Destructive by Design

Indigenous--Indian Act, Indigenous--Indian Residential Schools

 

After some protesters tore down statues of British queens on the Manitoba legislative grounds some political leaders, like Premier Brian Pallister got quite upset. Here is part of what he said,

“The people who came to this country, before it was a country and since, didn’t come here to destroy anything. They came to build. They came to build better. To build, they did. They built farms, and they built businesses. They built communities, and churches too. And they built these things for themselves, and for one another, and they built them with dedication and with pride.”

 

At first glance this has a ring of truth to it.  But much is hidden below the surface.

 

Pallister said such actions on the part of protesters would stand in the way of reconciliation. Melissa Martin, a national award winning Winnipeg Free Press commentator understands these issues much better than Premier Pallister. Unlike Premier Pallister who outright ignored the pain and suffering of the indigenous people, in his haste to attack the vandals while praising the settlers,  Martin had some empathy for the indigenous people. She didn’t excuse them; she didn’t have to do that. She did attack Pallister’s unthinking praise for the European settlers who came to this province “to build better,” according to the Premier. Frankly, that is the settler myth that ignores a lot of Manitoba’s history. That history is not just one of building. It was also a history of destruction foisted on the people Pallister seems intent on ignoring. These are people that Pallister just does not see.

Martin pointed out, the flaw in the Premiers claims:

“This idea about the things settlers built for themselves, serving as an example to us today, does make a point, but not the one the premier intended. Because Canada did build itself many things. But never when it came to Indigenous people did it build “together,” and what it  built was certainly not without destruction.

When the settlers built, they did so not only without the indigenous people, often then they did so with the specific design of destroying their culture, their families, their society, and even, their children.”

It was not building better when about 140 years ago the settlers filled with jealousy, influenced Canadian politicians to give to them farm land around Selkirk that indigenous people had been given, because they saw how successful the indigenous farmers there were. For many years the indigenous people there thrived in their farming enterprises in that region.

 

In 1885 a federal official pointed out that the indigenous farmers were every bit as successful as the best Ontario farmers so they pressured the Canadian government to turn that rich farm land over to them instead and to push the indigenous farmers 200 km farther north where the land was much less fertile much less suitable for farming. The white settlers claimed the land and a white judge upheld their claims.  The Judge supported the effort to have the indigenous people evicted and moved.  A Canadian politician did not call this “building” as Premier Pallister did. He admitted in Parliament it was “a barefaced swindle.” More than a hundred years later the Canadian federal government admitted as much when it settled the law suit against it by the displaced First Nation for $126 million.

Again, in 1903 the Roseau River Anishinaabe First Nation was pressured to surrender its also fertile farming land in favour of white settlers. More than a 100 years later the injustice was finally acknowledged, when the First Nation was finally able to secure a measure of justice when the federal government settled with it by making a payment of $80 million to it. Again, the federal government admitted it had not just been “building”, but was destroying the way of life of the indigenous people.

Martin also reported how the federal government burned 35 Métis homes in the community of Ste. Madeline. Again, not a case of building but rather a case of destroying.

In fact, these acts of destruction by the Canadian government at the behest of white settlers were much more egregious than toppling statues of English queens.

Premier Pallister also ignored the things that indigenous people had built in this land long before Europeans arrived. As Martin said,

“Indigenous peoples built things too, on lands that sustained their nations since time immemorial. They built homes, and communities, and cultures. They built trade networks that stretched to every corner of the continent.

And they built deep knowledge of the land and how to live on it, strategies that allowed them to thrive from the deserts to the tundra. They built families that passed all this knowledge from one generation to another. When Canada came to these lands, none of these things Indigenous people had built was seen to matter.”

 Not only that, but in many respects, the indigenous people were barred from “building.”  The Indian Act and the Indian agents appointed pursuant to it, who controlled the reserves, made sure that indigenous people would always be dependent on the whites. Indigenous people could not even leave the reserve without a pass issued by the Indian agent under the pass system so admired by the white supremacists of South Africa.  As Martin said, that system, made the reserves “into open-air prisons.”  Others called them concentration camps, Canadian style.

Martin described the real world of Canadian settlers and indigenous people this way:

 “It takes a negative will to tear down,” Pallister said. “It takes a positive will to build up.”

 

Here, he was talking about statues. The words would better apply to residential schools, which for over a century deliberately tore down Indigenous cultures, families and lives. They would better apply to policies that denied full participation in the nation’s economic life and sought to sever Indigenous peoples’ self-determination.

 

This is the history from where we have come. It cannot now be undone.

 

But when Indigenous people stand up to call for an end to celebrating the figures and events that, by design, so damaged their communities, this is not an act of tearing down. It is, in fact, an invitation to consider a new future, one where, for the first time in this country’s history, we actually can build something better together.

Canada is a construction project, Pallister said, and in a way he’s right. Those who came here built many things, supported by a government and a system that prioritized their chance at affluence, their place on the land and their rights. And that construction came at a heavy cost to Indigenous health, and Indigenous life.”

 

This history of Canada is uncomfortable for many Canadians. They prefer the more comfortable  “history” encapsulated in statues of English monarch. They prefer the settler version of the truth that ignores the privileges the settlers were granted at the expense of the indigenous people who were moved away to allow the settlers to benefit from those privileges. The settler version of the truth is much more attractive to many Canadians because it hides the ugly truth. But reconciliation will never be possible until those comfortable and untrue myths are set aside the real truth is faced. As Martin said,

“Reconciliation, in part, requires understanding that to go forward, to build better, then we must see the pain and that is part of that story too. In this way, a couple of toppled statues don’t stand in the way of reconciliation; what might is if we make so much noise about statues, that we close our ears to hearing the truth.”

 

Conservatives Reaction to the Toppling of Statues

Indigenous--Indian Residential Schools

 

I found the reaction of Conservatives, such as Brian Pallister and others, to the toppling of statues on the Manitoba legislative grounds telling. First, Conservatives have not been loud opponents of residential schools. They have been content with formulaic statements without much vigor or apparent sincerity. Ever since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (‘TRC ‘) issued its report in 2015, which outlined an astonishing history of abuse, not just by a few bad apples, but decades of systemic abuse, the Conservatives seldom, to my knowledge called strongly for the 94 calls to action of the TRC to be implemented. Nor did they berate the government for their lack of action. Just like most Canadians, they were quietly acquiescent with the largely inactive file on the part of the Canadian government. Few people in Canada were calling for action.  They were silent in other words. That is what I mean when I say that Canadians were largely silent. They seemed to be satisfied with the fact that Prime Minster Harper apologized on their behalf (though some Canadians thought he went too far), but they were also satisfied that nothing was being done to implement or fulfill the calls to action. Very few were calling for action in other words.

The Liberals, as they tend to do, were quick to endorse the report of the TRC and quick to say all 94 calls to action should be implemented, but then did little to actually do what they promised to do. Again Canadians by and large did not hold the Liberals to account, any more than they held the Conservatives to account. Canada largely ignored the TRC report, until 2021 when unmarked graves began to be discovered on the grounds of various former residential schools in Canada.

Yet when a few statues were toppled Conservatives, like my own Premier Brian Pallister and my own Member of Parliament Ted Falk, were quick to loudly claim that the indigenous miscreants or their allies, ought to be held “accountable”. To me it seemed the Conservatives, like so many Canadians, were much more interested in the loss of property than they were interested in the loss of lives at residential schools.

In an editorial  the Carillon News actually got it right. As editor Greg Vandermeulen said,

“The toppling of the Queen Victoria statue at the Manitoba Legislature on Canada Day  has revealed we still have a long way to go when it comes to reconciliation. Yet that realization wasn’t from the vandalism itself, but from the reactions of we’ve seen from politicians and many Manitobans…

To be clear, there are no significant people  that are defending vandalism. But there is still a very big difference in how the news was greeted.

Premier Brian Pallister demonstrated a massive lack of leadership in his July 2 statement. In it, he said nothing about understanding where the anger was coming from, nor did he point out that the loss of a material thing like a statue has absolutely no comparison to the horror of human lives being snuffed out.

Instead, he simply lashed out, saying the vandalism was “unacceptable” and a “major setback” for those working toward real reconciliation. He advocated that those who did the vandalism be “pursued actively” by the courts.

His reaction, captured in his statement showed his priorities, and it’s frustratingly clear he’s not the only one.”

As I said about Judge Giesbrechts comments, these comments by our Premier are wooden-headed, wooden-hearted, or both. They demonstrate the profound ignorance of powerful and comfortable whites who are blind to their own privilege.

Today I heard Premier Pallister repeat the comments he made and which were instrumental in part in his Minister of Indigenous Affairs resigning. Pallister said we should build together. What he does not get is that although there is nothing wrong with this statement, for him to suggest that settlers or their successors always built together with Indigenous people is just not true. Pallister just does not get it. Frankly, I think he speaks for other Manitobans in this respect. They just don’t get it either.

 

Attacks on Churches

Indigenous--Indian Residential Schools, Rebellion and Resistance

 

Manitoba has for awhile become the centre of attention around Canada and even the world as a result of rebellion by indigenous people and their supporters. Some of those rebels toppled monuments on the grounds of the Manitoba legislatures. In other places the rebels even attacked or burned churches.

Some Manitobans have been quick to denounce the “violent” rebels and have demanded that they be held accountable.

I do not endorse the destruction or desecration of churches, by anyone, even indigenous rebels. It is not justified in a country that is meaningfully democratic, even one as far from a perfect democracy as that of Canada. But this does not end the issue of indigenous assaults on Christian churches. If you leave it at that it is like saying Jewish people who violently resisted their destruction by Nazis in Germany and Europe during the Second World War were wrong if they employed violent means to defend themselves.  The Jews had a right to rebel. I would submit, they even had the right to resist with violence.

Similarly, American rebels who resisted the imposition of taxes on the American colonies by England were entitled to resist by dumping tea in Boston Harbour, even though that entailed the destruction of private property.

In both case, tyrannical power brought about violence resistance. Those who imposed the tyranny were more at fault than the violent resisters. I see indigenous rebels more like them than criminals.

This reminds me as well of current attitudes among many conservatives of many stripes, where  they see clearly the damage to property caused by rebels such as members of Black Lives Matter or Antifa, but cannot see the injustice against which they are rebelling, even though it is usually much more serious.

Defenders of the status quo often don’t see the injustice because that is how privilege works. Privilege disguises injustice as just deserts.

As well, we must remember that Christian churches are not innocents here.  Even though some of them have apologized, while others did not, they were a vital part of the oppression of indigenous people and in particular indigenous children during the 19th and 20th centuries. They were not innocent bystanders. They were actors directly involved in the oppression.

The federal government with its Christian church partners tried to destroy indigenous culture, indigenous religion, and indigenous children. It came close to doing that. It is hardly surprising that indigenous descendants of residential school students and their allies have a lot of distrust and animosity to both of those institutions. We can hardly be surprised either by the lack of action on the 94 calls for action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  The actions of indigenous rebels must be understood in this context.

Tangled Up in Blue

Wild flowers of Manitoba

 

This odd combination of  2 blue flag Iris flowers intrigued me. At first I thought it was one very odd flower.  In time I realized it was 2 flowers that had been growing so close they became intertwined.  I solved this mystery. Another one I could not solved.

The image brought to mind one of Bob Dylan’s classic song, “Tangled Up in Blue” . it is a deeply mysterious song from a classic album “Blood on the Tracks”. I always loved that song particularly the refrain of the words “Tangled up in blue” at the end of each verse. Yet I always had a very hard time trying to figure out what Dylan was getting in the song. What was tangled up in blue?

 

in the song he talks about meeting a woman at a topless bar.  It is sort of a love song. But not really. They don’t last together for long.

At one point she picks up a book of poems:

“Then she opened up a book of poems
And handed it to me
Written by an Italian poet
From the thirteenth century
And every one of them words rang true

And glowed like burning coal
Pouring off of every page
Like it was written in my soul from me to you
Tangled up in blue”

 

In New Orleans where they met Dylans sings:

“I lived with them on Montagüe Street
In a basement down the stairs
There was music in the cafés at night
And revolution in the air

Then he started into dealing with slaves
And something inside of him died
She had to sell everything she owned
And froze up inside

And when finally the bottom fell out
I became withdrawn
The only thing I knew how to do
Was to keep on keeping on like a bird that flew
Tangled up in blue”

 

Everything about the song is mysterious to me.  Who was the 13th century poet?  Dante was born in the 13th century but straddled the 14th century. Once Dylan said it was Petrach but that can’t be right. I am not sure it matters. I think the references to revolution and slavery suggest freedom but I am not sure how that fits in. If you know more let me know. Enlighten me a lowly pilgrim seeking light.

What is blue? The dress of his mother in the song?  Once he said he was thinking of Joni Mitchell’s also classic album “Blue” that came out in 1971. Amazingly I was actually listening to a radio documentary about the record on CBC radio at the time I was shooting the images of this blue flag iris. What an incredible coincidence? It was almost supernatural.

The song is still mysterious but I like it. The flowers I saw were just about as mysterious. When I untangled them to realize they were two flowers, that made them a little less mysterious. But no less beautiful.

A Royal Lineage

Wild flowers of Manitoba

Jack Saunders pointed out in his book The Secrets of Wildflowers, that the name “iris” comes from the Greek goddess Iris who sat on top of Mount Olympus and acted as a messenger between humans and the other gods who also sat on top of the mountain. It was said that wherever she went a rainbow followed her. The Greeks said the rainbow in the sky was a sign that the goddess Iris was delivering a message. One of the duties of the goddess Iris was to guide the souls of the dead to the afterworld and so many Greeks planted the iris flowers next to their graves.

Saunders says this about its regal history:

“The ancients considered the iris a symbol of power and majesty. Egyptian kings used the design of the blossom on their sceptres and placed it on the brow of the Sphinx, believing its major petals to be symbols of faith, wisdom, and valour.  Modern use of the iris as a royal symbol may trace back to Clovis, a sixth-century king of the Franks. According to one legend, a large force of Goths trapped his army, with his back against the Rhine River near Cologne. As he searched for a way to escape, Clovis noticed in the distance a large colony of golden irises extending far out into the river. He realized this was a sign that the water was shallow enough there for his troops to cross.”

As a result Clovis men escaped. I had a short visit to Cologne

King Louis VII of France selected the iris as his house emblem when he was a young crusader and in time it became the famous fleur-de-lis or fleur-de-luce, all o of which are corruptions of ‘flower of Louis.’ Some people say the blue flag iris got is name because kings like the Louis’ of France frequently employed the design on the flags and banners of the monarchies of Europe. Others suggest that the leaves of the iris look like reeds, and the Middle English word for reeds is flagge. The wild blue flag is the official flower of Quebec

All of this is interesting (to me at least) but I admit I love them for their outstanding beauty alone. What more is needed? Irises bear a resemblance to orchids and I have had people ask me if the blue flag is an orchid. It is not, but perhaps it should be adopted into the family.

Blue Flag Redux

Wild flowers of Manitoba

 

This year my botanical goal was to find and photograph the Blue Flag iris. They are not orchids but they sure are beautiful.  I have missed them for a couple of years and it is time I returned to their splendour in the grass. Well, splendour in the reeds actually. These flowers like to have wet feet.

I actually found and photographed those flowers earlier in the year but my computer program disgorged the images without me knowing it until it was too late. But it was not too late to try again.

I returned to municipal road near Labroquerie Manitoba and found them in abundance. I was well rewarded for my diligence with many  blue flag iris flowers.  This is a stellar place for blue flag iris. I had seen them before here but never like this. I had a great time. Life was good. I even let heretical thoughts enter my mind such as considering that perhaps the lost images were worth the loss! How could that be possible?

I am known as an orchid geek. There is good reason for that. I love orchids, particularly wild orchids. But when it comes to flowers I am promiscuous. Other favourites include cactus flowers, water lilies and others. I particularly like the Blue Flag Iris of Manitoba. It is an outstanding beauty.

Yet one of North America’s greatest naturalists was not bowled over by them. Henry David Thoreau said, “This is a little too showy and gaudy, like some women’s bonnets.” It has to be showy at the time it blooms because in June the competition to attract pollinators is fierce in Manitoba.

The blue stripes against a purple/blue background are thought to provide guidance to potential pollinators.

It is a large flower and hence attracts many visitors.  If you look closely to the flower above you can see an insect that might be a pollinator for Blue Flag iris. Unfortunately, some of the visitors are too small to much good when it comes to propagation. They drink the nectar but provide puny pollination services in return. These insects include butterflies and moths that really are too small to gather or deposit pollen. Thank goodness, as Jack Sanders said in his delightful book, The Secret of Wildflowers, “the iris has plenty of nectar to go around, and perhaps it is no accident that the blue flag iris is a denizen of wet places, swamps and moist fields—making production of large amounts of nectar easy.”

The leaves are nicely designed for life in tightly packed bogs or ditches. The leaves are thin and grass-like allowing sunlight to penetrate through the mass of vegetation., As well, unlike most broad leafed plants, the leaves can assimilate sunlight on both sides and not just the upper. Sometimes it pays to be AC/DC.

Sadly, Blue flag Iris is not as plentiful as it once was because so many wetlands in places like Manitoba have been drained for the “progress” of residential subdivisions and shopping malls. They can however form into impressive colonies. We once had an impressive colony near our cottage at Buffalo Point but it had to give way for the “progress” of a  sewer line for a proposed hotel that never appeared. That phantom hotel was considered  more important than flowers.

 

Irises like to find a place where their feet can be wet most of the year. The blue flag iris is a stunning flower and even that curmudgeonly Thoreau admitted, “It belongs to the meadow and ornaments it much.” I can’t disagree with that. According to Saunders, “the iris has a lofty and regal history.” American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow could appreciate these flowers for he wrote fondly of the blue flag iris:

Born in the purple, born to joy and pleasance

Thou dost not toil nor spin

But makest glad and radiant with thy presence

The meadow and the lin.

 

Trauma that started with a Knock on the Door

Indigenous--Indian Residential Schools

 

 

“The trip to the residential school often started with an ominous knock on the door.” That is a quote from the executive summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report of 2015.  A painting by Ken Monkman that was on display in the Winnipeg Art Gallery showed this well. It was the start of what by the UN analysis was genocide—i.e. the forcible removal of children from their families. That is considered genocide. Not the same as Nazi genocide, but all genocides are different. We should remember that. Often we don’t.

 

These were acts of unforgivable and despicable arrogance that often created horrendous trauma for the children. Much of this trauma created post-traumatic stress that in turn ruined the lives of the children and their children. It flowed from generation to generation like a poisoned stream.

Monkman’s painting shows a small wooden house: a simple bungalow with multicoloured tiles stretching to roof. Dense bush and open fields flank the home to the east, and to the west, dark and foreboding clouds form in the sky.

Three children run from the home at full sprint. Their backs are turned to the viewer as they race for the bush in the distance. Birds look as ominous as those in Alfred Hitchcock’s film The Birds. The scene they are fleeing — the one transpiring in front of the house — is pure chaos. Terror is immanent. It soaks right through the paint. It touches us as viewers.

Seven Mounties are dressed in traditional clean red uniforms  mainly used for ceremonies. One of them stands on the house’s front porch with his arm extended to the side, pointing at three children trying to escape. Their backs face us. Will they escape? This can’t end well.

The other police officers are spread out in front of the home.  One of them stands to the side holding a rifle. Why does he hold a rifle? What does he need that for? The others are snatching Indigenous children away from their wailing mothers. Perhaps they think of them as savages. Two priests and two nuns help carry out the kidnappings. Who are the savages in this painting?

In the centre of the frame is a mother wearing a long blue dress. She lunges forward, reaching out for her child, who is being carried off by a bearded priest in an ominous black robe  with a large wooden crucifix dangling from his neck. Think about that—a child kidnapped from his loving mother and delivered by police into the arms of a priest in a black robe. We know what happened after such events.  The horror runs deep.

One mother’s fingers  clasp air while her child eludes her.  Two Mounties restrain her, grabbing her dress her arm and her  hair, taking hold of anything they can to separate her from her child. What would you think if you were that mother?  What would you have done? Would you have been destroyed for life? The Mounties are committing a crime authorized by law. It is a national crime. A shame on the country.

The mouth of one mother is open. You can see the deep horror in her face. Her face is frozen in to a scream like the painting by Edvard Munch. She is fighting against all odds to save her child.  There is nothing that can be done.  Law and power are not on her side. There are other mothers too, fighting to save their children. Perhaps they will succeed. Perhaps not.  Perhaps the children fleeing to the bush will escape their would-be captors. What do you think?   At least one mother seems to have given up hope.  It seems certain. Her child will be taken. How do you fight the law?

The children look terrified.  The law and religion are after them and they mean them harm. They don’t see any “good intent” around them. Only terror.

In Manitoba today I read about 7 Conservative politicians who as far as I know never uttered a word about such horrors. But today they are horrified at the lawless destruction of property. That concerns them deeply. Today they claim that people should be held  accountable for pulling down a couple of statues of 2 English queens. Some people have also set fire to churches. I condemn that too. Let me be clear, I don’t advocate destruction of property, whether public or private, but is this really the most important thing we should worry about right now? Is this what we should be horrified about?

I also saw a post on Facebook today that  said: “Be thankful, we only come for your statues, when you came for our children.’  The “crimes” hardly seem comparable. What do you think?

Queen of the Bog: Showy Lady’s-slipper

Wild flowers of Manitoba

 

 

The showy lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium reginae) is the largest of our Lady’s-slipper. Some say also the most beautiful. This really is the queen of the bog as its scientific name suggests. When I saw it in the Woodridge bog, it was standing out in the bog with pink, yellow, and white finery. The pink can be anything from a deep rose to pale white with a few streaks of pink. She was indeed royally adorned and a humble pilgrim like me could do nothing but pay obeisance.

 

Sometimes the flower is completely white. This year in particular because it has been so hot and dry many of the plants have refused to produce colour. It must be their form of rebellion. Perhaps the flower is focusing on survival rather than attracting pollinators. Life  before beauty? This dry hot year my friends have seen more white flowers than ever before. I have not noticed any.

 

This is not a large bunch. Just the best I found this day. If you ever see these flowers in a large bunch you might end up falling to your knees. That is the right response. They are that magnificent. They are pollinated by bees who enter at the bottom of the beautiful pouch and then struggle absurdly out the top. It sometimes seems pitiful to see the bee struggling and sliding to get out. Of course, as they fight to get released from the flower they drop their pollen from the last flower visited, performing their important reproductive service to their queen. Yet as is so often the case with great beauty, one must be careful around it. Some people can develop a rash after the touching the hairs on its stems and leaves. As the Sergeant on Hill Street Blues used to warn his police officers every morning before they headed out on their beats, “Be careful out there.” Sometimes, as Yeats said, beauty is like a bended bow.