Saturday 29 September 2012

Renegotiating Aboriginal Prairie Land Treaties: NOT a Case of Bleeding Heart Liberalism



“We are ALL Treaty People”

So says the government slogan here in Saskatchewan. Is this really true? Well, after looking at the issue both historically and in the present, it is clear that yes, we definitely are all treaty people.

The question that begs to be asked, however, is why do studies show that most non-Aboriginal students in this province believe that the treaties really only benefit First Nations and Metis people? 

This is puzzling, and points to the failure of the public school system to properly educate students in this province (and elsewhere, as well). Research also suggests that these students receive these incorrect views from their parents. 

Over my adult years, I sensed that most non-Aboriginal people are aghast when they become aware of what happened to First Nations children in those awful residential schools. I say my “adult years” because back when I was in high school in the early 1970s I did not learn one thing about residential schools. Indeed, I did not learn one thing about First Nations peoples!

(For anybody unaware of what happened, the residential school policy was developed in the 1870s by the federal government. The residential schools themselves, however, were administered by both Catholic and Protestant churches. First Nations children as young as six years old were taken away from their parents for 10 months of the school year until they turned 16. Their parents had no visitation rights. To say that the vast majority of them were treated poorly, even inhumanely, by their teachers, is an understatement. To acknowledge that the residential school policy was in effect for well over a century is to note that a major crime was committed. Think about these facts for a moment. Perhaps even reflect on how this might have impacted your own family and cultural group.)

Being raised in the Church, I found it implausible that many supposedly Christian school teachers treated young Native children in the abusive ways that they did. These revelations led me to develop a sympathetic attitude toward helping First Nations people, an attitude that came out of a bleeding heart liberalism that I was immersed in during that time. I think that almost everyone I knew shared this perspective, especially those with progressive politics.

Studying the historical context of the land treaties, however, has led me to the conclusion that this bleeding heart liberalism must stop! This is not an issue calling for sympathy. Please allow me to explain. Once again, I ask for a little patience as I share some historical facts on the matter.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is the definitive legal document in outlining Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations in North America. This proclamation from the British government contains three very important points. First, it states that the British government and only the British government must engage in land treaty negotiations with the First Nations. (This was an attempt to block the whiskey traders and their ilk from dealing for land, especially in the 13 colonies.) Second, Aboriginal Title exists, meaning that First Nations peoples are allowed to hunt and fish on “crown” land to feed their communities. (Again, I am amazed that I never heard of this even once in my high school education.) Third, “Indian” peoples belong to nations, and as such, negotiations must adhere to nation-to-nation international law.

Most readers know that Canada became a political entity through the passing of the British North America Act of 1867. Far fewer are aware that the statements pertaining to the First Nations in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 still applied with the one caveat that now the Canadian federal government must engage in land treaty negotiations with the original inhabitants of the land.

And this brings me to the main point, namely, that the Treaties of Saskatchewan, specifically Treaties 4 and 6, were negotiated in such a way that I am quite certain everyone save for the most racist among us would agree that they must be renegotiated.

It was the 1870s, and Prime Minister John A. MacDonald sent Alexander Morris, the main Treaty Commissioner of the federal government, to negotiate with the First Nations leaders on behalf of Canada. From what I can discern, both sides in these treaty negotiations were very serious and respectful. The peace pipe was lit, and after some time it seemed as though the treaties were done!

The European settlers would receive parcels of land as the First Nations people would have to live on (quite tiny) reserves. The newcomers would be able to live in peace because the First Nations agreed to this. They would also be able to practice their various European-based religions. In exchange for this, the First Nations people would receive education in schools located right beside the new reserves – the Cree leaders wanted the next generation to know how to read and write to better understand the ways of the Euro-Canadians. They would receive medical help (such as it was in those days), and they would also receive agricultural tools to change from buffalo hunters to farmers. (It is true that any time the First Nations people became successful at farming and out-competed the settlers, and some did, they were quickly relocated to less arable land. This happened in the Qu’Appelle Valley. But I digress!)

Clearly, all the people on the prairies in those days were treaty people.

Unbeknownst to most Canadians, however, and the part of the story that was an epiphany for me, was that at the very same time that Morris and the Cree leaders were engaged in treaty negotiations, there was another legal document being developed back in Ottawa. This document had absolutely no input from First Nations people, yet it changed the lives of every single Aboriginal person in Canada from the 1870s until this very day. It was called the Indian Act.

The Indian Act of 1874 included the racist and horrific residential school policy. When Cree leaders asked about the promised band schools they had negotiated in good faith, they were told that the Indian Act trumped anything in the treaties! First Nations children would be taken from their parents, the Cree were told, and relocated in schools very far away from their reserve. In other words, the original treaty negotiations were virtually meaningless!

It is worthwhile for all Canadians to reflect upon this. My own reflections have led me to eschew the bleeding heart liberalism of my past thinking. This has been replaced by a moral, ethical, legal and economic position on the matter of renegotiating treaties. 

The Canadian government never did fulfill its own end of the deals that are known as Treaties 4 and 6. The colonial settlers clearly did benefit from the treaties – the  First Nations people let them live in peace. In return, their children were taken away from them and treated worse than badly. They did not receive the medical help they asked and negotiated for. Nor were they allowed to become successful at farming, despite the fact that the buffalo herds were completely decimated by the newcomers.

Many non-Aboriginal people in Saskatchewan believe that the treaties have only benefited Aboriginal people. In light of the above discussion, this is quite incredulous. Clearly, the public school system has failed to properly educate people about the original negotiations, about how these treaties were completely trumped by the racist Indian Act.

It is clear that the treaties of the prairies need to be renegotiated. It is also very clear that indeed, We are ALL Treaty People.

[For more on non-Aboriginal students' views on who benefits from treaties in Saskatchewan, please see Tupper, J. & Cappello, M. (2008). Teaching Treaties as (un)usual narratives: Disrupting the curricular commonsense, Curriculum Inquiry, 559-578.] 

Tuesday 18 September 2012

Musings About Quebec, Social Democracy & Canadian Unity


A fortnight ago, the voters of Quebec elected a minority Parti Quebecois (PQ) government. Almost immediately, I heard statements and came across media comments saying that the Quebecois have to be put in their place, that they cannot accept money from the rest of Canada while talking about leaving Confederation. In essence, these people are saying that the Quebecois cannot have it both ways.

But is this simple perspective really at the core of the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada?

Most Canadians know that Quebec is the most progressive province in Canada. By this, I am referring to their social and economic policies. Even the recently ousted Liberal premier, Jean Charest, would not touch Quebec’s subsidized daycare policy – and Charest was a former minister in the Conservative cabinet of Brian Mulroney!

Quebec was not always so progressive, of course. In fact, during the long reign of Premier Maurice Duplessis' Union Nationale government that ended in 1960, a strong argument could be made that Quebec was the most conservative of provinces (Newfoundland notwithstanding).

After Duplessis died, Quebec’s fascinating Quiet Revolution led to the formation of the Parti Quebecois and the development of a secular social democratic state. As many people know, Rene Levesque left the cabinet of the Quebec Liberal government, and once in power, moved Quebec policy clearly to the left. (I recall once seeing a documentary clip of Levesque meeting in BC with that province’s NDP premier, Dave Barrett. In the clip, Barrett stated that Quebec does not need a provincial wing of the NDP because Levesque’s PQ supported a similar ideology. In Barrett’s opinion, why split the progressive vote?)

After Levesque left politics, political analysts had difficulty seeing a clear ideological path as new leaders took over the PQ and its brethren on the federal scene, the Bloq Quebecois (BQ). This was the period when former Mulroney cabinet minister Lucien Bouchard took up the separatist mantle. However, in recent years, under the leadership of Gilles Duceppe, the BQ clearly shared many of the same policies as the federal NDP.  The only issue that they strongly differed on was the matter of separatism. Similarly, the provincial PQ still to this day shares many progressive policies with the NDP.

This is important to note.

Since Levesque first came to power in back in 1976, Quebec has passed the most progressive legislation of all of the provinces, including the ones with NDP governments. Could this be a factor in the separatist movement? What about on the federal scene?

For almost 20 years, the BQ has received the most votes of any of the federal parties in Quebec. Especially under Duceppe’s leadership, the BQ championed a social democratic vision that also included support for the gun registry. Furthermore, Duceppe was a strong advocate for the rights of workers. These positions are clearly not aligned with Harper’s Conservatives. In fact, they are the complete antithesis.

The federal election in May 2011 saw most of the support for the BQ go to the NDP, the only social democratic party based outside of Quebec.

Media pundits immediately filled the airwaves with reasons for this massive switch in voter support. First, Quebecers had fallen for NDP leader, Jack Layton. Second, they had engaged in group-think, that many Quebecers did not even understand what the NDP stood for. Later, the media claimed this support was only fleeting, that with Layton’s unfortunate death, voters would go back to their traditional voting patterns.

But perhaps there is a reason that I have yet to hear mentioned in the mainstream media outside of Quebec. Perhaps the Quebec electorate was tiring of sending BQ MPs to Parliament – after all, they would never form government. Perhaps they wanted to send MPs who belonged to a federal party that shared the values and perspectives of the majority of Quebec’s citizens.

In other words, perhaps the election of so many NDP MPs in 2011 was Quebec’s way of saying, “Okay, if a federal government can be elected that embodies the values of the majority of Quebecers, then perhaps we will not be so quick to demand separation from the rest of Canada.”

Prior to the 2011 federal election, there was only one NDP MP in Quebec, Thomas Mulcair. Like Levesque before him, Mulcair was once a progressive cabinet minister in Quebec’s Liberal government. Unlike Levesque, however, Mulcair could not leave the provincial Liberals for the PQ for the simple reason that he is an avowed federalist, and not a separatist.

Jack Layton is sadly gone. Tom Mulcair is now the leader of the federal NDP. There are 58 NDP MPs in Quebec. We shall see if the support of the NDP remains strong in Quebec. I for one will not be surprised to see this support hold. After all, the values and type of civil society that Quebecers obviously want is more in line with the social democratic views of the NDP than it is say, with Harper’s coalition of Big Oil corporate power and the social conservatives in most rural ridings outside of Quebec.

As a case in point, simply reflect on the recent protests of the Quebec students in the face of tuition hikes, a level of resistance not seen among students in other provinces. (For an excellent perspective on what is happening in Quebec, see http://behindthenumbers.ca/?s=Quebec.)

I am not from Quebec. All I know is that if I had a chance to live in a nation that shared my humanistic and progressive values rather than one that promotes the antithesis of these values, then I would consider forming a new nation, as well. 

Here is what I would like to see an article in the mainstream media focus on: if the Quebec voters help elect the NDP to form Canada’s next government, would the separatist movement lose most of its momentum?

I will wager that it would. 

Much of contemporary Canada is simply too corporate and too socially conservative for the Quebec people to feel entirely comfortable. This distinction became especially apparent with the neoliberal corporate agenda that Mulroney, Chretien and Martin brought into Canada, but it does not necessarily mean it will always be like this. Progressives in Quebec and the rest of Canada share a similar vision for society. If they can get their party into power, Canadian unity will be much more easier to attain.

Monday 10 September 2012

Unpacking Individual Rights and Individualism




For the past few years I have been in many discussions that have demonstrated some confusion around two concepts that are vastly different in important ways. These two concepts are individual rights and individualism. Yes, they do sound similar, but from an ideological standpoint they are light years apart.

Individual rights emanated out of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. Once King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette were beheaded and the subsequent turmoil subsided, the people began to realize that they were no longer subjects of the King, but were in fact citizens of France. And with this change in status came rights for the individual, at least for white males.

The 20th century is considered to be the century of human rights. This dynamic reached its zenith in 1948 with the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Discrimination against an individual based on identity markers such as race, culture, class, gender, religion, and nationality was strongly discouraged. Many western nations followed the UN’s lead by getting rid of racist legislation. (aka, institutionalized racism). For example, the Canadian federal government amended the Indian Act to allow First Nations people to once again practice their traditional cultural ceremonies such as the Powwow, the Sundance, the sweat lodge and the potlatch.

Racism still existed after these laws were removed, of course, mostly in the form of racist attitudes or systemic racism. But at least getting rid of racist laws was a major first step! And yes, today many western nations are in the process of including the rights of gays and lesbians into their body politic.

In short, individual rights are important aspects of a socially just and civil society. For the most part, they are attempts to make society more inclusive, especially regarding social issues.

So what does individualism refer to?

In the context of the United States, the rugged individual discourse hints at the self-made man (or woman), one who has been able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and make their own way. In the past few decades, individualism has been framed within Ayn Rand’s economic philosophy, called libertarianism. In simple terms, libertarians believe that no one should expect help from them, and in turn, they should not expect any help from others. It should not be too difficult to see that such a philosophy supports tax cuts for the wealthy (and for everyone else), as well as the end of social programs and the entire social welfare state. Libertarianism is the antithesis of Keynsesian economics.

The Republicans have nominated a self-claimed libertarian to be Vice President of their country. Paul Ryan is a self avowed and proud devotee of Ayn Rand’s libertarianism. But it is important to note that this is only in the economic realm! On social issues, Ryan is far from being a live-and-let-live libertarian. He is very supportive of government intervention on social issues like gay marriage and access to abortion. In this respect he is not a libertarian; nor is he fully cognizant of what the atheist Ayn Rand was truly calling for.

But let’s get back to the effects of individualism on American society for a moment. A recent example took place in Arizona in 2010. Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law the end of multicultural education. Brewer was backing the claims of Superintendent John Hupperthal that the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies Program was promoting resentment of non-white students toward white people. These conservative Arizona politicians went even further when they stated that students need to understand that everyone is an individual who can make their own way through life. All multicultural education soon came to a halt in that state. School libraries were forced to remove Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed and even Shakespeare’s The Tempest.

The acceptance of “individualism” as an underpinning of American society is helping the corporate agenda become even more entrenched than it already is. Taken in the way that Arizona has used it, individualism is at odds with individual rights. But put in its rightful place as an economic entity, the discourse of rugged individualism is being used as a smokescreen for an even more nefarious purpose, namely, to promote the notion that those who have a lot should not have to hold out a helping hand to those who have nothing.

Of course, all people are individuals, but they are also members of social groups. These social groups have unequal status in our society, as well as unequal access to resources.

Individual rights are an important component of civil society. Rugged individualism, on the other hand, has very little civility in it at all. The former refers mostly to an increasing inclusivity on social issues, while the latter means that significant numbers of people are to be economically excluded.

It is time to set the record straight about the effects of these terms on civil society.