Quotulatiousness

June 24, 2016

“[W]hite activists [need to] stop casting Indigenous peoples as magical pixie enviro-pacifists”

Filed under: Books, Cancon, History — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Jonathan Kay on the problem with discussing First Nations people as if they are “Magical Aboriginals”:

… the path toward reconciliation doesn’t always run through Ottawa or Rome. Reconciliation also can take place at the level of friends, family members and neighbours. In a newly published collection of essays, In This Together, editor Danielle Metcalfe-Chenail brings together fifteen writers — some Indigenous, some not — who describe how this process has played out in their own lives. “[The authors] investigate their ancestors’ roles in creating the country we live in today,” Metcalfe-Chenail writes in her introduction. “They look at their own assumptions and experiences under a microscope in hopes that you will do the same.”

In This Together is a poignant and well-intentioned book, and one that deserves to be bought and read. It is also informative and unsettling — though not always in the way the authors intend. Taken as a whole, the stories betray the extent to which guilt, sentimentality and ideological dogma have compromised the debate about Indigenous issues in this country.

[…]

In describing the stock “Magical Negro” who often appears in popular books and movies, Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu once noted that this type of character typically is shown to be “wise, patient, and spiritually in touch, [c]loser to the earth.” (Think of Morgan Freeman’s portrayal of Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding in The Shawshank Redemption.) In This Together contains a menagerie of similarly magical-seeming Aboriginals who are “soft-spoken” and “insightful.” A typical supporting character is the hard-luck Aboriginal child whose “entire face seemed to radiate a quiet knowing.” Older characters speak in Yoda-like snippets such as “There is much loss — but all is not lost.”

White characters in this book mostly are presented in the opposite way. They tend to be cruel, obese (“bulging,” “fat, red-faced,” “plump”), and soulless. Streetly goes even further, describing outsiders who come to Tofino as “faceless, meaningless” — as if they were robots. In a story about a First Nations woman with the dermatological condition vitiligo, Carol Shaben casts whiteness as an imperial disease — “an ever-expanding territory of white colonized the brown landscape of her skin.” In matters of economics, whites often are depicted as amoral capitalist marauders (“quick to brand and claim ownership”), while Indigenous peoples are presented as inveterate communitarians — gentle birds who “soar above the land, take stock, perch without harming, settle without ownership, and be grateful without exploitation.”

[…]

For decades, it has been a point of principle that Indigenous peoples in Canada must chart their own future without interference from outsiders. Our First Nations will have to make difficult decisions about what mix of traditional and modern elements they want in their society; and address wrenching questions about integration, relocation, language use, and education. Addressing these hard questions will be all the more difficult if Canada’s leading thinkers — even those with the best of intentions, such as the authors of In This Together — build the project of reconciliation on a foundation of attractive myths.

It is our moral duty as a Canadians to acknowledge the full horror of what was done to Indigenous peoples. But we must not respond to this horror by seeking to conjure an Indigenous Eden of postcolonial imagination — a society that never truly existed in the first place.

3 Comments

  1. It would be easier to take the budget of the Aboriginal Affairs dept and just pay them off once and for all. A few million each and every one. No more treaties, no more reserves, and no more rent seekers just trying to help the “poor red man”. Since the dept probably has a huge budget, to pay for all the helpers, not to actually make any native’s life better, we could even sweeten the deal and use 2 years of the the budget. What family of 4 would turn down 12 – 20 million in exchange for giving up the rights to being aggrieved. And I would lawyer up proper and draw up the documents to make this a one time only event, where in a hundred years down the road the folks aren’t going through buyers remorse and suing every government in sight, you know, like today.

    Comment by Dwayne — June 24, 2016 @ 11:35

  2. Easier, certainly. It might well also be significantly better for all the individual members of the all the First Nation tribes and bands. It would also likely be next to impossible due to the overwhelming need for bureaucrats to follow the rules of all bureaucracies: to expand and grow. Pretty much every government bureaucracy ever created has as its prime directive to stay alive and to expand its staffing, clientele, office space, and access to resources. The purpose for which the bureaucracy was theoretically created will fall further and further down the list of actual priorities the longer the organization exists, except for PR purposes.

    Comment by Nicholas — June 25, 2016 @ 09:10

  3. Bingo. Self interest of the rent seekers actually gets in the way of helping. What is always amazing to me is the lack of concern of the “helped” in all this. I would say that the Chiefs, and their families, are happy to keep the status quo as they benefit under this system.

    Comment by Dwayne — June 25, 2016 @ 13:26

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress