What is Chief Spence hiding? Not your logical fallacy.

This is the question of the day (week/month), isn’t it?  Cue the accusations of fraud, of theft, of corruption.  All made without a shred of evidence to support them.  Made as though such statements are self-evident.  Self-evidentiary.  Obviously true.  The question itself frames the discussion.  The question even answers itself.

Logical fallacies are bad, m’kay?

Asking, “what is Chief Spence hiding” is begging the question.  It is a logical fallacy.  As any forum warrior knows, identifying logical fallacies gets you ‘points’ in discussions, and so a lot of people have become somewhat familiar with them despite misusing them constantly.  Nonetheless, for those of you not familiar with this particular logical fallacy, I’ll explain.

Begging the question is when the thing you want to prove is assumed to be true in the question itself.  “What is Chief Spence hiding” assumes that in fact, Chief Spence is hiding something, and the real question is merely what that something is. No proof is offered to support the assertion that she is hiding anything at all, it is merely seen as obvious.

The question people should be asking if they are honestly interested in this is, “why is Chief Spence rejecting third-party management?”

If the answer turned out to be, “because the third-party manager would find out that Chief Spence if the Imelda Marcos of the North”, fine.  Snap the photos of her $3million collection of designer shoes and then say, “well she was hiding this!  Ha, in your FACE unpronounceably named Métis blogger!”.

However, phrasing the inquiry in a way that essentially assumes her guilt is utterly dishonest. It isn’t very effective either, if you are genuinely wondering what the heck is going on.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

This is another logical fallacy powering many of the claims being made all over the comments sections right now.  The logical fallacy wizards love the latin term, argumentum ad ignorantiam.  I prefer the above titled phrase because it’s just so darn catchy.  It’s also a little nicer than the English term, “argument from ignorance“.

This lovely little fallacy has people making claims based on lack of evidence to the contrary.  The classic, “if you can’t prove this thing I’m saying is false, then it must be true!”

It is being used like this: “You can’t show me evidence that Chief Spence isn’t lining her pockets and covering it up, therefore that is precisely what she is doing!”

Of course it isn’t phrased so obviously.  It usually comes out in a series of exchanges, starting with the question/accusation in the first fallacy.  If anyone dares to question such an obvious truth, then immediate proof that she isn’t hiding anything is demanded.  The burden is completely shifted from the person making the accusation, on to the person who has questioned it.  When you can’t provide conclusive evidence of lack of hiding/fraud/corruption/whatever, then you are told basically that lack of evidence (to the contrary) is evidence of absence.

It would be as fallacious to tell someone that an inability to definitively prove lack of (fraud/corruption/hiding/whatever) means that there is no (fraud/corruption/hiding/whatever).  However, one approach is definitely more prejudicial than the other.  The approach that assumes fraud and corruption in First Nations is a popular and damaging one, made all the worse for the lack of any attempt to prove the claims beyond engaging in logical fallacies.

…and knowing is half the battle!

When you recognise how the discussion is being framed (muahaahaha!), you can avoid falling into the incredibly frustrating trap of defending against something you aren’t really arguing.  Why should you spend your time defending Chief Spence?  Why should you spend your energy defending First Nations against charges of corruption and fraud, when there is no real evidence of such?

Forget it.  Reframe the question in your own mind, and perhaps do the same for others.  “What is going on?”  “Why did Chief Spence ask the third-party manager to leave?”

There will be theories, there will be accusations, there will be some few reasonable suggestions.  There will be more worthy discussions.

Forced to defend herself and the community

Chief Spence has made public a number of press releases since the media storm made Attawapiskat one of the few Cree words all Canadians can now pronounce accurately.

The first was released on December 1st, and dealt with the imposition of third-party management as well as accusations being made about how no one knows where ‘all that money’ goes in Attawapiskat.

The second was released on December 5th, and addressed the uglier and more bizarre accusations.  I’d like to call this whole series of episodes”Zamboni-gate”.

The release I really want you to look at was published December 11.  I want to note that these statements do not constitute evidence.  They are not proof, nor am I conflating them with such.  Nonetheless, Chief Spence attempts to address the many accusations being made. This press release provides her version of the events.  If we are going to continue this trial in the arena of public discussion, then at the very least, she should be heard.

Feel free to reject her reasoning as flawed, go ahead and claim it further proves she is indeed “hiding something”.  But don’t be surprised when your fellow commentators start asking you for actual evidence for your claims beyond your opinion.  Such requests are overdue in this national discussion.

Update (Dec. 21): Here is a fantastic article on why audits are not the answer.

Let’s kick it up a notch, Canada

This discussion matters.  This discussion has us asking questions about fundamental relationships.  This discussion has us asking questions about our system and our history, and many people are realising they just don’t understand what is happening.  Best of all, this discussion has us asking “why don’t we understand what is happening*?”

I submit to you that this lack of understanding can be fixed.  We absolutely can take this opportunity to learn more about the background and the context that has us all talking about a tiny native community most Canadians had never heard of until now.

We can begin by paying attention to the assumptions being made, the logical fallacies clouding the discussion, and the utter lack of any principle of “innocent until proven guilty” in the national discussion.  Yup, I’m appealing to all sorts of ‘western’ philosophical and procedural traditions here.  I’m appealing to what I consider to be the best of what Canada has to offer.

Right now, we are stuck in an adversarial battle that is further dividing us, and I don’t just mean natives versus non-natives.  There are plenty of non-aboriginal Canadians who are truly sickened by the way these discussions have developed.  This path will bring false closure much more quickly than a real national discussion, and perhaps this easy way out is preferable to some.  Few people enjoy having those ‘relationship discussions’.

But we’re going to have to do it someday.  I see no reason to continue putting it off.  Let’s just admit we had a fight so we can stop feeling defensive, and let’s get talking like we want this thing we have to last.

‎As Paul Simon once said, “breakdowns come and breakdowns go, so what are we going to do about it, that’s what I’d like to know. You don’t feel you could love me but I feel you could”.

Update: Here is an excellent discussion that goes beyond the surface details and too-familiar accusations.  Make sure you check out the interview after the panel discussion.

*for those logical fallacy wizards among you, note that this question is aimed at those who do not understand what is happening and is thus not begging the question.  If you feel you have it all figured out, I urge you to share your knowledge with those of us who are still struggling to make sense of it all.

Ripping off native artists: it’s the new black!

I am quite upset to learn that a fellow going by the name Grey Owl (and I kid thee not, the irony of course being quite rich)  is stealing the work of the phenomenal Métis artist, Christi Belcourt. His real name is actually Jack Walter Lamb, a gun-loving Tea Party supporter who also also loves floral beadwork.  He’s had her stuff up for sale since March of this year.

On his “Ojibwae Crafts” website (which has finally been taken down by Mr. Lamb) this fraud had the nerve to claim:

We are Native American Craftsmen of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. We provide Certificates of Authenticity with tribal ID numbers, spiritual guidance and meanings with each of our pieces.

Hmm.  What Certificates of Authenticity, spiritual guidance and meanings can you provide for these pieces you have stolen from Christi Belcourt’s webpage?

He was offering a print of a picture he called Tree of Life.  Huh.  It’s actually called “Resilience of the Flower Beadwork People”.

Oh but that isn’t all he’s trying to peddle (apparently zazzle has finally taken these down!!).  Here he’s got one of Christi’s works printed on a ‘Chippewa iPhone skin‘.  Here you’ve got essentially the same thing, but now it’s an ‘Ojibway Blackberry case‘.  Here are some beautiful copyright violations in the form of shoes.

I wonder how much money this…entrepreneur has made off the brilliance and hard work of a native artist?  I wonder what the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe thinks about this fellow not only violating copyright, but also claiming affiliation to give his theft legitimacy and possibly violating the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990?

Even if this fellow is a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, the law nonetheless states, “It is illegal to market an art or craft item using the name of a tribe if a member, or certified Indian artisan, of that tribe did not actually create the art or craft item…products advertised as “Hopi Jewelry” would be in violation of the Act if they were produced by someone who is not a member, or certified Indian artisan, of the Hopi tribe.”

This law does not just apply to non-natives passing their work off as native art, but also attempts to prevent native artists from claiming their work (or work they have stolen as in this case) is from an aboriginal culture other than their own.

Except this really isn’t about Mr. Grey Owl.  This is about a native artist, coming across her work on an online store and seeing it being passed off as someone else’s.  It’s about a native artist spending an entire day trying to get that online store (zazzle.ca) to take the products down, and getting nowhere because they refuse to accept responsibility for what their users do s (if you’re not suspicious yet about the other ‘Native American artwork’ up there, you should be).  It’s about the time and effort she is going to have to expend to protect her work, and the worry she is going to have about this happening again in the future.

Christi is pursuing legal action through CARFAC (Canadian Artists Representation/ Le Front des Artistes Canadiens), but other native artists have been sharing their horror stories of copyright infringement as well, and it’s clear this is not an isolated incident.  I realise this happens to artists of all backgrounds, but the way in which these pieces are passed off as belonging to different aboriginal groups (all at the same time), along with made-up ‘spiritual guidance’ under the guise of being “Real Authentic Indian Stuff!” is particularly offensive to me. It is misleading, and it is exploitative. Not only of the artist herself, but also of consumers who understandably would be delighted with the images she has created, but who would be led to believe that they belonged to someone else, meant something else, came from somewhere else.

I feature a piece of one of her works on this page because she is a person of singular and important talent.  She has done so much to revitalise our traditions, to learn our medicines and to pass along her knowledge.  This kind of theft undoes the education she is engaged in.

I urge people to be very, very careful about ‘real authentic Indian stuff’.  Please, find out where it is made, and who the artist is.  Dig deeper than a printed ‘Certificate of Authenticity’ or a web-page assurance.

A few months ago, I bought a Cree tamarack decoy when I was staying at a hotel in Val d’Or.  They are beautiful, they smell great, and I liked that they represent a different tradition from the Cree back home.  To me, they are a symbol of our diversity.  I made a point of tracking down the craftsman, finding out his name and the community he is from, before I purchased it.

Please do the same before you buy something that is supposedly a native craft.  It would help greatly in stopping people like this whose only talent appears to be theft and lies.

For the native artists out there…this may be a good lesson for you.  (I realised after that this seems like I’m wagging my finger at you like you did something wrong…not my intent!) It would be great to have a discussion about what you can do to protect yourself from this sort of theft.

Sending a Take-Down notice

I’ve had a friend who is a graphic designer explain that if the offending website is based in the US, you can send a DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) take-down notice.  This website explains how you can do this yourself.  The site is required to take the content down until the person implicated can prove it is theirs.

You shouldn’t have to incur attorney fees just to protect your intellectual property.  This step can at least give you some direct power over protecting your work.  As more information becomes available, I’ll update:)

ay-ay mistahi.

Update (Dec.10) email from Jack Lamb:

“Ok, I think I have all the images deleted, contacted zazzle to have any products deleted. I will make CERTAIN that any reference or any use of those beadwork pictures are deleted from any site, file, etc that I have. I cannot access the ojibwaecrafts site right now. When I can the same will be deleted as soon as possible. As I think I stated previously I found those on a search of a .edu site looking for HISTORIC ojibway art. I will make sure that anything is researched more completely from here on out. My sincere apologies to the artist!! If you find any such image out there let me know and I will do anything I can to help out. I understand completely. I had not obscured the image or changed the sig. I worked on the colors and then sharpened and merged it to make more of a pattern. Obviously, not the right thing to do with anothers work. I think I have it all down. Will do better research! Again, if you find anything, just contact me for help.” – Jack Lamb

 

Follow up (Dec. 11)

Jack Lamb has, as you can see above and in the comments below, indicated that the entire issue was based on believing the pieces in question were ‘historic’ pieces of art, thus likely ‘in the public domain’.  Without any opinion on whether his statements are true or not, it brings up an interesting issue of the anonimity of aboriginal artists, and the status of ‘historic’ art.

I mentioned earlier how important it is for consumers to be more diligent in finding out where their art is coming from, but that caution clearly needs to be applied to others who wish to make derivative pieces as well.

I can go to a museum and see gorgeous pieces of Mi’gmaq beading for example.  Sometimes the artist is identified, and at other times the museum does not know who produced the piece.  Because of the age of the piece, the art represented is basically ‘in the public domain’ (free to use) according to Canadian law.

This approach completely ignores cultural or communal ownership. Certainly we need to have discussions on what we would like to see change about that.

To me, there are a few things that are extremely important even absent that ‘big’ discussion about rights and laws and protections.  One would be proper attribution.  “Mi’gmaq” is still too broad.  Was it truly impossible to find out where a particular piece was produced, or did the curators simply lack the resources to delve deeper?  I would ask the same of those people finding ‘historic’ art and using them for derivative works.

The second is also about attribution, but in a broader sense.  Identifying something as “Ojibway” simply because that is how someone previously identified it, may have you showcasing a piece that was actually representative of another people’s beadwork.  Clearly more research is needed than just taking someone else’s word for it.

The third would be determining whether it is appropriate at all, regardless of intellectual property laws, to take a ‘historic’ piece and profit from it in the first place.  I think that ties back into that ‘big’ discussion, and is one that really needs to be fleshed out.

The decision to pursue this further or not is entirely Christi Belcourt’s.  The discussion this event has sparked is both interesting, and incredibly important.

The consequences of going viral

Now that comments are trickling in at only 3 or 4 an hour instead of 20 or 30, I feel like I can breathe again.  What a weird couple of days!

Let me see.  What have I learned so far about having a post go viral? 

Nothing prepares you for it.

There was no way I thought more than a few dozen people were going to read that post.  When it started getting tweeted back and forth and facebooked all over the place, and suddenly politicians and writers and chiefs and people I’ve never met in my life were talking about it, I had no idea what the heck to do about it.  For two solid days straight I was online trying to keep up with comments.

The most views I’d gotten in a single day before all this was 132.  The day after I posted the Attawapiskat piece, there were over 38,000 views!

I didn’t write that piece for a large audience, I wrote it for myself and for my friends.  I realise that this is part of the appeal, but it’s like preparing a few talking points for a class discussion and discovering you’re presenting to a stadium.  Yikes!

More importantly, not being prepared meant I did not have time to really consider whether I wanted my real name out there or not.  I gave an interview with cbc, and boom.  There I was.  I’m not sure I’d make the same choice again.

Some people want you to explain absolutely everything in a single post.

A lot of comments critiquing this post have to do with information I didn’t give, and things I didn’t explain. As it is, that post is loooooong!  Can you imagine if I tried to tackle more in a single piece?  You’d be crying tears of boredom trying to get through it.  All I did was dig a little deeper into the number being discussed so heavily in the media.  I was disturbed by the surface detail being presented in articles and talked about in the comments.

This is just how I write.  I’m not a professional journalist.  I’m not a political activist or a politician.  I’m not a host of weird things people have been saying they believe I am. I’m just a snoopy person who doesn’t take people’s word for it, particularly anonymous people on the internet.  I like sources.  I like facts I can check.  I find that when you present these things to people, then you aren’t just pointlessly trading opinions.

This blog isn’t commercial in any way and I haven’t made a cent from this.  My most ambitious goal for this post and subsequent topical posts was to be able to use them in online debates.  Responses to  accusations I see made over and over again and have gotten tired of responding to from scratch with such an expense of personal energy.  If other people could use them as well, then that was a bonus.  It certainly wasn’t prepared for national consumption in mind!

You can’t control where your piece ends up.

This blog has been reposted so many different places I gave up trying to track it anymore.  Most people have been great about asking first. Not all have, however.

The mix-up with the National Post, where they attributed my work to someone else by accident, is not really a big deal to me. (By the way, I really want to clarify something here.  The fellow who had his name attached to the article was  not trying to pass himself off as the author.  He came across the post the same way most of you did, and sent it to the National Post who didn’t fact check rigorously enough and published it with his name.  I appreciate that people were upset, but this guy shouldn’t be blamed for what happened.)

What freaks me out a little more is the simple fact that it was posted on the National Post at all.  I wouldn’t have chosen that publication to have my piece in.  I wrote about Attawapiskat on my blog specifically to get away from awful, hateful, racist comments.  I can control the comments on my blog, and when people just start smearing me, or others, I can edit their posts.

(Contrary to some claims, I haven’t had to do this much.  Maybe 10 posts out of over 700 comments, plenty of which are comments that don’t agree with me and have remained up, unchanged.  However, I think that people were more willing to engage here for whatever reason, and perhaps the kind of environment on places like the National Post just encourages inflammatory remarks rather than dialogue.)

Anyway, let me just say that it’s bad enough having people say really ugly things about you in general.  Having them say ugly things about you when they know your name and roughly where you live?  That’s just plain creepy.  I have never had any desire to be in the spotlight.  I avoid those comment sections not just because people say ignorant and hateful things…but because now I’ve got people saying ignorant and hateful things about me, personally.

I know I shouldn’t focus on that, because most people aren’t hating on me.  My name is out there now, and there’s nothing I can do about it.  My blog post is out there being picked to pieces, and that’s out of my hands too. On the positive side, I’ve gotten a lot of feedback from people who were really happy to read this, and honestly there’s been way more on that positive side than on the negative.

I am trying not to let it get to me that people have all sorts of assumptions about why I wrote this, or what I’m trying to say.  I can’t correct all the weird misconceptions.  Man do people like to accuse, though!  It’s pretty hardcore.  This is me, growing a much thicker skin in the span of a few days!

Most of all though?  I wasn’t wrong.  People really are awesome.

You’ve got to ask yourself sometimes, as a native person, hell just as a person in general, if things are ever going to change.  I’ve been fighting a long time against stereotypes and misconceptions (maybe that’s why some people are claiming I’m some sort of activist).  It can get you down pretty badly sometimes, because you constantly face that crap when you start speaking out about it.  When you’re that voice in the back of the room saying, “wait a minute…” you end up having to deal with a lot of demands like, “well justify this to me then” or hearing about how you just don’t understand reality and so on… because speaking out makes you a target.

A lot of people I know are really good at just not getting into it with people, and just living their lives in that good way.  I really admire that.  They hear all the same crap, but they just let it pass over them.  I’ve never been able to do that.  Wish I could sometimes.

What I’m trying to say is, sometimes you feel like not trying anymore.  Like it’s not worth it to keep explaining things over and over again.  You want to turn inward, and you start not trusting people.

This whole thing has affirmed something really important for me.  I no longer have any doubt about the sincerity of the majority of people to engage in dialogue and learning.  I don’t have all the answers, I never have and I never will, and all I’ve ever wanted is to get past the anger to just have good conversations with people.  I feel like that was possible here.  I feel like it’s possible into the future.

I know I’m not the only one feeling it.  People talk about inspiration, well, I’ve been inspired.  Yes, there are some angry, closed-minded people out there.  Most of the rest of us are just living our lives, and we don’t seem to have time for all of that crap.  So I want to thank the people who have read the Attawapiskat post, who have shared it, who have talked with people about it…even those many of you who don’t necessarily agree with me or who still have questions (which you should).  Thank you for moving us a little beyond the embarassment of grown men in important positions calling each other names and using the misery of others to score political points.

Still, I’ll be happy when it’s over.

The nice thing about the bizarre internet phenomenon of viral anything?  It comes quickly, and leaves quickly.  I’ll be happy when this blog can once again just be about quirky aspects of Cree grammar, or the odd rant here and there about whatever is going on.

Thanks for letting me vent, I’ve got to go start scrubbing all the boot-marks off the blog floor now.  It’s been quite the stampede, but all the fry-bread is eaten up and I’ll bet people will be trickling back to their regular haunts soon!

Update:

I received a phonecall from Kelly McParland at the National Post, and he apologised for the mix-up.  He said that he thought it was a really good piece, and didn’t check up on who the author was well enough.  Once he realised the mistake, he felt it was important to keep the piece up with clarification as to what happened, rather than take it down and cause further confusion.  He noted that the policy of the National Post is to first ask permission of the author before republishing, and once more he apologised that this did not happen in this case.  I don’t have contact information on this blog, so he had to do a bit of digging to find my number and talk to me about it.

It was pretty nice to hear from him, honestly and I feel a lot better about the whole thing.  I think it was an honest mistake.  As I’ve mentioned in some of the comments, enough people have talked to me about the pros of having the piece in the National Post that a lot of my initial unease about being ‘outed’ has faded.  Yes, I would have liked the chance to think over whether I wanted to appear in the National Post, but things happen, and I think it has turned out well.

Whew, now we can get back to the real issues! 😀

First Nations taxation

I’ve been struggling with what to write next, given the unreal amount of attention my last blog post got.  I felt some pressure to use the attention to get a message out…but what do I say, where do I start?  How can I top a ‘big picture’ article like one by Wayne Spear, which address so much of what I’ve been trying to say in my responses to comments?

Well I can’t, and that isn’t my goal anyway.  This isn’t a competition for Most Important All-Encompassing Message, and I don’t suddenly have all the answers just because one blog post went viral.  So I’m going to stick to the plan.  I’m going to discuss specific topics and try to demystify them for you.  These aren’t going to be “definitive guides to” anything, but I hope to give you enough information that you can avoid letting these topics draw all your attention away from the big picture discussed by Spear and so many others.

Roll up your sleeves, nitôtêmitik!  Today we’re tackling First Nations taxation!

The short answer first:

• The Indian Act First Nations tax exemption is very narrow and applies only to personal property and income located on a reserve.
• First Nations pay all other taxes not covered by the narrow exemption.
• The tax exemption only involves about 272,000 First Nations people when you subtract the number of children aged 0-14 from the potential tax paying base.
• That number is actually even lower because a number of First Nations have exchanged tax exemption for other benefits in self-governing Final Agreements.

Indians don’t even pay taxes, why should they get my tax dollars blaaargh (head explodes)!!!!???

I’m sending you the dry-cleaning bill.  Just saying.

This is one of the most common complaints that comes up in any discussion of any news story concerning First Nations.  I am going to focus on the factual aspects of First Nations taxation more than the philosophical discussions of ‘who should be taxed’ and ‘where should my taxes go’, so I’m not going to answer your question in its entirety.

The first thing you need to know is that most aboriginal peoples don’t get tax exemptions.  The tax exemptions that do exist are linked completely to the reserves, so non-Status Indians, Inuit, Métis, and most Status Indians living off reserve, don’t get any tax exemptions at all.  That narrows down the people eligible for tax exemptions by a pretty huge margin.

In 2006, there were 1,172,790 First Nations, Métis and Inuit.  Out of that, 623,780 were Status Indians (called Registered Indians in the table). Again, I focus on Status Indians (the legal term) because later on you’ll see that only they have access to the tax exemptions being discussed here.

Out of that, about 299,970 Status Indians were living on reserve, give or take based on not-totally complete census results. [Filter by area of residence to see this.]  It is this group that account for the majority of people who are eligible for the tax exemptions under discussion.

Yeah but okay so about 300,000 – 400,000 Indians don’t pay any taxes!!!!

I hate to do this to you (no I don’t), but I can’t start this discussion until I whittle the numbers down a little more for you.  I think it’s important we keep in mind the actual numbers at play here before we decide to get hysterical about money pouring out of our pockets like a river of multicoloured polymer substrate bills.

I’m not going to point out that in 2006, [sort by age group to check my numbers] there were 196, 285 Status Indians between the ages of 0-14 for a whopping 32% of the total Status Indian population, significantly decreasing the population of potential First Nations tax payers.

I’m not going to mention that the number of Status Indians  on reserve who would even be eligible to pay income taxes absent a tax exemption, was only 198,310 [change the filter on ‘area of residence’ and then filter by age group]. Unless you think kids aged 0-14 should be included in the labour force and paying income tax. (“But their tiny hands are ideal for polishing the insides of shells!”)

Or, if we are more generous and assume there are actually about 400,000 Status Indians living on reserve and 32% of them are under 14, then it’s 272,000 people that would be eligible to pay income taxes absent the tax exemption. That is also assuming you can actually work until you die of extreme old age, paying income taxes all the while.

I’m not going to point out that this number is pretty reliable year after year, given that the birthrate among First Nations people is pretty high, keeping the 0-14 age group amounts steady if not increasing each year.

I won’t finish up highlighting the fact that what we’re actually talking about here is about 272,000 people across Canada who have access to Indian Act tax exemptions, because I suspect the total numbers aren’t the issue so much as the principle of the thing.

I’m not even going to bother with that stuff, because I want you to know that there are more than 120 First Nations communities across Canada that have an on-reserve property tax regime, generating about $70 million in revenues annually.  A list of those reserves can be found here, organised by province.  The taxes are collected by the Bands, and used for the Bands.

In addition, there are communities that have negotiated self-governance and other alternate tax regimes with the federal government so that the Band levies things like the First Nations Sales Tax, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax, and/or the First Nations Personal Income Tax.  In the Yukon Territories, for example, 11 out  of the 14 First Nations are no longer tax exempt under self-governing Final Agreements.  This reduces the total number of people actually eligible for Indian Act tax exemptions even more.

This doesn’t affect the overall question you have about who should pay taxes and where that money should go of course, but I thought you might like to know that out of the 616 First Nations reserves in this country, close to 20% of them have a property tax regime, and some of them have even more comprehensive taxation regimes in place.

Whoopdeedoo, so a few of them pay property taxes (and a few other taxes) that don’t benefit me at all, what’s your point?

Well the claim that is often made is that First Nations don’t pay any taxes at all.  That might not be the real issue, but it’s certainly worth addressing so that more people understand the reality of the situation. I hope you don’t mind if I continue then.

I am going to quote INAC here (now the unpronounceable AANDC):

In general, Aboriginal people in Canada are required to pay taxes on the same basis as other people in Canada, except where the limited exemption under Section 87 of the Indian Act applies. Section 87 says that the “personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve” is tax exempt.

Alright.  Do you have your Timmy’s coffee ready?  I feel like using a list format to break this down for you.

• This tax exemption applies to both federal and provincial taxes like income and sales taxes.

• Non-status Indians are not eligible for this tax exemption.

• Status Indians who don’t live on reserve are not generally eligible for this tax exemption, unless they are purchasing goods and services on reserve or are employed on reserve.

• Goods that are purchased on reserve are exempt.

• Goods that are purchased off reserve and are delivered to the reserve by the retailer’s official agent are tax exempt.  If a Status Indian wants to transport goods back to the reserve, then legally they are not exempt.  Taxes on meals, movie tickets, and a host of other things that couldn’t conceivably be brought back to the reserve are also not tax exempt.

• Services provided on reserve are tax exempt.  Services provided off reserve are not tax exempt, unless under Section 90 of the Indian Act, the services were purchased with “Indian monies”.  That means ‘official Band monies’, used for things like off-reserve lawyer fees, accountant fees and so on.  Average Band members aren’t accessing those funds, so the services they purchase aren’t tax exempt.

• Income is considered ‘personal property’ if it’s earned on reserve.  Once you work off reserve, that exemption does not apply and you’re paying income taxes…even if your employer is situated on the reserve.  If your duties are off-reserve in nature, it’s off-reserve income and taxable.  Are there some nitpicky exceptions?  With taxation there always are, but this is the general rule.

• First Nations corporations and trusts don’t qualify for the Section 87 tax exemption.  INAC explains this pretty well, pointing out that legally a corporation is a separate ‘legal person’ and is not therefore an “Indian”.

Do you have more specific questions about taxation as it relates to investment income or other areas?  Feel free to look into it!

Hold on, I know for a fact that some people using their Status cards for point-of-sale exemptions aren’t living on reserve or having goods delivered there, what gives?

There are a variety of provincial  policies that attempt to make point-of-sales exemptions less painful for all involved.  Some of these policies were created to deal with confusion surrounding the implementation of  the Harmonised Sales Tax (HST) which blends provincial and federal sales taxes. These policies respect the specific exemption we’ve been discussing here, but may provide more relaxed enforcement policies for the provincial portion.

For example, some provinces waive the enforcement of the delivery rule on the provincial portion of the sales tax, allowing a First Nations person to transport goods to the reserve his or herself.  Part of the reasoning here is that requiring delivery to be made by an agent of the vendor has the potential to negate the exemption, as any savings incurred are eaten up by delivery fees.  Other provinces have harmonised their provincial policies with federal policies.

I mention this because the issue is confusing.  Many salespeople do not really understand the exemption and the limitations on it, and some First Nations people aren’t totally clear on it either.  The implementation of this tax exemption can then run into practical problems when people either intentionally or unintentionally mess up how the exemption is applied.

However, the issue is what the legal exemption actually is versus what many believe it to be.  It is important to understand the actual legal exemption rather than characterising the issue by the instances of ‘cheating’.

Even if every single Status Indian in this country (including infants at the breast) were to abuse point of sale rebates, we’d be talking about 600,000 people at most ‘cheating the system’. How many people cheat the system beyond that, claiming fake work expenses, not declaring tips, not declaring other income and so on?

Tax evasion is not unique to any group of people, it is a wider reality.

That still means a bunch of them aren’t paying Income Taxes, which is big time revenue!

I recognise that personal income tax revenue accounts for over 20% of total revenue federally and 15% on average provincially (with a range from 2.3% to 26.6% depending on the province or territory).

Sales taxes account for 11% of total revenue federally, and 8.4% on average provincially (with a range from 0% to 16.2% depending on the province or territory).

This is what a lot of people think about.  Money that isn’t there because of the tax exemption.  Potentially a lot of money not going into public coffers to help pay for social programs.

This argument dismisses the fact that there are other segments of the Canadian population that do not pay income taxes either.  I am not going to look up raw numbers on this, because I think it is beside the point.

No way sister!  It IS the point!

Here is why I disagree.

I think there are two possible arguments you are making here:

1. You think that people who do not pay income taxes or sales taxes, should  not then be eligible for programs paid for from those tax revenues.
2. You want to have a say in where your tax dollars go.

If you are arguing point 1, then you aren’t just talking about First Nations people.  Not if you want to approach the issue honestly.  If you believe that only people contributing to these particular tax revenues should receive social programming, then you and I disagree on a fundamental philosophical level that is beyond the scope of First Nations taxation.  I’d even suggest you disagree with a general Canadian belief that does not link individual taxation amounts to eligibility for social programming.  That generalised discussion should be engaged in elsewhere, not merely trained on First Nations people.

If you are arguing point 2, then again you are engaging in a topic that is far beyond the scope of merely First Nations taxation.  There are any number of arguments you could make about how you, the individual tax payer, should be able to direct the spending of your tax dollars (“Why should I pay for programs I will never access?” being a common complaint).  However, the fact is the Canadian government has set up a particular tax spending regime that you have minimal individual control over.  Once more this issue should not be narrowed to only apply to First Nations.

Okay fine, even if I accept that, why do Status Indians living on reserve get this tax exemption in the first place?

Allow me to once again quote INAC on that:

• A tax exemption for Indian property situated on reserves has existed since before Confederation.
• The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that this exemption is linked to the protection of reserve land and property.
• The Court has concluded that the purpose of the exemption is to make sure tax does not erode the use of Indian property on reserves.
• The Court has indicated that this tax exemption is not intended to remedy the economically disadvantaged position of Aboriginal people in Canada or bring economic benefits to them.

This may not satisfy you.  If that is the case, then you are going to have to delve deeper into the history of this country to understand why this tax exemption was set up.

What I have just said might also not satisfy you.  Perhaps you came here figuring I would answer all your questions.  So can I ask you a question?

Why are churches tax exempt?  Why are non-profit corporations tax exempt?  Can you provide me with a quick and satisfying answer without a historical and sociological explanation?

Fine but I’m still not happy about this!

My main purpose here was to address the claim that “Indians don’t pay taxes”.  It isn’t an accurate statement at all, and I hope you understand this better now. The various justifications for the narrow tax exemption that does exist are more in the nature of a historical and philosophical discussion that can be had elsewhere or at another time.

If you had anywhere near the amount of coffee I’ve ingested while writing this, you’ll probably appreciate this being wrapped up now!  My thanks for your time.

Dealing with comments about Attawapiskat

I still intend to get a series of posts out clarifying issues like First Nations housing, health-care, education and so on, but I have a confession.  I haven’t been staying away from the comments sections of articles about Attawapiskat.

I know.  It’s not healthy.  There are so many racist rants and outright ignorant responses that it can bog you down.  Where do you even begin, when the people making these comments do not seem to understand even the bare minimum about the subject?

Well, I try to answer questions with facts.  Here are some of those facts, if you’re interested.

Harper said Attawapiskat got $90 million, where did it all go!?

Yes, Prime Minister Harper is apparently scratching his head about where $90 million in federal funding to Attawapiskat has gone.  Many commentators then go on to make claims about lack of accountability, and no one knowing what happens to the money once it is ‘handed over’ by the Federal government.

Let’s start simple.

First, please note that $90 million is a deceptive number.  It refers to federal funding received since Harper’s government came into power in 2006.  In the 2010-2011 fiscal year, Attawapiskat received $17.6 million in federal funds (PDF).  The document linked to shows the breakdown of federal funds in case you wanted to know how much is allocated to things like medical transportation, education, maternal health care and so on.

Thus, $90 million refers to the total of an average of about $18 million per year in federal funding since 2006.

[As an aside, you will often see the figure of $34 or $35 million in funding given to Attawapiskat a year.  This actually refers to total revenues.  As noted, federal funding was $17.6 million, and provincial funding was $4.4 million.  The community brings in about $12 million of its own revenue, as shown here.  So no, the ‘government’ is not giving Attawapiskat $34 million a year.]

Okay fine, but where did it go?

Attawapiskat publishes its financial statements going back to 2005. If you want to know where the money was spent, you can look in the audited financial reports.  This document (PDF) for example provides a breakdown of all program funding.

Just getting to this stage alone proves false the claim that there is no accountability and no one knows where the money goes.

But $90 million could have built the community 360 brand new houses!!

Assuming, as Grand Chief Stan Louttit of the Mushkegowyk Council has stated, that a new house costs $250,000 to build in Attawapiskat (with half of that being transportation costs), then yes, 360 new units could have been provided by $90 million.

However, this money was not just earmarked for the construction of new homes.

An important fact that many commentators forget (or are unaware of) is that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the Federal Crown exclusive powers over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.”

You see, for non-natives, the provinces are in charge of funding things like education, health-care, social services and so on.  For example, the Province of Ontario allocated $10,730 in education funding per non-native pupil in the 2010-2011 fiscal year.  For most First Nations, particularly those on reserve, the federal government through INAC is responsible for providing funds for native education.

How is this relevant?

It helps explain why the entire $90 million was not allocated to the construction of new houses.  That $90 million includes funding for things like:

• education per pupil
• education infrastructure (maintenan­ce, repair, teacher salaries, etc)
• health-care per patient
• health-care, infrastruc­ture (clinics, staff, access to services outside the community in the absence of facilities on reserve)
• social services (facilitie­s, staff, etc)
• infrastruc­ture (maintenan­ce and constructi­on)
• a myriad of other services

These costs are often not taken into account when attempting to compare a First Nation reserve to a non-native municipality.  In fact, many people forget that their own health-care and education are heavily subsidised by tax dollars as well.

What’s the point here?

How much money was actually allocated to housing in 2010-2011?  Page 2 of Schedule A (PDF) shows us that out of the $17.6 million in federal funds, only $2 million was provided for housing. Yes, even $2 million would be enough to 8 brand new homes, if those funds were not also used to maintain and repair existing homes.  The specific breakdown of how that money was spent is found in Schedule I.

Now, I admit I am confused about something.  The Harper article states:

According to figures providing by Aboriginal Affairs, the Attawapiskat Cree band has received just over $3 million in funds specifically for housing and a further $2.8 million in infrastructure money since 2006.

That is actually less than I estimated it would be, going by the 2010-2011 figures.  I estimated $10 million for housing, but INAC (now Aboriginal Affairs) is saying it was $5.8 million.

Anyway, that isn’t too important.  The point is, if INAC is correct, only $5.8 million has gone towards housing for Attawapiskat.  At most that could have built the community 23 new houses, if Attawapiskat had merely let the older houses go without any repairs or maintenance for 5 years.  Letting existing homes go like that is not a great strategy, however.

The point here is, $90 million sounds like a huge amount, but the real figures allocated to housing are much, much smaller.

Fine, they got $5.8 million for housing, surely that is enough?

Again, assuming 23 new homes were built, and all older homes were left without maintenance and repairs, and the people in charge of housing worked for free and there were no other costs associated with administering the housing program, Attawapiskat would still be experiencing a housing crisis.

It is estimated that $84 million is needed for housing alone to meet Attawapiskat’s housing needs (you’ll find those figures in a small table on the right, titled “Attawapiskat by the numbers”).

The Feds are just handing that money over and the Band does whatever it wants with it!

Many people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that First Nations have self-governance and run themselves freely.  This is far from the truth, but given that most Canadians are familiar with the municipal model, the confusion is actually understandable.  It isn’t as though Canada does a very good job of teaching people about the Indian Act.

CLARIFICATION AND CORRECTION, Dec. 7

I am going to quote the following so that what I originally said is still viewable here. After the quote I am going to correct a factual error and clarify the issue.  My apologies for not getting to this sooner! 

Section 61(1)(a-k) of the Indian Act details that: “With the consent of the council of a band, the Minister may authorize and direct the expenditure of capital moneys of the band” for various purposes.

What this means is that Ministerial approval is actually a requirement before any capital expenditures can occur on reserve.  In practice, a Band will generally pass a Band Council Resolution (BCR) authorising a certain expenditure (say on housing), and that BCR must be forwarded to INAC for approval.

CORRECTION:

First of all, I was actually quoting section 64(1)(a-k) of the Indian Act, not section 61. This section allows the Band to empower the Minister to make capital expenditures on behalf of the Band, and does not require the Minister to okay all Band expenditures.  My apologies for this error, made in haste when this was initially posted.

CLARIFICATION:

The above does not mean that there is not federal oversight, however.

Federal control of expenditures is exercised through a variety of very restrictive funding mechanisms, a major one of which is contribution agreements.

To give you a sense of what contribution agreements are and how they work, I’m going to use Health Canada Contribution Agreements as an example. The following quote explains what the contribution agreement is and what the requirements are: (bolding my own)

• It is the basis on which Health Canada will monitor your progress and assess your claims for payment;
• It specifies the maximum federal contribution and what activities are eligible for funding;
• It outlines the objectives of the project and how they will be measured and identifies the deliverables;
• It tells you how often you must submit progress reports and claims; etc…

Please also note this quote:

When you receive a cheque depends on when you submit progress and financial reports

Health Canada cannot issue a payment until you properly account for expenditures through a claim submission and progress report.

Similar spending restrictions and reporting requirements exist in contribution agreements between Bands and INAC as well.

That’s right.  Most First Nations have to get permission before they can spend money. CLARIFICATION: This does not equate to individual approval for each separate expense, but rather involves very specific expenditure restrictions laid out in formal agreements. Not only that, but Bands must submit regular and detailed reports in order to continue to receive funding. That is the opposite of ‘doing whatever they want’ with the money.  Bands are micromanaged to an extent unseen in nearly any other context that does not involve a minor or someone who lacks capacity due to mental disability.

Any claims that INAC has no control over what Bands spend their money on is false.

I would hope by now you’d ask the following question:

If INAC has to approve spending, why is Harper so confused?

There is a tendency to believe that our government officials do things in a way that makes sense.  This, despite the fact that most of us don’t actually believe this to be true.  We want to believe.  I know I do.

So upon learning that the federal government is the one in charge of providing services to First Nations that are provided to non-natives by the province, we might assume that the provision of these services are administered in a comparable manner.

Not so!  And it actually makes sense why not, when you think about it for a moment.  Have you ever seen a federal hospital, for example?  No, because hospitals are built, maintained, and staffed by the provinces.  Thus, when a First Nations person needs to access health-care, they cannot access federal infrastructure.  They must access provincial infrastructure and have the feds rather than the province pick up the tab.

If only it were as easy as federal funding via provincial structures.

The Auditor General of Canada speaks up.

The Auditor General of Canada released a report in June of this year examining Programs for First Nations on Reserve.  A similar report was published in 2006.  This report identifies deficiencies in program planning and delivery by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Health Canada, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

The reports also provide a number of recommendations to improve these deficiencies.  The 2011 report evaluated the progress made since the 2006 report, and in most areas, gave these federal agencies a failing grade.

Don’t worry, there is a point to this, stay with me.

The 2011 report has this to say:

In our view, many of the problems facing First Nations go deeper than the existing programs’ lack of efficiency and effectiveness. We believe that structural impediments severely limit the delivery of public services to First Nations communities and hinder improvements in living conditions on reserves. We have identified four such impediments:

• lack of clarity about service levels,
• lack of a legislative base,
• lack of an appropriate funding mechanism, and
• lack of organizations to support local service delivery.

I know this is going to look like mumbo jumbo at first, so let me break it down a little for you.  This will help explain why millions of dollars of funding is not enough to actually improve the living conditions of First Nations people, particularly those on reserve.

Lack of clarity about service levels

As explained earlier the federal government is in charge of delivering services that are otherwise provided by the provinces to non-natives.  The Auditor General states:

“It is not always evident whether the federal government is committed to providing services on reserves of the same range and quality as those provided to other communities across Canada.”

Shockingly, the federal government does not always have clear program objectives, nor does it necessarily specify specific roles and responsibilities for program delivery, and has not established measures for evaluating performance in order to determine if outcome are actually met.

What!?

That’s right.  The federal government is not keeping track of what it does, how it does it, or whether what it is doing works.  The Auditor General recommends the federal government fix this, pronto.  How can a community rely on these services if the federal government itself isn’t even clear on what it is providing and whether the programs are working?

Lack of a legislative base

“Provincial legislation provides a basis of clarity for services delivered by provinces. A legislative base for programs specifies respective roles and responsibilities, eligibility, and other program elements. It constitutes an unambiguous commitment by government to deliver those services. The result is that accountability and funding are better defined.”

The provinces all have some sort of Education Act that clearly lays out the roles and responsibilities of education authorities, as well as mechanisms of evaluation.  There is generally no comparable federal legislation for the provision of First Nations education, health-care, housing and so on.

As noted by the AG, legislation provides clarity and accountability.  Without it, decision can be made on an ill-defined ‘policy’ basis or on a completely ad hoc basis.

Lack of an appropriate funding mechanism

The AG focuses on a few areas here.

Lack of service standards for one. Were you aware that provincial building codes do not apply on reserve?  Some provincial laws of ‘general application’  (like Highway Traffic Acts) can apply on reserve, but building codes do not.  There is a federal National Building Code, but enforcement and inspection has been a major problem.  This has been listed as one of the factors in why homes built on reserve do not have a similar ‘life’ to those built off reserve.

Poor timing for provision of funds is another key issue.  “Most contribution agreements must be renewed yearly. In previous audits, we found that the funds may not be available until several months into the period to be funded.”  This is particularly problematic for housing as “money often doesn’t arrive until late summer, past the peak construction period, so projects get delayed and their costs rise.”

Lack of accountability.

“It is often unclear who is accountable to First Nations members for achieving improved outcomes or specific levels of services. First Nations often cite a lack of federal funding as the main reason for inadequate services. For its part, INAC maintains that the federal government funds services to First Nations but is not responsible for the delivery or provision of these services.”

The AG also refers to a heavy reporting burden put on First Nations, and notes that the endless paperwork often is completely ignored anyway by federal agencies.

Lack of organisations to support local service delivery

This refers once again to the fact that there are no federal school or health boards, no federal infrastructure and expertise.  Some programs are delivered through provincial structures, while others are provided directly by the federal government, with less than stellar results.

As the Auditor General states, “Change is needed if meaning full progress is to be realised“.  There is extreme lack of clarity about what the federal government is doing, why, how, and whether it is at all effective.  No wonder Harper is confused!

Tired yet?

Don’t worry, the commentators aren’t finished, and neither am I.

The Chief of Attawapiskat made $71,000 last year while her people live in tents!!!

Apparently we are supposed to be outraged at the excess involved here.  This of course follows on the heels of a report by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation about ‘jaw-dropping’ reserve salaries.  It’s become fashionable to rant about Chiefs making more than premiers (though no one could make that claim here).

Attawapiskat publishes its salaries, travel expenses and honorariums (again, nothing being hidden here).  Chief Theresa Spence was paid $69,575 in salary and honorariums in 2010-2011, and had $1,798 in travel expenses for a total of about $71K.

If you are like most people, you don’t spend a lot of time looking at what public employees actually make.  What number wouldn’t shock you in the absence of such context?  $50,000?  $32,000?  I suspect any amount would be offered as some sort of proof of…something not right.

Well okay.  Why don’t we take a look at some other salaries?  But first, note that Ontario Premier McGuinty made $209,000 in 2010, and apparently over 100 public service executives made more than he did.

It is difficult to do a really accurate comparison of salaries, because Ontario’s Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act (doc) of 1996 only requires that salaries over $100,000 be reported. (in addition, if the salaries are reported elsewhere, they are not necessarily included in this report)  However, the annual reports are a fantastic resource.  Here is the list of various public sector employees making over $100K a year.  I offer this merely in order to ask…were you aware these people were making this amount of money?

I sure wasn’t.  These are salaries paid by tax dollars too.  I have no idea if the Director of Quality Services for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should be paid $147,437.58 a year (sorry to single you out, sir, I chose randomly).  If this Corporation were in the news and having financial difficulties, I have no doubt this salary would be brought up as somehow relevant…but is it?

I don’t know if it is.  That’s the point.  I don’t think the people bringing it up know either.  I haven’t been able to find a source listing the salaries of mayors of municipalities in Ontario to compare to Chief Spence’s salary.  Then again, I doubt anyone would seriously claim that if she worked for free, the housing crisis in Attawakpiskat would be over.

A good comment was sent to me recently on the issue of salaries that I’d like to share.  “Whenever one is talking about the salaries of say a [premier or a] prime minister versus someone else, two things: 1) parliamentarians get very good pensions and for a relatively short time of service; 2) more particularly, a post like the prime ministership or the presidency of the United States opens up all kinds of doors for later life. So even if the salary is $200,000, the person is virtually guaranteed a very comfortably post-office life. Counsel in a big law firm. Paid corporate director. University professor. Etc. etc. I don’t think we imagine that the Barrick Gold Corporations of the world will be banging down the door of a past chief of Attawapiskat in a comparable way.”

I wonder what kind of pension Chief Spence can count on?

The more you know…

I’m sure I’m forgetting some of the common accusations and arguments being made about Attawapiskat on various forums and comments sections of online news articles.  I might update if necessary to address them, but I think you now have at least a base to begin with, whether you honestly just want to understand the situation a little better, or want to fight those comment battles.

If you would like an on-the-ground perspective, please check out Smoke Signals from Cree Yellowlegs. (a song starts playing automatically so have your speakers turned down 😀 )

Update: December 2, an article by Michael Posluns sheds some light on what third party management means in practice.

Chief Theresa Spence has published a press release on the imposition of third party management in Attawapiskat.

Above all, my relations, don’t let it get you down.

You will see people call for the abolition of the Indian Act, for the abolition of reserves and the ‘assimilation’ of First Nations into ‘Canadian society’.  You will see horrible things said about aboriginal culture.  What you will rarely see are people responding to facts.  Don’t be discouraged when facts are brushed off in favour of accusations.  We do have the power to educate those around us, and even if we can’t reach the most vocal of bigots, we can reach the ‘average’ Canadian who is merely unaware rather than necessarily outright hateful.

A note to those taking the time to comment

I am trying to keep up and answer your questions, but the amount of views and comments this post is getting is unbelievable!  Wow!  Thank you so much for reading and taking the time to say a few words or ask questions!

I will try my best to get back to you as quickly as possible, but there may be delays.  Please be patient:)

Update and personal request: I wrote this article so that I could get out of the adversarial environment of the comments sections referred to.  Please help this comment section avoid descending into more of the same.  I do not want to censor people, but if your comments are only angry accusations and you show no willingness to engage in a dialogue, I am not going to give you a platform to engage in this.  Keep it classy, nitôtêmitik.

NEW! (December 8, 2011) Do you want a (corrected) print version of this article, with footnotes rather than hyperlinks?  Send me a request via the comment section with your email, and I will send you a Word document.  I will edit out your email address before your request is posted publicly. 

Khodi Dill sums it up nicely.

I am working away on a series of posts I’d like to put together to help untangle the web of confusion surrounding oft-misunderstood issues such as First Nations health-care, education, housing, taxation, self-government, settlement claims and so on.  It isn’t easy.  I’ve studies these kinds of things my whole life, trying to disprove the claims made about aboriginal peoples, and even still new legislation or policies or programs cast shadows that obscure.

However over the years I have identified a few common areas of misunderstanding.  Basic lack of knowledge that can be quickly addressed so that the underlying prejudice which often fuels the claims in the first place can be revealed and (hopefully) chipped away at.

If for nothing else, I want these resources to be available to those who do care, so that they can teach themselves about the issues and go out there and spread the word.  I know a lot of potential allies who just haven’t a clue where to even start in their exploration of things like…who provides health-care to First Nations people and how is that health-care administered?  What are the problems?  Who is responsible?  What can be done?

So I am going to explain it the way I would to a friend who shows genuine interest, and we’ll see if that ends up being useful to anyone.

In the meantime, I’d like to leave you with a very moving poem by Khodi Dill of Saskatoon.  tâpwê!

Attawapiskat, action needed!

Update, November 28

The Red Cross plans to be in the community tomorrow “to identify and address urgent, short-term needs.”  The community has apparently asked the Red Cross to manage donations to the community, so for all of you who have been looking for a way to contribute, you can donate to Attawapiskat here.

I am very disturbed by this quote:

In a statement Monday, Duncan’s office said the federal government is “deeply concerned about this situation.”

“Since coming to government, we have invested significant funding to the Attawapiskat First Nation,” the statement continues. “Officials from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are in the community [Monday] to investigate why conditions are as poor as they are, given the significant funding for housing, infrastructure, education, and administration.”

Nothing like an implied accusation of corruption on top of an already incredibly hostile reaction from many Canadians to this story (as evinced by the comment section in any article discussing the community).  Keep it classy, Duncan.

—————————————————————-

I would have written about this days ago, but I am down for the count with pneumonia.  Charlie Angus, member of Parliament for Timmins-James Bay in the Huffington Post has done a bang up job of describing the intolerable conditions faced by the people of Attawapiskat on the western side of the James Bay.  This is a community that needs immediate emergency intervention, and the lack of response to the problem is a disturbing example of how deep indifference and racism against aboriginal people runs in this country.

Yes, that’s right.  Racism.  The word we supposedly ‘throw around too much’ despite so many examples of it in practice (anyone remember body bags being sent to ‘help’ with H1N1 in northern aboriginal communities?).  Conditions like these would never be left unaddressed in a non-native community.  It should be unthinkable to do nothing in the face of this kind of need, regardless of whose community it is.

Please, please write the ‘Honourable’ John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, to demand action be taken to save the lives of fellow human beings in what is supposedly a developed nation.

You can reach him by email at: john.duncan@parl.gc.ca

Please also CC on this email the following people:

Federal  Aboriginal Affairs critics, Carolyn Bennett (carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca) and Linda Duncan (linda.duncan@parl.gc.ca)

Federal  Aboriginal Affairs shadow minister, Todd Russell (russell.t@parl.gc.ca)

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for the province of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne (kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org)

Provincial Official Aboriginal Affairs critic, Jerry Ouellette (jerry.ouellette@pc.ola.org).

There is also a petition here.  However, personal emails are very much needed.

Images that make you go hmmmm.

Every once in a while I come across an image in my daily life that has an immediate impact on me. (You’ve already had my opinion on ‘native-themed’ costumes.)  First comes the flood of feelings.  Annoyance, frustration, confusion.  Then I look at the image again and try to understand what the image is meant to convey.  I wonder if the person who put the image together has any idea of how it just made me feel.  Generally I assume that no, the creator of the image is likely quite clueless on that front.

Let me show you an example.  I came across this ad in a local print magazine (Nightlife.ca) last year and scanned it in.

What is your reaction to this image?

The picture was cut off a bit on the left.  It says Méchant Pow-wow. Sort of slangy attempt at ‘bad-ass party’. The ad is for a bar called Saloon.

So how do you react to this image?  I showed this picture to a number of native friends, and they all rolled their eyes.  Some asked if this was a McGill ad, because McGill University has become somewhat infamous for their stereotypical portrayal of aboriginals.  We all seemed to have the same annoyed, ‘this is typical’ reaction to the image.

I just don’t get it.  What does this image have to do with the bar it is being used to advertise?  To me it seems obvious that with a name like Saloon, the bar is playing on the tired old Cowboys and Indians theme.  If so, what is the implication in a bar named for a western theme?  They are supposedly inviting people to a ‘bad ass pow-wow’.  What does that mean to non-native people?  The Indians are taking over the Cowboy’s party?  I don’t know, I’m stretching here.  Who are the Indians, who are the Cowboys…what the heck is this image trying to say?

I don’t like the mixture of a traditional headdress with an enticement to come get drunk at a bar with a pseudo ‘Western’ name.  I am generally suspicious of stereotypical portrayals of natives, because those portrayals are so often racist.  Sometimes the racism in the portrayals is very easy to point at and see.  Sometimes…it isn’t.

Which brings me to the following image.  This is a cartoon that appeared in a McGill University Law Faculty publication called Quid Novi.  It is a cartoon by first year law student, Patricia Nova.  Before I say anything about it, I’d like you to look at it for a while, and figure out what YOUR reactions are to this image.

My reaction?  Shock.  This is the creation of a law student.  I realise my reaction is silly on that point.  I attended law school at the University of Alberta, one year at McGill University, and I am currently brushing up on civil law part time at the Université de Montréal.  I’ve written about my alienation as an aboriginal person in the halls of legal learning.  I have no romanticised image of law students (neither do I cast them as villains).  Yet despite my own experiences I guess I expected…more tact?

This image is the source of some current controversy which I’ll detail in a moment, but first, I wanted to share some responses to this cartoon.  I asked a number of non-native friends to give me their interpretations of the image.  Some of these friends have been very understanding of native issues, while others have (respectfully) disagreed with me rather strongly at times.  I asked non-natives because I wanted to see how this cartoon impacted them compared to how it has impacted me (which I will discuss in a moment). Here are the reactions.  When I’ve clarified with them, I put my questions in green.

• “Makes the indians seem stupid.”

• “It’s funny.  And racist.”  Funny how?  Racist how? “It’s funny in the whole trick or treat play on words.  It’s racist in the stereotypical portrayal of Indians.”

• “I think it’s funny.” Can you explain what you find funny about it?  “Trick or treat = treaty.  I think it’s a funny pun.  I guess it’s probably racist in the way it’s portraying Natives.  It’s probably in poor taste the way they made them talk.  I still think it’s a little funny though…because of the pun.”

• “It’s racist in exactly the same way drawing big-lipped black people speaking pidgin English is.”

• “Just simply the caricatures are racist. Nobody looks like that. It’s hateful- makes them look like an alien species or something. It reminds me of the way jews were drawn in the 30’s. It’s “othering” to make a race look so alien. It makes then non-human. Also I didn’t find it that funny or clever.”

• “I don’t know if the intent is racism, it doesn’t seem like it, but it does seem like they are playing on stereotypes to make clear they are talking about indians from the distant past. Probably because they can’t draw very well.  It seems more like the intent is to talk shit about treaties. I don’t think they mean to disparage the intellect of the native community as much as they are trying to highlight the idea that they were too trusting of the settlers.”

• It pisses me off that they wrote “saiz” which is pronounced phonetically EXACTLY THE SAME as says. So it wasn’t like they were trying to emphasize dialect or accent. The only thing misspelling says does is make the Indians look stupid. I found the pun somewhat clever and interesting.In my effort to assume the best of everyone I assume that the artist was trying to say Natives were too trusting and naive, and the Whiteys exploitative and manipulative. I think however that instead portrays the Natives as stupid. I do not think anyone is portrayed positively in this cartoon. I think there must have been a less racist way of making the trick or treat pun.

Granted, these people are my friends for a reason, so this is not intended to be a cross-section of non-native opinion though I’ll mention that these friends include Canadians, citizens of the US, and folks from that weird island over there across the pond. (*blows kisses*)

My reaction

I have a number of problems with this cartoon.  The first thing that popped out at me was of course the style of dress.  Stereotypical pan-Indian images of native people.  Huge noses, a spear, arrows, headdresses, fringe.  The generic image so often used to represent us all, past and present.  I am supremely tired of this image.  If I knew that wider Canadian society truly understood the wealth of aboriginal diversity in this country, it wouldn’t get under my skin as much.  Then again, if that were true, I’d expect the images would reflect such awareness.

“Whitey”.  That’s the next thing that jumped out at me.  In the use of that term, the artist is making her ‘characters’ racists.  The term is  pejorative.  Oddly enough, the term is also one I rarely actually hear native people hurling, and to be honest, haven’t heard since I was in elementary school.  You know where I hear this term, constantly?  I hear it coming from non-natives who go on and on about how racist native people are against them.  Let’s not even get into the analysis of how historical and current power structures mean “whitey” is not a term that can be compared to other racial slurs.  I’ll let Louis CK discuss that.

When I see ‘characters’ using terms like this, the message I’m getting is, “you can be racist too!”  Well…duh!  There is nothing inherent in being aboriginal that makes us immune to being assholes, even racist ones.  There is something about being the subject of centuries of racism however that makes you pretty aware of the impact of racism, much in the way that not being the subject of centuries of racism might cause you to have trouble grasping how it feels.

Why do we need to have it pointed out that we can be racist too?  How is that an important message?  To me it smacks of “we all do it, it’s a human trait.”  If you push someone on this issue, you will often hear about how aboriginal peoples fought one another before the Europeans came, and this is used as proof that we are just as capable of treating ‘others’ poorly as Europeans did.  The message seems to be, “if the roles were reversed you would have done the same thing”.  Take that further into, “it’s not our fault” and you’ve understood the point.

And isn’t that the underlying fear?  That if we had “the power” (however that would be manifested), that we’d do ‘the same thing’?  On one hand you’d think that would be an admission of awareness that things are supremely unequal, but it usually isn’t.  After all, inequality as externally imposed  (state vs. native peoples) is often considered just a historical reality whereas many people believe the present is characterised by  internally created inequality (i.e. native peoples at fault).

I digress somewhat.  Who knows what the artist’s position is on this.  Whether she used the term “whitey” to portray her characters as racists, or whether she attempted to turn a pejorative term around on European settlers, it is an unhelpful word.

Then of course there is the issue of the casual mention of ‘killing whitey’.  This too is very loaded.  Is he killed?  Is the quick and tricky talking of the intended victim enough to save him?  Who knows.  All we know is that this character was ready to kill someone.  No context.  That’s just ‘how it was done’.

This too plays into the generic view of “Indians and Cowboys”, always at war with one another.  The artist with her reference to the tricky treaty may be taking the position that violence against “whitey” was justified for whatever reason, but it misses the point.  Distilling the relationship between native peoples and settlers to merely a relationship of violence and trickery is extremely prevalent and as unaware as showing us all dressed up in the same tired old garb.  This country is vastly and shockingly unaware of its own history.  It acknowledges only the very rough outlines of the complex trading relationships, the intermarriage, the alliances and conflicts.

It is like understanding only that at some point, your parents met and you were born, and that you had a childhood.  Without any more detailed memory beyond that of yourself as you grew up and developed, what would you know about yourself now as an adult? Aargh.  I’d love to explore that more, but I’m trying to stay on track.

There is the more obvious issue of whether or not the artist intended to portray her characters as stupid, or cheated.  Or both.  Either way it is not a particularly flattering portrayal and it is very disempowering.  It is definitely a more popular narrative now than it was when I was a child, that native peoples were swindled and cheated by the Treaties.  It isn’t a powerful narrative however, in the sense that it has not been accepted legally or politically as true, and there are few people who would be willing to readdress the Treaties on those grounds.

Yet the ‘innocent and naive natives getting cheated by the treacherous Europeans’ theme here is also incredibly simplistic.  It infantalises us rather than acknowledging different worldviews and suggests that whatever intelligence we had was no match for the wiles of the settlers.  It is another all-too common approach that paints us merely as victims.  It denigrates our experience as peoples who made Treaties for thousands of years before any European set foot here.

The argument is going to be two-fold when people defend this cartoon.  One, that it’s not racist (either at all, or that the racism is satire).  Two, that the humour expresses an important and true message.

I see a repetition of a series of stereotypes, and whatever shock value the whole ‘Canada tricked them into it’ viewpoint may have had surely has worn off by now?  I think that’s me engaging in wishful thinking though.  I agree with one of the quotes above in that I think the message could have been achieved in a less disturbing way.  I think the stereotyping detracts from the intended message.  In fact, I think the unintended message of ignorance is much stronger.  Perhaps that is only obvious to some?

I think I’ve narrowed down why I was shocked, actually.  This cartoon displays only the surface image of nuance while representing an utter lack of actual complexity.  Yes, I do expect better, and I think I’m going to keep my expectations high.

We do not live in a country where the history, culture or present day reality of aboriginal peoples is well understood or discussed.  We live in a  country that has relied upon stereotypes for hundreds of years to prop up and form legal, political and social policies towards natives.  Those stereotypes have changed only slightly.  Often they are less overtly and recognisably racist and pejorative, and merely reflect the appalling lack of progress this country has made in coming to terms with its relationship with aboriginal peoples. Playing up those stereotypes is not radical, nor is it successful satire in this situation.  It is status quo.

My final thought on this is: if you do not understand why this comic is offensive to me as a native person, it is because you probably do not understand the history, culture and present day reality I referred to above, and that is what I am reacting to right now.

The Controversy

You can see the original comic here (PDF) on page 28. A number of responses to the comic were sent to the Editor, and a response from the Editors in Chief can be found on page 2 here (also PDF).  After that are some of the responses, followed up by the artist’s view of the whole thing.

Eden Alexander is a law student at McGill University, a good friend, and a member of the Aboriginal Law Student’s Association of McGill.  She has invited the editorial staff of Quid Novi and the artist Patricia Nova to a lunch in order to discuss the various issues surrounding the creation and publication of this comic.  Both have accepted. Eden indicates that the situation has become very adversarial and is hoping that talking about it will help.  I will also be attending the meeting and will follow up here with what comes out of it.

I think it is incredibly important to have these discussions, even though it can feel sometimes that we’ve had them a million times already.  There are so many wider issues at play here, including the societal contexts I’ve mentioned, but also the specific context of McGill University and the various portrayals of aboriginal peoples that have been as controversial or more over the past few years.

Let’s see where this takes us.

Update, November 15

The Quid Novi has published another editorial response to Patricia Nova’s cartoon as well as a slough of responses to both the cartoon itself and Patricia Nova’s justification for it.  The responses are well thought out and interesting and can be found here.  The paper has engaged a former ombudsman to address the issue and make recommendations on Quid Novi’s publication practices.

Update, November 22

A description of the meeting between Quid Novi, Patricia Nova and members of the Aboriginal Law Student’s Association was published today (along with some disgusting ‘oh you’re just thin-skinned’ opinions).  You’ll find it here on page 9.

I did not actually attend the meeting, due to a mix up in scheduling, but my friend Eden Alexander did, and felt very positive after the discussion.  She asks,  however, “where do we go from here?”

Aboriginal students were able to ‘get through’ to one person though it took an enormous amount of emotional energy.  As can be seen in some of the awful comments made before the meeting description, there is a much wider problem that is not being addressed properly.  These are the students we share the halls with, who tell us things like, ‘if you are offended, it says as much about who you are as what the cartoon was depicting’, etc.  People who completely dismiss our concerns and champion the right to continue exercising power over us in this way.

So while the meeting settled some personal feelings among individuals, it merely highlights how much farther we have to go…and how it shouldn’t always have to be us going through all the effort while the privileged sit and fold their arms and demand, ‘convince me it’s even a problem first’.

miskîsikohkâna, my glasses odyssey

This post is a bit of a weird deviation from my normal subject matter, but I feel like ranting a little, so in that sense I’m right on track!

I have been wearing glasses (miskîsikohkâna – mis-kee-si-GOOH-gah-nu) since I was a wee iskwêsis.  My parents had a hard time coming up with the money, but they managed it.  Sometimes my dad had insurance through work and other times he didn’t, but I would usually get a new pair each year.  Kids rip through their glasses like crazy, scratching them up so hard you can’t even see through them, and yes there were times all that held them together was some duct-tape or strategically placed paper clips.

I have astigmatism in one eye and I’m near-sighted, with a strong prescription.  I can’t see much without my glasses except blurs.  As I got older my glasses had to last me longer than a year, but what I’d usually do was keep the frames and switch out the lenses.  The frames back then were crazy expensive so you hung on to them.  For a good ten years, it was costing me about $70 to get new lenses in.  Looking at that, it doesn’t seem a high price, but oh man money was tight and it seemed like a lot more.

Then in 2006, everything changed.  I’d gotten my new lenses in 2005 for that $70, and the next year I went in expecting the same.  A few dollars more, I would have understood.  Instead, I entered the Twilight Zone!

Where am I?

From one year to the next, optical stores had jacked their prices for lenses up to a base price of about $250 for people with my level of prescription!

I was completely flabbergasted.  This was just for lenses, mind you, not even for frames.  The frame prices had gone down a bit I noticed, but how on earth did the lenses get so expensive?  My awesome plan of saving my frames forever and a day was in the toilet.

I figured this was just LensCrafters going bonkers, so I walked out in a huff and tried all the other major retailers.  It was the same story.  What was worse is they acted like this is how it had always been, and when I explained to them that I’d bought lenses for only $70 just the year before they reacted like I was telling the biggest whopper ever!

Not only could I not really afford this, but I’m also ornery and the principle of the thing prevented me from handing that money over when I sure couldn’t see how they were justifying such a radical price hike.  Especially since it now took upwards of two weeks to get your glasses in, and even those one-hour places said because my prescription is so strong, they needed a few days too.  Really?  Yet the year before it was no problem?

A few weeks later on a whim I popped into a place in Barrhead (Alberta) to browse the glasses, and ask about the prices expecting more of the same.  Nope.  $70 was what the fellow quoted me.  I just about died of shock, and spilled the whole story of my travails to him. He shrugged and said that most optical places don’t have on-site lens cutters anymore and order the lenses from China.  What’s more, the lenses often come pre-coated with that anti-UV coating and sometimes even the anti-reflective coating!  Man!  The other store had quoted me $250 as a base price and $90 for those two coatings!  If this guy was telling the truth, that $90 was pure freaking cha-ching for something I would have gotten anyway!  I hurriedly looked around for the assassin I was sure was going to silence this industry whistle-blower any second!

He acknowledged the rapid price increase, which was really gratifying for me because I was starting to doubt my memory.  He still ground his own lenses and still go them from his same supplier but said that local suppliers were being pushed out by the Chinese competition.

I felt like I stumbled on to some sort of historically huge cover-up!  I mean, for people with glasses this was a huge deal!  I bought some new lenses and felt a little smug about getting a good deal, while at the same time being upset that the ‘normal’ deal was now the ‘good’ deal.

Years went by and my glasses struggled on unreplaced for a loooong time.  My eldest daughter needed a pair but Alberta offered free glasses for kids in kindergarten as long as you chose from a (very) limited selection of frames.  They were fine, so that’s what we went with.

Then she needed a new pair.  By now I was living in Montreal and maybe I’d forgotten how bad the prices were.  I took her in to NewLook which is the chain store here, and got her and her sister some new glasses.  Even with a ‘rebate’ (I guess nearly breaking down in tears over how the hell I was going to afford the glasses made the salesguy take pity on me, and he knocked $150 off the price) I ended up paying $700 for the two pairs.  The price of being a mom, hey?

And guess what?  Just a week later my eldest fell down, broke her nose (my poor baby, that was awful) AND her frames.

I took them back, figuring that there would be some sort of insurance deal.  After all, I’d grown up with that kind of service. No ‘extended warranty’ price needed. Trust me, I broke my frames once or twice as a kid and as long as I didn’t lose the frames completely, I usually got one ‘get out of jail free card’ from the optical store.  Not this time.  I had to pay the full cost of the repair AND it  took two weeks to get the glasses back!  It cost me half the original price of the glasses to fix them.

They were broken again not long after in an accident with a stool and an aunt who wasn’t looking and her dad had to get her a brand new pair.  I’m talking $800 to have this girl wear glasses, within the space of two months.

EIGHT.  HUNDRED.  DOLLARS.

I just don’t have that kind of money.  The service at the brick and mortar stores has been consistently terrible, the prices were jacked up for no apparent reason, the wait time was unacceptable, and I was ready to lose my mind.

So on my nightly phone-call to my mom, I ranted and raved and I may have cried a little, and she mentioned online stores.  I buy some stuff online, but things like clothes and glasses?  I mean, one time I got a pair of glasses that weren’t aligned properly and they gave me migraines for a week before they were fixed!  But my mom said the glasses were good, and I misunderstood and thought she’d tried it out herself.  I figured if my technologically impaired mother did it, then I’d be a coward to back down! (turns out she hadn’t done it yet, but had just gotten this advice from someone else)

I looked up the two sites she mentioned, zenni optical and clearly contacts.  I was totally intimidated and unsure.  I found out you need not only your prescription, but also the measurement between your pupils called Pupillary Distance (PD).  I chose to work with zenni optical, and read their page of information about understanding your prescription, because man it was Greek to me!  I felt way out of my depth, like I was one of those people who diagnoses themselves on the internet with some awful disease because they think they are qualified to do so.

I gave up on it for a while until a few weeks later my much-worn glasses started cracking.  The lenses were in danger of splitting and if I didn’t want to be blind for two weeks waiting for a new pair, I had to act fast.

So I chose myself as the experiment.  First I got my eyes checked again, and then I asked the optometrist for my Pupillary Distance, as this is not something they normally measure.  What I’d read convinced me not to try to measure it myself. Remembering those migraines, I knew it was important to have the lenses centred properly.

You want me to do what!? Measure your PD!? BLASPHEMY!

Holy smokes!  You’d have thought I just asked this fellow to eat his dog!

He was really upset.  He started ranting about how people were getting scammed by online stores and ‘ruining their vision’ etc etc etc.  I sat there stunned because I hadn’t even mentioned buying glasses online!  He had me a little scared actually, except that I didn’t really buy that somehow I was going to ruin my vision, anymore than I believed it when my mom said too much tv would do the same thing.

He finally agreed to do it, but he lectured me the whole time.  I felt like a real jerk.  Once again I decided not to order online.

More cracks appeared in my lenses, and I looked around in the stores for possible replacements, but I just couldn’t do it.  I knew I was going to have to buy new glasses for the girls soon, and I couldn’t afford spending $400-$600 on a pair for myself.  I sucked up my courage and went back to zenni optical.

I spent hours that day looking at frames, ‘trying them on’ the picture I uploaded, doubting myself, and researching reviews.  Finally I ordered two pairs of frameless glasses and a pair of prescription sunglasses.  Originally I was just going to get one pair, but all three pairs ended up only costing me $102 so I thought, why not?

The glasses come from China.  They took four days to get to me which surprised me since I was expecting a two week turnover.  They had all the bells and whistles, the UV coating, the anti-glare coating, and they were cool looking too!  I could see perfectly, no headaches, no worries.

I did find that I’d ordered lenses that were slightly too big, and since these were frameless glasses that means that the glasses overall were bigger than I wanted.  However because they are frameless, you don’t notice.  I can put a finger between my temple and the arm of the glasses, which means they don’t fit well under my Roller Derby helmet, but for Derby I just wear my old cracked glasses anyway. I also didn’t like the shape of the sunglasses I ordered.  I got these cat-eye frames that ended up not looking great, but that was my fault.

Mad sôniyâw savings!

But hey, SUCCESS!  For a fraction of the cost, I did it! Look at all the sôniyâw I saved!

So, I decided to try it out with my kids.  Oh my gosh, getting their Pupillary Distances measured was a painful experience. I discovered that the ranting optometrist wasn’t unique!  We walked into places asking if they would do the measurement (for payment!  I wasn’t asking for a freebie!) and literally got kicked out!

The trick is to try to find an optometrist who isn’t operating out of or in other ways linked to a bricks and mortar optical shop.  They obviously have a vested interested in not encouraging you to shop online.  I never actually did find one that wasn’t working out of an optical shop, but the next optometrist took pity on me and just gave me the damn measurement.  She didn’t spare me the lecture though!  Jeez, are we pirating software here?  Cha.

Okay, now here is some important info if you’re considering doing this.  The first order of glasses for my kids worked out really well.  They liked their glasses, and the glasses lasted for over a year before they needed replacing, just like ‘store-bought’ ones.  BUT.

I found the lenses were too thick.  Too ‘fish-bowl’ in appearance.  My prescription is strong enough that when I ordered my glasses, there was no option to get the lower index lenses so mine ended up as thin as normal.  My kids have strong prescriptions, but not so strong that it automatically bumped us up to higher index lenses, so I got the no-charge ‘mid-index vision’ 1.57 lenses.  Having no idea what ‘index’ even meant.

What I should have done is found out what index lenses were used in their last store-bought pair.  They never cared, by the way, and no one teased them about it, but it bothered me a little.  Scars from my childhood probably!

"Fish bowl, fish bowl, you look like an asshole..." yeah kids are poetic.

So this last time I ordered their glasses, I got higher index lenses which are thinner.  I paid an extra $35 per pair to get really thin lenses (1.67 high-index).  It’s entirely possible that was overkill, but I don’t think so.  This time the lenses were perfect.

I also learned to pay better attention to the measurements of the frames on the website.  Some of the glasses I got for my girls the first time (I got them two pairs each that time) were slightly too big.  Each got a pair that fit perfectly, and then one pair that, because of the style, were just a little too large for their faces.  Just a bit wide, not like huge and tall 80s style ones I mean.  My youngest eventually broke one pair and wore the other and looks just awesome, but I was more careful this last time to take some measurements of their faces.

My eldest chose these.

The girls sat there with me and I uploaded a picture of them, and individually they ‘tried on’ glasses and chose the ones they liked.

My youngest liked these.

With the high index lenses I only bought them a pair each instead of two pairs and it was roughly the same price, but that price was still only $132!  And these frames are really, really cool.  I probably went overboard getting anti-reflective coating, but whatever.

Did I do something wrong?

I thought about this long and hard, and considered many aspects of making these purchases.  I was worried I was wasting my money on a crappy product.  I was worried that the optometrists had a legitimate beef with online optical retailers.  I was worried most of all that I was no longer supporting local brick and mortar optical stores.

That last issue was the big one for me.  I try hard to support local stores.  I want people to continue to have jobs with living wages.  Yet the fact is, most of these brick and mortar stores no longer employ glass cutters.  A whole group of people lost their jobs before I even knew those jobs were in danger.  If those people had their jobs, I’d pay the $400-$600 again and not feel ripped off.

I’m not wild about any of this.  I do not know what wages and working conditions are involved in producing these glasses. Yet these stores are getting their frames and lenses from the same place I am.  China.  And they are getting them for a fraction of the cost I am.  Pennies, literally.

Then they turn around and mark them  up to extraordinarily disgusting levels.  I could stomach a decent profit margin.  A profit margin that ensures that salespeople are well trained and not starving, and I would even be fine with the fancy schmancy floor displays they have.  But I doubt that staff are all that well paid to be honest, and I doubt even more that the increased profit margin is directly benefiting them.  Like most cases, it’s being pocketed by the higher ups  and their shareholders (in the case of the chains anyway).

Nope.  That profit isn’t getting me better quality.  It’s getting me the same quality.  The service is not so spectacular that it makes up for it and by the way, when I ordered these last two pairs of glasses, I made a mistake on one prescription.  It was caught immediately and I was contacted to confirm the correct prescription.  I’d say that is good service.

Brick and mortar optical shops, wake up!  You are not competitive, and your profit margins are pissing us off.  I’m a single mom of two children who are going to need new glasses every year.  Yes, you need to justify the cost of your products, or cut that cost down because until then you have lost me as a customer.  I simply cannot afford $700 or more a year for glasses just for my kids while I go without for years on end.

I haven’t kept quiet about my dissatisfaction either.  I went back to NewLook and explained why I was no longer shopping there.  The salesperson was nonplussed, but I wanted the message passed on.  I should probably write a formal letter and see what some of these places have to say.  How they’ll justify themselves.  What scare tactics they’ll engage in.

Anyway.  There you go.  Now I don’t have nightmares about one of my kids breaking their glasses, and me having to choose between us eating or buying them new ones.  Nor do I have to squint through the scratched-up fog of my own lenses for years because it’s either glasses for them OR for me and not both.  Could I go back to that?  Absolutely, if I had to, and if it was worth it.  Right now, neither of those criteria are met.

napatêhkasikan, my pumpkin pie adventure.

napatêhkasikan cî ahpô wîhkihkasikan?

Pie, or cake?  Answering “both” is of course understandable, but I like to think that just as some people are ‘dog’ people while others are ‘cat’ people, some of us will take a pie over a cake any day.

The harvest season here in Quebec is different than in Alberta, as much of the produce is grown further south than what I am used to.  So when my children went pumpkin picking on November 1st, we paid no heed to the fact that Halloween had already passed.  Clearly it was time to make pumpkin pie!

Oh delicious osâwipak!  Ye of the one-time-a-year appearance on my table!  I cry a single tear like Iron Eyes “the Italian” Cody every time I walk by a discarded pumpkin the day after Halloween.  Such delicious, sweet flesh wasted, turned over to the squirrels when it could be filling my belly with warm goodness!

A wasted pumpkin is a pie that never made it to my belly.

Do you know that feeling where you never really believe yourself to be a grown up?  When you call your mom to find the right temperature to roast a chicken, and how long does it take per pound and what is that awful spice in stuffing so I can avoid it…

Well making a pumpkin pie from scratch sets you on the path to being the one someone is going to call one day.  Just sayin’.

There is at least one full out lactose-intolerant member of my household, with possibly two others who do seem  to get suspicious tummy aches when they eat cheese or drink milk.  As a result, I modify pretty much any recipe that requires dairy products.  I don’t miss it to be honest.  Western culture puts a weird emphasis on milk to the point where I will sometimes just nod and smile when the health nurse asks if I’m giving my kids three glasses a day of the stuff, rather than start a discussion about why I think that’s extremely excessive.

However, yogourt is one dairy product that seems to do a body good and that most lactose-intolerant folks can stomach.  Something about the lactose already being digested by the bacterial cultures in yogourt.  mmmm.  Bacterial cultures.  I wonder what their dances and traditional clothing look like?

I am the kind of cook that does not own a measuring cup.  My daughters’ plastic cups are roughly 1 cup I think.  I use pinches and dashes and a bit of this and a bit of that.  I warn you now because my measurements below are going to be very approximate.  I cook by taste and intuition and sometimes both fail me.  Usually they don’t. mâna.

Oh.  Did I mention the recipe would in Cree?

Ingredients:

• nîso osâwipakiswak
• pêyak minihkwâkan yogourt
• pêyak ahpô pêyak êkwa âpihtaw minihkwâkan osâw sîwinikan
• niyânan pehcayihkwak
• nîso êmihkwânisak vanilla
• pîwêwêpinamowin cinnamon, nutmeg, êkwa cloves

To make:

1. pêyak: manihkomâmê êkwa pîkinisohkok osâwipakwak
2. nîso: pakâsimik osâwipakwak (kaskâciwahtêwak)
3. nisto: sikowêpahohkok
4. nêwo: takon yogourt, pehcayihwak, vanilla, cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves êkwa kikawin
5. niyânan: sikin napatêhkasikanihk
6. nikotwâsik: takahkihkasok 350°F kotawânâpiskihk, pêyaktipahikan

Trust me kids, you won't like this. Let me take care of it for you, okay?

And there you have it.  Easy peasy!  This is the end all pumpkins should meet, not the sordid decay of a decoration for Halloween but rather a sugar-filled autumn delight!