Author: Bill Lee
May 14, 2016
May 14, 2016
A while ago I read my colleague Jim Ward's piece (http://criticalperspectivesblog.blogspot.ca/2015/01/towards-concrete-strategy-for_26.html) in Critical Perspectives and found it interesting and provocative. It is a brave person, particularly for a non-Native person like Jim or I to put forward a strategy on such a sensitive, complex and long standing issue. I would like to make a few comments taking issue with this well written piece however .
First, I didn't get the sense that Saul was saying that Aboriginal people were, "finally getting their act together" a statement which would imply that Indigenous folks had just been sitting around being dysfunctional. While I think Saul gets a bunch of stuff wrong in The Come Back, he at least understands how the colonial historical and ongoing, onslaught has undercut Indigenous efforts to live whole and meaningful lives. Indigenous people have been attempting to heal and resist the particular version of colonialism for some time, Saul actually points out a few of the efforts. The colonial project in Canada has been a particularly vicious one, perhaps not as virulent as that in the USA, but certainly akin to that experienced by the original people of Australia. The idea that they are "finally getting their act together" is a weird way of thinking about the recent rise in the success in Canadian Indigenous people's resistance and healing.
Second I question the suggestion that likenthe Bloc, "it has possibilities of success in the future". There is not one piece I have read in any journal (other than his own footnote) that would support that statement. Indeed, writers like Chantelle Hebert have pronounced the party pretty much dead and if memory serves they haemorrhaged members, particularly after the election of a very loud and "hard core" "sovereigntist". To add insult to injury he resigned after a short inglorious period.
A third point is that while I, like Ward, look approvingly at the Maori experience in New Zealand and the Treaty of Waitangi, I am not sure if it is of much use in the Canadian context. The problem with it as part of a model for Indigenous folks in Canada is that the conditions in 1840 New Zealand are profoundly different than in present day Canada. Let’s just think about a few of the more significant ones. Maori people at the time had differences but also more or less coherent cultures and experience. Canadian Indigenous people across the country have very significant different cultures and experiences. Also, Waitangi was signed in 1840 under political conditions very different from those in contemporary Canada. There were not the years of colonial oppression, residential schools, reserve system or the Indian Act to have worked the misery there that they have here. Indeed, as Irvin Studin said in an opinion piece in the Dec. 28/14/15 Star,
First, I didn't get the sense that Saul was saying that Aboriginal people were, "finally getting their act together" a statement which would imply that Indigenous folks had just been sitting around being dysfunctional. While I think Saul gets a bunch of stuff wrong in The Come Back, he at least understands how the colonial historical and ongoing, onslaught has undercut Indigenous efforts to live whole and meaningful lives. Indigenous people have been attempting to heal and resist the particular version of colonialism for some time, Saul actually points out a few of the efforts. The colonial project in Canada has been a particularly vicious one, perhaps not as virulent as that in the USA, but certainly akin to that experienced by the original people of Australia. The idea that they are "finally getting their act together" is a weird way of thinking about the recent rise in the success in Canadian Indigenous people's resistance and healing.
Second I question the suggestion that likenthe Bloc, "it has possibilities of success in the future". There is not one piece I have read in any journal (other than his own footnote) that would support that statement. Indeed, writers like Chantelle Hebert have pronounced the party pretty much dead and if memory serves they haemorrhaged members, particularly after the election of a very loud and "hard core" "sovereigntist". To add insult to injury he resigned after a short inglorious period.
A third point is that while I, like Ward, look approvingly at the Maori experience in New Zealand and the Treaty of Waitangi, I am not sure if it is of much use in the Canadian context. The problem with it as part of a model for Indigenous folks in Canada is that the conditions in 1840 New Zealand are profoundly different than in present day Canada. Let’s just think about a few of the more significant ones. Maori people at the time had differences but also more or less coherent cultures and experience. Canadian Indigenous people across the country have very significant different cultures and experiences. Also, Waitangi was signed in 1840 under political conditions very different from those in contemporary Canada. There were not the years of colonial oppression, residential schools, reserve system or the Indian Act to have worked the misery there that they have here. Indeed, as Irvin Studin said in an opinion piece in the Dec. 28/14/15 Star,
[1] I was
planning this post earlier but a series of personal issues derailed my plans
and led to this rather late post. I think Jim Ward's piece and my own are no
less relevant for the delay.
"the Maori fought the colonizing white man more or less to a strategic draw ..". Thus it makes for a very tenuous model for thinking about the Canadian situation.
Another difficulty I have with the piece is the rather airy dismissal of dealing with the many (unconscionably too many) unresolved treaty disputes. These things are demonstrably one of the few elements which hold the Canadian government (particularly the Harper Conservatives at the time of Ward's piece) back from running roughshod over Indigenous rights and land. I have some sympathy taking a "realist" position with respect to the notion that it is unrealistic to think that the Canadian state is going to cede anything like National self-governance to Aboriginal people but I am mystified how urging Indigenous people to give up on their efforts to protect their interests outlined in the treaties connects with it. But whatever strategy is undertaken surely could include keeping the pressure on treaty resolution.
A fifth point is that I am not clear "that self-government models are unlikely to work". How many models have actually been given a real investigation and analysis? The only one I am aware of is the Sechelt self-government initiative (a kind of municipal status) of 1984 in BC. Clearly it is not a popular model in Indian Country (the Sechelt have withdrawn from the AFN and provincial Native bodies) but there is evidence that the people of Sechelt are happy with it and some analysis suggests that it is something that could form a basis for future self-government initiatives.
Finally, the suggestion that thinking of the problems faced by various groups of working people in attempts to organizing unions in the 18 and 1900s is akin to the disparate groups of Aboriginal people off the mark. There is one difference that is particularly important, folks organizing unions had usually specific targets, local employers (Globalization and the rise of a coherent right wing assault on the movement, among other developments has unfortunately messed up that dynamic) who sometimes could be played off against one another. Aboriginal people have one practical "target", the Federal government which has been engaging in a long standing colonial project. The power differential is huge. Also, the concrete material conditions differ greatly among various Indigenous nations while working people had very similar living conditions.
I do agree wit Dr. Ward however that the idea of Aboriginal people becoming more involved in the formal political process makes sense. There are impediments to this of course, one being the significant alienation (wrought through years of colonialism) from the Canadian state . By the way, Indigenous folks aren't the only demographic where we find alienation from the political process. Perhaps the suggestion of an alteration in the voting system would be helpful, it is certainly worth a try. I'm less convinced that an "Indigenous" party would be efficacious but if the voting system were changed in some meaningful way, we might see something like that come about and it might have a positive effect.
Another difficulty I have with the piece is the rather airy dismissal of dealing with the many (unconscionably too many) unresolved treaty disputes. These things are demonstrably one of the few elements which hold the Canadian government (particularly the Harper Conservatives at the time of Ward's piece) back from running roughshod over Indigenous rights and land. I have some sympathy taking a "realist" position with respect to the notion that it is unrealistic to think that the Canadian state is going to cede anything like National self-governance to Aboriginal people but I am mystified how urging Indigenous people to give up on their efforts to protect their interests outlined in the treaties connects with it. But whatever strategy is undertaken surely could include keeping the pressure on treaty resolution.
A fifth point is that I am not clear "that self-government models are unlikely to work". How many models have actually been given a real investigation and analysis? The only one I am aware of is the Sechelt self-government initiative (a kind of municipal status) of 1984 in BC. Clearly it is not a popular model in Indian Country (the Sechelt have withdrawn from the AFN and provincial Native bodies) but there is evidence that the people of Sechelt are happy with it and some analysis suggests that it is something that could form a basis for future self-government initiatives.
Finally, the suggestion that thinking of the problems faced by various groups of working people in attempts to organizing unions in the 18 and 1900s is akin to the disparate groups of Aboriginal people off the mark. There is one difference that is particularly important, folks organizing unions had usually specific targets, local employers (Globalization and the rise of a coherent right wing assault on the movement, among other developments has unfortunately messed up that dynamic) who sometimes could be played off against one another. Aboriginal people have one practical "target", the Federal government which has been engaging in a long standing colonial project. The power differential is huge. Also, the concrete material conditions differ greatly among various Indigenous nations while working people had very similar living conditions.
I do agree wit Dr. Ward however that the idea of Aboriginal people becoming more involved in the formal political process makes sense. There are impediments to this of course, one being the significant alienation (wrought through years of colonialism) from the Canadian state . By the way, Indigenous folks aren't the only demographic where we find alienation from the political process. Perhaps the suggestion of an alteration in the voting system would be helpful, it is certainly worth a try. I'm less convinced that an "Indigenous" party would be efficacious but if the voting system were changed in some meaningful way, we might see something like that come about and it might have a positive effect.
[1] The
recent elections where various communities organized to back particular
candidates and parties) in opposition to the odious Conservatives showed that
in certain areas Indigenous people can be an electoral force that needs to be
reckoned with.
I have only two other small things to say, and they are not aimed at Indigenous people but the rest of us. First, I agree with Taiaiake Alfred, the Mohawk professor of Aboriginal Governance at the University of Victoria that without redress there can never be any authentic coming together (reconciliation) in Canada. And redress has to take into account not only the untold psychological crimes perpetrated by the Canadian state but the very real economic theft that the state has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate. Second, and I suppose this is part of redress but, unlike Jim, I don't think it is possible or right to wave the responsibility to deal fairly and with alacrity with the huge number of unfulfilled treaty obligations. This is not only something that I see as necessary for the well being of Aboriginal peoples but for the Canadian nation as a whole.
Comments
Post a Comment