Indigenous Writes

by Chelsea Vowel

  Nonetheless, integral to the colonial narrative is belief in the superiority of European contributions and the absence of any truly important contribution from non-European peoples to Canadian society – except when narrowly defined within examples of successful integration and “up by their bootstraps” stories. After all, if Black, non-Black POC, and Indigenous contributions were of any real value, wouldn’t we see them everywhere? Instead, all that is good and modern originated in Europe!

  Not everyone states this as baldly as Mr. Olsen, et al. but the sentiment is still widely shared. Which is incredibly sad, because Canada will not crumble and fall apart if we become more honest and aware of the history of these lands and the incredible diversity of contributions by peoples from all over the world.

  The violence of national myths

  A more accurate and less self-serving history, a more honest reality, is ours. It is our birthright, whether we have been in these lands for thousands of years or arrived yesterday. We are all being denied a real identity, one based on more than colonial myths intended to create a national identity out of thin air.

  It is not only Indigenous peoples who want to reclaim that birthright. Millions of people living in this country are trying to come to grips with their own personal histories – histories that more often than not fail to accord with the official narrative. There are many such examples. Unwed mothers who were pressured into giving up their babies for adoption finding out that many of these babies were killed and buried instead.14 Black orphans who were horrifically abused by those who were supposed to protect them.15 Italians in Canada put into internment camps during WWII, and so very many more who have had to struggle to have their stories heard and believed.16

  These are all horrific stories, and they are only the tip of the iceberg, because most of us have heard only a fraction of them. The violence that national myths commit is to delegitimize the very real pain that is the legacy of abuse and oppression. When these stories begin to surface, they are often treated as conspiracy theories. Even when incontrovertible proof is discovered and the information becomes freely available, the overarching Canadian narrative obscures and confuses, splitting these events up into disparate and unconnected “unfortunate incidents.” Most Canadians will learn only a few of these stories and will be unable to connect them to a wider history of colonialism. This means that nothing can change, as is made so clear in the book Seeing Red and exemplified in articles like Klassen’s. How can we possibly learn from the past when this country is so invested in whitewashing it?

  We all need to work on reclaiming our histories, but this cannot be an individual exercise; it absolutely must be a national one. We must share our histories and learn the histories of others, and our curricula and media must reflect our evolving understandings.

  Right now, Indigenous peoples are trying very hard to share our histories. For this to create a new chapter in Anderson and Robertson’s research depends on whether or not Canadians are finally willing to listen.

  NOTES

  1.“Manitoba Newspaper Sparks Furor With Racist Editorial,” CBC News, January 13, 2013, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-newspaper-sparks-furor-with-racist-editorial-1.1323976.

  2.Travis Lupick, “Letter Titled ‘Educate First Nations to Be Modern Citizens’ Sparks Debate on Racism,” straight.com, last modified March 28, 2013, http://www.straight.com/blogra/366901/letter-titled-educate-first-nations-be-modern-citizens-sparks-debate-racism.

  3.Karin Klassen, “Klassen: Don’t Blame ‘Colonialism’ for Aboriginal Tragedies,” Calgary Herald, last modified July 29, 2013. To see this piece you have to use the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20130806093202/http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/story.html?id=8719563. Klassen specifically addressed herself to First Nations families.

  4.Tamara Baluja, “Nanaimo Daily News Apologizes for Running ‘Racist’ Letter to the Editor,” j-source.ca, last modified Marsh 29, 2013, http://j-source.ca/article/nanaimo-daily-news-apologizes-running-%E2%80%98racist%E2%80%99-letter-editor.

  5.Danica Denommé, “Racist Nanaimo Newspaper Letter Rebuttal: Educate Canadians to Be Knowledgeable Citizens,” Huffington Post, last modified May 28, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/danica-denomma/nanaimo-daily-news-don-olsen-letter-racist-first-nations_b_2975065.html. This is a particularly good rebuttal that is well worth reading in classroom settings, as well as on your own. Denommé, a Black and Aboriginal activist, succinctly details some very important aspects of precontact life that Canadians should learn about and consider more often.

  6.Obert Madondo, “BC NDP Candidate Resigns Over Racist Comments Against First Nations,” canadianprogressiveworld.com, last modified April 16, 2013, http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2013/04/16/bc-ndp-candidate-resigns-over-racist-comments-against-first-nations/.

  7.Conrad Black, “Conrad Black: Canada’s Treatment of Aboriginals Was Shameful, But It Was Not Genocide,” National Post, last modified June 7, 2015, http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-canadas-treatment-of-aboriginals-was-shameful-but-it-was-not-genocide.

  8.Réjean Morissette, “Dérives Autochtones,” ledevoir.com, last modified June 11, 2015, http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/442381/derives-autochtones. The most telling quote is this: “Au Québec, il n’y a jamais eu telle chose qu’un paradis terrestre autochtone détruit par l’arrivée de la civilisation européenne. Pas plus que n’ont existé ici des modes de vie traditionnels fondés sur une culture communautaire autochtone structurée. Ça, c’est l’histoire des Amérindiens américains et des grandes dynasties autochtones d’Amérique centrale et d’Amérique du Sud…Cessons de fabuler sur ce qui n’a jamais existé, à savoir l’occupation ancestrale du territoire.” (“In Quebec, there was never such thing as an Indigenous earthly paradise destroyed by the arrival of European civilization. Nor did traditional lifestyles exist here, based on a structured, communal Indigenous culture. That is the history of the American Indians and of large Indigenous dynasties of Central and South America. Let’s not fantasize about what never existed, namely the ancestral occupation of the territory.”)

  9.Jorge Barrera, “Conservative Director Booted From Riding Board Over Comments Describing ‘Indians’ as ‘Self-Loathing,’” APTN.ca, last modified September 8, 2015, http://aptn.ca/news/2015/09/08/conservative-director-booted-from-riding-board-over-comments-describing-indians-as-self-loathing/.

  10.This approach was taken by the son of a scientist behind nutritional experiments on First Nations children, who wrote to the media to justify the program. Andrew Livingstone, “Son Defends Scientist Behind Aboriginal Nutrition Experiments,” The Star, last modified July 24, 2013, http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/24/son_defends_scientist_behind_aboriginal_nutrition_experiments.html.

  11.Mark Cronlund Anderson, and Carmen L. Robertson, Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2011).

  12.Ibid., 3.

  13.Marcel Trudel, Canada’s Forgotten Slaves: Two Hundred Years of Bondage (Montreal: Vehicle Press, 2013). There were at least 4200 enslaved Africans in Canada. In addition, indentured servitude, as experienced by Black people in Canada, more closely resembled slavery than freedom in a way that was not equally experienced by settlers under the same system.

  14.“Butterbox Babies,” Ideal Maternity Home Survivors, last accessed October 26, 2015, http://www.idealmaternityhomesurvivors.com/the-story/.

  15.Here is a link to a roundup of various articles about the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children Restorative Inquiry and the history that led to an inquiry being called: http://thechronicleherald.ca/tags/nova-scotia-home-colored-children (accessed Oct. 26, 2015). The inquiry itself received its terms of reference and mandate in 2015. You can monitor its progress here: http://restorativeinquiry.ca/.

  16.Marisha Lederman, “Shining Light on a Dark Secret: The Internment of Italian-Canadians,” The Globe and Mail, last modified September 6, 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/art
s/shining-light-on-a-dark-secret-the-internment-of-italian-canadians/article551227/.

  14

  The Myth of the Level Playing Field

  In 2014, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Tsilhqot’in, after which a staggering amount of opinion pieces were spewed forth discussing this landmark case.1 The interest was unsurprising given it had been 17 years since Delgamuukw, the case that first acknowledged the possibility of Canada recognizing Aboriginal title.2 After all that time, we finally had the Court point to a specific tract of land and say, “and this is what Aboriginal title looks like.”

  Without going into exhaustive detail, here are some of the main points of the case:

  The decision removes the fear that Aboriginal title could only be found on postage stamp areas where people lived either permanently or semi-permanently, and instead extends the possibility of Aboriginal title to wider territories that were heavily used by a people.

  The Court reminds everyone that translating precontact Aboriginal practices into modern-day rights cannot be done by shoving everything into a common-law box. Aboriginal perspectives must inform the translation process.

  The Court admonishes everyone to remember that it is inappropriate to approach Aboriginal land/rights claims on an overly technical basis. The issue is justice and reconciliation, so don’t try to undermine this with nitpicking over dotted i’s.

  Terra nullius, on which the Doctrine of Discovery heavily relies, was found to have never applied in Canada. So the Court has once again told us how Canada did not gain sovereignty over the lands, but remained consistently vague on how Canada did gain this sovereignty – other than saying, as always, that when sovereignty was asserted by the Crown, it crystallized. Colonial magic!

  The Court says the content of Aboriginal title is basically the right to “enjoy the economic fruits” of the land and resources. Aboriginal title is collective, not individual, and underneath it all still remains Crown title. Crown title consists of whatever is left over after Aboriginal title has been subtracted from the equation. Essentially remaining are: a fiduciary duty to deal fairly with Aboriginal peoples, and the right to infringe on Aboriginal title as long as the infringement meets section 35 test criteria (i.e., if it’s important enough to Canada).

  To keep this all in context, the Tsilhqot’in had Aboriginal title recognized in only 5 percent of their total claim area. Private properties within that area were left out of the claim and continue to exist as private properties. The territory in question did not overlap with other First Nations territory. And, Aboriginal title lands are still part of Canada and subject to justifiable infringement. Also important to remember is that this entire discussion is being framed within a context wherein we must accept that Canada has the right to recognize anything at all when it comes to Indigenous rights – a right hotly contested by Indigenous peoples themselves.

  However, to hear some people talk, the Tsilhqot’in decision spells the end for modern democracy. It’s really this fear-mongering and the Western liberal myth of a level playing field I want to address.

  To give you a sense of the arguments I’m referring to, Gordon Clark wrote a perfect example in The Province after the ruling was released.3 This quote sums up his argument well:

  They [Canadians] reject special arrangements for aboriginals, including court decisions like Tsilhqot’in, because they breach the fundamental tenets of modern liberal democracies – equal citizenship and equality before the law – and perpetuate the divisions between First Nations and other Canadians.”4

  Other pieces by other authors did a bang-up job of exposing a deeply racist reaction to the Tsilhqot’in decision and to Indigenous peoples in general, and are easily deconstructed for the distasteful, bigoted mess they are. Clark’s piece, however, is arguably more insidious because it appeals to the progressive desire for equality within a liberal democracy, wherein all people are created equal and deviations from that philosophy constitute the real injustice.

  However, the argument ends up betraying itself in the end, ignoring the way in which Canadian law has been (and continues to be) used to strip Indigenous peoples of their land and resources to the benefit of Canadians. It sidesteps the way Indigenous peoples were denied equal citizenship rights until very recently, and completely glosses over how deeply unequal the living conditions are for Indigenous peoples in this country. And, no, I do not mean unequal “in our favour.” Decisions like Tsilhqot’in haven’t created these divisions; hundreds of years of racist, colonial policies have.

  For this reason, I would encourage progressive Canadians to critically reexamine this all too commonplace opinion and evaluate whether they truly wish to support such an approach.

  Clark treads a well-worn path with his piece – and variations on this theme can fill volumes – so this is really not a response to the man himself. I want to challenge the ideas he expressed that are shared by so many well-meaning Canadians. Please permit me to break down for you what I find so problematic with the myth of the level playing field.

  Acknowledging the past is good enough.

  First, this argument invariably begins by acknowledging Europeans behaved very naughtily toward Indigenous peoples, and racism has certainly factored into that behaviour. Clark even mentions provincial and federal governments, so he does not contain these bad things in the distant past directly following contact. Starting with this position allows one to recognize the racism and abuse inherent in the residential-school system, for example, while ignoring how contemporary Aboriginal child-welfare policies are linked to that system.

  However, in acknowledging the past but cutting it off from the present, there is a strong implication that, at some point, Canada got itself sorted out and began dealing fairly with Indigenous peoples. The exact date of this occurrence is never mentioned, so the driving events that led to “The Change” vary greatly in the opinions of those making this claim. The idea is that policies and actions taken in the past were driven by inexcusable racism, whereas policies of today, if they fail Indigenous peoples, fail because of incompetence rather than malice or structural design.

  This is a central pillar of the Western liberal myth of a level playing field: recognizing Indigenous peoples have legitimate grievances stemming from awful things that were done in the past, but the advent of a modern democracy means we are now all equals and we have an obligation to behave as such.

  What this part of the argument always relies upon is the implicit notion that any remaining problems faced by Indigenous peoples stem from an inability for people living in Canada to commit to a standard of “equal citizenship and equality before the law.” This charge will be levied at First Nations leadership and Canadian politicians both. There is little need then to understand how historical injustice has moulded and shaped conditions today, and continues to find structural expression within the Canadian context. There is even less need to deconstruct how ongoing injustices are inextricably rooted in that history. Instead, a bright line is drawn between the past and the present we could all be living in if only everyone embraced liberal democracy wholeheartedly.

  (Of course, all ideologies rely on the notion that if everyone wholeheartedly committed to living the ideology in question, there would be unity; a recursive notion that disregards the reality of differing perspectives.)

  Ironically, this way of acknowledging the past is just as dismissive as pretending the actions of European governments after contact were justified. Both approaches refuse to acknowledge there is, in fact, no break between the past and the present, and current policies and structures differ only in appearance. Historical policies to assimilate Indigenous peoples and deny their rights were overt and irrefutably based on beliefs of Indigenous inferiority, while today’s policies simply make assimilation into the Canadian body politic seem like an unintended consequence of ensuring everyone is equal under the law (regardless of social inequality).

  Equal access to rights has been achieved.

  The n
ext step in this argument is everyone in a modern democracy has equal access to the same rights, and any policy or judicial decision that recognizes differences is, in fact, creating inequality. Thus, the progressive can criticize the deeply racist Indian Act while, at the same time, argue that recognizing Aboriginal title is equally as damaging to the notion of “equal citizenship and equality before the law.” That is exactly what Jeffrey Simpson argued a year after the Tsilhqot’in decision:

  In this territory [of the Tsilhqot’in], with a few restrictions, the group now has de jure sovereignty, a precedent that, if extended over time, would leave B.C. pockmarked with little self-governing, largely sovereign aboriginal territories over which the Crown’s writ would barely run.5

  This position is only tenable if one believes equal access to the same rights has already been guaranteed. Again, this belief relies on an ahistorical view of the modern context. Not only does it dismiss outright the way in which Indigenous and colonial relations have shaped current political and legal structures in Canada, it also outright wholly rejects English common-law sociopolitical traditions.

  Canadian law, be it English common law or French civil law, comes from a tradition that favours male landowners and is inherently set up so that the richer you are, the more rights you have. If we narrow the view of rights to include only the trappings of modern liberal democracies, such as the right to vote and the right to protections under the Charter, then one can claim with a straight face that we are all equal under the law. However, even liberal progressives are quick to acknowledge legal equality does not necessarily translate to social equality; so, why insist, in the context of Indigenous peoples, the one will naturally follow the other?