Border Crossing Volume 1 Issue 5 by Diplomat Magazine Netherlands

Volume 1, Issue 5

Indigenous Dialogues and Diplomacy from Around the World

June 2015

Letter from the Editor

Chief Publisher Eugène Matos De Lara

Editor

Benjamin Miller

Academic Advisors Arne Ruckert Dave Van Ginhoven

Associate Publisher Amelia Baxter

Associate Editors Eric Wilkinson Mete Edurcan Guillaume Lacombe-Kishibe

Lead Designer

Pierre-Alexandre Lubin

bordercrossing.info@gmail.com (submissions)

In person:

19 rue le Gallois J8V 2H3 Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

Kwey. It is an honour to be guest editor for the June 2015 issue of Border Crossing on the theme of Aboriginal/Indigenous dialogue. This month’s issue contains eight informative and thought-provoking articles, submitted by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous academic scholars from Canada, United States and Colombia. Why publish an issue on Aboriginal/Indigenous dialogue and why should this topic be of importance to embassy staff worldwide? These articles cover a wide variety of subject matter including philosophical, social, political, legal and historical issues such as Indigenous philosophy and Huron wisdom, intimate partner violence and gender equality, Indigenous dispute resolution and the Arctic, Aboriginal Peoples and natural resource extraction, Indigenous self-determination and the geographical legacy of settler-colonialism in the United States, social classes and Indigenous rights in Colombia. It is important to raise awareness, to break down preconceived notions, to understand the effects of colonisation and settler-colonialism, to develop a deeper respect and understanding of Indigenous knowledge and to appreciate the value of the Indigenous perspective in relation to contemporary global issues such as human rights, the environment and natural resources. Indigenous approaches to dispute resolution can provide guidance and direction for international policy. It is now time to put works into action and to involve Indigenous peoples in the decision-making process. The following is an example that proves there is much work yet to be done: Rigoberta Menchu, Mayan activist, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992 «in recognition of her work for social justice and ethno-cultural reconciliation based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples» – these issues are still very much in the forefront today. The diversity of these dialogues has had an important impact during our Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and in turn, we readers and diplomats must ask ourselves how far have we come? Moreover, in regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we must also ask themselves, how can nations better understand and identify the rights and provisions of UNDRIP and how have these rights and provisions been successfully applied by Indigenous Peoples around the world? Chi, Meegwetch Jennifer Haire

www.diplomatmagazine.nl

Border Crossing

(Guest Editor for Border Crossing’s special issue on Aboriginal/Indigenous dialogue; MA Library and Information Science, University of Western Ontario; Academic Librarian at University of Ottawa since 1991 and Librarian responsible for Aboriginal Studies since 1996.)

Contents 8

EATENONHA : HURON WISDOM FOR THE WORLD

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION IN CANADA: A NEW PARADIGM?

Martin Papillon

INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION AND TERRITORY IN THE UNITED STATES

DIPLOMACY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIGENOUS REPRESENTATION

Georges Sioui

Thomas Biolsi

Luis Fernando Gil Monsalve

26 "LIVE AND COEXIST WELL": AWAKENING TO OUR ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS

Marcelo Saavedra-Vargas

UNDERSTANDING THE COLONIAL CAUSES OF IPV IN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

INDIGENOUS DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND LEADERSHIP MODELS: A PLATFORM FOR COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE IN THE ARCTIC Tracy Coates

POWWOWS AND NATIONS IN NORTH AMERICA

Anita Olsen Harper

Dalie Giroux

June 2015

Border Crossing welcomes indigenous

Created by Jennifer Haire and André Chénier Language source: Jennifer Runner, Jennifer’s Language Page http://users.elite.net/runner/jennifers/AboriginalCanada.htm

Border Crossing

dialogue from around the world

June 2015

EATENONHA : HURON WISDOM FOR THE WORLD Georges Sioui is a member of the Huron Wendat nation. He received his Ph.D. in History from Laval University in 1991. Currently, he is the Coordinator of the Aboriginal Studies program and Associate Professor of the Department of Classics and Religious Studies at the University of Ottawa. He is also a polyglot, an international speaker, a poet, an essayist and a song-writer.

Georges Sioui Canada, be proud of us, Show our history, Canada, don’t hide us, For if you do, you will surely lose us, And forego the truth greatness That should have been yours. (Excerpt from the poem « Kanatha, Odawa » in Seawi, Dialogos Books, New Orleans)

y essential purpose in writing this essay is to offer a Native understanding of the history and of the deeper nature of the wonderful country named Canada. I have quite often heard and seen it expressed, especially by fellow Canadians, that this very dear country of ours has historically misunderstood, and still misunderstands that the real, surest way it could acquire long-lasting respectability in the eyes of the other nations—and therefore,

Border Crossing

achieve the prestige and positive strength it desires to have on a global scale—is to give due attention and recognition to the Aboriginal civilizations that have given birth to it and continue to provide it with its most vital cultural and spiritual inspiration. The civilizations of which I speak have been developed over untold centuries by the peoples native to this continent of America. I, of course, share that feeling of regret so often expressed by so many about the way my people and my land keep being wasted away through the systemic maintenance of old, imported, racist, life-destroying ideologies. The word Canada is derived from our own Native word “Kanatha” and comes from one of our ancestral languages once spoken in the region of Stadacona (now Quebec City and means: “the Great Village”. The title of this essay, Eatenonha,

is a concept found in many of our ancestral languages which expresses a traditional attitude of love and respect towards the Earth, our common Mother, and towards all beings of a feminine nature. Although my aim is, first, to enable my fellow Canadians to understand and relate better to the body and spirit of our Earth-Mother, another goal I pursue with even more fervour is to succeed in expressing ideas that originate from my people’s thinking, in a way that may interest and positively inspire our other brothers and sisters from everywhere. Deepak Chopra, the rightly celebrated Indo-American physician and spiritualist has written: “Our collective future depends on opening channels of compassion, acceptance and understanding of others”. My wish is to see included in the word “others” not only us, humans, but all the beings that

make up, with us, the great circle of life. “Let’s be hummingbirds”, was said to us by this other renowned and much regretted scientist and environmental activist from Kenya, the Nobel Peace Prize Wangari Maathai, concluding her beautiful and famous allegory of the hummingbird: “The whole forest was on fire and the animals, frightened and infinitely sad, helplessly stood and watched it burn. The tiniest of them all, the hummingbird, said to himself that he was going to do something and who knows, maybe others would also want to try and help save their dear forest, their ‘Mother’. The tiny hummingbird undertook to transport in her mouth minute droplets of water from a hidden spring that she knew so as to launch them on the conflagration from on high”. Other animals, powerful and imposing, such as the elephant, who could have fetched much more water and thrown it on the fire, with her big trunk, only worsened the general state of panic when they proclaimed loud and clear and with a tone of wisdom that rang false, that there was nothing left to do but, in Wangari Maathai’s words, “helplessly watch the planet go down the drain”. “So, says to every one of us that great African sister, be a hummingbird! Do what you can to help the community!” (Even if what you do seems or is deemed unimportant). My maternal Clan

has been known for its healers, men and women. “The world, it must be healed,” have I often heard my grandmother, Caroline, and my mother, Éléonore, say. Six words which, I soon enough understood, contain the whole social and educational philosophy of a Native nation not so long ago happy, strong and prosperous, and almost completely destroyed in the process of colonial invasion. We can, in spite of all the contempt and violence that have come upon us, continue to find peace and balance if, instead of the sterile and pernicious feeling of being merely powerless victims, we cultivate in our new generations faith in the wisdom of the ancestors, a wisdom which is the result of an immemorial relation of respect and affection for our common Mother Earth, our Eatenonha. Following the teachings and the living example of our Sages, such as Caroline and Éléonore and Deepak and Wangari, we all must make the most of the mental and spiritual gifts and of the knowledge of our respective forefathers and foremothers and help one another, all of us, to heal the world! Kiowa-Cherokee poet, painter and novelist N. Scott Momaday, Pulitzer Prize winner with The House Made of Dawn (1969), writes that humans are made of words and that man “is the story of himself”. “The Great Spirit, some Indians say, created humans because He/She loves

stories”. Following this Indigenous way of thinking and telling, this essay will have the form and the consistency of a story. It will be the yet unknown story of myself, of our Wendat nation (renamed “Huron” by the French), of our central place and role in relation to our neighbours and of the kind of world we had assisted one another in creating, over so many centuries. I also pursue a goal regarding our whole human community, at the spiritual level. It is about a prediction made by many of our Sages of old, even before the arrival of Europeans amongst us. These ancient Elders foresaw that after an initial time of intense assault against and destruction of their cultures and peoples by the newcomers, indeed, because of the immense demographic void produced through the said invasion, there would come a time when the descendants of the original newcomers, along with the other peoples of the world, would see the need for creating in their midst, a place for America’s ancient thinking ways and wisdoms. As time has gone by, our Native Sages have, in succession, wanted to leave with the world, as it evolved, the teaching that in this present age where all manners of borders between human cultures and societies are losing importance and often are erased, their American continent has become the scene where all of humanity is to become unified. This, the Sages have thought all through this age of destruction

June 2015

and progressive global unification, is going to be affected through the spiritual vision essential to the whole American continent, the simple vision that all life is a sacred circle of interdependent relations and that failure by humans to recognise and respect that reality would cause the end of human existence in our beautiful, wonderful home, our Mother Earth, our Eatenonha. Following the tenet that has come down to me, to my people, from many of our Elders of, I would say, all our Native American nations, I posit that the circular, Earth-centered cosmology, which is the philosophical mark of a great many Aboriginal peoples of our continent, represents a very important, indeed vital source of concepts and ideas for the spiritual renewal of a world torn between conflicting moral and religious values. Over the recent decades, our global society has felt an increasing threat to its peace and stability because of a divide that has kept widening between several of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s great religions. Thinkers of all sides of this divide are often heard expressing the idea that there lies in this contention a great, historic opportunity for all sides to rebalance their ways of viewing and living their respective spirituality, thereby helping to solve this ever more destructive crisis which, day by day, impoverishes our world and that of all our children. For, if we are all universally condemned to

Border Crossing

mounting misery, hunger and death through our common, seemingly irresolvable insensitivity to the things and the beings that are the very sources of our physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual lives, we will certainly and soon enough all go down fighting, one another. As to us, first peoples of our continent, we consider that we have known and suffered enough through the religious and ideological fanaticism brought to our lands by different peoples and our plea to the world is that it be attentive to the vision that we propose for our common future security and well-being. It is not a new vision, in fact, it is ancestral to all human societies: it is the vision of the Great Sacred Circle of Life. It is all about how and why we humans have to love and respect our Mother Earth, our Eatenonha. I humbly, earnestly and wholeheartedly propose to all my brothers and sisters of all peoples that, with open hearts and minds and in a spirit of absolute inclusiveness, we begin to seek out and listen to the essential spiritual messages of those who at times are called "the fourth family of nations (or peoples)"*, that is, the first peoples of America and, by extension, all the Indigenous peoples of the world, because they all speak and understand one same spiritual language, the language of the sacred web of universal relations uniting all beings, the

language of our Motherlands. *For more on this concept, please see the section titled "The Fourth Family of Nations" in my book Histories of Kanatha, seen and told/Histoires de Kanatha, vues et contĂŠes, University of Ottawa Press, 2008, p.67-70.

Consider us for the publication or peer review of your academic work. Contact us at: bordercrossing.info@gmail.com

June 2015

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION IN CANADA: A NEW PARADIGM?

Martin Papillon is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal. He has published extensively on the politics of Aboriginal-settlers relations in Canada. His current work focuses on Aboriginal consultation and participation in the governance of natural resources. He is the editor of the upcoming volume State of the Federation: Aboriginal Multilevel Governance in Canada.

Martin Papillon

n September 2014, the Atikamekw nation of central Quebec declared its sovereignty over its traditional territory, the Nitaskinan. They claimed, industries and governments will need to obtain their consent before engaging in economic activities on their lands. More recently, the Lax Kw’alaams First Nations rejected by referendum a $1.15-billion (Canadian dollars) deal with the multinational Petronas for the construction of a liquefied natural gas export terminal on the Pacific Northwest coast of British Columbia. These events are the most recent expression of a profound change in relations between Aboriginal peoples, the Canadian state and extractive industries. I discuss some of these changes here, and their potential implications for the Canadian economy. A New Legal Landscape In Canada, as elsewhere around the world, Aboriginal populations have long been considered causalities of

Border Crossing

development. The rivers and forests that are the sources of their livelihood were destroyed, communities were displaced, their lifestyle and traditions forever altered, all in the name of economic prosperity and the inevitable march of modernity. Hydroelectric dams, forestry and mining, not to mention oil and gas production, were deemed of higher priority than the people living on the lands irremediably transformed by these economic activities. This process of marginalisation no longer seems inevitable today. Aboriginal peoples are instead becoming actors of economic development on their traditional lands. This seismic shift is rooted in legal advances both in Canada and in the international arena. In Canada, the Supreme Court has developed a significant jurisprudence that establishes a constitutional duty to consult, and when necessary, accommodate Aboriginal peoples when government decisions may adversely impact their rights. The exact nature and intensity of this duty, the Court stated in the Haida

Nation case of 2004, may vary according to the circumstances and the potential adverse impact of the economic activities considered, but it does not constitute an Aboriginal veto on development. In a more recent and highly significant decision, the Supreme Court recognised for the first time the Aboriginal title of a First Nation, the Tsilhqot’in of British Columbia, over a 1,750-square–kilometre territory. The Aboriginal title, the court specified, is a form of fee simple propriety right held collectively by the concerned group. Most significantly, the Aboriginal group that holds such a title must not only be consulted but also consent to economic activities on its traditional territory. Governments can bypass Aboriginal consent, the Court added, only if such an infringement serves a “compelling and substantial public purpose.” The Supreme Court of Canada has therefore opened the door, although with many restrictions and only in some very specific cases, to the principle of free, prior and informed Aboriginal consent to

economic activities on their traditional lands. This principle is at heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is increasingly recognized as a new international standard for relations between Aboriginal peoples and extractive industries. While some ambiguity remains as to their exact nature, Aboriginal peoples therefore have specific rights that can no longer be ignored. Translating these principles into concrete governance practices nonetheless remains a challenge. Federal and provincial authorities in Canada have put in place a number of procedures to fulfill their legal duty to consult Aboriginal communities. However, Aboriginal groups challenge these measures as insufficient and too vague. Drawing on the United Nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples, they want a more substantial say in the decision making process than mere consultation. Governments; on the other hand, hesitate to grant Aboriginal communities too much decisional power, fearing that this will lead to a systematic blockage of mining, forestry or, as in the recent case of the Lax Kwâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;alaams First Nations, oil and gas pipelines. The resulting legal and political uncertainty has serious economic repercussions. Major projects, such as the Northern Gateway pipeline that is expected to connect the Alberta tar sands to Asian markets, are put on hold. Other projects, such as the Ring of Fire mining development in northern Ontario falters, largely because of the financial costs associated with the ongoing legal uncertainty regarding Aboriginal rights. A different approach is

clearly needed in order to translate this new Aboriginal rights paradigm into concrete relationships on the ground. Partners in Development In fact, the solution is simpler than it seems. Governments and developers alike must accept the full implications of the principle of free, prior and informed consent. Not only would this guarantee a stronger legitimacy and a better legal and political base for economic development projects, but it will also facilitate the development of stronger relationships with local Aboriginal populations affected by these projects. An approach that recognises Aboriginal peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; right to fully participate in the decision making process would shift the logic of Aboriginal-settlers relations on its head, from one of imposition to a true partnership between consenting parties. A partnership approach would lead to new forms of deliberation on project proposals, on their consequences and possible benefits with communities. This is precisely what the Supreme Court is inviting us to do in its case law on the duty of consult. Aboriginal rights, the Court has long argued, should be understood as frameworks to reconcile the ongoing presence of the first inhabitants of the land with the economic interests of Canadian society. The empirical research on these questions remains rudimentary, but it seems clear that a mining project developed with Aboriginal peoples, following the simple principle that they must support the project in order to make it happen, has more

chance of succeeding on financial markets than one that is mired in protracted legal and political battles. In fact, this logic is already taking hold on the ground. The negotiation of Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) with Aboriginal communities has today become a privileged tool for mining companies seeking greater certainty for what are cost intensive projects. IBAs are private contractual agreements between project proponents and communities. In exchange for their support for a project, Aboriginal peoples are generally offered financial compensations, a say in the design of the project to limit its adverse impacts and, in some cases, shares in the resulting benefits of the project, notably through guaranteed jobs or royalties. IBAs are essentially a form of negotiated consent between Aboriginal peoples and developers, usually in parallel with formal environmental assessment and government consultation processes. These agreements, however, are not without controversy. For some, IBAs are a more or less subtle way to buyout communities and to circumvent (or privatize) the formal approval process associated with the duty to consult. Given their confidential nature, it is also very difficult to know what was negotiated and on what basis. This lack of transparency increases the risk of conflicts of interests. Once an IBA is signed, Aboriginal representatives signing these agreements can face unduly pressures as they have a direct interest in seeing the project succeed. It then becomes more difficult for the citizens of these

June 2015

communities to question the legitimacy of the project, let alone to reject it. IBAs are certainly part of the solution, but they need a proper regulatory framework in order to ensure government oversight and some level of protection for communities involved in these high stakes negotiations. Project proponents are not alone in seeking partnerships with Aboriginal peoples. Some provincial governments now accept, as a matter of policy, the sharing of royalties derived from resource extraction on Aboriginal lands. British Columbia is a leader in this respect, but Quebec and Ontario have also made headways in developing revenue sharing schemes with Aboriginal communities. This kind of revenue sharing is no panacea for Aboriginal communities. The amounts received are often minimal. They can also vary considerably from one year to another as they are at the mercy of international markets. However, through such agreements, provincial governments acknowledge the legitimacy of Aboriginal peoples as partners in the governance of their ancestral lands. Several Aboriginal communties also wish to go further and become actors in the economic development of their territories. Some communities even become shareholders of projects through joint ventures with public or private partners. For example, the Moose Cree community of Northern Ontario partnered with Ontario Power Generation in the

Border Crossing

construction of a hydroelectric project on the Mattagami River. The community was therefore able to define and frame the project to limit its adverse impact, participate in its realisation and ultimately benefit from it. The Need for Clear Rules on Consent IBAs, revenue sharing schemes and joint ventures are all examples of mechanisms that have emerged to translate Aboriginal rights into practical arrangements. The viability of these partnerships rests, however, on an essential principle: Aboriginal peoples must have the right to say no. And sometimes, they do so. The Kw’alaams First Nations, for example, have rejected the proposed partnership with Petronas for the construction of a liquefied gas terminal on their traditional lands in British Columbia. The provincial government and the powerful economic interests behind the project must now accept this verdict and adapt their proposal to satisfy the Kw’alaams peoples. Forcing the project through in spite of a lack of Aboriginal consent is almost guaranteed to end up costing just as much, if not more in time and resources, not to mention the negative impact it will inevitably have on the legitimacy of the project for the broader population. A true collaborative model with Aboriginal peoples rests on the principle of free, prior and informed consent. The recognition of this principle and its translation into

formal rules and processes would not only contribute to restoring Canada’s international reputation concerning the rights of its Aboriginal populations, it would also allow Aboriginal peoples to become true economic actors in building an economic model that is fair and stable in the long-term. For Canada’s future, it is time to embrace Aboriginal rights as a driver rather than as an obstacle to prosperity.

June 2015

Mastermind China’s INDIGENOUS Merging SELF-DETERMINATION AND TERRITORY IN THE UNITED STATES Energy Diplomacy Thomas Biolsi is Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include Organizing the Lakota: The Political Economy of the New Deal on Pine Ridge, Rosebud Reservation (University of Arizona Press, 1992) and Deadliest Enemies: Law and Race Relations on and off Rosebud Reservation (University of Minnesota Press, 2007).

Thomas Biolsi

he United States government has repeatedly offered its legal recognition of American Indians and Alaska Natives as a global “best practices” model for relations with internal indigenous peoples. When the George W. Bush Administration chose not to vote in favor of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, it insisted that the U.S. nonetheless “recognizes Indian tribes as political entities with inherent powers of self-government as first peoples. In our legal system, the federal government has a government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes” (Hagen 2007). When President Barack Obama announced in 2010 that the U.S. would support the declaration, the State Department announced that “the Declaration’s concept of self-determination is consistent with the United States’ existing recognition of, and relationship with, federally recognized tribes as political entities that have inherent sovereign powers of selfgovernance. This recognition is the basis for the special legal and political relationship, including the government-to-government relationship…” (U.S. Department of State 2010). What, exactly, is this government-to-government

Border Crossing

relationship, and how does it affect indigenous self-government, especially over territory? The special legal status of American Indian tribes is derived from the concept of “inherent powers” formalized by the Department of the Interior in 1934. In adopting the legal memorandum on “Powers of Indian Tribes” as official policy, the Department reasoned that the existing body of federal case and statute law pertaining to Indians clearly recognizes that tribes hold their powers not through delegation by Congress. Rather, tribal rights to self-government flow from the “inherent powers” that pre-existed the U.S. Constitution (U. S. Department of the Interior 1934: 780). These include the power to determine the form of tribal government and the requirements for tribal membership, to regulate domestic relations and inheritance, to tax, to remove non-members from the reservation, to manage tribal property and funds, and to administer justice. Alongside the inherent powers of Indian tribes, however, a 1903 U.S. Supreme Court asserted that Congress has “plenary power” over Indian affairs (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553), recognizing Congress’ authority to

modify tribal power without tribal consent, and even define tribes legally into and out of existence. Indeed, Congress has both reduced and enhanced tribal sovereignty and “terminated,” restored, and recognized individual tribes. Unless Congress has expressly acted to modify tribal powers, however, the inherent powers itemized in 1934 remain the baseline of tribal sovereignty in the present (see Biolsi 2004). One must further complicate this formula of tribal sovereignty by factoring in the role of U.S. courts, which have ultimate decision-making authority over the content of tribal inherent powers, and have limited tribal powers on the basis of what they have called “implied” loss of sovereignty (that is, court-ordered limitation on tribal authority without any express act of Congress). How does this complex legal and political regime of countervailing forces affect tribal jurisdiction over territory and land use? The simple answer is that tribes are consistently hindered in exercising sovereign powers (those powers exercised every day by states, counties, and municipalities) over their territories, usually because non-Indians also live within reservation boundaries. This was an effect of the late nineteenthand early twentieth-century policy of assimilating Indians into U.S. citizenry, with the assumption that

“tribes,” “Indians,” and “reservations” would disappear as legal entities. The U.S. government actively encouraged the settlement of nonIndians on “surplus” reservation lands, creating a checkerboard pattern of land ownership (see figure). This was not considered a problem at the time, since it was assumed that Indian land, held in trust for Indians by the U.S., would soon “graduate” to fee-simple title, and Indians would soon be treated no differently than other U.S. citizens. This gradual process of assimilation was frozen in place in 1934, however, by the Indian Reorganization Act that made reservations permanent and provided for the establishment of tribal governments with territorial jurisdiction—without recognizing, much less addressing, the complicating fact of many nonIndians living on Indian reservations. Most reservations have some nonIndian residents, and some have more non-Indians than Indians. Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota, for example, has a population of 1,060 non-Indians to 10,869 Indians, while the Flathead Reservation in Montana has 19,221 non-Indians and 9,138 Indians (U.S. Census Bureau 2012:14). By the 1970s, as a result of growing political consciousness, tribes were eager to exercise their powers of self-government over their

reservation territories, and the non-Indians living with reservation boundaries balked. In 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court held that while Indian tribes had the authority to make law applying to their own tribal members, they did not have the inherent authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over nonIndians within their reservations (Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191). The Court applied the same general rule to the question of tribal civil jurisdiction in 1981 by declaring that “exercise of tribal power beyond what is necessary to protect tribal self-government or to control internal relations is inconsistent with the dependent state of the tribes...” The Court admitted exceptions: “A tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmember who enter consensual relationship with the tribe or its members through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements.” And, a “tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or health and welfare of the tribe” (Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564, 565, 566).

Litigation has continued in the U.S. federal courts to “clarify” the Montana exceptions. In 2001, the Supreme Court considered whether the Navajo Nation’s hotel occupancy tax could be legally imposed upon the Cameron Trading Post, a tourist complex within the reservation boundaries, but built on fee land owned by non-Indians. Such a situation of “non-Indian fee land within a tribal reservation” is to be found in “millions of acres throughout the United States” (Atkinson v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645, 648). The Court recognized that the trading post and its guests might benefit from the police, fire, and emergency medical protection provided by the Navajo Nation, and that “the Cameron Trading Post derives business from tourists visiting the reservation” (Ibid., 657), but neither of these facts was sufficient to meet either of the Montana exceptions to the general rule banning tribal civil jurisdiction over non-Indians. More recently, the federal courts considered the case of a Dollar General store (a discount retailer) operated, with a tribal business license, on Indian trust land leased from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw. A thirteen-year-old tribal member, who was an unpaid intern in the store as part of a tribal youth program, sued Dollar General in tribal court, claiming molestation by

June 2015

the store manager. Dollar General insisted in both tribal and federal courts that it had no relationship with the tribe that would amount to a Montana exception and trigger tribal jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, however, that a Montana exception was very much in play, since the tribe obviously has a critical political interest to “regulate the safety of the child’s workplace.” (Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 746 F.3d 167, 173-4 [2014]). Dollar General has sought review of the case by the Supreme Court, which is considering the petition at this writing. The tortured logic—if logic it can be called—of who is subject to tribal jurisdiction on reservations inevitably results in not only continuous litigation, but also serious law enforcement problems. This became a major public issue in the U.S. as tribes and their advocates brought to light the large number of domestic violence cases on reservations where non-Indians who had abused Indian partners were exempt from tribal criminal jurisdiction because of Oliphant. While federal law enforcement officers are responsible for responding to such crimes, the reality is that the coverage has long been weak, creating a serious law enforcement “gap.” Congress addressed this in 2013 by authorizing tribes to “exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons” [emphasis added]. The defendant is guaranteed a trial by jury, something not required by federal law of tribal courts generally, and such juries must “reflect a fair cross section of the community” and “not systematically exclude any distinctive group in the community, including non-Indians.” Defendants in tribal proceedings are also guaranteed “all rights under the Constitution of the United States” (something tribal members are not guaranteed by federal law), and the U.S. courts are authorized to hear petitions for habeas corpus (prior to exhaustion of the tribal process) and to stay action of a

Border Crossing

tribal court against a defendant until the federal court has ruled on the habeas corpus petition (U.S. Code, Title 25). All of these provisos were added by Congress to address the very robust non-Indian political resistance to tribal criminal jurisdiction. There is no question that the U.S. legal framework for tribal sovereignty provides tribes with an impressive degree of autonomy. However, that autonomy involves significant and evolving gray areas that generate a great deal of litigation and political lobbying around federal laws pertaining to Indian tribes. There have been both significant advances and telling losses for Indian tribes in this regard. For those who have faith in U.S. Indian law, the wins and losses are evidence that U.S. courts have fairly balanced the interests of Indian and non-Indian people in ways that guarantee basic rights of “internal self governance” to tribes, while also protecting the rights of nonIndians in Indian Country, who are “aliens,” not voting in tribal elections or otherwise participating in tribal government, and thus may have a legitimate claim to exemption from tribal jurisdiction. What remains unaddressed by litigation or by Congress is the geographical legacy of settler colonialism, plain in the reservation checkerboard, something that will continue to drive lawsuits and controversial legislation into the future (see Biolsi 2007).

Checkerboarding on Rosebud Reservation, South Dakota. Shaded areas are Indian trust land held by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe or tribal members. White areas are fee lands owned by non-Indians. Source: Office of Water Resources, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, SD.

REFERENCES Biolsi, T. (2004) Political and Legal Status (“Lower 48” States). In T. Biolsi (Ed.), A Companion to the Anthropology of American Indians (pp. 231-247). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. _____ (2007) Deadliest Enemies. Law and Race Relations on and off Rosebud Reservation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hagen, R. (2007) Explanation of Vote on the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from http://www.ucs. louisiana.edu/~ras2777/indianlaw/usresponse.htm U.S. Census Bureau. (2012) The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/ aian/census_2010/. U.S. Code, Title 25 Indians. Chapter 15 (Constitutional Rights of Indians), § 1304 (Tribal Jurisdiction over Crimes of Domestic Violence). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ collectionUScode.action?collectionCode=USCODE. U.S. Department of the Interior. (1934) Opinion of Solicitor of the Department of the Interior on Power of Indian Tribes. Retrieved from http://digital.library.okstate.edu/ kappler/Vol5/html_files/v5p0778.html U.S. Department of State. 2010 Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from state. gov/s/tribalconsultation/declaration/

June 2015

Indigenous Bolivians in traditional dress

Maori Marae, community meeting house and meeting ground

Border Crossing

Symbols of Turtle Island, another name for North America Photographer: André Chénier

Smudging ceremony Photographer: André Chénier June 2015

DIPLOMACY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIGENOUS REPRESENTATION

Luis Fernando Gil Monsalve is currently the Cultural Counselor to the Mayor of Medellín. He is also a journalist for La Calle, president of the Committee of Communications of the Educational Council of Entrerríos, and member of the Editorial Committee of the Epicentre. He has written several short stories, which you can read on his blog: http://luisfdogil.blogspot.com.

LuisFernandoGilMonsalve “The world’s indigenous peoples have preserved a vast amount of humanity’s cultural history. Indigenous peoples speak a majority of the world’s languages, and have inherited and passed on a wealth of knowledge, artistic forms and religious and cultural traditions. On this International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, we reaffirm our commitment to their wellbeing.” Statement by Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General’s message on the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples New York, 9 August 2010.

he governments of the Americas ought to protect indigenous people’s rights, who were the first inhabitants of the land: from Canada to the United States,

Border Crossing

Mexico, Central America, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Chile, as well as Brazil and encompassing other territories. All of these nations share great indigenous and cultural riches. The United Nations currently includes a declaration on the rights of indigenous people.1 Canada, the United States, and Colombia have ratified their settlements with said population. The document was approved in the General Assembly of the U.N. on September 13th, 1997. Its unique characteristic is being written with the bearers of the rights, who represent more than 370 million indigenous people around the globe, living in more than 90 countries.To save their cultural and linguistic heritage in addition to traditional medicine would contribute to the world’s diversity. For this reason,

indigenous people should have representatives at the International Court of Justice and other diplomatic courts worldwide. Already that their ancestral knowledge can help to ameliorate the Earth and maintain peace, it can be used to respect the environment and non-renewable natural resources. Recently, Colombia has begun to protect indigenous rights, but there remains additional steps to take. Many of the groups who have taken up arms, such the paramilitary, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and National Liberation Army (ELN) infringe their civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights. Currently, discussions are held with the government for their rights to self-determination, spirituality, language, land, territories, resources, and free

consent.2 A very interesting discussion in the political and economic environment of Colombia is the mining permit for multinational Canadians and foreigners in indigenous territories or water paramos (high plateaus). For this reason, indigenous people require representation in the diplomatic spheres of the world. The next International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples will be celebrated on August 9th, to commemorate the first task-force of the UN, who chose that date in Geneva, 1982. This pro-rights group worked for more than 20 years, culminating in the historic declaration. It should be highlighted that a judicialdiplomatic team in the Hague is evaluating the possibility of Bolivia gaining access to the sea via Chile. This option has been discussed for decades between

presidents and ministers. Since Bolivia’s native population is the highest in Latin America at 62%,3 it is fundamental they are represented and consulted before any decision is made that affects their ancestral rights. It is no secret either that Bolivia’s working-class has had commercial contact with Chile’s Pacific sea for time immemorial: another reason to cede access to the sea. With the creation of the U.N. since World War II, it has been said that decolonisation would allow for the independence of peoples and nations of the world. As members of the U.N. and subjects of the declaration of their rights, indigenous people desire the decolonisation of their territories in the Americas, which is why they cannot be absent from national politics. Green political parties exist who fight for

indigenous sovereignty, the protection of their rights, the protection of the environment and climate change, etc. For example, the Green Alliance in Colombia counts on indigenous presence in the Department Assembly of Antioquia, including one of the 32 states that is characterised as the most conservative. [Translated by Amelia Baxter.]

REFERENCES http://undesadspd.org/indigenouses/Portada/Declaración.aspx 1

http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/DeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples.aspx 2

http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/ Activitiesbyregion/LatinAmerica/ Bolivia/lang--en/index.htm 3

June 2015

"LIVE AND COEXIST WELL": AWAKENING TO OUR ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS Marcelo Saavedra-Vargas was born in the Qollasuyu (Bolivia) and is Professor at the Program of Aboriginal Studies, the History Department, and the School of International Development and Global Studies in the University of Ottawa. Lead Researcher in the “Living and Coexisting Well” and co-investigator in the “Mapping Statelessness in Canada” Research Projects at the University of Ottawa.

Marcelo Saavedra-Vargas

A process of brutal unilateralism

he modern era implies a set of beliefs that are considered the only possible way at formulating a problem and the only scheme to validate it. Indigenous cultures challenge this reductionist approach and attempt to dismantle the set of beliefs Western sciences are blinded with. The “individual,” a contemporary illusion, is at the base of the ideological architecture that sustains our modern cosmogony. The vision imposed onto the whole planet involves pillaging natural and human scapes. It is precisely indigenous peoples’ responsibility to offer the visions of our mature cultures. The risk of not listening to the planet is delving deeper into the extinction process caused by greed (Schindler 2004).

The industrial civilization paradigm provides the main architecture to which human (and non-human) beings are supposed to conform and adapt. This goes as far as including the global ocean, lake and river systems, mountain ranges and even outer space. To our indigenous eyes we are living an age of great anomaly (Snyder 1980; and Rasmussen, 2003). Gary Snyder captures eloquently what Aymara and Quechua nations have announced as a prophecy for several decades: “We live in a totally anomalous time. It’s actually quite impossible to make generalizations about history, the past or the future, human nature, or anything else, on the basis of our present experience” (Snyder 1980). Andean indigenous peoples present this as a cosmic upheaval or Pachakut’i in the Aymara language. Although Pachakut’i is literally translated as the “world upside down”, it means much more than its descriptor. For instance, it also announces the process of brutal unilateralism that has been especially detrimental for indigenous populations in what is modernly called the Americas (Ari 2004).

We live in a social order determined by how capital re-arranges not only our social interactions, but more importantly, all relations within the natural world. This peculiar interpretation of being human has not only been juxtaposed over the original instructions we followed, but has resulted in the imposition of the modern paradigm everywhere. Western civilization has forgotten the cosmic compass that addresses the meaning of being alive (Eagleton 2008, Sagan 1994 and Brown 2011).

Border Crossing

We prefer to refer to our territories as Abya-Yala and Turtle Island, not only because these are their

original names but because that ‘nomenclature’ implies the land is alive (Takir Mamani, Rasmussen 2002, and Malohe 2004). The establishment of colonial rule resulted in the imposition of the capitalist system of destruction. As a consequence our Mother Earth (Pachamama) is being ripped apart by this “mode of production” (which turns living beings and systems into dead capital (Jensen 2006). This process of annihilation (Stannard 1992) included that of millions of our ancestors. The Berkeley School methodology provides insightful details about the demographic catastrophe that goes on for more than five centuries and it is described by Stannard as a democide. There was a brutal genocide in the Anahuac (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua): from 32 million inhabitants in 1519, there were only 1 million and 375 thousand by the end of the sixteenth century. A collapse of 96%! Similarly, in the same period, in the country of the four quarters, or Tawantinsuyu, there were approximately 17.5 million persons, reduced to slightly over a million. A collapse never seen before in human history (IWGIA 1992, 500 Years 1978, Ari 2004, Saavedra-Vargas 2009 and Stannard 1992). Despite the compelling presence of

the invaders, active resistance began shortly after our shores ceased to be the first line of contention. Anacaona, a female Xaragua chief, conspired with Taíno noblemen to expel the bearded Conquistadores. They were caught and promptly executed by the ruthless Europeans in 1503 (Villalona 2010 and Ortega 1986). Her husband Canoabo, himself a Taíno Chief, resisted the alien invaders since 1493, one year after the caravels appeared in the Caribbean. Resistance was met by death (Mamani 2005, García 2000 and Choque 2006).

The individual One of the illusions that keeps colonial rule thriving is the individual. All judicial, educational, political, economic and social systems are designed to be accommodated to the conceptualization of the individual. Along with the advent of thinking the collective as an aggregation of individuals, other key values of modern industrial civilization were devised (Rasmussen 2007). The individual is not only an essential piece for this complex and elaborate puzzle, it has also been concocted in modernity to justify the horrors of conquest. “(T) he Qalunaat—are a very young

civilization, and a weird one to boot”, reflects Dereck Rasmussen in conversation with Tommy Akulukjuk, member of the Inuit mature culture. Rasmussen goes on to propose the study of overdevelopment as a way to understand the built-in contradictions of capitalism (Rasmussen 2007 and Kohr 1977). The industrial civilization is a young culture indeed if compared to the many thousands of years mature cultures have been weaving their stories onto the land. The energy unleashed by this teenage civilization has been so devastating that in a matter of 200 years (if we take as a benchmark the start of the petroleum age and the first industrial machines going to work), the entire planet has been claimed as a mere set of “resources” (the blessings of our Mother Earth) and readied for exploitation. The sense of entitlement of the Western civilization is quite remarkable: Human behaviour (within industrial civilization) has never been in this anomalous mode of perception (Snyder, 1980). The rights-claiming individual has been at the centre of this pillage. Consumerism is an important force driving the ever increasing extractions of the gifts of Mother Earth (Pachamama). Manufactured commodities will be mainly consumed by frenzied populations, mostly living in cities. They have

been rendered as mere consumers. Consumer behaviour is assumed to be “…relatively simple, rational, and untouched by social influences” (Neva Goodwin, 2008). An over-emphasis on the individual is depriving our current generations (and the ones to come) from a livable planet to lovingly respect (Hillman, 1992.)

Transnational Corporations There has been another illusion that has taken the planet by assault: the Transnational Corporation. Having assumed the role of rights-claiming individuals, these fictitious entities have an impact that leaves natural and human textures disfigured beyond recognition. In a compelling twist these modern entities provoke a social fission by liberating the work energy that real individuals surrender, in exchange for coloured paper (money) (Polanyi 1957, Alexander 2001 and MacPherson 1964). “Disembedded individuals march to the tune of money and employment, while their loyalty to habitats and communities withers. This is the ideology of“propety-based individualism” (MacPherson 1964). Contrary to these delusions, mature cultures struggle to keep their sacred memory alive within zealously-guarded “original instructions”. Despite over 523 years

June 2015

of brutal rule, we manage to resist and remember.

Definition Isolating an individual for proper study is impossible to attain. The individual remains in its imaginary laboratory: isolated, with no relations, saddened, epistemologically confused and fundamentally distanced from a real human being. A real person in real life can only be understood and defined by means of his/her relations. What constitutes a human being is his/her belonging to a community of peers, at various degrees of commitment: a couple, a family, a clan, a tribe, a collective up to a nation. Severing the individual of its relations implies its negation. The individual remains caught in its illusory realm of non-reality, static, lifeless and void. At the core of real life we find flow, relentless change. Trying to freeze concepts or persons becomes the worst exercise in theoretical quest. Indigenous peoples prefer to observe and learn from constantly flowing phenomena and surrender to this eternal dance of opposing but complementary forces.

Methodology The fundamental commitment of remembering the wisdom of our mature cultures needs to be approached with a special state of mind, spiritual awareness, and impeccable action. The Teachings of the Seven Grandfathers are conducive to this state of being. Once internalized, the research team approaches the Elders to gain insights into the value system they guard. Students are encouraged to attend local indigenous (Anishinaabe) rituals and ceremonies and to deeply reflect about their ancestors and future generations. As we become impregnated with the vision of our Elders, we appreciate their acumen which is offered as if peeling an onion: one layer implies another

Border Crossing

and another, and as we go through revealing them the spirit weeps in awe and sadness. Although in every instance we make a serious attempt to “translate” to the written medium the beautiful knowledge shared with us, it ends up being a challenging task. Reducing a fractal reality into a linear perception of things is quite demanding. We undertake the challenge because it is our responsibility and “a beautiful thing to do” (Rouzke 2015). We try to spend more time with non-human nations because most of them have not forgotten the original instructions. We attempt to learn a language “older than words” (Jensen 2004).

Results A great accomplishment of these educational cycles has been the awakening of our younger generations to contemporary problems as well as to ancestral wisdom. Keeping ancestral memory alive is a crucial step in facing the challenges the modern world imposes onto our present and coming generations. Present generations have the great responsibility of awakening to these issues and collectively weave responses to them (Simone 1972/ 1952): This course has been a transforming experience as it has opened my eyes to a lot of struggles and successes of indigenous people all around Canada… Never would I have thought that this experience would allow me to contemplate on my personal goals, my personal life, and my personal existence. I was enlightened about our education system, our governmental system, our natural world, our spiritual world, and the list is still growing. (University of Ottawa student, Farid 2015) They awake to the enlightening and sometimes painful process of trying

to keep the wisdom of the land alive (Khiari 2015 and Jensen 2004). The ultimate objective of this profound encounter with the land is to peel off the pervasive and perverse layers of patriarchy, colonialism and capitalism so to remember that we still are atmosphere, water, dirt and fire. Once the illusion of the individual is discarded, we do remember our ties to each other in space and in time. We start walking lightly and lovingly on the land as any good ancestor would do.

References “500 Years of Indigenous Resistance” (1978), based on the 1978 pamphlet 4 drafted for the UN “Basic Call to Consciousness”. Accessed from http://www. dickshovel.com/500.html, on December 2014. Alexander, Bruce K. (2001). “Roots of Addiction in a Free Market Society.” Canadian Centre For PolicyAlternatives.AmerinidianPeoplesAssociation. (2006). Mesas Redondas de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, Departamento de Asuntos Extranjeros y de Comercio del Canadá, Montreal, octubre, 2006. Participación de Marcelo Saavedra-Vargas, representando al INS y la APA. Disponible en: http://international.gc.ca/cip-pic/library/CDR_ Montreal_Submission_M_Saavedra.doc. Ari Murillo, Marina (2004). Machaq Mara: ¿Qué es el Año Nuevo Aymara?, Editorial Amuyañataki, Chuquiago, Qollasuyo. Barlowe, Maude (2005). Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop the Corporate Theft of the World’s Water. W. W. Norton & Company. Barnes, Peter (2001). Who Owns the Sky? Our Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism. Forest Options Group, the Second Century Report. Basso, K. H. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places. Albuquerque: University Of New Mexico Press. Boesing, M. A. (2006.). “Our Long Journey Together: An Interview with Joanna Macy.” . Turning Wheel., Accessed from http://www.rochesterbpf. org/Macy%20Interview.html on May 2015. Breyfogle, W. (1961). Speak to the Earth. . New York: Macmillan. Brown, Lester R. (2011). World on the Edge. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Buchan, J. (1997). Frozen Desire, the Meaning of Money,. New York.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Capra, Frijof and David Stendl-Rast (1991). Belonging to the Universe. Harper, San Francisco. Capra, Fritjof. (1988). The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture. Bantam Books, New York. Ibid. (2002). The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. Anchor Books, New York.

Carolan, T. (1996). “The Wild Mind of Gary Snyder.” Shambhala Sun. Accessed from http://freedomcrowsnest.wizardofthenorth.ca/viewtopic. php?f=1&t=56193 on December 2014. Cavanagh, John y Jerry Mander (editors). (2002) Alternatives to Economic Globalization: A better world is possible. A report of the International Forum on Globalization. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. San Francisco, EU. Cayley, David. (1992). Ivan Illich in Conversation, spring issue of SKOLE, the Journal of Alternative Education. Accessed from http://spinninglobe.net/ spinninglobe_html/illichinterview.htm,March2015. Chamberlain, J, Edward. (2003). If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Toronto: Knopf. Choque Quispe, María Eugenia. (2006) La historia del Movimiento Indígena en la Búsqueda del Suma Qamaña (Vivir Bien), Centro de Estudios Multidisciplinarios Aymara, Qullasuyullu. Bolivia. International Expert Group Meeting On The Millennium Development Goals, Indigenous Participation And Good Governance,New York, 11-13 January 2006. Coates, K. S. (2004). A Global History of Indigenous Peoples: Struggle and Survival. New York. Davis, W. (2007). Light at the Edge of the World: A Journey Through the Realm of Vanishing Cultures. New York: Douglas & McIntyre. Eagleton, Terry. (2008). The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Farid, Nelly. (2015). Community Service Learning (CSL), Mino Bimaadiziwin. Workshop within the Research Project “Living and Coexisting Well”, Ottawa, University of Ottawa. Fisher, Andy. (2002). Radical Ecopsychology, New York: Suny Press. García Linera, Álvaro et. al. (2000). El Retorno de la Bolivia Plebeya. Ediciones Comuna y Muela del Diablo, La Paz, Bolivia. Goodland, Robert. (2006). Suriname, Environmental and Social Reconnaissance: The Bakhuys Bauxite Mine Project. The Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname (VIDS) y The North-South Institute (NSI). Heinricks, Geoff. (2007). “Back to the land: Why moving to the country will save us all.” This Magazine. May-June 2007. Accessed from: www. thismagazine.ca/issues/2007/05/backtotheland. php on December 2014. Hillman, J. A. (1992.). We’ve Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and the World’s Getting Worse. New York.: Harper Collins. IIIM. (1992). Living with the Earth: Conference Proceedings. Montreal, Quebec: Intercultural Institute Of Montreal. IWGIA. (1992). The Kari-Oca Declaration 2. Newsletter of the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs, No. 4. Accessed from http://www.ienearth.org/ kari-oca-2-declaration/, on December 2014. Jackson, Wes. (1994). Becoming Native to This Place. Washington: Counterpoint. Jacquard, Albert. (1991). Voici le Temps du Monde Fini. Seuil, Paris.

Jensen, Derrick (2004.). A Language Older Than Words. Chelsea Green Publishing. Ibid. (2006). EndGame, Volume 1, The problem of Civilization. New York: Seven Stories Press. Khiari, Sadri. (2015). « Nous avons à nous libérer de la modernité », accessed from http:// indigenes-republique.fr/%E2%80%AFnousavons-a-nous-liberer-de-la-modernite%E2%80%AF-entretien-avec-sadri-khiari-aloccasion-des-10-ans-du-pir/ on May 2015. Klein, Naomi. (2001). Reclaiming the Commons. New Left Review 9, May – June 2001. Accessed from http://newleftreview.org/II/9/ naomi-klein-reclaiming-the-commons on March 2015. Kohr, Leopold (1978). The Breakdown of Nations. New York: Schocken. Kohr, Leopold. (1977). The Overdeveloped Nations: The Diseconomies of Scale. New York: Schocken. Labarre, Weston. (1954). The Human Animal. University of Chicago Press. Macpherson, C. (1964). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malohe. (2004). Encuentros en los Senderos del Abya Yala. Quito: Casa de las Américas. Mamani Condori, A. (2003). Book Review. Abya-Yala, 107-115. Mamani Ramírez, Pablo. (2005) Geopolíticas Indígenas. Edición CADES (Centro Andino de Estudios Estratégicos), El Alto, Qullasusyu. Mamani Ramírez, Pablo. (2003). Microgobiernos Barriales: Levantamienteo de la Ciudad de El Alto (Octubre 2003). Ediciones CADES (Centro Andino de Estudios Estratégicos) e IDIS (Instituto de Investigaciones Sociológicas IDIS – UMSA), El Alto, Septiembre del 2003. McKibben, Bill. (2007). Deep Economy. New York: Henry Holt. McQuaig, Linda. (2001). All You Can Eat: Greed, Lust and the New Capitalism. Toronto: Penguin. Meiksins Wood, Ellen. 1999. The Origin of Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press. Neva Goodwin, J. A. (2008). Consumption and the Consumer Society. Medford: Tufts University Global Develelopment and Environment Institute. Newson, L. A. (1985). Indian population patterns in colonial Spanish America. Latin American Research Review, 41-74. Ortega, E. (1986). Biografía de Cristobal Colón. Bogotá: Imprenta a cargo de Fernando Pontón. Peet, Richard. (2003). Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO, Zed Books, November 2003. Polanyi, K. (1957). The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press. . Rasmussen, D. (2007). The Priced versus the priceless. INTERculture - International Journal of Intercultural and Transdisciplinary Research, 139 - 170. Ibid. (2000). «Dissolving Inuit Society Through Education and Money: The Myth of Educating Inuit Out of ‘Primitive Childhood’ and into Economic Adulthood.» Interculture. No. 139, October; Montreal: Intercultural Institute of Montreal. Ibid. (2004). «Cease To Do Evil, Then Learn To Do Good: A Pedagogy for the Oppressor» Pp 115-130 in Rethinking Friere: Globalization and the Envi-

ronment edited by C.A. Bowers and Frederique Apffel Marglin., New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Report from the Workshop on indigenous peoples & development co-operation, Brussels, March 12th – 13th, 1998, p. 38. Rouzke, Ninom. (2015). Interview within the Research Project “Living and Coexisting Well”, Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG), University of Ottawa. Rowe, Jonathan. (2005). A Question Of Identity. First Page Publication. Michigan. Saavedra-Vargas, Marcelo. (2006). Mesas Redondas de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa. Departamento de Asuntos Extranjeros y de Comercio del Canadá. Ibid. (2009). El Pachakut’i. La Habana: X Encuentro Internacionel de Economistas sobre Globalización y Problemas del Desarrollo. Ibid. (Producer). (2006). Beverly Catholique Coordinadora de jóvenes de la comunidad de Lutsel K’e en el Vídeo “Dándole con Todo”, The North-South Institute, Ottawa. Sagan, Carl. (1994). Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. Random House, New York, 1994. Schindler, Dr. David, Karen Kraft Sloan, and Rick Smith. (2004). If we don’t give a hoot about spotted owls, what will move us? Edmonton, Volume 41 Number 15, University of Alberta. Accessed from http://www.ualberta.ca/~publicas/folio/41/15/ opinion.html on February 2015. Simmel, Georg. (1990). The Philosophy of Money. London: Routledge. Snyder, Gary. (1980). The Real Work. New York: New Directions. Ibid. (2007). Back on the Fire: Essays. Shoemaker & Hoard: Emeryville, CA. Stannard, David E. (1992). American Holocaust. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Suzuki, David. (1999). Sunday Report with Alison Smith in CBC. Oct. 17. What is biodiversity? David Suzuki Foundation. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/ Forests/Biodiversity/. The Amerindian Peoples Association and The North-South Institute. (2006). “Mining and Amerindians in Guyana: Study Highlights from Region 7 (Upper Mazaruni)”, Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) and The North-South Institute, October 2006. Toynbee, Arnold J. (1968). Estudio de la Historia. Atlas Histórico. Emecé Editores, S.A. Buenos Aires. 1968. United Nations (1982). “500 Years of Indigenous Resistance”. Accessed from http://www.dickshovel.com/500.html, on December 2014.: based on the 1978 pamphlet 4 drafted for the UN “Basic Call to Consciousness”. Villalona, A. S. (2010). Historia dominicana: desde los aborígenes hasta la Guerra de Abril. Santo Domingo: Departamento de Investigación y Divugación. Wackernagel, Mathias and William Rees. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Press. Weil, Simone. (1972/1952). The Need for Roots. New York: Harper and Row.

June 2015

Tai Chi and the fine art of diplomatic UNDERSTANDING THE COLONIAL CAUSES negotiation OF IPV IN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES Dr. Anita Olsen Harper is Anishinawbe, a member of the Lac Seul First Nation. She is a research contractor and was recently elected to the position of School Board Trustee for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB). Dr. Olsen Harper has an undergraduate degree in Education from the University of Alberta, a graduate degree in Canadian Studies from Carleton University and a PhD from the Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa.

Anita Olsen Harper

ntimate partner violence (IPV) may initially appear as no more than aggressive interaction between men and women in their own homes, and many believe that whatever happens within one’s “castle” is the business only of those occupants. In reality, however, IPV is much more than unacceptable behaviour: it is a serious issue of profound and lasting consequence that can destroy the health and well-being of entire societies. In Aboriginal communities, widespread violence within the home significantly contributes to the continual erosion of ancient cultures. My article will add to the discourses on IPV, in particular to the value of understanding the role of Canadian history and the adscititious colonial activities that have fostered IPV, and led to its intensification on reserves and other Native communities. My aim is for readers to view IPV in more enlightened perspectives than those indicated in the following quotes from two Canadian news-watchers: • The Natives will never attain respect for themselves and others

Border Crossing

living on reservations and surviving on government handouts. • They only know these four things: drink, get high, collect welfare and beat up their woman and kids.

Colonial intent

women. As well, new rules and regulations attacked the various customs that countered the possibility of IPV in these older societies. Legislation and other instruments obliterated many cultural traditions such as extensive family networks and gender parallelism. Consequently, Aboriginal women and children were increasingly marginalized in the emerging EuroCanadian society – a placement that still exists. This relegation has positioned Aboriginal women’s bodies as a safe and expected site for expending violence with impunity.

A historic view of Aboriginal populations in Canada reveals that the country’s colonial developments are deeply rooted in violence. Violence was pervasive in operationalizing European imperialist ideology in the “New World”. Indeed, colonialism is “violence in thought and action; it inflicts mental and physical torture on the colonized” (Ankomah, 2003, p. 332). The effects of colonial policies on Aboriginal peoples has been devastating, especially in relation to their own family and gender norms which structured complementarity, rather than hierarchy, between men and

Shortly after they received responsibility for Indians from the British Crown in 1844, also in order to make way for ever-increasing white populations, the Provinces of Canada East and West enacted legislation to shift the First Peoples physically away from choice areas of the land. Then, after Confederation, public opinion and common thought mobilized legislation in the form of the Indian Act (1876). The new Act was particularly harsh on Native women for it was underpinned by patrilineality as the determinant of Indian status. It defined only the men as “Indians” (Fitznor, 2006) and

Attitudes that are embedded in these examples are not helpful to solution-finding, either for Aboriginal people or to those voicing these thoughts. More constructive approaches, based on awareness of the historical causes of IPV, lead to proactive efforts that begin with knowledge and self-education.

imposed male lineage and wrote male and female inequality into law by delegating status to any male person of Indian blood. A female could only have Indian status by her father’s or husband’s right, not by her own. This legality usurped and deleted Aboriginal peoples’ own internal identity conceptualizations. Inconsistencies within the Indian Act regarding registration, too, favoured men. If an Indian woman married a white or other non-Indian (such as a Métis or non-registered Indian), she and her children lost their places in Indian Affairs’ Central Registry. Further, the Indian woman did not even have to marry the non-Indian to lose status; Indian agents considered what had been known as à la faςon du pays as sufficient grounds for taking away her status. This practice continued into the mid-twentieth century. Conversely, the Canadian state legitimized marriage between a registered male and a white woman by bestowing the union and resulting offspring with status. As a result, many Native women became disenfranchised from their own communities, for they “could no longer reside on the reserve, secure treaty rights and policy initiatives designed to assist Indians, or participate in the political and social life of the community” (Fitznor, 2006, p. 61). Up to 95% of all enfranchisements were involuntary, and except for the children involved, all who became ineligible for status in this way were women. Traditional governance structures, cultural knowledge transmission and gender functioning had fallen under the auspices of EuroCanadian law, and were forbidden (Chrisjohn & Young, 1997). The Indian Act illuminates the extent to which the Canadian government engaged legal mechanisms to fundamentally alter the identity

education is that reserve political leaders have deliberately initiated and consciously foster a culture of financial dependence on government and taxpayers. While many “mainstream Canadians” seem to prefer simplistic explanations for the entrenched poverty and excessive IPV rates of this particular population, history, as was shown above, tells a very different story.

of all Indians although those most adversely affected were Indian women. As well, the Act allows for the eventual disappearance of entire First Nations since it is only through women with status that Native nations are legally perpetuated (Brant Castellano, 2009). Although I do not normally use the term "Indian", it is necessary in this context since it refers to the legal identity of a person who is registered under the Indian Act.

Continuing oppression and family structure breakdown Adding to the stress of fractured inter-community relationships are generational disconnections caused directly by the imposition of residential schooling, racism which is legally founded by and packaged within the Indian Act, and the forced isolation of reserves. Having to abandon age-old tradition, Aboriginal peoples have fallen into a crippling poverty that continues to exacerbate relationship-adjustment problems, including IPV (Hamilton & Sinclair, 1991). The way reserve populations are perceived by nonAboriginal Canadians regarding societal dysfunction, high unemployment and low

A serious problem further maligning the position of Aboriginal women as wives and mothers in their own communities and still being resolved is what is known as the Matrimonial Real Property (MRP) issue. This resulted directly from omissions in the Indian Act and constitutes a continued denial of women’s equality in marriage (or marriage-type) break-downs. Outstanding cross-jurisdictional entanglement between federal and provincial authorities has left this area void of constructive activity to protect women and children in these circumstances. It is common for women who actually own houses on their reserves (i.e. hold the title from the Band administration) to be prevented from living in them because of well-grounded and legitimate fear of their spouses and of Chiefs and Councils who tend to support the men – a tendency that was created and is perpetuated by the patriarchy of the Indian Act. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (Hilling, 2003) reported an undeniable connection between the lack of matrimonial property law onreserve and an exacerbation of violence against women and children. It was only in late 2014 that specific federal government authorization allowed for the formulation of matrimonial property by-laws for application on reserves. Common knowledge must include that what is still unfolding on reserves are colonial government

June 2015

policies implemented since Confederation; these were aimed primarily at protecting colonial society from Indigenous peoples. Aboriginal education (such as residential schools) were assimilative in nature so that graduates could fit into society at the lowest echelons (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996). Because of the government’s will to exclude Aboriginal people from sociopolitical participation has been girded by a potent desire to lay claim to the land that Aboriginal peoples have occupied ab initio, and to maintain that claim with absolute certainty, no other minority group has ever posed such a significant and lasting threat to Canadian political legitimacy. The result has been that, even today, Aboriginal people are not welcome in mainstream society and are subject to racism whether on- or off-reserve. These dynamics definitely affect the functioning of Aboriginal peoples’ relationships within their own homes and continue as isolating factors.

Conclusion We see legislations that disentitled Aboriginal women from political activity – a ruling that hit hard because, in some Nations, women had been traditional governing agents (Emberley, 2001). As well, “the Act demeaned and supplanted all Indigenous modes of descent” (Simpson, 2009, p. 124) and imposed European patriarchal hereditary practices. Gender role changes from complementarity and family roles that were contrary to Aboriginal traditional norms were infused into First Nations’ societies. Based on heteropatriarchal values, male leadership became “superior” in the resulting hierarchical structuring, and women’s dependence on men for economic

Border Crossing

survival became entrenched. Canada’s history clearly shows the reasons for the erosion of Aboriginal women’s image and placement in overall and reserve societies. For women, economic reliance on spouses or partners is one of the main motivations for tolerating abuse at home (Widiss, 2008), and explains at least one reason for Aboriginal women remaining in IPV. Aboriginal societies, now solidly interwoven with patriarchal belief and practice (Hamberger, 2009), experience a serious power differential between men and women – a primary contributing source and foundation of IPV (Nahanee (1995). The combined risk factors of gender hierarchy, low education, high rates of joblessness and historic dislocation are closely associated with IPV and all are common in Aboriginal populations. From a global perspective, we can all help resolve IPV in Indigenous communities by educating ourselves to understanding the history of the distinct and definite causes of Indigenous women’s vulnerable and subordinate places in society. All of us, from whatever position we hold, can advocate for educational systems that teach gender roles and complementarity, and prepare women for higher status such as through well-paying employment and greater political participation. We can support and uphold an education system that works at taking age-old principles and re-working them into current societal mechanisms; collective efforts can start restoring the place of women as integral and key sustainers of mainstream and tribal life.

References Ankomah, K. (2003). Book review. [Colonialism and Neocolonialism, by J-P. Sartre]. The Human Nature Review, 3 (331-333). Brant Castellano, M. (2009). Heart of the nations: Women’s contribution to community healing. In G.G. Valaskakis, M. Dion Stout & E. Guimond (Eds.), Restoring the balance: First Nations women, community and culture (pp. 203-235). Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Chrisjohn, R. & Young, S. (1997). The circle game: Shadows and substance in the Indian residential school experience in Canada. Penticton: Theytus Books. Emberley, J.V. (2001). The bourgeois family, Aboriginal women, and colonial governance in Canada: A study in feminist historical and cultural materialism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 27(1), 59-85. Fitznor, L. (2006). The power of Indigenous knowledge: Naming and identity and colonization in Canada. In J.E. Kunnie & N.I. Goduka (Eds.), Indigenous peoples’ wisdom and power: Affirming our knowledge through narratives (pp. 51-77). Burlington VT: Ashgate Publishing. Hamberger, L.K. (2009). Risk factors for intimate partner violence perpetration: Typologies and characteristics of batterers. In C. Mitchell & D. Anglin (Eds.), Intimate partner violence: A health-based perspective (pp. 115-131). New York: Oxford University Press. Hamilton, A.C. & Sinclair, C.M. (1991). Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba. Winnipeg: Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba. Hilling, C. (2003). A hard bed to lie in: Matrimonial real property on reserve. Retrieved from The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights website www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/ com-e/huma-e/rep-e/rep08nov03-e.pdf Nahanee, T. (1995, May 13). Marriage as an instrument of oppression in Aboriginal communities. Keynote address to the National Association of Women and the Law’s 11th biennialconference, Redefining Family Law: The challenge of diversity. St. John’s, Newfoundland & Labrador. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (1996). Stage three: Displacement and assimilation. In Looking forward, looking back, 1(6), 137-199. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group. Widiss, D.A. (2008). Domestic violence and the workplace: The explosion of state legislation and the need for a comprehensive strategy. Florida State University Law Review, 35(3), 669-728.

INDIGENOUS DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND LEADERSHIP MODELS: A PLATFORM FOR COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE IN THE ARCTIC Tracy Coates is currently a part-time professor at the University of Ottawa with the Institute of Canadian and Aboriginal Studies. She has a Doctorate in Jurisprudence (Juris Doctor) and a Masters in Environmental Studies and International Dispute Resolution (MES). Her work focuses primarily on bridging Indigenous and nonIndigenous knowledge in order to aid in the development of mutually beneficial collaborations between various stakeholders and First Nations, Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous communities.

Tracy Coates The need for a cooperative approach to leadership in the Arctic

he Arctic region is a complex diplomatic environment. The diversity of state and nonstate stakeholder interests are varied and include: potential opportunities for resource developments and trade routes; the region’s vulnerability to climate change; its importance for scientific research; and being the traditional territory and economic base for a variety of Indigenous peoples. Given this geo-political context, the region is a potential hotbed for conflict that necessitates creative approaches to diplomacy. It is not surprising then, that many are calling on the Arctic Council to foster a cooperative approach to stakeholder relations.1 Indeed, this was one of the key issues highlighted by a panel that I was on, not long ago, which focused on the challenges of conducting research in the Arctic.2 The Arctic Council is the forum for diplomatic engagement among the six Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway,

Border Crossing

Russia, Sweden and the USA). Its membership also consists of eight international organizations representing the various Indigenous peoples in the region (Arctic Athabaskan Council, Aleut International Association, Gwich’in Council International, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, and the Saami Council). Each of these organizations holds Permanent Participant status on the Council. With the USA recently assuming Chairmanship of the Arctic Council, a window of opportunity has opened to implement an innovative framework for cooperative leadership. In developing this framework it would be prudent for the USA, and the Arctic Council as a whole, to seek guidance from the Indigenous Dispute Resolution (IDR) and leadership models of the Indigenous Permanent Participants. The focus on transparency, cooperation, and collaboration that are characteristic of Indigenous leadership and dispute resolution models provide the type of innovation that the USA needs to build consensus and engagement among Arctic Council members.3

Shifting responsibility to Indigenous Permanent Participants to lead the way in developing constructive collaborations would also align well with the USA’s current multilateral approach to its Chairmanship, and with their desire to ‘get things done’ and ‘get them done right’.4 It would also be a strong step towards acknowledging the importance of Indigenous knowledge, generally, as well as traditional knowledge, in developing a sustainable future for the Arctic. This article uses the example of the Inuit and First Nations in Canada to highlight the breadth of Indigenous knowledge systems and overviews some aspects of IDR and leadership models that could be productively adapted to develop sustained multilateral cooperation in the Arctic.

Indigenous Knowledge 101 Prior to contact with European nations, Indigenous nations – such as the Inuit, the Dene and Gwich’in First Nations in Canada - had developed complex bodies of national knowledge. First Nation and Inuit systems of knowledge span a variety of disciplines including: education, commerce, agriculture, engineering, science, law,

leadership, and governance.5 Prior to contact, the Inuit, for example, had a legal system based on customary law and were highly technologically advanced, having engineered inventions such as the igloo, kayak, qulliq and harpoon. Like European nations, First Nations and the Inuit also have distinctcultures,normsandlanguages to give expression to the bodies of knowledge they have developed. While many differences exist between the Inuit, individual First Nations, as well as Indigenous peoples worldwide, many commonalities also exist.6 To some extent, these commonalities are the result of the shared geographic and socio-cultural contexts in which the Inuit and First Nations developed. Among the Inuit and First Nations, commonalities can be found in epistemology, ontology, and methodology. These include sociological ideals, norms and concepts of power, respect for a variety of ways of knowing, and the high value placed on community, individuals, the environment, and the exchange of knowledge. Both prior to and since colonization, these bodies of knowledge have continued to evolve. Today, they exist as living contemporary systems, grounded in an understanding of the value of the

knowledge acquired and accumulated in the past, and up to the present day.

Guiding the way to leadership in the Arctic: an overview of indigenous dispute resolution and leadership models Commonalities between Indigenous dispute resolution models reveal an approach that is cooperative, holistic, and integrative. This cooperative model is founded on common sociocultural frameworks that emphasize the interactive relationship between cultural values, norms and communal harmony and the integral link between the collective and the individual.7 As an example, First Nations and Inuit social and legal systems inherently recognize the reciprocal relationship between individual and communal responsibilities and the importance of respecting each other’s individual rights, in order to create and maintain communal harmony; conditions that also characterize the complex multinational and multi-stakeholder relations in the Arctic. Historically this framework has provided First Nation and Inuit societies with a successful

formula for an internalized individual system of social control that aids in maintaining constructive collaborations and resolving intra-nation and internation conflicts. Broadly speaking, this approach is founded on the belief that conflict is not a necessary product of society.8 It is reinforced by the emphasis placed on respect for individual rights and the need to maintain communal harmony above all else. When this model is internalized and practiced in all elements of interaction both by and between actors in a given context, it engenders a respectful, reciprocal, and responsible approach that functions to ‘get things done’ constructively and ensures they are ‘done right’: This approach is exemplified by long-standing efforts by the Inuit, and other Indigenous Permanent Participants on the Arctic Council, to seek out “meaningful partnerships as a foundation for the meaningful inclusion of [Indigenous stake-holders] in the development of national and international policies” and to initiate action on Arctic issues.9 Respect for every individuals’ knowledge and their right to self-determination and autonomy are also keystones of First Nation

June 2015

and Inuit leadership models. These precepts gives rise to a context where leaders cannot demand obedience or centralize authority. Their political power comes primarily from their ability to persuade others to follow them and to develop mutual respect between themselves and the community they are working in.10 This means that in order to maintain a leadership role, Indigenous leaders are required to garner consensus and act in a manner that mobilizes the community to pursue common goals. Like Arctic Council stakeholders, these goals generally include political and social security, sustainability, and economic stability.11 Corollaries of this approach are increased communication, transparency, inclusive decision-making, and jointgains.

Conclusion The transformative potential of Indigenous Knowledge Contemporary literature generally contains very little discussion or reference to Indigenous leadership models or Indigenous Dispute Resolution (IDR) processes. Over time, it is hoped that this will change, particularly in international relations, as these models provide an innovative approach to cooperative leadership in a multi-lateral context. A greater understanding of Indigenous knowledge, and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples as active partners in diplomatic efforts, can provide an important foundation for transforming complex negotiations into collaborative problem-solving exercises that produce effective and mutually beneficial agreements that create value for all parties.

References Collins, J.F. et. al. (2015). Arctic

Border Crossing

Council Initiatives to Sustain Arctic Cooperation: Recommendations from the February 2015 Meeting at the Carnegie Endowmen for International Peace. Online at: https:// dickey.dartmouth.edu/sites/dickey. dartmouth.edu/files/arctic_council_initiatives_2015.pdf

the Haida, Blackfoot, Cree, Secwepemc, Gwich’in, Innu, Mi’kmaq, Seneca, Onondaga, and Mohawk. Much like nations found in Europe, these First Nations may share certain commonalities, but each remains a separate and distinct nation with different interests, histories, circumstances and national bodies of knowledge.

2 This panel was hosted by Fulbright Canada in conjunction with the Unravelling the Arctic Panel Discussions and as part of the launch of its Arctic Initiative in Ottawa, Canada on April 22, 2015. For more information please see: http://www.fulbright.ca/ programs/canadian-scholars/ArcticInitiative/ChallengesResearchArctic. html

Lowe, D., & Davidson, J.H. (2004). What’s Old Is New Again: Aboriginal Dispute Resolution and the Civil Justice System. In C. Bell and D. Kahane (Eds.), Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts (pp. 280297). Vancouver: UBC Press.

3 Collins, J.F. et. al. (2015). Arctic Council Initiatives to Sustain Arctic Cooperation: Recommendations from the February 2015 Meeting at the Carnegie Endowmen for International Peace. Online at: https:// dickey.dartmouth.edu/sites/dickey. dartmouth.edu/files/arctic_council_initiatives_2015.pdf

Monture-OKanee, P. A. (1994). Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Bridge to Aboriginal Experience? In C. Morris and A. Pirie (Eds.), Qualifications For Dispute Resolution: Perspectives on the Debate (pp. 131-140). Victoria, British Columbia: UVic Institute for Dispute Resolution.

4 Kerry, J. (2015). Speech at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting, Iqaluit, Canada. April 24, 2015. Online at: http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/04/241106.htm

Audla, T. (2015). The Climate Change Bind for the Inuit: The Double Burden of Impacts and Campaigns. Speech at the Unravelling the Arctic Panel Discussions , Ottawa. April 22, 2015.

5 For a brief introduction to First Nations prior to contact, the current context of Aboriginal peoples in Canada, and an example of the type of cooperative approach to conflict resolution and reconciliation that Aboriginal principles give rise to, please see the following short video, Justice for Aboriginal Peoples – It’s time, by the Public Service Alliance of Canada: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=r5DrXZUIinU. 6 In discussing the commonalities between Indigenous peoples worldwide, or First Nations and the Inuit in Canada, it is important to avoid applying a false sense of homogeneity. In Canada there are over 50 distinct First Nations including,

Alfred, T. (2005) Wasáse: Indigenous pathways of action and freedom. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. Alfred, T. (1999). Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. 10

Warner, L.S. & Grint, K. (2012). Reciprocity – The Case of the noble savage: the myth that governance can replace leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol 25, No. 7. Pgs. 969982. 11

The Caribou is a popular method of transportation used by Indigenous Communities in Northern Russia as well as Scandanavian countries.

Indigenous communities in Northern North America and Greenland have used dog sledding as a form of transportation 35 to cover hundreds of kilometers around the Arctic Circle. The sport is still very popular today. June 2015

POWWOWS AND NATIONS IN NORTH AMERICA Dr. Dalie Giroux, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa (Canada)

Dalie Giroux

resent day powwows in Indian Country offer an unparalleled experience of sight and sound: the dancers moving in colour through the circles, voices soft and loud telling stories, praying, and honouring ancestors, the old and the young standing side-by-side, learning from one other and celebrating their living culture – and all to the drum’s never-ending beat, resounding deeply in everyone’s hearts. This rhythm, it is said, embodies the spirit of the powwow: that which brings people together.

A community celebration The powwow is a popular and inter-tribal gathering. It is organized and financed locally, which makes it an almost entirely community-based event. We find this form of gathering in numerous aboriginal communities in North America, predominantly in the plains cultures, in both the south and the north of the continent. Powwow events happen generally over two to four days, usually outdoors in the summer. As for its demographic make-up, the powwow reunites dancers from the

Border Crossing

host and surrounding communities. Powwows in Eastern Canada typically bring together between fifty and five hundred dancers and anywhere between one hundred and a few thousand other participants, the precise numbers of which depend on the importance, type and location of each event. While the heart and primary cultural vector of the powwow is the drum, the corresponding cultural practice is the traditional dance, whether in competitive, social (recreational) or spiritual form. In a similar vein, the dance itself is linked with another cultural form; the garments worn by the dancers, “regalias”, are artisanal and family-made, and, in addition to being tied to particular dances (some categories of which are jingle, grass, traditional male, traditional female, shawl, fancy and smoke), are also vectors in a particular symbolic economy. Each has a unique narrative of how it came to be, of who made it and in what circumstances. Thus, we see that these kinds of complex relationships between social practices and material and cultural objects and practices characterize the form of the powwow as a way of meaning-making.

A special ceremonial place Spatially and topographically, the powwow is organized systematically in concentric circles that serve to reinforce community and create solidarity within. The big drums, which set the beat from the beginning to the end of the event and which sound is inseparable from the powwow experience, are placed in the inner circle of the powwow or on the edges of the dancers’ field. Around the physical centre of the space dedicated to the powwow, where there are sometimes drums or a strip of cedar surrounded by stones called the “grandfathers”, are the dancers and the dance field. Next, forming a circle around the dance field, are the platforms with spots reserved for the master of ceremonies, the elderly, and sometimes the drummers and drums. Next, there are food kiosks and vendors, interspersed with meandering participants who eat and chat. Finally, there are tents and people circulating amongst the improvised camps around the periphery. These concentric circles are fluid and permeable to the people who circulate from one to another. For this reason, every person can be called a “participant”

of the powwow; it would be incorrect to speak of a divide between dancers and singers and spectators (an exception here would be at ceremonial events). In this way, the powwow is open in many ways to the entire community. In addition to the internal, concentric structure of the powwow, there is another spatial aspect that is at its heart: the ex-centric journey of the powwow trail. Though the powwow is about reinforcing community solidarity, another one of its most important aspects is how it is used to establish ties outside of the community while simultaneously strengthening relationships between people who are already acquainted and who travel together from place to place. For example, many of the dancers and their families, the artisans, the cooks, the organizers, the merchants and the friends of all the aforementioned move themselves every year from community to community to participate in different powwows, taking part in what we call the “powwow trail”. It is not uncommon to meet, in community after community week after week, entire families, dancers and musicians for whom collective time and seasonal territorial movement are harmonized in the practice of the powwow as pimatiziwin (good life).

A political event Even though the forms of the powwow are multiple, contested and varied, the principal influences for all of these forms can be found in the rituals of the southern Great Plains warrior societies (like the Omahas, Poncas and the Shawnees). Over the course of the 19th century, the powwow was brought west by the Dakotas, then north and east by the Crees and the Ojibways. The contemporary practice was thus well-established in the Great Lakes region by the end of the 1950s,

where it came under the influence of the rituals of the Big Drum Society practiced since the turn of the 20th century by the Ojibways in the southern Great Lakes. In that regard, powwows are to be understood not only as cultural and spiritual events, but also as diplomatic and political event, with a continental and international dimension. Indeed, powwow time is a time for diplomacy: flags bearers of different nations – including Canada and the United States – are the first to enter the dancing circle for the grand entry. Attending chiefs are honoured. Each nation’s representatives are welcomed and acknowledged. In every event held in the north east, many different tribes and nations’ members travel from far away to visit brothers and sisters in Ojibway territory, in Hodenosaune territory, in Attikamekw territory, and now in Mi’gmak territory and Innu territory, from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Coast. It is thus a continental practice, covering a large portion of the United States and Canada, and it does not belong to any of these jurisdictions (Ojibways and Haudenosaune, to name only these nations, live on both sides of the continental border) as much as to the Indian Country, defined by Ojibway writer Gail Valaskakis as a system of places that: « gathers Native North Americans together, wherever – on any reservation, at any powwow or Native conference, in any Indian bar or Native center, at any Native ceremony, feast, or communal event. Indian country signifies both a shared sense of cultural and historical experience and a consciousness of what in Ojibway is called pimatiziwin, or ‘living in a good way’ – in physical, social and spiritual health and harmony; a mixture of meanings that is intertwined with land ».

It is important to note that the development of the contemporary powwow form was marked by various legal instances of prohibition of Aboriginal cultural and artistic practices both by the American and Canadian governments from 1880 until 1950. The “Round House” that sheltered the dances of the “Big Drum Society” of the Ojibways south of the Great Lakes is thus an architectural expression tied to these restrictions, particularly since the plains dances that inspired the Big Drum Society normally took place outdoors. That prohibition in fact fundamentally impacted the history of aboriginal dances across the continent: it was the lifting of those restrictions that largely contributed to a renaissance of Aboriginal cultures in the second half of the twentieth century. The perpetuation of dance practices must be understood in the context of struggles to keep Aboriginal ways of life alive (articulated in terms of territory) against the colonial structure; the nexus of political, geographical and artistic articulations of these practices is thus situated in a circular rather than linear history, which has been marked—but not co-opted—by colonialism. As stated by Valaskakis: « In Indian country, the struggle over the land is not only experienced, it is told and retold in the stories of dominance and survival that reconstruct, imagine and, most of all, assert Indian spirituality and empowerment in the memoried past and the politicized future ». The persistence and constancy of these intensive community exchanges actuated in the powwow allow us to take in the landscape of a home constructed through art—of a country, a uniquely “Indian Country”, crafted through song, through dance, and most of all, through the sound of the big ever-beating drum.

June 2015

Border Crossing

Université d’Ottawa

University of Ottawa

Come Learn…And Live! Complete your Master of Laws with Research Paper or Thesis here! Our fields of expertise include: • International Law, including International Humanitarian and Security Law;

• Human Rights; • International Trade and Investment Law; • Environmental Law;

• Law and Technology; • Law and Social Justice; • Law and Women’s Studies.

Benefit from a variety of choices and opportunities to enrich your academic experience Join a community of students that is both diverse and close-knit. Ottawa is home to important national institutions, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and interesting cultural and historic attractions.

For more information, please visit http://llmphd.uottawa.ca/en/programs/llm

June 2015