Well, we are all continuing to decompress from the “New Directions in Aboriginal Policy” forum (2010) at Mount Royal University (held a few weeks ago now!). Contrary to the insinuations that additional security would be needed, everyone acted in a very collegial (although sometimes passionate) manner. Important lessons were learned about the benefits of public debate. Censorship and professed “offence” will not help us to understand and address complex and difficult policy problems. A number of faculty members from Mount Royal University chose to boycott the forum, but many others stated that, while they disagreed with many of the opinions that were expressed, censorship was an unacceptable response in an academic environment. I even witnessed Gary McHale and Wes Elliott having a long and polite conversation with one another in the Faculty Centre.
Mount Royal University should be commended for standing up to the intimidation, and allowing such an historic exchange to take place. Once again, the Provost and Vice-President, Academic, Robin Fisher, the Dean and Associate Dean of Arts (Manuel Mertin and Sabrina Reed), and the Department of Policy Studies (especially the Chair, Bruce Foster) have shown themselves to be leaders in supporting academic freedom and critical inquiry. The other sponsor of the forum, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, should also be thanked for providing partial funding for the event.
Over the following days, additional materials will be posted on the “New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums” page on this blog. I have already posted my opening remarks – “The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation”. It is hoped that these additional materials will further stimulate debate on aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations. I am already starting to think about next year’s forum – to be held in the first two weeks of May 2011 (it is still not clear when the best time is for the event). It is hoped that with the additional contacts that I am making that next year we can begin to have more of an organized exchange on three questions concerning native economic development, aboriginal governance and “indigenous knowledge”/education/research. It is also hoped that, on each panel, there will be two speakers directly supporting or opposing a question concerning a particular aspect of aboriginal policy, much like the Intelligence² debates on the BBC.
The keynote speaker, Don Sandberg, gave a very interesting overview of his thoughts on ”The State of First Nations in Canada Today”. In this presentation, Mr. Sandberg focussed on a number of the most significant challenges facing aboriginal peoples, especially in the areas of governance, economic development and education. I was also interested in Sandberg’s comments about some of the problems concerning ”traditional medicine”; in his presentation, Sandberg noted that some people in an aboriginal community were afraid that “bad medicine” was being thrown at them, causing them a great deal of stress and unhappiness.
The first panel, “Private Property and Native Economic Development”, featured a spirited exchange between Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) and Albert Howard (Independent Researcher) about whether private homeownership could improve economic conditions in aboriginal communities (Flanagan stated that he disagreed with practically everything that Howard said, except for Howard’s comments about rentierism). Albert Howard’s presentation will be posted on this site soon, and it is an encouraging development that Flanagan’s ideas are now being subjected to critical analysis, rather than being dismissed as “offensive”. Joseph Quesnel also provided an interesting commentary on how the unviability of reserves could be addressed.
The second panel, “Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law”, had presentations from Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina), Gary McHale (CANACE), Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project), and Wes Elliott (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory). It was unfortunate that Bourgeault’s work, which is very significant and underutilized in academe, was upstaged by the arguments concerning the Caledonia dispute. Wes Elliott provided a diagram of his vision for achieving reconciliation in Caldedonia. McHale and Vandermaas’ presentations contain too much memory to be posted on this site, but they can be accessed on the “Caledonia Victims Project” website - http://caledoniavictimsproject.wordpress.com/ There is also a video recording of McHale and Vandermaas’ presentation on this site for those who are interested..
The third panel, “Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education”, had presentations by Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher) on Australian education policy, Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) on bilingual education in Nunavut, and an exchange between David Newhouse (Trent University) and myself on “indigenous knowledge”. I will be posting PowerPoint slides and the written comments for my presentation in the next week or so on the “New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums” page of this website. It is also hoped that David Newhouse will submit his slides. In my opinion, the exchange between Dr. Newhouse and myself was the most cordial and intellectual that I have ever seen with respect to this subject.
Although it is a very busy time of year because of the upcoming Congress, I will do my best to post these materials in a timely manner. I also want to put out a call for presenters for May 2011. An aboriginal member of the audience made the comment that she felt the panels were “stacked” in favour of the integrationist/assimilationist position. I informed her that I had tried for months to obtain representation from people who would sit at the same table and challenge the views of Flanagan, Howard, McHale & Vandermaas, and myself, but was told that they did not want to be a part of such an event (fortunately, Wes Elliott called me and stated that he wanted to debate McHale and Vandermaas – an encouraging development). Funds are limited, but we usually have enough for two or three speakers (depending upon where they live).
New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum – Final Program
April 29, 2010
Please note:
With respect to Wes Elliott, a mistake has been made. He is not a negotiator, but is on the negotiating team. I apologize for the error.
FW
***
The final program for the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy forum at Mount Royal University on May 5, 2010 has just been completed. It is posted on the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page and is cut and pasted below. The posted program now contains the abstract for the presentation of Wes Elliott (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory) – “Allies of the Crown: Honouring the Treaties is the Formula for Peace”. The abstract states that
“The Great Law of Peace contains the principles which the Creator gave to the Houdensaunee people to live in harmony with one another and the land. This foundation formed the oldest confederacy of nations in the world. It is our Constitution. When European contact came, two wampum belts or treaties, were agreed upon: the Two Row and the Silver Covenant Chain. They became the Law of the Land. Today they are still the Law of the Land. They govern the conduct between our nations. They supercede any laws created for so called justice.
In Caledonia, both treaties have been violated. In Brantford, both treaties have been violated. In negotiations, both have been violated. We have never been conquered. We are the only native nations in Canada that are allies to the Crown. We have our own language, culture and history, but most of all, we uphold our part of the Treaties. The basic understanding of these treaties, the honouring of them, then abiding by them, is the formula for peace”.
We are very pleased that Mr. Elliott has agreed to make this presentation and to critically engage the position of Mark Vandermaas and Gary McHale. Once again, the forum does not endorse either position; its only goal is to present diverse points of view. Although many will not agree with the arguments presented, Mount Royal University is a strong supporter of academic freedom and critical inquiry. It is by being exposed to challenging points of view, in fact, that enables all people to develop intellectually.
***
New Directions in Aboriginal Policy
Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University
Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)
Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010
Sponsored by:
Mount Royal University’s Department of Policy Studies,
Arts Scholarly Events Committee, Office of Provost and Vice-President, Academic,
and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
8:30-9:00 Coffee
9:00-9:20 Opening Remarks
Sabrina Reed (Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts, Mount Royal University) – Welcome
Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation
9:20-10:00 Keynote Address
Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy) – The State of First Nations in Canada Today
10:00-10:15 Coffee
10:15-12:00 Panel I – Private Property and Native Economic Development (Chair: Kari Roberts)
Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) – Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights
Albert Howard (Independent Researcher) – Field of Dreams: “Building” Aboriginal Economies with Property Ownership
Glenn North Peigan (University of Lethbridge) – The Treaties, Economic Development Funding and Aboriginal Dependency
Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre For Public Policy) – The Politics of Cutting Your Losses: Non-viable Reserves and Aboriginal Economic Development
12:00-1:00 Lunch Break
1:00-2:45 Panel II – Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law (Chair: Miriam Carey)
Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina) – The Aboriginal National Question: Colonialism, Self-Determination and the New Right
Wes Elliott (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory) – Allies of the Crown: Honouring the Treaties is the Formula for Peace
Gary McHale (CANACE) – The Face of Aboriginal Sovereignty Versus the Rule of Law in Caledonia
Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project) – Listening to Victims: A Fresh Approach to Reconciliation and Healing
2:45-3:00 Coffee
3:00-5:00 Panel III – Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education (Chair: Jennifer Pettit)
Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) – Bilingual Education in Nunavut: Trojan Horse or Paper Tiger?
Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher, Australia) – Aboriginal Educational Successes in Australia: Mass Tertiary Education and the Development of an Indigenous Academic Class
David Newhouse (Trent University) – Canada Meets the Good Mind
Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Good Mind and Critical Thinking: Exploring the Implications of “Indigenous Knowledge” Meeting the Academy
5:00-8:00 Reception (Faculty Centre)
Christie Blatchford on McHale et al.
April 28, 2010
Today, a professor that I know and respect sent me a message telling me that he had signed the Open Letter (now withdrawn on the basis of its libelous statements) because he had “reservations about particular panelists from the militia in Caledonia” due to their methods, which “the open letter captures”. He then went on to ask: “Are there not others involved in the conflict who bring a more balanced view to the conflict in Ontario? Christie Blachford [sic] for example has written about Caledonia from a critical perspective without advocating vigilantism”.
After Ms. Blatchford was informed about the professor’s query, she provided an email responding stating that she could not attend because she is currently working on a book about Caledonia, and did not have the time to participate. She also made some comments in response to the professor’s reference to “vigilantism”, and requested that I forward them to him. After receiving this reply from Blatchford, the professor in question is now reconsidering his original position on the matter, and so I thought that others who signed the petition might be interested in what she has written. Reprinting Blatchford’s comments is not meant to endorse the ideas of Vandermaas and McHale; Blatchford’s views are only one opinion, and her impressions of McHale and Vandermaas’ could be mistaken or be based on an unrepresentative sample of the evidence available. It is only to suggest that until the voice of McHale and Vandermaas are heard we will not be able to develop an informed opinion on the Caledonia conflict, and the appearance of these speakers should not be “protested” on the basis of questionable allegations.
In Blatchford’s words:
“…[the professor] writes that I have written critically about Caledona “without advocating vigilantism” — the clear implication that Mr. McHale and Mr. Vandermaas have done so. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have attended three recent rallies in Caledonia, two of them organized by Mr. McHale, both of which were cancelled when self-styled anti-racists from Toronto showed up to out-shout the group. Mr. McHale sensibly cancelled the rallies both time. He always urges his supporters to be polite, respectful, civil, and peaceful. (In fact, he also asks people not to swear, which would exclude me, I confess.) In the course of researching my book, I have also reviewed video footage of earlier rallies in Caledonia and at Queen’s Park that were organized by Gary and Merlyn Kinrade; the footage of the rally at the Legislature is actually touching, because they were all dressed up, in suit and tie, and their remarks were as respectful as their attire.
On the one occasion that I know of where a Six Nations member, Clyde Powless, showed up and asked to speak at a Mr. McHale rally, he was greeted politely by Mr. McHale and allowed his turn at the microphone to say his piece. It was but a couple of weeks later at another rally that Mr. Powless assaulted Mr. McHale (he pleaded guilty to this offence in 2008). This was typical and telling — on the few occasions there has been violence at a McHale rally, it was not committed by him or his supporters, but rather by those who wish to deny him the right to speak.
While I grant you that the Caledoniawakeupcall website looks a little cartoonish, it is a well-documented (with original court files, newspaper stories, etc) site, and the cartoonish aspect does not accurately reflect the serious nature of the organizers.
I’ve come to know Mr. McHale quite well, Mr. Kinrade and Mr. Vandermaas a little, and have found them always to be fierce advocates only of freedom of speech and non-violent civil disobedience. I think it is just a little ironic that at a time when George Galloway’s supporters (including university professors) are arguing he should be allowed to enter Canada and speak — and I agree with them and have said so publicly — another professor is advocating censoring Gary McHale et al.” (Personal communication from Christie Blatchford, April 28, 2010).
Please note:
With respect to Wes Elliott, a mistake has been made. He is not a negotiator, but is on the negotiating team. I apologize for the error.
FW
***
It has just been finalized that a new participant has been added to the “Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law” Panel. Wes Elliott, from the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory, contacted me and said that he wanted to balance our panel and criticize the views of Mark Vandermaas and Gary McHale. Mr. Elliott agreed that debating the issue was important so that a greater understanding of current circumstances could be developed. He informed me that, as a negotiator for Six Nations, he has the background to be able to propose solutions to the current crisis.
This is a great development in the forum. As I mentioned earlier, proponents of indigenous sovereignty should make their case as to why this road offers a better future for aboriginal people and aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations than the argument being made by those opposed to what they refer to as “race-based” policing – that enforcing the rule of law is an esssential element of ensuring peaceful relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people and within aboriginal communities themselves.
Once again, the point of the forum is not to promote one point of view or another. It is to allow diverse, and even conflicting, opinions to be expressed so that real debate can take place on aboriginal policy formulation. By looking at different points of view, and analyzing the logic and evidence that is used to support them, we can all develop a greater understanding of this difficult and complex policy area.
It is also important to recognize that Mount Royal University is a leader in the promotion of critical inquiry and the protection of academic freedom; it is doubtful that such a debate could take place at any other university in Canada. Hopefully the forum will provide a model whereby other controversial issues can be discussed in a collegial fashion.
Here we go again…
April 24, 2010
On April 23, 2010, the “Solidarity with Six Nations” posted an open letter “protesting the presence of anti-native ‘militia’ leaders” at the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum at Mount Royal University on May 5, 2010. The open letter contains a link to a petition with a few hundred signatures.
The open letter is notable for three reasons. The first is the misinformation that it contains. Neither Gary McHale (CANACE), nor Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project), is a member of any “militia”. Also, it is erroneously implied that McHale and Vandermaas were the perpetrators of the violence that occurred in Caledonia. It is noted that “Mr. McHale was from 2007 to 2010 banned from entering Caledonia due to bail conditions stemming from the eruption of violence…”, but it is not mentioned that it was Six Nations residents who were the perpetrators; McHale and Vandermaas were the victims. If you are curious as to why it was a victim of violence, rather than the perpetrators, who was banned from the community, you are not alone. Welcome to the bizarre world of “culturally sensitive” policing.
Secondly, there is the constant accusation of racism without one shred of evidence being presented. The spurious linkage of McHale and Vandermaas to white supremacists is made on the basis that “Paul Fromm, a high profile white supremacist leader, best known for his support of holocaust denier Ernest Zundel, has actively publicized McHale and his events on the neo-nazi website Stormfront. Fromm has been photographed at McHale led events, as have other members of neo-Nazi organizations such as the London, Ontario ‘Northern Alliance’ group”. But this is the result of the mistaken logic that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Obviously, white supremacists would oppose movements for indigenous sovereignty, as the latter often assert the cultural (racial?) superiority of those who are not “White” (because of the alleged aboriginal ”spiritual relationship to the land” and their “covenant with the Creator”). This, however, is unrelated to McHale and Vandermaas’ criticsm of indigenous sovereignty, which is NOT racially motivated; it is rooted in the LIBERAL value of equality under the law – something that tribal societies, with their kinship orientation, resist.
This distinction between liberalism and racism is lost on “Solidarity with Six Nations”. They even imply that my views are tainted by racist assumptions when I argue that “current demands for ‘aboriginal nationalism’ and ‘sovereignty’, because they connect land to ancestry, have more in common with the ideology of Nazi Germany than left-wing ideas”. So, to point out instances of racist viewpoints is to be racist? And what about the content of my argument? Is the attempt by some Mohawks to maintain “cultural purity” by evicting non-Mohawks from their land, and the comments by Chief Wayne Roan of the Ermineskin Band that “the moose and elk do not mate, that is the natural law …Our elders have always said Cree should marry Cree to preserve the culture and way of life” (Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, p. 107), similar to the doctrines that were expressed in Nazi Germany? If there are any doubts, these ideas should be compared with some of the more pernicious statements in Mein Kampf.
“Solidary with Six Nations” argues that “we believe that the inclusion of McHale and Vandermaas in a discussion on Aboriginal Policy will serve to normalize racism, aggression, appropriation, and citizen-led militias as tools to solve localized conflicts over Indigenous lands, whereas what is needed is a recognition of Indigenous land rights, nation to nation negotiations and the peaceful settlement of land claims”. But how can this be determined? Why is it believed that “recognition of Indigenous land rights, nation to nation negotiations and the peaceful settlement of land claims” is “what is needed”? How can we know that this will achieve “peace and justice in Caledonia and Six Nations”? The plea for “nation to nation” negotiations, for example, is based on the erroneous assumption that groups of a few hundred people with no economic base or capacity to assert statehood are “nations” – a fabrication that cannot be challenged because of the Aboriginal Industry’s control over current policy discussions.
This brings me to the third, and most important, point – that the petition is an outrageous attack on freedom of inquiry within the university. The same people who correctly opposed the attempts to muzzle speech during Israeli Apartheid Week are now, in an unprincipled fashion, trying to prevent challenging viewpoints being expressed about Caledonia and Ipperwash. While the analysis of McHale and Vandermaas might be mistaken, none of us has perfect information or a monopoloy on truth. Therefore, actual scholars should promote the free exchange of ideas to determine how best to proceed with this very complicated and difficult policy area. Instead of promoting censorship and engaging in unwarranted smear campaigns, advocates for indigenous sovereignty should make their case on the basis of logic and evidence. With all the accusations of “racism”, “hate”, “white supremacy”, etc., rational thinkers who might question some of the nonsense that masquerades as scholarship on aboriginal policy are likely to keep silent, impoverishing our capacity to more fully understand aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations and to make informed efforts to achieve social justice today.
Let asses bray!
April 2, 2010
The Ann Coulter episode in Canada has been quite instructive. Coulter, a right-wing provocateur, was invited to speak at the University of Ottawa. Some insulting remarks made previously by the media commentator led Francois Houle, the vice-president academic and provost, to send a letter that warned Coulter to use “restraint, respect and consideration” in her speech. As a result of Coulter’s publicization of the incident, crowds of people – both protesters and people wanting to hear her speak – arrived at the university, which made it necessary to cancel the speech out of concerns that the venue was too small.
Fortunately, the balance of opinion on the matter is highly critical of Francois Houle. Perhaps we are finally turning the corner in this country, and realizing that “words that wound” do not constitute “violence”.
There are two important matters that should be underlined with respect to Houle’s letter. The first is the problem with trying to encourage “restraint” and “respect” in public discourse. These qualities are already constraining speech to the point that honest discussion about sensitive topics is non-existent. Self-censorship prevails out of fear that one might “offend” some group or other. As a result, we have a very limited understanding of the causes of a number of problems currently facing us as a species. More specifically, we need to discuss how certain cultural features (learned behaviour) have negative social implications, but this is inhibited when criticism of culture is equated with “hate”.
Secondly, the Coulter episode raises questions about the problems of “hate speech” laws more generally. As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, Canada already has laws that prohibit the incitement of crime and violence. Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, however, is an addition to these basic protections, and can be used to clamp down on speech that is controversially truthful. Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, gives the example of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, a book by a Harvard historian that alleges the complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust. The thesis of this book, argues Borovoy, is arguably “likely to expose” German people to contempt. This has led Borovoy to ask: “To what extent might it then become an offence to tell the truth about the Holocaust? And that’s the thing about these sections. Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence” ( http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=391873).
There needs to be an acknowledgement that demands for “restraint” and “respect” and prohibitions against “hate speech” are being used by people who want to prevent frank discussion about inconvenient truths that threaten vested interests. Although most of the commentary provided by Ann Coulter – recommending that an Islamic person take a camel instead of an airplane, for example - is insulting and adds little to intelligent debate, it is impossible to predetermine whether or not this will be the case. It is much better to allow people like Coulter to speak and then criticize, and even ridicule, the innane comments that might emerge, then judge, before the fact, what speech is socially acceptable.
Frank Elliott: educational malpractice advocate
March 25, 2010
Today I received an email from the Chair of my department, which forwarded a letter from Frank Elliott, a Ph.D. student at the University of Alberta, to him and Hope Knudsen, the President of the Alberta Teachers’ Association. His letter was protesting my speech at the Greater Edmonton Teachers’ Convention Association (GETCA) conference on February 26, 2010 (a PDF version of the letter, which includes a 19 page bibliography, is posted on the Aboriginal Policy page as “Letter from Frank Elliott”). Elliott objects to the fact that I called the graduate students attempting to to censor my speech “disciples” of professor Cora Weber-Pillwax (“this type of personal name-calling indicates a level of discourse which should have no place in academia and particularly not from an individual given a venue to voice personal opinions disguised as fact at an ATA conference”). He then goes on to shamelessly compare my views with those of Jim Keegstra, the holocaust denier, and seems to think it is appropropriate not to copy me on correspondence about my conduct. It also should be made clear that my reference to “disciples” was made in an email to Weber-Pillwax, and did not occur at the GETCA conference, which could be inferred from Elliott’s letter (in the email I was referring to Cora Weber-Pillwax’s encouragement of graduate students to demand censorship rather than engage in an evaluation of arguments and evidence, and I didn’t “personally implicate” any particular student in this remark).
More importantly, Elliott maintains that I was “voic[ing] personal opinions disguised as fact at an ATA conference”. He offers no substantiation for this assertion. He argues that “there is an immense amount of sophisticated thinking about Aboriginal education”, but does not show how this is the case. All he does is refer to an attached bibliography (presumably the one that he compiled for his Ph.D. dissertation), which contains a number of highly questionable sources on “Native science”, including works by Gregory Cajete and Leroy Little Bear (“What’s Einstein got to do with it?”). These works are not academically rigorous; they have a romantic view of history and constantly assume that spiritual beliefs are a “kind of science”. Little Bear even argues that aboriginal people before contact had an understanding of the theory of relativity, a modern advancement in physics. He seems to think that this knowledge was possible to acquire without even having the benefit of a rudimentary numbering system.
To get some understanding of where Elliott is coming from I found one article about his views on the University of Alberta website entitled “Diversity Institute raising awareness of holistic approaches to education” (www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/secondaryed/news.cfm?story=42104). The article discusses an event sponsored by the ”Diversity Institute”, where sixty educational students at the U of A listened to Francis Whiskeyjack, a Cree Elder, “drum as he sang about mother earth and the Aboriginal love of nature”. Whiskeyjack evidently “believes in a holistic approach to obtaining values”, which consists of the following insight: “Education is a lifetime journey”. Whiskeyjack also uses a feather and rattle to “[accentuate] the four elements of nature”, maintains “that in Aboriginal tradition, everything, whether animate or inanimate, has a spirit” and promotes “the power of the circle and of working together”.
This “holistic and personal approach to education” promoted by Whiskeyjack is enthusiastically embraced by Frank Elliott, who was interviewed in the article. Elliott argues that “if you are going to learn the meaning of something, then you need to understand it subjectively”. Elliott, according to the article, “encourages students to look at their own belief structures as a way of moving beyond objective understandings”. In the words of Elliott, “understanding your own belief structure may help you in your teaching. Hopefully you might begin to see the world in another way”.
If we were to accept Elliott’s assertions, and incorporate them into the curriculum, this would constitute an extreme form of educational malpractice. Should students be encouraged to “[move] beyond objective understandings”? Is there evidence to support the assertion that “everything…has a spirit”, that there are “four elements of nature”, and that the circle has “power”? And what if a student decides to challenge these assertions? Will they be reprimanded as “culturally insensitive” by Elliott? Promoting these irrational beliefs does not help students at all to acquire the knowledge, skills and disciplines to participate in a wide range of occupations. Under the auspices of “diversity”, aboriginal students will be kept segregated from the mainstream and forever dependent upon condescending enablers like Frank Elliott.
