Where was the outcry?
I expected outrage—an outpour of letters to local politicians or newspapers or a national media storm. Instead, there was no response. Last Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said what could be the most offensive statement of his career as a public officer. (back to story...)
Discuss this story (37 comments)
All discussions are moderated. Please see our full comment policy for details.
Thank you for your story on the Prime Minister's remarks at the G20.
I stood up in the House of Commons and gave this Member's Statement in response.
On September 25th at the close of the G20, the Prime Minister told reporters at a news conference that Canada has "no history of colonialism."
That came as a surprise to many Canadians, not least of all Aboriginal peoples.
Maybe the Prime Minister has a different definition of colonialism. My dictionary says that it is “control by one power over a dependent area or people or a policy advocating or based on such control.”
The Indian Act was a colonial piece of legislation passed by Canada. It legislated that the Government of Canada would have power over Indians living on reserve.
The numbered treaties were signed with Canada, not Britain or France. Those numbered treaties took control of the resources and land that Aboriginal peoples had lived on for millennia. The land involved is from Ontario west to the Rockies.
In court cases today, the Government of Canada uses a remnant of colonial expansion - “the right of discovery” as a defence to explain why it will not honour agreements.
Bands in British Columbia have to prove that indigenous people were living in their communities with archaeological evidence going back thousands of years because the government still argues “terra nullis” or “land empty of people” as a reason why it doesn’t need to sign fair treaties with First Nations.
Mr. Speaker, Canada does have a history of colonialism. Reconciliation won’t happen until our Prime Minister admits that.
More left wing mock indignation from the Journal. What a surprise. For once I'd like to see a political commentary that doesn't read like a middling first year sociology or "developmental studies" paper.
"mock indignation"? You'd have to be both an ignorant fool and a bigot to ignore the struggles of aboriginal peoples in this country.
You forgot about the Metis and Inuit! Moreoever, Canada still colonizes,First Nations are still wards of the state! Canadians CONTINUE to turn away at the atrocities you wrote. When Grassroots Canadians take notice for once in their lives maybe they will stop their government from contnued abuse. Every silent Canadian is guilty of colonialism and abuse!
Well said. One might also note Canada's key role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Haiti, and then presiding over a campaign of terror which saw thousands of political activists imprisoned, killed, and forced into hiding. Or the government's ongoing military aid to a Honduras, where the unelected coup government has suspended all civil liberties and is shooting at people in the streets.
As for the right winger sounding off derisively here, it's useful to note the total lack of substance in their responses. Lacking anything meaningful to say, WD and James can only bluster.
I would be interested in what Mr. Harper has said as Prime Minister that is more offensive than his wholesale denial of a basic fact of Canadian history -- that Canada exists because, when the French and British were weak, they sought to become partners with Indigenous peoples to take advantage of their military might but, once they became stronger, they broke their agreements with impunity and then passed legislation to subjugate Indigenous peoples to the state, including through such means as denying them the vote and access to the legal counsel they needed to argue for the enforcement of their rights. Nor is this "old" history -- status Indians only received the vote in 1960 and the Indian Act still subjects Indigenous peoples to bureaucratic control from Ottawa. This is not "left-wing mock indignation" but our history and our reality as a society, even if we wish it were not so. And before anyone dismisses my comments as the knee-jerk sympathies of a "middling first year sociology" student, you should know that I have an LL.M. (with a thesis on this very topic), 20 years of public service experience that included seven years of involvement in a self-government negotiation, and a publication record that I doubt those who see this well-written critique of Harper's statement as "mock indignation" can match.
While I agree with this article wholeheartedly, I feel I have just become desensitized to anything Harper says. He has made countless stupid comments, this among the score, and has (and I truly believe unintentionally) so many different groups that it hardly seems worth mentioning. I am not saying this to justify his comment but rather my view on the lack of reaction, the lack of "outcry" that this article brings up - what do you say to such blatant stupidity?
The media, right or wrong, feeds the public information and depending on the tone of the story, influences to a certain degree, public response. Perhaps the reason there was no outrage expressed was because generally, the media did not make much hay out of the comment. Why was that?
I didn't even know Harper had made the ridiculous remark until I read your piece on it. So, thanks for writing and raising some awareness.
He means overseas colonialism. You know...the way most people mean it.
Colony: a : a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state b : the territory inhabited by such a body
So while Canada has history as a colony, it has no colonies of its own, hence no colonialism.
It amazes me how much anal-cranial inversion persists....
What a garbage article. You should be proud of your Canadian history or quite frankly leave.
Canada in Afghanistan is colonialism. Canada in Haiti is colonialism. Canada in Yugoslavia is colonialism. Canada on TURTLE ISLAND is colonialism.
Don't forget that Stephen Harper also said to the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce in 2006,
"But seriously and truthfully, much of what Canada is today we can trace to our origins as a colony of the British Empire. Now I know it’s unfashionable to refer to colonialism in anything other than negative terms.
And certainly, no part of the world is unscarred by the excesses of empires. But in the Canadian context, the actions of the British Empire were largely benign and occasionally brilliant".
Read about the 'salt water fallacy'. Colonial relations can exist even without a divide of salt water. (JB, please explain more about how all of Canadian history should make us proud.)
I personally enjoy how JB and WD's comments are full of emotion, cliches about left and right, soap boxes and patriotism and not a shred of reason or evidence. Its not an issue of being proudly Canadian or not. One can be a proud German and not deny the travesty of the holocaust. One can be a proud citizen of the UK and still admit that the UK was a colonial power. The Canadian state was actively engaged in subjugating native populations and exploiting the west indies for raw materials and cheap domestic labour - though this later bit we hear even less about. Accepting Canada's colonial past isn't some ploy to diminish anyones patriotism, but rather to ensure that that patriotism takes the good and the bad in order to build a stronger, and more just future. Patriots aren't those who romanticize the past, but help to build a better future. And if you have any doubt about the accuracy of the history recounted in the article, pick up any history of first nations people written since the 1970s and you'll find out just how ill-informed you really are.
I'm sorry, JB, but where do you imply the writer of this article, a Canadian citizen, goes? What good is being proud of a history that you aren't willing to criticize or understand? Being a member of a country doesn't mean that one has to passively sing the anthem with no comprehension of what they are singing about. Why contribute if you have nothing constructive to say? You'd be a better Canadian if you were interested or able to participate in a dialogue that would better the country. Thanks for nothing.
Citoyen,
I'm not sure if you comment was intended as ironic jest, but the logic it contains sure made me giggle.
You argue that "while Canada has history as a colony, it has no colonies of its own, hence no colonialism." Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Colonialism is built on a colonizer-colony relationship.
One could just as easily make the false argument that because England and France (not to be confused with Britannia or Gaul, of course) were never themselves colonized, they have no history of colonialism either. But, we all can easily see through this false dichotomy.
Similarly, one would not be so naive or obtuse as to argue that Zaire, Congo or South Africa have "no history of colonialism," would one? Of course not, that would be a callous and trite dismissal of several centuries of oppression. So how does that same unconscionable argument somehow apply to the Canadian experience? Fact of the matter is, it doesn't.
Canada most certainly has a (long) history of colonialism. It predates, transcends and continues past Confederation. By your own admission, "Canada has a history as a colony." Ergo, you and our esteemed Prime Minister are blatantly wrong.
One only has to look at the Indian Act, in its many iterations, to see Canadian colonialism at work. Not only has the IA detailed aforementioned Residential Schools, it has outlawed Indigenous cultural, social and political practices, barred Indigenous Peoples from seeking legal representation, and lastly eroded their legal title through an enfranchisement policy that lives on today in Bill C-31's 6.1/6.2 definition of Status. It takes some nerve to maintain that none, let alone any, of these does not serve as clear evidence of contemporary and pervasive Canadian colonialism.
For evidence of Canada's complicity in what is, as far as I'm concerned, an ongoing process of colonization, one merely has to look back to June 11th, 2008, when the same man who made these comments, apologized for Canada's history of residential schools.
These schools, for over a century, worked to forcibly strip aboriginal parents of their children, institutionalize them, rob them of their indigenous heritage and assimilate them into broader Euro-Canadian culture. Lets keep in mind that to forcibly erase the culture of an indigenous population and impose upon them a separate one with the distinct objective of inducting them into a broader national construct is cultural colonization.
And this example, merely chosen because of Harper's recognition of it, is a drop in the bucket of examples of Canada's role as a colonizer.
This combined with what is widely academically accepted as the military takeover of the North American territory, the imposition of a European political structure and economy, Anglo-French culture, in place of the structures the First Nations had before amount to nothing short of colonization.
The act of nation building itself--the construction of Canada as the nation we live in today--was colonization.
Far from having no history of colonialism, Canada is one of the absolute most successful colonial states in the world. Canada is the achievement of what South Africa, Israel, China in its western parts, etc. tried/are trying to achieve.
For any good human being, this is not something to be proud of.
But not everyone is a good human being, and I'm surprised that you right wing lunatics aren't upset that Harper simply added this to his list of reasons why Canada is so great. He denied one of the most overwhelmingly succesful aspects of Canada!
I am a first nation's person from Winnipeg, MB but I live in Calgary. I was deeply appreciative of your article about Harper's ignorant comments. I was aware of the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh. However, I was unaware that Harper had made those stupid comments. I completely agree w/everything you stated. Canada is indeed a country w/deep historical roots in colonialism. I especially liked your comment about "national amnesia" regarding the historical truths of residential schools and "political and cultural absorption" of native peoples.
I live in Alberta and I have to say this is the most racist province in Canada. Well, I haven't been past Toronto so I don't know about Quebec and the eastern provinces. Anyway, my point is that this racism is totally ignored or accepted or both. This "national amnesia" is a willing ignorance and paralyzing fear to confront the overwhelmingly obvious. It screams in my face every day and I want to scream back.
Tell me where to send my "outcry" in response to Harper's ignorant, ill-informed, amnesiacal and "colonialist" comments and I will, brother.
Some writers certainly like to go on about how offended they are on behalf of other people. I don't care much for Harper, but honestly, if he was so careless in his comment, why did he make the formal apology before? He wasn't ignoring the mistakes of our past with that statement. Canada does not have the same history as other countries because ours is shorter and came into the modern era sooner- less time to make major blunders.
I think getting offended at a benign statement is something you do in America, when the media tries to distract you from real issues. Don't look at what the Prime Minister is saying in clips or quotes, look at the big things. That's where you are supposed to get upset or angry.
Here is the definition of colonialism from the New Oxford American Dictionary: "the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically".
I don't think Canada post-confederation has fulfilled this definition. Which country (after 1867) has Canada acquired control of, occupied with settlers, and exploited economically? I agree with Anna, the PM's comments were benign, and all this article accomplishes is to blow them out of proportion.
Why is it that this 'colonialism' is only a so called slap in the face to Canada's first nations. I might argue that there was a subjugation of many different groups in Canada including the Japanese and the French.
Tell me, where was the outrage when the CBC decided to air the documentary on the beginning of the English colonization of the French following the Plains of Abraham? I think that their callous disregard for the feelings of the French people should have also been included in your editorial.
I am not denying that the indigenous peoples of Canada have suffered. Indeed they have, even recently; body bags, resource issues and dirty drinking water, having little control over their own affairs.
However, to reiterate a few of the others here, I would argue that it was not Harper's intention to deny the injustices which the Aboriginals suffered through; as it was Harper who apologized for the residential schools and Harper again who admitted Quebec is a distinct society. To quote the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics "Colonialism is more often thought of as an attribute of the late nineteenth-century imperialists who conquered large tracts of the globe to find themselves ruling, in Rudyard Kipling's phrase 'new caught, sullen peoples|half devil and half child...' Thus, I would argue, as others have that Harper was thinking of colonialism in more of a South African or British Empire sense rather than intending to put down Canada's first nations. Also, try to stay away from absolutes such as 'worst comment ever' in your arguments :)
Anna,
If you get a chance, please read up on such thinkers as Tom Flanagan, who served a major stint as a personal adviser to PM Harper. Flanagan's "First Nations? Second Thoughts" was published by McGill-Queen's in 2000, and directly supports the flawed and self-serving logic Harper espoused on Friday, and also folded into his Residential School speech/false apology last summer.
Harper, Flanagan, and other disciples of the Fraser Institute, have repeatedly shown themselves prone to espousing half-truths and false dichotomies in pursuit of their neo-colonial aims. That there is even a hint of meaningful discussion over the semantics of the term Colonialism, fully demonstrates the means and methodologies of disinformation that this crowd resorts to.
For a well-rounded, in-depth and Crown-commissioned opinion, please refer to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP)(1996).
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/rrc-eng...
RG,
The 100+ Indigenous Nations colonized by the Canadian State are the "other countries" for your equation. Before, during and since Confederation the Crown has "acquir[ed] full or partial political control" over these nations, "occupied [them] with settlers, and exploit[ed] [them] economically." To deny this fact is to bury one's head in the sand, and to actively deny any forward movement towards renewal or reciprocity.
As already mentioned, the colonizers justify their actions, however, by citing the doctrine of "Terra Nullius," or "empty land" to displace, assimilate and appropriate the goods of Indigenous Nations. For such a 'secular' society, that certainly does require a lot of faith in Manifest Destiny.
WJ,
Simply put, colonialism is an international and pan-global enterprise. You undo your very own argument when you state:
"I would argue, as others have that Harper was thinking of colonialism in more of a South African or British Empire sense rather than intending to put down Canada's first nations"
Canada is STILL part of the Commonwealth, South Africa was won to the British Empire with the help of Canadian troops, and Canada only garnered her own Constitution (from the Queen) in 1982. Even at the point of Confederation, we were but the Dominion of Canada: part of the British Empire.
Without even getting into the details of the Indian Act, the Treaty of Paris, the Royal Proclamation, the Quebec Act, or the innumerable treaties and countless other related documents; can you not see that it is plain folly to unequivocally argue that Canada "has no history of Colonialism?"
Fact is, our Prime Minister, in a planned statement, re-iterated his belief that Indigenous Peoples and their concerns of national equity are invalid. One can look to the Kelowna Accord, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the evasive language used in the Appology he issued last summer, and several other examples, to see that the Hon Mr Harper does not value Indigenous Peoples.
This is unacceptable from the leader of such an admirable nation.
The statement is at best simply ignorant racism, at worst it completely demeans the struggles of the Indigenous cultures with in Canada. It makes a mockery of the already dubious apology. It fails to comprehend the the history of Canada which I understood from childhood was part of a Colonial system. There should have been at least an outcry from everyone of Harper's history teachers.
Congratulations for having the courage to write this article. I personally have no faith in Harper and tend to ignore what he says but thank you for bringing to light his ignorance and insensitivity to even the most obvious issues facing Canada and all Canadians.
Thanks for highlighting this revealing statement.
For the life of me, I simply can't understand where Harper is 'coming' from - I can only conclude that he is either intellectually challenged or thinks everyone else is ... either way ...
I don't think we should ignore this at all.
Roland Chrisjohn (St. Thomas University, Native Studies Program, NB) has written that Canada only provided Aboriginal people with the right to vote in 1960 because it was afraid of coming under the same criticism then being leveled at communist China for treatment of its 'minorities'. Once given the right to vote as a citizen, you're no longer a(n official) minority. Canada did not extend this right for altruistic reasons, nor did it welcome its Aboriginal peoples as citizens without being forced to do so.
Also, read up on the intense lobbying by Canada and the U.S. in the late 1940s to remove key sections of the original draft Convention Against Genocide. Even 60 years ago, both countries were very much afraid of being charged with genocide over their treatment of indigenous peoples.
As a result, the sought-after cultural and linguistic destruction of Aboriginal peoples in Canada (in addition to Canada's already noted residential schools legacy) is now being framed against Canada in terms of 'ethnocide' instead of the 'G-word' that successive Canadian governments have worked so very hard and successfully to suppress for so long.
Lets all try to think rationally for a second about what Harper was actually saying. His comments were made in the context of talking about Canada's foreign policy. Clearly when we spoke of colonialism, he meant colonialism as an aspect of foreign policy and the way that it limits a country's ability to work with other countries where resentment over colonialism exists.
It is colonialist history that makes it difficult for European countries to help deal with problems in Africa, or for the US to carry out foreign policy in South America. The history of colonialism from these countries means that there is a great deal of resentment from those regions towards them.
Canada, on the other hand, does not have a history of controlling the domestic affairs of another country (what Harper was obviously referring to with the word 'colonialism'). The only thing close would be the Boer War, however that was a war against other European settlers and Canada did not really control its foreign policy before the 1930s. Based on this there are not countries in the world that resent Canada from past interference.
It is clear that based on the definition Harper was clearly using his comments were correct. This entire article and many of the comments are built on the logical fallacy of equivocation.
Basically it's saying:
1) Harper said Canada has no history of colonialism (Definition A)
2) But Canada does have a history of colonialism (Definition B)
3) Therefore Harper is ignorant of Canadian history.
Yet another example of how the left on this campus has no understanding of basic logic.
Alrighty....
First: bravo on the article.
Second: a bit of a advice for the pro-dictionary types. A dictionary is just that - a DICTIONary. Its main purposes is to teach speakers and learners of English how to correctly pronounce words. It is NOT an encyclopedia, which had any of your misguided dictionary referees picked up, would realize provide vastly different definitions of colonialism. Look it up (in an encyclopedia preferably).
Third: References to South Africa - really? REALLY? No, really? Any first year student of politics or Indigenous Studies learn that South Africa's system of racial apartheid was based on the Canadian system of racial segregation and oppression of Indigenous peoples. Even better, Canadian officials traveled to South Africa to instruct South African colonials on how to "get it right" - look it up.
Fourth: When the English ended colonial control over Indigenous peoples, they handed full responsibility for the colonized population over to the "Canadians." Oh and then Canada set the Indigenous peoples free, ending forced colonialism and oppression..................oh wait, no they didn't. Instead, "Canadians" created the Indian Act, the Residential School system, and the reservation system. The only way this cannot be understood as colonization is if those unschooled in any history continue to deny that Indigenous peoples constituted existent nations "pre-Canada." "Canada," perhaps stupidly so, in trying to avoid the look of impropriety, negotiated a number of treaty agreements with Indigenous peoples - again, first year Canada poli sci teaches that treaty agreements are NATION to NATION. Look it up.
Fifth: Purests of "Canadian" identity, please stop forgetting that your ancestors were immigrants - "Canadians" and "Canada" didn't just magically spring up from the landscape - Canadians were "children of the Empire" - of colonial England. Also, please stop denying that the Irish, German, Japanese, Nigerian, etc. population have an equal claim to this so-called original identity of Canadian-ness. Look it up.
I think there's been a couple of responses that have stated that we should be proud of our Canadian history. The abuse we placed though on the Aboriginal people during the period of colonization, is one that we should definitely not be proud of. We never lived in those times but there was rape, murder and many other awful things that plagued the first settlers in the great White North. The difference is that, although this is a dreadful part of our history, we cannot just forget and pretend it didn't happen. It remains a part of our hisory and we still need to respect those who were oppressed during this time. Stephen Harper blatently showed disrespect and owes those people an apology.
Thank goodness there are politicians like Jean Crowder, who can set things straight!! This is an example of how the education system has failed everyone living in Canada!!! If this discussion was taught in schools, everyone would understand the history of colonization and its relationship and effects on Aboriginal people living in this place now called Canada.
I think what is so insensitive about the PM's comments is that this arrives in the midst of proposed budgetary cuts, by the Government, to outreach programmes to First Nations people dealing with the trauma of Residential Schools. As It Happens just covered this during the past week.
Anyone who denies that Canada has a history of colonialism apparently has never heard of, nor is paying any attention to, Residential Schools and their legacy.
I'm sorry - he is right.
We don't have a history of colonialism. WE were colonized, but we really don't have territories or any means of taking over other countries. THAT WAS THE BRITISH.
thank you for this article and for the debate that has sprung up after it. We need to be having these conversations in public and all of the time so that the ignorant opinion that "Canada has no history of colonialism" cannot keep passing through without outrage.
Thanks for this article.
Also, thank-you Kevin and all for yet another example of how the right on this campus have no decency.
By the way Wiener, stop prowling the journal's message boards to post your crazy all over. It's getting tired.
It seems to me that there are at least two sides to a history of colonialism... the experience of those colonizing and the experience of those being colonized, and that in Canadian history, both can be found.
Time will tell if this turns out to be the most offensive utterance of this singularly offensive man.
for what it's worth,
dugg
Journal comments policy
The comments on this website do not represent the views or opinions of the Queen's Journal, but of the comment-writer alone. Libelous comments and unsubstantiated allegations will not be printed, nor will comments that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital status or mental or physical ability. All comments are moderated, and may take up to 24 hours to be posted on this site barring any unforeseen circumstances. The Journal reserves the right to refrain from publishing comments. Comments are not edited for grammar or spelling, or for vulgar language outside of the above restrictions. The Journal respects your privacy. By posting your comments in our feedback forum you give us permission to post and publish your name, city and comments on the Journal website. All submissions must contain the email address of the comment-writer. Thank you for your co-operation.
Kingston
September 29, 2009 at 9:24 a.m.
Ok, but "what could be the most offensive statement of his career as a public officer"? Come down from your soapbox, buddy.