WE MOVED TO WWW.LIBERATEDYET.COM

Every Wednesday, the 16 elected band councilors of the Squamish Nation meet to pass motions put forward by staff, the community, or councilors themselves. They operate on Roberts Rule of Order. Community members are allowed to attend, unless Council motions and passes to have an "in-camera" session. I attended last Wednesday's meeting, and here are my findings. :)

------------------------------

There is a disconnection between some politicians from the grassroots community level, in huge ways. The positions or views expressed from some councilors made it apparent to me when they discussed the issue and what their concerns, thoughts, and idea’s were regarding issues. The paradigm they followed showed this disconnect and don’t think where the people come from, don’t think about what the people will see on the issue. Their time on council (read: many terms) has created this disconnection.



Council members who hold high ranking Staff or Department Head positions have more power then their elected colleagues. A handful of councilors hold staff and department head positions, and they are all senior members of council. Control of finances within their department, the knowledge and information coming from their staff position, or weight in decision making in what will or won’t do are all indicators they consolidated power within themselves. This balance of power is unequal on the council table, and has not been determined by the people. They are able to control and dominate more of the Squamish Nation.



Newly elected council members worked to create change from the status-quo and founded new policy within the Squamish Nation, but this same policy can be thrown out when, it seems like, the senior councilors want to.



Decision making, dialogue around issues, research, and power dynamics in Band Council governance is not known by the general community. The people that know how the band council works are the ones who work within that system. For the 60 something people who run every 4 years in the elections, all but the current or past council members know how the system works. Our people don’t know and didn’t decide how our own governance works. Who created or choose to operate on this system? It sure as hell wasn’t the people. 




The system that they operate under is following oppressive colonialism values. The voice of opposition is not respected, is silenced, or discounted quite quickly. There is no open discussion around the issue at hand and those who offer any kind of dissent on an issue are scorned for their “malcontent” behavior. Thus, if you put something forward strong enough, fast enough, efficiently enough, it can be passed through without any kind of open discussion around the issue. Even if what is being proposed is an extremely bad idea, or even if it’s something morally wrong like helping support corruption, benefiting individuals with nation resources, or consolidating power within a few. So what the established politicians want is for you to be silence and agree with their genius plan. You are not supposed to voice out concern, because that is bad. Geeez, why does this sound like Residential School to me. 




Money is the major force on the council. The majority of the band council’s time, energy, resources, and innovation is spent on money. This detrimentally determines the focus of the 4 year term politicians and means a greater part of their focus is not on issues the community want addressed. Issues like homes, language loss, community violence, health, and education. If they changed their focus in time and energy to the issues, there could be more change within our community. I am not speaking of simply forming a committee and discussing the issue, but putting wise thinking into wise action. That they actually work on the ground to change the issues at hand. 




Some councils view the people are a group of whinny cry baby’s who just complain, complain, complain. This arrogance was apparent among some of the council members in the way they viewed the community’s voice on issues. I found this view to be quite startling because it means they are so arrogant, anything the community addresses or shows concern about, is disregarded or overlooked. This reminded me of the same arrogance shown from senior council members shown to the newer councilors.



The last thing I discovered after this meeting is that the levels of corruption, the power dynamics between band councilors and some senior staff is weak and unstable. That is all I will say about this. ;-) :-)


------------------------------

Attended last week’s Band Council meeting was a great experience for me. Observing the Band Council was a revealing and a learning experience for me. The irony, hypocrisy and the "special" treatment of "special" individuals was revealing. Learning how they work will help me understand the massive system at work that is causing so many problems for my people, when something so much better is possible and achievable. After last weeks meetings, I’ve decided I will be attending every meeting I can between now and the Winter Holiday Break, with weekly updates on my findings. I also highly suggest any our people from my community to join me and attend. Come see for yourself how it works.

Till next week,
Dustin Rivers
Aboriginalism Systems Specialist Consultant

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians," he explained in a routine that challenged all the premises of today's half-a-loaf reformers. "Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'"

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.