The other day, Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente wrote a piece about some of what she calls the "mythology" about Aboriginal Canadians. She called Dick Pound's comments about the First Nations whom he called "savages", "stupid," then went on to try to debunk some of the commonly accepted wisdom about our First Nations in part by relying on an upcoming book by Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard slamming current policy towards and about the First Nations. (I'll let you read Wente's column and decide for yourself.)
I don't necessarily agree with much of what she said, in particular about there being no link between the founding documents of the Iroquois Confederacy and the Declaration of Independence (although the latter does use the now non-P.C. term "savages" to refer to North American Indians). But is Wente's column racist as some are claiming? After reading it, I conclude it is not. It is wrong in a number of key respects but Wente is entitled to vent.
No doubt this is going to result in yet another investigation by a provincial or federal human rights tribunal (where due process rights go out the window), at great expense to Wente and her employer. That's not the place to have such a discussion. It's in the marketplace of ideas. Free speech is not the exclusive province of one side or of the other.
If the opinions of Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle or Margaret Wente, are not safe -- then can progressive claim to be safe as well?
Remember that when Oprah Winfrey was sued by Texas farmers under the "veggie libel law" in that state (although the issue was about ground beef) even Jerry Springer -- who Winfrey likely despises more than any other talk show host --- openly stood up for her; knowing his bottom scraping show was in danger as well if she lost. The general principles of free speech in America should also apply here, in my opinion. If someone's opinion is wrong it should be contested by other people -- in print, on television, in new media like the Internet. Not before human rights tribunals as seems to be so à propos nowadays.
The only exceptions I can think of to free speech in general are libel and child pornography. Beyond that I generally take an open minded approach. Determining whether one is promoting hate is a matter of criminal law, not quasi-judicial tribunals. In the absence of actual proof, Wente deserves better than to be called a "hate-monger" simply because she asks people to consider whether we need to dispense with conventional wisdom and find solutions that actually help rather than hinder Aboriginal people.
As for Dick Pound: As a tax lawyer, indeed one of the leading experts on both the Canada and US Tax Codes, he should know better than to use such a despicable term and I hope the Barreau du Québec gives him a stern warning.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
5 comments:
So your entire post, rather than being a refutation of Wente's appalling ignorance (citing Frances Widdowson as an authority, forsooth), is about the hypothetical possibility that she might face a Human Rights Tribunal, where, allegedly, "due process goes out the window?"
She's a Eurocentric ignoramus, but she's done nothing that remotely approaches the bar. You're fearmongering for nothing.
Leaving aside the question of "free speech", how on earth is it possible to conclude that her column isn't racist? Its entire premise is the inferiority of a racially-defined grouping of people. It's hard to get any more racist than that.
Sure, it isn't old school racism grounded in pseudo-biology. But lots of scholars have pointed out how racism in the West has shifted over the last several decades from the classic pseudo-biological frame to a frame organized around the rhetoric of culture -- supposedly essential and insurmountable cultural differences, and the imagined superiority of so-called "Western culture." This approach is just as much about rationalizing/legitimizing social relations that privilege white people and white-dominated nation-states and that subordinate racialized peoples as the old pseudo-biological approach. Using discourse that foregrounds culture doesn't make these imputations of inferiority of racialized groups any less racist.
Thomas Jefferson referred to “merciless Indian Savages” in the U.S.A. Declaration of Independence.
He wrote that the “King of Great Britain” “has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”.
Truly one of the great ironies of America -- that one of its Founding Fathers and indeed the founder of what we now know as the Democratic Party was a racist, anti-Christian and started a second Jeffersonian blood line through his slave Sally Hemmings which fact has given the Monticello Association no end of grief (if for no other reason than they actually have to share the Jefferson fortune with a group of blacks -- but I digress).
Maybe my post overall wasn't phrased as well as it should have been, but my point essentially is this: Wente's comments may have been stupid but to presume they were per se racist without proof is really jumping to conclusions.
"to presume they were per se racist without proof is really jumping to conclusions"
Okay, I think we're operating under different definitions of what it means for comments to be racist. Like I said above, the content of the statements themselves seem pretty conclusive to me and I have no idea what further proof would be necessary. Her intent is irrelevant. But it seems you are using a different definition or standard of proof...could you explain what? Thanks!
Post a Comment