The article under the title “The Bureaucrat’s Indian” by Daniel Francis gives information about Canadian Indian policy. On the whole, it tackles some issues concerning official policy aimed at the “civilization” of Indians. The paragraph under analysis presents important information about the establishment of democratic self-government among Native people as one of the measures of creation of “civilized” society among the native people (Francis 205).
The very formulation of the first idea of the paragraph arouses interest of a reader. Is it possible to impose democratic self-government? Probably the words “democracy” and “to impose” have the opposite meaning. If the government is imposed, it presupposes some shade of violence and oppression already. Thus, the author wants to show the futility and impropriety of the activity of the Whites towards the indigenous population. In fact, the statement about the ability to manage elected institutions that are considered to be a hallmark of a civilized society also arouses irritation. Civilization is rather a subjective notion; it may be interpreted as the state in which human rights are not oppressed and the state of society that guarantees the comfortable existence of the citizens. It should not be reduced to management of elected institutions; this point of view is too limited and too bureaucratized.
Further, the paragraph suggests the idea that band members have to elect special officials who would be granted certain authority. However, this right has little in common with freedom and democracy. In fact, this limited authority over local affairs simply means that the imitation of democratic self-government was going to be created. It was something like artificial self-government that bore resemblance to a child play. Probably, this was just a means of deluding the Natives creating the impression of democracy, which was tyranny in reality. Actually, the statement about the right of the Indian Department to interfere in the activity of the band proves the above-mentioned ideas. If somebody has a right to control the activity of the government, the presence of democracy may be questioned.
The paragraph under analysis also stresses the importance of the strategy adopted by the government towards Native people. The author makes use of the idiom “part and parcel”, thus drawing a reader’s attention to importance of this element of assimilation of Native people. Besides, the word “agenda” stresses the seriousness of the intentions of the government. This special attention to the issue of “democracy” is disclosed in the last sentence of the paragraph, where Francis explains the real reason why all the pains are taken by the government: federal officials simply want to destroy the existing form of government, the one they cannot control.
On the whole, the paragraph presents short explanation of the oppressive tactics of the government against the Indians. Though the information given is rather concise, it initiates a reader into the situation. It becomes clear that the adoption of “democracy” among the Indians is just the way to assimilate them, that is to eradicate their individuality and the traditions that are formed in the course of history. This policy is inadmissible, it is the policy of intentional oppression and, what is more, it is disguised and presented as the mercy of the government, as the means of improvement of the life of people while it is just an attempt to establish total control over it.
The extract under consideration comes from the article under the title “Why Multiculturalism Can’t End Racism” by Marlene Nourbese Philip, whose literary works, both fictional and non-fictional focus on the issues of race, gender, and justice as the issues of primary importance. The article under consideration sheds light on the issue of racism in Canadian society. The paragraph chosen for the analysis has drawn our attention due to the striking ideas that the authors present in it: the horrors of racism as the politics aimed at oppression and physical annihilation of indigenous people in Canada.
The main idea that may be observed in the paragraph is that the terms that are used to denote the type of tactics applied by the Whites towards indigenous people are not important. In fact, the words really mean nothing; the deeds show everything better than words do. If the behavior of white people can “hurt and sometimes kill” those who differ by the color of their skin, it makes no difference if the ideology is called “white supremacy” or “racism” (Philip 184). Probably, it is the best way that can be chosen by the Whites, they hide behind new terms like “white supremacy” while they are simply destroying those who are different. In fact, the question arises: What is the difference between these people? This is the color of the skin, the problem that has been topical for centuries already, though it is evident that it is absurd. The color of skin should not determine the relationship between people. This truth is so clear, but it is inadmissible for those who justify “white supremacy”. However, the very term “white supremacy” seems to be arrogant and senseless. It is hardly possible to find evidence of this supremacy.
However, the results of behavior, which is grounded on the ideology of white supremacy or racism, are terrible. Only a few of them are mentioned by the authors: “poor schooling, high unemployment, and inadequate housing” (Philip 184). Philip hints that the list can be extended. However, even the three things mentioned by her cover all spheres of human life already. People who are in disgrace because of the color of their skin suffer oppression and unjust treatment in all spheres of life. They have no right to get appropriate education, as the consequence, they have no chance to get a decent job, and, finally, they have to suffer unbearable living conditions. These things show that it is already impossible to survive and enjoy life if you are not white.
The final statement of the authoress concludes the whole paragraph; she defines the result of the ideology of white supremacy as “wasted human potential and lives” (Philip 184). The phrase sounds awful and scary, it is hardly possible to find a more sad thing than a wasted human life. Our life is granted to us only once, no one has a right to spoil it, and it does not depend on the color of his skin.
This paragraph is, probably, the most moving and the most thought-provoking in the whole article. By the usage of concise phrases, the authors manage to draw our attention to the danger of any racially prejudiced activity. She does not use figurative language, she simply unmasks the reality. Philip shows the ugliness of such behavior and the wrongness of the ideology that is aimed at the destruction of human potential and human lives on the whole.
Works Cited
Francis, Daniel. “The Bureaucrat’s Indian.” The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture. Vancouver, B.C.: Arsenal Pupl Press, 1992: 205.
Philip, Marlene N. “Why Multiculturalism Can’t End Racism.” Frontiers: Essays and Writings on Racism and Culture. Toronto: The Mercury Press, 1992: 181-187.