NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/9537

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 8.3 KB | 158 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!daemon
From: New Liberation News Service <[e-mail]>
Subject: NLNS: Interview w/ Mohawk Spokesperson
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:32:45 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 143

A Nation within a Nation
Interview with Karonhiahentte, Mohawk Nation Spokesperson
Peter Clibbon, The McGill Daily

(NLNS)--How would you define sovereignty in broad terms?

    The way I look at it, sovereignty is most similar to statehood. A
people would have to have their own landbase, culture, language and their
own spirituality and way of governing. They would have to be able to make
treaties and agreements with other nations.

    If Quebec obtained sovereignty, how do you think the Mohawk
nation would fit in?

    Well, I think that all depends on the Quebec government at that time.
In the past, there have been promises made by the Parti Quebecois that if
Quebec became a sovereign nation, aboriginal titles and rights would be
recognized and that we would be treated as nations. Whether that happens
or not, is yet to be seen.
    Optimistically speaking, if Quebec became independent, negotiations
would begin with us for self-government. On the down side, if a negotiated
settlement couldn't be reached, there could be a lot of turmoil in Quebec.
We already see these problems in 1990, and even today there is a lot of
conflict in different parts of the province of Quebec, like in James Bay.
    Even if there is a deal, then they would come up with a new law, or
go back to the courts, and re-institute the old regime all over again.

    Do Mohawks look to any model when they talk of self-government.
For example, the James Bay Cree's agreement with the Quebec government
which grants them a certain autonomy, and the Hopi nation in the United
States are two models to look at.

    We have our own model. In previous times, we legislated with our
own "constitution," which still exists today. We call it Gayanerakowa. In
english, this "constitution" is called the Great Law of Peace.
    The Great Law makes us who we are. I defines us goverenmentally,
judicially, and culturally. It still exists and plays a powerful role in our
community. There is only a portion of the community that follows the old
traditions.
    But eventually the old system will take over the whole community
through a process of education and implimentation within the community.
    There was a point in our history that the Great Law was completely
underground and practiced by only a few families. In the last twenty years,
however, it has emerged and grown throughout the community.
    Basically, we have all the tools we need. It's just a matter of re-
instituting them. Once we can get rid of the Indian Act system, this
traditional system can take over. Except,  of course, we would have to
update some of it, such as institutionalizing the justice system. But our
justice system would be nothing like the present justice system because it's
not based on the same principles. It's based on principles of social peace
and harmony.

    The Mohawk nation has a number of close ties with Quebec labour
unions, feminist and popular groups. What is the strength of these bonds
and how important will they be in an independent Quebec?

    Many of these groups, in a way, suffer the same fate as us. If I am
going to be oppressed by a government, it is likely that unions and workers
will be also oppressed. That is basically the reason why we come together
and listen to each others "beefs." On a whole, it is important that in the next
few years we all support and communicate between each other. Especially,
if sovereignty comes upon us.
    But I think the Quebec population has been mislead by the media
over the last few years as to what Mohawk people really are about. I don't
think they understand what we're saying. To begin with, there is the
language problem. Most of us speak english--not because we chose it, but
because it was forced upon us historically--so it is difficult for us to explain
ourselves to Quebecers and vice versa.
    I think if Quebec expects to become a sovereign nation, it's
important that they become more open-minded and respect other nations
within the province, and also those nations around the world.

    If First Nations are granted autonomy, what are the chances of
corrupt or incopetent band councils keeping their power?

    I can only speak for the Mohawk of Kahnawake. Our goal is to get
rid of the elective system and go back to the traditional way of governing.
Within the system imposed on most aboriginal communities, only a few
become powerful. If self-government becomes a reality and a lot of money
is handed over to these figures, I fear there might be more corruption. I
fear then that self-government could be worse for the native people than
better.
    Each aboriginal nation is at a different level of knowing how to
govern themselves. I don't mean to sound negative. Every nation has a
different history and the oppression they are suffering may be more present
than say Mohawk experience here.
    For example, many nations in the west still suffer from the
residential schools, where all their language and culture was taken away
from them. These schools left tremendous scars on First Nations people.
    You can't expect the Native nations to become self-sufficient
tomorrow when they have all this in their background.

     In 1969, the federal government released a white paper that said
natives had to be assimilated into the dominant culture in order for the
government to end their "guardianship" over them. Do you think self-
government, as proposed in the Charlottetown Accord, is another ploy of
the federal government to "shed themselves" of their responsibility towards
First Nations people?

Self-government as described in the Charlottetown Accord looks
alot like the white paper but with a different cover on it. Let's face it--many
Indian people will be destroyed and assimilated, and probably assimilated
into the streets of large cities and into ghettos. Many will be forced on
welfare because they won't be able to afford the taxes to pay the upkeep of
an independent infrastructure.
    The main thing is training the people to take over this kind of thing.
For example, as a father your interests may be going out to hunt and making
sure you have enough deer or moose for the winter. But then suddenly
you're put in an office and have to take care of the needs of the whole
community--it's a complete culture shock.
    Here on the east coast, we've been one
of the most exposed to
outside society and business. And here, our people come from a history of
being business people and trading. We have learned a lot of the skills that
will be needed in a sovereign nation. But not everyone has learned all these
skills.

    What is the relationship of Mohawk nations on the Assembly of
First Nations led by Ovide Mercedi, and how do you interpret the agreement
obtained at Charlettetown?

    We're not a member of the AFN, and they didn't represent us in the
constitional negotiations.
    I think Merecedi is on the down side in the rest of Canada. When he
first began the negotiations with the government his words were that he
would eventually get everybody to agree with him. I don't think he took the
time to get everyone (in the AFN) to agree before he made an agreement.
    The tactic used by the government was to wear everybody down
until they agreed with them.
    Basically, the accord does not really grant natives sovereignty.
Rather, we'd still be under the Canadian constitution. The government,
under the accord, could still say "okay, we'll allow you to do this much,
only if we agree to let you." Again, it's still a patriarchal sort of relationship
like we have at the moment with the government.
    How can you have a constitution within a constitution? That I don't
understand. We've always been here, and we never actually became part of
Canada or Quebec. It was the other way around.

The McGill Daily can be reached at 3480 McTavish, room B-03, Montreal,
Quebec, H3A 1X9, Canada; [phone].

--- 30 ---