Response: He was villified as a "traitor" by some and this caused some splits that the powers-that-be in the Canadian Government, DIA and anti-Treaty/Indians were able to capitalize on. Because Indians have been ignored for so long (note the media when they refer to "minorities" always you hear African-Americans or "Blacks", Hispanics, Women, Gays/Lesbians but almost never Indigenous Peoples or Indians or First Nations)some come along and pretend to "listen" but really they are gathering intelligence on our intentions and capabilities. I just had a reporter call me up to talk about "Indian Land Claims". After speaking with him for awhile, I got his true focus: "The New Educated Indians and Their New Tactics, Capabilities and Spheres of Influence". The "Property Rights" and "Wise Use" types are worried about the "new Indians" who are trained in Law, Economics, Politics, etc and are using their own "property" concepts and laws to call into question and impeach the very forms of bourgeois property they purport to protect. We do this not to support bourgeois property concepts, but to use their own internal contradictions, hubris and hypocrisy as fulcrums for leverage and to take the struggles beyond that level. BTW, here would be a good time to clear something up. Louis noted that among Indians the US Government's hypocrisy--and that of allies like Canada-- in supporting "Freedom for Tibet" or "Independence" for Tibet on the one hand and yet denying the Sovereignty and Independence of Indigenous Nations (Nations do not make Treaties with individuals, their own citizens or even with groups of their own citizens--only sovereign nations) in the US, Canada and elsewhere is frequently cited and attacked. This is true. But it should be noted here that from the perspective of the US government and its allies and their governing bourgeois paradigms, there is indeed a contradiction between support for Tibetan Independence on the one hand and denial of sovereignty and independence of Indigenous Nations on the other hand. But it does not follow from that that my own position or that of other Indigenous Peoples is the support of Tibetan Independence or indeed that even the above-mentioned contradiction is a universal and inexorable contradiction from the perspective of a radical paradigm. This may seem to be a cop-out for some, but I tell you honestly, on the question of so-called Tibetan Independence or on the question alluded to by Jim Devine (the supposed elitist nature and machinations of the government of China) I do not have enough information and I for sure do not trust the accounts of the bourgeois press--for almost anything. I certainly do not trust the Dahli Lama to build a free, independent and socialist Tibet. At the time of the Chinese Revolution and before, there was over 98% illiteracy in Tibet, brutal feudalism and slavery and the buddhist monk parasites did nothing except self-indulgent and narcissistic praying all day; they profited from the brutal feudalism and slavery in Tibet. I know that at the time of liberation in China, when Tibetan elites purporting to represent all Tibetans in a Tibet that had never known any form of elections requested to join the UN as an independent Tibet, the official position of the US Government and its allies was that Tibet was an historical part of China. I support the right of self-determination of oppressed nations and peoples but I do not support the above mentioned concept when it is used merely and cynically as a social systems engineering instrument to purport to promote self-determination of one nation as an instrument for denial of wider self-determination of other oppressed nations and groups. I am just not so sure as some on some of the questions discussed on this net. I am not sure of my own knowledge, I surely do not trust the coventional sources and coverages, do not trust some of the so-called "leading scholars" of the West and elsewhere and I do not trust the motives and lack of humility of some who purport to have "the truth" on some of these questions. This is not a cop-out merely an attempt at an honest statement about my own limitations and reasons for agnosticism on so many of these questions. Jim Craven -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 12:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:9663] RE: RE: Re: FW: reprint of Kennedy essay what setbacks? mbs />>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of our former Chiefs, a Siksika Chief, was invited to speak to a group in Canada. He was really taken with them as they appeared to "really listen" as opposed to the Tories, Liberals and NDP. He later found out that they were Reform Party, which is the most anti-Indian and anti-Treaty of the lot. He suffered some real setbacks as a result of that presentation and not knowing to whom he was speaking. Jim C
