Racial hatred lies below the surface

Page 1

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth - Adolph Hitler.

Alarming examples of racial hatred are smoldering in various corners of the North American continent at this moment, ignited by fear, ignorance and more than a bit of resentment of gains being realized by Native people.

Threats to the status quo, as courts undo injustices left over from colonial days when Indigenous people were the victims of widespread, state-sponsored discrimination, have been met with angry resistance with an unmistakably racist tone. Facts seldom enter into any debate or discussion along these lines. The only recurring themes are hate and intolerance.

South of the 49th parallel, two very serious cases - incidents that could be called declarations of war against Native people - have surfaced in recent weeks.

On Nov. 5, the Syracuse (New York) Post Standard published a letter from a group that calls itself the United States National Freedom Fighters (USNFF).

The letter claims the group has 34 members (not identified) who are willing to "give and shed blood for what we believe."

The Oneida Nation has filed a land claim, backed up by the United States federal government, saying New York State illegally took 270,000 acres of Oneida land in the state's central region. USNFF clearly isn't interested in the facts of the case. They promise violence if they don't get what they want.

"Beginning in mid-November," the letter states, "we will begin the bloodshedding (sic). We will execute one Indian approximately every three days, starting Thanksgiving Day. We will also execute one U.S. citizen (from the upstate New York area) who is noticed by one of the USNFF members as a person who contributes to the Indian nation by supporting the casino and SavOn gas stations. Women will not be spared. Those who contribute to the Indians are traitors, not worthy of sympathy."

The Oneida's Turning Stone Casino has been the subject of bomb threats by this group as well. Meanwhile, a Native-owned Rosebud, South Dakota newspaper, The Sicangu Sun Times, reprinted a pamphlet on Oct. 15 that appeared to be issued by the state's Game, Fish and Parks Department. Government officials deny any connection, but the content shows just how vicious the anti-Indian sentiment is in that region.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the only Aboriginal member of the U.S. Senate, read the pamphlet into the Senate record and recorded his "anger and deep disappointment."

"The 'ad' which resembles a run-of-the-mill hunting and fishing season announcement, was located in the editorial section of the newspaper," the Senator said. "The 'ad' went on to outline the rules for 'Indian Hunting Season' in the state of South Dakota, including a limit on the number of Indians a 'hunter' was allowed to kill and the approved methods for killing them.

"I cannot express to you the anger and deep disappointment I felt when I read this ad because for those of you who think anti-Indian sentiment is a 'relic of the past,' I urge them to read this product of a twisted and hateful mind."

The ad began with a reference to the fact that the big game hunting season was cancelled because recognition of Indian hunting rights had left fewer animals for sports hunters to harvest. The rest of the document is designed to suggest that Native people should be hunted in place of the animals.

Hunting and fishing groups come into conflict with Native people in every corner of the continent because courts have recognized that Indigenous people have long-established legal rights to practice their traditional subsistence lifestyles. Many non-Native hunting groups oppose any recognition of these rights and complain that Native people shouldn't be given special rights.

On Oct. 3, there was a violent confrontation on the waters near the Burnt Church First Nation in New Brunswick. The issue there was lobster fishing and a Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled that local Native people have the treaty right to fih, hunt and gather.

The Marshall decision prompted Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people to take to the waters to share in a very lucrative resource. Non-Native fishermen reacted strongly to this development. One Native person was injured in the Oct. 3 confrontation. Dozens of criminal charges resulted.

Rather than accepting a high-court analysis of the law of the land, commercial fishing groups appealed to the Supreme Court to change its decision. On Nov. 18, the court said it would not, although it issued an unprecedented clarification of its decision.

National Chief Phil Fontaine welcomed the court's response.

"It was the right decision. We knew the Supreme Court would not re-open the case," he said. "When the federal government was thinking out loud about the possibility of calling on the Supreme Court to suspend the decision or put it in abeyance, we knew it was unrealistic or impractical. We knew that the Supreme Court would never consider that seriously. That kind of commentary just caused us all kinds of unnecessary difficulties. One of the results of that kind of public musing was the action by the commercial fishers in the Atlantic.

"So we're pretty pleased. I think the structured process that the Atlantic chiefs had agreed to with the federal government will now be able to proceed unimpeded by this particular group. Our initial analysis shows that the court has restricted the application of the decision."

Fontaine believes a lot of the unrest in the region was created by the federal government's response to the decision.

"It's really interesting that the commercial fishery reacted as they did. One of the reasons they did so was because the governments, particularly the federal government, was so ambivalent when the decision was rendered," he said. "Instead of coming out and celebrating the decision and saying, 'we accept the decision that this is a constitutionally protected treaty right, and governments do not have the authority to go and seek from the courts t suspend or hold a decision in abeyance and that should never be when it comes to treaty rights.' We've made that very clear in letters to [Justice Minister] Anne McLellan and the prime minister."

The national chief believes the government has a duty to embrace court decisions such as Marshall and take steps to head off the inevitable backlash.

"We made that point in a number of discussions with Minister Dhaliwal, particularly. We expressed the same view in letters to the Justice minister and the prime minister," he said. "We expressed some very serious concerns about the ambivalent position taken by the government regarding this decision. We had hoped that they would be more forceful in supporting the decision. I mean, the highest court in the land had spoken out very clearly about this constitutionally protected right and there was an obligation and a responsibility on their part, either jointly with us or on their own, to go out and set the record straight."

The government did not take any concrete action in this area, leaving the mainstream press to deal with the fallout. That meant the majority's resentment of minority rights was left unchecked in the national press, which did not distinguish itself with balanced reporting of the issue.

"You'll recall, there were a number of editorial pieces in the National Post and Globe and Mail that was, in the main, a misrepresentation of facts. They didn't get their stories right. People didn't know that when the lobster fishery was fully operational we were talking about, at a minimum, about a million lobster traps in the waters," Fontaine said. "What did the Aboriginal fishers represent in terms of traps? Four to six thousand. And that represented less than one per cent of the total catch, right, and it's an industry that's valued at between $315 million and $350 million. It's really, a clear expression of greed on the part of the commercial fishery, there. They didn't want to share with anyone, but especially share wit our people. At least that was the initial reaction, but once the chiefs staked out their position - the voluntary shutdown of the fishery - they were prepared to sit down in a reasonable fashion to try to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement. It kind of turned things around. There was a more positive reaction from the other side.

"I thought that took tremendous courage on the part of the Atlantic chiefs. They acted with a lot of foresight and all kinds of generosity and kindness towards the people who have been denying them their right and that turned things around."

Windspeaker asked Fontaine directly if he thought the government intentionally allowed public outrage to build by not strongly embracing the court ruling. His answer showed he was not prepared to make that accusation.

"We made it very clear to the prime minister and to the Justice minister that is was important that the government be very clear in their support for the decision. The fact that they were ambivalent caused unnecessary problems and in future in similar situations they should be more positively forthcoming in their comments," he replied.