or who has served on a Tribal Council) have been selected, used and run by the Canadian and U.S. governments as key instruments of genocide. It would be absurd and inherently illogical to suppose that only those same Band Councils could have the authority standing to bring charges against those who have committed crimes against the Blackfoot Nation—crimes in which they were often intimately involved as co-conspirators and key instruments of genocide.
-
The Historical Blackfoot Nation
-
The Blackfoot comprised primarily of the Kainai (Many Chiefs), Siksika (Blackfoot) and Apatohsipiikani (Northern Piikani) and Amskaapipiikani (Southern Piikani or Blackfeet in Montana) Bands (along with the smaller Bands of the Sarcee, Stoneys and elements of the Gros Ventre or Atsina who were members of The Blackfoot Confederacy formed in 1871) have occupied territory in what is now known as Canada since time immemorial.[1][2]
-
After Europeans began migrating to the so-called New World, indigenous populations throughout the continent were often forced to migrate to new homelands. “It is . . . probable that the Blackfoot occupied the region from the Bow River to the North Saskatchewan for countless generations before they moved south.”[3] Well before the Blackfoot were approached by agents of the Crown regarding treaty negotiations, the Blackfoot occupied an established region, which they—and other non-Blackfoot nations—considered their traditional territory. The Blackfoot territory during the historic period after 1750 was vast: it ranged from the North Saskatchewan River to the Missouri River and from the Rocky Mountains to the present Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary. Near the latter part of the nomadic era, the northern range shrank to the Battle River, as the Blackfoot withdrew in the face of Cree pressures and as the decreasing buffalo herds congregated farther south.”[4]
-
Ongoing contacts with Europeans, coupled with the nature of those contacts, altered the world of the Blackfoot forever. In 1870, it is estimated that Aboriginal peoples living on the Plains of western Canada outnumbered whites by more than two to one. Within a few short years of signing Treaty 7, however, disease and western expansion left the Blackfoot and other First Nations of the Canadian West “heavily outnumbered” by whites.[5] By 1880, all the buffalo had been wiped out, so the Blackfoot were forced to move to the reserves.[6] “The Indian Administration, the North West Mounted Police (N.W.M.P.), and the extinction of the bison, along with four separate smallpox epidemics, wiped out the rapidly evolving Plains Indian culture.”[7] This story is common to all indigenous peoples of the Americas, as illegal encroachments on land by whites, government sanctioned expansionism, destruction of natural resources, the spread of exotic diseases, and outright genocide were common themes resulting from the essentially involuntary contact with Europeans. Within the context of these ordeals the Blackfoot and other First Nations’ leaders reluctantly agreed to negotiate what became known as Treaty 7 with Her Majesty’s Canadian representatives.
-
Voluntary Consent
-
“In spite of the high-toned rhetoric about tribes and First Nations freely signing treaties, the land acquisition policy was only occasionally accomplished by fair, arms-length transactions. Most of the time the government acquired lands by a combination of coercion, fraud, threat of force, or actual military force. . . . It is absurd to argue that Aboriginal tribes knowingly and voluntarily gave up their claims to these lands.”[8]
-
Evidence of bad faith negotiating on the part of the Canadian officials is present. Questionable tactics were used to “persuade” the First Nations to agree to the treaty. The Mounties intimidated many of the Blackfoot people by assuming a military function during the Treaty 7 negotiations, “as in their dress and discourse they played the part of a military colour guard for the government officials present.”[9] For instance, the Mounties had aimed cannons right at the camps where the people stayed.[10] Other accounts support the claim that the N.W.M.P. used intimidation tactics to coerce the already suspicious people to enter the treaty: “‘They were parading and marching around and shooting their cannons.’”[11]
-
The Treaty 7 leaders felt there was no alternative to signing the agreement.[12] They were threatened by the N.W.M.P.’s show of force. It was indicated to the First Nations that unless they signed the treaty, war would erupt.[13] “The power relationship between the Aboriginal government and the Canadian government was not equal, and leaders such as Crowfoot and Red Crow were aware that military force was being used to slaughter indigenous people in the United States.”[14] Threat of force was not the only stratagem employed to coerce the Treaty 7 leaders into signing the treaty. Duplicity played a major role as well.
-
The people of the Blackfoot Nation record their history through the oral tradition; a system for writing Blackfoot language was not developed until 1963. For many Native cultures in which the oral tradition is used to record history, communicate spiritual doctrine or simply entertain, the spoken word is considered something tangible just as much as the written word can be considered tangible by a European.[15] Canada’s Supreme Court has recognized the validity of oral histories as admissible testimony in court.[16] Considering that “Canadian policy on Aboriginal people has been based on terrible distortions of history,”[17] the incorporation of oral testimony into that history could not do any more than adjust its accuracy. Thus, some of the following accounts, which have been passed down orally, of what actually transpired at Blackfoot Crossing in September 1877, should be accorded no less credibility than if these accounts had been transcribed onto paper. Indeed the authorized carriers of oral history among the Blackfoot must undergo extensive preparation and testing for accuracy and details before being designated as carriers of oral histories.
-
“It is questionable whether a ‘mutually understood agreement’ was ever arrived at between a people representing a written culture on the one hand, and a people representing an essentially oral culture on the other.”[18]
-
“[T]he oral tradition of our nations has preserved many accounts of the circumstances surrounding the making of Treaty 7 and the subsequent fulfillment of the treaty.”[19] These accounts evidence the significant problems encountered by the Blackfoot when faced with the mandate to enter into Treaty 7. In 1877 – otsisti pakssaisstoyiih pi, or the year when the winter was open and cold – Treaty 7 was negotiated between Her Majesty through Canadian officials and the Blackfoot and other nations. The Blackfoot Nations had no word for “treaty,” and they therefore considered the process istsist aohkotspi or iitsinnaihtsiiyo’pi (the time when we made a sacred alliance).[20] Treaty 7 elders “do not remember ever being told that the Treaty 7 First Nations had agreed to land surrender.”[21] They thought they were entering a peace treaty. “The elders all agree that there is a fundamental problem with the written treaty because it does not represent the ‘spirit and intent’ of the agreement . . . .”[22] For instance, the text of the treaty does not include specific terms the signatory First Nations expressly required before they would agree to the final contract.[23]
-
In 1874, the North West Mounted Police (N.W.M.P.), commanded by James Macleod, arrived and were welcomed in Blackfoot territory. The Blackfoot granted their request to stay one winter in the territory, but “it’s been a long winter.”[24] In the fall of 1875, the First Nations identified among themselves the critical issues; they passed on the substance of these issues to Jean L’Heureux, who then included them in a petition, which was then passed on to Alexander Morris, Canada’s chief negotiator.[25] The issues identified concerned the encroachment onto their lands by Cree and Métis hunters, and the increasing scarcity of buffalo, problems that would not have arisen but for the Blackfoot promise to end warfare with the other nations.[26] The N.W.M.P. met with the Bloods, Blackfoot, Peigan and Sarcee because those peoples suspected the N.W.M.P. was expediting white settlement on the First Nations’ lands. Commissioner Macleod promised that these issues would be fully discussed before any land would be taken,[27] and that he had no intention of taking the First Nations’ lands, but he apparently changed his mind.[28] Finally, the year 1877 “saw the alliance of peace between [the Treaty 7 Nations] and the Queen’s representatives at Blackfoot Crossing. The promises again were to be quickly broken.”[29]
-
The expectations of the chiefs at the negotiations seemed simple and unselfish enough: they wanted to ensure that the Canadian authorities would repress encroachments onto Native land, restrain American traders, and protect the buffalo. These problems had resulted in the larger problem of widespread hunger in the aboriginal communities.[30] The First Nations believed that an agreement with the Canadians would occasion a peace alliance to control these problems, to “safeguard their territory and to protect their way of life.”[31] The Treaty 7 First Nations had four specific goals. “[T]hey hoped to establish peaceful relations with the colonial government, to establish a relationship of equality between nations, and to create an atmosphere of respect.”[32] They certainly wanted to ensure “the physical survival of their people, especially in face of the devastation suffered in the wake of disease and disappearing buffalo herds.”[33] A related wish was that the cultural and spiritual well being of their people was secured by maintaining their systems of government, languages and traditional ceremonies. Finally, while not anticipating full assimilation into Canadian society, they hoped to integrate some new aspects of that society into their own by sharing their land with the newcomers.
-
The commissioners, on the other hand, expected the negotiated agreement to achieve the extinguishment of all Indian title to the area, and the relocation of the aboriginals onto reserves, thus opening the way for settlement[34] and the construction of the railroad.[35] The “overarching goal of realizing the ‘purpose of the Dominion’ as expeditiously as possible” (eschewing “any vision of a future for Aboriginal people”),[36] included five particular objectives: acquiring legal title to the land; encouraging non-native settlement; removing Aboriginal title cheaply; terminating American intrusion; and responding to Aboriginals’ purported requests for treaties.[37] Therefore, it is no surprise that “although each side had voiced its concerns, neither had heard the other.”[38]
-
“[M]isunderstandings, due partly to inadequate interpretation and/or a deliberate attempt to mislead” characterized the treaty-making process, as “there was a tremendous distance between the two perspectives.”[39] Many of the interpreters involved in the treaty negotiations were not fluent in the various languages used in the process.[40] More than eighty errors in the translation and spelling of Blackfoot names have been identified in the document.[41] These mistakes are not surprising, given the shortcomings of the interpreters: one interpreter, Jerry Potts, was drunk at the negotiations and did not clearly explain the substance and process to the participating chiefs; Jean-Baptiste L’Heureux’s credibility is suspect, as he habitually, falsely claimed to be a priest; and a third interpreter, Father Constantine Scollen, while somewhat familiar with the Cree language, did not understand the Blackfoot languages sufficiently to competently and clearly convey some of the simplest concepts.[42] Father Scollen mistakenly informed the Canadian authorities that the Blackfoot desired to make a treaty, when in reality, the leaders merely desired to discuss the problems they faced with respect to encroachments onto their land. They never asked to make a treaty.[43] Furthermore, Scollen himself suggested that at least the Bloods were never clearly informed about the precise meaning of the treaty.[44]
-
Another major problem at Blackfoot Crossing was the fact that no single person present could speak all of the languages of the people in attendance. . . . Questions arise such as: Could all the First Nations people assembled, who represented four distinct languages, have understood the same thing when words like ‘surrender’ or ‘cede’ were used? This would be especially doubtful for words that did not exist in the various Aboriginal languages; the very concept of landownership, for example, was completely foreign to a number of the nations present.[45]
-
Thus, the translation process suffered further because there were no words in the native languages for concepts such as “title” or “surrender,” or “reserve” three words with definite and powerful implications in the English language.[46] “It seems that the question of language is much more at issue for Treaty 7 than for any of the other numbered treaties.”[47] For example, “[t]he Stoney elders were particularly emphatic about the consequences of their people’s not understanding what a square mile was, especially after it was explained to them how little land was being surveyed for them.”[48] The Native people expected “that what the officials were saying about the land they would get would correspond to what they had described as territory they wanted.”[49] Because they did not understand the measurement concepts, they could not have knowingly agreed to specific treaty terms corresponding to those foreign concepts. Indeed, concepts such as “fee simple” and “rights of occupancy” derive from European law, and one wonders how a number of incompetent interpreters could clearly explain these foreign concepts to the leaders of such divergent cultures over the short time frame in which the agreement was negotiated.
-
Interpretive deficiencies in the negotiation process and present understanding involve additional cultural elements. “Perhaps most importantly, the two sides had different cultural traditions for remembering their history. In the Euro-Canadian cultures, history was written down, whereas in the First Nations cultures, history was transmitted orally in stories passed on by the elders.”[50] These cultural differences may account for interpretive inaccuracies. Furthermore, the “fundamental assumptions underlying European and Aboriginal languages are so radically different that simple translation is impossible.” Again, the mere fact that Blackfoot accounts of the treaty negotiations are preserved primarily in oral form does not render them any less legitimate, credible or reliable than if they had been reduced to writing. The methodology is simply different, not necessarily better or worse. “It is questionable whether a ‘mutually understood agreement’ was ever arrived at between a people representing a written culture on the one hand, and a people representing an essentially oral culture on the other.”[51]
-
The deficiencies in the translators’ abilities, together with the discordant language conceptualizations and the disparate expectations of the parties to the agreement were not the only reasons the First Nations understood the process differently than did the Canadians. These First Nations were not unfamiliar with the process of entering agreements, as they had been parties to such agreements with other First Nations prior to their contact with Europeans.[52] “The leaders who accepted Treaty 7 believed that it was first and foremost a peace treaty.” [53] Additionally, because warring among the First Nations and between the First Nations and the Canadians was not uncommon, the Treaty 7 First Nations were led to believe that by signing the treaty, they were merely agreeing not to fight any longer, and that “peace would be preserved between the First Nations and the Canadian authorities.”[54]
-
Nevertheless, the wishes of the First Nations’ leaders were ignored by the condescending and paternalistic government agents, who decided for themselves what the best interests of the First Nations really were.[55] The Canadians’ lack of respect for the expectations of the Aboriginal leaders resulted in a significant disadvantage for the First Nations, “who came to negotiate Treaty 7 in good faith.”[56]
-
“The point to be understood here is that the translation process failed at Blackfoot Crossing. . . .[T]he official records of the narrative indicate that the chiefs were only given one-sixth of the presentation of the commissioners.”[57] Although Canada’s Indian Act[58] had been passed the year before Treaty 7 was completed, the commissioners did not inform the Treaty 7 nations of its purposes and provisions. Thus, the First Nations were given the impression that the treaty, rather than a general codification of Canada’s Aboriginal policy, would govern their future relations with Canadian individuals and government. The Aboriginal leaders who negotiated Treaty 7 explicitly expressed their specific aspirations regarding the treaty, and they therefore expected those aspirations to be fulfilled by the very officials who promised to recognize and fulfill them. Commissioner Laird “was evasive in not explaining to Treaty 7 First Nations that the government intended to restrict and control Aboriginal people through the provisions of the Indian Act.”[59] Nevertheless, the Indian Act provisions, which were contrary to the wishes the Treaty 7 Nations had articulated, eclipsed even the terms of the treaty itself.[60]
-
In addition to being unfamiliar with European terms and concepts, which were poorly explained in translation as well, the relational arrangements were not clearly laid out to the leaders who signed Treaty 7. “Evidence that the Treaty 7 nations thought that they would share – not surrender – the land can be seen in their testimony about how the land was to be used.”[61] The nations indicated that they would only share the top two feet of soil with the newcomers.[62] The terms dictated by the First Nations were never written down, however, and considering that those who agreed to the terms in the treaty’s text could not read English, they had no way to confirm that their expectations had been omitted from the document. “The leaders of the treaty believed Jerry Potts’s interpretation of the Crown’s promises and everything else he told them, even though he spoke very poor Blackfoot . . . .”[63] The Treaty 7 leaders had no other choice, however. They had to believe what the interpreters told them about the treaty’s terms because there was no other way to obtain this information.
-
Furthermore, the commissioners employed certain tactics to impress upon the Treaty 7 leaders the absolute necessity of entering the agreement. While many of the First Nations’ leaders harbored some suspicions about the process and some of the officials involved in that process, they were assured that their requests would be honored. They were also the victims of artful maneuvering.
-
Notwithstanding the controversies surrounding the making of the treaty and its text, the Canadian government has not dealt seriously with these issues. “[A]reas of the treaty that are clearly problematic have been glossed over and the discourse of those who hold power has allowed authors to ignore difficult issues.”[64] This policy appears contrary to the fiduciary obligation owed to First Nations. “The Crown was left with legally enforceable fiduciary duties: ‘[f]ailure of the Crown to perform the obligations would cause the jurisdictional interests over the land to revert to the First Nations.’”[65]
-
Canons of Treaty Construction
-
Even if one could argue successfully that Treaty 7 is not invalid, Canadian law itself imposes on the Canadian government an obligation to construe such treaties as the First Nations understood them.[66] It is no longer acceptable to rely on the plain meaning of the terms used in the treaty document for controlling interpretation.[67] Therefore, the terms of Treaty 7 do not control current interpretations. What the Blackfoot and other Treaty 7 leaders understood as the treaty’s terms controls how the document is to be interpreted. Because the Blackfoot construed Treaty 7 as a peace agreement, whereby they were to receive certain compensations in exchange for sharing their land with the newcomers, that is all to which they agreed, and that is all to which the Canadian government is lawfully entitled to receive. The Canadian government, however, has appropriated vast tracts of Blackfoot land, and has usurped the inherent sovereign right of Blackfoot to govern themselves. The Blackfoot never knowingly, voluntarily or lawfully relinquished these lands or their self-governing prerogatives. The Canadian courts and administration violate Canada’s own rules of treaty construction when Treaty 7 is interpreted in a contrary manner. Relations between the Blackfoot Nation and the Canadian government are based on the terms of Treaty 7 as interpreted are in apparent violation of Canada’s canons of treaty construction, and governed by imposition of the Indian Act.
-
The Indian Act
-
“[G]overnmental action taken ‘for the good of the Indians,’ effectively abolished Indian religion, culture and lifestyle.”[68]
-
The Chief Justice of Canada’s Supreme Court has acknowledged the real threat to Aboriginal interests by governmental intrusion into their affairs:
Our history has shown, unfortunately all too well, that Canada’s aboriginal peoples are justified in worrying about government objectives that may be superficially neutral but which constitute de facto threats to the existence of the aboriginal rights and interests.[69]
-
The terms of the Indian Act infringe on the Blackfoot Nation’s right to determine its internal affairs and thus its right to self-determination. The paternalistic provisions strip the power to govern from the Nation and place that power in the hands of the Crown or the Minister of Indian Affairs.[70] Without some of its provisions, however, all Native peoples under its jurisdiction would suffer. It typifies the proverbial double-edged sword. The Indian Act is a symbolic manifestation of the conflicting objectives of Aboriginal policy. The act and the policy it codifies recognize the distinctiveness and inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples vis à vis the colonizing government on the one hand, but oppress them by imposing foreign law on the other. The policy that purports to “protect” Aboriginal peoples while at the same time creating a source and nature of power from which they need protection which imposes unjustifiable restrictions on the peoples’ rights to self-determination recognized by both Canadian and international law.
-
While some of the Indian Act provisions may not apply to all First Nations,[71] the existence of the act itself interferes with the exercise of self-determination. Section 18(1) of the Indian Act provides as follows:
-
“Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which land in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band.”[72]
-
This provision may provide protection with one hand, but with the other it takes away the inherent right of the Blackfoot to make their own determinations regarding how their own land and internal relations will be governed.
-
A Nation cannot exercise self-determination when an ostensibly higher power enjoys the discretion to repudiate that Nation’s law. The act also provides for the mechanisms through which First Nations will select their band councils.[73] When a First Nation chooses to employ its traditional governance structures, the Minister still may step in and impose his or her will on the Nation. If, for instance, any by-law passed by the band council, whether elected under Indian Act provisions or by “custom,” is inconsistent with the Minister’s views, he may disallow the by-law under s. 82(2). This system is wholly inadequate for the Blackfoot to manage its internal affairs, and it is disruptive to the Reserve community. Among many Blackfoot, this arrangement is seen as exactly analogous to that of the Vichy Government of occupied France during World War II and the occupying forces of Germany that set up and controlled it.
-
The Blackfoot Nation Today: At a Crossroads of Survival
-
The definitive law governing—and definition of—genocide can be found in Article II of the 1949 UN Convention on Genocide to which Canada became a signatory in 1953. According to Article II, any (not all) of the following acts constitute genocide: a) Killing Members of a Group; b) Causing Serious Mental and Bodily Harm to Members of a Group; c) Deliberately Inflicting Upon a Group Conditions of Life Calculated to Bring About its Physical Destruction in Whole or in Part; d) Imposing Measures Intended to Prevent Births Within the Group (Sterilization); e) Forcibly Transferring Children of the Group to Another Group. There is extensive documentary and other evidence that Blackfoot have been subject to all five types of genocidal acts throughout Canadian and U.S. histories and stand today on the verge of extinction as a “Whole People” or Nation.
-
It was through the Indian Residential School system that Blackfoot children were “forcibly transferred from one group to another” through a system designed to “Kill the Indian, [in order to] Save the Man”. Blackfoot children, from about 1880 up until 1989, were routinely taken by force, under the color of the Indian Act, to isolated Indian Residential Schools where: their traditional long hair was cut; where they were beaten for speaking native languages and practicing traditional spirituality; where they were abused in various ways and “trained” to become domestics and unskilled farm hands (it was thought Indians would only be capable of the most menial tasks) and their ties to traditional lands, communities and culture were progressively broken. It was through the 1928 Alberta Sterilization Act, seen by the German Nazis as a model for their 1933 “Race Hygiene Law” and 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws, that Blackfoot children were routinely sterilized under the premise that to be Indian is to be “feebleminded” and likely to pass on “bad genes.” Blackfoot children were routinely used for medial experimentation (e.g. Hepatitis-B vaccine and studies allowing dental diseases to progress without intervention—like the Syphilis studies done on African-Americans at Tuskegee, Alabama in the U.S.—to study the pathodynamics of the disease).
-
The present-day conditions on the Blackfoot Reserves at Gleichen, Cardston and Brocket, Alberta, as well as those at Browning, Montana certainly qualify as conditions likely—and foresee ably (for an average reasonable and prudent person) to be likely—to cause serious mental and bodily harm as well as cause physical destruction of the group in whole or in part. Unemployment rates on the Reserves are estimated to range between 65% to around 90% with the majority of jobs in government—Band, Provincial or Federal—and often handed out through patronage, cronyism or nepotism.
-
On the Reserves, infrastructure (roads, sewage, telecommunications, fresh water, education, health care etc) is typically poor; the few businesses found on the reserves are typically non-Blackfoot owned; Blackfoot Reserves—along with other non-Blackfoot Reserves—have been targeted as sites for dumping waste from non-Indigenous communities; the average Reserve Blackfoot lives on about $229.00 (Canadian) a month to cover all expenses (lodging, food, utilities, etc); suicide and homicide rates on the Reserves stand at about 5 to 15 times the overall Canadian suicide and homicide rates—even higher for teenagers; allegations of systemic corruption by certain Band authorities and their relations are pervasive, credible and longstanding; rates of teenage pregnancy stand at five to seven times the overall Canadian rate; saving rates are low or non-existent and financial intermediaries are typically non-Blackfoot and found off the Reserves taking the little saving off the Reserves to be invested elsewhere. These are but some of the myriad problems and nation-extinguishing conditions found on the Blackfoot Reserves.
-
Of the estimated fifty or so thousand Blackfoot remaining, many living off the Reserves, over 95% are considered “mixed race.” This is important in that Indigenous Peoples, in the U.S. and Canada are considered “status” Indians, entitled to certain “services” and entitlements from the trustee relationship with the government, on the basis of being at least “quarter-blood” (Blackfoot). Ignoring the problems associated with race as a biological construct for the moment, and the whole notion of one’s “blood” being divisible into portions or quantums, it is clear that blood-quantum requirements may be used and have been used as instruments of assimilation and extinguishment. According to one document from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs: “Set the blood-quantum at one-quarter, hold to it as a rigid definition of Indians, let intermarriage proceed, and eventually Indians will be defined out of existence; when this happens, the federal government will be finally freed from its persistent Indian problem.”
-
At present, there are actual examples of non-enrolled or non-status Blackfoot who are considered “full-blood” Native but who cannot be enrolled as they lack “quarter-blood” from any one particular group. This not only decimates the Band roles of those designated as “Status Indians” but it also disrupts and divides whole families into “status” versus non-status. Further, there is the problem of Blackfoot identity and Band status being defined by a foreign and occupying power with vested interests in how and on what basis “status” is defined.
-
Legal Issues
-
In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issued a report containing the following statement: “‘Canadians need to understand that Aboriginal peoples are nations . . . To this day, Aboriginal people’s sense of confidence and well-being as individuals remains tied to the strength of their nations. Only as members of restored nations can they reach their potential in the twenty-first century.’”[74] Given that this report was commissioned by the Canadian government, it seems curious that the government refuses to heed its observations. Instead, the “government has insisted on dominating governance and land rights of First Nations, severely limiting First Nations’ rights and abilities to self-government.”[75] The honor of the Canadian government and the Crown itself could be at stake if recognition of these principles does not occur.
-
Although the Canadian government would argue that a right to self-determination does not directly translate into an unlimited right to sovereignty for the Blackfoot Nation, legal authority supports the exercise of sovereignty by the Blackfoot.
-
Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. This is merely saying that the question of government ought to be decided by the governed. One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do, if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate themselves.[76]
-
The Blackfoot Nation is not required to ask permission from the Canadian government to declare its independence, because their right to self-determination as a people, under the provisions of the United Nations Charter, allows them to exercise that right notwithstanding the views of the colonizing nation. Because the Blackfoot territory is illegally occupied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, however, it is incumbent upon the Canadian government to recognize the right to proclaim independence and remove the illegal occupiers presently.
-
Characteristics of a State
-
The inherent powers of Indian self-government include, among others, the power to determine the Nation’s form of government, the power to define conditions for membership, and the power to regulate domestic relations between members, but the Indian Act denies these claims.[77] “[T]he Crown officers utilized the traditional government only for land surrenders and treaties, and otherwise deprived that traditional government of any powers of management or control.”[78]
-
Although Canada is not a State Party to the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States,[79] the guidelines provided therein illustrate that the Blackfoot Nation exhibits the four characteristics of a “state as a person under international law . . . : (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.”[80] As mentioned above, the Blackfoot peoples have existed since time immemorial. They have not allowed themselves to be assimilated into the larger Canadian society, even though the assimilationist agenda of the Canadian government has been imposed upon them from the beginning of relations between the two peoples.
-
The Reserves themselves are testimony to the existence of a defined territory. Additional lands illegally acquired by the Canadian government are included in this territory. Blackfoot government is illustrated by the organization of “chiefs” who entered into treaty negotiations with the treaty commissioners. Historical forms of self-governance continue, through recognition of and participating in traditional societies, such as the Brave Dog Society.
-
Furthermore, although the Indian Act places restrictions on the exercise by First Nations of many self-governing powers, a declaration of independence would not issue without some form of organized governance. Finally, the capacity to enter into relations is illustrated by the many treaties the Blackfoot formed before Treaty 7.
-
Reference Re Secession of Quebec
-
In Reference Re Secession of Quebec[81] the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted international law in a manner entirely consistent with the Blackfoot Nation’s declaration of independence and right to sovereignty. One of the central questions answered by the Supreme Court involved whether the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec had the right, under international law, to secede unilaterally from Canada. Although the Court answered in the negative, the facts presented in Reference re Secession of Quebec are distinguishable from the facts involved in the Blackfoot Nation’s decision to declare its independence from Canada, and the legal analyses support that declaration.
-
Although the Court found that “[i]t is clear that international law does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their ‘parent’ state,”[82] the Court stated that the legal right would be conferred on peoples in certain circumstances not present in that case. The Court analyzed alternative propositions offered in support of Quebec’s right to secede: absence of a specific prohibition on unilateral secession implied permission; and the duty of states to recognize secession as part of the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.[83] In reference to the first proposition, the Court observed that international law neither expressly grants nor denies a right to unilateral secession, but that “international law places great importance on the territorial integrity of nation states and, by and large, leaves the creation of a new state to be determined by the domestic law of the existing state of which the seceding entity presently forms a part.”[84] Because the Blackfoot at no time consented to become part of the Canadian state, and because the Blackfoot inhabited the territory that was eventually, illegally subsumed within that state, their sovereign rights are both pre- and extra-constitutional. Furthermore, the Court added that the second proposition involving the right of peoples to self-determination would not necessarily implicate the Constitution and other domestic laws of Canada.
-
“While international law generally regulates the conduct of nation states, it does, in some specific circumstances, also recognize the ‘rights’ of entities other than nation states -- such as the right of a people to self-determination.”[85] The Court cited several international documents that specifically recognize the right of peoples to self-determination. “The existence of the right of a people to self-determination is now so widely recognized in international conventions that the principle has acquired a status beyond ‘convention’ and is considered a general principle of international law.”[86] The documents codifying the recognition of this right primarily include the Charter of the United Nations,[87] the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),[88] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[89]
-
Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, Can. T.S. 1945 No. 7, states in part that one of the purposes of the United Nations (U.N.) is:
-
Article 1
. . . . .
-
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace[.]
-
Article 55 of the U.N. Charter further states that the U.N. shall promote goals such as higher standards of living, full employment and human rights "[w]ith a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well- being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples".[90]
-
Article 1 of both the ICCPR and the ICESCR provide that “‘[a]ll peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’”[91] The Court also cited the United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which states:
-
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.[92]
-
Thus, under these international law provisions, the Blackfoot peoples possess the right to determine their political status without interference from the Canadian government. They have determined their political status as an independent, sovereign nation, and every nation, including Canada, has an obligation to honor this exercise of the Blackfoot Nation’s internationally recognized right. The Canadian Supreme Court cited additional international legal authority that would support the sovereign right of the Blackfoot peoples to declare their independence from their colonizers. Under the General Assembly’s Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, “the U.N.’s member states will . . . reaffirm the right of self-determination of all peoples, taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, and recognize the right of peoples to take legitimate action . . . to realize their inalienable right of self-determination.”[93] Under the circumstances created by the Canadian government through its illegal occupation of Blackfoot territory and imposition of the Indian Act, the only action available to the Blackfoot Nation for realization of their right to self-determination is that which has been executed, a declaration of independence.
-
Although this provision ensures that the territorial integrity of independently sovereign states will not be disturbed by application of its terms, that reservation only applies when the state complies “with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind. . . .”[94] In the case of the Blackfoot, Canada has not complied with the principles of equal rights and self-determination, and the Canadian government does not represent the Blackfoot people in any meaningful way. The illegal occupation of Blackfoot territory, improperly justified by the invalid terms of Treaty 7, and imposition of the Indian Act evidence noncompliance with the principles of equality and self-determination. Employment opportunities are scarce for Blackfoot individuals, on and off the Reserve, even in a business conducted on Blackfoot land, administered by employees of the Alberta government.[95] Furthermore, how many Blackfoot individuals are members of Parliament? What is the proportion of Blackfoot individuals to non-Aboriginal (i.e., white) individuals employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
-
These circumstances do not provide the sole or even primary basis for the Blackfoot Nation’s assertion of sovereignty vis à vis the Canadian government, however. The territorial integrity of a state becomes virtually irrelevant under certain circumstances. As quoted above, special consideration is given in cases of colonization, alien domination and foreign occupation. The Supreme Court of Canada explicitly recognized a people’s international legal right to secede under these exceptional circumstances, when it is not possible for the people’s right to self-determination to be exercised “within the framework of existing sovereign states and consistently with the maintenance of the territorial integrity of those states.”[96] Thus, under international law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada itself, the Blackfoot possess a right to secede from the Canadian state, which they have exercised through the declaration of their independence.
-
A threshold question in determining whether a group may exercise its right to self-determination in this way and under these circumstances is whether the group purporting to exercise the right constitutes “a people.” The Court, while noting that the “precise meaning of the term ‘people’ remains somewhat uncertain,”[97] indicated that this threshold question could be answered by determining whether the population shares certain characteristics, such as a common language and culture. While the Treaty 7 Nations did use varied dialects, the Blackfoot language is part of the Algonkian language group.[98] Their cultural histories are undeniably common, as discussed above in reference to the making of Treaty 7. Furthermore, they have maintained aspects of their cultural traditions, such as their special relationship with the land and natural resources,[99] and internal governance structures, such as the functioning of the Brave Dog society, despite attempts by the Canadian government to destroy their culture and assimilate their people into the dominant colonizing society. They continue to live in relatively self-contained social arrangements on the reserves. It is doubtful that any person or tribunal would deny that the Blackfoot constitute a people in the international legal sense of the term.
The next step in the Court’s analysis described the scope of the right to self-determination. Internal and external versions of self-determination were delineated. The usual route to realizing self-determination is through internal functions, which involve political, economic, social and cultural pursuits within the existing state’s governmental infrastructure.[100] The Indian Act represents a most flagrant interference with internal self-determination. When, as here, internal self-determination is inadequate because the meaningful exercise of the right is blocked, a right to external self-determination materializes. This right to external self-determination would include unilateral secession.[101] The position of Quebec in this regard is distinguishable from that of the Blackfoot because, as the Court observed, the Quebec people have not suffered attacks on their physical existence, and they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy considerable representation in the Canadian government.[102] “The population of Quebec is equitably represented in legislative, executive and judicial institutions.”[103] The population of the Blackfoot is not.
-
Again, recognition of this right is not intended to facilitate the destruction of a state’s territorial integrity, political independence or domestic unity, but these entitlements are conditional.[104] In the case of the Blackfoot, Canada has never enjoyed a valid claim to the Blackfoot’s territory, because the Blackfoot never surrendered the land; exercise of sovereignty by the Blackfoot Nation is irrelevant to Canada’s political independence; and Blackfoot secession would not affect the unity of the Canadian state. Lack of Blackfoot participation in Canadian governance, and the relative detachment of the Blackfoot from the whole of Canadian society suggest that the unified Dominion is uninterested in whether the Blackfoot are unified with the rest of Canadians or not.
-
Furthermore, the “maintenance of the territorial integrity of existing states, including Canada” is incompatible with “the right of [the Blackfoot] to achieve a full measure of self-determination.”[105] Again, the illegal occupation of Blackfoot land occasioned by the invalid Treaty 7, imposition of the Indian Act and the lack of meaningful representation of the Blackfoot in Canadian governance cause this incompatibility.
-
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s analysis of colonial and oppressed peoples presents an authoritative legal framework in which the Blackfoot declaration of independence should be recognized.
-
[T]here are certain defined contexts within which the right to the self-determination of peoples does allow that right to be exercised "externally", which, in the context of this Reference, would potentially mean secession:
-
“...the right to external self-determination, which entails the possibility of choosing (or restoring) independence, has only been bestowed upon two classes of peoples (those under colonial rule or foreign occupation), based upon the assumption that both classes make up entities that are inherently distinct from the colonialist Power and the occupant Power and that their "territorial integrity', all but destroyed by the colonialist or occupying Power, should be fully restored [.]”[106]
-
Thus, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, the “right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the ‘imperial’ power is now undisputed.”[107] In situations of former colonies, the right to external self-determination includes the right of a people to declare its independence from the colonial power.[108] Canada is but one former colony in North America, and the Blackfoot were and continue to be “inherently distinct” from the European-derived colonial powers. Their territory was “all but destroyed” by that colonial power and it thus should be “fully restored.”
-
Additional Sources of International Legal Authority
-
Violations of international human rights law have been and continue to be committed against the Blackfoot Nation by the Government of Canada. It is within the context of these violations that the Blackfoot Nation has declared its independence. By the terms of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,[109] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[110] and the Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources,[111] the actions of the Governments of Canada and Alberta have violated the rights of the Blackfoot Nation as recognized under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[112] to which Canada is a party.
-
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides, inter alia:
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
-
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. . . .
-
Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. . . .
-
Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. . .
-
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family. . . .
-
The current state of affairs existing between the Blackfoot and the Canadian government is contrary to these principles. First, the Blackfoot are effectively denied their nationality by their forced integration into the Canadian governmental structure. They have not indicated a desire or consent to becoming part of the Canadian polity. Second, the Blackfoot have been deprived of their property by operation of Treaty 7, which is invalid and unenforceable. Thus, their territory is being occupied illegally. Third, protection against unemployment is virtually nonexistent for the Blackfoot: “[w]elfare and a lack of employment on the reserves also continue as major difficulties.”[113] Similarly, the standard of living for most Blackfoot people is so low; one Blackfoot member indicated he could not afford to purchase a shovel to straighten up his yard. The same Blackfoot member indicated he is physically able to work, but because employment opportunities on his Reserve are not available to him, he is forced to live off welfare checks of $229.00 per month. His wife currently receives a disability pension, but she would lose her entitlement if he ever did secure employment and receive adequate compensation. He has tried to make a living on his own, but certification is needed for the jobs for which he is qualified. Certification requires the expenditure of money he does not have.[114]
-
These problems implicate additional sources of international legal authority. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[115] declares that states party to the Covenant, including Canada, recognize the right to work. Concomitant to this recognition is the state’s duty to take steps to safeguard this right, including “technical and vocational guidance.”[116] The Covenant further provides that all people have a right to an adequate standard of living.[117] The inability to afford a simple tool like a shovel does not indicate an adequate standard of living.
-
This right to an adequate standard of living includes rights to adequate housing and “the continuous improvement of living conditions.” The man who could not afford a shovel encountered similar problems when he needed to repair his tin roof. Two pieces of tin were blown off the roof, but he did not have the tools necessary to make the repairs himself. He contacted the Housing Department in Brocket to ask for assistance. A man visited his house, took a picture of the damaged roof and left. Six months passed, but the Housing Department had done nothing to repair the roof, supply tools or even contact the homeowner. After the homeowner contacted the Housing Department again, the employee returned and took more photographs of the roof. Three months later, four men arrived with a scaffold to repair damage that had never required more than one man and a ladder, which still cost more than the homeowner could afford. Because these four men spent most of their time sitting and smoking cigarettes, eight days passed before two pieces of tin were replaced on the roof.
-
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[118] binds the States Parties, including the Governments of Canada and Alberta, to certain duties.
-
Article 9. (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. . . .
(2) Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
-
Article 17. (1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
-
There is evidence that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have detained persons in violation of these provisions. For instance, an elderly Blackfoot man was arrested and requested the services of an attorney. He had not retained one, nor did he regularly employ the services of an attorney. Because he did not “have” a lawyer, the police told him he had waived his right to an attorney. The man, whose formal, western education was limited, did not understand the concept of waiver. Nevertheless, the concept was not explained to him. He was told to sign a paper regarding this waiver, so he signed it. Although he did not understand what had transpired, partly because the process was inaccurately explained to him, if explained at all, he never received the assistance of an attorney.[119] Recently, a young man was stabbed to death on the Reserve. The police arrested a suspect in connection with the murder, this time a young citizen of the Blackfoot Nation, but neither informed him of the charges against him nor explained his rights.[120]
-
As discussed above, the practices of the Blackfoot Band Council have been corrupted by imposition of the Indian Act, which paternalistically regulates council elections and structure at the same time it implicitly sanctions, by the Minister’s inaction, behavior that is inconsistent with the self-defined interests of the Blackfoot Nation. These circumstances violate the following provision of the ICCPR:
Article 25. Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
-
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
-
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
-
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
-
International Law and the Canadian Land Claims Process
-
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[121] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[122] both recognize, inter alia, the following principles.
-
“Article 1. (1) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. . . .
-
(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
-
Implementation of these rights is addressed in each Covenant’s article 2. Thus, the Government of Canada is obligated under the terms of these Covenants, to which it is a State Party, to establish national systems and procedures that protect these rights and provide effective remedies. No system exists, however, that adequately implements these rights. These rights involve far more than the simple land claims available to some First Nations occupying territory within the external boundaries of the Canadian state. The comprehensive land claims process implemented by the federal government, for instance, does not cover land claims by First Nations who entered treaties with the government.[123] Even if the invalidity of Treaty 7 is presumed, this process in no way attempts to restore the right to self-government possessed by the Blackfoot. Similarly, the specific land claims policy, while purporting to resolve issues relating to the illegal occupation of reserve lands,[124] would not address the right of the colonized people to external self-determination described by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Reference Re Secession of Quebec case.
-
Finally, by the terms of the Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over natural resources,[125] the General Assembly declared that “[t]he right of peoples . . . to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned.”[126] The Resolution further provides that “[t]he free and beneficial exercise of the sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural resources must be furthered by the mutual respect of States based on their sovereign equality.” It is “contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the Untied Nations” when violations of these rights of peoples occur.[127] These provisions apply with particular relevance to the Blackfoot people. As explained in their declaration of independence, the Blackfoot people relate to the land and natural resources in a manner distinct from European notions of property.
-
At the root of many disputes about land is a fundamental difference about the meaning of land. Many First Nations . . . referred to the land as Mother Earth. They did not view land as something which could be owned or sold. Most Europeans, on the other hand, viewed land as property which could be bought and traded like any other commodity.[128]
-
Viewed in concert with the misconceptions apparent at the making of Treaty 7 and this resolution, these divergent conceptualizations of land indicate that no land claims policy, comprehensive, specific or otherwise, will effectuate the exercise of the Blackfoot people’s fundamental right to self-determination. In other words, a successfully negotiated land claim, if it were even possible, would only recognize European-derived notions of land tenure. It would express a one-sided solution to a multifaceted problem. The Blackfoot people, or any people, can not be viewed as exercising the right to self-determination if their fundamental philosophies are ignored in this manner.
-
Canada’s Reputation as a Human Rights Vanguard
-
“In international circles, Canada is regarded as a world leader in the promotion of human rights. Canadian leaders and ambassadors have consistently pressed for protection of high standards on the human rights issues of marginalized and vulnerable populations.”[129]
-
Notwithstanding Canada’s reputation in the international human rights community as a leader in protecting human rights, its reputation for protecting the human rights of First Nations within its borders leaves much to be desired.[130] For instance, in its 1999 review of Canada’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Committee “repeatedly criticized Canada on its handling of First Peoples’ issues.”[131] The mechanisms needed to respond to and correct these criticisms are nonexistent in Canada, however. Considering the support given First Nations in the United Nations, it would behoove the Canadian government to consider these issues more seriously.
-
Furthermore, if the Canadian government follows its current path by disregarding the Blackfoot’ decision to assert their sovereign rights, the reputation of Canada in the international human rights community will be threatened further. If a human rights vanguard is viewed by other nations as slipping from its commitment to human rights principles, those other nations may follow suit. “Some nations even take refuge in Canada’s shortcomings, saying the continued poor treatment of First Peoples across Canada invalidates Canadian moral authority to speak about human rights abuses internationally.”[132] If Canada loses its persuasive supremacy internationally, it is alarming to consider what abuses other, less humane nations will consider within the bounds of morals and the law. If Canada truly has an interest in the promotion of human rights on an international scale, it would do well to promote human rights in its own territory.
-
On the national front, Canada would benefit from recognizing the Blackfoot Nation’s declaration of independence. The stability stemming from resolving such a claim would make it clear to other First Nations living within Canada’s borders, although they are Nations without the same claims to sovereignty as the Blackfoot, that Canada is committed to recognizing their grievances in a meaningful way. Different peoples employ different methods for resolving various political, social and legal claims. The fact that the Blackfoot Nation has declared its independence should not concern Canada with respect to other First Nations following the lead. The Blackfoot have specific claims that other Aboriginal peoples would find irrelevant or inappropriate to their needs. Therefore, recognition of Blackfoot sovereignty would not threaten to introduce a “slippery slope” to Canada’s Aboriginal affairs, because if other First Nations had desired to follow the same path, they would be expected to have done so already. Recognition of Blackfoot sovereignty would only strengthen Canada’s relations with other First Nations and restore Canada’s reputation in the international human rights community as an advocate of human rights.
-
Conclusion
-
The Blackfoot Nation has declared its independence from Canada because the Blackfoot people possess a fundamental right, recognized at international law, to self-determination. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that this right includes a right of unilateral secession from a colonizing power. It has been impossible for the Blackfoot Nation to exercise any meaningful form of internal self-determination because their lands have been illegally appropriated and occupied by the Canadian government, and Canadian law has been imposed on them without their consent. The illegal occupation of Blackfoot lands results from the invalid Treaty 7, entered into between Her Majesty the Queen by Her commissioners and the Blackfoot and other Nations in 1877. The treaty commissioners employed duplicitous tactics to coerce the First Nations’ leaders to agree to the terms of a written document they did not fully appreciate. Their lack of complete understanding of these terms resulted from inaccurate interpretations, promises that were never intended to be fulfilled, and fundamental differences in the conceptualization of land use and ownership, and the purpose of a treaty.
-
In signing Treaty 7, there is no evidence to support a contention that the Blackfoot and other First Nations’ leaders ever consented to surrender their lands or submit to colonial rule. Nevertheless, the Indian Act has been imposed on these peoples, and operates to strip the Blackfoot of any meaningful control over their lands, their governance and their daily lives. They have the right to control these aspects of their existence, and Canada has an obligation, under international and domestic law and the most basic principles constituting moral integrity, to recognize this right by accepting the Proclamation Restoring the Independence of the Sovereign Nation State of Blackfoot.
-
1. Blackfoot Nation, Declaration of Independence (November 29, 1999) (on file with Blackfoot Nation).
2. R.S.C., ch. I-5, ss.1-122 (1985) (Can.).
3. C. Roderick Wilson, The Plains – A Regional Overview, in Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience 353, 355 (R. Bruce Morrison & C. Roderick Wilson, eds., 1986); see also Olive Patricia Dickason, Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples From Earliest Times 44-45, 194-95 (1992).
4. Hugh A. Dempsey, The Blackfoot Indians, in Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience 404, 427 (R. Bruce Morrison & C. Roderick Wilson, eds., 1986).
5. Dempsey, supra note 4, at 404.
6. Dickason, supra note 3, at 297.
7. Dempsey, supra note 4, at 430.
8. A.D. Fisher, Great Plains Ethnography, in Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience 358, 359 (R. Bruce Morrison & C. Roderick Wilson, eds., 1986).
9. Ralph W. Johnson, Fragile Gains: Two Centuries of Canadian and United States Policy Toward Indians, 66 Wash. L. Rev. 643, 649 (1991).
10. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 134-35.
11. Id. at 136.
12. Id. at 137.
[13]. Dickason, supra note 3, at 282.
14. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 73.
15. Id. at 198.
16. Although Europeans and other western peoples may regard this system of documentation as a manifestation of unreliable hearsay, when considered within the larger context of Aboriginal cultures, this characterization misinterprets the essence of its use. Because oral documentation is communicated to other individuals from the same cultural tradition, the speaker and the listener will understand what is being communicated from the same point of reference. Additionally, the spoken word is as powerful and meaningful to the listener as it is to the speaker.
James Axtell, After Columbus: Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America 92-93 (1988).
17. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, 1075-76.
18. Shin Imai, Aboriginal Law Handbook 13 (2d ed., 1999), quoting R v. Sparrow, [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 160 (S.C.C.) at P81.
19. Walter Hildebrandt et al., Treaty 7 Elders and Tribal Council, The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7 195 (1996).
20. Id. at viii.
21. Id. at 4.
22. Id. at viii.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 230.
[24]. Id. at 9.
[25]. Id. at 240.
[26]. Id. at 240-41.
[27]. Id. at 240.
[28]. Id. at 9.
[29]. Id. at 10.
[30]. Id. at 25, 75.
[31]. Id. at 25.
[32]. Id. at 210.
[33]. Id. at 210.
[34]. Id. at 25, 304.
[35]. Dickason, supra note 3, at 282.
[36]. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 211.
[37]. Id. at 211-212.
[38]. Id. at 25.
[39]. Id. at 15.
[40]. Id. at 20-23.
[41]. Id. at 230-31.
[42]. Id. at 20-22.
[43]. Id. at 22.
[44]. Id. at 58.
[45]. Id. at 124; see also Dickason, supra note 3, at 194.
[46]. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 24.
[47]. Id. at 124-25.
[48]. Id. at 143.
[49]. Id. at 143.
[50]. Id. at 124.
[51]. Id. at 195.
[52]. Id. at 108.
[53]. Id. at 67, 111.
[54]. Id. at 111.
[55]. Id. at 197.
[56]. Id. at 197.
[57]. Id. at 23 (emphasis added). Blackfoot elders describe the process with the phrase, “Anahka aipoihka iipitsinnim aniistoohpi,” which roughly translates to “The person speaking has choked considerably that which is spoken.” Id. at 23.
[58]. R.S.C., ch. I-5, ss.1-122 (1985) (Can.).
[59]. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 218.
[60]. Id. at 219.
[61]. Id. at 144.
[62]. “Two feet were given up – one for ploughing and two for post holes.” Additional accounts of the negotiations support the assertion that the government officials agreed to this detail. Id. at 143-45.
[63]. Id. at 69.
[64]. Hildebrandt, supra note 12, at 199.
[65]. Id. at 206, citing Sakej Youngblood-Henderson, Land in British Legal Thought, unpublished
manuscript prepared for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Affairs at 203 (1994).
[66]. Johnson, supra note 60, at 670-71 (citing R. v. Simon, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387, 402).
[67]. Johnson, supra note 60, at 670.
[68]. Id. at 649.
[69]. Shin Imai, Aboriginal Law Handbook 13 (2d ed., 1999), quoting R v. Sparrow, [1990] 3 C.N.L.R. 160 (S.C.C.) at P81.
[70]. See, e.g., R.S.C., ch. I-5, ss. 18(1), 74, 79, 81- 83, 88, 90(2) (1985) (Can.).
[71]. Imai, supra note 89, at 166.
[72]. R.S.C. ch I-5 (1985).
[73]. Id. s. 74.
[74]. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, People to People, Nation to Nation x-xi (1996), quoted in Imai, supra note 89, at 28.
[75]. Johnson, supra note 60, at 669.
[76]. Diane F. Orentlicher, Separatism and the Democratic Entitlement, 92 Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. 131, 132 (1998), quoting John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (1861), quoted in Utilitarianism, on Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government 392 (1993) (emphasis added).
[77]. Richard H. Bartlett, The Indian Act of Canada 13 (1980).
[78]. Id. at 14.
[79]. The Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States, Dec. 26, 1933, 165 L.N.T.S. 19.
[80]. Id. at art. 1.
[81]. [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, 161 D.L.R. (4th) 385.
[82]. 161 D.L.R. at 433-34.
[83]. Id.
[84]. Id. at 434 (citations omitted).
[85]. Id.
[86]. Id. at 434-35 (citations omitted).
[87]. U.N. Charter art. 1, para 2, art. 55.
[88]. 993 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966), art. 1, para (1), (3).
[89]. 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966), art. 1, para (1), (3).
[90]. 161 D.L.R. at 435.
[91]. Id., quoting 993 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 1, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 1.
[92]. G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), U.N. GAOR, 25th Sess., Supp. No. 28, at121, U.N. Doc. A/8028 (24 October 1970).
[93]. 161 D.L.R. at 436, quoting U.N. General Assembly’s Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 50/6, 9 November 1995, art. 1 (emphasis added).
[94]. 161 D.L.R. at 436.
[95]. Telephone interview with Sikapii-Whitehorse, member of the Sovereign Nation of Blackfoot (February 1, 2000).
[96]. 161 D.L.R. at 436.
[97]. Id. at 437.
[98]. Dickason, supra note 3, at 124.
[99]. Imai, supra note 89, at 65.
[100]. 161 D.L.R. at 437-38.
[101]. Id. at 437-38, 440-441.
[102]. Id. at 441.
[103]. Id. at 441-42..
[104]. Id. at 438-39.
[105]. Id. at 439.
[106]. Id. at 440, citing A. Cassese, Self-determination of peoples: A legal reappraisal (1995), at pp. 171-72.
[107]. 161 D.L.R. at 440 (emphasis added).
[108]. Id. at 442.
[109]. 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966).
[110]. 993 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
[111]. G.A. Res. 1803 (XVII), 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15, U.N. Doc. A/5217 (1962).
[112]. U.N. GAOR, 3rd Sess., Pt. I, Resolutions, at 71, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948).
[113]. Dempsey, supra note 4, at 432.
[114]. Telephone interview with Sikapii-Whitehorse, member of the Sovereign Nation of Blackfoot (February 1, 2000).
[115]. 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966).
[116]. Id. art. 6(2).
[117]. Id. art. 11(1).
[118]. 993 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
[119]. Telephone interview with Sikapii-Whitehorse, member of the Sovereign Nation of Blackfoot (April 3, 2000).
[120]. Id.
[121]. 993 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
[122]. 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966).
[123]. Imai, supra note 89, at 71-72.
[124]. Id. at 74.
[125]. G.A. Res. 1803 (XVII), 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15, U.N. Doc. A/5217 (1962).
[126]. Id., ¶ 1.
[127]. Id., ¶ 7.
[128]. Imai, supra note 89, at 65.
[129]. Ann Pohl, Citizens for Public Justice, Building International Awareness on Aboriginal Issues 7 (March 2000) .
[130]. Id. at 7.
[131]. Id. at 17.
[132]. The following account portends an unsettling future:
The 1998 APEC meeting provides an example. Prime Minister Jean Chretien spoke at a public social event about international human rights concerns vis-à-vis Malaysia, which at that time included child labour exploitation and the violations of rights of opposition politicians. Reporter John Stackhouse captured Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad shrugging off this criticism with the following remarks: “‘I’m concerned with human rights world-wide, including Canada . . . I’m concerned with the red Indians, I don’t see them at APEC.’” Id. at 7, citing The Globe and Mail, November 16, 1998.
印第安美国教授的理想：
社会主义与资本主义
Socialism versus Capitalism: Who Will Win?
他从另一个世界走来
他像文革时期一样怀揣毛选
他要揭开美帝国主义的多重面罩
他从经济学分析资本主义的逻辑
James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi
美国克拉克大学商学部主任，终身教授
Member of Blackfoot Indian Nation（印第安黑脚国）
时间：5月26日（周四）晚8：20
地点：六教6B-30
Revolutionary Consciousness as a Material and Motive Force
By James Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi
An old aphorism says: “A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; and a liberal is a conservative who has been downsized or outsourced.” Indeed it is amazing how when one’s material circumstances or interests change, changes in consciousness may soon follow. But the relationships between material being and interests and subjective consciousness are not one way or as one way as many vulgar materialists would have it. Indeed all of human history gives ample evidence of individuals and groups driven by transcendent causes and beliefs accomplishing heroic, often near impossible, things with very meager material resources to work with.
At an "International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights and Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries", held at Tsinghua University in Beijing, September 1-2, 2004, at which I was one of the invited speakers, an interesting and very revealing exchange took place during the question and answer period following one session of presentations.
Some of the neoclassical-economics-based speakers, with the usual hubris of end-of-history triumphalism, asserted as “proved”, or “self-evident”, or “axiomatic”, backed by nothing more the mere strength or apparent certitude of their assertions, the predicate that capitalism beats socialism in all the possible ways that matter (e.g. assuring “personal liberty” of the individual, “efficiency”, “satisfying” “consumer preferences”, etc) I posed some questions.
I posed the following question: If anyone here were sick, perhaps gravely ill, which kind of physician would you prefer to have? Would you prefer to have a capitalist-minded/driven doctor or one like Bai Qiu En (Dr. Norman Bethune)? The implication of the question--and compound metaphor--was clear:
Would you prefer to have a capitalist-minded/driven doctor; one who:
· sees the patient, and his/her disease, as a mere commodity and instrument of profit and capital accumulation, market share and power?;
· sees the patient in very narrow terms, doing only what it takes to avoid malpractice litigation, and just enough to get the patient (customer) to "feel" satisfied enough to return when another problem (perhaps even related and not caught in the original examination as is common and whose focus is sales-->customers-->sales)?;
· does what it takes to minimize costs (avoid or socialize) relative to expected revenues or maximize revenues relative to expected costs; doing only what it takes to get the "customer" (not whole and precious human being) in and out in order to maximize the potential number of patients (customers or profit instruments) in and out--and revenues and profits--per day?
· went into medicine, and chose the locations and specializations solely on the basis of the likely profit, status and power potentials with no regard to where the greatest mass needs were?;
· Subject only to the “Golden Rules of Capitalism”: a) “Those who have the Gold make the rules; b) “Do unto thine competitors as thine competitors find imperative to do unto thou, but do it first and do it worst.”?
Or, would you prefer a doctor like Bai Qiu En or Dr. Norman Bethune? A physician who, not only highly skilled as a physician in narrow technical terms, but:
· one with the type of revolutionary consciousness and values that leads him or her to view the patient as a total and precious human being and not simply as a patient or customer--certainly never as a mere commodity;
· One who does not view the particular pathology as a mere commodity;
· one who views each and every "patient" as a whole and precious human being to be treated as one would want one's own loved ones--or oneself--to be treated;
· One who sees the mind and body not as a duality but as conceptual or analytical parts of an integrated and inseparable unity;
· one who sees "efficiency" not in terms of the narrow (capitalist) minimizing input (time and narrow costs) relative to "output" (relieving symptoms or "cure" in the narrow sense) but who sees and defines "efficiency" in broad, holistic and long-run terms, with probable true social not only private costs, and probable true social not only private benefits considered before acting;
· One who does what he or she does not from motives of greed, selfishness, status needs or capitalist profit/competitive imperatives, but out of a sense of dedication to the transcendent cause and a genuine desire to "serve the people heart and soul."
Which type of doctor (or system) would you prefer to have and live under?
One of the speakers, an esteemed and rising professor from another university, not Tsinghua, obviously very "bright" and "educated" in narrow and formalistic terms, answered. With, what appeared to me to be a rather self-congratulatory and kind of "gotcha" smile, he answered:
"Well, if I was sick, and it would take me thirty years to find a doctor like Bai Qiu En, I would prefer a capitalist doctor."
Because of time and other constraints (there was never any censorship in any form at that conference except that which inevitably occurred as a result of time constraints, the number of people who were scheduled to speak and the need to be sensitive to others who also wanted to speak) I could not answer but my blood boiled. He was doing what the many of neoclassical/neo-liberal/ ideologues typically do. They love controlling the microphone and debate (they typically only hire and promote their own kind and allow only their own ideologically-driven curricula in academia, politics, media and in other spheres). They love summarily asserting (as axiomatic, self-evident and "proved" beyond any doubt for anyone who knows anything) the core predicates of their arguments. Their argument, which is basically a set of assumptions of/for contrived syllogisms, is that in the competition (race) between capitalism and socialism, in terms all of the ways that matter for human beings, for example in the scope of provision of physicians and in the quality/efficiency of those physicians, capitalism wins over socialism every time. This is but one of the many tautologies and predicates--asserted and even engineered--as axiomatic and "proved" of that which still remains to be "proved" even in narrow neoclassical and capitalist terms.
Of course, tautologically, capitalism becomes accepted as the most "efficient" and "progressive" system, especially when the very definitions of "efficiency" and "progress" are as contrived as the syllogisms they serve, and, when they are then summarily asserted and accepted as the only possible "operational" and rhetorical definitions. Yet, as Marx, and so many others like Chairman Mao so aptly demonstrated, that capitalism, when viewed “holistically” and dialectically, with the highly probable true costs and "benefits" (social as well as private, long-run as well as short-run) realistically assessed and understood, becomes not only increasingly inefficient, but even increasingly anti-efficient and regressive. This is apparent even using the six main capitalist Neoclassical concepts of "efficiency" (technological, economic, productive, consumer, exchange and allocative) and "utilitarian" notions of "progress" (the greatest economic welfare for the greatest number).
Let’s take some concrete examples that even the Neoclassicals admit in a limited sense. Even the conventional textbooks in economics concede, finally, that, for example, the notion of technological efficiency (maximum output, minimum input) or economic efficiency (maximum Total Revenues and lowest possible Total Costs) coupled with greed and the imperatives of competition between capitals, leads to inefficiencies in terms of "exchange efficiency" (P=MSC=MSB or prices reflecting all true costs and benefits--social as well as private). A common example is when profit-maximizing firms pollute the environment, or free-riding increases, in unregulated markets, less and less are true costs (marginal private costs plus marginal costs of negative externalities) assessed and paid by those who receive the true benefits. Similarly, less and less are true benefits (marginal private benefits plus marginal benefits of positive externalities) received by those who pay the true costs. Typically, when negative externalities are not recognized and/or assessed and/or paid, inefficiencies (in capitalist Neoclassical terms) of overproduction and under pricing result, And when positive externalities are not recognized and/or assessed and/or paid, the inefficiencies of underproduction and under pricing result.
This is but one example out of many of the imperatives and "logic" of capitalism resulting in self-negation of "efficiency" (anti-efficiency) and "progress" (instability/regression) even in narrow and contrived capitalist Neoclassical terms. Instead of being a system that once produced maybe six positives for each negative, as capitalism ripens, becoming imperialism, spreading globally, it increasingly produces maybe six negatives for every one positive. The meta-contradiction governing all modes of production, between continual development of productive forces for human survival on the one hand, versus increasingly regressive and sabotaging relations of production (e.g. class/strata/interests) on the other hand, steadily intensifies and hollows out the very foundations of the system itself. And not only does capitalism become less and less “efficient”, even in capitalist Neoclassical terms, as it ripens, but capitalist constructs and methods of assessment of “efficiency” themselves, in their contrived limits and ideological purposes, produce other inefficiencies not even considered or measured until they come home to roost and threaten the survival of the planet and humankind itself--like Global Warming and Nuclear War.
So in other words, the different capitalist forms and constructs of “efficiency” are potentially—and actually—contradictory and self-negating: e.g. technological and economic efficiencies cause, via the normal imperatives and “logic” of capitalism, inefficiencies and anti-efficiencies in terms of other forms of “efficiency--say exchange efficiency. Many probable true costs (private plus social) go unmentioned, and/or not properly assessed and/or “socialized” to be paid by those who receive none of the purported benefits. Many probable true benefits (private plus social) go unmentioned and/or not properly assessed and/or not paid for by “free riders” who get benefits without paying true costs.
In a system like Capitalism, that not only celebrates but even requires, for its expanded reproduction, greed, selfishness, ultra-individualism, narcissism, clinical psychopathy, sociopathy, competition, short-run thinking, ultra-reductionism etc: “Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die”. Everyone appears to want, and Capitalism certainly promises through seductive social capital, the gain without the pain, the benefits without the costs, the immortality without mortality. So true costs (private plus social) typically get hidden, un-assessed, not mentioned, or socialized, while true benefits (private plus social) often get privatized, understated and concentrated.
Take Capitalist-based commoditized law. In the profit-based legal system of Capitalism, it is about winning and losing and having the money for commoditized “effective representation”. The discovery of truth or administration of justice do not enter the equations and calculations of efficiency and profitability. Typically, competition and profit imperatives, along with the rewards for “winning”, cause lawyers to hide and understate the inculpatories (negatives) and hyping and magnifying the exculpatories (positives) in their own cases, while trying to do the reverse to the opposition lawyers: magnifying their negatives while minimizing their positives. The inevitable and increasing result or typical “efficiencies” of capitalist-based and commoditized law is that increasingly many rich and clearly guilty can buy acquittals, while many poor and clearly innocent wind up in prison and on Death Row.
Let’s take one more example to drive home the point. Another form of “efficiency” in neoclassical theory is called “Consumer Efficiency”. It means that the consumer has “efficiently” allocated his/her income among competing commodities such that he/she cannot reallocate that income and improve, in net terms, his/her total utility gained from the spending of that income. It is assumed that the consumer is driven to maximize or at least “satisfice” total utility; and to do that, the consumer seeks to maximize Marginal Utility gained from consuming a particular commodity X relative to what was paid (Price of X) to obtain that marginal utility (Maximizing Mux/Px or “Utility Bang for the Buck”) that adds in net terms, to total utility. When the Mux/Px = Muy/Py = Muz/Pz for example, the consumer can no longer consume less of x, y or z and more of another, and improve his/her total utility gained.
But the imperatives of capitalism (commoditization, effective competition, realization of maximum possible real, after-tax, risk-adjusted surplus value, accumulation of capital, maximization of productivity, expanded market share/power etc) lead to increasingly commoditized and asymmetrically-available information and fraud against consumers that compromise "consumer efficiency" (MUx/Px= MUy/Py = MUz/Pz...Consumers, among the masses who are not “connected”, increasingly have less and less access to the requisite information necessary to assess true comparative marginal utilities relative to comparative prices paid to realize those utilities, so that incomes cannot be reallocated and improve net total utilities gained. As for the concept "allocative efficiency"(no "person" can be made better off without making some "person" worse off), that is the pure metaphysics of Pareto masquerading as "science".
Back to the conference. One reason my blood boiled when I heard this flippant and rhetorical answer from this esteemed professor, is that I come from a people, Blackfoot, who like Indigenous Peoples everywhere, and indeed poor people everywhere in the U.S. and elsewhere, are surrounded by technically skilled--and no so skilled—physicians that exist, in the sense of physically existing at a certain time and space, but, for the poor, do not really exist in any meaningful way. Since these doctors are driven by capitalist imperatives and associated requisite mentalities, these doctors only exist for those with sufficient incomes to pay for their services and/or who do not live on isolated Reserves/Reservations or rural areas, with no transportation, and are unable to travel to see these doctors. If I am ill, and the most highly-skilled physician in the world is practicing down the street, what good is it to me that capitalism, capitalist "values" and capitalist imperatives, produced a physician who will not see me and treat me because I am poor? Better that physician does not exist as his or her existence, in the physical sense, will only piss me off and perhaps even exacerbate my illness due to the mind-body unity. In the U.S., an estimated 44 million people have no health insurance, another 37 million have only marginal health insurance, and since the "right to life" itself (like the right to justice etc) is itself a commodity, for sale only to those that can afford it under capitalism, what does capitalism REALLY deliver and for whom?. What good is the supposed rapid development of material forces or production that capitalism allegedly produces greater than socialism, when those forces produce commodities (and derivative spread effects) only for a relative few? [1]
Dr. Bethune, a product of the capitalist systems of Canada and England in terms of his medical training, and by his own admission, in terms of his early ideas of reformism, developed his technical skills not, primarily BECAUSE of capitalist-based education and medical practice, but IN SPITE of them. Even in his own case, when he was ill with Tuberculosis, the conventional medical practice, highly risk-aversive to "guarantee success" in narrow capitalist terms, refused him the emerging and experimental technique of pneumothorax (collapsing the lung to rest the infected lung) such that he had to self-administer the technique--on himself while awake. Dr. Bethune's own inventions, of techniques and instruments still being used in thoracic surgery today, all came from his own humanitarianism and revolutionary consciousness without any regard as to the potential "profitability" or income/status-enhancing results of his inventions. It was the imperatives and "logic" of capitalist-based medicine in the days of Dr. Bethune, as is the case today in many areas, that caused the choking-off and even regression of the development of the material forces and techniques of production in medicine. Dr Bethune's innovations--in instruments and techniques--that actually reduced costs, risks to patients and increased "efficiency", even in capitalist terms, were consistently resisted by the capitalist-minded/driven medical establishment of his time; the same applies today.
Another reason my blood boiled when I heard the answer to my question from this esteemed professor is that capitalism only develops certain productive forces more rapidly than socialism.
The basic questions for all modes of production and social formations are: What, How, For Whom, Where, When, Why (to produce and distribute). The “What” question is critical because it leads to and shapes the answers to the other questions. But in capitalist terms, efficiency means producing more and more of output X with less and less inputs, but never gets into the actual nature of output X and implications (private and social) of that output. So if grotesque pornography is the output, and it is “legal”, then “efficiency” means producing more and more pornography using less and less inputs, focusing ONLY on present likely revenues versus costs, ignoring any other possible or probable private and social costs associated with pornography. A capitalist enterprise producing pornography at lower total costs than a socialist enterprise producing mass-affordable medicines is said to be more “efficient” in Neoclassical terms.
Because capitalism is about profits for power and power for profits (like the slogan of the Medici family: "Money to Acquire Power; Power to Protect Money”), and is about "effective" demand (purchasing power or "dollar votes" to back up tastes and preferences many of which are also created and conditioned for profit, and not natural from basic subsistence needs), capitalism does a great job in developing forces of production in areas like: superficial and soul-destroying forms of "entertainment"; dope; pornography; rigging elections; allowing rich criminals to escape justice; narcissistic sports events; mansions and toys for the rich; placing clones in government; "quality education" for the few who can afford it; "quality" medicine for the few that can afford it; weapons of death and destruction; instruments of mind and soul control and manipulation (advertising); specialty foods; "high-fashion" clothing for the few; unevenly developed infrastructure; etc. But in such areas as affordable housing for the many, basic health care available to all, universal access to education, basic medicines available to all, balanced development of infrastructure, minimizing social costs of private endeavors and maximizing social benefits of private endeavors, etc socialism beats capitalism anytime. That is, when real socialism is allowed to develop without aggression and subversion--outside and inside--from imperialist machinations and the old weeds of capitalism threatening the full, free and fair development of socialism and free competition of ideas and systems--capitalism versus socialism.
The communist, on the other hand, looks not only at levels and productive functions of costs or inputs, or utility functions of consumers consuming, including the nature and implications of WHAT is being produced or consumed, but, also, looks at the real costs (private plus social, on the individual as well as on society, political, social, cultural, ideological, spiritual, long-run as well as short run) of WHAT it is that is being produced, and HOW it is really being produced and FOR WHOM it is really being produced.
Extending the metaphor from medicine, if, as is quite common, and sadly is increasingly common, a person goes through an operation that is botched, requiring a second or third operation to fix what went wrong in the first operation (like leaving surgical instruments in the patient, unqualified staff, operation rushed to get more patients through a given operating room per day--capitalist "efficiency"), then the real costs of a given procedure (for purposes of assessing level of "efficiency") should include the costs of the second and third procedures necessitated by the first botched one. In the U.S., with touted as having the most “advanced” and “efficient” medicine in the world, 200,000 patients die each year from hospital-based infections. Under capitalism, each procedure would be assessed independently in terms of assessing the "costs" relative to the "benefits"; and in any comparisons of capitalist versus socialist efficiency. But, if, in accordance with the old adage, "a stitch in time saves nine", we are able to conceptualize and assess all true costs and true benefits (short-run versus long-run, private plus social), the case can be made that socialism, with communist revolutionary values and practices, will beat capitalism, even in terms of "efficiency", and even in terms of capitalist constructs and calculations of "efficiency." Certainly Bai Qiu En, under the most unfavorable conditions possible, driven by communist spirit and consciousness, was able to do medically, what capitalist minded-driven physicians under the most favorable conditions would have never been able to do.
And the imperialists understand this well. This one of the main reasons for imperialist encirclement and social systems engineering campaigns: to engineer the predicate or conditions and constraints in present or emerging socialist social formations that will never allow free competition and debate between systems and ideologies; conditions and constraints that will make socialism look like the supposed “barbarism” and “inefficiency” portrayed by bourgeois ideology.
This leads to another reason my blood boiled when I heard this answer from this esteemed professor: Why does someone have to teach this "educated" and "bright" Chinese professor basic Chinese--and world--history as well as about some present-day realities and irrefutable facts? In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels, in reference to China, and of course other places as well, noted that colonialism (and imperialism) is a force that 'batters down all Chinese walls', and is one that 'compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e. to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.[2]
When has there ever been free, fair and open competition between socialist versus capitalist systems or ideas? From the very beginning of the People's Republic of China (actually long before), as was the case of Cuba, the early USSR, DPRK, Albania, Vietnam, etc and so many other examples of socialism, socialist societies, often inheriting horrible conditions and legacies of imperialism and colonialism, have been subject to: imperialist embargos; outright threats of nuclear annihilation; social systems engineering and destabilization campaigns; covert operations; exacerbations of historical ethnic and religious rivalries; denials of critical technologies and resources; military aggression; cultural subversion; arrogant missionaries; forced importations of drugs and soul-destroying foreign "culture"; denial of access to international organizations and the global community of nations,; coup d’états and overthrows of sovereign and freely-elected governments; assassination campaigns. All of this was designed to destabilize, overthrow and never to allow developing— and thus showing in concrete practice, over capitalism—the superiority of socialism and communist values and ideas.
If international recognition by the imperialist powers and the international organizations they control is some kind of test of the reality, existence and legitimacy of any nation or nation state, then the People's Republic of China (portions of which still remain manipulated by foreign powers--e.g. Taiwan) did not "exist" for almost thirty years after its existence in reality (and under international law). The same apples to Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other nation states summarily and arrogantly not "recognized" by some imperialist powers. This has caused large-scale diversions of precious resources from socialist growth and development into necessary defense against imperialist machinations. Indeed this was the object of imperial social systems engineering and aggression all along: engineering, to make "axiomatic" and self-evident, the basic tautologies, predicates and syllogisms of imperialism:
IF, A=B; and
IF, B=C;
THEN/THEREFORE,
A=C.
IF, Country A (say China or Cuba for example) = System B (Socialism or Communism);
IF, System B (Socialism or Communism) = C (Inefficiency, Repression…)
THEN,
A=C.....
The answer according to neoliberals and other kinds of imperialists and their stooges? For China or Cuba or other socialist systems to become "Developing", "Efficient", "non-Repressive", "non-Terrorist" etc, the only answer is to become like the U.S. or some other imperialist power asserted to be the opposites in the above-mentioned syllogism of imperialist repression and legitimation. And the imperialists have no limits. Just imagine, for but one example: Even before World War II was over, the Class-A War Criminals of the infamous Japanese fascist Unit 731 were all shielded from prosecution by the U.S. and its allies (in return for using the fruits of their barbaric "research") and one of them even became a Prime Minister of Japan; and the same was done with shielding German Nazi war criminals before the end of World War II, while the nominal allies of the U.S., who had saved many U.S. lives (Communists in China and Soviets in Europe) were being attacked by the U.S. and its allies using wanted war criminals from the formal enemies of the U.S. and its allies. There are simply no limits to the treachery and crimes the imperialists are prepared to undertake and cover-up in what they call “World War III of Contending Systems and Ideologies—Socialism versus Capitalism—For Global Hearts and Minds”.
These are but some of the reasons my blood boiled when I heard that answer from the esteemed professor, not from Tsinghua University, to my question when I attended the symposium at Tsinghua University. When I return, this debate, no doubt, will continue, in another venue and forum. And this response will be passed on to that professor with an invitation to debate in a forum and venue when we both have ample access and time for the microphone.
Jim Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi)
[1] At present, the U.S. the only industrialized nation without universal health care, spends $8,000 per capita per year, over 40% higher than the nation second highest in per capita health expenditures or 16% of GDP while in terms of indexes of overall health outcomes, the U.S. ranks globally 37th just below Costa Rico and above Slovenia. In the U.S. some 200,000 die each year from iatrogenic (medical mistakes) causes.
[2] Marx and Engels, "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (1848) in "Selected Works", Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1950, pp. 36-37; quoted in "Mao's China and After 3rd Edition, by Maurice Meisner, The Free Press, NY. 1999, p 5
Friday, August 28, 2009
Indigenous Approaches to Economic Development and Sustainability
-
-
Lecture/Paper Delivered to the Faculty of Anthropology and
Ethnology, Yunnan University, Kunming, China, July 25, 2009
-
By James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi
-
-
Professor of Economics and Geography, Clark College, Vancouver, WA. USA
-
Member, Blackfoot Nation
-
Introduction
-
Introduction
I began my studies of Political Economy over 40 years ago. In my first classes in Economics, in 1965, economic growth (increases in real GDP per person) was considered as either equivalent to economic development (qualitative improvements of the overall quality of life for the average person) or at least the major necessary conditon of economic development. There was no notion that economic growth in the short-run, or of a certain nature involving certain types of “goods” and services, or of benefit only to a small group and not everyone, or that involved massive and unaccounted for negative externalities[1] , could potentially harm, not enhance, overall economic development (the overall quality of life faced by the average person).
-
As for the causes of economic growth, the models I was taught all noted that it takes inputs to produce output, and, that the major inputs were land, labor and capital. Of the major inputs, it was assumed that capital was the most decisive as it was said to be fundamental to augmenting and making operative the potentials, capabilities and productivity of the other inputs land and labor. And “capital” was defined as a physical capital or a “stock” [a fixed quantity in time and space] of “things” that had been produced specifically in order to produce something else for profitable exchange[2] . And finally, since physical capital was defined as the central ingredient of economic growth, which was seen as almost equivalent to economic development, obviously then, the owners and/or controllers of capital, capitalists and managers, were seen as central players or originators of economic growth and development.
As for the causes of economic growth, the models I was taught all noted that it takes inputs to produce output, and, that the major inputs were land, labor and capital. Of the major inputs, it was assumed that capital was the most decisive as it was said to be fundamental to augmenting and making operative the potentials, capabilities and productivity of the other inputs land and labor. And “capital” was defined as a physical capital or a “stock” [a fixed quantity in time and space] of “things” that had been produced specifically in order to produce something else for profitable exchange[2] . And finally, since physical capital was defined as the central ingredient of economic growth, which was seen as almost equivalent to economic development, obviously then, the owners and/or controllers of capital, capitalists and managers, were seen as central players or originators of economic growth and development.
-
When I asked some basic questions in class, I was often given a blank stare by the professors: What capital (machines, tools etc) can think or plan its own use or fix itself when it breaks down? If capital and land make operative and productive the capabilities and potential of labor, why is the reverse also not true—that labor makes operative and productive the capabilities and potential of capital and land? If a given machine is involved in production and productivity, why should the owners or controllers of that machine (who are often themselves deeply in debt and do not really own that machine free and clear) entitled to grossly disproportionate returns (profits) from the sales of what that machine produces relative to what labor (without which nothing could be produced by any machine and nothing produced by the machines could be bought on a mass level) has been paid? Are all commodities produced by economic growth really good for those who demand them and do they really improve rather than sabotage the quality of life for the average person? These were but some of the questions I posed and to which I still await answers from some of the esteemed professors.
-
Then came the 1970s and I was finishing graduate school and began teaching economics. Someone figured it out that no machine, without skilled labor that is able to effectively utilize all the capabilities of it, and, that is able to fix that machine when it breaks down, and, that has the right work ethic and attitudes, will produce much of anything. So this suggests that experience, skill, training and motivation by labor is a critical ingredient in economic growth. There was also now the suggestion that economic growth and development were not synonymous. But what about the central role of capital and the capitalist in economic growth and economic development? The answer was defintional and with some sleight of hand. Since “capital” is defined as any “thing” that is produced and used to produce something else, well, the skills, experience, education and even work attitudes are all “produced” by an educational system as well as family environment, and, they are used to produce something else, so we can just call all those produced and aquired skills, experience and attitudes of labor, all “human capital”; and so the textbooks now began to discuss “human capital” (not labor or skilled labor that had to make the conscious decision and effort to acquire or not acquire, and apply or not apply, those skills) as another critical “factor” in economic growth which was said to be a critical factor (a necessary if not sufficient condition) in overall economic development. The 1970s and 80s passed, as did my years of teaching Economics and other subjects, and then in the late 1980s the textbooks added something new again. Even if you have potentially productive machines and tools (physical capital), and even if you have highly skilled, experienced and motivated workers who know how to get the best out of those machines (human capital), what if those workers have no hope in the future and no reason to be motivated?; what if the workers feel they are being exploited by the system and those who run it?; what if the workers or the capitalists no longer accept the dominant values, beleifs, traditions and myths of the system that cause them to invest, save, get an education, take risks etc? That led to the concept of “social capital”[still barely mentioned in the texts] that refers to institutions that foster trust, hope, cohesion, cooperation, belief in the system, reciprocity, etc and cause people to sacrifice in the present for a possible future, take risks, save, invest and do all those activities critical to economic growth and development.
When I asked some basic questions in class, I was often given a blank stare by the professors: What capital (machines, tools etc) can think or plan its own use or fix itself when it breaks down? If capital and land make operative and productive the capabilities and potential of labor, why is the reverse also not true—that labor makes operative and productive the capabilities and potential of capital and land? If a given machine is involved in production and productivity, why should the owners or controllers of that machine (who are often themselves deeply in debt and do not really own that machine free and clear) entitled to grossly disproportionate returns (profits) from the sales of what that machine produces relative to what labor (without which nothing could be produced by any machine and nothing produced by the machines could be bought on a mass level) has been paid? Are all commodities produced by economic growth really good for those who demand them and do they really improve rather than sabotage the quality of life for the average person? These were but some of the questions I posed and to which I still await answers from some of the esteemed professors.
-
Then came the 1970s and I was finishing graduate school and began teaching economics. Someone figured it out that no machine, without skilled labor that is able to effectively utilize all the capabilities of it, and, that is able to fix that machine when it breaks down, and, that has the right work ethic and attitudes, will produce much of anything. So this suggests that experience, skill, training and motivation by labor is a critical ingredient in economic growth. There was also now the suggestion that economic growth and development were not synonymous. But what about the central role of capital and the capitalist in economic growth and economic development? The answer was defintional and with some sleight of hand. Since “capital” is defined as any “thing” that is produced and used to produce something else, well, the skills, experience, education and even work attitudes are all “produced” by an educational system as well as family environment, and, they are used to produce something else, so we can just call all those produced and aquired skills, experience and attitudes of labor, all “human capital”; and so the textbooks now began to discuss “human capital” (not labor or skilled labor that had to make the conscious decision and effort to acquire or not acquire, and apply or not apply, those skills) as another critical “factor” in economic growth which was said to be a critical factor (a necessary if not sufficient condition) in overall economic development. The 1970s and 80s passed, as did my years of teaching Economics and other subjects, and then in the late 1980s the textbooks added something new again. Even if you have potentially productive machines and tools (physical capital), and even if you have highly skilled, experienced and motivated workers who know how to get the best out of those machines (human capital), what if those workers have no hope in the future and no reason to be motivated?; what if the workers feel they are being exploited by the system and those who run it?; what if the workers or the capitalists no longer accept the dominant values, beleifs, traditions and myths of the system that cause them to invest, save, get an education, take risks etc? That led to the concept of “social capital”[still barely mentioned in the texts] that refers to institutions that foster trust, hope, cohesion, cooperation, belief in the system, reciprocity, etc and cause people to sacrifice in the present for a possible future, take risks, save, invest and do all those activities critical to economic growth and development.
-
The term social capital was first coined in 1916 by L. Judson Hanifan[3] to refer to social networks and institutions/norms of reciprocity (goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse) associated with them. Hanifan, by his own admission, employed the term “capital” (anything that has been produced and used to produce—for profitable exchange—something else) to catch the eye--and patronage--of the business community. Hanifan suggested that these social networks and institutions could, on micro as well as macro levels, enhance productivity, competitiveness, employment and income creation, etc. in some of the same ways that physical capital and human capital can, also, produce the same effects.
-
Subsequent to Hanifan’s apparent introduction of the term social capital, the term and concept was reintroduced—and partly redefined—at least six times up to the present:
The term social capital was first coined in 1916 by L. Judson Hanifan[3] to refer to social networks and institutions/norms of reciprocity (goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse) associated with them. Hanifan, by his own admission, employed the term “capital” (anything that has been produced and used to produce—for profitable exchange—something else) to catch the eye--and patronage--of the business community. Hanifan suggested that these social networks and institutions could, on micro as well as macro levels, enhance productivity, competitiveness, employment and income creation, etc. in some of the same ways that physical capital and human capital can, also, produce the same effects.
-
Subsequent to Hanifan’s apparent introduction of the term social capital, the term and concept was reintroduced—and partly redefined—at least six times up to the present:
-
1) in the 1950s by sociologist John Seeley[4] to refer to ‘memberships in clubs and associations’ that act just like negotiable securities in producing career advancement and tangible returns to individuals;
1) in the 1950s by sociologist John Seeley[4] to refer to ‘memberships in clubs and associations’ that act just like negotiable securities in producing career advancement and tangible returns to individuals;
-
2) In the 1960s, by urban economist Jane Jacobs[5] to refer to the collective value and effects of informal neighborhood ties and associations;
-
3) in the 1970s by economist Glenn Loury[6] to refer to wider social ties lost by African Americans as one of the legacies of slavery;
2) In the 1960s, by urban economist Jane Jacobs[5] to refer to the collective value and effects of informal neighborhood ties and associations;
-
3) in the 1970s by economist Glenn Loury[6] to refer to wider social ties lost by African Americans as one of the legacies of slavery;
-
4) In the 1980s by social theorist Pierre Bourdieu[7] to refer to the actual or potential resources linked to durable networks of institutionalized relationships of mutual recognition and assistance;
-
-
5) In the mid-1980s by economist Ekkehart Schlicht[8] to refer to the economic value and productivity-enhancing effects of organizations, moral order, cooperation and cohesion;
-
6) in the late 1980s by James Coleman to refer, as Hanifan[9] had done, to the social arrangements, relationships and institutions creating and shaping the environment or social contexts of education.
-
-
The above-mentioned definitions of social capital are all closely related and narrow in their focus. They focus on immediate relationships—institutionalized or informal—and the networks, and norms of reciprocity that serve as tangible assets and have economic impacts not only on the micro level (personal career advancement, obtaining employment, political influence, personal safety etc) but also on the macro level in terms of enhancing productivity, reducing information and transactions costs, enhancing competitiveness, enhancing community safety and reducing crime, encouraging cooperation, limiting destructive forms/levels of competition. These definitions of social capital are designed to rescue neoclassical economics from the internal contradictions of methodological individualism in that they show how supposedly atomistic and individualistic utility and profit maximizing individuals might be acting cooperatively and obeying social norms and laws, appearing to be socially aware and consciousness individuals, while all the while, only appearing to be social, in order to maximize and attain individual utility and profitability imperatives and goals. It was in this area that John Walsh got the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in Game Theory showing how apparent social cooperation and social consciousness “versus” individual atomistic utility and profit maximization behaviors and activities might not be contradictory.
-
Again the focus is on a new form of “capital” as a central ingredient in economic growth and development. In Indigenous societies, social harmony, mutual respect, cooperation, respect for law as well as law worthy of respect, absence of alienation, social cohesion, are all considered essential for collective survival, economic growth and economic development. Reciprocity is considered a virtue on its own and not, as an instrument for or of, personal gain or maximization of individualism and individualistic preferences.
Again the focus is on a new form of “capital” as a central ingredient in economic growth and development. In Indigenous societies, social harmony, mutual respect, cooperation, respect for law as well as law worthy of respect, absence of alienation, social cohesion, are all considered essential for collective survival, economic growth and economic development. Reciprocity is considered a virtue on its own and not, as an instrument for or of, personal gain or maximization of individualism and individualistic preferences.
-
So the Eurocentric and capitalist-based models of economic growth gradually incorporated and refined five Basic ingredients to economic growth[10] but said little about the concept of sustainability:
So the Eurocentric and capitalist-based models of economic growth gradually incorporated and refined five Basic ingredients to economic growth[10] but said little about the concept of sustainability:
-
1) Capital Accumulation;
1) Capital Accumulation;
-
2) Available Resources;
-
-
3) Growth Compatible Institutions (Markets, Property Rights, Monetary Systems, Government Policies and “Proper” Roles of Government);
-
4) Technology;
-
-
5) Entrepreneurship
-
These Eurocentric and capitalist models of economic growth and development basically set up a tautology or circular argument. By defining the goals of economic growth and development as equivalent with those values and goals most common to capitalism (materialism, conspicuous consumption of expanding volumes of goods and services, etc.), by measuring economic growth and development in narrow monetized terms (real GDP per capita with no comment on the types of goods and services making up that GDP or on the social costs of producing and distributing them) and by making, as key ingredients to growth and development, those inputs that are central to capitalism as a system (monetary system, private property rights, markets, profit incentives), we wind up with a virtual tautological equivalence[11] between capitalism and economic growth and development.
-
These Eurocentric and capitalist models of economic growth and development basically set up a tautology or circular argument. By defining the goals of economic growth and development as equivalent with those values and goals most common to capitalism (materialism, conspicuous consumption of expanding volumes of goods and services, etc.), by measuring economic growth and development in narrow monetized terms (real GDP per capita with no comment on the types of goods and services making up that GDP or on the social costs of producing and distributing them) and by making, as key ingredients to growth and development, those inputs that are central to capitalism as a system (monetary system, private property rights, markets, profit incentives), we wind up with a virtual tautological equivalence[11] between capitalism and economic growth and development.
-
So a society that produces, on the average or per capita (without any allowances for the fact that the de-jure or on paper statistical average per capita may well not represent the typical de-facto situation for the average person due to outliers and de facto asymmetric distributions of incomes, wealth and goods and services) more goods and services, even if those goods and services have corrupting influences as in the case of drugs, pornography, alcohol, tobacco etc, and even if producing those goods and services involves waste of non-renewable resources and massive negative externalities, such a society is said to be experiencing and promoting both economic growth and development according to the Eurocentric and capitalist-based models of growth and development. And this system is seen as a kind of perpetual motion machine with little or no friction: new spending creates new incomes which create new spending creating new incomes (multiplier effects); new incomes and consumption spending create new jobs, tax revenues, savings leading to new investment spending (multiplier and accelerator effects) leading to even more incomes and multiplier effects etc.; the so-called “Virtuous Upward Spiral”.
-
This is but one example of one of the new growth theories: (From: Parkin, Michael, Macroeconomics 7th Edition, Pearson, Addison-Wesley, Instructor’s Resource Disk, Chapter 7, Reprinted Under Fair Use Doctrine for Educational and Scholarly Exchange purposes only.)
So a society that produces, on the average or per capita (without any allowances for the fact that the de-jure or on paper statistical average per capita may well not represent the typical de-facto situation for the average person due to outliers and de facto asymmetric distributions of incomes, wealth and goods and services) more goods and services, even if those goods and services have corrupting influences as in the case of drugs, pornography, alcohol, tobacco etc, and even if producing those goods and services involves waste of non-renewable resources and massive negative externalities, such a society is said to be experiencing and promoting both economic growth and development according to the Eurocentric and capitalist-based models of growth and development. And this system is seen as a kind of perpetual motion machine with little or no friction: new spending creates new incomes which create new spending creating new incomes (multiplier effects); new incomes and consumption spending create new jobs, tax revenues, savings leading to new investment spending (multiplier and accelerator effects) leading to even more incomes and multiplier effects etc.; the so-called “Virtuous Upward Spiral”.
-
This is but one example of one of the new growth theories: (From: Parkin, Michael, Macroeconomics 7th Edition, Pearson, Addison-Wesley, Instructor’s Resource Disk, Chapter 7, Reprinted Under Fair Use Doctrine for Educational and Scholarly Exchange purposes only.)
-
Now here are some other models that illustrate the typical Indigenous views of survival, development (seen to be about more than economics) and sustainability that differ markedly from those typical of Western, Eurocentric and in particular capitalist economies. The economy is seen as an inseparable part of the total society. Present-day activities are always with the Seventh future generation and sustainability in mind. Spirituality is seen as a key ingredient in both social stability and development. The types of goods and services and their impacts and implications on the survival of the culture, along with the true costs of producing and distributing them are considered critical factors in the basic decisions of What, How and For Whom to produce and distribute the means of subsistence.
Now here are some other models that illustrate the typical Indigenous views of survival, development (seen to be about more than economics) and sustainability that differ markedly from those typical of Western, Eurocentric and in particular capitalist economies. The economy is seen as an inseparable part of the total society. Present-day activities are always with the Seventh future generation and sustainability in mind. Spirituality is seen as a key ingredient in both social stability and development. The types of goods and services and their impacts and implications on the survival of the culture, along with the true costs of producing and distributing them are considered critical factors in the basic decisions of What, How and For Whom to produce and distribute the means of subsistence.
-
Core Values
-
Western(Capitalist) vs. Indigenous[12]
-
Competition vs. Harmony
Materialism vs. Prudence
Acquisition vs. Reciprocity
Accumulation vs. Distribution
Ownership vs. Kinship
Growth vs. Sustainability
Immediacy vs. Caring for Future Generations
-
Materialism vs. Prudence
Acquisition vs. Reciprocity
Accumulation vs. Distribution
Ownership vs. Kinship
Growth vs. Sustainability
Immediacy vs. Caring for Future Generations
-
These core values of course do not represent the values of all members of each group held and practiced respectively, but are meant to represent and convey fair generalizations of some of the different traditions and core values celebrated in the literature and traditions of the respective systems and cultures—Eurocentric and capitalist vs. Indigenous and communalist—that are typically presented and advocated by their advocates and adherents. It is very clear from the internal documents of the U.S. and Canadian Governments, as well as from the internal documents, diaries and memoirs of the missionaries and “Indian Agents”, that the core and defining values, institutions, practices, priorities, relationships and other dimensions of the culture of Indigenous nations, were not simply regarded and dismissed as “inferior” or backward; rather, they were first and foremost regarded as direct challenges (without any evangelical intentions by Indigenous Peoples to do so) to the core values, practices, relations, theologies and institutions—cultures—of capitalism and those of the settlers. Just as some capitalist nations have regarded the mere existence of socialism and socialist values as an existential threat, without any alleged overt or covert acts of aggression by socialist social formations like China, so Indigenous cultures and systems, with definite communalist and non-capitalist practices and values, were regarded as existential threats and banned. Even many Indigenous prayers, with communalist values, were seen as a threat to cultures—and interests—built on capitalism. Here are but two of many examples from the archives of the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the U.S. that show the real nature and intentions of their policies. For example, in many traditional societies, there is the sacred practice of “Potlatch” or “Give Aways” (Blackfoot) in which prized personal possessions are given away; they are not, by the way forms of “gambling” or “lotteries”. These ceremonies are designed to teach: the transient nature of all material possessions; not to become a slave to personal possessions; community spirit; compassion and that happiness of others is more important than individualistic and selfish desires and possessions. These traditional values are decidedly not consistent with market-based economies that are commonly based upon—often celebrated in elements of their social capital—greed, selfishness, ultra-individualism, competition, materialism, acquisitiveness, competition, narcissism and the logic of profits-for-power-and-power-for-profits. That the conflicting core values, relationships and institutions of traditional Indigenous societies were in direct conflict with—and seen not co-exist with—those of market-based societies was seen early on in U.S. and Canadian histories. For example:
-
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Indian Affairs-Washington
Supplement to Circular No. 1665 February 14, 1923
Indian Dancing
-
To Superintendents:
Office of Indian Affairs-Washington
Supplement to Circular No. 1665 February 14, 1923
Indian Dancing
-
To Superintendents:
-
At a conference in October, 1922, of the missionaries of the several religious denominations represented in the Sioux country, the following recommendations were adopted and have been courteously submitted to this office:
At a conference in October, 1922, of the missionaries of the several religious denominations represented in the Sioux country, the following recommendations were adopted and have been courteously submitted to this office:
-
1. That the Indian form of gambling[sic] and lottery[sic] known as the "ituranpi" (translated "Give Away") be prohibited.
-
-
2. That the Indian dances be limited to one in each month in the daylight hours of one day in the midweek, and at one center in each district; the months of March and April, June, July, and August be excepted.
-
3. That none take part in the dances or be present who are under 50 years of age.
-
-
4. That a careful propaganda be undertaken to educate public opinion against the dance and to provide a healthy substitute.
-
5. That there be close cooperation between the Government employees and the missionaries in those matters which affect the moral welfare of Indians.
-
-
…After a conscientious study of the dance situation in his jurisdiction, the efforts of every superintendent must persistently encourage and emphasize the Indian's attention to these political, useful, thrifty, and orderly activities that are indispensable to his well-being and that underlie the preservation of his race in the midst of complex and highly competitive conditions.
-
The instinct of individual enterprise and devotion to the posterity and elevation of family life should in some way be made paramount in every Indian household to the exclusion of idleness, waste of time at frequent gatherings of whatever nature, and the neglect of physical resources upon which depend food, clothings[sic] , shelter, and the very beginnings of progress. [13]
-
-
"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating[sic] so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the FINAL SOLUTION OF OUR INDIAN PROBLEM." [14]
-
And it is more than irony that the term “Final Solution of ‘our’ the Indian Problem” in the DIA memo of D.C. Scott is the exactly language used by the Nazis as in “Final Solution to the Jewish Problem”. The Alberta Sterilization Act of 1928[15], and the Eugenics Laws of 27 states of the U.S. were specifically cited by the German Nazis as the direct “inspirations” for their own 1933 Race Hygiene Law and 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws.”[16] According to John Toland, biographer of Adolf Hitler:
-
And it is more than irony that the term “Final Solution of ‘our’ the Indian Problem” in the DIA memo of D.C. Scott is the exactly language used by the Nazis as in “Final Solution to the Jewish Problem”. The Alberta Sterilization Act of 1928[15], and the Eugenics Laws of 27 states of the U.S. were specifically cited by the German Nazis as the direct “inspirations” for their own 1933 Race Hygiene Law and 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws.”[16] According to John Toland, biographer of Adolf Hitler:
-
Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa And for the Indians in the Wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination-by starvation and uneven combat-of the 'Red Savages' who could not be tamed by captivity.[17]
-
And from an internal document of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs:
-
-
"Set the blood-quantum at one-quarter, hold to it as a rigid definition of Indians, let intermarriage proceed, and eventually Indians will be defined out of existence. When that happens, the federal government will finally be freed from its persistent Indian problem."[18]
-
Thus it has been made clear by the U.S. and Canadian governments that Indigenous institutions, values and practices, Indigenous cultures and systems, are considered not only as “existential threats” to their own orders, institutions and values, but are considered fundamentally inconsistent with what they define as economic growth and development and the fundamental conditions and ingredients necessary for economic growth and overall development.
-
-
Now let’s explore the model of Indigenous development and sustainability given below. The first thing that must be noticed is the four points of the model that correspond with the four primary directions of the compass: North, or Control of Assets; East, or Spirituality; South, or Kinship; and West, or Personal Efficacy. These imperatives are considered fundamental to overall development and sustainability in Indigenous terms.
-
-
-
Why are these four[19] core values and imperatives considered fundamental to development and sustainability in Indigenous terms? There is an old saying that sums it up: “It is better to know where to go and not know how, than to know how to go and not know where.” Technology, “Capital” even “land” and “Labor”, are part of the how to go and not where to go. Without Sovereignty and Control of Assets and critical resources, without Vision informed by Spirituality[20] , without Kinship and healthy families and Clans and Bands, without Personal Efficacy (health and viability) of individuals, no nation, especially one surrounded by hostile forces that consider its mere existence a “threat” of some sort, will grow, develop or even survive and be sustained. This is no different for China than it is for any Indigenous society and vice-versa. Since its inception in 1949, the People’s Republic of China, with its own sovereign and socialist institutions and roads to growth, development and sustainability with Chinese characteristics, has been: encircled; threatened with nuclear annihilation; attacked internally by secessionist and separatist forces acting as proxies for foreign powers; hit with repeated embargos and denials of critical technologies and goods and services; slandered, demonized and isolated among the community of nations . [21]
-
Social systems engineering, to which all Indigenous nations, along with socialist nations like China have been subject, involves putting targeted nations under such siege from external and internal pressures that have been manufactured and/or exacerbated, that the targeted nation winds up in a straight jacket, forced to divert precious scarce resources into defense and away from development and sustainability, that the targeted nation appears to “conform”, and thus the “proof” has been engineered, of the caricatures that have been made of that targeted nation: “backward”; “repressive”; “inefficient”; “undemocratic”; “stagnant”[22] etc. But in a fair fight, or peaceful competition between systems, socialism beats capitalism any day, even in terms of capitalism’s own definitions and measurements of “efficiency”, just as traditional Indigenous societies beat modern-day assimilated BIA-DIA controlled and capitalist influenced Indigenous societies, in terms of all the requisite ingredients to development and sustainability shown in the traditional Indigenous model of development and sustainability, any day. That is why they were put under siege with their core institutions and values slandered, demonized and marginalized historically and in the present: in a fair and peaceful competition between systems, socialism beats capitalism, as Traditional ways are far superior, even in terms of levels of science and technology, than what has become of Indigenous societies in North America and elsewhere under capitalism and “modernity.” [23]
-
This is why I have urged young Chinese students who ask me about getting to go to school in the West to consider that they have some very fine teachers and schools in China and I have urged them, as a foreigner, not to worship things foreign. I have given the metaphor that if I were given a basic test of Economics in Mandarin, which I do not read, write or speak, it would appear that I know nothing of economics even though I have taught it over thirty years. This is only because I have been given a test and criteria of “success” that were designed and intended for me to fail and thus my “failure” and “proof” of my lack of knowledge of economics were “engineered” by those with the power to do so. The same holds for Indigenous societies put under siege by colonial and imperial powers to engineer the “proof” of their supposed “backwardness”, “stagnation” lack of “civilization”, etc; and thus my advice to Indigenous students, who seek capitalist “civilization” and “progress” away from Traditional Ways, is the same as my advice to Chinese students seeking supposed “advanced education” in the West: perhaps take a good look at, and then appreciate, what you have right in front of you.
Social systems engineering, to which all Indigenous nations, along with socialist nations like China have been subject, involves putting targeted nations under such siege from external and internal pressures that have been manufactured and/or exacerbated, that the targeted nation winds up in a straight jacket, forced to divert precious scarce resources into defense and away from development and sustainability, that the targeted nation appears to “conform”, and thus the “proof” has been engineered, of the caricatures that have been made of that targeted nation: “backward”; “repressive”; “inefficient”; “undemocratic”; “stagnant”[22] etc. But in a fair fight, or peaceful competition between systems, socialism beats capitalism any day, even in terms of capitalism’s own definitions and measurements of “efficiency”, just as traditional Indigenous societies beat modern-day assimilated BIA-DIA controlled and capitalist influenced Indigenous societies, in terms of all the requisite ingredients to development and sustainability shown in the traditional Indigenous model of development and sustainability, any day. That is why they were put under siege with their core institutions and values slandered, demonized and marginalized historically and in the present: in a fair and peaceful competition between systems, socialism beats capitalism, as Traditional ways are far superior, even in terms of levels of science and technology, than what has become of Indigenous societies in North America and elsewhere under capitalism and “modernity.” [23]
-
This is why I have urged young Chinese students who ask me about getting to go to school in the West to consider that they have some very fine teachers and schools in China and I have urged them, as a foreigner, not to worship things foreign. I have given the metaphor that if I were given a basic test of Economics in Mandarin, which I do not read, write or speak, it would appear that I know nothing of economics even though I have taught it over thirty years. This is only because I have been given a test and criteria of “success” that were designed and intended for me to fail and thus my “failure” and “proof” of my lack of knowledge of economics were “engineered” by those with the power to do so. The same holds for Indigenous societies put under siege by colonial and imperial powers to engineer the “proof” of their supposed “backwardness”, “stagnation” lack of “civilization”, etc; and thus my advice to Indigenous students, who seek capitalist “civilization” and “progress” away from Traditional Ways, is the same as my advice to Chinese students seeking supposed “advanced education” in the West: perhaps take a good look at, and then appreciate, what you have right in front of you.
-
Notice in the Indigenous model of development and sustainability the focus is not on conquering or subduing nature but in working in harmony with nature. In Indigenous terms there is no such thing as Humankind versus Nature or the Environment as whenever humankind works against, or tries to conquer, the forces of that of which humankind is an integral part—“Nature”—then “Nature” is destined to win the battle as is evidenced by present-day global climate change and a whole host of threats to the planet that come from capitalist greed, myopia and disrespect for that—environment—of which humankind is an integral part of a delicate web of life froms and matter. Notice also that “Hope”, “Future Orientation”, “Cultural Integrity”, “Social Respect” and “Civic Participation”, all the elements of the overall construct of “social capital” to which modern-day Economics is only beginning to mention as critical to growth and devleopment, has been a part of Traditional Indigenous thinking for thousands of years. Notice in the Indigenous model, the focus on Health and Safety, on Vibrant Initiatives, and on individuals taking “Personal Responsibility” for the “Consequences” of their actions, in addition to “Incomes” (how they are earned and used), “Productivity” and “Trade” as critical to development and sustainability. The Indigenous model includes, holistically, factors that are clearly critical to development and sustainability and yet are nowhere to be found and/or are only newly-emerging, in the Western and capitalist-based models of growth, development and sustainability.
Notice in the Indigenous model of development and sustainability the focus is not on conquering or subduing nature but in working in harmony with nature. In Indigenous terms there is no such thing as Humankind versus Nature or the Environment as whenever humankind works against, or tries to conquer, the forces of that of which humankind is an integral part—“Nature”—then “Nature” is destined to win the battle as is evidenced by present-day global climate change and a whole host of threats to the planet that come from capitalist greed, myopia and disrespect for that—environment—of which humankind is an integral part of a delicate web of life froms and matter. Notice also that “Hope”, “Future Orientation”, “Cultural Integrity”, “Social Respect” and “Civic Participation”, all the elements of the overall construct of “social capital” to which modern-day Economics is only beginning to mention as critical to growth and devleopment, has been a part of Traditional Indigenous thinking for thousands of years. Notice in the Indigenous model, the focus on Health and Safety, on Vibrant Initiatives, and on individuals taking “Personal Responsibility” for the “Consequences” of their actions, in addition to “Incomes” (how they are earned and used), “Productivity” and “Trade” as critical to development and sustainability. The Indigenous model includes, holistically, factors that are clearly critical to development and sustainability and yet are nowhere to be found and/or are only newly-emerging, in the Western and capitalist-based models of growth, development and sustainability.
-
Here is another Indigenous model of development and sustainability that manifests the some of same concepts and constructs:
-
Here is another Indigenous model of development and sustainability that manifests the some of same concepts and constructs:
-
-
(Source: Sustainomics and Sustainable Development—adapted from Munasinghe 1992, 1994 Reprinted under Fair Use for Educational and Academic Exchange Purposes Only)
-
The warning against abuse of Nature and all that humankind is an integral part of has come from Indigenous Peoples over many years. Chief Sealth, of the Dwamish and Suquamish nations gave the following warning to U.S. President Franklin Pierce in 1855:
(Source: Sustainomics and Sustainable Development—adapted from Munasinghe 1992, 1994 Reprinted under Fair Use for Educational and Academic Exchange Purposes Only)
-
The warning against abuse of Nature and all that humankind is an integral part of has come from Indigenous Peoples over many years. Chief Sealth, of the Dwamish and Suquamish nations gave the following warning to U.S. President Franklin Pierce in 1855:
-
" The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. How can you buy or sell the sky--the warmth of the land. The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us. Every part of this earth is sacred to my people.
-
We know that the White Man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it he moves on. He leaves his father's graves and his children's birthright is forgotten.
We know that the White Man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it he moves on. He leaves his father's graves and his children's birthright is forgotten.
-
There is no quiet place in the White Man's cities. No place to hear the leaves of spring or the rustle of insect wings. But perhaps because I am savage and do not understand--the clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man[sic] cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of a frog around the pond at night.
-
-
The Whites too, shall pass--perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses tamed the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket. Gone. Where is the eagle. Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift and the hunt. The end of living and the beginning of survival. " [24]
-
-
Chief Sealth 1855
-
I once gave a lecture at Tsinghua University entitled Socialism versus Capitalism: Which Will Win? I answered the central question of the lecture that I do not know which will win; but I do know which must win for the planet and humankind to survive: Socialism (and some Traditional Indigenous values that closely parallel socialist values). Capitalism, simply, has destroyed and will destroy this planet.
-
Footnotes
-
[1] Externalities are costs or benefits that accrue to society as a result of private or public transactions and activities by individuals or entities within that society. Environmental destruction, social alienation, citizen cynicism and distrust are all examples of negative externalities with social costs, that result and “spillover” on society from private or public activities. Externalities can also be positive such as the health benefits on many people from use of a public park or perhaps a private gymnasium. In “mainstream” neoclassical economic theory, without the very government intervention that they neoclassical economists often decry, there is a tendency for unregulated markets, coupled with greed and competitive imperatives, to cause less than all the true (private plus social) costs to be assessed and paid by those causing them and less than the true benefits (private plus social) to be assessed and paid by those receiving them. Thus unregulated markets tend to over-production and under-pricing when negative externalities are present, and under-production and under-pricing when positive externalities are present.
-
[2] Capital is usually defined as any “thing” that has been produced specifically in order to produce something else. But capital is also a social relation in the sense that under capitalism and private property, those who own and/or control capital are, by virtue of their ownership and control, able to hire and fire and make basic decisions about the use or non-use, employment or non-employment of that capital while those who labor, who have nothing to sell but their labor power or capacity to work, are, by virtue of their lack of ownership and/or control of capital, the ones who are the hired and fired and the ones whose ability to sell their labor power is dependent upon the decisions of those who own and/or control the capital. Capital stands in relation to and is defined by Labor and vice-versa.
-
[3] Hanifan, Lyda Judson, “The Rural School Community Center”, Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 67 (1916): pp. 130-138. Note: An excellent overview of the development of the concept of social capital, for which I am indebted, can be found in: Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster, N.Y. 2000 and also in Putnam, Robert D (ed), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, N.Y. 2002
-
[4] Seeley, John R, Sim, Alexander and Loosley, Elizabeth; Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban Life, Basic Books, N.Y. 1956
[4] Seeley, John R, Sim, Alexander and Loosley, Elizabeth; Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban Life, Basic Books, N.Y. 1956
-
[5] Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, N.Y. 1961
[5] Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, N.Y. 1961
-
[6] Loury, Glenn, “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences” in Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination, Wallace, P.A. and LeMund, A (eds), Lexington Books, Lexington Mass. 1977
-
-
[7] Bourdieu, Pierre, “Forms of Capital” in Handbook of Theory and Research for The Sociology of Education Richardson, John (Ed), Greenwood Books, N.Y. 1983
-
[8] Schlicht, Ekkehart, “Cognitive Dissonance in Economics” in Normengeleitetes Verhalten in den Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, 1984
-
[9] Coleman, James, “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital” in American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1988)
-
[8] Schlicht, Ekkehart, “Cognitive Dissonance in Economics” in Normengeleitetes Verhalten in den Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, 1984
-
[9] Coleman, James, “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital” in American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1988)
-
[1o] See Colander, David, Economics 7th Edition, Power point slide 24-15, McGraw-Hill, N.Y. 2006; quote of Edward Denison who saw U.S. economic growth 1928-2005 as a function of 4 basic sources: Physical Capital 19%; Human Capital 13%; Labor 33% and Technology 35%
-
[11] A Tautology is a circular argument or definition. Examples include “Science is what scientists do and scientists are those who do science.” Or, science is that which builds upon a foundation of what was generally regarded by a community of scientists as science.” Here by defining as economic growth and development what is in essence central to capitalism and its survival (conspicuous consumption of ever expanding material goods and services per capita) and by defining as essential to achieving economic growth and development that which is defining in capitalism (production of commodities by means of commodities, markets, property rights, wage labor) we wind up with a tautology that capitalism = economic growth and development and/or only capitalism can best and most efficiently promote and achieve economic growth and development.
-
[12] Adapted from Seib, Rebecca, “Culturally Appropriate Community Economic Development: Aboriginal Land Development Conference”, June 22-25, 2004, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan under Fair Use Doctrine.
-
[13] Long Standing Bear Chief, “Ni Kso Ko Wa: Blackfoot Traditions and Spirituality” pp. 8-9, Spirit Talk Press, Browning, Montana, 1992
-
[14] Department of Indian Affairs, Superintendent D.C. Scott to B.C. Indian Agent-General Major D. McKay, DIA Archives, RG-10 series, April 12, 1910 (emphasis added)
[14] Department of Indian Affairs, Superintendent D.C. Scott to B.C. Indian Agent-General Major D. McKay, DIA Archives, RG-10 series, April 12, 1910 (emphasis added)
-
[15] The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, to which Canada became a signatory in 1953 and to which the U.S. still remains not a full signatory because of the Hatch, Helms and Lugar “Sovereignty Amendment of 1988, in Article II defines a five-part test, any one of which, not all required to constitutes genocide: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting upon a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures designed to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of one group to another group.
-
[16] Black, Edwin, “War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race” Thunder’s Mouth Press N.Y. 2003; Alberta Sterilization Victims Also Used as Guinea Pigs Revelation Comes as 40 victims win $4M settlement; Marina Jimenez National Post 10/28/98
-
[16] Black, Edwin, “War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race” Thunder’s Mouth Press N.Y. 2003; Alberta Sterilization Victims Also Used as Guinea Pigs Revelation Comes as 40 victims win $4M settlement; Marina Jimenez National Post 10/28/98
-
[17] Toland, John, “Adolf Hitler”, Vol II, p. 802, Doubleday and Co. N.Y. 1976
-
[18] Limerick, Patricia Nelson, “The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of American West” WW. Norton and Co. N.Y. 1987 p. 338
[17] Toland, John, “Adolf Hitler”, Vol II, p. 802, Doubleday and Co. N.Y. 1976
-
[18] Limerick, Patricia Nelson, “The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of American West” WW. Norton and Co. N.Y. 1987 p. 338
-
[19] In most Indigenous cultures, the number four is not merely a quantity or cardinal magnitude, without quality or force as in many Eurocentric cultures (four of what?); it has its own power, symbolism and force giving it quality in addition to quantity. The number four stands for: the four principle directions of the compass (North, South, East and West); the four principle colors of the human family (Black White Red and Yellow); the four forms of balance that all humans must seek to survive and prosper (Physical, Emotional, Mental and Spiritual); the four basic elements of Nature (Wind, Fire, Earth and Water). In this model, there are four basic dimensions of development and sustainability that illustrate the dialectical unity of the macro and the micro levels of existence: control of assets and kinship (macro) and personal efficacy and spirituality (micro).
-
[20] In most Indigenous cultures, “Spirituality” (more an individual matter) is differentiated from religion which is about organized dogma and rituals shared by a community of the religious. “Spirituality” means being guided by the “spirit” of something transcendent and beyond oneself. When indigenous people refer to “spirit” they are referring to the potential energy (as specified in the four laws of thermodynamics) embodied in all things and thus one reason why Indigenous peoples do not differentiate “animate” and “inanimate” aspects of the cosmos.
-
[21] The so-called Republic of China or Taiwan is currently only recognized by 23 nation states including the Vatican, as the supposed “legitimate government” of all of China whereas up until the 1970s, the reality and legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China as the sole and legitimate government of all of China was denied except by a handful of nations yet the objective reality of and international law supporting, the PRC as the sole and legitimate representative of the whole nation of China was never in question by any honest and thinking person or government.
[20] In most Indigenous cultures, “Spirituality” (more an individual matter) is differentiated from religion which is about organized dogma and rituals shared by a community of the religious. “Spirituality” means being guided by the “spirit” of something transcendent and beyond oneself. When indigenous people refer to “spirit” they are referring to the potential energy (as specified in the four laws of thermodynamics) embodied in all things and thus one reason why Indigenous peoples do not differentiate “animate” and “inanimate” aspects of the cosmos.
-
[21] The so-called Republic of China or Taiwan is currently only recognized by 23 nation states including the Vatican, as the supposed “legitimate government” of all of China whereas up until the 1970s, the reality and legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China as the sole and legitimate government of all of China was denied except by a handful of nations yet the objective reality of and international law supporting, the PRC as the sole and legitimate representative of the whole nation of China was never in question by any honest and thinking person or government.
-
[22] For example: "I don’ t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." (Henry Kissinger); "Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." (Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende"s election) "Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him"(Richard Nixon, orders to CIA director Richard Helms on September 15, 1970) "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." (A communiqué to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970.) Also quoted in :Neoclassical Economics and Neo-liberalism as Neo-Imperialism” by James Craven/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi, Lecture to Academy of Marxism of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, August 11, 2009, Beijing, China.
-
[23] See: Weatherford, Jack, “Native Roots: How the Indians Enriched America”, Fawcett Columbine, N.Y. 1991;”Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World 1988; “Savages and Civilization: Who Will Survive?” 1994. Peat, F. David “Blackfoot Physics”, Weiser Books, Boston, 2002 pp 191, 193-96, 216
-
[23] See: Weatherford, Jack, “Native Roots: How the Indians Enriched America”, Fawcett Columbine, N.Y. 1991;”Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World 1988; “Savages and Civilization: Who Will Survive?” 1994. Peat, F. David “Blackfoot Physics”, Weiser Books, Boston, 2002 pp 191, 193-96, 216
-
[24] This was based on a translation of a speech by Chief Sealth from Suquamish into Chinook jargon and then into English. Its authenticity has been questioned and that of Chief Sealth only on the basis that he sounded “too articulate” to be the real author and that “thus” it “must have been” written by a screenwriter.
-
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Indigenous Epistemology and Science: Some Parallels and Contrasts with Neoclassical Theory (NT), Chaos Theory (CT) and Dialectical-Historical Materialism (DHM)
Presented at the 16th Congress of the IUAES, Kunming, China July 26-31
By James Craven/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi
"If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is not our task, all the more certain is what we must accomplish in the present; I mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists—the criticism being ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results nor fears conflict with the powers that be."
(Karl Marx, from Letter to Arnold Ruge, 1843)
Presented at the 16th Congress of the IUAES, Kunming, China July 26-31
By James Craven/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi
"If the construction of the future and its completion for all time is not our task, all the more certain is what we must accomplish in the present; I mean, the ruthless criticism of everything that exists—the criticism being ruthless in the sense that it neither fears its own results nor fears conflict with the powers that be."
(Karl Marx, from Letter to Arnold Ruge, 1843)
Introduction
In his extensive treatise on “Native science” Gregory Cajete notes that in “all” Indigenous languages, there is no word for “science”:
“In Native languages there is no word for ‘science’ nor for 'philiosophy', ‘psychology’ or any other foundational way of coming to know and understand the nature of life and our relationships therein. Not having, or more accurately, not needing, words for science, art, or psychology, did not diminish their importance in Native life. For Native people, ‘seeking life’ was the all encompassing task. While there were tribal specialists with particular knowledge of technologies and ritual, each member of the tribe in his or her own capacity was a scientist, an artist, a storyteller and a participant in the great web of life.”[1]
That begs important questions for some, like Thomas S. Kuhn[2] , one of the most frequently consulted and cited authorities who wrote on the nature and history of science[3] : If certain cultures, say Indigenous cultures (not discussed by Kuhn) do not even have a word for science, how could it be possible, no matter what their purported achievements, that what they were doing that yielded those achievements, could be considered “science”? Can we arrive at a comprehensive and objective definition of “science” that transcends culture, who is doing the defining, his or her interests or motives in doing science, and the paradigm he or she employs in arriving at the definition? Or, are we stuck, like a blind person trying to define and give an image of the totality of an elephant in the abstract, by simply feeling and listing its separate parts or aspects?
Albert Einstein noted that the business of science is reality. One definition of science has to do with the purported goals of science versus non-science. Science is that which seeks not simply facts or “knowledge” in some abstract sense, but seeks to discover of the essences under the surfaces of phenomena of an objective reality, and, the ultimate laws governing those phenomena and aspects of that reality. But that notion of what is science leaves us in a dilemma: Since old notions of the essences of and even laws governing, various phenomena, discovered in the past by what was then considered “science”, are often challenged, modified or even refuted by new notions about the essences of and laws governing those phenomena, then can we ever have “science” since one of the essential purposes of science is to continually challenge and test its own notions and conclusions to find new and more universally valid ones? Kuhn has an answer for that dilemma that is somewhat tautological. He notes that science is that which builds on a foundation of what was generally considered to be science that preceded it, and is not dependent upon how fixed and universal are its purported conclusions about phenomena, but on the methods, approaches, tools, standards, validity tests, and paradigms employed to arrive at those notions and conclusions. Indeed for Kuhn, the term “science” appears to be more of a noun [4] than a verb or adjective although at times he did recognize science as a process. Kuhn appears to see science more as a “constellation of facts, theories and methods collected in current texts”[5] ; and his views sometime border on pure tautology.[6]
Yet Kuhn also went through a bit of a change between the first and third editions of his essay. In his original 1962 first edition, he makes the following remarkable statement:
“But only the civilizations that descended from Hellenic Greece possessed more than the most rudimentary science”[7]
I say that this statement of Kuhn is remarkable because his essay has nothing about views, approaches to or definitions of, science, not from the “Classical” or Eurocentric sources and perspectives. The closest he gets to exploring that non-Eurocentric approaches and discoveries might have also been “science” and possibly advanced over some contemporary Eurocentric contributions is in the following:
“In recent years however, a few historians of science have been finding it more and more difficult to fullfil[sic] the functions that the concept of development-by-accumulation assigns to them. As chroniclers of an incremental process, they discover that additional research makes it harder, not easier, to answer questions like: When was oxygen discovered? Who first conceived of energy conservation? Increasingly, a few of them suspect that these are simply the wrong sorts of questions to ask. Perhaps science does not develop by accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions. Simultaneously, these same historians confront growing difficulties in distinguishing the ‘scientific’ component of past observation and belief from what their predecessors readily labeled ‘error’ and ‘superstition’. The more carefully they study, say, Aristotelian dynamics, phlogistic chemistry, or caloric thermodynamics, the more certain they feel that those once current views of nature were, as a whole, neither less scientific nor more the product of human idiosyncrasy than those current today. If these out-of-date beliefs are to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge. If, on the other hand, they are to be called science, then science has included bodies of belief quite incompatible with the ones we hold today. Given these alternatives, the historian must choose the latter. Out-of-date theories are not in principle unscientific because they have been discarded. That choice however, makes it difficult to see scientific development as a process of accretion. The same historical research that displays the difficulties in isolating the individual inventions and discoveries gives ground for profound doubts about the cumulative process through which these individual contributions to science were thought to have been compounded.”[8]
So we still have a ways to go to arrive at a generalized definition of science that allows us to proceed to determine if Indigenous cultures have indeed been doing and contributing to science and the parallels and contrasts with other paradigms purporting to be scientific. Samir Amin notes:
“Scientific theory is, after all, not theory that merely takes account of facts, but theory that proceeds from facts in order to integrate them into a coherent system”
[9]
That “coherent system” would have to include, as a key component, core principles and postulates of its own epistemology [10]; on what basis can we say we “know” something to be a fact before taking account of or proceeding from what we believe to be facts. That “coherent system” would have to include concrete approaches, criteria, methodologies, instruments, standards and tests for establishing the likely validity and reliability of facts, generalizations, theories, axioms and laws as well as criteria for selecting what to analyze in the first place. And that “coherent system” would have to have its own essential or foundational postulates and axioms about the essential nature of reality that must be accepted prior to any discussions about or approaches to understanding the essences of that reality. These foundational and guiding postulates may or may not be explicit but must be consistently applied. These “coherent systems” make up what Kuhn calls “paradigms” [11] and what others call schools of thought or “a science”. Since these paradigms include epistemologies, they should also contain postulates about the roles and limitations of human beings (biases, psychological filters, interests, constraints, physiology and contexts) involved in doing science and knowing as well.
Classical and Neoclassical Paradigms of “Science”
Neoclassical approaches in Economics that have been increasingly applied in other social sciences such as Anthropology, Ethnology, Sociology, History and Political Science draw heavily from the basic postulates about reality and knowing that originate from the classical-Greek-based and Newtonian notions of science and reality. For example, in Newton’s Three Laws of Motion and in the four Laws of Thermodynamics, we can see the focus on closed systems, clock-like mechanics, on reductionism (the notion that the task of science is to reduce all phenomena to their “essential” elements and building blocks) but also other foci and postulates central to Classical and Neoclassical notions of “Science”[12]:
1) Focus on equilibrium states--static or dynamic--disturbed only by Exogenous (external) forces followed by endogenous processes creating new equilibriums;
2) Focus on ultimate Independent (Causal) and Dependent (Effect) variables in causality;
3) Focus on systems as morphostatic or endogenously self-correcting and self-equilibrating systems.;
4) Focus on unidirectional causality (X --> Y --> Z) and process;
5) Focus on negative (equilibrating) feedback effects.
6) Focus on closed systems;
7) Focus on a-priori sources and indirect proofs of knowledge;
8) The whole (macro) is merely the sum of its parts (micro) and the micro is a concentrated expression or microcosm of the whole;
9) Phenomena may be experimentally isolated and analyzed independent of the contexts and interactions with other variables with which they interact in reality;
10) Philosophical positivism: the only test of the validity hypotheses (including the validity of assumptions in hypotheses and deduction) is prediction (hypothetico deductivism);
11) As there is an objective reality independent of subjective biases and their causes, so there can be scientific methods and tools that are objective and value-free of any interests or biases on the part of scientists using them;
12) All hypotheses must be potentially falsifiable and all variables potentially measurable;
13) Aspects of reality may be analytically separated and studied in specialized disciplines;
In his extensive treatise on “Native science” Gregory Cajete notes that in “all” Indigenous languages, there is no word for “science”:
“In Native languages there is no word for ‘science’ nor for 'philiosophy', ‘psychology’ or any other foundational way of coming to know and understand the nature of life and our relationships therein. Not having, or more accurately, not needing, words for science, art, or psychology, did not diminish their importance in Native life. For Native people, ‘seeking life’ was the all encompassing task. While there were tribal specialists with particular knowledge of technologies and ritual, each member of the tribe in his or her own capacity was a scientist, an artist, a storyteller and a participant in the great web of life.”[1]
That begs important questions for some, like Thomas S. Kuhn[2] , one of the most frequently consulted and cited authorities who wrote on the nature and history of science[3] : If certain cultures, say Indigenous cultures (not discussed by Kuhn) do not even have a word for science, how could it be possible, no matter what their purported achievements, that what they were doing that yielded those achievements, could be considered “science”? Can we arrive at a comprehensive and objective definition of “science” that transcends culture, who is doing the defining, his or her interests or motives in doing science, and the paradigm he or she employs in arriving at the definition? Or, are we stuck, like a blind person trying to define and give an image of the totality of an elephant in the abstract, by simply feeling and listing its separate parts or aspects?
Albert Einstein noted that the business of science is reality. One definition of science has to do with the purported goals of science versus non-science. Science is that which seeks not simply facts or “knowledge” in some abstract sense, but seeks to discover of the essences under the surfaces of phenomena of an objective reality, and, the ultimate laws governing those phenomena and aspects of that reality. But that notion of what is science leaves us in a dilemma: Since old notions of the essences of and even laws governing, various phenomena, discovered in the past by what was then considered “science”, are often challenged, modified or even refuted by new notions about the essences of and laws governing those phenomena, then can we ever have “science” since one of the essential purposes of science is to continually challenge and test its own notions and conclusions to find new and more universally valid ones? Kuhn has an answer for that dilemma that is somewhat tautological. He notes that science is that which builds on a foundation of what was generally considered to be science that preceded it, and is not dependent upon how fixed and universal are its purported conclusions about phenomena, but on the methods, approaches, tools, standards, validity tests, and paradigms employed to arrive at those notions and conclusions. Indeed for Kuhn, the term “science” appears to be more of a noun [4] than a verb or adjective although at times he did recognize science as a process. Kuhn appears to see science more as a “constellation of facts, theories and methods collected in current texts”[5] ; and his views sometime border on pure tautology.[6]
Yet Kuhn also went through a bit of a change between the first and third editions of his essay. In his original 1962 first edition, he makes the following remarkable statement:
“But only the civilizations that descended from Hellenic Greece possessed more than the most rudimentary science”[7]
I say that this statement of Kuhn is remarkable because his essay has nothing about views, approaches to or definitions of, science, not from the “Classical” or Eurocentric sources and perspectives. The closest he gets to exploring that non-Eurocentric approaches and discoveries might have also been “science” and possibly advanced over some contemporary Eurocentric contributions is in the following:
“In recent years however, a few historians of science have been finding it more and more difficult to fullfil[sic] the functions that the concept of development-by-accumulation assigns to them. As chroniclers of an incremental process, they discover that additional research makes it harder, not easier, to answer questions like: When was oxygen discovered? Who first conceived of energy conservation? Increasingly, a few of them suspect that these are simply the wrong sorts of questions to ask. Perhaps science does not develop by accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions. Simultaneously, these same historians confront growing difficulties in distinguishing the ‘scientific’ component of past observation and belief from what their predecessors readily labeled ‘error’ and ‘superstition’. The more carefully they study, say, Aristotelian dynamics, phlogistic chemistry, or caloric thermodynamics, the more certain they feel that those once current views of nature were, as a whole, neither less scientific nor more the product of human idiosyncrasy than those current today. If these out-of-date beliefs are to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge. If, on the other hand, they are to be called science, then science has included bodies of belief quite incompatible with the ones we hold today. Given these alternatives, the historian must choose the latter. Out-of-date theories are not in principle unscientific because they have been discarded. That choice however, makes it difficult to see scientific development as a process of accretion. The same historical research that displays the difficulties in isolating the individual inventions and discoveries gives ground for profound doubts about the cumulative process through which these individual contributions to science were thought to have been compounded.”[8]
So we still have a ways to go to arrive at a generalized definition of science that allows us to proceed to determine if Indigenous cultures have indeed been doing and contributing to science and the parallels and contrasts with other paradigms purporting to be scientific. Samir Amin notes:
“Scientific theory is, after all, not theory that merely takes account of facts, but theory that proceeds from facts in order to integrate them into a coherent system”
[9]
That “coherent system” would have to include, as a key component, core principles and postulates of its own epistemology [10]; on what basis can we say we “know” something to be a fact before taking account of or proceeding from what we believe to be facts. That “coherent system” would have to include concrete approaches, criteria, methodologies, instruments, standards and tests for establishing the likely validity and reliability of facts, generalizations, theories, axioms and laws as well as criteria for selecting what to analyze in the first place. And that “coherent system” would have to have its own essential or foundational postulates and axioms about the essential nature of reality that must be accepted prior to any discussions about or approaches to understanding the essences of that reality. These foundational and guiding postulates may or may not be explicit but must be consistently applied. These “coherent systems” make up what Kuhn calls “paradigms” [11] and what others call schools of thought or “a science”. Since these paradigms include epistemologies, they should also contain postulates about the roles and limitations of human beings (biases, psychological filters, interests, constraints, physiology and contexts) involved in doing science and knowing as well.
Classical and Neoclassical Paradigms of “Science”
Neoclassical approaches in Economics that have been increasingly applied in other social sciences such as Anthropology, Ethnology, Sociology, History and Political Science draw heavily from the basic postulates about reality and knowing that originate from the classical-Greek-based and Newtonian notions of science and reality. For example, in Newton’s Three Laws of Motion and in the four Laws of Thermodynamics, we can see the focus on closed systems, clock-like mechanics, on reductionism (the notion that the task of science is to reduce all phenomena to their “essential” elements and building blocks) but also other foci and postulates central to Classical and Neoclassical notions of “Science”[12]:
1) Focus on equilibrium states--static or dynamic--disturbed only by Exogenous (external) forces followed by endogenous processes creating new equilibriums;
2) Focus on ultimate Independent (Causal) and Dependent (Effect) variables in causality;
3) Focus on systems as morphostatic or endogenously self-correcting and self-equilibrating systems.;
4) Focus on unidirectional causality (X --> Y --> Z) and process;
5) Focus on negative (equilibrating) feedback effects.
6) Focus on closed systems;
7) Focus on a-priori sources and indirect proofs of knowledge;
8) The whole (macro) is merely the sum of its parts (micro) and the micro is a concentrated expression or microcosm of the whole;
9) Phenomena may be experimentally isolated and analyzed independent of the contexts and interactions with other variables with which they interact in reality;
10) Philosophical positivism: the only test of the validity hypotheses (including the validity of assumptions in hypotheses and deduction) is prediction (hypothetico deductivism);
11) As there is an objective reality independent of subjective biases and their causes, so there can be scientific methods and tools that are objective and value-free of any interests or biases on the part of scientists using them;
12) All hypotheses must be potentially falsifiable and all variables potentially measurable;
13) Aspects of reality may be analytically separated and studied in specialized disciplines;
(Source Henderson, Hazel, http://www.hazelhenderson.com/visual.html; reprinted under Fair Use Doctrine)
Classical approaches to science have yielded impressive discoveries that have made both positive and negative impacts on the planet and on humankind. As prediction and application are concrete tests of the “science” that went into yielding the particular predictions and applications, then discoveries of new drugs to extend human life, sending people 246,000 miles to land on a particular spot on the moon and return, and many other such achievements are testimonies to the power and methodological approaches embodied in what is known as “normal” of Classical and Neoclassical “science”. But then again, we could also chronicle some of the achievements, many unknown until recently, of Indigenous Science. The concept of Zero was first developed and used by the Mayans, many centuries before its recognition and application in the Near East and Europe. [13] The uses of natural medicines like Quinine for Malaria and Tubocurarine used today in abdominal surgery are but two of many examples.[14] There are achievements like Machu Picchu that represent advanced and integrated applications of principles of architecture, engineering, physics and cosmology that could not be duplicated by “modern” or “normal” science today.[15] In his trilogy, Jack Weatherford documents Indigenous pioneering achievements, “discovered” only centuries later by “normal science” in the areas of constitutions and governance, military tactics, agriculture and agronomy, cosmology, long distance navigation, architecture, engineering, medicine including even neurosurgery, unified monetary systems for long distance trade, preservatives for foods, mathematics and symbolic logic, flora and fauna management and breeding, effective education and pedagogy, law and constitutions, meteorology, immunology, and the list goes on.[16]
Theoretical physicist F. David Peat, who lived among the Blackfoot and studied Blackfoot ceremonies like the Sun Dance as well as symbols, allegories and even language structure, found evidence of very advanced constructs of Quantum Mechanics, some “discovered” only in the early 20th century by “normal science”. These include: Superpositionality; Subtle Energy and Matter; Electrons; Wave-Particle duality; Entanglement; Bose-Einstein Condensates; Mass-Energy Equivalence; Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; Fractals; The Four Laws of Thermodynamics; Grassmann Algebra. [17] From his studies of both Indigenous and what Kuhn called “normal” science, Peat concludes:
“During the first contact, Europeans were confident that they were the bearers of truth, truth about religion and government, truth about science and law. But today that confidence has been shaken. For some people, the truths of institutional religions are no longer self-evident, or even credible. And science, which has been through two great revolutions—quantum theory and relativity—is much less confident about the nature of objective truth.” [18]
More and more Classical science’s own concrete tests of validity of theory, prediction and application, are calling into question, the fundamental and defining postulates or asserted axioms, along with the often myopic reductionism, of Classical science itself. The most obvious example is global climate change about which there is not only disagreement by normal science and its scientists, as to its dimensions, dynamics, impacts and causes, but one may easily argue, that global climate change, which threatens the planet itself, is itself partly, or even largely, the product of the ultra-reductionism, ultra-specialization, myopia and non-holistic nature of what passes as “normal science”—especially when coupled and driven by the short-run, profit, competitive-survival imperatives of capitalism. Some argue that the paradigm of Classical science, that includes the notion that the whole is simply the sum of its parts, coupled with ultra-reductionism and ultra-specialization among various academic disciplines, leads easily to the “Fallacy of Composition” (“What is true in the particular must be true in general”) and the “Tragedy of the Commons” (individuals acting competitively and individualistically in what they think is rational self-interest in the short-run, destroying scarce and vital common resources necessary for collective as well as individual survival in the long-run) are being manifested and played out on national, regional and global scales with potentially disastrous consequences.[19]
In the social sciences, in attempts to gain legitimacy as “sciences”, there have been attempts to deal with some of the more glaring contradictions in neoclassical economics while preserving the essential postulates of the paradigm, and to extend Neoclassical constructs into other disciplines such as Sociology, History and even in Ethnology and Anthropology. Just like impersonal and “value-free” particles in perpetual motion in time-space, or the basic elements of all matter, of Physics and Chemistry, human beings are assumed to be “economic agents” or “Homo Oeconomicus” (Economic Man”)[20] driven by bundles of propensities that are part of some immutable iron-laws and eternal “Human Nature”, to engage in predictable behaviors with ultimate causes or independent variables for all behavior (e.g. maximization of utility). The behaviors of these human particles (agents) in time-space, are asserted to arise irrespective of such “fuzzy” and “immeasurable” (or not cardinally quantifiable) variables or factors such as historical context, type of socioeconomic system, personal histories, social class, race, ethnicity, religion, age, ideology, culture or any other real-world differences that are manifested among human beings. And since the social sciences are increasingly loaded with higher level mathematics to make them appear more scientific and rigorous[21], and since mathematics is assumed to be “value-free”, these disciplines increasingly argue that they only do “Positive” analysis (from Philosophical Positivism at the core of their epistemology: What is pure value-free cause and effect or how the world actually works) instead of “Normative” analysis (How the world “should” work).
What is interesting about many scientists of the Classical and Neoclassical persuasions is the lack of interest they appear to have on evolving research on the biological, chemical, psychological and physiological mechanisms and factors that cause human perception and other senses to be as shaped by what they think (paradigms) as what they think is shaped by what they see, hear, smell, touch and taste. In other words not only “seeing is believing”, but “believing is seeing.”Indeed the different paradigms that shape even what we choose to study, along with the sources and methods we use and consider legitimate, not only “explain the world differently, but also induce us to see a different world to explain.”[22]
These are issues dealing with limitations of the senses and roles of ideology in shaping perceptions and interests, not traditionally covered in epistemology, but certainly part of the problem of “knowing”, that are now being covered by some evolutionary biologists, cognitive psychologists and neurobiologists, that have long been incorporated into “Native Science” as well as more sophisticated versions of Dialectical-Historical Materialism. They have not been brought into the overall epistemologies of the Classical-Neoclassical or even Chaos-Complexity paradigms.
Indigenous Science
When speaking about what some call “Native Science” and what others call “Indigenous Science we faced several limitations. First of all, different Indigenous nations are exactly that: different nations with different histories, land bases, cultures, languages, socioeconomic structures etc that have some things in common but also some forms and levels of diversity as well. Secondly, the accounts we have are for the most part from those who study Indigenous societies but are not from or a part of the objects (cultures and paradigms) of their research.[23]
Is there some kind of evolving body or “coherent system”, of core principles and methods, tests of validity and reliability, procedures, axioms etc that would allow us to speak of Indigenous or Native “science” or a distinctive Native paradigm? We can list some of the core principles, axioms etc that form a coherent system that, as science is supposed to do, can be used not only to establish correlations and recurring patterns in aspects of reality, but also provide narratives and explanations as to why various predictable patterns and cycles occur with regularity in the cosmos on the one hand, versus highly conditional probabilities but not certainties on the quantum levels of reality.[24] In Native science, the supposed contradiction between mere probabilities at the quantum or sub-atomic level of reality, as studied by Quantum Mechanics, versus regular, predictable and certain patterns and cycles of celestial bodies at the level of General Relativity Theory, is no contradiction. In all of what appears to be “chaos” of multiple-dimensions and probabilities but no certainties at the quantum level, there is often embodied the potential for order; and in all of what appears to be predictable, certain and recurring “order” at the macro level, there are contradictions and delicate webs of interdependency with the potential for chaos and implosion. In this respect and in others we shall discuss, Native science has more in common with Chaos Theory and Dialectical-Historical Materialism, which is not to say that Native science rejects all of Classical science.[25]
Some Principles and Approaches of Native Science
• The only constant is change (CT and DHM);
• Mathematics important but not foundational; mathematics not value free (CT and DHM);
• No ultimate independent (causal) or dependent (effect) variables (CT, DHM);
• All phenomena in process; thus phenomenon A can both be and yet not be (CT, DHM);
• All variables are endogenous (internal) depending upon scope/angle of analysis (CT, DHM);
• Reality is non-linear, causality is multidirectional and multi-faceted, development is not unidirectional from lower to higher orders; (CT and DHM);
• What Native People mean by “Spirit” is concentrated energy-matter, that is neither created nor destroyed but transformed from form to form and level to level in accordance with what amounts to the four Laws of Thermodynamics,[26];
• There is an objective reality outside of our consciousness but the relationships between ontology (existence) and epistemology (knowing) or between being and consciousness, are dialectical two-way as part of any reality involves the perceptions and interactions of those immersed in that reality. (CT, DHM);
• The notion that everything is interrelated, that there are no ultimate causes and effects of any phenomena, that all of the Cosmos involves extensive and delicate webs of interrelationships, actually aids rather than inhibits effective working models and narratives about how and why a particular phenomenon occurs, or why something works a certain way, or what will likely happen from given actions in Nature; (CT, DHM);
• The purpose of science is not to attempt to conquer, subdue or mitigate the forces and interrelationships of nature, but to understand them and work in accordance with them to achieve survival and subsistence; (CT, DHM);
• Phenomena may appear self-equilibrating and Morphostatically stable, but they are in reality, continually in motion, subject to negative and positive feedback effects, driven by internal contradictions and interrelationships, to produce morphogenetic systems and outcomes that often represent qualitative leaps or volatile changes from relatively small quantitative changes over time.[27](CT,DHM);
• The context within which a given phenomenon being studied is never constant and can never realistically be treated as “a constant” or a “given” but it is an essential part of understanding what a given phenomenon within and part of—forming—that context is doing and why. (CT,DHM);
• The task of science is not simply to establish correlations between apparent or surface phenomena, or even to posit cause and effect, but to explain, with various kinds of narratives, why, with what periodicity, patterns and effects these interrelationships occur and in what directions are they changing; (DHM some CT);
• There is a dialectical unity between apparent Chaos and Order in that they are not only definitionally related, each defines the other, but are functionally related as in all apparent order is the potential for breakdown into chaos and in all apparent chaos there is underlying order to be discovered. (CT and DHM);
• Constructs and distinctions between time and space, animate and non-animate, individual and society, dreams and visions, perception and reality, causality and synchronicity, and time and eternity are our own constructs, imposed on reality because of, and manifesting, our own epistemological and other limitations more than the intrinsic nature of the reality.[28];
• The task of science is to discover both the implicate as well as explicate orders of reality [29];
• The task of science is not to dismiss from analysis anomalies that occur outside of or in contradiction to validating or nullifying predictions of hypotheses, but to explain them also without fear or favor to their implications on established interests (DHM)[30];
• Spirituality is not religion; it is being guided by the “spirit” (potential energy) of something beyond oneself and to understand the relationships of the phenomena of reality; part of scientific epistemology [31];
• All equations and models are symbolic representations or symbolic narratives (stories) about aspects of reality as much as story narratives; story narratives may be expressed in forms of equations—and vice versa--and may well capture more of the totality and essence of an aspect of reality than mathematical equations. (CT and DHM);
• True science must not merely be “interdisciplinary” but trans-disciplinary as reality is an indivisible totality and not simply social, economic, physical chemical or whatever.(DHM)[32];
• “Nature “ is not simply a collection of objects, but rather a dynamic, ever-flowing river of creation inseparable from our own perceptions…the creative center from which we and everything else have come and to which we always return.”[33] (CT, DHM)
• “As we experience the world, so are we also experienced by the world.”[34](CT, DHM)
• In understanding phenomena, science can never effectively remain, or claim to remain, detached from that of which it is an integral part; total integrated immersion of the five senses plus cognition are required at all times; “controlled” experimentation, abstraction, simplification, instrumentation and the search for uniformity and “laws” are limited and said to be of limited value;
• Stories, trans-cultural symbols, allegories, metaphors serve as the same functions as theories, models and equations in normal science; languages are verb rather than noun-based emphasizing science as process rather than as a body or stock of tools and approaches; (CT, DHM)
• All of existence, including science, has purpose and the calling of science as with all activity, is to serve the community and its survival and sustainability. (DHM)
• The question of who is to benefit and who is to lose—for whom—is a central question for all science (CT, DHM)
These are but some of the core or foundational or defining ontological and epistemological principles of Indigenous science and how they parallel and/or contrast with Classical Science or what Kuhn calls “normal science” as well as with Chaos Theory and Dialectical-Historical Materialism as distinct paradigms. Of course in this exposition, some abstractions and simplifications have to be made for purposes of brevity and summarizing in a space-constrained exposition.
It would be a mistake to simply and summarily dismiss, as mere superstition, folkways, myths, and metaphysics what is increasingly being recognized as a whole and coherent system that qualifies as Native science and that has indeed produced some achievements that “modern” and “normal science” have no existing means or technologies to duplicate. In the symbols, rituals and ceremonies, structures like the Medicine Wheel, and numbers like the Sacred “Number Four”[35] one can find, and many Indigenous people understand, complex algorithms about the order of the Cosmos that guide everyday events and practices. Applying the tests of prediction and application favored by “normal science”, then Native science can make every claim to be science and perhaps more so than Classical science. How many pharmaceuticals in use today were first developed and used by Indigenous cultures and were then only considered to have been “discovered”, like the “discoveries” of Columbus, when obtained by Eurocentric forces and cultures? How do we explain the precision of the Mayan Calendars if some kind of “science” was not going on? How do we explain the democratic institutions, agricultural practices, animal husbandry, cosmology, engineering of the likes of Macchu Pichu, and indeed warnings of the past that turned out to be very prophetic for the present and future that went unanswered and at our own peril [36]:
Letter from Chief Sealth to President Franklin Pierce--1855
" The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. How can you buy or sell the sky--the warmth of the land. The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us. Every part of this earth is sacred to my people.
We know that the White Man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it he moves on. He leaves his father's graves and his children's birthright is forgotten.
There is no quiet place in the White Man's cities. No place to hear the leaves of spring or the rustle of insect wings. But perhaps because I am savage and do not understand--the clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man[sic] cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of a frog around the pond at night.
The Whites too, shall pass--perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. When the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses tamed the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket. Gone. Where is the eagle. Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift and the hunt. The end of living and the beginning of survival. "
Chief Sealth 1855
Just as with losses of all sorts of flora and fauna species due to global climate change and other factors is causing losses of potential medicines for present and emerging diseases [37], so losses of whole Indigenous cultures represent losses for all of humanity of knowledge, values, practices and approaches to science that have produced and are producing many achievements that attest to their worth. It is not only flora and fauna diversity that will save this planet, preservation of cultural diversity is a survival imperative for the planet and humanity.
Where will the Classical Science take us? The answer is partly revealed in the products of the so-called “‘The’ [as if there were only one] “Scientific Method” (for good and bad) when coupled with the nature, logic and dynamics of various types of social systems that drive and utilize it.
(Architects and Engineers for Truth Slideshow)
Footnotes
[1] Cajete, Gregory; “Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence”, Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe, N.M. p.2
[2] Kuhn, Thomas S. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Third Edition”, University of Chicago Press, 1996
[3] Kuhn, Thomas Ibid. Kuhn wrote specifically on what he called “normal science” or a concept of science originating in Hellenic Greece and expressed in the foundations and traditions developed by Newton. Kuhn did not explore or even explicitly mention any non-Eurocentric notions or examples of science or scientific-like methods and approaches.
[4] “English, and for that matter French, German, Italian and the other European languages are noun-oriented. They are employed to divide the world into physical objects (nouns) and thinking into separate concepts (again nouns). Many Native American languages do not work this way. They are verb-based. Thus, when in English we speak of “medicine” we automatically seek a referent, a substance, an object, something tangible, and something that can be conceptualized. But suppose we begin with something verbal, with activity, process, a movement of harmony and balance. Medicine could then be felt in the beating of the heart, sensed as a movement around the sacred circle, the wind blowing through the leaves of the tress, the growing of green plants, and the astronomical alignments of the medicine wheel.” Peat, F. David, “Blackfoot Physics” Weiser Books, Boston, MA. 2005, p. 128
[5] Kuhn, Thomas S. op. cit. . p. 1
[6] A Tautology is a circular argument or definition. Examples include “Science is what scientists do and scientists are those who do science.” Or, science is that which builds upon a foundation of what was generally regarded by a community of scientists as science.”
[7] Kuhn, Thomas, op. cit, 1962 Edition, pp. 167-68
[8] Kuhn, Thomas S. op cit, Third Edition, pp. 2-3
[9] Amin, Samir, “Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment” Vol I, Monthly Review Press, N.Y. 1974 p. 2
[10] Epistemology means a Theory of Knowledge (also a coherent system) from the Greek “episteme” meaning knowledge or science and “logos” meaning theory of. A branch of philosophy dealing with the scope, limitations and tests of knowledge. What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? ; What do people know? How do we know what we know? Why do we know what we know? “Propositional knowledge” or knowledge that is distinguished from knowledge how. Knowledge involves belief but knowledge about a belief does not endorse the truth or accuracy of the belief. According to Aristotle:"To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true." Socrates, via Plato defined “knowledge” as “true belief that has been given an account of.” Edmund Gettier proposed thought experiments (Gettier cases) to show that a given belief may be justified and true and yet not count as knowledge. Another doctrine is called “infallibilism” that says to qualify as knowledge, a belief must be not only true and justified, but that the justification for it must necessitate its truth. Another doctrine is that of “indefeasibility” employed in indirect proofs that says there must be no overriding or defeating truths against the reasons for the belief. “Reliabilism” is a doctrine that says a belief is justified only if it is established via a process that yields a sufficiently high ratio of true to false beliefs. Knowledge may be gained A-priori or outside of experience or A-posteriori via experience. Knowledge may be “analytic” or gained by knowledge of what terms mean in a proposition, or, may be “synthetic” or gained through propositions that have a distinct subject and predicate.
[11] “The dramatic changes of thinking that happened in physics at the beginning of this century have been widely discussed by physicists and philosophers for more than fifty years. They led Thomas Kuhn to the notion of a scientific "paradigm," defined as "a constellation of achievements—concepts, values, techniques, etc.— shared by a scientific community and used by that community to define legitimate problems and solutions." Changes of paradigms, according to Kuhn, occur in discontinuous, revolutionary breaks called "paradigm shifts." Capra, Fritjof. The Web of Life. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1996. P. 5
[12] Newton’s Three Laws of Motion: Law I: “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.”; Law II: “F = ma” or Force equals mass times acceleration (acceleration and force are vectors and thus direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector); Law III: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” And the Four Laws of Thermodynamics: Zeroth Law: “If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other”; First Law: “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.”; Second Law: “Energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy rather than decrease it."; Third Law: “As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.”
[13] Peat, F. David “Blackfoot Physics”, Weiser Books, Boston, 2002 pp 191, 193-96, 216
[14] Restivo, Sal P. “Science Technology and Society: An Encyclopedia”, Oxford U Press, N.Y. 2005 pp 213-16
[15] Wright, Kenneth and Alfredo Valencia, Machu Picchu: A Civil Engineering Marvel. ASCE Press, Reston. 2000
[16 Weatherford, Jack, “Native Roots: How the Indians Enriched America”, Fawcett Columbine, N.Y. 1991;”Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World 1988; “Savages and Civilization: Who Will Survive?” 1994.
[17] Peat, F. David, op cit. pp 45-46, 130-34, 157, 170-71, 175, 261, 265-68
[18] Peat, F. David Ibid p. 45
[19] Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248.
[20] “The concept of ‘economic man’ of the classical economists has long since been discarded as inadequate to reality—except by a few of the most ardent ‘welfare theorists’. Meanwhile, the ‘scientific man’ is not even defined. He exists only implicitly in the form of a virtual taboo on raising the psychological and sociological problems of how research activity is conditioned.” Myrdal, Gunnar, “Sociology and Psychology in Social Science” in “Against the Stream: Critical Essays on Economics” Pantheon Books, N.Y. 1973 p. 54
[21] The economist Robert Heilbroner once quipped that “mathematics has brought to economics rigor—and alas, also mortis.”
[22] Wolff, Richard and Resnick, Stephen A, Economics: Marxian Versus Neoclassical, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1987 p. 18. Other works on this subject include: Ariely, Dan, “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions”, Expanded Edition, Harper Collins, 2009; Shermer, Michael “The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share and Follow the Golden Rule” Holt, N.Y. 2004 and “The Mind of the Market: How Biology and Psychology Shape Our Economic Lives”, Holt, N.Y. 2008; Deutsch, David, “The Fabric of Reality” Penguin, N.Y. 1997; Deloria, Vine, “Spirit and Reason”, Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO 1999; Myrdal, Gunnar, “Against the Stream” op cit; Westen, Drew, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”, Public Affairs, N.Y. 2008; Gardner, Daniel “The Science of Fear: How the Culture of Fear Manipulates Your Brain”, Plume Books, N.Y. 2008
[23] Cajete, Gregory, op cit. p. 4 “As is true of all lenses, what we can see depends upon the clarity of the images made possible through the use of a particular lens. In the past five hundred years of contact with Western culture, Native traditions have been viewed and expressed largely through the lens of Western thought, language and perception. The Western lens reflects all other cultural traditions through the filters of the modern view of the world. Yet in order to understand Native cultures one must be able to see through their lenses and hear their stories in their voice through their experience. In other words to know the taste of a pear one must bite into it.
[24] Peat, F. David, op cit p 157: “The ability to place an opening so that it will be aligned with the rising sun at the solstice or equinox, or with some other event, clearly implies the ability to predict and calculate the location of these events in the sky. Indeed, the design of a building represents a perfect integration of mathematics, astronomy, surveying and architecture.”
[25] Cajete, Gregory, op cit. p.2: “Native science is a metaphor for a wide range of tribal processes of perceiving, thinking, acting and ‘coming to know’ that have evolved through human experience with the natural world. Native science is born of a lived and storied participation with the natural landscape. To gain a sense of Native science one must ‘participate’ with the natural world, to understand the foundations of Native science one must become open to the roles of sensation, perception, imagination, emotion, symbols, and spirit as well as that of concept, logic and rational empiricism.”
[26] Little Bear, Leroy Into to Cajete, Gregory op. cit p. p. x; Deloria, Vine, “Spirit and Reason”, Fulcrum Books, Golden, Co 1999; Peat, F. David, op. cit
[27] Symbolized by the famous “Trickster” in many Native stories of various nations. In Peat, David F. op cit: “The sacred figures of the People—Raven, Coyote, Napi, Nanabush and the rest—are all tricksters, beings who turn the world on its head. Even our own Western science has its trickster: entropy or disorder. ..In scientist’s terms the overall entropy of a system and its environment must increase or, to put it another way, if we insist upon generating order, this can only be done at the expense of creating disorder somewhere else.” P. 83
[28] Peat, David F. Ibid p. 4
[29] According to physicist David Bohm, the “implicate” or enfolded order is a deeper order in which the whole of a phenonmenon is enfolded or embodied in each part. (like the commodity was a concentrated expression or microcosm or the macrocosm of capitalism was for Karl Marx) while the explicate order is the surface immediately perceived by our senses. Bohm, David, “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, 1981
[30] Kuhn, Thomas S. op cit. p. 6 “…normal science repeatedly goes astray…when it does—when, that is, the [scientific] profession can no longer evade anomalies that subvert the tradition of existing scientific practice…
[31] Deloria, Vine, “Spirit and Reason” op cit. p. xiii
[32] Amin, Samir, op cit p. 5
[33] Cajete, Gregory, op cit pp 15-16
[34] Cajete, Gregory, Ibid. p.20
[35] In Blackfoot culture, as in most Indigenous cultures, the number four is not merely a quantity or cardinal magnitude, without quality or force as in many Eurocentric cultures (four of what?); it has its own power, symbolism and force giving it quality in addition to quantity. The number four stands for: the four principle directions of the compass (North, South, East and West); the four principle colors of the human family (Black White Red and Yellow); the four forms of balance that all humans must seek to survive and prosper (Physical, Emotional, Mental and Spiritual); the four basic elements of Nature (Wind, Fire, Earth and Water). In this model, there are four basic dimensions of development and sustainability that illustrate the dialectical unity of the macro and the micro levels of existence: control of assets and kinship (macro) and personal efficacy and spirituality (micro).
[36] This was based on a translation of a speech by Chief Sealth from Suquamish into Chinook jargon and then into English. It’s authenticity has been questioned only on the basis that Chief Sealth sounded too articulate to be the real author and that it must have been written by a screenwriter.
[37] Scientists estimate there are 10 to 30 million plant and animal species on the planet, most of them unidentified. Each year as many as 50,000 species disappear; Olson, Dan “Species Extinction Rate Speeding Up”, Minnesota Public Radio, Feb. 1, 2005 http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/01/31_olsond_biodiversity/
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Survival and Sustainability of the Blackfoot Nation and Culture
By James Craven/Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics and Geography, Clark College, Vancouver Washington
Presented at the 16th Congress of the IUAES, Kunming, China July 26-31
The Past [is] Alive in the Present [and] Shaping the Future
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” (George Orwell).
When we speak of the survival and sustainability of Blackfoot “Culture”, we are speaking of more than the survival and sustainability of the Blackfoot Nation and people who are the primary creators, definers, carriers, learners, transmitters and expanded reproducers of that nation and culture. We are also speaking about the survival and sustainability of the potential energy and influences—even on other cultures—embodied in and transmitted by that culture. And since all culture is dynamic and never static, we are also speaking of the survival and sustainability of all that it takes for Blackfoot culture to grow, adapt to new challenges and new conditions, and, to continually challenge itself and its own traditions and sacred practices and assumptions, some of which are functional and worth keeping, and some dysfunctional and not worth keeping. That means that the survival and sustainability of what is left of the Blackfoot nation and culture, as with other Indigenous nations, nationalities and cultures also on the brink of total extinction, means dealing not only with conditions, practices, forces and interests nominally “endogenous” or internal to the Blackfoot nation and culture that may threaten it, but also it means dealing with those forces and interests, historical and present-day, that are nominally “exogenous” or external to the Blackfoot nation and culture, that have threatened, and still threaten to this day, its survival and sustainability.[1]
As with any individual, so it is with any nation, that history is never really past and dead; it lives within, constrains and shapes, the present and thus also the future. This does not mean that individuals or whole nations cannot transcend the constraints of history, but they ignore them, or engage in historical revisionism, at their own peril. To understand and deal with the past, and the extent to which it is embodied in and thus constraining, the present and future, it is imperative that an honest examination and accounting, with no equivocation, and without fear or favor to anyone, of that past—and present shaped by that past—be done. Otherwise it is like someone going to see a physician or lawyer for help but not being honest and forthright about what practices in the past led them in the present to be in crisis and thus to need and seek help. That is partly, but only partly what George Orwell meant (he was also talking about historical revisionism as a tool of control in the present) when he noted:
Historically, and it has been thoroughly documented in the present, Blackfoot and other Indigenous nations and their cultures in the Americas have been regarded by non-Indigenous settlers and the governments they have developed as existential threats. What that means is that the mere existence, even without any alleged aggressive acts or intentions on the part of those Indigenous nations and cultures, simply their mere existence, was regarded as a threat to the systems, values, interests, ambitions, power and control of those non-Indigenous nations and their governments. Why? It is recorded in their own internal documents and discussions; it is all very dialectical.
As the “Tao Te Ching” of Lao Tzu puts it:
We know beauty because there is ugly.
We know good because there is evil.
Being and not being,
having and not having,
create each other.
Difficult and easy,
long and short,
high and low,
define each other,
just as before and after follow each other… [2]
It is very clear from the internal documents of the U.S. and Canadian Governments, as well as from the internal documents, diaries and memoirs of the missionaries and “Indian Agents”, that the core and defining values, institutions, practices, priorities, relationships and other dimensions of the culture of the Blackfoot, with many aspects in common with the cultures of other Indigenous nations, were not simply regarded and dismissed as “inferior” or backward; rather, they were first and foremost regarded as direct challenges (without any evangelical intentions by Indigenous peoples to do so) to the core values, practices, relations, theologies and institutions—cultures—of capitalism and those of the settlers. Just as some capitalist nations have regarded the mere existence of socialism and socialist values as an existential threat, without any alleged overt or covert acts of aggression by socialist social formations like China, so Indigenous cultures and systems, with definite communalist and non-capitalist practices and values, were regarded as existential threats and banned. Even many Indigenous prayers, with communalist values, were seen as a threat to cultures—and interests—built on capitalism. Here are but two of many examples from the archives of the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the U.S. that show the real nature and intentions of their policies.
For example, in many traditional societies, there is the sacred practice of “Potlatch” or “Give Aways” (Blackfoot) in which prized personal possessions are given away; they are not, by the way forms of “gambling” or “lotteries”. These ceremonies are designed to teach: the transient nature of all material possessions; not to become a slave to personal possessions; community spirit; compassion and that happiness of others is more important than individualistic and selfish desires and possessions. These traditional values are decidedly not consistent with market-based economies that are commonly based upon—often celebrated in elements of their social capital—greed, selfishness, ultra-individualism, competition, materialism, acquisitiveness, competition, narcissism and the logic of profits-for-power-and-power-for-profits. That the conflicting core values, relationships and institutions of traditional Indigenous societies were in direct conflict with—and seen not co-exist with—those of market-based societies was seen early on in U.S. and Canadian histories. For example:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Indian Affairs-Washington
Supplement to Circular No. 1665 February 14, 1923
Indian Dancing
To Superintendents:
At a conference in October, 1922, of the missionaries of the several religious denominations represented in the Sioux country, the following recommendations were adopted and have been courteously submitted to this office:
1. That the Indian form of gambling[sic] and lottery[sic] known as the "ituranpi" (translated "Give Away") be prohibited.
2. That the Indian dances be limited to one in each month in the daylight hours of one day in the midweek, and at one center in each district; the months of March and April, June, July, and August be excepted.
3. That none take part in the dances or be present who are under 50 years of age.
4. That a careful propaganda be undertaken to educate public opinion against the dance and to provide a healthy substitute.
5. That there be close cooperation between the Government employees and the missionaries in those matters which affect the moral welfare of Indians.
…After a conscientious study of the dance situation in his jurisdiction, the efforts of every superintendent must persistently encourage and emphasize the Indian's attention to these political, useful, thrifty, and orderly activities that are indispensable to his well-being and that underlie the preservation of his race in the midst of complex and highly competitive conditions. The instinct of individual enterprise and devotion to the posterity and elevation of family life should in some way be made paramount in every Indian household to the exclusion of idleness, waste of time at frequent gatherings of whatever nature, and the neglect of physical resources upon which depend food, clothings[sic] , shelter, and the very beginnings of progress." [3]
"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating[sic] so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the FINAL SOLUTION OF OUR INDIAN PROBLEM." [4]
And it is more than irony that the term “Final Solution of ‘our’ the Indian Problem” in the DIA memo of D.C. Scott is the exactly language used by the Nazis as in “Final Solution to the Jewish Problem”. The Alberta Sterilization Act of 1928 [5], and the Eugenics Laws of 27 states of the U.S. were specifically cited by the German Nazis as the direct “inspirations” for their own 1933 Race Hygiene Law and 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws.” [6] According to John Toland, biographer of Adolf Hitler:
Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa And for the Indians in the Wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination-by starvation and uneven combat-of the 'Red Savages' who could not be tamed by captivity. [7]
And from an internal document of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs:
"Set the blood-quantum at one-quarter, hold to it as a rigid definition of Indians, let intermarriage proceed, and eventually Indians will be defined out of existence. When that happens, the federal government will finally be freed from its persistent Indian problem." [8]
Why are these ugly aspects of U.S. and Canadian history [9] introduced into this paper on the survival and sustainability of Blackfoot culture? Partly because they are legacies that remain within both Canadian and Blackfoot societies that have not yet been fully admitted, analyzed or repaired. And partly because some of the same forces and interests, both internal and external to the Blackfoot nation, that have destroyed traditional Blackfoot culture, brought it to the edge of extinction, and prevented its renewal and sustainability, are still alive, well, non-transparent and non-accountable to this very day. And it is perhaps true irony, that the most radical and advanced thinkers among Indigenous activists today, both in the U.S. and in Canada, are known as “Traditionalists”. And they argue, as modern-day sciences are increasingly confirming, that the Indigenous traditions, practices, science, and epistemology to which they wish to return, are not simply some mythical communalist and “primitive” past of some 200 years ago, but were and are, far in advance of where many crises-ridden non-Indigenous societies, paradigms, practices and systems are today. Among Blackfoot traditionalists, they argue that many dominant non-Indigenous cultures and their core defining notions, are threats not only to the very existence and survival of Blackfoot and other Indigenous peoples, but also to the very non-Indigenous societies and peoples pushing these notions themselves.
Blackfoot Culture and Indigenous Science: Vision
Although there are many definitions of culture, all include language as absolutely central to the origination, learning, expression, adaptation, transmission and preservation of culture. In the language of Blackfoot or properly speaking “Niitsitapi” two words are employed: 1) “niitsitapia ‘ pii nin” and 2) “yaapiistotsimat” The first means to live in accordance with “Niitsitapi” Ways and the second means to be forced to live in accordance with White or non-Niitsitapi ways. These two words reflect profound differences between Eurocentric versus Indigenous languages, paradigms, epistemologies and even notions of what is “science”. The theoretical physicist F. David Peat who lived for a while among Blackfoot noted:
“English, and for that matter French, German, Italian and the other European languages are noun-oriented. They are employed to divide the world into physical objects (nouns) and thinking into separate concepts (again nouns). Many Native American languages do not work this way. They are verb-based. Thus, when in English we speak of “medicine” we automatically seek a referent, a substance, an object, something tangible, and something that can be conceptualized. But suppose we begin with something verbal, with activity, process, a movement of harmony and balance. Medicine could then be felt in the beating of the heart, sensed as a movement around the sacred circle, the wind blowing through the leaves of the tress, the growing of green plants, and the astronomical alignments of the medicine wheel.” [10]
From his study of Blackfoot Culture, with particular reference to the Sun Dance[11], Professor Peat came to some remarkable conclusions confirmed by other observers. He found for example, in the rituals, allegories, symbolism and values embodied in Blackfoot culture, not only evidence of very advanced “science” and scientific methods, but indeed “science” far in advance of where the Newtonian-based “science” and epistemology of Eurocentric cultures, increasingly under siege, are today. He found for example, concrete notions of key principles and concepts that today make up the versions of Quantum Mechanics “discovered” only in the early 20th century: Superpositionality; Wave/particle duality; Entanglement; Bose-Einstein condensates and mass-energy equivalence, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the four basic laws of Thermodynamics.[12]
Eurocentric “science”, reflected in the Eurocentric [13] languages and cultures, has been based upon (and under siege from Complexity or Chaos Theory and Dialectical-Historical Materialism for) its reliance on notions of: stasis; partial and general equilibria; linear and unidirectional causality; ultimate independent and dependent variables; ultra-reductionism; Morphostatic systems; a-contextualism and a-historicism; ultra-individualism; Newtonian clock-like or machine-like order[s]; the whole or macro being seen as nothing more than the sum of its parts or micro units; notions of culture and science themselves as a nouns or stocks of accumulated things rather than as processes; and hidden rhetorical and ideological intentions. All of these constructs and approaches of Newtonian-based “science” were, and are increasingly being put into question not only by Quantum Mechanics, Complexity or Chaos Theory, classical Taoism and more sophisticated versions of Dialectical-Historical Materialism, but, according to Peat and others, were anticipated long ago and embodied in Indigenous science and epistemology.
Why do I mention subjects like “Blackfoot Physics” and principles, practices and epistemological approaches of Indigenous science in this paper? Because one question that may be posed here is a simple compound question: “Who cares, or should care--and why--about the imperative for survival and sustainability of Blackfoot and other Indigenous cultures?” This goes a way to help to answer that question. Survival of the Blackfoot and other Indigenous nations and cultures is an imperative for non-Indigenous peoples and cultures beyond the notion of “diversity is interesting and fun to watch”, or, in terms of the overworked metaphor of “The Canary in the Mine” (“Today it is us, tomorrow it is you”). It is increasingly evident in all the sciences, that often what is thought to be “new” is not true, and often what is true is not new. By any definition of culture, the Nazis sought to develop and did develop what they called “Nazi Culture”; but that is one form or type of culture, among others, that most decent people would not want to see survive and be sustained as it would mean, by definition, the destruction of other peoples and cultures.
By James Craven/Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics and Geography, Clark College, Vancouver Washington
Presented at the 16th Congress of the IUAES, Kunming, China July 26-31
The Past [is] Alive in the Present [and] Shaping the Future
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” (George Orwell).
When we speak of the survival and sustainability of Blackfoot “Culture”, we are speaking of more than the survival and sustainability of the Blackfoot Nation and people who are the primary creators, definers, carriers, learners, transmitters and expanded reproducers of that nation and culture. We are also speaking about the survival and sustainability of the potential energy and influences—even on other cultures—embodied in and transmitted by that culture. And since all culture is dynamic and never static, we are also speaking of the survival and sustainability of all that it takes for Blackfoot culture to grow, adapt to new challenges and new conditions, and, to continually challenge itself and its own traditions and sacred practices and assumptions, some of which are functional and worth keeping, and some dysfunctional and not worth keeping. That means that the survival and sustainability of what is left of the Blackfoot nation and culture, as with other Indigenous nations, nationalities and cultures also on the brink of total extinction, means dealing not only with conditions, practices, forces and interests nominally “endogenous” or internal to the Blackfoot nation and culture that may threaten it, but also it means dealing with those forces and interests, historical and present-day, that are nominally “exogenous” or external to the Blackfoot nation and culture, that have threatened, and still threaten to this day, its survival and sustainability.[1]
As with any individual, so it is with any nation, that history is never really past and dead; it lives within, constrains and shapes, the present and thus also the future. This does not mean that individuals or whole nations cannot transcend the constraints of history, but they ignore them, or engage in historical revisionism, at their own peril. To understand and deal with the past, and the extent to which it is embodied in and thus constraining, the present and future, it is imperative that an honest examination and accounting, with no equivocation, and without fear or favor to anyone, of that past—and present shaped by that past—be done. Otherwise it is like someone going to see a physician or lawyer for help but not being honest and forthright about what practices in the past led them in the present to be in crisis and thus to need and seek help. That is partly, but only partly what George Orwell meant (he was also talking about historical revisionism as a tool of control in the present) when he noted:
Historically, and it has been thoroughly documented in the present, Blackfoot and other Indigenous nations and their cultures in the Americas have been regarded by non-Indigenous settlers and the governments they have developed as existential threats. What that means is that the mere existence, even without any alleged aggressive acts or intentions on the part of those Indigenous nations and cultures, simply their mere existence, was regarded as a threat to the systems, values, interests, ambitions, power and control of those non-Indigenous nations and their governments. Why? It is recorded in their own internal documents and discussions; it is all very dialectical.
As the “Tao Te Ching” of Lao Tzu puts it:
We know beauty because there is ugly.
We know good because there is evil.
Being and not being,
having and not having,
create each other.
Difficult and easy,
long and short,
high and low,
define each other,
just as before and after follow each other… [2]
It is very clear from the internal documents of the U.S. and Canadian Governments, as well as from the internal documents, diaries and memoirs of the missionaries and “Indian Agents”, that the core and defining values, institutions, practices, priorities, relationships and other dimensions of the culture of the Blackfoot, with many aspects in common with the cultures of other Indigenous nations, were not simply regarded and dismissed as “inferior” or backward; rather, they were first and foremost regarded as direct challenges (without any evangelical intentions by Indigenous peoples to do so) to the core values, practices, relations, theologies and institutions—cultures—of capitalism and those of the settlers. Just as some capitalist nations have regarded the mere existence of socialism and socialist values as an existential threat, without any alleged overt or covert acts of aggression by socialist social formations like China, so Indigenous cultures and systems, with definite communalist and non-capitalist practices and values, were regarded as existential threats and banned. Even many Indigenous prayers, with communalist values, were seen as a threat to cultures—and interests—built on capitalism. Here are but two of many examples from the archives of the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the U.S. that show the real nature and intentions of their policies.
For example, in many traditional societies, there is the sacred practice of “Potlatch” or “Give Aways” (Blackfoot) in which prized personal possessions are given away; they are not, by the way forms of “gambling” or “lotteries”. These ceremonies are designed to teach: the transient nature of all material possessions; not to become a slave to personal possessions; community spirit; compassion and that happiness of others is more important than individualistic and selfish desires and possessions. These traditional values are decidedly not consistent with market-based economies that are commonly based upon—often celebrated in elements of their social capital—greed, selfishness, ultra-individualism, competition, materialism, acquisitiveness, competition, narcissism and the logic of profits-for-power-and-power-for-profits. That the conflicting core values, relationships and institutions of traditional Indigenous societies were in direct conflict with—and seen not co-exist with—those of market-based societies was seen early on in U.S. and Canadian histories. For example:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Indian Affairs-Washington
Supplement to Circular No. 1665 February 14, 1923
Indian Dancing
To Superintendents:
At a conference in October, 1922, of the missionaries of the several religious denominations represented in the Sioux country, the following recommendations were adopted and have been courteously submitted to this office:
1. That the Indian form of gambling[sic] and lottery[sic] known as the "ituranpi" (translated "Give Away") be prohibited.
2. That the Indian dances be limited to one in each month in the daylight hours of one day in the midweek, and at one center in each district; the months of March and April, June, July, and August be excepted.
3. That none take part in the dances or be present who are under 50 years of age.
4. That a careful propaganda be undertaken to educate public opinion against the dance and to provide a healthy substitute.
5. That there be close cooperation between the Government employees and the missionaries in those matters which affect the moral welfare of Indians.
…After a conscientious study of the dance situation in his jurisdiction, the efforts of every superintendent must persistently encourage and emphasize the Indian's attention to these political, useful, thrifty, and orderly activities that are indispensable to his well-being and that underlie the preservation of his race in the midst of complex and highly competitive conditions. The instinct of individual enterprise and devotion to the posterity and elevation of family life should in some way be made paramount in every Indian household to the exclusion of idleness, waste of time at frequent gatherings of whatever nature, and the neglect of physical resources upon which depend food, clothings[sic] , shelter, and the very beginnings of progress." [3]
"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating[sic] so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the FINAL SOLUTION OF OUR INDIAN PROBLEM." [4]
And it is more than irony that the term “Final Solution of ‘our’ the Indian Problem” in the DIA memo of D.C. Scott is the exactly language used by the Nazis as in “Final Solution to the Jewish Problem”. The Alberta Sterilization Act of 1928 [5], and the Eugenics Laws of 27 states of the U.S. were specifically cited by the German Nazis as the direct “inspirations” for their own 1933 Race Hygiene Law and 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws.” [6] According to John Toland, biographer of Adolf Hitler:
Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa And for the Indians in the Wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination-by starvation and uneven combat-of the 'Red Savages' who could not be tamed by captivity. [7]
And from an internal document of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs:
"Set the blood-quantum at one-quarter, hold to it as a rigid definition of Indians, let intermarriage proceed, and eventually Indians will be defined out of existence. When that happens, the federal government will finally be freed from its persistent Indian problem." [8]
Why are these ugly aspects of U.S. and Canadian history [9] introduced into this paper on the survival and sustainability of Blackfoot culture? Partly because they are legacies that remain within both Canadian and Blackfoot societies that have not yet been fully admitted, analyzed or repaired. And partly because some of the same forces and interests, both internal and external to the Blackfoot nation, that have destroyed traditional Blackfoot culture, brought it to the edge of extinction, and prevented its renewal and sustainability, are still alive, well, non-transparent and non-accountable to this very day. And it is perhaps true irony, that the most radical and advanced thinkers among Indigenous activists today, both in the U.S. and in Canada, are known as “Traditionalists”. And they argue, as modern-day sciences are increasingly confirming, that the Indigenous traditions, practices, science, and epistemology to which they wish to return, are not simply some mythical communalist and “primitive” past of some 200 years ago, but were and are, far in advance of where many crises-ridden non-Indigenous societies, paradigms, practices and systems are today. Among Blackfoot traditionalists, they argue that many dominant non-Indigenous cultures and their core defining notions, are threats not only to the very existence and survival of Blackfoot and other Indigenous peoples, but also to the very non-Indigenous societies and peoples pushing these notions themselves.
Blackfoot Culture and Indigenous Science: Vision
Although there are many definitions of culture, all include language as absolutely central to the origination, learning, expression, adaptation, transmission and preservation of culture. In the language of Blackfoot or properly speaking “Niitsitapi” two words are employed: 1) “niitsitapia ‘ pii nin” and 2) “yaapiistotsimat” The first means to live in accordance with “Niitsitapi” Ways and the second means to be forced to live in accordance with White or non-Niitsitapi ways. These two words reflect profound differences between Eurocentric versus Indigenous languages, paradigms, epistemologies and even notions of what is “science”. The theoretical physicist F. David Peat who lived for a while among Blackfoot noted:
“English, and for that matter French, German, Italian and the other European languages are noun-oriented. They are employed to divide the world into physical objects (nouns) and thinking into separate concepts (again nouns). Many Native American languages do not work this way. They are verb-based. Thus, when in English we speak of “medicine” we automatically seek a referent, a substance, an object, something tangible, and something that can be conceptualized. But suppose we begin with something verbal, with activity, process, a movement of harmony and balance. Medicine could then be felt in the beating of the heart, sensed as a movement around the sacred circle, the wind blowing through the leaves of the tress, the growing of green plants, and the astronomical alignments of the medicine wheel.” [10]
From his study of Blackfoot Culture, with particular reference to the Sun Dance[11], Professor Peat came to some remarkable conclusions confirmed by other observers. He found for example, in the rituals, allegories, symbolism and values embodied in Blackfoot culture, not only evidence of very advanced “science” and scientific methods, but indeed “science” far in advance of where the Newtonian-based “science” and epistemology of Eurocentric cultures, increasingly under siege, are today. He found for example, concrete notions of key principles and concepts that today make up the versions of Quantum Mechanics “discovered” only in the early 20th century: Superpositionality; Wave/particle duality; Entanglement; Bose-Einstein condensates and mass-energy equivalence, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the four basic laws of Thermodynamics.[12]
Eurocentric “science”, reflected in the Eurocentric [13] languages and cultures, has been based upon (and under siege from Complexity or Chaos Theory and Dialectical-Historical Materialism for) its reliance on notions of: stasis; partial and general equilibria; linear and unidirectional causality; ultimate independent and dependent variables; ultra-reductionism; Morphostatic systems; a-contextualism and a-historicism; ultra-individualism; Newtonian clock-like or machine-like order[s]; the whole or macro being seen as nothing more than the sum of its parts or micro units; notions of culture and science themselves as a nouns or stocks of accumulated things rather than as processes; and hidden rhetorical and ideological intentions. All of these constructs and approaches of Newtonian-based “science” were, and are increasingly being put into question not only by Quantum Mechanics, Complexity or Chaos Theory, classical Taoism and more sophisticated versions of Dialectical-Historical Materialism, but, according to Peat and others, were anticipated long ago and embodied in Indigenous science and epistemology.
Why do I mention subjects like “Blackfoot Physics” and principles, practices and epistemological approaches of Indigenous science in this paper? Because one question that may be posed here is a simple compound question: “Who cares, or should care--and why--about the imperative for survival and sustainability of Blackfoot and other Indigenous cultures?” This goes a way to help to answer that question. Survival of the Blackfoot and other Indigenous nations and cultures is an imperative for non-Indigenous peoples and cultures beyond the notion of “diversity is interesting and fun to watch”, or, in terms of the overworked metaphor of “The Canary in the Mine” (“Today it is us, tomorrow it is you”). It is increasingly evident in all the sciences, that often what is thought to be “new” is not true, and often what is true is not new. By any definition of culture, the Nazis sought to develop and did develop what they called “Nazi Culture”; but that is one form or type of culture, among others, that most decent people would not want to see survive and be sustained as it would mean, by definition, the destruction of other peoples and cultures.
When we speak of Blackfoot Culture, as we speak of the Blackfoot Nation, we are not speaking of a fixed quantity or accumulated “stock” (as a noun typical of Eurocentric definitions of “culture”) of values, beliefs, symbols, language, arts, people, symbols, institutions, socioeconomic and politico-legal relationships, taboos, sacred constructs, traditions, artifacts, learned behaviors, rituals, myths etc. Culture, in Blackfoot and generally indigenous terms refers, rather, to dynamic processes. In Blackfoot terms, culture does not refer only to that which is created, learned, transmitted by and related to the concerns of humankind. In Blackfoot and Indigenous terms, culture also includes that of which humankind is an integral part whether created, recognized, seen, appropriated or even deemed “useful” by humankind.
In most Indigenous languages, as in Blackfoot, there is no word for “science”[14], yet it is very clear that many Indigenous societies, Blackfoot included, were doing, no matter what culturally loaded definition of “science” is employed, real and very sophisticated science and scientific method. And when we speak of Indigenous science, as with culture, again we are not speaking of a noun of some accumulated body or “stock” of tools, techniques, methods for discovering the essences of and laws governing phenomena that make up an objective reality independent of our perceptions of that reality. We are not speaking of processes for merely discerning the salient or essential aspects of an objective reality outside of ourselves, but of processes that take into account our own roles in that reality, including, how our own perceptions, measurements and transformations of that reality become incorporated into and thus affect it. This is in line with some of the most recent discoveries in Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Theory and Dialectical-Historical Materialism and is not some kind of mysticism or metaphysics. Indigenous science does not seek to discover the essences and laws governing phenomena in order to simply get around, reverse or conquer them, but to work in accordance with them.
Copyright 1991 by First Nations Development Institute (Reprinted Under Fair Use Doctrine)
In Blackfoot culture, as in most Indigenous cultures, the number four is not merely a quantity or cardinal magnitude, without quality or force as in many Eurocentric cultures (four of what?); it has its own power, symbolism and force giving it quality in addition to quantity. The number four stands for: the four principle directions of the compass (North, South, East and West); the four principle colors of the human family (Black White Red and Yellow); the four forms of balance that all humans must seek to survive and prosper (Physical, Emotional, Mental and Spiritual); the four basic elements of Nature (Wind, Fire, Earth and Water). In this model, there are four basic dimensions of development and sustainability that illustrate the dialectical unity of the macro and the micro levels of existence: control of assets and kinship (macro) and personal efficacy and spirituality (micro).
Blackfoot and Indigenous cultures (as do Chaos Theory and Dialectical-Historical Materialism) see systems and/as: totalities; wholes greater or lesser than the sums of their parts; continually in motion; as morphogenetic not morphostatic systems; driven by both external or exogenous, and internal or endogenous, shocks and processes on the verge of perpetual disequilibria. The more Eurocentric, Newtonian-based and clock-like or thermostat-like models, see only aggregates that are the sums of their parts, driven by external or exogenous shocks, and restored to, and moving between, punctuated equilibrium states by endogenous self-equilibrating processes. Needless to say, the present realities of the global economy as well as those realities of many national economies confirm the Blackfoot and Indigenous paradigms while refuting the classical or neoclassical paradigms. The existence of positive feedback loops (feedback effects that move a system in the same direction it was already moving instead of negative feedback loops that tend to reverse the direction of movement of a system) produce second-derivative (acceleration) and even third-derivative (differential acceleration or “jerks”) effects on phenomena and systems and lead to the process of “negation of the negation” or quantitative changes producing qualitative leaps.
F. David Peat and others like Jack Weatherford in his trilogies [15] note that aspects of clashes of and between Indigenous and non-Indigenous nations and civilizations were related to clashes between fundamentally opposing paradigms and whole epistemologies. Not simply in terms of the morphostatic paradigm and systems of Newtonian clockwork and self-equilibrating systems of Eurocentric science versus the morphogenetic, self-negating, dialectical and chaotic systems of Indigenous science, Chaos Theory and Dialectical-Historical materialism, but in terms of fundamental values and views of the fundamental nature and roles of science itself.
(Source Henderson, Hazel, http://www.hazelhenderson.com/visual.html; reprinted under Fair Use Doctrine)
Hope, Trust and “Social Capital”
The notions of hope and trust are central in the Blackfoot/Indigenous model of survival and sustainability above. It is only recently that “mainstream” or “Neoclassical” theory in Economics has even paid any attention at all to the notion of “social capital” [16] (institutions that foster hope, trust, social cohesion and cooperation that cause/allow people to save, invest, sacrifice in the present for the future and for future generations and generally buy into the system and engage in “Political and Civic Participation”). Even now, the attention paid to social capital (with the focus on “capital” as also in human “capital”, with the construct of “capital” seen as the decisive dimension or force in productivity and “progress” being central) is on the level of reciprocity among individuals, not because of any assumed fundamental social nature or obligations of individuals to the collective, but in terms of the central Neoclassical construct of “methodological individualism”. Sociologists like Putnam’s notion of “social capital” as institutions of reciprocity, is that “you do for me and I do for you and we both gain individually as maximizing and atomistic individuals as we “appear” to be cooperating, and thus violating central assumptions of the Neoclassical paradigm, but actually, we remain atomistic and maximizing competitors —an attempt to rescue the Neoclassical paradigm from contradictions inherent in the central construct of “methodological individualism” [17]
In Blackfoot culture, there is no notion of even the possibility of individuals within a collective being individually well off while within a sick and deteriorating collective. In traditional Blackfoot societies, the Chiefs ate last not first, no one ate unless all could eat, no one had shelter unless all had shelter and so on. Personal efficacy was intimately tied in with social efficacy. Lying was punished with death because a liar was seen as a threat to the whole collective not only as a potential collaborator with enemies, but as someone who would undermine social cohesion, cooperation and trust, and thus essential national security within and of the collective. Adultery was punished with loss of the nose for the woman and loss of the left braid of hair for the man. Banishment was seen as a punishment far worse than death because it meant loss of association for life with the community and one’s relations.[18]
Attempts have been made to rebuild some of the essential dimensions of the overall traditional culture and values of the Blackfoot Nation, outside of the Indian Act and DIA Tribal Councils, in the Blackfoot Constitution which is being circulated, vetted, and altered with various submissions as it is being ratified at grass-roots levels.[19] This is not only being done outside of the Indian Act and DIA Tribal Councils but in direct challenge to them. Allegations and actual findings of serious corruption on the part of the Indian Act Tribal Councils, in every part of Blackfoot Country and in Indian Country in general, have undermined any confidence in them. Further, there are issues in international law as to how any nation can summarily declare another nation, that meets all the tests under international law to be considered a nation, as “sui generis” (of a special type) or as a “dependent nation”, and even declare who may or may not be considered members of that nation, as was and is being done by the governments of both the U.S. and Canada with respect to First Nations. Once any group of people meets the basic tests under international law qualifying them as a nation, then also under international law, that group has a fundamental right not to be exterminated or assimilated into another nation without the democratically-expressed consent of the peoples being assimilated, and, that group constituting a nation, has also fundamental rights associated with its survival: independence, self-determination, sovereignty, its own form of government and socioeconomic and politico-legal system. In fact, under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, which both the U.S. and Canadian Governments recognize as “the definitive international law on treaties”, since treaties are covenants between nations not individuals, then when treaties are signed, even if later broken over and over, as in the case of Treaty 7, which many Blackfoot contend, and have documentation to prove, was never signed or ratified by Blackfoot Chiefs in the first place, then each side is not only tacitly, but explicitly, recognizing: the other treating partner as a sovereign nation; as a co-equal; and its system of government, as having the sovereignty, authority and standing among its people to sign the treaty and hold a population to its terms into the future.
“Control” of “Assets”
Central to the survival and sustainability of the Blackfoot Nation and culture is preservation of and control over what is left of the traditional Blackfoot land base. By “control” of the land, Blackfoot and most Indigenous people do not mean ownership, commoditization and “control” in the capitalist or Eurocentric sense, rather in the sense of stewardship to protect its viability and sustainability for future generations. The U.S. and Canadian governments have been caught in contradictions in their own capitalist property rights and values that have undermined both. Under capitalist law, land may be legally acquired and held in five basic ways: 1) sale (but no one can legally sell or keep stolen property even if bought innocently); 2) bequest (but no one can legally inherit stolen property even if innocently); 3) gift (but no one can give or accept stolen property even if innocently) 4) Just War (but the war must meet all the tests under international law of a Just War—must be in self-defense); 5) Discovery (but no one can “discover” lands with Indigenous peoples already on them). Thus, both the U.S. and Canadian governments know very well, that in their own terms, not Blackfoot or Indigenous terms alone, but in their own terms, and under the very same property rights they assert to defend their own private property, much of the historical acquisitions and losses of traditional Indigenous lands represented pure theft in addition to pure genocide. It is not enough to say that Indigenous nations had not concept of “private ownership” and commoditization of land and thus the lands were not stolen, the fact is that in terms of the existing international law at the time, law developed since the times of the Spanish Conquistadores in the 15th and 16th centuries, law that they invoked to legitimate their own properties, Indigenous lands were stolen and thus could not be sold, gifted, bequeathed or justified under laws of discovery or just war. That is why the present U.S. and Canadian governments are trying to define some Indian nations out of existence with blood-quantum criteria for Tribal recognition and membership and/or getting Indian Act Tribal Councils installed and maintained by those governments to sign bills of sale to legitimize past thefts and genocidal acquisitions of Indigenous lands. The map below illustrates the historical land base of the Blackfoot relative to what is recognized as Blackfoot lands today (some 2.6 million acres in both the U.S. and Canada contiguously) In fact, the Lame Bull Treaty or Treaty of Fort Benton of October 1855, one of the more problematic of the treaties signed by both the U.S. and Canadian governments, explicitly recognized the existence of a sovereign Blackfoot Nation made up of some various Bands or Tribes stretching over an area covering parts of Montana and the U.S. and Alberta in Canada contiguously. [20]
The infamous Indian Residential School systems of Canada and the Indian Boarding Schools of the U.S. for which no real accounting or full apologies and restitutions have ever been made, were as much about breaking the connections of the Indigenous Nations with their land bases and traditional ways, by creating pools of unskilled and semi-skilled wage workers dependent upon sale of their labor power for survival, as with also breaking their connections with, and in turn undermining, their cultures, languages, spirituality and other dimensions of the Indigenous nations.[21]
The map above shows the historical land base of the original Blackfoot Nation versus those lands recognized as Blackfoot Reserves today (some 2.6 million acres). If the claim is made that there is no more Blackfoot Nation, then when and under what conditions and authority did it cease to exist? If treaties still exist, and they do, and if each treating partner in signing a treaty both tacitly and explicitly recognizes the co-equal status, nationhood, sovereignty and system of government of the other, then when, and under what authority, did the traditional system of government of the Blackfoot cease to exist in lieu of the present Indian Act and DIA system of nominally elected but in reality appointed, DIA Tribal Councils? Are the governments of the U.S. and Canada admitting to genocide? What if the government of say Poland arrogated to presume to dictate criteria of who may or may not be considered a “real” American or Canadian? Or, perhaps another and more apt analogy, and the one actually used in Indian Country, might be the present-day Indian Act Tribal Councils, often riddled with corruption [22], being seen as having the standing and legitimacy under international law as say the Vichy Government installed by Nazi occupying France [23] or perhaps the standing and legitimacy of the government of the last Emperor Pu Yi installed by the Japanese Imperialists in China in an entity they created and what they named “Manchuko”[24].
Further, the issue of loss of Blackfoot lands is not merely a matter of losses of critical resources for the survival and sustainability of the Blackfoot Nation. The connection to the land, in every possible way, is central to Blackfoot culture. As F. David Peat puts it:
“Connection to the landscape is one of the most powerful things within an Indigenous society which explains the pain and anger The People experience when they see the land around them exploited and destroyed. The Native people I have spoken to refer to the land as their mother, and the Blackfoot say that to walk on the land is to walk on your own flesh. The memory of this landscape transcends anything we have in the West, for its trees, rocks, animals, and plants are all imbued with energies, powers and spirits. The whole of the land is alive and each person is related to it. The land sustains and, in turn, the ceremonies and sacrifices of The People aid in its renewal…I have heard many Native people say they have ‘a map in their head’. This map, I believe, is the relationship of the land to The People. Moreover, it transcends any mere geographical representation, for in it are enfolded the songs, ceremonies and histories of a people.”[25]
The incentives to privatize, commoditize and expropriate what are left of Blackfoot lands have never been greater. Among the last sources of pristine fresh water are on what are now Blackfoot lands which are also rich in oil, ammonite, wind energy, grazing lands, uranium, timber, geothermal energy and other critical resources. This leads to the U.S. and Canadian Governments, along with private developers, finding the paths of least resistance and cheapest ways of acquiring access to and control over those resources, often with a few Tribal insiders selling out the resource bases and with disastrous consequences on the people of the various Reserves. This also undermines confidence in dealing with or forming partnerships with the U.S. and Canadian Governments on the part of Blackfoot and other Indigenous Nations because much of the corruption is seen as at least being tolerated by and beneficial to those governments and private interests that they clearly represent and protect[26] Indigenous activists can go on any Reserve or Reservation, even those of Nations and Tribes of which they are not members, and in ten minutes or less, they can find out, via the “Moccasin Telegraph Service” who is dealing drugs, who are doing illegal gambling, who are involved in prostitution, who are the aristocrats putting their relations and friends on the payrolls, and any and all other forms of corruption, They argue that RCMP and the FBI, charged with investigating and prosecuting such crimes on the Reserves and Reservations, could easily do the same and yet time after time, even when tipped off by Elders sick of corruption, do not. Why? Because corrupt Indians often sell-out cheap plus they are easier to control and manipulate as once anyone does any form of corruption, they are vulnerable to exposure and therefore also control.
Education and Human Capital
When I first began to study Economics in the 1960s, the major textbooks equated economic growth with development and saw “physical capital” as central in the overall equations of factors critical to growth and development (the term sustainability was not even used) That view of growth and development, with physical capital as the key, of course conveniently also assigns a critical role to the capitalist who owns and/or controls that physical capital. Then came the 1970s, and someone got the bright idea that no matter how sophisticated the physical capital employed in economic growth and development, someone had to fix the machines, know when and where and how to use them and not use them, so along came the concept of “human capital” or knowledge, skill, experience, and presumably work ethic to be able to use the physical capital effectively; the textbooks got trendy and began to incorporate human capital as a key factor in economic growth no longer seen as synonymous with economic development, a much broader process. And only recently has the notion that workers and the population at large also in need of hope, trust, social cohesion, belief in the system to cause them to plan and f=work for the future that the notion of social capital beginning to show up in the textbooks.
Anyone who has been on the Reservations and Reserves of the Blackfoot, or on those of any Indigenous nations, has seen the tragedy of what passes for “education” and educational facilities.” The lack of infrastructure, qualified and motivated teachers, up-to-date curricula, advanced methods in pedagogy, internet access and library resources, mentors and many other resources critical to effective education and human capital formation are well known and have existed for a long time. But the problems for Indigenous education go far beyond what can be fixed with updating physical facilities and bringing in new technologies. They have to do with fundamental definitions of and approaches to what is real education, Indigenous or otherwise. There are scholars like Dr. Roland Chrisjohn of the Oneida Nation who have given serious thought to Indigenous education and how the Indian Residential School systems of Canada and the U.S. not only decimated Indigenous communities, but also never represented real and effective education or models for education even for non-Indigenous children.[27]
Blackfoot language is being taught on all of the Reserves of the Blackfoot; but language is never sterile or value-free and it will always beg the questions of by whom, for whom, and for what purposes, are the language and also are traditional aspects of Blackfoot culture being taught. Many of the programs into which Blackfoot and other Indigenous children are channeled, by their own choices or by advisors, have to do with alcohol and substance abuse counseling or programs in “Native Studies” (often taught and using scholarship of by non-Indigenous academics that are virtually useless except for getting some kind of management job in the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the U.S. or the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada).
The survival and sustainability of the Blackfoot and other Indigenous nations will require what other non-Indigenous nations will require in terms of educated—not just schooled which is not necessarily the same thing—workforce and leadership: real quality education that addresses the likely challenges and imperatives of survival and sustainability in the twenty-first century but, with due respect to the fact that that what is new may well not be true, and what is true may not be new.
Conclusion
Blackfoot, like other Indigenous nations on the verge of extinction, are the proverbial and overworked “Canary in the Mine.” And as Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same things over and over, in the same ways, with the same people and yet expecting different results. So it is, that Indigenous Peoples cannot continue, adopt or even allow, the very same forces, values, paradigms, institutions, paternalism, and whole socio-economic politico-legal systems (modes of production) that brought them to the verge of extinction, and that even threaten the non-Indigenous peoples who promote them as “civilization”, as well threatening the whole planet itself, to take them all the way to extinction as has happened to so many nations that no longer exist. For those who are not Indigenous and thus believe that the fate of Indigenous nations is of no concern however regrettable, perhaps give some thought to the fact that any society that tolerates and promotes the extinction of any national minority or nation within its borders is one that is capable of tolerating and promoting the extinction or any other group; and is not either sustainable or the kind of society or system worth preserving especially in today’s world with the means of mass destruction that exist today.[28]
Blackfoot, like other Indigenous nations, are intimately bound up with Canada and indeed the world like it or not. The question, however, remains on what basis and with what consequences—for Canada as well as Indigenous nations—the present relations and institutions, that have brought Indigenous nations to the brink of extinction, could, should or would continue. Samir Amin notes:
“Now the world capitalist system, cannot be reduced, even in abstraction, to the capitalist mode of production, and still less can it be analyzed as a mere juxtaposition of countries or sectors governed by the capitalist mode of production with others governed by precapitalist modes of production (the dualism thesis). Apart from a few ‘ethnographical reserves’, such as that of the Orinoco Indians, all contemporary societies are integrated into a world system. Not a single concrete socioeconomic formation of our time can be understood except as part of this world system… …Relations between the formations of the ‘developed’ or advanced world (the center) and those of the ‘underdeveloped’ world (the periphery) are affected by transfers of value, and these constitute the problem of accumulation on a world scale. Whenever the capitalist mode of production enters into relations with precapitalist modes of production, and subjects these to itself, transfers of value take place from the precapitalist to capitalist formations as a result of the mechanisms of ‘primitive accumulation’. These mechanisms do not belong only to the prehistory of capitalism; they are contemporary as well. It is these forms of primitive accumulation, modified but persistent, to the advantage of the center, that form the domain of the theory of accumulation on a world scale.” [29]
In Blackfoot language “Ni Kso Ko Wa” means “We are all related” or “All my Relations”. So as we are all related as human beings, and indeed all human cultures share some common denominators, so are our fates, as individuals and whole cultures, interrelated. We are the proverbial “Canary in the Mine”.
Footnotes
[1]Here the terms “exogenous” or external and “endogenous or “internal” are used nominally or in non-Indigenous terms as Blackfoot and other Indigenous groups see culture not only in terms of all that is created by humankind but also all that humankind is an integral part of and thus have different notions of what is external or internal to a given culture.
[2] Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, translation by Dale, Ralph Verse 2 “Relativity”, p. 5 Barnes and Noble Books, N.Y. 2002
[3] Long Standing Bear Chief, “Ni Kso Ko Wa: Blackfoot Traditions and Spirituality” pp. 8-9, Spirit Talk Press, Browning, Montana, 1992
[4] Department of Indian Affairs, Superintendent D.C. Scott to B.C. Indian Agent-General Major D. McKay, DIA Archives, RG-10 series, April 12, 1910 (emphasis added)
[5] The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, to which Canada became a signatory in 1953 and to which the U.S. still remains not a full signatory because of the Hatch, Helms and Lugar “Sovereignty Amendment of 1988, in Article II defines a five-part test, any one of which, not all required to constitutes genocide: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting upon a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures designed to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of one group to another group.
[6] Black, Edwin, “War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race” Thunder’s Mouth Press N.Y. 2003; Alberta Sterilization Victims Also Used as Guinea Pigs Revelation Comes as 40 victims win $4M settlement; Marina Jimenez National Post 10/28/98
[7] Toland, John, “Adolf Hitler”, Vol II, p. 802, Doubleday and Co. N.Y. 1976
[8] Limerick, Patricia Nelson, “The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of American West” WW. Norton and Co. N.Y. 1987 p. 338
[9] Poole, James “Hitler and His Secret Partners”, Pocket Books, NY 1997; “Having been a devoted reader of Karl May's books on the American West as a youth, Hitler frequently referred to the Russians as 'Redskins'. He saw a parallel between his effort to conquer and colonize land in Russia with the conquest of the American West by the white man and the subjugation of the Indians or 'Redskins'. 'I don't see why', he said, 'a German who eats a piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil that produces this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat from Canada, we don't think about the despoiled Indians." (James Pool, Ibid, pp. 254-255)
[10] Peat, F. David, “Blackfoot Physics” Weiser Books, Boston, MA. 2005, p. 128 see: http://books.google.com/books?id=rmxB4bau74QC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=Corrup...
[11] http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects98/krochens...
[12] Gribbin, John “In Search of Schroedinger’s Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality”, Bantam Books, N.Y. 1984
[13] By “Eurocentric” I mean in the sense used by Thomas Kuhn in his amazingly ignorant and arrogant statement: “But only the civilizations that descended from Hellenic Greece possessed more than the most rudimentary science” in Kuhn, Thomas, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, U of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962, pp. 167-68
[14] Cajete, Gregory, “Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence”, Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe, 2000, p 2
[15] Peat, F. David op. cit. pp 38-44. See also Weatherford Jack, “Indian Givers: How The Indians of the Americas Transformed The World” Fawcett Columbine, N.Y. 1988; “Native Roots: How The Indians Enriched America” Fawcett Columbine, N.Y.1991; “Savages and Civilization” Fawcett Columbine, N.Y. 1994 These authors among others demonstrate very advanced achievements in engineering, mathematics, cosmology and astronomy, medicine, architecture, law and constitutions, democracy and government, agriculture, resource management and sustainability and in many areas now being recognized that could only have been achieved with very advanced notions and techniques of science and scientific method.
[16] Craven, James/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi “The Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-Based Processes and Socialist Construction” paper delivered September 1-2, 2004 at The International Symposium for the Reform of Property Rights and Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries at Tsinghua University. See also Putnam, Robert D, “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community”, Simon and Schuster, N.Y. 2000
[17] The notion that the whole or macro is nothing more than the sum of its parts. Individuals are said to be atomistic units assumed to be: rational, self-interested, competitive, informed, constrained and maximizers of utility—and that which yields—it and minimizers of pain and risk. There is no notion of a collective that acts as a collective or that is greater—or possibly lesser—than the sum of its parts. The model consists of a body of postulates about supposed “human nature”, irrespective of class, gender, age, ethnicity, race, religion, from which deductions are made, hypotheses are formed and predictions made about human behavior under assumed conditions and constraints (hypothetico-deductivism).
[18] One of the most sacred of the Blackfoot Prayers (Nii-tsi-ta-piaa-tsi-mo-yii-kaan) sums up the traditional Blackfoot values considered most important (spelled out phonetically not in accordance with Franz-Russell conventions.)
Ayo A’pis-to-too-ki (Creator)
Iss-Po-Mo-Kin-Naan (Help us)
Nah-Kay-Iss-Tsi-Sin-Naan (To listen)
Nah-Kai-Kim-Mo-Tsi-Sin-Naan (To be kind to one another)
Nah-Kay-ii-Ka’-Ki-Maa-Sin-Naan (To try hard)
Nah-Koh-Ko-Ka-Mo’-Toh-Sin-Naan (To be honest)
Nah-Ka-Wa-To-Yii-Tak-Sin-Naan (To be Spiritual)
Ooh-To-Kin-Naan, A’Pis-To-Too-Ki (Hear us, Creator)
Kim-Mis Ko-Ko-Siksi (Have pity on your children)
Ii-Ksi-Kim-Ma-Tap-Si-Ya (They are in need)
Kaa-Mo-Taa-Ni (Grant us safety)
Nii-Sta-Wa-Tsi-Maani (Help us to raise our families)
Naa-Piio’Siini (So that they may live long lives)
[19] See “Draft Constitution of the Blackfoot Nation” and “Paper on the Blackfoot Nation” “Blackfoot Indictment.., at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota, Documents on Native American Genocide http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/victims/nativeAmerican/index.html and Helton, Taiawagi “Nation Building in Indian Country: The Blackfoot Constitutional Review” Paper Delivered at the Fifth Annual Tribal Law and Governance Conference, University of Kansas School of Law, October 2002 at http://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/nation-building-in-indian-...
[20] For the actual text of the Treaty see http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/treaties/blackfeet.htm
[21] Chrisjohn, Roland et al “An Historic Non Apology, Completely and Utterly Not Accepted” Department of Native Studies, Fredericton, NB http://www.nativestudies.org/index1.html “An apology has at least three characteristics (some people will say there are more, some will list more specific traits… this doesn’t matter for present purposes). The absence of any of these three characteristics immediately disqualifies a statement as an apology: a sincere expression of remorse for the behavior, the promise never to repeat the behavior, and the undertaking to undo, as far as possible, the damage done by the behavior.”
[22] See http://www.wole.org/corruption.htm; http://lakeconews.com/content/view/7220/764/
[23] The term “Vichy Indians” has been used by scholars like Ward Churchill and others to denote BIA and DIA Tribal Councils (not an indictment of every one serving on them) as essentially like the puppet Vichy Government installed in France by occupying German Nazis. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/03/ward-churchill-denigrates-... and http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2006/01/abramoff-and-vichy-indians... and http://www.touristclick.com/news/united%20states/means-delegation.html
[24] See Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi “From Emperor to Citizen: The Autobiography of Pu Yi The Last Emperor of China” Oxford University Press, N.Y. 1987
[25] Peat, F. David, op cit pp 85-86
[26] http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:sBZag7ZxPvQJ:hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/...'kmaq/A%2520SEASON%2520OF%2520DEATHS.doc+Corruption,+Tribal+Councils,+Canada&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us; http://www.marxmail.org/archives/July99/clinton_visits_the_indian_reserv... http://www.leadershipforchange.org/insights/research/files/6.pdf
[27] Chrisjohn, Roland “You Have to be Carefully Taught: Special Needs and First Nations Education”; “Genocide and Indian Residential Schooling: The Past is Present”; Retaining Indigenous Students in Post Secondary Programs: What Means For Whose Ends?” see http://www.nativestudies.org/works.html see also http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/AIER.html
[28] A note here that the comments of this paper are directed only to the situation of Blackfoot and other Indigenous Nations in the Americas. No equivalence is intended or suggested between the situations, realities of or governmental policies vis-à-vis, national minorities, in other places like China; and the same with respect to First Nations in the Americas. The history of China relative to the histories of the nations of the Americas with Indigenous populations is very different. Various Indigenous groups, once meeting the tests of international law for being considered separate nations became integrated national minorities within a larger and contiguous nation of China long ago and since Liberation in 1949, the statuses and survival of the Indigenous minorities by the Government of China have been protected and assured far more than in the cases of the U.S. and Canada, and far more than if each national group had had its own traditional government along with its own land base, culture, language, common economic life, polity, history and criteria for membership of the group (the essential elements of a nation in international law) In the case of the Americas, not only were there treaties recognizing First Nations as Nations, although asserted to be “sui generis” or of a special type, or, as in the case of the U.S. and the Supreme court decisions of Marshall as “dependent nations”, the policies of the governments of the Americas were genocidal in intent and effect; Indigenous nations were never assimilated into the broader fabrics and governments of the nations of the Americas and were left isolated in many cases, not all, on their traditional lands thus retaining their status and realities as Indigenous nations. This became especially true when past Treaties were recognized and invoked ad hoc when in the interests of the colonizing governments of the Americas, and in doing so, they both tacitly and explicitly recognized the continued existence of Indigenous nations as nations. Since the rights of all nations under international law are equal, dependent upon law and facts on the ground and not on the size or perceived power of a nation, or, indeed if that group has been recognized as a nation, especially by colonizing forces intent on its extermination, then it follows that the Blackfoot Nation and other Indigenous nations that still meet the tests of international law to constitute nations remain so, with the rights under international law of all nations regardless of who does or does not recognize them as such. The so-called Republic of China or Taiwan is currently only recognized by 23 nation states including the Vatican, as the supposed “legitimate government” of all of China whereas up until the 1970s, the reality and legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China as the sole and legitimate government of all of China was denied except by a handful of nations yet the objective reality of and international law supporting, the PRC as the sole and legitimate representative of the whole nation of China was never in question by any honest and thinking person or government. There were 51 founding members of the UN and now 192 members with many nations recognized as nations and becoming nation states well after the formation of the UN.
[29] Amin, Samir, “Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment, Vols I and II, Monthly Review Press, N.Y. 1974, pp2-3
Conference Program
Managing Ethno-Cultural Diversity:
Comparisons of Approaches to Multicultural Diversity
Canada-China Symposium
IUAES2009
中加民族文化多样性管理学术研讨会
•对文化多样性的比较研究•
Preliminary Program
议程
July 28-29, 2009
Yunnan University, Kunming China
2009年7月28-29日
云南大学•中国昆明
Managing Ethno-Cultural Diversity:
Comparisons of Approaches to Multicultural Diversity
Canada-China Symposium
中加民族文化多样性管理学术研讨会
•对文化多样性的比较研究•
Co-organizers
Jean L. Kunz, Policy Research Initiative Canada
DU Fachun, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
会议组织:
中国社会科学院杜发春
加拿大政策研究所骆菁
Supporter
Canadian Embassy in Beijing
协办：加拿大驻华大使馆
Sponsor
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
赞助：加拿大外交与国际贸易部
Canada-China Symposium on Managing Ethno-Cultural Diversity
中加民族文化多样性管理学术研讨会
Draft Agenda
议程草案
July 28-29(Monday-Wednesday), 2009
2009年7月28-29日(周二、周三)
Day 1 (July 27,Monday) ARRIVAL and REGISTRATION
第一天（2009年7月27日，周一）报到注册
Day 2 (July 28, Tuesday, Morning Sessions) OPENING CEREMONY and KEYNOTE SPEECHES
第二天（2009年7月28日，周二上午）开幕式和主旨演讲
8:30-9:00 Registration and Welcome 注册/报到l
9:00 -l 9:40
Opening ceremony 开幕式
Moderators: Jean L. Kunz, Policy Research Initiative Canada
DU Fachun, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
主持：骆菁（加拿大政策研究所）, 杜发春（中国社会科学院）
Remarks致辞：
HAO Shiyuan,Ø Director of Academic Division of Law, Social and Political Studies at CASS Academician of CASS, Director of IEA/CASS
郝时远（中国社会科学院政法学部主任、民族所所长、学部委员）
Jeff Nankivell，Minister,Ø Canadian Embassy in Beijing
南杰瑞（加拿大驻华大使馆公使、副馆长）
WU Jinguang, ViceØ Director-General, Bureau of International, State Commission of Ethnic Affairs PRC. Deputy Secretary-General, Organizing Committee of IUAES2009.
吴金光（国家民族事务委员会国际司副司长、人类学世界大会筹委会副秘书长）
ZHANG Youyun, ViceØ Director-General, Bureau of International Cooperation, CASS
张友云（中国社会科学院国际合作局副局长）
9:40 – 10:00 Photo session and coffee/teal break 照相、茶休
10:00 – 12:00l
Keynote speeches主旨演讲
Moderator: Dr. WANG Bing (Liaoning Normal University, China)
主持：王昺（中国加拿大研究会副会长，辽宁师范大学教授）
Keynote speakers and topics 主旨演讲人和题目
Dr. James Frideres（University of Calgary, Canada）: “EthnicØ Identity in the 21st Century”
傅里德斯 (加拿大卡尔加里大学,教授) :“21世纪的民族认同”
Dr.Ø Peter S. Li（University of Saskatchewan, Canada）： “Immigrant Integration in Canada”
李胜生（加拿大萨斯凯彻温大学，教授）：“加拿大的移民融合”
Dr. Carlo J. KriegerØ (Luxembourg Scholar): “Cultural Intervention at Work: Two Examples from Native North America”
柯意赫(卢森堡学者)：“从北美原住民的两个案例看文化干预”
Dr. Paul S.Ø Maxim（Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada）: “Aboriginal Education in Canada and China: A Comparative Study”
马克西姆（加拿大劳里埃大学,副校长）: “加拿大和中国民族教育的比较研究”
Ø Dr. Jean L. Kunz (Policy Research Initiative, Canada): Facilitating the Integration of Immigrant Students In Canada: Implications For Migrant Students In China
骆菁（加拿大政策研究所，项目主任）：“便利移民学生在加拿大的融入：对中国农民工学生的启示”
12:00-13:00l Lunch 午餐
July 28(Afternoon Sessions), PRESENTATIONS 7月28日（周二）下午，会议代表发言
1:30-3:00 pml
Session 1 Governance of Diversity: Current Practices
Moderator: Dr. Paul Maxim（Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada）
Discussant: Dr. Carlo J. Krieger (Luxembourg Scholar)
分组1 多样性治理：当前实践
主持：马克西姆（加拿大劳里埃大学,副校长）
评议：柯意赫(卢森堡学者)
Presenters（发言人）:
Dr. Marie Louise LEVEBVREl (Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada) : Diversity of Issues, Responses and Policies Affecting Migrant Integration and Social Cohesion in Canada
玛丽露（加拿大魁北克大学蒙特利尔分校，教授）：“多样性问题、回应和政策对加拿大移民整合和社会凝聚力的影响”
Dr.l WANG Bing(Liaoning Normal University, China): “A Comparative Study of Canada’s Policy of Indian Education and China’s Policy of Mongolian Education”
王昺(辽宁师范大学教授，中国加拿大研究会副会长)：“加拿大印第安人教育与中国蒙古族教育的比较研究”
Dr.l WANG Chaohui（Minzu University of China）：Indigenous Study: Aboriginal Language and Culture in Canada
王朝晖（中央民族大学，副教授）：“加拿大原住民的语言和文化”
Dr. Isabellal Calleja (University of Malta): Governance of Multicultural Diversity
伊莎贝尔（马耳他大学国际关系，系主任、教授）：“文化多样性治理”
3:00-3:10 pm Coffee/teal break茶休
3:00-4:30 pml
Session 2 Governance of Diversity: Future Considerations
Moderator: Prof. LI Pengfei(Beijing Institute of Technology, China)
Discussant: Dr. Li Zong (University of Saskatchewan, Canada)
分组2 多样性治理：未来思考
主持：李鹏飞（北京理工大学，教授）
评议：宗力（加拿大萨斯凯彻温大学社会学系，教授）
Presenters:
发言人：
Dr. Denise Hellyl (Universite du Quebec, Canada): The Particular Treatment of Muslims in Canada
海雷（加拿大魁北克大学社会科学研究所，教授）：“加拿大对穆斯林的特殊对待”
Dr. CHANG Shiyinl (Tianjin Normal University, China): Reflection on Canadian Multiculturalism
常士訚（天津师范大学，政治学系主任、教授）：“对加拿大多元文化主义的反思”
Dr. Olgal Orlić(Institute for Anthropological Research, Croatia): Regional Multiculturalism in Istria and European Integration Processes
奥尔加（克罗地亚人类学研究所，教授）：“伊斯塔利亚的区域多元文化主义及其在欧洲的整合进程”
Dr.Terezal Cristina Nascimenta Franca and Giordano Sousa de Almeida (Catholic University of Brasilia, Brazil): Comparison of Approaches on Intercultural Relations and Cultural Diversity: Protectionism or Liberalization?
特热扎和吉尔丹诺（巴西利亚天主教大学，教授）：“内文化关系和文化多样性的比较方式：保护主义还是自由主义？”
l 4:40-5:00 pm Coffee/tea break茶休
5:00-6:30 pml
Session 3: Social and Economic Integration of Migrants
Moderator: Dr. Denise Helly (Universite du Quebec, Canada)
Discussant: Dr. Jean L.Kunz (Policy Research Initiative, Canada)
分组3：移民的社会和经济整合
主持：海雷（魁北克大学社会科学研究所，教授）
评议：骆菁（加拿大政策研究所,项目主任）
Presenters
发言人：
Dr. Li Zong (Universityl of Saskatchewan, Canada): Mainland Chinese Immigrants in Canada and Barriers to Integration in Multicultural Society
宗力（加拿大萨斯凯彻温大学社会学系，教授）：“加拿大的中国大陆移民及其融入多元文化社会的障碍”
DUl Qianping(Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China): Chinese Church and Political Choice in Chinese Community in Canada
杜倩萍（中国社会科学院民族所，助理研究员）：“加拿大华人教会对华人社区政治取向的影响”
ZHANGl Qinglai(Beijing Educational Examinations Authority, China): “Let the Boat flowing with the Mainstream” ---- The Policy Base of Right and Equity: Education of Multicultural Diversity for Immigrant’s Children
张庆来（北京教育考试研究院，副研究员）：“权利的政策基础与公平：对移民孩子的文化多样性教育”
DU Fachun(Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China): Ecological Resettlement and Cultural Heritage: A Comparative Study in China and Canada
杜发春（中国社会科学院民族所，副研究员）：“生态移民与文化遗产：中加比较研究”
6:30 pml Adjournment 休会
7:00-9:00 pm, Welcomel Dinner晚7-9点，欢迎晚餐
Day 3 (July 29, Wednesday) , PRESENTATIONS 第三天（7月29日，周三），会议代表发言
8:00-9:30 aml
Session 4: Education and Identity Formation
Moderator: Dr. Jean L. Kunz (Policy Research Initiative, Canada)
Discussant: ZHANG Qinglai(Beijing Educational Examinations Authority, China):
分组4：教育与认同形成
主持：骆菁（加拿大政策研究所,项目主任）
评议：张庆来（北京教育考试研究院副研究员，中华教育创新协会会长）
Presenters:
发言人：
Christopherl Anderson (Simon Fraser University, Canada): Education Through Assimilation: Applying Lessons from Canada’s Indian Residential School System to the Examination of China’s Minority Educational Policy
安德森（加拿大西蒙菲沙大学，法学研究顾问）：“加拿大少数民族同化教育及其对中国民族教育的意义”
Dr. Stephaniel Xiao Liang(Hunan Business College, China): Academic Adaptation: Mainland Chinese Students In Graduate Programs at a Canadian University
梁晓（湖南商学院讲师，卡尔加里大学博士）：“学术适应：加拿大高校里中国大陆研究生教育”
Dr. Huhual Cao（University of Ottawa，Canada）, Anwaer Maimaitiming(Xinjiang Normal University, China), MA Shengquan(Hainan Normal University, China)：“Spatial Inequality in Children’s Schooling in China: Issue of Minority Regions”
曹沪华（加拿大渥太华大学，副教授）, 安瓦尔•买买提明（新疆师范大学，副教授），马生全（海南师范大学，教授）：“中国儿童教育空间的不平等：少数民族地区问题”
LIl Qiang(Yunnan University for Nationalities): On The Policies of the Ethnic Minority's Foreign Language Education in Yunnan Against the Multi-ethnic Culture Background
李强（云南民族大学教授）：“多元民族文化背景下的云南少数民族外语教育政策研究”
9:30-9:40 pml Coffee/tea break茶休
9:40-11:00 aml
Session 5: Ethnic Identity: Issues of Shifting Ethnic Identification
Moderator: Dr. Carlo J. Krieger (Luxembourg Scholar)
Discussant: Dr. James Frideres（University of Calgary, Canada）
分组5：变化的族群认同问题
主持：柯意赫(卢森堡学者)
评议：傅里德斯 (加拿大卡尔加里大学,教授)
Presenters:
发言人：
Erin Williams (University ofl British Columbia, Canada): Patterns and Variation in the Local Application of the Indigenous Peoples Concept
爱琳（加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚大学，博士研究生）：“原住民观念在地方性应用中的形式和变异”
James M.l Craven（Clark College, USA）: The Survival and Sustainability of the Blackfoot Nation and Culture in Canada and USA
柯瑞文（克拉克学院，教授）：“北美黑脚族印第安人的文化生存和维系”
LI Pengfei(Beijing Institutel of Technology, China):Towards a Better Understanding of the Needs of the North American Indians
李鹏飞（北京理工大学，教授）：“北美印第安人的诉求”
WEI Li and LIU Zhongwenl (Liaoning Police Academy, China): Preservation and Development of the Canadian Distinctive Aboriginal Cultures
魏莉、刘忠文（辽宁警官高等专科学校，副教授）：“加拿大土著文化的保留和弘扬”
11:00-11:10 aml Coffee/tea break茶休
11:10-12:40 aml
Session 6: Responding to Globalization: Intercultural Communication
Moderator: Dr. Graham Johnson（University of British Columbia, Canada）
Discussant: Dr. Huhua Cao（University of Ottawa，Canada）
分组5：全球化回应：文化交流与教育思考
主持：詹森（不列颠哥伦比亚大学,教授）
评议：曹沪华（加拿大渥太华大学，副教授）
Presenters:
发言人：
l Dr.ZHANG Yanqiu (Communication University of China, China): Media Literacy Education In China And Canada In The Context Of Cultural Diversity: Difference And Similarities
张艳秋（中国传媒大学，副教授）：“文化多样性背景下的中加媒体教育比较研究”
LIANl Haiying(Nanjing University of Finance & Economics, China): Canadian Pluralism Education Under the Background of Globalization
练海英（南京财经大学，副教授）：“全球化背景下的加拿大多元文化教育”
LI Liping and ZHANGl Gaoyuan( Nanjing University of Finance & Economics,China): Reflection on Christmas Celebration in China
李丽萍、张高远（南京财经大学，副教授）：“对中国过圣诞节的反思”
CAOl Qian(Minzu University of China): The Adaptive Condition of College Students to Xinjiang in China
曹谦（中央民族大学，硕士研究生）：“新疆大学生的适应状况调查”
12:40-13:00l pm
Closing Summary 会议总结
Jean L.Kunz, Policy Research Initiative Canada
DU Fachun, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
杜发春（中国社会学科学院）
骆菁（加拿大政策研究所）
13:00 Lunchl午餐
Day 4（ July 30, Thursday） DEPARTURE 第4天（7月30日，周四），代表离会
Thank you very much for your participation & cooperation! 衷心感谢您的支持和帮助
Blackfoot language is being taught on all of the Reserves of the Blackfoot; but language is never sterile or value-free and it will always beg the questions of by whom, for whom, and for what purposes, are the language and also are traditional aspects of Blackfoot culture being taught. Many of the programs into which Blackfoot and other Indigenous children are channeled, by their own choices or by advisors, have to do with alcohol and substance abuse counseling or programs in “Native Studies” (often taught and using scholarship of by non-Indigenous academics that are virtually useless except for getting some kind of management job in the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the U.S. or the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada).
The survival and sustainability of the Blackfoot and other Indigenous nations will require what other non-Indigenous nations will require in terms of educated—not just schooled which is not necessarily the same thing—workforce and leadership: real quality education that addresses the likely challenges and imperatives of survival and sustainability in the twenty-first century but, with due respect to the fact that that what is new may well not be true, and what is true may not be new.
Conclusion
Blackfoot, like other Indigenous nations on the verge of extinction, are the proverbial and overworked “Canary in the Mine.” And as Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same things over and over, in the same ways, with the same people and yet expecting different results. So it is, that Indigenous Peoples cannot continue, adopt or even allow, the very same forces, values, paradigms, institutions, paternalism, and whole socio-economic politico-legal systems (modes of production) that brought them to the verge of extinction, and that even threaten the non-Indigenous peoples who promote them as “civilization”, as well threatening the whole planet itself, to take them all the way to extinction as has happened to so many nations that no longer exist. For those who are not Indigenous and thus believe that the fate of Indigenous nations is of no concern however regrettable, perhaps give some thought to the fact that any society that tolerates and promotes the extinction of any national minority or nation within its borders is one that is capable of tolerating and promoting the extinction or any other group; and is not either sustainable or the kind of society or system worth preserving especially in today’s world with the means of mass destruction that exist today.[28]
Blackfoot, like other Indigenous nations, are intimately bound up with Canada and indeed the world like it or not. The question, however, remains on what basis and with what consequences—for Canada as well as Indigenous nations—the present relations and institutions, that have brought Indigenous nations to the brink of extinction, could, should or would continue. Samir Amin notes:
“Now the world capitalist system, cannot be reduced, even in abstraction, to the capitalist mode of production, and still less can it be analyzed as a mere juxtaposition of countries or sectors governed by the capitalist mode of production with others governed by precapitalist modes of production (the dualism thesis). Apart from a few ‘ethnographical reserves’, such as that of the Orinoco Indians, all contemporary societies are integrated into a world system. Not a single concrete socioeconomic formation of our time can be understood except as part of this world system… …Relations between the formations of the ‘developed’ or advanced world (the center) and those of the ‘underdeveloped’ world (the periphery) are affected by transfers of value, and these constitute the problem of accumulation on a world scale. Whenever the capitalist mode of production enters into relations with precapitalist modes of production, and subjects these to itself, transfers of value take place from the precapitalist to capitalist formations as a result of the mechanisms of ‘primitive accumulation’. These mechanisms do not belong only to the prehistory of capitalism; they are contemporary as well. It is these forms of primitive accumulation, modified but persistent, to the advantage of the center, that form the domain of the theory of accumulation on a world scale.” [29]
In Blackfoot language “Ni Kso Ko Wa” means “We are all related” or “All my Relations”. So as we are all related as human beings, and indeed all human cultures share some common denominators, so are our fates, as individuals and whole cultures, interrelated. We are the proverbial “Canary in the Mine”.
Footnotes
[1]Here the terms “exogenous” or external and “endogenous or “internal” are used nominally or in non-Indigenous terms as Blackfoot and other Indigenous groups see culture not only in terms of all that is created by humankind but also all that humankind is an integral part of and thus have different notions of what is external or internal to a given culture.
[2] Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, translation by Dale, Ralph Verse 2 “Relativity”, p. 5 Barnes and Noble Books, N.Y. 2002
[3] Long Standing Bear Chief, “Ni Kso Ko Wa: Blackfoot Traditions and Spirituality” pp. 8-9, Spirit Talk Press, Browning, Montana, 1992
[4] Department of Indian Affairs, Superintendent D.C. Scott to B.C. Indian Agent-General Major D. McKay, DIA Archives, RG-10 series, April 12, 1910 (emphasis added)
[5] The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, to which Canada became a signatory in 1953 and to which the U.S. still remains not a full signatory because of the Hatch, Helms and Lugar “Sovereignty Amendment of 1988, in Article II defines a five-part test, any one of which, not all required to constitutes genocide: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting upon a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures designed to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of one group to another group.
[6] Black, Edwin, “War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race” Thunder’s Mouth Press N.Y. 2003; Alberta Sterilization Victims Also Used as Guinea Pigs Revelation Comes as 40 victims win $4M settlement; Marina Jimenez National Post 10/28/98
[7] Toland, John, “Adolf Hitler”, Vol II, p. 802, Doubleday and Co. N.Y. 1976
[8] Limerick, Patricia Nelson, “The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of American West” WW. Norton and Co. N.Y. 1987 p. 338
[9] Poole, James “Hitler and His Secret Partners”, Pocket Books, NY 1997; “Having been a devoted reader of Karl May's books on the American West as a youth, Hitler frequently referred to the Russians as 'Redskins'. He saw a parallel between his effort to conquer and colonize land in Russia with the conquest of the American West by the white man and the subjugation of the Indians or 'Redskins'. 'I don't see why', he said, 'a German who eats a piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil that produces this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat from Canada, we don't think about the despoiled Indians." (James Pool, Ibid, pp. 254-255)
[10] Peat, F. David, “Blackfoot Physics” Weiser Books, Boston, MA. 2005, p. 128 see: http://books.google.com/books?id=rmxB4bau74QC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=Corrup...
[11] http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects98/krochens...
[12] Gribbin, John “In Search of Schroedinger’s Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality”, Bantam Books, N.Y. 1984
[13] By “Eurocentric” I mean in the sense used by Thomas Kuhn in his amazingly ignorant and arrogant statement: “But only the civilizations that descended from Hellenic Greece possessed more than the most rudimentary science” in Kuhn, Thomas, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, U of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962, pp. 167-68
[14] Cajete, Gregory, “Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence”, Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe, 2000, p 2
[15] Peat, F. David op. cit. pp 38-44. See also Weatherford Jack, “Indian Givers: How The Indians of the Americas Transformed The World” Fawcett Columbine, N.Y. 1988; “Native Roots: How The Indians Enriched America” Fawcett Columbine, N.Y.1991; “Savages and Civilization” Fawcett Columbine, N.Y. 1994 These authors among others demonstrate very advanced achievements in engineering, mathematics, cosmology and astronomy, medicine, architecture, law and constitutions, democracy and government, agriculture, resource management and sustainability and in many areas now being recognized that could only have been achieved with very advanced notions and techniques of science and scientific method.
[16] Craven, James/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi “The Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-Based Processes and Socialist Construction” paper delivered September 1-2, 2004 at The International Symposium for the Reform of Property Rights and Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries at Tsinghua University. See also Putnam, Robert D, “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community”, Simon and Schuster, N.Y. 2000
[17] The notion that the whole or macro is nothing more than the sum of its parts. Individuals are said to be atomistic units assumed to be: rational, self-interested, competitive, informed, constrained and maximizers of utility—and that which yields—it and minimizers of pain and risk. There is no notion of a collective that acts as a collective or that is greater—or possibly lesser—than the sum of its parts. The model consists of a body of postulates about supposed “human nature”, irrespective of class, gender, age, ethnicity, race, religion, from which deductions are made, hypotheses are formed and predictions made about human behavior under assumed conditions and constraints (hypothetico-deductivism).
[18] One of the most sacred of the Blackfoot Prayers (Nii-tsi-ta-piaa-tsi-mo-yii-kaan) sums up the traditional Blackfoot values considered most important (spelled out phonetically not in accordance with Franz-Russell conventions.)
Ayo A’pis-to-too-ki (Creator)
Iss-Po-Mo-Kin-Naan (Help us)
Nah-Kay-Iss-Tsi-Sin-Naan (To listen)
Nah-Kai-Kim-Mo-Tsi-Sin-Naan (To be kind to one another)
Nah-Kay-ii-Ka’-Ki-Maa-Sin-Naan (To try hard)
Nah-Koh-Ko-Ka-Mo’-Toh-Sin-Naan (To be honest)
Nah-Ka-Wa-To-Yii-Tak-Sin-Naan (To be Spiritual)
Ooh-To-Kin-Naan, A’Pis-To-Too-Ki (Hear us, Creator)
Kim-Mis Ko-Ko-Siksi (Have pity on your children)
Ii-Ksi-Kim-Ma-Tap-Si-Ya (They are in need)
Kaa-Mo-Taa-Ni (Grant us safety)
Nii-Sta-Wa-Tsi-Maani (Help us to raise our families)
Naa-Piio’Siini (So that they may live long lives)
[19] See “Draft Constitution of the Blackfoot Nation” and “Paper on the Blackfoot Nation” “Blackfoot Indictment.., at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota, Documents on Native American Genocide http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/victims/nativeAmerican/index.html and Helton, Taiawagi “Nation Building in Indian Country: The Blackfoot Constitutional Review” Paper Delivered at the Fifth Annual Tribal Law and Governance Conference, University of Kansas School of Law, October 2002 at http://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/nation-building-in-indian-...
[20] For the actual text of the Treaty see http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/treaties/blackfeet.htm
[21] Chrisjohn, Roland et al “An Historic Non Apology, Completely and Utterly Not Accepted” Department of Native Studies, Fredericton, NB http://www.nativestudies.org/index1.html “An apology has at least three characteristics (some people will say there are more, some will list more specific traits… this doesn’t matter for present purposes). The absence of any of these three characteristics immediately disqualifies a statement as an apology: a sincere expression of remorse for the behavior, the promise never to repeat the behavior, and the undertaking to undo, as far as possible, the damage done by the behavior.”
[22] See http://www.wole.org/corruption.htm; http://lakeconews.com/content/view/7220/764/
[23] The term “Vichy Indians” has been used by scholars like Ward Churchill and others to denote BIA and DIA Tribal Councils (not an indictment of every one serving on them) as essentially like the puppet Vichy Government installed in France by occupying German Nazis. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2009/03/ward-churchill-denigrates-... and http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2006/01/abramoff-and-vichy-indians... and http://www.touristclick.com/news/united%20states/means-delegation.html
[24] See Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi “From Emperor to Citizen: The Autobiography of Pu Yi The Last Emperor of China” Oxford University Press, N.Y. 1987
[25] Peat, F. David, op cit pp 85-86
[26] http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:sBZag7ZxPvQJ:hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/...'kmaq/A%2520SEASON%2520OF%2520DEATHS.doc+Corruption,+Tribal+Councils,+Canada&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us; http://www.marxmail.org/archives/July99/clinton_visits_the_indian_reserv... http://www.leadershipforchange.org/insights/research/files/6.pdf
[27] Chrisjohn, Roland “You Have to be Carefully Taught: Special Needs and First Nations Education”; “Genocide and Indian Residential Schooling: The Past is Present”; Retaining Indigenous Students in Post Secondary Programs: What Means For Whose Ends?” see http://www.nativestudies.org/works.html see also http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/AIER.html
[28] A note here that the comments of this paper are directed only to the situation of Blackfoot and other Indigenous Nations in the Americas. No equivalence is intended or suggested between the situations, realities of or governmental policies vis-à-vis, national minorities, in other places like China; and the same with respect to First Nations in the Americas. The history of China relative to the histories of the nations of the Americas with Indigenous populations is very different. Various Indigenous groups, once meeting the tests of international law for being considered separate nations became integrated national minorities within a larger and contiguous nation of China long ago and since Liberation in 1949, the statuses and survival of the Indigenous minorities by the Government of China have been protected and assured far more than in the cases of the U.S. and Canada, and far more than if each national group had had its own traditional government along with its own land base, culture, language, common economic life, polity, history and criteria for membership of the group (the essential elements of a nation in international law) In the case of the Americas, not only were there treaties recognizing First Nations as Nations, although asserted to be “sui generis” or of a special type, or, as in the case of the U.S. and the Supreme court decisions of Marshall as “dependent nations”, the policies of the governments of the Americas were genocidal in intent and effect; Indigenous nations were never assimilated into the broader fabrics and governments of the nations of the Americas and were left isolated in many cases, not all, on their traditional lands thus retaining their status and realities as Indigenous nations. This became especially true when past Treaties were recognized and invoked ad hoc when in the interests of the colonizing governments of the Americas, and in doing so, they both tacitly and explicitly recognized the continued existence of Indigenous nations as nations. Since the rights of all nations under international law are equal, dependent upon law and facts on the ground and not on the size or perceived power of a nation, or, indeed if that group has been recognized as a nation, especially by colonizing forces intent on its extermination, then it follows that the Blackfoot Nation and other Indigenous nations that still meet the tests of international law to constitute nations remain so, with the rights under international law of all nations regardless of who does or does not recognize them as such. The so-called Republic of China or Taiwan is currently only recognized by 23 nation states including the Vatican, as the supposed “legitimate government” of all of China whereas up until the 1970s, the reality and legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China as the sole and legitimate government of all of China was denied except by a handful of nations yet the objective reality of and international law supporting, the PRC as the sole and legitimate representative of the whole nation of China was never in question by any honest and thinking person or government. There were 51 founding members of the UN and now 192 members with many nations recognized as nations and becoming nation states well after the formation of the UN.
[29] Amin, Samir, “Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment, Vols I and II, Monthly Review Press, N.Y. 1974, pp2-3
Conference Program
Managing Ethno-Cultural Diversity:
Comparisons of Approaches to Multicultural Diversity
Canada-China Symposium
IUAES2009
中加民族文化多样性管理学术研讨会
•对文化多样性的比较研究•
Preliminary Program
议程
July 28-29, 2009
Yunnan University, Kunming China
2009年7月28-29日
云南大学•中国昆明
Managing Ethno-Cultural Diversity:
Comparisons of Approaches to Multicultural Diversity
Canada-China Symposium
中加民族文化多样性管理学术研讨会
•对文化多样性的比较研究•
Co-organizers
Jean L. Kunz, Policy Research Initiative Canada
DU Fachun, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
会议组织:
中国社会科学院杜发春
加拿大政策研究所骆菁
Supporter
Canadian Embassy in Beijing
协办：加拿大驻华大使馆
Sponsor
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
赞助：加拿大外交与国际贸易部
Canada-China Symposium on Managing Ethno-Cultural Diversity
中加民族文化多样性管理学术研讨会
Draft Agenda
议程草案
July 28-29(Monday-Wednesday), 2009
2009年7月28-29日(周二、周三)
Day 1 (July 27,Monday) ARRIVAL and REGISTRATION
第一天（2009年7月27日，周一）报到注册
Day 2 (July 28, Tuesday, Morning Sessions) OPENING CEREMONY and KEYNOTE SPEECHES
第二天（2009年7月28日，周二上午）开幕式和主旨演讲
8:30-9:00 Registration and Welcome 注册/报到l
9:00 -l 9:40
Opening ceremony 开幕式
Moderators: Jean L. Kunz, Policy Research Initiative Canada
DU Fachun, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
主持：骆菁（加拿大政策研究所）, 杜发春（中国社会科学院）
Remarks致辞：
HAO Shiyuan,Ø Director of Academic Division of Law, Social and Political Studies at CASS Academician of CASS, Director of IEA/CASS
郝时远（中国社会科学院政法学部主任、民族所所长、学部委员）
Jeff Nankivell，Minister,Ø Canadian Embassy in Beijing
南杰瑞（加拿大驻华大使馆公使、副馆长）
WU Jinguang, ViceØ Director-General, Bureau of International, State Commission of Ethnic Affairs PRC. Deputy Secretary-General, Organizing Committee of IUAES2009.
吴金光（国家民族事务委员会国际司副司长、人类学世界大会筹委会副秘书长）
ZHANG Youyun, ViceØ Director-General, Bureau of International Cooperation, CASS
张友云（中国社会科学院国际合作局副局长）
9:40 – 10:00 Photo session and coffee/teal break 照相、茶休
10:00 – 12:00l
Keynote speeches主旨演讲
Moderator: Dr. WANG Bing (Liaoning Normal University, China)
主持：王昺（中国加拿大研究会副会长，辽宁师范大学教授）
Keynote speakers and topics 主旨演讲人和题目
Dr. James Frideres（University of Calgary, Canada）: “EthnicØ Identity in the 21st Century”
傅里德斯 (加拿大卡尔加里大学,教授) :“21世纪的民族认同”
Dr.Ø Peter S. Li（University of Saskatchewan, Canada）： “Immigrant Integration in Canada”
李胜生（加拿大萨斯凯彻温大学，教授）：“加拿大的移民融合”
Dr. Carlo J. KriegerØ (Luxembourg Scholar): “Cultural Intervention at Work: Two Examples from Native North America”
柯意赫(卢森堡学者)：“从北美原住民的两个案例看文化干预”
Dr. Paul S.Ø Maxim（Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada）: “Aboriginal Education in Canada and China: A Comparative Study”
马克西姆（加拿大劳里埃大学,副校长）: “加拿大和中国民族教育的比较研究”
Ø Dr. Jean L. Kunz (Policy Research Initiative, Canada): Facilitating the Integration of Immigrant Students In Canada: Implications For Migrant Students In China
骆菁（加拿大政策研究所，项目主任）：“便利移民学生在加拿大的融入：对中国农民工学生的启示”
12:00-13:00l Lunch 午餐
July 28(Afternoon Sessions), PRESENTATIONS 7月28日（周二）下午，会议代表发言
1:30-3:00 pml
Session 1 Governance of Diversity: Current Practices
Moderator: Dr. Paul Maxim（Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada）
Discussant: Dr. Carlo J. Krieger (Luxembourg Scholar)
分组1 多样性治理：当前实践
主持：马克西姆（加拿大劳里埃大学,副校长）
评议：柯意赫(卢森堡学者)
Presenters（发言人）:
Dr. Marie Louise LEVEBVREl (Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada) : Diversity of Issues, Responses and Policies Affecting Migrant Integration and Social Cohesion in Canada
玛丽露（加拿大魁北克大学蒙特利尔分校，教授）：“多样性问题、回应和政策对加拿大移民整合和社会凝聚力的影响”
Dr.l WANG Bing(Liaoning Normal University, China): “A Comparative Study of Canada’s Policy of Indian Education and China’s Policy of Mongolian Education”
王昺(辽宁师范大学教授，中国加拿大研究会副会长)：“加拿大印第安人教育与中国蒙古族教育的比较研究”
Dr.l WANG Chaohui（Minzu University of China）：Indigenous Study: Aboriginal Language and Culture in Canada
王朝晖（中央民族大学，副教授）：“加拿大原住民的语言和文化”
Dr. Isabellal Calleja (University of Malta): Governance of Multicultural Diversity
伊莎贝尔（马耳他大学国际关系，系主任、教授）：“文化多样性治理”
3:00-3:10 pm Coffee/teal break茶休
3:00-4:30 pml
Session 2 Governance of Diversity: Future Considerations
Moderator: Prof. LI Pengfei(Beijing Institute of Technology, China)
Discussant: Dr. Li Zong (University of Saskatchewan, Canada)
分组2 多样性治理：未来思考
主持：李鹏飞（北京理工大学，教授）
评议：宗力（加拿大萨斯凯彻温大学社会学系，教授）
Presenters:
发言人：
Dr. Denise Hellyl (Universite du Quebec, Canada): The Particular Treatment of Muslims in Canada
海雷（加拿大魁北克大学社会科学研究所，教授）：“加拿大对穆斯林的特殊对待”
Dr. CHANG Shiyinl (Tianjin Normal University, China): Reflection on Canadian Multiculturalism
常士訚（天津师范大学，政治学系主任、教授）：“对加拿大多元文化主义的反思”
Dr. Olgal Orlić(Institute for Anthropological Research, Croatia): Regional Multiculturalism in Istria and European Integration Processes
奥尔加（克罗地亚人类学研究所，教授）：“伊斯塔利亚的区域多元文化主义及其在欧洲的整合进程”
Dr.Terezal Cristina Nascimenta Franca and Giordano Sousa de Almeida (Catholic University of Brasilia, Brazil): Comparison of Approaches on Intercultural Relations and Cultural Diversity: Protectionism or Liberalization?
特热扎和吉尔丹诺（巴西利亚天主教大学，教授）：“内文化关系和文化多样性的比较方式：保护主义还是自由主义？”
l 4:40-5:00 pm Coffee/tea break茶休
5:00-6:30 pml
Session 3: Social and Economic Integration of Migrants
Moderator: Dr. Denise Helly (Universite du Quebec, Canada)
Discussant: Dr. Jean L.Kunz (Policy Research Initiative, Canada)
分组3：移民的社会和经济整合
主持：海雷（魁北克大学社会科学研究所，教授）
评议：骆菁（加拿大政策研究所,项目主任）
Presenters
发言人：
Dr. Li Zong (Universityl of Saskatchewan, Canada): Mainland Chinese Immigrants in Canada and Barriers to Integration in Multicultural Society
宗力（加拿大萨斯凯彻温大学社会学系，教授）：“加拿大的中国大陆移民及其融入多元文化社会的障碍”
DUl Qianping(Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China): Chinese Church and Political Choice in Chinese Community in Canada
杜倩萍（中国社会科学院民族所，助理研究员）：“加拿大华人教会对华人社区政治取向的影响”
ZHANGl Qinglai(Beijing Educational Examinations Authority, China): “Let the Boat flowing with the Mainstream” ---- The Policy Base of Right and Equity: Education of Multicultural Diversity for Immigrant’s Children
张庆来（北京教育考试研究院，副研究员）：“权利的政策基础与公平：对移民孩子的文化多样性教育”
DU Fachun(Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China): Ecological Resettlement and Cultural Heritage: A Comparative Study in China and Canada
杜发春（中国社会科学院民族所，副研究员）：“生态移民与文化遗产：中加比较研究”
6:30 pml Adjournment 休会
7:00-9:00 pm, Welcomel Dinner晚7-9点，欢迎晚餐
Day 3 (July 29, Wednesday) , PRESENTATIONS 第三天（7月29日，周三），会议代表发言
8:00-9:30 aml
Session 4: Education and Identity Formation
Moderator: Dr. Jean L. Kunz (Policy Research Initiative, Canada)
Discussant: ZHANG Qinglai(Beijing Educational Examinations Authority, China):
分组4：教育与认同形成
主持：骆菁（加拿大政策研究所,项目主任）
评议：张庆来（北京教育考试研究院副研究员，中华教育创新协会会长）
Presenters:
发言人：
Christopherl Anderson (Simon Fraser University, Canada): Education Through Assimilation: Applying Lessons from Canada’s Indian Residential School System to the Examination of China’s Minority Educational Policy
安德森（加拿大西蒙菲沙大学，法学研究顾问）：“加拿大少数民族同化教育及其对中国民族教育的意义”
Dr. Stephaniel Xiao Liang(Hunan Business College, China): Academic Adaptation: Mainland Chinese Students In Graduate Programs at a Canadian University
梁晓（湖南商学院讲师，卡尔加里大学博士）：“学术适应：加拿大高校里中国大陆研究生教育”
Dr. Huhual Cao（University of Ottawa，Canada）, Anwaer Maimaitiming(Xinjiang Normal University, China), MA Shengquan(Hainan Normal University, China)：“Spatial Inequality in Children’s Schooling in China: Issue of Minority Regions”
曹沪华（加拿大渥太华大学，副教授）, 安瓦尔•买买提明（新疆师范大学，副教授），马生全（海南师范大学，教授）：“中国儿童教育空间的不平等：少数民族地区问题”
LIl Qiang(Yunnan University for Nationalities): On The Policies of the Ethnic Minority's Foreign Language Education in Yunnan Against the Multi-ethnic Culture Background
李强（云南民族大学教授）：“多元民族文化背景下的云南少数民族外语教育政策研究”
9:30-9:40 pml Coffee/tea break茶休
9:40-11:00 aml
Session 5: Ethnic Identity: Issues of Shifting Ethnic Identification
Moderator: Dr. Carlo J. Krieger (Luxembourg Scholar)
Discussant: Dr. James Frideres（University of Calgary, Canada）
分组5：变化的族群认同问题
主持：柯意赫(卢森堡学者)
评议：傅里德斯 (加拿大卡尔加里大学,教授)
Presenters:
发言人：
Erin Williams (University ofl British Columbia, Canada): Patterns and Variation in the Local Application of the Indigenous Peoples Concept
爱琳（加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚大学，博士研究生）：“原住民观念在地方性应用中的形式和变异”
James M.l Craven（Clark College, USA）: The Survival and Sustainability of the Blackfoot Nation and Culture in Canada and USA
柯瑞文（克拉克学院，教授）：“北美黑脚族印第安人的文化生存和维系”
LI Pengfei(Beijing Institutel of Technology, China):Towards a Better Understanding of the Needs of the North American Indians
李鹏飞（北京理工大学，教授）：“北美印第安人的诉求”
WEI Li and LIU Zhongwenl (Liaoning Police Academy, China): Preservation and Development of the Canadian Distinctive Aboriginal Cultures
魏莉、刘忠文（辽宁警官高等专科学校，副教授）：“加拿大土著文化的保留和弘扬”
11:00-11:10 aml Coffee/tea break茶休
11:10-12:40 aml
Session 6: Responding to Globalization: Intercultural Communication
Moderator: Dr. Graham Johnson（University of British Columbia, Canada）
Discussant: Dr. Huhua Cao（University of Ottawa，Canada）
分组5：全球化回应：文化交流与教育思考
主持：詹森（不列颠哥伦比亚大学,教授）
评议：曹沪华（加拿大渥太华大学，副教授）
Presenters:
发言人：
l Dr.ZHANG Yanqiu (Communication University of China, China): Media Literacy Education In China And Canada In The Context Of Cultural Diversity: Difference And Similarities
张艳秋（中国传媒大学，副教授）：“文化多样性背景下的中加媒体教育比较研究”
LIANl Haiying(Nanjing University of Finance & Economics, China): Canadian Pluralism Education Under the Background of Globalization
练海英（南京财经大学，副教授）：“全球化背景下的加拿大多元文化教育”
LI Liping and ZHANGl Gaoyuan( Nanjing University of Finance & Economics,China): Reflection on Christmas Celebration in China
李丽萍、张高远（南京财经大学，副教授）：“对中国过圣诞节的反思”
CAOl Qian(Minzu University of China): The Adaptive Condition of College Students to Xinjiang in China
曹谦（中央民族大学，硕士研究生）：“新疆大学生的适应状况调查”
12:40-13:00l pm
Closing Summary 会议总结
Jean L.Kunz, Policy Research Initiative Canada
DU Fachun, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
杜发春（中国社会学科学院）
骆菁（加拿大政策研究所）
13:00 Lunchl午餐
Day 4（ July 30, Thursday） DEPARTURE 第4天（7月30日，周四），代表离会
Thank you very much for your participation & cooperation! 衷心感谢您的支持和帮助
Friday, May 15, 2009
Comments
Blog Content and Length
Dear Mr. Craven,It's clear from the volume of your blog entries at kboo.fm, and from your application to the KBOO board that you are enthusiastic about participating. I also noticed on your profile that you have joined one of the KBOO programs, this is all good.I would suggest that you consider the fact that the website and blog space is shared between over 500 volunteers. Could you consider only actually "blogging" on the blog area, typical blog posts are perhaps several hundred words or less, and should be a quick and easy read. If you want to cite longer articles (such as those you have posted with numerous footnotes) it would be easy to simply provide a link in the blog to that material, then the reader could go elsewhere and get more information if they desired to read the entire article.All the best
blogging
Are you suggesting that one blogger is able to prevent another person from blogging by virtue of the fact that he or she is blogging? Isn't everyone signed up to blog equally free to blog????? Do you feel harmed by the fact that others have bigger blogs than you? What is hurting you??? Is someone making you read every word of every blog? I would think that blogging would actually encourage other blogging..........and I hope we haven't become too bred on "bread and circuses" to only have a taste for knee-jerk content which doesn't require us to think.Yvette
blogging excess - clutter and volume obscures other content
Yvette, it's real simple. Think of the website as public, shared space. Or think of it as a public meeting. If one person talks for three hours, that is not community. When meetings are attended by 30 people who each want to comment, they are given a time limit. This is simple good manners, good governance, and good community. When in one week one person in the community posts their life work, including articles in full they have written ten years ago ... this is excess. It is disrespectul for those who browse the site to see what's new, all they see is the contributions of one person. Mr. Craven can easily get his own blog space, and post short blogs on KBOO that point a reader to his content elsewhere, and they can read further if so inclined.
Thanks for your comments
<div class="content"><p>So it is clear, KBOO's approach to our online content is to encourage our volunteers to post as much as they like as long as the posts are relevant to the community. The advantage to the internet is indeed that we are allowed such space and freedom to do so.</p><p>Blogging is still a relatively new medium for our radio station. I'm working to make our website more effective so that we can provide a more user-friendly, balanced, and interactive way for visitors to find the latest blogs from a variety of bloggers. This way, bloggers can write as much as they like but we can still highlight a diverse selection on our homepage so they're easier to find. I'll ask for a little patience as we continue to add this and even more features that have been requested by you, our listeners.</p><p>Like our recently posted <a href="../../../../../node/19095">community guidlines</a> state, an online community can be an amazingly powerful place for people to come together, as long as we treat the space with care.</p></div>
Sorry to dissapoint you, but I dissent!
I don't think so! You don't own the only perspective around, and you don't own KBOO. You can think of this as you might, say.......think of a radio station. You can tune in, or tune out. It's so simple that anyone can do it and it might please your simplicity aesthetic. If you go to a public meeting and a lot of people are there---expect it to be a long meeting. If not many people are there, expect it to be a short meeting. It's so simple, I wish I had invented it (logic). You might benefit from the added bonus of preventing heart attacks amongst folks who seek to control the masses but never quite seemed able to do it. If you were harmed by someone else blogging, what would that be called? I can't even imagine what that would be called. If you're writing from north america and you don't self-identify as native or were brought here by force, then, you're part of an illegal occupation. So, I'm sorry, but where in that illegal occupation do you draw the right to snuff the speech of a native? I see, it's just part of the mentality of the occupier, and now you want to take KBOO down into the fold. Ouch! Now there's some legitimate harm, which can be named. It's called: FASCISM. Maybe I'm too simple-minded, but I kinda thought that the amount of stuff that a native had to say was proportional to the amount of violence that natives endure (wearing many masks, in a neighborhood near you), by the current proportion of occupiers to natives, and by the amount of time which has passed since the warlords initiated the occupation. To be honest, as simple-minded as I am......I can't fathom the breadth and depth of what a native would have to say about that. But I think that a helluva lot more of KBOO is packed into the whisper of a native than any "volume" of utterances from any oppressor. When my grandparents who crossed the atlantic from Norway, did they "know" they were about to become occupiers? I know they never had conversations with natives, and I so suspect their lack of consciousness dictated their choices. They very well could have thought they were "innocent," and this attitude is probably the root of the whole friggin problem. So, this is why we have the radio remedy!!! "Amplifying the voices of the voiceless..........Afflicting the comfortable, comforting the afflicted.......” Tis what we do, unbeholden to no one but our own (hopefully unimpaired) consciousness'. And step that up by the internet, where freedom reins! Freedom obviously still makes some people uncomfortable----I guess you didn't read the part about cognitive dissonance...... So, dear simple-minded like me........please, why don't you read a little about cognitive dissonance---try Jim's perspective on it----and write back when you feel better. In the meantime, tweet all you want. I promise I'll duck when you fly past, and I won't even try to put you in a cage. Yvette
You know Yvette, I'm not
You know Yvette, I'm not done.Anyone reading this thread (and I'm sorry that it has gone on like this) ... please read my original post addressed to Mr. Craven. I seem to remember making a simple and respectful suggestion that the way he was posting was obscuring other content, and not very effectively organized. I requested that Mr. Craven consider presenting his content differently, not to stop posting his content.I regularly give the KBOO website a quick look daily, and see what is on the minds of the people who post blogs, audio, and comments. From the typical short summary text, I can easily decide if I wish to look further. I can choose if I will or will not download audio, or read the posts. And I do follow the web content that interests me, and occasionally post content I have created, some of which has made it to the home page.My suggestions were both a complaint about his content obscuring all other content because of the volume posted in a short time, and a suggestion as to how Mr. Craven could more effectively use the website. In fact, I have clicked on every link he created, and have yet to read more than a paragraph or two on any of his copious posts, because 1) I wanted a summary to decide if I was interested or not and 2) I cannot devote hours of every day reading what Mr. Craven has created. So ... the net effect of someone who actually had a chance to read his blog is ... I haven't read any of it. Not because of a lack of interest, if it was organized and accessible in a reasonable way I would give his content the same consideration I give any content thrown past my internet-enabled eyeballs. And I am puzzled that you react with such strong language, while Mr. Craven has not been part of this exchange. Yvette, the disrespect here has been from you to me and I would appreciate an apology. I think that a person of Mr. Craven's education and experience has the capacity to respond to my comments himself, and tell me if he thought I was disrespectful to him in my original post, or not. I am glad that our capable web coordinator has noticed the issues raised, and I hope the new web coordinator will be able to craft an effective way of solving the issues raised in this discussion.
Blogging Etiquette
<p>I just read this exchange today which is why I did not respond previously.</p><p>For the record, after I got the initial reponse from the web coordinator, Marc, I endavored to erase my submissions and reconfigure them per his suggestions. I found, and he confirmed, that the buttons for deleting the articles in order to start over were not visible or working. I asked if my posts were taking away from bandwidth, storage capacity or whatever thus interfering with the rights of others to also post and he said that was not a problem. The issue of crowding out the visibility of the articles of others, I still do not see how that might be an issue. The articles, as you can see, give only a lead-in paragraph and those who wish to can read further. I posted the materials here (especially my background materials in application for the Board position) in full because I wanted people to stay at this blog site and not jump all over to my own blog and I explained this to the web coordinator. The articles were written by me and or are fair use covered (the links are no longer available to send people to) so no problem with copyright problems. The issues covered in the articles are issues not only that we have discussed on Mitakuye Oyasin, but issues on which the listeners specifcally asked for more materials on, for evidentiary support or that they raised themselves.</p><p>I do not find the anonymous critic disrespectful in language or tone, but I do have to wonder if, and I am not sure as I do not read minds, but I do wonder if there is some other issue like being disturbed by the content, or perhaps my personality or something else and the issues or possible non-issues being raised are a cover for other concerns. It may or may not be the case. But as one of the characters in the play "The White Plague" by Sean O'Casey observed: "Nothing is so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction."</p><p>Finally, on the issue of aesthetics and organization, well I do not know what background and credentials the anonymous author has on web design, organization or whatever, but the aesthetics of it, and the comments about apparent disorganization, without some specific suggestions what can I say? First of all, Indians generally look at the world as non-linear (even if run by some very linear, linear-thinking and rather anal retentive types) and thus organization to examine non-linear and integrated totalities looks different to non-linear as opposed to linear thinkers.</p><p>I am certainly open to any and all suggestions as to how to organize, present, structure and integrate my past, present and future submissions. But I do not see one specific proposal or suggestion. Of course it is hard to make recommendations on how to organize and present content that one has not read by his or her own admission as the specific content (beyond the titles) has to be grasped for any suggestions on organization to have any substance.</p><p>In any case, I have responded as best I can and did try to address these and other issues with Marc who also could not only erase what was there so I could start over per his suggestions (that is the reason for the test entry still there), but, like the anonymous writer, had a tough time suggesting some kind of universal algorithm or structure of "optimum" or "efficient", "civilized" or better yet, "higher-order" organization of content or, even tell me exactly what in my present organization was problematic. But I am all ears. But I must also add, that as the son of an Blackfoot woman kidnapped and held in an Indian Residential School, by a bunch of "civilized", "Christian" types, who thought they had all the answers as to what civilizaztion and Christianity are all about and why savage Indians need a dose of both along with getting rid of their savage ways including no sense of the aesthetic, well this kind of approach by the anonymous writer is familiar to me but I did not take it as "disrespectful" only as very non-specific, a bit obsessive, possibly disingenuous as to the real reasons for the submission and not very supportive of diversity in thought, organization and styles at KBOO a very diverse place.</p><p>Thanks for taking the time to make all of your submissions and thanks to Yvette for pitching in as I had not read the comments of the anonymous writer and critic until just now and this response is immediate and extemporaneous.</p><p>Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi</p><p>Ni kso ko wa (We are all related or "Mitakuye Oyasin" in Blackfoot language)</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
Blogging Etiquette
Dear Mr. Craven,Wow. You didn't read the website from late January until now, and weren't aware of the comments and discussion going on about your own blog? The only long term issue is details of how blogs get presented on the home page. If you look at the home page, the current blog posts area on the right side have about 3/4 page height for what is new. This on today's page with space taken by the date stamp and blank space leaves ... 12 lines for headlines about blog content.So ... if any one user posts in one day four or five different blog articles, with long titles, that removes from visibility all other posts recently made by others. That's it in a nutshell, nothing complicated about it. So apparently it's no matter to the webmaster if your blog posts are thousands of words, no worries. All I ask is that you consider spacing their submission over time so you don't obliterate the visibility of other content. By the way, it's not all about you, I have also found the same challenge in the audio section. If an hour long show splits it's audio into five or six segments to put on the web, and posts these all at the same time, the same obliteration of other content's visibility happens. It is challenging to all share the resources together, and I appreciate the issues of learning curve when using the web ... this has been challenging for me also.Perhaps the new web person will figure out a better way to do this, perhaps instead of putting everything on the home page you could click a link to see a whole page of blog titles only, so perhaps the titles only for several weeks content could then be browsed quickly and easily. But please sir, as you are part of KBOO and now also on the board ... I suggest that you don't need to read into this discussion such things as "vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction". Comments like "rather anal retentive types" and the like in your recent comments really do not belong in the environment KBOO is trying to become. I'd also appreciate it if you would please read the recent blogs regarding on-line behaviour, in particular the one posted by the KBOO staff in the aftermath of the departure of Arthur Davis. Thank you.