I have a great deal of mixed emotions when it comes to
the Idle No More movement. I think this largely stems from the personal context
in which I view the protests. For those who may be unaware I wrote my Master’s
major research paper on the topic of Aboriginal protest in the Northwest
Territories over the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline in the 1970s. My interpretation
was that First Nations, Inuit and Metis leaders were fundamental in halting
development until terms could be agreed to more favourable to them. I took a
keen interest in Canadian-Aboriginal history and the Native-Newcomer
relationship throughout my post-secondary education. My mentor at Brock
University was Dr. Maureen Lux, a leading expert in the field of Aboriginal
history in Canada, particularly as it relates to healthcare and medicine. In
addition, I am an Aboriginal-Canadian. To be specific my family is from the
Qalipu band of the Mi’kmaq of Newfoundland.
That all being said I have become very uncomfortable
presenting myself as an Aboriginal-Canadian. I grew up in the suburbs of
Brampton, in a comfortable lower-middle class family. To the vast majority of
people I appear to be fully Caucasian, and therefore have more than likely
benefitted from the intrinsic biases in our culture and society. Any premise I
offer as an Aboriginal living in Canada feels, at least to my mind, deeply
flawed. As a counterpoint though I must wonder, should it? Does being
Aboriginal in Canada mean you have to look a certain way, live on a reserve, be
denied certain opportunities simply because who you are? It is a cold way to
create “authentic” and “inauthentic” Aboriginals in this country, much like the
debate about “blackness” within the United States.
And then there is the debate surrounding Idle No More. Debate
may be too polite a word for the clashing of words and gnashing of teeth that
it really represents. There are those out there that dismiss the concerns of
the Idle No More movement completely, and in fact would like to see existing
Aboriginal rights reduced to a minimum, if not eliminated entirely. While I
would hope that these views are motivated by ignorance there is more than
likely a few in the throng who have maliciousness against First Nations, Metis and
Inuit people when they say what they say.
However, those who question Idle No More, its leaders or
program cannot simply label these critics racists. It is lazy, and simplistic.
Criticism needs to be responded to by facts, not slurs. Twitter, sadly, and all
the internet, is more conducive to the quick jab and not the nuanced argument.
Some of the rhetoric around the protest on behalf of its
supporters makes me very uncomfortable. To be clear I am a supporter of
Aboriginal rights and want to see treaties upheld and the appalling conditions on
reserves come to an end, but the language employed by other supporters of Idle
No More causes me pause and makes me wonder if I am truly aligned with those
who use it. I don’t think I can look at current government policy and agree
with Pam Palmater that a genocide is occurring in Canada. I cannot accept that
most major columnists in Canada are virulent racists.
While reading posts supportive of Idle No More a
different term kept floating around that made me uneasy. Several of the posters
were using the term “settlers” to describe non-Native Canadians. The term is
fair enough, I suppose, but I can’t help but scratch beneath the surface of the
word. The French elements of my family tree arrived in Canada roughly two
hundred years ago. After two centuries in Newfoundland are my family members
still “settlers”? It is not as though we know any other home besides Canada.
What about New Canadians? Those who have arrived from the Caribbean, or India,
or China? Are they settlers? These territories were colonized (often by the
same empires as Canada) too. They have very minimal connection to the history
of abuse and racism between the state and indigenous peoples.
Idle No More can be seen as a far more specific,
influential and widespread iteration of the Occupy Movement, but it suffers from
all of the same weaknesses: its demands are diffuse; it has no clear
leadership; it is composed of diverse groups with distinct interests; it has no
way to measure success or failure. Unlike Occupy, Idle No More has invested
activists and supporters, but I fear if/when it produces no results it will
only result in an angrier and perhaps more radical community.
As a historian I have become very, very cynical and
pessimistic about Aboriginal-governmental relations. The various indigenous
communities across this country do not have common goals, each one faces their
own unique set of circumstances. No government policy will result in a panacea.
Tailoring policies for each community will be exhaustive and take an
extraordinary amount of time. There are no easy answers. Even solutions that
may be commonsense, like getting the provinces to extend social services, are
fraught with problems of treaty rights and responsibilities. What’s worse is
that it often feels like opposing sides in these discussions not only have
their own opinions, but their own facts which cannot be reconciled with each
other.
Obviously this piece offers very few answers. Canada is a
colonial nation with a colonial legacy. Sadly we have not done enough to change
that legacy. A series of half-measures and assimilationist policies have done
incredible damage to communities, and now we are left to try to figure out what
to do next. Idle No More as a movement may not be providing the answers we
need, but it is at least raising the questions we need to ask.
