Today’s Congress Highlights: Cindy Blackstock & Kevin Lamoureux

I went to this today:

Until today, I’ve only ever read Cindy Blackstock’s name in news pieces and on twitter. This morning, I was fortunate enough to attend a session where she delivered a keynote address. The strength of her voice, which I’m sure would have been just as strong without the microphone, and the power in her words demanded my full attention. She moved the audience with words, pictures, and the energy she exudes. She linked documents from 1907 to 2015. Past to present to future. She poignantly recounted a child’s experience in a residential school and hers of racism off the huckleberry fields. She exemplified and spoke about strength, joys and perseverance of Indigenous peoples. She called for everyone to cultivate and recognize moral courage.

Kevin Lamoureux also blew me away. Another person whose charisma and ability to articulate horror alongside and in relation to incredible beauty is a gift that I won’t soon forget. He emphasized that the social determinants of health such as access to education, nurturing, safety and so on, are stronger predictors than smoking. Through this and the story of a boy who had to make his own way after school to introduce himself to new foster parents, he asked us to imagine the ripple effects of situations such as these on that boy’s ability to do well on a test that week, to develop the skills he needs to do well in high school, the grades he needs to get into university and so on. He talked about the crucial links between family, love, care & nurturing, and teachers.

People were moved to tears by both speakers. Not so much by the horrible realities described in moments during these presentations, but, by the truth and power of their words -and their incredible presence. The vibration of their voices. These people are two examples of leaders, people who inspire and energize, people who can stir up the dust in others that has been allowed to settle.


Thinking outloud about the Guide to Acknowledging Traditional Territory

Today, the Canadian Association of University Teachers released a “Guide to Acknowledging Traditional Territory”. The document lists Canada’s universities and the traditional Indigenous territories on which each resides. It can be found here: Guide to Acknowledging Traditional Territories.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you practice this type of acknowledgment? Do you find initiatives such as these helpful? Do you have issues with it? While its writers might be well-informed and intend this as a helpful resource, I think that the uptake of these standard acknowledgments will result in creating space for continued complacency  while allowing universities to relate such initiatives to key performance indicators about Aboriginal relations in their reporting.

On the one hand, I think it’s useful for people to have this as a small first-step in what should be an ongoing process of uncovering, recovering, and discovering all that we/settlers have erased through the formation of the Canadian state/institutions. I know that, as a settler who has only developing knowledge of her own ancestral settlement history on Turtle Island, let alone the complex history of the Canadian state, being given a list of traditional territories initially and intuitively feels helpful.

On the other hand, I’ve witnessed enough criticism of this and similar acknowledgment-based practices by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples to take a second pass at the implications of this. What are my motivations for wanting or finding this guide or any other ready-made acknowledgment helpful? Are they first and foremost to not look ill-informed? To avoid criticism? To do things ‘properly’? To shut down difficult discussions? To be respectful? To fulfill what I think is expected of me? Is my motivation to learn deeply about these lands and my current and historical place on them?

I worry about the work that has been done for us, here. I take issue with the institutional standardization and expectation of these acknowledgments. It is important for people to do their own searching and learning. It is especially important to find a way of connecting with the past and present in ways that are personally meaningful and powerful. While this might seem like a statement of ideals or principles, I mean it in material and personal terms.

How much time would it take for someone to search the traditional territory of a given place today? Assume that I am someone who doesn’t know what traditional territory I am on and am new to this practice of acknowledgment. Let’s add Ottawa to this example as well. Suppose that I’m going to give public talks at Carleton and Ottawa Universities and will be chairing a committee meeting at Saint Paul University, later today. How long would it take me to find this information? I’ll actually do it now… In 18 seconds (yes, I timed it), I came up with these results and skimmed them without clicking on them:

Screenshot 2016-05-27 16.16.14

If I were just about to give a talk, lecture or chair a meeting at any of these universities, and if I had 18 seconds to spare, I could learn that “The entire Ottawa Valley is Algonquin traditional territory…”. So, without knowing anything else, I could rush into my talk and begin by saying: “I would like to acknowledge that I am on the traditional territory of the Algonquin”. Some might groan at this, some might feel that was great to do, some might not understand, some might not care, some might correct this person. The only thing missing between my quick search and what is in the Guide is the word “unceded”.

Keeping with the scenario, maybe I’ve heard some people in past talks or meetings use the term “unceded”. Let’s say that I want to be respectful and accurate and I’m not sure if I should use that word. Enter timed Google search #2… I’ll type the following into google: “Is Ottawa unceded territory?” 29 seconds, including a bit more detailed skim-reading but not clicking on any links, came up with this:

Screenshot 2016-05-27 16.42.54.png

So now, if I were just about to give a talk or chair a meeting at any of these universities, and if I had another 29 seconds to spare, I could learn from this first page on google, without clicking on any links, that “The agreed upon fact is that Ottawa and much of Eastern Ontario sits on unceded Algonquin land” or that “Ottawa area … on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin territory”.

Maybe I’m belabouring the point, but a total of 47 seconds of Google search yielded my ability to speak the words given to me by the Guide without actually knowing anything about it: “We [I] would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded Algonquin territory”. In both cases, whether I take these words from a 47 second Google search or by referencing the Guide, I know nothing about what this actually means or why I’m saying it at all other than it is respectful to do so.

My point is not to deride the work or intentions that have gone into this initiative, although I admit that it seems so right now, I’m sure. I respect that CAUT struck a working group and assume that Indigenous representatives in each of these territories had direct input on its content and final say on the document. I’m certain they did not put seconds of internet search engine work into this, as I just did. I also appreciate that the CAUT acknowledges this as a beginning and “encourages Academic staff associations to reach out to local Aboriginal communities to open pathways for dialogue”.

But, what is the substance of this practice of acknowledgment when it has been handed to us? Where is the integrity in speaking words about which we have very little or no understanding? Where is the inspiration or incentive for those who don’t care about the injustices that Indigenous peoples fight strongly against every day – to now give a damn? How can, might or do initiatives such as these advance justice for Indigenous peoples on their own terms?

Empty-WordsOne thing that Indigenous communities regularly charge Canadian institutions and leaders with are empty words –and rightly so. This is often in terms of making false promises with no or partial substantive follow-through. When spoken by persons such as the one I’ve used in my example above, or worse, by people who don’t care and have no intention of further understanding, these acknowledgments are empty words unless followed-through with actions: further investigation and development of knowledge about the traditional territory referenced, one’s history and settlement in the region, listening to the people of that territory, seeking ways to make space in our own communities for those traditional territories to hold weight, just as settler city and province names do as a matter of fact. Otherwise, these acknowledgments serve little else other than courtesies and presentation guidelines alongside wordy PowerPoint dos and don’ts.

Spotlight1-300x291I think it’s far more productive to acknowledge, if we’re going to acknowledge anything, what we don’t know. At least then, perhaps we can have some honest conversations. Now that many university departments, administrative centres, professors and students have taken up this practice of territorial acknowledgment as a matter of routine communication practice, wouldn’t it be more powerful to speak the words: “I know that I am supposed to acknowledge that I am on the traditional lands of x, y, and z, but actually, I don’t feel comfortable saying this because I actually know nothing about these peoples, I’ve never met or spoken with anyone from this territory, I know nothing about their history, or what my acknowledgment means in terms of every day life”? Maybe that could inspire post-meeting conversations with real, spontaneous, clumsy, heart-felt, offensive, well-meaning, stepping stone kinds of acknowledgments. Putting oneself in that vulnerable spot and taking on the fear of criticism or judgment in order to learn something can be a very, very powerful and deeply personal motivator to learn more. Acknowledgments that are rooted in violence and oppression should never be standardized practice or instrumentally administered.


Not-so-new issues in Canadian citizenship and democracy

Currently, there is a meme going around on Facebook that states: “For the first time in Canadian history, the Canadian government can now revoke Canadian citizenship even for those that were born here, if they are convicted of a terrorism charge.”  One person who shared the meme comments: “With restricted debate, little fanfare, and no significant revisions, a new law that gives the Harper government the ability to revoke citizenship from people that were born here, unprecedented in our entire national history, has just been passed” (emphasis my own).

In 1945, the Vancouver Consultative Council and the Co-operative Committee on Japanese Canadians were busy petitioning government, drawing public attention, and seeking support to sound alarm bells about the sweeping powers of “Orders-in-Council”.  “Orders-in-Council,” they state, “threaten your citizenship!”  Specifically, they highlight Clause ‘g’ of Bill 15 that “threatened the liberty of every Canadian citizen, but its immediate purpose was to make legally possible the revocation of citizenship and the deportation of Canadian citizens of Japanese origin.”  The document that I am referring to, which is featured below and can be accessed here:, goes on to underscore that “[w]hen the clause was rejected, by public and Parliament, the Government passed Orders-in Council authorizing the very action which Parliament had refused to sanction.”

Orders in Council
The meme and the comments of the person who shared it are incorrect in saying the government’s ability to revoke citizenship is “unprecedented in our entire national history”.  This is NOT new; this is a different shade of something else.  Canadians were fighting over these issues some seventy years ago.  The case of “repatriating” (read: exile and deportation) Japanese Canadians meant loss of Canadian citizenship. Most Japanese Canadians who “willingly” chose the option of “repatriation” did so under duress because of forced internment, and because the government gave no other option than to move east of the Rockies -never to return to their homes/lives in BC-, AND because of coercion insofar as it was emphasized that loyalty to Canada would be questioned by authorities if they didn’t “choose” either option.

At no point was a “person of Japanese origin” charged with a crime/treason and RCMP reports state they found no threat.  PM Mackenzie King himself stated: “It is a fact that no person of Japanese race born in Canada has been charged with any act of sabotage or disloyalty during the years of war.”

A key part of the redress package in 1988 was to find the people whose citizenship was stripped from this post-internment, “repatriate” or relocate ultimatum and reinstate that citizenship.  Nearly 4000 Japanese Canadians left Canada, half of whom were Canadian-born and one-third were under the age of sixteen.

This protest concerning Orders-in-Council directly and systematically targeted “persons of Japanese origin”; however, non-Japanese Canadians flagged that it could be used against any Canadian.  What the meme and the people sharing the meme rightly emphasize are the vast swathes of Canadians that could potentially be targeted by the new legislation -especially as it relates to environmental activism-; however, it should be noted that the emphasis the current bill places on terrorism in this ‘post-9/11 era’ with its deeply ingrained islamophobia is decidedly ethnically focused.

There is no quick and simple conclusion, explanation, or neat way to wrap this up, but, I will end with this:  Ottawa would like to close every Canadian book that contains “sad”, “shameful”, and “unfortunate” chapters ( in order to “move on” and celebrate progress.  The problem is that those chapters are still in print and circulation today.  An artist might have re-interpreted the cover art; a publicist might have found a different spin for today’s market; an editor might have changed a bit of wording or asked for an update…  But the author doesn’t appear to have changed much.  We desperately need new authors, Canada.

Reflections on Idle No More rally from a Japanese Canadian

Walking with StrangersThe following is an article I wrote for the February edition of The Bulletin.  This is a Japanese Canadian magazine, published by the Japanese Canadian Citizens Association (JCCA) of Vancouver, that has been in circulation since 1958.  You can learn more about the JCCA and The Bulletin here:  “The Bulletin: A Journal of Japanese Canadian History + Culture“.

I wrote this short piece in order to illustrate how different histories and experiences of struggle speak to one another in important ways and how these commonalities can inspire action/participation.  Further, I find it frighteningly easy to fall into the trap of thinking at the expense of listening or reflecting.  In this light, I wanted to advocate for and practice a more broadly understood form of listening.

Personal Reflection: Walking with Strangers
(Originally published in February issue of The Bulletin)

Greetings from Ottawa!  Our city has been a-buzz lately with the news and action surrounding Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More Movement.  With all the information and conflicting stories swirling about in mainstream and social media channels, I decided to attend a rally myself to both show support and to experience this “history in the making” first-hand. I attended the January 11th rally, where some 3,000 people walked from Victoria Island to Parliament Hill.  As I walked alongside and among strangers I reflected on my own family’s history and realized just how much, and how little, I understood about what was going on.

A pivotal and key part of the Japanese Canadian redress movement was to educate Canadians on the complex injustices of dispossession, internment, and relocation; this was a part of Canadian history that had been refused entry into the dominant historical narrative of Canada for many decades.  Many Canadians flatly denied these injustices.  Many Canadians had no idea whatsoever of the issues.  However, many Canadians also supported the movement, showed up at rallies, and wrote letters – they observed, listened, and learned.  As I walked with strangers – as I observed, listened, and learned – I couldn’t help but feel connected.  Even though the details of Japanese Canadian experiences in Canada are very different from that of First Peoples, what we have shared is a struggle to make our pasts, and thus our Canadian present at any given moment, known.

In 1975, CBC radio’s Judy Lamarche interviewed David Suzuki wherein he stated: “I feel as a Canadian who happens to have been put in a concentration camp because I was Japanese I have a special responsibility and that is not to forget how fragile democracies and guarantees are.”  I reflected on that “fragile democracy” while walking.  I reflected on how the War Measures Act made a gross abrogation of human rights a “legal” process in 1942.  I reflected on how I have been able to live my entire life without knowing what a treaty means in the Canadian context; the only reason why I know today is because I actively cared to learn.  I reflected on what First Peoples are saying – shouting! – about how Bill C-45 will negatively impact their communities and all Canadians.  I reflected on the parallels I saw between the redress movement and this rally.

Through Japanese Canadian voices like David Suzuki’s, Joy Kogawa’s, Ken Adachi’s, the National Association of Japanese Canadians’, and individual community members’, Canadians had the opportunity to observe, listen, and learn about Japanese Canadian experience – not only the suffering and injustice, but the beauty of our Japanese cultural heritage… and people listened.  No longer were Japanese Canadians known only as spoken about or on behalf of by “experts” or “analysts” such as politicians, journalists, or academics.  Today, all Canadians have an unprecedented opportunity to listen to the voices of First Peoples telling us about their interactions with the government, the beauty and importance of their cultures, this long struggle, and their lives.  What I personally took from that day and this moment, was/is a renewed commitment to listen to people – not only with my ears and my mind, but with my heart, with my history, with my whole self.  I have so much to learn – and to unlearn.  I choose to listen to the voices of the First Peoples’ speaking now.  I know that these communities know what is best for them.  I know that I certainly do not.