The Innu: Canada's Tibet

Not sure if the comparison is fair but these People do need help. I often wonder why we do foreign aid (certainly many cases of) when we cannot look properly at our own people. I have had exposure with people that have lived with them and the situation was one of true despair and genocide. They may very well be our most vulnerable ones in Canada. The solution is not simple.

The issues are NOT complicated, they are fairly straight forward. You listen to what the affected minority says and satisfy their claims. The frequent response to these issues is to say 'they're complicated' and then move on. This is in fact completely similar to Tibet, there is no question about that-that comes from the United Nations as well as Amnesty International, of course, canadians don't like to think this. The only difference is that while Tibetans are jailed for speaking out, the innu are too few to make any difference. The government, of course, knows that this is low on canadian priorities. If you want to learn something about it, go to Innu.ca and do some reading.

It's not always that simple Marcarc. Sometimes people refuse help for various reasons. In other cases treatment is provided, but not education. Sometimes both are provided and both are neglected afterwords. Innu refuse Canadian or provincial administration, but lack the social infrastructure to sustain themselves. Basic standards and the watchdogs to keep them in place are virtually non existant. On one hand you have Survival International condemning Canada for trying to civilise them and on the other the United Nations condemning Canada for their miserable living conditions. If Canada, Québec or Labrador were to put them under unwanted and forced supervision, all hell would break loose. Doing it American style by throwing money at the problem doesn't help either. You end up with a select few of their leaders riding around in $80,000 SUVs while the people continue eating West Nile infected crows.

Why not invite the Innu to join Canada an equal partner in Confederation? We could give them sovereignty over Nitassinan (possibly as a territory, or some new form of subnational entity), or at least the parts still free of major European settlement. It would be like Nunavut, a majority Innu having control over the land that is rightfully theirs. I have heard talk about making Labrador a homeland for the Innu, but I think that would be unfair to the Innu living in Quebec, and the Inuit and non-natives living in Labrador. Will it be easy to create a territory out of parts of Quebec and Labrador? Not at all. But the way I see it, it would be hypocritical for Quebecers (the overwhelming majority of whom endorse hightened sovereignty within or without of Canada) not to support this territory. Labrador too, who also seek a degree of sovereignty from Newfoundland, could also be called hypocrites. Will giving the Innu a territory solve all their problems? No, but it will go far towards making them feel welcomed in Canada, and giving them their own government and their own federally funded would help bringing the Innu upto Canadian averages standard of living-wise.

[QUOTE BY= lesouris] Why not invite the Innu to join Canada an equal partner in Confederation? We could give them sovereignty over Nitassinan (possibly as a territory, or some new form of subnational entity), or at least the parts still free of major European settlement. It would be like Nunavut, a majority Innu having control over the land that is rightfully theirs. I have heard talk about making Labrador a homeland for the Innu, but I think that would be unfair to the Innu living in Quebec, and the Inuit and non-natives living in Labrador. Will it be easy to create a territory out of parts of Quebec and Labrador? Not at all. But the way I see it, it would be hypocritical for Quebecers (the overwhelming majority of whom endorse hightened sovereignty within or without of Canada) not to support this territory. Labrador too, who also seek a degree of sovereignty from Newfoundland, could also be called hypocrites. Will giving the Innu a territory solve all their problems? No, but it will go far towards making them feel welcomed in Canada, and giving them their own government and their own federally funded would help bringing the Innu upto Canadian averages standard of living-wise.[/QUOTE] I really like how you slipped the Québec sovereignty issue into a discussion about a Native national tragedy. Your idea would make sense had our forefathers respected their way of life. These people were self sufficient and thriving off the land before we decided their gods and their methods of survival were not civil enough. There is no turning back the clock now. All they have left is their language and even that is extinguishing itself. Giving them a sovereign territory on a map will not change the fact they don't have a social infrastructure to do something with it. The only short term partial solution I see would be for the United Nations to independently get involved. But, their numbers are not great enough and of course, this would embarrass Canada.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] The only short term partial solution I see would be for the United Nations to independently get involved. [/QUOTE] How do we give People back pride after they have falling down so badly? That is a tough one to answer. Let's try to keep the usual politics out of this, as hard as it is.

Good point Gaulois. Right now the Innu are their worst enemy and until they realise and build the will to accept help in getting themselves out of their predicament, I'm afraid no easy solution is available. What strikes me the most is the absence of other thriving Native communities in Canada getting involved. If anyone can convince them to act it seems to me it would be them.

We are in no position to 'civilize' innu. Anybody who has studied a little anthropology knows that their culture is extremely complex, and one could easily argue that it is far more complex than our 'work til you can't' society. 'throwing money at the problem' is by no means 'american style', however, it is more realistic to call it "investment". I don't know where you get the idea that investing in native communities means one chief is wealthy and others are poor. We've had that discussion elsewhere on here, where 'chiefs' exist, you have the enforced political system of OUR government which enforces this mode of political system rather than the more democratic forms natives have always known. We see what happens, like in Quebec, when natives take over, they are branded as 'terrorists'. If you've ever been on a reservation you know that without OUR enforcement there is no way that six men would be driving around in 80,000 dollar cars while hundreds of others live in poverty. The people would not put up with it. This is part of the reason why natives hate our police system which doesn't let them do anything about it. One of the problems with native self government is that you are seeing the fastest agreements with natives who adopt the canadian type of government-a few with all the power, and others with none. As far as the innu go, I wouldn't even call it investment, now it's more like 'reparations'. The pittance that goes into Indian Affairs is nothing compared to how much is earned from the resources we've taken from them. It was the clear cutting of the 70s and 80s which has impoverished them. There is a huge bureaucracy in canada supposedly to deal with natives, but in fact designed to make sure they see little of the money allotted to them, and no power to make change. This is why I say that it's simple. As far as education, housing, culture, etc., goes, you leave them alone. You count up the costs that our destruction left them with and you give them it. Natives are not retarded, they are now trying to build lives with forestry and ecomanagement to sustain their meagre needs. In this they are far ahead of us for three reasons, first, most of their initiatives are far kinder to the environment, second, they are co-ops and designed primarily to be 'human centred' and not 'technology centred' where work is designed for people and not vice versa. And third, as any native will tell you, they do not need, nor desire what we consider 'necessities'. Their cultures are not based on television, video games, etc. In this, ironically, it has been our keeping them in poverty that sustained their culture to a degree. I have a friend there who always says he feels sorry for me, he can go out into the woods and live all year off the land, while I pretty much work to pay a mortgage for the next 23 years for a house. I asked him once whether the best thing we could do was come up with habitat for humanity and build them all beautiful homes, he said in all seriousness, 'the best thing is for you to just leave us alone'. That's why I say it is simple, you cut them a cheque and hand it over, let them have their land and move on.

No way, Marcarc! Your second error is assuming all Natives are the same which is absolutely wrong. Natives across Canada are different societies with different needs, beleifs, and political arrangements. Even within the same demographic group (ie. Cree) comes differences between their own communities. Comparing your friend's situation to all Natives is like someone comparing you and your neighbour by the size of your houses. I have personally seen what blindly throwing money can do when a band counsel is made up of select family members. Again, their political arrangements differ and really shouldn't be grouped in any way.

Native bands differ, of course, but in the way you aptly describe-the difference between me and my neighbour by our homes. We have far more things in common than not. Native societies have huge similarities because it has been forced on them, as I've said in other threads, natives of the eastern seaboard had no such things as 'councils', 'bands', and certainly not chiefs. Native reservations are far more strictly regulated than our society, which has made the operation of them fairly uniform and practically everything they do is legislated-that's why they want SELF government. For the past two hundred years it has been white people 'trying to figure out the indian problem' that has constantly made their lives hell. The government finally is starting to figure it out, the Nisga'a treaty basically says 'here's some cash, here's some land, you figure it out'. Natives have many differences and problems, what they ALL have in common is that it is THEIR problems, not ours (meaning we don't have to deal with the problems), and what they lack is the resources to solve them, not the will. People say that it is throwing money at them, but in fact, it is their money, our government stole it from them. It's pretty hypocritical to rob a house and then say 'well, I can't give your stuff back because I don't think you can be responsible with it'.

Not all Native communities have evolved social infrastructures with checks and balances. You just can't throw money at a society's problems and expect it to fix itself. What happens when the money runs out and nothing has changed? Yes it is responsible to make sure they can use the money wisely when you've got their collective good at heart. In the case of this thread's subject, the Innu, they wouldn't be in such a precarious situation if checks and balances were in place or were allowed to be put in place. Don't confuse my posts as excusing our modern society's errors concerning Natives, I'm quite ashamed of them as it is.

If canada itself had ANY of those checks and balances then I'd be on your side and arguing your case far stronger. If we had a government even remotely close to the swiss or even american state (some states) model then I would agree. If we lived in a land where the citizens made all laws with equal representation then I would agree. We have none of that, so it is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to deny reparations to a culture for not possessing what we ourselves don't possess. As many may know I am an activist for direct democracy, where people take power from those who direct our lives. If such a system were in place, and again, I remind you that such was the system of the vast majority of native bands, then I would of course be with you. However, natives are STARVING TO DEATH. To buy food they need money. You are saying not to give it to them because it won't solve their problems or else you think they're all alcoholics or something (and to treat alcoholism you require money). Your second last statement I don't understand. I'm assuming that you are not actually saying that if the innu (who do not govern themselves) had some sort of checks and balances (which I confess I don't really understand) then our government wouldn't have let abiti consolidated, Noranda, etc., clear cut the majority of their land.

Everyone has made good points, albeit from different perspectives. Throwing money at a 'problem' without any coherent strategy to eventually resolve the problem is an exercise in futility, often serving only to exacerbate the original problem. We all know the old 'it's better to give the person the plow' adage. However, throwing money is the easiest path for government to follow. Regardless platitudes uttered to contrary, devising long-term plans, solutions, etc. is not the primary interest of government. Marcarc isn't suggesting we throw money at the problem in the usual terms, e.g., keep tossing sub-subsistent social assistance at people without supporting them in improving their circumstances through education, etc.. He's suggesting it isn't up to anyone other than the Innu to determine their own solutions and rebuild their culture. Our part in this is to provide the resources they require to do so. Given our success in assisting the Innu to date, I don't see any problem in trying what Marcarc is suggesting. However, Samuel's point is well taken, in that if things don't work out Canada is back on the hook. As Samuel also indicated, Canada is in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation vis-a-vis the views of differing organizations. One of the legacies of imperialism many nations, e.g., Australia, face is what the hell to do about the prior inhabitants. The concept of 'leaving them alone' (with adequate resources and available support) to develop their own solutions isn't any worse than any of the prior 'solutions' have proven to be. Given the amount of homelessness and poverty in most, or all, major Canadian cities today, one has to ask exactly how, if we can't resolve 'our' own problems, we'll be able to do so for some First Nations.

Just wanted to mention, "www.ammsa.com" is an excellent educational resource on native culture

Calumny our cities have shelters, food banks, soup kitchens, health care clinics ect. that even the homeless can tend to basic needs. I understand Marcarc's point and fully agree that Natives' land, resources and way of life have been pillaged and that financial reparations are due. I'm referring to the case at hand which is nothing less than a nightmare at the moment. They refuse government intervention that could help build the social infrastructures needed for their sustenance. Government can write them a cheque for centuries worth of reparations, the basics are not in place for them to make good use of it and solve their crying and immediate problems.