Offended by Offence

A new review of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry by Daniel Salée has appeared in the International Journal of Canadian Studies (“Indigenous Peoples and Settler Angst in Canada” – posted on The Aboriginal Industry Disrobed page of this blog).  While the review is not supportive of the book, it represents an important breakthrough in that it is a serious academic response to our arguments.  Salée has stressed in the past that it is important to debate these matters, and it is good to see that this is finally happening.

There also are a number of other important developments.  First, MediaIndigena is publishing my critical response to Charles C. Mann (author of 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus) in two parts (“Sewing a shirt of a button: the pseudeoarchaeology of 1491″ – http://www.mediaindigena.com, August 30, 2010).  Mann’s work has been embraced by a number of Native Studies scholars (Taiaiake Alfred, Rauna Kuokkanen, Niigowedom Sinclair) because it denies the theory of cultural evolution.  Those who are taken with Mann’s arguments should be aware of the pseudoarchaeological character of this book.

Secondly, Upping the Anti is publishing a 1,000 word response that Albert Howard and I made to Tom Keefer’s review of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry.  We are hoping that this response will lead some rational materialist thinkers to question Keefer’s romanticism and ultraleftism (Keefer’s review is posted on The Aboriginal Industry Disrobed page).

Thirdly, Wicazo Sa Review will publish our analysis of Leanne Simpson’s diatribe (also posted on this blog) in their next issue.  This is a particularly important development because of the acceptance of censorship in Native Studies.  Robert Innes, for example, in a recent presentation at Trent University entitled “The Widdowson Question: To Engage or not Engage?”, noted that many scholars in this field “have expressed their concern about Widdowson and Howard’s perspectives and have argued that Native Studies should not engage in their works and that their works should not be included in Native Studies courses”.  Although Innes is critical of our work, he opposes this censorship, maintaining that “Native Studies students should have the opportunity to read and, in the tradition of the founders of the discipline, form articulate assessments of these works” (http://www.trentu.ca/academic/nativestudies/celebratingindigenousknowledges/).

Finally, Randy Fred, the creator of FACE: Aboriginal life and culture, has written a favourable review of the book (http://face-siem.com/?p=134).  Fred is very aware of the existence of the Aboriginal Industry (unlike Salée), and it is encouraging to see that there is increasing recognition of this parasitic and socially destructive entity.   This is what we originally hoped when we published the book; to understand a problem, one first has to understand its cause, and the Aboriginal Industry has an interest in obfuscating this understanding.

On July 22, 2010 the CBC repeated the documentary “The education of Ashif Jaffer” about a man with Down syndrome taking a course at Ryerson University last year (www.cbc.ca/globalperspectives/).  Jaffer was taking the course Writing for Disability Activism and planned to apply to Ryerson’s degree program in Politics and Governance in the fall of 2009.

Jaffer’s attempt to pursue a university degree was not the first.  In 2006 Jaffer was admitted into York University, but had to withdraw in his first year.  This was because York University would not allow Jaffer to write his exams while accompanied by a teaching assistant – the extraordinary accommodation that had enabled Jaffer to graduate from high school as an “Ontario Scholar” (a student who achieves 80% or higher in six Grade 12 courses).  It is asserted that Jaffer needs a teaching assistant during exams to “help get the full answers out so that he can write them down” because Down syndrome has “altered” his brain’s “retrieval functions ” (Daniel Girard, “School Denies Access”, Toronto Star, December 5, 2006, p. D6).

Although it is not clear if Jaffer was accepted in a degree program at Ryerson, the documentary raises questions about the extent to which universities should accommodate the mentally disabled.  It is one thing to allow intellectually challenged people to audit courses and benefit from participating in a university environment; it is another to award degrees that assume that certain skills and learning outcomes have been achieved.

Jaffer’s actual intellectual abilities are difficult to determine because he is always accompanied by his mother, Fran Marinic-Jaffer (or a hired note-taker), and the analysis of his case is influenced by advocates for the disabled who are prone to wishful thinking.  There is no exam in the Writing for Disability Activism course, and Marinic-Jaffer oversees all of her son’s assignments.  Although Marinic-Jaffer insists that her son does his own work, it is hard to take her assertions at face value because of her emotional involvement.  In the documentary, Marinic-Jaffer defiantly states that there was “no doubt” in her mind that, when her son was born, he would go to university.   As a result, she has continuously waged battles against educational institutions, even suing York University for three million dollars, and is adamant that “no” is not an option with respect to her son obtaining a university degree.

While the obsessive advocacy of Marinic-Jaffer could be attributed to parental narcissism, more disturbing is the fawning tone of the documentary, and its assumption that obtaining a university degree is a “right” regardless of one’s abilities.  One is also left with the impression that those trying to uphold academic standards are unreasonable and lack compassion.  Similar responses were received by Leonard Stern, when he commented about Jaffer’s withdrawal from York University in the Ottawa Citizen last year.  According to Stern,

“…parents of children with Down syndrome have suggested that it is wrong to make intelligence a requirement of university.

One mother accused me of ‘IQ’ism.’ One father was furious that I said York University would be devaluing its undergraduate degree by changing the goalposts for Ashif Jaffer. He wrote that I have ‘entirely missed the point of education.’ What matters is that Ashif would ‘command respect for his efforts’ in a way that would bring honour to York University.

Other parents of children with Down syndrome talked about the ‘diversity’ that cognitively impaired students could bring to a university seminar room. It was pointed out that people with Down syndrome are ‘inspirational’ examples for the rest of us. Others argued that ‘emotional’ and ‘spiritual’ intelligence — the kinds that can’t be assessed by any exam — are more important than the measurable intellectual achievement which York University is unfairly demanding” (Stern, “Devaluing a University Degree”, Ottawa Citizen, May 9, 2009).

And it is not just parents of Down syndrome children who put forward such arguments.  These sentiments are consistent with the belief that anyone can achieve anything, regardless of the obstacles that stand in their way. They also reflect the postmodern confusion of political equality with intellectual ability.  Recognizing that certain people do not have the intelligence to master the abstract reasoning needed to obtain a university degree has nothing to do with a person’s political rights.  This is a reality, and it is counterproductive to award mock degrees so as to satisfy confused thinking and false hopes.  It is becoming increasingly difficult for qualified students to attend university because of financial restrictions, and the lawsuits, teaching assistants, disability consultants, etc., required in cases like Jaffer’s mean that even fewer resources will be available for those who are actually capable of obtaining a degree.

As I am now able to deal with spam and responses, the blog is now open for comments.  New posts are also on the way.

FW

Because I will not have regular computer access for two and a half weeks, I have closed comments on posts until I return (to avoid spam buildup).

FW

A number of reviews of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry have recently appeared (posted on The Aboriginal Industry Disrobed page of this blog).  Although the reviews do not really engage intellectually with the arguments and evidence that we present, we have submitted our responses to two of them and there is hope that  real debate will emerge in the future. 

Particularly promising is Niigonwedom Sinclair’s review, “An Ink-Stained Response to ‘Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry’”.  Sinclair’s review appeared on Media Indigena – a collaborative blog headed by Rick Harp, a journalist and former anchorman on the Aboriginal Peoples’ Television Network.   I have always found Harp to be interested in promoting debate on aboriginal policy, and so I sent him an email expressing my interest in responding to Sinclair’s piece.  Harp agreed, and the response was posted today (see “Co-Author of ’Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry’ Pens Her Rebuttal” – http://www.mediaindigena.com).

Less certain is the future of our response to the review by Leanne Simpson in the Spring 2010 issue of Wicazo Sa Review.  Although Simpson’s review is very problematic – in both its tone and content – we are glad these views are being expressed in an academic journal.  This is the first step in ending the self-censorship that exists with respect to the study of aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations.  Hopefully the Wicazo Sa Review will recognize that, as a scholarly venue, it has an obligation to allow us to speak to the inaccuracies and vitriol that it has legitimized.

Well, we are all continuing to decompress from the “New Directions in Aboriginal Policy” forum (2010) at Mount Royal University (held a few weeks ago now!).  Contrary to the insinuations that additional security would be needed, everyone acted in a very collegial (although sometimes passionate) manner.  Important lessons were learned about the benefits of public debate.  Censorship and professed “offence” will not help us to understand and address complex and difficult policy problems.  A number of faculty members from Mount Royal University chose to boycott the forum, but many others stated that, while they disagreed with many of the opinions that were expressed, censorship was an unacceptable response in an academic environment.  I even witnessed Gary McHale and Wes Elliott having a long and polite conversation with one another in the Faculty Centre. 

Mount Royal University should be commended for standing up to the intimidation, and allowing such an historic exchange to take place.  Once again, the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, Robin Fisher, the Dean and Associate Dean of Arts (Manuel Mertin and Sabrina Reed), and the Department of Policy Studies (especially the Chair, Bruce Foster) have shown themselves to be leaders in supporting academic freedom and critical inquiry.  The other sponsor of the forum, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, should also be thanked for providing partial funding for the event.

Over the following days, additional materials will be posted on the “New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums” page on this blog.  I have already posted my opening remarks – “The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation”.  It is hoped that these additional materials will further stimulate debate on aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations.  I am already starting to think about next year’s forum – to be held in the first two weeks of May 2011 (it is still not clear when the best time is for the event).  It is hoped that with the additional contacts that I am making that next year we can begin to have more of an organized exchange on three questions concerning native economic development, aboriginal governance and “indigenous knowledge”/education/research.  It is also hoped that, on each panel, there will be two speakers directly supporting or opposing a question concerning a particular aspect of aboriginal policy, much like the Intelligence² debates on the BBC.

The keynote speaker, Don Sandberg, gave a very interesting overview of his thoughts on ”The State of First Nations in Canada Today”.  In this presentation, Mr. Sandberg focussed on a number of the most significant challenges facing aboriginal peoples, especially in the areas of governance, economic development and education.  I was also interested in Sandberg’s comments about some of the problems concerning ”traditional medicine”; in his presentation, Sandberg noted that some people in an aboriginal community were afraid that “bad medicine” was being thrown at them, causing them a great deal of  stress and unhappiness. 

The first panel, “Private Property and Native Economic Development”, featured a spirited exchange between Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) and Albert Howard (Independent Researcher) about whether private homeownership could improve economic conditions in aboriginal communities (Flanagan stated that he disagreed with practically everything that Howard said, except for Howard’s comments about rentierism).  Albert Howard’s presentation will be posted on this site soon, and it is an encouraging development that Flanagan’s ideas are now being subjected to critical analysis, rather than being dismissed as “offensive”.  Joseph Quesnel also provided an interesting commentary on how the unviability of reserves could be addressed.

The second panel, “Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law”, had presentations from Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina), Gary McHale (CANACE), Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project), and Wes Elliott (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory).  It was unfortunate that Bourgeault’s work, which is very significant and underutilized in academe, was upstaged by the arguments concerning the Caledonia dispute.  Wes Elliott provided a diagram of his vision for achieving reconciliation in Caldedonia.  McHale and Vandermaas’ presentations contain too much memory to be posted on this site, but they can be accessed on the “Caledonia Victims Project”  website - http://caledoniavictimsproject.wordpress.com/   There is also a video recording of McHale and Vandermaas’ presentation on this site for those who are interested..

The third panel, “Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education”, had presentations by Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher) on Australian education policy, Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) on bilingual education in Nunavut, and an exchange between David Newhouse (Trent University) and myself on “indigenous knowledge”.  I will be posting PowerPoint slides and the written comments for my presentation in the next week or so on the “New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums” page of this website.  It is also hoped that David Newhouse will submit his slides.  In my opinion, the exchange between Dr. Newhouse and myself was the most cordial and intellectual that I have ever seen with respect to this subject.

Although it is a very busy time of year because of the upcoming Congress, I will do my best to post these materials in a timely manner.  I also want to put out a call for presenters for May 2011.  An aboriginal member of the audience made the comment that she felt the panels were “stacked” in favour of the integrationist/assimilationist position.  I informed her that I had tried for months to obtain representation from people who would sit at the same table and challenge the views of Flanagan, Howard, McHale & Vandermaas, and myself, but was told that they did not want to be a part of such an event (fortunately, Wes Elliott called me and stated that he wanted to debate McHale and Vandermaas – an encouraging development).  Funds are limited, but we usually have enough for two or three speakers (depending upon where they live).

Please note:

With respect to Wes Elliott, a mistake has been made.  He is not a negotiator, but is on the negotiating team.  I apologize for the error.

FW 

***

The final program for the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy forum at Mount Royal University on May 5, 2010 has just been completed.  It is posted on the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page and is cut and pasted below.  The posted program now contains the abstract for the presentation of Wes Elliott  (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory) – “Allies of the Crown: Honouring the Treaties is the Formula for Peace”.  The abstract states that

“The Great Law of Peace contains the principles which the Creator gave to the Houdensaunee people to live in harmony with one another and the land. This foundation formed the oldest confederacy of nations in the world. It is our Constitution. When European contact came, two wampum belts or treaties, were agreed upon: the Two Row and the Silver Covenant Chain. They became the Law of the Land. Today they are still the Law of the Land. They govern the conduct between our nations. They supercede any laws created for so called justice.

In Caledonia, both treaties have been violated. In Brantford, both treaties have been violated. In negotiations, both have been violated.  We have never been conquered. We are the only native nations in Canada that are allies to the Crown. We have our own language, culture and history, but most of all, we uphold our part of the Treaties. The basic understanding of these treaties, the honouring of them, then abiding by them, is the formula for peace”.

We are very pleased that Mr. Elliott has agreed to make this presentation and to critically engage the position of Mark Vandermaas and Gary McHale.  Once again, the forum does not endorse either position; its only goal is to present diverse points of view.  Although many will not agree with the arguments presented, Mount Royal University is a strong supporter of academic freedom and critical inquiry.  It is by being exposed to challenging points of view, in fact, that enables all people to develop intellectually.

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy

Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University

Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)

Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010

Sponsored by:

Mount Royal University’s Department of Policy Studies,

Arts Scholarly Events Committee, Office of Provost and Vice-President, Academic,

and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

8:30-9:00              Coffee

9:00-9:20              Opening Remarks

Sabrina Reed (Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts, Mount Royal University) – Welcome

Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation

9:20-10:00            Keynote Address

Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy) – The State of First Nations in Canada Today

10:00-10:15         Coffee

10:15-12:00         Panel I – Private Property and Native Economic Development (Chair: Kari Roberts)

Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) – Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights

Albert Howard (Independent Researcher) – Field of Dreams: “Building” Aboriginal Economies with Property Ownership

Glenn North Peigan (University of Lethbridge) – The Treaties, Economic Development Funding and Aboriginal Dependency

Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre For Public Policy) – The Politics of Cutting Your Losses: Non-viable Reserves and Aboriginal Economic Development 

12:00-1:00            Lunch Break

1:00-2:45              Panel II – Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law (Chair: Miriam Carey)

Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina) – The Aboriginal National Question: Colonialism, Self-Determination and the New Right

Wes Elliott (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory) – Allies of the Crown: Honouring the Treaties is the Formula for Peace

Gary McHale (CANACE) – The Face of Aboriginal Sovereignty Versus the Rule of Law in Caledonia

Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project) – Listening to Victims: A Fresh Approach to Reconciliation and Healing

2:45-3:00              Coffee

3:00-5:00              Panel III – Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education (Chair: Jennifer Pettit)

Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) – Bilingual Education in Nunavut: Trojan Horse or Paper Tiger?

Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher, Australia) – Aboriginal Educational Successes in Australia: Mass Tertiary Education and the Development of an Indigenous Academic Class

David Newhouse (Trent University) – Canada Meets the Good Mind

Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Good Mind and Critical Thinking: Exploring the Implications of “Indigenous Knowledge” Meeting the Academy

5:00-8:00              Reception (Faculty Centre)

Today, a professor that I know and respect sent me a message telling me that he had signed the Open Letter (now withdrawn on the basis of its libelous statements) because he had “reservations about particular panelists from the militia in Caledonia” due to their methods, which “the open letter captures”.  He then went on to ask: “Are there not others involved in the conflict who bring a more balanced view to the conflict in Ontario? Christie Blachford [sic] for example has written about Caledonia from a critical perspective without advocating vigilantism”.

After Ms. Blatchford was informed about the professor’s query, she provided an email responding stating that she could not attend because she is currently working on a book about Caledonia, and did not have the time to participate.  She also made some comments in response to the professor’s reference to “vigilantism”, and requested that I forward them to him.  After receiving this reply from Blatchford, the professor in question is now reconsidering his original position on the matter, and so I thought that others who signed the petition might be interested in what she has written.  Reprinting Blatchford’s comments is not meant to endorse the ideas of Vandermaas and McHale; Blatchford’s views are only one opinion, and her impressions of McHale and Vandermaas’ could be mistaken or be based on an unrepresentative sample of the evidence available.  It is only to suggest that until the voice of McHale and Vandermaas are heard we will not be able to develop an informed opinion on the Caledonia conflict, and the appearance of these speakers should not be “protested” on the basis of questionable allegations.

In Blatchford’s words:

“…[the professor] writes that I have written critically about Caledona “without advocating vigilantism” — the clear implication that Mr. McHale and Mr. Vandermaas have done so. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have attended three recent rallies in Caledonia, two of them organized by Mr. McHale, both of which were cancelled when self-styled anti-racists from Toronto showed up to out-shout the group. Mr. McHale sensibly cancelled the rallies both time. He always urges his supporters to be polite, respectful, civil, and peaceful. (In fact, he also asks people not to swear, which would exclude me, I confess.) In the course of researching my book, I have also reviewed video footage of earlier rallies in Caledonia and at Queen’s Park that were organized by Gary and Merlyn Kinrade; the footage of the rally at the Legislature is actually touching, because they were all dressed up, in suit and tie, and their remarks were as respectful as their attire.

On the one occasion that I know of where a Six Nations member, Clyde Powless, showed up and asked to speak at a Mr. McHale rally, he was greeted politely by Mr. McHale and allowed his turn at the microphone to say his piece. It was but a couple of weeks later at another rally that Mr. Powless assaulted Mr. McHale (he pleaded guilty to this offence in 2008). This was typical and telling — on the few occasions there has been violence at a McHale rally, it was not committed by him or his supporters, but rather by those who wish to deny him the right to speak.

While I grant you that the Caledoniawakeupcall website looks a little cartoonish, it is a well-documented (with original court files, newspaper stories, etc) site, and the cartoonish aspect does not accurately reflect the serious nature of the organizers.

I’ve come to know Mr. McHale quite well, Mr. Kinrade and Mr. Vandermaas a little, and have found them always to be fierce advocates only of freedom of speech and non-violent civil disobedience. I think it is just a little ironic that at a time when George Galloway’s supporters (including university professors) are arguing he should be allowed to enter Canada and speak — and I agree with them and have said so publicly — another professor is advocating censoring Gary McHale et al.” (Personal communication from Christie Blatchford, April 28, 2010).

Please note:

With respect to Wes Elliott, a mistake has been made.  He is not a negotiator, but is on the negotiating team.  I apologize for the error.

FW 

***

It has just been finalized that a new participant has been added to the “Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law” Panel.  Wes Elliott, from the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory, contacted me and said that he wanted to balance our panel and criticize the views of Mark Vandermaas and Gary McHale.  Mr. Elliott agreed that debating the issue was important so that a greater understanding of current circumstances could be developed.  He informed me that, as a negotiator for Six Nations, he has the background to be able to propose solutions to the current crisis.

This is a great development in the forum.  As I mentioned earlier, proponents of indigenous sovereignty should make their case as to why this road offers a better future for aboriginal people and aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations than the argument being made by those opposed to what they refer to as “race-based” policing – that enforcing the rule of law is an esssential element of ensuring peaceful relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people and within aboriginal communities themselves.

Once again, the point of the forum is not to promote one point of view or another.  It is to allow diverse, and even conflicting, opinions to be expressed so that real debate can take place on aboriginal policy formulation.  By looking at different points of view, and analyzing the logic and evidence that is used to support them, we can all develop a greater understanding of this difficult and complex policy area.

It is also important to recognize that Mount Royal University is a leader in the promotion of critical inquiry and the protection of academic freedom; it is doubtful that such a debate could take place at any other university in Canada.  Hopefully the forum will provide a model whereby other controversial issues can be discussed in a collegial fashion.

On April 23, 2010, the “Solidarity with Six Nations” posted an open letter “protesting the presence of anti-native ‘militia’ leaders” at the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum at Mount Royal University on May 5, 2010.  The open letter contains a link to a petition with a few hundred signatures.

The open letter is notable for three reasons.  The first is the misinformation that it contains.  Neither Gary McHale (CANACE), nor Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project), is a member of any “militia”.  Also, it is erroneously implied that McHale and Vandermaas were the perpetrators of the violence that occurred in Caledonia.  It is noted that “Mr. McHale was from 2007 to 2010 banned from entering Caledonia due to bail conditions stemming from the eruption of violence…”, but it is not mentioned that it was Six Nations residents who were the perpetrators; McHale and Vandermaas were the victims. If you are curious as to why it was a victim of violence, rather than the perpetrators, who was banned from the community, you are not alone.  Welcome to the bizarre world of “culturally sensitive” policing.

Secondly, there is the constant accusation of racism without one shred of evidence being presented.  The spurious linkage of McHale and Vandermaas to white supremacists is made on the basis that “Paul Fromm, a high profile white supremacist leader, best known for his support of holocaust denier Ernest Zundel, has actively publicized McHale and his events on the neo-nazi website Stormfront. Fromm has been photographed at McHale led events, as have other members of neo-Nazi organizations such as the London, Ontario ‘Northern Alliance’ group”.  But this is the result of the mistaken logic that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.  Obviously, white supremacists would oppose movements for indigenous sovereignty, as the latter often assert the cultural (racial?) superiority of those who are not “White” (because of the alleged aboriginal ”spiritual relationship to the land” and their “covenant with the Creator”).  This, however, is unrelated to McHale and Vandermaas’ criticsm of indigenous sovereignty, which is NOT racially motivated; it is rooted in the LIBERAL value of equality  under the law – something that tribal societies, with their kinship orientation, resist.

This distinction between liberalism and racism is lost on “Solidarity with Six Nations”.  They even imply that my views are tainted by racist assumptions when I argue that “current demands for ‘aboriginal nationalism’ and ‘sovereignty’, because they connect land to ancestry, have more in common with the ideology of Nazi Germany than left-wing ideas”.  So, to point out instances of racist viewpoints is to be racist?  And what about the content of my argument?  Is the attempt by some Mohawks to maintain “cultural purity” by evicting non-Mohawks from their land, and the comments by Chief Wayne Roan of the Ermineskin Band that “the moose and elk do not mate, that is the natural law …Our elders have always said Cree should marry Cree to preserve the culture and way of life” (Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, p. 107), similar to the doctrines that were expressed in Nazi Germany?  If there are any doubts, these ideas should be compared with some of the more pernicious statements in Mein Kampf.

“Solidary with Six Nations” argues that “we believe that the inclusion of McHale and Vandermaas in a discussion on Aboriginal Policy will serve to normalize racism, aggression, appropriation, and citizen-led militias as tools to solve localized conflicts over Indigenous lands, whereas what is needed is a recognition of Indigenous land rights, nation to nation negotiations and the peaceful settlement of land claims”.  But how can this be determined?  Why is it believed that “recognition of Indigenous land rights, nation to nation negotiations and the peaceful settlement of land claims” is “what is needed”?  How can we know that this will achieve “peace and justice in Caledonia and Six Nations”?  The plea for “nation to nation” negotiations, for example, is based on the erroneous assumption that groups of a few hundred people with no economic base or capacity to assert statehood are “nations” – a fabrication that cannot be challenged because of the Aboriginal Industry’s control over current policy discussions. 

This brings me to the third, and most important, point – that the petition is an outrageous attack on freedom of inquiry within the university.  The same people who correctly opposed the attempts to muzzle speech during Israeli Apartheid Week are now, in an unprincipled fashion, trying to prevent challenging viewpoints being expressed about Caledonia and Ipperwash.  While the analysis of McHale and Vandermaas might be mistaken, none of us has perfect information or a monopoloy on truth.  Therefore, actual scholars should promote the free exchange of ideas to determine how best to proceed with this very complicated and difficult policy area.  Instead of promoting censorship and engaging in unwarranted smear campaigns, advocates for indigenous sovereignty should make their case on the basis of logic and evidence.  With all the accusations of “racism”, “hate”, “white supremacy”, etc., rational thinkers who might question some of the nonsense that masquerades as scholarship on aboriginal policy are likely to keep silent, impoverishing our capacity to more fully understand aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations and to make informed efforts to achieve social justice today.

The final version of the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum program is now available on the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page on this blog (it is also cut and pasted below).  Work that has been undertaken by the various presenters also has been posted on that page.  One new development is that there has been an agreement between David Newhouse and myself to hold an exchange on incorporating “indigenous knowledge” into the academy in Panel III (“Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education”).  This exchange will concern Newhouse’s article “Ganigonhi:oh: The Good Mind Meets the Academy”, Canadian Journal of Native Education, 31(1), 2008, pp. 184-197.  Another addition is Glenn North Peigan, who, along with Albert Howard, will be responding to Tom Flanagan’s views on aboriginal property rights.

FW

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy 

Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University

Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)

Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010

Sponsored by:

Mount Royal University’s Department of Policy Studies,

Faculty of Arts Scholarly Events Committee,

and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

8:30-9:00              Coffee

9:00-9:20              Opening Remarks

 Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation

 9:20-10:00            Keynote Address

 Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy) – The State of First Nations in Canada Today

 10:00-10:15         Coffee

 10:15-12:00         Panel I – Private Property and Native Economic Development (Chair: Kari Roberts)

 Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) – Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights

Albert Howard (Independent Researcher) – Field of Dreams: “Building” Aboriginal Economies with Property Ownership

Glenn North Peigan (University of Lethbridge) – The Treaties, Economic Development Funding and Aboriginal Dependency

Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre For Public Policy) – The Politics of Cutting Your Losses: Non-viable Reserves and Aboriginal Economic Development

12:00-1:00            Lunch Break

1:00-2:45              Panel II – Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law (Chair: Miriam Carey)

Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina) – The Aboriginal National Question: Colonialism, Self-Determination and the New Right

Gary McHale (CANACE) – The Face of Aboriginal Sovereignty Versus the Rule of Law in Caledonia

Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project) – Listening to Victims: A Fresh Approach to Reconciliation and Healing 

2:45-3:00              Coffee

3:00-5:00              Panel III – Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education (Chair: Jennifer Pettit)

Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) – Bilingual Education in Nunavut: Trojan Horse or Paper Tiger?

Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher, Australia) – Aboriginal Educational Successes in Australia: Mass Tertiary Education and the Development of an Indigenous Academic Class

David Newhouse (Trent University) – Canada Meets the Good Mind

Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Good Mind and Critical Thinking: Exploring the Implications of “Indigenous Knowledge” Meeting the Academy

5:00-8:00              Reception (Faculty Centre)

As today is Easter, and we are being encouraged to celebrate the absurd notion of the resurrection of a mythical Supreme Being (chocolate eggs and bunnies are a recent addition so as to offer a more enticing bribe to the young), supplications at the Vatican are being prominently covered.  The usual deference of the media towards religious propaganda, however, is being tempered by allegations that Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) obstructed justice by attempting to cover up the sexual abuse of boys by catholic priests.  In a letter to bishops in 2001, Benedict ordered that sexual abuse allegations be “subject to pontifical secret”, a breach of which could result in excommunication.  The letter also demanded that initial investigations of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office, which could choose to divert them to church tribunals where the “functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests” (www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection)

The most recent scandal involves documents that emerged in March 2010 showing that a secret canonical trial that could have resulted in Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy’s dismissal was halted after Murphy wrote a letter personally appealing to Ratzinger.  Murphy is alleged to have molested as many as 200 boys, but he was never disciplined by the church; instead he was transferred to another diocese where he spent 24 years interacting with children.  Although several American bishops raised the alarm about Murphy, correspondence shows that the highest priority of officials was in ensuring that the church was protected from scandal (www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html).  Benedict is also facing other criticisms that he did not alert civilian authorities about priests involved in sexual abuse when he was an archbishop in Germany.

These circumstances have led to a great deal of soul seaching within the catholic church.  One of the most common responses, however, is to defend the church, claiming that the entire institution should not be judged on the basis of the actions of a few mouldy wafers.  On CBC Newsworld today, for example, Neil MacCarthy, a representative of the Archdiocese of Toronto, compared paedophile priests to police officers, teachers and lawyers who abuse the public trust. 

Arguments like those of MacCarthy show the extent of denial that exists in the catholic church.  They ignore the systematic climate of secrecy and contempt for state authority that exists within the institution.  It is apparent that the power wielded by the Vatican continues to enable church officials to envision themselves as being above the law.  There is also the question of the extent to which Catholicism itself contributes to paedophilia within the institution.  Unlike police officers, teachers and lawyers, the catholic church dictates that priests must be celibate.  This stipulation ensures that the priesthood is likely to attract a higher proportion of sexual deviancy than would be present in the wider population. 

One positive result of the growing scandal is that the power of the catholic church is weakening.  The enormous power of the Vatican in global affairs is increasingly coming under scrutiny.  But there still needs to be a recognition that the current ”crisis” is not accidental; it is rooted in the irrationality and deference that superstition, Catholic or otherwise, demands.

The draft program for the forum is available on the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page.   This program will likely change a little after additional information is received.  It is hoped that this program will be completed by the end of next week.  I am still attempting to find additional aboriginal academics and activists to present perspectives on aboriginal sovereignty and indigenous “ways of knowing”.  The hope is to have as wide a range of viewpoints as is possible presented at the forum.

FW

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy

Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University

Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)

Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010

Sponsored by:

Mount Royal University’s Department of Policy Studies,

Faculty of Arts Scholarly Events Committee,

and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

8:30-9:00              Coffee

9:00-9:20              Opening Remarks

Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation

9:20-10:00            Keynote Address

 Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy) – The State of First Nations in Canada Today

10:00-10:15         Coffee

10:15-12:00         Panel I – Private property and native economic development

Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) – Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights

Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre For Public Policy) – The Politics of Cutting your Losses: Non-viable Reserves and Aboriginal Economic Development

Albert Howard (Independent Researcher, Canada) – Field of Dreams: “Building” Aboriginal Economies

12:00-1:00            Lunch Break

1:00-3:00              Panel II – Aboriginal sovereignty, indigenous nationalism, and the rule of law 

Gary McHale (CANACE) and Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project) – TBA

Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina) – TBA 

3:00-3:15              Coffee Break 

3:15-5:00              Panel III – Indigenous “ways of knowing”, critical thinking and education

Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) – Bilingual Education in Nunavut: Trojan Horse or Paper Tiger?

Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher, Australia) – Indigenous Education in Australia: Standard Tertiary Programs and the Development of an Indigenous Academic Class

David Newhouse (Trent University) – TBA

5:00-8:00              Reception (Faculty Centre)

The Ann Coulter episode in Canada has been quite instructive.  Coulter, a right-wing provocateur, was invited to speak at the University of Ottawa.  Some insulting remarks made previously by the media commentator led Francois Houle, the vice-president academic and provost, to send a letter that warned Coulter to use “restraint, respect and consideration” in her speech.  As a result of Coulter’s publicization of the incident, crowds of people – both protesters and people wanting to hear her speak – arrived at the university, which made it necessary to cancel the speech out of concerns that the venue was too small.

Fortunately, the balance of opinion on the matter is highly critical of Francois Houle.  Perhaps we are finally turning the corner in this country, and realizing that “words that wound” do not constitute “violence”.

There are two important matters that should be underlined with respect to Houle’s letter.  The first is the problem with trying to encourage “restraint” and “respect” in public discourse.  These qualities are already constraining speech to the point that honest discussion about sensitive topics is non-existent.  Self-censorship prevails out of fear that one might “offend” some group or other.  As a result, we have a very limited understanding of the causes of a number of problems currently facing us as a species.  More specifically, we need to discuss how certain cultural features (learned behaviour) have negative social implications, but this is inhibited when criticism of culture is equated with “hate”.

Secondly, the Coulter episode raises questions about the problems of “hate speech” laws more generally.  As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, Canada already has laws that prohibit the incitement of crime and violence.  Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, however, is an addition to these basic protections, and can be used to clamp down on speech that is controversially truthful.  Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, gives the example of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, a book by a Harvard historian that alleges the complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust.  The thesis of this book, argues Borovoy, is arguably “likely to expose” German people to contempt.  This has led Borovoy to ask: “To what extent might it then become an offence to tell the truth about the Holocaust? And that’s the thing about these sections. Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence” ( http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=391873).  

There needs to be an acknowledgement that demands for “restraint” and “respect” and prohibitions against “hate speech” are being used by people who want to prevent frank discussion about inconvenient truths that threaten vested interests.  Although most of the commentary provided by Ann Coulter – recommending that an Islamic person take a camel instead of an airplane, for example - is insulting and adds little to intelligent debate, it is impossible to predetermine whether or not this will be the case.  It is much better to allow people like Coulter to speak and then criticize, and even ridicule, the innane comments that might emerge, then judge, before the fact, what speech is socially acceptable.

Today I received an email from the Chair of my department, which forwarded a letter from Frank Elliott, a Ph.D. student at the University of Alberta, to him and Hope Knudsen, the President of the Alberta Teachers’ Association.   His letter was protesting my speech at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA) conference on February 26, 2010 (a PDF version of the letter, which includes a 19 page bibliography, is posted on the Aboriginal Policy page as “Letter from Frank Elliott”).  Elliott objects to the fact that I called the graduate students attempting to to censor my speech “disciples” of professor Cora Weber-Pillwax (“this type of personal name-calling indicates a level of discourse which should have no place in academia and particularly not from an individual given a venue to voice personal opinions disguised as fact at an ATA conference”).  He then goes on to shamelessly compare my views with those of Jim Keegstra, the holocaust denier, and seems to think it is appropropriate not to copy me on correspondence about my conduct.  It also should be made clear that my reference to “disciples” was made in an email to Weber-Pillwax, and did not occur at the GETCA conference, which could be inferred from Elliott’s letter (in the email I was referring to Cora Weber-Pillwax’s encouragement of graduate students to demand censorship rather than engage in an evaluation of arguments and evidence, and I didn’t “personally implicate” any particular student in this remark). 

More importantly, Elliott maintains that I was “voic[ing] personal opinions disguised as fact at an ATA conference”.  He offers no substantiation for this assertion.  He argues that “there is an immense amount of sophisticated thinking about Aboriginal education”, but does not show how this is the case.  All he does is refer to an attached bibliography (presumably the one that he compiled for his Ph.D. dissertation), which contains a number of highly questionable sources on “Native science”, including works by Gregory Cajete and Leroy Little Bear (“What’s Einstein got to do with it?”).  These works are not academically rigorous; they have a romantic view of history and constantly assume that spiritual beliefs are a “kind of science”.  Little Bear even argues that aboriginal people before contact had an understanding of the theory of relativity, a modern advancement in physics.  He seems to think that this knowledge was possible to acquire without even having the benefit of a rudimentary numbering system.

To get some understanding of where Elliott is coming from I found one article about his views on the University of Alberta website entitled “Diversity Institute raising awareness of holistic approaches to education” (www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/secondaryed/news.cfm?story=42104).   The article discusses an event sponsored by the ”Diversity Institute”, where sixty educational students at the U of A listened to Francis Whiskeyjack, a Cree Elder, “drum as he sang about mother earth and the Aboriginal love of nature”.  Whiskeyjack evidently “believes in a holistic approach to obtaining values”, which consists of the following insight: “Education is a lifetime journey”.   Whiskeyjack also uses a feather and rattle to “[accentuate] the four elements of nature”, maintains “that in Aboriginal tradition, everything, whether animate or inanimate, has a spirit” and promotes “the power of the circle and of working together”.

This “holistic and personal approach to education” promoted by Whiskeyjack is enthusiastically embraced by Frank Elliott, who was interviewed in the article.  Elliott argues that “if you are going to learn the meaning of something, then you need to understand it subjectively”.   Elliott, according to the article, “encourages students to look at their own belief structures as a way of moving beyond objective understandings”.  In the words of Elliott, “understanding your own belief structure may help you in your teaching. Hopefully you might begin to see the world in another way”.

If we were to accept Elliott’s assertions, and incorporate them into the curriculum, this would constitute an extreme form of educational malpractice.  Should students be encouraged to “[move] beyond objective understandings”?  Is there evidence to support the assertion that “everything…has a spirit”, that there are “four elements of nature”, and that the circle has “power”?  And what if a student decides to challenge these assertions?  Will they be reprimanded as “culturally insensitive” by Elliott?  Promoting these irrational beliefs does not help students at all to acquire the knowledge, skills and disciplines to participate in a wide range of occupations.   Under the auspices of “diversity”, aboriginal students will be kept segregated from the mainstream and forever dependent upon condescending enablers like Frank Elliott.

This week at Mount Royal University we have had to endure “Islamic Awareness Week”.  Tables have been set up on Main Street of the primary building on campus so that leaflets and books can be distributed on topics such as “status of Women in Islam”, “Life after Death” and “What does Islam say about terrorism?”.  A talk on “Jesus in Islam” was held today, where a Calgary Imam analyzed the Qur’an and the Bible in an attempt to “disprove” the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God.

After listening to the talk and reading the literature provided, however, it appears that “awareness” is a misnomer.  A better description would be “Islamic Propaganda Week”.  Being somewhat aware of the more pernicious teachings of Islam concerning the treatment of women, homosexuality and apostasy, I raised one of these matters with one of the ardent believers manning the tables.  In response to the question of whether he accepted the Qur’an’s dictate that husbands should beat their wives if they are disobedient, he denied that this command was issued by Mohammed.  Two other men also denied that this was part of the Qur’an.  Then, however, a woman at an adjoining table conceded that a wife-disciplining dictate did exist in the Qur’an, but that the proper word was “slap”, not “beat”. 

For those who are unaware of the frightening content of the Qur’an, the section in question is 4:34.  It appears as follows in the translated copy provided to me by the organizers of “Islamic Awareness Week”:

“Men are in charge of women because Allah has conferred abundantly on one of them over others, and because they spend (to support) from their wealth.  Thus the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands) who guard in (husband’s) absence what Allah has ordered them to guard (their chastity, their husbands [sic] property, etc).  But those (women) whom you fear their rebellion, admonish them (first), and (then) leave them (alone) in the beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), then if they obey you, then you do not seek against them a way (excuse to punish).  Surely, Allah is High, Great” (Houston, Finalrevelation.net, 2006, p. 68). 

In two other copies of the Qur’an in my possession the offending comment is translated as “Admonish those women whose surliness you fear, and leave them alone in their beds, and [even] beat them [if necessary]” (brackets in the original, India: Goodword Books, 2000) and “As for those women whose refractoriness you suspect, first admonish them, then have them go to separate beds, and beat them” (Fount Paperbacks, 1988).

Now, if this week was actually about raising “awareness” about the true nature of Islam, wouldn’t this dictate be discussed in the ”status of Women in Islam” pamphlet being distributed?  Instead, it is noted that there is an “erroneous perception in the West, that Islam subjugates women folk”.  The pamphlet argues that “Islam…treated [women] on an equal footing with men, and in some cases, as a mother for instance, clearly gave them precedence over men”.  Marriage, according to the pamphlet, is based on “mutual peace, love and compassion” and Dr. Jamal Badawi is quoted as stating that “the mutuality and complementarity of husband and wife does not mean ‘subservience’ by either party to the other”.  It is even noted that Mohammed “helped with household chores”(!). 

In discussions of the treatment of women in Islam, we are constantly fed the line that Islam granted women more rights than they had historically.  But the Qur’an was written in 700 A.D.  We are currently in the 21st Century, and it is taken for granted that women should have rights to property, employment, and non-coerced marriage.  What differentiates Islam from enlightened societies is that, in the latter, women are not expected to be “obedient” to men and it is unacceptable for husbands to beat their wives (no matter how “lightly”).

One of the most shocking aspects of the Qur’an is its intended audience – men.  Women are only referred to in the third person, as objects to be controlled by men.  There is even a chapter entitled “The Woman”, which outlines what men should or should not do to them (including women who are slaves).

The Qur’an has to be promoted on the basis that Mohammed was a “prophet”, because otherwise this primitive morality would never be accepted.  The only evidence for Mohammed being a prophet comes from the Qur’an, which is a circular argument.  To the critical thinker, there are two far more likely possibilities that can explain the Qur’an’s “final revelation” – madness or charlatanism.  No rational person believes someone who claims that God spoke to them.  Why do we take seriously the same delusion when it occurred 1300 years ago?

Below is a message posted by “Sarah” (presumably Sarah Auger) last week on the contemptuously delusional website of Mohawk “warrior” Taiaiake Alfred (http://www.taiaiake.com/42#comments).  “Sarah” is one of the people responsible for the press release condemning my GETCA speech and advocating censorship in discussions of aboriginal educational policy; she attended the speech as a parent, and is not a graduate student as I had assumed.  I apologize for the error.

It is also interesting to note that the press release that Auger and al. distributed was printed before I gave the speech, not after.  Therefore, “Sarah” (Auger?), Michelle Rost, Cora Weber-Pillwax, etc. had made up their minds without even listening to my arguments.  This is particularly disheartening with respect to the release’s reference to my “racist…views”, when one considers that a person in the audience (I think it was Rost, judging from her picture in the Edmonton Sun) asked me what my definition of racism was and then requested that I link this definition to a comment that I had made in an interview opposing direct monetary transfers to aboriginal individuals (I had stated at the time that these transfers were unlikely to address aboriginal deprivation because “the money gets spent on pickup trucks and, in the worst case scenario, gambling and drugs” and this “doesn’t do anything to address the developmental problems that exist in Aboriginal communities” – http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2619).

I thanked the person (Rost?) for the question and said that I was glad to have the chance to clarify the matter.  I explained that racism was the ideology that one group should be subordinated to, and oppressed by, another because their racial characteristics are believed to make them “inferior”.  After providing this definition, I pointed out that the answer that I had given in the interview about the monetary transfers being spent on consumer goods applied to all marginalized people, regardless of racial characteristics, and concerned how deprived and uneducated people react to a monetary windfall.  No one is advocating that monetary transfers be given to impoverished people living in, say, Regent Park in Toronto, so as to address low educational levels in this deprived community.  What is required is high quality services – health care, education and housing, not distributing funds directly to individuals.

After giving this answer, I thought that great progress had been made in educating people about the actual nature of racism, and how a critical analysis of cultural features (which are changeable) cannot be considered racist.  All cultures have negative and positive characteristics, and therefore we all need to critically analyze cultural influences so that decisions can be made about what is best for humanity.  Unfortunately, for people like “Sarah” (Auger?), whose mind is made up so as not to be confused by the facts, having such an open and honest debate becomes impossible. 

FW

***

Sarah Says:
March 1st, 2010 at 7:54 am

Barry…

I was at that session on invite from the ATA after a group of us at the University of Alberta learned of her appearance the day before. We contacted the ATA and asked for her removal from the program, and asked who had invited her in the first place. We also offered Aboriginal scholars concentrating on Aboriginal education as a replacement. We were refused the first, and denied information about the second. Although, I’ve learned since (on Widdowson’s blog where she’s written about this) that the invite came from the President GETCA, Hope Knudsen. Two of us went to the session as guests to listen firsthand to Widdowson and walked away certainly less than impressed. I think there was some expectation that we would engage Widdowson in some debate, which I think is unfair given the short timeframe we had, and our positioning as audience members rather than panel presenters on equal footing. And this is more about the institutionalized racism that exists within Alberta education that allowed this to occur in the first place than it is about her. I have been listed on her blog as a graduate student, which I’m not. I was there as a parent. I do not want Widdowson’s ideology anywhere near our children either directly or indirectly.

After the session we stood outside and handed out a media release that went out that same morning to different news outlets, the Ministry of Education and the ATA.

This is the text we handed out:

The Alberta Teachers Association is complicit in furthering the racist and assimilationist views of Frances Widdowson by inviting her to speak at the Greater Edmonton Teachers Convention February 26th, 2010 on the topic of Aboriginal education. Widdowsonhas openly denied the existence of Aboriginal histories or knowledge systems relevant to Aboriginal education: “If there was a more realistic assessment of what the historical circumstances of Aboriginal people were actually like, few would be advocating a return to the past…there is no history of literacy, science and mathematics in aboriginal societies, and therefore little expertise exists to improve native educational levels”. The presence of Widdowsonsuggests a strong disregard for Ministerial Order #016/97 which recognizes “the importance of respecting students’ human dignity” and outlines the responsibility of teachers to “establish, with different students, professional relationships that are characterized by mutual respect, trust and harmony”.

The ATA licenses teachers, wields great influence within the ministry of education and post-secondary teacher education, and holds responsibility for teachers’ professional development, defined as “any planned activity that provides teachers with an opportunity for growth in knowledge, skills, and attitudes leading to improved teaching practice and enhanced student learning.” Teachers have a responsibility to ensure the safety and human dignity of students, and the presence of this anti-aboriginal scholar as a guest at one of the largest gatherings of teachers in Canada must be recognized as a threat to the sense of security of every Aboriginal child in Alberta. The ATA represents thousands of teachers and its decision to provide Widdowson a platform to promote her views that traditional Aboriginal knowledge is meaningless to formal schooling constitutes a direct attack on Aboriginal students in this province.

Contact with Indigenous scholars from Alberta and internationally are accessible to the ATA, the University of Alberta and the Ministry of Education, all of whom are implicated in the selection of Widdowson as a GETCA speaker on Aboriginal education for Alberta teachers. As the protectors of our Aboriginal children, Elders and communities, we cannot trust that the ATA would support and promote the safe-guarding of our children now that we have witnessed their support of professional development that denies the existence of Aboriginal knowledge and, essentially, of Aboriginal humanity. In presenting Widdowson as an Aboriginal education specialist, we see that the ATA has chosen to add its weights to the ignorance and oppression of racism that counters the efforts of compassionate and respectful Alberta educators.

Things are beginning to firm up for the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum at Mount Royal University.  The forum is free and open to the public and is intended to stimulate public debate on aboriginal policy.  People with very different perspectives on aboriginal economic development, governance and education have been invited because it is assumed that bringing together opposing viewpoints enables all people to move closer to the truth.  The tentative program and confirmed participants are cut and pasted below.  I am still hoping to find more people who can present arguments supporting aboriginal sovereignty and indigenous “ways of knowing”.

FW

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy, Free Public Forum in the Nickle Theatre, Mount Royal University, May 5, 2010

8:30-9:00, Coffee

9:00-9:30, Opening remarks – The kindly inquisition influencing aboriginal policy development

9:30-11:30, Panel I – Aboriginal sovereignty, indigenous nationalism, and the rule of law

11:30-1:00, Lunch break

1:00-2:45, Panel II – Private property rights, the Indian Act, and economic development

2:45-3:00, Coffee Break

3:00-4:45, Panel III – Indigenous “ways of knowing”, critical thinking and education

5:00-8:00, Reception

Confirmed participants (in alphabetical order)

Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina), Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary), Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta), Albert Howard (Independent Researcher, Calgary), Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher, Australia), Gary McHale (CANACE), David Newhouse (Trent University), Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre for Public Policy), Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy), Mark Vandermaas (CANACE), Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University)

Below is a description of the research of Ghislaine Goudreau, a graduate student who was supervised by Cora Weber-Pillwax.  The article gives readers some idea of the kind of research that is being undertaken under the auspices of “Indigenous scholarship”.  Weber-Pillwax then collaborated with Goudreau in an article published in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Aboriginal Health, which was entitled “Hand Drumming: Health-Promoting Experiences of Aboriginal Women from a Northern Ontario Urban Community”,  (www.naho.ca/jah/english/journal_V04_01.php).

FW

***

Gillian Osler, “Aboriginal researcher enhances cultural strength”, January 29, 2007 (http://www.publichealth.ualberta.ca/nav02.cfm?nav02=56031&nav01=44821)

Research shows that through the reintroduction of female hand drumming into an Aboriginal community, women are again finding their voices.

Ghislaine Goudreau, ’06 MSc, originally derived the concept for her thesis, Exploring the Connection between Aboriginal Women’s Hand Drumming and Health Promotion (Mino-Bimaadiziwin), during orientation week for new students at the Centre for Health Promotion Studies (School of Public Health.) Participants were asked to draw how they saw themselves in five years time. Goudreau, who is an urban Aboriginal woman, drew herself holding a drum. She had a vision of what she needed to do for her research, and this involved drumming, a cultural tradition close to her heart.

Prior to the influx of Europeans into North America, it was common for Aboriginal people to engage in drumming. Western research related to Aboriginal communities violated the established ways of knowing, focused on negative issues rather than devising solutions. In the process, important traditions were lost. Using this history as a backdrop, Goudreau decided to contact her Aboriginal community and requested their involvement in a unique research project.

Goudreau designed a study with the collaborative efforts of her community and co-researchers, who are Aboriginal women hand drummers, to investigate the relationship between hand drumming and health promotion. She found that the participatory research approach – where the researcher becomes a facilitator who works collaboratively with research participants – and indigenous methods largely paralleled one another. “I have seen the connection between how Aboriginal people live traditionally and health promotion research methods,” says Goudreau. “Both methods apply the principle of working collectively with the community.” The Master of Science program in health promotion was, for Goudreau, a stepping stone to completing this research and increasing awareness and participation of her community.

Many sacred Aboriginal traditions were incorporated into the research process, including the use of sharing circles instead of focus groups. Customs such as starting meetings with prayer, using smudging ceremonies, presenting tobacco, working with the leadership of the Elders, and having the Creator bless each meeting – which became known as “thesis gatherings” – were used throughout Goudreau’s research. For instance, when she approached the Waabishki Mkwaa hand drumming circle and the women Elders, she presented them with tobacco as a sign of respect. This allowed her to involve them in a research process with a spiritual component. 

Aboriginal culture is an inherent part of Canadian history and so Aboriginal populations are a critical group to include in initiatives. This research is innovative as, to date, most health promotion research has focused on Canada’s mainstream population.

Goudreau’s thesis supervisor, Dr. Cora Weber-Pillwax, commented on the Aboriginal tradition of drumming explaining that, “Amongst many Aboriginal peoples, drumming is an act that is not supported as appropriate for women.” She praised Goudreau saying, “She moved forward in the face of such challenges, and accepted the teachings that took her back to her own ancestors who were women hand drummers. This shows a young Aboriginal woman who stands on the horizon of exceptional Indigenous scholarship and leads by action and example.”

Goudreau grounded her research and project in theory and knowledge that came from both the European and the Anishnaabe traditions. Through her research approach and writing, which was based on her experiences with women’s hand drumming circles, she created an opportunity for healing effects to flow between the Anishnaabe women in the hand drumming circle. Weber-Pillwax goes on to say that, “Their shared stories point to the wonderful healing benefits of the process and activities associated with hand drumming and singing.”

The results of Goudreau’s research have been very encouraging. “Aboriginal people need to know there are lots of gifts in the community. Research focuses mostly on alcohol, drugs, or diabetes in Indigenous societies, and this is largely negative. By focusing on positives in this project, the eyes of the women would light up. They felt as though they had something to offer and it was very good for them to hear that,” says Goudreau. She goes on to say that, “There has been a ripple effect. The women desire to get involved now, and they are finding their voices through singing and the opportunity to speak.”

The impact of her project has been vast. There is a heightened sense of culture and pride for the women who were involved and they have often been asked to be part of local conferences and events. The result has been a sense of being accepted by society and increasing self-confidence. Cultural awareness and social support networks are determinants of health that emerged as two key elements of Goudreau’s research.

In addition, there have been physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual benefits of Aboriginal women’s hand drumming demonstrated in this study. The women perceived that their overall health improved as a result of this hand drumming initiative.

The Aboriginal Women’s Hand Drumming (AWHD) Circle of Life framework, which is a modification of the traditional medicine wheel, is an outcome from the thesis work. This framework will aid in studying other traditional Aboriginal activities and will support Aboriginal researchers to continue to gather evidence of their merit.

Goudreau is pleased to have had her research accepted in academic circles. In fact, she is this year’s recipient of the Western Association of Graduate Schools (WAGS) Distinguished Master’s Thesis Award that will be presented in March at WAGS Annual Meeting in Portland Oregon. This is the first time that a University of Alberta student has received a WAGS Award.

Goudreau is proud when other Aboriginal students ask to use her thesis as an example. It gives them some insight into how to conduct research in Aboriginal communities through the use of a very effective example of Indigenous research. There is a resulting sense of confidence in their research.

Goudreau’s research demonstrated that the health promotion concept of capacity building is very viable. When leadership is found within an Aboriginal community, it can help to enable other community members to enhance their research abilities and direct programs that are important to their region and culture. Lessons learned from Goudreau’s work will be helpful when developing other initiatives in both Aboriginal and other populations.

Goudreau entered new territory by successfully implementing a methodology that incorporates Aboriginal traditions. The impact of her work, including increasing cultural pride, is a distinguished example of community based health promotion and creative research.

As March 4-11 is “Israeli Apartheid Week”, it is appropriate to ask the question – can Israel be accurately chracterized as an “apartheid state”?  Various Zionist organizations claim that it is not, but instead of refuting the charge, they argue that such an allegation constitutes “hate speech” and therefore should be censored.  These arguments are now being taken seriously by politicians; a resolution was drafted by the provincial Conservatives in Ontario, which was supported by the Ontario Liberals and the NDP,  that accused supporters of Israeli Apartheid Week of “inciting hatred”.  Conservative MP Tim Uppal is now proposing a motion that, among other things, “explicitly condemns any action in Canada as well as internationally that would equate the State of Israel with the rejected and racist policy of apartheid”.

There are two issues that are of concern.  The first pertains to freedom of speech.  In a democratic society, should people be prevented from criticizing the actions of any state?  Even if these critics are wrong, should they be subject to legal prohibitions aimed at censoring their opinions?  Should being wrong be a crime?

This brings me to the second issue – are those who maintain that Israel is an “apartheid state” wrong?  According to Cheri DiNovo, a NDP MPP in Ontario, for example, the use of the word “apartheid” in the context of Israel is “inappropriate”, but is this actually the case?  The question is an empirical one, and a weighting of evidence, not political posturing, should be the means used to come to a conclusion on this matter.  To do this, one needs to identify the characteristics of apartheid and then determine if Israel meets these criteria.  If the answer to the latter is yes, then Israel is, by definition, an apartheid state. 

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, apartheid is “a policy of racial segregation”.  Na’eem Jeenah, an academic from South Africa, extends this definition somewhat by understanding apartheid “as a system of privileging and advantaging one group of people over others on the basis of race or ethnicity”   (http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/religion/documents/ARISA/2002_M4_Jeenah.pdf).  Jeenah maintains that such a circumstance does exist in Israel, especially with respect to the issues of citizenship and land ownership.   With respect to citizenship, Jeenah points to the Absentee Property Law and the Law of Return.  In the case of land ownership, Jeenah asserts that Palestinian citizens of Israel (non-Jews?) are prohibited from owning or using land that is classified as “national”.

Now, I have not studied the debates on this subject extensively, and so maybe evidence exists that would refute Jeenah’s assertions.  But prohibiting discussion on the question of whether Israel has policies and laws that privilege and advantage a group on the basis of ethnicity gets us nowhere.  Furthermore, asking which countries in the world constitute “apartheid states” is an important academic question, and studying this could shed light on political processes more generally.  The Canadian Israel lobby, and its expedient use of the accusation of anti-Semitism to equate criticism of Israel with racism, needs to be faced head on.  Historical injustices suffered by groups cannot be used as a weapon to prevent people from trying to understand what is happening in the world.