Decolonizing Antiracism

Summary, part 2

Antiracism theory is built from a colonial project that fails to challenge the ongoing colonization of Aboriginal people. Instead, antiracism risks furthering contemporary colonial agendas in two ways: (1) ignoring ongoing colonization and (2) failing to integrate an understanding of Canada as a colonialist state into antiracist frameworks.

What does it mean to look at Canada as a colonized space? What does it mean to ignore Indigenous sovereignty?

Settler states are maintained through policies of extermination, displacement, and assimilation “to ensure that Indigenous peoples ultimately disappear as peoples, so that settler nations can seamlessly take their place” (p. 123). A common mistake made in antiracist and postcolonial spaces is the belief that the genocide of Indigenous communities is over. By ignoring the persistent and evolving forms of colonialism, we are blind to the extent to which indigenous people still struggle today.

Canada as a colonized space

Though the Canadian government does not have a legitimate claim to its Aboriginal land the Canadian legal system operates as if they do. The legal system has historically prevented Indigenous sovereignty through the criminalization of Indigenous dissent, disenfranchisement of Indigenous people, and more. Several legal decisions can be examined to highlight how the Canadian legal system is predicated on preventing Indigenous sovereignty:

• The 1888 St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber court decision stated the only “Indians” could have legal rights as if they assimilated.

• The 1973 Calder decision stated that Canada had an obligation to recognize Indigenous people’s rights, address when rights are violated, and enter negotiations (where treaties were rarely signed). While this was nice in theory, Canada responded by issuing a unilateral policy requiring Indigenous peoples to submit land claims. In doing so, the Canadian government was not negotiating nor seeing Indigenous people as equals.

• Treaty 35 of the Constitution Act recognized and affirmed Aboriginal treaties’ existence, but there was little clarity over what this meant.

• Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act states that the jurisdiction over land falls under Canada and its provinces instead of Aboriginal peoples.

• The 1996 Van Der Peet decision stated that Aboriginal rights are not general or universal and must be proven by each band for their own territory.

• The 1997 Delgamuuk’w decision began defining Aboriginal titles in highly restrictive ways, such as by delineating rights without incorporating frameworks of Aboriginal governments.

Indigenous sovereignty

The goal of Indigenous sovereignty is to reestablish control over Indigenous communities, have land returned to them, and rebuild their nationhood using a framework that belongs to Indigenous people.  If antiracist activists are truly progressive, they must think about “where they are going to situate themselves” in this new world. Unfortunately, antiracist activists do not understand nor incorporate the importance of land to Indigenous communities in antiracist thinking.

Land is important to different Indigenous peoples for different reasons, but generally, the “Indigenous stories of the land are spiritual and political, and have tremendous longevity” (p. 126). Such a connection to the land can be seen by the Mi’kmaq people of the Miꞌkmaꞌki land. For the Mi’kmaq people, land is a sacred order, quintessential to the creation story, owned by unborn children, and governed by a Mawiomi (a Grand Council). Such spiritual and geopolitical relations are what connect Mi’kmaq people with the M’kmaki land. Another example Lawrence and Dua give is of the Okanagan people, whose language is driven by the land. Their language changes as their relationship with the land changes. Their land holds all knowledge of life and is important to maintaining their identity and retaining knowledge.