It is hard not to have a conversation with anyone for very long without the subject of Ukraine coming up these days.
I'm told what's happening in Ukraine is simple: Putin Bad.
When I look at the history of the area currently called Ukraine, I don't remotely see something simple. I see an area stuck in the constant war between Eastern and Western Europe. The current borders encompass a population where the native language is Ukrainian (an East Slavic language) in the west, and a third of the population largely in the east where native language is Russian. These divides are seen in presidential elections, as well as surveys on which economic unions the country should join. This is a country that recently declared independence in 1991, and is not clearly pro-West, anti-East as the western media and politicians claim it is.
I am anti-war, anti-conquest, anti-colonial and anti-genocide.
I don't want any warring in Ukraine, but it is not as simple to me as it seems to others as to what the underlying cause of the warfare is.
Ottawa Siege: Trudeau Bad
I had started a series of articles discussing the Ottawa Siege, with the most recent being titled Why didn't "dictator Trudeau" just remove all mandates?
I am fully aware that the President of Russia has far more power, constitutionally and personally, than the Prime Minister of Canada. Vladimir Putin was a former intelligence officer, and learned quite a bit about people and how to influence them.
Justin Trudeau was... umm... a substitute teacher, who withdrew from university to seek public office. He was put into the position by a corrupt party system that wanted to launch another "Trudeau Mania" such as happened under Justin's father.
That said, I had to live through a siege on my hometown by people receiving international support for the myth that Trudeau was a dictator, rather than just being an idiot. Some of the "Putin Bad" simplistic way of looking at things have seemed very similar.
I'm tired of this overly simplistic nonsense. Western European worldviews have a cult over individuals, which hides from most westerners the complex systemic realities of the world they inhabit.
How do people choose which attack on Sovereignty matters?
I live in on a continent that some call North America, while others call it Turtle Island. I wrote in January my current feelings on what being a Canadian means to me, after focusing some learning on this continent for a few years. The short-form is that Canada is not what I thought it was, and is in fact a series of governments (not a place) which is part of an ongoing act of colonialism and genocide.
Canada isn't unique. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are collectively known as CANZUS in international circles. These are British Colonies, all of which claim independence from Britain, but where colonists greatly outnumber Indigenous peoples and where governments built on British worldviews. In the case of Canada, these governments were directly created and maintained by the British parliament, and an amending formula to allow a body on this side of the Atlantic to change the constitution was created in 1982.
I have noticed that there are many nations whose sovereignty has been subdued by another nation, but where the general population in Western European countries, and their colonies, don't pay attention. I am not the only person who noticed this, and on social media a simple pattern has emerged.
Westerners only seem to care if the Nation whose sovereignty is being attacked is:
- European, or European Descent -- Contrary to what some people think, North America, Australia and New Zealand are not part of Europe, but any threat to the sovereignty of these colonial governments is still considered "important".
- Christian
- Capitalist
Russia is only two out of three, so they are bad. Apparently if you adopt the British/Scottish (Adam Smith) Eurocentric economic system you are good, but if you adopt the derivative German (Karl Marx, etc) Eurocentric economic system you are bad.
In the formation as it has existed in recent decades Ukraine qualifies under all three requirements, so therefore it is claimed that a threat on it is a threat to "democracy".
Threats to Democracy
When the subjects of European Christian Monarchies first visited this continent, what they found were advanced civilized nations. Some of the nations had joined to create confederacies such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, which had already been an advanced Participatory Democracy for centuries.
Quoting from the Onondoga Nation website:
In 1613, the Mohawks noticed people coming into their territory unannounced. The visitors had begun to cut trees and clear land for their homes and farms. They had entered the lands of the Haudenosaunee and were now occupying some of their empty rooms (land). The newcomers dressed oddly and had hair on their faces. They had iron pots and pans and had their families with them. These people needed a place to live. The Mohawks sent a runner to Onondaga to convene a meeting of the Haudenosaunee.
I regularly write about the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. From my brief on Bill C-15.
The process that eventually led to UNDRIP started in 1923. This is when Deskaheh, Chief of the Iroquois League, representing the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, left Canada to go on a mission to Geneva (Switzerland). At that time the elder league of nations (Iroquois 6 nations in 1722, and a confederacy of 5 nations possibly since 1142) wanted to address the younger league of nations (formed at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919, which later became the United Nations) to have the younger league adequately recognize the elder.
...
In response to the attempt to get appropriate international recognition for the Iroquois league of nations, the British subsidiary called Canada sent in the RCMP to depose the centuries old participatory democratic Confederacy Council. Canada installed an "Indian Act" band council which is only responsible to the Canadian crown and not citizens. This is not a Representative Government, and the ongoing refusal of Canadian governments to recognize the Confederacy Council and not fold the band council is in my mind an obvious violation of UNDRIP Article 3.
Almost 100 years later, and British allies (including but beyond CANZUS) are still blocking recognition of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy at the United Nations. Canada still refuses to recognize the confederacy as the governing body of that league of Nations.
Land theft is ongoing, as Canada and its provincial governments like Ontario believe that if they continue to put squatters on land which they don't have title over that this will eventually eradicate the sovereign nation entirely.
Watching the weak corporate-party-centric democratic institutions of Canada, it is clear these governing bodies are many generations away from having as advanced democratic institutions as what the Haudenosaunee had at European contact in the 1500's. That is if they are going to advance to being stronger democracies, as opposed to becoming even weaker over time.
Other than "stop bombing", trying to figure out what should happen in Ukraine seems complex. What is needed is neutral third parties to get involved to help Ukraine. I am aware there is a good relationship between the Ukrainian people and several of the Indigenous peoples of this continent, but see no helpful role for excessively biased European governments or their colonies.
What Canada should be doing on this continent is far simpler, and there have been a stack of commissions and other reports over decades (longer than Ukraine has been independent) giving the Canadian governments blueprints.
Canada fully recognizing the elder democracy of the elder League of Nations seems obvious, as well as transferring all assets and financial transfers currently received by the imposed Indian Act band council bureaucracy. Then there is the matter of all the trust money which Canada "borrowed", and should get onto a payment plan to return with interest.
Six Nations of the Grand River understands that Canada does not have enough money to bring historic land issues to resolution under the existing land claims policies.
This booklet is an explanation of Six Nations’ land and financial grievances against the Crowns of Canada and Ontario and the need for the establishment of a new perpetual care and maintenance mechanism. A mechanism that would benefit the Six Nations People and their posterity to enjoy forever, while continuing to share the Haldimand Tract lands and resources with our neighbours.
Trade and other Sanctions
When will the trade and other sanctions against Canada finally start?
Is it really as simple as the fact that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy isn't European, Christian and Capitalist?
Please also read a great article by Brandi Morin
ReplyDeleteHuman rights matter: In Ukraine, and in Wet’suwet’en
Canada’s hypocrisy on full display during Russian invasion