What can be done?

The following is a discussion that took place within the old forum of this website and on the friends of Grassy Narrows Mailinglist. It might get a little confusing, but it was a conversation worth holding onto.

May 4, Richard: Greetings all,

As my initial post to this forum, I am presenting something I recently posted on the Friends of Grassy Narrows e-mail list. Upon seeing it there, Ahniwanika invited me to join this group and suggested that I post the message here.

Friends,

The siege of the Sovereign Nation of the Six Nations by the military forces of the corporate state of the British North American Dominion
weighs heavily on me. Once again, a sovereign indigeneous nation is being bullied and threatened by the imperialistic usurpers who occupy their lands…

I hate to sound pessimistic, but I have little if any faith in protests and demonstrations. What do these really achieve? I am similarly
skeptical about activist tactics and strategies. Do you really think you can play their games better than they can? And I have little doubt that
any negotiations with the agents of the corporate state will yield no truly beneficial result. Even if there are small “victories” (i.e.
compromises) here and there, the underlying problem still remains, constantly. The Beast is truly unassailable, and its servants know it. Though they may blink at times, they never have any doubt that they will always win.

Why must there be a continuation of the same old tired story? Isn’t there any way to achieve a Real Solution? Or should I say _the_ Real
Solution? Because I honestly believe that the only truly desirable resolution to all of this requires nothing less than a definitive change.
Quite simply, corporate states have to go.

I am not advocating any kind of violence whatsoever – I am a man of peace, and I am fully aware of the futility of violence. But I am also a
man of reason, and I understand that you simply can never expect a corporate state to have any real respect for an Indigenous Nation. As long as corporate states continue to dominate the Earth, there can be no real peace and welfare for the Indigenous Nations of the World (and don’t forget that the United Nations is an assembly of corporate states).

It is certainly not too soon to consider the following question, within reason and in a spirit of peace: “How can we get rid of the corporate states?”

Reply From Macdonald Stainsby, FGN Mailing List

Dear Richard, as a supporter/non indigenous person, I have a thought for you.

Yes, in many ways, the ideals of demonstrations and so forth are very much uphill battles. The main thing is assessing whether or not they “work” is several at once. As you say, Canada seems to have the upper hand in so many fashions as to be discouraging. But, in the case of such a daunting task, there are advantages to the current path being taken by Six Nations, people in Grassy Narrows, St’at’imc in BC and elsewhere.

First off, Canada has a totally Orwellian and undeserved global reputation as a human rights defending country. When the victims of
Canada stand up and declare to the world through their actions that this is a lie, then the tactics used by Canada to undermine the position of the legitimate stewards of the land will either start to peel back the blinders to the world, or be constrained by the “need” of the dominion to maintain the lie– i.e., such a struggle can be won because the political cost to Canada is simply higher than the cost of accepting who truly is the controller and keeper of the land in each and every one of these cases– the world watched brave defense of the graves of elders and ancestors in Kahnawake 1990; it wasn’t a military victory, though the steadfast defense eventually did force Canada to back off. Canada still has not touched a single bone of the graves in the so-called Pinewoods near Oka.

More importantly, when facing overwhelming odds, standing together and for your own self-determination often gives hope where before a feeling of helplessness and despair prevailed. Pride and a belief in a future for people facing daunting odds is often the best weapon. When a collective group of people either lose fear or lose being controlled by that same fear then they become nearly invincible.

The question is how well the supporters, the non-indigenous supporters like myself are able to take the lead and the courage to speak to the lie clearly– hope, and courage are the weapons of the oppressed. Fear is the weapon of the oppressor. Standing tall keeps the ground further away.

Macdonald

May 6, Ahniwanika Hey Macdonald, Richard, others.

I just want to point out that Richard isn’t saying protests and the like are uphill battles, it is that they are largely ineffective, and he’s right.

Activists, be they Indigenous or ‘non-indigenous’ are Problem Solvers – The point of our work is to solve problems and make things better. A protest cannot solve the problems we are protesting about. I think we would be hard-pressed to find a single example where a protest ever accomplished anything – but then, maybe the point of a protest is not to solve a problem, maybe it’s just to inspire/empower some of us, and give others from time to time, a little dose of reality.

Whatever the case, this is true for all Traditional Activism. What do we really accomplish, that isn’t later undone or used against us? Have we ever even got a law passed or vetoed? The only example I know of is the shutting down of that G8 meeting in Seattle. While it was great to see this happen (I’m sure we all agree) We didn’t really accomplish anything politically, because the meeting was only delayed. Now all they’ll do is go to Israel or some remote island off the coast of Haiti, and ‘inconvenience solved.”

The other thing about protests, etc., is that they are reactions (in the science of systems theory, a reaction is something that is 100% dependent on external events. No external event, no reaction. We need Action, not Reactions). It’s like we are all, perpetually, one step behind in this dance that Canada (or the whomever) is the lead in. Our role, is that we wait for them to move before we do anything, and they’re already half way done their next step before we’ve even finished our first.

There’s alot more I could say here, but I’m trying to keep this short. Overall, what I’m saying is protest and the like is Not our definitive means of resolution. It is one part of our over-all strategy.

In many circumstances this is true for Indigenous Nations too. For instance, going to Colonial Courts because of a treaty Violation: If for example, Canada broke a treaty with China, would China go to a court in Canada? Most definitely NOT. What would they do? Well, probably go to the IMF or something, get some embargos slapped on Canada, or, just declare war on Canada.

For indigenous People that’s not an option, and that’s fine because this is what States do and we are not, nor will we ever be a modern state. But as is being pointed out more and more, re: the whole Nation-to-Nation relationship, for Nation A to enter into the Courts of Nation B means Nation A is subordinate to the law of Nation B’s Court.

The example of Oka that Macdonald brought up is a good one too: While it’s great that the Mohawks and supporters got Canada, etc. to back off, what happened in Oka was not a victory whatsoever. I mean, nothing’s changed since then. There was a Political bubble before Oka. During Oka is was broken, but after Oka the bubble was back, and Canada went on business as usual – policy, practice, and conscience unchanged.

Switching tracks for a minute… I was talking to someone from AIM a while back, he brought up some points like what were brought up here. He was saying that non-violent action is a waste of time because nothing ever really changed from it. The perfect example is what Gandhi Accomplished – he may have done good things in his time, and many people helped. But now, instead of Britain being the colonizer, it is now the Indians leading that role.

This person’s belief was that violent action is the only way. I asked him to give me an example of when violence ever resolved anything, long-term. He gave the example of when AIM took over Alcatraz. I asked him what did that actually change? That’s largely forgotten. The same policies that worked 200 years ago are in effect today. In fact, things are worse in many ways.

What I then said to him was, if we want to really effect change, we have to literally end the slave-master relationship and directly take matters into our own hands by doing what we need to for ourselves without regard to any government or Corporation. That doesn’t mean being a vigilante, stupid and irresponsible, or giving any government a reason to mow us down (as if one is needed). It means we take the leading role in our lives and act to mutually benefit the whole: responsibly, and without violence.

The Zapatista know this well, so do many others. In our own process of decolonization, the Indigenous of this land are learning this now too.

For ‘us’, this may mean creating a Continental Government. For Activists who support the Indigenous Nations, it may mean directly approaching the Indigenous Nations and asking them how they want help (rather than just doing what we think needs to be done) or even better, creating a multi-national coalition of activists that focuses soley on a sustained program for permanent change by organizing all people locally for some kind of local or common problem/need.

Who knows. It seems to me that what we’re talking about here is pretty new, like having protests where millions participate world-wide, like the WSF, and so on. So I think first and foremost we have to take the necessary time to explore this stuff intensively, which hasn’t really happened yet…

(If anyone wants to talk in depth about anything related here, please consider going to the first link below. This stuff is the whole reason I made that site.)

Cheers,

Ahniwanika

http://intercontinentalcry.org

http://oneidasfordemocracy.org

May7, Richard Hey Ahni,

I appreciated your reply very much. As I’ve explained subsequently on the fgn list, I had posted a reply to Macdonald only, but seeing your reply made me realize that I should have posted my reply to the whole list. I think there are important points of agreement in your reply and my subsequent reply…

I agree that it’s not like we can wave a magic wand and make the bad things go away. The way I see it, there are things we can do, and then there are things that we must wait for (since some things are truly beyond our capabilities). And of the things that we can do, there are things that are genuinely beneficial in the long run, and other things that are honestly just a waste of our time and energy. So let’s focus on what we should really do, while watching for the right circumstances/times to arrive.

This is definitely the time for dialogue. But let’s not get sidelined by platitudes and niceties, and let’s not get bogged down in details and differences either. We have to ascertain the proper focus and say what must be said, without bullshit, without embellishments, and without fear. If something is evil, we must call it evil with a loud voice. If something’s gotta change, we must say that it must change with a loud voice. If something’s gotta go, we must say that it’s gotta go with a loud voice.

Of course, properly understanding history and correctly ascertaining the present are essential. There’s always more to learn in the past, if one is willing to dig deep enough, but I believe that what is truly important is the big picture of history. And seeing the real deal of the present situation is also very challenging (due to various distortions, lies, cover-ups, misconceptions, assumptions, etc.), but we must endeavour to discover the real truth of things as they really are, even despite ourselves.

Richard

Response by Alex to Ahni
Your argument is really nice, and I want to agree with it except for some big flaws or misconceptions.

a) Gandhi advocated property destruction, he was part of a wider social movement which had violent actors and militias in it. Gandhi supporters were known to riot. It was Gandhi’s least radical postion on a wide militant continuum of a radical social movement that allowed him to succeed. The only reason he was successful was it was part of a wider decolonization effort by people worldwide that had unprecedented support in the UK; Six Nations struggle doesn’t have 75% support in Canada. IN a similar vien the US civil rights movement had Martin Luther King Jr. as the peaceful face, however behind that there was a larger social movement, including the nation of islam and malcom x, and later the black panthers, and many other parts of a wider social movement that allowed the pacifists to negotiate with the government as a lesser of many “evils”. Social movements always contain many tactics. Quit dividing yourselves.

b)An example of when violence works is every single monopolization of power by everysingle state on the planet. Our earth is completely
monopolized by these social actors called states, they are violent in action and they have won. You have to use some measure of violence to defeat them, strategically placed and well thought out; never random, never vengeful. Violence put the Indigenous people in the positions that they are in; thats success for the settler state; its a pattern worldwide.

c) the first Zapatista rebellion included gun fights and a revolutionary army. It includes violent protest; theres nothing wrong with this when its though tthrough tactically and it gets you closer to a long term goal. The violence that isn’t needed is macho, I need to gratify myself and strike back just because violence. The Zapatista use violence when necessary to defend their autonomous regions, and thats fine.

d) any technique of organizing that resembles pacifism relies on the state to be a moral actor and not stamp out your movement; the Canadian State is getting ever more bold, they did roll up with machine guns; one false move and one of the six nations could have been killed. Are you advocating letting that happen? The best example of the failure of a non-violent (overall) resistance, the jews in the holocaust.

Conclusion: Violence is something that in certain circumstances is advisable as a tactic; one must ardently strive to use it only when
necessary. Wider social struggles always have militant wings, AIM is one of yours, don’t disparage them. We are alll fighting for the same goals and a diversity of tactics is usually successful.

so when re-reading the statements below keep this in mind.

Richard’s response to Macdonald, FGN Mailinglist Hi Macdonald, Thank you for your reply.

Concerning your suggestion that Canada will somehow be shamed or convinced to clean up its act, I honestly doubt it. Do you really believe that any other corporate state or institution in the world would sternly rebuke Canada? I don’t think so. You should know that all other corporate states that have distinct Indigenous populations within their fictional borders view them the same way Canada views its own Indigenous people, with similar treatments. I can mention the Aborigines in Australia, among others. Even the way France once forcefully assimilated and now officially disregards the distinct Breton nation is comparable. No corporate state can seriously dispute Canada’s right to assert itself as a corporate state. That would be nonsense.

I should say that I don’t question the defensive measures taken by Sovereign Nations to protect the remnants of their lands (barricades, for example). These are necessities.

One other thing that I should make clear: I don’t believe that the concern should be about money, or programs, or any other government concession, because these only serve to facilitate assimilation. Even land doesn’t seem to be the principal issue to me (though it’s a big part of the whole question). It’s about livelihood, isn’t it? Tradition, culture, language. These constitute the defining characteristics of an indigenous nation. Isn’t it this that indigenous peoples are fighting for, despite the dictates of the corporate state?

The corporate state exists to eliminate Indigenous Nations – this is the history of all corporate states in a nutshell. So to me, thinking that a corporate state can be made to behave and be nice is pure folly. What is required is an end to the corporate states, one way or another, so that Indigenous Nations can flourish once again.

Ahniwanika, response to Alex
I finally have some time to post! Alex, thanks for joining. I just want build on/clarify a couple things that you brought up:

Regarding your mention of the holocaust, I didn’t actually say we can’t or shouldn’t defend ourselves. What I’m saying is that violence is not an option, for instance, starting an armed rebellion in North America is not going to Restore Peace to the Land. It’s going to get many people hurt and killed, and we all know there is some room teeming with political parasites just waiting to spin the latest fact that’ll turn good people into enemies and the criminals into heroes. The Six Nations in ‘Caledonia’ know this well, it’s one of the reasons they’re not armed. The other is because the Women Said So. If you think or believe or know otherwise I’m cool with that – but I will never condone or recommend the use of violence. Defending one’s self or one’s People is different – and in those situations there’s more to consider than “survive or die.”

As for disparaging AIM, I’m not doing that at all. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out a mistake, inconsistency, lie, or a problem. You’ve done that here with me Alex, and I am thankful for it.

And your point on how violence ‘works,’ I appreciate you pointing that out, I’ve never heard that before. The thing is though, look at the kind of perspective or idealism one must have to make that a valid point! To justify and validate the use of violence. So while it may ‘work’ for some totalitarian regime or presentational democracy like Canada, America (democratic in name only) we have to remember that Our way is different.

It’s the same as if we justified culling a forest because we need the wood, and then planting an annual crop on that land (which makes more money than a perennial crop). That makes sense in a colonial society that follows the doctrine of Capitalism, but to us that’s bunk, period.

As for non-violent action, the situation is similar. Most traditional non-violent actions are not really effective (e.g. protesting the iraq war will not end the Iraq war, and will have no effect on whether or not another war will happen after.)

It may serve a purpose and even accomplish somethings, but that diversity you mentioned is quite limited because those actions are restricted within the confines of this fixed system of ours. If we really want diversity of action, we have to start considering ways beyond the traditional way of doing things.

More and more people are coming to terms with this – you yourself are an example, in that other email you sent (about how you want to know what you’ll be fighting for). This is becoming a common dialogue. There’s alot more stuff we need to talk about like this, because most of this is so new (the WSF, the massive global protests, etc.)

Another example (in addition to my mentioning of the Continental Government) is, there are many Indigenous Nations around the world who’ve begun declaring their Sovereignty. Oddly enough, Many States (India, Hawaii, the Phillipines, and China) have responded ‘favourably’ to this (we’ll see this happen in Australia more frequently soon, I think) .

Unfortunately, the way it’s gone so far is the State will step on the line that the Indigenous Nation has drawn, or offer some piece-meal resolution that makes them into sovereign-dependent wards of the state, and the work pretty much stops there. That’s alright, because we will keep seeking the resolution we need, we will find our own way.. meanwhile, more and more will come to realize that the solution is quite common, seeing as how all our problems are essentially the same throughout every land.

One more, is the trend of declarations. There’s one in particular I was quite impressed with – the Common Security Declaration. You can find it here) but this is just the first step.

Another is that we have to stop acting as if it’s global party-time, or that we can just do whatever comes to mind, and it’s alright. If we are problem solvers, than we have to do what is necessary for the problem to be solved as it needs to be solved, not as we want it to. But that deosn’t mean we do ‘whatever it takes,’ settle for less, or compromise our integrity. We have to maintain Ourselves throughout.

Another is to come to terms with the idea that we’re at war, that it’s all about black vs. right, good vs. evil, rich vs. poor, haves and have nots, us vs. them….

This is one thing I’ve learned from one of the Women from the OneidasForDemocracy: There is no war. There are no classes. There is no fight. There is no us and them. There is only Us, and this is about Our common struggle.

Well, I’m starting to get a little winded here, and I should probably get back to the sites now.

Alex, response to Ahniwanika
I think in North America an armed rebellion is not possible on terms we would feel comfortable with. However, I guess my definition of violence must be made; pretty much anything that causes pain is violence to me. Moreover, to the common person in the white Canadian mainstream property destruction is violence. If you listen to the rhetoric of “the wise caledonian resident’ the Six Nations are “terrorists” for blocking a road. We really need to define our terms. Thats why for me being a “terrorist” is fine, using “violence” is not necessarily bad. Like the people on the barricades have sticks to I would assume to hit the cops of kkk (read any dumbass white resisdent) with in the event they try and storm the property. To me this is violence. Whereas I never advocate lethal force in this standoff. I have not one single problem or moral srupple with one of the people on the barricades clubbing an RCMP officer. We can see in the pics and I also have friends who are on the barricades that are ready to fight, and its needed. How effective would this be if they couldn’t hold the land?

My point is you must at all times repel the violence of the state, there’s not a need to be able at all times to become aggressive. I beleive that at times the need to prevent the state from taking violence is warrented, this is where sabotage would come in and property destruction to limit the capacity for attack by the state mechanically. However, once the state shoots a gun at the six nations, I think it is fair game for the six nations people to use any means necessary to protect themselves. Sitting around a campfire singing koom-biy-ya is not going to solve this dispute or protect the overall peace.

What really matters is when you temper your tactics and with what you have in mind when you act. We should never enjoy violence, we should endeavour to avoid it at all costs without harming our end goals. Violence can onyl be used when it will be a better option then keeping the peace; this is a very rare possibility. However, one cannot rely on the state to be a moral actor we must be prepared to protect ourselves by any means necessary. Malcom X was right in that. It is all about strategy, only use violence when it fits your gameplan. One thing to note is I have remove most ethics from my discourse, I hate to use them because not a single persons ethics are the same and therefore its quite futile to use them. This is mroe a map people’s ethics will help use.

My idealism is always tempered with the day to day realism struggle brings out; I hope to find a balance with those who are able to dream a little bigger to find appropriate tactics for our common struggle.

As for non-violence, it again goes back to my statements before, if you want to stop something sometimes protesting is shit, you have to stop it yourself. My exmaple here would be Animal Liberation Front, Or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty( combining protest with direct action and education). Direct Action in its simplest terms is what we need. Direct action meaning the people take whatever actions necessary to acheive a goal. An hopefully these people pick actions rationally that will be most effective. If it means blowing up a dam, then do it. If it means dressing up in a fuzzy bear suit and running through the mall, do it. If it means going on a hunger strike to raise Awareness, do it. If it means doing the occupation liek Six Nations, do it. I’m an advocate of oppressed groups and their supporters taking action, thats the guidlines, just do it. The only catch is pick the tactic which will be the most effective and sometimes that isn’t all about ethics.

You ended with the point that we are all common in our struggle, and its a very important concept; up until now most creation of identities has been based on the inclusion/exclusion dynamic. TO be revoltuionary you have to have something that can include everyone, I think its true. However, it is really hard to defeat abstractions like class, an us and them, identity insofar as it has been practiced is always about us and them. The concept of habitus is dependent on an “other”.

Another thing is that the Six Nations do not see themselves as part of the society (state sanctioned atleast), for good reason fo course. I’m wondering still as you alluded to where do the rest of us fit in? Are we fighting for the segregation or would I be able to join a liberated Six Nations Community? Like I keep having to ask myself, am I just supporting petty nationalism that will become the same exclusionary bullshit, or am i really fighting for new social relations the first step to our common goal. I would have been able to ask these questions directly if I hadn’t contracted a throat infectionw hich has kept me home for 1.5 months but thats another story, I will eventually go to ask people there this question.

now its I that has been long winded. tongue

Ahniwanika, response to Alex

I think in North America an armed rebellion is not possible on terms we would feel comfortable with.

The thing is, this is not about whether we are or aren’t comfortable with staging a rebellion. This is about having a world worthy of our children and doing what is necessary and responsible to move closer to that world. Initiating an overt war on any scale is unacceptable [to that]. If you or anyone else thinks or feels otherwise, than fine, but I will NEVER accept nor advocate war as way or means. That’s one of my responsibilities, and I accept it with a smile on my face.

Like the people on the barricades have sticks to I would assume to hit the cops of kkk (read any dumbass white resisdent) with in the event they try and storm the property.

Alex, the purpose of carrying sticks is not to export pain/violence. If anything, it is to protect the children, defend the women, and perhaps themselves too – but then why don’t they just carry guns? Wouldn’t that be more effective?

The fact is, the Haudenosuannee at Caledonia or atleast the ones who’re obligated to know — know that it’s not about “survive or die” or “by any means necessary.” Nor is it just about holding the land, fighting or winning…

This is where your question at the bottom comes in: a more important question is What are you fighting for?

What most ‘Indigenous’ People are fighting for is nothing more than To Live. There is nothing specific in the sense I think you’re asking, no blueprint and such – atleast nothing for which there is or ever will be a common agreement.

As you said, there will always be militant groups here and there – there will also ‘always’ be those calling for the extermination of whites, the banishment of all europeans from this land, those wanting an Indian Monarch, and on ‘the flip side,’ those who would prefer the government dissolved and have the WTO take over altogether… Nevermind that such arguments cannot stand on their own — as far as I’m concerned these ideas are worth nothing more than for us to acknowledge and learn from.

As for me, I am calling for a Continental Government where each Nation is governed by their own Customs and Traditions, and for people to consider the Intercontinental equivalent of that, which would be based on the commonalities of all Nations regardless of class or any other social fraction point (race, gender, beliefs, etc.) – but that’s just me. I will never insist or demand I’m right over others being wrong.

I would equally love to see a simple, egalitarian society that’s based on community (opposed to colony), participation (opposed to contentment/toleration/stagnation), sharing (opposed to selfishness) – a society that has Real Equality, Real Peace, Real Democracy, and Real Justice.

About the details of the possibilities (briefly just mentioned) and where you – or I guess ‘non-indigenous’ people in general would fit in, it’s a pretty big topic that I don’t think has been seriously explored yet. I’ve thought about it a fair amount, and talked about it with others in the past, so If you want, let’s discuss that in another post.

I’d like to have others get involved too, I wish there was a way to get some more people here, sadsmile)

Respectfully,

Ahni