James Michael Craven wrote:
The Wheat Board is no angel, though I doubt it has any genocidal intension in
prosecuting Frank, even though requiring an export permit may alter traditional modes
of
activity somewhat. My understanding is that one can get an export permit from the
Board.
I am not sure how that works but I imagine Frank would not get directly paid then but
it
would go through the board and he would be reimbursed in the same way as other sellers
through several payments -as noted in the article I sent.
One possibility is to have an exception for this type of trading. The wheat board
is probably concerned that if it allows this type of trading it will provide a
loophole
that will be exploited by large multinational grain interests such as Cargill. Natives
and non-native commercial ventures have often had many negative side effects. The
linkage
between natives and white fur trading companies certainly was not environmentally
friendly in terms of hunted animal populations. The linkage between Mohawks and US
cigarette retailers bypassed the high taxes on cigs in Canada and no doubt gave
employment to many Mohawks, as do the gambling casinos, but as you know these
activities
can interfere with traditional native culture as well and often result in factional
violence on reserves.
The situation is complicated. While the board was overzealous in this
instance
the general policy of requiring a permit is surely necessary for the system to work.
The
operation of the board requires solidarity among all producers.
The board is a large corporation and as such it has moved away from the grass roots.
Recent changes to the law however require board members to be elected by the producers
whose grain they are selling, rather than appointed by the government. Sure as hell
Cargill is not that democratic. Just a couple of further points:
The wheat board is recognised as part of the NAFTA agreement. This is one of
the
things that riles US farmers and causes them to bring charges all the bloody time. It
is
almost harassment. They claim that pricing of the Wheat Board is not transparent.
True.
Why not ask Cargill to reveal their pricing?
I assume the Jay Treaty is between tribes and the US government. Canada was
not a
party. Do you believe in extraterritoriality of US law. THe US does of course. It
says
US branch plants in Canada cannot trade with Cuba! We have a Canada Health Act that
guarantees all citizens universal health care. Damn, the US doesn't recognize it!
By the way what is the situation re health care for aboriginal citizens in the US?
DOes
the government guarantee it?
There are obvious conflicts between laws that apply to citizens in general and
customs of aboriginal nations within the borders of the same country. It is not clear
that the aboriginal customs should always prevail or do so by right. Was New Zealand
acting genocidally with respect to the Maoris when they outlawed cannibalism?
Cannabilism
is part and parcel of Maoris culture and when understood within that culture is by no
means entirely negative in its significance but related to spiritualiity and ritual
rather than just everyday meat and potatoes.
Or consider fishing rights.
While traditional rights to fish for sustenance may not harm fish stocks, if tribes
claim they have an inalienable right to fish for trade trouble can arise.
Again,I am not saying that natives may not have claims of this sort as well, but they
have to be worked out through negotiation.The same is true of land claims. Canada has
not
a very good record on this I know but there has been some progress.
THere is a good book on fisheries by DOugherty called the GREAT LAKES FISHERY I
believe.
Environmentalists (usually white) paint themselves as the friendss of the fish ( and
unlimited ducks of course) when it is really a struggle between two interest groups,
sport fishing as against native commercial fishing. In the case of the Great Lakes
Fishery the vast majority of the fish are no longer there as a result of nature but of
human intervention and the issue is basically how to allocate the resource in a fair
way
and not deplete stocks.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
P.S. I am an inveterate Enlightenment Person. Up with totalising Reason. Down with
Post-modernism! Thanks to Josh Mason for his post on unions and pension funds. There
are
union funds in Canada that are invested in various projects. Unions have come to the
rescue of companies that would otherwise close, as for example the steel mill in
Sault
Ste. Marie Ontario. I do not know whether pension funds were used for these purposes,
probably not. Quebec labor has extensive funds that it invests.
>
> Response (Jim Craven)
>
> Let me provide another view for consideration--the case of Harley
> Frank, a Kainai Blackfoot. Among the Pikuni (Blackfoot) People there
> are three main "Tribes": Siksika (Blackfoot), Kainai (Blood) and
> Peigan (Pikuni). The Siksika and Kainai Reserves are in Alberta and
> the Peigan Reservation is at Browning, Montana just across the U.S.
> Canadian Border. The Reserves/Reservations are almost geographically
> continguous and the Pikuni People have lived in this region before
> there was a United States of America or Canada certainly before any
> existing border--a whole People and Nation is divided by this border.
>
> Harly Frank, a Kainai Blackfoot farmer and former Tribal chairman
> brought his wheat across the border to sell and distribute ONLY to
> his People of another Tribe of the Nation--Peigan Blackfoot. For this
> he was charged with violation of the wheat export control act. Canada
> refuses to recognize the Jay Treaty of 1794 guaranteeing Indians the
> absolute right to freely migrate unmolested across the US and
> Canadian borders--the US supposedly recognizes the Treaty.
>
> Harly Frank was put on trial in Alberta, harassed, almost bankrupted
> dealing with the Canadian Federal government and the case remains in
> abeyance as a result of massive protests and, as a result of new
> twists and turns in the case. There is overwhelming evidence that
> when it came to abducting Indian children for adoption and forced
> placement in Boarding/Residential Schools or chasing fugitives, the
> Canadian-US Border was no obstacle. But when it comes to unification
> and free and natural association and trading between Tribes of a
> whole and Sovereign Nation, then the Canadian-US border and the wheat
> export control act are strictly enforced--even after NAFTA.
>
> Further, this division and interference with imperative associations
> between Peoples of different Tribes of a whole Nation is a deliberate
> and inevitable instrument of genocide; it facilitates the more rapid
> and more extensive destruction/extermination/extinction of a whole
> People as a People by threatening and interferring with traditional
> bonds that are imperative to maintain to maintain the survival of a
> People.
>
> The Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Government clearly moved
> against Harly Frank out of fear of precedent that could be used by
> non-Indian farmers thus also attempting to de-Indianize Harley Frank
> and breat Status Rights of Indians to break any and all Status
> recognition or protections or Tribal/Nation--"Group"--Rights.
>
> So there is another side to all of this and a very ugly and genocidal
> side to the Wheat Board and the Canadian Government. We don't need
> the Canadian Government or the US Government to selectively,
> arbitrarily and capriciously "define" our Status and Status Rights
> or indeed degree of Sovereignty--International Law and History have
> already done that.
>
> Jim Craven
>
> On 8 Dec 98 at 8:33, Ken Hanly wrote:
>
> This is from the Western Producer a farm newspaper published in Regina
> Sask. It is written by Robert Rampton from their Winnipeg (Manitoba)
> bureau. NOTE:The Wheat Board is the single desk seller of all of some
> grains such as wheat. The Board is a favorite target of many US prairie
> farmers who accuse it of dumping. They have had the board audited under
> the terms of NAFTA many times, always with negative results. This hasn't
> convinced them otherwise. Yesterday entry points were blocked by farmers
> in North Dakota and Montana. The real problem is world prices for wheat
> and some other grains. Market prices have fallen below the costs of
> production. This is true both for US and Canadian farmers.
> Ask any economist for the U of Saskatchewan whether the board
> gets a premium price for the farmer's grain and they will claim it does.
> You will get a different answer from some U of California economists.
> There is conflict in Canada about the role of the board. Some farmers
> have gone to jail for exporting without proper permits. Of course these
> farmers blather on about freedom to sell where they wish all to the great
> glee of industry giants such as Cargill. Anyway don't get the idea that I
> don't support the board or that it is a bad thing even though this post
> may not show it in an entirely positive light. Australia, I believe, has
> a simiilar system for marketing grain, or some types of grain.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> "The pleas of a Manitoba farm group for higher initial payments
> for hard red spring wheat may not compute.
> Keystone Agricultural Producers wants the Canadian Wheat Board to
> narrow the 38 to 58 dollars per tonne spread between initial prices and
> the October pool return outlook.
> "Its the farmer's own money, its increased cash flow," explained
> Don Dewar, president of KAP.
> He said the wheat board should recommend an increased payment to
> the federal government so farmers get some extra money by Christmas,
> while they wait for a larger aid package from the federal government.
> But a wheat board spokesperson said decisions on increases to
> initial payments are in the hands of a computer model.
> Deanna Allen said "a pure running of the numbers," determines
> whether and when the wheat board asks the federal government to approve
> an increase.
> Once a month when wheat board officials prepare the pool return
> outlook, they plug factors into the computer model including the
> percentage of crop sold, expected future values, world production figures
> and foreign exchange rates. The computer model determines when an
> increase in initial payments would not put the pool at unnecessary risk."
> p 15 November 26, 1998
>
>
> James Craven
> Dept. of Economics,Clark College
> 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
> property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
> (Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789)
>
> "To speak of atrocious crimes in mild language is treason to virtue." (Edmund Burke)
>
> "Slavery dulls the master in the same way that it stupefies most slaves. If the new
> workplace requires a new liberated worker who belongs to the union of one, it also
>requirees
> of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into
>which
> it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am
>in ernest--
> I will not equivocate--I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch--and I
>will be heard.
> (William Lloyd Garrison, 1831, Abolitionist Leader)
>
> *My Employer has no association with My Private and Protected Opinion*
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
