Re: [A-List] The national question

[Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby@xxxxxx>]

At 08:37 AM 9/25/2003, Michael K wrote:

> Revisiting the national question might be a good place to start anyway.
> *snip*
> howsaboutit? Does anyone want to start a serious study of the national
> question, rather than merely trade slogans?
>
> Michael

Yes. In the state called Canada, nationalism has become the new (ly
re-emerged) hobby horse of Canadian academics, particularly those people
who are the nemisis of Lou Pr, Sam Gindin, Leo Panitch et al. They want to
re-embrace a form of Canadian Nationalism.

Recently on Lou's Marxmail young comrade Derek Seidman called for a new,
re-invigorated youth left of the US, starting with a maillist devoted to
this. I started talking with him off-list, asking him and the others to
broaden this to North America.

They respecfully refused, and I mean them no slight in integrity, but this
is death to politics in North America-- particularly the state called "Canada".

Where did Canada come from? It's a Settler Colonial state, just like the
Israeli. It was founded and continues to rest on the annihilation of what
in Canadian "academia" are called First Nations, or Indians. Aboriginal
Nations from one end of the country to the other straddle and cross the
border. The Blackfoot that Jim Craven proudly represents are but one of
these, the territorial province of Canada called "British Columbia"
contains 400 of these. Anything that obscures this basic fact amounts to
Holocaust denial that has become so commonplace that it doesn't even
register with most anti-capitalists.

The South African apartheid state once modelled the Bantustan systems they
evolved from their findings in Canada's reservation system. This system is
still in place, though they like to pretend it isn't-- or that it is now
"changed". It is still based on the same fundamental: The national question
in Canada can never overcome the annihialtion of indigenous sovereignty
with completing the job of annihilating them as people. Sovereignty does
not exist half way: Sovereignty for Canada means the destruction of
sovereignty for what is left of the indigenous people's of this land.

Hitler once expressed his admiration for the resettlement of Canadian
Indians as well. It was part and parcel of how the ghetto system was setup.

I can hear people thinking to themselves that I'm just being a pain,
bringing all that old news back up. Hardly. Let me explain what is going on
right now in Vancouver, or the Fraser River to be exact. The traditional
nation of that part of what is now Vancouver are the Coast Salish(CS). They
have been granted aboriginal title to the fishery system, Indian only
fisheries have been handed, by the supreme court of Canada, a right to
"special" privileges on the river, most notably the coveted Sockeye run.
Literally millions of salmon, though getting drastically depleted, run
through this channel. As conservation concerns grow, the commercial
fisheries are being ordered off the water. The CS have fished here for
millenia. If sovereignty means anything, it means that they can do what
they want without interference. However, as recently as with the last
fortnight, the idea of a native only fishery has been ruled "racist" in one
of the greatest perversions of constitutional arguments. The idea here is
that any "Canadian" must be "treated equally" as every other. But herein
lies the point. Fuck your constitution: The CS are the nation, and they
don't need, require or desire double billing. There are now all sorts of
racist spews coming out and being granted legitimacy, such as: why should
they be able to fish with amazingly high quotas and sell it for whatever
price they want? Why can a native only fishery be set up and not a white only?

My answer to these and every single other question is: Sovereignty. We
cannot recognise the sovereignty of "Canada" (whatever the hell that is,
aside from pictures of the Queen in hockey stadiums) without
*automatically* removing the sovereignty of these people as well. If the
territory of Canada is governed by Ottawa and exerts "sovereignty" on that
territory, it always leaves the sovereignty of the First People's in the
lurch, always tedious and waiting to be expropriated by some "Canadian".
The arguments for such cannot matter, will not and only serve one purpose:
to conquer those, whether in the Northern regions where "settlements" have
been reached (every nation on the earth has it's Mahmoud Abbas) right
through to the CS here. Further, even if full fishing rights are recognised
by a supreme court decision, is it not that very court which dares to
decide that it does have such sovereignty to do so?

The newer arguments for Canadian sovereignty include the utter decimation
of real sovereignty and, much like Canada's on-again, off again treaty
process, cloak such in the language of sovereignty itself. The arguments go
along the lines of "Canada (sic) must fight for a sovereignty that is
sovereign of the American Empire, respects Quebec sovereigntry and First
Nations sovereignty". What on earth is this supposed to mean? It's a feel
good phrase which is more sugar coating on the pill of annihilation. Don't
drink the Koolaid, borthers and sisters, fight this.

When the 20th Century rolled around, i.e. when the first socialist
movements in North America came about, there were multiple "parties" and
such that proclaimed themselves North American. And, of course, any real
sovereignty for Indians in all of North America will have to be fought for
in a collectivity.

But let me ask people this: If the dictates of a commercial fishery-- i.e.
the marketplace of capitalism-- are that annihilation of sovereignty is the
only way to keep things part of the global capitalist order, is not
disrupting that far more than simply a sovereignty battle? Is this not what
the social movements around the world have been trying to grope towards
over the last several years, that a fight for indigenous and simple human
sovereignty above that of the market place and "globalization" an
_anti-capitalist_ struggle?

If you agree with me that yes, fighting for the rights of aboriginal
sovereignty is inherently an anti-capitalist struggle, that let us go
further: When the now inevitable on-the-ground clashes between CS (and
others) fishers and white (or any non-native Canadian for that matter)
fishers breaks out, will you see that as one of THE most important front
lines in the battle for democratic control of resources, away from Settler
colonies and for true human sovereignty? Will you-- not in a
pronunciamento, but in your deeds and with your body-- fight for these
(seemingly basic) rights down at the waters edge?

THe time has come for a trans-continental sovereignty in all of North
America. One that places all people above resources and places the nations
of the "United States" and "Canada" in the same place that we seek to place
capital itself: subordinate to the demands of real sovereignty. We think we
accepted no less in South Africa, we are starting to say no less in
Palestine (from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv). We cannot overlook this any longer
here.

I have far more to say on the matter, the amount of hugging the Maple Leaf
around here these days makes me want to reach for my butcher knife.

Macdonald






--
Macdonald Stainsby.
--
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope. -Brecht.