Im posting this thread, in the hopes that people can fill me in with information as much as anything else.
I often hear about how screwed up the governance of first nations is, often as a result of their traditional leadership.
I am always wondering if everyday natives really think that they should live by their traditional government that they did hundreds of years ago.
It strikes me that every other nation in the world has changed their traditional government quite a bit in the last hundred years even, if first nations hadn't been conquered, odds are they would have by now too.
I find it extra odd considering some of them were (for the time) pretty adaptable democracies, every other democracy has made major changes (in terms of suffrage, ending slavery etc) it strikes me as odd to want to return to "traditonal" governance.
Are you sure it a traditional form of goverance that they are referring to?
Or a traditional way of life?
I for one, have no intention of supporting either a return to the 'Traditional' form of governance of the Six Nations. For one, the people that would undoubtedly become the leaders aren't fit to shovel shyte from one place to another.
At one point we were headed in the right direction, it has sadly taken a turn for the worse in the last two decades. With a release of controls by the Federal Gov't, we saw the rise in corruption and abuses of finance and power.
I personally know of only a handful of leaders that posess the skills, maturity and ethics to lead and because of this, they have been relugated to the fringe by those that support the status quo and thusly recieve their support from the powers that be.
We're talking about a good of people here, that no matter what level of education one reaches, they still seem stuck in a culture of victimhood and that pemiates into a view of personal entitlement. That in and of itself, creates much of the anomosity between moderates and hardliners, as well as 'us' (Native)vs. 'them' (Non native).
The traditional ways were good for the time they were used in, but as you have asserted, and I shall agree, all forms of Gov't and thus policy by said, have grown and matured. Sadly, I believe because we were stifled so severely for a great period of time, our memories of the past were never over shadowed by the change in the political environment of the nation. It's a case of springback repression. When you keep a child from eating candy, once he gets the taste of the sweets, he is likely to over indulge.
Which is what I think is the case amonst the Native community.
Now compound that with the fact that many see the Assembly of First Nations as a joke and a group of sell outs.
You see, for a Native Community to reletively heard and there leadership accepted by the Feds, it must incorporate. Thus becoming subject to Federal scrutiny. This is seen as conceding to the Crown and selling our collective souls. Much is the case of the Mohawks along the St, Lawrance.
This of course is a serious bone of contention between people who wish to move forword, and those that want to hold the old ways such as the Women Title Holders.
And here is where conflict arises.
You have one group, that wish to expand on self governance by disobeying the Feds and creating their own Gov't, the other wish to gain self governance by ceding to the Crown and thus recieving Federal blessing for more self governance.
Furthermore, many of the Six Nation see that they never ceded to the Crown, but entered an agreement in which they would be two entities walking the same path. ANd as I've said before, this is actually true. The only malice is, that one of those entities tried to hamstring the other and play sneeky bugger with the others future for personal gain, not growth of the Nations involved.
Hence anomosity.
Did that help Z? If not, I can clarify anything you wish or expand on whatever I can.
