Privilege and Protest: The Politics of Words

At least according to CBC's Power and Politics tweet, Andrew Sheer said this:

“These protesters, these activists may have the luxury of spending days at a time on a blockade, but they need to check their privilege,” said @AndrewScheer. “They need to check their privilege and let people whose job depends on the railway system...do their jobs.”

This is a disturbing quote, made more disturbing, for me, by the fact that it is not the first time I have heard this. There is, I've tried to argue, a problem -- an antinomy -- that lies at the heart of middle-class progressive politics, but no one should mistake this perspective for support for a more conservative position or for anything that Sheer might have said. Indeed, the politics of Sheer's quote is intended to do precisely the opposite of the comments I was trying to make. Here, Sheer is trying to call the wave of protests across Canada in support of Indigenous rights into question. He is trying to suggest that the protesters are somehow not authentic, that they are the modern equivalent of tenured radicals, and that they are not "people" who work but more or less wealthy lay abouts disconnected from the working world.

I'd be concerned about any general statement of this sort because it makes a pretension to knowledge that its speaker (whoever it might be) simply cannot have. In this case Sheer simply cannot know about the people on the protest lines. He can make some assumptions but he does not present his argument like that. He presents what he says as truth unadulterated. And, this is the first problem with this type of statement: its issues a truth claim that its speaker knows from the beginning he cannot confirm and so in its own way, it is dishonest.  But, there are some more problems with this and because I have heard these kinds of statements before, let me highlight a few of them. My aim, I want to say, is not to reject or push away people making these statements. Instead, I seek to engage them and ask them to be engaged and contribute to a new type of politics.

The second problem with this argument -- which may not apply to others -- is its hypocrisy. Sheer is as close to a person of privilege as you are going to get. His downfall as Tory leader was likely over-determined by its precipitating cause was Sheer's privilege: the party was paying for private school for his kids. I am going to argue that we need to think closely about privilege and what it entails and, in my view, I think we need to find another way of thinking about the contradictions of class positions. But, rank hypocrisy -- shooting someone else down for living the life you in fact live -- is not one I would suggest others follow. Sheer is trying to cast aspersions on the politics of support for Indigenous rights, but in the process he edits his own life out of the equation. He calls others out for privilege, whatever this might mean, but ignores his own.

The most significant problem is this type of argument proceeds from a false assumption. We might say that we can all agree with the first and second points I've tried to make. One should, for instance, try to proceed in a factually accurate way and not make statements about things one cannot know. Nor should one be a hypocrite. I don't think either of those points is controversial and if you want to know why people didn't like Sheer, well ... I suspect there is a big part of the reason right there. If he had not behaved in this way, he might still be CPC leader.

The more significant problem is what do people who are privileged in some way but who support the right cause, whatever this cause might be, do? That cause could be decolonization. It could be the need for action on climate change. It could be an anti-poverty campaign. Should one shoot down someone protesting against the mistreatment of Indigenous people or for support for the poor or for the state to take serious matters to address climate change just because that protestor might be wealthy (let's leave aside the question of what constitutes wealthy for the sake of argument)?

In my view: no. One might have a point to engage, a ground of discussion, some reason for starting a conversation, but a person's relative economic standing does not negate their politics simply and purely because of their economic standing. Imagine this scenario: outside of First Peoples themselves, imagine it was only white middle class people who supported Indigenous rights. Would that fact (the fact that white middle class people support Indigenous rights) mean that Indigenous rights claims had become illegitimate? Does it mean that the First Nations campaigning for their rights are wrong (and, you might notice, that Sheer here equates Indigenous activists with the "privileged" but let's leave this point off, too)?

I am arguing that it means nothing of the sort and this is where I disagree with Sheer. The campaign for Indigenous rights did not emerge from middle class or privileged people and we should not pretend or suggest that it did. Even if it did, however, would the fact that people want to support good causes be a bad thing? What, after all, would we think of the alternative? Imagine this scenario: you daughter comes home from college and has learnt about the problems of colonialism or how poverty negatively affects people or gendered violence. What would tell them? Gee, dear, I know there are a lot of problems with gendered violence but we're middle class so we ignore those things because we are privileged and so we will do nothing about them. Do we tell our kids: our privilege makes it wrong for us to support a good cause.

Is that a message anyone would feel comfortable in sending? If you said no ... the implication of Sheer's argument is actually precisely that: if you are middle class and see an injustice ... ignore it because you are privileged. I know I likely talk too much about my own life and I am not trying in any way to hold myself up as a model. What I will say is this: at my church, we spend a great deal of time telling people the exact opposite. If you see a problem, you should try to be part of the solution and ignoring it -- or, telling others to ignore it -- is not a solution.

Let me conclude on one other issue: positive go-forward politics must necessarily draw people together. I am arguing that we need to build connections between people and ignoring the chances to work together on good causes is a really odd way to think about society (again, think about it, did anyone's parents ever tell them that, hey ... here is a good cause. Ignore it. Don't work on good causes with other people who may be economically different from you.). If we are going to build dialogue and politics across socio-economic divisions, we can't tell people to stick to their own economic kind and not become involved in issues if they or their families happen to have a bit of money. It is by working with others that we can create a stronger and more engaged society with deeper and more meaningful social connections.

We have spent the better part of the last twenty years lamenting the fact that youth appear politically disengaged. Here we have a concrete example of youth being engaged, of taking a stand, and putting a lot of time and energy into it. Not one of the protesters caused this problem. It was caused by a number of factors but the most significant one was a raid on Indigenous territory by the RCMP.  If we want youth to be involved, if we want our citizens to be active and to treat their citizenship serious, if we want citizens to make commitments to important causes, we can't tell them that they are wrong when they do precisely that. The politics of protest is not always pretty, but the politics of the words being mobilized against them never is.

Did Anything Good Come of Residential Schools .... Absolutely Not!

The idea that residential schools were "not all bad" is floated now and then. I honestly don't know why. Well ... OK, I think I *do* know why, but the key point here is that this is an argument that should be -- perhaps even needs to be -- addressed because it is, periodically, made the guise of careful historical treatment of this subject. I recently listened to a well known (and very good) historian discuss the need for "balance" in the treatment of residential schools and suggest that they might not have been "all bad." Students, for instance, I heard one person note learnt skills ... like the English language. While another person claimed that there were some nice people teaching in the schools.

Both of these points are, of course, completely beside the point and, in fact, are shockingly ahistorical in their analysis. And, this leads me to another point: another idea I have heard is that it is not historians' job, as it were, to pass moral judgements on the past. Instead, they seek balance in interpretation and let others develop their own views. On a general level, there is something important in this contention. If, however, balance comes at a distortion of the past -- if our effort to arrive at "balance" leads to misrepresent what went on in the past in order to avoid being called "moralistic" -- then, I think, as historians we have failed because, in my view, there is some idea of accuracy to which one should aspire. Let's address these intertwined issues by looking at residential schools.

Before doing so, however, one needs to acknowledge the tragedy that occurred and is still occuring as a result of residential schools. The level of violence mobilized against children in these institutions is staggering and this has been, of course, amply documented.  I don't want to get ahead of myself, but if anyone reading this thinks that the term "violence" is somehow morally charged ... well ... then ... you have not been doing your homework and have never taken the time to investigate residential schools.  I'll pick just one example: the use of children in medical experiments has amply documented. If this does not pass a means test on violence ... well, then, I am not certain what will. Let's come back to that because it is important. Here is the key point: we are not talking about strict discipline. Indeed, if strict discipline were on the only problem, I don't think we would be having this discussion. Instead, we are talking about systemic abuse, medical experimentation, death from disease, murder, and astronomical levels of sexual assault.

The points often made in favour of residential schools -- that they helped children learn things like the English language -- are misnomers.  The argument is logically and ethically flawed from the beginning. It is also deeply historically problematic. How so? Let us assume for a second (for the sake of argument only) that this is true and that children learnt English in residential schools and this was good for them. Does it them follow that because something good occurred in a residential school that this somehow negates -- balances out, in the language of the learned scholar to whom I listened  -- the bad? If a child abuser teaches a child English, to put this in more graphic but also historically accurate terms, does this somehow lessen the effect or impact of the child abuse?

A good way of assessing this situation would be to shift the focus from residential schools to another institution, let's say the public schools. If we made this argument about non-Indigenous schooling, would anyone accept it? If we had schools where non-Indigenous children were systematically abused but also taught, say, math and English, would anyone way that this balances things out?  Would any parent say "gee, sure, send my kind to school with this child abuser because they will also learn English." Would you send your children there?

The very idea is, in fact, laughable if it were not also horrifying and so ... why would anyone make it for Indigenous youth? I am serious in asking that question: if we would shrink from asking the question -- if we would, in fact, consider it horrific if asked about non-Indigenous youth in the public schools (would you say it was OK for someone to abuse your child if they also taught them, say, math?) -- what would possess anyone to think that it is a legitimate way to assess residential schooling for Indigenous youth? The only difference between (right) horrific rejection of the idea (sending children to school with child abusers because the learning of English balances abuse) is the colour of the children's skin. And, if that is the only difference ... one needs to ask some deep and probing questions about anyone who would make this argument.

Let's take this argument one step further. Not all children were abused, some say. OK, that is I am sure true. Does that balance things out? The ethics behind this proposition are equally shaking and equally scaring. Let me use an example to illustrate my point. There are two children. We will call them Child 1 and Child 2.  Child 1 is abused in school. Child 2 is not, but learns English. Does the fact that Child 2 was not abused somehow balance against the fact that Child 1 was? Certainly not for Child 1.

Again, let us flip it around and ask the question of non-Indigenous youth. Would it be OK for your child to be abused -- would that somehow balance things out -- if your neighbour's child were not? Would you say "yes, that school is doing its job and it is a good place to send my child."

This is, in fact, a long-standing ethical issue raised by thinkers such as Voltaire in his famous novel Candide. Is it OK to abuse one person so that others might gain? Is it OK to be unjust to one person so that another may benefit? If, right now, you find yourself saying yes ... are you willing to be the one abused? Are you willing to be the one treated unjustly? Assaulted? Killed? Subjected to medical experiments? I find people who make this argument -- the argument Voltaire is rejecting in Candide -- often imagine that they will *not* be the one abused and are willing to suffer another's abuse for their benefit. But, if the issue is flipped -- are you willing to be abused and have it called OK for someone else's benefit -- they start to prevaricate pretty darned quick.

As an ethical proposition, the logic is actually garbage. It is entertained sometimes in intro Philosophy courses as a way to teaching people to think about others, to empathize, to use different ways (say, small-l liberal theories of justice) to build courses of action that are far more ethically sound, but that, of course, is not really even my point. My point is that those who argue that there is a need to see balance in the history of residential schools are, in fact, making exactly this argument -- that is OK to abuse one child if another benefits -- but I suspect they don't even know that they are making that argument and would, in fact, recoil in horror and disclaim the point if they were confronted by it. Yet ... yet ... that is precisely the claim they have made in their quest for "balance" and explanation that some good things happened.

Two final points: the idea that some good happens often misses what is, in fact, the key historical question -- the key question historians ask -- and this is particularly odd when historians argue for balance (because they are ditching their own methodology). Why did we have residential schools? Was it to teach English? Was there no other way to teach English and, if there was, why was it not taken? There were, in fact, other educational systems but we need to ask the point with regard to residential schools to understand the reason why they were created in the first place. They were created to assimilate the Indigenous population. Learning English was part of that but that was a means to an end; not the end itself.  The issue, then, is not "should Indigenous kids get an education?" but should they have subjected to forced assimilation?

Lest someone accuse me of being moralistic, let me point out that it is only by asking this question -- why did we have these schools verse some other method of teaching Native kids -- that we can come to the heart of their purpose. That is: I am attempting to accurately understand why these schools were set up in the first place; not to moralize about their potentially positive affect. I am attempting to deal with the real of fact; not the realm of what I, as a white guy living in 2018, happen to think is good or bad; negative or ameliorative. In other words, I am attempting to understand these institutions on their own terms by understanding their self-proclaimed purpose. One might take moral lessons from that, but to me it is good history.

Finally, what about the argument: there were some good people who worked in residential schools? The historian's answer to this question is: so what? I am sure there were good slave holders and even nice Nazis who went home and kissed their kids and bought their parents presents on their birthdays. That is not the issue. The fact that someone kissed their kids does not somehow balance out mass murder, it does not mediate it, it does not excuse it, it does not introduce any level of "balance" to it. The issue for historians is how institutions function and how to we develop normative standards of niceness as a society. After all, nice is not an absolute term. What I think is nice, another person does not. The issue, then, is not "were their nice people" but what did it mean for Settler society to be nice to Native kids? It turns out, that it meant a whole bunch of things that they would not have defined as nice of they had been subjected to them.

Do historians have moral responsibilities? That is a question for another day and a discussion I would like to open up. I am, however, not dealing with it in this post. Instead, I am asking a different type of question: are historians being moralistic in developing critical perspectives on residential schools and is that a violation of historical methods and practice. My point is that the opposite is true. Anyone who would argue that some sort of good things that happened in residential schools -- allowing this only for the sake of argument -- balance the bad is simply in violation of good historical practice. They develop argument that simply cannot be accepted by anyone who actually cares about accurate history and arguments that we would not make for other groups of people (or, their children).

Our task as historians is to look at these institutions, their objectives, how they functions and their effects. If one wants to avoid moralism in your assessment of them, go ahead. Doing so will not lead to an assessment that there were positive things in residential schools because good and sound historical analysis will necessarily reject this point because it is ideological and not historical. And, in my view at least, it is an ideology I think has little place in history.

Saying Dumb Things about Original Peoples

A Winnipeg teacher named Brad Badiuk has said some stupid things on Facebook and been suspended (or, placed on leave) as a result. This might be a good place to talk about Badiuk’s right to free speech -- whether or not he should be placed on leave for saying stupid things in a public forum -- but instead there is a more pressing issue.  That is: what he actually said and what is wrong with it. Without wanting to attribute any particular intelligence to Badiuk’s comments (or the punctuation errors -- something I found disturbing for a person who is supposed to be a teacher -- that they contained), I actually think his comments deserve to be discussed. Let me be clear up front: what he said was ignorant (in a literal sense of the term), silly, bigoted and showed not a shred of research into the issue he was addressing: Canadian/Aboriginal relations. Still, this can be an “educational moment” because the concerns this particular individual raised are concerns I’ve heard others raise. For those us who support better relations between Original Peoples and Canada, there is a bit of an obligation to address Badiuk’s point and show him and others why they are misguided. That is what I seek to do in this post.

Badiuk’s points were posted on social media; they were not a refined argument. I won’t use his language and so something might get lost in translation but briefly, he makes several points regarding Original Peoples:

• Original Peoples use past injustices as a “crutch” to try to get things from Canadian society

• They are a “conquered” people

• They get more benefits than white Canadians

• Treaties should be torn up and people move on

• The answer to Aboriginal Peoples is for them to work hard

• Why should he, as a contemporary Canadian, pay for the injustices done by others in the past and to which neither he nor his family has any connection

Obviously, it would take forever to address each of these points and a blog might not be the place to try reader’s patience by writing page after page. Let me, therefore, try to address the key points that need to be addressed in order to suggest a better and more profitable way of looking at this subject.

First, most Original Peoples are not conquered peoples. In fact, I cannot -- of the top of my head -- think of a single conquered nation in Canada. Instead, relationships between Native and settlers were defined by treaties that provided for land surrender (or, not, as the case may be), commercial exchange, further settlement, etc. The first point we might want to make, then, is that Badiuk does not know his history. He hinges part of his argument on an event -- conquest -- that did not take place. Hinging an argument on something that did not occur weakens your argument, or at least that is what I tell my students.

But, what is more important here is that Badiuk *thinks* that there was a conquest and my bet is that a whole bunch of other non-Native Canadians do too. The problem here is not just misunderstanding history -- being incorrect -- the problem is ethics. In effect, what the proponents of conquest are saying is that “might makes right.” In the past, Original Peoples were conquered ergo, their rights in the present are limited. Imagine that we accept this ethics, what then? Well, if might make right then that is a rationale for Original Peoples to use violent protest to accomplish their objectives, is it not? If violence subjugation is a legitimate ground to extinguish rights, then surely, to be consistent, we must say that violent protest is a legitimate approach to establishing rights, no? The argument about conquest, then, carries with it an irony of legitimizing behaviour that I doubt Badiuk wants to legitimize -- the politics of violence -- and, in fact, places him in a position where -- to be consistent -- he has to support Original Peoples; not oppose them.

But, it gets even more confusing and ironic than this. Badiuk’s other points refer to history as well: his family immigrated after 1900 and so he is not responsible for what happened before that. In other words, history does not apply to him. OK, perhaps, but did he not just use an historical argument -- conquest -- to cast aspersions on Original Peoples. What we have here, then, is the situational use of history. History applies to some people (Original Peoples) but not others (him). Even leaving aside the faculty matters, this is an odd argument indeed because it is riven with inconsistencies.

Second, Badiuk does not seem to understand what a treaty is. The idea that one party can just tear up a treaty -- and I’ve mad this point in this blog before -- is just not true. I like treaties. I think they are a much preferable way to establish relationships between peoples than violence. They do not always work; they are ignored frequently by the Canadian government. But, of all the ways to regulate interaction between people, treaties are better than alternatives. But, Badiuk has not just missed this point. He’s missed the point that a treat is an agreement between two peoples.  The Original Peoples who signed onto the treaties back in the day clearly intended them to last for a very long time. They often contain language like “as long as the sun shines” or some other metaphor. Did the British imperial government or the Canadian government believe that these treaties would last forever. I don’t know but I suspect not. I suspect that they believed Original Peoples would disappear into the mists of time. But, they did sign the treaties. And, the treaties are legally enforceable. That is Canadian law and to disregard it is, in fact, to state that one feels Canadian law should not apply to them.

Let’s leave aside the question of legitimate ways of contesting the law for another time (because their are legitimate ways to do so, but simply stating that “it should not apply to me” and then disregarding it is not one of them). Instead, let’s focus on two things: (1) in defending treaties Original Peoples are not, in fact, doing anything that is wrong. They are obeying the law and making use of the legal mechanisms that Canada has established to adjudicate disputes between parties. It is what we are all supposed to do. Hence, to fault them for it (for defending treaties and taking their case to court) is to suggest that Original Peoples are doing something wrong by insisting that Canada obey laws it has made (or, into which it has voluntarily entered as part of a treaty) and then using the courts to adjudicate disputes on legal matters. This is an odd argument, is it not? (2) Treaties are between two parties. One party cannot unilaterally break a treaty. Let me use an example that I have used before. Imagine a slightly different situation: I contract someone to mow my lawn each week and agree to pay them $1000 for the summer to do so. They dutifully mow my lawn. Can I now refuse to pay them because I don’t want to? Of course not. That would be breach of contract and we all know that. I cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract after I have gotten what I want out of it. A treaty works the same way. Canada got what it wanted (or, before that the Empire and colonies) from the treaties. Can they now say “gee, we find this agreement inconvenient and so we’re going to tear it up?” If this logic were applied to any other case, the answer would be so clear, no one would debate it.

Finally, there is the “why should I pay” question. Let me ask this question a different way: Badiuk is a teacher. Why should I pay his salary? There are many reasons why we pay into the public purse. We can’t go through all them here because this blog is already getting too long but we can note that paying taxes is part of one’s obligations as a citizen. We usually like those taxes from which we seem to derive an immediate benefit and dislike those, the benefits of which are not clear. I would argue that good societies solve their problems -- or, at least try. We pay taxes to maintain a military (I pay them whether or not I am a pacifist) because we need a military; I pay taxes that pave roads whether or not I owen a car; my tax dollars help to fund repairs to the minor ballpark, whether or not I pay. There are benefits to paying taxes and, by and large, Canadians actually don’t have very many concerns with taxes. I’d argue that addressing the problems of marginalization and unresolved conflicts between Canadians are good uses of tax dollars because they help citizens and help build a good society. In other words, we should pay because those tax dollars help out the society and we are committed to making Canada a better place.

Let me go just a bit further: Badiuk has every right as a citizen to object to taxes and to vote for candidates that want to lower taxes. I think he is ethically wrong to say pick an already marginalized group and inaccurate, ethically troubling things about them and conclude that they are the reason for his taxes being what they are. It is scapegoating and does nothing to advance a serious discussion of tax rates if that is what we are interested in.

I’ll conclude on this note. I am sure Badiuk’s comments hurt a lot of people. They were silly, build on an inaccurate perception of the past, and involved a shaky logic in which there was a situational deployment of history (applies to some people but not others). This is something that I’d like people to learn about the anti-Original Peoples arguments that we hear. The problem with the argument Badiuk put forward is not that he commented on public policy. That is his right as a citizen and he should. The problem is that he treated that right in a cavalier way. He did not bother to do his homework and so her paraded inaccuracies as truth; he did not think through the logic of his ethics or the situational way in which he argued from history, he ignored the fact that his scapegoating did nothing to advance public debate about an important issue: tax rates. I don’t want to generalize too broadly because that itself is logically shaky, but I trust you see the point. Many of the argument we hear in opposition to Original Peoples just don’t hold up. The result is that we have a debate that we do not need to have that gets us nowhere. I hope this blog -- for those who read it -- helps get that discussion back on the right track.

Supreme Court's Tsilhqot'in First Nation ruling a game-changer for all - Aboriginal - CBC

The latest Supreme Court decision regarding the land rights of First Nations is noted in this news story:



Supreme Court's Tsilhqot'in First Nation ruling a game-changer for all - Aboriginal - CBC:



This is not a bad piece of reporting in the sense that it avoid the "the sky is falling" quality of other journalistic reports on aboriginal "wins" at the Supreme Court. It also notes, rightly, that this is not a new issue. This is important because court decisions regarding First Nations are often treated with shock by public commentators, politicians, journalists and "developers" ... as if they "came out of the blue." This one does not. Its been around for 31 years in various states of negotiation and the fact that the reporter notes that is important because it makes it impossible for anyone to claim "this is a surprise." If you did not know about this particular court case ... fair enough because one cannot expect everyone to know everything. But, anyone who is particularly interested in First Nations issues could easily find information on it and, if they were truly interested in the matter, could have and should have.



What does this ruling tell us? I would argue that there are a number of important things that those interested in Canadian Studies should know about this decision. First, for those of us in Canadian Studies it does not tell us anything that we did not already know and that is the point I want to make. The Supreme Court decision is not surprising because the courts have long recognized aboriginal land rights, as have First Nations and ... well ... just about anyone (excepting state functionaries and government ministers) who has followed this issue. I won't claim any particular foresight, but this ruling -- and the fact that it was unanimous -- is just not surprising to me. I indicated to friends last week that I thought that the court would rule clearly in the manner in which it did; I would, in fact, be shocked if it ruled any other way because to do so would violate Canadian law and the constitution. While there has been some modest "hue and cry" from those who would still try to deny aboriginal rights, the muted quality of the response in general suggests that most people now recognize this and that this decision simply confirm what we all knew already.



Which leads me to my second point ... this being the case ... why did the state choose to take this matter through the courts instead of recognizing a constitutionally enshrined right and negotiating seriously with First Peoples? This question is also important because there is another way to address differences between First Nations and the Canadian state: negotiate. Instead, the state chooses to take losing cases to court -- wasting time and money -- and I'd like to know why. I'm not saying "I call the state to account" here because who am I to do that? I am asking a question as a matter of curiosity.  Would you do this? Would you take a matter to court that you have very, very good reason to suspect you would lose, particularly if you had another way? The rationale for  doing so is, then, something that needs to be explained because it is confusing to me. All it does -- all following this course of action does -- is to create bad blood. Its obstructionist and that might be the rationale behind it. We now have a fair number of cases from across Canada confirming aboriginal land rights (I have no doubt that the First Nations fighting hydro-fracking here in NB would will if they took their case to court on the basis of rights to non-surrendered land) ... so why keep fighting a losing battle.



I suspect it is the result of two factors, neither of which relate to the law or the constitution. Factor number one relates to provincial governments. The land that is in question is important to provincial governments for "development" reasons. In this case, it relates to logging and pipelines. Provincial government economic development policies are hinged on these (think of fracking here in NB) and so those governments are not willing to negotiate in a serious way. Instead, they are looking for a mechanism to impose their will on a particular area with as little disruption to their policies as possible. The second factor is that provincial governments -- and, indeed, the federal government (a point on which I will comment in another blog) -- are not as enlightened as we might think. The fact that the federal and provincial governments make use of the language of "aboriginal rights" or "self government" does not actually mean that they accept aboriginal rights or self-government outside of what is a very narrow understanding of the term. As a result, they continue to think of First Nations as subject peoples. The approach seems to be this: try tossing a few breadcrumbs their way and obstruct them as much as possible through legal means and they'll cave. In other words, the state refuses to recognize First Nations as participants in Canadian public life that have serious rights, protected by the constitution, and that those rights have to be respected. They are not subject peoples who can be "bought off" or marginalized with a few trinkets. What this means is that one of the reasons we end up with these court decisions is that the state is about a generation of out of date in its thinking on First Nations.



Third, this piece notes that there are a lot of cases in BC as well as in other parts of the country that might be affected by this decision. This is absolutely right. The real question -- and my real point number three -- is why is this the case? Why are there so many cases. I don't have an easy answer, but I doubt it is *not* because aboriginal peoples desire to leave these cases unsettled. I suspect it because of the same obstructionism. But, the fact that there are a lot of cases is telling. It shows that there has not been a serious effort to resolve them. Non-aboriginal people tend to get annoyed at the number of cases because they treat First Nations as one singular block of people. Don't do that because it is not accurate. the Mi'kmaq are a far different group of people than the Tsilhqot'in. Each have their own aspirations and each has a desire to protect its own land. The irresolution is not a product of some singular block of First Peoples saying "give us more." It is the result of the degree to which most First Nations were dispossessed illegally in the past and that many of these cases have been around for a long time with a lack of resolution.



Finally, we should not that another way is possible. Here, in my blogs, I often say something like "it won't be easy" or "the issues are complicated" and I am sure that applies in this case but there is a simple first step that could be taken. Instead of forcing First Peoples to prove their rights over and over again, why not begin from a position of respect and seek reconciliation? In other words, instead of seeing First Peoples claims as a nuisance to be settled as quickly as possible so that Canada can get on with its business (moving First Nations, as it were, to the side so that development can happen), a different approach would be to see these nations as potentially equal partners who views should be respected. If the state took that approach, it might talk to First Peoples before it issued logging or pipeline permits and it might act on their views. It might, in other words, see that First Nations are bringing something important "to the table."