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.

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.

In today’s Edmonton Sun, there is a column by Andrew Hanon about the continuing controversy concerning the speech that I gave at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA) on February 26, 2010 (www.edmontonsun.com/news/columnists/andrew_hanon/2010/03/04/13104741.html).  One professor from the University of Alberta, Cora Weber-Pillwax, and Michelle Rost and Sarah Auger (who I believe are two graduate students at the same university), have put out a press release condemning the Alberta Teachers’ Association for allowing me to speak in Edmonton.  These “humanitarian” censors make the libelous claim that I have “racist and assimilationist views”, and therefore am “unfit to speak to school teachers” and a “threat to the sense of security of every aboriginal child in Alberta” (see Press Release – Weber-Pillwax et al. on the Aboriginal Policy page of this blog). 

Fortunately, both GETCA and the Alberta Teachers’ Association are standing up to this intimidation.  Patrick Loyer, the Association representative who debated me after the speech, realizes that it is important for teachers to hear critical viewpoints and that aboriginal educational policy should be openly debated and discussed.  Hopefully the integrity and courage of these organizations will enable others to express their critical opinions and we can actually have real debate, as opposed to school yard name-calling, on aboriginal policy in this country.

What also needs to be recognized is the reason behind Weber-Pillwax’s opposition to frank speech about aboriginal education policy.  Weber-Pillwax has a Ph.D. in “First Nations Education” from the University of Alberta, which values the incorporation of indigenous “perspectives and experiences” and “indigenous ontologies and epistemologies” in the educational system.  She also teaches a course entitled  ”Indigenous Research Methods” that explores “culturally appropriate research methodologies for Indigenous peoples”. Some of these “methodologies” are “interpretive” and are developed “within the context of Indigenous research ethics, paradigms and strategies…” and “structured in the context of the relationship between formal research and the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples” (http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckw/cora.htm).  Her views have been published in two articles (“Indigenous Research Methodologies”, Canadian Journal of Native Education, 2001 Vol 25(2) 166-174 and “Principles of Indigenous Research Methodology”, Journal of Educational Thought, January 1999).

Now, while I have not examined the rigour of Weber-Pillwax’s work, her use of the qualifier “indigenous” before “research methods” is indicative that the personal authority of various indigenous “knowledge keepers” will be uncritically accepted. This means that unsubstantiated opinions and spiritual mythology will be accepted as “knowledge” within the education system.  Weber-Pillwax wants to prevent the expression of ideas that would delegitimize her position as a “Specialization Coordinator of Indigenous Peoples Education” at the University of Alberta.  Pretentious arrogance and bullying are the only ways to prevent her dubious teaching philosophy and research agenda from being disrobed.

While many well-meaning people might condescendingly support Weber-Pillwax so as to raise aboriginal “self-esteem”, accepting the notion that there are “indigenous research methods” is very destructive to the educational achievement of native students in Alberta.  The disturbing statistics about aboriginal education are well known; how will these be improved if aboriginal students are not provided with high quality educational services that enable them to become critical thinkers and understand and use rigorous methodologies?  Aboriginal students need highly qualified teachers who will help them to acquire the skills that they need to participate in a wide variety of occupations.  Schooling them in “indigenous research methods” will only act to justify their marginalization from the mainstream and further entrench their dependency on the non-native “helpers” in the Aboriginal Industry.

On Friday February 26, I spoke at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA).  I was invited to speak by Hope Knudsen, the President of GETCA, after she heard me interviewed by Michael Enright on CBC radio on June 14, 2009 about Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (the interview is available on the Video/Audio/Interviews page of this blog and the CBC’s website).  In the interview, I argued that funding for aboriginal education was being diverted to non-aboriginal lawyers, consultants, and comprador aboriginal elites, and this money should be spent on hiring specially trained teachers to improve native educational deficiencies.

Ms. Knudsen was honestly responding to the ideas that were being presented, and was unaware that they were controversial.  She was unprepared for the fact that there are a number of people in Canada who do not want critical viewpoints on aboriginal policy development to be expressed, either because of their vested interests or the fact that they are “humanitarian” opponents of free speech – an ideology that is discussed in “the kindly inquisitors” post on this blog.  ”Humanitarians” maintain that ideas should not be criticized if this ”causes hurt” or “gives offence” (especially if the ideas are being put forward by groups that have been the historical victims of oppression). 

The first I became aware of the opposition to my speech was on the arrogantly irrational website of Taiaiake Alfred, a romantic indigenous “warrior” employed in the University of Victoria’s Indigenous Governance advocacy program.  A posting from “Barry” on February 10, 2010 noted that “unbelievably, Ms. Widdowson is being allowed to speak at an upcoming Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA) convention at the end of this month. Upon finding this out today I have contacted one of the Local presidents of the Alberta Teachers’ Association as well as the president of GETCA to find out how this has happened and to inquire if they know who it is they have invited. Ms. W. is not part of a panel (this I would have encouraged) but will, to my understanding, have a captive audience with her as the sole presenter. I am appalled! However, I promise that I will condense many of the arguments presented here and confront her when she appears in Edmonton.  I am expecting she will be as slippery as anything I have heretofore encountered” (http://www.taiaiake.com/42).

It was no surprise, therefore, when, upon returning from dinner the night before I was scheduled to speak, I found a message on my answering machine inviting me to come for a drink with the conference organizers.  Upon arrival, the organizers informed me that one professor and two graduate students from the University of Alberta had been lobbying to have me excluded from the program.  Fortunately, GETCA was standing firm but they were concerned about the reception that I might receive; I assured them that I was not worried, and hoped that the humanitarian censors from the University of Alberta would attend the session and engage me in a civil debate.  It was then decided that another session, presented by Patrick Loyer, “Addressing Aboriginal Learning Outcomes”, would be cancelled so that he could comment on my speech (presumably so that the convention could meet the demands of people like “Barry”, who were concerned that I would have a “captive audience”).  Loyer’s session was intending to show that ”it is becoming increasingly important for all teachers to know about aboriginal history and culture to address curriculum outcomes”.  He was also going to distribute a document entitled Education is Our Buffalo: A Teachers’ Resource for First Nations, Métis and Inuit Education in Alberta” (produced by the Alberta Teachers’ Association, and also available on the internet – http://www.ldaa.ca/assets/pdfs/freeResources/EducationIsOurBuffalo.pdf ).

Although I was pleased that Loyer would be providing comments, because bringing together opposing viewpoints is how we move closer to the truth, his response to my speech ”Speaking Frankly About Aboriginal Education” (the transcript/speaking notes is available on the Aboriginal Policy page of this blog), was very disappointing.  This was because Loyer appeared not to have read my work and did not provide any evidence for his criticisms, but instead relied upon the biased commentary of people like James Frideres and Peter Kulchyski.  Loyer began with the inane observation that my speech ”was only words”, and then went on to make the following points:

1. That I discussed technological development that had occurred in Europe but had not recognized the sophistication of aboriginal technology (when pressed, the example that he came up with was the canoe).

2. My presentation gave the appearance of being reasonable and offering conclusions, but it did not “meet the minimum of research” (the wording of the unsubstantiated argument was very familiar, and was likely plagiarized from a speech given by James Frideres in December 2008  that was subsequently posted on the internet).

3. That I had a “euroecentric” view of science and used methodology that was akin to ”logical positivism” (an argument that was not substantiated and appears to have been plagiarized from Sandra Tomsons). 

4. I was guilty of “intellectual dishonesty” (a claim that was not substantiated, and presumably plagiarized from Peter Kulchyski);

5. Aboriginal peoples also had made advancements in science, mathematics and logic; the substantiation for this claim was the example of the Mayan calendar. 

6. That I had dismissed aboriginal oral traditions, which have value because they have been around for a long time.

While these criticisms were superficial and largely unsubstantiated, there was some fruitful dialogue that took place in the question period.  One of the most important outcomes was that I was able to articulate how important science was for all people, and that assertions about “eurocentric science” discouraged non-Europeans from accessing this essential educational tool.  The fact that GETCA stood up to the political pressure and allowed the talk to go forward also was a victory for science and a blow to the “humanitarian” agenda of censoring ideas under the auspices of professed offence.  As Rauch points out, we have to realize that “humanitarianism” is contrary to critical thinking and scientific progress because it fails to understand that “knowledge does not come free to any of us; we have to suffer for it.  We have to stand naked before the court of critical checkers and watch our most cherished beliefs come under fire.  Sometimes we have to watch while our notion of evident truth gets tossed in the gutter.  Sometimes we feel we are treated rudely, even viciously.  As others prod and test and criticize our ideas, we feel angry, hurt, embarassed” (Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors, p. 125).

Recently, there have been a number of newspaper articles about the ongoing troubles at the First Nations University of Canada (FNUC).  Since its designation as a university in 2003, the educational institution (the title of “university” is somewhat of a misnomer, since its degrees are granted by the University of Regina) has had continual problems with governance.  In 2005, a taskforce was formed after Morley Watson, the chair of the Board of Governors, dismissed several administrators, copied faculty and student records from university computers, and removed staff from their offices.  There were also allegations that academic freedom was being suppressed.  The taskforce recommended that the 29-member board, largely made up of representatives from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) be reduced to 13 people, where only six would be appointed by the FSIN.  This recommendation was intended to ensure that the board remained at arm’s length from the FSIN, so that academic freedom could be protected from political interference (for a further discussion see (http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?ArticleID=2148&EditionID=9&EditionName=Vol%2055&EditionStartDate=1/17/2008&SectionID=823&SectionName=News&VolID=212&VolumeName=No%205&VolumeStartDate=5/16/2008 and http://www.planetsmag.com/content.php?vn=5&is=18&an=246&sc=2).

These taskforce recommendations, however, were never implemented, and the problems continued to worsen.  The latest episode concerns Murray Westerlund, the Chief Financial Officer, who was fired after he prepared documents in November 2009 alleging financial improprieties.  According to the CBC, “Westerlund raised the alarm about $265,000 in vacation leave paid out as cash to senior staff at FNUC, including $98,000 paid to FNUC president Charles Pratt over four years”.  Westerland also discussed “a $6,500 trip to Las Vegas for three senior staff, approved by Pratt, for a one-day seminar that could have been held in Regina” and $47,000 spent on trips to Montreal and Hawaii. In addition, $2.57 million was spent on a “massive teepee” on the FNUC campus as “a tribute to First nations veterans”.  Westerland maintained that, out of this amount, “$216,000 was paid to veterans and other First Nations people to review plans and ‘monitor progress’” (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/01/22/sk-fnuc-finances-100122.html).

The controversy has led Murray Mandryk, a columnist for the Leader-Post, to speculate about the future of FNUC.  He notes that there are only three things that are currently keeping the university open – “the puzzling ability of the taxpaying public — whether motivated by indifference to what goes on in ‘Indian Country’ or by white-guilt fear of being viewed as too colonial — to overlook the FNUniv mess”, lack of decisive action by either the provincial or federal governments, and “reluctance to mess with a conceptually strong and valued institution”.  He argues for the development of a new board structure, but maintains that the reluctance of the FNUC board to do anything about this will likely result in the eventual Canadian governmental intervention (http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/editorials/FNUniv+running+lifelines/2488229/story.html).

But what about Mandryk’s assertion that the FNUC is a “conceptually strong and valued institution”?  What are the strong concepts that shaped the university’s formation, and how is it valuable?  Why is it necessary to have a separate university (existing in name only), with a large autonomous bureaucratic structure, when much more academic and administrative integrity could have been maintained if the FNUC had remained a college affiliated with the University of Regina?

The FNUC came into existence for two reasons: 1) it allowed for much larger rents to be extracted from the government and distributed to native elites and members of the Aboriginal Industry; and 2) the new designation enabled a lower standard of university qualifications to be awarded to aboriginal students under the guise of “cultural sensitivity”.  Lower qualifications have the advantage of artificially inflating aboriginal rates of participation in post-secondary education, as well as the promise of increasing employment with unsuspecting employers. 

The dubious academic merit of the institution can be seen in the romantic nonsense it proudly proclaims in its “vision” and “mission” statements, where cultural indoctrination masquerades as education.  It is declared that “We, the First Nations, are children of the Earth, placed here by the Creator to live in harmony with each other, the land, animals and other living beings. All beings are interconnected in the Great Circle of Life”.  Concerning educational processes, the following is noted: “the university is a special place of learning where we recognize the spiritual power of knowledge and where knowledge is respected and promoted. In following the paths given to us by the Creator, the First Nations have a unique vision to contribute to higher education. With the diversity and scope of the First Nations degree programs, the university occupies a unique role in Canadian higher education” (http://www.firstnationsuniversity.ca/default.aspx?page=52).

Even worse is FNUC’s “Department of Science”, which is “guided by a strong and caring team of Aboriginal Elders, faculty, students and community representatives” and offers “Aboriginal content and traditional knowledge in science courses where appropriate” and “spiritual…support services and workshops” (http://www.firstnationsuniversity.ca/default.aspx?page=30). Dr. Herman Michell, who used to be the previous “Department Head of Science”, is now the Vice-President (Academic).  In his “Message from the Vice-President (Academic)”, Michell informs students that “as you begin a new year of study, be aware that people who work to acquire knowledge about the world, and about themselves, receive spiritual power from the Creator. Each of us has been given a special path to follow by the Creator, and so your academic year encompasses not just course subject matter and assignments, but also opportunities to learn more about yourself in a friendly, constructive atmosphere enriched by First Nations perspectives, values and beliefs” (http://www.firstnationsuniversity.ca/default.aspx?page=128).

While it is bad enough that the religious denominations have control over educational institutions, and thus are able to legitimize their religious propaganda as a “form of education”, the First Nations University of Canada’s mandate is more pernicious because it conflates irrationality with ancestry (race).  Aboriginal peoples are seen as being naturally “spiritual” and teaching scientific viewpoints, such as the theory of evolution, is perceived as offensive because of their capacity to wreak “cultural genocide” upon a people.  Although the cultural indoctrination is justified under the guise that it will raise aboriginal “self-esteem”, it is very destructive because it encourages aboriginal people, as an ancestral group, to forego critical thinking (at least it is accepted that Christians can “lose their faith” and Muslims can become apostates).  This idea of the inherent spirituality of aboriginal people is now even intruding into secular educational institutions, where prayers, smudging, and sweatlodges are offered to the native population so that they can ”receive spiritual power from the Creator”.

A true understanding of the academic standards at FNUC will only emerge from a rigorous and disinterested comparison of the curriculum, faculty, and administration with other universities in Canada.  Various “aboriginal” degrees and a focus on spirituality, elders’ “wisdom”, and “indigenous knowledge” will ensure that aboriginal students will not acquire the skills needed to participate in actual occupations; they will only be able to work in Indian Affairs bureaucracies or aboriginal communities.  Unqualified aboriginal participation in the latter is particularly disturbing since it will mean that lower standards of services will be provided to isolated Natives, further entrenching their dependency and marginalization.

The following letter was printed in the National Post today(www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2422478).  I have been invited to respond, and will be doing so shortly.  There was one error in my column (and original blog entry); I assumed that the executive director of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation was non-aboriginal, since his ancestry/identity was not stated in his bio.   Determining whether or not someone is “Aboriginal” is becoming increasingly difficult since in certain cases (hiring at Memorial University, for example) one only has to check a box “identifying” as such to be considered an indigenous person.  This means that many people who now identify as ”Aboriginal” have little in common with the isolated members of the native population who, because of their marginalization, are the focus of social policy. 

FW

***

Aboriginal healing group responds

Re: The Aboriginal Healing Boondoggle, Frances Widdowson, Jan. 4.

It is false that “the only ‘evaluation’ of Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF) programs has come from the organization itself.” The AHF and the programs it funds have been audited and evaluated by independent third parties in government and the private sector. These evaluations are available for public view on our website in their entirety. Only in this limited sense are they “from” the organization.

More important, Frances Widdowson’s dismissal of healing itself insults survivors of institutional physical and sexual abuses, mocking the front-line workers who dedicate themselves to battling root causes of poverty, violence, suicide and despair in aboriginal communities. It is these 950 front-line workers, hired by the aboriginal community, who Ms. Widdowson is certain are politically selected persons of privilege.

If she had made a two-minute phone call to the AHF, she would not have described the AHF’s executive director as “the most significant non-aboriginal player”). He is aboriginal.

Other points: healers, whether trained in aboriginal traditions or Western academic methods, have the appropriate credentials; AHF research in aboriginal health is more than a collection of press releases; the AHF operates entirely on interest earned from careful investment of the money entrusted to it and has committed more money to community projects than it has received; a focus on residential schools does not prevent, but rather promotes, understanding of why “many aboriginal people who did not attend residential schools are also suffering from the same symptoms.”

It is understandable that Ms. Widdowson denies the efficacy of aboriginal organizations; positive outcomes are inconsistent with the premise of her book. But the facts would reveal that the AHF is exactly what Ms. Widdowson espouses– a funder of high-quality services that are tailored to the special needs of the aboriginal population.

Mike DeGagne, executive director, Aboriginal Healing Foundation, Ottawa.

The battle with certain members of the Women’s Caucus of the Canadian Political Science Association appears to be entering a new phase.  In a posting on the Women’s Caucus listserve, the distinguished political science professor from McMaster University, Janet Ajzenstat, weighed in with the following (for the full posting see “WC email – Janet Ajzenstat” on the Ethics page of this blog):

“In a recent contribution Jill Vickers speaks of “an issue” but doesn’t elaborate [see  "WC email - Jill Vickers" on the Ethics page of this blog]. She apparently wants to settle an issue. Let me suggest two issues the Caucus might discuss. Neither can be easily settled.

The first is that Kiera Ladner seems to have left herself open to a charge of unprofessionalism. I may not be in possession of all the facts. Correct me if I am wrong. It seems – a number of people may conclude – that Ladner rejected Frances Widdowson’s submission for a panel presentation at the CPSA this spring because it criticizes Ladner’s research.

I’m in touch with Widdowson. I read her Mount Royal University blog. I understand that she was offered a poster session. For goodness sakes! She could fill an auditorium. She should have been invited to address the Congress at large.

Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (with co-author Albert Howard) has attracted almost unprecedented attention in academe and in the public sphere. Widdowson and Howard are major contributors to what many see as the most important domestic problem in this country: the wretched poverty on some reserves, the appalling condition of housing, and aboriginal exclusion from Canadian political life. Not everyone agrees with the analysis in Disrobing, but the argument is extensive, well grounded, and must be addressed openly. A few panel presentations will not suffice. There will be – there should be – continuing exploration of Widdowson’s facts and arguments. She must be allowed to develop her argument and take it in new directions. We can expect years of fruitful debate.

The second – related -  issue is this: Widdowson is tackling the problem of cultural relativism. The book has additional gravity because it deals head on with one of the central philosophical themes of our age. The main outlines of the argument on cultural relativism are well established. I won’t rehearse them. “Aboriginal ways of knowing,” “women’s ways of knowing”: there is every reason to welcome discussion of the subject. Indeed it can’t be suppressed. It cannot be adequately pursued on a poster board.

Widdowson’s current research promises an investigation into the SSHRC’s insistence that research on aboriginal reserves be limited by respect for “aboriginal ways of knowing.” Let me urge the Women’s Caucus to endorse investigation of this topic. Widdowson writes (Mount Royal blog): ‘If the CPSA were really interested in open and vigorous debate, as it claims, it would organize a debate on aboriginal epistemologies in political science between Kiera Ladner and myself.’ I agree. I’d nominate Rhoda Hassmann as commentator/chair”.

Ajzenstat’s comments about cultural relativism are especially pertinent.  If it can be believed, it seems that the question “is criticism of cultural relativism racist?” is being answered in the affirmative by certain members of the Women’s Caucus of the Canadian Political Science Association.  Although there has been no substantiation of the anonymous allegations that “racist remarks” were made and “overt and blatant racism” was expressed in my presentation, a person attending the 2008 Women’s Caucus meeting inferred that it was my “critique of aboriginal epistemology which was racist and offensive” (see the “Email exchange between F and and L” on the Ethics page of this blog).  Because these members of the Women’s Caucus appear to assume that questioning the scholarly value of “aboriginal ways of knowing” is “racist”, they feel that it is appropriate to prevent this viewpoint from being discussed.

But does it make sense to argue that there are “aboriginal ways of knowing”?  To do so is to assume that ancestry (race?!) determines philosophy – a proposition that is actually racist.

This is not to argue the point, as Joanna Quinn has attributed to me (see Letter from Joanna Quinn on the Ethics page), that “aboriginal scholars have nothing to contribute simply because they are aboriginal”.  It is to state that all people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, must use rigorous methods if they are to make a meaningful contribution to political science.   As I pointed out in “Native Studies and Canadian Political Science: The Implications of ‘Decolonizing the Discipline” (see the Advocacy Studies page of this blog), what is referred to as “aboriginal ways of knowing” in the Native Studies literature does not really constitute “knowledge” at all, since it asserts that subjective opinions are fact and maintains that unsubstantiated supernatural forces shape the nature of the universe.

This year marks the ten year anniversary of the creation of a “Gladue Court” – the consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling  that identified “aboriginal over-incaceration as a full-fledged crisis that must be attacked at all levels…”   (www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/courts-falling-short-on-effort-to-keep-natives-out-of-jail/article1412973/).  As a result of this ruling, judges were urged to be sensitive to the circumstances of aboriginal people when sentencing – in  other words, to be more lenient in sentencing so as to reduce the number of Natives being incarcerated.  As Mr. Justice Melvyn Green puts it: “We had to get the numbers down because they were ridiculous”.  

Green also notes, however, that the creation of Gladue courts have not changed this “ridiculous” circumstance.  While aboriginal people make  up only four per cent of the population, they accounted for 24 per cent of those in custody in 2006-7.  The reason given for this by Jonathan Rudin of Toronto’s Aboriginal Legal Services is that ”racism is real, and one of the places it exists is in jail…Aboriginal people have less access to parole and rehabilitation programs”.   It is noted that this problem has not been addressed because prosecutors resist alternatives to sentencing that do not involve jail and defence attorneys do not stress how systemic discrimination has impacted the lives of their clients.  Professor Jane McMillan, an aboriginal legal professor at St. Francis Xavier University, maintains that judges have yet to understand how aboriginal incarceration has been influenced by aboriginal marginalization and the denigration of native culture that has occurred over hundreds of years. 

There are two problems with these assertions, however.  The first is that it is understandable why the justice system would be resistant to the idea of culturally differentiated sentencing, because it flies in the face of one of the fundamental principles of legal systems in liberal democracies – equality under the law.  As we pointed out in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (quoting the work of Julian Roberts and Carol LaPrairie), two of the fundamental principles that have developed in modern legal systems are ”proportionality”  and “equity” – that “the severity of punishments should be directly proportional to the seriousness of the crimes for which they are imposed” and “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”.  These two principles are violated by “culturally sensitive” sentencing and therefore, in the view of Roberts and LaPrairie, constitute a “retrograde rather than a progressive step” (Roberts and LaPrairie, cited on p. 139). 

Secondly, the focus on the percentage of Natives being incarcerated relative to their population ignores the question of the number of criminal acts being committed.  When one considers that the police are reluctant to even enter a reserve without permission, and that there have been few arrests in areas like Caledonia despite widespread lawlessness, it is highly likely that far more aboriginal people are committing crimes than non-aboriginal people and, if anything, are underrepresented in Canadian prisons when one considers the number of illegal activities that are being engaged in.  Although advocacy research like that conducted for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples maintains that the “rule of law” is a principle in traditional “aboriginal governance”, this is not supported with convincing evidence.  On the contrary, the principle operating in aboriginal cultures is kinship reciprocity, which actually conflicts with the idea of equality under the law (since response to social breaches is determined by one’s status within the community).

The large number of aboriginal people being incarcerated reflects the higher than average rates of lawbreaking that occurs in native communities – actions that often involve the acceptance of violence as a means to an end.  Attempting to reduce aboriginal incarceration rates without dealing with this cultural problem will have disastrous results for vulnerable members of the native population (often women and children).  This reality, however, will be ignored by those who are more interested in appeasing native leaders than in identifying, and actually addressing, the root causes of aboriginal problems.

Niki Ashton, the New Democratic MP for Churchill, has organized a petition calling for an extension of the funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation or AHF (http://nikiashton.ndp.ca/ahf).  Eliminating funding for the Foundation (supposedly on March 31, 2010) is opposed in the petitition because the “healing from the impacts of Residential Schools is far from complete after 10 years which is the length of time the Aboriginal Healing Foundation has existed”.

The impact on “healing”, however, is not the only reason given for continuing AHF funding.  Ashton also points out that 950 jobs will be lost if this funding is cut (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Churchill-MP-urges-Ottawa-to-renew-funding-for-healing-foundation-79429022.html).  But what do these “jobs” consist of, and how effective have they been in addressing the pscyhological problems plaguing aboriginal communities?  As there has been no evaluation of the plethora of “healing” initiatives, it is likely that these “jobs” are actually sinecure positions aimed at buying off privileged members of the native population.

The Aboriginal Healing Foundation, in fact, is a classic Aboriginal Industry enterprise.  It emerged out of recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which was another Aboriginal Industry venture (the Royal Commission, in fact, was co-chaired by Georges Erasmus, who is now the President of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation).  The Foundation was made possible by the $515 million healing fund ($350 million and an additional disbursal of $40 million and then $125 million).

And where does all the money go?  An examination of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation’s website indicates a “Board of Directors” of 17 people and an “Elder Advisory Group of the Board” (all with previous experience on other aboriginal organizations), as well as the “Executive Director” (housed in the “Executive Director’s Office”).  These executive members oversee ”staff” in ”Operations”, “Communications”, and “Research”. It is members of this unnamed “staff”, that produce the plethora of written materials – “legal documents”, the “evaluation series”, the “research series”, “newsletters”, “residential school resources”, “press releases & open editorials”, and “speeches”.  The millions of dollars in salaries to these individuals does not count the funds acquired by communities (i.e. Aboriginal Industry consultants) to develop grant applications to be submitted to the AHF.

It appears, however, that certain aboriginal commentators are beginning to expose these Aboriginal Industry machinations.  Gilbert Oskaboose, for example, notes that  “the Aboriginal Healing Foundation in Ottawa is staffed by native fat cats and other bottom feeders who have no problem with growing fat feeding off the bodies of Survivors who never made it this far”.  He goes on to point out that the Executive Director of the AHF made $141,000 last year, and it is not known what the President, Georges Erasmus, made (http://www.firstnations.com/oskaboose/nest-of-maggots.htm).  The career of the Executive Director of the AHF, Mike DeGagné, has been described elsewhere as follows: “he has previously worked with Federal, Provincial, and non-governmental organizations in the health, mental health and addictions areas. He has served as senior negotiator in complex, multi-party negotiations in the Comprehensive Land Claims process. Before joining the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, he held positions with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and the federal government departments of Health Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada…Mr. DeGagné holds a Masters degree in Health Administration, and a Ph.D. focusing on First Nations post-secondary education” (http://www.thedirectorscollege.com/grads_detail.asp?id=1299).

Although Oskaboose is right to attack the self-serving character of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the alternative course of action that he proposes is just as (if not more) destructive than the existing boondoggle – going to court and having money transferred directly to ”survivors” (the term is problematic because it includes not only victims of sexual and physical abuse, but all people who attended residential schools, regardless of their experiences).  Court cases mean that even more money will be siphoned off by the Aboriginal Industry – although it will go to lawyers instead of consultants.  Disubursing monies directly to survivors will not do anything to address the educational, health and housing problems in aboriginal communities.  It will just provide money for gambling, drugs and other consumer goods.  After the money is spent, everyone will be right back where they started, just a little worse for wear.

On January 19, 2009, Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, Canada Research Chair in International Human Rights, Wilfrid Laurier University, sent a letter to the the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics.  The letter was commenting on the revised Draft 2nd Edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS), and it provides a number of criticisms of this document.  Because of the important contribution that this letter makes to the discsusion of research ethics, especially those concerning the study of aboriginal peoples, I have posted it on the Ethics page of this blog (see TCPS research ethics – Howard-Hassmann).

It should be noted that Howard-Hassmann’s criticisms relate to an earlier draft of TCPS, since the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics has just released a revised version in November 2009 (www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/revised-revisee/chapter9-chapitre9/).  This revision involves chapter nine of the draft – “Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples in Canada”.  A review of this document indicates that many of Howard-Hassmann’s criticisms are still valid.  Because of the implications that this revised version has for academic freedom, it is important that people concerned about the rigorous study of aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations analyze this document and submit their comments to draft2e@pre.ethics.gc.ca by March 1, 2010.

The interest in developing special research guidelines for the study of aboriginal peoples began in 2002, when it was asserted that research involving aboriginal peoples should be “based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge, research modalities, and rights and needs”.  As Howard-Hassmann points out, the guidelines that came out of this concern are extremely problematic because they state that aboriginal peoples should be able to control all aspects of research that pertains to them.  Restrictions on research being undertaken with respect to aboriginal communities have been around for a while (for example, an editor at UBC Press told me a number of years ago that his publishing house had protocols in place that stipulated that “the community” had to approve research findings before they could be published), but what is changing is that these restrictions are now being formalized, and therefore will be imposed more widely and deeply across the country.

While it is important that research is controlled to try to prevent harm to individuals (in drug studies, for example), the restrictions being imposed on research being conducted with respect to aboriginal communities are much broader. What one sees is often not the protection of individuals from harm, but an attempt to prevent research that is threatening particular political interests. The result is that studies done in aboriginal communities are more advocacy than research.

This pressure to turn research into advocacy occurs in a number of ways. The first, as is mentioned by Howard-Hassmann, is the focus on “the community”. “The community” usually means the native leadership, and as a result, research that is threatening to those in power is censored. This has been happening informally for a number of years; Noel Dyck mentions that nepotism in aboriginal politics often is silenced out of concern for the image of “the community”. This problem is even greater when leaders are abusers of women and children; research that would document these circumstances often cannot be published, enabling powerful members of the community to oppress the vulnerable unopposed.

This is related to two other points that Howard-Hassmann mentions – preventing “division” and “stigmatization”. Promoting “harmony” in aboriginal communities often amounts to pressuring the marginalized and abused from rising up against their oppressors (as has occurred in many “sentencing circles”). Stopping “stigmatization” means the prevention of studies that indicate high levels of dysfunction. As Howard-Hassmann correctly points out, this inhibits a timely response to address serious social problems. In the case of research into Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) in B.C. for example, a study was halted because a high percentage of children were discovered to have been affected. This censorship is often justified under the guise that it is up to “the community”, not “outsiders”, to deal with the problem. But what if “the community” is in denial? Should the lives of future generations be sacrificed to appease “aboriginal pride”?

Another significant problem concerns, as Howard-Hassmann notes, the definition of “aboriginal knowledge” itself. As Albert Howard and I have also pointed out in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, much of what is referred to as “aboriginal knowledge” is not knowledge at all. It is often the unsubstantiated beliefs of certain members of the native population (usually elders). The result is the demand that assertions unsupported by evidence be accepted within the social sciences, and the questioning of these beliefs is met with all sorts of hostility and demands for censorship (as was shown by the reaction to my presentation on “indigenous methodologies” in June 2008 at the CPSA). The Bering Strait theory, the refutation of the assertion that the Iroquois influenced the American constitution, and the questioning of the claim that aboriginal peoples discovered hundreds of drugs now being used in modern pharmacology, etc., are vehemently opposed because a frank discussion of these ideas are perceived as a threat to aboriginal political aspirations. This has implications for a wide range of academic disciplines; even the scientific enterprise of archaeology is under threat because of the aboriginal “interest” in ensuring that thousand of year old skeletons should remain undisturbed.

There is one statement of Howard-Hassmann’s that requires much more discussion within the academic community. This is her assertion that “…the interests of aboriginal groups must be protected, given their long suffering under colonial and assimilationist policies…”. What are the “interests of aboriginal groups” and how do these differ from those of non-aboriginal people? Are these “interests” perceived as being in conflict with the research that is being undertaken in the social sciences and humanities? One often hears, for example, how science has been “harmful” to aboriginal communities, but no elaboration is provided. There needs to be much more detailed analysis of what such cases consist of, and when these accusations of “harm” constitute an attempt to prevent incovenient truths from being recognized.

With the amazing success of the 2009 New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum held at Mount Royal College (now Mount Royal University), interest was expressed in making the event an annual affair.  Therefore, I am pleased to announce the tentative date of next year’s New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum – May 5, 2010.  It is hoped that Mount Royal University will be able to host this event each year at the beginning of May.

The purpose of these forums is to stimulate open and honest debate about aboriginal policy.  Effort is being made to bring in a wide variety of perspectives for the benefit of students, faculty, and interested members of the public.  It is hoped that the free exchange of ideas in a collegial environment will help to reduce the ideological policing that has plagued discussions of aboriginal policy for so long.

Although the funding arrangements are still being worked out, a number of researchers and scholars have expressed interest in participating in the forum.  In addition to myself and Albert Howard, other potential participants include Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary), Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre for Public Policy), Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina), and Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta).   There is also hope (funding permitting) of bringing in researchers and scholars from Australia and New Zealand to discuss aboriginal policy developments in these countries.

Those interested in this forum should keep an eye on the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page on this blog.  This page will make the draft program available, as well as work from the scholars and researchers presenting at the forum.  The page also will keep a record of information from past forums.

The 2010 New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum is already promising to be a very interesting event.  Tom Flanagan will likely be discussing the ideas in his forthcoming book, written with Christopher Alcantara and André Le Dressay, Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights (see the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page for a description).  As readers of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry will know, Albert Howard and I are very critical of arguments that propose property rights as a solution to aboriginal dependency and marginalization.  This viewpoint, however, has not been extensively debated in the academic community because it is easier for members of the Aboriginal Industry to dismiss Flanagan’s ideas than to subject them to critical analysis.

For more information on this forum, please feel free to contact me at fwiddowson@mtroyal.ca or 403-440-6884.

***

Program update – April 2010

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

8:30-9:00, Coffee

9:00-9:20, Opening Remarks – The kindly inquisition influencing aboriginal policy development

9:20-10:00, Keynote Address – The State of First Nations in Canada Today 

10:00-12:00, Panel I – Private Property and Native Economic Development

12-1:00, Lunch break

1:00-2:45, Panel II – Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law

2:45-3:00, Coffee Break

3:00-5:00, Panel III – Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal 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), Glenn North Peigan (University of Lethbridge), Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre for Public Policy), Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy), Mark Vandermaas (CANACE), Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University)

An important area of investigation that has not yet been undertaken is a comparative analysis of the Aboriginal Industry in different countries.  While Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry focused on Canada, we pointed out that the Aboriginal Industry is not just a Canadian phenomenon.  Canada, in fact, helped in exporting the Aboriginal Industry to the rest of the world with the formation of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples in the 1970s.

One example of the Aboriginal Industry’s machinations in Australia is the $672 million Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (SIHIP).  It was discovered that the program might deliver as few as 300 houses because most of SIHIP funds (about seventy percent) are going towards “indirect costs such as consultants’ fees and travel costs, and administration”.  Blistering criticism has been made of the program by a Tasmanian couple employed as remote audit building managers.  Kerry Gearman and Bronwen King resigned because “rivers of money” were flowing to address indigenous deprivation, but little money was being spent on the ground.  According to Gearman, “an awful lot of this money is going to disappear in consultants’ fees and other things when the hope was the stakeholders would pull together and get something done”.

Many policies in Australia – negotiations about “aboriginal title” and apologies for “stolen generations” – mirror developments in Canada.  There is also evidence that members of the Canadian Aboriginal Industry are influencing policy development in Australia (a consultant for Inuit organizations, for example, has used his experience in lobbying for the creation of Nunavut to advise the Central Land Council in Australia, www.aph.gov.au/HANSARD/reps/dailys/dr011097.pdf, p. 8899).

It would be interesting to see if similar linkages can be made between research in Canada, and the developments in neotribalism and biculturalism that have occurred with the formation of the Waitangi Tribunal in New Zealand (documented by Elizabeth Rata in her book A Political Economy of Neotribal Capitalism (Lexington Books, 2000)).  The emergence of organizations and institutions such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the University of the Arctic also have enabled linkages to form between Canadian members of the Aboriginal Industry and lawyers and consultants working in the northern regions of other countries.

Readers might be interested in the latest Aboriginal Industry boondoggle concerning Manitoba Hydro - Mary Agnes Welch, “Bands reap $160M in dam funding”, The Winnipeg Press Press, December 3, 2009, p. A4 (http://stage.www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/bands-reap-160m-in-dam-funding-78399087.html.  $160 million was transferred to aboriginal groups to hire an ”army of lawyers, consultants, biologists, employment experts and environmental engineers to help negotiate complex flood compensation and joint ownership agreements”; the money also includes “the cost of hiring band members to help with negotiations, long-term studies of traditional knowledge and ratification votes on the deals”.  This amount doesn’t even include what Manitoba Hydro spent on its own lawyers and consultants.

Although there have been attempts to “follow the money”, these efforts have been thwarted.  Access-to-information requests about the specific nature of the pay-outs were denied because of “confidentiality provisions in [Manitoba Hydro's] agreements with the bands, who hire and pay the firms directly and expense the costs to Hydro”.  Such agreements are another mechanism used by the Aboriginal Industry to prevent its self-serving character from being disrobed.   It allows Hobbs and Associates, for example, the primary consultancy firm hired to work on the deal, to “have absolutely no comment” concerning the money it received.

When people ask “where does all the money go” - i.e. how can $15 billion dollars be spent each year on aboriginal programs when people continue to live in Third World conditions - cases like this provide the answer.  These events are not unusual.  They are the mechanisms that the Aboriginal Industry uses to coopt aboriginal leaders so that money can be diverted from the much needed education, health and housing programs for the isolated and dysfunctional elements of the native population.

An interesting book was recently published by Alex Cameron, entitled Power Without Law, but today was the first time that I had heard about it  - ”N.S. Mi’kmaq urge removal of ‘unacceptable’ lawyer, CBC News, November 2, 2009, www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/11/02/ns-treaty-book-complaint.html.  The book is available from the publisher, McGill-Queen’s University Press (http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=2417), as well as www.amazon.ca.

The book promises to be a fascinating read because Cameron represented the Nova Scotia government in the legal battles prompted by the Marshall decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that that aboriginal people had a right to fish commercially.  Cameron evidently believes that the decision provided “a false beacon to native peoples”, as well as being “constitutionally unsound”.  He also argues that the decision exacerbated conflict and brought violence to formerly peaceful communities.  Furthermore, the book reveals the ubiquitous presence of the Aboriginal Industry, which negotiated many agreements worth hundreds of millions of dollars on the basis of the Marshall decision.

Because of Cameron’s book, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs is demanding that he be removed from the position of representing Nova Scotia in constitutional cases involving the Mi’kmaq.   Membertou Chief Terry Paul has stated that “there’s no way we can see where the process would be fair and objective, where he has these very strong views”.  But Cameron is not a judge in the proceedings; he would be putting forward arguments on behalf of the Nova Scotia government.  Should the lawyers for the Mi’kmaq also be prevented from presenting a case that would be favourable to them?  It will be interesting to see if the provincial government caves into this political pressure.

It will also be interesting to see how the conflict in Nova Scotia parallels the cases of Caledonia and Ipperwash.  Was the conflict and violence that occurred due to the problems of trying to incorporate tribal forms of politics into a national political system?

If you scroll down to the post on this blog entitled “Caledonia: A glimpse of aboriginal self-government” (November 23, 2009), you will find a lengthy comment by Mark Vandermaas, the editor of www.VoiceofCanada.ca and co-founder of CANACE (Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality).  I recently became acquainted with Mr. Vandermaas and his organization after he sent me a message in appreciation of Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry.  Vandermaas noted that, while not mentioned specifically in our book, other circumstances that we had documented were eerily reminiscent of what had transpired in Caledonia and Ipperwash (interestingly, Albert Howard and I had followed some of the media coverage and hearings pertaining to Ipperwash, and were disturbed by the  inconsistencies and subterfuge that we observed.  For example, it was maintained that the aboriginal people involved were not in possession of guns, but one person was told by their lawyer to retract their testimony about participating in target practice with a rifle earlier that day).

One of the most significant aspects of Vandermaas’ post is that he notes that ”[Caledonia: A glimpse of self-government"] makes an excellent point about non-natives having no expectation of justice under an aboriginal system…” but there should also be the reconition that “native people themselves have been badly victimized by native extremists and by the refusal of police to enforce the law”.  Vandermaas then provides the following links that document the problems of lawlessness for vulnerable members of aboriginal communities: http://voiceofcanada.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/voc-speech-at-remember-us-march-oct-0807/ and http://voiceofcanada.wordpress.com/victimizing-native-people/.

This was an unfortunate omission of my previous post.  It should be stressed that both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are harmed by lawlessness.  As we pointed out in chapter six, “Justice: Rewarding Friends and Punishing Enemies”, in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (pp. 129-159), lawlessness in aboriginal communities results in the continued oppression of the most vulnerable members of aboriginal communities – especially women and children – because no mechanism exists to protect them from powerful abusers in the community.  “Justice” is kinship-based, and those not related to powerful families in aboriginal communities can be oppressed with impunity.

Some might question how my support for the rule of law in Caledonia is consistent with the historical materialist analysis that informs Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry.  How can someone who claims to be on the “left” be supportive of the laws enforced by the Canadian state?  Such an argument fails to recognize that equality under law is a progressive principle, and is an advancement over kinship-based “justice” systems.  Although the wealthy can often gain advantages in a modern legal system by, for example, hiring highly skilled legal help, we pointed out in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry that “modern laws serve the interests of society in common, and so, have the general support of all citizens.  Equal, objective and impersonal application of the law makes sexual assault of anyone and everyone illegal, regardless of social position” (p. 140).

It should be recognized, therefore, that the non-aboriginal supporters of the “Mohawk Warriors”  are right-wing, not left-wing.  They are right-wing because they advocate a return to tribal politics, where entitlements are determined by kinship (blood and marriage), not laws that apply universally to the citizenry, regardless of their status and/or ancestry.  Accepting the views of the pseudoleftist supporters of the “Mohawk Warriors” would make Canada more unequal than it is right now (and inequality is the essence of right-wing ideologies).  In fact, 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.

Support for the “Mohawk Warriors” exists because it is mistakenly assumed that this criminal gang, which is often acting to protect its drug and gambling turf, represents socialist ideals.  Therefore, any argument put forward is accepted, regardless of the implications that this has for working class people in towns like Caledonia and marginalized members of the aboriginal population.  Although left-wing thinkers should support those who are struggling for social justice and equality, achieving this will mean challenging the romantic reactionaries that have turned Caledonia into a tribal war zone.

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.

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 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.