ABORIGINAL WOMEN AND SELF-DETERMINATION:

THE ABORIGINAL CHALLENGE:

{IN THE MOHAWK LANGUAGE THE WORD “WARRIOR” MEANS ONE WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PEACE}

...

ABORIGINAL WOMEN {MARGINALIZATION – REFERS TO THE STATUS OF A GROUP WHO DOES NOT HAVE FULL AND EQUAL ACCESS TO THE SOCIAL ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF SOCIETY } =====> ECONOMICALLY ABORIGINAL WOMEN ARE WORSE OFF THAN NON-ABORIGINALS AND ABORIGINAL MEN ======> SOCIALLY THEY SUFFER FROM HARDSHIPS SUCH AS, ABUSIVE MALE FAMILY MEMBERS, SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND RAPES, INADEQUATE HOUSING, SUBSTANDARD LIVING CONDITIONS, POOR HEALTH {E.G., ABORIGINAL WOMEN AGED 55 TO 64 HAVE FAIR TO POOR HEALTH – MORE THAN DOUBLE THE 19 PERENT NON-NATIVE FEMALE POPULATION} ======> POLITICALLY THEY WERE STRIPPED OF INDIAN STATUS BECAUSE OF MARRIAGE TO A NON-ABORIGINAL

[[FILM: “KEEPERS OF THE FIRE”=====> OR, THE STORY OF HOW RACIALIZED WOMEN HAVE TO STRUGGLE ON MULTIPLE FRONTS =====> WOMEN WARRIORS OF THE VILLAGE PARISH OF OKA {MOHAWK COMMUNITY OF “KANESAKAKE” 53 KM WEST OF MONTREAL}: THE “HIDAS” OF LYLE ISLAND; THE WOMEN OF TOBIQUE; THE WOMEN OF ANDIAN {KATHERINE BROOKS}.]]

...

IN 1956, MARY TWO-AXE EARLY, A MOHAWK WOMAN FORM KAHNAWAKE, RAISED THE ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATION TOWARD INDIAN WOMEN BEFORE THE {STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT} [SCIAND] ===> AS AN INDIAN WOMAN SHE HAD “MARRIED OUT” {MARRIED AN “NON-INDIAN”} --- SHE LOST HER LEGAL STATUS AS AN INDIAN UNDER THE INDIAN ACT, HER BAND MEMBERSHIP, AND HER RIGHT TO TRANSMIT LEGAL STATUS AND BAND MEMBERSHIP TO HER CHILDREN.

FOURTEEN YEARS LATER, THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN RECOMMENDED THAT THE OFFENDING SECTION OF THE INDIAN ACT (12[B]) BE REPEALLED. IN 1985, FOLLOWING A CONCERTED STRUGGLE BY THE NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA, INDIAN RIGHTS FOR INDIAN WOMEN, AND NAC {THE NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN …CREATED IN 1972…}, AND LEGAL CHALLENGES BY JEANNETTE CORBIERE LAVELL AND YVONNE BEDARD TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (THEY LOST) AND SANDRA LOVELACE BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS (SHE WON), THIS SECTION WAS REMOVED FROM THE INDIAN ACT.

THE SUCCESSOR LEGISLATION, BILL C-31, SUSTAINED GENDER INEQUALITY, HOWEVER, BY ESTABLISHING THE SECOND-GENERATION CUT-OFF RULE. NEARLY THIRTY YEARS LATER AFTER HER ORIGINAL PUBLIC STATEMENT, TWO-AXE EARLY APPEARED AGAIN BEFORE SCIAND TO PROTEST THAT THE GRANDCHILDREN OF A WOMAN “MARRIED OUT” --- UNLIKE THE GRANDCHILDREN OF A MAN --- WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REINSTATEMENT OR BAND REGISTRATION.

THIS STRUGGLE REPRESNTS A LONG-TERM AND SUCCESSFUL JOINT ENDEAVOUR BY MAINSTREAM FEMINISTS ORGANIZATIONS AND (PRIMARY) INDIAN WOMEN WHO HAD LOST THEIR STATUS THROUGH MARRYING NON-STATUS MEN.

{{{{{ASIDE: HOW DO YOU THINK NATIVE MEN REACTED? DO THEY GET THE SAME MESSAGE AS COLONIAL MEN AND WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF ANY???}}}}

EX: JUST AS THE INDIAN ACT DIVIDED AND CATEGORIZED PEOPLE, SO HAS THE RESISTANCE BY THOSE SEEKING TO SUSTAIN THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN WHO MARRIED OUT. THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS (PRIMER AUTHORITY) ARGUED THAT “AS INDIAN PEOPLE, WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DEAL WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OVERRIDING COLLECTIVE RIGHTS” [QUOTED IN CANNON 1995: 98]

====> FIRST NATIONS LEADERSHIP USES THE ARGUMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO BLOCK ATTEMPTS BY ABORIGINAL WOMEN TO USE THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS (AND THUS THE CANADIAN STATE) TO SETTLE WHAT THE AFN PERCEIVES AS INTERNAL DISPUTES

 

{MANY} ABORIGINAL WOMEN AND MEN HAVE ARGUED THAT THE INDIAN ACT WAS ALSO A RACIST AND IMPERIALIST PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WAS IMPOSED UPON THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN WAYS THAT DISTORTED THEIR INTERNAL RELATIONS, STRUCTURED THEIR SUBORDINATION TO NON-ABORIGINAL PEOPLES, AND THREATENED THEIR EXTINCTION

IN RECENT YEARS ABORIGINAL WOMEN'S MAJOR CALL HAS BEEN FOR SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THEIR PEOPLES AND AN END TO THE TRAGIC RESULTS OF COLONIZATION, IMPERIALISM, AND WHAT MANY CONSIDER THE IMPORTATION OF WESTERN PRACTICES OF MALE DOMINATION

{IMPORTANT NOTE: THEY ARGUE [LIKE MANY ANTI-RACISTS --- THAT “NOBODY CAN BE NEUTRAL”] THAT PEOPLE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT THERE DEMANDS ARE COMPLICIT IN THE OPPRESSIVE RELATIONSHIPS AND STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BRUTALIZED ANA DESTROYED THEIR PEOPLE}

SEE SOCIETY LIKE OTHER RACIALIZED COMMUNITIES ===> AS A CONTEXT OF DEPRIVATION AND STATE-INITIATED VIOLENCE OF THEIR LIVES ===> AS WITH OTHER RACIALZIED COMMUNITIES MALE FRUSTRATION (REPRESSIVE DESUBLIMATION) WAS OFTEN VENTED ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND THEMSELVES.

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT INSOFAR AS THERE IS A SHARED CRITQUE OF PARTRIARCH RELATIONS, SOME MEETING GROUND FOR ABORIGINAL {AND OTHER RACIALIZED} AND WHITE FEMINISTS EXISTS ===>

QUESTION: BUT DON'T RACIALIZED WOMEN EXPERIENCE THEIR WORLD THROUGH THEIR CULTURE/RACE “BEFORE? GENDER? =è CAN FEMINISM OFFER THESE WOMEN A “FULL SOLUTION” TO THEIR EXPERIENCE OF INEQUALITY?

QUESTION: IF FEMINIST CRITIQUES OF PATRIARCHAL CAPITALISM, IMPERIALISM, AND THE STATE DO NOT TAKE AS A GOAL ===> EX: WHO MAKES AND ENFORCES THE CRIMINAL LAWS, WHICH SENDS DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS OF RACIALIZED PEOPLE TO PRISON --- OR --- WHO CONTROLS LAND AND DEVELOPMENT AND IN WHOSE INTERESTS? --- OR --- IN WHOSE INTEREST HAS THE ENVIRONMENT BEEN RENDERED CLOSE TO UNINHABITABLE FOR PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND HUMAN BEINGS --- OR --- IF IT DOESN'T HAVE AS A LONG-TERM GOAL, THE ERADICATION OF THE LEGAL OPPRESSION OF ABORIGINAL WOMEN {RE: BAND STATUS} AND/OR RACIALIZED SERVITUDE OF WOMEN {RE: IN THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM}---- ECT., --- WHAT CAN FEMINISM OFFER WOMEN OF COLOUR?