March 19, 2008
Forged Leadership
With recent events coming up the media, I thought I would take some time to do what bloggers do best: citizen media.
This past sunday, a group of natives protested at a Catholic Church in Vancouver. This group, lead by Gerry Johnson or Chief Kiapilano as he claims to be, and author Kevin Annnet, stormed the Sunday mass issuing “eviction” notices. The group then proceeded to Christ Church Anglican Cathedral and St. Andrew’s Wesley United Church, where the same Eviction Order was posted on their front doors. Gerry Johnson claims to be hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation, and on behalf of the Squamish Nation, was issuing eviction notices to the church in Vancouver and promised to occupy all of them, today. Gerry Johnson, who is Skwxwu7mesh, and registered with the Squamish Nation membership, claims to be a hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation.
Today the elected politicians of the Squamish Nation distanced themselves from Gerry Capilano. “The Squamish Nation disassociates itself with Mr. Johnston's actions and wishes to clarify that his actions were in no way representative of the Nation.” This came as no surprise, and has been a long time coming from Gerry Johnsons previous attempts at activism in the Lower Mainland.
The myth of this hereditary chieftainship business is quite strong and misleading on many parts. In 1923, 16 “chiefs” of 16 different Skwxwu7mesh villages signed the “amalgamation” unifying the nation for land claims and land rights. These 16 chiefs formed the Squamish Nation Chief & Council, which was held as hereditary until it was voted in referendum decades later to custom election codes under the Indian Act.
What’s kind of absent is what took place before 1923. In 1820, the HBC set up in Fort Langley to do business and trade with local indigenous population. Except the polity and social structure of the west coast, specifically with local Coast Salish, was something odd to these new settlers. Where they were accustomed to trading with one “head chief”, as in a representative for the entire people, the Coast Salish societal structure was less stratified with no single leader for the entire people. This idea was considered absurd. Actually, I still think having one leader for all the people is absurd. How can one person understand everything needed to represent the needs of all their people.
Well, afterwards the Catholic Church set about their mission to convert. But the project called colonization was becoming more and more sophisticated. They lacked the resource to set up presences in every village, so they instead converted covert leaders and designated these men chiefs. These men had to fit the bill of obedient, Christian, and sober. Previously the leadership was defined by: how much they displayed the values of the people (generosity, respect, and knowledge), how much they shared and distributed their resources (economic, spiritual, and cultural knowledge), or through the management of resources and distribution of those resources (potlatching). So instead of having a representative governance of the families, houses, and village, it turned into puppet-chiefs responsible for converting others to Christian agenda.
This is where it get messy. It wasn’t a dry and cut plan. Many families and individuals did convert to Christianity (and their decedents still are Christian). Other families played along and were Christian in name, but indigenous at heart. So the definition was blurred more as the lines between sell-out collaborator chiefs who sided with the Church against their people, and the hardcore resisters who still followed the way of our ancestors. It blended. So the “hereditary chieftainships” became intertwine between what was set up by the Church, and the historical culture of Skwxwu7mesh-ulh.
Yata yata yata, the Federal government ratified these chiefs through the Indian Act, and later they amalgamated and became the 16 chiefs which became the 16 member Squamish Nation Chief and Council. Many politicians on the Indian Act government are “hereditary chiefs” coming from this history. The disputes over names/titles comes from this complicated history, plus other complicated histories of borrowed chieftainships, multiple marriages, and down right theft. This is why Gerry Johnson claims to be a chief.
But one thing that needs to be clarified is that the word chief and leader are not synonymous. Nor is our Skwxw7mesh snichem word siyam synonymous with chief. Anyone and their dog can claim to be a chief, but you can’t claim to be a good leader unless you are one. August Jack Khatsalano spoke about the real meaning of the chief when he said, “Indian have no chairman, only man who says the most wise things.” With regards to our language, a siyam is a highly respected person. Yet sell out politicians all claim to be “chief”. A power dynamic of title and demanded respect. Have these same men displayed the values of the people (generosity, respect, and knowledge)? Shared and distributed their resources (economic, spiritual, and cultural knowledge)? Or even fulfilled their rightful duty of resource stewardship and distribution of those resources (potlatching)?
No, but they claim to be chiefs.
I will say that the elected politicians can represent the “Squamish Nation”, but they are not the nation of Skwxwu7mesh. Just as the Canadian Federal government does not represent all Canadians (it represents the federal government and it’s dealings). There is a important distinction between the Squamish Nation, a legal and political entity in First Nation status, and Skwxwu7mesh-ulh, the indigenous peoples. Skwxwu7mesh, meaning people of the sacred drinking water, is a mixture of worldview, history, politics, governance, land, language, people, society, customs, traditions, beliefs, and much more. But it is clear and easy to say the Squamish Nation are not those. The Squamish Nation is the 16 elected politicians that make up the 16 member Council, it’s mangers, their departments, it’s employees, and their services. A government is not a nation. Indigenous peoples of this land are nations.
So in this shark battle of prestige and title, it comes a off-handed joke to a lot of the people. Most Skwxuw7mesh don’t know who Gerry Johnson is, or his claim to legitimacy, and quite frankly the elected politicians claim, albeit a different level, legitimacy, are both founded on a decaying quagmire of fake-ness or forgery.
This past sunday, a group of natives protested at a Catholic Church in Vancouver. This group, lead by Gerry Johnson or Chief Kiapilano as he claims to be, and author Kevin Annnet, stormed the Sunday mass issuing “eviction” notices. The group then proceeded to Christ Church Anglican Cathedral and St. Andrew’s Wesley United Church, where the same Eviction Order was posted on their front doors. Gerry Johnson claims to be hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation, and on behalf of the Squamish Nation, was issuing eviction notices to the church in Vancouver and promised to occupy all of them, today. Gerry Johnson, who is Skwxwu7mesh, and registered with the Squamish Nation membership, claims to be a hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation.
Today the elected politicians of the Squamish Nation distanced themselves from Gerry Capilano. “The Squamish Nation disassociates itself with Mr. Johnston's actions and wishes to clarify that his actions were in no way representative of the Nation.” This came as no surprise, and has been a long time coming from Gerry Johnsons previous attempts at activism in the Lower Mainland.
The myth of this hereditary chieftainship business is quite strong and misleading on many parts. In 1923, 16 “chiefs” of 16 different Skwxwu7mesh villages signed the “amalgamation” unifying the nation for land claims and land rights. These 16 chiefs formed the Squamish Nation Chief & Council, which was held as hereditary until it was voted in referendum decades later to custom election codes under the Indian Act.
What’s kind of absent is what took place before 1923. In 1820, the HBC set up in Fort Langley to do business and trade with local indigenous population. Except the polity and social structure of the west coast, specifically with local Coast Salish, was something odd to these new settlers. Where they were accustomed to trading with one “head chief”, as in a representative for the entire people, the Coast Salish societal structure was less stratified with no single leader for the entire people. This idea was considered absurd. Actually, I still think having one leader for all the people is absurd. How can one person understand everything needed to represent the needs of all their people.
Well, afterwards the Catholic Church set about their mission to convert. But the project called colonization was becoming more and more sophisticated. They lacked the resource to set up presences in every village, so they instead converted covert leaders and designated these men chiefs. These men had to fit the bill of obedient, Christian, and sober. Previously the leadership was defined by: how much they displayed the values of the people (generosity, respect, and knowledge), how much they shared and distributed their resources (economic, spiritual, and cultural knowledge), or through the management of resources and distribution of those resources (potlatching). So instead of having a representative governance of the families, houses, and village, it turned into puppet-chiefs responsible for converting others to Christian agenda.
This is where it get messy. It wasn’t a dry and cut plan. Many families and individuals did convert to Christianity (and their decedents still are Christian). Other families played along and were Christian in name, but indigenous at heart. So the definition was blurred more as the lines between sell-out collaborator chiefs who sided with the Church against their people, and the hardcore resisters who still followed the way of our ancestors. It blended. So the “hereditary chieftainships” became intertwine between what was set up by the Church, and the historical culture of Skwxwu7mesh-ulh.
Yata yata yata, the Federal government ratified these chiefs through the Indian Act, and later they amalgamated and became the 16 chiefs which became the 16 member Squamish Nation Chief and Council. Many politicians on the Indian Act government are “hereditary chiefs” coming from this history. The disputes over names/titles comes from this complicated history, plus other complicated histories of borrowed chieftainships, multiple marriages, and down right theft. This is why Gerry Johnson claims to be a chief.
But one thing that needs to be clarified is that the word chief and leader are not synonymous. Nor is our Skwxw7mesh snichem word siyam synonymous with chief. Anyone and their dog can claim to be a chief, but you can’t claim to be a good leader unless you are one. August Jack Khatsalano spoke about the real meaning of the chief when he said, “Indian have no chairman, only man who says the most wise things.” With regards to our language, a siyam is a highly respected person. Yet sell out politicians all claim to be “chief”. A power dynamic of title and demanded respect. Have these same men displayed the values of the people (generosity, respect, and knowledge)? Shared and distributed their resources (economic, spiritual, and cultural knowledge)? Or even fulfilled their rightful duty of resource stewardship and distribution of those resources (potlatching)?
No, but they claim to be chiefs.
I will say that the elected politicians can represent the “Squamish Nation”, but they are not the nation of Skwxwu7mesh. Just as the Canadian Federal government does not represent all Canadians (it represents the federal government and it’s dealings). There is a important distinction between the Squamish Nation, a legal and political entity in First Nation status, and Skwxwu7mesh-ulh, the indigenous peoples. Skwxwu7mesh, meaning people of the sacred drinking water, is a mixture of worldview, history, politics, governance, land, language, people, society, customs, traditions, beliefs, and much more. But it is clear and easy to say the Squamish Nation are not those. The Squamish Nation is the 16 elected politicians that make up the 16 member Council, it’s mangers, their departments, it’s employees, and their services. A government is not a nation. Indigenous peoples of this land are nations.
So in this shark battle of prestige and title, it comes a off-handed joke to a lot of the people. Most Skwxuw7mesh don’t know who Gerry Johnson is, or his claim to legitimacy, and quite frankly the elected politicians claim, albeit a different level, legitimacy, are both founded on a decaying quagmire of fake-ness or forgery.
8 comments:
Hey Chris,
I knew there was a bit of loop, or some context missing to what I was saying.
The Squamish Nation is not like the EU. It's a "First Nation" political enitity, without the "first" part. I think it's for asthetics? lol
As I was saying, my comparison is a bit faulty. What I'm trying to get at is, the Canadian government doesn't have a monopoly over the name "Canadian". In this case, "Canada" is "Squamish Nation". Just like "Concord Pacific" or other legal titles out there. Well the elected leaders say, "We are the Squamish Nation." Either yes, they are the Squamish Nation, or no, we are all the Squamish Nation. But a government doesn't have absolute control over a nationality (Skwxwu7mesh). They also sometimes refer to themselves as Skwxwu7mesh-ulh Uxwumixw, where they are taking our word for community/vilalge to mean nation. The -ulh ending just refers to belogning to, or "ours". So when saying it, what I'm saying is I belong to what that is. It's like Selitwet-ulh. (Belonging to the Inlet. Selitet = Inlet)
The reason I say it's not like the EU is that individual village and families have no power or jurisdiction over their part within the governance structure framework of the Squamish Nation. The Chief and Council has the absolute power in decision making. Sure, there are social barriers, most of which are breaking at the seems lately.
What I'm getting at, which I want to illustrate more articulately one day...lol, is that the Squamish Nation does not equal Skwxwu7mesh or Skwxwu7mesh-ulh. They are two separate entities. One a political body as defined within the Indian Act, and another a socio-political indigenous nation (some could argue that it's also a ethnoreligious group before contact.)
I knew there was a bit of loop, or some context missing to what I was saying.
The Squamish Nation is not like the EU. It's a "First Nation" political enitity, without the "first" part. I think it's for asthetics? lol
As I was saying, my comparison is a bit faulty. What I'm trying to get at is, the Canadian government doesn't have a monopoly over the name "Canadian". In this case, "Canada" is "Squamish Nation". Just like "Concord Pacific" or other legal titles out there. Well the elected leaders say, "We are the Squamish Nation." Either yes, they are the Squamish Nation, or no, we are all the Squamish Nation. But a government doesn't have absolute control over a nationality (Skwxwu7mesh). They also sometimes refer to themselves as Skwxwu7mesh-ulh Uxwumixw, where they are taking our word for community/vilalge to mean nation. The -ulh ending just refers to belogning to, or "ours". So when saying it, what I'm saying is I belong to what that is. It's like Selitwet-ulh. (Belonging to the Inlet. Selitet = Inlet)
The reason I say it's not like the EU is that individual village and families have no power or jurisdiction over their part within the governance structure framework of the Squamish Nation. The Chief and Council has the absolute power in decision making. Sure, there are social barriers, most of which are breaking at the seems lately.
What I'm getting at, which I want to illustrate more articulately one day...lol, is that the Squamish Nation does not equal Skwxwu7mesh or Skwxwu7mesh-ulh. They are two separate entities. One a political body as defined within the Indian Act, and another a socio-political indigenous nation (some could argue that it's also a ethnoreligious group before contact.)
Great article, Dustin. It's unfortunate to hear this happening, but then everything coming from and connected to Annett seems to be on the fringes. It makes me kind of embarrassed that I was in his show a couple times, but it was a good learning experience anyways.
About the Squamish Nation, I dont actually know anything about them (other than from what I read here) but generally speaking, I think "First Nations" are more like corporate franchises under Canada... The chief is the CEO, the band council is the board of directors; and the people are, more or less, the shareholders.
Then I guess the AFN would be a union for the C&C's (chief and council) who love lapping up to big daddy Canada for goods and services... And then have disenfranchised folks like Gerry Johnson who, I suppose, wants to get in on the action.
About the Squamish Nation, I dont actually know anything about them (other than from what I read here) but generally speaking, I think "First Nations" are more like corporate franchises under Canada... The chief is the CEO, the band council is the board of directors; and the people are, more or less, the shareholders.
Then I guess the AFN would be a union for the C&C's (chief and council) who love lapping up to big daddy Canada for goods and services... And then have disenfranchised folks like Gerry Johnson who, I suppose, wants to get in on the action.
Ahni, thanks for the comment.
I agree with your comment about "First Nations" and corporations. It's the Department of Indian Affairs sponsored initiatve in this idea called "economic development". The most "successful nations" are ones that adopt more White and Colonizer principles for operating. With Squamish Nation having no elected "chief" (but an elected band manager), the council is the board of directors, with it's upper level management, staff, etc. And the move to "creative wealth" is something in strengthening that hold of business ethic in the workplace. The peoples voice only matters during election time (every 4 years), otherwise the band council has adopted the same policy as industry and colonial government: "accommodation and consultation". That's not asking the people for their say in decision making, that's not asking "what do the people want?", that's not working with, not for, the people. It's coming down from their high office and saying, "We're doing this, what changes do you recommend before we go through." What is left of their almost morally bankrupt conscience stops them from the most outragous initiates. Oh wait, so not to feel guilty from probably outrage from the people, they skip the accommodation part, and just go through with it.
Skipping the people, and and moving on.
I agree with your comment about "First Nations" and corporations. It's the Department of Indian Affairs sponsored initiatve in this idea called "economic development". The most "successful nations" are ones that adopt more White and Colonizer principles for operating. With Squamish Nation having no elected "chief" (but an elected band manager), the council is the board of directors, with it's upper level management, staff, etc. And the move to "creative wealth" is something in strengthening that hold of business ethic in the workplace. The peoples voice only matters during election time (every 4 years), otherwise the band council has adopted the same policy as industry and colonial government: "accommodation and consultation". That's not asking the people for their say in decision making, that's not asking "what do the people want?", that's not working with, not for, the people. It's coming down from their high office and saying, "We're doing this, what changes do you recommend before we go through." What is left of their almost morally bankrupt conscience stops them from the most outragous initiates. Oh wait, so not to feel guilty from probably outrage from the people, they skip the accommodation part, and just go through with it.
Skipping the people, and and moving on.
Good post. One of lines that gets blurred is the distinction you mention-nation vs executive committee/branch. A nation is much larger and more enduring than a particular group of decision makers, appointed or self anointed. In many cases, a "tribal government" administers federal monies and services and that's about it.
On a similar note, one of the criticisms I have my fellow travelers in the "native activist" circles is this-we claim to be taking various actions in the name of "the traditional leadership/governments" but can we say those actually exist at this point? For me, I believe rebuilding, or regenerating that which we claim to represent should be a priority as well.
On a similar note, one of the criticisms I have my fellow travelers in the "native activist" circles is this-we claim to be taking various actions in the name of "the traditional leadership/governments" but can we say those actually exist at this point? For me, I believe rebuilding, or regenerating that which we claim to represent should be a priority as well.
Well, in looking at what "First Nations" are supposed to be, with this coming from the DIA definition, there's the board of directors, or the elected council, they set out the policy and direction for the nation, hire the band manager, then hire the senior directors, department heads, then the managers, then the directors, then the staff, then you have everything that makes up the basic structure. If you conclude, "What is this for?", as in, what it's supposed to do, and who's supposed to succeed in this system you have to conclude that it entirely non-indigenous, completely Settler.
If that's the case, it must go.
As for the cliquish artists world, I've experienced it to get quite zest-poolly. But artist have a huge privilege and in many ways, abuse that privilege. One of those ways is through which you mention, "speaking for back home", kind of, taking advantage. Where, they haven't been home, they don't know the people, and are not doing hands on work for the people. Yeah, the in the spotlight shit they'll do, but not the work the should, not want, to be doing. It happens with "political artists" who don't work on the front lines but co-opt the work of front line activists without giving back.
I honestly would give up my "indian status", but not until after I give up my Canadian citizenship. But that will come a day later when my people can stand up and take our sovereignty and autonomy.
Thanks for the comment.
If that's the case, it must go.
As for the cliquish artists world, I've experienced it to get quite zest-poolly. But artist have a huge privilege and in many ways, abuse that privilege. One of those ways is through which you mention, "speaking for back home", kind of, taking advantage. Where, they haven't been home, they don't know the people, and are not doing hands on work for the people. Yeah, the in the spotlight shit they'll do, but not the work the should, not want, to be doing. It happens with "political artists" who don't work on the front lines but co-opt the work of front line activists without giving back.
I honestly would give up my "indian status", but not until after I give up my Canadian citizenship. But that will come a day later when my people can stand up and take our sovereignty and autonomy.
Thanks for the comment.
As a Native myself, and an adopted member of the : How does a fish tell an eagle how to be an eagle?What does the fish know about it?
And for ME personally, that is exactly what happens when a government agency tells OUR people how to be native, WHO can be native,and WHO can be our leaders.
What does the fish know about flying and hunting? Yes, it may sit in it's safe waters observing the actions of the eagle, but it never really has an UNDERSTANDING of why the eagle IS an eagle.
MANY are the treaties and agreements PROMISING the eagle the right to be an eagle, and LIVE like an eagle written by the fish, yet the fish NEVER had any intention of keeping those promises.
The fish constantly AMMENDS the agreement between itself and the eagle in an attempt to FORCE the eagle to become more like itself, with the EVENTUAL eradication of the eagle's identity, and self governance.
The fish never ASKED the eagle would it like to de-evolve into a fish, it just issued rules and regulations that made it almost imposible for the eagle to BE an eagle, and enforced them with the barrel of a gun. What CHOICE did the eagle have in a scenario like that?
The ENTIRE plan of the fish, as it sits afely in it's dark pool of lies and half truths is:
"The total assimilation or ELIMINATION of the eagle problem."
And for ME personally, that is exactly what happens when a government agency tells OUR people how to be native, WHO can be native,and WHO can be our leaders.
What does the fish know about flying and hunting? Yes, it may sit in it's safe waters observing the actions of the eagle, but it never really has an UNDERSTANDING of why the eagle IS an eagle.
MANY are the treaties and agreements PROMISING the eagle the right to be an eagle, and LIVE like an eagle written by the fish, yet the fish NEVER had any intention of keeping those promises.
The fish constantly AMMENDS the agreement between itself and the eagle in an attempt to FORCE the eagle to become more like itself, with the EVENTUAL eradication of the eagle's identity, and self governance.
The fish never ASKED the eagle would it like to de-evolve into a fish, it just issued rules and regulations that made it almost imposible for the eagle to BE an eagle, and enforced them with the barrel of a gun. What CHOICE did the eagle have in a scenario like that?
The ENTIRE plan of the fish, as it sits afely in it's dark pool of lies and half truths is:
"The total assimilation or ELIMINATION of the eagle problem."
A cuation about Kevin Annnet.
Like Gerry Johnson, Kevin Annnet is a dangerous pretender seeking followers and using the atrocity of Residential School Incarceration and it's Survivours to try and legitamize his quest for fame and fortune off the backs of our Indigenous Sisters and Brothers. I had met him through my Auntie, a gentle and trusting Yakama Elder.I immeadiately saw what he is after. The group that met at his home was mostly non-Native conspiracy theroists (one discussions was how the govt was monitoring the group through TV sets!) and the one other Eldery Native women that attended was clearly set up as a token representative again to support Kevin Annett's facade. I have met and communicated through e-mail with several First persons who were harmed and mis qouted in Kevin' Annetts book "Death In the Valley" Some of these folks sathat are "featured" in the book were not interviewed at all. One fellow showed me through a series of copied e-mails how Kevin Annett used in his book residential School Survivour's stories that were disclosed in confidence at Circle meetings Kevin Annett was calling Truth and Reconciliation Committe meetings. This man is a Parasite.
Like Gerry Johnson, Kevin Annnet is a dangerous pretender seeking followers and using the atrocity of Residential School Incarceration and it's Survivours to try and legitamize his quest for fame and fortune off the backs of our Indigenous Sisters and Brothers. I had met him through my Auntie, a gentle and trusting Yakama Elder.I immeadiately saw what he is after. The group that met at his home was mostly non-Native conspiracy theroists (one discussions was how the govt was monitoring the group through TV sets!) and the one other Eldery Native women that attended was clearly set up as a token representative again to support Kevin Annett's facade. I have met and communicated through e-mail with several First persons who were harmed and mis qouted in Kevin' Annetts book "Death In the Valley" Some of these folks sathat are "featured" in the book were not interviewed at all. One fellow showed me through a series of copied e-mails how Kevin Annett used in his book residential School Survivour's stories that were disclosed in confidence at Circle meetings Kevin Annett was calling Truth and Reconciliation Committe meetings. This man is a Parasite.
You write: "I will say that the elected politicians can represent the “Squamish Nation”, but they are not the nation of Skwxwu7mesh. Just as the Canadian Federal government does not represent all Canadians (it represents the federal government and it’s dealings).
I think that's not quite right. The federal government works on behalf of all Canadians, led by the elected representatives of the Canadian people. In truth, the federal government protects the interests of the Crown, which means that sometimes it sues the people who elected it. The Charter of Rights protects people from the Crown's interests and it balances power pretty well.
I think the analogy is that the Squamish Nation is like the European Union - a political union of elected representatives of Europeans. And while they can make policy for all of Europe, they cannot, for example abolish French. Only the leaders of France can do that (if such a thing is indeed even possible). The EU is a federation of nations. The Squamish Nation seems to be a federation of Skwxwu7mesh speaking communities, organized for a particular purpose, but never intended to supplant the traditional leadership systems that got work done in the vllages around Skwxwu7mesh Temixw.
Is that more accurate?