theUbyssey x-/-nx the organizations in which journalism has teye been those which have married a minimum of ©supervision with a maximum of freedom, and encouragement, and which have learned to te the fact that the best journalism is often pilar, that there is no way to resolve all the {between the commercial and public trust aspects of news enterprises, and that it would be a to attempt to resolve them in favour of or the other. ^ftV^^x^^- #&&$&*?% *%./&'&**& /J*' **&&%* !&4****vF*&#&Js * %% ?'*.*/*$*/*■***•*•//* *f*s»*w4* % *& '*S **£&*'**'*&!* , *S**S** ***S * *W**iM*/**V **/¥/* i. reasons why residence deserves more attention touchdcvmU ' Ktkante, IN December of 1991, a Senate Committee on disciplinary appeals submitted its report on the cases of five male residents of Caribou House at Place Vanier residence. The president's office had disciplined all five for their involvement in an incident over 18 months ago, when women students at Vanier received obscene and threatening notes, apparently advertising an upcoming party. The president's office allowed some ofthe appeals, and disallowed others. For Strangway, the major decisions had been made. But, the appeals committee felt the matter warranted further investigation. "The Senate Committee on Student Appeals on Academic Discipline," the report reads, "wishes to express its concerns about what some students appear to consider appropriate conduct at the university and in particular, in the residences." According to the committee, the involved students claimed similar incidents had geme unpunished in the past, and were still occurring. Indeed, this has been an unsettling thought lingering in my own mind. Will the example ofthe presidents sacrificial lambs adequately deter similar activity in the future? Senator Jean Elder, now retired, moved that Senate strike an ad hoc committee to look into the academic environment at UBC's residences. This committee would investigate the process of selecting and training residence advisors, and suggest steps to improve the quality of academic life in the residences. The motion passed. But so far that committee has made little progress. A call for submissions circulated on campus last spring received only five responses. Worse, because its first meetings coincided with the end of winter session, several ofthe committee's own members failed to actually attend when the board convened in June. It plans tore-convene this September. Meanwhile, student turn- Vanier and Totem? What brought on this indictment of on- campus culture, an institution generations of UBC graduates remember with fondness? "Oh, we had a wonderful time," recalls one former resident, now a schoolteacher in the BC interior. She smiles distantly as she gazes around the Shrum commons block at Vanier. "We all lost our virginity here. We all tried drugs for the first time. You know, nothing major. Just a bit of grass or whatever. But that was the late sixties, and early seventies. I imagine ifs a lot worse now." JULY, 1992—Well, it is and it isn't. Few people at rez smoke dope on a regular basis anymore. But they could probably learn a lesson or two from the flower kids ofthe '60s on the principles of peace and love. For instance, to the residents on my floor two years ago, the GulfWar was another sporting event, something to be watched on CNN between beers and football games. "Bight on!" exclaimed one resident as he watched the "surgical" bombing of a government building in Baghdad. "The 'mericans are gonna kick that fucker's ass." I wrote it down when he said it. But the most constant source of ugly incidents, at Vanier at least, has been the strident competition for notoriety between houses. When I sat in on a mediation session between the Caribou men and various concerned women, the men from Caribou remarked at a pressure to be the worst, the lewdest, the baddest boys in rez. They certainly had some competition for the title. At Totem Park, residents of first Haida proudly call themselves "the Pigs." When I lived in Robson house, we were "the Rats." - And the men of Sherwood Lett were real title-holders. They once donned a floor shirt which depicted a caricature of Fred Flintstone, standing atop a dorm- building, pissing on a crowd "We get a lot of values baggage and drinking baggage from the students' home towns," he said, "not to mention the traditions that are already here." over in the residences has left . few people in Vanier and Totem Park who remember or even know ofthe initial cause for concern. Marilyn Cox, an advisor at Vanier for the past two years, is one resident who recalls the incident, and she believes the committee still has plenty to investigate. "Nothing has changed," she said. "Some ofthe more explicitly sexual events, like 'Cum Together,' have been tamed down so they dont draw as much attention. But after a couple of years things could easily go back to the way they were." So how were things at hard for us to change things here when the residents can go up to the SUB and find boatraces, or read the Red Rag whenever they want." Cooper's comments make at least one thing clear: if the governing bodies at UBC really want to make changes, they will have to offer up more in the way of initiative than the lip service they have thus far. Even Carole Forsythe, co- chair ofthe senate ad hoc committee admits the current inquiry has few sanctions at its disposal. "Maybe this is something best looked at from the Board of Governors' point of view," she said. "But we're hoping that if we make our recommendations public, then other boards and departments might do something." Forsythe may be right, tentative as her plan sounds. Indeed, what Cooper does not point out is that residence tradition is the training academy from which he draws the bulk of his staff. The Vanier and Totem advisors may have practical experience with a party-h«-sarty atmosphere, but few see any to change it. Intervention into both the process of selecting its 100 advisors, and the re-definition of its departmental mandate would be a huge initiative for Housing, requiring a strong sanction from the BOG. AND, according to Cooper, there is no telling that a more idealistic and interventionist staff would solve as many problems as it would cause. "People have individual freedoms;" he remarked, "so if you're going to make changes, you have to do it by setting the tone." Moreover, by narrowing its terms of reference specifically to contemplate the selection and training of advisors, the committee may be neglecting other important areas of consideration, such as the influence of various campus events and organizations upon the residence atmosphere. When asked why she thought the terms pin-pointed the advisor selection process, director of student housing Mary Risebrough hinted at a general ignorance in senate of conditions in residence, even though the senate's specific-mandate is to foster academic life at the university. "They may have made some assumptions with regard to the way things are in residence," she said. "I think that (co-chair) Dr. Brunette was uncomfortable with being put into the position of questioning Housing policy." Indeed, Brunette was as reluctant as his co-chair Forsythe to express confidence in the committee's potential to institute real change. He was inclined, rather to put the issue back into Housing's hands. "We certainly want to know how students feel about the conditions at the residences," Brunette said. "But sometimes I don't think people are aware of what can be done, for example at the departmental level." "They do already have a lot of programmes where they sensitize the counsellors," he said. "I think the general view is that the milieu is changing a little, that things are getting better." JULY, 1992—I spoke to Mich Roy last night, a fellow advisor (advisors tend to consider themselves brothers and sisters in arms). Mich agrees with me that more rules and intervention may ruin the unique experience of dorm life: its mixing of sexes, classes, and races, its sense of carnival. But Mich had one of his worst years at residence last year. "My floor was pretty strange," he said. "One night they all got really drunk, put on Depends undergarments and sat around wetting themselves. They thought it was just hilarious." Well, Dr. Brunette, maybe "the milieu" is changing. But some of us counsellors have become so desensitized we can't tell the difference. Perhaps you would be doing us all a big favour if you and your committee stopped waiting around for letters, and actually came down to find out what it's like at rez. After all, a floundering bureaucracy dm xn't change many diapers. •x AVM-/ ,■*& :& °?i?* -. ■■*■ o ■'a. »J C '*■*■ *ft? i^V-^vl"* below him. "SL:" it read, "Gods of Vanier.'1 But whose fault is it when university residents fail as models of intelligence and citizenship? Carl Cooper, residence life manager at Place Vanier, argues that several factors spawn the animal life at the dorms. "We get a lot of values baggage and drinking baggage from the students' home-towns," he said, "not to mention the traditions that are already here." "Besides," Cooper added, "much of what we combat is off- rez, on other parte of campus. It's ■ j. . . •;■ ■/■*■- ■I.-.*..' . ■ *?««-- ■'■*&■/: \- I e / J& ■Jt < *-v .-.t^-"£.*- •'iniAn '"o-Wr July 30,1992 THEUBYSSEY/5 <■ •* *S 'tf+fWrftyS YXtoPt?'' ' % '"&&"%<$ 'fvm?, / rs' **/* fjt^l^jSL * "'J^v*(jf Vfffl'fi'* *** **'*,*•* */** ', Ji>, &/*£ *„$* i s** s ** y* i * s ■* * *■/*&**• ** * + #&&&&&> SSsi/S* **, y. j s,S*/ jNAAk Woebegone under the bridge by Carol Farrell ITS Chicago in the 1930's. The setting is a rundown hotel where three women, each in separate bedrooms, lament their lost loves, rejections and involvements with bad men by singing the blues. Throaty wails ring tout in the dark as the women belt out their despair about men who have let them down. * THEATRE Blues in the Night Until September 12 at the Granville Island Arts Club "Blues in the Night" is a jazz musical written by Sheldon Epps, directed by Bill Miflerd, and which stars Lovie Eli, Saffron Henderson, Alvin Sanders and Sibel Thrasher* Twenty-five original musical numbers are performed, each one kept alive by artists inspired to sing the blues. Blues has its roots in the deep South, where it was used as a way of coping and took the place of tears. The only man in the performance represents a living prop for whatever the women's songs require, whether it is slow and sensual like "Willow Weep for Me," or a pointedly sexual piece such as "Kitchen Man." He struts around the stage in a zoot-suit, swinging his long gold chain, with a vicious leer on his face as he sings "Wild Women Don't Have the Blues." A four-piece jazz ensemble - accompanies the singers: Buff Allen, drums; Tom Keenlyside, woodwinds; John Parker- Toutson, bass; and Lome Kellett, pianist. Wearing felt hats and suspenders, they sit, perched behind dusty-red, faded velvet bandstands, on a revolving platform. A round ball covered in small triangular mirrors is lowered from the ceiling and prisms of light swirl around the stage, creating a 1930s effect. Lovie Eli (The Woman ofthe World) and Sibel Thrasher (The Lady from the Road), have voices strong enough to rise above the music from the band; however, Saffron Henderson's (The Girl with a Date) voice was, at times, difficult to hear.' "Blues in the Dark" played to a packed house and was sensually provocative from start to finish. This is Buffy's head by Paula Wellings with Lucho vanlssehot OKAY, so Lucho and I were having a slow day. We were like bummed on the paper scene and all, so, when this absolutely mythical opportunity came spurting out of our totally technical fax machine, we telepathetically linked our cosmic aurae and knew in a moment of all knowing that we were off to a totally freehand awesome press screening of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. * 'fjif So, like, what do you want to know? FILM Buffy the Vampire Slayer Royal Centre Cinemas Buffy (Kristy Swanson) is this fluffy caricature of Barbie who finds out she's not destined to be a buyer fof Mary's, or even buy from Macy's fos*tha*fc-" matter. Neither is she, like, destined ttf» ,' be some happy homemaker for her smelly jock boyfriend. **" % Oh no. \\ Buffy, cheerleader extraordinaire^fea , genetically selected-for-spandex bo-ar, isWQdly destined from the absolute commencSnenf " time to stab ugly people with bits of timber. Dont get it? Have another look at the title, sunshine. Buffy kills vampires. It certainly wasn't like her idea or anything, but life in Hollywood is like that. I mean, she like certainly didn't plan on dating Pike, the school nerd either. Or, like, having her final vampire killing scene at the high school prom. Fm sure Pike (Luke Perry) didnt want to drive around with Pee-Wee Herman's evil twin riding on top of his van, reaching in his sun roof either. But I tell you, make a teen-romantic- comedy in Hollywood, and certain protocol must be followed. You know, I think the folks who made BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER thought it had some like deep message for the world. I mean, I was reading the press package and Fran Rubel Kuzui, who directed the movie, said, "If this film is about anything, it is about believing in and accepting oneself. A llayer is a person who believes in herself or mself. If you do that, you can do anything, ther ifs killing vampires, directing movies ng a doctor, lawyer, spouse or parent. A is a person who's not afraid." at kind of trip is Fran on? Can I join Meanwhile, Buffy, the Slayer, relived a few Basic Instinct scenes, flexed her muscles at the villains, and finished it all up by falling in pn a mfcje positive note, Lucho liked the f-*in«$hato§|*2s*Jtiy. Mostly, the film struck him like a weti&h in the face, but he did adore the sh&B of thetoaoon. Stone mixes action, adventure and art by Mark Nielsen NOT many movies can claim to have action, adventure and artistic merit, but Scream of Stone, the latest from director Werner Herzog, is one of them. FILM Scream of Stone Showing currently at Royal Centre Scream of Stone is a story about mountain climbing and, more specifically, the rivalry between a grizzled veteran mountaineer and a young hotshot rock climber. Thus the action and adventure. (For those not familiar with the difference, a mountaineer focuses on high-altitude moun tain climbs while a rock climber concentrates on much shorter but more Intense objectives — usually on cliffs or rock outcroppmgs.) But, in characteristic Herzog fashion, the movie is also about obsession and the kinds of thing3 that drive some people to go to the outer limits in search of meaning. This is where the art exists. And while Fm on this alliteration kick (i,e. action, adventure, art) I may as well add an fteh?"—as in Canadian content Besides Canadian financing—along with French and German—Scream also co- stars Canadian actors Donald Sutherland and Al Waxman. Unfortunately, their presence doesn't help as much as it could when it comes to another "a"-word—acting. Thafs probably because they are limited to secondary roles. Sutherland plays a sports writer and Waxman a New York City movie producer. The lead actors are Victorrio Mezzogiorno as the mountaineer and Stefan Glawacz as the rock climber. Although I don't know much about Mezzogiorno, I know that Glawacz is one ofthe world's premier rock climbers in real life as weil as in the movie. Predictably, Glawacz^ acting skills are not even close to being as strong as his climbing abilities, and he's limited to short one-liners "h la* Arnold Schwarzenegger when on the screen. The real excitement is in the climbing. The only thing that holds the movie together between the times they're on the rock, snow and ice is the tension created by the climbers' rivalry and their climactic showdown. Otherwise, we are forced to sit and watch people running errands, pontificating, burning old pictures, and other symbolic but not necessarily action-packed scenes. Fortunately, the cinematography is great, making it a perfect big-screen draw. And the camera work, combined with the climbing, makes wading through the slow stuff worthwhile. No one else will sing his songs hts. 2 ubyssey vortex bv Bob Keelor ' I had a dream &e other night MUke to ^It began with a regular trip toagto -spend an aftei^oon swimmingly fiends W^asUoofthe plunge, I noticed a imxXS~ to say. we were frightened. The bunch rfS^amVdly to the u-land »<* ^^J^notZSandbuta . perS25a 'We were able to keep runnmg lo^SupinhopeBofconfusingthecows shopping mall and tried to explain my ^fortunately everyone at the mall thought I was on drugs and staited chasm. me This turn of events forced me to steal an or JS W van. And as fate would have it, a S stuffed Snoopy was on the dash- b°asLpv gave me directions to the Via state anil boarded a ^^™r blank-faced skeptics shouted Do ei ol rlvrt we were barely moving. Behind tne Sri, "charging like all get out, were the IbbSa^^^^Sr. ^^jSTlfeSS^ condu-orand whSShS jumped on, leavmg the cows behind former. ■ _■... .., ^^-. -■ ffht, .Rut thiswasnotthe -en*1 : ;m^.Dnc^the|^,^^ffw about—"1 ■■-■■■■ told tne mmk ma '■' ! We mhrSofiu woke upin a cold M g^so that I could sleep easiei. by Rebecca Bishop BEFORE a single word was spoken on stage, eye contact had been made with almost every member ofthe audience. Doing a "travel song," he made a brief journey through the patrons' tables, wending between chairs and outstretched legs, periodically stopping to address his harmonica to a particular individual. MUSIC Rory McLeod WISE Club July 23 Rory McLeod is an entertainer of a rare cast. Much of his time is spent roaming the world, funded by the coins he earns as a street performer. His travels take him to roads and realms not generally trodden by the average tourist. One ofthe guest performers on the stage during the evening was a fellow musician McLeod played with in Mexico. Mariachi Love Song, which they played together, is about a man who asked their ensemble, busking roadside, to come perform then and there, for some "friends." So, the ensemble climbed into this man's truck and were driven to a distant, quiet neighbourhood late at night, where they ended up performing for the man's elderly father and family, all roused from sleep to listen to their music. McLeod sings about his family and the people he has met—their lives, living conditions, and often the circumstances of their untimely deaths. His music is inevitably political, but more compassionate of people's circumstances than it is arrogant, which cannot be said of much ofthe political jargon in music today (what that there is). A song about evictions focuses on the lives of children living in council housing in England, McLeod's birthplace. "When children starve in peace time, it should be called war." Children living in impoverished neighbourhoods have been "born in a graveyard," for all that their circumstances offer them in life. McLeod said, "I sing my own songs 'coz no one else will." However, it would not be because his songwriting skills are poor. No matter their skill or talent, no performer would do an adequate job of duplicating the way McLeod performs a song, which is the essential part of his music. He punctuates his harmonica with his voice and the rhythm of his steel-bottom plated boots, drumming and stomping, creating depth and texture normally absent in solo performances. He plays his spoons on virtually any part of his body, and he adds curious new techniques to the realm of guitar playing and singing, and nearly everything he does. McLeod probably would be best described as a folkie, but his performance defies being labelled and simply becomes his own. Originally brought, to Vancouver by the Folk Festival three years ago, his return to the city has been a long time coming. He had some new songs, some old songs, and a seeming boundless amount of joy and energy despite the hard subjects he chooses to address. McLeod sings love songs - about the people he encounters in near and distant places. I expect his perpetual journeying is spurred by a perpetual desire - to meet the people who come to populate his music. His performance Thursday night was a delight to me, and at least the other thirty odd people who were dancing in front ofthe stage. The rest ofthe seated audience seemed to be enjoying themselves thoroughly as well, judging by their participation in repeated encores. McLeod's music is generally available at Black Swan, where they will probably be willing to pull out a CD and play it for your listening pleasure; that, or wander the world and bump into him somewhere. Ifs a small world after all. Rory Mcleod sat Folk Fest 1990, looking much as he does today. 6/THE UBYSSEY July 30,1992 July 30,1992 THE UBYSSEY/7 -t \WV ^.V' SSi*-*1 "■ Vh^-e v" UBC Summer Players in Repertory in Thursday, July 30 & Saturday, August 1 Curtain: 8:00 pm Dorothy Somerset Studio House of Blue Leaves Friday, July 31 Frederic Wood Theatre 822-2678 Three studerit-at-Iarge positions are available on The Ubyssey Publications Committee. Responsibilities include: .• reviewing the budget of The Ubyssey; • serving as a sounding board for disputes with the paper; and • recommending changes to Council regarding The Ubyssey's constitution. Further information can be obtained from Mike Adam, AMS Ombudsperson in SUB lOOQ at 822-4846. Applications are available in SUB 238 from Terri Folsom, Administrative Assistant, until Friday, 7 August by 430 pjm. Fucking negotiate: by Ellen Pond Most of us are living on stolen land. After judge McEachern's 1991 ruling dismissing Gitksan and Wef suwet'en ownership and jurisdiction over their traditional territories, many non-First Nations people seemed shocked at the racism expressed in the judge's statement. Nineteenth century stuff, folks said. It seems to me this particular racism is pretty well en- trenched in the twentieth century— the late twentieth century—and one place to find it is the provincial courthouse. White anthropologists often study First Nations people; it is time for those of us who are white to examine ourselves. In May and June of this year, the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en appealed McEachern's judgement; i sat in courtroom 60 as often as i could in order to witness the Injustice System at work. The first day of the Appeal, the Hereditary Chiefs organized a rally outside the courthouse. Many came down from Ihe territories; wearing traditional regalia, Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en people spoke about their reasons for taking the government to court. The provincial government has continually refused to negotiate ownership and jurisdiction of the territories (22, 000 square miles), which the Chiefs have never ceded to the crown. A street theatre group mimicked the major players aligned against the Gitksan and Wef suwet'en Nations: the provincial government (using a double- sided face of Vander Zalm and Harcourt), the federal government, the BC Business Council, Alcan, the BC Mining Council, and others. The corporate interests entered as intervenors, or people who make sure that all the arguments supporting their interests get heard in court. In a truly bizarre twist, the appeal judges appointed an "Amicus Curiae* (Friend of the Court) to cover any defense of McEachem'sargumentemissedby the province's recently revised position. Supposedly a neutral and disinterested party, the Amicus turned out to be the law firm formerly representing the Socred government—and the one that McEachern worked for prior to his appointmentas judge. The Amicus was thus also aligned against the Gitksan and Wet'suwef en people. Intervenors for the Gitksan and Wef suwet'en include other Tribal Councils, the Union of BC Chiefs, and the AFN (Assembly of First Nations). WHEN THESE G"YS CIKCL£ TU6.IR VvAGof-i*; -" THEY Ooh'T Fool MRoUMD.1 The first day, the Chiefs took turns sitting in the court room because there were only three rows of seats for the public. I sat in court a few days later, watching the five white male judges who seemed almost asleep...eyes lifting occasionally as they asked a question or stated an opinion. "It is common, when one thinks of Indian (sic) land claims, to think of Indians (sic) living off the land in pristine wilderness. Such would not be an accurate representation of the present lifestyle ofthe majority ofthe Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en people who, while possibly maintaining minimal contact with individual territories, have largely moved into the villages. Many of the few who still trap are usually able to drive to their traplines and return home each night." •judge McEachern, Reasons for Judgment, 1991, pgl3. Groups of lawyers filled most of the rest ofthe court. I want to give my impressions of several days ofthe case. I am not "To the extent that aboriginal societies have always grown, to search back for a pristine condition of aboriginality, a Rousseau-kind of sense of the noble savage, we say is not consistent with how aboriginal societies work. We would never do that for our own society." •Michael Jackson, lawyer for the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, Appeal, 1992. a lawyer; i am interested in the ways the court process functions. I mix importantlegai/political issues with small incidents in order to demonstrate some of the racism that those of us who are white, like me, should be aware and critical of, in ourselves and in the systems of power in this country. One of the biggest assumptions underlying the arguments of the governments, the intervenors, and the Amicus, is that there is one way of being a "real Indian". This notion holds that, historically, First Nations people were a certain way, and if you (a First Nations person) are not like that today, then you dont have any rights. McEachern based much of his judgement on this concept of frozen rights. Ownership and jurisdiction then disappear behind a facade of deciding which activities are, to quote appeal judge MacFarlane, "purely Indian." "Logically, in defining the [aboriginal] right you would look to the pre-contact times . . . uninfluenced by- Europeans." Thus, according to the crown, as soon as contact happens (with europeans), aboriginal societies change, and those changes do not represent "real Indian-ness"— hence not a negotiable aboriginal right. For the crown, the date of contact is very significant. The racist "real Indian" mentality "freezes" aboriginal societies at one point in time, denying that societies change. Non-Native Canadians often accept that we, ourselves, can change, but expect First Nations people to remain the same. These arguments get played out in court. So at the same time that the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en are presenting legal arguments, they must address the racism that the crown's lawyers, arid the judges, bring with them to the courtroom. To expose the racism in this "frozen rights" test of aboriginality, lawyer Michael Jackson argued, "we would never do that for our own society, we would never say what is Canadian ... we would never focus on a particular moment in time and say, there is the essence . . . Aboriginal societies, like all other societies... necessarily change and evolve." Or, as i see it, my great- grandmothers did not drive cars, but that does not mean i am not ' related to them or am not of them. Of the five ap- p e a 1 judges, ■ judge Lambert seemed to understand the concept ofunfreezingrights. Activities such as berry picking, rather than restricting the definition of aboriginal rights to certain unchanging practices, give evidence of owner- 8/THE UBYSSEY July 30,1992 FEATURE witnessing the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Appeal ship and jurisdiction. Once rights are unfrozen, it becomes possible to deal with the Gitksan and Wefsuwefen position—that the issue to be negotiated is the crown's claim to sovereignty of Gitksan and Wef suwet'en territories. So if we as non-Native people stopped having this frozen test of aboriginality, then we could get on "The evidence suggests that the Indians (sic) of the territory were, by historical standards, a primitive people without any form of writing, horses, or wheeled waggons." •judge McEachern, Reasons for Judgment, 1991, pg24. with negotiating our future relationship with the Gitksan and Wef suwet'en Nations. We could get on with negotiating how we are going to live on this land in a way which respects the First Nations. Besides being insulting and disrespectful ofthe FirstNations people, holding First Nations people to our concept of a "real Indian" is a plain waste of time. Since the change of government, the province has anew policy and a new position which i got to witness in action—and i am not very impressed. The province now accepts that blanket extinguishment of aboriginal title did not happen in BC, but that remaining title applies only to Reserve lands (45 acres in the Gitksan and Wef suwet'en case) and unoccupied crown lands. Such title exists at the pleasure ofthe crown and can be extinguished at any time without the consent of First Nations people. Any third party grant, like a mining license, a tree farm license or a fee simple grant, extinguishes title. This leaves almost nothing in the territories with title, except a few acres of reserves. Further, all aboriginal rights are subject to the laws of Canada and BC (no self-government, this). The rights are very low-level: they are non-proprietary (i.e. not ownership) and only cover use and occupancy of unoccupied lands. Williams, counsel for the province, explained the policy as, "you [aboriginal people] have got a right to live somewhere on some land and to cultivate a field and go hunting and fishing and berry picking..." We're back to frozen rights. No acknowledgement of ownership and jurisdiction. One afternoon, i sat in court and listened to the pontifications of one of the federal specials— Macauley. He would read out statements by Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) Agents and other not-wholly-to-be-trusted- folks, and then make ludicrous claims, inventing a white history ofthe Gitksan and Wefsuwefen with no reference to their own Adaawk and Kun'gax (oral histories). One incident sticks in my mind as the most maddening. Macauley read a few sentences by Loring, Indian Affairs Agent in the Babine (Wefsuwefen and Gitksan territory), who wrote in 1901 that he no longer interceded in many cases ofthe "cruel" custom of inheritance through the mother. Macauley then stated: "He is reporting apparently there that the matrilineal system has come to an end... it was one of his duties to attend to that." An example, to Macauley, of changes occuring in Gitksan and Wefsuwefen societies which made them non-aboriginal. Judge Lambert was surprised at Macauley's conclusion about the end of matriliny. (No kidding. Where? When? Ifs still going on!!) And then Macauley expounded on the virtues of patriarchy and the sensible English patrilineal system of property the DIA was imposing. And he refered to the matrilineal system as a "trouble" that Loring had to deal with. Macauley seems enamoured of patriarchal things British. The crown's arguments are grounded in racism, and that grounding needs to be continually propped up. Part of crown counsel's job, it seems to me, is to provide white supremacist perspectives of First Nations people. This reinforces the racism that we learn in this society so that the scary positions taken by non-Native governments and courts seem sensible— and backs up the folks making the decisions. The smoothest talking lawyer i encountered was Willms, working for the Amicus Curiea, the supposedly neutral Friends of the Court. These folks did a great job of presenting some of the more racist material and arguments to the court. Willms was trying to prove the Gitksan and Wef suwet'en societies were not organized until europeans showed up and started the fur trade. McEachern had accepted this finding. Willms would quote all sorts of people, early missionaries, 1920s white anthropologists, 1960s white anthropologists, and the crown's one or two "expert" witnesses of the 1980s (most anthropologists like he was an expert who understood all the debates, and would be kind enough to explain it to the judges, except that some of the information was just plain wrong. Some of his analyses were also Q IfKSArt" ** Wensui/ef ed Ji ^xW^L -WRESTLCVI ANl A J IN THEa B.C» COURT OF APf£AL ON ONS $\b£ TH£ VWfcg "mCrlTAM OF CGRXXWE 8.c/CAMM>A/B.c. ^s1» v.s. Trie ' Gitksan ***! Wet'suuuef'en Nations AMD +We- aJways eJuS'tve ... ^kji ST ICE ill h refuse to work for the crown) without acknowledging when they were writing, or even sometimes what they had been writing about. He just took everything apart (part of the legal process?) interposing sentences on each other with no original context. As long as somebody had said it, he would use it. He did a great job of sounding pretty peculiar. He put forward the argument that First Nations people at the turn ofthe century were not really serious about land. Instead, Willms argued that missionaries made the "Indians" (sic) claim land; he thereby denied the ownership and stewardship of the territories by the Gitksan and Wef suwet'en "We say that the extinguishment theories advanced by the Respondent and the Amicus amount to exceptions to the theft rule. The criminal law upholds a fundamental injunction against theft ... Yet, the extinguishment doctrines are all based on the taking of land or resources which belong to another people without paying for them or getting their consent." "And I say, my lords, that the unspoken arguments in favor of extinguishment sound in fears by non-Indian people and governments that recognition will cost too much money or will cause chaos in the non-Indian economy ... But, my lords, the declarations which the Appellants are seeking are not primarily about money. You have heard submissions for a year and I don't think you have heard the word "money' used. They are about respect, recognition, and survival as peoples in relation to their land." "Aboriginal title has nothing to do with England owning land, but has everything to do with the fact that aboriginal people were the owners of their homelands, before the assertion of Crown sovereignty. The Appellants say that aboriginal rights to the land are neither derived from Crown grants; nor are they defined by reference to notions of English property law.. ." •Louise Mandell, lawyer for the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs, Appeal, 1992. peoples prior to—and following— colonization. And Willms further argued that historic documents like petitions are not genuine forms of "Indian protest" (sic) because they are "non-Indian." This means, "Indian (sic) interest in land was largely artificial." Yet again, this argument is based on racist ideas about what really constitutes an "Indian". The final bit of non-wisdom from Willms regards the Feast, the central economic, social, legal, spiritual and political institution of the Gitksan and Wef suwet'en Nations. The Feast was outlawed by white governments from 1884 until 1951 and several First Nations people served time in jail for dancing or singing. However, the Feast continued and continues. Willms said, using a 1960s white anthropologist to back up his statements, that the Feast was maintained just so the First Nations people could claim land against the government. Tome, Willms was trying to make First Nations people look like vindictive land grabbers. The whole court room gasped at his claims. Judge Hutcheon sat up and harassed Willms, saying the court had recently heard a great deal about the Feast and it had had little to do with boundaries. Finally, Willms admitted he couldn't explain that. The court process requires Gitksan and Wef suwet'en people to explain, prove, and justify their existence. Those of us who are white are not in court explaining our societies, although we are the ones who have committed theft. These court processes are a continuing part of colonization on the part of white folks, and part of a continuing resistance by the Gitksan and Wet'suwef en people. However, it is non-Native folks who are living on stolen land and who need to negotiate with First Nations people about our governments' claims to First Nations land. The Gitksan and Wefsuwefen Nations took the provincial government to court because it refused to negotiate with them. The broader political issues remain: non-First Nations governments need to fucking get down and negotiate. Negotiate ownership and jurisdiction. Acknowledge that First Nations people own this province and we have to get on with negotiating our place on their land. Negotiate what we as non- Native people are going to do to compensate for a couple of hundred years of living on stolen land, and what we're going to do next. July 30,1992 THE UBYSSEY/9 the Ubyssey July 30,1992 The Summer Ubyssey is published Wednesdays by the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia. Editorial opinions are those of the staff and not necessarily those of the university administration, or of the sponsor. The editorial office is room 241Kof the Student Union Building. Editorial Department, phone 822- 2301; advertising, 822-3977; FAX 822-9279. The Ubyssey is a founding member of Canadian University Press Everything wu buwiM u usual until Charlie Gillie exclaimed, "Hay collegiate cmirades V mine, is it tut time once again for the majestic annual fireworks dit^tleyTr "Yeemh," Carol FarreU reacted both enthusiastically and provocatively. "Let's goP Kick Hiebert was disenchanted with the parking ablation but refused to be in a bad mood. Dunn. Martin Chaster cheerftilly handed ovw|6 for theprivikgeoftanpoi--aryveUdepls unl*»— *ava»ynn*> dn-w th-w trmtiti--m«l hri-rtg^m.tha.flww»-arif i-itaia] involving ahai-p painty thi*ng»i**n-p->Kng that nirni lawn,' TWk Birfiop insisted. This completed, Sem Green led the way (utilising non-hierarchical and non-authoritative methods, of course), singing, "I would walk 600 miles" lmtil we arrived. She encouraged Ellen Pond to mask any ill thought out plana to be sociable and join the much larger anticipatory throng of people. 1 need to use a washroom," a pamc-stricksn Lucho van Isschot complained, squirming restlessly, Graham Csmsron chimed in a heart-rending "ma too" wtach prompted the pair to begin th«r t-anporal pilgrimage. On the way, they passed one of Bob Kealrm^tho-apy groups in sessusn, aiidjonediiLTn^ Nadene Behnby, impatient now, yelled out, "Start the damn show, yon faeristeiT Oblivious to the shouting, Chrissy Johnston was busy rounding up supporters fir her latest cause—for ths Figfc* Largs Sarthworma Who Make it Difficult to at Down on Oraas During tha Night (