Let's call it racism, for that's what it is

Sat, February 12, 2005

By TOM BRODBECK -- Winnipeg Sun

Can you imagine how many human rights commission tribunals, judicial inquiries and royal commissions would be called if we started charging non-Winnipeggers a toll when entering the city based on their race?

Let's say, for example, we charged $5 for every native who entered the city from reserves and we called Winnipeg "white man's country."

We would, quite rightfully, be called "racists" because we would be discriminating based on race.

But when Roseau River Chief Terry Nelson does it, it's not racism, it's just cute.

Nelson is charging non-aboriginals $5 to use a make-shift road on the reserve when they go fishing.

He says it's only fair because he has to pay for parking when he's in "white man's land" -- Winnipeg.

What I'd like to know is, where are all the cultural diversity do-gooders -- the ones who accuse everyone and his uncle of being "racist" when it comes to aboriginal people -- when a guy like Nelson makes comments like that?

How are we supposed to take these groups seriously when they don't come out and publicly chastise Nelson for making what are clearly racist comments?

Winnipeg is not "white man's land." It's a culturally diverse city where people from many ethnic backgrounds live.

If you truly want to stomp out racism, try going after some of the worst perpetrators of it -- people like Terry Nelson.

SOCIOLOGICAL NOTE:

ABORIGINAL PEOPLE HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CANADIAN STATE ====> THEY ARGUE IT WAS FORM BY CONQUEST, BROKEN PROMISES AND EXPANSION BY FORCE AND TRICKERY =====> THEIR CLAIMS THAT THE CANADIAN STATE DOES NOT REPRESENT THEM AND THAT, BY DECEPTION AND FORCE, THEY WERE DEPRIVED OF THE USE OF THE LAND ON WHICH THEY HAD LIVED ======>HAVE BEEN MAKE ELOQUENTLY AND OFTEN IN THE LAW COURTS, THROUGH THE MEDIA, IN POLITICAL PROTESTS, AND IN FORUMS LIKE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

ABORIGINAL PEOPLE [ALSO] CLAIM A UNIQUE STATUS BASED ON THEIR POSITION AS CANADA’S FIRST NATIONS AND HAVE, BECAUSE OF THAT POSITION, PURSUED THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT.

~~ CONSEQUENTLY ~~

{ALTHOUGH} ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES HAVE A DISTINCTIVE ETHNICITY, THEY COMMONLY REJECT LABELING AS AN ETHNIC MINORITY – THEY ENDORSE THE STATUS OF A PEOPLE OR NATION. ====> {NOT AN INDEPENDENT NATION-STATE, BUT RATHER COLLECTIVES (1) WITH A RIGHT TO GOVERN SELVES, AND (2) IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CANADA}

THE CONTEMPORARY “ABORIGINALITY” MOVEMENT

THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICS OF “ABORIGIALITY” REVOLVES AROUND THE KEY ISSUE OF SELF-DETERMINATION ======> OR MORE ACCURATELY, ABORIGINAL MODELS OF SELF-DETERMINING AUTONOMY =======> MEANS THE “DEVOLUTION” OF REPONSIBILITY AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER ABORIGINAL LANDS AND AFFAIRS, AND THE TRANSFERENCE OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES TO ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ====> IN SHORT, LAND, IDENTITY AND POLITICAL VOICE}}}

SO, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POSITION OF THE FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS CONSISTENTLY HAVE BEEN THAT THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION COULD ONLY BE EXTENDED AS POWERS DELEGATED TO ABORIGINAL PEOPLE BY GOVERNMENT THROUGH LEGISLATION OR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE.

FURTHER, THE POWERS THAT WOULD BE GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT WOULD EXTEND ONLY TO POWERS NOW HELD BY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS RATHER THAN THE MUCH BROADER POWERS SOUGHT BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLES.

{{{{{EXISTENTIAL PROBLEM: ABORIGINALITY STILL CLASHES WITH THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF A COLONIAL CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER =====> [EX.CLASH OVER IMMUNITY FROM, OR CONTAINMENT BY, NORMAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW]}}}}}

REVERSE RACISM QUESTIONS

1) WHAT ARE YOUR INITIAL THOUGHTS ABOUT ABORIGINAL TOLE ROAD IN CANADA?

2) WHY DOES THE WRITER THINK THAT ROSEAU RIVER CHIEF TERRY NELSON'S STATEMENT ABOUT “WHITE MAN'S COUNTRY” IS RACIST?

~ OR ~

IS IT THAT CHIEF TERRY NELSON'S STATEMENT OFFENDS THE WRITERS DEFINITION OF SOCIAL REALITY AND THE PROPER/NORMAL ORDER OF THINGS?

{{{IS THERE AN “OPPOSITIONAL SPHERE” AT THE BOTTOM OF THE “REVERSE RACISM” CHARGE THAT BELIES A PRECEIVED THREAT TO THE BALANCE OF POWER IN SOCIETY --- IN OTHER WORDS, IS IT THE AUDACITY OF ABORIGINAL “SELF-DETERMINATION” THAT IS FOUND OFFENSIVE?}}}

3) ABORIGINAL PEOPLES DEFINE THEMSELVES AS DESCENDENTS OF THE ORIGINAL OCCUPANTS WHOSE COLLECTIVE AND INHERENT RIGHTS TO SELF- DETERMINATION OVER INTERNAL JURISDICTIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN EXTINGUISHED BUT REMAIN INTACT AS A BASIS FOR ENTITLEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT. WHAT CHALLENGE(S) DOES THIS DEFINITION PRESENT IN A “MULTICULTUAL SOCIETY?”

MULTICULTURALISM =====> IS THE KEY METAPHOR IN SHAPING CANADIAN IDENTITY (TEACHING THE VALUE OF "CONSTRUCTIVE CO-EXISTENCE") =======> (POLICY CONSTRUCT IN) ADVANCING NATIONAL AND MINORITY INTERESTS ========> {THEREFORE IT IS OUR PRIMARY} POLITICAL INSTRUMENT FOR MANAGING RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY****

CONCEPT CONTINUES TO BE REJECTED AS IRRELEVANT BY QUEBECCOUS, AND CONTERPRODUCTIVE FOR ABORIGINAL ASPRIATIONS.

THIS IS ONE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS IN THE OPERATION, FUNCTION, PROGRESS OF MULTICULTURALISM POLICY.

FUTURE PUBLIC POLICY DILEMMA: HOW WILL ABORIGINALS BE INCLUDED IN SOCIETY ? ======> THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS TO ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES.