YouTube video available here.
Acknowledging “traditional native territory” is simply an exercise in collective racial group-think, and it should be stopped.
If the headmaster of a school in Birmingham, England, were to inform his students each morning that their school was situated upon Danelaw, Mercia, and Brittania, the respective traditional territories of the Danish, Anglo-Saxons, and Romans, as well as the traditional territory of the Brittonic tribes, he would be met with laughter. No pupil would feel guilt at this statement.
Yet in Canada, we have begun to observe such a ritual with severity. Halifax schools declare each morning that “We acknowledge that we are in Mi’kma’ki, which is the traditional ancestral territory of the Mi’kmaq people.” For many Maritime universities, the Canadian Association of University Teachers recommends that this territory be described as “unceded” in explicit terms.
These statements, especially those claiming “unceded territory” aim to instill guilt. Guilt, for living on land that no person alive today could have “stolen” in any sense of the word. They de-legitimise the existence of any Canadian not of native racial stock, and naturally pursue one of two results:
The first is the return of white Canadians to the countries, some of which no longer really exist, from whence their ancestors came. Later immigrants are implied in this eviction, but their minority status precludes them from white sin, and it would would be political suicide to insinuate their implication.
The second, is a hierarchy of ethnic citizenship by which all other races are taxed for the benefit of one, as contrition for an intergenerational sin. In theory, this has already been established by the Indian act, albeit without a reverence for native culture.
Both of these results are repulsive, but it is the latter which the activists cherish, as it is both more feasible and profitable.
These acknowledgements cannot be construed as inter-ethnic olive branches either, at least considering the views of those activists who push for them. For instance, Dalhousie student Masuma Khan’s recent retort that “your white tears aren’t sacred this land is” is evidence of the pure racial contempt in these messages.
Thus, they pursue an ethno-state by bolstering the persistent government claim and activist demand of a “nation to nation relationship” which absurdly implies that the natives of Canada somehow have state sovereignty despite their being funded, defended and legitimized through the Canadian Crown. Simply, “nations” of this kind do not exist. They are little more than lobby-groups enslaving individual freedom to collective ethnic interests for the extraction of wealth from the government. Just as it would be ludicrous for the demands of any white person to be held as representing all Europeans, so too should it be considered insane for activist demands to define natives. But by acknowledging a communal claim to “traditional territory” this ethnic group-think is perpetuated.
But there is an alternative.
Instead, the Indian Act should be abolished along with native status, and all reserves should be converted to private property owned by individuals who can pursue their own destinies. No one should be tied to the will of an ethnic collective.
I agree with Senator Beyak’s belief (despite her botched wording) that natives should become fully developed and co-operative participants in the Canadian federation on equal terms with every other citizen. A state in which citizens are entitled to greater or lesser respect based on their ethnicity is simply oppressive, just as it was in the Jim Crow south, and just as it was under the former versions of the Indian Act.
To stop enabling the furtherance of activist goals in creating a regime of ethnic class and citizenship, and tying individuals to collective ethnic wills and sins, we must demand that the propaganda supporting such efforts cease. Refusing to acknowledge traditional native territory is a small step in that direction.