Network Creation Possibility?

I am very curious to know how many people would be interested in starting an (un)settler network, that can share and learn collectively, but also meets up for workshops.

I can see it being something to strive for. At least I can see it working in territory claimed by the Canadian state.

I was thinking do outreach with a plan for a conference in Vancouver in 2010 one week before the Olympics are converged on. With lead up regional get togethers in 2009 in places like Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal before then.

One of the aims being producing a 1-3 time magazine on (un)settling modeled in between Redwire magazine and upping the anti, and maintaining a web resource for people doing ally work with Indigenous peoples. I really like the art aspect of Redwire and its uncensored nature, while i also think adding theory like upping the Anti would be called for.

What I was thinking was one issue on why unsettle?
Another on how to unsettle?
and the last one on what becomes of the settler and the Identities changed in the process?

what ya all think?

An (un)settler's Place

You can contact me at revolution_reversal@riseup.net to make you an account as well.

Andrea Smith: Sexual Violence and Genocide

Grassy Narrows Backgrounder

Treaty 3: A Nation-to-Nation Agreement Dishonoured by the Canadian State

By Dave Brophy

This is the first of three articles by Dave Brophy about indigenous struggle in what is now northwestern Ontario. Part one looks at the history of relations between the Anishinaabe and the Canadian state in the area covered by "Treaty 3" of 1873. It looks at how the Canadian state overtly violated the nation-to-nation agreement and initiated a campaign to destroy the Indigenous economy that had until then allowed the Anishinaabe to be a prosperous people.

Part two will focus on Grassy Narrows First Nation. It will provide historical background to, and an analysis of the community’s current campaign to end clear cut logging on their traditional territory. The significance this struggle has for the broader question of Indigenous peoples’ self-determination will also be examined.

It is safe to say that most people who know that Indigenous peoples preexisted the Canadian state, believe Canada's nationalist mythology that tells of how Indigenous societies were "traditional" and "backward", and that the destruction of these peoples was an inevitable result of the advance of "progress" and "civilisation". Few know about the dynamism of Indigenous cultures prior to the arrival of Europeans, and how native communities were underdeveloped by the settlers.

A consequence of the nationalist myth is that it leads people to assume that the European domination of Indigenous peoples was a good thing, and any resistance (if such resistance existed) by Indigenous peoples to colonisation was futile. It follows from this line of thinking that the treaties, the reserve system, and so on are the result of well-intentioned, protective treatment towards weaker peoples by a benevolent Canadian state.

Such mythology is debunked by the briefest look at, for instance, the history of relations between the Anishinaabe of what is now northwestern Ontario and the Canadian state in the years leading up to and shortly after the treaty they reached (known as "Treaty 3") in 1873. If we look at the conditions under which the treaty was negotiated, the terms of the treaty itself, and the deterioration of the Indigenous economy after the treaty, we get a much different view than that which is unfortunately prevalent.

In the 1800s the Anishinaabe of northwestern Ontario had a prosperous and diverse land-based economy that allowed its population to grow and thrive. According to Boyce Richardson, the Indigenous population increased approximately five-fold between about 1820 and 1870, growing from less than 500 to 2,500 people during that period.

There were few Europeans in the area until around 1850. In the decades prior to the 1873 treaty, though the Indigenous inhabitants still far outnumbered whites, the Anishinaabe had to occasionally re-assert their control of the territory as the number of white settlers and travelers increased.

The Canadian State, competing with the US, was extremely eager to plunder the resources of the "northwest" and establish itself as the colonial power there before the US. The expansion of the Canadian state went beyond merely settling the area. If Canada’s rulers were to extend control in that direction, negotiations with the Indigenous peoples were necessary to avoid a costly war.

The need for a treaty with the Anishinaabe became especially urgent when the Canadian government recognised that continued road construction through Anishinaabe territory – later known as the Dawson route – would be impeded without the Indigenous peoples’ consent.

Dawson himself wrote in 1868:

"The Anishinaabe of the northwest angle are very intelligent, and are extremely jealous as to their right of soil and authority over the country which they occupy….They are shrewd and sufficiently awake to their own interests…and they neither reply to a proposition, nor make one themselves, until it is fully discussed and deliberated upon in council of all the chiefs."

NATION-TO-NATION NEGOTIATIONS
In the late 1860’s, representatives of the Canadian government started negotiating with the Anishinaabe of the northwest angle to acquire access to their land. However, it took numerous visits to the northwest over a number of years to reach an agreement with the Anishinaabe there on the terms under which the Canadian government would be permitted to share the land.

It is important to note that, given their wealth and capacity for war, the Anishinaabe negotiated from a position of considerable strength. Their form of democratic collective decision making made them very strong negotiators. Alexander Morris, the unscrupulous commissioner who finally succeeded in negotiating a treaty with the Anishinaabe for Canada in 1873, had to wait four days while 800 Annishinaabe gathered to discuss the treaty before coming to a decision.

As Richardson notes, a clear priority for the Anishinaabe in the negotiations was for them to maintain control of their land (a territory of 55,000 square miles), and ensure that their hunting and trapping activities would not be hampered by any treaty. Charles Wagamase (a former high school teacher on the Grassy Narrows reserve who also served on the Treaty 3 Grand Council in the early 1990s) explained it this way:

"We have researched the conditions at the time that we signed our treaty in 1873…. Our people were well aware of what the treaty was, and were perfectly content with how they were living. It was not a life of drudgery and suffering. There were a lot of beautiful songs and ceremonies. There is a lot of evidence people were living a good life here, which they did not want to change."

Though the Anishinaabe wanted to negotiate a treaty that would protect their prosperous way of life, they also sought provisions that would allow the land to be shared. They anticipated that they would need to expand their agricultural production, which already provided for about half of their subsistence food needs, to accommodate the increased pressure on the land that would result from the settlement of whites. Thus, one of the conditions for a treaty was that they receive tools and instruction in farming.

It was therefore no easy task for the Anishinaabe to agree to a treaty with the Canadian government. They had concerns about how their society might be adversely affected, but they also saw potential benefits from cultural exchange. In the end, they made an important collective decision that Charles Wagamase summed up as follows:

"We find out [the white man] needs a place to live, to raise his kids. He says, ‘I want to come and live with you people.’ He wants to share this beautiful country with us, every square foot of which we use. Every little pond, somebody travels it and knows it.

"We take it back and think about it. We know what is going on. There is active trading all over North America. We have made deals in the past with the Sioux and Mohawks. We are well aware of the Indian wars. We can use violence and eject him, or come to some kind of arrangement. That’s what we did."

THE TREATY DISHONOURED
The practical, even generous approach the Anishinaabe had in their dealings with Europeans, however, was not returned in kind. Before Treaty 3 was signed, the Canadian government had already begun legislating policies that were completely at odds with the agreement they were to make. But even after the treaty, the Canadian government continued to pursue its colonialist course in blatant disregard of the agreement it signed.

The first major attack on the Indigenous economy was the destruction of the Lake of the Woods sturgeon fishery. Canadian negotiator Alexander Morris had understood the Indigenous peoples’ demands around hunting and fishing rights, and assured them that those activities would not be affected by the settlement of whites in the area. But an influx of commercial fishers beginning shortly after Treaty 3 was signed, and the subsequent pillaging of the sturgeon fishery proceeded without any intervention from the Canadian state. Before, the bountiful yet sustainable catches of fish had helped the Anishinaabe prosper and were a long-time staple of the Indigenous economy. But the resource was destroyed following a short bonanza for white fishermen.

A second major attack took place in 1881. As noted above, at the time of the 1873 treaty the Anishinaabe already were producing significant amounts of food through agriculture, especially wild rice, potatoes, and corn, and they wanted to expand their endeavours. The treaty stipulated that the Indigenous peoples would be designated "wild land reserves" as well as "farming reserves". With this arrangement, it would appear that the Anishinaabe were well placed to continue diversifying their economy by furthering agricultural production.

However, an 1881 amendment to the Indian Act (initially created in 1876) systematically discriminated against Indigenous peoples. The amendment prohibited "western" Indians, including the Treaty 3 Anishinaabe, from selling any agricultural produce. This measure undermined the Anishinaabe efforts to extensively expand their agricultural production – efforts that had been underway for 10 years.

A third major colonialist attack came in the 1890s, when Ontario's northwestern boundary was extended to the far side of the Treaty 3 area. In 1894 the federal government had transferred the natural resources on "Crown" land to the provinces. This provided a loophole of sorts, designed to let the federal government avoid meeting its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples who had signed treaties. The federal government's assurances of Indigenous land rights were clear under the treaties (even though the federal government ignored those obligations whenever it was convenient). But when jurisdiction vis-à-vis management of "public" lands was transferred to the provinces, there were no explicit stipulations made to clarify what level of government would be responsible for upholding Indigenous peoples' treaty rights.

As a result, under Ontario’s jurisdiction, Indigenous land rights, even in legal terms, went completely unrecognised. In the name of slowing rampant depletion of animal and fish populations, the Ontario government enacted laws limiting hunting and fishing that were to be applied equally to Indians and whites, even though the animal and fish stocks had been stable until the arrival of the settlers. Not only did these laws violate the Indians’ treaty rights; they were also enforced unequally against them, as they are to this day.

Furthermore, during these years various industries expanded into the Treaty 3 area. There was a rapid expansion of logging, mining, hydro-electric projects, and later, the development of tourist lodges and the cottage industry. However, because of the racist hiring practices in these industries, the Anishinaabe found it increasingly difficult to secure employment despite all this growth. And while native people were being excluded from the wage labour opportunities that came with this economic expansion, alternatives to wage labour were disappearing as the land base continued to deteriorate with the growth of industry.

By 1946, Treaty 3 Grand Council spokesperson Tom Roy had this to say to members of the federal parliament in Ottawa:

"We contend that the terms of our treaty were violated or abrogated by the federal government on or about April 16, 1894 when, without notifying the Indians, the federal government transferred the natural resources to the provinces, with whose laws we have [had] to comply since then. The Indians have tried to protest against this; they have made trips here to Ottawa asking the Indian department for protection. The answer has been: 'This comes entirely under the provincial governments, and there is no authority whatever vested in our department to change their laws.'"

As we will see in the next article, Tom Roy's grievances in 1946 concerning the refusal of the federal government to take responsibility for fulfilling its treaty obligations are just as relevant today as they were back then.

Today, Grassy Narrows First Nation leads the struggle of the Anishinaabe of the Treaty 3 area against colonisation of their lands. The refusal of the federal government to make good on its part of the treaty agreement continues to fuel the Ontario provincial government’s relentless attack on the Indigenous economy. The resistance of the Anishinaabe at Grassy Narrows is a reassertion of the legitimacy of Indigenous peoples’ rights after years of colonialist repression. That resistance will be taken up in Part 2.

RECOMMENDED READING
Research for this article was from the following sources:
Boyce Richardson, The People of Terra Nullius
Deborah Lee Simmons, Against Capital: The Political Economy of Aboriginal Resistance in Canada
Also check out:
Sarah Carter, Lost Harvest: Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy

Developing a Clan System for the Group

this is part of a conversation with Deanna Therriault about how to strengthen
our new group
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The historical Anishinabe Clan system was developed to address the needs of
the group, basically through the assigment of various duties to each clan...
ie. the seven original clans were given the following functions to serve for
their people...I've plunked in modern/comtemporary assigment so you can how
this is applicable).

*The Crane and the Loon Clans* were given the power of
Leadership/Chieftanship (every group requires those spokespeople that will
voice the concerns/issues for the group, deligate duties, media relations,
publication editing, etc.) By working together, these individuals gove the
group balance and keep everyone in check.

*Then there was the Fish Clan*. The people of the Fish Clan were the
teachers and scholars...(people invovled in this aspect of the group provide
those intellectual/educational discussions and teachings to the group. i.e,
language, ceremony, experience in activism, etc.) These individuals in the
group help the whole develop their skills, their knowledge and understanding
of how to be, and/or participate in the group. The Fish Clan are also
mediators, and can provide those skills to various experiences... say for
instance you host a rally, or a protest, and the offending party wants to
talk...well, you send in your Fish Clan peoples. Get where I'm going???

*The Bear Clan members* were the strong guardians of the group. Bear Clan
members spent a lot of time patrolling the land surrounding the village...so
when looking at the possibility of contentious situations or various
tactical moves by the group, the Bear Clan is there...they provide
protection, understand the intricacies of the necessaries that we must
sometimes employ during heated protest...i.e sometimes we call in a
Warrior Society...they fall under the requirements of the Bear Clan.

*The Hoof Clan* like the deers and moose cared for others by making sure the
community was emotionally healthy. So do you have social workers, addictions
councillors involved in your group??? They are pacifists pacifists avoiding
all harsh words, but help those in the group in need of council and
advice...always an Elder is there for this as well. And truly, everyone is a
Hoof Clan member, because they offer a shoulder, an ear, etc. for those in
the group who need it at various times. They facilitate healthy and
constructive communication as I see it.

*Then you'v egot the Martin Clan. *They were hunters, food gathers and
warriors for the Anishinabe peoples. So, in a modern context, I see the
Marten people seeking out those partnerships, finding those issues that have
been swept under rug and fighting in a mopre aggressive manner for change.
Perhaps looking at fundraising, finding places to meet, a home for the group
if you will? Long ago, warriors fought to defend their village or hunting
territory. They became known as master strategists in planning the defense
of their people... A marten could be legal council...

*The Bird Clan* represented the spiritual leaders of the people and gave the
nation its vision of well-being and its highest development of the spirit. This
is really where I see Elder involvement because they possess the historical
ceremonial and language knowledge to assist in the maintenance of who we are
as indigenous peoples. Traditional teachings. How to speak to one another in
a sharing circle, what a particular ceremony is for...smudging, prayer, etc.


To meet all the needs of your group...you NEED a clan system of sorts. A
group of individuals with various skill sets (no matter their cultural
background) who contribute to the group as a whole within the realm of their
specific strengths and experiences. Each respects the roles,
responsibilities of each other and acts accordingly. That's is how I've
envisioned the connection of today to yesterday. I could go on forever, but
I think this is enough for you to grasp my intent and purpose. No matter
what you're doing, you need orginization and people must assume certain
duties.

The Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash Story

US Renews War on the American Indian Movement:
The Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash Story

by Billie Pierre, Nlaka’pamux/Saulteaux Nation
Earth First! Journal January/February 2006

In the past few years, the memory of Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash—an American Indian Movement (AIM) leader from the Mi’kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia, Canada—has been reduced to that of a helpless woman who was murdered by her own allies. In reality, her murder is part of a ruthless campaign waged by the US government—a campaign that, far from being ancient history, is still unfolding today.

Thirty years after the death of Pictou-Aquash, the US government has renewed its war against the last remnants of AIM. As in the 1970s, this attack is only part of a larger war to gain control over Native lands and resources.

The US made its first violent attack against AIM in [1972], in what became known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Takeover. Natives had been conducting a peaceful protest outside the BIA headquarters in Washington, DC, when they were attacked by riot police. In response, the Natives barricaded themselves inside the building, smashed up offices and took top-secret documents. These documents proved that the government was illegally handing out reservation land, water and mineral rights to corporations.

That same year, AIM launched a campaign on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Dick Wilson, the corrupt tribal president, had created a paramilitary force with stolen federal program funding. With his control of the reservation secured by force, Wilson set about ceding uranium-rich areas of the sacred Black Hills to the federal government. AIM assisted in protecting Pine Ridge’s traditional families from the constant onslaught of violence, which culminated in the AIM occupation and government siege of Wounded Knee in the Spring of 1973. From 1973 to 1976, the people of Pine Ridge lived under the “Reign of Terror”—more than [67] Natives, mainly traditional Lakota and AIM members, were murdered, primarily by Wilson’s Guardians of the Oglala Nation (GOONs).

On June 26, 1975—while Wilson was in Washington, DC, signing away an eighth of the reservation—the FBI launched an attack on an AIM camp at Pine Ridge. The US was dealt a humiliating blow—two FBI agents lost their lives. Although Joe Stuntz Killsright, a Native warrior, was killed in the shoot-out, an estimated 40 Native men, women and children escaped.

In extreme rage, the FBI violently harassed Lakota families. They drafted a list of people that they suspected were present at the shoot-out, and they blamed Leonard Peltier, Bob Robideau, Dino Butler and Jimmy Eagle for killing the agents. The four young men went on the run. Butler and Robideau were eventually arrested, tried and acquitted by an all-white jury, so the FBI targeted Peltier for the “murder” of the agents. Of course, there has never been an investigation into Stuntz Killsright’s death.

At this time, Pictou-Aquash was “snitch-jacketed” by the FBI. This tactic of the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) undermined valuable members of a group by casting them in suspicious situations. Wherever Pictou-Aquash went, arrests would follow. She’d be released, while other AIM members were slapped with charges and high bail. In September 1975, FBI Agent David Price attempted to force her to sign an affidavit implicating Peltier for the murder of the two FBI agents. She refused to cooperate, and Price promised her that she wouldn’t live to see the year’s end.

Pictou-Aquash went underground, turning to AIM for protection and putting her fears of the FBI in writing. In late February, her body was found outside of [Wanblee], on Pine Ridge. Four FBI agents joined the “investigation,” including Price. They cut off her hands for “fingerprint analysis,” and despite the visible bullet hole in the back of her head, they determined that the cause of her death was exposure. They quickly arranged for her to be buried as a Jane Doe. After this cover-up came to light, the FBI released a statement announcing that Pictou-Aquash was not a government informant. As intended, this statement insinuated that AIM might have believed Pictou-Aquash to be an informant and murdered her.

After nearly three decades of dormancy, law enforcement attempts to “solve” the murder of Pictou-Aquash recently resumed, with a surprising number of former AIM members accepting and promoting the FBI’s version of events. On March 30, 2003, two Native men were accused of her murder—John Graham and Arlo Looking Cloud. There is no credible evidence linking either man to the crime, and their prosecution seems like nothing more than an effort to destroy what little remains of AIM.

US Marshal Robert Ecoffey has played a prominent role in resurrecting the investigation. Ecoffey got his start in law enforcement as a GOON in the 1970s, and he participated in the Oglala shoot-out. In the 1990s, after becoming the first Native US Marshal in history, Ecoffey resurrected the Pictou-Aquash murder investigation and followed FBI claims that AIM was responsible. Ecoffey and Denver, Colorado, Detective Abe Alonzo spent years visiting and questioning Looking Cloud about the murder.

Looking Cloud is an Oglala Lakota and a father of two. He also has serious substance abuse problems that were exploited by Ecoffey and Alonzo during their investigation. In March 2003, in an alleged confession video-taped by Ecoffey, Looking Cloud admitted to being under the influence of alcohol. Alonzo then fed him leading questions, and Looking Cloud slurred contradictory answers. He allegedly confessed that he had been the unwitting accomplice in Pictou-Aquash’s execution by AIM. He stated that he witnessed Graham take her to the edge of a ravine and shoot her in the back of the head.

Looking Cloud was denied the right to choose his own lawyer. During his trial, every witness for the prosecution presented AIM in the most negative light possible, and they contradicted each other in their testimonies. Many people could have been called as defense witnesses, to testify that Pictou-Aquash had been afraid of the FBI, not AIM. But the defense called only one witness—FBI Agent Price! He was questioned for 10 minutes on Pictou-Aquash and whether she was an FBI informant. Looking Cloud’s lawyer made few motions and did not challenge Ecoffey and Alonzo’s manipulation of his client. Looking Cloud was not allowed to take the stand to defend himself; all that was shown was the videotaped interview that he had given. In February 2004, after a four-day trial, Looking Cloud was convicted of aiding and abetting in the murder of Pictou-Aquash, and he was sentenced to life in prison. Looking Cloud’s subsequent appeal was denied. In October, Looking Cloud fired his most recent lawyer. Unfortunately, without much more widespread support in the US and Canada, he is unlikely to challenge the dirty tactics used to convict him.

Sadly, many former members of AIM are now cooperating with the FBI’s renewed war on the movement.

Robideau now lives in Spain, where he operates a “Native museum” and does workshops on “Native art” for Europeans. Robideau has also profited from Robert Redford’s Incident at Oglala, a documentary about the 1975 shoot-out. In this movie, Robideau perpetuates rumors of a “Mr. X”—the man who really murdered the FBI agents. Rather than exonerating Peltier, this creates an opportunity for the FBI to possibly prosecute more AIM members for the shootings. Robideau also perpetuates the rumor that Peltier once interrogated Pictou-Aquash with a gun, suspecting that she was working for the FBI.

In the wake of Pictou-Aquash’s death, Robideau stated that the FBI killed her “because they knew she was one of us and wouldn’t talk.” But in February 2004, he claimed: “I for one applaud the verdict of guilty in the Arlo Looking Cloud case.” A month later, Robideau resigned from the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) “after several discussions with this group regarding the ongoing support and comfort that the LPDC… continues to give to John Graham and the John Graham Defense Committee…. I personally will be overjoyed when the Canadian courts rule to return John Graham… to the US to answer for this brutal murder. I will pray that his extradition contributes to an escalation of this case.”

Another turncoat is Russell Means, the charismatic national director of AIM during the 1970s. Since then, he has moved on to Hollywood, starring in The Last of the Mohicans and Disney’s Pocahontas. Means also has assisted the Republican Party in campaigning on Pine Ridge.

In 1998, Means publicly accused Graham and Looking Cloud of murdering Pictou-Aquash and demanded that the courts hand down indictments. Following Looking Cloud’s conviction, however, Means called it a travesty of justice. Obviously, he is on whatever side brings him the most attention.

Kelly White, a former AIM member, runs a Native issues radio show in Vancouver. A few years before Graham was arrested, she began to target him for defamation. At a Peltier support event in Vancouver, she got up on stage and accused Graham of murdering Pictou-Aquash, although she didn’t have any evidence to back this up. Her personality is vindictive, and over the years she’s targeted various people in the community, including those who have supported Graham’s struggle against extradition.

This behavior is unacceptable; a basic principle of any resistance movement is non-collaboration with the enemy. As Peltier has written regarding the arrest of Graham: “When we talk of sovereignty, we must be willing to solve our own problems and not go running to the oppressor for relief…. We have been and still are at odds with the most dangerous, well-funded, strongest military and political organization in the history of the world.”

John Trudell, a onetime AIM spokesperson turned actor and musician, is also helping the FBI pin Pictou-Aquash’s murder on former AIM members. Trudell’s testimony at Looking Cloud’s trial can be summed up as: “Though I have no recollection of ever meeting Looking Cloud, he tracked me down and confessed his role in Anna Mac’s murder—but until this time, I chose to stay silent.” Graham’s extradition was made possible by Trudell’s positive identification of him to the FBI.

Former AIM member Kamook Nichols also gave testimony at Looking Cloud’s trial. She stated that Dennis Banks, her former husband and cofounder of AIM, and Peltier believed that Pictou-Aquash was working for the FBI. Nichols stated that they had planned to bomb strategic locations on Pine Ridge and wanted Pictou-Aquash’s fingerprints on the explosives.

Not only did the FBI give Nichols immunity, it also gave her $42,000 for her cooperation. She also admitted to wearing a wire for the FBI over the. years. It is suspected that Nichols may have implicated her exhusband for personal reasons; it has been documented that Pictou-Aquash and Banks were having an affair—something Nichols has known of since August 1975. Nichols’ testimony is suspect for another reason: In September 2004, she married Robert Ecoffey, following a five-year-long relationship.

On December 1, 2003, John Graham, a Southern Tuchone from the Yukon and a father of eight, was arrested in Vancouver, Canada, for the murder of Pictou-Aquash. To raise his $50,000 bail, his family had to sell their trapline, their traditional way of living off the land. In early 2005, the government of British Columbia approved his extradition to the US. His appeal is scheduled for June.

Graham is a warrior. As a young man, he went to South Dakota to join the AIM campaign on Pine Ridge. Over the years, he has continued to make great contributions to indigenous resistance to uranium mining. I’ve met many people who’ve worked with him and have heard only good things about him. Unlike many former AIM members, he refuses to cooperate with the FBI and refuses to implicate anyone for any reason.

Graham has stated that Pictou-Aquash was his sister and that they stuck together because Natives from Canada tended to be given a hard time by their US brothers and sisters. His job was to transport Pictou-Aquash, who was hiding from Agent Price and a violent infiltrator named Douglas Durham. Graham has stated that he drove her from Denver to a safe house on Pine Ridge.

Graham says that the FBI started to visit him in the Yukon during the mid-1990s. On four separate visits, they offered him immunity and a new identity if he testified that any of the former AIM leaders had ordered Pictou-Aquash’s execution. He refused. On their last visit, they stated that this would be his final chance to cooperate; if he would not testify, they would charge him with her murder.

During Graham’s extradition hearing, Peltier submitted an affidavit stating that he had been offered his freedom within ten days if he signed an affidavit to implicate John Graham in Anna Mac’s murder, Peltier refused. There is no physical evidence against Graham, only more unreliable, FBI-tainted testimony. Furthermore, US and Canadian court systems have no jurisdiction or authority over indigenous people. We have the right to practice our own justice system—something recognized in Canadian law.

Graham’s current legal struggle reflects the political repression faced by Native activists who have defended their land and their traditional way of life. Most of British Columbia has never been ceded to any colonial government, and the indigenous nations living there have full jurisdiction over their lands and resources.

British Columbia is very rich in natural resources—it has the eighth-highest mineral potential in the world. The province also has plans to carve up the mountains with wall-to-wall ski resorts by 2010. Currently, there is much indigenous resistance to mining and resort development. The most extreme case was the Gustafsen Lake standoff in 1995, when the government deployed 400 Royal Canadian Mounted Police tactical-assault-team members to kill about 20 Natives who had defied a trespass notice and were living within their traditional tribal territories. Since then, dozens of Native people who have defended their lands have been criminalized.

John Graham and Arlo Looking Cloud’s current struggle for their own freedom is a clear message being sent out to all Native land defenders. This is a threat being made against anyone who dares to stand up to the corporations that are stealing our lands. Now is the time to come together and make a strong stand. We will be tested more in the coming years.

For more infomation, contact the John Graham Defense Committee, 15 Firth Rd, Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 4R5, Canada; (867) 633-2480; email; John Graham Defense Committee; Native Youth Movement (NYM)-Coast Salish Territories, email.

Billie Pierre is a Nlaka’Pamux/Saulteaux woman based in Vancouver. She’s a NYM OG and joined in 1995.