**Posted by: chupacabra
**I do not like this whole "settler" thing. It is exactly what you are saying and it is psychological tool. Trump used imagery effectively with things like "lock her up".
So you wont like this?
How much do you know about the history of Indigenous people under Canadian rule?
Posted by: JBV
First what do you think it means to decolonize or what is decolonization all about?
it's about increasing the divide between people to foster the interests of the people who have created these destructive concepts.
Second, why do you think there is an industry that’s interested in us vs them
because people are remarkable in their ability to identify and exploit opportunities when there is money to be made. incredible aspect of homo sapiens.
and just who or what is this industry?
tenured academics and lawyers in a framework across this country and internationally.
I've been thinking about this off and on for a bit to try and give you a good response. I'll say just a couple things and then use a larger quote to give a better explanation behind some of the concepts surrounding social justice. To start with, decolonization can have a few different meanings depending on the context. From a literal point of view, it represents colonial powers leaving an occupied area and returning control to the native inhabitants. Think the British leaving India. From a social justice perspective however, decolonization is about decreasing the divide that exists between people; it is a constructive process mean to bring people together. I do agree that humans are adept at exploitation in many forms and this is particularly true in Western or Eurocentric societies. This desire for power and wealth accumulation no doubt extends to academics, lawyers, business leaders, politicians and others, but that is not the goal nor the purpose of decolonizing, anti-racist and social justice frameworks. I would caution against being misled by people who would subvert the ideas of decolonization, anti-racism and social justice in order to gain benefit for themselves.
To get a better understanding of how decolonization relates to Indigenous people, particularly in North America but around the world in general, have a read through this.
Indigenization, Decolonization, and Reconciliation
If we want to contribute to systemic change, we need to understand the concepts Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but according to Indigenous scholars and activists (see Alfred, 2009; Alfred & Corntassel, 2005; Pete, 2015), they are separate but interrelated processes.
Indigenization
Indigenization is a process of naturalizing Indigenous knowledge systems and making them evident to transform spaces, places, and hearts. In the context of post-secondary education, this involves bringing Indigenous knowledge and approaches together with Western knowledge systems. This benefits not only Indigenous students but all students, teachers, and community members involved or impacted by Indigenization.
Indigenous knowledge systems are embedded in relationship to specific lands, culture, and community. Because they are diverse and complex, Indigenization will be a unique process for every post-secondary institution.
It is important to note that Indigenization does not mean changing something Western into something Indigenous. The goal is not to replace Western knowledge with Indigenous knowledge, and the goal is not to merge the two into one. Rather, Indigenization can be understood as weaving or braiding together two distinct knowledge systems so that learners can come to understand and appreciate both. Therefore, we recommend that you use the word Indigenization cautiously and take care not to use it when Indigenous content is simply added to a course or when something Western is replaced with something Indigenous. Rather, it refers to a deliberate coming together of these two ways of knowing.
Decolonization
Decolonization refers to the process of deconstructing colonial ideologies of the superiority and privilege of Western thought and approaches. On the one hand, decolonization involves dismantling structures that perpetuate the status quo, problematizing dominant discourses, and addressing unbalanced power dynamics. On the other hand, decolonization involves valuing and revitalizing Indigenous knowledge and approaches and weeding out settler biases or assumptions that have impacted Indigenous ways of being. Decolonization necessitates shifting our frames of reference with regard to the knowledge we hold; examining how we have arrived at such knowledge; and considering what we need to do to change misconceptions, prejudice, and assumptions about Indigenous Peoples. For individuals of settler identity, decolonization is the process of examining your beliefs about Indigenous Peoples and culture by learning about yourself in relationship to the communities where you live and the people with whom you interact.
Reconciliation
Reconciliation is about addressing past wrongs done to Indigenous Peoples, making amends, and improving relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to create a better future for all. Chief Justice Murray Sinclair, chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, has stated, “Reconcilliation is not an Aboriginal problem – it involves all of us”
You can think about reconciliation as work to ameliorate a damaged relationship. Imagine that there was an individual who had been abused, lied to, and exploited for years – that person would have a lot of fear, mistrust, and trauma. The abuser would also have negative feelings: shame, guilt, self-blame, and possibly anger toward the victim. The abuser may even blame the victim. Repairing this relationship would mean apologizing, rebuilding trust, hearing each other’s stories, getting to know each other to appreciate each other’s humanity, and taking concrete action to show that the relationship will be different from now on.
With reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, we are not only talking about a relationship between two individuals, but we are also talking about a relationship between multiple groups of people and between many generations over hundreds of years. Clearly, the onus for this action is on the party that perpetrated the harm, which in this case is settler society. You can see from this example that reconciliation necessarily involves intensive emotional work for all parties. For Indigenous people it means revisiting experiences of trauma and becoming open to forgiveness, and for settlers it involves gaining in-depth understanding of one’s own relation to Indigenous Peoples and the impacts of colonization, including recognizing settler privilege and challenging the dominance of Western views and approaches.
Interrelationships between Indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation
Decolonization is a component of Indigenization, because it means challenging the dominance of Western thought and bringing Indigenous thought to the forefront. Indigenization is part of reconciliation, because it involves creating a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. But these processes have important distinctions. Most notably, reconciliation is primarily a settler responsibility, and decolonization must be led by Indigenous people. In addition, the emotional work of reconciliation is different from that of Indigenization and decolonization, which have less of a focus on making amends for past traumas, and a greater focus on mainstreaming Indigenous thought. Willie Ermine (2007) writes about the ways in which these processes are related, explaining that reconciling Indigenous and Western worldviews: “ … is the fundamental problem of cultural encounters. Shifting our perspectives to recognize that the Indigenous-West encounter is about thought worlds may also remind us that frameworks or paradigms are required to reconcile these solitudes” (p. 201).
If you're wondering what this means for me in a mtb context:
https://cyclingmagazine.ca/mtb/how-do-we-decolonize-our-mountain-bike-trails/
Posted by: XXX_er
and BC is even way more fun becuz by the time they got to BC the brits just didn't wana pay off the FN so there are unsettled landclaims like Delgamuuk
but there are ways around that ^^ as Christy Clarke showed us, even if they have no authority just deal with the band council instead of the hereditary chiefs the whole CGL project is on Wetsueten lands they fought over in Delgamuuk and again with the Westsueten blockades on the CN main lines in Hazelton & the Mohawks back east
that was costing industry a LOT of money i think i heard 1 million per day
That was Tyendinaga just down the highway from me. What was interesting wasn't so much the blockade but how divided the Rez themselves where about it. While some supported the blockade others including chiefs wanted to have nothing to do with it. There was apparently a few public spats between various groups on the Rez over leadership and such. And keep in mind it has been well over a decade since the Tyendinaga band who where notorious for blocking rail lines and the 401 did anything like this.
I know a couple of people from Tyendinaga and through them it has been interesting to learn how much of a divide even between First Nations groups over things there exists. For example one told me they view any first nations like those in BC who make agreements as sell outs and not native enough.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
I do not like this whole "settler" thing. It is exactly what you are saying and it is psychological tool. Trump used imagery effectively with things like "lock her up". It created a picture in people's mind of Clinton behind bars which leads to people thinking she must actually be criminal in their minds (maybe she is, but not my point). By calling non-natives "settlers" it is the same thing. It is the image of white men with muskets landing on the shores of America and it is not helpful if we are ever going to move forward together.
When you begin to learn about and understand Indigenous cultures, what happened to them due to colonization from settlers, and what continues to happen to them to this day then you can see that the word settler makes sense. It's not really about an image of white men with muskets landing on the shores of America, it's about white men taking away their way of life and identity and allowing it to continue to this day. We may not have been the ones who landed on those shores 500 years ago, but we are reaping the benefits from those who did.
It is still wrong and it creates the imagery whether that was the intent or not (and I think you underestimate the intent). No offense, but I "began to learn" about indigenous cultures a long time ago. I might not know all there is to know about the history of colonization but I understand how it completely destroyed who they were as a people and decimated their populations. All of us alive today are benefitting from former atrocities of our ancestors, but the past can't be undone. First Nations up and down the coast were brutal to one another and slavery was a way of life for many of them, because people suck. If we want a path forward it can't be "us" and "them" forever. IMO, either we agree to going our own separate ways and new independent nations are formed or we all come together in one country because the course we are on will bring racial strife for another 500 years.
EDIT: I have looked into some more of the work of the authors that you quoted and I think where these concept go off the tracks for me is how we use them to construct who non-native Canadians are.
POLITICS OF IDENTITY – IX1 - Taiaiake Alfred and Jeff Corntassel
...there are new faces of empire that are attempting to strip Indigenous peoples of their very spirit as nations and of all that is held sacred, threatening their sources of connection to their distinct existences and the sources of their spiritual power: relationships to each other, communities, homelands, ceremonial life, languages, histories
. . . These connections are crucial to living a meaningful life for any human being.
At some point the "settlers" should be allowed to have a homeland as well. The reason I reject the term is because I believe this is my homeland and I know for a fact there is no other homeland for my family. So if this is crucial to a meaningful life, at what point in this process do people who are not First Nations get to call this land their homeland? I feel like the term "settler" is an attempt to place us permanently as Europeans that are just over here for a camping trip.
Last edited by: chupacabra on Feb. 18, 2021, 3:51 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: chupacabra
It is still wrong and it creates the imagery whether that was the intent or not (and I think you underestimate the intent). No offense, but I "began to learn" about indigenous cultures a long time ago. I might not know all there is to know about the history of colonization but I understand how it completely destroyed who they were as a people and decimated their populations. All of us alive today are benefitting from former atrocities of our ancestors, but the past can't be undone. First Nations up and down the coast were brutal to one another and slavery was a way of life for many of them, because people suck. If we want a path forward it can't be "us" and "them" forever. IMO, either we agree to going our own separate ways and new independent nations are formed or we all come together in one country because the course we are on will bring racial strife for another 500 years.
Why is it wrong though, because it upsets your sensibilities? If so, what word do you think would better capture the image of Europeans and their society that came here and continue to oppress Indigenous people? In light of all that's taken place, I don't think there's a favourable word to describe us. When I talk about learning about Indigenous cultures it's less about what happened to them (which is important) and more about how their culture works. Western/Eurocentric culture is very different from Indigenous culture and until we begin to understand their culture we cannot begin to deal with the problems that exist. That's part of what that video series is about. As I replied to JBV, it's not an us vs them debate, it's just us - all of us. The problem of us vs them comes from the denial and refusal of mainstream society to deal with what's happened and continues to happen. Indigenous society is not the one that needs to make the effort to come together, that rests with Western society. I agree with you that it's uncomfortable, but admitting that we are part of the problem is a significant step towards fixing it. It's similar to views on racism in general in Canadian society where we tend to have this view of ourselves as a peacemakers and an accepting society. Part of how we uphold that is pointing to our neighbours and saying look how bad they are, all the while ignoring the problems in our own backyard. We have to take accountability otherwise we're just allowing these problems to continue.
I'm not sure about how your comment of First Nations being brutal fits into this, but I would say that it needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt considering who wrote that history and how it was obtained. If this was a different discussion and you were on the other side there would probably be accusations of whataboutism being put forward. Fighting between coastal nations and some slavery existed, but it would be a mistake to overplay it or to try and use it as a prop to suggest that we don't hold responsibility for what happened. Here's an excerpt from an article that addresses the topic:
"Misperceptions and contemporary biases crowd the records of European visitors and have fostered numerous errors and popular legends. Enlightenment biases, misunderstandings caused by poor or non-existent language comprehension on both sides, and the negative propaganda of competing sea otter fur traders combined to spread rumours and to entrench premeditated lies."
https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/download/1792/1838/
Posted by: chupacabra
At some point the "settlers" should be allowed to have a homeland as well. The reason I reject the term is because I believe this is my homeland and I know for a fact there is no other homeland for my family. So if this is crucial to a meaningful life, at what point in this process do people who are not First Nations get to call this land their homeland? I feel like the term "settler" is an attempt to place us permanently as Europeans that are just over here for a camping trip.
Well your family would have come here from somewhere else, so somewhere in that lineage exists a homeland so to speak. Like you I consider this my homeland, but I don't see settler as a term that has to displaces us from this land. Settler is just a people that came from somewhere else and settled this land. Canadian society is not that old when compared to Indigenous societies that have been here for 3000 years or longer. What matters is that we recognize what happened to the peoples that existed here before us under the hands of those first settlers and what continues today under the current settlers. I think until we have equalized how all people in this land and society we call Canada are treated then a label that places us as a people that disturbed societies that were here before us is acceptable. One day we can all call this place our homeland, but that day is not here yet.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
It is still wrong and it creates the imagery whether that was the intent or not (and I think you underestimate the intent). No offense, but I "began to learn" about indigenous cultures a long time ago. I might not know all there is to know about the history of colonization but I understand how it completely destroyed who they were as a people and decimated their populations. All of us alive today are benefitting from former atrocities of our ancestors, but the past can't be undone. First Nations up and down the coast were brutal to one another and slavery was a way of life for many of them, because people suck. If we want a path forward it can't be "us" and "them" forever. IMO, either we agree to going our own separate ways and new independent nations are formed or we all come together in one country because the course we are on will bring racial strife for another 500 years.
Why is it wrong though, because it upsets your sensibilities? If so, what word do you think would better capture the image of Europeans and their society that came here and continue to oppress Indigenous people? In light of all that's taken place, I don't think there's a favourable word to describe us. When I talk about learning about Indigenous cultures it's less about what happened to them (which is important) and more about how their culture works. Western/Eurocentric culture is very different from Indigenous culture and until we begin to understand their culture we cannot begin to deal with the problems that exist. That's part of what that video series is about. As I replied to JBV, it's not an us vs them debate, it's just us - all of us. The problem of us vs them comes from the denial and refusal of mainstream society to deal with what's happened and continues to happen. Indigenous society is not the one that needs to make the effort to come together, that rests with Western society. I agree with you that it's uncomfortable, but admitting that we are part of the problem is a significant step towards fixing it. It's similar to views on racism in general in Canadian society where we tend to have this view of ourselves as a peacemakers and an accepting society. Part of how we uphold that is pointing to our neighbours and saying look how bad they are, all the while ignoring the problems in our own backyard. We have to take accountability otherwise we're just allowing these problems to continue.
I'm not sure about how your comment of First Nations being brutal fits into this, but I would say that it needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt considering who wrote that history and how it was obtained. If this was a different discussion and you were on the other side there would probably be accusations of whataboutism being put forward. Fighting between coastal nations and some slavery existed, but it would be a mistake to overplay it or to try and use it as a prop to suggest that we don't hold responsibility for what happened. Here's an excerpt from an article that addresses the topic:
"Misperceptions and contemporary biases crowd the records of European visitors and have fostered numerous errors and popular legends. Enlightenment biases, misunderstandings caused by poor or non-existent language comprehension on both sides, and the negative propaganda of competing sea otter fur traders combined to spread rumours and to entrench premeditated lies."
https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/download/1792/1838/
Do a Google image search for "settler". I know exactly what the word means and so do these academics. The answers to reconciliation are not going to come from UBC. Unless they want to give up the endowment lands. Maybe that is a good step.
I have spent days tied up to the docks of Klemtu, Lax Kwal'aams, and Bella Bella and I may not be an expert but I have experienced their culture. They love to live life slow, share stories and enjoy time with friends. I have had great experiences in a lot of these places. Once in Alert Bay this guy came down and spent most of the day with my sitting on the dock and teaching me how to fix our net. That is the culture I experienced and we never once talked about the land. I don't think it is that hard to connect with in this way because we are not really that different. Our cultures are not very different.
They deserve more from our society. I believe that 100%. Our culture buried and decimated theirs and we owe it to them to give them back what we can. I am all for major land claim deals and full autonomy on those lands, but we need to make sure this is the home for all of us.
My point with the Haida (and yes, they were notorious) is just that we all have shameful ancestors. Pick any people you want. I don't see the purpose in viewing history through a lens of guilt. Even you just said "In light of all that's taken place, I don't think there's a favourable word to describe us." Really?
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
At some point the "settlers" should be allowed to have a homeland as well. The reason I reject the term is because I believe this is my homeland and I know for a fact there is no other homeland for my family. So if this is crucial to a meaningful life, at what point in this process do people who are not First Nations get to call this land their homeland? I feel like the term "settler" is an attempt to place us permanently as Europeans that are just over here for a camping trip.
Well your family would have come here from somewhere else, so somewhere in that lineage exists a homeland so to speak. Like you I consider this my homeland, but I don't see settler as a term that has to displaces us from this land. Settler is just a people that came from somewhere else and settled this land. Canadian society is not that old when compared to Indigenous societies that have been here for 3000 years or longer. What matters is that we recognize what happened to the peoples that existed here before us under the hands of those first settlers and what continues today under the current settlers. I think until we have equalized how all people in this land and society we call Canada are treated then a label that places us as a people that disturbed societies that were here before us is acceptable. One day we can all call this place our homeland, but that day is not here yet.
Why not? What is the requisite number of generations?
And it is more like 10,000+ years.
Posted by: chupacabra
Do a Google image search for "settler". I know exactly what the word means and so do these academics. The answers to reconciliation are not going to come from UBC. Unless they want to give up the endowment lands. Maybe that is a good step.
I have spent days tied up to the docks of Klemtu, Lax Kwal'aams, and Bella Bella and I may not be an expert but I have experienced their culture. They love to live life slow, share stories and enjoy time with friends. I have had great experiences in a lot of these places. Once in Alert Bay this guy came down and spent most of the day with my sitting on the dock and teaching me how to fix our net. That is the culture I experienced and we never once talked about the land. I don't think it is that hard to connect with in this way because we are not really that different. Our cultures are not very different.
They deserve more from our society. I believe that 100%. Our culture buried and decimated theirs and we owe it to them to give them back what we can. I am all for major land claim deals and full autonomy on those lands, but we need to make sure this is the home for all of us.
My point with the Haida (and yes, they were notorious) is just that we all have shameful ancestors. Pick any people you want. I don't see the purpose in viewing history through a lens of guilt. Even you just said "In light of all that's taken place, I don't think there's a favourable word to describe us." Really?
Ok, so how does that image of settler from 500 years ago relate to today from an Indigenous perspective? When you look at the way Canadian government, and by extension society, still controls Indigenous people is settler or colonizer totally incorrect? So yes, under the current paradigm, I don't think there is a favourable way to describe us. I think that we can get there, but there is much that needs to happen. As a simple example of the ways Canadian society still oppresses Indigenous people take a look at Jordan's Principle. Some of those same mistakes are still being made despite legislation that dictates otherwise. Another example is child welfare, where Indigenous children get only about 70% of the same dollars that non-Indigenous children get. The government knowingly underfunds child welfare and medical services and this is not ancient history - this is happening now.
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/10/04/Indigenous-Kid-Funding-Failure/
One issue that exists today is that some Indigenous people are in the process of rediscovering their culture and history as it was nearly erased via government policies and legislation. That was one of the goals of our previous governments, the erasure of Indigenous identity. Your experience is something to be valued as many Canadians, white Canadians in particular, don't get to have that. In light of it though, our cultures are vastly different, even though as individuals we may want many of the same things. As you have experienced their culture, how would you describe the importance of the land to Indigenous people? Have you heard of the concept "all my relations"? What Western society values is different from what Indigenous societies valued even though there are some similarities. I don't think we have to view history through a lens of guilt, but a lens of acknowledgment and understanding. This is a key part of reconciliation respecting and acknowledging culture. I'll add that while there is a common Worldview amongst Indigenous people in Canada, we cannot treat them as a monolith and each culture has to be respected as unique. This is something Indigenous cultures do and it's something Canadian society needs to learn how to do.
Last edited by: syncro on Feb. 19, 2021, 5:07 p.m., edited 2 times in total.
Posted by: chupacabra
Why not? What is the requisite number of generations?
And it is more like 10,000+ years.
I don't think of it as length of time but more to do with how we relate with this land and the people that were already here. You and I may be in better positions to say this is out homeland, but Canadian society in general is still a disrptor/settler/colonizer here when you consider how we interact with Indigenous people. And yes, should have been 13K or longer depending where one looks.
RE the Indigenous Worldview or how Indigenous cultures view the world and the creation and sharing of knowledge it is highly relational, so everything is interconnected. There are these concepts of "All My Relations" and "Seven Generations" that reflect that what I do affects everyone else in some way and that my actions have impacts for seven generations.
Aboriginal knowledge is not a description of reality but an understanding of the processes of ecological change and ever-changing insights about diverse patterns or styles of flux. Concepts about 'what is' define human awareness of the changes but add little to the actual processes of change. To see things as permanent is to be confused about everything: an alternative to that understanding is the need to create temporary harmonies of interdependence through alliances and relationships among all forms and forces. This web of interdependence is a never ending source of wonder to the Aboriginal mind and to other forces that contribute to the harmony. (p.246, Battiste and Henderson. 2000)
The way Aboriginal peoples in North America (Turtle Island) view their existence on earth is very different from how Western cultures views it.
Is this true throughout the Americas? It seems very specific to be shared across such a diverse number of people. A lot of these traditions, such as Turtle Island, come from nations out east.
I respect the journey you are on, but I am still very skeptical that the academics truly speak for all First Nations people and I believe that culture is less about a belief system and more about community and family practices and traditions. Obviously these overlap, but as an atheist I didn't lose the culture passed down to me by my religious ancestors.
good artical from a couple of locals, Tyler Mcreary /jerome Turner
Forum jump:
