Welcome to. . . The Red Road

Dudley George - The Truth Must Come Out!
The Ipperwash Scandal - Murder of Dudley George.

Practical Racism and Fuzzy Logic in British Columbia:
The 2002 B.C. Referendum on Treaty Principles

by
Leslie Doucet

February 26, 2002


Under the guise of participatory democracy, the Liberal government of British Columbia initiated a province-wide referendum on aboriginal treaty principles in the Spring of 2002. Along with the timing of the referendum, coming after the controversial signing of the Nisga’a Treaty in 1998, the discourse surrounding both the referendum principles and the ensuing public debate revealed the social cleavage surrounding the issue of self-determination for indigenous people. Despite official government policies embracing diversity and multiculturalism, groups identified as indigenous continue to suffer the full brunt of racialised discourses that serve to naturalize and legitimate past and present inequities. First Nations have an a priori claim to land, and therefore the means of production, and as such, constitute a serious threat to the conditions within which capitalism can function. If this constitutes an explanation for the extreme disparity in socio-economic conditions between indigenous and non-indigenous segments of the population, it also highlights the motivation for the state's resistance to attempts at self-determination.
Sociologist Robert Miles points to the primary role of the state as one of “maintaining the conditions necessary for the reproduction of the capitalist mode of production” and the referendum serves as an excellent example of this function in the face of the perceived “risk” of “losing” land to First Nation interests. It illustrates how a deeply-embedded, historically-specific racist ideology continues to manifest itself institutionally, couched in soothing euphemisms that are loaded with pejorative meanings and implied threats, in a effort to protect the essential tenets of capitalism and prevent any perceived erosion of power from the state.
In order prove these assertions, a methodology is adopted that precisely defines both the concepts of racism and institutional racism. Miles rightly warns that the conceptual inflation of the term “racism” leads to its uselessness as an analytical tool and obscures the workings of other powerful ideologies, such as nationalism and sexism. For our purposes, racism is defined by the signification of phenotypical characteristics through representations of the Other that is hierarchal and exclusionary. As an ideology, it represents a coherent theory of difference that is lived and experienced through common sense.
According to Miles, a determination of institutional racism is made by satisfying two primary conditions necessary to warrant such a conclusion. Institutional racism can be said to exist when “the racist discourse becomes silent, but is nevertheless embodied in the continuation of exclusionary practices or in the use of the new discourse.” Furthermore, Miles argues, institutional racism is predicated on the existence of a racist historicity and there is ample evidence to suggest this is true in the case of First Nations.
Early examples of the existence of a racialised discourse of the Other can be found in the many pieces of legislation enacted first by the British, and subsequently Canadian, parliaments to deal with the indigenous populations in the New World. In 1857, the Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes in this Province was adopted in Ontario. The federal Enfranchisement Act of 1869 , which effectively established the primacy of government over traditional governing structures and allocated municipal responsibilities to band councils, is disconcerting similar to the question posed 145 years later, sixth on the referendum, asking voters to endorse the following principle:
“Aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with power delegated from Canada and British Columbia.”
While references to “Indians” and “tribes” and words like “civilization” were omitted from modern discourses about indigenous people, words like “aboriginal” and “self-government” provide ready replacements. The striking continuity of the state’s political objectives highlights one of Miles’ key arguments: racism, as an ideology, locates itself within the capitalist system and serves a historically specific function. For First Nations, the referendum is a case of history repeating itself with an identical racist discourse wrapped in new language. As if to cement Miles’ argument, the first principle of the referendum goes straight to heart of the matter,
“Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements”
Speaking to the very essence of capitalism, the state is able to create risk by invoking the sanctity of private property rights, and the perceived threat of “expropriation,” another word loaded with negative meaning, pitting the aspirations of First Nations against the “owners” of such property. What is interesting about British Columbia’s situation is the fact that most of the indigenous populations that inhabited the west coast never signed treaties and in fact, never ceded any territory to the state. Claims of fee simple title and private property rights in most of British Columbia are legally dubious at best, based upon the idea of “terra nullius” or unoccupied land. Here we see what Miles’ terms the “practical adequacy” of racist ideology: the historical specificity of the racialisation of First Nations in order to facilitate the acquisition of resources necessary for capital accumulation.
In this instance, the first principle of the referendum successfully rewrites history, placing First Nations in the position of “expropriating” lands from legitimate private property holders, rather than having had their own lands expropriated. Presenting treaty negotiations as a threat to private property undermines efforts by indigenous groups to have their historical grievances addressed and serves capitalism by reinforcing the supremacy of private property rights above all other rights, particularly indigenous claims to land.
In a lecture given at Queen’s University in April of 1998, Phil Fontaine, former Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, spoke of modern racism as a “covert operation” and identified its most distinguishing characteristic as the “vigour with which it is consistently denied.” This is demonstrated by the efforts of state officials and mainstream media to portray the referendum initiative as a racially neutral endeavour.
Geoff Plant, B.C.’s Attorney General and the state official ultimately responsible for the referendum initiative, was active in disseminating the government’s official position that the referendum was not designed to undermine the constitutional rights of First Nations. “We have said from the outset that we do not intend to ask questions that could in anyway support compromising existing aboriginal rights or
title.'' The chair of B.C.’s Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, MLA John Les, went further, stating that, “This is not a discussion about Native rights. That’s not on the table. It’s about how do we incorporate these rights into the B.C. mosaic.” Mr. Les employs the term “native rights,” which implies special status and privilege conferred on “natives” but not on “non-natives.” Mr. Les conveniently ignores that fact that many of the principles in the referendum directly attack some of the measures meant to alleviate centuries of economic depravation. Principle 8 states that,
“The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people should be phased out.”
Tax-exempt status means little to people without income. Tax-exempt status is not universally applied to all those who are classified as “Indian” or “aboriginal.” Tax-exempt status is denied those who are labelled “non-status Indians,” and those who live off-reserve, which includes the vast majority of indigenous people in the province of British Columbia. There is likely very little economic drain in the province from the small portion of the population that have tax-exempt status. The motives of the state for including this inflammatory principle in the referendum have more to do with replicating and reinforcing division than with any sound economic reasoning.
Perceptions of special status and privilege persist, despite the wealth of empirical data that suggests otherwise. Prior to the referendum, one mainstream magazine, Report Newsmagazine, went so far as to declare, “Sound the retreat: the BC Liberals start reneging on their commitment to resist escalating native demands.” By couching the treaty process in the context of “demands” that are “escalating,” legitimate claims by First Nations are construed as threats to the greater society as a whole. In this example, and the previous one, we see continued use of the term “native,” a particularly loaded word, which carries with it a colonial past rife with representations of “savages” and the “uncivilized.”
The remaining five principles of the referendum work on a slightly subtler level, although they still serve to facilitate the state’s efforts to protect accumulation imperatives at the expense of other interests. For example, principle 2 states that,
“The terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured.”
It is unlikely that any capitalist industry would not seek compensation for any disruption, perceived or real, likely to arise from treaty settlements or any other land use decision. When self-determination efforts at resource control are exercised by First Nations, industry consistently cries foul. During the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs public hearings on the referendum, forestry industry representative Marley Beets spoke on behalf of the industry. She said, in part, “When aboriginal people are looking for attention from the media or government, they find it very convenient to hold forestry operations hostage.” She goes on to state in the same article, when queried further, as to how she saw industry working with First Nations, “We don’t need an aboriginal labour force. We already have a labour force. To be brutally frank, what First Nations have to offer the industry is a commitment not to blockade.” In other words, the industry has absolutely nothing to offer First Nations, and in return, they should simply let industry do as industry pleases. She neglects to mention that blockades arise out of the frustration First Nations feel at their inability to influence industry decisions on indigenous lands, and that industry enjoys direct access to the state’s social control apparatus, namely the RCMP and the courts, that serve to forcibly remove participants in blockades and enforce the will of industry on disputed lands. She easily dismisses indigenous concerns as “looking for attention,” reducing legitimate grievances to little more than attention-getting behaviour.
Access to and management of land and resources forms the basis for the remaining referendum principles. The third principle states,
“Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians.”
and the fourth carries on in much the same vein,
“Parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians.”
Implicit in these two principles is the idea that somehow treaty settlements will prevent British Columbians from enjoying recreational activities on Crown lands and jeopardize existing parks and protected areas. Opportunities for recreation already exist, and it is unclear how these principles could apply to lands reclaimed by First Nations, since they would then have ceased to be “Crown” lands. It also obscures the fact that industry and commercial development does far more damage to the environment, and more to restrict the public’s access to prime recreational areas than lands under the stewardship of First Nations.
The British Columbian government has presented the treaty process to the public as a zero-sum game. Any gain for First Nations is an automatic loss for the rest of the province. Constructed to illicit yes answers from the public, it was no surprise when the government announced overwhelming support for its proposed principles. Premier Gordon Campbell states that “After many years of being shut out of the treaty process, the people of our province have sent a resounding message to First Nations and to Canadians alike . . .” Here we can see how the discourse surrounding First Nations has shifted focus away from the real issues facing First Nations to highlight the plight of the majority who somehow feel left out of the process, despite the fact that their elected officials have been vigorously and successfully defending their interests, as evidenced by the expenditure of over a billion dollars and the lack of a single signed treaty, apart from the Nisga’a Treaty, which took over 25 years and was negotiated outside of the established treaty process.
Campbell goes on to say that the referendum principles provide British Columbia with “certainty, finality and equality.” Words like “certainty” are catch phrases for industry, meaning without the settlement of the ownership issue, industry is not free to exploit the remaining resources. The adoption of the referendum principles would certainly mean “finality” for First Nations; it would mean an end to their aspirations for self-determination. Implicit in Mr. Campbell’s use of the word “equality” is that aboriginal claims to land were somehow based upon unfair principles prior to the adoption of the referendum principles, and that these principles now bring a measure of equality to a process that favoured First Nations.
Campbell was also careful to ignore his critics and the public backlash against his government’s initiative. Anglican and United Church congregations, along with labour, environment, opposition parties and human rights groups joined with B.C. First Nations in publicly denouncing the referendum.
The referendum is a clear example of how the state is actively and vigorously defending the interests of capital against the threat of First Nation claims. Although First Nations are not a homogeneous group, the failure of the state to recognize indigenous diversity means First Nations have a shared, common experience in their history with the state. The principles of the referendum were cloaked in confrontational and value-laden language and were meant to highlight divisions and difference, rather than shared values and common goals.
The continued racialisation of First Nations must serve a purpose. The fact that the state devotes so much effort to opposing First Nation claims to lands and continues to engage in discourses of race speaks to the magnitude of the perceived threat First Nations pose to capitalist modes of production. Ownership of the means of production must not fall into the hands of groups whose value systems are in stark contrast to the economic arrangements necessary to facilitate capitalism. With the entrenchment of indigenous rights in the Constitution in 1982, governments were forced to adopt new tactics to counter the growing support First Nations were finding within the Canadian legal system for their claims to land.
Arguably, there is no other group in Canadian society still subjected to such intense racialised representations and official government scrutiny than First Nations. The multicultural mosaic of Canadian society has not made space for the indigenous population. In fact, the state has consistently tried to reduce and marginalize the space occupied by First Nations, driven by the perception that First Nation aspirations pose a threat to the economic foundations of the nation-state. Ultimately structured ideologically by capitalist imperatives, the referendum principles and fuzzy logic of the discourses that surrounded it clearly meet Miles’ two criterions for a determination of institutional racism.


Works Cited

Barnsley, P. “Scrap the referendum, B.C. told” Windspeaker, v.19(7) Nov. 01/01

Bolaria, B. & P. Li. Racial Oppression in Canada (En. 2nd Ed.). Garamond Press, Toronto. (1988)

Boyd, C. Wide majority agree with B.C. Liberal treaty plans. Globe and Mail Online Edition, Wed., July 3/02. (07/03/02)

Canadian Press Newswire Services – July 03/02

Fontaine, Phil. Modern Racism in Canada. School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, On. (1998)

Government of British Columbia, Treaty Negotiations Office. News Release: Referendum on Treaty Principles. March 14, 2002.

Government of Canada: Canada Customs & Revenue Agency: http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/aboriginals/guidelines-e.html (02/02/03)

Henry, F. and C. Tator, W. Mattis, T. Rees. The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society (2nd Ed.) Harcourt Brace & Company, Canada. (2000)

McKee, Christopher. Treaty Talks in British Columbia: Negotiating a Mutually Beneficial Future. (2nd Ed.). UBC Press, Vancouver (2000)

Miles, Robert. Racism. Routledge, Canada. (1986)

O'Neill, T. “Sound the retreat: the BC Liberals start reneging on their commitment to resist escalating native demands” Report Newsmagazine, v.28(22) 2001

Satzewich, Vic & T. Wotherspoon. First Nations: Race, Class & Gender Relations. Canadian Plains Research Center, Regina. (2000)

Theodore, T. B.C. committee recommends 16-part referendum question on aboriginal treaties. CP Newswire Service. Nov. 30, 2001

Want to discuss Aboriginal Topics?
ICQ UIN# 246141794

Kevin

Welcome to Red Roads.
Aboriginal Peoples of Canada have traveled many roads which brought them to where they are today. Some roads were intentionally taken while some were not. Here, we'll try to illustrate some of those journeys. If you have an interest in Aboriginal affairs and have a story to share, compose it in text or WORD format and send it in by clicking here!

Migwetch,

Kevin