Offended by Offence

In studies of aboriginal policy in Canada, comparisons are often made with Australia.  Although it is an area that I have not studied extensively, the publication of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry led me to communicate with a number of researchers, writers and scholars in Australia – most notably, Joseph Lane, Bill Kerr, Kerry Craig Miller, Roger Sandall, and Peter Sutton.  Sandall and Sutton, in fact, have both published very interesting and insightful books in this decade.  Sandall wrote The Culture Cult: Designer Tribalism and Other Essays in 2001 (http://www.rogersandall.com), where he offered a scathing critique of the current romanticization of primitiveness.  Sutton, an anthropologist and former native land rights advocate, recently published The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and the end of the Liberal consensus (2009).  In this book Sutton questions the ”liberation politics” focus that began in the 1970s, and documents how policies promoting aboriginal political autonomy have resulted in a decline in health, education and safety in aboriginal communities (www.amazon.ca/Politics-Suffering-Indigenous…/dp/0522856365). 

While interacting with these commentators, I became aware of of the works of Noel Pearson.  Pearson, an aboriginal lawyer and activist from North Queensland, has been writing about Australian aboriginal issues for over 20 years.  He recently published Up From the Mission: Selected Writings (www.bookoffers.com.au/up-from-the-mission-selected-writings-noel-pearson/) and contributed a substantial piece to Quarterly Essay (Issue 35, 2009), entitled “Radical Hope: Education and Equality in Australia (www.quarterlyessay.com), which I have in my possession.

Pearson’s essay, “Radical Hope”, has much to recommend it.  It sheds new light on some of the nonsense that is being perpetuated under the guise of “cultural appropriateness”.  Pearson notes how these assertions often “became an alibi for anti-intellectualism, substandard educational programs and ultimately an excuse for poor achievement” (p. 59).  He also is critical of the attempts to foster “self-esteem” through racial pride without cultivating the necessary academic mastery and effort (pp. 85-87).  Most important is his criticism of the work of Paulo Freire (of Pedagogy of the Oppressed fame), which Pearson maintains has “added to the perpetuation of oppression by diverting education away from what the oppressed really needed” – the teaching of fundamentals that makes genuine critique possible (pp. 80-81).  Particularly relevant to understanding the current crisis in aboriginal policy are Pearson’s insights that draw upon the work the late Maria Lane.  Lane argues that there is an upper strata of aboriginal people who are ”usually professionals and established graduates, in permanent employment in government and academia, sending their children to private schools, thoroughly immersed in the Open Society but often seeing themselves as spokespersons and champions of, building their secure careers on the backs of, and gaining their kudos from, the Embedded [welfare] Population” (cited in Pearson, p. 98).  Much more work needs to be done in investigating the interaction of this strata with the Aboriginal Industry, which is presumably connected to the “ideology-producers in the academies, and the ideology-upholders in educational bureaucracies” mentioned by Pearson (p. 92).

Where the essay fails is its inability to recognize the cultural developmental gap that exists between tribal societies (still influenced by hunting and gathering and/or horticultural modes of production) and modernity.  This makes it difficult for Pearson to analyze the difficulties of many of the cultural preservation strategies that he proposes.  Pearson advocates for the preservation of aboriginal languages and indefinite perpetuation of remote Australian communities, even maintaining that the aboriginal relationship to the land is “spiritual” (p. 72).  He argues, for example, that government should fund the teaching of aboriginal languages and that their “low numbers of speakers, the absence of a literary tradition, the lack of a terminology to describe modern realities, [and] declining transmission” is not an obstacle to them “becoming a language for a first-world modern society” (p. 70).  But, as is pointed out in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, these languages, because they evolved in a hunting and gathering/horticultural context, do not have the concepts to facilitate communication in a much more advanced economic and social system (see pp. 201-212).  Besides, because these languages were pre-literate and not formally taught, most of the people involved in indigenous language “revitalization” are non-aboriginal linguists who benefit from maintaining aboriginal isolation from the mainstream (so they can obtain contracts to teach these languages).

This is not to deny aboriginal people the right to hold their beliefs and practice their culture to the extent that it is emotionally satisfying (and consistent with universal human rights codes).  But this is a different matter than governments funding and promoting the continuation of native spirituality and pre-literate languages.  These elements are not conductive to facilitating aboriginal participation in a modern society and economy.   Many aspects, like animistic “world views”, actually inhibit participation by encouraging irrational beliefs that directly conflict with the teaching of scientific theories such as evolution by natural selection. 

Sutton’s book, unlike Pearson’s piece in Quarterly Essay, does acknowledge the developmental gap between tribal societies and modern cultures (although he does not put it in exactly these words).   He notes a number of cultural aspects associated with aboriginal peoples’ hunting and gathering tribal societies that are incompatible with their full participation in modern society.  Some of the problems include unhygienic practices (due to a lack of cultural experience with sedentarism), difficulties in controlling violent outbursts and property damage, and, most importantly, what Sutton calls a lack of “emotional mobility” (the capacity to feel comfortable in environments where one is interacting with strangers).  Sutton realizes that these problems, due to the rapid transition from tribalism to civilization, will need to be discussed openly if aboriginal deprivation and dysfunction are to be addressed.

What needs to be investigated are the various attempts to integrate groups with primitive cultural characteristics into more developed societies.  One success story is the case of Cuba.  After the Cuban revolution, there were many problems in trying to improve the educational levels and heath conditions of the peasantry.  By sending hundreds of thousands of teachers and doctors into the countryside, dramatic improvements were made in literacy and health conditions.  This was done, not by transferring billions of dollars to various aboriginal organizations, which is what has occurred in Canada, and presumably Australia.  Because these funds are siphoned off by non-aboriginal lawyers and consultants instead of being provided to educational and health services, the terrible problems in aboriginal communities remain.

Before the beginning of the Grey Cup final, the head coach, Marc Trestman, led all the players of the Montreal Alouettes in a group prayer.  In other words, he asked, in the words of Ambrose Bierce, that “the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single [or in this case multiple] petitioner, confessedly unworthy”.  Furthermore, Trestman was requesting that the “laws of the universe be annulled” so as to favour the Alouettes, at the expense of the players of the other team (the Saskatchewan Roughriders).

Throughout the game, it appeared that something had gone terribly wrong with this strategy; it looked as if the Alouettes were going to be soundly beaten.  Had they prayed to the wrong God (a distinct possibility considering the amount of competition)?  Perhaps they had not prayed “properly”, or maybe it was the Roughriders that God really liked, despite the fact that they had not prayed before the game (their ascent to the Grey Cup final, after all, had a slight resemblance the trials and tribulations encountered by the character of Jesus in the story of the Bible)?  Or maybe, God just had other plans for them.  In the end, however, God came to his senses.  He made Saskatchewan put too many players on the field, which then gave the Alouettes another field goal chance.  Then God dutifully guided the ball through the goal posts, enabling the Alouettes win by one point (28 to 27).

Andre Agassi, in his recent book Open, castigated Michael Chang for the same behaviour that was exhibited by Trestman: “He thanks God – credits God – for the win, which offends me. That God should take sides in a tennis match, that God should side against me, that God should be in Chang’s box, feels ludicrous and insulting. I beat Chang and savor every blasphemous stroke.”  I also think that Agassi remarked, although I cannot find the quote, “as if God doesn’t have better things to do!”.

If an all-knowing, all-powerful, Creator of the universe (i.e. matter) does exist, which is, to say the least, highly improbable, are we to take seriously the assumption that He is looking down from the sky and watching the Grey Cup final?!  The actions of Trestman would constitute just the nonsensical actions of one individual, but imposed team prayers during sporting events are a common occurrence.  What about those players who don’t believe in God and feel uncomfortable supplicating themselves before unsubstantiated supernatural forces?  To object would result in the accusation of not being a “team player”.  Why are these activities not being publicly opposed?

In Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, there is an article entitled “Natives drop out of talks with B.C., Ottawa”, by J.P. Squire (November 27, 2009, p. A11).  In the article, it is noted that the Westbank First Nation “has dropped out of treaty negotiations with the provincial and federal governments, warning other bands may follow in their footsteps”.  For people not familiar with the infamous B.C. Treaty Process, it began in 1993.  As of January 2007, if involved 57 claimant groups, with only a few agreements being signed (the nature of this legal boondoggle is discussed in more detail in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry on pages 85-87).

The article is notable for a number of reasons.  First of all, it notes that “provincial and federal governments have spent more than $1-billion in negotiations”, and that most of this has been squandered.  Secondly, the bands are pulling out of the process and are going to pursue their demands through the courts instead – an even more expensive strategy.  Sophie Pierre, the chief commissioner of the organization that heads the process, for example, notes that “the recent Chilcotin case…took 339 court days and cost more than $30-million…”.   Finally, what is wanted by Robert Louie, the chief of the Westbank First Nation, and presumably other bands, is “an unconditional, absolute and unfettered declaration of aboriginal title over our land”.

Such demands are based on the erroneous idea that aboriginal groups are “nations”, and thus should have sovereignty over their lands.  But aboriginal groups are very small, and even with substantial resource rents, can never become “self-determining” like actual nations such as Quebec.  Because aboriginal groups will always be inextricably intertwined with the Canadian economic and political systems, the Crown will never provide them with “absolute and unfettered…aboriginal title”.   Because these lands abut against areas – both aboriginal and non-aboriginal – there must be some overarching authority – either a provincial or federal government – to make binding decisions upon the entire population.

Although classical liberal commentators have remarked about the destructiveness of this circumstance for liberal democracy, it should be stressed that these legalistic, and unresolvable, arguments are extremely harmful for aboriginal people.  Instead of the money being spent on much needed social programs, they are going into the pockets of lawyers, consultants, linguists, anthropologists, and so on – all the professionals who have the “expertise” to pursue land claims.  In addition, aboriginal people have been sold the false hope of “national self-determination” and “sovereignty” and will become increasingly resentful as this dream remains forever unrealized. 

There needs to be an honest discussion of how to resolve the conflicts between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, so that there can be an effective response to the legitimate grievances of the native population.  The land claims route will never do this, as its intent is to keep the processes going rather than to address the underlying causes of aboriginal dependency and social dysfunction.

It has just come to my attention that Norman Levitt died on October 24, 2009 (http://spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7652/).  I never met Norman, but became aware of his views through reading the book that he co-authored with Paul Gross, entitled Higher Superstition: the Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science.  After reading his book I contacted Norman by email, and he generously provided me with a number of insights that helped Albert Howard and I write our book Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry.

Although the subtitle of Higher Superstition is a little misleading, in that it refers to the “Academic Left” when “postmodernism” or “pseudoleft” would be a better description, the work is invaluable in that it offers one of the first comprehensive critiques of epistemological relativism and its corrosive effects on a scientific worldview - defined by Alan Sokal as “a respect for evidence and logic, and for the incessant confrontation of theories with the real world; in short, for reasoned argument over wishful thinking, superstition and demagoguery” (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/nyu_forum.html). It also prompted Alan Sokal to submit a parody article (later to become known as the “Sokal hoax”), “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, to the postmodern journal Social Text.  This journal accepted Sokal’s parody as a real, academically credible article, because it pretended to oppose the “(so-called) scientific method” and to end “the [enlightenment] dogma that…there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity”.

Norman Levitt’s struggle against postmodern relativism lives on.  It is particularly relevant in that the opposition to science is still being promoted under the auspices of left-wing ideology (see, for example, the paper on the Aboriginal Policy page of this blog - “Indigenous Knowledge(s) and the Academy”).  Levitt was very effective in exposing this pernicious development, which was masquerading as ”progressive politics”.  As Stuart Derbyshire explains, “Levitt was brilliant at uncovering attacks on science made under the guise of ‘democratisation’. He rightly pointed to the absurdity of advocating teaching intelligent design or creationism alongside evolution in American schools. Many on the academic left, and Steve Fuller, support this campaign on ‘democratic’ grounds. Levitt correctly observed that teaching creation as science whitewashes the rigours of science and threatens to reduce science to a popularity contest about belief”.

This comment by Derbyshire reminded me of a segment of a recent CBC radio interview with David Suzuki on November 25, 2009 (http://www.cbc.ca/q/pastepisodes.html).  In the program, Suzuki claims that the idea of objectivity is “ridiculous”, and that we should be promoting a diversity of values and beliefs and be open to new ideas.  But what happens if these ideas are contradictory, Dr. Suzuki?  As a “scientist”, shouldn’t you be concerned about the quality of evidence that is put forward to support a claim?  And if you cannot make some objective determination about the evidence, what makes you a scientist, and not an ideologue or mystic?

It is this kind of thinking, in fact, that leads Suzuki, in the “personal foreward” of Wisdom of the Elders to promote the “wisdom” of the “shaking tent” – the Innu’s “traditional way of communicating”.  In his account, Suzuki passes over the essential characteristic of the shaking tent – that a Shaman enters a tent alone and then claims that it shook because he was able to make a connection to the “spirit world”.  Instead, Suzuki relays an Innu story about how “a man once ‘flew’ over a long distance and ’saw’ friends at a winter camp struggling for help.  So the person in the shaking tent sent for help and saved them”.  After recounting this anecdote, Suzuku makes the following comment: “I am not in a position to pass judgement on such stories, but as a scientist, I know that Nature posseses inexplicable mysteries.  We have no theories with which to make sense of many of the phenomena that indigenous people describe”.  He concludes the discussion by stating that “the phenomenon of shaking tents should arouse interest and curiosity rather than dismissive snorts of skepticism” (xxix-xxx).

But Suzuki doesn’t “know that Nature possesses inexplicable mysteries” because he is a scientist.  It is the anti-scientific tendencies in his philosophy that enables him to claim that there are “inexplicable mysteries” in the first place.  A scientist would ask what these “inexplicable mysteries” were, and how they are revealed by the Innu’s belief in the “shaking tent”.  What Suzuki should have said was “when I am not being scientific, I know that Nature posesses inexplicable mysteries”.

Besides, it is not difficult to explain the particular “mystery” that Suzuki describes.  The Shaman goes into a tent, shakes it, and then claims that he was able to do this because of his “powers”.  Then, when something good happens to the community (the “friends struggling for help” being found, for example), the Shaman takes credit for it.  This, of course, makes the community beholden to the Shaman, enabling him to control others for his own benefit.  Encouraging people not to approach the shaking tent with skepticism is to make the Innu susceptible to the Shaman’s manipulation.  It is outrageous and hypocritical for Suzuki, when he is presenting himself as a scientist, not to “pass judgement” on such obvious charlatanism.

On November 7 and 8, 2009, the BBC broadcast the intelligence² debate on the question of whether or not “the Catholic church is a force for good in the world” (http://events.intelligencesquared.com).   In defence of the motion were Archbishop John Onaivekan, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria, and the Right Honourable Ann Widdecombe, Conservative MP and Catholic convert.  The speakers against the motion were Christopher Hitchens, columnist, broadcaster and author of God is not Great, and Stephen Fry, actor, author, comedian and television presenter.

Although the exchange was entertaining and exposed the vacuousness of the Catholic propagandists – the number of audience members supporting the Catholic church declined during the debate from 678 to 268, while the number who maintained that the Catholic church was not a force for good rose from 1102 to 1876 – there were two major problems with the debate and the discussion that it provoked.  The first was that Hitchens and Fry focused on the actions of the church hierarchy, not the essence of Catholicism as a religion.  The sexual abuse of children, for example, is opposed in Catholicism, and for Christopher Hitchens to provide this as a refutation that “the Catholic church is a force for good” is unconvincing.  The argument that the church should just “reverse” its doctrine with respect to women priests, condoms and homosexuality was prominent throughout the proceedings, but this demand misunderstands the nature of religion: Catholic dictates are not followed because they are socially convenient, but because they are believed to be the word of an almighty “Creator”, who can punish or reward us in the afterlife if we choose to disobey or obey “Him”.

This is a fundamental problem of religion more generally – that believers follow religious dictates on the basis that they are the “word of God”, not because they have been critically analyzed to determine if they are beneficial for humanity.  Stephen Fry even maintains that the Catholic church’s “own[ership of] a billion souls at baptism” presents an “opportunity to do something remarkable to make this planet better”.  The problem, for Fry, is not that people can be controlled in this way by the deluded and/or corrupt, but that the benevolent use of  ”soul ownership” is “being constantly and arrogantly avoided”.   This comment fails to recognize the actual problem – the unsubstantiated belief that certain organizations can “own” souls gives them a tremendous capacity to take advantage of the ignorance of their followers.  In fact, there is no evidence that a “soul” even exists.

This avoidance of the general problems of religious belief are related to the second problem of the debate and discussion – that Catholicism is singled out for rebuke.  Christopher Hitchens, in fact, appears to hypocritically avoid the wider issue of the irrationality and destructiveness of religion by reinterpreting, and thus defusing, a question from the floor.  In response to a question asking whether Hitchens “is only against the Catholic Church or against all religions“, Hitchens responds as follows: “the lady in front began by asking me do I only reserve this condemnation for the Holy Roman Church and not for other Catholics, for example like Byzantine Catholics and Protestants and so on; I think that they are all the same equivalent glimpses of the identical untruth [emphasis added]“.

Catholicism, in fact, is singled out for public ridicule because it is an easy target.  Because it is willing to engage in public debate, it receives more than its fair share of criticism.  Imagine, for example, a public debate on whether or not Islam is a “force for good” in the world, or if the Jewish religion is socially beneficial.  In the case of the former, one would risk a fatwa, and with the latter the smear of “anti-semitism”.  Although it is important to expose the hypocisy and deceit of Catholicism, we should ensure that all beliefs in the supernatural are subjected to the same fearless and critical gaze.

On November 23, 2009, Joseph Quesnel, a Policy Analyst for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, wrote an article in the National Post entitled “Nisga’a leading a quiet revolution in northern British Columbia” (http://troymedia.com/?p=5989).  In the article, Quesnel argues that the passage of a law that permits Nisga’a individuals to sell Nisga’a lands is “revolutionary” because it provides them with an advantage not available to aboriginal groups living on reserves.  Rather than having title “held by the Crown and controlled by band councils” under the Indian Act, which results in insecure and weak allotment arrangements that cannot stand up in the courts, Quesnel notes that “property ownership can be taken to the bank” by individual Nisga’a.

According to Quesnel, this development is “an important concession because being allowed to own your own property is the foundation of wealth creation”. In the case of the Nisga’a, they will be able “to finance their own business enterprises by obtaining loans using their home as security”, and thus take an initial step in reducing the poverty that plagues their community – something that Quesnel implies could work in addressing poverty more generally in the native population.  Quesnel’s viewpoint is based on the the work of Hernando de Soto, the Peruvian economist who wrote The Mystery of Capital.  According to Quesnel, de Soto maintains that impoverishment continues in developing countries because the poor do not have legal title to their homes and other belongings.  As a result,  ”they cannot access the capital needed to perform meaningful economic activities”, and must engage in business activities illegally.

While not knowing enough to analyze de Soto’s assertions about developing countries (although his claims appear implausible at first glance), Quesnel’s comments about the benefits of private ownership for aboriginal communities cannot be sustained.   While the Nisga’a may be able to “take” their property ownership “to the bank”, as Quesnel claims, this does not mean that the bank will lend them any money for “business enterprises”.  In order for the bank to do this, the resale value of the house must be equivalent to the money loaned.  This would be unlikely when one considers that these homes are located in isolated locations and “outsiders” buying homes would be subject to “Nisga’a law”; these conditions mean that the market value of these homes would be very small.

And even if the Nisga’a and other aboriginal people were able to “use their home[s] as security”, this would not provide “native Canadians their rightful place within the economy”, as Quesnel asserts.   This is because most people in Canadian society do not become participants in economic processes by “financing business enterprises”.  As was pointed out in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (p. 94), most people participate as wage earners, and it is unrealistic to assume that unskilled, uneducated and isolated aboriginal people who have little knowledge of how the economic system actually works will become movers and shakers in the capitalist system.  Rather than lauding dubious “revolutionary” developments that encourage aboriginal people to start “businesses”, Quesnel would be better to focus on improving aboriginal educational and health services so that the native population will have the skills, values and attitudes to participate in the Canadian workforce.

Over the last two weeks, Christie Blatchford has devoted a number of columns in The Globe and Mail to the fiasco that is known as Caledonia - ”Abandoned, unprotected, afraid.  Afghanistan? No.  The Heart of Ontario” (November 21); “A reign of terror, a trail of OPP inaction” (November 20); “A false date, a shotgun fixation, and a fumbled cross-examination (November 19); “Finally, the weak have a voice against the strong” (November 18); “With a shotgun and his dog, he tried to defend his Caledonia home” (November 17); ”Two standards of policing failed the residents of Caledonia” (November 14); ”A couple terrorized in a ’war zone’  while police stood by” (November 13); “Government preoccupied with how suit seen by natives” (November 11);  and “Just how sensitive is Canada’s native file?” (November 10). 

In these columns,  Blatchford documents how citizens in the town of Caledonia were terrorized by a group of “Mohawk warriors” who were involved in a land claims dispute with the Ontario government.  The reason for Blatchford’s column is a lawsuit initiated by two residents of Caledonia – Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell – against the Province of Ontario.  Brown and Chatwell are suing the government for $7 million for failing to protect them from various forms of harassment, acts of vandalism, and threats of violence.

While Blatchford justifiably focuses on the plight of Brown and Chatwell, and how their lives have been destroyed by the Ontario Provincial Police’s failure to enforce the law, the case raises wider questions about the realization of demands for aboriginal self-government in Canada.  Rather than being an exceptional set of circumstances, the Caledonia debacle is a logical extension of the irresponsible encouragement of the unrealizable rhetoric of “aboriginal nationalism” and “sovereignty”.

The argument underlying “aboriginal nationalism” and ”sovereignty” is that Canadian laws should not apply to native groups.  This is essentially the assumption that “Mohawk warriors” are operating under in Caledonia.  These “warriors” consider themselves to be “sovereign”, and, as a result, have erected barricades, carried out searches, imposed curfews, detained individuals, and issued their own “passports” – actions that are attempting to deny the existence of Canadian law and sovereignty (Canadian passports are recognized throughout the world, unlike Mohawk passports, which will never be pereceived as legitimate by the international community).  The Ontario Provincial Police has essentially accepted this state of affairs because it tacitly recognizes aboriginal self-government.  The combination of the illegitimacy of Canadian law in the eyes of many native groups and political pressure to avoid violent confrontations with aboriginal ”warriors” has resulted in lawlessness.

Defenders of the “Mohawk warriors” will probably argue that aboriginal groups have their own laws, and decolonization requires that this aspect of aboriginal culture be “recognized” and “respected”.  What this view fails to acknowledge, however, is that law is not an aspect of traditional tribal cultures.  As was explained in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (pp. 115-18), and in my paper “The Political Economy of Aboriginal ‘Customary Law’ (available on this blog’s Aboriginal Policy page), tribal groups are organized according to kinship, not legal rational authority, and this means that it is the will of the most powerful faction that prevails.  No procedures or institutions have evolved to accommodate the different interests of rival factions.  Liberal democratic principles such as equality under the law and the protection of individual rights and freedoms do not exist in tribal societies. 

As most of the residents of Caledonia are not related by blood or marriage to the Mohawks of the “Six Nations”, there is no mechanism, or will, to ensure that they will be treated equitably under any regime of aboriginal self-government.  If the claims of “aboriginal nationalism” and “sovereignty” are accepted in the rest of the country, similar catastrophic consequences are inevitable.

On November 17, 2009, TV Ontario’s “The Agenda” with Steve Paikin featured a panel discussion entitled “Religions: Old, New, Borrowed and Blue”.  The participants included Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and psychology professor at the University of Toronto; Lorna Dueck, the Executive Producer and host of Listen Up TV - a Christian take on news and current events; Gretta Vosper, the founder of the oxymoronic Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity; Gerald Filson, the Director of the Office of External Affairs for the Baha’i Community of Canada; and Shabir Ally, the president of the Islamic Information and Dawah Centre (http://www.tvo.org).

While the program’s pretence was to provide some insights into the “evolution of religion”, it turned out to be a shameless promotion of irrationality and silliness.  Religious evolution, after all, is a scientific and anti-religious idea -evolutionary processes negate the idea of an all-powerful and all-knowing “Creator”.  But, to discuss this idea, The Agenda invited four overt believers in unsubstantiated supernatural forces in the universe.  The one, supposedly scientific voice, is a psychology professor who makes nonsensical and vague references to “religious truths”, argues that no empirical claims existed before 1500 A.D. (ignoring the entire body of knowledge accumulated by the ancient Greeks and other pre-modern cultures), and thinks that artistic sensibilities and religious beliefs are similarly “irrational” (failing to understand that while the response to art is emotional and not rational, it does not constitute an irrational belief in a highly improbable “Creator” of the universe).  At the end of the program, Peterson even misleadingly compares the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina to the actions a vengeful God.  After justifiably accosting Gretta Vosper (a Christian who does not follow Christ) for making “incoherent statements”, Peterson opines: ”One of the clear messages in the Old Testament is that if you’re not honest and you don’t walk a careful path then God will come along and wipe you out,  and as much as we might not like to like a God like that and think that is an archaic way of looking at things, I would say that’s exactly what happened to New Orleans, because people think that it was an Act of God so to speak that destroyed the city; it was a hurricane but it wasn’t a hurricane; it was the fact that New Orleans is an unbelievably corrupt city and no one paid any attention to the dykes and millions of dollars of public money were spirited into people’s pockets”.

Although one would understand why Christian (both fundamentalist and nebulous), Baha’i and Muslim representatives would embrace fairy tales, it is disturbing that a clinical psychologist and psychology professor would make such assertions.  In fact, no member of the panel seems to understand the difference between a belief in God and whether or not there is evidence to support the existence of the supernatural.  Ally even baldly states that there is such a thing as the “ontological reality of God”.  To support this assertion he relies upon the “first mover” hypothesis about the origins of the universe (that a “Creator” is needed to explain the existence of matter).  It should be noted that such a view contradicts the first law of thermodynamics – that energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed.  Therefore, one must assume that matter has always existed since the “creation” of matter is not possible.

The “evolution of religion” is an important topic of scientific study. If we are to assume that the apes and other pre-human lifeforms have not developed religion, we need to understand what human characteristics led to the emergence of a belief in the supernatural and its evolution.  We can see, for example, the transition from Animism to monotheistic religions involved the change from concern about controlling nature to an attempt to control human behaviour.  Christianity evolved out of Judaism as humanity needed to make the transition from tribal social relations (an eye for an eye) to societies determined by class relations (turn the other cheek, don’t rebel against the existing order).   Islamic texts, because they evolved out of Animism, not Judaism, still encourage a number of barbaric practices (such as cutting off limbs for stealing and stoning people to death for adultery), unlike the lessons of “peace and forgiveness” drawn from the New Testament.  This episode of “The Agenda”, because it is pandering to religious groups and tacitly assumes that God exists, cannot shed any light on this subject.

During the week of November 2-6, 2009, CBC listeners were subjected to the windbaggery and theatre of Wade Davis, an anthropologist, ethnobotanist, and “explorer in residence” at the National Geographic Society.  These talks were given as the Massey Lectures, which, according to the host Paul Kennedy, are attempts of ”the best minds of our time [to] discuss the issues that face us…” (www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey.html).

In these lectures, Davis argues that “ancient wisdom” matters today, and therefore it is in the interest of all human beings to preserve cultural diversity  (these views also have been published in a book The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World (House of Anansi Press, 2009)).  The important questions that arise from these claims are 1) what is this “wisdom”; and 2) why does it “matter” today.  Unfortunately for the listener, one does not really receive answers to these questions from Davis.  “Wisdom” includes “myth”, “magic”, sacred sites that “eternally inform the present”, a belief in spirits, the efficacy of prayer, and “ancestral powers”, “sacred medicines” and “spirit food”, and many other unsubstantiated conceptions about the nature of humanity, the earth, and the universe as a whole.  The bushmen of the Kalahari, for example, believe that antelope “literally” present themselves to be killed; shamans travel “beyond the milky way” and see things that are invisible to the spiritually challenged; and “enlightened” Buddhists are able to discover “the science of the mind” through meditating in a cave for seven years.

The major source of “evidence” that Davis provides to support the importance of this “ancient wisdom” for today is a confusion of cultural and biological diversity.  Absurd statements are made to support this conflation, including his assertion that every language is an “ancient rain forest of the mind” and the assimilation of even one culture is similar to “dropping a bomb on the Louvre”.  It is also assumed that arguments for cultural evolution must rely on notions of racial superiority, even though the racial basis of culture was rejected by cultural evolutionists even before the 1950s.  What Davis fails to address is how cultural diversity differs from genetic diversity.  Genetic diversity is needed because the biological basis of species remains relatively static, and therefore genetic diversity protects species from environmental shocks; some strains of rice, for example, will be able to withstand drought, and therefore diversity of this foodstuff is necessary for human survival.

This circumstance, however, does not apply to cultural diversity.  Davis assumes that maintaining the wide variety of “world views” that are associated with different cultures is important to human survival, but many of these conceptualizations of the world are not supported by evidence.  If we need to base our interaction with the environment on what is actually true to aid our future survival, how will we be able to act decisively in the face of contradictory opinions?  Either human beings migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago (as Davis himself asserts), or different people were created by their vision of “Mother Earth” or “Father Sky”.  To accept both viewpoints equally as “wisdom” is to paralyze our capacity as a species to understand our common history and act in cooperation to protect our future survival.

Besides his erroneous conflation of cultural and biological diversity, the other major source of support for Davis’ assertions about the importance of “ancient wisdom” come from his own politically motivated observations.  The two most significant instances concern his statements about the amazonian understanding of the pharmacological properties of plants and the navigation skills of ancient polynesian peoples.  According to Davis, he “witnessed dazzling examples of pharmacological wizardry” in the Amazon, and that polynesian navigators do not need instruments in their boats to find islands thousands of miles away.  Davis maintains that these navigators are able to achieve similar navigational feats as European sailors because of their exceptional memories and intuition; these navigators use the “needle of the compass that was the sky” and orient their vessels with the “feel of the water”.

Davis’ observations, however, should be regarded with skepticism.  The claims about the polynesian navigators are almost surely apocryphal (Davis notes, for example, that thick clouds thwarted a navigator until he envisioned the island in his mind and the sun came out).  It is also important to note that the pharmacological knowledge of another group, the Penan, was created by Davis and others by implanting these ideas in the interview process.  This is revealed by J. Peter Brosius who conducted interviews with the Penan ten years before Wade Davis arrived on the scene, but uncovered no indigenous pharmacological knowledge at that time.  After Davis and other athropologists and environmentalists talked to the Panan, however, Brosius discovered that the Penan began to assert that they did have this knowledge.  As Brosius points out, Davis and others created “a kind of ethnographic hall of mirrors” whereby they brought knowledge obtained from elsewhere to the Penan “who then repeat it back to [others] who take it as an exemplar of the depth of indigenous knowledge”.  Brosius surmises that this came out of ”the myriad conversations that have occurred between Penan and the environmentalists who have visited them.  Penan take note of the Euro-American gaze on medicinal plants and turn it back to them as commentary”.  J. Peter Brosius, “Engangered Forest, Engandered People: Environmentalist Representations of Indigenous Knowledge”, in Roy Ellen et al. (ed), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformations (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000), p. 307.

This is the title of a full page ad in The Globe and Mail on November 7, 2009.  The ad is promoting the integration of children with Down syndrome into regular schools.  It is noted that “when all students learn together, diversity is valued, personal growth and citizenship is enhanced and equity experienced”.  It then goes on to promote the existence of Down syndrome in society more generally: “celebrate the birth of a child with Down syndrome.  It’s better for everyone!  That’s the kind of world we want all of our children to inherit”.  The Canadian Down Syndrome Society (http://www.cdss.ca), which sponsored the ad along with TD Waterhouse, has a vision of “a proud Canada, where ALL are welcome, we embrace diversity and we value everyone’s genes equally” and a mission “to ensure equitable opportunities for all Canadians with Down syndrome.  This means, to make sure all Canadians with Down syndrome have the right supports to give them the same opportunities as everyone else”.  It asserts that people with Down syndrome are “unique” and even states that that they “are going to post-secondary schools, working and getting married”.

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society appears to be intent on conflating two goals so as to disguise the enormous problems of providing “equal opportunities” to people with Down syndrome.  The first is the indisputable goal of treating those with Down syndrome respectfully, and ensuring that they have a high quality of life.  The second, appears to suggest that people with Down syndrome should be able to participate in society just like everyone else.  Down syndrome, it is implied, is not a mental disability, but constitutes a “community” that makes Canada “more diverse”.  We are even told that people with Down syndrome are “going to post-secondary schools” – a strange circumstance when one considers that ”all individuals with Down syndrome have some degree of mental retardation” and therefore “learn more slowly and have difficulties with complex reasoning and judgment” (http://downsyndrome.about.com).

The underlying message is that women who are carrying a foetus with Down syndrome should not abort it since to do so is to exhibit the pernicious attitude of “not valu[ing] everyone’s genes equally”.  The Canadian Down Syndrome Society, in fact, argues the following: “we believe that the widespread use of genetic screening for the purpose of identification and termination of fetuses with Down syndrome may adversely affect the quality of life for all persons with Down syndrome and threatens the diversity and vitality that people with Down syndrome and other disabilities currently contribute to many Canadian communities”.  But it should be recognized that people with Down syndrome are mentally disabled, and also have a host of other health problems, including heart defects and gastrointenstinal difficulties.  Intensive medical care and life-long supervision is usually required, which places a great burden on parents and society as a whole.  These problems should be recognized for what they are, and not hidden with euphemisms such “unique”, “community” and “diversity”.

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society is an organization that has existed since 1987, and it appears to have established itself as an integral part of the Disability Industry.  It has a board of ten parents of children with Down syndrome and two adults with Down syndrome.  It  also has an Executive Director, a Public Relations Manager, an Advocacy Leadership Manager, a Development Associate, a Marketing and Communications Manager, a Finance Manager, and a Membership Coordinator.  Although all these people assert that those with Down syndrome should have a “voice”, it is they that have, for financial or ideological reasons, become the mouthpieces for a group that obviously does not have the mental capacity to speak for itself.

The CBC is giving a great deal of play this week to the perceived problem of “language loss”.  On November 2, 2009, Carol Off interviewed Anthony Aristar, a Professor of Linguistics at Eastern Michigan University, on As it Happens.  In the interview Aristar discusses a conference where there will be an attempt to develop a database of “endangered languages” to “keep the dialects from dying” (http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/).

In this episode of As it Happens, it is also noted that Wade Davis will be discussing this problem in the CBC Massey Lectures 2009 – five one hour talks on Ideas, November 2-6, 2009 (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey.html).  According to Barbara Budd, Davis’ main argument, drawn from his book The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World, is that “when a language dies it means the extinction of a culture, and when a culture is lost part of our humanity is lost and our ability to adapt to the world around us diminishes”. 

Although I will provide a more thorough critique of Davis’ work in future posts, it should be noted that this view relies on a major misconception – the confusion of cultural with biological diversity (a confusion discussed in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry on page 212).  Because biology is rooted in genetics and is relatively unchangeable, biological diversity is beneficial by ensuring that lifeforms can survive environmental shocks.  Culture, on the other hand, can change very quickly, and it can be transformed to aid survival.  Perpetuating pre-literate languages that are spoken by only a few people does nothing to enhance the current survival of humanity, which requires the intense interaction and cooperation that is facilitated by a common language.

Jian Ghomeshi was just interviewing Patrick Healy, a reporter with the New York Times, about a story he wrote (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/advocacy-group-opposes-miracle-worker-casting-choice/) concerning the opposition to the casting of Abigail Breslin as Helen Keller in the Miracle Worker on Broadway – http://www.cbc.ca/q/pastepisodes.html.  The casting is being opposed because Breslin is able-bodied, and not blind or deaf.

This issue is significant for two reasons.  First, it exposes the reach of the disability studies industry, and how it creates work for itself.  If a deaf and blind person were hired to play Helen Keller to ensure the role was “authentic” and not “robbing the voice” of the disabled,  a number of advocates would have to be involved to facilitate this process. 

Secondly, it inadvertantly raises the questionable claims that are being made about Helen Keller.  Helen Keller was blind and deaf from the time she was a toddler, yet it is asserted that she learned to communicate by having the signing of letters pressed into her hand (to spell W-A-T-E-R while her other hand was held under a stream of water).  It is also asserted that mastering the English language in this way enabled Keller to graduate from university and write a number of books.  Every aspect of Ms. Keller’s communication, however, was “interpreted” by her teacher Annie Sullivan – the woman who claims to have taught Keller to read and write.   This seems to be a very suspicious circumstance that requires further investigation.  After all, imagine the difficulties that a director would have in trying to cast a deaf and blind actor to play Helen Keller in the story supposedly documenting her life.

James Bell, the editor of Nunatsiaq News, has compiled an interesting chronology of the response to Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry on his website Advocatus diaboli – http://titiraqti.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/disrobing-the-disrobers-1/

On November 7-10, in Montreal, a conference is being held on Religion in Quebec.  Of particular significance is the “Issues for Canada’s First Nations Peoples” panel, on Sunday from 1-2:30 p.m.   The papers being presented include the following:

Mark F. Ruml, University of Winnipeg
Respectful Methodology: Ethical and Procedural Guidelines for Aboriginal Research

This paper presents the conclusions of a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Research Development Initiative. The purpose of the project was to develop, through interviewing Aboriginal Elders, a set of ethical and procedural guidelines for Aboriginal research, grounded in Aboriginal language and worldview concepts. The results are uniquely tailored to fit research directly related to Aboriginal cultural groups in Manitoba, Northwestern Ontario, and Saskatchewan but are of value and relevance to Aboriginal research in general. Research has revealed that the Dakota concept mitakuye owasin (“All my relations”) and the Ojibwe concept gagige inakonige (“eternal natural law”) are central concepts expressing cultural values and ethics important for guiding research. In both of these concepts, “respect” is the underlying cultural value, hence the title “Respectful Methodology.” This paper provides a unique contribution to the emerging discourse related to Aboriginal research ethics and procedures.   

David Walsh, Arizona State University
Canada’s Traditional Knowledge Policy and Problems of Intercultural Dialogue 

In 1993 the Government of the Northwest Territories of Canada developed the first Traditional Knowledge Policy. The policy incorporates traditional knowledge assessments into government programs and services. This breakthrough in intercultural exchange publicly legitimizes indigenous worldviews in contemporary affairs. However, it is also bringing to light inherent misunderstandings by non-native people of indigenous religious worldviews, and more importantly the inability of governmental agencies and corporations to incorporate the traditional knowledge being presented in meaningful ways. Through analyzing transcripts of traditional knowledge assessments I will highlight the underlying epistemologies in statements made by First Nations people. This is contrasted to Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard’s criticism of the traditional knowledge policy in ‘Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry,’ 2008. My paper will explore the epistemological assumptions of the various parties, demonstrating how the policy brings to the forefront the problem of miscommunication that has plagued exchanges between First Nations and non-native peoples.  

Suzanne Owen, Leeds Trinity
Sources of Contemporary Mi’kmaq Spirituality  

Many Mi’kmaw spiritual leaders spoke of learning ceremonies from neighbouring and Plains Indian peoples. The Conne River Mi’Kmaq of Newfoundland host an annual powwow in July conducted according to established protocols. As evidenced in the powwow itself, centred on dance displays and ceremonies that have Plains Indian origins, individual testimonies also indicate an extensive inter-tribal sharing of traditional knowledge and ceremonies from spiritual leaders belonging to Mohawk, Cree and other First Nations. In turn, Mi’kmaq are sharing their ceremonies with Labrador Inuit and other visitors. As well as challenging the category ‘indigenous religion’, this paper examines the question of indigeneity itself, particularly in the Newfoundland context where, until recently, only the extinct Beothuk were considered ‘aboriginal’.