💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › decolonizing-british-columbia.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:59:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Decolonizing British Columbia Author: Anonymous Date: 2020-11-06 Language: en Topics: decolonization, Canada, indigenous, indigenous anarchism, Green Anarchism, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialism, environmentalism, ecology, social ecology
This essay was written on the unceded traditional territories of the
WSANEC Nation, specifically the Tsawout and Tseycum peoples. The
thoughts herein have been developed through spending time on many
nations’ territories, including the Pacheedaht, Ditidaht, T’souk,
Songhees, Esquimalt, Cowichan, Tseshaht, Sinixt and many more. This
essay is meant to be distributed far and wide and will hopefully pass
through all of these territories and more, as it seeks to build
relationships and understanding between settlers, Indigenous people, and
the Land. I thank these nations for allowing me to learn from the Land,
and all of the connections therein. I thank them for preserving these
beautiful places for thousands of years. I thank them for never ceding
their responsibilities to the Land and for the example they set for
settlers to live up to. The debt will always be mine.
This essay is by no means a complete strategy guide to decolonization,
and in fact leaves out many fundamental tenets, such as the liberation
of women, prison and police abolition, questions of power dynamics and
hierarchy, and many more. Rather than being a comprehensive manual for
decolonization, it is meant as an attempt to begin reconciling Western
revolutionary traditions with Indigenous worldviews, and to frame
decolonization as not only the foundation, but also as the method and
end goal of the environmental, feminist, anti-capitalist, and
anti-racist struggle across Turtle Island.
The world is currently in an ecological crisis, not only in terms of
climate change, but also in terms of biodiversity loss, air pollution,
ocean acidification, and many other environmental issues. Ecology is the
holistic study of a system and all of its relationships, not only to the
natural world, but also to the social world. In this sense, the current
ecological crisis is also caused by stark inequalities between rich and
poor, colonialism, corporate greed, patriarchy, and other social issues.
When examining our current state of affairs through an ecological lens,
we can begin to see the many ways that the social and natural spheres
interact with each other.
In North America, the dispossession of Indigenous land, the outlawing of
ceremony and language, the kidnapping of children for residential
schools, the 60’s scoop, MMIWG2S, and more are among the social factors
that have contributed to the devastation of the natural world. In order
for the environmental crisis to be solved, the ecological crisis needs
to be solved. This involves critically examining our relationship to
Indigenous peoples, and identifying ways in which we can move forward
together. This process is called decolonization.
In order for decolonization to be fully understood by settlers as a
concrete process, and not as some abstract metaphor, there needs to be a
basic understanding of Indigenous culture, social structure, and
worldview. As the original inhabitants of the New World, Indigenous
North American cultures have been separated from the Old World cultures
for at least ten thousand years before the dawn of “civilization” in the
western sense. Because of this early separation, which took place before
the Neolithic revolution (or agricultural revolution), Indigenous
society is fundamentally different from Old World societies. This
difference in world view can be difficult for settlers to grasp,
especially because the English language is poorly equipped to talk about
Indigenous concepts.
One important thing to understand is that each Indigenous nation is
different, not only culturally, but also politically, economically, and
socially. Although we have a modern tendency to group Indigenous peoples
according to their language family, this by no means guarantees cultural
uniformity, or even similarity. This is not to say, however, that there
are no similarities between cultures, just that they are not homogenous,
and defy easy classification based on language group, geographical
location, or any other single identifier.
Despite these differences, there are some broad similarities that can be
drawn from just about every nation across Turtle Island (although there
are always exceptions). Some of these similarities include the tendency
towards matriarchy, a family-based clan structure, hereditary forms of
government, and a world view that placed humans along-side animals as
part of the natural world.
The hereditary government structures today are represented by
“hereditary chiefs,” although this is a grossly simplified translation
of hundreds of different words from hundreds of different cultures, each
with their own nuanced meanings. This simplified translation is just one
example of the English languages short comings when discussing
Indigenous concepts. To overcome this, I will attempt to outline the
general meaning of “hereditary chief,” although it should be noted that
there is no singular definition; this is merely for the purpose of a
better understanding of Indigenous worldviews through examining a widely
misunderstood aspect of their cultures.
In the western imagination, “hereditary chief” invokes images of an
all-powerful tribal leader who has the final say on any decision, and
will pass his authority and power on to his son. This is very different
from the many iterations of the position in Indigenous culture, and in
fact stands in stark contrast to many Indigenous traditions. Hereditary
chiefs are not all powerful, but in fact largely provisional, mostly
making decisions regarding warfare and international relations, rarely
exerting any authority over the clan. In most cultures they never make
any decisions by themselves, but always seek the council of their
advisors, the elders, and most importantly, the matriarchs. In addition
to this, their position wasn’t so much about power and authority as it
was about rights and responsibilities. They didn’t hand their power and
land down to their heir, instead they handed down the hereditary name,
along with the rights and responsibilities that came with it. If a chief
no longer fulfilled his responsibilities to the people and to the land,
they were no longer fit for the hereditary title, and the matriarchs had
the right to remove the title and confer it upon someone more capable of
fulfilling the duties, whether or not they were related to the previous
chief.
Each clan had a hereditary chief, a clan mother, a council of elders, a
council of matriarchs, and a law to live by. Although there were many
variations among them and the specific responsibilities that each would
hold, these positions made up the basic units of most Indigenous
governments.
Just as the western view of hereditary chiefs is vastly oversimplified,
so is the western view on Indigenous relationships with the land, which
portrays indigenous relationality as irrational mysticism with no
grounding in reality. This is not so, and in fact is a major barrier in
a settler understanding of Indigenous worldviews.
Although spirituality is of major importance to Indigenous peoples, it
should not be assumed that their spirituality is detached from reality.
Rather, their spirituality can be better viewed as the ceremonialization
of real-life events and relationships. For example, the people of the
Northwest Coast believed that salmon bones had to be returned to the
river, or the salmon people could not properly reincarnate themselves
and provide more food for the people. On the surface, this seems like
superstition, but when the effect that salmon bones have on the forest
is examined, it becomes clear that there is a scientific basis to this
story. Each year, millions of salmon swim upstream to lay their eggs,
and then immediately die and start to decompose. The decomposing salmon
represent millions of pounds of nutrients transferred from the ocean to
the forest. The trees take in the nutrients from the decomposed fish,
and cycle them through the ecosystem, eventually releasing them back
into the river to return to the ocean. The Northwest Coast tradition of
returning salmon bones to the river reflect a deep understanding of the
nutrient transfer cycle, as well as an acknowledgement of responsibility
to keep that relationship in balance.
Most Indigenous laws, ceremonies and practices can be understood through
the lens of relationships. This is what Indigenous ethics and law is
based around; relationships to the land, which in an Indigenous
conception, includes everything that’s a part of the land, including
plants, animals, rivers, rocks, and people. From here on out, “Land”
with a capital will refer to not only the soil, but the trees, plants,
mushrooms, rocks, rivers, birds, bugs, animals and people contained
therein, as well as all of their interconnecting relationships with one
another.
With a basic understanding of Indigenous governance and worldview, we
can begin to discuss the process of decolonization.
Decolonization takes different shapes depending on where the process is
happening, precisely for the reason that colonization took different
shapes wherever it happened. In order for the process to be effective,
the local historical circumstances that produced the colonial system
need to be examined, as well as the mechanisms that allow that same
system to continue today. In so called british columbia, this process
started about two hundred and fifty years ago.
Small Pox arrived on the west coast in 1782, killing up to 95% of the
population in certain communities, less than ten years later Europeans
would cross the Rocky Mountains and enter the province from the east,
bringing with them over two hundred years of conflict with Indigenous
peoples of the prairies and the east. Despite the widespread practice of
entering into land use agreements (treaties) with Indigenous nations,
the Europeans did no such thing west of the rockies, and instead opted
to take advantage of the devastation caused by the small pox virus by
forcibly removing Indigenous people from their lands, stealing their
children for residential school, and enforcing illegitimate settler law
wherever they were able.
Over two hundred years later, in 1997, a landmark decision in the BC
Supreme Court over the Delgamuukw Gisday’wa v British Columbia case
affirmed that Indigenous peoples in british columbia have never ceded
their rights and title to their land. The court, however, failed to
identify a single boundary for any traditional territory, and as such,
has failed to provide Indigenous people the power over the BC government
that so many had hoped.
The Indigenous people who live in so called british columbia are in a
unique situation in terms of potential for decolonization, as the
highest court in the province has already asserted their rights to their
traditional territory. The next step in this process is for Indigenous
people to revitalize their traditional governance structure so that the
matriarchs of each clan can make sure there is someone to hold the
hereditary name and claim responsibility for the land.
I, as a settler, am unable to determine exactly what a fully
revitalized, decolonized Indigenous government would look like, but I
can make a case for the importance of the hereditary chiefs and
traditional governance, rather than the Band Council system. The Band
Council system was created under the Indian Act for the purpose of
controlling Indigenous communities and rendering their traditional forms
of government without authority. The band council, by law, only has
jurisdiction over reserve land, which accounts for a resounding 0.35% of
the 944000km2 land base of BC, as opposed to the traditional territory,
which covers every square inch of the province.
The band council is also a mimicry of western democracy, and contributes
to the silencing of hereditary chiefs, elders, and matriarchs, as well
as enforces a uniform system upon each unique nation, regardless of
their nuanced traditions of government.
To decolonize means not only to return the land, but also to
relegitimize Indigenous law. This involves reviving Indigenous forms of
government, including hereditary chiefs, elders, and matriarchs. The way
in which these systems are revived however, remains up to Indigenous
people. It is their right, just as the right of any other
self-determining people, to decide how they want to be governed, and
which reforms they wish to make.
To take another example from the Northwest Coast, many of these nations
were fierce warrior societies who engaged in frequent raiding of their
neighbours and kept many slaves. It is beyond unlikely that a revived
Nuu-Chah-Nulth politic would involve slave trading or raids on
neighbouring communities. Just as the Nuu-Chah-Nulth have the right to
choose which cultural practices to revive and which to discard, so too
do they have the right to choose which political traditions they wish to
keep.
Again, I cannot decide for them what traditions to revive, but I can
point out the necessity of hereditary leaders reclaiming their rightful
stewardship over their lands. This is the only path forward under
Indigenous law, all other methods rely on Canadian law, and will never
result in true freedom or self-determination.
As settlers, we need to understand the process of decolonization, and we
need to be actively involved in the struggle to return the land to
Indigenous people. We also need to understand how the completed process
of decolonization will impact our lives, and how we can begin our own
cultural paradigm shift to better fit into that world.
All politics need to be grounded in the time and place in which they
exist; classical Marxism, which was designed for the world of the
industrial revolution, has little relevance in North America today –
with a shrinking industrial proletariat and comparatively few factories
left in operation, it is a relic of the past. It either needs to be
revised, or rendered completely useless. So too with other classical
revolutionary theories, they are only as useful as they are connected to
the time and place in which they exist.
This is precisely why we need to build a new politic, from the ground
up, firmly rooted in an Indigenous worldview and commitment to
decolonization. We need to recognize that the New World before
colonization was fundamentally different from the Old World – where all
of our political theories have come from – and commit to building a new
politic rooted in the history and traditions of Turtle Island.
For this project, it becomes absolutely necessary to understand politics
from the Indigenous perspective, where it is not so much about laws and
structure as it is about relationships. As settlers, we need to examine
our relationships with every aspect of the web of life, and maintain an
ecological viewpoint. We need to comprehensively understand our myriad
relations, and begin to rework them within the parameters of Indigenous
law, meaning we need to build and maintain relationships with each part
of the Land.
As settlers, we need to understand that we will never be Indigenous; the
sun dance, potlatch, medicine wheel, and other cultural practices will
never be ours, but that doesn’t mean that we are incapable of connecting
to the land in the same capacity. Those ceremonies will never be ours
because we will never have the Indigenous relationship with the Land
that those ceremonies were built on, but we can have our own
relationships, and our own “ceremonies.” As part of building this new
politic, and shifting our worldview, it is important to emancipate
ourselves from the traditions and institutions of the “West,” and
instead seek to ground ourselves in Indigenous worldviews.
We must not have a desire to “save the trees,” but instead a desire to
build a relationship with the forest. We must not desire to “save the
oceans,” but instead develop relationships with each member of the
marine ecosystem. In this way, we begin to decolonize our thought
patterns before the physical process of decolonization has taken place.
Building relationships between us and the natural world is the most
important step we can take as settlers towards decolonization. If we
fail to build these relationships, we will continue the destruction of
the Land regardless of whose stewardship it is under. It is only through
these relationships that we can properly conceptualize our relationship
with Indigenous people, who are themselves a part of the Land.
We cannot build any meaningful relationships with them while we continue
to cut down the forests, over fish the salmon and pollute the rivers.
Any relationship built on these practices will be one of violence and
domination, just as we have today. If we have any desire for building a
lasting relationship with Indigenous communities, we need to understand
how each act of violence towards the land affects them.
Perhaps the most important example of this in so called british columbia
is the settler relationship to salmon. Salmon, for the Northwest Coast
peoples, was not only a staple food source, but a pillar of their
culture, economy, and politics. The abundance of salmon is what has led
to the development of the globally unique hunter-gatherer societies of
the Northwest Coast, with their rich material culture and their
developed sense of private property. Just as the destabilization of
salmon populations by settler activity was one of the main contributing
factors for their downfall, so too, will the revitalization of salmon
populations be a fundamental prerequisite for a decolonized Northwest
Coast.
Starting in the late eighteenth century we began to log the old growth
trees on vancouver island, by the early twentieth century we were clear
cutting vast tracts of land, with no regard for riparian zones or
critical animal habitat, causing soil destabilization, landslides, and
pollution of river systems. Likewise, with the first goldmine on Haida
Gwaii in the mid nineteenth century, we started to pollute the rivers
with slag and run-off. After that we started to dam our rivers,
preventing salmon from getting to their spawning grounds. By the 1970s
fish farms had found their way to our coast, and by the mid-1990s they
had proliferated and already began to have a serious impact on salmon
populations; infestations of sea lice and other diseases were rampant in
these farms, situated on the mouths of rivers as if to have the greatest
possible effect on spawning salmon swimming out from their birth rivers.
The vast quantities of wild salmon that we remove from the oceans each
year, as well as the constant tanker traffic along the west coast also
contribute greatly to the diminishing populations.
All of these actions and more need to be examined when attempting to
build a relationship with the salmon. It becomes clear that in order to
build a relationship with the salmon, we need to halt clear cutting –
old growth and otherwise. We need to ban fish farms, reduce tanker
traffic, stop building dams, stop polluting our rivers with mining
waste, and much more. As a keystone species of the Northwest Coast, our
relationship with the salmon will lead us to our relationship with the
rest of the Land, including the Indigenous people.
By building a relationship with the salmon, we not only halt our
ecologically destructive activities, but we remove the pressures and
strains we placed on Indigenous relationships with the salmon, taking a
massive step towards decolonization.
As these relationships are built, it becomes important to discuss the
nature of the relationship between settlers and Indigenous people. From
the earliest contact with Europeans, no Indigenous nation intended to
dominate and rule over the European populations, rather, they sought
mutual understanding and shared use of the Land. The pre-contact
Haudenosaunee and Nishnaabeg tradition of Gdoo-naaganinaa, meaning “our
dish,” outlines an example of Indigenous political relations, and should
serve as a conceptual basis for future settler-Indigenous relations
Gdoo-naaganinaa is the understanding that both the Haudenosaunee and the
Nishnaabeg were eating out of the same dish due to overlapping hunting
territory and the ecological connections between their territories. As
both nations ate out of the same dish, it was both of their
responsibilities to take care of that dish, and to not abuse that
relationship. It is important to note that sharing hunting territory did
not presuppose political interference; rather, it fostered a sense of
interconnectedness and harmony between the two peoples.
This is the model that settlers need to be using. Once the land is
decolonized, we must make sure that we do not become a burden to the
Indigenous governments or a competing force. Instead, we need to be a
complimentary force, politically autonomous but still respectful of
Indigenous law, as well as our “shared dish.”
It is clear that neither the canadian government, nor the british
columbian government have any intention of becoming this complimentary
autonomous government, instead they seek to complete the colonization
process and keep Indigenous lands and resources for their own. For this
reason, we must look beyond our current government structures when
seeking to build this new politics. Because relationships with the Land
are the basis of our new settler politic, the individuals and
organizations who are building those relationships represent the most
important political process taking place today.
By participating in logging and pipeline blockades, fish farm
occupations, mining shutdowns, and other forms of disruptive direct
action, we begin to transform our violent, domineering relationships
with the Land into sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships.
Likewise, by participating in equally revolutionary creative projects
like small scale organic farms, selective logging and value added
manufacturing, small scale fisheries, decentralized renewable energy
research, and more, we start to build the positive aspects of those
relationships, rather than just halting the negative aspects.
With these two methods, both disruptive and constructive, we can begin
to build autonomous settler institutions that can operate alongside
Indigenous government systems to care for the Land, which, after
decolonization, will include both Indigenous peoples and settlers.
It is important here to note that these settler relationships are a
prerequisite to decolonization. Any attempt to decolonize without
addressing our own relationship to the Land will not have the desired
results. As we address our relationship to the Land and start to rebuild
certain aspects of it, we need also to institutionalize those
relationships, and ensure that there are a group of settlers, a “clan”
if you will, that will always care for that relationship, and will
safeguard it against the actions of other settlers.
Those who are currently dedicating their lives to the protection of the
old growth would form the basis of the “Tree Clan,” those who are trying
to stop the hollowing out of our mountains would form the “Rock Clan,”
and those who dedicate their lives to stopping the construction of mega
dams would form the “Water Clan.” These are, of course, major
simplifications for illustrations sake, and the actual “clans” would
need to develop out of organic action, both disruptive and creative, and
be formed by those who are putting the time and effort into building
relationships with each aspect of the Land.
Under this system, both the federal as well as the provincial and
municipal governments will be dissolved and replaced by autonomous
settler governments, or “clans.” As such, settlers will be responsible
for providing themselves with food, water, healthcare, education, power,
defense, transportation, justice, and every other service necessary for
society to function.
To visualize how this would work in practice, we will draw on real world
examples. Take Port Alberni, a moderate sized coastal city of about
seventeen thousand, containing a paper mill and a few saw mills, as well
as a commercial fishery and a large hospital that services many
surrounding areas.
As the location of the first sawmill in BC, Port Alberni has been seeing
ecological devastation for over one hundred fifty years. Fish farms in
Barkley Sound as well as a commercial fishing industry caused fish
stocks to crash in the 90’s, and most old growth in the valley has long
since been cut down. Due to the loss of resources the city has been
aggressively campaigning for an eco-tourism industry, but with no real
nature left, it’s hard to imagine it would generate any real revenue
without some major changes to the way the people relate to the Land.
To decolonize port alberni, the first step would be to start blockading
all clear cut operations in the forest around the city, or simply the
mills that process and ship the wood. At the same time, local residents
need to be starting small scale mills that are designed to process
selectively harvested second growth into value added products. These
small scale operations begin to build relationships with the forests,
and all of the people who take up the practice of sustainable, selective
logging, as well as those who have built a relationship through
protecting the forests, will form the “Tree Clan” and work out a
relationship with the local forests. Maybe they determine that in order
for the harvest to not only be sustainable, but to allow for the forests
to rejuvenate and mature, they can’t harvest their full capacity each
year. Perhaps they also decide that certain areas of the forest are
completely off limits, even for selective logging. Under this system, if
any member of the settler community wanted to cut a tree down or source
some lumber, they would go to the “Tree Clan” for approval. Likewise, if
a settler were to clear cut, or to take more than is sustainable, the
“Tree Clan” would be the ones who decide how to rectify the
transgressors relationship with the forest.
As settlers start to organize into the “Tree Clan,” other settlers need
to be shutting down industrial fishing operations, and instead obtaining
fish from Nuu-Chah-Nulth fishers who have maintained a relationship with
the fish for thousands of years. As these commercial fishing operations
are halted, the settlers need to form the “Fish Clan” to protect their
relationship to the fish, and to handle matters pertaining to settlers
and fish.
Halting commercial fishing and clear cutting are important steps, but
aren’t a solution by themselves. Settlers need to form “clans” around
the protection of all resources – our water, air, soil, minerals,
animals, plants, mycelial networks, and more. We need to have
institutions safe guarding each resource and relationship, and teaching
the rest of settler society how to act in accordance with those
relationships.
As we systematically protect each resource and aspect of Land from the
exploitation of the colonial system, we begin to chip away at its power
base. No nation-state can exist without a land base to exploit, and so,
we must chip away at the ways in which canada can use its land base
until finally it lacks the power to stop a complete Indigenous takeover.
As canada weakens, and as the relationships between settlers and the
Land grows, we will begin to understand that we have an abundance of
everything we need, so long as we aren’t shipping raw materials
over-seas or engaging in wasteful behaviours.
Keeping with the example of Port Alberni, imagine the forestry industry
has been transitioned to selective harvesting, which is watched over by
the “Tree Clan,” the fishing Industry is handled by the “Fish Clan,” who
make sure no settlers harm the Indigenous harvest by over fishing, and
most of the food for the community is provided by local farms overseen
by the “Animal Clan” and “Plant Clan,” which are made up of locals who
began to create small scale organic farms, utilizing modern technologies
as well as traditional knowledge and local organic waste to create a
greater yield without harming the soil. At this point the city of port
Alberni is still ran by the municipal government, and still answers to
the provincial government, but every time the province or the city
issues a licence to a corporation to start a fishery, clear cut a
forest, or harm the local ecology in any way, the people simply block
the corporation, making it too expensive to operate in the area, and
thus forcing them to move somewhere else, where they would hopefully be
met with the same kind of opposition.
While all of these relationships and clans are being developed, it is
also important to kick out state corporations like BC Hydro and PetroCan
as well. In order to do this the community will need to develop
alternative power grids, such as equipping each house with its own small
windmill, fitting all new buildings with geothermal heating, installing
tidal energy infrastructure, and more. As each house becomes more power
and food self-sustainable it will become more and more expensive for the
state corporations to operate in the area, thus further weakening the
colonial powers.
As these new relationships start to have positive impacts on the local
ecology, Indigenous communities in the area will begin to regain their
economic strength, and with their hereditary leadership, will reclaim
their traditional territory.
Of course it won’t happen all at once across the province, rather, it
will happen nation by nation, slowly creating a checkerboard of
sovereign nations across british columbia. Once individual nations like
the Tseshaht of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth have claimed authority over their
territory, like the Unist’oten and Gidtimden of the Wet’suwet’en are in
the process of doing, others will soon follow. As these nations make
ties with each other and increase their strength, so too will settler
institutions need to form relationships with eachother to provide some
sort of government for themselves, presumably based around Indigenous
models of autonomous nations “sharing a dish”
The different “clans” would form an important part of the settler
government, but by themselves are an incomplete system. Rather than
being a cohesive system of government, these clans instead represent a
practical way towards decolonization, and will form an important basis
for political organizations, for no settler government will be able to
dictate to the “Tree Clan” what is an acceptable way to behave towards
the forest, rather the “Tree Clan” will be an important balance of power
to ensure the settler government doesn’t transgress its relationship
with the forest.
The physical constitution of these settler governments will likely
contain as much variation from community to community as the Indigenous
nations do amongst themselves; as such is impossible to describe exactly
what it would look like or how it would function. We can, however,
examine western revolutionary theories in addition to Indigenous
governance systems, and begin to formulate a system of governance that
can operate within the parameters of the decentralized autonomous
nations of the newly decolonized Indigenous people. This project,
however, will need to be covered in another essay.
Decolonization will be a long, complex process, with many steps forward
and many steps back, but it is a process, with concrete physical gains.
Indigenous peoples have been working at this process since contact, and
will continue to work at it until their goals are realized. We as
settlers have a responsibility to join in that fight and to help
dismantle the oppressive colonial systems that we all benefit from.
Disruptive and creative activities as described above represent real
progress, and as settlers continue to participate in forestry blockades,
pipeline blockades, fish farm occupations, mine shut downs and more, we
begin to systematically dismantle the power structures that hang over
us, replacing them with liberatory institutions that care for the
natural world around us.
Together with Indigenous warriors, chiefs, women, 2 spirits, matriarchs,
elders, medicine people and knowledge keepers, we will shift the
paradigm, and build settler relationalities with the Land.