RORY MCGOVERN
<Staff Writer>
The idle no more protests have reminded us of the struggles which aboriginal people in Canada have and continue to endure. It has also provided us with a reminder about how important identity politics are for social cohesion.
To start, I always question the usefulness of the term “aboriginal” or “first nations” as it relates to the collective identity of all of the different “aboriginal” groups in Canada. There are myriad aboriginal groups which are as different from each other as a German person is different from a Chinese person. The various “aboriginal” groups have unique languages, stories and practices customs and traditions which were integral to each of their unique individual cultures.
The term “aboriginal” was created by occupying peoples who, due to their ignorance of the uniqueness of each aboriginal group, created a catch-all term to avoid genuine engagement with each group on unique terms. They then created legislation (the Indian Act) to govern relations based on a wilful misunderstanding of the people they encountered when they arrived on the shores of the new world.
It is thus curious why all of the different “aboriginal” groups in Canada unite under this overbroad and imprecise term which was tattooed on them by their historical oppressors. Perhaps it is a political concession by the “aboriginals” in order to increase leverage at the political bargaining table. However, a calculated political concession in no elevates the term to a level of preciseness and intelligibility which many groups are deserving of. It groups all aboriginals together in a way which has allowed for increasingly dismissive political rhetoric and public condemnation. The Innu are not the Mohawk. The aboriginal living on the Hobema reserve in Alberta are not very similar to the Haida or the Squamish in BC.
The effect of this lexical self identification is that a true identity for each individual group has become limited by several deplorable historical experiences which have been shared by all “aboriginals” and which arose from the same kind of ignorance which gave rise to the creation of the term at first instance.
The residential schools system was a disgrace for both the Canadian government and the Church. This dark period now occupies the background of many negotiations, legislative reforms and judicial decisions. The result of this system was the instilling of a large amount of distrust of the Canadian government, the Church and the rest of Canadian society. This mistrust has been passed down inter-generationally which prejudices the minds of young “aboriginals” and discourages engagement with a wider and potentially enriching Canadian society. This received prejudice is then reinforced in the minds of young “aboriginals” when any foray into the wider Canadian society is met with racism and intolerance, rooted in expose’s of the more dilapidated reserves their significant socio-economic problems. This is a vicious circle of reinforcement which must be changed at a fundamental level, with significant efforts to build a bridge between the two row wampum belt by both aboriginals and Canadian society generally.
The reserve system might be blamed for the inability for many young aboriginal people to engage with the rest of Canadian society. The reserve system was set up in a series of horrible deals and one sided treaties where the misguided Canadian government frequently isolated “aboriginals” from the rest of society by giving them fruitless and non-idyllic plots of land. The isolation from the rest of Canadian society was a disservice both to aboriginals and Canadian people. “Aboriginals” were geographically precluded from allowing their culture to evolve in light of knowledge which could have been gained from Canadian people. Instead, “aboriginal” culture on many reserves has degenerated significantly. Canadian society was largely deprived of aboriginal understandings of the world which could have been important in the development of social policy and public education, especially now in the era of increased awareness of what our relationship with nature ought to be.
A right to consciously self determine by both groups was thus taken away. In isolation, “aboriginals” have clung to the scraps of their former culture which the government left them with, jealously guarding these scraps in order to avoid a complete cultural extermination. The effect of this, coupled with the mistrust and prejudice engendered by bad treaties and the residential school system has resulted in a stagnation of culture and a lack of evolution which might have seen the richness of an “aboriginal” point of view incorporated into Canadian society more generally. Cultures evolve constantly throughout history. It is a tragedy that oppression and isolation creates a cultural stagnation in the oppressed group due to a jealous guarding of what they have been left with and a fear of extermination.
It is therefore also curious why many “aboriginals” cling to their reserves as something fundamentally connected to their identity. Their reserves represent bad deals and bad faith negotiations which sought to halt their cultural development and isolate them from the rest of Canada. If anything, staying on reserves should remind each aboriginal of the historical oppression they have been subjected to. However, because of years of isolation and a mistrust of the rest of Canada, in the minds of many “aboriginals” there may be nowhere else to go.
The real identity of each aboriginal group should exist separately from these shared historical travesties and the geographic locales which they currently occupy. Identity should be a positive affirmation of the self in relation to the world, not a binding together because of shared hardship. I recognize that shared hardship has been fundamental to ethno and religious bonding throughout history, but this does not necessarily make it the most useful way forward for many groups. Emotional trauma should never be the driving force behind a positive affirmation of the self.
I hope the younger generations of aboriginals affirm their identity based on their spiritual and cultural traditions, not on a shared animus toward the rest of society and dark periods in Canadian history. The prejudice of past generations of aboriginals should not limit current generations from tackling the myriad issues which plague their existence. The follies of the current chiefs should not limit the drive to responsible and legitimate self determination in the future. The way forward is cultural integration, the sharing of knowledge and perspective and an embracing of the uniqueness of each group both by “aboriginals” and Canadian society.