Main motion
What I am about to say is coming from a postcolonial theory perspective. I am going to try to show how neocolonialism in our Canadian context is alive and very much present in the recommendations. I also have amendments to reverse the adverse effects of the neocolonialism program. [just say not implying it was intentional]
Reconciliation is often looked at as “the shared journey of indigenous and non-indigenous people moving forward together as they co-habit the land”. But if we are to start from a position of equality and understanding (rather than our current position of dominance and submission) then we need an unvarnished look at the perspectives of any marginalized people; we need an unvarnished look at how systemic racism has adversely affected the minority group. Moving forward while one group is under the submission of another group, another group that is blind to its systemic racism is not a reconciliation: it’s literally the definition of a new form of colonialism.
There are three aspects of the recommendation that may on first glance appear to further reconciliation but in reality actually further a new colonialism that is a new form of domination and subordination relationship. This is what I would like to address with 3 motions to amend. Based on the advice of the mayor and clerk and because the concepts of neo-colonialism are often difficult to wrap one’s mind around, I would like to make three separate amendments that will address three problematic points in the recommendation and hopefully explain the need and way to overcome 3 techniques of maintaining a neo-colonial domination over indigenous peoples in Canada.
Neo-colonialism is the control of countries or peoples through indirect means in order to keep them subordinate and often dependent. I detect 3 neocolonial techniques and powerplays that promoted racist sentiments in these recommendations that have the effect of maintaining a permanent and subordinated underclass. they are 1) actions that create resentment towards indigenous peoples from the dominant group, 2) using the subaltern narrative to justify the dominant unified inclusive narrative, and 3) uses of various intimidation technique to influence what is said by the subordinate culture and what is heard by the dominant culture such that nothing meaningful gets done.
REMOVE – leading to resentment
I am against removing the sign and the statue because it is valuable and meaningful to many in the community. The sign was added in 1967 more than my lifetime ago in a particular historical moment – that is part of its history.
Taking away what some find valuable and meaningful leads to resentment. [resentment can be seen in all instance where someone get something taken away]
And in this case the resentment of the majority and the powerful is not conducive to reconciliation. And it is not helpful to the betterment of any marginalized people because it will more likely heighten those resentful feelings in the majority thus making real and effective change harder.
Since the removal of a sign has no real benefit to the lives and wellbeing of indigenous people – in that it does not help better get them a job, housing, credit, recognition, respect, or dignity; doesn’t prevent cycles of abuse like carding, jail time, depression, violence, or mental health issues. since it does not improve their material condition – and since it is likely to make expressions of racism against them more common (as a result of engendered resentment in some of the majority). It is actually domination in the guise of reconciliation. IS A PROPOSED ACTION GOING TO LEAD TO INCREASED RESENTMENT? AND IF SO IS IT WORTH IT?
The proposal to think to the 7th generation was given to us last night by the First Nations Group – is important here. What do you think the racism situation will be like in 7 generations if we keep adding generous doses of resentment today?
Since this does not help first nations – ask yourself: why is this here, it is not in the consultant’s report. I submit to you that in addition to being a neo-colonial trick, it is, on the balance of probabilities a way to alleviate someone’s white guilt by pretending to do something. In other words, it’s all show.
A second problematic aspect of removing signs and symbols that people associate with racism is that unstated assumption that if you get rid of them all we will get rid of racism – and that is not true. Systemic racism is not in the signs and symbols as much as it is in the actions and beliefs of the people in the society. [eg. swastika and Buddhism; capirote hats in Spain.] Removing token symbols but leaving the collective practices that disadvantage the marginalized does nothing to combat systemic racism. At best, it alleviates white guilt without improving marginalized lives. To fight systemic racism on this level we need to change the context. We do not do that by removing or hiding but we can do that by giving free autonomous voice to the disadvantaged so they can give a new context.
The point of this amendment and the fully indigenous committee is to give indigenous people the freedom, if and when they want to, to tell us their perspective without us telling them what to tell us.
A New Text that is more complete and inclusive
Trying to synthesize two different past lived experience does violence to both experiences because it requires that important and/or contradictory points be combined or ignored. The result is usually ridiculous.
That is the problem with ONE official text.
Non-interference in the peaceful expression of beliefs, stories, histories, and conceptions of the good life – this should be a prime directive in a multicultural society. This is one the reasons we have a separation of church and state. The state should be neutral in these matters of cultural stories and cultural expression otherwise the state is involved in the colonization of people’s minds – that is in the formation of racist subjects. It is in the participation of the formation of racist subjects that systemic racism must be fought. We must abstain from contributing to the formation of racist people by not coming up with a state sponsored narrative for the marginalized group.
The solution is to augment perspectives not edit perspectives. Augment by giving room for the authentic voice of marginalized communities. We have always tried to find one “true or correct or more inclusive” narrative and this has failed – in fact it cannot succeed we should be looking at the structural causes that tell us that there should be only one narrative. – it is simply not true that there is ever only one narrative just as certainly as it is true that there are at least two sides to every story.
The statement “Revising Kingston’s narrative is an act of reconciliation” is not true - as proposed it is and act of domination.
Looking for one acceptable story is revisionist history – authenticity demands a plurality of stories.
Autonomy – authentic – anti colonial
One phenomenon that was recently brought to my attention by an indigenous woman is that indigenous people in a committee with settlers often defer or are manipulated by the settler members. This is a script that has been playing itself out over and over again since first contact. It is therefore important that any committee be entirely indigenous. Because one non-indigenous person on a committee means the work of the committee will not be authentic.
If we are to move forward together doing shared work, we need to start with an unedited understanding of what a different perspective looks like. We must not tell them what to tell us.
To avoid these three pitfalls that come with removal and/or synthesizing and/or dominating the narratives and to allow for indigenous freedom of expression, settlers should hear but not influence the stories and histories of indigenous peoples.
The statement “Can’t feel welcomed without a seat at the table” is misleading especially if the place at the table is a subordinate one. The principle of most treaties was one of equality between nations. That equality needs to be restored before we can move forward in equality together.
Therefore, I believe we have to give indigenous people, the freedom and autonomy to determine their own expressions, their own stories and histories – anything less would be a continuation of oppression and colonialism. Without their autonomy they are in submission to us. Being in submission is not an equal position from which to start a journey of reconciliation.