Here is what Sir John A. Macdonald did to Indigenous people

Here is what Sir John A. Macdonald did to Indigenous people:

I’m a Canadian settler.  My paternal ancestors settled on Turtle island (aka North America) before Canadian Confederation.  

Canadian government policies are continuing Canada’s Indigenous genocide today.  It is *not* something in the past.  It is something that needs to stop.

Now.

It is not going to stop so long as settlers continue being afraid to acknowledge it for what it is.

Opinion | Canada finally acknowledged the genocide against Indigenous women. It’s time to act.

Opinion | Canada finally acknowledged the genocide against Indigenous women. It’s time to act.:

 By Courtney Skye     June 4  

Courtney Skye is Mohawk, Turtle Clan, from Six Nations of the Grand River Territory. She is a research fellow at Yellowhead Institute, a First Nations-led policy think tank at the Faculty of Arts, Ryerson University.

This week, family members of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people, survivors of violence, community activists and Indigenous leaders gathered in Ottawa for the release of “Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.” They were there to acknowledge the inquiry’s work in a collective ceremony to honor the lives of those who have experienced violence. It was an demonstration of the love that exists within Indigenous communities for Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people — and a recognition of the overwhelming levels of violence they have had to endure for generations.

The report, released Monday, finds that “persistent and deliberate human and Indigenous rights violations and abuses are the root cause behind Canada’s staggering rates of violence.” The inquiry concluded that Canada has committed a genocide against the Indigenous peoples within its colonial borders, and is continuing to maintain systems and structures that result in Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people experiencing a disproportionate amount of violence.

Even with a two-year mandate, the inquiry was unable to determine a definitive number of Indigenous people who are missing or have been murdered. But Indigenous women were reported to be at least six times more likely to be victims of homicide than non-Indigenous women.

The new report, which consists of more than 1,200 pages, contains hundreds of calls for justice that methodically address the interrelated ways Canadian and Indigenous structures, programs and services must change to promote the substantive equality of Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people. These calls include establishing a “National Indigenous and Human Rights Ombudsperson” and a “National Indigenous Human Rights Tribunal,” developing and implementing a national action plan, and providing long-term funding for educational programs and violence prevention campaigns.

The report affirms what Indigenous people have long understood — that the violence they experience is a product of settler colonialism. The continuation of the Canadian settler state requires the destabilization of Indigenous communities — and a part of this stabilization has involved rampant gender-based violence to uphold the legitimacy of the settler state’s rule over land and water.

While settler colonialism impacts Indigenous peoples of all genders, it makes women, girls and Two-Spirit people especially vulnerable to violence. In 1924, the Canadian state imposed a government structure within First Nations communities, removing their traditional leadership. And since 1876, Canada has enforced the Indian Act, which at times forced “Indian” women out of leadership positions and removed their legal status if they chose to go to university or marry a non-Indigenous person, or if their fathers chose to enfranchise them. The sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act is identified as one of the root causes of violence toward First Nations women in the report.

Over time, advancements in the rights of Indigenous peoples have resulted in Supreme Court challenges and findings of discrimination from international bodies. However, Canada has maintained a state definition of “Status Indians,” defining membership in communities from outside the norms and traditions of those people, and has yet to fully eliminate how these structures perpetuate sex-based discrimination.

The national inquiry report outlines in great detail how the nature of settler colonialism in Canada has evolved into an insidious and distinctly Canadian social reality that ignores reports of brutal murders and missing persons, even as these numbers reached alarming levels.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets a minimum standard for the recognition of their collective rights and sees improvement in the lives of Indigenous peoples as contingent upon their ability to exercise self-determination. Now, the inquiry’s report makes clear that responding to the calls for justice and undertaking actions to end violence require restoring Indigenous jurisdiction in ways that prioritize the safety of Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people.

For too long, our communities have feared that shedding light on violence would undermine Indigenous leadership. Communities have viewed crises as something that must remain hidden in order for Indigenous structures to be restored, and enduring the violence we experience has been seen as the cost of nation-building.

The inquiry has established that violence in Indigenous communities and the ongoing refusal to recognize Indigenous-led ways of governance reinforce one another, to the benefit of the settler state. Immediate action on the calls for justice is needed in order to protect Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people. We must be able to not only express our aspirations openly but also confront our challenges and seek our own solutions to the issues we face, including gender-based violence. As Indigenous communities continue to assert their sovereignty, the role of the paternalistic settler state must be limited and clearly defined.

The release of the final report marks a pivotal moment in the recognition and advancement of the individual and collective rights of Indigenous people. As Indigenous people continue to overcome the violence and trauma instilled in their communities by a settler state, the inquiry insists “the exclusion of Indigenous women, girls, 2SLGBTQQIA people, Elders, and children from the exercise of Indigenous self-determination must end.” Honoring missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people requires it.

How a smallpox epidemic forged modern British Columbia – Macleans.ca

How a smallpox epidemic forged modern British Columbia - Macleans.ca:

by Joshua Ostroff Aug 1, 2017

On Mar. 12, 1862, the San Francisco steamer Brother Jonathan pulled into the boisterous colony of Vancouver Island, a former Hudson’s Bay Company fur trading post that had exploded in population after a mainland gold rush.

“The town was taken completely by surprise,” wrote the British Colonist newspaper, reporting that along with merchandise and mules, the ship carried 350 passengers to Victoria—home to 4,000 to 5,000 colonists, with slightly more Indigenous people from various nations camped nearby for trade and work. Most of the passengers were heading to a new strike on the Salmon River.

But along with his pickaxe and gold pan, one of these miners brought another piece of unexpected cargo: smallpox.

The man was quarantined. But the Colonist noted that, without preventive measures, “we fear that a serious evil will be entailed on the country.” And the measures the colonial government chose—limited vaccination efforts, and declining to try a general quarantine, which would have kept the crisis localized—wound up leading to an epidemic when police emptied the camps at gunpoint, burned them down, and towed canoes filled with smallpox-infected Indigenous people up the coast.

Over the next year, at least 30,000 Indigenous people died, representing about 60 per cent of the population—a crisis that left mass graves, deserted villages, traumatized survivors and societal collapse and, in a real way, created the conditions for modern-day British Columbia. Less than a decade before B.C. became Canada’s sixth province, the colonial response to this crisis formed the basis for the fraught relationship between First Nations and government and sparked the question of what this problematic past means for its future.

“The smallpox epidemic … it changes everything in British Columbia,” says John Lutz, the head of the University of Victoria’s history department and an Indigenous-settler relations specialist. “The citizens of Victoria, one could say, panicked. Or, one could say, with a less charitable view, that they deliberately drove the Indigenous people out of town, and that spread the disease back to their home communities up and down the coast.”

It was a betrayal that hasn’t been forgotten by many Indigenous people. “The sad thought is, if they had contained those people who contracted smallpox within the Victoria area, the Indigenous population would be far, far higher today,” says Marianne Nicholson, a Victoria-based artist and anthropology Ph.D from the Dzawada’enuxw Nation of the Kwakwa̱ka̱’wakw whose video installation about the epidemic, There’s Blood In The Rocks, is being exhibited at Victoria’s Legacy Art Gallery until September. Nicholson’s nation’s population fell to 1,500 from 10,000, and has since rebounded to 7,000.

“The colonial authorities … knew that would spread smallpox throughout British Columbia,” she says. “That was an act of genocide against Indigenous people. … At that point in time the [government] wanted to be able to claim those lands without having to compensate or recognize Indigenous title.”

That thinking—that the colonial response was part of an active land grab as opposed to a tragedy they made much worse and took advantage of—is pervasive. And while there is no concrete evidence of it, historian Robert Boyd did argue in his landmark book The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence that “the Whites knew” the epidemic was avoidable, and that it “paved the way for the colonization of their lands by peoples of European descent.” The Colonist even reported at the time that First Nations were worried that Governor James Douglas “was about to send the small pox among them for the purpose of killing off the tribe and getting their land.” (Douglas dismissed this at the time as a hoax.)

Taken together, the smallpox response, the creation of the residential school system, and a ban on the potlatch—a tradition that helps pass on oral histories—have been seen by Indigenous people as efforts to force them to “accept the colonial grand narrative that British Columbia acquired Indigenous lands fairly and in a legal manner,” says Nicholson.

The 1862 smallpox epidemic wasn’t the first to rage across the region post-contact, but it was the first in the colonial era. “The significance of the 1862-1863 crisis lies in the presence of a rapidly expanding white population—this was the factor that was different,” says Maureen Atkinson, a historian from Terrace, B.C. “If the Fraser River gold rush and then the Cariboo gold rush had not happened then I think there might have been a different response, perhaps, in the colonial government’s approach to Indigenous peoples.”

These newcomer numbers surged as Indigenous populations fell by as much as 90 per cent in some areas. Geographer Cole Harris reports in The Resettlement of British Columbia that by 1863 in southeastern B.C., large areas were “almost completely depopulated,” and that census-takers on the north coast found the Haida had fallen from a pre-epidemic count of 6,607 people to only 829 in 1881.

Whether or not smallpox began as a colonial conspiracy, settlers started occupying the flat, fertile land that was left seemingly abandoned as devastated Indigenous communities consolidated with hopes of later returning home, says Lutz. “A lot of First Nations village sites were lost to that.”

A belief in terra nullius, or the settlement of “empty land,” spurred land commissioner Joseph Trutch in 1864 to refuse recognition of Indigenous title, kiboshing treaty-making and reducing reserves mapped out pre-epidemic by 92 per cent. “The Indians have really no rights to the lands they claim,” he argued, doling it out instead to settlers, miners and loggers.

That’s why, unlike the rest of Canada, the bulk of B.C. is built on disputed, unceded land; there are almost no treaties establishing rights. In accordance with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, Governor Douglas had earlier signed 14 treaties on Vancouver Island until a funding conflict between the Crown and the colony postponed progress and, in the face of the smallpox crisis, treaties became a low priority. “There was this pervasive belief that this was a dying race and the smallpox epidemic seemed to confirm that. So essentially treaty-making was abandoned as a result,” says Lutz.

One Indigenous nation, though, did fight back in defence of its land. In 1864, the Tsilhqot’in declared war after being threatened with smallpox by the foreman of a road being built through their territory. This battle, the Chilcotin War, ended with the hanging of six chiefs, an act that then-premier Christy Clark apologized for in a 2014 speech that acknowledged that “there is an indication [smallpox] was spread intentionally.”

With First Nations still too weakened to resist, post-Confederation B.C. continued the colonial policy of Indigenous erasure even as “numbered treaties” were being negotiated in other new Canadian provinces.

But denying land title didn’t extinguish it, according to a 1973 Supreme Court ruling on a century-long treaty effort by the Nisga’a, which was only finalized nearly 30 years later. That inspired the B.C. Treaty Process in the 1990s, which has proven similarly glacial, partly because it doesn’t put jurisdiction truly on the table.

So the Tsilhqot’in lawyered up. And in 2014, the Supreme Court gave them title to 1,900 square kilometres near Williams Lake, setting a precedent in a province where most land is similarly contested.

“If one applies generally the principles of the Tsilhqot’in title case, British Columbia is a province unlike the rest in that it owns comparatively little of its natural resources,” says Tom Swanky, a Quesnel, B.C. author of books that allege that the epidemic was a “war of extermination” for land.

Without smallpox, B.C. would look like the numbered treaty provinces, Swanky believes. “The Crown eventually would have purchased native title, little by little or territory by territory, as needed and, under the Canadian system, the province now would have had some more understandable claim to resources.”

While Indigenous consent is an issue across Canada—the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous people on development projects—few First Nations have as much leverage today to address environmental and economic concerns as those in B.C. because treaty-less land is in legal limbo; governments can still overrule opposition, but now must prove “development is pressing, substantial and meets the Crown’s fiduciary duty.”

“The thing that bothers me the most as a descendant of this history is how unjust all of it is,” Nicholson says, explaining how her smallpox-reduced Kingcome Inlet community—“where we lived for thousands of years”—saw their land taken. But, she adds, “Indigenous peoples, while suffering tremendous losses, still survived. And their land title remains intact, which continues to be a problem for British Columbia and the resource-extractive projects they wish to push through within those contested lands.”

But with B.C.’s new Green-supported NDP government committing to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court decision, perhaps justice will one day be served. At the very least, we should acknowledge that the province we know today was, by many accounts, founded on the back of a potentially avoidable epidemic.

Why can’t we use the word genocide? | The Star

Why can’t we use the word genocide? | The Star:

By Tanya Talaga
Indigenous Issues Columnist
Mon., June 3, 2019

GATINEAU—Almost four years to the day after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission said Canada committed a cultural genocide against Indigenous people, the national inquiry into our murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls took it a step further.

They said the death of our women, by the thousands, was simply a genocide.

The echo is not coincidental.

The genocidal process was the same.

In the words of the four-person commission, the epidemic of deaths and disappearances is the direct result of a “persistent and deliberate pattern of systemic racial and gendered … rights violations and abuses, perpetuated historically and maintained today by the Canadian state, designed to displace Indigenous people from their lands, social structures and governments, and to eradicate their existence as nations, communities, families and individuals.”

As expected, the protests quickly emerged. This is no “genocide,” the critics said. The coast-to-coast-to-coast commission, which interviewed over 2,000 families, survivors and knowledge keepers, exaggerated or got it wrong. Former aboriginal affairs minister Bernard Valcourt, who served under Stephen Harper, started off the bashing with a bang:

You might be interested in

“What has been the cost to Canadians for this propagandist report?” he tweeted.

For his part, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau refused to say the word “genocide” as he addressed the assembled families, survivors and commissioners.

But those of us who have been on the wrong side of the “persistent and deliberate pattern” know that “genocide” is the right word.

As the ceremony began, it was Chief Commissioner Marion Buller who said the hard truth is that “we live in a country whose laws and institutions perpetuate violations of fundamental rights, amounting to a genocide.”

Buller, the first appointed First Nations female judge in British Columbia, took a lot of heat when the inquiry began. Members of her team were quitting, families weren’t being properly notified or compensated. Many said her mandate was overly narrow. Yet she weathered it all and fulfilled her highest purpose. She gave voice to the victims.

The inescapable conclusion of all their harrowing and beautiful testimony is that “genocide” is the only word for the state-enabled deaths of thousands of sisters, aunties, grandmothers, cousins and friends.

So why won’t our prime minister say it? What’s he afraid of?

Perhaps he understands that calling the genocide a genocide would acknowledge that his government — and others — are morally culpable for the losses of the thousands of our women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. Or maybe it was the legal culpability that worried him; lawyers no doubt advised Trudeau not to say it. The pollsters, too, were probably against it, as we edge towards an election. It isn’t as easy to take a principled stand when votes are potentially at stake.

Whatever his reasons, his omission was telling. But it hardly dampened the power of the day.

“We don’t need to hear the word genocide come out of the prime minister’s mouth because families have told us their truth,” Buller said during the press conference.

The families of the taken, not forgotten women, agree. They don’t need to hear arguments over what constitutes genocide. They know it to be true because they live it.

As the ceremony drew to a close on Monday, Thunder Bay’s Maddy Murray stopped me and asked me to remember Alinda Lahteenmaki, who died in Winnipeg on Jan. 30, 2009 after plunging 11 storeys. She was 23 years old and her boyfriend pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

“There is no closure,” she said to me as the drums began to beat the warrior song.

But there can be an end to the violence.

The murders and rapes, the violence against Indigenous women and girls will continue until Canada confronts the genocide and the long-promised new relationship is finally delivered.

This requires that Canada confront the historical disadvantages, intergenerational trauma, and discrimination experienced by Indigenous people, the report explained. And that begins with making significant strides toward substantive equality through changes to our justice system, to policing, to social and health services, to education, to everything Canada prides itself on and holds dear.

To many, these institutions are a symbol of what makes Canada great. But the report makes clear that they are far from perfect. That they are rigged against Canada’s first peoples. That they are tools of colonial violence, of genocide.

That is the conclusion of Buller and her team of commissioners.

It is disappointing that many of our politicians refuse to say the word. It would be far worse — a terrible tragedy — if they continued to be complicit in the act.

Tanya Talaga is a Toronto-based columnist covering Indigenous issues. Follow her on Twitter: @tanyatalaga

New report on Tina Fontaine’s death outlines problems we keep failing to address

New report on Tina Fontaine's death outlines problems we keep failing to address:

Five years ago, an Indigenous girl named Tina Fontaine left a downtown Winnipeg hotel and never returned. She had been placed in the hotel—alone—by the Government of Manitoba’s Child and Family Services agency as a ward of the state.

Nine days later, her ravaged body—wrapped in a duvet and weighted down by 25 pounds of rocks—was dragged out of the city’s enigmatic Red River.

She was 15 years old.

No one has ever been convicted of the murder.

Child advocate report released

This week, the Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth released her report on the agency’s investigation into Tina’s life and brutal death.

The report lists a litany of systemic failures while the young girl repeatedly confronted treacherous circumstances. Her life story reads like a screenplay that culminates in tragic predictability.

A broken home. Her father violently murdered. Suicidal behaviour. Substance abuse. Sexual exploitation.

Throughout all of this, she encountered institutions incapable—unwilling perhaps?—of mounting a response to a child clearly in crisis.

Her last days horribly encapsulate this failure. In the 12 hours before she was last seen, she was in contact with the police, the health care system, and the child welfare system.

In the end, none of these encounters prevented her from meeting the fate that far too many Indigenous women and girls have endured in this country.

A failed system

Naturally, none of this is new. Or unusual.

In a 2013 statement, the RCMP tallied 1,181 cases of missing or murdered Indigenous women and girls. There are more now.

More broadly, report after report has fastidiously laid out the deficiencies and outright delinquencies the Canadian state has overseen and perpetrated in its dealings with Indigenous peoples.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, penned a quarter century ago, called for sweeping changes.

And yet, nothing.

In seeming anticipation of the apparently inevitable, Manitoba’s child advocate and author of this week’s report, Daphne Penrose, stated that “children are going to die” if changes are not made.

She’s right, of course. In the five years since Tina’s death, they have died. And they will continue to do so.

This is an awful point to make. But it is undeniable.

And it should be a reckoning. A blight on our community—our country—that cannot be overstated.

A profoundly distorted society

There are a constellation of factors which tear at the social fabric, ultimately leading to women and girls of this land ending up in shallow graves.

It is the logical and predictable evolution of the colonization process and its pernicious effects. Which results in a profoundly distorted society.

The examples abound. For instance, Indigenous people—both men and women—are between six and seven times more likely to be murdered in their lifetime in Canada.

On over 80 per cent of reserves the median income falls below the poverty line, with 25 per cent securing income that does not approximate half of the poverty line cut-off. Six in 10 Indigenous children live in poverty.

And then there is the legacy of residential schools and the attempt to systematically destroy Indigeneity. The lasting impacts are as pervasive as they are devastating.

1907 telegram: “Send arsenic…exterminate aborigines” #1yrago

mostlysignssomeportents:

In 1907, Charles Morgan of Broome Station sent this telegram to Henry Prinsep, the Chief Protector of Aborigines for Western Australia, in Perth: “Send cask arsenic exterminate aborigines letter will follow.”

Australia’s program of genocide was based on the official doctrine of terra nullius, in whose name the first people of Australia were slaughtered and subjected to humiliations, depredations, and worse.

As terrible as the Australian genocide was, its very existence has been widely agreed-upon for quite some time – in this regard, the Australians are significantly ahead of Canada, which admitted its own genocide less than a year ago.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

20 JUL 07

TELEGRAM from Broome Station
Addressed to H. Princep Esq, prot. of aborigines

Send cask arsenic exterminate aborigines letter will follow

Chas Morgan

https://boingboing.net/2016/01/26/1907-telegram-send-arsenic.html

And yet only Canada’s Green Party has repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqgjAW37uLo