Of blockades and broom closets
Jun. 29th, 2007 09:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyOn this, the beginning of a long weekend that commemorates the transfer of First Nations land from one group of brutal occupiers to another, Mohawk warriors have blocked off bits of their land that someone built a highway on to disrupt the travel of the descendants of said brutal occupiers.
As is just and fair, the government of Canada will be charged with theft, murder, kidnapping, and attempted genocide.
Just kidding! Instead, they're charging protester Shawn Brant with public mischief.
Now seems like a good time to talk about colonialism and what it is. See, I have a metaphorical model in my head that I can't shake, and it applies to the relationship between indigenous nations and settler nations everywhere. It's pretty simple, and because of its simplicity, I often can't have a meaningful conversation with other people of my national and/or ethnic background about the people we've displaced.
The model goes like this: You live in a house. As far as you know, you own the house, or at least no one else does—your family has lived in that house for generations. But one day, a strange family arrives from out of town. According to their municipal by-laws, they own your house.
You rifle through your files, finding all sorts of documents that attest to the fact that your family owns the house, but the strangers insist that their town's by-laws are legitimate, and yours are not. Over your protests, they move in. They seem vaguely puzzled that you're sticking around in your own house—don't you understand that it belongs to them now? They've planted their flag outside!
Of course, it comes to blows. You won't leave, they won't leave, and it gets physical. They beat you, and you beat back, but they were prepared for this and you weren't. You lose pretty much every fight. Finally, though, they acknowledge that you were here first and, as nice as it would be for them, you're not just going to evaporate.
"Do you want the doghouse?" they ask. "You obviously built that."
"I want my house back," you reply. And because you're a reasonable person—and because the strangers are armed—you add: "You can live here. There's enough room in this house for all of us to live comfortably."
"Screw that." They give you the broom closet in the basement. "There," they say. "We're even now."
You fight back, of course. You always fight back. Mostly they ignore you, but every so often, they come downstairs to give you a thorough beating and tell you that you're violent and savage. They bemoan the fact that your family and theirs are always fighting, and couldn't you just stop with the violence—as if you were even to start with. As if their first act, their violent home invasion, had never happened at all. As you grow increasingly despondent, they shake their heads in disbelief: "What's wrong with you? Can't you get yourself together? We gave you your broom closet back—we've been more than generous."
And as you both grow older, their part of the house renovated and gleaming, and your children cramped in the broom closet, they say: "Don't you know that this house is free and equal? It's a house for everyone!"
They ask: "Why are you so angry?"
You realize, with a sense of horror, that they really have no idea.
As of this morning, the OPP and the Mohawks have reached a deal to reopen the highway. God forbid someone should be inconvenienced.
As is just and fair, the government of Canada will be charged with theft, murder, kidnapping, and attempted genocide.
Just kidding! Instead, they're charging protester Shawn Brant with public mischief.
Now seems like a good time to talk about colonialism and what it is. See, I have a metaphorical model in my head that I can't shake, and it applies to the relationship between indigenous nations and settler nations everywhere. It's pretty simple, and because of its simplicity, I often can't have a meaningful conversation with other people of my national and/or ethnic background about the people we've displaced.
The model goes like this: You live in a house. As far as you know, you own the house, or at least no one else does—your family has lived in that house for generations. But one day, a strange family arrives from out of town. According to their municipal by-laws, they own your house.
You rifle through your files, finding all sorts of documents that attest to the fact that your family owns the house, but the strangers insist that their town's by-laws are legitimate, and yours are not. Over your protests, they move in. They seem vaguely puzzled that you're sticking around in your own house—don't you understand that it belongs to them now? They've planted their flag outside!
Of course, it comes to blows. You won't leave, they won't leave, and it gets physical. They beat you, and you beat back, but they were prepared for this and you weren't. You lose pretty much every fight. Finally, though, they acknowledge that you were here first and, as nice as it would be for them, you're not just going to evaporate.
"Do you want the doghouse?" they ask. "You obviously built that."
"I want my house back," you reply. And because you're a reasonable person—and because the strangers are armed—you add: "You can live here. There's enough room in this house for all of us to live comfortably."
"Screw that." They give you the broom closet in the basement. "There," they say. "We're even now."
You fight back, of course. You always fight back. Mostly they ignore you, but every so often, they come downstairs to give you a thorough beating and tell you that you're violent and savage. They bemoan the fact that your family and theirs are always fighting, and couldn't you just stop with the violence—as if you were even to start with. As if their first act, their violent home invasion, had never happened at all. As you grow increasingly despondent, they shake their heads in disbelief: "What's wrong with you? Can't you get yourself together? We gave you your broom closet back—we've been more than generous."
And as you both grow older, their part of the house renovated and gleaming, and your children cramped in the broom closet, they say: "Don't you know that this house is free and equal? It's a house for everyone!"
They ask: "Why are you so angry?"
You realize, with a sense of horror, that they really have no idea.
As of this morning, the OPP and the Mohawks have reached a deal to reopen the highway. God forbid someone should be inconvenienced.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 02:31 pm (UTC)The foreigners actually doing the slaughtering are dirt poor and oddly enough don't get to possess your house at all. That goes to a richer bunch of foreigners. Fast forward three hundred years. Your 'leaders' are making a small fortune out of siphoning off guilt money from the rich foreigners. You don't have a house and are dirt poor, as are the descendants of most of the foreigners who did the slaughtering.
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 03:49 pm (UTC)Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 04:06 pm (UTC)Yes, you're right, every discussion of colonialism should begin by fastening upon the preëxisting internal divisions among the conquered people and setting their claims against each other.
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-30 05:15 am (UTC)Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 03:58 pm (UTC)I would say that in your particularism and literalness, you fail at allegory. You may have a valid point to make, maybe about how the real kinship transcends geography, that it's the have-nots against the haves that's at issue here, the grand metaphor of "workers of the world"... I dunno. I suggest you work on it until it resembles a story, and chip away at some of your charged language which only clouds the issue ("whine", "brutal", etc.) Then post it in your LJ.
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 03:59 pm (UTC)Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 04:27 pm (UTC)1. I'm skeptical of "we were here first" based arguments, especially when the 'here first' is based on recent conquest. One only has to listen to Radovan Karadicz explaining why the Serbs have every right to reclaim the lands they held in Kosovo prior to 1348 to worry about that one. It's impossible to unscramble thousands of years of human migration and assigning human rights based on loosely grounded arguments about who 'belongs' where are at best futile, at worst racist. Humans are human and have human rights.
2. There's a certain universality about 'traditional leaders' collaborating with the new elite to their great personal benefit (not their 'oppression' - to suggest that the people creaming off band money in high style are 'oppressed' is nonsense) and the great detriment of everyone else. (Ironically many of the 'poor whites' who came to Canada did so as a direct result of a similar sell out) Anyone who has worked on government hand outs and contracts involving First Nations knows who is really being benefited by them. It doesn't excuse anything of course but it ought to make us very cautious about dealing with 'traditional leaders' as if they represented anyone but themselves. I think a lot of people, some white, some indigenous, have a vested interest in keeping the bulk of indigenous people poor and dependent.
3. I don't think it's progressive politics to align with traditional leaders on the take or organised crime syndicates like the "Mohawk Warriors".
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 04:53 pm (UTC)I believe in open borders and freedom of movement, limited only by the the idea that you can't displace someone else. There's a difference between migration and displacement, particularly violent displacement. That violent displacement has happened with regularity throughout human history doesn't excuse it.
2. Colonialism can't happen, for the most part, without significant collaboration on the part of the indigenous elite. But the fact that a few Native leaders profit from handouts doesn't compare with how incredibly wealthy the rest of the country has gotten, essentially by stealing land and resources. It's a distraction from the main issue to point to those people and say, "look, they're assholes, they're the ones keeping 'their own people' in poverty." The band councils might profit a bit, but they're not the ones profiting the most, nor would the First Nations suddenly be able to participate in the affluence of mainstream Canadian society if that particular boot were taken off their necks.
3. Band councils are largely a creation of white Canada, not traditional anything. I disagree that the Mohawk Warriors are a crime syndicate—I don't glorify them as the revolutionary vanguard like some people do, but they've been willing to say and do a lot what the official leadership won't (again, because the official leadership is irredeemably corrupt). Insofar as they mount a challenge to their own leaders and ours, they're a reasonably progressive force.
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 05:07 pm (UTC)What's not in question as far as you and I are concerned is that everyone in Canada (and elsewhere) ought to have human rights. I'm far from convinced that defining part of the population as "First Nations" furthers that goal.
I'm not sure. As long as they are treated by government as legitimate bodies to negotiate and do business with they are part of the problem.
Agreed, but that it's not sufficient doesn't mean that it may not be necessary.
Insofar.. yes. Insofar as they are prepared to use violence against anybody who disagrees with them... less so.
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 05:44 pm (UTC)To draw another imperfect analogy—the African tribes and leaders that kidnapped other Africans to sell as slaves colluded in the slave trade, and kept slaves of their own. White Americans like to whip out this fact as an excuse: "They" were doing it first, "they" profited, and so "we" don't have primary responsibility for the matter.
White America, though, does bear the bulk of the historical guilt for slavery. It would not be wealthy and powerful without its extortion of free labour, and the slave trade wouldn't have carried on as long as it did without a greedy market.
Insofar.. yes. Insofar as they are prepared to use violence against anybody who disagrees with them... less so.
If that's the qualifier, we need to also include the federal and provincial governments, the RCMP, and the OPP as organized crime syndicates. (Which, come to think of it...)
The Warriors, in this action and recent other actions, are using non-violence. One could get into the discussion of when is violence appropriate or necessary, but it isn't relevant yet.
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 07:09 pm (UTC)Possibly, though as 9/10 of the Atlantic slave trade did not involve the USA or its predecessor colonies I'm not sure about 'bulk'. Where the 'they were in it too' argument is usually pulled out is during the reparations argument. I don't see any merit in state to state compensation for the slave trade. If anybody should be compensated it's the descendants of slaves.
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 07:27 pm (UTC)Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 08:19 pm (UTC)Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-07-04 01:11 am (UTC)The only people who benefit by colorblindness and ignoring the culture and identity of the people in question are white people, aka the dominant culture. We cannot say "we are all the same" because we are *not* all the same. Things affect each group differently according to power relationships. To ignore the history and culture and identity of an oppressed group in the name of "we are all the same and ought to have human right!11eleventy!!" is to ignore the fight against the forces that oppress that people, no matter who it is. The particular experiences of First Nations are not just some random label slapped on, they are real, and grounded in history that resonates to this day. To ignore that is to allow it to continue. There isn't a one size fits all solution to this involving a clever magic wand.
Re: Alternative version
Date: 2007-06-29 07:20 pm (UTC)Nor does your concern for human rights or progressive politics explain why you used sabotabby's universal allegory of colonial processes to mock the Haudenosaunee for "getting indignant and whining about it for the next three hundred years" when they were betrayed by their white allies, or seem to conflate their resistance with either corruption or criminality (you propose no other motives, and I don't know what your appropriately "progressive" Native response to European colonialism would even entail).
OK, so you have your nose out of joint about the Mohawks for some reason, I can understand it. Since my parents live in Annapolis Valley, let's talk about the Mi'kmaq. They have blocked the Trans-Canada highway out of Nova Scotia, the only connection to New Brunswick. They are culturally Algonquian; as far as we know, there were no other humans there before that group of people arrived. Are they still just whiners who don't belong? A corrupt group of lazy fat cats on the take/in the pocket of a crime syndicate? Gee, it's a good thing you're not a racist, you sound so much like one I might have had doubts. But fortunately you were quick to call those who make "loosely grounded arguments about who 'belongs' where" racist instead, great move, let's confuse the issues some more.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 02:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 04:04 pm (UTC)* For example, the family that takes over your house is homeless. That really sucks, but does that make you obligated to take them in?
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 04:46 pm (UTC)Re the story: Weren't we actually welcomed into the house before we decided to start taking out walls?
Have you ever read I. F. Stone? Wow, read I. F. Stone!!! Just as a f'rinstance:
"No one likes to be ruled by an alien people, and though I, a Jew, found the friendliest sort of welcome visiting the Arabs, I found no Palestinian Arab in favor of a Jewish state. Relations on the day-to-day level between the two peoples are friendly and quite unlike what one expects. There is no sense of race tension as one feels it in our South or in encounters with anti-Semites in the Western world. The Arab does not hate the Jew, but he fears being dominated by him, and this fear must be allayed." - December 8, 1945
He was a binationalist. It's incredible to think about how we got from there to here. And the insight travels.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 05:09 pm (UTC)Re the story: Weren't we actually welcomed into the house before we decided to start taking out walls?
In this case, yeah. As a general rule in discussions of colonialism, it's not entirely relevant whether we were initially welcomed or resisted, as soon as we made it apparent that our intention was to have the whole house.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 05:27 pm (UTC)Chinua Achebe describes something very similar between indigenous Africans and British missionaries in Things Fall Apart.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 05:53 pm (UTC)I also like how Things Fall Apart shows how the Igbo most definitely had their own fucked-up problems to begin with, but that Western intervention was certainly not concerned, let alone effective, in understanding or correcting them.
However, aside from the continuity of the colonizer's intent, I absolutely do think that the initial welcome is relevant because it raises the possibility that, had there been that kind of genuine good will on both sides, peaceful coexistence might have been possible. I think you NEED to acknowledge this possibility, because sometimes people have excellent reasons for moving around. The big problem is when that need gets turned to other nefarious interests, IMHO.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-30 04:46 pm (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rMIDNiW0Oc
no subject
Date: 2007-06-30 05:22 pm (UTC)