this morning it was a younger audience it was at Dawson College and so there was one two hundred-plus so a young students they're interested in this maybe someone were forced to go but let's say that they were let's say they were interested in talking about reconciliation I heard you were interested anyway once they got there you don't so and addressing the issue from that perspective means making it a much more of a broad kind of sense of history but here we have people to have experience more of an academic background I think and people that give you have had these discussions a little bit more than people were just coming at it to to the say joke system and so I want to talk to kind of take it up a level and look at it from the framework of the contrasting visions that a government and Canadian society are brought to the problem of colonization and the problem of colonization is really the issue that we're all dealing with it's not a problem of native I'll start off by saying that it's not a problem natives failing to keep up with a great vision of a society that some how much would be mine and it's not a problem of native people have been some sort of deficiency or deficit in their culture or in their communities to whereby they could not keep up with progress a problem that we're dealing with and all of the issues that we're dealing with in Native communities in terms of the lateral violence the poverty all the kind of things that we're dealing with in in all of the communities across Canada have to do with a central fact and that send your faculties that our land is stolen it may seem simplified to some people to say it that way every native in the room was yes that's the central problem but in reality it's that is the problem that we're dealing with because as manifestations and it reflects is reflected in almost every aspect of indigenous existence the fact that we are disconnected from our land when we talk about colonization and decolonization a lot of times people think about it in terms of treaties and that were not honored they think about it in terms of residential schooling they think about it in terms of people being left out of the economic development of the country all kinds of things that went on in the image of this country and those are all absolutely true those are things that happens those are things that shape the relationship between natives and non-native people or whatever what is what I mean when I say I want to take it up a level is to look at an abstract someone and have you understand or have us understand and talk about and think about as we can believe here what is the what is the root impact with that on an individual and a collectivity of people nations of indigenous people an individual native people what is the net impact is that it's an alienation a separation a disconnection so this connection is really what colonization is this connection is that that sense of being disconnected from the line is connected from ourselves and is connected from our culture and the manifestation of that in this kind of alienation that will feel being caught between two worlds not meaning to be a true authentic indigenous person important way is really the impact that we feel as indigenous people and that's all related to the central fact of this is the history of this country the history of this country is not history of Laureus occupation by people with a mission to civilize and all of these sorts of things that we're all too familiar with and I don't need to really get into the issue of therapy that we're all familiar with pathologies finding it's really a history of dispossession and I focus on that I focus on that and I am focusing on it for a period of time before I get into analysis of reconciliation and so forth because we really need to bring our minds together about what it is that we're dealing on what is the problem so I'll emphasize it again if the problem in Canada is that native people are suffering some sort of deficit in their standard of living or some sort of problem related to being left behind that leads to a whole bunch of solutions that leads to a discussion that leads to policy that leads to a whole bunch of different things that take us towards a solution to that problem of a deficit of a problem the Indian problem so idiots are a problem okay that's one way of looking at it if the problem is that natives have their land stolen and therefore can't develop their culture and therefore can't ever have an existence which reflects their own values their own teachings which reflects actually a sense of justice where they are able to take advantage of what is rightly theirs in their homeland and to live out that culture and to live out that existence in their homeland which they never surrender that takes us on a whole different set of pathways leading to different types of solutions so it's very important to not skip over to step of identifying the root problem so it seems repetitious I think especially if you watch my youtube videos and know a lot of you have people that watch this visit well I was talking about it's all about the land it's always talking about this map what's absolutely necessary to continue to remind ourselves of the fact that it is all about the land and I will credit someone in particular for a freeze in the 1990s there was something called the Royal Commission I are looking will some of you may be familiar with that this was an effort in the 1990s to law developed a solution thoughts on solutions moving forward it was kind of like the first act of reconciliation you know we're living this reconciliation era these days well the first act of it was coming out of the 1990 crisis here as it's called all the conflicts that we had were blockades and over logging in British Columbia so they wanted to kind of study they wanted to study the problem and they commissioned disloyal Commission they put together this world Commission and they brought together all kinds of people who were experts on this issue to study the problem and the first thing that they they decided was that what we're going to do is come up with a concept of Canada that is amenable and people on both sides of this divide between the native and the non-native people our whole side goes both sides that if I can buy you two can relate to and move forward and can can live with and so I was part of that I was part of that and I was a young person coming at it and you know the way that I describe that there's all kinds of possibilities visions and all kinds of things that could come forward but there was one person their name is Rosalie tisha if there's anybody from the Yukon or even from the North you can take credit for the idea that came from her she would remind all of us young people who were working in this Royal Commission and the older people that were working in the Royal Commission that it's good to envision all of these different things you can talk all day about self-timer and arrangements you can talk about culture you can talk about reconciliation and on that that was her phrase for five years I heard her say that every time we had to be in tell about the land don't forget that you know and so we're talking about South Tubman agreements talk about money talking about shared powers all kinds of visions about how we're gonna Chicago integrated to parliamentary system our third-order government all that it's all about the land don't forget that you know and she would constantly remind us of that so I always kind of like raise my hands for her because in the end I realized and I think a lot of us are realizing that it is all about the land that's what colonization was that's what colonization is and that's what the colonization has to be it has to be recognizing of the fact that we are disconnected from the land and that we need to reconnect to our own land and that without that at the core of any project where is the Royal Commission whether it's reconciliation we're attempting going forward it doesn't mean nothing well that may be over stadium it means something for the larger society because what it does is it allows the largest society off the hook think about reconciliation means without land reconciliation without land is non-native people being able to feel good about themselves moving forward a non-native people being able to say that this country actually has done right by native people that as justice Murray Sinclair a man I respect by the way a man I respect for his dedication in his work well who I disagree with in terms of the objectives of reconciliation if it reflects his vision actually I won't say his mission that maybe lead to unfair to me but if it reflects his statement that reconciliation is just all about us agreeing to be friends think about the meaning of that we all agreed to be friends if we followed up and say we all agreed to be friends so that we can talk about getting the land back for natives and having their homeland respected and their traditional governments respected and so forth I would agree with it but unfortunately today the reconciliation framework is all about being friends if you look at the recommendations if you look at all of the policy that's developed if you look at the general discourse ideas are all of the talk in the media and academia the kind of programs that are that are promoted the things that go into reconciliation a lot of things that none of us could argue with justice and individual terms payment and restitution for harm suffered out of residential school who can argue with that you know people suffered they need some form of compensation it's been worked out that that's the money payment system is the thing they're going to get and people look people are accessing that I can't speak against that if people are who have suffered the harm or access to it and see that valuable there's all kinds of things about promoting more enlightened ideas about native culture integrating native art into a larger society promoting the arts and culture generally in the society and getting native people to be more and more looked at as components of Canada and respected in that regard okay those are things that are good they're inherently good the question though is whether or not it's enough my answer is no it's not enough it's only enough if you think about Canada as a complete project and as a good country if Canada is a good country period then the natives are a problem because they don't realize how good of country it is they can't find a place in a good country therefore we have to turn and either educate those natives give them medicine or further and further change them so that they come to realize what a great country Canada is and find your place within it that's only possible in that way of thinking if you don't know your own history and if you don't value the fact that the central hit the central founding act of Canada with dispossession through fought through fraud and abuse and the breaking of treaties and that the only occupation of territory in this country by non-native people is an illegal occupation I could say that outright because there are treaties there are communities there's treaties here this land is covered by trees and food is all over the place and that should be a legitimate basis for a coexistence and there was at one time a legitimate basis for a coexistence there was a coexistence between the French the English and the Iroquois for example in this area toward nashoni that was a state of affairs that existed for a period of time in this country but that's not the state of affairs that exists normal things have happened over time to result in even in those areas that have trees they're not being honored they're not being respected so therefore where there's a treaty and the possibility of a legitimate Canadian existence on that territory meaning the original owners have transferred a degree of legitimacy people that have come and they've solidified that in a contractual arrangement and it's been made sacred even where that was the original state it doesn't exist anymore because the treaty is not being respected that a treaty is broken therefore there's no legitimacy okay that's my version of history now is it a problem of natives not fitting in is it an Indian problem or is it a colonizer problem to me it's a colonizer problem because Canadian society is founded by colonizers and people who don't want to be colonizers and will react with horror to the idea that they are colonizers are actually inheriting all the benefits of colonization and not really doing that much to challenge it people might say that's unfair like well reconciliation is just starting you know the 90s that's when you have the Royal Commission we have this residential school apology we have the development of this reconciliation framework and we're just starting no mood for it I say well yeah okay to reconciliation framer to start but that's that's kind of letting people off really easy because people have known about the tests and people have known about all this for a long long long time and now people are just getting to the point of dealing with it kind of abstractly to me it's about time to actually just be honest and be authentic and be real and looking at the relationship and to say well what kind of country am i apart up and make some serious commitments to do it what's necessary in order to heal the Founding grind of that country which is the depth of land I'll say it again so coming at it from this perspective having been ingrained with this perspective and having developed the understanding of it further to study and to work in this area but I come at the framework of reconciliation with a real clear sense of what it needs to do in order to be something like reality and I think most native people not articulating it in the same way that I do obviously we all talk in a different voice and they don't have that particular unit I do but I think you go around the country and talk to people and I know it is for a fact as I do it and you can go to Australia you can go to any country that's doing reconciliation and they'll all articulate that same vision of all what's necessary in order for it to be a healing process as opposed to a process which puts the cap on the damage that's been done in the past that's why I named it I named this top you know reconciliation as recolonization because it's really a choice that Canadians have to make the choices is a reconciliation as healing with variation to get past or is their reconciliation to recall them as I put a cap on meaning to say that native people have to accept it's big honey and I mentioned this in earlier talk but I will say this one again I was in Australia and somebody mentioned it and phrased it in a way that I think is really powerful it was a native woman over there and she put it when I gave him I gave a similar talk Latino over here to a bunch of people doing the inflate Oakland I was critical reconciliation in the same way and she said reconciliation is not my kid support if it meant us reconciling with our ancestral vision as opposed to us here consolidated colonialism it smooth you got it and only people are being asked to reconcile themselves to colonialism nan reconcile themselves to their ancestors that she went on and she gave a very powerful intervention about how damaging it is and how the colonial damage and the harms of karmic colonization are continually reproduced because by being forced into this mode of reconciling with newcomers in the Canadian society that every native knows in her heart is wrong because of the lamb not being returned in a continual Harbor you're actually feeling like you're doing harm or injustice to your ancestors like deep down you know you're at least ignoring them you may not be turning around and doing harm to them but you're ignoring them you're not paying attention to what your ancestral vision is and what our ancestors fought and died because I insisted didn't talk quite and die I say this a lot I remind myself all the time they did fight and die for paying citizenship didn't fight and die in wars against people came to take our land steal their kids and all that stuff they didn't fight and diet in order to be just like everybody else they fought would be Mohawks and Creed and detonate they fought for that and they suffer for that and who are we to turn our back on that vision simply because it's a struggle that we have to face today in a different way than David so as an indigenous person there's a challenge there too right I laid out a challenge for the non-native people non-native people whether you're French English or a particle group of people become more recently for this area of the world the challenge is there to imagine yourself in a position of being honest about the history and doing something about it well the challenge is there for Native people too because it's not always it's not easy to always be in a position of struggle I mean our people in the last two or three generations know what it's like to be in a position of struggle and contest and detention all the time takes a psychological toll it's an it's draining and Center it takes a toll on families and communities it tears out at the bonds of people you know it's it's a difficult thing and people from other parts of the world that have been in these kind of situations of political resistance know that so it is a tough choice for people tool Native people will come up who access education will access what benefits we do have now in order to educate ourselves to take the best of our own ancestral knowledge and to pair it up with training and universities like this and to become more lawyers doctors professors or or advocates for their people it's a choice that people make because part of this reconciliation frame remember I said is let's all be friends well that's explicit the societies with open arms saying come you know we're not going to block you out anymore people forget that to new generations of natives couldn't go into certain bars or they couldn't go into certain places there's like a pass system people were over the racist and all this stuff it's up that doesn't really exist anymore it does you know it pockets we all of that but in general in the society people are much more open it's getting to the point now where you know people are talking about indigenous culture as integral to being unique so you're getting to the point where people want north west coast are trying called red all this kind of stuff like everybody wants that Canadians are embracing it and so the society is not pushing native people away or welcoming them but on certain terms certain terms there's a concept that's long-standing since I think it's like the 60s or 70s a good India it's kind of all they determine the Indian but you know the good Indian the one who meets the criteria of that larger society of being the image that they want so the image they wanted before was of a noble savage they needed a savage person to justify their actions their violent conquest of this country needed not a honorable person who was struggling to preserve her family and fought and died to protect her family in her land that wouldn't make the Canadian seem very nope very honorable and crushing that and wiped that out they needed a savage they needed someone who was angry and aggressive and strong in order to defeat in order to make themselves feel valid that's that's the noble savage the good Indian is the concept of another creation in the mind of the non-native society which is to say what we need our group of people will give us the legitimacy by their acquiescence to our own pollenization I don't want to pick on anyone in the public sphere you all have your own booty Indians anybody who's familiar with this can name anybody whatever city you're from whether it's much y'all Winnipeg Vancouver or whatever just just know that there's people that serve that role some way up I don't not saying they're conscious I'm saying oh I want to be a good Indian and Esquire that it's the fact that they've made the choice between resistance and after the essence that's that's what I'm arguing here is that the good Indian becomes the person that the society validates and honors and brings up as the image of what it is to be an Indian or indigenous person because they suit the needs of the larger society at that particular time so at one time was the noble savage now it's the blue India and so what happens to the bad Indians the bad Indians are the ones first of all that are not saying and doing the things that larger society wants or needs them they're not doing it explicitly against larger society they're doing it because their own women so they're being indigenous kind of joked about it earlier this morning it's like you know talk about a conflict and talked about though 1990 and stuff like that it wasn't a matter of men some natives one crazy to Porsche car breeze Chris Rock it was just like some natives when they do you know and this natives who lived up to the demands of their own community its natives who lived up to the requirements of that of that time in order to preserve themselves and they did things in order to accomplish that and so the good Indian serves the purpose the bad Indian is the thing that needs to be continually suppressed and eliminated and so the choice is there on both sides the reconciliation framework is something that really tries to overwhelm the idea of resistance overwhelm the idea of land based culture overwhelmed the idea that you can be a separate or distinct nation overwhelm all these kind of things in favor of the amenable vision of what it is so right now in reconciliation we're being asked to accept the idea of as the terminology both Aboriginal and to forget the idea of a land based culturally connected sense of the moment and indigenous because that is still a fundamental obstacle to Canada even today it was the fundamental obstacle from the beginning and it still is the fundamental obstacle now when people came over from Europe the first thing they encountered was the fact that their Bible was wrong this place wasn't supposed to exist first of all secondly the teachings that are developed in that society out of the out of the biblical perspective didn't make any sense there were people here who had civilizations and culture languages there was all flourishing societies here that in cents and they face the choice at that time they could either account for that and say no we were wrong let's have a relationship let's find out what this new world is really like let's find our place in it and let's let's build a relationship meter before they could deny the reality that was in front of them and stick to their teachings and unfortunately the historical choice made by the Europeans at that time at least the ones that were in power and making decisions that affected everybody on the land was that they were going to deny the reality and live with the teachers that they brought over from Europe so the idea there was no civilization is something that undergirds all of Canadian law terra nullius how is it there's lawyers in the room so I better watch it I'm staying here I got to make sure I'm right terra nullius is the idea of a empty land an empty land how is it the Canadian society accounts for the fact that there was flourishing societies with law government for thousands and thousands of years and yet Europeans who have only been here for a couple hundred years have legitimate ownership of everything in the crown from Britain and France owns all of this continent how is that there's no logic to that unless you believe in one of two things inherent European cultural superiority aka white racism or terra nullius which allows you to say that there weren't really people there they I don't know they somehow we're moving around so much that they didn't attach the land and that the idea that there was law in this land or something like that just you know it doesn't factor into our legal reasoning so it's called a legal fiction it's a legal fiction that's at the heart and at the root of Canadian law that's still the case today and why was that go forward it was put forward because the Europeans who came here needed to access the land they needed to use that land and the native story and the relationship between natives and non-natives and the image of the native everything I'm talking about here flows from that they make treaties when they needed to the Europeans may treaties when they need to as long as they can get what they wanted from the land when those treaties stop being things were that were mechanisms to a lot of taxes the lengths they broke them and they violently moved the people away from the land I never ran out of a lot and then they attempted to write us out of history that's the Indian F so 1867 1851 actually it started I think the Indian Act with the management of land and then they develop into today a lot of people don't realize that young people the Indian Act is this piece of legislation that came up in the 1850s when people have these ideas about the natives that I'm talking about here and they developed this law which basically says if you read the Indian actors no mention of ah of nationally there's no mention of anything about the fact that the Government of Canada Parliament of Canada creates the thing called Indians the number those Indians they create the Royal Indian reserves and they number those and that is in Canadian law the only existence for all of my sisters and brothers here as employment hey in law doesn't recognize anything while it's been modified somewhat since then in terms of Aboriginal rights doctrine and so forth but that is so limited in its application that I'm not even going to talk about it it's a theoretical concept as a practical thing it hasn't altered the relationship at all between Native people and the Government of Canada so as we stand in Canada today we have terra nullius where Canadian government institutions in law is based on the legal fiction which is a KLI it says that there was no law and there was no people in this land therefore our law is the one that can that needs to be the one in place and that there was no such thing at native nationhood or anything like that these people that we call Indians only exist by our own creation we can give and take that away just like we give it a Whalen's why does all this exists because Kanda at that time it now needs to continue to push for access to that territory so to put India to refer back to that concept is any indigenous person that by act of acquiescence or by explicit treaty or by their own posture in relation to that that enterprise allows that to happen and validates them so treaty making self-government our music literature people's personalities it's all in vain it's all intertwined in the sense of the Aboriginal person candidate it's held up it validated and supported is the one that allows that access to the land to booty so they're resource extraction can continuing those territories without benefiting the people ended actually is sorry to throw in a bit of an economic accident analysis and Marxism into the discussion but that's an important fact we consider to there's an economic basis and drive to all this and the people who are in resistance are those that get in the way of that flow they get in the way of the ideas that are created to facilitate this to enable it and to maintain and those that simply want to remain themselves in their homeland practicing their culture guided by their spirituality that is something that the Canadian state cannot grasp in the current construction of their Canadian statement there's no capacity of the payin government to relate to truly indigenous governments there's no capacity of the Canadian state to really access and understand and relate to indigenous culture in the way that it is supposed to be operating and it's fully functioning on the land in relation to and in relation to each other there's no capacity for that so when we talk about reconciliation we have to think about it and turn it around again it's not us reconciling ourselves to colonization because I hope the but it's like brief history and analysis of Canada you can you can see if there's significant problems ended up in the way that is constructed in its relationship to me to people you know reconciliation it has to be Canadians reconcile them to the fact that they're in an unjust position in relation to the land before you evolve well that takes us to like the last part indigenous resurgence is a concept that's emerged merely out of academia but it's starting to work its way into politics now in the phraseology of resurgence is attractive I think to a lot of people was attractive to me when I first kind of encountered and looked at it because it's kind of a counter to a number of other ideas like there's there's a reconciliation which I've been focusing on which is problematic and related I've talked about it here um there's recognition which is another artwork which is something that lawyers and political scholars and all is kind of tied to reconciliate which is that you know to put in the about indian thing think about it in the legal realm in a political realm and that the Canadian government will recognize will recognize certain aspects of indigenous nation hood and certain aspects of the digits governance its are aspects of indigenous rights and choose to recognize that and solidify that and put that into agreements and make that the concept of Aboriginal so it's recognizing and it picking and choosing aspects okay so there's that that's a greatly simplified provision of it so there's recognition reconciliation and there's also resistance we're all familiar with the term resistance of we're looking at politics I've used it a couple of times here tonight already in different parts of the world in this territory or home people have been in a position of resistance for a long time basically to bring it down to the local court in about Milwaukee and the area that we live in here up until the 1950s in the construction of the st. Lawrence Seaway I mean between the 1800s the late the early eighteen hundreds and that period our people were in a position of basically being controlled by government name controlled churches the mentality of our people was she quite a relationship to the priests of the teach of the Catholic Church and and they had suffered in terms of losses in this colonial era population losses and economic and military power to the position where we were in position of companions our people then realized throughout the 1950s this is my analysis that I'm offering this is not a consent to some I'm offering after people to think about it this week in the 1950s the people in Ghana logic experienced a significant historical trauma which was a harm done to us through the construction and say oh I see with only recently the discussions in our community and people start to actually have the ability to go back and say what was the impact the Seaway and the construction Seaway on our people psychologically culturally and otherwise well my president runs here and there might be some other people in the room who are affected similarly in terms of our family and the impact of it you know we had a grandfather and a grandmother who lived in a certain area that had culture to have lagged a connection to the river and they had community and so forth I noticed all along all along the river and the present day around where the church is all the way to like candy ACK up to the order of the reserved air there was a settlement and it was community and that was all taken away straight-up expropriation after they were promised it wouldn't happen like government officials literally came to gonna get smoke the peace pipe and then went away and broke the promise and then they came in enforce I'm using this historical example because this was in 1955 57 nobody really resisted in this sense there wasn't the kind of resistance you saw in the 70s and the 80s and certainly not in 1990 why was that I would argue is because our people had been in we're in a position of dependency and trust in trusted dreams if you read the documents of the history of the Seaway they appealed to the tree they appealed to international law they appealed to the goodness of that society how could you come and do this after all we've done for you basically I mean there's a lot of walks in the room so we'll take some we'll take some credit here say we're central to the formation of this down country you know like if it wasn't for Mohawks fighting in certain battles along with other people there wouldn't be a Canada so believe that what people were saying how can you do this you may treat look at our historical role how could you turn against nobody at that point in the 50s was in a position to say we're going to resist delays that are necessary to prevent it from happening and that's something that's something for people not along that's something that we need to revisit look at is that that's the history of our people to just as much as you have a proud history of existence you know you look at the newspaper articles in that era they rotated arson she was coming and they were taking old women out of houses and stuff like that and people working on extending wrong watch I think there were skirmishes I wasn't there I'm not old enough there were skirmishes and there was kind of like here and there but a mess what happened after that is that people and gotten along and anybody our age that we welcome gonna walk it knows the kind of catchphrase that developed after that and it took a while I think people were in shock her community was in disarray it's said in that this is what happened and we began to feel the effects people gone waka developed a culture where resistance was something that could be put forward that somebody could put that idea forward and say that's never going to happen again not one more inch of land will ever be taken everybody's not even going to walk you in here because you put you broke with that not one more inch of land yeah I doubt whether they said that in the nicer titties but after to see where that came up so if you want to look at 1990 an idea of indigenous resistance specifically in Mohawk territory John Walker you can't start in you know an evil 19 idea look at July you have to look at first of all the eighties where did that come from well that the 70s the rise of red power and this kind of revitalization of native consciousness that parallel there were a lot of other movements in the society we have to go all the way back through the 50s and beyond to where Native people were basically in a position of trust and where that trust was abused and that where to put their trust in the faith of that large Society they found out once and for all and not neva being particularly gonna market that that was the strategy everything get you killed as a nation if you continue to trust and if you continue to allow them to do what they wanted to do in relation to the land you wouldn't exist anymore we wouldn't have a land-based therefore we wouldn't have a culture I wouldn't have a language and the one type of community were done so people react very strongly to any incursion after that and that's really at the foundation I think of their reaction throughout the 1980s into 1990 and even today in terms of people's hypersensitivity regarding the land so the idea of resistance was there but I'm talking about all of this because resistance itself is in the way that I've been talking about it I hope you can see is against something okay so it's against that intrusion it's against those forces that are coming in and trying to do harm so you're pushing back right that's my definition that's resistance it's a good phrase because it really is that we're trying to trying to push back against that but what we found in a position of resistance for so long is that you kind of neglect the things that actually keep you alive as a people you're always outward focused you're taking what's necessary to fight your push it back while you're not having the time or the energy and the people are not there to do two things that keep that community strong those bonds strong so the idea of resurgence is something now it comes into play when we talk about resurgence first of all I wanted to make it clear by putting in this context it's not negating the utility of all of these other things it's not saying that resistance at all under necessary it's not saying that there's absolutely no value to reconciliation or anything like that contained it we also need to duel and we need to put our focus on what is the core of our existence the core of our existence is maintaining that player that to use a metaphor of the metaphor of it that fired it is our nation it's our language it's our ceremonious or culture it's even beyond the traditional aspects of it it's our relationship to each other it's our bonds of communities the things we do together it's the trust that we have maintaining that and keeping that strong is the thing we need to do in order to exist as Illinois the fact that you have that in a particular territory in relation to particular plants and animals and spirits and so forth that defines you as a group of people that can be called mohawk emo on homeland but it's kind of generalized across engages people that you need to do those things in order to maintain yourself so resurgence is really to focus on that so it's taken the idea of resistance and looking at it for what it is is something that's necessary at certain times but not structuring your personality or community or culture to be in resistance all the time to find yourself that way it's kind of shifting the focus and saying what we need to do in order to accomplish the anti economization the anti colonial objective is to look at the fundamental harm being disconnection from the land which leads to all of these other arms let's connect ourselves to the lab let's begin to relate to the land and our homeland in the way that our ancestors did and really experience that reinvigorated regenerate that culture because it means recognizing that a lot of the things that are wrong and not from white societies perspective but the things that we experience is wrong in our communities the gaps that we feel the problems that we feel come from not having that relationship or not being able to have that relationship because of contamination pollution settlement and so forth of other people on our territory that means focusing on that reconnection and it's not really I want to emphasize it's not the kind of romantic vision I'm saying go back to the land you know and we'll all be everything will be alright know what it's saying is that you can't have any imagining of a solution that means anything for indigenous people at the spiritual level or the serious level of cultural change cultural strengthening unless there is a retention of the land and unless there is an embodiment in the individual and the collective 'ti of the ancestral knowledge that came through our generations and they really define us as people so we can't really just be average of people living on a certain defined territory without any connection to the spiritual power and the knowledge that we have is addition people and the responsibilities that we have as over going that territory to come to our ceremonies to our language that's what resurgence is is putting the emphasis on that and it's saying that if we focus on that white society but thirteen using the word white club most people in power is still white right there my dream which in this country itself people are making the decisions there so when that society can then have to sorry has to then a comedy native people living in that way on their territory growing the strength of their culture through the strengthening of their families the relearning of the language the learning of all of those all of the things that made them strong our ancestors from it's going to continue to grow and it's going to butt up against the limited vision that Canadians have of natives it's going to put up pretty quick to the idea of the Indian reserve first of all the territorial boundary is going to put up against natives in the image of the KA government and it turns the tables on the Canadian government and it forces them to react as opposed to us having to react to them so indigenous resurgence is a is an attractive idea for a lot of younger people especially I'm finding unable to talk about it and will teach everything it's an attractive idea because the prospects of a career eater as an activist or just living your life as a native person in a kind of resistance mode or recognition politics or reconciliation are somewhat depressing because you know you could spend your whole career negotiating a land claim you could spend your whole career negotiating and self-government agree even if you get recognition of it so long how does it fundamentally affect the lives of people are your children or your grandchildren going to have a better life or a more native life than you because of that well theoretically that's the argument for those things but you can look across the country and it's not the case in all of these regions that have poor credits of land claims agreement side of all I run into people all the time of a younger generation is saying the home it's not it's not doing us any good as native people its standard of living in terms of comfort level maybe in some cases but we're losing our language our common communities are not the same we're losing our Indian SS as it comes down the line so if it can be a situation where by focusing on this agenda in this way of resisting colonization we have the opportunity to pass that struggle on but also offer young people a vision or they can make real changes in the lives of themselves and their kids to make them more native than definitely then I think that we're doing something for combat colonization and being effective in it as opposed to struggling in a way which is kind of like a trap which gathers all the bright minds and educated people and it says no not here come to this classroom come to this court do this and you spend your whole career doing that you're enriched yourself in the process there's no doubt about that but what is it good for opportunities of the kids there like their ancestors so it's a turning around of the question in a number of different ways this idea of indigenous or serious I think that that's that's what I'm gonna leave you with in terms of alternatives and reconciliations for you to consider what is indigenous resurgence and how am i a part of it because it's not only indigenous people it's also a bad relationship so the problem the premise of Canada was the breaking of the original agreement that allowed white people to be here to set themselves up in hysterical this particular territory right at the Lachine method and we're we're kind of standing right now you know that's that's where the French people came and that's where our Mohawks welcomed them and that's where they saved them with medicines and they brought them back to life and they allow this country to be in no it's not just the Indian story it's not just a native story it's a story of everybody and say how are you part of indigenous resurgence how are you going to make this country a different place one that is fitting with this justice vision as opposed to this recolonization vision of resurgence that we call I'm going to finish their look