>Hopi/Navajo conflict. We have been indiscriminantly overloaded with
>material supporting the Lubicon on NativeNet. Once it tied up my
I do not know who Dr. May is referring to when he says WE. This is the
first time I encounter a person actually complaining about getting too
much in-depth information on a particular issue. Looking back through
some of my old logs I usually find people asking for more details. And
while Dr. May claims that somehow this is being done indiscriminantly
(sic) I can assure all readers of NativeNet that the information
provided about the Lubicon struggle is vital to understand this long
drawn out, complicated, and intricate struggle of a small group of
native people facing the most powerful adversaries the country of Canada
has to offer - the Federal Government, the Provincial Government of
Alberta, and the interests of some corporations whose budgets are larger
than the budgets of some nation-states.
This detailed and meticulously researched information may in the long
run help to save the Lubicons by exposing the extremes to which the
Canadian federal and the Alberta provincial governments are prepared to
go to crush native rights.
I feel it is important to emphasize that those governments can engage in
such behaviour with impunity only if responsible citizens lack the
information to make their own judgements and are able to put government
action or inaction in the proper historical, social, political and
tactical context. Knowledge really is power, especially if expressed
forcefully in letters to politicians and other representatives of the
above mentioned governments and corporate interests.
Should, on the other hand, the Lubicons share the fate of so many other
aboriginal societies, and disintegrate as a cohesive, culturally intact,
socially functioning, and economically self-sufficient society, this
information will serve as a historical record of how the Canadian and
Alberta governments succeeded in crushing native rights in order to gain
access to, and to profit from billions of dollars of resources from
traditional Lubicon lands. It will also serve as a historical record of
how 'white' society failed to recognize or simply did not care what was
happening to this small aboriginal society despite desperate attempts by
this aboriginal society to get this information out.
>material supporting the Lubicon on NativeNet. Once it tied up my
>machine for over 20 minutes when I needed to get other work done. Of
I believe this is a technical problem and should be addressed as such.
Since I read all the postings in NativeNet I never had that problem. But
I am sure that there are technically competent people on the net who
could offer suggestions on how to avoid such situations.
>the scores of messages I don't think a single one came from a Woodland
>Cree. The Lubicon side of the story may well be right and worthy of
>all our support. To get that support they have an obligation of
It is true that I never posted a message coming from the Woodland Cree.
When I first became involved with the Lubicon struggle there was no
Woodland Cree group in existence. I also do not know anyone of the
Woodland Cree, and more importantly, since their creation in 1989 until
their settlement of their aboriginal rights in 1991 they worked so well
together with both governments that there did not seem to be the need
for any of the Woodland Cree to come forward. Also, they have abrogated
their aboriginal rights and received for this abrogation land and some
money to build a community. In other words, they have received what they
wanted for extinguishing their aboriginal rights. Their 'side' of the
story is that they wanted a deal and they got one.
>all our support. To get that support they have an obligation of
>letting us hear from their opponents. That has been my same concern on
>the Hopi/Navajo conflict.
I do not think the Lubicons, or any of their supporters, have any
obligations as far as the Woodland Cree are concerned. Would Dr. May
have read the mail-outs prepared by the Lubicons, however, he would have
come across statements made by spokespeople for the Woodland Cree on a
variety of relevant issues. (To give Dr. May the opportunity to read
some of those statements I will upload as a seperate posting, a Lubicon
mailout on the settlement of the Woodland Cree, following this message).
>If an outsider like me is to support a cause I want to know the real
>core issues. I also like to know at least a minimum of what BOTH side
>claim from their own spokesmen. That, I believe, is the way most
Dr. May would have also found, within the information provided by the
Lubicons, instructions on how to contact the chief of the Woodland Cree
Band, the Office of the Minister of Indian Affairs, and the Director of
Communications of the Alberta Attorney Generals office.
>Indian tribes work. We seek unity and compromise after hearing all
>sides of an argument. In contrast, too many issues being discussed
I suggest, that if a participant of NativeNet feels strongly that one
side of a dispute is underrepresented, the decent and respectable thing
would be to go and get that information for the rest of the readership,
rather than just complaining about such shortcomings.
The point I once again have to make is that the struggle of the Lubicon
is not with the Woodland Cree, although the creation of the Woodland
Cree and their settlement to extinguish aboriginal rights is being used
by the Federal government as a means to subvert Lubicon rights. I firmly
believe, that despite their short term gain achieved in their
settlement, the Woodland Cree are victims of the same system, by facing
a deprivating welfare existence, without provisions for economic self-
sufficiency or even the means of upkeep for their small reserve.
>sides of an argument. In contrast, too many issues being discussed
>here on NativeNet are done the European way. That is, one side is ALL
>right and the other ALL wrong. Rarely is that the case.
Dr. May's generalization about the European way representing one side as
being ALL right and the other ALL wrong strikes me personally as being
hypocritical, racist, irresponsible, and downright asinine.
Hypocritical, because the very essence of dialogue is the representation
of viewpoints, before one can "seek unity and compromise after hearing
all sides of an argument".
Racist, like the generalizations "Every indian is a drunkard" or "No
indian can hold a decent job."
Irresponsible, because such statements stifle the free exchange of
information and may prove insulting to scores of very active native
rights supporters in European countries being part of NativeNet.
Asinine, because by reading the many discussions on NativeNet I find
that the participants, most of 'European heritage', strive to arrive at
well rounded, well informed decisions, and no group, be it white, black,
red, green, or blue, can claim a monopoly for being the only group
"seek(ing) unity and compromise".
I also find that a continuation of this personally interesting exchange
in the public forum could escalate to a stage detrimental to the
objectives of NativeNet, and therefore will no longer publicly respond
to Dr. May's complaints.
I invite Dr. May and anyone wishing to discuss those matters to do so in
private e-mail to myself with cc's to Gary.
Roland