Skip to content

Invitation, Opportunity and Ethics: Supporting the Tsilhqot’in Fight against Taseko and the Free Enterprise Coalition Government

2011 November 30
by timarchy

Currently the B.C. government and Taseko are aggressively attempting to impose a mining project on Tsilhqot’inon land. This is in the face of clear Tsilhqot’in opposition.

A famous economist once posited that state-governments are merely committees for managing the affairs of free enterprise. The B.C. government, which brands itself as a ‘free Enterprise coalition,’ is something seemingly even more narrow than this. A committee catering to the affairs of Mining corporations. And most nefarious is the use of state power by the province to back the efforts of mining enterprises to expropriate and exploit the lands belonging to polities, nations, peoples and communities that actively do not approve, permit and consent.

It is  Tsilhqot’in land. They said no to this project many times in many ways. To use the instruments of force, coercion and violence to impose this project is something we could and should all stand against. The Tsilhqot’in have put out a call out for support. The action is to stand at the B.C. courts in Vancouver this week as Tsaeko seeks juridical instruments of power to force exploratory operations on Tsilhqot’in land. Invasive operations for a project that has been rejected time and time again by the Tsilhqot’in nation. And if you can not be there in person, why not at least oppose the project in your heart and conscience. Be forthcoming about your support for the Tsilhqot’in with your friends, family, colleagues, co-workers, class-mates, journalists and politicians.

This is an opportunity to take up an invitation to be part of a constructive action. To be on the ethical side of an issue being fought by the Tsilhqot’in. Why not take it?

Statement of Intent and Action for Decolonizing…: Released by Peoples Assembly of Victoria

2011 November 9
by timarchy

Here is the decolonization statement passed by The Peoples Assembly of Victoria (Occupy Victoria). I think other cities that have released various kinds of statements regarding settler colonialism and/or  statements of solidarity with Indigenous peoples include Boston, Denver, Winnipeg and New Mexico. I do not have an exhaustive list. Please send along any links and info regarding other cities that have released these kinds of statements.

Free Enterprise Coalition Drops Treaty Pretense?: Clark Government Puts Forward Development without Treaty Strategy, Justine Hunter Reports

2011 November 4
by timarchy

Treaties too slow at feeding B.C. and corporations First Nations’ land?

Justine Hunter reports in The Globe and Mail (4 November 2011) that the Clark government in B.C. is  more explicitly putting development without treaty at the forefront of the government’s strategy to both economic development and Aboriginal relations. Indeed, the Clark government’s jobs plan is premised on adding more expediency to mining and other natural resource projects frequently held up due to longstanding disputes over title since colonial expropriation of unceded land and lack of consultation with First Nations governing the territory.

In related news, the Globe also reports that B.C. has issued a license to Taseko for drilling ahead of a second federal environmental assessment. Taseko’s “Prosperity” project, which is being pushed a second time following a setback–due to broad opposition from key actors and a previous rejection from a federal environmental assessment review– continues to face a coaltion of critics. To my understanding, this includes the Tsilhqot’in National Government , the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs, the Sierria Club and the Council of Canadians among others. And most recently, the Globe reports that “Clark seeks federal cash to help B.C Natives negotiate non-treaty deals.” All of this, it is worth adding, comes just weeks after Sophie Pierre, head of the B.C. Treaty Commission, suggested that the B.C. Treaty Commission is not working and should be shut down.

Most recently, Clark announced regarding her China trade trip that she has secured investment for a coal mine that is to be to located on First Nation land. Justine Hunter Reports in the Globe that Ms. Clark announced at the end of her China trade visit that “she has secured $860-million in financing to build a coal mine in northeast B.C. which will eventually create 4,800 jobs.Hunter adds:

What she didn’t mention is the hitch: The proposed Gething coal mine would be built in the West Moberly First Nation’s territory. The province knows full well that the native band – coincidentally, another one of the small number with a treaty in B.C. – opposes the plan.

The Premier glossed over the obstacle this week, saying it’s just a question of settling on a price.

“A big part of the benefit will accrue to first nations,” [Clark] explained to reporters in a conference call from Beijing. “It’s just a question of negotiating how much.”

Hunter also reported Chief Douglas White’s opposition to the unilateral proposal and his critique of the whole Clark strategy, punctuated by his position that this “is not relationship building.” Also worth noting is Hunter’s analysis that there is a similarity between Clark’s development without treaty strategy to James Douglas’ move in the 1860s to discontinue pursuing treaties because it was too slow of a means for gaining settler access to First Nations’ land and resources.

In addition to constituting the latest version of British Columbia’s free enterprise approach to expropriating Indigenous peoples’ land, there is another political dynamic at play in this move. It is an electoral logic. By dropping a commitment to the treaty process, the Clark government eliminates a wedge issue for BC Conservative leader John Cummins and throws a bone to anti-treaty caucus members ( i.e. see the True Extravagance of the B.C. State-Society ).

It also raises an issue for the official opposition that the B.C. government will surely enjoy. What will the NDP’s response be? The B.C. NDP will be put in a tough spot as it has its own target audiences that are hostile to decolonizing B.C.’s relations with First Nations.  A sound byte response that puts nothing on the line will be difficult because the treaty process has two kinds of critics. 1 Critics that are opposed to the idea that First Nations should have any recognition and nation to nation agreements at all. 2. And those that recognize that the B.C. treaty process is already an instrument of prioritizing development over just relations, as the process was geared towards securing so called “final agreements” for long term access to Indigenous peoples’ land for as little cost as possible. Regarding the latter, it turned out that this process predominately resulted in facilitating lawyers access to Indigenous peopels’ cash in long running and expensive negotiations with the B.C. government on the terms and limits framed by B.C. and heavily affected by the context of unequal money power.

For the NDP to simply be against the B.C. Treaty Process can easily be seen to agree with John Cummins, the anti-treaty caucus of  the B.C. liberals, and now possibly the Clark government itself. And to be for the treaty process can easily be seen to support the Campbell era strategy to accumulate Indigenous peoples’ land through an unequal negotiation game of settling final agreements.  Thus, my speculation is that the dropping of the treaty pretense by the B.C. Liberals will receive little to no priority for the opposition party. Silence or perhaps a one off comment from the leader or a high profile caucus member might be expected. But this remains to be seen. The option would be for the NDP to come up with an approach significantly different than anything that has come before in regards to B.C.’s unethical conduct in province to nation relations.

My analysis of the electoral logic behind these moves is supported by the recent Ipso-Reid Poll that puts the NDP ahead  of the governing B.C. Liberals and places Cummins B.C. Conservatives at 12%. For the B.C. Liberals, the latter is a threatening double digit figure that could potentially split the right enough to be a significant factor counting against the governing parties efforts to win a fourth consecutive general election.

I will be watching with interest how the politics around the dropping of the treaty pretense plays out in the B.C. public. Always with the question, how could actual B.C. decolonization begin?

“We are not one, we are many: Marc Pinkoski’s 10/15 Speech at Centennial Square, Victoria B.C.

2011 October 31
by timarchy

A friend and colleague shares words on 10/15 day for the global day of action in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street at centennial square, Victoria, BC. The square is on Lekwungen land.

“I am struck by the ready conversation and commitment to stand together against injustices and inequalities.I am struck that a discussion of how we come to be here on this land and come to think we can speak law and justice here has been brought to the forefront.

I am struck by the comments that some people feel emboldened to make; and whether it is because of the anonymity of the internet or because of an anxiety about how we come to be here and live our lives, venomous hatred couched in bigotry and ignorance has too-often been directed at friends and colleagues.

I will leave the hate-filled comments for now, but I want to discuss two kinds of comments that have been raised frequently: equality – that we are one and all part of the same movement and that colonialism is innate to Euro-Canadians, or settlers, and that is the only way we can act.

The first suggests that we are all part of an economic and social problem and that somehow the rights of Indigenous peoples and our obligations to them are a special interest in a global movement. It is true that Indigenous peoples are entangled in social and economic systems often not of their making, but to urge Indigenous peoples to “occupy” the Square today with us today is an affront to reality of the situation and the history of here.

This Square is occupied and has been via the HBC, England, the Colony of Vancouver Island, Victoria, BC, and Canada. Notwithstanding these occupations, Lekwungen, Esquimalt and WASANEC peoples have never surrendered their lands and they continue to persevere amidst great pressures. It is because of this recognition that those of us who meet today, do not meet under the banner of occupation but rather in solidarity with global movements to challenge the power structures that we face and also facing the history of the place where we are right now and how we come to be here. We are many.

Secondly, there is a suggestion that colonialism is the way that Euro-Canadians behave – innately. Moreover, it is contended that colonialism benefits Settlers and does harm to Indigenous peoples. While I am certainly not trying to say that Indigenous peoples aren’t harmed by colonialism or that settlers do not benefit from these relations, I think we also must realise that these actions are not innate to us, they are taught, and they do us a world of harm. They limit how we think about ourselves, the care we offer, and reward exploitation of people, land, and resources.

So, I believe, we need to recognise the connection between economic and capitalist inequalities and injustices and colonial mentalities and work to believe that we are not stuck in these relations. We need to believe that we can work creatively and caringly for ourselves and each other and build other forms of relationships.”

We Are Not One, Are We Many?: A Reflection on Mutual Action for 11/11/11 Occupy the World

2011 October 31
by timarchy

There is another global day of action being organized for 11/11/11 called Occupy the World. I should make clear that I have a positive and sympathetic take on it. My reflection regards the poster slogan “We are One.” I contest the idea that we are one, both as a general position on the human condition but also in the context of participants of occupy movements. I don’t think participants in the movement are one. I think many have come together for mutual action on shared and divergent concerns.  Equating, or conflating, this coming together for mutual action with “uniformity” is a misleading description.Thus I  agree with those that say, that we are not one we are many–as my friend Marc Pinkoski said on 15 October 2011.

The previous global day of action under the banner of Occupy on 15 October was a global day of solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement which has swept across the U.S. and sprang up in numerous Canadian cities and cities around the world. But it was more. It was a global day of solidarity fostering some shared aspects between various movements around the world which in a number of ways inspire the occupy movement: The Arab Spring, The Indignato movement in Spain, and the various movements against austerity measures coming down on societies across Europe and the world.

From my view, and I suspect the view of many others who have participated in these local and global movements, these are constructive political spaces from which to contest the dominant order and, more importantly, to begin to break bread with each other. Begin to find and practice alternatives. Perhaps learning and hearing that some of these alternatives have already been found and have been practiced for a long time below the mediated rhetoric and physical infrastructure of state authoritarianism, globalization and violence.  A number of people in the movement are building new relations and creating new kinds of relationships. This is all aspirational, inspirational and brings a politics of hope and mutual caring and sharing to the forefront.

It is not a naive politics. It is a politics that persists  through an awareness of the social, political economic injustice that seems ubiquitous and nearly everywhere. An awareness that injustice is not merely historic, it is ongoing in the present and will be happening tomorrow too. That said it is not natural. Not inevitable. Not total. And rarely, if ever, final.

As more than one thinker as tried to show us,  forms of freedom and contestation exist even in conditions of domination. In this movement of mutual action, living the alternative approach is also based on an awareness that alternatives are practice based and living orders. Many know these alternatives are not perfect or utopian. And that to contest the dominant order of arbitrary force, absurd finance and authoritarian conditions requires questioning ourselves constantly. They know that they do not want to mirror the ways that they oppose. They know, as some of my friends and colleagues might say citing one of their influences, that they need the “freedom to make mistakes.” And with that comes the obligation to always question our practices of power and the ethics of our relations.

Thus a robust politics of change in the present requires both critique and constructive change. Critique of modern order and the local and global institutions that are set up to govern subjects for power, profit and control by the few. Critique of ourselves and our relations with others. Because we cannot struggle against the social, political and economic relations that we oppose and seek to free ourselves from unless we also struggle with our own practices of domination and unfreedom. But, as described above, we need to live constructive change though mutual action and alternative relations

One area where this need for internal contestation has been most apparent in occupy movements is in the tension between a movement that takes on the social, political and economic injustice and subjugation on the one hand, and frames its political activity as “occupation” on the other hand.  Specifically in places such as Canada and the United states which are settler states that occupy Indigenous peoples lands. These settler orders live and profit off of this continuing occupation through the mechanisms of the state institutions, industrial-capitalist enterprises, military-security forces, methods of bio-power, and the social forces of racism, ehnocentricism, and gendered and sexed forms of occupation and exploitation. A number of people have written a take on this tension between occupation and colonialism. My own is on this site: Beyond Occupy: A Reflection for Occupy Wall Street Movement from Victoria, B.C.

If I might offer a limited sketch based on my experience, it seems that there are three general ways this kind of internal critique within the movement unfolds or is taken by participants.

1. People are receptive to questions of colonialism. They are open to having new conversations, learning more and symbolically, if not practically, trying to work out what kinds of practices should be taken up within the movement on the matter of colonialism. In fact, on this basis various occupy cities have changed their local names to unoccupy/unsettle and released various kinds of statements of acknowledgment/solidarity

2. People are open to the conversations and questions but are not moved by them. They have their own set of concerns that they locate in the movement and the stick with them. They do not oppose the questions or others organizing around the problem of colonialism, but they remain elusive of them for whatever reasons.  This second response does not undermine the possibility of mutual action. Although they are not part of a mutual action on the problem of colonialism. And thus such a standpoint contributes to a movement towards what I called in Beyond Occupy to be “the failure of a generation to address the most profound political fact of our present: colonialism.”

3. Finally, the third response is a reactive one. One that writes out those attempting  to build mutual action relations to address the problem of colonialism on the basis that they undermine the “unity”, the “oneness” of what Occupy is truly about. Some go even further than this so called “pragmatics” and deny that colonialism is a true problem. Sometimes they even pull out the worst colonial myths and practices built on the edifice of racism and ethno-centricism to deny that Indigeneous peoples constitute polities and have ongoing claims to their land.  This third kind of response to colonialism shows the extremity that notions of oneness and unity constitute.

Indeed, the problems with the language of occupy and the language of oneness are connected. The whole tragic and intertwined lineages of colonialism, nationalism, fascism and occupation illustrate this. Watching the The Killing Fields I am struck that the film ends with “Imagine” playing in the final scene. As the director explains, in many ways the Khmer Rouge believed in a world of oneness without difference” which is why the movie ends with the iconic music. Colonial policy in Canada trades in oneness and uniformity. From the 1857 Act for the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes to the 1969 White paper and contemporary arguments in favour of state and economic supported assimilation. These are grounded in the idea of uniform oneness for Canadians and Canada’s “national interest.” 20th century fascism is the most common example of a vision of nationalism, oneness and occupation taken to the extreme.  Aimé Césaire once described Nazism as colonialism applied in Europe in his work Discourse on Colonialism. In short, there are many examples of how occupation and oneness make a terrible and haunting combination.

Hence my own efforts are towards critical and constructive practices that are in the spirit of the many coming together for mutual actions worked out in relations with each other. I think there are many others who operate with similar orientation away from oneness. Oneness, Uniformity, Nationalism and Occupation are not for me. It seems to me that these languages belong mostly to that which I would like myself and my relations to be free from.

 

Canada and the Empire of Modern Rule: Frames of Colonial and Imperial Governance in a Liberal Democracy–An Abstract

2011 October 24
by timarchy

A Working Abstract for conference presentation. I have posted for feedback…….

Canada and the Empire of Modern Rule:
Frames of Colonial and Imperial Governance in a Liberal Democracy

This paper raises the question of how Canada’s liberal democracy frames approaches to governance over Indigenous peoples in colonial and imperial ways.  To this end, two predominate approaches are juxtaposed: (1) Assimilation and  (2) Limited Accommodation.  By juxtaposing predominate approaches two related problems are brought to the foreground for analysis. Firstly, liberal democracy in Canada is deeply connected to practices of colonialism and imperial governance. For example, assimilationist programs developed by liberal democratic institutions to assimilate Indigenous peoples have at times also operated as a program to promote a uniform civil citizenship and a liberal vision of equality. In this way, the work of building and extending Canada’s representative democracy is also tied to the development of Canada’s apparatus of colonial governance.  An Act for the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes, 1857 exemplifies this kind of connection. And so do contemporary assimilationist arguments that are grounded in majoritarian liberal-democratic theory. Michael Murphy has aptly problematized this frame in the current post-RCAP era as a revitalization of the civilizationalist tradition that is part of a long genealogy of euro-centrism in western political theory .

Secondly, despite the differences between various colonial approaches to Canada’s governance over Indigenous peoples, this paper argues that they share a profound continuity. This continuity is described as “the empire of modern rule.” By this is meant the presupposition that Euro-Canadian normative orders are superior (more advanced, more legitimate, more authoritative, more proper, more modern, more universal etc….) in relation to Indigenous social, legal and political ways of being.  Implicit is the position that Indigenous normative orders are, or should be, subordinate to Euro-Canadian (settler) ways of being. This paper aims to illustrate that the empire of modern rule is a logic that cuts across different frames of colonialism and imperial governance in the Canadian context. In conclusion, the implications that this continuity of empire entails regarding a constructive pathway towards Euro-Canadian (settler) decolonization are considered.

Pamphlet on Decolonization and Occupation Circulating in Victoria.

2011 October 15
by timarchy

There is a pamphlet issued by Victoria’s Free Knowledge Project (FKP) and Friends. It’s titled

Decolonization and Occupation: Suggestions for a Victoria Statement
. (An Offering to Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, October 15, 2011.)

One of its strengths, in my view, is that it tries to offer a starting point for (i) ethical settler position and (ii) an approach to settler decolonization. It suggests a need for a different kind of relationship with First Nations than the predominate colonial relations that have persisted. I attached the PDF On Occupation and Decolonization. I have also placed the text below so that the content can easily be shared and viewed.

There are 4 sections to the pamphlet:

1. Occupy and Decolonise Victoria

2. Local Indigenous Perspectives on Treaty Relationships

3. A Settler Response

4. Suggestions on a Victoria Statement

Redescription readers will noticed some of the content from Beyond “Occupy”: A Reflection for the Occupy Wall Street Movement from Victoria, BC

OCCUPY & DECOLONISE VICTORIA

We are on occupied land. Victoria is located on Lekwungen (Songhees) Territory. The Lekwungen, along with their neighbours the Esquimalt and WSANEC (Saanich), are often referred to in English as Salish peoples. The occupation of these territories has an historic relationship with the colonial and economic forces that are being criticised in the global movement on October 15, 2011. The global critique is based on the notion that our social, economic, and political relationships must be organised in other ways.
We urge that the organisation in Victoria be motivated through a different ethic and expressed through other metaphors than” occupy.” To this point, Tim Smith writes:
The persistence and growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the creation of a North American Autumn, perhaps even a Global Autumn beginning with the Arab Spring is impressive. Organizers and participants deserve admiration for the effective dissent they have accomplished, and the constructive possibilities they have opened up in an age defined by the despair. The despair of a uniform world defined the 9/11 era of home foreclosures, prisons, financial disaster, wars and a dis-empowered public that comes with it all.

“Occupy” is more than an unfortunate banner to run a new social movement through. And too frequently it is a typical banner of the euro-american left. A generous reading is that they are inspired by old school 60s style sit-ins and the success of the ‘Arab spring.’ Both iconic examples used civil disobedience in the form of sit-ins in major public spaces. Camp in the square! Occupy the Dean’s office! Sit-in at the legislature! etc.. These are all worthwhile actions.

But an unfortunate tragedy is that the spirit of radical democracy and civil disobedience is limited by and wrapped-up in a colonial lexicon, “occupy,” in places (Wall St., New York, the U.S., Victoria, B.C. Canada) that are so definitively shaped by the history and ongoing practice of colonialism. In fact settler colonialism seems to be the most profound commonality connecting these diverse and distant locations.

Decolonizing the left, along with decolonizing the present in general, is itself a key social movement. The free enterprise vision of Wall Street (which is the superficial face of a corporatist reality) and the counter just society/welfare state vision of its critics both fail to take colonialism seriously. Merely redistributing wealth, benefits and security back to a middle class, which is where much (but not all!) of the support for Occupy Wall Street lies, is a far too narrow project. To the extent that this characterization is true, this strikes me as meaningless to those subject to severe conditions of poverty. And perhaps lacking in significance to those concerned with and subject to the exploitation and violence of settler-state societies.
It is the colonially enforced corporate exploitation of the resources on Indigenous peoples’ land around the globe from which a signifi- cant portion of the wealth circulated through Wall St in question is derived. It seems that any contestation of the way that wealth is managed and distributed can only be ethically worked out by bringing the problem of colonialism to the heart of the movement.

We stand in solidarity and applaud the contesting of the undemocratic, unequal, and socially unjust features of liberal democracies and its system of finance and global governance. And if this movement can take a life of its own and go beyond “occupy” and the concerns of the middle class and take colonialism seriously, it is our hope something powerful could unfold out of the spread of this dissent. But if colonialism is yet again silenced for the sake of a settler Euro-American unity that glosses
over the most profound aspects of the undemocratic, unequal and socially unjust features of our present, then a generation may find they have failed themselves and each other by missing an opportunity to challenge the most profound political fact of our age: the fact of colonialism.

LOCAL INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES ON TREATY RELATIONSHIPS:

Nick Claxton (Saanich) has written that

…on southern Vancouver Island Governor James Douglas negotiated 14 land purchase agreements with the indigenous nations of the area. With respect to indigenous fisheries, the Douglas treaties explicitly state that those indigenous groups signatory to the trea- ties have the “liberty to carry on their fisheries as formerly”. If taken literally, those indigenous peoples had a system in place, a system of governance over their fisheries, which indeed formed the core of their traditional societies.
In R v. White and Bob, the judgment is considered the first legal affirmation that the Douglas Treaties are in fact and remain to be valid treaties in accordance to Canadian law. It was ruled that Governor James Douglas who at the time was the Chief Factor in the Hudson’s Bay Company, acted on behalf of the Crown in his negotiations, arguably then the Douglas Treaty represents a Nation to Nation Agreement. The court ruled that Douglas Treaty beneficiaries could hunt in accordance to treaty rights rather than under provin- cial regulations. Since this ruling, Aboriginal and Treaty rights have been recognized and affirmed in the Canadian Constitution under section 35. This is not to say that there is now justice today and the Douglas Treaties have been respected as “International” agreements, but to me strengthens the argument that they should be.

The Douglas Treaty in the eyes of the Crown is in fact a valid treaty, where hunting rights extend into the whole of the traditional territory of the Saanich, and there is a traditional fishery of the Saanich that needs to be protected. This is by no means a complete picture; the courts have sidestepped the issue of a right to governance, which I would argue is vital to understand. If the Treaty is a “treaty” or an international agreement, then the Saanich do have a right to govern themselves, fishing and hunting included, within the whole of their traditional territory. Yet the courts, which are a non-indigenous institution, and adversarial in nature, are not the solution.

As Saanich we should not depend on the courts to tell us what are rights are and how to live by them. We instead have the answers within our community, homelands, and our culture. Just ask any one of our respected elders or listen to the teachings of our ancestors; they have not proven us wrong. The courts only reaffirm that these teachings need be respected.
If the Crown continues to maintain that the Douglas Treaty is in fact a valid treaty between the Saanich and the Crown, then a true treaty relationship must be restored. In terms of fisheries then, the Saanich continue to have jurisdiction over their fisheries and do have the right to govern all fisheries that are taking place within the bounds of the Saanich Territory.
In the context of the contemporary treaty process, the Te’mexw Treaty Association explains that they are formed from five Coast Salish First Nations:

Songhees (Lekwungen), Nanoose (Snaw’Naw’As), Beecher Bay (Scia’new) T’Souke and Malahat. The five Te’mexw Member First Nations initially joined together with one common objective to support one another and combine forces to work together under one organization to negotiate a treaty under the British Columbia Treaty Process. Songhees (Lekwungen), Nanoose (Snaw-naw-as), Beecher Bay (Scia’new), T’Sou-ke, and Malahat all share common history, culture and experiences with federal and provincial governments. Each of these member first nations is descendants of the original signatories of the Douglas Treaties on the mid-nineteenth century. James Douglas signed fourteen treaties on Vancouver Island during this period.

These Douglas treaties encompass approximately 358 square miles of land around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy. These treaties were never honoured or recognized by both the federal and provincial governments.
Our objective to negotiate a treaty that is acceptable to each of our individual Nations that will sustain us well into the future for our children and great grandchildren and the many generations to come.

It is clear from the statements that Indigenous Peoples are minimally in agreement that they wish to be enter into fair and just relationships with Settlers. It is also clear that Indigenous Peoples do not wish to assimilate into foreign cultural and political systems. What are our obligations to these political but non-assimilative relationships?

A SETTLER RESPONSE

The linked concepts of “reconciliation” and “decolonization” are taking leading roles in conversations about the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state. In particular, they have become a central focus of recent interpretations of Constitution Act, 1982 and Indigenous and non-Indigenous jurists conclude that if significant progress towards reconciliation is to be made, it will require work beyond the courtroom and particularly within the public at large. The importance of such a focus is articulated specifically, for example, in the recent Aboriginal title case Tsilhqot’in Nation, where Justice Vickers of the BCSC recognizes in his judgment that “Tsilhqot’in people have survived despite centuries of colonization. The central question is whether Canadians can meet the challenges of decolonization.”

The necessity of a process of reconciliation connected to wider projects of decolonization is further underscored in the work of Cree political scientist Kiera Ladner, who notes that there is much the general public needs to address in preparation for a robust form of reconciliation. She states in her article, “Take 35: Reconciling Constitutional Orders”:
While many Canadians may not be cognizant of their history and may choose to ignore the realities of the present, reconciliation is necessary. It is a necessity for Indigenous peoples as they seek to realize their goals of self-determination, cultural renewal, and economic independence; it is also a necessity for Canadians as they grapple with the demands for a new, or renewed, relationship between Indian peoples and settler nation(s) (Ladner 2010: 281).

At a minimum, true reconciliation and decolonization will require new approaches to conveying information to both Indigenous and non- Indigenous communities. In order to foster these new methods, a small group of us has formed the free knowledge project with an eye to offering existing courses and developing and delivering teaching materials about the Canadian state, including representations of Indigenous peoples, law, policy, research and options. It is important to note that the materials are intended to inform Indigenous and non-Indigenous audiences about the actions and attitudes of the Canadian state and its approaches to the issues being raised, not to offer information about Indigenous peoples per se.

Our first venture began in May 2010 when Dr. Marc Pinkoski taught a five-week class on the topic of Anthropology and Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Offered for free in a downtown Victoria café to a diverse audience, Marc drew on courses he had been teaching at the University of Victoria over the past decade. He offered the class in this way to answer calls from students to make the information more widely available, addressing topics including anthropological representations of Indigenous peoples, anthropological science, the role these representations and methods have in Aboriginal rights litigation, and the history of the Canadian state’s and BC’s engagement with Indigenous peoples. In October 2010, Marc offered the course again, expanding it to six classes; and he is currently teaching a nine week version.

Subsequently, we were very fortunate to have had Dr. Michael Asch offer the third free class, entitled Indigenous-State Relations – a six week class framed as “Canadian Studies.” These lectures were based on a number of experiences, but in particular Michael’s many years of teaching and his voluminous research at the University of Alberta and UVic. Dr. Rob Hancock, also presented a four week course on “Aboriginal Rights, Anthropology, and Development in the North.” He focused on the emergence of Canadian Aboriginal rights law in the context of Indigenous resistances to resource development in their homelands, and examined the roles played by anthropologists in this history. Rob is currently teaching in Indigenous Studies at UVic, and has recently returned home from the University of Western Ontario, where he completed a post-doctoral fellowship teaching and writing on anthro- pology and Indigenous political history. Podcasts of the lectures are accessible on the site and video is being uploaded.

Currently, Marc is offering another course on Anthropology and Indigenous Peoples in Canada. This 9-week course is designed from a set of classes he has recently taught at UVic. He has two purposes for offering it: the first is to introduce students to the discipline of anthropology, and the second is to show the relationship of anthropology to Indigenous peoples and the history of Canada. His objective is to answer the calls of many students to make this information more accessible. We also hope that offering classes in this manner may assist those who feel alienated from some forms of learning such as high school or university. The class is free.

This class is open and no registration is required. We ask that students commit to attending as many classes as possible. Classes will run on Monday nights from 7:15-9:00pm until November 28th (except October 31st) at the Solstice Café, 529 Pandora Avenue, Victoria, BC.

Info: freeanthropology@gmail.com; or, the free knowledge project on facebook and freeknowledgeproject.wordpress.com

SUGGESTIONS FOR A VICTORIA STATEMENT

We:

Acknowledge that we are on Lekwungen land, territory that has never been ceded and although complicated is Treaty territory.
Acknowledge that Lekwungen, WSANEC and other First Nations from the area continue to endure despite great pressures.
Will take responsibility to learn the history of Vancouver Island and surrounding area, including colonial legal history and the Douglas Treaties.

Will resist framing Indigenous Peoples in evolutionary and euro-centric ways, whether through environmental, technological, civilizationalist or racial terms. We will focus on political, legal and philosophical discourse.
Will be open to cultivating political and social relationships with Indigenous peoples that will effect change.
Will be open to change that may place Settlers in seemingly vulnerable positions.

Beyond “Occupy”: A Reflection on the Occupy Wall St. Movement from Victoria, British Columbia

2011 October 4
by timarchy

First of all, I am impressed with the persistence and growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the creation of a North American Autumn, perhaps even a Global Autumn beginning with the Arab Spring. Organizers and participants get my admiration for the effective dissent they have accomplished, and the constructive possibilities they have opened up in an age defined by the despair. The despair of a uniform world defined the 9/11 era of home foreclosures, prisons, financial disaster, wars and a dis-empowered public that comes with it all.

That said, to me “Occupy” is more than an unfortunate banner to run a new social movement through. And too frequently typical of the Euro-American left. The generous reading is that they are inspired by old school  60s style sit-ins and the success of the ‘Arab spring.’ Both iconic examples used civil disobedience in the form of sit-ins in major public spaces. Camp in the square! Occupy the deans office! Sit-in at the legislature! etc.. All worthwhile actions.

But an unfortunate tragedy is that the spirit of radical democracy and civil disobedience is limited by and wrapped-up in a colonial lexicon, “occupy,” in places (Wall St., New York, the U.S., Victoria, B.C. Canada) that are so definitively shaped by the history and ongoing practice of colonialism. In fact settler colonialism seems to be the most profound commonality connecting these diverse and distant locations.

Decolonizing the left, along with decolonizing the present in general, is itself a key social movement. The free enterprise vision of wall street (which is the superficial face of a corporatist reality) and the counter just society/welfare state vision of its critics both fail to take colonialism seriously. Merely redistributing wealth, benefits and security back to a middle class, which I think  is where much (but not all!) of the support for Occupy Wall Street lies, is a far too narrow project. To the extent that this characterization is true, this strikes me as meaningless to those subject to severe conditions of poverty. And perhaps lacking in significance to those concerned with and subject to the exploitation and violence of settler-state societies.

I suspect it is the colonially enforced corporate exploitation of the resources on Indigenous peoples’ land around the globe from which a significant portion of the wealth circulated through wall street in question is derived from. It seems to me that any contest of the way that wealth is managed and distributed can only be ethically worked out by bringing the problem of colonialism to the heart of the movement.

I applaud the contesting of the undemocratic, unequal, and socially unjust features of liberal democracies and its system of finance and global governance. And if this movement can take a life of its own and go beyond “occupy” and the concerns of the middle class and take colonialism seriously, it is my hope something interesting could unfold out of the spread of this dissent. But if colonialism is yet again silenced for the sake of a settler Euro-American unity that glosses over the most profound aspects of the undemocratic, unequal and socially unjust features of our present, then a generation may find they have failed themselves and each other by missing an opportunity to challenge the most profound political fact of our age: the fact of colonialism.

Occupy Wall Street: Links to Media, Information, and Commentary, October 4-11.

2011 October 4
by timarchy

Note: I am no longer tracking media on Occupy Movement. I have left these up for people who are interested in a sample of coverage between October 4-11.

As the Occupy Wall Street Movement contesting the undemocratic, unequal and socially unjust organization of wealth spreads across the U.S., Canada and cities around the world there has been a lack of mainstream media coverage. Ongoing, I am compiling some links to media, information and coverage here. Please feel free to contribute by posting links or sharing in the comment section.

http://www.occupytogether.org/

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2011/09/activist-communiqu%C3%A9-occupy-canada-movement (Directory and links to Occupy Movements in Canadian Cities )

http://occupyvictoria.ca/

October 11 2011

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/lets-not-repeat-g20-at-occupy-protest-says-open-letter-to-police/article2197544/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/occupy-protests-herald-a-party-thats-almost-over/article2197112/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-wall-street-protests-take-hold-across-us/article2197174/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_protest/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/10/occupy_wall_street_emerges_as_first

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP05077e934fd548b0961d79c983f3b6ec.html?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP05077e934fd548b0961d79c983f3b6ec.html?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/11/indigenous_groups_at_occupy_wall_street

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/11/independent_media_stalwarts_katrina_vanden_heuvel

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576625081679793052.html?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/10/11/billionaire-tells-occupy-wall-street-to-get-off-his-lawn/?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576623672599343978.html?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/10/10/kanye-west-drops-by-wall-street-protest/?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Editorial+Occupy+protesters+have+common+message/5533752/story.html

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Occupy+Wall+Street+movement+expands+into+Canada+this+week/5531111/story.html

October 10 2011

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/10/occupy_wall_street_spreads_32_arrested

http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2011/10/best-net/economist-jeffrey-sachs-occupy-wall-street

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/10/10/bloomberg-occupy-wall-street-can-stay-indefinitely/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/politics/wall-street-protests-gain-support-from-leading-democrats.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/occupy-wall-street-v-tea-party-the-further-polarization-of-us-voters/article2196912/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/10/roemer-is-first-candidate-to-embrace-occupy-wall-street/?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/the-milquetoast-radicals.html?src=me&ref=general

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/o/occupy_wall_street/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=occupy%20wall%20street&st=cse

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/occupy_denver_american_indian_movement.php

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP131af5e9c4354a0d98919477f9bcde4a.html?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/10/10/law-order-bloomberg-says-occupy-wall-street-can-stay/?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

October 9 2011

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/09/us/occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/artists-occupy-wall-street-for-a-24-hour-show/?scp=1&sq=occupy&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?src=me&ref=general

http://online.wsj.com/article/APb8e801151ab944b4a09daca827f813a9.html?KEYWORDS=Occupy+Wall+Street

http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2011/10/best-net/cbcs-kevin-oleary-gets-schooled-occupy-movement-chris-hedges

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/wall-street-protests-the-start-of-american-spring-says-iranian-general/article2196138/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/08/f-vp-bambury-wall-street.html

http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

http://www.observer.com/2011/10/slavoj-zizek-speaks-to-occupy-wall-street/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu9BWlcRwPQ

October 8 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/search?q=occupy+wall+street&section=

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/bloomberg-occupy-wall-street-jobs?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/occupy-america-protests-financial-crisis?INTCMP=SRCH

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576615200938120050.html?KEYWORDS=occupy+wall+streetOctober 7 2011

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Occupy-Wall-Street-OWS-New-York-City-protests-protesters-washington-square-park–131382728.html

October 7 2011

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/seyret/?task=videodirectlink&id=11074

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/us/politics/occupy-wall-street-protests-offer-obama-opportunity-and-threats.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=occupy%20wall%20street&st=cse

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/10/07/china-takes-note-as-wall-street-gets-occupied/?KEYWORDS=occupy+wall+street

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/occupy-wall-street-99-percent-movements-get-challenge-from-the-other-1-percent/2011/10/07/gIQAfBdUTL_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/occupy-wall-street-protests-what-do-the-one-percent-think/2011/10/07/gIQAMpPsSL_blog.html

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-movement-gathers-steam

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mainlander/2011/10/occupyvancouver-look-hong-kong-housing-activists-inspiration

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/is-occupy-wall-street-a-first-world-problem/2011/10/07/gIQA5kc9SL_blog.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/wall-street-protest-looks-messy-but-is-organized/article2194854/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/occupy-toronto-activists-choose-not-to-talk-to-police-for-now/article2195425/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=occupy%20wall%20street&video=on&audio=on&text=on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15223695

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15211096

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15208209

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1066824–the-big-deal-will-occupy-wall-street-take-on-a-local-flavour

October 6 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/nyregion/wall-st-protest-lures-many-new-to-this-sort-of-thing.html?ref=nyregion

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/nyregion/major-unions-join-occupy-wall-street-protest.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/6/occupy_wall_street_march_gets_massive

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/new-york-main.html?mod=WSJ_topnav_newyork_main

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204294504576613461667270684.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/occupy-dc-to-protest-on-freedom-plaza-thursday/2011/10/06/gIQA6TAiPL_blog.html?hpid=z3

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-asks-big-questions

http://occupywallst.org/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/obama-taps-into-anger-over-wall-street-slams-deceptive-banks/article2193207/

http://occupyboston.com/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/biden-occupy-wall-streettea-party-have-frustration-in-common/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wall-street-protest-continues-for-third-day/2011/09/19/gIQAKqbffK_gallery.html?hpid=z4#photo=1

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/why-you-shouldnt-hate-wall-street/246282/

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-not-as-fringe-as-some-like-to-believe/

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/226376/20111006/occupy-wall-street-romney-occupy-wall-street-cain-occupy-wall-street-republican-occupy-wall-street-c.htm

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/10/06/steve_jobs_and_occupy_wall_street.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/occupy-dc-protesters-rally-in-freedom-plaza/2011/10/06/gIQATeeLQL_story.html

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=30081785

October 5 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15187257

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/05/unions-endorse-occupy-wall-street-will-join-protests/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/cnn-takes-occupy-wall-str_b_995866.html?ir=Politics

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/politics/progressive-rally/

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/10/05/occupation-from-wall-street-to-the-university/?section=magazines_fortune

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111005-709751.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/unrest-dont-ignore-whats-happening-in-the-streets/article2192186/

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2011/10/activist-communiqu%C3%A9-occupy-movement-backgrounder-canadians

http://www.globaltvbc.com/vancouver+media+foundation+behind+%E2%80%9Coccupy+wall+street%E2%80%9D+movement/6442495566/story.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-wall-street-gets-two-shocking-endorsements-2011-10

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-hears-from-neutral-milk-hotel-jeff-mangum/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/312393

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-05/anonymous-vows-to-attack-nyse-in-support-of-wall-street-protests.html

http://westroxbury.patch.com/articles/occupy-boston-beyond-left-and-right-9e6614bf

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/money/jobs-and-careers/unfocused-occupy-wall-street-protesters-make-list-demands

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-movement-hates-democrats-and-obama/

http://presstv.com/usdetail/202923.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016406548_westlake05m.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/feliz-l-molina/occupy-philadelphia-_b_993375.html

October 4/2011

http://www.zcommunications.org/a-brief-analysis-from-a-wall-street-occupier-by-yotam-marom

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-the-99-percent/2011/08/25/gIQAt87jKL_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

http://www.smithpolitics.com/?p=92

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/occupy-wall-st-this-is-no_b_994388.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/04/occupy-wall-street-protests-live?newsfeed=true

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/oct/04/4/tdmain01-ny-action-spurs-richmond-group-ar-1356292/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-aroneanu/occupy-wall-street-environmentalists_b_994045.html

http://coloradoindependent.com/101420/video-occupy-wall-street-comes-home-as-people-occupy-denver

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20111004/224767_occupy-wall-street-protests-banks-bailout-george-soros.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/04/occupy-wall-street-vs-kingian-methods/

Some Previous Coverage and Commentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUGhe3Jjw8w&feature=player_embedded

http://www.vimeo.com/29906321

http://www.racialicious.com/2011/09/30/occupy-wall-street-the-game-of-colonialism-and-further-nationalism-to-be-decolonized-from-the-left/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-version-of-wall-street-occupation-planned/article2187950/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/inside_occupy_wall_st_a_tour

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Occupy+Wall+Street+protests+continue+Sunday+after+arrests/5491006/story.html

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-game-colonialism-and-left

http://mzzainal-straten.blogspot.com/2011/09/open-letter-to-occupy-wall-street.html

A Critique of Revitalizing Civilizationalism: An Account of Michael Murphy’s “Civilization, Self-Determination, and Reconciliation.”

2011 September 20
by timarchy

Michael Murphy. “Civilization, Self-Determination, and Reconciliation.” CH 10 from First Nations, First Thoughts: The Impact of Indigenous Thought in Canada Ed. Annis May Timpson. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009, pp 251-269.

Murphy’s “Civilization, Self-determination, and Reconciliation” begins with the politics and framework of “reconciliation” between Canada and First Nations. He notes that the government of Canada, First Nations and the Supreme Court of Canada view the concept of reconciliation as the central frame for working on and constituting relations between Canada and First Nations, even if their view of what constitutes reconciliation and how you do it differ. Murphy opens up the reconciliation frame through the example of the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) that, he asserts, made an honest attempt to break with assimilation as the paradigm of Canada’s approach to relations with First Nations and attempts to directly confront the history and legacy of colonialism.  Indeed, although not emphasized by Murphy here, RCAP takes nation-to-nation relations as the framework for the future of Canada’s relations with First Nations. And RCAP also rejects the dubious, inaccurate and colonial view of the historic treaties (i.e. the Royal Proclamation and the numbered treaties) explicitly noting that treaties were not agreements ceding land and self-determination. Murphy does emphasize that although RCAP made a number of recommendations for carrying out the difficult work of reconciliation, Canada has been slow to act on them and therefore slow to participate in a process of reconciliation.

So Murphy’s picture of reconciliation begins with the point that RCAP exemplifies a break with the civilizationalist-assimilation tradition of Canada’s approach to Aboriginal peoples and that it attempts in good faith to confront colonialism honestly; and, moreover, that the government of Canada has acted all too slowly. Murphy adds to this portrait of the reconciliation question that although First Nations have different views of what reconciliation looks like that there is broad agreement that reconciliation is the necessary pathway forward.

Murphy then adds a crucial point to this account of the politics of reconciliation in Canada, a point which constitutes the problematic to which Murphy’s essay responds. Despite the rejection of assimilation and civilizationalism by RCAP and First Nations, , Murphy asserts that there is an effort to revive the assimilationalist and civilizationalist approach to relations—an approach of course that has always been rejected by Indigenous peoples in Canada and is rejected by RCAP. The most influential and articulate version of this attempt to revitalize civilizationalism, according to Murphy, is Tom Flanagan’s First Nations, Second Thoughts? For this reason the rest of Murphy’s article is a critique of the problem of revitalizing civilizationalism in Canada and a critique of Tom Flanagan’s attempt to re-employ conventional assimilation as the vision of Indigenous peoples social, political, economic and cultural place within a unifom Canadian nation-state on the classical liberal model.  Hence the key languages running through this article are reconciliation, civilizationalism and self-determination. That said, the former two languages form the background concepts to Flanagan’s vision and Murphy’s critique. Murphy does not provide a general account of self-determination as he does with reconciliation and civilizationalism (I outline key aspects of Murphy’s rendering of civilizationalism below).

Against this backdrop of the ongoing politics of reconciliation between Canada and First Nations, Murphy states that the object of this essay is to “ highlight the failure of Tom Flanagan’s position in First Nations, Second Thoughts? both as a moral and practical vision of reconciliation” (252).  Murphy frames the argument in three parts. Part one “examines the historical roots of civilizationalist thinking in the works of several influential political theorists who wrote in the age of empire.” Part two “examines Flanagan’s efforts to resurrect and rehabilitate this concept of civilization as a foundation for Crown-First Nation reconciliation in Canada.” The third part provides a twofold critique of Flanagan’s view. (1) Flanagan’s “mischaracterization of Aboriginal Nationalism” (2) The “moral and political weaknesses of his civilizationalist paradigm of reconciliation” (253)

Murphy’s essay, it’s three part argument against Flanagan’s recasting of the civilizationalist and assimilationalist paradigm, are organized into 6 sections: (i) Historical Civilizationalism; (ii) The Scientific Dimension; (iii) The Humanistic Dimension; (iv) Civilizationalism and Colonialism; (v) Rehabilitating Civilizationalism: Flanagan’s First Nations? Second Thoughts; (vi) The Moral and Political Sterility of Civilizationalism.

By historical civilization Murphy is referring to “a broad spectrum of European political theorists” that in the age of empire “shared a perspective” that he “calls civilizationalism” (254-255).  Murphy specifically refers to John Locke, Immanuel Kant, J.S. Mill and Karl Marx. Indeed, over the last 20 years an extensive body of scholarship on the significance that ethnocentric and racist notions of civilization have played in these different canonical thinkers supports the appropriateness of Murphy’s  “civilizationalist” grouping of these figures.

Murphy draws on some of these sources to support the frame. Murphy’s picture of civilizationalism draws on this scholarship not only to illustrate that these theorists shared a civilizationalist perspective but also to note that this perspective has been discredited and rejected in the contemporary era. Given the historic presence civilizationalism and the contemporary rejection, Murphy is able to articulate the extremeness and problem in Flanagan’s attempt to revitalize civilizationalism in an enterprise to re-thicken the ethnocentric mode of assimilation as the approach that Canada should impose on First Nations. If Flanagan’s project articulated in First Nations? Second Thoughts? can be viewed as an assimilationist vision of reconciliation, which Murphy suggests, then it is a vision that reduces reconciliation to assimilation that presupposes the ethnocentric and racists presumptions of the superiority of the settler Canada’s state-society. In short, it is a concept of reconciliation that is colonial and imperial all the way down.

Whatever one makes of Murphy’s brief account of the similarities and differences between the civilizationalist thinkers (Locke, Kant, Mill and Marx), he packages together a number of features of the shared civilizationalist perspective in order to help the reader see the kind of perspective that Flanagan attempts to revitalize. I will outline four basic aspects, or features, that I abstract from Murphy that I regard as consistent with many—not necessarily all—scholarly accounts of the civilizationalist perspective (the idea of civilization in different traditions of modern enlightenment thought). These features identified by Murphy and others are critically important given there continued prominence in the taken for granted thinking of the colonial social, political and economic belief’s and practices that stand behind settler Canadian colonialism throughout, in my view, the 19th and 20th centuries and their continuities into contemporary Canada. But before sketching these four features, I think is worthwhile to insert two points that are outside the scope of Murphy’s essay but important to thinking about reconciliation, civilizationalism and self-determination in Canada.

Even though Murphy is right to note that Flanagan is attempting to revitalize a view of civilizationalism many reject and have discredited, expecially by those subject to the colonial and imperial relations justified by civilizationalism, it is also the case that different versions of civilizationalism have continued to operate in ongoing colonial and imperial practices in Canada’s social, economic, political and juridical practices. These are any practice that refuses to acknowledge that Indigenous orders are not subordinate and inferior to settler colonial institutions of representative government and liberal democracy and the supremacy of Crown sovereignty.

Furthermore, I currently suspect that those people and communities situated in non-imperial traditions of treaty and deep (agonistic) democracy, though subjugated and marginalized by the age of empire and Canadian colonialism, have never accepted such a premise and continue to contest it. In my view, the moment any practice, perspective or theory accepts a version of the civilizationist premise then they are civilizationalist and therefore necessarily imperial and colonial to the degree that they are civilizationalist.  But this is a thesis I will not complete here. I now turn to sketching the four significant aspects of the civilizationalist perspective that I glean from Murphy’s outline.

(1) “Civilizationalists ranked societies on a scale of human development that measured their degree of material and moral intellectual progress, the template for which was provided by the highly advanced societies of Europe” (254-255).

(2) At the heart of the civilizationalist perspective [is] the assumption that non-European peoples are generally inferior to their European counterparts. European superiority was commonly expressed in terms of the stages theory of human advancement, according to which human societies pass through a series of phases of historical development during their transition from a barbarous to a fully civilized mode of existence”  (254-255).

(3) The third feature is important for recognizing the institutional feature of civilizationalism. “At the pinnacle of this evolutionary model were places the states and peoples of Europe, whereas non-European were placed at various lower stages of the process.” Although not elaborated by Murphy, Mill and Kant tied their favoured forms of the modern state and modern constitutionalism to the civilizational status. In the case of Mill, for example, some non-civilized peoples should be subject to external rule to provide imperial tutelage in order to acquire the requisite socio-cultural subjectivity that then makes possible the ablity and will of subjects to acquire, maintain and protect representative government (what we now call liberal democracy).

 In my view, and the view of some other scholars of Canadian colonialism, there persists a colonial premise within the colonial vision Canada’s relations with First Nations that Indigenous forms of social and political organization and governance are inferior and thus only settler Canadian institutions (parliament, the courts, the public sphere etc.) are the appropriate spaces within which the working out of the politics of recognition and reconciliation between First Nations and Canada can be negotiated and developed. Where such a view persists, reconciliation and recognition continue colonial and imperial relations rather than challenging them and moving beyond them (254-255).

(4) The last and fourth feature of the civilizationalist feature identified by Murphy that I want to illustrate also relates to the institutional-constitutional aspect of civilizationalism.  And it shows that my point above regarding feature three is implied by Murphy’s account of civilizationalism and his rejection of the revitalization of civilizationalism through his critique of Tom Flanagan.  Murphy writes:

The central organizational element for the civilizationalist was, of course, the modern state. In contrast to savages, who were generally understood to live in a lawless condition—[i.e. the state of nature]—and characterized by only the most rudimentary form of sociopolitical organization, civilized societies were marked by the presence of a highly institutionalized and centralized political authority that exercised sovereignty and enforced the rule of law within clearly delimited bodies….” The “ultimate end” the modern state as an “established and institutionalized political order was the guarantee of safety, security, and organizational resources essential to economic, cultural, scientific and moral progress (254-255).

After giving this civilizationalist picture Murphy provides a distinction between the scientific and humanistic dimensions of civilizationalism, Murphy then turns to his section on “Civilization and colonialism.” In the bulk of the latter section Murphy attempts with brevity and conciseness to account for some differences in amongst the civilizationalists of modern political theory (mentioned above) in the way that they position their civilizationalism to colonialism. I am not going to account for these here . What’s important to note is Murphy’s conclusion on the general relation of civilizationalism to colonialism. Murphy writes :

civilizationalists were in agreement on the desirability of  transcending uncivilized forms of life, even if they deplored, as did    Kant and Marx the means by which this was sometimes accomplished. Perhaps most significantly, they all accepted the inevitability of Europe’s domination of the uncivilized parts of the globe, a conclusion that takes on a quasi-mystical tone in Kant and Marx when it is described as one element in the hidden plan of history  (260-261).

 Murphy has outlined some aspects of the politics of reconciliation in Canada and the civilizationalist perspective. Noting that the latter has been dominant in Canadian colonialism and modern western political thought in the 19th and 20th century, but rejected in more contemporary times.  The next section “Rehabilitating Civilizationalism: Flanagan’s First Nations? Second Thoughts?” turns to Flanagan’s attempt to revitalize civilziationalism against the contemporary grain that rejects it. This section offers an excellent summation of Flanagan’s view which I will not replicate here. Murphy goes through a number of the details of Flanagan’s argument which concludes that the concept of civilization is a true, objective and scientific—descriptive rather than an arbitrary and normative— way of assessing a peoples civilizational state. Murphy ‘s explication of this argument shows explains the ground upon which Flanagan argues that First Nations were and do lack civilization. And on this basis, in turn, how Flanagan re-pitches assimiliation and the absorption of First Nations into the Canadian nation-state and Canadian society as the most practical, efficient and ethically sound Aboriginal policy for Canada.

The final section outlines Murphy’s critique of Flanagan’s view. I will sketch some of these lines of critique.

(1) “The central moral failing of Flanagan’s civilizationalist paradigm of reconciliation is its unsatisfactory engagement with the question of consent. Flanagan’s attention is so tightly focused on what he thinks Aboriginal peoples should choose that he rarely considers the question of their right to make their own choice” (260).

(2) “An equivocation between facts and norms pervades Flanagan’s analysis of Aboriginal sovereignty claims. To dismiss these claims on the basis that First Nations did not measure up to European definitions of statehood is simply to substitute fact for justification and, therefore, miss the point spectacularly. Regardless of whether they met the factual criteria of sovereignty or statehood—a question that is itself the subject of  some debate—First Nations on a more fundamental level question the morality of the process whereby Europeans denigrated and displaced Indigenous systems of self-rule during the process of colonial state formation” (264-265).

(3) “Ultimatley, Flanagan’s unwillingness to question the moral legitimacy the moral legitimacy of North American colonialism has the unintended effect of placing Aboriginal peoples not only in a position of technological subordination but also in the position of moral subordinates whose right to decide their own fate is counted as less than that of European newcomers….Like Locke and Mill before him, Flanagan is able to view Aboriginal citizens as suitable objects for assimilation, but he is unable, or unwilling, to see these same citizens as fit subjects for self-government” (265).

(4) “Like so many of his civilizationalist predecessors, Flanagan appears incapable of seeing Aboriginal peoples as anything other than objects of radical difference—exotic cultural grist for the mill of liberal assimilationism.” This “leads him to misrepresent Aboriginal nationalism as a yearning for some authentic cultural past…and a refusal [of the benefits]…that modernization might bring. What Flanagan is in fact describing is one choice an Aboriginal nation might make with its right to self-determination, but again, he ignores the more fundamental issue, which is the right of First Nations to make autonomous choices in the first place“ (267).

After offering these critiques Murphy comments on what he calls the “practical dimensions of Flanagan’s view.” Murphy asserts that there is every reason to be skeptical of Flanagan’s confident prediction of the “inevitability of Aboriginal assimilation.” For Murphy a “more serious concern” is that Flanagan’s uncompromising vision is a recipe for increasing conflict between First Nations and the Crown” (267).

Murphy’s conclusion to the essay is worth quoting at length:

Reading Flanagan’s account of colonialism in the Americas, one might easily get the impression that political domination happens of its own accord, rather than as a result of deliberate human choice and agency. Written out of the story is any sense of respect for the anguish or the agency of those who were subjected to colonial rule or any sense that shoe who were responsible for their subjugation have a moral case to answer. At the heart of First Nations? Second Thoughts? is a narrow and morally impoverished vision of the past whose shortcomings are equaled, if not exceeded, by the folly of its practical recommendations for the future. Ironically, Flanagan presents his civilizationalist model of reconciliation to us as a radical vision for the future of Canada’s First Nations. Nonetheless, it is difficult to disagree with Alan Cairns’ observation that it is more ‘a revival of yesterday’s settled understanding of where our non-Aboriginal predecessors thought we were heading…that is only radical because it now attracts fewer supporters than in its heyday.’ Canada can still choose this backward-looking vision, anchored in the assumption of a distant age, or it can continue to work with First Nations toward a just and lasting vision of reconciliation built on principles of mutual respect, mutual accommodation, and consent. On such a path, there is still hope that this country can gradually move out from under the long shadow of its colonial past (269).

Ultimately whatever its limits might be (and I have not engaged here in a critique of the essay), Murphy makes an important contribution to understanding why it is that anyone that is seriously interested in non-imperial and non-colonial relations—against the grain of the colonial vision of Canada its state-centric colonial apparatus—need to be engaged in the work of dismantling the continuities of civilizationalist ideas and practices in contemporary Canada. Any achievement of reconciliation in the form of a non-imperial and non-colonial Canada depends on it.