Oct
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Oct as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,390
- Pages: 3
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation
Oct. 29, 2006 Patrick, Your comments in the e-mail correspondence originally directed to Ottawa ANR Paul LaMothe, Oct. 23, 2006, are offensive and slanderous. I have spent the last five years thoroughly researching the Algonquin history. I have read the primary documents, academic research, the historical references and followed the various policies and administrations used to oppress the Algonquin people. I have followed numerous genealogies through historical events and diplomatic occurrences. I have researched the various laws and policies used to continually suppress the actual facts and I have come to the conclusion that we are currently operating from a very narrow understanding of the Algonquin identity and a full appreciation of Algonquin rights. It is in the interests of the Algonquin people that we begin to work from an inclusive perspective and that we begin a process of re-education if we have a genuine commitment to developing a viable future. I have also worked diligently to ensure that my community operates with the application of strong anti-corruption mechanisms and leadership controls to prevent the possibility of questionable activity or leadership. Ensuring that there are strong mechanisms in place first is the only way of preventing corruption and gold digging and should have been the first priority of the first leaders involved in this process, rather than developing inflated community membership lists largely influenced through the distribution of moose tags. It is very unfortunate that anticorruption mechanisms weren’t clearly established by everyone prior to entering this process, and in fact, I seem to recollect that it was actually such concerns that resulted in some communities not being at the table, was it not? While I appreciate the elections process contributing to the creation of a negotiations table where a number of groups have agreed to participate as a starting point I cannot support using it as a standard of legitimacy or accountability. In fact I have raised several concerns about the process and will continue to at least set a record of concerns if this process remains the definition of legitimacy for the Algonquin Land Claim Negotiations. While I respect the choice of the communities entering into the process as an exercise of their self-determination it should be noted that there are broader rights afforded to Algonquin people choosing a different course and that those should not, and cannot legally be denied. The insistence of such by some communities can only be interpreted as continued internalized oppression, or opportunistic behaviour.
The Algonquin community should be striving to be as inclusive as possible. I believe it better to err on the side of an Algonquin group rather than exclude them, and with properly designed accountability mechanisms and historically accurate means of identification and structures from within the Algonquin community we can be better prepared to negotiate a claim that serves our interests rather than those of the federal and provincial governments. Considering the most recent events Kichesipirini probably has more reason to protest the strongest about such matters but rather than act reactionary and add fuel to the divisive fires we have been contending with for almost 200 years we are hoping that the Algonquin people will be able to work together as a mature and responsible unit, despite our difficult past and the destructive effects. As the descendents of one of Canada's most interesting and strategic Aboriginal people we have an obligation through our shared past and ancestry to carry our story into the future with honesty, integrity and dignity. That means that we must all be dedicated to exploring the facts from new and ancient perspectives simultaneously. How would our ancestors have handled such situations before the divisive administrations were placed upon us. What does history tell us? What does international law and emerging policy tell us about the rights of Aboriginal people? Are we incorporating the best of these policies proactively into everything that we do? Are we honestly ensuring that we embody our greatest heritage, the value system of the Seven Grandfather Teachings in all that we do? Are we bringing honour to the Algonquin people as a whole and treating each other with genuine respect? Or have we fallen into the behaviours of a people so desperate and lost that really nothing is left of the genuine Algonquin Anishnaabek culture? Any culture is only as strong as its shared value system. We must respect ourselves and each other if you can expect anyone else to be genuinely negotiating with you. Otherwise, any other party involved in any type of negotiations sees the weakness and will take advantage of it. We have a responsibility to each other that supersedes anything else. Squabbling over miniscule rights defined by others should not be distracting us from that tremendous responsibility. I have been hoping that those at the table will come to recognize that continuing in a spirit of competition and division will only result in further division and competition and is self-destructive. As the descendents of an Aboriginal people we have in theory constitutionally protected rights. It is our shared responsibility to ensure that we are not interfering with the legitimate pursuit of those rights of any Aboriginal person within the territory. It is our responsibility to ensure that those rights are moved from theory into practice. Within Canadian law there has been a growing body of Aboriginal case history that has been greatly expanding the rights and definitions concerning Aboriginal people and communities. This broadening of the law has developed not through Canada developing a conscience and voluntarily deciding to genuinely reconcile with the Aboriginal people, but has resulted from external pressure, and it is foolish to put all of your confidence in a government sponsored and defined process regarding the definition of legitimacy. And do not attempt to justify the structure of the current table by stating that it has been created by Algonquin people for Algonquin people, for the protection of Algonquin rights because just a superficial examination of every policy or document used to manufacture the current table fails to meet even the most rudimentary test. In fact there is a tremendous amount of research and documentation that very accurately describes the dynamics of manufactured identity and manufactured consent prevalently attempted in any oppressive situation. I can assure you that
many of the communities at the table would not meet the basic requirements of accepted definitions, yet although Kichesipirini most definitely does, they are not included. I could also provide very specific examples that would demonstrate how in actuality many leaders at the current table have negated their responsibilities as actual legitimate leaders, and in fact how Mr. LaMothe’s behaviour is actually very indicative of a responsible leader, and should be valued and commended. It should also be noted that the failure to include the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation, in particular, in any negotiations process is one of the greatest breaches of Algonquin and Anishnaabek protocol and tradition yet to be documented and it is a sad testimony that it is the Algonquin people themselves perpetuating such a disgrace. Anyone who claims even a rudimentary understanding of our history and culture knows this fact. If that situation continues someone will be answerable for that. I suggest you stop shooting the messenger and begin to consider the reality that some of the communities currently excluded from the table have a very legitimate right to be there. It should be also noted that any disparity in the process between actual demographic population and community membership should not in any way be assumed as reflective of faulty leadership but should be accurately viewed as just another blatant manifestation of the extremely flawed and problematic administration of this entire process. I would have to ask is your behaviour in the above-mentioned e-mail indicative of what the other ANRs and provincial and federal representatives consider appropriate leadership behaviour? This is not a theoretical query. I am expecting an official response. Thank you for including me in your communications and allowing me the opportunity to respond. I am also grateful that it is not my signature sitting on any of the proceeding documents associated with this process. Paula LaPierre Principal Sachem Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation C.c. R. Brule Hereditary Senator T. Archambault Hereditary Senator M. Hoffman Hereditary Senator By Honouring Our Past We Determine Our Future [email protected]
Oct. 29, 2006 Patrick, Your comments in the e-mail correspondence originally directed to Ottawa ANR Paul LaMothe, Oct. 23, 2006, are offensive and slanderous. I have spent the last five years thoroughly researching the Algonquin history. I have read the primary documents, academic research, the historical references and followed the various policies and administrations used to oppress the Algonquin people. I have followed numerous genealogies through historical events and diplomatic occurrences. I have researched the various laws and policies used to continually suppress the actual facts and I have come to the conclusion that we are currently operating from a very narrow understanding of the Algonquin identity and a full appreciation of Algonquin rights. It is in the interests of the Algonquin people that we begin to work from an inclusive perspective and that we begin a process of re-education if we have a genuine commitment to developing a viable future. I have also worked diligently to ensure that my community operates with the application of strong anti-corruption mechanisms and leadership controls to prevent the possibility of questionable activity or leadership. Ensuring that there are strong mechanisms in place first is the only way of preventing corruption and gold digging and should have been the first priority of the first leaders involved in this process, rather than developing inflated community membership lists largely influenced through the distribution of moose tags. It is very unfortunate that anticorruption mechanisms weren’t clearly established by everyone prior to entering this process, and in fact, I seem to recollect that it was actually such concerns that resulted in some communities not being at the table, was it not? While I appreciate the elections process contributing to the creation of a negotiations table where a number of groups have agreed to participate as a starting point I cannot support using it as a standard of legitimacy or accountability. In fact I have raised several concerns about the process and will continue to at least set a record of concerns if this process remains the definition of legitimacy for the Algonquin Land Claim Negotiations. While I respect the choice of the communities entering into the process as an exercise of their self-determination it should be noted that there are broader rights afforded to Algonquin people choosing a different course and that those should not, and cannot legally be denied. The insistence of such by some communities can only be interpreted as continued internalized oppression, or opportunistic behaviour.
The Algonquin community should be striving to be as inclusive as possible. I believe it better to err on the side of an Algonquin group rather than exclude them, and with properly designed accountability mechanisms and historically accurate means of identification and structures from within the Algonquin community we can be better prepared to negotiate a claim that serves our interests rather than those of the federal and provincial governments. Considering the most recent events Kichesipirini probably has more reason to protest the strongest about such matters but rather than act reactionary and add fuel to the divisive fires we have been contending with for almost 200 years we are hoping that the Algonquin people will be able to work together as a mature and responsible unit, despite our difficult past and the destructive effects. As the descendents of one of Canada's most interesting and strategic Aboriginal people we have an obligation through our shared past and ancestry to carry our story into the future with honesty, integrity and dignity. That means that we must all be dedicated to exploring the facts from new and ancient perspectives simultaneously. How would our ancestors have handled such situations before the divisive administrations were placed upon us. What does history tell us? What does international law and emerging policy tell us about the rights of Aboriginal people? Are we incorporating the best of these policies proactively into everything that we do? Are we honestly ensuring that we embody our greatest heritage, the value system of the Seven Grandfather Teachings in all that we do? Are we bringing honour to the Algonquin people as a whole and treating each other with genuine respect? Or have we fallen into the behaviours of a people so desperate and lost that really nothing is left of the genuine Algonquin Anishnaabek culture? Any culture is only as strong as its shared value system. We must respect ourselves and each other if you can expect anyone else to be genuinely negotiating with you. Otherwise, any other party involved in any type of negotiations sees the weakness and will take advantage of it. We have a responsibility to each other that supersedes anything else. Squabbling over miniscule rights defined by others should not be distracting us from that tremendous responsibility. I have been hoping that those at the table will come to recognize that continuing in a spirit of competition and division will only result in further division and competition and is self-destructive. As the descendents of an Aboriginal people we have in theory constitutionally protected rights. It is our shared responsibility to ensure that we are not interfering with the legitimate pursuit of those rights of any Aboriginal person within the territory. It is our responsibility to ensure that those rights are moved from theory into practice. Within Canadian law there has been a growing body of Aboriginal case history that has been greatly expanding the rights and definitions concerning Aboriginal people and communities. This broadening of the law has developed not through Canada developing a conscience and voluntarily deciding to genuinely reconcile with the Aboriginal people, but has resulted from external pressure, and it is foolish to put all of your confidence in a government sponsored and defined process regarding the definition of legitimacy. And do not attempt to justify the structure of the current table by stating that it has been created by Algonquin people for Algonquin people, for the protection of Algonquin rights because just a superficial examination of every policy or document used to manufacture the current table fails to meet even the most rudimentary test. In fact there is a tremendous amount of research and documentation that very accurately describes the dynamics of manufactured identity and manufactured consent prevalently attempted in any oppressive situation. I can assure you that
many of the communities at the table would not meet the basic requirements of accepted definitions, yet although Kichesipirini most definitely does, they are not included. I could also provide very specific examples that would demonstrate how in actuality many leaders at the current table have negated their responsibilities as actual legitimate leaders, and in fact how Mr. LaMothe’s behaviour is actually very indicative of a responsible leader, and should be valued and commended. It should also be noted that the failure to include the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation, in particular, in any negotiations process is one of the greatest breaches of Algonquin and Anishnaabek protocol and tradition yet to be documented and it is a sad testimony that it is the Algonquin people themselves perpetuating such a disgrace. Anyone who claims even a rudimentary understanding of our history and culture knows this fact. If that situation continues someone will be answerable for that. I suggest you stop shooting the messenger and begin to consider the reality that some of the communities currently excluded from the table have a very legitimate right to be there. It should be also noted that any disparity in the process between actual demographic population and community membership should not in any way be assumed as reflective of faulty leadership but should be accurately viewed as just another blatant manifestation of the extremely flawed and problematic administration of this entire process. I would have to ask is your behaviour in the above-mentioned e-mail indicative of what the other ANRs and provincial and federal representatives consider appropriate leadership behaviour? This is not a theoretical query. I am expecting an official response. Thank you for including me in your communications and allowing me the opportunity to respond. I am also grateful that it is not my signature sitting on any of the proceeding documents associated with this process. Paula LaPierre Principal Sachem Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation C.c. R. Brule Hereditary Senator T. Archambault Hereditary Senator M. Hoffman Hereditary Senator By Honouring Our Past We Determine Our Future [email protected]
