PROS AND CONS OF THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT

An article in the University of Western Ontario's WESTERN NEWS by professor Bernie Hammond in praise of the “eloquence of the Occupy movement” http://tinyurl.com/7tsuqqu prompted psychology emeritus professor Heinz Klatt to compose a response: http://tinyurl.com/86qkw3h.

Professor Klatt, who has taught the study of political correctness at UWO in recent years, but not without controversy, it would seem (http://tinyurl.com/6pv85mf) writes, with a somewhat jaundiced eye, that he does not remember “encountering a political movement as inarticulate and vapid as the one that now stains and soils our central city parks.” He was speaking of OCCUPY London (ON), which lasted until Mayor Joe Fontana ordered them out. http://tinyurl.com/7fnypfq

Klatt admits he is not an economist (neither am I), so he has only a “vague understanding” of what the numbers quoted by Hammond mean, but he offers some numbers of his own. “...the vilified 1 per cent pays 38 per cent of all income taxes and the bottom 50 per cent pay no more than 3 percent of taxes collected, (so the omission of these numbers makes reprehensible propaganda of the analysis of my colleague. I am afraid,” he adds, “this form of political, leftist activism is representative of the thinking in the social justice and peace studies that professor Hammond co-ordinates.”

Personally, I don't want to get caught up in quoting numerical statistics, because I really don't understand any of them.

However, what I do understand is that there have been a number of people over the past two months or so who have come together to say, loud and clear, “we're mad as hell and and we're not going to take it any more”.

That's not very sophisticated language, I'll admit, nor does it seem like the sort of thought-provoking idea that would create reverberations within the ivy walls of academia, but I think it is authentic language in use at this moment by people who have begun to realize that they are being sold a bill of goods by others, and they are determined to find a better way. (Also not clear academic language, but it's a beginning of something worthy of recognition.)

I'm willing to accept that not everyone, including professor Klatt, wants to enter into dialogue with me or others on this somewhat nebulous subject, and perhaps that will change as some of us become more articulate, providing people like the professor are willing to listen with open minds.

However, I must call Klatt on his statement concerning “aboriginals in Caledonia”. “Nobody should be allowed to violate our laws, neither the Tamils in Toronto, nor the aboriginal in Caledonia and elsewhere ... , for whatever cause.”

If we are going to talk about violating laws, then we must consider the Canadian government's neglect of Indigenous treaty rights over the many years of our relationship with the First Peoples of Turtle Island. It is this ignorance of the reality of that relationship which the Truth & Reconciliation Commission was mandated – under Canadian law - to investigate through listening to and recording the truth-telling in which we are currently engaged. I would recommend that Professor Klatt take some time to inform himself of this reality.

I can appreciate that there are many frustrations among many Canadians who do not seem to be able to hear what OCCUPY participants are trying to say at this moment. But I would suggest that it is time for us to take the time to try to listen.

If we are now living in warm houses, able to eat nutritious and delicious food, wear fashionable clothes, pay all our bills at the end of the month, and reflect on our retirement plans with pleasure, then I suggest it wouldn't be too much to ask to try to listen to our neighbours who are not in the same position.

Politically correct or not, it is the neighbourly thing to do.

(end)

OCCUPY and MY PARISH CHURCH

It was my intention to go to Toronto today to visit OCCUPY in St. James Park and the Cathedral, but my plans changed and I attended the regular worship service here at All Saints' Anglican Church, Peterborough, instead.

And I'm glad I did, for a couple of reasons. There was no heat in the church, so we worshipped in the parish hall next door (which was the original church building,) so it was easily converted, but also provided a different feel to the regular Sunday morning worship time – cosier, somehow, and people seemed friendlier. In fact, there was an air of “messy church”, which was fun, but everything went off without a hitch, including a newborn being baptized.

The other reason was Fr. Bill Gray's homily, based on the scripture readings for the day from Ephesians and Matthew, with a strong link made between the words of Matthew 25:31-46 and the OCCUPY Toronto movement.

Nodding of heads around me indicated I have not been alone in following news reports of Dean Douglas Stoute's words quoted last week when asked about the OCCUPY folk camped outside in the Cathedral park. “While some church neighbours are unhappy with the occupation, members of the general public have been 'overwhelmingly' supportive of the Occupy Toronto message, Stoute said. This is not about a tidy park: It's about social and economic dysfunction and injustice."

There are many issues, Fr. Bill said, and the message may be unfocussed, “but someone, somewhere, needs to make a statement that forces (causing the issues) need to be reined in.” We need to understand that we are vulnerable in the face of those forces”.

Today's Gospel tells of Jesus' parable about those who will inherit the kingdom. “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” And when did we do those things? “And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

Today we celebrate the Reign of Christ, so we are reminded that this charge is not only to us as individuals, but also to us as community, and not only the church but all nations, for this is “a universal problem”. Fr. Bill added: “I don't know what to wish for tomorrow. I know that we here at All Saints' want to support all efforts to support other people. We want to assure that Chloe, as she is baptized here today,” will grow up in a world where love and justice are possible for all people.

Fr. Bill also told the congregation that Archbishop Colin Johnson has now given permission for All Saints', Peterborough, to bless same-sex unions. This will be the only Anglican church in the Trent-Durham region authorized to offer such blessing, so we will reach out to all people in our area.

Now we await the judge's announcement tomorrow to know what will happen with OCCUPY Toronto. It is somewhat reassuring to know that some of the Toronto City councillors also support the OCCUPY movement.

And as I write, I have received the following message:

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: MICHAEL POLANYI <michaelpolanyi@rogers.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:10 AM
Subject: Upcoming Faith-related Occupy Toronto Actions - please SHARE
To: "michaelpolanyi@rogers.com" <michaelpolanyi@rogers.com>
[Please note the date so # 1 and 2 are already out of date.]

Dear Friends:

Thirty people from various faith communities met last night at the Church of Holy Trinity with members of Occupy Toronto.

We discussed ways to support Occupy Toronto and its call for justice on the eve of a possible forceful eviction.

Here are five ways we are calling on people of faith to show solidarity in the coming days:

1. Prepare to provide a peaceful witness should the eviction occur by signing up for a 2-hour training in faith-based non-violent action training TOMORROW (Friday) at 4-6 pm at St. James Park

2. Publicly demonstrate our solidarity with Occupy Toronto and opposition to a forced eviction by joining the mass rally and march to City Hall on Saturday at 2 pm. Meet at St. James Park. If you can't make it in person call or email Mayor Rob Ford and your City Councillor urging them not to forcibly evict the protestors but to work towards a peaceful, mutually agreeable way forward.

3. Monitor the news and social media and join our urgent-response phone tree in order to be ready to go to St. James Park should an eviction begin (most like to happen during the night). Send your cell-phone number to Alexa at minister@windermerechurch.ca to receive a call/text should eviction begin.

4. Show solidarity by attending the Faith Outreach Day at St. James Park on Sunday, November 27. Email Bob at bobmce2002@yahoo.com for more information.

5. Donate or volunteer time or money to Occupy Toronto. They now accept donations through Alterna Savings (Danforth Branch, Account # 5025569). They also need donations on-site of hot or non-perishable food, sleeping bags, warm clothing and more (see www.occuptyto.org). They always need volunteers to help cook and serve meals and help in other ways. They appreciate the presence and listening ear of clergy and members of faith communities.

Finally, please join us at the next Faith and Occupy Toronto meeting on Wednesday, December 7 at 7 pm (location TBA).

Peace, and hope to see you soon,

Michael Polanyi

Lyn Adamson

[end]

So I'm thinking that my parish church is not going to be standing alone in the call for support for OCCUPY Toronto. And I'm very happy about that.

(end)

[Please feel free to share this message as you wish.]

THIRD WORLD CANADA, an Andree Cazabon film

THIRD WORLD CANADA, a film by Gemini nominee and inspirational speaker Andree Cazabon, was viewed by a capacity audience at last week's Reframe Film Festival in Peterborough.

The hour-long film is not easy viewing. It tells the story of eight children, orphaned when their parents and step-father all committed suicide, and how their lives continue while the community learns to cope with the tragedy. The Chief and people of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) First Nations (Big Trout Lake) in north-western Ontario, struggle to survive in their homeland against the inroads of mining companies, and the oppressive Indian Act legislation which prevents them from achieving a stable, sustainable life for their children.

This film premiered in both Ottawa and Toronto at the end of last year, with reports that as the lights came up, the large audiences sat in stunned silence, as if unable to comprehend what they had just seen. By contrast, when Andree took the microphone for a question and answer session immediately following the viewing in Peterborough, people were ready to talk. What made the difference?

The Peterborough audience, in fact, had been viewing films during the previous 24 hours that showed children living in poverty and oppressive conditions all around the world. Now they were confronted with children living in the same kind of poverty and devastation in our own country, our own province, so they were ready to ask: “What can we do to help?”

Andree did not offer them easy answers, but challenged them to explore for themselves how they were going to help. “This film was not made for the government,” Andree said,” but for all of us. I'll put it back to you: are you willing to let this continue to happen? Our government is an extension of our values,” she told us. “When we demand changes, our government will respond.”

Although a young woman and single mom, Andree has already achieved notable success with her films seen by over one million viewers on CBC-Newsworld, Radio-Canada, and CBC Television. Now she has committed herself to helping the KI Youth to tell their story across the country, convinced that when people sit face to face to listen to the stories, we will find ways to work together towards healing and reconciliation.

“The voice of the Drum has been re-awakened,” Andree told her listeners. “We would love to see the Youth and the Drum travel across the country to bring awareness to the needs of the northern First Nations communities.” Quoting Mike Hardy, executive director of Tikinagan Child & Family Services, she said they don't need the “great white hope to come in and fix things” for them. We need to let people know what they need, and how they can help, and how we can work together. This will be the purpose of the first leg of a train tour which Andree hopes to launch this spring.

Time was up in the theatre, so people followed Andree into the lobby to offer help. Names and e-mails were exchanged, and as the Train Tour Task Force begins to take shape, there will be further announcements about where you can come to meet with and listen to the Youth of the North – to share their dream for a future of respect, peace and friendship.

Check the web site: http://www.andreecazabon.ca and thanks for listening,

Jean.

First Nations and Self-governance

Richard Foot, of Postmedia News, http://tinyurl.com/26p36ne “Native communities struggle with governance, accountability”, Telegraph-Journal.com, December 30/10; hits the nail on the head with this well-written article covering all the bases of this difficult subject – difficulty which is of our making, not the First Peoples'.

Some years ago Georges Erasmus, then National Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Chief, told Project North cum Aboriginal Rights Coalition members that “we (First Nations people) have to do it ourselves. Yes, we're going to make mistakes, but you have to let us make our own mistakes while we learn how to govern ourselves and make decisions for ourselves!”

Now Shawn Atleo is saying the same thing. He stands by all the Chiefs (accountable or not) before the world, but within the AFN, he says: “Look, people – we've got to do better – for ourselves, not for anyone else. And we can do it – it's our time!”

Part of the legacy of the Indian Act which has governed the lives of those named “Indian” (one of our first mistakes), was to remove the traditional governance of First Peoples' Nations and replace it with a municipal-style Band Chief and Council system, with definite instructions to account to the Dept. of Indian Affairs (now INAC http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/index-eng.asp), and no instructions at all to provide any accounting to the people in the community.

There are a number of First Peoples who, when chosen to be chief of their community, have an innate sense of the traditional teachings in which “headmen” (now also “head women) were raised to understand that their role would be leadership, which meant service to the people. Atleo's own story confirms this. I heard him say that, as a child, he would be asked his name by an Elder, who would respond that he was destined to be a leader “to serve the people”. In Atleo, I think we see some of the best of the good teachings, which have not been wiped away by the residential school experience, but retained through the teaching of the Elders who remember the ancient values of their people.

I experienced this situation first-hand when I was asked by an Elder to accompany a small group of women who had decided to ask for a forensic audit of their Band Chief and Council. It's a long story which I'll tell another time, but the important part, to me, was the final remarks of the judge who suggested that, with an election coming in the spring, the “dissenters” could engage in “strong, peaceful protests during the campaign for band council elections in June”.

That was a “settler-immigrant newcomer” Canadian speaking; I knew that such an election process couldn't possibly happen at that time on that Reserve. The Chief had been in that role for a number of years and, supported by the particular brand of Christianity he and his family had espoused for many years, if you were not a member of that church, you were not considered for any Band Council appointments, and also not for many of the amenities that were supposed to be shared with Band members in the community – new housing, social assistance welfare, post-secondary education, etc. And if you tried to launch other candidates to oppose the elected officials, that would be remembered and you could definitely wipe out any possibility of benefiting from that rampant nepotism. And no one had the strength of will to try – they were imbued with a sense of hopelessness.

It is that kind of apathy prevalent among so many Band members, often as a result of the residential school experience where children grew up to believe they were worthless human beings, that they were not deserving of anything good, and that their voices would never be listened to, that has maintained the oppressive colonization across so much of “Indian Country”, and allowed Band officials to profit from that sense of malaise among the people.

And ultimately it is only the people themselves who can make those changes – within themselves, to believe that they are worthy and completely deserving of the best kind of leadership their own cultural and traditional values can offer – until they become strong enough to say, collectively, “we can do better, and we will!”

And how can we help?

First by understanding and accepting the reality of our shared history, dark though that legacy is from our perspective.

Second, by encouraging First Peoples brothers and sisters to regain the sense of their true worth as fellow human beings, with whom we are equal in every way, and with whom we share the good teachings of our respective cultures, traditions, and spirituality.

Third, by learning of and supporting the recommendations coming from the AFN Chiefs and Councillors as they lead the way for their people to move, collectively, into self-governance and self-reliance.

Fourth, by educating ourselves through the number of writings available to us for our understanding:

• numerous books by authors like John S. Milloy, James R. Miller, Olive P. Dickason, etc.;

• the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples;

• the findings of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Canada;

• meeting with and listening to – really listening – to First Peoples wherever they are willing to have us join in such ventures.

It is my hope that, as we begin to identify ourselves as “Treaty Persons,” First Peoples brothers and sisters will believe that it is indeed okay for them to let us meet with them so that we can listen and learn the truth of our shared history, and together we can find the way to move into the future as equals.

And who are “Treaty Persons”? You and I, who are the beneficiaries of those historic and modern treaties between the Nations of the First Peoples, and the Rest of Us who are settler/immigrant/newcomers to this part of Turtle Island we call Canada.

And I'll have more to say about “Treaty Persons” in a future blog. Till then, may your New Year be filled with new learning, new friendships, and new blessings as you join the walk towards respect, dignity, and equality with the First Peoples of our country, Canada, and their homeland, Turtle Island.

Thanks for listening.

Jean Koning.

Can we learn to listen to one another effectively?

I have received a copy of this column by Paul Schneiderit of The Chronicle Herald online, Halifax, N.S., Nov. 16/1o.

FROM: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1212257.html

Herewith, some quick thoughts.

It would appear that, if Blatchford’s book is racist, that means it is “racist” against “Indians”, since she writes of police action or inaction in and around Six Nations. So were there “Indians” preventing Blatchford from being heard? Or were they “non-Indians” in support of “Indian” issues and concerns, or of other concerns?

And then I would ask: were those protesters speaking for themselves, or for “Indians”? This is important to me, because I have spent half my life trying to learn how to listen to First Nations, Metis and Inuit sisters and brothers. The First Peoples of this part of Turtle Island are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. If First Peoples want us to stand and speak with them, we can and should do that, but I don’t think we should speak “for” First Peoples. So did the protesters consult with any First Peoples before they began to engage in their protest at Waterloo University? On whose behalf, besides themselves, were they actually speaking?

And then there is another question: did Waterloo University officials consult with the First Peoples located within their establishment? Did they seek the opinion and advice of those First Peoples? In other words, how is the University of Waterloo showing the world that it is standing in solidarity with the First Peoples colleagues in its midst? And if this thought didn’t occur to anyone up to this point, is is possible that the University administration people will sit down with those First Peoples colleagues within their community, to discuss how to handle this type of event, should it happen again?

Or are Waterloo University officials still trying to work through their relationship with their First Peoples colleagues, and since they have not yet reached a meeting of minds, they thought it would be better to give in to the protesters, rather than appear to be “anti-Indian”? So I would like to hear from the First Peoples who are part of the university establishment. What are their opinions, ideas, concerns?

I think Christie Blatchford’s book may offer us an opportunity to sit down together, First Peoples (especially from Six Nations) and the Rest of Us, to begin to talk about what exactly we are trying to accomplish in our current relationship as it is manifesting itself in the territory of the Six Nations of the Grand River. This is what the Government of Canada should have been doing from the beginning – in our name, as our elected representatives - but since it hasn’t, maybe we, the people, can begin that process of listening to one another – effectively listening – towards learning the truth of our shared history.

Is it possible that Christie Blatchford would be willing to appear on a stage with a member of the Six Nations community to begin such a listening process? Because that’s what missing. We are not listening effectively to one another. Or so it seems to me.

Thanks for listening.

Jean Koning.

"Surrender" or "Share" - What's the Difference? - Further comments -

Dear Lance:

Thank you for this comment on my blog post “Surrender” or “Share” – What’s the Difference?

As one follows the news reports and court findings re the treaties signed between the First Peoples in Canada and the representative of the Crown, later the Canadian government, one hears reference by the First Peoples to what they termed “peace and friendship” treaties, which refers to the same cultural understnding of what “sharing” of Mother Earth looked like. In fact, the traditional spiritual understanding of the First Peoples’ relationship to Mother Earth simply precluded the idea of “ownership”. One doesn’t “own” one’s mother – rather one shares one’s relationship with Mother Earth with other human beings who also wish to be sustained and nurtured by the bounty of Mother Earth.

That was not the understanding of the settler/immigrant peoples who came to Canada. Those people pursued relationships with the people they met in North America under what they understood to be the “Doctrine of Discovery”, and edict from the Roman Catholic pope which said that whenever Christian people went out into the wider world and found lands not inhabited by Christian people, it was quite okay to claim those lands for the Christian nations under whose flag they were travelling. And that European understandomg of relationship with the land meant that the people who “conquered” the land could put fences around it and say “it’s mine – you keep out”.

One of the things you hear First Peoples saying over and over again is: “We are NOT conquered peoples. We signed treaties as sovereign nations with the Crown, and in fact, treaties are only signed between sovereign peoples, so the fact that those treaties are in existence, and recognized by the Canadian courts of law, means that we are in fact sovereign nations.

So we can see what a really big disconnect was happening between the First Peoples and those who came from somewhere else.

Unfortunately, in the first place, my people have a hard time admitting they may have misunderstood – we are so used to being right and to knowing ourselves as being correct in all matters, so to this day, it is not easy for Canadians to grasp the point that the First Peoples are trying to make. And of course, in the second place, if we admit that we were wrong, we will have to re-assess our understanding of what it means to “share” Mother Earth with the First Peoples, rather than “owning” the land and grudgingly accepting that some other beings (known as “Indians”) have to live somewhere because we have not been able to get rid of them. Those First Peoples are still here in our midst. And it is recorded historically that the Canadian government’s policy towards the First Peoples has been to get rid of the Indian – through assimilation and other oppressive colonial measures.

This is what my “work” has been about for the past 40 years, and I still can’t say I have accomplished much, but I know the struggle will go on long after I have passed from this earth.

Thanks for asking, and thanks for listening, if you are still with me!

Blessings,

Jean.

“Surrender” or “Share” - What’s the Difference?

It appears that Dr. David T. McNab, Metis, and professor of York University’s Indigenous Studies, Canadian Studies and Culture & Expression co-ordinator, was engaged in researching the Canadian Journal of Native Studies (CJNS) Number 16, 2 (1996):293-314, and discovered documents which had been recently made available.

So Dr. McNab wrote a “Research Note” to alert readers of this section of the CJNS that additional information has been uncovered, concerning this particular treaty: “THE PROMISE THAT HE GAVE TO MY GRAND FATHER WAS VERY SWEET”: THE GUN SHOT TREATY OF 1792 AT THE BAY OF QUINTE: http://www2.brandonu.ca/library/cjns/16.2/mcnab.pdf

Dr. McNab continues:
"In a recent (1996) paper, Paul Williams has written about Aboriginal Oral Traditions.(1) In it, he has observed that there are 'some aspects of Ontario Indian oral tradition that remain unsolved mysteries.' As an example, Williams has pointed to the Gun Shot Treaty of '1791' at the Bay of Quinte. He remarked that this Treaty'guaranteed that all Indians would always be able to hunt within the sound of a gunshot from any lake or river, and would be able to camp within sixty-six feet of their shores or banks.' However, he further stated that there is'no written record of any such promise' and that the documents 'confirming the tradition' of the Treaty 'remain elusive.' He speculated that '(m)aybe' the documents 'do not exist - - and maybe the Treaty was not as the tradition recalls. '(2)

"In June 1995 additional documents pertaining to the Gun Shot Treaty became available in the provincial Archives of Ontario by an acquisition of private papers, called the A.E. Williams/United Indian Bands of Chippewas and Mississaugas Papers.(3) Written documents, based on Aboriginal oral tradition, pertaining to the Gun Shot Treaty of 1792 at the Bay of Quinte are in these Papers. These written documents are in Ojibwa and in English. The purpose of this research note is to draw attention to the existence of these documents in the Ontario Archives."

What caught my eye was the footnote at the end of this document:
"19. There is no concept of the English word 'surrender' in Ojibwa. The Aboriginal understanding in concept and language would have been the word 'share'."

This website also contains the Ojibwe translation of the written treaty, and as I look through that, I find several points at which the settler negotiator writes English words which convey the meaning of “surrender” but the Ojibwe negotiators have changed the wording to convey the meaning of “sharing” of the land.

On the website, pages 303 to 306 show how the words “share” and “surrender” were stroked out and changed, reflecting a difference of opinion in how those words were understood in each language.

I phoned Dr. Dean Jacobs of NIN.DA.WAAB.JIG at Bkejwanong First Nation (Walpole Island) who said: “We were sharing, in spirit and intent, when we negotiated treaties. The white man talks about ‘the letter of the law’, but the whiteman’s courts are beginning to back us up.”

I have also spoken with Ojibwe speakers about this, and they suggest that translating is a problem because of the difference in the way land is viewed by the two cultures.

The Indigenous view of land is that it is sacred, held in trust to be shared with others, and preserved for the use of future generations.

The Settler-Immigrant view is that land is a commodity to be bought and sold, and whoever "owns" the land has complete control over how it is used, bought and sold, etc.

Thus, when my people say "surrender" land, we mean to "hand it over, give it into another's power or control, relinquish possession of, especially upon compulsion or demand" (from the Oxford dictionary meaning). The Indigenous people, however, would consider conversation or negotiation about land to mean that the land would be shared so that both groups could make use of it, but both groups would also be expected to preserve the land for future generations.

Thus, we can see how this "miscommunication" leads to colossal misunderstanding between people of the two different cultures, and leads to the comment that "there is no concept of the English word 'surrender' in Ojibwa. The Aboriginal understanding in concept and language would have been the word 'share'." The reason there is no such concept of “surrender” is because of the totally different worldview in each culture about land and use of land.

As you know, I have been studying the Ojibwe language for over 40 years, and what I am beginning to see is that learning the language opens my mind to how lost and ignorant our ancestors must have been if they did not understand the First Peoples' languages and only relied on their own understanding of their own languages.

My Ojibwe teacher so often says things like: "You could say this, or this or this, and the meaning may be this, or this, or this." I have come to see this as the subtlety of the Ojibwe language. It means you have to, in a sense, "feel" what the words mean, as well as "know" what the words mean.

And doesn't that point up another great difference between us - that First Peoples sense their relationships as encounters which include recognizing feelings among people; we Settler/Immigrant people don’t see “relationships - we simply see “business transactions“.

(end)