Also at
The ‘Idle No More’ Indigenous rights movement is promising more direct action in 2013. However, a spectre is haunting the movement – the spectre of fading public sympathy. The majority of Canadians (as well as some in the movement) believe that gaining recognition for Indigenous rights depends on effectively bolstering and sustaining public support.
Does it?
From the get go, commentators have cautioned that Indigenous peoples would be wise to play their cards right lest they squander what little patience and benevolence the Canadian public has left for Indigenous issues. Offend those who are growing weary of your grievances with disruptive tactics like blockades, marches, or hunger-strikes and you risk alienating potential allies and thwarting your own objectives. Play nice and you might just earn the sympathy you need to make change.
Those who hold this view seem curiously unaware of how movements such as ‘Idle No More’ work. Like the Civil Rights movement, these are not public relations battles; they are Constitutional struggles. They press on political and economic nerves to motivate changes to legal and political structures during times when the majority is predictably dead-set against change. Their methods have the anticipated effect of intensifying public acrimony. It’s a noisy affair, but ultimately the cheers and the jeers of the masses are a side show to this brand of direct Constitutional politics.
Don’t be deceived by the conciliatory vibe of the drumming and round-dances. Indigenous peoples have long understood the folly of pleading for public support. They are not naive to the fact that power and economics are the main drivers of policy. Indeed, the recent history of successful Indigenous activism demonstrates that they understand the game better than most.
So, while fostering public support for Indigenous issues remains a long-term goal, it is largely irrelevant to their most pressing political concerns. There is an urgency to these problems that will not be held back by the historical 30 year lag between political change and the eventual materialization of public support. They’re not waiting.
To that end, the parallels between the ‘Idle No More’ movement an the Civil Rights movement are instructive. Both are constitutional struggles by racialized minorities whose tactics are criticized and whose leaders are vilified. Recall Martin Luther King’s now famous rebuke to supporters who urged against protest because of the violent reactions it aroused: “We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.”
King was fully cognizant that the movement’s tactics would be disparaged and that opponents would seek to discredit its leadership. It began in 1956 when he was charged and subsequently found guilty of leading an illegal boycott of the Montgomery buses where Rosa Parks sat in protest. Later, in 1960, King was charged with inaccurate reporting on his Income Tax (State of Alabama v. ML King). He was exonerated, but not before a state audit prompted rumours that King had garnering an income of $45,000 in 1958, received on behalf of the Montgomery Improvement Association and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The public was outraged and detractors had a field day. How could a leader in a position of trust – who purports to fight for the poor – receive such a enormous salary under such dubious circumstances?
Does any of this sound a bit familiar? How about this…
In 1961, a Gallup poll showed that 57% of Americans thought the movement’s civil disobedience tactics were hurting it, and in 1964 the vast majority, 73%, said activists had made their point and should just stop protesting already. In 1963, 37% claimed to dislike Martin Luther King. By 1966, public animosity had jumped to 63% (with 44% claiming to hate King’s guts, up from 25% three years earlier). Yet during this period where polls reported plummeting public support, the US passed several historic pieces of Civil Rights legislation. In other words, the constitutional struggle had considerable success in a time when public support was rapidly dissolving.
It would take decades for Americans to reconcile themselves with the movement. It appears that they have finally come around as of 2011, with 94% of them viewing King favourably.
The ‘Idle No More’ Indigenous rights movement is deploying a range of practices, including civil disobedience, to push for substantive recognition of their rights as identified in Sec. 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” As if on cue, rumours emerged that an audit conducted by the Federal Government’s auditor-of-choice showed that one the movement’s leaders, Chief Theresa Spence, mismanaged accounting on the Attawapiskat reserve. She also made too much money. Guess what? The public was outraged and the detractors had a field day.
Of course, none of this came as any surprise to Indigenous activists. Nor did it come as a shock when an Ipsos Reid poll revealed that a mere 29% of Canadians approve of Chief Spence. King’s approval was around 33% in 1966, so she’s appears to be in good company. The poll determined that as of mid-January, Indigenous protests had “a hardening effect on Canadian public opinion regarding Aboriginal issues” and had therefore “done little to build sympathy for First Nations issues.” Likewise, a Forum Research poll determined that 49% of Canadians did not support Idle No More and that the ‘Day of Action’ protests on January 11th “actually lessened support for the movement for 37% of Canadians surveyed.” Finally, a Nanos Research poll revealed that 54% of Canadians thought that Theresa Spence’s hunger strike was not advancing the cause.
And still they march on.
My guess is that the preoccupation with opinion polls probably speaks more to the media’s need to gauge the appetites of its readership than to an interest for the prospects of social change. If history is any guide, the polling will continue. And so we can expect general bewilderment and frustration from the public as “Idle No More’ pushes through in 2013. Again, if history is any guide, public support should catch up sometime in 2045.
Pingback: EMezRxNR
Pingback: RYVuPzLY
Pingback: miumiu 財布
Pingback: burberry bags
Pingback: wow gold
Pingback: celine bags
Pingback: miu miu
Pingback: seo tools
Pingback: hermes bags
Pingback: mulberry bags
Pingback: red bottom shoes
Pingback: MpgEMBVy
Pingback: QrzeVmdH
Pingback: payday loans uk
YIKES!!! I hope INM is aiming for a better outcome than what the civil rights movement accomplished. Yes it is certainly illegal to discriminate in the US, desegregation became mandatory. People respect MLK. Yes these all very important changes and yet lets look at the average rate of incarceration for black vs white populations, or poverty rates or drop out rates or any other number of stats that still show awful disparities between these populations. I am -not- saying that since utopia was not accomplished then it’s not worth the effort, I am saying that there is -still- as great a need to be concerned about fundamental issues of civil rights as ever, that the tactics that the civil rights movement used succeeded to a degree and then those successes have been attacked unrelentingly ever since. My concern is that if the INM movement used those same tactics they may likely not be as effective since strategic responses have already been honed to counteract their effectiveness. I’m not saying that change is not needed, it obviously is, and desperately so… I am concerned that tactics that may have succeeded in one time and place are not the used to the exclusion of others. If the approach is the same the outcome may be as well, if not much worse. I can’t imagine that anyone supporting INM would want that though.
Finally. I’d like to know what your vision is of a successfully decolonized world looks like Mr. Rollo. I imagine there are many different views of what that might be, but I’m interested to hear your particular take on what that might be. Thanks.
-Paul
It is also important to note that public opinion pollsters, whether one agrees with their sampling methods and claims or not, do (and can) not take into account years and decades of intentional and unintentional misrepresentations and caricatures of Metis, Inuit, and Aboriginal/First Nations peoples in and through mass media and popular culture. In addition, the residue of racist policies also collect in and linger in language and ‘common sense’ phrases. A few minutes of recognition of just one or two factors of injustice will not necessarily rectify or change the (mis)perception, though it might make some more receptive to rethinking years and decades of the poisonous pens of right-wing pundits that (over)populate the mass media. The #Ottawapiskat hashtag on Twitter did, nevertheless, did manage to reverse (at least temporarily) the frame about just exactly who is mismanaging (substantially more) public funds. The Conservative Party has proven to be far more adept at ‘mismanaging’ public funds (at least in terms of the amounts of money wasted – think F-35 or the $1-3 billion in annual subsidies for oilsands corporations). Indeed, the idea that Conservatives are ‘fiscally responsible’ is becoming increasingly demonstrated to have no bearing in empirical reality.
The big difference between the Black civil rights struggle and INM is that INM is even more passive to the extent that they don’t support “illegal” actions like temporary blockades, which arises from their view that “public support” is vital and why they are so sensitive to the corporate media’s public opinion polls. They (the official founders) have no fighting spirit and hope, naively, that passive rallies will somehow pressure the government to concede to its demands. In addition I would say that there is a lot of myths surrounding the civil rights struggle in that it is presented as being successful entirely through nonviolent protests, which isn’t true. In fact it was the emergence of large-scale urban rioting and proposals for armed self-defence that sent the Kennedy administration running to pass civil rights legislation. This didn’t blunt the growing revolt of Blacks in the inner cities, however, who continued their rebellions well after 1964 (when the Civil Rights Act was passed) even while King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the NAACP, CORE, etc all received millions of dollars as part of the state’s pacification program.
An important consideration: population ratios
Sorry R Moore, your statement makes me highly skeptical of Statistics. Somehow polling 2000 out of 34,482,779 (according to google) isn’t accurate in the slightest. 0.00578% of the population is hardly representative of national public opinion
when it comes to our people ( native ) I say we do what it takes to get what is owed to us.if making alot of noise and showing the public they way the government is treating us isn’t working then i say lets take it up a notch .we could all go to harpers home and the government building and stop people from going in and getting on with business .we will have to have a plan where everyone who is doing this know that they can count on eachother to have eachothers backs and know we are one made up of all.
(1) Idle No More is actively and expressly opposing laws they don’t believe in, from the omnibus bills to the Indian Act.
(2) Like the Civil Rights movement, Idle No More is sometimes occupying regulated spaces illegally. That’s why it’s called civil ‘disobedience’.
(3) MLK literally shut down the entire city of Birmingham in 1963 and planned to shut down the city of Washington, DC in 1968.
Angel D – if you took statistics, you’d know a sample size of 1,000, done by reputable firms, (like these two), can lead you to perfectly reasonable assumptions on a nationwide scale.
roger d – I agree 100%, the more people onside the better.
And as for this specific reference, I think it’s highly questionable that the two situations can be compared easily enough to draw conclusions regarding Idle No More and polls about the civil rights movement from 40 years ago.
For one thing, MLK was actively opposing a law he didn’t believe in. Stopping trains and cars along railways, border crossings and highways isn’t at all akin to taking a ‘white’ seat on a bus, or drinking from a ‘white’ fountain; they’re a full step removed from directly opposing a law; it’s about hitting the government in the pocket books, not drawing attention to an unjust law – (although I do believe the Indian Act is a horrible piece of legislation for any modern nation to have. But how do you directly oppose that law?).
Yes, people were against MLK back when he was supporting the Montgomery Bus Boycott etc, and then eventually came around. But he wasn’t holding up traffic or blocking industry to perform his direct civil disobedience. He was directly challenging the laws themselves. This is very different from erecting blockades. Now I’m completely in support of INM, but I do worry that public opinion will not swing around on this one. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
change will always be painful, significant change is very painful. It is not enough to have a lever for change, you have to push on the lever hard enough to overcome the inertia of the status quo. It was not fun for the civil rights movement here in the states, they suffered much in order to effect change, it will be no different in principle in Canada or anywhere else. Stay peaceful and stubborn!
The more people on one side the better I believe. Educating the general public to the underlying issues is key. Things like mismanagement of funds can turn people against the movement but if everyone understood the truth & reasons why the natives are restless I think it would be easier to create the change that #INM seeks.
The Ipsos-Reid polls and Nano polls also only polled 1 thousand people each; Hardly an indicator of national public opinion