Indigenous Solidarity and 'Settler' Activism

an interview with journalist Michelle Cyca

This is a transcript of an interview with a First Nations journalist Michelle Cyca on how Indigenous solidarity is being co-opted and applied in current protests. Interview took place May 17, 2024. Edited for clarity. Michelle’s comments edited to focus on specific question prompts.

This interview is one of a series of my recent reflections on First Nations / non-Indigenous relations within the current moment.

• ‘On Stolen Land’ - a reflection on ‘settler’ colonialism.

• ‘Settler, Settler Colonialism, and the Indigenous’ - a reflection on the analytic utility of ‘settler colonialism’ to explain current struggles.

This interview was focussed on how non-Indigenous people deploy their imaginations of ‘the’ Indigenous in non-Indigenous political movements.

Disclosure: this interview was done in my capacity as a faculty member and First Nations person whose life and research revolves around First Nations’ concerns with rights and title. In no way is this interview reflective of authorized UBC governance perspectives, it was not vetted or approved by UBC. I am currently an elected member of UBC’s Board of Governors and UBC-V Senate. Theses comments are my personal and professional reflections.

Indigenous reference on protest sign, UBC McGinnis Field.

Michelle

Non-indigenous communities [often generalize] the positions of individual indigenous people … to stand in for the positions of nations themselves and First Nations governments. I think that's a flaw in reasoning. In the cases that we're seeing with student encampments, and how they're positioning land back as an issue, and the status of universities and their camps in relation to that: I just think it's worth unpacking a little bit the way indigenous positions can be co-opted in ways that are specious and maybe ultimately a little bit disingenuous to their goals and intents.

How would you like to be identified, if I quote you? I'll take care to note that you're a faculty at UBC, but you're not speaking in your capacity as a faculty member, or as a representative of the University.

Charles

Yes, that's important. So my Gitxaała name is hagwil hayetsk, and my Canadian name is Charles Menzies.

Michelle

What have you been seeing at UBC in terms of how the encampment is discussing their relationship to Musqueam Nation.

Charles

It's not clear to me that they have actually made connections with the Band Council and Chief Councillor at Musqueam Nation. They have said that UBC sits on stolen Indigenous land. They talk about being hosted by Musqueam Nation. So that's part of the framework. But this reflects a wider issue if you look at the ways in which non-indigenous social activists have formed alliances with First Nations.

Back home, there was a period of time, about 20 years ago, where there were debates about fish farms in the territory. The David Suzuki Foundation, plus  other environmental organizations, formed alliances with community members who had a different opinion than the official hereditary leadership and political council [my observations as a presentation to a government panel on fish farms]. The outside environmental organizations said that this was the legitimate voice, [not the official First Nation council].

You take a look at Fairy Creek, you see there are indigenous people participating in the Fairy Creek, but the official representatives of the First Nation in the area have a different position [in support of logging].

Non-indigenous political movements often will say they respect the fact that they're operating on stolen land, that it's unceded traditional territory. But if the particular official rights holder doesn't actually agree with them, they always suggest that the official leadership is an illegitimate branch of the colonial government, and therefore, and they [the non-Indigenous activists’ will locate a source that they think is more appropriate for them to ally with [rather than deal with the fact the official First Nation leadership does not support their protest].

Michelle

It feels often like people have a moral framework that they like to ally with their belief that they're in support of Indigenous rights and sovereignty that feels as though when that's challenged by how First Nations are exercising their sovereignty, or what positions they're taking or not publicly taking, then the logic of that alignment seems to break down.

Charles

It's like the language around the Makah whale hunting [in the 1990s]. The environmental groups like Sea Shepherd Society [and PETA] became quite aggressively involved in picking up and using the same language that Alan, Justice Alan McEachern used in the decision against Delgamuuk in 1991:

“We're basically talking about people driving pickups, drinking pop, and eating pizza,” he said.

Therefore, they weren't really indigenous anymore.

There's this trope of authenticity, the idea being that if, for example, a First Nation's leadership supports fish farming, that somehow they're not an authentic indigenous leadership. But our communities are multifaceted and diverse. Our communities are not uniform in appearance. There are people from my community who would be very supportive of what's happening in terms of these protest camps and people who would be very much opposed to them. There's no single unitary voice. I don't envy being a non-indigenous organizer navigating these spaces, thinking that they try to do everything right. They often find, like the proponents in the business field, [they think] they've done everything right and now somebody pulled the rug out from their feet. That's part of the dynamic.

Michelle

As you say, there's different positions within communities and within nations. I often find, too, is that I think there's an assumption that there's unanimous or harmonious decision making in First Nation's governance from people who aren't Indigenous, when in fact, I think a lot of people don't necessarily support their Band Council or hereditary leaders' positions either. …  the way that these things are flattened [by non-Indigenous people] can be ultimately harmful.

Charles

I suspect the Musqueam Council wouldn't mind UBC administration getting some grief with its situation. But ultimately, at the end of the day, Musqueam says this is Musqueam land, and Musqueam Indian Band should be in charge of what happens on [this land]. I obviously cannot speak for Musqueam or imply what they think or feel or act. But clearly, when you see the public actions that the nation has taken, they have some very particular ideas. They see UBC to be a problem. But also see UBC can be a help.

Michelle

A lot of First Nations, especially those in urban areas, work really hard to maintain cordial relationships with the local governments, and they have their own political interests as well that are distinct.

Charles

I've looked for the various encampments, their different social media statements and any information I can find. I'm not able to find [any formal First Nation statements of support]. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I haven't been able to find any clear unequivocal statements from a formal First Nation government supporting a [pro-Gaza protest camp] in their traditional territory. Whereas there are many individual Indigenous people who have made statements saying, such as a speaker who was recently out to UBC's camp, that Indigenous people support the encampment.

I think the camp protestors have placed themselves into this intellectual cul du sac by their own design –[saying they act with First Nations support, but then not receiving formal support]. I think it'd be quite okay for them to take their framing and conceptualizing their actions without having to rely upon [the] rhetoric of stolen land and land back. But because they built this conceptualization of settler colonialism up to such a state, linked it to the Palestinian ethnonationalist struggle, and conceptually built it into their language of organizing, they are locked into that place. [They must invoke First Nations’ support in contradistinction to the ill begotten ‘stolen’ lands the university is said to sit on.] If they really did accept [the stolen land formulation], they would then have asked for a formal endorsement from the title holders [like Musqueam Indian Band] in the places where the protest camps have been erected.

Subsequent to the interview Musqueam, via UBC, issued a statement criticizing information the UBC protest camp had been circulating regarding Musqueam support for the camp.

May 30, 2024 statement on UBC Security news and events page.

Charles

I suspect that there is a voice within the protest camp movement that rejects the formal Indigenous leadership and calls it illegitimate. I suspect it's what is motivating them. They likely say it's not necessary [to have formal endorsement], or they appear to say through their actions that it's not necessary to ask formal Indigenous government for support. In so doing they themselves become part of the same performative land acknowledgement that they claim they critique.

Michelle

Yeah. I think what I come back to repeatedly is that there isn't true solidarity with a First Nation without a relationship and engagement. Without a relationship, you can’t align your actions and positions morally and substantially with what a First Nation is doing. … I think in the environmental movement, you have many people who conceive of themselves as aligned with Indigenous rights and Indigenous people who find that challenged when there are First Nations who are engaging in a practice that they don't personally agree with, which makes them think those are not real Indigenous people or that they have colonized minds or that they're not representing their cultural values anymore.

Charles

Well, I think one of the things that's going on is the difference between strategic and tactical alliances. When we look at the environmental movement, environmentalists thought that they were engaged in a strategic alliance with First Nations, that both parties shared the same long term objectives for what that alliance would mean, ie, stopping logging and preserving the wilderness. Whereas, these were more accurately tactical alliances - linked, but each focussed on different longterm goals. First Nations were looking at their lands and saying ‘these are our resources. The big industrial companies are ripping the wood and timber out of our territories. There'll be nothing left if by the time our rights and title are finally acknowledged.’ So the environmentals came along and said ‘we can help you with that by stopping what's happening.’ [So it's a tactical alliance because the strategic interest of the First Nations is to preserve the resource to be able to decide later how to use it for oneself once it's been clarified whose title it is. But the strategic objective of the environmentalists was to shut down all resource extraction and turn the land into an eco-museum.]

For First Nations it may mean preserving the land. It may mean logging. It may mean doing all kinds of different things with that space. I think that's where [non-Indigenous] people are confused. The activists oftentimes think that they're engaged in strategic alliances. It might be for them a strategic alliance. But for the First Nations it's really a tactical alliance to hold off on development while First Nations secure their title and rights.

Look at the Haida Nation in terms of settling a land claim. That began in the early '80s with the political protests that drew heavily on support from environmental movements. Now Haida have an active engaged logging industry. It's being run for all intents and purposes sustainably, but it's also logging in areas environmentalists wanted preserved. It's under Haida authority and control. It's their jurisdiction, it's their authority that's now managing it.

Many of the environmentalists at the beginning of that struggle in the '80s wanted to see the entire Haida Gwaii closed to any industrial extraction.

Michelle

You also see, especially in Northern BC, I think there are examples where First Nations approaches, and especially to resource and industry, are in conflict … with their neighbours.

Charles

If you look at Prince Rupert right now, one of the biggest land owners are First Nations. They've been investing. Part of that is because of the resources that were settled through impact benefit agreements with the natural gas companies and the energy transportation companies. The hotels, different hotels, different retail businesses, different other service and construction ventures are being operated by First Nations’ enterprises.  This is the other thing that social activists may wish to believe, that all Indigenous communities are not only green, but also politically left of center and red. That's not necessarily the case. If you hear the rhetoric that's coming out of the camp protest it's really framing a construction of the ‘authentic’ Indigenous person as one that is both socially progressive and environmentally friendly. One might wish for that, but that's not actually a generalizable case.

Michelle

I think it just becomes a problem no matter what your political orientation or political goals are, if you're using Indigenous people as a theoretical idea that's homogenized. I think we that on every point of the political spectrum. … Not just universities and environmental organizations, but private corporations and government officials also often do the same thing.

Charles

It seems to be part of the politics of the day, trying to use a performative enactment, no matter what the issue is. It's like the human wallpaper politicians place behind them when they give their announcements or whatever.

Michelle

There's the same diversity of viewpoints in politics [among First Nations people] that you would find anywhere. So it's possible to find an Indigenous person who serves any political goal if you want that human wallpaper. ... I mean, if it's just one person, it's like a potted plant. I don't know that it's necessarily a useful and meaningful engagement if you're looking to find one spokesperson who can align with your cause.

Charles

I would go further analytically and suggest that the situation of First Nations in Canada does not parallel that of the people who we now know as Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank. ... I don't believe the Palestinian peoples have ever approach the UN to be included in the Declaration of Indigenous Peoples.

Michelle

I've seen more people making the argument that the conditions under settler colonialism are the parallel in this shared struggle. I've also seen First Nations thinkers challenge that idea, too, that [it’s] an intellectually flawed position to over generalize in terms of comparing these disparate struggles.

Charles

Clearly Palestine is an oppressed nationality. Despite how it's emerged historically, the people see themselves as linked and connected and attached to a territory. But this is the language of nation building and nationalism, which is quite different [than one of Indigenous rights and title¹]. It's also the process of ethnic formation. If you do go back in these areas before, to the late 1800s, they were inter-religious, interracial, interethnic communities all the way across from Iraq and Iran, all the way across to North Africa. I think you can lay the blame on the colonial forces moving through [the region], creating a lot of mess that didn't actually exist to begin with. The other thing that's important to note, in addition to there being a displacement in 1948 of almost a million people out of the area that became Israel, there was almost a million people in the so-called in the wider Middle East, and North Africa, across to Iran and Iraq, Jewish people [who were forced out]. About 600,000 of them were resettled in Israel. [In the entire region people were being] shipped back and forth. The [local powers] were trading loads of people back and forth in this period of time.

I think the whole creation of nation states in this region was a horrible and disruptive one that disrupted people and created all kinds of problems that we're still paying for today. The legacy has become a one of hardened hate and animosity rather than considerate connections. There was a student presentation to the UBC Senate. I was taken aback by the speaker who identified themselves as being a descendant of Palestinians. Just how vociferous and angry their statement was. I could see, I could hear, no reconciliation or ability to live with people who saw themselves as Israeli from what the young woman said. It just makes me very sad for the future of our world.

Michelle

I think there's people who would argue that the obligations of reconciliation are weighted towards the oppressing party, in this case, would be framed as Israel. I feel like a lot of Israelis seem horrified by what their government is doing. I think the conflation in these arguments between the state and the citizens is not necessarily productive.

Charles

When you read the some of the literature talking about the concept of settler colonialism that literature, theoretically and conceptually, does not differentiate between a settler who agrees with or disagrees with their nation state. It basically sees all settlers as being implicated in the procedure. This makes reconciliation of any sort fundamentally impossible to achieve. So looking through this has made me rethink how I use the term settler and settler colonialism in my own work. Through my teaching I've always talked about the different moments of the expansion of capitalism into North America create a different experience of capitalist colonialism. … BC was quite different than the Prairie provinces, than the Maritimes or  Central Canada. Different historical moments, different times, different processes occurring, different integrations to the global economy. But if everyone is a settler and therefore are implicated by being part of that entity that then established it, there is no resolution except removal or complete defeat to come under the control of the so-called indigenous.

[Elsewhere I have said:

“In isolation ‘settler’ implies or denotes a purposefulness on the part of the settler that may not in fact exist. Political and economic refugees may have no choice but to flee. Indentured and enslaved ‘settler’s were robbed of their agency to choose. Even those who ostensibly chose to immigrate may have done so under conditions that left little effective choice. Many waves of settlement were in fact the outcome of people forced to flee turmoil, war, and prejudice in a homeland that may well have ejected them. In this context the act of settling is less a purpose and more an outcome. Yet the analytic framing of ‘settler colonialism’ assumes settlement as the driving purpose.”]

The Haida or the Nisga’a did not attempt to clear non-indigenous, non-Haida people or non-Nisga’a, people from their territories. They also aren't in complete control of everything in their spaces. There's a balance between that which the Haida will control and manage and that which is a matter of the province of British Columbia or the federal government of Canada. There's a balance, a dance between these [tensions. Our BC examples might provide a way forward of shared governance.]  But of course, we haven't been in full out armed warfare here.

Michelle

I think the contexts are too different for many of the comparisons to make sense beyond a really superficial engagement. My understanding of land back as a [First Nations’] framework is not the expulsion of settlers, but the restoration of rights and title in terms of governance and decision making, which is what I think is being enacted in Haida. Which is quite different than the idea of land back in the Middle Eastern context.

Charles

The leadership of Hamas and their allies basically see no place for Jewish people within their nation state. ‘Land back,’ as it gets conflated in the link between Palestine and North America, [comparers two incomparable situations]. I don't think it's comparable, but I do think it's being conflated as the same thing, the same process.

Michelle

There are many justified reasons to oppose what's happening in Gaza [without] rely[ing] on using this framework [with] it being aligned with the position of all indigenous people.

Charles

The very act of bombing the residential areas of Gaza and the schools, the hospitals, and turning everything into rubble is a horrific tactic. At the same time, I could see how a person who lives in Israel, had their children killed and taken away in the manner that they did on October seventh. It's impressive that there's families of the kidnapped victims who are calling for the government to stop fighting, calling for a ceasefire. It's amazing active empathy on their part, given the horrific violence. I mean, as a parent, that just … It just sets me cold.

Michelle

Yeah. But I also think that's a pragmatic position for many of them who see that bombing is not getting them any closer to having their loved ones returned alive or dead. Yeah, it's horrific.

Charles

Terrible situation indeed. [The people of Israel and the people of Palestine have to throw off their respective leaderships and find a way to live together on land they share.]

Michelle

Thank you very much. Hopefully, I'll speak to you again. Okay. Take care. Bye.

1. First Nations rights and title emerge out of a longstanding and primordial connection to the land and sea that, prior to colonization, they governed directly without imposition of external state structures. First Nations are literally the first people in a place. During this period First Nations were self governing. This is very different from pastoral and agricultural peoples of the ‘old world’ who suffered all manner of colonial systems, empires, and overlords. Another difference is the First Nations struggles for rights and title is not (or mostly not) about state formation but legal acknowledgement of treaty and aboriginal rights and title. Anti-colonial conflicts that seek an independent nation state are a different order of struggle.