The Written Word
for
June 14, 2000
In dealing with native affairs in this country we’ve been bamboozled by the “Higher Purpose” persons in our midst.
There has always been an aura of sentimentality about our native brethren which, alas, has not been of much use to them until recently. The “noble savage” was an earlier manifestation of this sentimentality but there was also this image of peaceful people who, until the white man came, simply kept to themselves and bothered no one. Long standing wars, cruel customs, and nomadic wandering we replaced with myths about peaceful tribes living in harmony with nature and never harming a flea.
It has to be admitted by any fair-minded Canadian that from the outset that Indian has not been treated fairly. His designation as a special sort of entity under the Indian Act denied him any fact of or hope for ordinary status as simply a Canadian. Long after the fact though it is, the nation must make amends.
The trouble is, we’ve never decided, Indian and white man alike, just what it is we want. Is it full integration of the Indian into contemporary society as a full fledged citizen, albeit of a minority group like East Indians, Chinese and other easily identifiable groups or are we to return the Indian to his position prior to the arrival of Europeans?
The language we’ve adopted is that of the latter. I’m damned if I know where the idiotic idea came from but we’ve decided to call Indian bands and tribes “First Nations”. What is meant by the word “nation”. The question must be asked because we bristle at Quebec calling itself a “nation” and resist their efforts to separate themselves into such. We’ve gone further – we’ve accepted as high contracting parties not only the “nations” but their chiefs as representing the people of those nations.
How do we know they are representative? Because, under the Indian Act, and as a method of control, we’ve allowed families in bands all across the country to become oligarchies? This is the great unknown factor – how much support is there for Nisga’a amongst Nisga’a?
Yes, the treaty passed a referendum but with about 30% abstentions. Why those abstentions? I’ve got it on good authority that’s because the choice was a Hobson’s one. Either one supported the leaders and got a treaty or they condemned them and did not. In other words, the companion question wasn’t asked, namely, “and given the treaty, what form of government do you wish?”
The leaders demand “traditional ways” be followed. But that’s because they are the leaders. What do the citizens want?
You see the leadership has been frozen in time. Suppose Canada had been kept as a colony, against its will, until the year 2000, being ruled by a Governor-General and a council appointed by him. And suppose that Governor-General negotiated independent nation status which called for independence but under the same leadership. In a referendum the citizen would have but two choices – colonialism under the same leadership or independence under the same leadership. So it has been with Indian tribes.
There have been many changes since the white man came. There was little democracy for British people in 1867 but we’ve advanced. Yet we’re obliging native leadership that is based upon 15th century standards and accepting their word for it that their fellow citizens think this is a wonderful plan.
The Nisga’a Treaty, standing by itself in the Nass Valley of remote British Columbia is not, on its own, a big deal. What is a big deal is when this treaty is adapted for tribes and bands right across the country.
Then, finally and far too late, Canadians on the eastern side of the Rockies will wake up to the fact that this entire process, inspired by the sentimentalists and the poets, has created huge problems for not only the country at large but the rank and file Indians whose only choice was colonialism under the rule of a “Family Compact” arrangement or “independence under the same rule.
And that’s one of several reasons that aboriginal self government issue is not about to go away for a long, long time.