The article The Colonialism of the Present talks about the involvement of the Canadian government in regards to the lives and communities of Canada’s First Nations population. The whole concept on whether or not the First Nations were colonized or are still being colonized is brought up. While bringing this up it talks about the Oka Crisis which can be seen as the one of the biggest armed struggles between a First Nations population and the Candian government. The relationship that First Nations and the Canadian government have is a long and shaky one, ranging from true European colonization to the limitation of First Nations rights through the Indian Act, even most recent attempts to improve the relationship have only furthered the complexity between the two. Even recently is has become heated again, in regards to the use of First Nations land for oil pipelines or the extraction of other natural resources. The claim for the land is something that we have extensively looked at throughout class. By looking at this complicated relationship that the First Nations have with the government, what options do they have to solve their issues. When reflecting on their dilemma, I thought of a similarity that the First Nations have with the Zapatistas of Mexico

By looking at this complicated relationship that the First Nations have with the government, what options do they have to solve their issues. When reflecting on their dilemma, I thought of a similarity that the First Nations have with the Zapatistas of Mexico. The Zapatistas are like the First Nations that they aim to gain independence from the influence of the government, but unlike the First Nations, they have actively fought through armed resistance. Although the Zapatistas have not gained their own independence yet, they have gained a sort of influence in southern Mexico and there have been attempts and communications with the Mexican senate in regards to their demands. So the question is, do the First Nation communities need armed conflict for them to progress with the Canadian government. The concept of armed conflict is a dangerous one to discuss and, even more, to put into motion, but when all other options are exhausted it becomes of the few possibilities. Throughout class was have seen examples of armed conflicts succeeding yet also failing but in most of those examples we see these armed conflicts erupting in less-westernized countries. So the idea that armed conflict could arise in Canada is a scary thought, but it could be a possibility if First Nation communities feel that they have reached their limit in regards to negotiations with the government much like the Zapatistas.

The article The Colonialism of the Present talks about the involvement of the Canadian government in regards to the lives and communities of Canada’s First Nations population. The whole concept on whether or not the First Nations were colonized or are still being colonized is brought up. While bringing this up it talks about the Oka Crisis which can be seen as the one of the biggest armed struggles between a First Nations population and the Candian government. The relationship that First Nations and the Canadian government have is a long and shaky one, ranging from true European colonization to the limitation of First Nations rights through the Indian Act, even most recent attempts to improve the relationship have only furthered the complexity between the two. Even recently is has become heated again, in regards to the use of First Nations land for oil pipelines or the extraction of other natural resources. The claim for the land is something that we have extensively looked at throughout class. By looking at this complicated relationship that the First Nations have with the government, what options do they have to solve their issues. When reflecting on their dilemma, I thought of a similarity that the First Nations have with the Zapatistas of Mexico

By looking at this complicated relationship that the First Nations have with the government, what options do they have to solve their issues. When reflecting on their dilemma, I thought of a similarity that the First Nations have with the Zapatistas of Mexico. The Zapatistas are like the First Nations that they aim to gain independence from the influence of the government, but unlike the First Nations, they have actively fought through armed resistance. Although the Zapatistas have not gained their own independence yet, they have gained a sort of influence in southern Mexico and there have been attempts and communications with the Mexican senate in regards to their demands. So the question is, do the First Nation communities need armed conflict for them to progress with the Canadian government. The concept of armed conflict is a dangerous one to discuss and, even more, to put into motion, but when all other options are exhausted it becomes of the few possibilities. Throughout class was have seen examples of armed conflicts succeeding yet also failing but in most of those examples we see these armed conflicts erupting in less-westernized countries. So the idea that armed conflict could arise in Canada is a scary thought, but it could be a possibility if First Nation communities feel that they have reached their limit in regards to negotiations with the government much like the Zapatistas.

It was great to read texts that specifically dealt with Canada and colonial struggles and racism. Both texts on Canada made me think of a geography class I took last semester on Latin America with Juanita Sundberg where we had a guest speaker tell stories of racism against illegal workers in Canada. The guest speaker told a story of an illegal Mexican worker who cut his finger while working and did not get any attention from his boss and did not go to the hospital even though he needed it. Some time later the boss got a much minor accident at work and got immediate medical attention. There was also a story of racism from the police against a Mexican illegal worker in Surrey. The point of the stories was to show that even though Canada is perceived as advanced and liberal, especially over the U.S, racism occurs in exactly the same way. The speaker asked the class where we thought these cases had occurred and the first answer was the U.S. Maybe because Canada is seen as being the opposite of the U.S.A in many respects, for example gun control and health care, I think this helps Canada be perceived as an open and liberal society. Also you see stories of police brutality against Afro-Americans in the U.S and almost none in Canada. This reputation of Canada helps bury the history of repression and violent acts against indigenous peoples that have been many since Europeans settled and evidently racism still exists today. Canada is no exception to racism.

The texts on Canada also made me think of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and how I was exposed to it. When I first came to Canada I was put in Totem Park, Humlesum house. The UBC website about the Totem Park residences says that the names “honor some of British Columbia’s Indigenous peoples”. From my experience living there I never saw a plaque saying why the residences had been named that way or anything showing the repression of Indigenous people in Canada. I remember thinking how this all seemed so superficial and how ridiculous it was that people thought that by naming some university residences after Indigenous peoples tribes would somehow make up for years of violent repression. It’s interesting to think about why this was my first reaction upon reading it. Maybe it’s the brief mention. Or maybe it’s the language used that says the names resemble “some” Indigenous people and there is no backstory as to why. From the beginning something just said to me that this was a ploy to bury history and show how advanced Canada has become, and that by creating a truth commission and “honoring” tribes in this manner would create a feeling that everything was good now and all bad feelings were in the past. This is similar to Sara Ahmed’s paper in which she says that the word diversity in organizations has become about image management, generating the “right image”. She specifically uses her experience from working with universities. Ahmed says that the appeal of diversity is about looking and feeling good. It is clearly a marketing appeal and it obscures inequalities. I liked the connection of diversity and marketing image in university as obscuring a rotten core with a shiny coat. I related this to my experience in UBC with finding residences named after Indigenous peoples tribes. It’s all so superficial and has no genuine intentions apart from bettering one’s image while also playing down the real issues.

I’m gonna teach a little bit tomorrow but I probably won’t focus too heavily on the content of the text I picked out specifically–mainly because it’s the only one that has yet to pique anyone’s interest (at least in the blogs.) Can’t say I’m surprised.

I find all the documents that were chosen to be quite related, actually. They all succinctly identify structural problems that we endure/reproduce/maintain. Despite our (obvious) differences I get the feeling that we all care about critically engaging with these concepts/realities. So, mainly, I’m hoping to facilitate a mini discussion about something we haven’t explored that much, if at all, this term which is: how can we apply what we’re learning about in this classroom practically to our daily lives? Additionally, or maybe, specifically, what exactly can we learn from within academia, which is not separate but functions in conjunction with all the harmful structures we’ve already identified?

I’m reminded of the Audre Lorde quote, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

I know that Jon said, at least in regard to Fire From the Mountain that school for Cabezas was a place where he was able to meet people who eventually became political allies, etc. And that’s not untrue. Certainly in that story and in that case that was true. But should we be re-evaluating the idea that academia might fill that role now, given what we know about social media (and the internet in general.)  For all the harm it does it certainly makes connecting with others, specifically others who may share your passions/ideologies, very easy to do. A good website/Instagram account/Twitter/hashtag/whatever might do a better job than four years struggling through your undergraduate.

Obviously that’s not true for everyone, but I definitely feel that, for the most part, I’ve only met people who sadden and enrage me. (Which, yes, may say more about me at this point.)  Getting saddened and enraged is helpful in it own way, but I can’t imagine looking at UBC for any help dismantling these systems.

I think this could be because increasingly I feel even I am being trained out of my rage. Or, to channel my rage into five succinct paragraphs, a thesis and a bibliography.

I really appreciated the other texts that were chosen for this week, specifically the “What is Canada” one. Excited to see what you all have to say.

This week I was tasked with choosing a text for which we all had to read. I wanted us to read a text that involved Canada, specifically a critique of the Canadian state that we know today. Far too often Canada is perceived as being a peaceful and friendly nation that serves as a “sought after” country, which should be admired as a successful model for developing nations. However this is easy to disprove, namely by the fact that Canada is like any other imperialist country. Granted it does not go to war under the banner of the Canadian flag as often as other nations like the United States, Canada has played a significant role in the current conflicts in the Middle East. Much like the United States, the apparent “success” of Canada is driven by its ability to exert its imperialist tendencies upon other nations. Canada itself has become branded as one of America’s strongest allies, which inevitably means that it is supporting the greatest threat to face the working class, and peasantry of all nations.

“What is Canada?” is a political document written by the PCR-RCP, which attempts to outline the history of what we have come to known as Canada and correct the often-false attributes associated with it. Even the name of the document aims to get the reader to think if what his/her definition of Canada is even correct. It aims to analyze and critique how we view Canada by specifically outlining and giving examples of the rampant exploitation of the working class, and violence against Indigenous peoples throughout history. It seems that far too often the abuses sanctioned by the Canadian state against the Indigenous peoples are reduced to a mere blip in Canadian history. It is treated like one treats a bad memory; it is pushed from the minds of Canadians and is only remembered as an unfortunate incident. The reality of this situation shows the deviance of not only capitalism, but also the capitalist Canadian state. It serves as yet another way to create barriers within the working class. “Settler” Canadians are consistently shown the horrific conditions that many Indigenous communities are forced to live in, yet the reinforcement of the division between the two groups has left Indigenous peoples with little support from the rest of the proletariat. Again this racist and divisive tactic serves as yet another way to preserve existing power structures and keep the Canadian working class fractured and disorganized.

What I love about this document is that it clearly outlines the inherent contradictions amongst the class structure in Canada, and serves to provide specific examples for which to support these examples. Overall the document should serve to change your perception of Canada and identify how class divisions, capitalism, and imperialism all an integral part of Canadian settler-colonialist society today.

Two of this week’s assigned readings/videos that I really enjoyed were “What is Canada?” and the Paris demonstrations of 1968. On the one hand you have a very strong anti-capitalist perspective offered by “What is Canada?” and on the other hand you have more of a student led movement that is challenging the educational system and the issue of unemployment. However, in a sense both are critiques against the government, and more in the text than the video, they are both anti-capitalist. I would first like to begin with this particular case in Paris and then lead it to the more general discussion of capitalism found in “What is Canada?” The student led movement began after major strikes happened throughout Paris in subways, factories, newspaper delivery, etc. After coming out of university students became disenchanted with the fact that it was difficult to find a job. They felt that it was the governments and universities’ responsibility to help them. This is an important issue, and something which I think we see today. Actually, I’ve heard some of my professors also say that in front of class, that “we students have it harder”. But if you think about it, this issue is so important. Students have been taught by their families, friends, and teachers that going to school is important as it helps them get a job. This is the case everywhere. Education = work. So when students nowadays graduate from university and they cannot find a job they are left helpless. This becomes a greater issue considering the fact that the cost of living in most places throughout the world is increasing. Therefore, students need to get a job in order to maintain themselves. Understanding this, it is therefore reasonable and justifiable that students back in 1968 revolted and advocated for a revolution. To see so many get injured and hospitalized was therefore really tragic. However, we’ve also been talking about revolutions as more of a nation problem, and more from an adult perspective. These new types of revolts created by students, are becoming more popular and intense, and show how times are changing. But even thinking about students, who represent this youthfulness, energy, strength, and freshness in ideas, it helps these revolts even more.

I wish I could say more but I’ll leave it for class. Lastly, I would like to briefly end with a discussion on the reading “What is Canada?” First thing to mention is the title of the article is great. It challenges us by making us think as if we don’t know Canada, “our home and native land, true patriot love..” Also, a lot of times we take pride (because we think) that Canada is a very peaceful and accepting country. Yet this article shows just how oppressive Canada is, but we just don’t know it. The article addresses this oppressiveness by stating that Canada is a very capitalist, bourgeoisie country where money is all that matters. There is income inequality, unemployment, discrimination, and a highly centralized government that does not listen to its people. And they blame it all on Canada’s capitalist stance, that because of capitalism all these problems existed. I do believe we need to take these issues into account, but as I argued it the beginning of the term, and still remain the same, capitalism is not bad. Okay, let’s be clear. It is that people have made it bad. If we can change that (which I know is very difficult) then maybe things can work out. But if you think about it carefully, what capitalism is really all about or intended to do, is bring growth and development to countries through this system of trade both in resources, but also in innovation and ideas. Was this not the same back in ancient civilizations? I argue so. And it worked (better) than the system we have today. That however is not to say it wasn’t oppressive. But at least it was better because the notion of wealth and selfishness (which is product of today’s generation) did not exist back then. Therefore one has to be very critical when saying that capitalism is bad. As a student studying Latin American studies for example, I know the many problems associated with capitalism or as it is now more commonly referred to as globalization. However, I think it is just too easy to say “capitalism is bad”.

For week 12 we were assigned two pretty radical texts that were both insightful and articulate in their portrait of resistance. The two pieces felt like contemporary manifestations of the books we have been reading in class and renewed my thinking on the importance of literature in a revolution. It uniquely appeals to the emotional, the inner dialogue that is so key to success in these movements. However, at the same time, it imparts practical lessons and works on an evolving foundation from which the revolution can grow.

The Coming Insurrection was definitely an interesting read. I really appreciated hearing a breakdown of capitalism/the current social order from a French perspective. It works to both demonstrate global commonalities and to show a unique analysis/approach that comes from a much different history of resistance than we have here. However, I was a little conflicted after reading the book. At times I felt kind of crushed by its cynicism or that the authors were slightly detached from the complexities of what is actually happening in the world. But, at other moments, I found its boldness in social deconstruction refreshing and its suggestions for resistance inspiring. I suppose it is the nature of a radical piece like this that tries to do so much, it impossible not to leave the reader feeling a little unsettled.

A firm critique I did have of the book though was its lack of serious attention to the implications of intersectionality. I feel like they might argue that the book is about identifying the common enemy and that a true autonomous commune would organically correct pre-existing power inequalities. However, I think that it is slightly dangerous to presume so. (this is starting to sound like my last blog post) Throughout the whole book there are many references to attacks on racialized communities but no (that I remember) analysis or even acknowledgement of racism. Their lens is class and they propose to dismantle one hierarchy but in they’re glossing over of things like race/gender they threaten to leave others unchallenged.

One thing I really did like were their insights into the totalization of capitalism in our daily lives, even our resistance. One of my favorite quotes is on page 29 where they describe the situation a one where previous (bourgeois?) generations  have been employed to destroy the world,”and now they’d like to make us all work to rebuild it so that, adding insult to injury, it becomes profitable.” This along with their breakdown of the “Be Thrifty” mantra clearly calls for a contextual shift in the aims of our energies from the personal to the structural. I think it is an important insight when combined with their focus on autonomous community building and lateral solidarity.

ps-I know this is early, just trying to knock everything I can off my list

First of all I really enjoyed reading the diversity of texts we were assigned. It is really exciting to link these theoretical/historical conversations on revolution in class to contemporary resistance. I really appreciated all of the readings (and the film) but I am going to write my blog on the “What is Canada” text with a heavy Dr. Coulthard influence.

Within the PCR-RCP outline there were a couple of positions that I completely agreed with and a couple that I found a bit problematic. To begin with, I thought that their anti-state analysis of the Canada’s various violent “tentacles” was insightful. Most notably, I appreciated their discussion of Canada as an imperialist country. Stats like “The assets of big Canadian corporations abroad (i.e. Scotiabank, Barrick Gold, etc.) surpass domestic assets” are just so unbelievable. It made me think about the power of these companies outside of the Canadian state and to what extent they would exert that power even if the state was overthrown.

Also, I believe that their critique of capitalism is both comprehensive and essential. It works well to demonstrate the aggressive nature of capitalism and gives a good analysis of how it constructs our daily lives.  I think that as a common target, anti-capitalist organizing can connect many social movements and lead to more robust collective struggle. I do however question its centering as the lens through which to look at all other oppression.* I think the forces of colonialism, hetero-patriarchy, white supremacy and capitalism are more mutually supportive and work in differently dominant ways depending on context. As a result, the position of each actor in an oppressive situation must be located within these interlocking modes so that a just resolution can be achieved.

It seems that centering class-based resistance can dangerously subordinate other systems of oppression and runs the risk of inadvertently reinforcing them. For example, their class critique/division of Indigenous communities, the assumption that Indigenous workers should/would join an armed communist led resistance rather than what they call a “national democratic revolution of Indigenous peoples” or that “national self-determination” for all Indigenous nations (supposing they get their land back) can coexist along side an industrial communist state seems at least a little colonial. Without more fleshed out explanations they are in danger of just using rhetoric for legitimacy rather than considering what it would take to meaningfully decolonize. However, despite this, I think that overall they do a good job working to reform traditional Marxist thought into something that begins to be more applicable in settler-colonial contexts.

*which I think the article was suggesting pg. 2 -1^st paragraph but, I might be misunderstanding

Not that anyone has a ton of extra time right now but I read a couple of good articles for other classes last week that fit into our discussions. thought I would put them up.

Anarch@indigenism-

here

Decolonization is not a Metaphor-

18630-43263-1-PB(1)