STI
26th February 2005, 04:25
I've been doing a fair deal of research and pondering about the Oka Standoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_standoff) and have been attempting to put together a sort of "Marxist examination" of the 'Native' whole issue.
On the one hand, come on, Mohawk Warriors standing off against cops and soldiers. A Quebec cop getting shot in the face. Opposition to the ruling class. What's not to love?
Then the pesky issues set in. The standoff was in defence of anscestoral burial grounds... highly religious. In fact, the whole "crisis" had a heavy religious undertone to it. It would sort of be akin to a bunch of Christians or Muslims occupying land to defend a church or mosque (both things I'd like to see 'dozed... even if it means building a golf course in their place).
So, armed with a cool Propagandhi song, a lack of a life (and therefore plenty of time), and a picture of a Mohawk Warrior staring down a sorry pup of a soldier, I began 'figuring'...
Is it possible that the domination of Aboriginal groups by governments in the Americas is a sort of "internal imperialism"? It seems reasonable to say that if, for example, there happened to be a small patch of land that was never conquerred by or sold to the Europeans or the domestic governments that followed, an invasion of this land would be considered imperialism. Does the same apply, then, to the domination of Aboriginals within the borders of the country?
The way I've figured, things like the Oka "Crisis" are like colonies rebelling against the fatherland, fighting for independence. The Mohawk Warriors were acting contrary to the wishes of "big-wigs" like Grand Chief James Gabriel, who even in 2003, expressed a willingness to negotiate with the military, the RCMP, and the Quebec Police (whatever they call themselves) to have the less-militant blockade which was occurring at the time "resolved". Lower-level Chiefs, though, like Steven Bonspille, Pearl Bonspille and John Harding, were very much involved in that blockade.
I don't doubt that all the native "Grand Chiefs" are just as bad as Gabriel. From what I can tell, the native "leaders" are basically quislings, while the lower-level Chiefs are like a "ruling class to be"...
I say "to be" because of some speculation that followed from this. The Oka Crisis was a sort of small-scale bourgeois revolution by the natives. Things like Oka will become more common as low-level Chiefs on reserves ('annexed territory'?) develop class consciousness and get it in their heads to kick out the 'foreign' rulers and their local lapdogs. This will be as much a contribution to the total defeat of North American imperialism as large-scale opposition abroad. So, as workers in "imperialist Canada" (as opposed to "Annexed Canada" - Reservations and possibly some communities with large concentrations of Aboriginals and Metis) become more and more militant, the ruling class will have to allocate more time and resources to surpressing them, leaving the Native bourgeois revolutionaries to set up autonomous, self-goverened capitalist societies (which, at the time of the revolution, will, for the most part, not be participating). I suspect things will decline pretty quickly in these areas, though, as resources wouldn't be as plentiful as if the societies were one and the same. Since these societies would have just become capitalist, the proletariat would not have class consciousness, and would therefore not participate in the revolutions carried out by the working class in "imperialist Canada" Also, the proletariat of those societies would likely have very little patience for the ruling class, as there would be a working model for communism all around them. So, at the first sign of any kind of crisis in capitalism, revolution wouldn't be far behind.
I don't remember if I mentioned that the Native-Bourgeois revolutions would happen only a little bit before the working-class revolutions in "imperialist Canada". But ya.
So, the issue seems pretty straightforward if this whole idea of "internal imperialism" is correct. If not, the issue becomes a bit messier.
So, out of desire for simplicity (and maybe sympathy for the Natives, who have been so trampled on over the centuries), I may be accidentaly ignoring some fatal flaw in my little conception, so any criticisms would be appreciated beyond all awexomeness.
Thanks ;)
On the one hand, come on, Mohawk Warriors standing off against cops and soldiers. A Quebec cop getting shot in the face. Opposition to the ruling class. What's not to love?
Then the pesky issues set in. The standoff was in defence of anscestoral burial grounds... highly religious. In fact, the whole "crisis" had a heavy religious undertone to it. It would sort of be akin to a bunch of Christians or Muslims occupying land to defend a church or mosque (both things I'd like to see 'dozed... even if it means building a golf course in their place).
So, armed with a cool Propagandhi song, a lack of a life (and therefore plenty of time), and a picture of a Mohawk Warrior staring down a sorry pup of a soldier, I began 'figuring'...
Is it possible that the domination of Aboriginal groups by governments in the Americas is a sort of "internal imperialism"? It seems reasonable to say that if, for example, there happened to be a small patch of land that was never conquerred by or sold to the Europeans or the domestic governments that followed, an invasion of this land would be considered imperialism. Does the same apply, then, to the domination of Aboriginals within the borders of the country?
The way I've figured, things like the Oka "Crisis" are like colonies rebelling against the fatherland, fighting for independence. The Mohawk Warriors were acting contrary to the wishes of "big-wigs" like Grand Chief James Gabriel, who even in 2003, expressed a willingness to negotiate with the military, the RCMP, and the Quebec Police (whatever they call themselves) to have the less-militant blockade which was occurring at the time "resolved". Lower-level Chiefs, though, like Steven Bonspille, Pearl Bonspille and John Harding, were very much involved in that blockade.
I don't doubt that all the native "Grand Chiefs" are just as bad as Gabriel. From what I can tell, the native "leaders" are basically quislings, while the lower-level Chiefs are like a "ruling class to be"...
I say "to be" because of some speculation that followed from this. The Oka Crisis was a sort of small-scale bourgeois revolution by the natives. Things like Oka will become more common as low-level Chiefs on reserves ('annexed territory'?) develop class consciousness and get it in their heads to kick out the 'foreign' rulers and their local lapdogs. This will be as much a contribution to the total defeat of North American imperialism as large-scale opposition abroad. So, as workers in "imperialist Canada" (as opposed to "Annexed Canada" - Reservations and possibly some communities with large concentrations of Aboriginals and Metis) become more and more militant, the ruling class will have to allocate more time and resources to surpressing them, leaving the Native bourgeois revolutionaries to set up autonomous, self-goverened capitalist societies (which, at the time of the revolution, will, for the most part, not be participating). I suspect things will decline pretty quickly in these areas, though, as resources wouldn't be as plentiful as if the societies were one and the same. Since these societies would have just become capitalist, the proletariat would not have class consciousness, and would therefore not participate in the revolutions carried out by the working class in "imperialist Canada" Also, the proletariat of those societies would likely have very little patience for the ruling class, as there would be a working model for communism all around them. So, at the first sign of any kind of crisis in capitalism, revolution wouldn't be far behind.
I don't remember if I mentioned that the Native-Bourgeois revolutions would happen only a little bit before the working-class revolutions in "imperialist Canada". But ya.
So, the issue seems pretty straightforward if this whole idea of "internal imperialism" is correct. If not, the issue becomes a bit messier.
So, out of desire for simplicity (and maybe sympathy for the Natives, who have been so trampled on over the centuries), I may be accidentaly ignoring some fatal flaw in my little conception, so any criticisms would be appreciated beyond all awexomeness.
Thanks ;)