Christian Crees Tear Down Sweat Lodge

[babsbunny]

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/02/free-to-be-intolerant-christian-crees-tear-down-sweat-lodge/

By Valerie Taliman February 4, 2011

When Redfern Mianscum built a sweat lodge in his Cree community last October, he was hoping it would bring about spiritual healing. Instead, it brought criticism and a controversial ban on Native spirituality and sweat lodges.

Mianscum agreed last fall to build a ‘mitutsaan,’ or sweat lodge, in the backyard of a friend, Lana Wapachee, so their families would have a place to pray in the traditions of Cree spiritual teachings. “The sweat lodge helped me turn away from alcohol and things that were hurting my family,” said Miascum, who returned to Cree traditions four years ago after his family suffered the loss of a baby. “I went back to the healing methods of our ancestors, and it turned me around for the better,” he said. “I wanted to share that with my family and others who believe this way.”

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Tragic. :(

We stole their lands, their language, and filled too many heads with garbage. I think reclaming Native spirtuality could bring about the healing of the People.

[niyad]

3. perhaps that is what they fear.

[niyad]

2. reading the whole article is just sickening--xians completely screwing with their heritage.

well, they got one thing right:
"We have raised them with the Word of God and we will continue to do so.
*********They know the difference between the Word of God and spiritual practices.”**********
s.

As word of this conflict spread to other James Bay Cree communities, strong reactions shed light on the complex role Christian churches play among First Nations communities. While Christianity has been accepted since the 1930s with the influx of Anglican, Catholic, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches and residential schools, many First Nations have kept their ceremonies, sometimes intertwining common beliefs. It surprised many in leadership and traditional healing circles that any First Nation would turn away from – much less ban – its own ceremonies and traditions.
. . . . . . .

For three days in late October, Chief Louise Wapachee and the Oujé-Bougoumou band council held meetings to discuss the sweat lodge and to formulate its position. In its deliberations, the council retraced its history of forced relocations caused by massive hydroelectric projects in James Bay, which caused widespread hardship throughout the 10 Cree settlements in the region. It was not until 1992 that the Oujé-Bougoumou Cree finally gained formal recognition from the Canadian government and was granted a land base to construct a new permanent village. (Mianscum, who is now in his early 30s, remembers walking a long distance as a child when the community finally settled here.)

According to the council resolution, at that time, “The Elders envisioned a comfortable home and future for Oujé-Bougoumou … and this vision did not include any form of native spirituality or practices such as sweat lodge, pow wow or other form of adopted traditional practices from other First Nations.” Citing this vision of their elders, the Oujé-Bougoumou Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-156 on Oct. 29, 2010, banning sweat lodge ceremonies and all traditional Native spiritual practices on the reserve. It states, “the Council hereby declares that the sweat lodge, along with any form of Native Spirituality Practices such as powwows, rain dances, etc., do not conform with the traditional practices and teachings of our elders.

[slackmaster]

4. I think people have a fundamental right to screw with their own heritage

I think the loss of tradition is sad as well, but it's not my tradition and not my business.

[niyad]

5. and you think it is okay for them to screw with others' heritage?

[slackmaster]

7. No, of course not

Where did you get that idea?

[niyad]

12. it appeared you thought it was okay for the xians to tear down the sweat lodge.

[slackmaster]

15. Assuming that they were following their own law, it was OK for the Cree to tear down the sweat lodge

Also assuming that they didn't violate treaties or any other applicable laws.

I'm not an expert on the law and I'm not sure that it was legal; I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

(Hint: The terms "Cree" and "Christians" are not mutually exclusive.)

[niyad]

19. the treaties of the land in which they live say otherwise.

not mutually exclusive? are you familiar with the treatment the xians handed out to the indigenous peoples?

[slackmaster]

21. Cited article says that the people who made the decision are both Cree and Christian

are you familiar with the treatment the xians handed out to the indigenous peoples?

Of course I am, but that is quite irrelevant.

[niyad]

23. and they are violating the law of the land. you said you read the whole article, and yet you fail

to understand this??

quite irrelevant? stockholm syndrome, anyone?

[slackmaster]

24. I don't even live in the country where this event occurred. ETA I checked two of the cited sources.

Apparently not everyone agrees that Oujé-Bougoumou band council violated the law of the land.

ETA it's often helpful to check primary sources. Article cites the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as protecting the religious freedom of every Canadian citizen.

That is true, but does it apply to the internal affairs of a tribal government? In the USA tribes have a certain amount of autonomy from US federal law. From the Charter:

32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

It does not appear to cover tribal governments.

Does the individual's right to religious self-determination override the tribe's collective right to decide their internal matters?

I don't know the answer to that.

Article 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says:

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Does the right of the individual to practice one religious tradition override the right of the Cree to govern themselves in their own way?

I don't know the answer to that question either.

[Statistical]

30. What law of the land? Tribal nations are sovreign entities.

The tribal nation has the sovereign right of self determination. Sadly they have decided to self rule via a Christian theocracy.

Still their decision violates no "law of the land" as they (James Bay Cree) are a sovereign entity and have decided to outlaw non Christian religious practices (including sweat lodges).

[niyad]

17. and I have a fundamental right to decry stupidity, ignorance, intolerance and bigotry wherever I see

it, including xian indigenous peoples screwing themselves.

[slackmaster]

18. Absolutely

We reach.

[walldude]

6. In the backyard of a friend...

How the fuck can they tell anyone what they can or cannot do in their own backyard?

Not to mention that this is a blatant Constitutional violation.

I read the article, is sickening. Fucking Christians claim that something like 85% of Americans are Christian, and in the next breath they cry about how persecuted they are.
Got new for you, if you don't want to be persecuted, then stop being assholes. Pretty simple.

[slackmaster]

8. Darn homeowners' associations and CC&Rs

:argh:

[Statistical]

29. Irony is that if he built the sweat OFF the reservation his actions would have been protected

by the Canadian government, however Tribal Nations are sovereign entities.

[slackmaster]

31. Yes, Canadian law would have protected him, as long as he didn't violate fire codes, etc.

It is pretty ironic.

[Yo_Mama]

40. I think you are missing a few points

A) This is in Canada. The US Constitution has nothing to do with it.

B) The Ouje-Bougoumou band claims sovereignty. To understand why, try reading their history:
http://www.ouje.ca/content/our-story/history.php

C) The village is a collective property. There's a tour at the link above. You could try taking it.

D) This bothers me, but the violation of collective identity is also a problem. They have survived under extremely adverse circumstances because of that collective identity. For this band, apparently their religion is a part of that collective identity.

E) Whether you or I like it or not is not the issue.

F) People of European heritage don't understand the strong collective orientation of Indians. And that always does come with rules of behavior that "feel" wrong to whites. Try to take it on faith that there is no "own backyard" in this community. The land and buildings are owned, administered and maintained collectively. Maybe it would be more understandable if you thought of it like an HOA in a planned community. The rules may bar you from turning your front yard into a vegetable garden. That bothers me too, but for outsiders to say that the rule is stupid and ban it takes away the right of people to create such consensual communities. Well, these groups are not that prissy and petty in the rules they set.

G) Probably to a person of European heritage you would see this as a conflict of laws - that the law of this band conflicts with good law. But that's not it. It has nothing to do with law. Most Indians do not live on reservations or legally collectively held property, but regardless of the law, property is in fact held collectively. Off the reservation you often get these networks of families that behave in the same way, although we have to comply with the law of the land to do it. But the point is that the differing law of the land does not change the behavior at all.

H) I realize that this would not be apparent to you, but the same rules of behavior controlling this decision set logical limits to the band council's decision. First, they can go outside the village and build the sweat lodge there. Second, if anyone tries to make too much trouble and they are forced to leave, this would be perceived as violating their rights and would cause a split which would almost certainly be resolved in their favor.

[KittyWampus]

9. Contemptible behavior.

[slackmaster]

11. Indeed, but it may have been a lawful exercise of self-governance

The Cree may have the right to culturally shoot themselves in the foot, if their rightfully appointed leaders say so.

[niyad]

13. in violation of the various treaties under which they live, you mean?

[slackmaster]

16. I don't know the law. If they violated a treaty, then what they did was illegal.

If not, then it may have been legal. I claim no expertise on the applicable laws.

[niyad]

20. for starters, you could try reading the entire article. lays things out quite clearly.

[slackmaster]

22. I read it, and the legality is as clear to me as mud.

It's something that needs to be worked out in a court of law, not in the media or an online discussion forum.

[NBachers]

10. Jesus Christ the sweat lodge is not a threat to the fucking beliefs of the Christonacht bleevers

Were Redfern Mianscum and his neighbors going to storm over and destroy the Church O' The Bleevers?

sputter spock pzzzt fry I'm so pissed about this shit

[niyad]

14. tells you something about how tenuous their relationship with their beliefs is, doesn't it?

[defendandprotect]

25. "Christians" are still after the Native American ... !! Wow!

[slackmaster]

32. Even when they ARE Native Americans

It's amazing.

[DonCoquixote]

26. The Religions of Abraham

Always tend to attack anything not them. It does not matter whether they are Zionists in Israel, Bigots in Florida, or even Hamas in Jerusalem, they all feel they have a right and duty to convert the heathen.

[ohheckyeah]

27. This community,

like many others in this country, believe it is it's right to brainwash it's children and protect them from any view not of the parents belief system. True belief in anything requires one to know the alternatives to that belief system, otherwise it's just brainwashing. Do the Christians think that their belief system can't hold up to scrutiny and alternatives being presented? Evidently they do. Ignorance and isolation shouldn't be a requirement of any religious system.

[Canuckistanian]

28. That's outrageous

It's true that native cultures are somewhat protected in pursuing their own destinies, but they're still under the jurisdiction of Canadian Law.

If this were pursued as a Charter challenge (our "Bill of Rights"), I'm sure it would be successful. The Charter recognizes EVERYONE'S right to worship as they please.

[slackmaster]

33. Thanks for your informed opinion. I hope you are right.

:hi:

[RandomThoughts]

35. Function not data, not about your actual reply.

It is impossible to know and be sure about the supernatural.

In Foundation book, a smaller set of information was used to understand an impossibly large set beyond comprehension.

The debt of beer and travel money due to me, allows me to understand even that which I do not have complete information about.

As a representative concept, it allows thoughts on issues without having the complete information set.

[slackmaster]

36. As a database administrator (among my many hats), I agree completely

Throwing information away is generally a bad idea.

[RandomThoughts]

37. Explain how you think that applies to my comment.

There are a few ways to see that.

Note that by you making a comment that can be seen many ways, you are not communicating to me, you are prompting me to communicate with myself by interpreting what you think by that.

[slackmaster]

38. Packers by 14 points

:hi:

[RandomThoughts]

39. Explain how you think that applies to my post.

[struggle4progress]

34. It's impossible from this story to be sure what happened, since the story comes from only one side

The Indian country article refers to "Chief Louise Wapachee" but Canada's Indian and Northern Affairs website lists "Chief Sam R. Bosum" -- see http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/qc/aqc/prof/Ouje-eng.asp

Oujé-Bougoumou has a website, but the "Chief's Welcome" page is only "coming soon": http://www.ouje.ca/content/index.php

The community seems to have an activist bent, particularly in regard to reclaiming jurisdiction over its traditional territory. The town is planned as a sustainable development, with a common plant for household heat and hot water. The community is rather small, perhaps 600 people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouj%C3%A9-Bougoumou,_Quebec.

The Oujé-Bougoumou website suggests that tourism is contemplated as a source of economic activity. They got money last year from the Canadian government to build a cultural center:

Government of Canada invests in the Aanischaaukamikw Cultural Institute in Oujé-Bougoumou
http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/media-room/news-releases/2009/11/2227.html

All sorts of different things could be going on here, and I wouldn't assume from a single account that I knew the facts. It is, of course, possible that one merely has a proverbial small town intolerance. But it is also possible, for example, that the story has been badly misreported; perhaps what is really happening is that a small town, which hopes to become a tourist attraction, is enforcing something like community zoning laws, with the aim that tourists not come to find yards filled with rusting junk or ad hoc buildings or other visual distractions