Thursday, April 01, 2021

A reply to Conrad Black: On Indigenous history we cannot ignore inconvenient truths

Black’s understanding of Indigenous history isn’t revisionist so much as it is retrograde.


© Provided by National Post A depiction of Jacques Cartier visiting the village of Hochelaga.

As evidenced by Conrad Black’s recent column , there is a gulf between recent scholarship and what the average Canadian thinks they know about Indigenous history. Rather than lambaste the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for deviating from antiquated nineteenth-century historical narratives, we should recognize the commission was an important effort by a Canadian government to ask, rather than tell, the Indigenous their story.

Black’s understanding of Indigenous history isn’t revisionist so much as it is retrograde.

First, he alleges the “best estimate” of the Indigenous population of Canada at the point of contact to be 200,000.

This is in fact the low estimate and it was made in 1928. A more recent estimate from 1987 runs as high as 2 million . Historians accept that estimates are about as good as it gets given the lack of census information from the early contact era. What is generally accepted, however, is that Indigenous populations in the Americas were devastated by Old World diseases carried by the earliest European explorers. More than a century separates the voyage of Giovanni Caboto in 1497 from the establishment of Quebec City in 1608 by Samuel de Champlain, and there were plenty of moments of contact in between. Whatever the Indigenous population was at the beginning of the colonial period, it was a fraction of what it had been at the point of contact . European explorers caused pandemics in the Americas that decimated Indigenous populations.

Second, Black claims the Indigenous had a Stone Age civilization.

It’s difficult to make much sense of this statement, as the Stone Age spans about 3.4 million years of human evolution and ended around the time of the Neolithic Revolution 10,000 years ago. Civilization is generally taken to mean that which comes after the Stone Age — i.e. complex societies, agriculture, division of labour etc.

Black asserts that the Indigenous were lacking in agriculture, textiles, complex tools and permanent structures, but this is contradicted by the ample archeological evidence held in Canadian museums . Moreover, the archeological evidence is consistent with and confirms written records by early explorers . Jacques Cartier described two Indigenous communities — Stadacona and Hochelaga — from his voyages of 1534 and 1535 that were fortified, featured permanent structures (longhouses) and were populated by sedentary farmers.

Both of these villages are consistent in size and description with Huron settlements dated to the same era. In a typically patronizing manner characteristic of the Jesuits, Paul Le Jeune described the Indigenous people he came into contact with in 1634 as more intelligent than ordinary European peasants. Archeological evidence of civilization, such as agriculture and silviculture (forest management to meet timber needs), dates back to at least 1,000 BCE in Southern Quebec. Native Copper artifacts — such as knives, spear points, arrowheads and bracelets — have been found in archeological sites around Lake Superior dating back as far as 6,000 BCE. The Iroquois had a constitution and confederacy long before the United States or Canada had either of their own.

I could go on.

These facts notwithstanding, the more important question is why Black brings it up in the first place. Are small populations less civilized than large ones? Are people who build sailing ships and stone castles more human than those who build birchbark canoes and pine longhouses?

And what does any of this have to do with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

In sum, Black is suggesting there was no civilization among pre-contact Indigenous peoples because it doesn’t fit his narrow definition of what constitutes civilization. And even there his assertions are contradicted by the historical record and archeological evidence.

Much of Black’s argument is based on the notion that European economics — specifically their rapacious appetite for beaver pelts — is what opened the country. Never mind the fact that the country was already populated with Indigenous nations who regularly traded with one another, it was only because of these well-established economic relationships that the fur trade was possible in the first place.

Indigenous nations at the point of contact had extensive trade networks developed over thousands of years. The Paleo-Indian Laurentian culture participated in trade net works that extended to the Gulf of Mexico thousands of years before the beginning of the common era. By the point of contact Indigenous society had aspects of a market economy, and developed complex political, economic and diplomatic relationships to go with them. Moreover, these civilizations were, as celebrated historian Bruce Trigger has amply demonstrated with regard to the Huron, in a state of evolution and flux for hundreds of years prior to European contact.

These are not the hallmarks of static, Stone Age people.

To put it another way, if Indigenous people were at the evolutionary level of the Stone Age at the point of contact, as Black alleges, they wouldn’t have gone out to meet Cartier with goods they wished to trade, nor would they have invited him back to tour the village or have dinner.

The Hochelagans were neither fearful nor aggressive. They were civilized.

Indigenous society and culture was different from European society and culture but it wasn’t any less evolved. They had complex societies and cosmographies, economic and political relationships, the ability to make tools and art. They spoke languages the Europeans could learn and understand.

Europeans no more brought civilization to the Americas than they discovered it.

The key issue here is that far too many Canadians have held on to the belief that some cultures and societies are better than others and therefore have a right to impose their will on anyone they deem subpar. These beliefs resulted in globe-spanning empires, the transatlantic slave trade, the wholesale devastation of Indigenous civilizations in the Americas, Africa and much of Asia, to say nothing of most of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

Closer to home and the present, these pseudoscientific ideas are at the root of the Residential Schools and genocidal campaigns against Indigenous people since the colonial era.

This is not to say that the child is responsible for the sins of the parent. Canada has collectively made some very modest steps forward in addressing the long legacy of our original sin but our society is so lacking in self-confidence and courage a substantial number of us seem to believe any critical assessment of our history is tantamount to either a personal attack or blasphemy.

Something like a slow-motion genocide occurred here. It happened with the full support of governments from long ago, both foreign and domestic. It happened because of fundamentally flawed and inherently racist beliefs that unfortunately continue to this day.

As a nation and as a society, we’ll have a much easier time achieving a meaningful reconciliation if we abandon obsolete, demonstrably incorrect interpretations of the past, and instead open our eyes and minds. The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been accepted as a vitally important step forward by scholars from across the academic spectrum and across the country.

Rather than shirk our collective responsibilities and detach from reality to enjoy a fantasyland of historical innocence, we would do better as a nation to grow a spine and shine a light on the darkness from our past.

Taylor C. Noakes is an independent journalist and public historian

No comments: