Oh, Canada...
by Jeff Elliott
Both the United States and Canada try desperately to ignore the problem
[SIZE=+2]Think of some [/SIZE]of the most significant news in the past few years: the beating of Rodney King and the events at Waco would certainly be among the top ten. Now imagine these events occurred at the exact same time, and every newspaper, every radio or TV news show is competing to keep the nation abreast of the latest developments, and the nation hangs on every word. But a few miles down the road, you can read a newspaper or listen to a broadcast without hearing either event mentioned at all. The biggest stories of the day have just...disappeared.
Unbelievable? Not at all. This is exactly what happened last month, as important events in Canada were all but ignored by the American press. And it certainly wasn't the first time. We have a blind spot when it comes to our nearest neighbor; should Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa simultaneously burn to the ground, the New York Times would probably run a small story headlined, "Smoky Haze Expected Over Northeast."
Besides America's provincial attitude, there could be another reason why these recent events were neglected. At the heart of each story is the same troubling dispute, one that both the United States and Canada try desperately to ignore. The problem: the rights of the Native people from whom the land was stolen.
Clearcutting had all but destroyed traditional hunting and trapping territory
[SIZE=+2]"The much-predicted [/SIZE]Indian revolution in Canada has begun," wrote one Ottawa columnist in early September. At that time, tensions ran high in Canada. More than a thousand miles apart, different groups of Native people were in stand-offs with police, protecting their claims to small scraps of land. Both were surrounded by heavily-armed troops ready to open fire. Already a Native man was dead, and it appeared that there would soon be more fatalities; at least one man promised he would defend their land to his death. A few days after that column was written, three more were wounded in a gunfight with police.
At the same time, there were other confrontations that didn't make Canadian headlines. Some of these were fought in the forests, others on the rivers. Although these events were not as dramatic, they do more to explain the underlying problems.
One battle was fought in the deep woods of British Columbia, just a few miles from the southernmost tip of Alaska. The conflict had been simmering for years, as clearcutting had all but destroyed traditional hunting and trapping territory of a group of Gitksan people. When the timber company obtained a permit from the government in June to cut another 88 acres, the tribe drew the line. "Out of our entire territory, this is the last little piece of forest we have left. The rest is clearcut or alpine," one of the protesters told a reporter. "This particular area is the last remaining stand for our [tribal group]. Now it is threatened."
The group blockaded roads used for logging until the timber company obtained a court order. The province of British Columbia also sought an injunction against the tribe, the Attorney General stating that the government will not tolerate any public inconvenience on the roads.
The only public suffering an "inconvenience," of course, were the loggers, but no matter; the place to discuss the issue was at the bargaining table, the government said, not the barricades. "We are committed to the legitimate land-claims process at the treaty commission table," said the B.C. Attorney General. "As soon as this kind of blockade occurs, the negotiations are off."
Right-wingers claimed that Natives had "special rights" that screwed the hard-working white majority
[SIZE=+2]But like [/SIZE]their U.S. counterparts, Canadian Native people say the government doesn't keep its word. Treaties are honored when they serve business interests and conveniently ignored when they don't.
And these laws defining Native rights aren't all dusty 19th century agreements; one of the most controversial is a 1990 ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court. Known as the "Sparrow" decision, the court unanimously said that Native rights were not to be infringed -- unless there were no reasonable alternatives.
In theory, this meant that tribes no longer had to compete with corporations for the same resources. A group that traditionally fished, for example, would be guaranteed that mammoth trawlers wouldn't be allowed to scoop up the season's entire harvest.
But in practice, it was business as usual. On the rivers near Vancouver, five tribes were promised a catch of over 50,000 salmon by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Yet only a fraction of that number were caught by the tribes; many came away empty handed. What happened to those guarantees?
One problem was because 1995 proved a lousy year for salmon; another reason was because of political gamesmanship. Right-wingers in the Reform (conservative) Party claimed that Natives had "special rights" that screwed the hard-working white majority. One politician who hammered on that theme was Member of Parliment John Cummins, a founder of the "Fisheries Survival Coalition." Throughout the summer, Cummins and the Survival Coalition staged media events -- at taxpayer expense -- to press the government into backing away from promises made to the tribes.
Cummins and his group won; soon the tribal fishermen found their salmon allocation given to the commercial fisheries. All they could do was watch helplessly as the food for their children was dredged from the rivers with gill nets.
Clarence Pennier, Grand Chief of the Sto:lo Nation, wrote of the anger and resentment this decision caused in a letter to a Vancouver newspaper. "The Sto:lo chiefs are left trying to explain to our young people that they should still stay within the law. These same young people turn on their televison sets, and every night they see more Survival Coalition protests. In the newspapers, they read more complaints that the Sto:lo enjoy 'racially-segregated commercial fishing,' 'rights based on race' and 'native-only fisheries.' They stay glued to their radios listening for the latest news out of Gustafsen Lake."
It was the events at Gustafsen Lake in central British Columbia that gripped not only the Sto:lo youth, but the entire nation. At the same time of the salmon wars near Vancover, at the same time as the Gitksan logging blockade, at the same time as another conflict in Ontario left a Native man dead, the nation watched as the Canadian army prepared for a bloody siege.
Art by Canadian political cartoonist Don Monet, who publishes a superb daily cartoon through the Internet.
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-30-95/nativecanada.html
by Jeff Elliott
[SIZE=+2]Think of some [/SIZE]of the most significant news in the past few years: the beating of Rodney King and the events at Waco would certainly be among the top ten. Now imagine these events occurred at the exact same time, and every newspaper, every radio or TV news show is competing to keep the nation abreast of the latest developments, and the nation hangs on every word. But a few miles down the road, you can read a newspaper or listen to a broadcast without hearing either event mentioned at all. The biggest stories of the day have just...disappeared.
Unbelievable? Not at all. This is exactly what happened last month, as important events in Canada were all but ignored by the American press. And it certainly wasn't the first time. We have a blind spot when it comes to our nearest neighbor; should Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa simultaneously burn to the ground, the New York Times would probably run a small story headlined, "Smoky Haze Expected Over Northeast."
Besides America's provincial attitude, there could be another reason why these recent events were neglected. At the heart of each story is the same troubling dispute, one that both the United States and Canada try desperately to ignore. The problem: the rights of the Native people from whom the land was stolen.
Clearcutting had all but destroyed traditional hunting and trapping territory
[SIZE=+2]"The much-predicted [/SIZE]Indian revolution in Canada has begun," wrote one Ottawa columnist in early September. At that time, tensions ran high in Canada. More than a thousand miles apart, different groups of Native people were in stand-offs with police, protecting their claims to small scraps of land. Both were surrounded by heavily-armed troops ready to open fire. Already a Native man was dead, and it appeared that there would soon be more fatalities; at least one man promised he would defend their land to his death. A few days after that column was written, three more were wounded in a gunfight with police.
At the same time, there were other confrontations that didn't make Canadian headlines. Some of these were fought in the forests, others on the rivers. Although these events were not as dramatic, they do more to explain the underlying problems.
One battle was fought in the deep woods of British Columbia, just a few miles from the southernmost tip of Alaska. The conflict had been simmering for years, as clearcutting had all but destroyed traditional hunting and trapping territory of a group of Gitksan people. When the timber company obtained a permit from the government in June to cut another 88 acres, the tribe drew the line. "Out of our entire territory, this is the last little piece of forest we have left. The rest is clearcut or alpine," one of the protesters told a reporter. "This particular area is the last remaining stand for our [tribal group]. Now it is threatened."
The group blockaded roads used for logging until the timber company obtained a court order. The province of British Columbia also sought an injunction against the tribe, the Attorney General stating that the government will not tolerate any public inconvenience on the roads.
The only public suffering an "inconvenience," of course, were the loggers, but no matter; the place to discuss the issue was at the bargaining table, the government said, not the barricades. "We are committed to the legitimate land-claims process at the treaty commission table," said the B.C. Attorney General. "As soon as this kind of blockade occurs, the negotiations are off."
Right-wingers claimed that Natives had "special rights" that screwed the hard-working white majority
[SIZE=+2]But like [/SIZE]their U.S. counterparts, Canadian Native people say the government doesn't keep its word. Treaties are honored when they serve business interests and conveniently ignored when they don't.
And these laws defining Native rights aren't all dusty 19th century agreements; one of the most controversial is a 1990 ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court. Known as the "Sparrow" decision, the court unanimously said that Native rights were not to be infringed -- unless there were no reasonable alternatives.
In theory, this meant that tribes no longer had to compete with corporations for the same resources. A group that traditionally fished, for example, would be guaranteed that mammoth trawlers wouldn't be allowed to scoop up the season's entire harvest.
But in practice, it was business as usual. On the rivers near Vancouver, five tribes were promised a catch of over 50,000 salmon by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Yet only a fraction of that number were caught by the tribes; many came away empty handed. What happened to those guarantees?
One problem was because 1995 proved a lousy year for salmon; another reason was because of political gamesmanship. Right-wingers in the Reform (conservative) Party claimed that Natives had "special rights" that screwed the hard-working white majority. One politician who hammered on that theme was Member of Parliment John Cummins, a founder of the "Fisheries Survival Coalition." Throughout the summer, Cummins and the Survival Coalition staged media events -- at taxpayer expense -- to press the government into backing away from promises made to the tribes.
Cummins and his group won; soon the tribal fishermen found their salmon allocation given to the commercial fisheries. All they could do was watch helplessly as the food for their children was dredged from the rivers with gill nets.
Clarence Pennier, Grand Chief of the Sto:lo Nation, wrote of the anger and resentment this decision caused in a letter to a Vancouver newspaper. "The Sto:lo chiefs are left trying to explain to our young people that they should still stay within the law. These same young people turn on their televison sets, and every night they see more Survival Coalition protests. In the newspapers, they read more complaints that the Sto:lo enjoy 'racially-segregated commercial fishing,' 'rights based on race' and 'native-only fisheries.' They stay glued to their radios listening for the latest news out of Gustafsen Lake."
It was the events at Gustafsen Lake in central British Columbia that gripped not only the Sto:lo youth, but the entire nation. At the same time of the salmon wars near Vancover, at the same time as the Gitksan logging blockade, at the same time as another conflict in Ontario left a Native man dead, the nation watched as the Canadian army prepared for a bloody siege.
Art by Canadian political cartoonist Don Monet, who publishes a superb daily cartoon through the Internet.
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-30-95/nativecanada.html