How does the land claim benefit me?

I am using this newspaper as a forum to vent my opinion, and my concerns in the hopes that the responsible organizations implementing the Nunavut Land Claims obligations will have a better understanding about issues I will raise. I am going to be ad hoc and scattered about the issues. These issues affect me personally, my family and the community I live in, therefore my presentation reflects my personality and my state of confusion. Furthermore I do not know who to address those issues to, although the NLCA resulted in the creation of over 50 implementing bodies (DIOs, IPGs). That doesn’t help me as that makes me even more confused — being your average Inuk who is neither a scholar nor a lawyer.

Some contents of the agreement affect my isuma and well being as I am fully convinced they are not in my best interest personally. And some seem to be downright tiriigusuutit (taboos). This leads me to believe that collective rights of Inuit eroded my individual rights, which leads me to feel powerless, frustrated and non-existent. I should not feel that as a Canadian.

Secondly, as a woman, I feel not enough community and social affairs were adequately negotiated to support community well-being strategies, education, culture and language and to protect our land and hunting rights, so we could flourish as a healthy, progressive Inuit nation, no longer dependant as wards of the state. Since women weren’t involved in negotiations, they became part of the barter system to appease non-Inuit in their pursuit of hunting rights, and Inuit firms further ensured that the mothers and their children would up the ante in the interest of non-Inuit.

Did the NLCA further endorse that women and children are simply chattel and fodder of our society? I interpret it, sense it and feel it in my bones that way. Please somebody prove me wrong or assure me that’s not the case.

As negotiations had taken over 20 years, women’s groups and organizations didn’t exist, and women supported their men’s movement for land claims, wanting to be complementary rather than in conflict as it was important that Inuit in Nunavut are seen in solidarity. Women in the end suffered: as it was more important to concentrate on our Inuit identity, we gave up the right to safety, equality and opportunities. Women are no better off now than before — still too few women are involved in politics today and many more safe homes are needed for women and children at risk.

Gender equality did not happen. Today, the same old boys club continues to run for elections, because we owe them and they are there by entitlement. After all, they gave up their personal lives for the “cause.”

Just how effective are land claims organizations in improving the lives of the collective? Are they organized the same way as women’s advocacy groups? A lot of responsibility and no authority? If they want to make major decisions they have to appeal to their father (Crown) and mother (public government). In that sense they have it better than women’s groups — nobody listens to the women’s groups. They also have the budget, which women’s groups don’t have, although women’s groups are left to deal with the intergenerational impacts of colonization, forced assimilation attempts, attempted erosion of language and culture, residential schools and forced relocation of Inuit into urban government centers, which I believe were some of the many reasons for a land claims settlement.

And who are the people running the land claims organizations these days? I see too many elected Inuit leaders take the wise counsel of their white advisors, so it appears that they can’t think for themselves. Their advisors advise them to attack other Inuit players, so it becomes an emotional upheaval of Inuit men verbally attacking each other, for the benefit of their advisors. The colonial powers that be continue to create disunity among Inuit. The divide and conquer mentality is alive and well. I am not proud to see it or hear it at meetings or in radio interviews, and watch advisors whispering into the ears of the said leaders, telling them what to say. I prefer to remember the image of my father, who was quiet, and knew what to do and when and what to say. He was silent when he had nothing to say or just content in the silence. That image sustains me in believing that our men are there to protect and provide for us, without all the unnecessary noise that outsiders seem to need to fill the void. That is the image of my Inuk man, that I will not lose.

Must we be so influenced by outsiders that we can no longer work together for the common good of our community? Or is it because we are really so much at a loss that the leaders have to be led? I also don’t believe that. I believe that our leadership is capable, but they have to believe that themselves. I would rather see a collective of Inuit acting as peer support groups, rather than relying on outsiders. That is the unity we lack, which we need to make a difference in our lives and those that we speak for.

Just to quickly revisit Inuit firms. I understand some verbal agreements are made after a marriage breakup that the business remains an Inuit firm in the name of children. Are we creating Trust Fund children? I hope so. I hope a Trust Fund is created and an annual 51 per cent of the profits are deposited for the future of the children. Otherwise there is no guarantee that the said children will ever benefit, without legal contracts or measures being in place.

On the assignment of hunting rights, I praise our leadership for their inability to make hard decisions. It works in my favour as I oppose the assignment, which is not for sale, and which I gave up aboriginal entitlements in exchange for (I think). Many feared if the assignments started cropping up everywhere in Nunavut, it was wide open for dispute and litigation if guidelines were not carefully established. The HTOs would have a “supervisory role” and assignments would be based on one-year terms, to permit recovery in the event of a marriage break-up.

What is exactly being “recovered”? The failed marriage or the harvest? I need to understand that as a woman, being the subject in this matter. I can understand trying to recover, repair and mend a broken marriage but I can’t imagine recovering the past meals or spoils of anyone!

I have asked women cohabiting with non-Inuit how they feel about assigning their rights away, many said very demurely they could not be caught hunting, so assignment was their right. Ask the same women in a different situation; starvation times took place just 30 years ago. Ever see a she-bear protecting her cub? Hunting to feed them? We were all hunter/gatherers one time, that is how we survived, and we may need those instincts again someday. It is my birthright. If I hear of a woman assigning her hunting rights away, we might as well give away the whole land claims agreement to the highest bidder.

I sympathize with women who are being pressured to give away their rights. Just remember abuse is said to take any of these forms: physical, mental and/or sexual.

I have considerably toned down this letter. The original was too feminist and radical in the opinion of Inuit, and I have learnt to play it safe. Many still have trouble with Inuit who are free thinkers. I understand it. I think. It is because in our constant fight for survival and for our next meal, we haven’t had the luxury of philosophizing that different drummers are shot down very quickly.

Or maybe on the other hand, since we have so many boards and organizations supposedly looking after our interests that we no longer think, and became vegetables.

I have no trouble with personal attacks, but I have family who would end up paying for my opinions so I wish to remain unnamed in order to protect my loved ones. Thank you.

Name withheld by request