"A consideration of what pre-contact Indian culture was really like is rarely engaged in. As stated, Indian spokespersons stay on the general, merely declaratory, level in this regard. Because to descend into the realm of facts and particulars and to seriously consider them makes one realize immediately how shallow, dogmatic, constricted and almost dishonest so much of the current discourse is on this topic. "It’s useful to compare various aspects of Indian culture as they were before European contact, with how they evolved after. Many of these aspects are obvious and accepted as self-evident by most ordinary Canadians. In fact, they’re so obvious they shouldn’t even have to be mentioned. But they do have to be, if only for the novelty of just doing so, because despite them being self-evident they are rarely acknowledged or discussed by anyone in power, by anyone in a position of leadership in politics, academia, the media or by anyone in the Indian and non-Indian establishments generally. "Rather, from these people and interest groups, one hears the continual assertion, expressly or by implication, that traditional Indian culture is unique, alive and well, that the billions of tax dollars spent on it are fully justified, and that with the expenditure of only a few million or billion dollars more each year, it will be even better and more authentic. And this, even though the majority of Indians live in cities, and Indian “culture”is now epitomized by the reservation system, something that obviously didn’t exist at the time of European contact! "Hearing these unrealistic assertions causes a huge disconnect to occur in the minds of ordinary people. We know they’re not true. But we also realize that it is indeed an “emperor has no clothes” situation, and that we’d better duck, keep quiet and stay out of it. Disputing this officially-sanctioned orthodoxy will only bring trouble down on the head of the disputant, including suffering the moral blackmail of having his economic livelihood threatened and being spuriously called a “racist”. "The cumulative effect of this fear-based censorship, self and otherwise, is a collective decision on the part of ordinary Canadians to dare not speak truth to power about this issue and to silently hear and see power itself lie to the people about it (a phenomenon central to surviving life in totalitarian states). And all the while, the vast majority of Indians -- the ordinary, powerless, neglected, vulnerable ones, especially the children -- get further disadvantaged, damaged, marginalized and forgotten. It’s a real disgrace. "It’s not that ordinary Canadians don’t want to help Indians. We do. But we’re not permitted to get involved, except on the fallacious and unacceptable terms laid down by the Indian and non-Indian establishments. We’re in effect told that to be involved and heeded -- to be allowed into their conversation -- we cannot question or challenge their orthodoxy. So, fearful and unable to stomach that -- unable to cope with the Alice in Wonderland nature of it -- we find ourselves forced stay out of it -- expelled from the arena of public debate and engagement on this issue and forced to stand back and helplessly watch the terrible social damage being suffered by Indians continue, and increase unabated. "The Indian and non-Indian establishments, for their own sometimes selfish purposes, contrary to one of the most fundamental values of democracy -- free and open debate on important public issues -- have in effect declared a ban on free speech around this profound human rights issue -- effectively erecting “no trespassing” signs around it. For ordinary Canadians, only those who “dare to be a Daniel” go past those signs. So, the obvious goes continually unspoken and thus the duty, need and sad novelty of saying some of it here." ----D. Peter Best, "An Issue of Freedom of Speech" peterbestlawoffices/default.asp?id=2340
Posted on: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:51:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015