» Tom Flanagan Offended by Offence

Tweaking the Devil’s Tail: Observations from the 2010 “New Directions” forum

May 15, 2010

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).

Posted by Frances Widdowson

4 Comments »

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.

***

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

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum – Update#3

April 22, 2010

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

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy

Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University

Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)

Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum 2010 – Update#2

April 3, 2010

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

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy

Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University

Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)

Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum 2010 – Update

March 9, 2010

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

***

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

8:30-9:00, Coffee

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

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

11:30-1:00, Lunch break

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

2:45-3:00, Coffee Break

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

5:00-8:00, Reception

Confirmed participants (in alphabetical order)

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

Posted by Frances Widdowson

Filed in New Directions in Aboriginal Policy ·Tags: Albert Howard, Andrew Hodgkins, David Newhouse, Don Sandberg, Frances Widdowson, Gary McHale, Joseph Lane, Joseph Quesnel, Mark Vandermaas, Ron Bourgeault, Tom Flanagan

1 Comment »

Academic freedom, scholarly debate and the CPSA

January 10, 2010

Stuart Soroka, the 2010 Programme Committee Chairperson for the CPSA, had a message posted on the Women’s Caucus listserve before it was moderated (see Email from Stuart Soroka – January 4 on the Ethics page of this blog). In this message, Soroka assured members of the Women’s Caucus that my paper was transferred to a poster session because it “did not easily fit into a panel with other papers from the REIPP [Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples and Politics] section”. He goes on to point out that the “the committee approved of the decision (as the committee must approve of all section heads’ decisions for CPSA conferences)” and that “the charge of any unprofessionalism on [Kiera Ladner’s] part is, to be frank, wholly unfounded”.

While “the charge of any unprofessionalism” could very well be without merit (it was merely noted that Ladner “seems to have left herself open to a charge of unprofessionalism”, and this suspicion was based on Ladner’s previous inability to be objective about my work on aboriginal policy), there are a few things that should be mentioned in response to the committee’s decision about my proposal’s lack of “fit” within the REIPP section. I have been told that the CPSA, in the past, has been concerned about placing me on a panel with other scholars who study aboriginal politics out of fear that my ideas could create a hostile reaction (a circumstance that was realized at the 2008 conference). The creation of the REIPP section has exacerbated this problem because it has tended to move presentations about aboriginal peoples and aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations out of more traditional academic sections (comparative politics, Canadian politics, etc.), and into a section that is influenced by an “identity politics” orientation. Therefore, the idea of “fit” could have more to do with trying to avoid conflict than with academic considerations.

Second, it seems odd that the CPSA would not want to have a proposal concerning research ethics and aboriginal peoples, aboriginal epistemology, etc., discussed in a formal panel. The CPSA devoted a section of its report on research ethics to “Research involving Aboriginal peoples”, and the second draft of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans’ chapter concerning “Research Involving Aboriginal Peoples in Canada” has just been released for scholarly consideration. Brock et al., in their letter “Racism, chilly climate, our responsibility and the discipline”, even suggested that a “major CPSA *Plenary on Responsibility Difference and the Discipline* might be productive” and “would attract a phenomenal attendance and would generate the kind of constructive professional debate we desire within the CPSA, and would be a mentoring opportunity for graduate students and junior faculty” (the people recommended for the plenary, however, did not come from a wide range of perspectives and were largely supportive of the existence of different “ways of knowing”).

Past CPSA sessions also have sparked considerable interest in these topics. The panel that Albert Howard and I participated in with Sandra Tomsons in 2009 was packed and led to a lively, but restrained, discussion. Kiera Ladner’s proposal last year entitled “Decolonizing the Discipline: Respecting Indigenous Knowledge & Using Indigenist Methodologies” was also accepted. The abstract for this presentation was as follows:

“Since Columbus was discovered, knowledge of the Americas and the peoples who lived there captured the minds and imaginations of some of Europe’s greatest political philosophers: More, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, Spencer, and Engels, to name but a few. Despite the fact that Indians of the Americas have occupied the imaginations of the world since the time of ‘discovery’, Indians have not occupied the imaginations of modern political scientists. Political science has ignored Indigenous political traditions and studied contemporary Indigenous politics only from the vantage point of the western-eurocentric tradition. Simply put, most have been unable to escape their paradigm paralysis to understand the politics of the ‘other’ on its own terms or as separate from the western-eurocentric experience. In so doing, political science has perpetuated a western-eurocentric understanding that virtually denies ‘others’ a voice within the discipline. This paper draws on the theoretical undertaking of my dissertation and updates the uncirculated paper presented at UofA (the abstract of which led to a heated exchange at CPSA). It engages the discipline’s construction of the Indigenous and argues that it is necessary to understand the ‘other’ not from the vantage of the western-eurocentric intellectual tradition as this readily perpetuates misunderstanding but from the vantage of their own intellectual and political traditions. It argues that proceeding as such enables a trustworthy post-colonial/decolonizing understanding of Indigenous politics within political science and that the effect of such a paradigm shift has the potential to be of great benefit to the discipline as a whole not just the study of Indigenous politics”.

A number of assertions put forward by Ladner still need to be analyzed and debated (for some reason, Ladner did not produce a paper fleshing out this abstract). What are the “Indigenous political traditions” to which Ladner refers? How do we “understand the politics of the ‘other’ on its own terms”? And what is a “trustworthy post-colonial/decolonizing understanding of Indigenous politics within political science” and how will this “be of great benefit to the discipline as a whole not just the study of Indigenous politics”? Once again, we seem to have the contradiction of saying that there should be a “different” understanding that only the identity group can have (i.e. it cannot be evaluated with universally accessible social scientific methods), yet this “understanding” must be accepted by all as a benefit to political science.

Ladner’s proposal was included in a workshop on “‘Race’, Racism and Anti-racism as Political Science: Framing and Re-Framing Relationships”, which also included presentations on “Race, Empowerment and Crisis Management: Black Political Leadership and Hurricane Katrina” and “Beyond Racial Exceptionalism: Explaining the Convergence of Mixed-Race Census Categorizations in Canada, the US and Great Britain”. Interestingly, the two latter presentations are very dissimilar from Ladner’s and do not really concern epistemological matters. Ladner’s presentation, in fact, would have “fit” much better with the presentations of Tomsons, Howard and myself, but, for some reason, Ladner was not included on our panel, which largely concerned epistemological questions. Therefore, “fit” appears to be a very subjective determination of the programme committee.

It should be noted that unscholarly responses to work critical of the prevailing “aboriginal orthodoxy” have been occurring for quite some time, and so it should not really be surprising if this is continuing in my case. Radha Jhappan, for example, stated publicly that “fundamental racism” formed the basis of Tom Flanagan’s book First Nations? Second Thoughts even though no evidence was provided to sustain this accusation. Similar problematic conduct occurred when Flanagan’s book was awarded the Donald Smiley Prize. The chair of the jury, Gurston Dacks, quit when he was outvoted, displaying contempt for a process that he had agreed to participate in (rejecting it only when he lost the vote). Joyce Green has noted that the political science community was “fractured” because the jury’s decision “implicated us all in rewarding something that many of us felt was deeply wrong” (Marci McDonald, “The Man Behind Stephen Harper”, The Walrus, October 2004, www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/the-man-behind-stephen-harper-tom-flanagan/5/).

Green’s comments reflect the deep problems that exist in political science with respect to the study of aboriginal peoples and aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations. What is meant by saying that someone’s scholarship is “deeply wrong”? Shouldn’t political scientists be concerned about the quality of the arguments and the amount of evidence that is being put forward to support them? Unfortunately, the characterization of Flanagan’s work in moral terms has prevented a comprehensive analysis of his arguments. Postmodern political scientists feel justified in dismissing Flanagan’s arguments as reprehensible, when engaging with them would help us all to more fully understand aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations. One does not have to agree with arguments to critically analyze them; avoiding opposing viewpoints because one dislikes their preconceived implications, however, is anti-intellectual and is harmful to the academic integrity of the discipline of political science.

Posted by Frances Widdowson

Filed in Advocacy Studies, Ethics, Postmodernism ·Tags: Canadian Political Science Association, Gurston Dacks, Joyce Green, Kiera Ladner, Postmodernism, Radha Jhappan, Sandra Tomsons, Stuart Soroka, Tom Flanagan

No Comments »

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum 2010

December 11, 2009

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)

Posted by Frances Widdowson

Filed in Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, New Directions in Aboriginal Policy ·Tags: Albert Howard, Andre Le Dressay, Andrew Hodgkins, Christopher Alcantara, Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, Frances Widdowson, Joseph Quesnel, Mount Royal University, New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum, Ron Bourgeault, Tom Flanagan

No Comments »

Offended by Offence

Tweaking the Devil’s Tail: Observations from the 2010 “New Directions” forum

May 15, 2010

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum – Final Program

April 29, 2010

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum – Update#3

April 22, 2010

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum 2010 – Update#2

April 3, 2010

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum 2010 – Update

March 9, 2010

Academic freedom, scholarly debate and the CPSA

January 10, 2010

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum 2010

December 11, 2009

Categories

Archives

Blogroll