ISSUES+POLITICS

Do non-Aboriginal people have the right to lead Aboriginal struggles?

by Rick Harp on Jan 15, 2011 • 3:11 pm 16 Comments

Masik next to pieces from 'The Forgotten'

This week, developments in the disparate fields of arts and law had something in common according to critics: the undue appropriation of Aboriginal voices by non-Aboriginal people.

In the first case, we find Tony Merchant, a controversial lawyer attempting to sue Canada on behalf of thousands of people who feel they’ve been unfairly denied the recognition and rights that go with Indian Status, a move some would likely argue is just another case of Merchant “exploit[ing] vulnerable clients in his quest for the big cheque.”

In the second case, we have artist Pamela Masik, whose exhibition of 69 paintings entitled ‘the Forgotten’ has been indefinitely cancelled by the UBC Museum of Anthropology after criticisms that her depictions of missing and murdered women (many of them Aboriginal) “exoticizes” and commodifies their subjects to the professional and material benefit of their creator.

Basically, Merchant and Masik both stand accused of ‘stealing’ or misappropriating an unfair share of the benefits that go with advocating on behalf of others.

To me, these situations offer a useful opportunity to discuss a larger question: when — if ever — it’s okay for non-Indigenous people to act and/or speak on behalf of Aboriginal people. In principle, the quick and easy answer is ‘never.’ In practice, it may be more complicated.

Typically, when I first come across a story of yet another non-Aboriginal person taking credit or cash for ‘helping’ Aboriginal people, my initial impulse is to presuppose their motivations are less than altruistic.

On the face of it, this is patently unfair and journalistically unprofessional. That said, one only has to examine the socio-economic status of the long-suffering majority of Aboriginal people in Canada to appreciate the source and basis of this presupposition. And, hey, there’s no shortage of examples where Canadian governments and business go back on their word or otherwise ignore/manipulate Indigenous interests (recent half-hearted, heavily qualified ‘support‘ of “free, prior and informed consent” notwithstanding). Any exception tends to prove the rule.

Ideally, however, we must try to approach every situation as unique and with fresh eyes. And while my history-honed instincts tell me to give these two the doubt of the benefit, I would briefly ask your indulgence as I explore the “grey zones” of this issue.

That Merchant is in this at least partially for the money is hardly a newsflash. He’s a lawyer in a litigious society. And what artist doesn’t appreciate notoriety?

The first question to ask here is whether an Aboriginal lawyer or artist could and/or would do the same things. Are people saying either of these acts are innately unethical (that is, in and of themselves) — or is it only because a Native lawyer or artist didn’t do them first?

Another question: absent these legal and artistic actions, would Aboriginal interests be better or worse off? Are there what might be deemed some “net” positive outcomes to their actions? If so, does that in any way justify the process that produced them?

(In the cases of Merchant and Masik, could one perhaps argue that more Canadians now know about the issues involved — the inequities in denying Status and the tragedy of murdered/missing women — because of the greater awareness generated by their respective actions?)

Yet another question: when is it critical that we as Aboriginal people take the lead on our issues, and when can we simply tolerate the ‘trade-off’ that comes with accepting help (from wherever and whomever it comes)? What cost-benefit criteria should we use to assess such trade-offs?

I think the debate is important because, like it or not, non-Aboriginal involvement and support in Aboriginal struggles is unavoidable. And, frankly, inter-ethnic solidarity can and does make a difference. The bigger question I suppose is where and when to draw the line. I invite you to pull out your markers.

[ Image: Pamela Masik Vimeo page ]

Anonymous

I think the headline of your article is at odds with its content.

The 2 examples you supplied, 1 of an attorney working for indigenous peoples, the other of an artist creating art about indigenous peoples, have nothing to do with “leading” aboriginal struggles.

In my view, the struggles of indigenous peoples can only be “led” by the indigenous peoples, but all non-aboriginal people have a moral obligation to support and to assist worthy struggles by indigenous groups.

We are all one family, and we all have a duty to help those who need our help.

The industrialized world has decimated and continues to decimate indigenous peoples and struggles.

It has done so by the use of superior weaponry, and continues to do so by the modern weapon of choice — money.

Many, in fact almost all, indigenous struggles lack the weaponry to fight back. Those non-indigenous people who can help, should.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Do non-Aboriginal people have the right to lead Aboriginal struggles? at mediaINDIGENA -- Topsy.com
Anonymous

I think it is an issue of the subjective collective indigenous ways of working in contrast to the objectified individualistic non-indigenous ways of working. The latter controls, appropriates beyond what is their’s to do and owns what they want regardless of who they are hurting. The idea of ownership over community driven agendas are two areas that stem from the clash of cultures… the concept that the non indigenous has at first decimated the cultural identity making most indigenous peoples feel vulnerable to the codified, carded, quantum proofed as no other race has been. Making our ancestors wards of the state, then proceed to continue in that mind frame with our images. The idea of a mother, as I am a mother, seeing their daughter in a 9 foot painting look in such pain reminds me of the ego that one pontificates from rather then thinking from the heart in such a circumstance. Also if they were non-indigenous of a murder, say like Bernardo did, what gallery, or even more preposterous, what anthropology museum would hold an exhibit of such disrespect or inconsideration of grieving families.
Anonymous

I think it is an issue of the subjective collective indigenous ways of working in contrast to the objectified individualistic non-indigenous ways of working. The latter controls, appropriates beyond what is their’s to do and owns what they want regardless of who they are hurting. The idea of ownership over community driven agendas are two areas that stem from the clash of cultures… the concept that the non indigenous has at first decimated the cultural identity making most indigenous peoples feel vulnerable to the codified, carded, quantum proofed as no other race has been. Making our ancestors wards of the state, then proceed to continue in that mind frame with our images. The idea of a mother, as I am a mother, seeing their daughter in a 9 foot painting look in such pain reminds me of the ego that one pontificates from rather then thinking from the heart in such a circumstance. Also if they were non-indigenous of a murder, say like Bernardo did, what gallery, or even more preposterous, what anthropology museum would hold an exhibit of such disrespect or inconsideration of grieving families.
http://www.mediaindigena.com/ Rick Harp

Ray, I totally take your point about the headline/body dissonance. I must confess I struggled with the wording of the headline (which I wanted to be pithy and provocative). My aim was to speak to the question of who gets recognized and how when promoting a pro-Aboriginal agenda — and how that can differ depending on the non/Aboriginality of the promoter. Very much appreciate you taking the time to read and reflect on the piece.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Johnny-Hawk/506154937 Johnny Hawk

I am an active young Anishinabe Sovereign and Indigenous Nationalist. I have worked with Non-”Aboriginal” Solidarity Groups and Individuals who sincerely want to help our struggle and advise our people in using caution when working with our “white” allies as history as shown us. In my experiences even the ones who are sincere tend to speak for us. They steal our thunder and profit of off us and take credit. The Aboriginal Industry be it the arts, entertainment, legal, social, political or in activist circles seems to be where all the ACTION and Funding is and they realize this.
“I’ve never seen a sincere white man, not when it comes to helping black people. Usually things like this are done by white people to benefit themselves. The white man’s primary interest is not to elevate the thinking of black people, or to waken black people, or white people either. The white man is interested in the black man only to the extent that the black man is of use to him. The white man’s interest is to make money, to exploit.” – Malcolm X
Brother Malcolm suggests that “White” People can be a benefit to our struggle if they organize within their own communities fixing their society which causes our problems.
Recently I was approached by a non-native who is teaching aboriginal education in an alternate Native Friendship Centre to “volunteer” in sharing some knowledge. This Centre is also managed by a Non-Native. If we are to become Sovereign People once again, how long are we going to allow these things to keep going on?
My Final Point is that INAC Cheifs and Chief Organizations are co-opting and assimilating into the mainstream society ideology of Capitalism which is the cause to our Colonization and Oppression. While doing this they are preaching our Cultural Teachings to seek funding and to profit which only contradicts the Cultural Rhetoric that they preach.
Even our own are profiting of our Misery while Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women are still not found, Warriors defending our resources and land are being set to jail, Babies in third world conditions are dying and our people continue to suffer while cheques are cashed to fund Talk, while Action is marginalized.
http://ogitchidasociety.wordpress.com/
Johnny Hawke jonnhawk151@hotmail.com

“I’ve never seen a sincere white man, not when it comes to helping black people. Usually things like this are done by white people to benefit themselves. The white man’s primary interest is not to elevate the thinking of black people, or to waken black people, or white people either. The white man is interested in the black man only to the extent that the black man is of use to him. The white man’s interest is to make money, to exploit.”
http://twitter.com/NativeDivaBlog Native Diva

Pretty interesting piece that raises a lot of questions. I have often thought about this myself…

I tend to think that it’s not ok for a non-Aboriginal person to lead issues of great concern to Aboriginal communities. The right to speak for ourselves is a right that a lot of people have fought hard for. The simple act of speaking on behalf of one’s own community or people is a very honourable and powerful act that has been taken from many Aboriginal communities. Any opportunity to reclaim this right should be taken by people within our own communities.

I think non- Aboriginal people involved in Aboriginal issues should direct their energy into their own communities and seek to alter the behaviours, attitudes and beliefs of those within their own community.
To put it simply, working in partnership with us is much better than leading the way for us.
Anonymous

Good question. The notion of who or what makes somebody Native is another worth considering. Personally I feel there is so much dividing people already that I’m ready to abandon the whole thing and get behind anyone who I feels got the right idea.
Anonymous

I like lauraleekharris’ insight. One idea that came to me as I was thinking about Ms. Masik’s presentation of herself as victimized by protestors was the answer to Rick’s question: “Would Aboriginals’ interests be better or worse off?” by one’s choices as a non-Indigenous person with privilege.
It seem to me that they are now worse off, because of the Museum’s and Ms. Masik’s lack of concern for due accountability to the communities involved.
We now see mainstream readtionary media adding insult to injury by crying “censorship,” all the while busily ignoring the appropriate concerns and objections put forward by disposessed groups of women, including the victims’ families.
And it seems to me that if Ms. Masik spent five years working on these paintins, she could have put come thinking and work into building such accountability and foreseeing the clash that was due to happen if she didn’t.
Anonymous

I like lauraleekharris’ insight. One idea that came to me as I was thinking about Ms. Masik’s presentation of herself as victimized by protestors was the answer to Rick’s question: “Would Aboriginals’ interests be better or worse off?” by one’s choices as a non-Indigenous person with privilege.
It seem to me that they are now worse off, because of the Museum’s and Ms. Masik’s lack of concern for due accountability to the communities involved.
We now see mainstream readtionary media adding insult to injury by crying “censorship,” all the while busily ignoring the appropriate concerns and objections put forward by disposessed groups of women, including the victims’ families.
And it seems to me that if Ms. Masik spent five years working on these paintins, she could have put come thinking and work into building such accountability and foreseeing the clash that was due to happen if she didn’t.
Anonymous

Well said Rick. I think non-aboriginal people need to take responsibility for the state of affairs, take up their end of the wampum belt with what skills they have, and join in the collective struggle for justice and mutual respect. Is that what these individuals are doing? It’s always an individual matter… and complicated by the fact that we live in a racist society that infiltrates our daily lives in a myriad of ways. Raising awareness is part of what needs doing… and we all need to survive economically whether we’re Aboriginal or not. I guess the question is, are they leading the struggle, or joining it?
Anonymous

Well said Rick. I think non-aboriginal people need to take responsibility for the state of affairs, take up their end of the wampum belt with what skills they have, and join in the collective struggle for justice and mutual respect. Is that what these individuals are doing? It’s always an individual matter… and complicated by the fact that we live in a racist society that infiltrates our daily lives in a myriad of ways. Raising awareness is part of what needs doing… and we all need to survive economically whether we’re Aboriginal or not. I guess the question is, are they leading the struggle, or joining it?
http://twitter.com/j_essim_ac Jessica McIntyre

My concern is this: by the token that non-aboriginals are seen as inherently when they take on the issues facing aboriginal people, then are aboriginal people inherently right, when it comes to aboriginal issues?

I don’t think you could argue that no matter what, an aboriginal person has the best intentions when it comes to dealing with aboriginal issues. Aboriginal people can be exploitative of their people too, and unfortunately we see that probably too often.

We need to remember that we cannot paint people as having the same intentions just because they have the same ethnic background.
http://www.mediaindigena.com/ Rick Harp

Jessica, your comments touch upon the conundrum Tim writes about in Ouje-Bougoumou, Quebec, where two views of what Aboriginal spirituality (‘Christian’ vs ‘Traditional’) should entail have caused a major split in this small northern community.
Anonymous

Slightly victimising ,everyone loves money and the exchange of worth has been around forever .We are all industrialised how many FN have studied biochemistry,physics, so on. I know for sure I wouldn’t like to go back to pre industrialized days of disease, infant and maternal mortality,so on. Why would anybody else ? However spirituality and ethical justice is another matter . CHEERS
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RC32AZJVBX457PVD6OXMHFL2PE C Curtis

Non-aboriginals have the right to support, but not to lead.
‘Avatar’ was offensive not because the Earthman chose to side with the Navii, but because the Earthman became the leader of the Navii. If he had offered advice to the Navii leader, accepting his leadership, it would have been a more powerful film.
Fiction aside – it is also wrong to deny the possibility of compassion in others, or to always confuse it with exploitation. One does not need to be homeless to advocate for the homeless. One does not need to be Palestinian to decry their lack of a homeland. The desire to correct injustices is one of the things that makes us human. To claim that all such impulses are exploitative is to say ‘those people’ are less than human. It is wrong for them to claim to speak for aboriginal people, but it is not wrong for them to want to help.

Do non-Aboriginal people have the right to lead Aboriginal struggles?

MULTIMEDIA INDIGENA

E-MAIL UPDATES