greenweb@fox.nstn.ca writes:
An anonymous representative of GreenWeb chose to express his or her views of
Aboriginal culture and its expression as a living and vital force today in
the following terms:
> Against the Leg Hold Trap
>
> The following posting is for Canadian wild animals.
The prescience of George Orwell continues to amaze me. Is this posting for
all animals, or only for those which are trapped in a particular manner? I
suspect that it is only for animals which are socialized or victimized from
the particular perspective of the writer. Are some animals more equal than
others?
> It is also in support
> of a European ban on the leg hold trap and to support the banning of the
> importation of fur from those countries which, including Canada, are still
> using this trap.
Does this mean that any ban should be lifted if Canada, or other
countries,abolish the use of the leg-hold trap? Read on.
> This posting is also against equating the interests of
> the commercial fur industry with traditional aboriginal subsistence
> activities.
The interests of the fur industry and the Aboriginal economy have been
closely intertwined in Canada for 400 years. How long does it take to create
a tradition? Or is the fact that there is an economic component to what
would otherwise be a "bare" subsistence offensive to the writer's views of
an ideal society? If that is the case, let us by all means impose it upon
Aboriginal cultures since we are not moving quicly enough ourselves in
pursuit of that ideal.
> Left biocentrism, the perspective
> of the Green Web and of this posting, embraces social justice but within
> the framework of ecocentrism and ecological justice.
A new opiate for the masses and, like all its predecessors, preferably to be
administered to masses other than our own "concerned", "middle class"
"non-Aboriginal" "consumer" society. As I am, variously, all of these things
it would not be a major sacrifice for me to forego the use of leg-hold traps
or to eschew the wearing of furs caught in that manner. But then, it is not
my social group -- which I likely share with the members of GreenWeb --
that the writer wishes to reform. Will Aboriginal societies benefit more
from this Euro-western imposition than they have from its predecessors?
> Indian-Animal Relations Past and Present
>
> These relations become important for ecocentric environmentalists to try
> to understand, due to the following: - The federal government's
> Aboriginal Fishing Strategy will increase the native food fishery and
> facilitate indigenous entry into the commercial fishery. What will be the
> impact upon fisheries, and marine and freshwater ecosystems? (See
> discussion in Bulletin #45.) - Aboriginal peoples in Canada, on the basis
> of pre-European contact practices, are increasingly demanding that they
> should be allowed to hunt and fish, commercially if they desire, year
> -round on a self-regulated basis. This can include access to wilderness
> areas, parks and game sanctuaries. What will the consequences be for
> wildlife if this occurs?
There will not necessarily be any impact. As recognized in the constitution
of Canada, Aboriginal and Treaty rights are subordinated to the over-riding
concern for the conservation and preservation of species that might be
harvested. In the case of fisheries -- noting that very few fish are caught
by leg-hold traps -- the fact that those charged with responsibility for
conservation and eco-management have done a dismal job of it is a separate
issue: they are not Aboriginal.
> Can native Canadians today self-regulate any increased access
> for hunting and fishing and provide a counter force against the values of
> an expansionary industrial capitalism?
I am not clear on why increased access is necessarily a bad thing, if it is
consistent with conservation purposes, does not have any other environmental
impact and is sustainable over the long term. "Expansionary", in this sense,
is not an inevitable evil. Hunting, fishing and trapping are not normally
avocations we consider to be "industrial", and many of the Aboriginal people
whom I know and deal with do not consider capitalism a vice. In fact, they
work very hard to ensure that their communities have more presence in the
capitalist economic society, not less. It is a little late to suggest that
sitting around a campfire chanting ecologically-correct slogans would be
better for their souls.
> Deep ecology, as expressed by the eight-point Platform, is very compatible
> with traditional animistic beliefs, which guided past, pre-European,
> respectful interactions by aboriginals with the Natural world.
An 8-point platform; a 5-year plan; whatever. Aboriginal peoples of the
world unite! This is who you really are and the essence of your culture . . .
> However, because deep ecology is not human-centered, it ethically builds
> on but goes beyond animism. Ultimately, animism delivers the bounty of
> Nature for human use. Animism is one way to reintegrate the human species
> into the community of all species. If it is part of a cultural revival
> among indigenous peoples, and to the extent that it is food for the soul
> and not a public relations or commercial veneer.
. . . but only if you truly believe!
> Federal government publications, e.g. "The Inuit
> economy - sustaining a way of life" (A State of the Environment Fact
> Sheet), defend the fur trade against its critics in a one-sided manner.
> Yet, typically the Inuit hunter has become dependent on the Southern
> industrial economy, requiring many thousands of dollars worth of equipment
> to engage in hunting. For example, in addition to a rifle, the aboriginal
> hunter
[what happened to trapper?]
> in Canada usually needs an aluminium boat, a four wheeler, a
> skidoo, a sled, and gasoline. Do the Inuit still have a spiritual
> relationship to the land and wildlife?
>
The last question mark says it all. The writer does not know and, like most
committed devotees of a different vision of the world, does not care. There
is a 'serious' political theory at stake here and someone's musk-ox is bound
to be gored. The concept of what is and what is not part of Aboriginal
culture, then or now, is best defined by those who demonstrably know the
least about it and who, compelled by the intellectual rigour of their own
dogma, disregard what Aboriginal peoples themselves have to say.
Does anyone who read the GreenWeb post in its entirety believe that it
really has anything to do with leg-hold traps? Clearly that is seen by the
writer as an emotional entry-point to argue for his/her/their vision happily
socialized, hydroponically-nourished, vegetarian Aboriginal communities who
wisely -- indeed religiously for the sake of their animist souls -- abstain
from any participation in the economic life of this country as it actually
(not wishfully) exists.
Please, GreenWeb, spare them. And spare me.
Bill Henderson
jgcom@io.org