Vincent J. Curtis
17 June 2015
The object of this work is to examine critically the report
of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
This will be a thankless task.
Not only does the report deal with unpleasant matters about which there
are high emotions, the criticism of a report which has received favorable
responses can only be seen as an invidious intrusion upon a catharsis of
emotions.
The report deals with matters of race, of native peoples or
First Nations (these terms are not equivalent) on the one hand, and white
people of European descent on the other.
The report plainly takes the view that it is not invidious for native
peoples to discuss frankly differences in perspective based upon race. It therefore ought not to be regarded as
invidious racism when a contrary argument is put from the specifically opposite,
that is to say, European perspective.
The report concerns some of the experiences of native
persons who were educated in western, European ways by the government of Canada
from the 1880s to 1996. The subject
matter of the report is the horror of abuse that these people suffered at the
hands of the school staff and from the fact that they were being educated away
from their parents. The report
generalizes beyond these experiences, that the effort itself to educate native
youths was itself illegitimate and immoral even if these other horrors had not
happened. The report takes the
prosecutor’s position in a re-litigation of the past.
To summarize broadly the thrust of the report, it is that
old familiar theme that the white man is responsible for the native peoples’
problems, and if the white man gives the natives more money and more power they
might, might let the guilty conscience of the white man be salved, a little
bit. Maybe. Or at least until the next time.
Most notable about the report is its use of the expression
“cultural genocide” to describe the aim of white Canada in respect of native
peoples, with schooling being but one manifestation of this larger aim. Let us be clear about what is being talked
about here. The native peoples of North
America at the time of Columbus lived a Paleolithic or Neolithic
lifestyle. Culturally, they were equal
to the Neanderthals. Theirs was a
hunter-gatherer society with only the barest examples of agriculture found here
and there. They had no metallurgy. They had no written language or letters. They had no cities or permanent
dwellings. Yes, this was a “culture” of
sorts, of a type beloved by anthropologists and condescending liberals
everywhere. It was in no way equal to
the cultures of the Europeans who settled in North America, however. Those European cultures had in common the
power of Hellenic reasoning and the power of science and technology.
The moral question of whether it was right or wrong to try
to lift the native peoples out of their primitiveness is thus European in
origin. But for the fact that some
native people of Canada were educated in the European style, a Paleolithic
native would not have thought to pose it.
And the highly educated natives who answered the question would not have
thought of posing it had they not become educated to the facts of the moral
delicacy that European thinking has on the subject.
The progressive idea of the day was that, of course, lifting
the native out of his primitiveness and incorporating him into the larger
society of Canada was a good and right thing to do. But, it is characteristic of liberal thinking
to be incoherent, that is, by turns progressive and condescending, and the
condescending attitude, to which this report appeals, is regnant today. The regnancy of the condescending attitude is
why the report has been received so well, and not dismissed as another exercise
of self-pity.
The conservative thinking of the day was best expressed by
King George III, who, in 1763, issued a Royal Proclamation that, in essence,
ordered that the natives be left alone.
It is shameful that liberals of today offer no defense for the decisions
of their predecessors in progressivism. In
adopting presently the conservatism of King George III, condescending liberals place
the blame for the deeds of yesterday’s progressivism upon the white men of
today, in the guilt of which they in no way share. That contortion or reasoning is the rationale
upon which “reconciliation” demanded in the report.
There is a dark corollary to the conservative position. To the, “leave the natives alone,” is the
corollary, “let them shift for themselves.”
The conservative position then may be summarized as benign neglect. Thus, as the European population of North
America increased, the native population of North America would be obliged either
to adapt on their own without any assistance from the Europeans, or to die a
Darwinian death.
On the eve of the release of the report, CBC News Anchor
Peter Mansbridge interviewed Justice Murray Sinclair, the chairman of the
committee, the principle author of the report, and a full-blooded native. Mansbridge’s demeanor was one of
solicitude. He clearly hoped that
Justice Sinclair be propitiated. As
Justice Sinclair explained the contents of the report and spelled out the
requirements for reconciliation, Mansbridge exhibited no sign of shame,
embarrassment, or remorse. Why? Because he evidently felt none, even as the
Justice went through all the evil things the Europeans alleged did to the
160,000 natives who passed through the residential schools between 1883 and 1996. It was as though the Justice was speaking of
the evil someone else had done.
And he was. Although
obscurantism is taking over western thought, the Judeo-Christian-Hellenic
concept of “the guilty party” is found best expressed in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. Briefly, the “guilty party” is the guy who
did the deed in full knowledge of the consequences, both good and bad. The guilty party is not some race. The guilty parties are not the descendants of
the generation which oversaw the evil deeds.
The party is not “guilty” if they lacked the full knowledge of the
consequences of the deed. Similarly, the
victim is the person on whom the evil deed was actually committed; the victim
is not, generally, a grandson twice removed who wasn’t born until long after
the deed was done. In English law, there
is no concept of “group rights” or “collective guilt,” and “group punishment”
is anathema to the English concept of justice.
There are only individual rights and individual guilty parties.
Thus even as Justice Sinclair presented himself as a “survivor” of western education, Mansbridge could quite properly feel that he
was not the one of the guilty being accused then and there by the Justice. The report is founded upon a basis of group
rights and collective guilt.
These differences in outlook mean that the natives are going
to be disappointed. The liberals who
support their view of victimization do not accept their role that the natives
have for them as one of the guilty.
Conservatives already have washed their hands of the responsibility
since residential schools was a progressive idea in the first place. Thus the fate of the report will like that of
many before it: the natives will be given a bit of money, a bit of political
accommodation, and the report will be shelved.
Another obstacle to resolution and reconciliation is found
in the view of the First Nations towards themselves and towards Canada. The underlying position of the First Nations
is that they are a separate, self-determining people; in short, they regard
themselves as not Canadian. By treaty
agreements made in the 18th and 19th centuries, they have
a position of dependency and succor with respect to the government of
Canada. They want to be treated as
equals even as they are succored, by treaty right, at the Canadian teat.
The report expresses First Nations resentment that Canada
had taken them at their word that they are not Canadian, and until 1951 did not
have the full rights of Canadian citizenship.[1] First Nations resent the fact that, through
the Indian Act, the government of Canada defined in a practical way who is and
who is not an Indian. It does not seem
to occur to First Nations that since the government of Canada is bound to treat
of Indians, the government has to define who exactly enjoys the status of
Indian and who does not, for purposes of its obligations. Who is and who is not an Indian in Canada is
not clear-cut on the basis of sensory evidence.
First Nations are free to define who is and who is not an Indian for
their own purposes, even as the government of Canada has its own defining
terms.
First Nations resent that at one time the government
required Indians to live on reserves to enjoy the status as Indian. It does not occur to them that location goes
to the heart of what constitutes being ‘native’. It is not obvious that an Indian born in
British Columbia should enjoy the status of ‘native’ should he choose to reside
in Newfoundland. The British Columbian
Indian has farther to travel to get to Newfoundland than an Irish immigrant
does from Ireland, and there is no direct land route either from Newfoundland
to British Columbia or from Newfoundland to Ireland. Thus it was not entirely
outrageous for the government of Canada to have required a person of Indian
heritage to actually live on a reserve to justify a status of ‘native’.
One last major resentment of First Nations carried in the
report is of the efforts to obliterate Indian culture, language, and separate
status as a distinct entity. The report
trots out all the usual evil-doers: the Roman Catholic, Anglian, Methodist, and
Presbyterian Churches and various religious orders, as the agents of the parade
of horribles the report contains. It is
quite true that up until 1972 the guiding principle of Indian policy was that
eventually the native Indian would be absorbed into the general body of Canadian
society. It is hard to imagine even now
that the status of ‘native’, with its special and unique privileges of succor
and dependency, should be enjoyed three or found hundred years hence. As advanced a thinker as Pierre Trudeau was
shocked to learn how backward things stood on the question of absorption after
nearly a century of prospect. For someone
who for his entire adult life fought for the universal rights of man, it came
as a shock that people in Canada were still insistent on dividing themselves by
race and origin and parcelling out special status.
Looking at these matters from the other side, it is not hard
to fathom why these efforts at “cultural genocide” were undertaken. If, for example, you are a believing
Christian, the paganism of Indians is clearly in error. If you are an atheist, the paganism of
Indians is clearly in error. Since it is
the European belief that man is in search of truth, one of the objects of
educating the Indians was to instruct them in the truth, which, for a
Christian, means the obliteration of Indian paganism and its practices and
substituting Christian beliefs and practices therefore. A Roman Catholic priest cannot promote Indian
paganism and remain a Roman Catholic priest. A newly discovered truth can revolutionize a culture.
After the rebellions of 1870 and 1885, it became an object
of the government to suppress Indian practices that led to violence, and some
of these practices are held to be of cultural significance by First Nations.
First Nations object to the imposition of a
European-inspired form of government upon them, namely democratically elected
band councils. Here again, as in
determining who is and who is not a native Indian, the government of Canada
required a legitimate spokesman who could speak on behalf of First Nations to
the government of Canada, and administer the funds provided by the government
of Canada, pursuant to treaty obligations.
In the European experience, democratic election is the best way of
getting legitimate spokesmen and administrators. First Nations bands can, for their own
internal needs, choose whatever form of government they wish.
The role of Indian in North America is now largely
obsolete. Indians are no longer Paleolithic
in culture. Without succor from the
Canadian government, most Indians on reserves would either starve or would have
to find European work in a European society. It is largely no longer possible to live the
hunter-gatherer lifestyle of 1600. What
then does it mean to be an Indian in Canada in the 21st
century? It amounts to a collection of
privileges and exemptions based on race and heritage. But living off welfare is not a purpose. Merely enjoying privileges and exemptions is
not a purpose. Living upon the memory of
a life-style long past and obsolete can only last so long. Seeing no enduring future as a native on a
reserve surviving off government succor was why Canadian politicians from Sir
John A. McDonald forward have seen eventual absorption as the fate of native
Indians.
The report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with
its parade of horribles is an exercise in self-pity. It is bound to lead nowhere. In an effort to re-litigate the past, it
takes only the plaintiff’s position; it makes no effort to look at the matter
from the perspective of those they accuse.
Had they done so, they might have arrived at a more balanced conclusion,
or at least met the obvious objections to their conclusion. Perhaps, living in a bubble of sympathy, they
expected none.
The basic demand for reconciliation is that Canada treat
First Nations as equals. This demand is
impossible to be met, for one cannot survive forever upon the Canadian teat and
be considered forever as an equal by a European. They demand a new respect from Canadians, but
liberals only give them condescension, and conservative thinkers have little
respect for an imputation of guilt for something they had nothing to do with. Native ambivalence towards being Canadian is
bound to raise a barrier to reconciliation.
The hopes raised by the report are bound to be
disappointed. Like previous reports on
satisfying Indian demands, Indians ask for, and will likely get, more money,
more privileges, and more power, upon the offer that their satisfaction will
salve a guilty European conscience, which does not actually feel guilty. The government of Canada, as a sign of good
will to the Canadian electorate, will adopt and enact some of the proposals of the reports.
However, the report fails to address the fundamental issues
which gave rise to the report in the first place, and these issues are bound to
give lead to more grievances and misunderstanding in the future.
-30-
[1]
Canadians themselves did not have the status of citizenship until 1947, with
the passage of the Canadian Citizenship Act.
Prior to that, Canadians were classed as British Subjects. Quite obviously, Indians are not, and never
can be, British Subjects. Being
Canadian, as distinct from being a British Subject, is a different idea, one
founded on native birth in Canada and a self-contained country. It is not entirely clear that Indians can
never be Canadians.
No comments:
Post a Comment