Nowadays, Canadian mainstream Medias strive to encourage citizens to think of Canada’s model of Liberalism (neo-Liberalism), which is being primarily concerned with “multiculturalism” as a metaphysical foundation for designing socio-political policies in this country, as such that makes perfect sense, despite the fact that deep conceptual inconsistencies of this form of political governing are visible to just about anyone capable of utilizing its sense of rationale. In his article “Debacle of Neo-Liberalism”, Frederic F. Clairmont states: “Neo-liberalism, its propagandists informed us, had overcome the ups and downs, the booms and busts of American and Canadian capitalism. Today the reality is different; the tunes have changed and replaced by declarations – official and non-official – of morbid despair and fatalism” (Clairmont 2002, p. 384). The issue of Native territorial claims in Canada and how the Federal government addresses this issue illustrates the validity of the earlier thesis better than anything else does. It has now been estimated that if all of these claims were added together, in the territorial sense of this word, the sheer size
Native land in this country would over exceed the size of Canada by two.
Nevertheless, while continuing to stress out the importance of eliminating what they refer to as “historical injustices”, Liberal politicians try their best to conceal the fact that their proposed policies, as to the elimination of such “injustices”, do not simply correspond to the notion of common sense, but even to their own Liberal worldview. In her article “Liberalism’s Identity Problem”, Katherine Smits points out to the fact that, even though Liberalism prompts citizens to “celebrate” their ethnic uniqueness, it simultaneously denies them a right to fully associate their existential mode with such their “uniqueness”, simply because Liberalism implies the irrelevance of biological factors, within a context of an individual attaining its social or political identity: “Feminists and scholars of race and ethnicity have argued that Liberalism is at best irrelevant, and at worst inimical to the demands of minority social groups for recognition, status and rights, because it both assumes and legitimizes a version of the person or subject which is universal-grounded in no particular social identity, and thus representative of all” (Smits 2003, p. 247). No matter how “progressive” White neo-Liberal politicians might appear to a naked eye, most of them continue to profess euro-centric values, which is why their public stance on the issue of Native Canadians striving to legitimize its land claims is best described as utterly hypocritical – while recognizing Natives’ natural right to be masters on their own territory, they nevertheless actively oppose the process of such right being integrated into Canadian law. Moreover, while being pressed hard to actually do something about “elimination of historical injustice”, in regards to Native Canadians, as opposed to simply talking about, Liberal politicians act as their spiritual ancestors (White colonists) – they ask Native Chiefs to sign legal agreements with representatives of Federal and Provincial governments, which usually concern the process of Natives withdrawing their territorial claims in exchange for cash.
The best example that proves the validity of this suggestion is the signing of the so-called “Nisga’s Treaty” in 1998, which Liberal Medias continue to praise as another indication of Canadian society being painlessly turned into a “multicultural paradise” with both: the descendants of White colonists and the descendants of those whom these colonists used to refer to as “savages”, being equally happy about the process. In his article “Nisga’s Treaty: a Triumph for all Canadians”, Joseph Gosnell comes up with a rather praiseworthy interpretation of the event, without understanding that while doing it, he actually exposes the fact that by signing this treaty, Nisga people have simply been cheated out of their land: “Under the treaty, the Nisga’a surrender 90% of their traditional lands and their tax-exempt status, but in return receive 1,930 square kilometers of land in the Nass Valley, self-government powers akin to municipal government, resource rights, and $300 million cash” (Gosnell 1998). Had the author traveled to Nass Valley today, he would be less prompted to refer to Nisga’s Treaty as the “Triumph of Liberal approach towards addressing the issue of Aboriginal Rights” – after having been paid $20.000 each, the overwhelming majority of Nisga Nation members had purchased themselves brand new SUV vehicles, only to drive these vehicles into trees and lamp poles, within a matter of next few days, while being in the state of drunken stupor. By the time they had woken up in the hospital the next morning, they were quick to realize that they had neither SUVs nor their land.
In his book “The Blackwell Companion to the Bible and Culture”, John F. A. Sawyer quotes the words of one of Africa anti-apartheid movement’s activists Mokofeng, which come in particularly handy for just about anyone who wants to understand the true nature of Nisga’s Treaty: “When the White man came to our country he had the Bible and we had the land. The White man said to us “let us pray”. After the prayer, the White man had the land and we had the Bible” (Sawyer 2006, p. 190). In other words, despite Liberals’ public hullabaloo as to Canada becoming a “multicultural” country, where the immigrants from Third World countries realize that they are being entitled to the extensive number of special rights and privileges, upon setting foot in this country, as compared to even native-born White Canadians, Canadian Natives continue to be treated as inferiors. And the reason for this is simple – unlike newly arrived Hindus, Pakistanis, Blacks and other “ethnically unique” citizens-in-making, Canadian Natives are being spiritually affiliated with the land of their forefathers, which is why they cannot possibly become cosmopolites, as “progressive” Liberals would like them to. This is why, the actual strategy of how Liberal government deals with Native territorial claims can be defined as follows: By giving cash to Native Chiefs, governmental officials encourage them to come up with outrageous suggestions as to the actual size of these claims, which in its turn, results in the creation of strongly negative public opinion, in regards to the process of Native Canadians trying to get back what is theirs. This allows these politicians to act as mediators between Natives and the rest of Canadian citizens, as opposed to whom they really are – the actual instigators of racial tensions in this country.
After having established themselves as “mediators”, Liberal “experts on tolerance” pursue with the policy of their less tolerant forefathers, which has traditionally been based on the ancient Roman principle of Divide et Impera (Divide and Conquer) – that is, they throw cash (paper) at corrupt Native Chiefs, in exchange for a variety of “small favors”, on their part. In their turn, these Chiefs encourage the members of Native Nations to believe that they cannot possibly integrate into Canadian society, due to their “exclusivity”. This eventually leads ordinary Natives to adopt a highly secluded mode of existence, when resorting to alcohol, as the way to deal with life challenges, is becoming only a matter of time, on their part. Thus, Liberal Whites deliberately cause Native Canadians to be associated with bad publicity as alcoholics, so that Liberal “experts” can come to their “rescue” while stripping them of their rights to land.
It is important to understand that Liberalism, as an utterly cosmopolitical political ideology, closely associated with the process of Globalization, cannot possibly benefit Natives, simply because the proponents of Liberalism view Natives as an obstacle on the way of acquiring rights over their land’s natural resources. Globalization is nothing but an instrument that allows the representatives of the world’s financial elite to acquire political power to deprive independent countries of their national sovereignty. And the reason they do it is very simple – Earth grows increasingly overpopulated, while the planet’s most important natural resources, such as oil, are estimated to deplete in 50-100 years from now. Therefore, the world’s oligarchs strive to be put in a position of exercising unilateral control over these resources, without regard to national laws and regulations, as soon as possible. This is exactly why hawks of Globalization in the Canadian Parliament promote the concept of “multiculturalism” with such a passion – they view it as the instrument of depriving Canada of its cultural identity, which will eventually lead citizens to believe that there are no good reasons to have borders with America, in the first place.
Nowadays, Liberalism in Canada has assumed truly dictatorial subtleties, just as is the case in such countries as France, Germany, and Britain. Canadian citizens who maintain an illusion that they can still freely express their thoughts on the issues of socio-political importance can now be easily charged with “hate-mongering”. And, it is namely Native leaders who want to protect their people from facing the eventual prospects of being evicted from their land, which appear as being particularly vulnerable to accusations of “nazism”, whatever the ridiculous these accusations might sound.
For example, after Head of the Assembly of First Nations, David Ahenakew had publicly suggested in 2002 that Canada might not necessarily benefit from having hook-nosed “experts on tolerance” being put in a position of designing social policies in this country and that Natives must be allowed to have a word, for as long as the issue of immigration to Canada is concerned, he was automatically stripped of all of his offices and charged with “inciting hate”. In his article “Native Leader Makes Anti-Semitic Remarks”, Jonathon Gatehouse states: “David Ahenakew, the former Head of the Assembly of First Nations and a senior statesman among Saskatchewan
Natives face the prospect of criminal charges for inciting hatred, and the very real possibility that he will be stripped of his Order of Canada, his honorary university degree, and other tributes he collected during his decades of service to his community. No one need feel sympathy for him” (Gatehouse 2002). This article provides us with insight into the actual state of affairs, within a context of Canadian Natives trying to stand up for their God-given rights – as soon as governmental authorities recognize a particular Native Chief to be someone who might pose danger to the interests of Plutocratic money bags in this country, they throw him in jail, with dogs like Gatehouse barking “no one need feel sympathy for him”.
Therefore, we cannot help but to end this paper on a rather sad note – Canadian Liberal politicians keep Natives in even lower regard, as it used to be the case with Mulroney’s Conservatives. Just as it was a situation hundred years ago, Natives are being mistreated by cops, they are being introduced to “tax-free” alcohol early in their lives, and they are being deprived of their land by shysters’ legal mumbo-jumbo. Despite the fact, Canadian government prides itself on being especially “sensitive”, for as long as Aboriginal Affairs are concerned, there are still many Native villages (particularly in BC), where inhabitants are being deprived of even such basic necessities like electricity. Thus, it is only utterly naïve people who may believe that Liberal reign in this country had somehow resulted in the socio-political status of Canadian Natives being significantly increased.
Bibliography
- Clairmont, Frederic “Debacle of Neo-Liberalism”. Economic and Political Weekly, 37.5 (2002): 384-388.
- Gosnell, Joseph “Nisga’s Treaty: a Triumph for all Canadians”. 1998. High Beam Research.
- Sawyer, John The Blackwell Companion to the Bible and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
- Gatehouse, Jonathon “Native Leader Makes Anti-Semitic Remarks”. 2002. The Canadian Encyclopedia Historica.
- Garner, Robert, Ferdinand, Peter & Lawson, Stephanie Introduction to Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
- Smits, Katherine “Liberalism’s Identity Problem”. Polity, 35.3 (2003): 347-367.