Blinded by one's own moral glitter

Vincent J. Curtis

12 Nov 20

RE: Yes, taking other people's land is unacceptable.  Letter to the editor by Karyn Callaghan.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 12 Nov 20. This letter concerns the ongoing occupation by the Foxgate Development property in Caledonia by aboriginals and their allies.

You have to wonder if self-righteousness blinds people to their own incoherence.  The writer declares, “…those of us who have benefited from colonialism should stand in solidarity with Indigenous people…”  Will the writer take her own words seriously?

The writer is not Indigenous, or aboriginal.  She is a self-admitted colonialist.  If she truly thinks colonialism is wrong, then she should pack her bags and move to Europe.  Her call to stand in solidarity with Indigenous is disingenuous, she feeds others to the crocodile in the hopes it eats her last.

The writer appears to believe that the hereditary chiefs are the true guardians in some way of the Six Nations bands.  Never mind the elected band council.  Yet it was the hereditary chiefs who surrendered the land in question on December 18th, 1844, a matter of historical record.  And the reason the hereditary chiefs were able to surrender that land in the first place was because it was granted to them by the British Crown.  The Haudenosaunee aren’t indigenous to this area.

It is morally and intellectually incoherent to be a colonialist, to condemn colonialism, but to do nothing about it one’s self.  It is incoherent to say that hereditary chiefs aren’t bound by the agreements of their predecessors (If they're not, why should we honour the land grant of 1784?).  It is incoherent to choose the pretend authority of hereditary chiefs over the now legal authority of the elected band council.

When it costs you nothing, it’s easy to indulge in incoherent self-righteous moralizing.

-30-