Current ads
Jobs
Tenders
Notices
General

Click below

Columns

SEX ED: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

March 8, 2002 - Real men have vasectomies
March 15, 2002 - Preventing teen pregnancy (or the birth control rap)
March 22, 2002 - STDs: A reality check
March 29, 2002 - Chlamydia: Just the facts

Nunani

March 1, 2002 - Of cabbages and kings: Part four
March 8, 2002 - Of cabbages and kings: Part five
March 15, 2002 - Now and then: Part one
March 22, 2002 - Now and then: Part two
March 29, 2002 - Now and then: Part three

SEX ED: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

March 8, 2002

Real men have vasectomies

The only permanent form of birth control is sterilization. When and if you are certain — beyond a shadow of a doubt! — that you do not ever want to have more babies, think about it.

Considering a vasectomy if you are a man ("getting clipped"), or a tubal ligation if you are a woman ("getting your tubes tied") is appropriate.

For men, vasectomy is a short, simple operation done under local aneasthesia. It is done through a small incision in the scrotum (the bag) not the penis. You go home an hour later.

After you have two semen (jiz, cum or whatever other term of endearment you use) samples that show no sperm, you can have sex and not worry about your partner getting pregnant. The failure rate is about 1 in a 1,000.

For women, having a tubal ligation is a safe, frequently done operation — but simple it is not. It takes longer, requires a general anaesthetic, and there is a greater chance of complications such as infection or bleeding. And, the failure rate is five times higher (depending on the technique used), so 1 in 200 women will become pregnant accidentally over one year.

As you all know, getting "clipped" or "tied" does not protect you against sexually transmitted diseases, so you still need to use a condom.

Studies show that when married couples decide they have had enough kids, it is still more often the woman who goes for a tubal ligation. As is usually the case in reproductive health issues, the responsibility and the consequences of decisions often fall into women’s hands.

It takes two to tango. Permanent birth control through sterilization is a perfect opportunity for making decisions together. For men, the procedure is safer and more effective and thus, I suggest to loving male partners: real men have vasectomies.

I hope 2002 has been good to you all so far.

I’m back and writing again... As with all of these columns, this is an overview of the subject— speak to a nurse or doctor if you would like more information about birth control choices.

Questions, comments? Write to nunatsiaqsexed@hotmail.com or send a letter to the Iqaluit office.

Next week: A Contraception Summary

TOP

March 15, 2002

Preventing teen pregnancy (or the birth control rap)

Sex is for procreation and for pleasure. Adolescence is a time of experimentation and risk-taking.

Young folks often find it hard to believe that it is possible to be responsible and have fun too — but it is. You owe it to yourself and your partner to learn about birth control and use it when you are sexually active.

The least effective method of all is to cross your fingers. This results in 85 per cent of women getting pregnant in one year. The most effective method is total abstinence (no intercourse ever) and not surprisingly, this gives women a zero per cent chance of becoming pregnant.

For those who do choose to be sexually active, there are a variety of ways to prevent pregnancy and protect yourself from disease.

In the past seven columns, we have covered condoms, the shot, the pill, the IUD, barriers, natural family planning and sterilization.

Make an informed decision about which will work for you and your partner. Some techniques are more or less effective than others, and each has its pros and cons.

Teen pregnancy rates have continued to increase steadily since 1987, with about half leading to live births and the other half ending in abortion or miscarriage. In the United States, where access to birth control and sexual health education is more limited, the rates of teen pregnancy are nearly double.

Why are high teen pregnancy rates not such a good thing?

Medically speaking, the health risks are greater to both baby and mother. Pregnant young women have higher rates of anemia, kidney problems, high blood pressure and depression. All of these can take their toll on a developing fetus.

At least as important is that getting pregnant in your teens usually gets in the way of your education. Without education, the chances of living a life in poverty go up dramatically. Whether or not you give your baby up for adoption, life changes in a big way.

In Canada there are more than 40,000 teen pregnancies per year. Youth living in the north have higher rates of teen pregnancy than other Canadians: while the national rate of pregnancy in young women (aged 15 to 19) is 43 per 1000, in the NWT (1997 data, so that’s us too) it was 125 per 1000.

Why are there so many unplanned pregnancies? Kids not getting the information they need is definitely part of it.

Sexual health education is about providing information in a way that gives people more power and control over their sexual well-being. It neither encourages nor discourages kids to go out and have sex. It’s about helping people make good choices.

Know and respect your body — treat it like a temple. Let’s not talk about sex in whispers.

Learn what to expect from a good relationship. Parenting is probably the most important thing you’ll ever do. Be ready and make it an active choice, rather than an "oops."

The cross-your-fingers method is not good enough. Understand the birth control options before you need them, and know where to get help!

That’s it for birth control options. Next week we’ll start on sexually transmitted diseases, infertility, unplanned pregnancies, gay and lesbian health, sex and smoking, sexuality in disabled folks, and more.

If you have questions or comments or would like a specific topic covered, send an e-mail to nunatsiaqsexed@hotmail.com or a letter to the Nunatsiaq News office.

Dr. Madeleine Cole is a physician at Baffin Regional Hospital.

TOP

March 22, 2002

STDs: A reality check

I would love to write columns that say that sex is all good, with no "bad," but that wouldn’t be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) can cause both short-term and lifelong problems, so understanding and limiting the risks is essential.

Two of the most important STDs are chlamydia and HIV (the virus that causes AIDS). Others that I will cover in future weeks are HPV (the virus that causes genital warts and cancer of the cervix), hepatitis B, herpes, gonorrhea, and syphilis.

Your best protections from these diseases are using condoms and limiting the number of sex partners you are with. Having a condom between your skin and your partner’s greatly reduces your chances of sharing more than a fun time. The term "safer sex" reflects the fact that it is safer with "the glove," although a small risk still exists.

When you have intercourse with someone without a condom, in more ways than one you have just slept with every person they ever slept with before you. That’s why limiting the number of partners you have also increases your chances of staying healthy and avoiding STDs.

It’s not about what’s right and wrong, hip or not so hip, or what other people think of you — it’s about the mathematics: fewer bodies coming together leads to fewer shared infections.

It is particularly worrisome to know that rates of chlamydia and HIV infection, especially in youth, are on the rise. It is a myth that STDs don’t happen up here and that they are a big-city problem.

The fact is, STDs are very prevalent in the north and, indeed, in most communities with lower incomes.

Why is this? Lack of knowledge about these diseases and how they are spread, lack of access to condoms, not getting the infections diagnosed, power imbalances in relationships that prevent people from "negotiating" safer sex…. These are some of the challenges.

Sex is no business deal, but contract principles should apply. So — no deal unless both people agree to what’s happening and how to minimize risks. Whatever it takes to make condom use the norm is what needs to happen.

Myths: Some folks figure that a "healthy looking" person can’t have an infection and will make a safe sexual partner.

No such luck. Many men and women with STDs have no symptoms early on, but are still infectious. For example, with HIV the disease can be silent for years in a fit-looking body but all the while the virus may be replicating like crazy.

Don’t make dangerous assumptions. In steamy situations, some young, healthy people feel invincible and think "it couldn’t happen to me." A seize-the-day, sex-now-consequences-later attitude can kill.

Reality: You are too valuable and the consequences of some of these infections can be devastating. STDs can cause problems ranging from unsightly warts to painful ulcers, chronic pain, infertility, cancers and even death. It’s no laughing matter.

So now that nobody ever wants to have sex again... Make good choices, use condoms, have fun and if you are a woman, book that pap smear now!

Dr. Madeleine Cole is a physician at Baffin Regional Hospital.

Confidential questions or comments? Send an e-mail to nunatsiaqsexed@hotmail.com or drop a note by the news office.

Next week: Chlamydia

TOP

March 29, 2002

Chlamydia: Just the facts

Chlamydia is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases in Nunavut and Nunavik (and indeed in all of Canada).

In the hospital and health centers we see it way too much. Sexually active people between 15 and 30 get the greatest number of infections and chlamydia is diagnosed about four times more often in women than in men. This is because women are more easily infected and may also go to get checked more frequently.

Chlamydia is an infection that should be taken very seriously. In women, it can cause severe infections in the uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes — the whole baby making apparatus!

This can lead to scarring and problems trying to get pregnant later on. The risk of having a tubal pregnancy is also increased in girls and women who have had chlamydia.

Babies born to infected women can have dangerous eye, ear or lung infections. In men, the infection can spread to the testicles and disrupt the sperm-making department so that they may also have trouble trying to have children later on.

Chlamydia is caused by nasty little bacteria and can spread from one person to another by vaginal, oral or rectal sex. Symptoms of chlamydia can take two to six weeks to develop and many people carry the infection without even knowing it.

Women may find that they have pain or bleeding during intercourse, more vaginal discharge than normal, pain when they pee or a sore lower belly. Men may have pain in the testicles (that’d be the balls), discharge from the penis, a need to pee more often or discomfort when going to the bathroom.

Now for some good news. Unlike HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), herpes and some other STDs, chlamydia can be cured. Once you and your partner have both finished all your pills as directed, you can have sex again — with a condom every time.

So how do you know when you have it? If you have had intercourse or oral sex without a condom, or have any of the symptoms described above, go to your health center or hospital and get checked.

In Baffin, we are fortunate to have technology that can find infection in a urine sample. Swabs done from the tip of the penis (or the chimney sweep as one patient called it) are no longer done in Nunavut.

Urine testing is a private, comfortable and reliable way of doing it. For women, it is routine to test for STDs during an annual pap smear.

If you do have the infection, all the people you have had sex with in the past three months should get tested and treated. Public health nurses can help notify your past partners without using your name so confidentiality is maintained.

And how do you minimize your risk of getting chlamydia? Being intimate without genital contact is one option. Limiting the number of partners you have is another. In responsible relationships, both partners should get the "all-clear" for STDs before choosing to have sex.

And for every sexual encounter you do choose to have, use condoms. As the new Lifesavers condom packages say, "If he covers his dick, you won’t get sick." It’s about respect — for yourself and for your partner.

Next week: HPV (the virus that causes cervical cancer and genital warts).

Confidential questions or comments? Send an e-mail to nunatsiaqsexed@hotmail.com or drop a note by the news office.

Madeleine Cole is a physician at Baffin Regional Hospital.

TOP

Nunani

March 1, 2002

Of cabbages and kings: Part four

RACHEL ATTITUQ QITSUALIK

Before I knew it, it was next day, and my turn to instruct the army cadets was up. Up until this time, I had been wracking my brain for the solution to a single, great problem: How was I going to teach cold weather survival to some urban kids who didn’t even possess the basic skills of Inuit children?

In Inuktitut, we would have been making a priority of manual dexterity, spatial understanding, hand-eye co-ordination, and team working skills from the earliest ages.

I decided to begin with hand-eye co-ordination. I had seen these cadets trying to build fires earlier in the bush, and half the time their problem seemed to be that they couldn’t physically handle small objects, such as matches or twigs for tinder — they just kept fumbling with everything.

And I had been horrified when I told a cadet to cut something with his knife, only to find out that he didn’t have one. I asked around, and none of the cadets had knives. "How are you supposed to survive without a knife!?" I gasped.

The supervising CO just shook his head, saying, "I know, Rachel. That’s one of the problems. The cadets used to carry Swiss Army knives, but we started to get complaints from parents who felt it was too dangerous to allow ‘children’ to carry sharp objects. So they have to request use of a knife from an adult now."

This was madness. No wonder the cadets had no manual dexterity. They weren’t even allowed blades, like any Inuit child. They couldn’t while away their time digging, cutting, whittling, boring, or doing any of the fun things that depended upon a knife — and consequently never developed the spatial skills that accompany such activities.

It was explained to me that parents were afraid the children would cut themselves, and I thought: So what? Of course they cut themselves, just like we did as well. But your finger heals and you know better next time. One who never cuts himself slightly as a child is guaranteed to cut himself severely as an adult.

I guess that I had taken for granted, as a child, the chance to handle a lot of tools Inuit regularly used in harvesting wildlife for food and clothing — matches, gas lamps, camping stoves, axes, knives, ulus, dog sleds, tents, ropes, fish-hooks, and rifles. I had assumed Qallunaat children all grow up with the same experiences, which they apparently don’t.

When it was my turn with the cadets, I began lecturing about some cold weather tricks, which was expected of me. As I mentioned before, I went through a check list of tactics — getting emergency water, determining direction. But I really wanted to get on with what I saw as "fundamental" skills.

I had requested some string, and we all sat there cutting up lengths of it and tying bits together in loops. Once everyone had a loop of the right size, I began to show them ajaraaq — traditional string games. I showed them the "snow house", the "shovel," and "cat’s cradle" (interestingly, a string figure from the times when white people used to teach their children traditional string games of their own).

I was surprised at how fast they soaked it up, at how most of them fumbled along, but gave it their all, nonetheless. I could tell it was frustrating for many of them, since their fingers had never been forced to exhibit such dexterity before, but they were young, and displayed an intense fascination with the games, with "getting it," that was very rewarding.

Then we were on to the most important lesson: team work.

It is a well-known fact that Inuit dislike being bossed around, a tendency that hearkens back to their roots. The greatest "cold weather survival trick" that Inuit ever learned was to collectively repress individual ego in order to work efficiently as a group — to be efficient without ranks and without a heroic leader to save the day.

Inuit learned how to live in as complete a state of equality as has ever been seen in a society, a society in which everyone agreed upon the single most important goal: surviving.

And it begins with Inuit games, since the games you teach your children set the precedent for the activities they carry out as adults.

(To be continued.)

TOP

March 8, 2002

Of cabbages and kings: Part five

RACHEL ATTITUQ QITSUALIK

Inuit have been very successful at political negotiation, adeptly arranging for their own beneficiary corporations and an Inuit-dominant territory. While just as burdened by the infighting that plagues aboriginal bodies around the world, Inuit have been able to set differences aside in order to achieve common goals. Why?

The ability stems from cultural training — that which modern leaders, in their eagerness to adopt southern administrative methods, too often abandon these days. Today, it seems we always hear individual leaders taking credit for initiatives, without any nod to those teams that did the back-breaking work.

Real Inuit culture is wonderfully non-heroic — emphasizing humility, mutual sacrifice and respect. There is a great irony here. When all individuals within a group contribute equally, all become equally important, so that every individual within that group is valuable. Thus do Inuit value individualism, as the very result of valuing the group.

But this principle is only ingrained through practise, for it constitutes an actual mode of thought, a way of life. And Inuit have instilled this mode of thinking into their children by encouraging them to play certain types of games.

So, when I was asked to show southern army cadets how Inuit "survive," one of the things I realized was that I was going to have to change their thinking. I decided I would lecture them on survival only briefly, but use the rest of the time getting them to play Inuit games.

The cadets eagerly took to the games, but my desired effect truly blossomed once I had them playing outside games — such as amaruujaq ("play wolf"). This is a chase game without teams, of course, wherein the roles of victim and wolf constantly interchange, so that a given victim is always thinking about when he will next become the wolf, and the wolf must ever think about again being the victim. There is no room for elitism, nor is individual achievement possible without the group. This a sort of game that is especially Inuktitut, in that it trains one to release natural aggression without resorting to the "us and them" thinking necessitated by team sports. Because of the constantly shifting roles in amaruujaq, every player must remain mindful of every other group member, without bonding to a team.

A player must constantly place himself in someone else’s shoes: victim, wolf, victim again. I could immediately tell that the cadets were not used to thinking this way, for when they first began to play, they just about killed one another — tackling, choking, flipping, and ramming in predatorial glee. I remember walking over to one of the adult officers (who was wincing at the sight), and saying, "White kids are crazy."

But, as time went on, the game worked its magic. The cadets learned that, whenever one of them played rough, they would get it back twice as bad next time. The rough-and-tumble levelled out, softened, as each player realized that he or she had to remain aware of the entire group, and could not survive by acting as a hero among lessors.

They played amaruujaq long into the night, and — coincidentally — under the light of a great, glowing, full moon.

I went to bed pleased that the cadets had had fun, but I wasn’t sure how much "survivalism" they had learned. I had taken a risk.

I only knew for sure the next day, when I went out with the third and final group of cadets who were to learn how to build fires. They fared no better than the first two groups, and in fact the individuals that comprised this group seemed less clever and attentive, on average. But I and other adults noticed something we hadn’t seen in the other groups: these cadets, without asking permission, were helping each other. They were building fires together, trading materials and suggestions, treating the fire-building as a common goal rather than as an individual test.

Then I knew I had been right to show them our games, for they were thinking a little more "Inuktitut" now. There is lots of time to learn tricks for overcoming problems upon which survival depends; but in the long-term, survival for life means working with others in a harmonious way.

They had a lot to learn yet, but at least they had begun to learn it as members of one tribe.

Pijariiqpunga.

TOP

March 15, 2002

Now and then: Part one

RACHEL ATTITUQ QITSUALIK

Taitsumaniguuq:

A long time ago, there were two large families. Each family lived in its own area, one on the coast and the other inland, and each hunted according to its own lifestyle. In fact, the families were completely different from each other, even in size. The inland group was larger by far than the coastal people. Yet, despite their differences, neither of these families particularly cared about the other. Either group was content to live in its own way.

But there came a time when the climate changed, catching the inland family off-guard. It seemed that all the game animals had migrated away, so that there was little food to support everyone, and life became difficult. The inland people became desperate, and they deliberated long and hard over whether to stay in their area or not.

Ultimately, they looked toward the coast, where life was different, but there was lots of game to be had. This, they saw, was the solution to their problems. They did not even have to leave their traditional lands. Half of them could pack up and move out onto the coast. They could just spread themselves out, so to speak.

They did notice that there was already another family living on the coast, of course. But, they thought, this family was smaller, so what would some newcomers matter to them? It looked like this smaller family was only occupying a little section of the coast. Surely they wouldn’t mind sharing a bit. In fact, it was all such a little matter that the inlanders were certain they wouldn’t even have to bother asking the coastal family for permission. Permission for what — surviving? After all, the land belonged to everybody.

The coming of the inland family was a trickle at first. The coastal family was a bit surprised to see them, but didn’t think much of it. And as time went by, it turned out that the two families were getting to know each other better. But there were a lot of odd encounters. Coastals and inlanders married once in a while, and such intermarriage was sometimes regarded with fear and uncertainty. And there were gross misunderstandings over culture. It turned out that the inlanders were pretty insecure, since they were new to the coast, and some of them became confused, even afraid. Many of the inlanders, who were cut off from the guidance of their family, started to take it upon themselves to do odd things.

A few became obsessed with trying to show the coastal people that the customs of the inlanders were the "right" ways, and they were occasionally willing to do so violently. When this happened, unfortunately, some members of the coastal family got violent right back at them. To the coastal people, such retaliation was fair and square. But to the inlanders, who were already twitchy because of living in this foreign area, any retaliation was labelled, "unjustified violence."

A few members of the inland family went the opposite way. These inlanders just loved the customs of the coastal people, thought they were inherently "noble," and wanted to completely abandon the inland ways in order to be just like the coastals. The coastal people were often accommodating toward this type of inlander, but mostly just thought of them as crazy. But, sadly, it was this very type of inlander that gave rise to the occurrence of some very unscrupulous sorts.

You see, since the two families lived very different lifestyles because of their very different areas, they admired each other’s things. Both families hungered for the unique crafts and resources belonging to the other. There was already a great demand for "coastal things" among those inlanders who thought of the coastal family as noble. Additionally, the inlanders still living back in their traditional area began insisting that their relatives send back coastal foods, animal hides, and other resources. It turned out, after a while, that the inlanders who had settled on the coast were now not only supporting themselves, but also the people back home.

So some of the inlanders began to specialize in sending back coastal goods to their relatives at home. And as competition for coastal goods increased, feuding began. And it wasn’t long before the most competitive inlanders figured out how to get ahead — by cheating the coastal people.

(Continued next week.)

TOP

March 22, 2002

Now and then: Part two

RACHEL ATTITUQ QITSUALIK

Those members of the inlander family who made a profit by bringing much-needed coastal goods back home knew that they could only get ahead of their competition by getting the coastal people to receive less in trade than coastals were actually giving. The inlanders accomplished this by encouraging infighting among the coastal family members — the divide and conquer strategy.

It worked for a while, but eventually the coastal people saw what some of these inlanders were doing to them. Many of them began to demand a return to their original, coastal lifestyle, the way things were before the inland family settled among them. So they began to cut off relations with the inlanders, tried to drive them away from the coast, back to where they came from.

Now, by this time, the inlanders — at home and on the coast — had come to rely upon the wealth of resources the coast offered. There was no way they were going to go back to their original lands; they felt that the coast now belonged just as much to them as to the coastal family.

They were ready to fight for it. So mass skirmishing erupted between the inland family and the coastal family. But the feuding did not last long, since the inescapable fact was that the inland family was much larger than the coastal family. Fortunately, since neither side wanted to fight, they quickly negotiated a peace settlement — the coastals agreed to settle in their most prized traditional areas, while the inland descendants were to have the rest of the coast. Thus was the coast divided up, with either family agreeing that it would never trespass into the other’s area.

But the peace was fleeting.

The inlander family was large, prospering in their new coastal lands. And there grew a greater and greater demand for resources, so that the inlanders began, over time, to enviously eye the lands belonging to the coastals.

The problem began with inlander members who, on their own initiative, trespassed into coastal lands to harvest whatever they wished. And as the flood of invasive inlanders swelled, the coastals became increasingly angered, and decided that something must be done.

The leaders of the coastal family decided to confer with the leaders of the inland family, to remind them of the peace settlement. But the inlanders had become smug and conceited over time, realizing that they had always possessed the upper hand. So they condescended to the coastal leaders, waving away their appeal. In the end, they issued an ultimatum to the coastal family: For small recompense, the coastals must move out of their current lands.

You see, as it turned out, when the peace settlement had originally been negotiated, the inland family thought it had been getting the better part of the deal. They had believed, when the deal was forged, that the lands the coastals would settle into was utterly worthless. This had turned out to be untrue. In fact, while the inlanders had not realized it at the time, they now saw that the lands belonging to the coastal family were very valuable indeed. Their position was:

"We know we agreed that you would have it. But at the time, we didn’t know it was so valuable. Now we want a new deal."

The inlander family demanded that the coastal family move to the worst part of the coast, a place where hunting was poor, and life would be difficult. The coastals, finally, would be displaced from their traditional home.

The coastals decided that the word of the inlanders was worthless. Life was not worth living anywhere else. So they waged a war against the inland family, trying to drive them back inland, trying to take back the coast. But it was far too late; the coastals were too few in comparison to the inlanders.

And, by this time, the inlanders were only too happy to have such a war. This was their chance to say openly,

"See how aggressive that coastal family is? We were only trying to prosper, but they would deny us this. We tried to negotiate, but now they want to fight. We need to protect ourselves."

But, secretly, they whispered amongst themselves,

"Besides, this is finally our chance to get rid of those worthless coastals."

For why trade when you can take?

(Continued next week.)

TOP

March 29, 2002

Now and then: Part three

RACHEL ATTITUQ QITSUALIK

So the inlander family and the coastal family went to war with each other. The war was desperate and terrible, as wars always are, with loss of life on either side. And as atrocities mounted, either family at last began to give vent to the hatred it had accumulated toward the other over time.

The coastals fought to avenge themselves for the wrongs they felt the inlanders had committed against them over the years. And they fought to take back the coast itself, the land of their ancestors.

The inlanders fought to once and for all sweep the coastals aside, to finally rid themselves of that family that had always been a stumbling block in their migrations to the seashore. They fought to overcome a people who, they believed, would deny them their place in the sun.

In a sense, the coastals fought for their past, while the inlanders fought for their future.

But the simple fact was that the inlanders were too powerful. They were many, and were already well-settled along the shore. In time, the coastal family was forced to surrender, in order to avoid utter annihilation, leaving the inlanders to deliberate over what to do with the surviving coastal people. Some of the most hateful inlanders felt that the remaining coastals would always be a threat, unless they were finally exterminated. Some of the most humane inlanders felt that the remaining coastals should be protected, assisted in recuperating from the war. Between these opposing factions, the coastals over time were never quite obliterated, nor truly aided.

The ultimate fate of the coastals was that they became exiles in their own land, their children enduring the humiliation of having to beg the approval of their conquerors’ children for even the basic necessities of life. Theirs became a twilight existence, and in time, it became all but forgotten that any but one family had ever occupied all of the lands, from interior to seashore.

I hope you’re angry, or sad, or indignant, or something like that, upon reading the coastal-inlander story I’ve told over the last few articles, because that means you’re a decent person. But what I’ve just told is not some traditional Inuit tale; instead, it’s a parable that closely mirrors what the U.S. calls the "Lakota War."

Why am I writing about it, and what does it have to do with the north? Probably much more than you would at first think. I’ve thought about it, off and on throughout the late 1990s, ever since I first read the Nunavut land claim agreement, and especially whenever I think about sub-surface rights. I’ve been thinking about it recently, with all the talk about water licensing.

Now, I generally have a policy of staying away from politics in my articles. Political issues are often subject to too many people jumping to too many conclusions, too fast, with too few facts available. I stick to culture and language, not only because that’s where the true Inuktitut lifeblood flows, but because there are already enough people talking politics around the clock.

But sometimes there are points where culture and politics overlap, where they become indistinguishable from one another, and such a point usually occurs where a smaller culture is forced to demand its due from the larger culture that dominates it. This forces the smaller culture to define itself against the larger, and thus does awareness at once become political and cultural.

So what is this Lakota War? It’s probably the single greatest attempt by aboriginal peoples of North America to repel a colonial power, and the tragic events leading up to it are something that every aboriginal person — man, woman, or child — needs to know about.

The violence of the war tends to be distracting. It saw amazing battles, ones wherein aboriginal peoples — the first true "army" of unified tribes — gave back as good as they got. And make no mistake: they were fighting a post-American Civil War army, one of the most formidable forces in the world at the time.

But, as I indicated, the war itself tends to distract from the really important events, those conflicts between aboriginal peoples and settlers that led up to it. Those events, in a nutshell, constitute a model for almost every aboriginal-colonial political situation in the world — even those of today.

(Continued next week.)

TOP

Advertising
Specs, rates,
& maps
Multi-paper
buying services
About the market
E-mail ad dept

More Information