Hi
Sheena
I hope you accept these reflections for what they genuinely are:
A concern for Right.. the exploration and building up of an
ethical approach, one that wrestles with a great deal of mystification.
In many
ways it would be simple to reduce Idle No More to a treaty issue.
In this way one may simply ask: “Have treaties made by the crown or those
representing it been honoured?” But of course it’s much more
complex than this. Even the article on your blog points out that
many treaty partners had difficulty understanding the language of European
treaty or were not even consulted when land decisions were being made.
Now throw into the mix issues of disease, forced internment and
Christianization, not to mention the systematic attempt to erase First Nation’s
culture by the Catholic Church (not every representative of it of course)
without interference (and perhaps its blessing) from the State, and you have
quite a complex situation.
Now, in
many ways, and perhaps every way, none of this is new. Since the
beginning of recorded history this has been the pattern of conquest.
You are familiar with the Jewish diaspora(s) related in scripture, and
there are a great many more diasporic events in just the Middle East
alone. Throughout time, it would seem, man (and I do use the
gendered pronoun purposely) has been a wolf to man (and women and
children). I tend to view the events of European colonization of
North America within this history of conquest, sometimes events which were quite
amicable, other times quite violent. But of course it’s not just a
story of conquest. This is why I commented on Facebook about the
use of “settlers” vs. “immigrants.” I don’t know about your
ancestors, but mine were part of the “Great Migration” from England in the early
1800’s (before this they had immigrated from Norway- our original surname was
spelled Fröst or Frosst, and later anglicised). They were victims
of a now booming Industrial Revolution. They were unemployed
basically, having been replaced by machines. During
this time an influx of the Irish also immigrated because of failing potato
crops. So Canada was a place of hope, a place to build a
life. They were settlers in the older sense that they were
settling in a new land, but any claim they had to this land came through their
application to the crown. In other words they didn’t
kill anyone to get this land, they didn’t steal it or deceive anyone to get
it. In fact, the place they settled had not been settled by First
Nations at all, but was rather a kind of hunting ground it seems.
Canada after all, is a rather large piece of land and was by no means
completely covered by First Nations people, as it is not even to this day
heavily populated.
It has
been pointed out before that European colonizers did not invent brutality or
oppression. It has been shown that war among tribes was not
uncommon before European arrival. This was later used by the
colonizers to their great advantage come war time or when developing trade
relations with various tribes. Not that far from here the Iroquois
attacked the Huron people after making a deal with the Dutch for furs, and
subsequently trapped their beaver practically out of existence.
They turned on the Huron who had a better trapping area, and ended up
pushing them out of their territories in a move that was only to be mirrored
later by Europeans in search of natural resources. Between
subsequent disease and war the Huron were almost completely decimated and left
homeless.
Despite
inter-Aboriginal conflict, however, was there a kind of complicity involved on
the part of the European immigrants? After all, my ancestors may
not have directly acted deceptively or cruelly, but the crown from which they
purchased their land certainly had been involved in highly questionable
relations with native populations, if not in my ancestor’s immediate vicinity,
then elsewhere. Here I have to agree that there was a kind of
complicity (even if my ancestors could not know extensively the maltreatment of
the native populations), and by proxy, I’ve benefited from it in some
way. So there seems I have an ethical duty to respond.
The content of this duty is far from clear however.
Now in addition to this I have a concern. I am
concerned about the status of First Nations people as “victim.”
This is especially troubling when one considers the web of power
relations in which such a designation comes about. There persists
today a notion that First Nations people are inherently special victims, and it
seems to me this is a racist notion if there ever was one. On the
contrary, they were victims of “ordinary” status. Their oppression
(oppression as such) was no different than the Iroquois oppression of the
Huron.. What was different were the agents. This in itself
indicates the privileged status predominantly white commentators continue to
give themselves. Here I am suspicious of a kind of
liberal-humanitarian narcissism in which the victim only serves to reinforce
this status of privilege. The challenge for me then is to walk the
thin line between the narcissistic political ideology of humanitarianism and
what amounts to an authentic concern for fellow human beings. If
Idle No More represents the former, I have to reject it as a reinforcement of
elitist (and ultimately racist) norms. If it’s the expression of
the latter it’s something to be embraced. Unfortunately it is no
doubt a combination of the two.. its complexity increased by the fact that the
very people designated “victim” may reinforce this status. This is
why I’ve said before that one’s orientation toward the movement should be one of
brutal critique. Not for the sake of critique, but in order to
discern its true –human- potential.
This would have been very difficult to say on Facebook.
Thanks Sheena.
1. Awesome discussion. Thank you so much.
2. Would you be interested in me publishing it on my blog with my response, and maybe we could have some back and forth dialogue-blogging... you raise excellent points, ideas, etc.
3. I am walking into Idle No More through relationships that I have developed (Kate and Sue as settlers) and many, many FN friends and people I admire at a distance (like Elder Mike Pinay). So, yes, it is very complicated and I don't understand it all, but, I do believe in the people I am walking beside, and like the "Wallstreet" movement of last year, this has a bit of potential to mean what each local group wants it to mean, sooooo... kinda sounds like cofC autonomy ha ha...
More later, but I really appreciate the "push back" and also, I am the queen of ambiguity, so I don't know if I believe in one "Right" when there are so many complexities. This is where I walk in faith that God has prepared me for such a time as this, to be a bridge, be a conduit for healing, be whatever it is He is calling me to...
Let's talk more... ah, only forty-five minutes before the school alarm will kick me out.
Blessings, brother,
Sheena
No comments:
Post a Comment