Revised China Presentations

8/14/2019 Revised China Presentations

1/148

Sunday, February 27, 2005The Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-Based Processes andSocialist Construction

Paper delivered Sept 1-2, 2004 at the International Symposium on the Reform of Property Rights

and Enterprise Development in Transitional Countries at Tsinghua University, Beijing, ChinaThe Evolving Concept of Social Capital, Markets, Market-Based Processes and SocialistConstruction

By James M. Craven (Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo ipoyi)Professor, Economics; Chairman, Business Division, Clark College, Vancouver, WA.

Every nation in the world has its own history and its own strengths and weaknesses. Sinceearliest times excellent things and rotten things have mingled together and accumulated overlong periods. To sort them out and distinguish the essence from the dregs is a difficult taskOfcourse this does not mean that we do not need to learn from foreign countries. We must learn

many things from foreign countries and master themWe learn foreign things because we wantto study and develop Chinese thingsWe must not be like the Empress Dowager Tzu-hsi whoblindly rejected all foreign things. Blindly rejecting foreign things is like blindly worshippingthem. Both are incorrect and harmfulIn learning from foreign countries we must oppose bothconservatism and dogmatismTo study foreign things does not mean importing everything,lock, stock and barrelWe must give our attention to the critical acceptance of foreign things,and especially to the introduction of things from the socialist world and from the progressivepeople of the capitalist world

(Chairman Mao Zedong, Talk to Music Workers, pp. 85-88, in Chairman Mao Talks to thePeople: Talks and Letters 1956-1971, Stuart Schram ed., Pantheon Books, N.Y. 1974)

Introduction

The Peoples Republic of China stands as one of the major political-economic powers and socialformations in the world today; it ranks about sixth place in terms of most economic aggregatescommonly used to rank-order different economies in size and influence in the global economy.For a nation that had been kept backward, fragmented, feudal and colonized by foreign imperialpowers and internal contradictions until the Peoples Revolution in 1949, and, for a nation thathas been subject to imperial encirclement, threats of nuclear annihilation, destabilizationcampaigns and demonization and ostracization in the global economy for many years, with alarge population of 1.4 billion people with myriad wants and needs awaiting fulfillment, thepresent level of development and standing of China is no small achievement And there is no

doubt, in the opinions of many observers, that socialist values and consciousness, created andreinforced by the developing social capital of Chinese socialism, have constituted a significantand material force in those achievementsoften against overwhelming odds and againsttechnologically-sophisticated and vicious foreign forces bent on isolating, demonizing,destabilizing and sabotaging socialist construction in China.

Yet despite the tremendous advances made by the Chinese people, much work remains to bedone and many wants and needs remain unfulfilled causing China to explore, at various periods
http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.html


2/148

of Chinese history, diverse approaches, models, instruments, measures and paths of growth anddevelopment. According to the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2002:

We must be aware that China is in the primary stage of socialism and will remain so, for a longtime to come. The well-off life we are leading is still at a low level; it is not all-inclusive and isvery uneven. The principal contradiction in our society is still one between the ever-growingmaterial and cultural needs of the people and the backwardness of social production. Ourproductive forces, science, technology and education are still relatively backward, so there is along way to go before we achieve industrialization and modernization. 1

Since 1978, China has experienced the progressive widening of markets, market relationshipsand categories along with some changes in political, economic, cultural, legal and socialinstitutions and superstructure necessary to facilitate widening and deepening marketinvolvement in socialist construction. Some of these policies and initiatives have included:export-led growth; increasing reliance on long-term foreign direct investment (FDI both into andoriginating from China); increasing privatization; lowering of trade barriers; decentralization ofplanning; increased authority for (and responsibilities on) local governments; increasing

integration into global networks of manufacturing, finance, trade; critical technology transfers;new forms of enterprise organization (e.g. Individual Family Contracts (IFCs) in agriculture,Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), privatization and self-financing of state-ownedenterprises(SOEs) and SBCs or share-based cooperatives); labor market reforms; currencyexchange-rate stabilization; etc.

But the debates, inside and outside of China, have continued to rage: Does this emerging marketsocialism model represent simply a necessaryand necessarily hybridmodel that is basedupon, and is addressing, the myriad real-world legacies, constraints, conditions and forces withwhich China has to deal, and that will, or can possibly, result in using markets and capitalism tobuild socialism in China?. Or, as some would argue, does this hybrid model represent the reverseof using socialism (real or nominal) to build and extend markets, market-based processes andwholesale capitalism thus subjectively or objectively sabotaging long-run conditions andprospects for ongoing socialist construction throughout China?

The Allure of Neo-Liberalism

The neo-liberal narrative, and the narrative of neoclassical economics upon which it is largelybased, are quite alluring and seductive. Starting with some unprovedand largely metaphysicalaxioms and postulates that form a view of eternal and immutable human nature, basiceconomicand even non-economicoutcomes are said to be the inevitable and predictableresults of the unfolding or playing-out of human natureon both the supply and demand sides ofa given marketunder given conditions, institutional arrangements and constraints; and the

macro is said to be nothing more than the sum of the aggregated micro. What could be morenatural and efficient, the neoclassicals argue, than a system (Capitalism) that, rather than tryingto deny or suppress or change eternal and immutable human nature, instead, harnesses,celebrates and utilizes human propensities and instincts that form human nature in order toproduce optimal social outcomes not even intended by the Economic Man (who is asserted tobe atomistic, calculating, rational, selfish, competitive, egoistic, materialistic) agent who isowning, buying or selling only for himself/herself in accordance with his or her own rationalself-interest? It of course never occurs to the proponents of neo-liberalism and neoclassical


3/148

economics (who have only recently got around to the concept of social capital) that maybe whatthey are observing is not some eternal and immutable human nature, but, rather, the socialcapital of capitalism doing one of the things it is supposed to do: creating and reinforcing thevery human nature (and associated human values, behaviors and proclivities) that is necessaryfor the functioning, imperatives (e.g. mass consumption, markets, profits, market shares etc) andexpanded reproduction of capitalism itself. These proponents also deny that these supposedeternal and immutable propensities and proclivities of human nature, operating on the microlevels of the economy, when aggregated to the macro levels, can, rather than producing optimalmacro outcomes, instead, produce social chaos, instability, mass alienation, environmentaldegradation, hollowing-out of industrial bases, involuntary unemployment, lack of mass accessto health care, loss of mass acceptance of the system, etc.

Here we have systems through which forces of supply and demand for various commoditiesinteractmarkets. They are often portrayed as rather technical, mechanical, impersonal andendogenously self-equilibrating (in response to exogenous shocks) sub-systems that arerelatively value-free, requiring only supporting institutions of private property and a relativelybusiness-friendly and non-interventionist state. Markets are said to represent the most superior

(in terms of narrow and contrived definitions of efficiency and the greatest good for thegreatest number) mechanisms (that stand opposed to the mechanisms of tradition and command)for posing and solving the classical What, How and For Whom questions faced by allsocieties at all levels.

The neo-liberal and neoclassical narratives operate like String Theory (The Theory ofEverything) in Physics. Where the narratives and visions of Quantum Mechanics at the micro orparticle level (focusing on micro chaos and only probabilities and no certainties) contradict thenarratives and visions of General Relativity on the macro levels (focusing on general order,equilibrium, stability, symmetry and certainty) the claim is made that String Theory bridges andreconciles the two contradictory visions and narratives. The same claim is made by the neo-liberal and neoclassical theorists. When markets are allowed to do what markets do, when theyare left relatively free and unfettered by over-regulation, when they are supported by given andappropriate politico-legal-cultural-social policies and institutions (superstructure or socialcapital), then, out of the potential chaos of greed/selfishness/profit/utility-driven interactions atthe micro level, we get stability, equilibria, efficiency, growth, development, employment,incomes, global competitiveness, comparative-advantage-based trade, invention/innovation, etcon the macro level. The macro order, stability and certainties will supposedly follow fromthe potential chaos and probabilities at the micro level in the long-run; that is, if short-termadjustments and sacrifices can be accepted and handled by the masses and the state. Thegreatest good for the greatest number, consumer and producer sovereignty, efficiency, demandand supply reflecting revealed preferences of those with the most dollar votes, political as well aseconomic democracy and rising tides lifting all boats or the so-called trickle-down effects

are but some of the promises of neo-liberalism and the neoclassical paradigm. As EdwardLuttwak, put it:

At present, almost all elite Americans, with corporate chiefs and fashionable economists in thelead, are utterly convinced that they have discovered the winning formula for economic successgood for every country, rich or poor, good for all individuals willing and able to heed themessage, and of course, good for elite Americans: PRIVATIZATION + DEREGULATION =TURBO-CAPITALISM = PROSPERITY 2


4/148

Markets, the neo-liberal and neoclassical proponents argue, are the ultimate in democraticinstitutions; even more democratic than de jure institutions such as legislatures, voting, elections,government etc. Consumers, looking to maximize total utility, with given incomes, expectations,information about prices and preferences cast their dollar votes while producers, driven by theimperatives to maximize and realize total profits, with given technologies, information aboutprices, and given resources respond to those with the most dollar votes; they act like ongoingpublic referenda according to this narrative. And then, markets do what market do:1)commodification; 2) price determination; 3) act as information systems (about conditions, trendsand profit/utility opportunities); 4) resource allocation; 5) rationing; 6) clearing surpluses andshortages.

Supply and demand interact and prices are determined. Prices communicate information aboutmarket conditions, trends and possibilities and allow calculation/estimation of comparative profitor utility potentials by sellers and buyers in order for them, as sovereign individuals, todetermine what is likely to maximize total profits or utility and thus What shall be produced orconsumed. Prices of inputs and outputs, along with the imperatives to minimize total cost on the

supply side, or maximize total utility on the demand side, then allow determination of optimalproduction and utility functions and thus How to produce or consume and the allocations ofgiven resources. Further, prices and relative prices of commodities answer the For Whomquestion through rationing (those willing to pay the most are most likely to get the commoditiesbeing supplied) while the relative incomes of inputs (land, labor and capital) and supposedlybased upon their relative marginal contributions to the value of total output, reflect and shape thedistributions incomes and wealth among the owners and sellers of those inputs.

It is all a nice and neat narrative. In the neoclassical theory and narrative: all exchanges arevoluntary and mutually beneficial to the participants otherwise they would not have occurred;causality is unidirectional with ultimate independent variables (e.g. tastes and incomes on thedemand side and technology and input costs on the supply side) acting as exogenous variablesthat trigger endogenous and self-equilibrating responses in and through markets; the economy isthus propelled from equilibrium state (harmony and balance of contending interests) toequilibrium state in response to exogenous shocks and variables.

The determinants of those exogenous independent variables are not the subject of inquiry forthe neoclassical/neo-liberals. They have little or nothing to say about the real-world ofmonopolies, oligopolies, engineered supply and demand magnitudes and elasticities (e.g. Enron),administered prices, imperialism, social systems engineering, ideologically-driven embargos,asymmetric information, asymmetric ownership, asymmetric powers in internationalorganizations like the UN or WTO, asymmetric access to political influence and justice, etc.These real-world phenomena are never even discussed in their textbooks let alone seen as

inexorable or likely outcomes of the systemic structures and survival imperatives of capitalismitself. If these phenomena are ever even recognized, they are dismissed as simple anomalies andexceptions not disturbing the overall narratives.

When the widening and deepening of markets, market relations and market institutions result insuch crises as recurring and mounting unemployment, environmental degradation, wealth andincome inequality, alienation among the youth, commodification of the sacred, inflation, lossof mass access to health care, increasing capital and labor migration, losses of traditional


5/148

societies, budget and trade deficits, exchange-rate instability, etc, such outcomes are typicallycharacterized by the neo-liberals and neoclassicals as either growing pains in countries likeChina3, or, in market-based economies, that have been growing for some time and in whichsome of the same crises are nonetheless evident, such crises are said to be the result of excessivegovernment intervention and regulation, lack of appropriate and supporting politico-legalinstitutions (the subject of this symposium), imperfect information, non-market (government)corruption, trade protectionism, etcnot letting markets freely do what markets do.

Systemic Imperatives of Market-based Economies

Under market-basedcapitalisteconomies and processes, all entities, whether individuals,firms, organizations or even whole economies in global competition, are locked into certainfundamental and interrelated imperatives that shape what might be termed the teleologicallogic of capitalism. These fundamental survival-competitive imperatives also applyin varyingdegreesto socialist social formations when operating in global markets governed by capitalistinstitutions as well as to entities operating in and through markets within socialist socialformations. These interrelated fundamental imperatives are:

1) Realization of Maximum Possible Total Profits;2) Accumulation of Capital: Expanded Reproduction (Widening and Deepening) of the CapitalBase and the Capital-Labor Relationship;3) Maximization of Productivity and Enhanced Efficiency;4) Effective Competition.

These competitive entities (individuals, groups, firms and whole national economies) mustattempt to produce and actually realize maximum possible profits in order to have the retainedearnings and/or creditworthiness as a necessarybut not sufficientcondition for continualexpanded reproduction of their productive bases. These entities must continually attempt toreproduce and expand (widening and deepening) their productive bases and relations as anecessarybut not sufficientcondition of maximization of productivity and overall efficiency.These entities must attempt to maximize productivity and enhance overall efficiency as anecessarybut not sufficientcondition of effective competition (leading to expanded marketshare and power, name recognition, etc). And these competitive entities must attempt toeffectively compete as a necessarybut not sufficientcondition of further production andrealization of maximum possible total profits. Further, these fundamental imperatives of survivaland effective competition create further derivative imperatives that shape the content, parametersand effects of human behavior as well as of human nature itself. For example, tactics such asoutsourcing, union busting, not paying true costs of profits/benefits received and/or not receivingtrue profits/benefits for costs paid, or environmental degradation, flow from the imperative tominimize total costs (along with the greed and selfishness celebrated by the social capital ofcapitalism) that itself flows from the imperative to effectively compete that flows from the

imperative to realize maximize possible total profits.

Different systems embody, create and reinforce different structures, contradictions, conditionsand imperatives of survival within those structures and under conditions that in turn shape thecontent, frequency, effects and permissibility or taboos of human behavior. One of thepurposes of social capital is to create, teach, reinforce, sanction, celebrate, legitimate or de-legitimate certain relationships, values, norms, customs, institutions, habits, myths, traditions,ideologies and paradigms in accordance with certain systemic imperatives among which is the


6/148

imperative for expanded reproduction of the whole system itself. Sometimes, however, the typesof habits, norms, values, paradigms and behaviors most necessary on the micro level, may, whenaggregated, produce macro effects or contradictions opposite of those intended or predicted frombehaviors on the micro levels.

From the perspective of the profits-for-power-and-power-for-profits and competitiveimperatives of a typical businessperson or entity in a market-based/driven economy, the type ofperson/customer that would be ideal would likely possess the traits and proclivities of HomoOeconomicus incarnate. This person would typically be: narcissistic; highly subject to fads andpeer pressure; unable to delay gratificationwants it all and wants it now; predatory andcalculatingfor the next profit or utility opportunity; unable to assess real and long-term costsand benefitscaught-up in the illusory, the superficial and in the moment; a pleasure-obsessedconspicuous consumer acquiring and expressing identity and individuality throughconsumption and types of commodities consumed; highly competitive; materialistic; acquisitive;rationalbut only in the narrow and bounded sense; self-centered and self-absorbed; unwillingto sacrifice in the short-term for long-term goals or a transcendent causes; willing to go into debtto finance current conspicuous consumption; ultra-individualistic equating individualism with

individuality.;etc.

This type of Homo Oeconomicus, celebrated by and the cornerstone of neoclassical economictheory, is, however, for most people, not the type of person one would like to have as a son ordaughter-in law, friend, mother or father, husband or wife, brother or sister, member of a militaryunit in combat, voter, public servant, neighbor during a natural disaster or someone involved inor guiding socialist construction. Indeed, even within capitalist social formations, the requisitesocial capital of markets and capitalism, without which markets could not do what marketstypically doand that is necessary for the expanded reproduction of capitalism as a wholeinvolves potentially contradictory missions or purposes. On the one hand, the purpose of socialcapital in market-based societies is to teach, legitimate and reinforce those ideas, values, norms,habits, myths, traditions, behaviors, proclivities, institutions and productive and otherrelationships necessary for creating and expanding markets, profits, capital accumulation, etce.g. values and proclivities such as ultra-individualism, conspicuous consumerism, etc. On theother hand, the purpose of social capital also involves teaching, legitimating and reinforcingcertain forms and levels of social awareness and concern, cohesion, cooperation, reciprocity,civic engagement, personal sacrifice for the nation, buying into the system, etc.

When markets are introduced and expanded within socialist social formations, the requisitesocial capital of markets becomes potentially not only internally contradictory with respect toexpanded reproduction of markets and market-based processes, but also, such requisite socialcapital canand will likelybecome a destructive and sabotaging force against socialistconstruction and the expanded reproduction of socialist relations and institutionseven allowing

for some varying and diverse definitions of what socialism is about and the positive effects ofmarkets in terms of building productive forces rapidly.

The Evolving Concept of Social Capital

The term social capital was first coined in 1916 by L. Judson Hanifan4 to refer to socialnetworks and institutions/norms of reciprocity (goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and socialintercourse) associated with them. Hanifan, by his own admission, employed the term capital


7/148

(anything that has been produced and used to producefor profitable exchangesomethingelse) to catch the eye--and patronage--of the business community. Hanifan suggested that thesesocial networks and institutions could, on micro as well as macro levels, enhance productivity,competitiveness, employment and income creation, etc. in some of the same ways that physicalcapital and human capital can, also, produce the same effects.

Subsequent to Hanifans apparent coinage of the term social capital, the term and concept wasreintroducedand partly redefinedat least six times up to the present: 1) in the 1950s bysociologist John Seeley5 to refer to memberships in clubs and associations that act just likenegotiable securities in producing career advancement and tangible returns to individuals; 2) inthe 1960s, by urban economist Jane Jacobs6 to refer to the collective value and effects ofinformal neighborhood ties and associations; 3) in the 1970s by economist Glenn Loury7 to referto wider social ties lost by African Americans as one of the legacies of slavery; 4) in the 1980sby social theorist Pierre Bourdieu8 to refer to the actual or potential resources linked to durablenetworks of institutionalized relationships of mutual recognition and assistance; 5) in the mid-1980s by economist Ekkehart Schlicht9 to refer to the economic value and productivity-enhancing effects of organizations, moral order, cooperation and cohesion; 6) in the late 1980s

by James Coleman10 to refer, as Hanifan had done, to the social arrangements, relationships andinstitutions creating and shaping the environment or social context of education.

The above-mentioned definitions of social capital are all closely related and narrow in theirfocus. They focus on immediate relationshipsinstitutionalized or informaland the networks,and norms of reciprocity that serve as tangible assets and have economic impacts not only on themicro level (personal career advancement, obtaining employment, political influence, personalsafety etc) but also on the macro level in terms of enhancing productivity, reducing informationand transactions costs, enhancing competitiveness, enhancing community safety and reducingcrime, encouraging cooperation, limiting destructive forms and levels of competition etc.

A wider definition of social capital, one employed in this paper, is closely akin to the concept ofSocial Structures of Accumulation (SSA)11 which involves a complex of institutions (political,social and economic) and domestic and international relations supporting and legitimating theprocess of capital accumulation (which includes not only accumulation of wealth andphysical/human capital but also expanded reproduction of fundamental and defining socio-economic-political relationships of the whole system itself. This is also close to the classicalMarxist concept of Superstructure.

Even allowing for the more narrow definition of social capital employed by Putnam et al., recentstudies reveal the steady erosion of social capital in the U.S. in the last thirty years. They havemore or less consistently documented solid trends reflecting steady declines in various indicesof: political and civic engagement (voting, contributions, electoral participation, signing

petitions, writing polemics, working on political campaigns, running for political office);community involvement ( charitable work and donations, blood donations, religiousparticipation, memberships in professional associations, clubs and societies). These studies havealso documented steady increases in various indices of alienation and apathy among various agecohorts of the U.S. population (dinners outside the home, incidents of road rage, polling onsocial trust and trust in political figures, daily television viewing and percent of population usingtelevision as central form of entertainment, percent of population disobeying traffic signs andrules, polling on greed trumping community involvement among college freshmen, suicide rates


8/148

in various age cohorts, percentage of population reporting frequent malaiseheadaches,insomnia, indigestionand percentage of population reporting overwork and multiple jobs as amatter of necessity rather than choice).

These trends in the U.S., revealing steady erosions of social capital with the ripening of U.S.capitalism, are highly correlated with other social outcomes: increases in child abuse; decreasesin quality and effectiveness of educational institutions; increasing television watching andreduced effective literacy among children; increases in crime; decreases in health andperceptions of being healthy among the general population; decreases in perceptions of social-connectedness among the general population; increasing membership in dangerous cults likeoffering messiahs, instant gratification and easy answers to complex problems; increasingdivorce rates; increasing tax evasion, anti-statism and distrust of politicians or political solutionsto current problems; decreasing percentages of the population willing to trust or help fellowcitizens who are strangers.

When the work of Putnam et al was extended to the international level, exploring similar dataand trends in eight major capitalist societies (Australia, France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Sweden,

Great Britain and the United States), in all cases, except Sweden, the trends in social-capital-erosion in countries other than the United States strongly paralleled (in timing and patterns ofchange) those of the United States.12 Also paralleling these trends, and consistent with the widerdefinition and socializing-ideological functions of social capital, in all of these countries, thecentral themes of culture (television, movies, literature, games, art, music, etc) are increasinglycentered on and around promoting and celebrating narcissism, ultra-individualism, competition,ruthlessness, duplicity, pleasure maximization, instant gratification, materialism, luck, returnswithout sacrifice, predatory calculation and manipulation and other concepts and valuesdefinitely useful from the standpoint of mass consumption and profitability but also definitelyinimical to socialist construction however one may define socialism.

Conclusion

China has come a long way in promoting levels and forms of human progress for the broadmasses of people that were simply unknown in the China before 1949. This achievement is trulyremarkable when one considers the legacies that were inherited along with the extent to whichChina has been subject to imperial aggression, isolation, ostracization, embargos, social systemsengineering campaigns, demonization and even outright threats of nuclear annihilationcausingdiversions of precious and scarce resources for defense instead of directly into development. Thecurrent problems that China faces simply cannot wait and the imperative to develop theproductive forces as rapidly as possible to deal with the myriad issues, constraints, inequalitiesand crises faced by China should be evident to all but the most insulated and callous of observers

and critics. Certainly socialism cannot be built and defended without the participation andallegiance of the broad masses of Chinese people who must, first of all, simply survive in orderto participate in socialist construction.

On the other hand, socialism is not simply about building productive forces or dealing with theWhat, How and For Whom questions differently than they are dealt with under capitalism.Socialism is not an end-state but rather a long protracted process and it is also about teaching andreinforcing human values and relationships that are very different fromand stand in


9/148

contradiction/opposition tothe types of values and relationships embodied in the social capitalof capitalism and most conducive to the expanded reproduction of capitalism: greed, selfishness,ultra-individualism, competition, narcissism, instant-gratification, predation for profit/utilityopportunities, inequalities of wealth and incomes, commodification of everything including thesacred, etc. As William Hinton summed it up:

Socialism is after all not something given, something fixed. It is a process, a transition from onestate to anotherAs such it bears within it many contradictions, many inequalities that cannot bedone away with overnight or even in the course of several years or several decadesYet as longas these inequalities exist they generate privilege, individualism, careerism, and bourgeoisideology. Without a conscious and protracted effort to combat these tendencies they can growinto an important social force. They can and do create new bourgeois individuals who gather as anew privileged elite and ultimately as a new exploiting class. Thus socialism can be peacefullytransformed back into capitalism.13

The basic values, institutions and relationships most conducive to the expanded reproduction ofcapitalism act as weeds in the garden of socialism threatening to choke off the new flowers in the

emerging garden. That is precisely why the introduction and expansion of market and market-based institutions, values, relations and imperatives within the framework of a socialist socialformation, which may be tactically necessary as was the case with the NEP in the Soviet Union,must be handled carefully and from a position of strength and willingness to sacrifice ifnecessary. This is especially the case when it is clear that the major capitalist power, the U.S.,seeks hegemony in the global community of nations and regards itself as locked into a global warof conflicting systems and ideologies (Capitalism versus Socialism) in which it is prepared to usecultural, political, economic and military meanscovertly or overtlyto ensure the victory ofneo-liberal capitalism and its associated institutions, values and relationships on a global scale.As James Petras put it:

U.S cultural imperialism has two major goals, one economic and the other political: to capturemarkets for its cultural commodities and to establish hegemony by shaping popularconsciousness. The export of entertainment is one of the most important sources of capitalaccumulation and global profits displacing manufacturing exports. In the political sphere,cultural imperialism plays a major role in dissociating people from their cultural roots andtraditions of solidarity, replacing them with media created needs which change with everypublicity campaign. The political effect in to alienate people from traditional class andcommunity bonds, atomizing and separating individuals from each other. 14

No doubt that significant changes in institutionspolitical, legal, social, cultural and economicwill take place as markets and market institutions/relations/values are introduced more andmore in China to help to handle domestic conditions and facilitate Chinas increasing integration

into a global economy organized on capitalist foundations and categories. The real challengeswill be not to lose sight of the ultimate goals and necessity of socialism, to appreciate the rolesand effects of social capital (along with physical and human capitalunder socialism as well asunder capitalism), to assess and appreciate the true costs (private plus social) and true benefits(private plus social) of markets, market relationships, values and institutions under socialistconstruction, and, not to wind up bringing a tiger in through the back door to chase out the wolfat the front door.


10/148

Footnotes

Report of the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of China, 2002 quoted in Some Basicson China (online edition) by D. Raja and He Yong, Political Affairs Net, athttp://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/256/1/32, p. 1

Edward Luttvak quoted in Frank, Thomas, One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, MarketPopulism and the End of Economic Democracy, Anchor Books, N.Y. 2000, p. 17

Chinas Growing Pains in The Economist, August 26, 2004

Hanifan, Lyda Judson, The Rural School Community Center, Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political Science, 67 (1916): pp. 130-138. Note: An excellent overview of thedevelopment of the concept of social capital, for which I am indebted, can be found in: Putnam,Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon andSchuster, N.Y. 2000 and also in Putnam, Robert D (ed), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of

Social Capital in Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, N.Y. 2002

Seeley, John R, Sim, Alexander and Loosley, Elizabeth; Crestwood Heights: A Study of theCulture of Suburban Life, Basic Books, N.Y. 1956

Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, N.Y. 1961

Loury, Glenn, A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences in Women, Minorities andEmployment Discrimination, Wallace, P.A. and LeMund, A (eds),Lexington Books, Lexington Mass. 1977

Bourdieu, Pierre, Forms of Capital in Handbook of Theory and Research for The Sociology ofEducation Richardson, John (Ed), Greenwood Books, N.Y. 1983

Schlicht, Ekkehart, Cognitive Dissonance in Economics in Normengeleitetes Verhalten in denSozialwissenschaften, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, 1984

Coleman, James, Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital in American Journal ofSociology, 94 (1988)

see Diebolt, Claude, Towards a New Social Structure of Accumulation inHistorical and Social Research, Vol 27, No. 2/3 2002; also see Gordon, David M:

Stages of Accumulation and Long Economic Cycles in Hopkins, T and Wallerstein, I (eds)Processes of the World System, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1980; Bowles, S SocialInstitutions and Technical Change in Di Matteo, M; Goodwin, R.M. and Vercelli, A. (eds) inTechnological and Social Factors in Long-Term Fluctuations, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1989; andKotz, D.M; McDonnoug, T; Reich, M (eds) Social Structures of Accumulation , CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 1994

Putnam, Robert (ed) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/256/1/32http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/256/1/32http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/256/1/32http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/256/1/32


11/148

Contemporary Society, Oxford Univ. Press, N.Y. 2002

Hinton, William Turning Point in China, p. 20 quoted in Monthly Review , July-August 2004, Vol. 56, No. 3 p. 128

14. Petras, James, Cultural Imperialism in the Late Twentieth Century, internet EdPosted by Jim Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi) at3:36 PM

James Craven

Critiques of Neo-classical Economics

32

15

3 6

2008 5

2

6
http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=7504250&postID=109667055988370935http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2005/02/evolving-concept-of-social-capital.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=7504250&postID=109667055988370935http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=7504250&postID=109667055988370935http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=7504250&postID=109667055988370935


12/148

Lectures 1-3: Introduction and Overview of Neoclassical Economics

Discussion Class

Lectures 4-6: Metaphysics, Rhetoric and Internal Contradictions of NC

Theory

Discussion Class

Lectures 7-9: Marxist and Heterodox Critiques of NC Theory

Lectures 10-12: Neoclassical Theory as a Cornerstone of the Social Capital

of Capitalism, Globalization and Imperialism

Lectures 13-14: The Dominance and Hegemony of NC Economics in

Western

Economics

Lecture 15: Final Comments, Summing Up, Directions for Future

Research/Investigation

Discussion Class

Lecture and Discussion Classes will involve:

1. Class Lectures (Socratic Style of Teaching)

2. Handouts of Relevant Background Materials

3. PowerPoint Presentations of Key Concepts

4. Team Teaching with Dr. Cai Jiming

5. Discussion Classes for detailed exploration of issues presented in

lectures

6. open debates of issues from diverse perspectives

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2007


13/148

The Development of the Blackfoot Nation: Paper Delivered to the 3rd Annunal Conference on Aboriginal Studies

and Issues, Beijing, China, May 18-21, 05

Sunday, May 29, 2005

The Development of the Blackfoot Nation: Paper Delivered to the 3rd Annunal

Conference on Aboriginal Studies and Issues, Beijing, China, May 18-21, 05 The

Development of the Blackfoot Nation

By James M. Craven/Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo ipoyi and Lori Hanson

Introduction

The existence, status and sovereignty of the Blackfoot Nation

Long before there were recognized nations called The United States of America and Canada,

and for many years since the genesis, development and recognition of those nations, Blackfoot

People lived as and formed a Whole People and Nation. By any and all criteria under

international law that legitimate and mandate recognition of The United States of America and

Canada as sovereign nations, that have their own unalienable rights to recognition, security and

self-determination as nations, Blackfoot People have collectively constituted a People and

Nation. Specifically, Blackfoot People historically and in the present-day possessed--and still

possessRecognizedby Blackfoot and non-Blackfoot:

1) Commonly-shared Territory;

2) Commonly-shared History, Culture, Spirituality and Language;

3) Commonly-shared Legal and Political Institutions, Processes and Traditions;

4) Commonly-shared Economic Institutions, Processes and Traditions;

5) Commonly-shared Mechanisms and Institutions for Determination of Membership in and

Leadership/Composition of the Nation;

6) Commonly-shared Ancestors and Ties of Blood--Family, Clan and Tribe;
http://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/development-of-blackfoot-nation-paper.htmlhttp://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/development-of-blackfoot-nation-paper.htmlhttp://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/development-of-blackfoot-nation-paper.htmlhttp://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/development-of-blackfoot-nation-paper.htmlhttp://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/development-of-blackfoot-nation-paper.htmlhttp://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/development-of-blackfoot-nation-paper.htmlhttp://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/development-of-blackfoot-nation-paper.htmlhttp://wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com/2007/11/development-of-blackfoot-nation-paper.html


14/148

7) Capacity to Enter Into Relations with Other Nations;

8) Expressed Common Will of Blackfoot Individuals to Live Together in Collectives Forming

Whole Societies Greater Than the Sums of the Parts;

9) Close Attachment to Ancestral Lands and their Resources;

10) Self-identification and Identification by Others as Members of a Distinct Nation or Cultural

Group;

11) Expressed Desire to Remain Distinct as Blackfoot and not to be Assimilated;

As in the case of any Nation, the status and legitimacy of the Blackfoot Nation and the

unalienable rights of the Blackfoot Nation and its members to security, peace, prosperity and

self-determination do not depend upon any degree or kind of recognition or non-recognition by

any other Nation or entity. The objective reality and status (under international law and as a

defacto reality) of Blackfoot People as a Nation, and the derivative rights of the Blackfoot Nation

to security, peace, prosperity and self-determination demandrather than depend upon

recognition by all those Nations seeking or asserting similar recognition ( often with lessauthority) for themselves.

-

Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in international law that

no members of one nation can be summarily declared to be members or citizens of another

nation without their consent. Blackfoot Peoples and members of the Blackfoot Nation were

summarily declared to be citizens of the United States of America in 1924 without their consent

and were summarily declared to be citizens of Canada in 1963 without their consent.

-

Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in International law, that

no nation or representative government of any nation makes treaties with its own citizens;

treaties are instruments and agreements (covenants) between and among sovereign nations

and, each treating nation tacitly, if not explicitly, in the act of treating or proposing to treat,

recognizes the nationhood, sovereignty, co-equal status and system of government producing


15/148

the authorityto form and keep the terms of a treatyof the other treating party .

-

Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in international law, that

nations have the right to seek, expose and indict those who commit crimes in the name

of/against members of a nation and/or against international law, and to prosecute, on their soil,

or in recognized international venues, those alleged to have committed such crimes.

-

Prior to the precedents set at the Nuremberg and other International Tribunals, it was thought

that established and customary practice of international law, and the whole of international law

itself, applied only between nations. It was the customary and established practice in

international law that what governments or parties of nations did or didnt do to their own

citizens or their own national minorities that caused harm to these citizens or national

minorities was not a matter for or concern of international law. Documents of and research on,

the periods during which the U.S. and Canadian Governments summarily declared Blackfoot

Peoples to be citizens of the United States and Canada without their consent, reveal that one

of the clear and stated motives and intent of summary declaration of citizenship was to

summarily declare removedand to removecertain national minorities of the United States

and Canada (including Blackfoot People) from any protection, coverage or application of

international law or conventions or treaties to which the U.S. and Canada were signatories, and

were bound by summarily changing their status to that of citizens; thus, making their status

and treatment an internal matter and supposedly not subject to international law; this is inviolation of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

-

Any extent to which any of the core elements of the Blackfoot Nation have been diminished or

extinguished as a result of conquest, occupation, and ethnocidal/genocidal policies and

practices; does not, and should not, in any way call into question the existence, legitimacy, or

fundamental rights to sovereignty and self-determination of the Blackfoot Nation and its

members. Were it not so, those who sought to eliminate Indigenous Peoples in general and

Blackfoot in particular, would be rewarded for/and assisted in the commission of the very

genocidal crimes against Blackfoot People and International Law.

-

Indigenous Nations in general, and Peoples of the Blackfoot Nation in particular, have

recognized, established and codified rights to national recognition, national sovereignty, national

preservation and protection of lands and resources, national self-determination and the national


16/148

right to take any and all measures necessary to preserve and protect the Nation against

genocide, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, war crimes or any other kinds of crimes

or threats against the existence and survival of the Nation as a whole or its members. Legal

support for and/or codification of these fundamental rights are to be found in:

-

The Nuremberg Charter;

The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide;

Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International

Conference of American States Dec. 26, 1933 (to which Canada was not a signatory);

Charter of the United Nations, Article I (2) and Article 55;

United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles I and 27;

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article I;

UN General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly

Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United

Nations;

UN General Assemblys Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United

Nations;

Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (e.g. the right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to

self-determination by breaking away from the imperial power is now undisputed.);

UN General Assembly Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (GA

Res. 1803, XVII, 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15 U.N. Doc. A/5217, 1962);

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 15 and 17;

UN General Assembly Resolutions 1514, XV (Declaration on the Granting of Independence of

Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14.12.1960) and 1541;


17/148

UN GA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24.10.1970, Annex, Declaration on Principles of International Law

Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter

of the United Nations;

Basket I, Final Act, Article VIII of the Helsinki Conference on Cooperation and Security in

Europe;

Article 38 no. 1 b of ICJ Statute ( two elements needed to create valid customary law in

international law: general customary practice and opinio juris);

Article 38 para. 1 d) of the ICJ Statute (judicial decisions can be used as subsidiary means for

the determination of rules of law);

the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Namibia in 1971 (Legal Consequences for States of the

Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia);

ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara (Order of 22 May 1975 ICJ Rep. 1975);

ICJ Judgment on U.S. Military and Paramilitary Activities Against Nicaragua, ICJ Rep. 1986;

ICJ Judgment on East Timor (Portugal v Australia), ICJ Rep. 1995;

Permanent ICJ Ruling in the Case of Greco-Bulgarian Communities, P.C.I.J. [1930], Series B,

No. 17,21;

International Commission of Jurists, East Pakistan Staff Study, 1972 ( a people begins to exist

only [and] when it becomes conscious of its own identity and asserts its will to exist, p. 47);

International Labor Organization Convention 107;

the draft Inter-American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the Organization

of American States;


18/148

declaration of President Richard Nixon, 1973(self-determination as the key concept that would

govern relations between Indian tribes [sic] and the government of the U.S.);

declaration of President Ronald Reagan in 1983 (the government-to-government

relationship between the U.S. and Indian tribes had enduredconsistently recognized a unique

political relationship between Indian Tribes and the U.S. which this Administration pledges to

uphold);

declaration of President William Clinton in 1994 (This is our first principle: respecting your

values, your religions, your identity, and your sovereignty[We want to]become full partners

with the tribal nations.);

memorandum of the U.S. Department of Justice (opinio juris) ([Clintons position] builds on the

firmly established federal policy of self-determination for Indian tribes.);

Helsinki Final Act; Fulfilling Our Promises: The United States and the Helsinki Final Act by the

Commission on Security and Cooperation in the U.S., 1979;

Compact of Self-governance Between the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe and the United States

of America;

Article I, Section 10 and Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States;

From the fundamental right of the Blackfoot Nation to survival and self-determination, other facts

and conclusions flow inexorably. For example, Canadas Indian Act, and the Indian

Reorganization Act of the U.S., strip recognized Indigenous sovereign nations, such as the

Blackfoot Nation, with its recognized right to self-determination, of the power to govern the

internal affairs of the Nation and transfer that power to entities of a foreign power (DIA , Minister

of Indian Affairs and their Band Council creations in Canada and the BIA, Department of the

Interior and their Tribal Council creations of the U.S. Government) thus summarily eliminating

the right of self-determination as a prelude to and instrument of elimination of the Nation itself.

The paternalistic policies of the Canadian and U.S. Governments purporting to protect

Indigenous Peoples through a trustee relationship, have demonstrably created, and inexorably


19/148

create, not protecting powers, but rather, powers, exploitative relationships and indeed

genocidal policies from which Indigenous Peoples need protection through the exercise of the

right of self-determination and through international law.

-

For the above-mentioned and other clear reasons, agencies such as the BIA and DIA, and their

creations the Tribal Councils, whose policies and actions are all subject to final approval and

ratification by the BIA and DIA, can never be recognized as the legitimate leadership and

political authority of the Blackfoot Nation. The mechanisms through which the Blackfoot Tribal

Councils are selected are non-Blackfoot in nature and in terms of the final authority conducting

and sanctioning them. Indeed historically and in the present, corrupt Tribal Councils (not an

indictment of every person serving or who has served on a Tribal Council) have been selected,

used and run by the Canadian and U.S. governments as key instruments of genocide. It would

be absurd and inherently illogical to suppose that only those same Band Councils could have

the authority standing to bring charges against those who have committed crimes against the

Blackfoot Nationcrimes in which they were often intimately involved as co-conspirators and

key instruments of genocide.

-

The Historical Blackfoot Nation

-

The Blackfoot comprised primarily of the Kainai (Many Chiefs), Siksika (Blackfoot) and

Apatohsipiikani (Northern Piikani) and Amskaapipiikani (Southern Piikani or Blackfeet inMontana) Bands (along with the smaller Bands of the Sarcee, Stoneys and elements of the

Gros Ventre or Atsina who were members of The Blackfoot Confederacy formed in 1871) have

occupied territory in what is now known as Canada since time immemorial.[1][2]

-

After Europeans began migrating to the so-called New World, indigenous populations

throughout the continent were often forced to migrate to new homelands. It is . . . probable that

the Blackfoot occupied the region from the Bow River to the North Saskatchewan for countless

generations before they moved south.[3] Well before the Blackfoot were approached by agents

of the Crown regarding treaty negotiations, the Blackfoot occupied an established region, which

theyand other non-Blackfoot nationsconsidered their traditional territory. The Blackfoot

territory during the historic period after 1750 was vast: it ranged from the North Saskatchewan

River to the Missouri River and from the Rocky Mountains to the present Alberta-Saskatchewan

boundary. Near the latter part of the nomadic era, the northern range shrank to the Battle River,


20/148

as the Blackfoot withdrew in the face of Cree pressures and as the decreasing buffalo herds

congregated farther south.[4]

-

Ongoing contacts with Europeans, coupled with the nature of those contacts, altered the world

of the Blackfoot forever. In 1870, it is estimated that Aboriginal peoples living on the Plains of

western Canada outnumbered whites by more than two to one. Within a few short years of

signing Treaty 7, however, disease and western expansion left the Blackfoot and other First

Nations of the Canadian West heavily outnumbered by whites.[5] By 1880, all the buffalo had

been wiped out, so the Blackfoot were forced to move to the reserves.[6] The Indian

Administration, the North West Mounted Police (N.W.M.P.), and the extinction of the bison, along

with four separate smallpox epidemics, wiped out the rapidly evolving Plains Indian culture.[7]

This story is common to all indigenous peoples of the Americas, as illegal encroachments on

land by whites, government sanctioned expansionism, destruction of natural resources, the

spread of exotic diseases, and outright genocide were common themes resulting from the

essentially involuntary contact with Europeans. Within the context of these ordeals the Blackfoot

and other First Nations leaders reluctantly agreed to negotiate what became known as Treaty 7

with Her Majestys Canadian representatives.

-

Voluntary Consent

-

In spite of the high-toned rhetoric about tribes and First Nations freely signing treaties, the landacquisition policy was only occasionally accomplished by fair, arms-length transactions. Most of

the time the government acquired lands by a combination of coercion, fraud, threat of force, or

actual military force. . . . It is absurd to argue that Aboriginal tribes knowingly and voluntarily

gave up their claims to these lands.[8]

-

Evidence of bad faith negotiating on the part of the Canadian officials is present. Questionable

tactics were used to persuade the First Nations to agree to the treaty. The Mounties

intimidated many of the Blackfoot people by assuming a military function during the Treaty 7

negotiations, as in their dress and discourse they played the part of a military colour guard for

the government officials present.[9] For instance, the Mounties had aimed cannons right at the

camps where the people stayed.[10] Other accounts support the claim that the N.W.M.P. used

intimidation tactics to coerce the already suspicious people to enter the treaty: They were

parading and marching around and shooting their cannons.[11]


21/148

-

The Treaty 7 leaders felt there was no alternative to signing the agreement.[12] They were

threatened by the N.W.M.P.s show of force. It was indicated to the First Nations that unless they

signed the treaty, war would erupt.[13] The power relationship between the Aboriginal

government and the Canadian government was not equal, and leaders such as Crowfoot and

Red Crow were aware that military force was being used to slaughter indigenous people in the

United States.[14] Threat of force was not the only stratagem employed to coerce the Treaty 7

leaders into signing the treaty. Duplicity played a major role as well.

-

The people of the Blackfoot Nation record their history through the oral tradition; a system for

writing Blackfoot language was not developed until 1963. For many Native cultures in which the

oral tradition is used to record history, communicate spiritual doctrine or simply entertain, the

spoken word is considered something tangible just as much as the written word can be

considered tangible by a European.[15] Canadas Supreme Court has recognized the validity of

oral histories as admissible testimony in court.[16] Considering that Canadian policy on

Aboriginal people has been based on terrible distortions of history,[17] the incorporation of oral

testimony into that history could not do any more than adjust its accuracy. Thus, some of the

following accounts, which have been passed down orally, of what actually transpired at

Blackfoot Crossing in September 1877, should be accorded no less credibility than if these

accounts had been transcribed onto paper. Indeed the authorized carriers of oral history among

the Blackfoot must undergo extensive preparation and testing for accuracy and details beforebeing designated as carriers of oral histories.

-

It is questionable whether a mutually understood agreement was ever arrived at between a

people representing a written culture on the one hand, and a people representing an essentially

oral culture on the other.[18]

-

[T]he oral tradition of our nations has preserved many accounts of the circumstances

surrounding the making of Treaty 7 and the subsequent fulfillment of the treaty.[19] These

accounts evidence the significant problems encountered by the Blackfoot when faced with the

mandate to enter into Treaty 7. In 1877 otsisti pakssaisstoyiih pi, or the year when the winter

was open and cold Treaty 7 was negotiated between Her Majesty through Canadian officials

and the Blackfoot and other nations. The Blackfoot Nations had no word for treaty, and they

therefore considered the process istsist aohkotspi or iitsinnaihtsiiyopi (the time when we made a


22/148

sacred alliance).[20] Treaty 7 elders do not remember ever being told that the Treaty 7 First

Nations had agreed to land surrender.[21] They thought they were entering a peace treaty. The

elders all agree that there is a fundamental problem with the written treaty because it does not

represent the spirit and intent of the agreement . . . .[22] For instance, the text of the treaty

does not include specific terms the signatory First Nations expressly required before they would

agree to the final contract.[23]

-

In 1874, the North West Mounted Police (N.W.M.P.), commanded by James Macleod, arrived

and were welcomed in Blackfoot territory. The Blackfoot granted their request to stay one winter

in the territory, but its been a long winter.[24] In the fall of 1875, the First Nations identified

among themselves the critical issues; they passed on the substance of these issues to Jean

LHeureux, who then included them in a petition, which was then passed on to Alexander Morris,

Canadas chief negotiator.[25] The issues identified concerned the encroachment onto their

lands by Cree and Mtis hunters, and the increasing scarcity of buffalo, problems that would not

have arisen but for the Blackfoot promise to end warfare with the other nations.[26] The

N.W.M.P. met with the Bloods, Blackfoot, Peigan and Sarcee because those peoples suspected

the N.W.M.P. was expediting white settlement on the First Nations lands. Commissioner

Macleod promised that these issues would be fully discussed before any land would be

taken,[27] and that he had no intention of taking the First Nations lands, but he apparently

changed his mind.[28] Finally, the year 1877 saw the alliance of peace between [the Treaty 7

Nations] and the Queens representatives at Blackfoot Crossing. The promises again were to bequickly broken.[29]

-

The expectations of the chiefs at the negotiations seemed simple and unselfish enough: they

wanted to ensure that the Canadian authorities would repress encroachments onto Native land,

restrain American traders, and protect the buffalo. These problems had resulted in the larger

problem of widespread hunger in the aboriginal communities.[30] The First Nations believed that

an agreement with the Canadians would occasion a peace alliance to control these problems, to

safeguard their territory and to protect their way of life.[31] The Treaty 7 First Nations had four

specific goals. [T]hey hoped to establish peaceful relations with the colonial government, to

establish a relationship of equality between nations, and to create an atmosphere of

respect.[32] They certainly wanted to ensure the physical survival of their people, especially in

face of the devastation suffered in the wake of disease and disappearing buffalo herds.[33] A

related wish was that the cultural and spiritual well being of their people was secured by


23/148

maintaining their systems of government, languages and traditional ceremonies. Finally, while

not anticipating full assimilation into Canadian society, they hoped to integrate some new

aspects of that society into their own by sharing their land with the newcomers.

-

The commissioners, on the other hand, expected the negotiated agreement to achieve the

extinguishment of all Indian title to the area, and the relocation of the aboriginals onto reserves,

thus opening the way for settlement[34] and the construction of the railroad.[35] The

overarching goal of realizing the purpose of the Dominion as expeditiously as possible

(eschewing any vision of a future for Aboriginal people),[36] included five particular objectives:

acquiring legal title to the land; encouraging non-native settlement; removing Aboriginal title

cheaply; terminating American intrusion; and responding to Aboriginals purported requests for

treaties.[37] Therefore, it is no surprise that although each side had voiced its concerns, neither

had heard the other.[38]

-

[M]isunderstandings, due partly to inadequate interpretation and/or a deliberate attempt to

mislead characterized the treaty-making process, as there was a tremendous distance

between the two perspectives.[39] Many of the interpreters involved in the treaty negotiations

were not fluent in the various languages used in the process.[40] More than eighty errors in the

translation and spelling of Blackfoot names have been identified in the document.[41] These

mistakes are not surprising, given the shortcomings of the interpreters: one interpreter, Jerry

Potts, was drunk at the negotiations and did not clearly explain the substance and process tothe participating chiefs; Jean-Baptiste LHeureuxs credibility is suspect, as he habitually, falsely

claimed to be a priest; and a third interpreter, Father Constantine Scollen, while somewhat

familiar with the Cree language, did not understand the Blackfoot languages sufficiently to

competently and clearly convey some of the simplest concepts.[42] Father Scollen mistakenly

informed the Canadian authorities that the Blackfoot desired to make a treaty, when in reality,

the leaders merely desired to discuss the problems they faced with respect to encroachments

onto their land. They never asked to make a treaty.[43] Furthermore, Scollen himself suggested

that at least the Bloods were never clearly informed about the precise meaning of the treaty.[44]

-

Another major problem at Blackfoot Crossing was the fact that no single person present could

speak all of the languages of the people in attendance. . . . Questions arise such as: Could all

the First Nations people assembled, who represented four distinct languages, have understood

the same thing when words like surrender or cede were used? This would be especially


24/148

doubtful for words that did not exist in the various Aboriginal languages; the very concept of

landownership, for example, was completely foreign to a number of the nations present.[45]

-

Thus, the translation process suffered further because there were no words in the native

languages for concepts such as title or surrender, or reserve three words with definite and

powerful implications in the English language.[46] It seems that the question of language is

much more at issue for Treaty 7 than for any of the other numbered treaties.[47] For example,

[t]he Stoney elders were particularly emphatic about the consequences of their peoples not

understanding what a square mile was, especially after it was explained to them how little land

was being surveyed for them.[48] The Native people expected that what the officials were

saying about the land they would get would correspond to what they had described as territory

they wanted.[49] Because they did not understand the measurement concepts, they could not

have knowingly agreed to specific treaty terms corresponding to those foreign concepts. Indeed,

concepts such as fee simple and rights of occupancy derive from European law, and one

wonders how a number of incompetent interpreters could clearly explain these foreign concepts

to the leaders of such divergent cultures over the short time frame in which the agreement was

negotiated.

-

Interpretive deficiencies in the negotiation process and present understanding involve additional

cultural elements. Perhaps most importantly, the two sides had different cultural traditions for

remembering their history. In the Euro-Canadian cultures, history was written down, whereas inthe First Nations cultures, history was transmitted orally in stories passed on by the elders.[50]

These cultural differences may account for interpretive inaccuracies. Furthermore, the

fundamental assumptions underlying European and Aboriginal languages are so radically

different that simple translation is impossible. Again, the mere fact that Blackfoot accounts of

the treaty negotiations are preserved primarily in oral form does not render them any less

legitimate, credible or reliable than if they had been reduced to writing. The methodology is

simply different, not necessarily better or worse. It is questionable whether a mutually

understood agreement was ever arrived at between a people representing a written culture on

the one hand, and a people representing an essentially oral culture on the other.[51]

-

The deficiencies in the translators abilities, together with the discordant language

conceptualizations and the disparate expectations of the parties to the agreement were not the

only reasons the First Nations understood the process differently than did the Canadians. These


25/148

First Nations were not unfamiliar with the process of entering agreements, as they had been

parties to such agreements with other First Nations prior to their contact with Europeans.[52]

The leaders who accepted Treaty 7 believed that it was first and foremost a peace treaty. [53]

Additionally, because warring among the First Nations and between the First Nations and the

Canadians was not uncommon, the Treaty 7 First Nations were led to believe that by signing the

treaty, they were merely agreeing not to fight any longer, and that peace would be preserved

between the First Nations and the Canadian authorities.[54]

-

Nevertheless, the wishes of the First Nations leaders were ignored by the condescending and

paternalistic government agents, who decided for themselves what the best interests of the First

Nations really were.[55] The Canadians lack of respect for the expectations of the Aboriginal

leaders resulted in a significant disadvantage for the First Nations, who came to negotiate

Treaty 7 in good faith.[56]

-

The point to be understood here is that the translation process failed at Blackfoot Crossing. . .

.[T]he official records of the narrative indicate that the chiefs were only given one-sixth of the

presentation of the commissioners.[57] Although Canadas Indian Act[58] had been passed the

year before Treaty 7 was completed, the commissioners did not inform the Treaty 7 nations of its

purposes and provisions. Thus, the First Nations were given the impression that the treaty,

rather than a general codification of Canadas Aboriginal policy, would govern their future

relations with Canadian individuals and government. The Aboriginal leaders who negotiatedTreaty 7 explicitly expressed their specific aspirations regarding the treaty, and they therefore

expected those aspirations to be fulfilled by the very officials who promised to recognize and

fulfill them. Commissioner Laird was evasive in not explaining to Treaty 7 First Nations that the

government intended to restrict and control Aboriginal people through the provisions of the

Indian Act.[59] Nevertheless, the Indian Act provisions, which were contrary to the wishes the

Treaty 7 Nations had articulated, eclipsed even the terms of the treaty itself.[60]

-

In addition to being unfamiliar with European terms and concepts, which were poorly explained

in translation as well, the relational arrangements were not clearly laid out to the leaders who

signed Treaty 7. Evidence that the Treaty 7 nations thought that they would share not

surrender the land can be seen in their testimony about how the land was to be used.[61] The

nations indicated that they would only share the top two feet of soil with the newcomers.[62] The

terms dictated by the First Nations were never written down, however, and considering that


26/148

those who agreed to the terms in the treatys text could not read English, they had no way to

confirm that their expectations had been omitted from the document. The leaders of the treaty

believed Jerry Pottss interpretation of the Crowns promises and everything else he told them,

even though he spoke very poor Blackfoot . . . .[63] The Treaty 7 leaders had no other choice,

however. They had to believe what the interpreters told them about the treatys terms because

there was no other way to obtain this information.

-

Furthermore, the commissioners employed certain tactics to impress upon the Treaty 7 leaders

the absolute necessity of entering the agreement. While many of the First Nations leaders

harbored some suspicions about the process and some of the officials involved in that process,

they were assured that their requests would be honored. They were also the victims of artful

maneuvering.

-

Notwithstanding the controversies surrounding the making of the treaty and its text, the

Canadian government has not dealt seriously with these issues. [A]reas of the treaty that are

clearly problematic have been glossed over and the discourse of those who hold power has

allowed authors to ignore difficult issues.[64] This policy appears contrary to the fiduciary

obligation owed to First Nations. The Crown was left with legally enforceable fiduciary duties:

[f]ailure of the Crown to perform the obligations would cause the jurisdictional interests over the

land to revert to the First Nations.[65]

-Canons of Treaty Construction

-

Even if one could argue successfully that Treaty 7 is not invalid, Canadian law itself imposes on

the Canadian government an obligation to construe such treaties as the First Nations

understood them.[66] It is no longer acceptable to rely on the plain meaning of the terms used in

the treaty document for controlling interpretation.[67] Therefore, the terms of Treaty 7 do not

control current interpretations. What the Blackfoot and other Treaty 7 leaders understood as the

treatys terms controls how the document is to be interpreted. Because the Blackfoot construed

Treaty 7 as a peace agreement, whereby they were to receive certain compensations in

exchange for sharing their land with the newcomers, that is all to which they agreed, and that is

all to which the Canadian government is lawfully entitled to receive. The Canadian government,

however, has appropriated vast tracts of Blackfoot land, and has usurped the inherent sovereign

right of Blackfoot to govern themselves. The Blackfoot never knowingly, voluntarily or lawfully


27/148

relinquished these lands or their self-governing prerogatives. The Canadian courts and

administration violate Canadas own rules of treaty construction when Treaty 7 is interpreted in a

contrary manner. Relations between the Blackfoot Nation and the Canadian government are

based on the terms of Treaty 7 as interpreted are in apparent violation of Canadas canons of

treaty construction, and governed by imposition of the Indian Act.

-

The Indian Act

-

[G]overnmental action taken for the good of the Indians, effectively abolished Indian religion,

culture and lifestyle.[68]

-

The Chief Justice of Canadas Supreme Court has acknowledged the real threat to Aboriginal

interests by governmental intrusion into their affairs:

Our history has shown, unfortunately all too well, that Canadas aboriginal peoples are justified

in worrying about government objectives that may be superficially neutral but which constitute

de facto threats to the existence of the aboriginal rights and interests.[69]

-

The terms of the Indian Act infringe on the Blackfoot Nations right to determine its internal

affairs and thus its right to self-determination. The paternalistic provisions strip the power to

govern from the Nation and place that power in the hands of the Crown or the Minister of Indian

Affairs.[70] Without some of its provisions, however, all Native peoples under its jurisdictionwould suffer. It typifies the proverbial double-edged sword. The Indian Act is a symbolic

manifestation of the conflicting objectives of Aboriginal policy. The act and the policy it codifies

recognize the distinctiveness and inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples vis vis the colonizing

government on the one hand, but oppress them by imposing foreign law on the other. The policy

that purports to protect Aboriginal peoples while at the same time creating a source and nature

of power from which they need protection which imposes unjustifiable restrictions on the

peoples rights to self-determination recognized by both Canadian and international law.

-

While some of the Indian Act provisions may not apply to all First Nations,[71] the existence of

the act itself interferes with the exercise of self-determination. Section 18(1) of the Indian Act

provides as follows:

-

Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective


28/148

bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or

surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which land in a

reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band.[72]

-

This provision may provide protection with one hand, but with the other it takes away the

inherent right of the Blackfoot to make their own determinations regarding how their own land

and internal relations will be governed.

-

A Nation cannot exercise self-determination when an ostensibly higher power enjoys the

discretion to repudiate that Nations law. The act also provides for the mechanisms through

which First Nations will select their band councils.[73] When a First Nation chooses to employ its

traditional governance structures, the Minister still may step in and impose his or her will on the

Nation. If, for instance, any by-law passed by the band council, whether elected under Indian Act

provisions or by custom, is inconsistent with the Ministers views, he may disallow the by-law

under s. 82(2). This system is wholly inadequate for the Blackfoot to manage its internal affairs,

and it is disruptive to the Reserve community. Among many Blackfoot, this arrangement is seen

as exactly analogous to that of the Vichy Government of occupied France during World War II

and the occupying forces of Germany that set up and controlled it.

-

The Blackfoot Nation Today: At a Crossroads of Survival

-The definitive law governingand definition ofgenocide can be found in Article II of the 1949

UN Convention on Genocide to which Canada became a signatory in 1953. According to Article

II, any (not all) of the following acts constitute genocide: a) Killing Members of a Group; b)

Causing Serious Mental and Bodily Harm to Members of a Group; c) Deliberately Inflicting Upon

a Group Conditions of Life Calculated to Bring About its Physical Destruction in Whole or in Part;

d) Imposing Measures Intended to Prevent Births Within the Group (Sterilization); e) Forcibly

Transferring Children of the Group to Another Group. There is extensive documentary and other

evidence that Blackfoot have been subject to all five types of genocidal acts throughout

Canadian and U.S. histories and stand today on the verge of extinction as a Whole People or

Nation.

-

It was through the Indian Residential School system that Blackfoot children were forcibly

transferred from one group to another through a system designed to Kill the Indian, [in order to]


29/148

Save the Man. Blackfoot children, from about 1880 up until 1989, were routinely taken by force,

under the color of the Indian Act, to isolated Indian Residential Schools where: their traditional

long hair was cut; where they were beaten for speaking native languages and practicing

traditional spirituality; where they were abused in various ways and trained to become

domestics and unskilled farm hands (it was thought Indians would only be capable of the most

menial tasks) and their ties to traditional lands, communities and culture were progressively

broken. It was through the 1928 Alberta Sterilization Act, seen by the German Nazis as a model

for their 1933 Race Hygiene Law and 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws, that Blackfoot children

were routinely sterilized under the premise that to be Indian is to be feebleminded and likely to

pass on bad genes. Blackfoot children were routinely used for medial experimentation (e.g.

Hepatitis-B vaccine and studies allowing dental diseases to progress without interventionlike

the Syphilis studies done on African-Americans at Tuskegee, Alabama in the U.S.to study the

pathodynamics of the disease).

-

The present-day conditions on the Blackfoot Reserves at Gleichen, Cardston and Brocket,

Alberta, as well as those at Browning, Montana certainly qualify as conditions likelyand

foresee ably (for an average reasonable and prudent person) to be likelyto cause serious

mental and bodily harm as well as cause physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.

Unemployment rates on the Reserves are estimated to range between 65% to around 90% with

the majority of jobs in governmentBand, Provincial or Federaland often handed out through

patronage, cronyism or nepotism.-

On the Reserves, infrastructure (roads, sewage, telecommunications, fresh water, education,

health care etc) is typically poor; the few businesses found on the reserves are typically non-

Blackfoot owned; Blackfoot Reservesalong with other non-Blackfoot Reserveshave been

targeted as sites for dumping waste from non-Indigenous communities; the average Reserve

Blackfoot lives on about $229.00 (Canadian) a month to cover all expenses (lodging, food,

utilities, etc); suicide and homicide rates on the Reserves stand at about 5 to 15 times the

overall Canadian suicide and homicide rateseven higher for teenagers; allegations of systemic

corruption by certain Band authorities and their relations are pervasive, credible and

longstanding; rates of teenage pregnancy stand at five to seven times the overall Canadian rate;

saving rates are low or non-existent and financial intermediaries are typically non-Blackfoot and

found off the Reserves taking the little saving off the Reserves to be invested elsewhere. These

are but some of the myriad problems and nation-extinguishing conditions found on the Blackfoot


30/148

Reserves.

-

Of the estimated fifty or so thousand Blackfoot remaining, many living off the Reserves, over

95% are considered mixed race. This is important in that Indigenous Peoples, in the U.S. and

Canada are considered status Indians, entitled to certain services and entitlements from the

trustee relationship with the government, on the basis of being at least quarter-blood

(Blackfoot). Ignoring the problems associated with race as a biological construct for the moment,

and the whole notion of ones blood being divisible into portions or quantums, it is clear that

blood-quantum requirements may be used and have been used as instruments of assimilation

and extinguishment. According to one document from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs: Set the

blood-quantum at one-quarter, hold to it as a rigid definition of Indians, let intermarriage

proceed, and eventually Indians will be defined out of existence; when this happens, the federal

government will be finally freed from its persistent Indian problem.

-

At present, there are actual examples of non-enrolled or non-status Blackfoot who are

considered full-blood Native but who cannot be enrolled as they lack quarter-blood from any

one particular group. This not only decimates the Band roles of those designated as Status

Indians but it also disrupts and divides whole families into status versus non-status. Further,

there is the problem of Blackfoot identity and Band status being defined by a foreign and

occupying power with vested interests in how and on what basis status is defined.

-Legal Issues

-

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issued a report containing the following

statement: Canadians need to understand that Aboriginal peoples are nations . . . To this day,

Aboriginal peoples sense of confidence and well-being as individuals remains tied to the

strength of their nations. Only as members of restored nations can they reach their potential in

the twenty-first century.[74] Given that this report was commissioned by the Canadian

government, it seems curious that the government refuses to heed its observations. Instead, the

government has insisted on dominating governance and land rights of First Nations, severely

limiting First Nations rights and abilities to self-government.[75] The honor of the Canadian

government and the Crown itself could be at stake if recognition of these principles does not

occur.

-


31/148

Although the Canadian government would argue that a right to self-determination does not

directly translate into an unlimited right to sovereignty for the Blackfoot Nation, legal authority

supports the exercise of sovereignty by the Blackfoot.

-

Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all

the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves

apart. This is merely saying that the question of government ought to be decided by the

governed. One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do, if not to

determine with which of the various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate

themselves.[76]

-

The Blackfoo