Friendly Suggestions to Some of the Activist Advocates of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada

Saturday, 5 August 2017

The August issue of the American magazine the Rolling Stones has a story about our Prime Minister titled Justin “Why Can’t He Be Our President?”

In this piece, Mr. Trudeau is reported to have told the following to the interviewer about his 2012 charity boxing match when he was a Member of Parliament against Senator Patrick Brazeau who is a member of the Kitigan Zibi First Nation in Quebec.

“I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy tough-guy senator from an Indigenous community. He fit the bill, and it was a very nice counterpoint…. I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.”

The Prime Minister chose the good Senator as his sparring partner quite mindful that he may well lose the match.

His victory was a surprise both to him and, I venture to guess to most of the spectators as well as those who followed the story.

At the time the P.M chose Senator Brazeau as his sparring partner and Brazeau agreed, no one questioned either one’s choice.

Senator Brazeau in a message to the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network wrote about the P.M.’s comments to say:” I’ll take it as a compliment.”

It would appear that he was, besides all the non-Indigenous people of common sense and sober judgment, the only one to take it as a compliment.

Based on the Globe and Mail’s interviews on the topic published on Tuesday August 1, all the so-called Indigenous advocates took leave of their senses to denounce the Prime Minister for his comments and accuse him of all sorts of sins.

“First Nations leaders say the P.M.’s remarks about Mr. Brazeau fly in the face of his government’s commitment to a renewed relationship with Indigenous people.”

Robert Jago, a First Nations activist and writer, said many minority man are familiar with the stereotyping that Mr. Brazeau faced because of his race. It is sad to see the [P.M.] not just buying into that stereotype, but using it for political gain. If [the P.M] believed in reconciliation, I’d think that he would be striving to show common cause with his fellow parliamentarians of Indigenous ancestry, not objectifying them, as he has Brazeau.”

Roger Augustine, a Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations said that [the P.M.’s] comments about Mr. Brazeau could undermine his government’s message. “To describe him like that is demeaning…It is not the professional way for anyone to talk.”

One Pam Parlameter, a professor of Indigenous studies at Ryerson University said “I was actually shocked to read this coming from someone who has been speaking about reconciliation and repairing relationships.” She went on to describe his statement as a “disgusting super-arrogant, super-racist comment”.

Another, Cindy Blackstock a professor at the McGill University School of social work claimed that the P.M.’s comments “play into a narrative about colonialization…where Indigenous peoples are the savages and the non-Indigenous people are the civilized. It’s unfortunate. He is using Indigenous peoples to try to emphasize the good qualities about himself… As a pattern it’s concerning”. She called on the P.M. to clarify his remarks   to ensure they aren’t repeated in the future. “

When  the Prime Minister expressed his regrets  at the way his remarks were taken, someone named John Sutherland  wrote to the Globe and Mail  to accuse  the Prime Minister of failing to address the real problem with what he did; namely:” he cynically used someone… as a means to advance his personal political objective. By doing what he did [the P.M.]  demonstrated a complete lack of respect for Mr. Brazeau as an individual. Far from resolving the issue, his expression of regret only serves to demonstrate either a profound cynicism or a complete lack of understanding. Canadians deserve much better than this.”

Speaking personally, my friends and I were ready to and did cheer for Senator Brazeau and hoped that he would knock Trudeau down and out.

.

Before shooting their mouths these advocates ought to have done some work and found out,

First, what transpired between Trudeau and Brazeau before they agreed to fight? What did they tell each other?

Second, what was the good Senator thinking when he accepted to fight Trudeau? Was he, for example, objectifying Trudeau?

And I wonder what the Indigenous leaders and these advocates would have said about the P.M.’s impugned comments had the Senator prevailed?

At the end of the day, what these people are saying is pure unadulterated codswallop.

When they are asked to comment on a particular statement or event, my suggestions to them- that is if they wish to retain their credibility, are:

Please

One, keep your shirts on.

Two, keep your minds open.

Three, don’t rush to pass negative judgment.

Four, if you have not got all the information/evidence you need to analyse the matter from all angles, please get on with it and get the information before you answer the questions of reporters or for that matter those of anyone else in the public sphere.

Five, after you receive all the information you can get, take time to think through  the matter and to reach a conclusion before you make a public statement and answer reporters’ questions.

Six, when you are searching for the facts and analysing them, look for the positive as well.

Seven, get a sense of humour.

Eight, stop always looking for an Indigenous victim or victimising one.

Nine, if an event is susceptible of both a positive and a negative interpretation; give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the positive interpretation.

Ten, before making public statements to comment on people and events, ask yourselves whether the occasion and what you intend to say are worth running the risk of being contradicted on the facts and/or undermining your credibility.

Eleven, remember: silence is the better part of discretion and at times golden. You may have noticed, none of the big guns in the Aboriginal community made an issue of what Trudeau said.

Twelve, speak only after the big guns have spoken, unless you are called upon to do so by them.

Thirteen, don’t take yourselves so seriously.

Fourteen, stop feigning dramatic states of mind and feelings in reaction to an event.

Fifteen, stop needlessly  dramatising or over-dramatising everything by throwing up the same old tiresome buzz words, platitudes, clichés and historical half-truths.

 

Sixteen, avoid self-righteousness and sanctimoniousness like the plague.

And yes,  please make sure that you remember these rules and live by them so that the next time you are tempted to publicly denounce, accuse and chastise someone, they may save you from sounding tiresome, foolish and/or hysterical, and in the process, make fools of yourselves and  turn people off  the merits of your advocacy.