Anne Pick, vice president of Real to Reel Productions Inc., a small, independent film company, has seen the decline over the last 20 years. “There’s money in the system, but it’s triggered by broadcasters. And broadcasters are bailing on one-off docs because mainstream television wants light and fluffy entertainment.”

For those of us who like to work on feature projects covering important social issues, this is a serious problem. In conversations with a few producers, my film has been described as “controversial”, “a powder keg” and as a “hot button topic” one producer didn’t want to “touch with a ten foot pole.”  When I pitched “A Past, Denied: The Invisible History of Slavery in Canada” to a Canadian broadcasting company (I’m refraining from naming names), the creative head of their digital channels replied:

I did read your proposal and while  ”A Past, Denied: The Invisible History of Slavery in Canada” sounds very worthwhile, I’m afraid it does not fit into our current programming strategy for XXXXXXXXXXX – too much history I’m afraid.

Really? A discourse on the absence of Canada’s 200+ year history of slavery from history textbooks and classrooms, and how this absence has had a real impact on social issues in our contemporary time period is “too much history”, eh? (If you’ve read this site’s home page—the text for which is taken directly from the proposal document—you may have noticed that the phrase “explores how a false sense of history…impinges on the present” in the opening paragraph.)

So those of us who endeavour to tell stories that those in power are too scared to tell have to resort to alternative means of production, which includes alternative means of financing. It doesn’t mater how (relatively) cheaper technology has become, how democratized the means of production is as a result, or how D.I.Y. you are—making a documentary film is still an expensive process. Getting over this obstacle is where the alternative means of financing comes in to play.

In addition to filmmakers going into debt themselves trying to fund their project with their own bank accounts and credit card(s), crowdfunding is rapidly becoming a method of financing for indy filmmakers. It basically works like this: instead of trying to get large chunks of money from a few corporate/governmental sources, a project raises funds in smaller varying amounts in the form of donations from many private sources… specifically ordinary people who want to lend their support to a project they believe in and want to see get made.

This is where you come in. I have been thus far getting by on my own wallet and the kindness/cooperation of others, but at that rate this movie will likely never see the light of day. In order to complete production it needs an injection of cash in order to finish shooting all the interviews and pay for other archival and artistic additional work that needs to be done. To that end, I am asking you to visit the “A Past, Denied” crowdfunding page at indiegogo.com. Here you can see what various donation levels (as low as $5) and perks/incentives are being offered by me. There is a secure form for processing payments. Indiegogo is a well respected crowdfunding resource and I wouldn’t be using them if I didn’t trust their service.

If you believe in the mission of this film—to speak the truth about Canada’s past as well as its present, to illuminate the roots of racism and privilege in our society—then I ask you to please seriously consider donating to this project. Please help me make 2011 a good year in the fight for truth.

Thank you and Happy New Year.
Mike Barber

(Video: Watch this video on the post page)

During the 1950s, the Canadian federal government enacted policies to relocate Inuit families from their homes in Inukjuak, located in northern Quebec, to the remote High Arctic areas of Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. Their traditional homeland provided all they needed to sustain, including plenty of caribou and other game to hunt, which was a stark contrast from the veritable wasteland that the Inuit found themselves in when they arrived.

It became immediately clear that they had been duped by the government into accepting a barren arctic desert as their new home. The effects of the relocation were devastating. Compounding the issue of sparse hunting opportunity was the federal government’s failure to provide the people with any form of housing, leaving the Inuit to try to survive in Igloos and tents. The struggle for food and shelter in the desolate north left many dead.

On August 18, 2010—five decades after relocation—Canada’s Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development John Duncan officially apologized on behalf of the federal government. “The government of Canada deeply regrets the mistakes and broken promises of this dark chapter of our history and apologizes for the High Arctic relocation having taken place,” said Duncan as he stood before a group of Inuit residents in Inukjuak, Quebec. “They were not provided with adequate shelter and supplies. They were not properly informed of how far away and how different from Inukjuak their new homes would be, and they were not aware that they would be separated into two communities once they arrived in the High Arctic … Moreover, the government failed to act on its promise to return anyone that did not wish to stay in the High Arctic to their old homes.”

The apology appears to be widely welcomed as a step towards healing by those in the community who were affected by the relocations. But as contrite as the Indian Affairs Minister was in his apology, other events currently unfolding make it painfully obvious that the federal government has simply not learned from their many, many mistakes.

Doing right, yet getting it wrong

On February 24, 2010 the mayor of Halifax, Nova Scotia apologized for the evictions and razing of the African-Canadian community of Africville during the 1960s. At that time, I laid the charge that an apology for the “what” and the “how” that happened in the past, but which does not address the “why,” is in itself a failure. This is especially true if the same underlying “why” still persists after the apology is made. While Duncan’s apology to the Inuit has been a very long time coming and is important to the people affected by the federal government’s interference and broken promises, it still amounts to a failure because the government is doing nothing to change the underlying behavior for which it has apologized.

While Duncan was delivering his apology to the Inuit of Inukjuak, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) was going forward with the draconian act of imposing a new Chief and Council on Barriere Lake, an Algonquin band located on unceded territory in Quebec about 300 kilometers (190 miles) north of Ottawa, Ontario. The community of Barriere Lake, who have a long established traditional system of self-governing called the Mitchikanibikok Anishinabe Onakinakewin, have widely denounced the decision by INAC. Casey Ratt, who is the Band Council Chief appointed by INAC, has refused the position.

The actions of INAC are not only undemocratic, they are also a violation of section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act which the Canadian government has affirmed protects “the inherent right of self-government as an existing Aboriginal right.” The reason that the INAC feels that they are entitled to impose their decision concerning such matters upon the Algonquins of Barriere Lake—and the reason the federal government gives INAC a pass at circumventing the Constitution—is found buried in the federal legislation concerning government policy with regards to First Nations. I am speaking specifically about section 74 of the Indian Act, which allows the Minister of Indian Affairs to impose its own electoral system and its results on a community “whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band.”

It is widely believed that the reasoning behind INAC invoking this obscure section of the Indian Act—a provision which has only been used three times in Canadian history, the last being in 1924 against the Haudenosaunee government—is, in the words of community spokesperson Marylynn Poucachiche, “to sever our connection to the land, which is maintained by our traditional political system. They don’t want to deal with a strong leadership and a community that demands the governments honour signed agreements regarding the exploitation of our lands and resources.” It’s an old tactic we’ve seen many times before: destabilize, install, control. In this particular case, the government’s end goal is to exploit the community’s land.

When it comes to fully understanding the many complicated issues facing the First Nations, it is almost impossible to do so without also discussing the aforementioned Indian Act and understanding its history. So let’s dive in together…

An Act Respecting… whom?

For those who are not familiar, the ironically titled An Act Respecting Indians (R.S., 1985, c. I-5)—commonly known by its legal short name as the Indian Act—is a federal statute that originated in 1876. It is the legal embodiment of the government’s long standing policy to coerce the First Nations people (whom the Act identifies as “Indian”), through paternalistic and oppressive policies and practices, to assimilate into the dominant white British-Canadian culture. Historically the Indian Act has been, in effect, a blueprint for apartheid and cultural genocide.

As the legal thumb used by the federal government to systematically oppress the First Nations people, the Indian Act, at different times through different amendments, has been used to shape and control every aspect of their lives by, for example: placing bans on traditional ceremonies and dances (1885); allowing the forced removal of Indians from reserves near towns with more than 8,000 residents (1905);  allowing municipalities and companies to expropriate portions of reserves, without surrender, to be used for public works such as roads and railways (1911); requiring western Indians to obtain official permission from the government before appearing in “aboriginal costume” in any “dance, show, exhibition, stampede or pageant” (1914);  preventing anyone, whether Indian or not, from soliciting funds for First Nations legal claims without a special license from the Superintendent-General, thereby preventing First Nations people from being able to pursue land claims (1927). In 1930 an amendment was added to make it an offense for pool hall owners to allow entrance to a First Nations person who “by inordinate frequenting of a pool room either on or off an Indian reserve misspends or wastes his time or means to the detriment of himself, his family or household”; the list goes on and on.

Annihilation through assimilation

It is under this Act that native languages were at one time outlawed and the infamous residential schools — for which the Canadian government also formally apologized on June 11, 2008 — were established. Through the Indian Act, the federal government even took upon itself to dictate which individuals were and were not “status Indians.” The goal of these policies and practices was to create an environment so oppressive that the First Nations people would chose to escape by giving up their traditions, their culture and their identities and assimilate into white British-Canadian society. Assimilation has always been and remains the desired effect of the Indian Act. It is, in short, the Canadian government’s Final Solution to what is sees as its “Indian problem.”

In 1969, then Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chretien (who would latter become Canada’s 20^thPrime Minister from 1993-2003) proposed a policy that advocated the total assimilation of the First Nations people by abolishing the Indian Act, rejecting all land claims and treaties, and striping the First Nations of their status. This document is aptly, and without any sense of irony, known as The White Paper. The following year, Harold Cardinal and Indian Chiefs of Alberta presented “Citizens Plus,” their response which became known as The Red Paper.

Made in Canada™

The policies and practices outlined by the Indian Act should sound dreadfully familiar; they were the template for some of the brutal policies of both Germany’s Nazi and South Africa’s National Party regimes. While the term “Final Solution” is infamously known as Heinrich Himmler’s plan for the total systematic extermination of the European Jewish population—the plan which Adolph Hitler referred to as “the final solution of the Jewish question”—the term was actually coined first by Duncan Campbell Scott,. Scott, who was the Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913-1932, coined the term in 1910 in reference to what the Canadian government called their “Indian Problem.” In his April 12, 1910 letter to B.C. Indian Agent General Major D. McKay regarding the high levels of deaths due to communicable diseases (such as tuberculosis) in the residential schools, Scott writes:

“It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.”

The bantustans set up by the South African National Party to segregate the Black African population were modeled after the native reservation systems set-up by the governments of Canada, as well as those of Australia and the United States. Many of the apartheid laws and policies are so similar to those of the Indian Act that one would think they were penned by the same hand.

Talking out both sides

The duality of a government’s words and actions is perhaps the most common thread to exist among them at all levels, in all countries, throughout time immemorial. What makes the hypocrisy in this instance even more frustrating than usual is when it comes wrapped in contrition for deeds done in the past while simultaneously conducting the same practices and operating from the same mindset that begat those very deeds.

Since the Canadian government, despite which political party is seated, appears to be bent on continuing these policies and practices, it is up to the people to be proactive. We must voice our concerns to our elected officials and to put pressure on the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Indian Affairs Quebec Regional Director to cease their interference and to respect the First Nations’ inherent right to self-government as recognized by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

Last week’s apology by city of Halifax Mayor Peter Kelly, for the evictions and razing of the African-Canadian community of Africville in Nova Scotia during the 1960s, marks a small but significant moment in the history of slavery and racism in Canada. The official apology issued February 24, 2010, made on behalf of Halifax Regional Council and Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), was accompanied by terms of the 2005 agreement reached between the municipality and the Africville Genealogy Society, which, along with a formal acknowledgment of loss, included:

• $3 million (CAN) contributed towards the reconstruction of the Seaview United Baptist Church which will serve as a memorial to Africville;
• 2.5 acres of land at Seaview Park to be provided to the Africville Heritage Trust Board;
• a park maintenance agreement to be established between Africville Heritage Trust and HRM for the lands known as Seaview Park;
• and, the establishment of an African-Nova Scotian Affairs function within HRM

Roots in slavery and war

Africville’s roots go far back to the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) when approximately 3,500 Black Loyalists (free or former enslaved African-Americans who escaped to the British side of the conflict) migrated to Nova Scotia, many of whom fought for the British in return for the promise that they would not be allowed to be enslaved. Slaveholding Anglo-American Loyalists also migrated to Nova Scotia bringing with them about 2,500 enslaved African-Americans. But unlike their free counterparts, these African-Americans remained enslaved until the practice of slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1834—meaning, for a few decades, Nova Scotia simultaneously had two distinct Black populations: one whose freedom was protected, and the other whose enslavement was sanctioned.

The Black Loyalists had been promised free land and equality, however these—not unlike other broken promises and treaties made to First Nations by the Crown—were never kept. The area on the southern shore of the Bedford Basin began being settled after the Anglo-American War of 1812, though it was never established as an official, incorporated community. Industrialization soon began to encroach on the small but hitherto self-sustaining community as railway after railway started running through the area. Other facilities unwanted by white communities—a prison, slaughterhouse, an infectious disease hospital, and depository for fecal waste—were located in and around Africville.

Systemic abuse and neglect

Racial inequality kept Africville in an impoverished state. Job opportunities were mostly limited to working as seamen, porters or domestic workers. Education was severely deficient amongst Africville residents, who only had four boys and one girl reach the 10^th grade out of 140 children that ever registered in the school. Despite paying city taxes, the residents of Africville went without the basic amenities other towns enjoyed such as proper roads, electricity, health services, or sewage. Even running water was not made available; residents of Africville had to rely on an assortment of wells, the water from which required boiling before drinking or cooking.

While other parts of the city of Halifax, which had amalgamated Africville, was receiving investments for modernization efforts, the racially isolated community of Africville was left to ruin. The final result of 150 years of unequal opportunity, municipal neglect and institutionalized racism was Africville being literally reduced to a slum; a label it officially gained in 1958 after Halifax moved the town dump to the area. In 1962, Halifax City Council decided to expropriate the land and remove the “blighted housing and dilapidated structures” in the interest of “urban renewal.”

Eviction and destruction

Between 1964 and 1967, residents were removed and placed in public housing projects; those who were previously homeowners became renters. Despite their relocation, Africvillians still faced the same problems of inequality and poverty. Social programs that had previously been promised never materialized. The city of Halifax lent their assistance to the people of Africville in such a manner that perfectly illustrates the attitude with which City Hall regarded them: they moved the residents of Africville with the city’s dump trucks.

The Africville community was razed to the ground. The houses, school, and the Seaview United Baptist Church—which played an integral role in the social life of the community—were bulldozed to make way for development of the north shore of the Bedford Basin and the A. Murray MacKay Bridge, which crosses the Halifax harbour. Due to the controversy surrounding the events, commercial development did not take place and the waterfront was left intact. In the 1980s, Halifax created Seaview Memorial Park on the old Africville site, which was declared a national historic site in 2002.

Reaction to the apology

Reactions to the apology from former residents and their descendants have been mixed. Most were optimistic and hopeful for the future; former Africville resident Brenda Steed-Ross, who was evicted along with her parents and her infant daughter when she was 18, said she feels “we’re moving forward, not backward.” Rev. Rhonda Britten, a leader within the Black community in Nova Scotia, welcomed the settlement, saying “I know that there are some among us who are wounded, and some among us who bear those scars. But, in spite of all of that, the victory has been won.”

However, not everyone shared Rev. Britten’s optimism. According to a report from CBC News, while most of the crowd offered cheers, there were others voicing dissent, shouting: “Not enough.” Some of the descendants of Africville claimed the settlement was illegal because the Africville Genealogy Society (AGS) didn’t have the right to negotiate on their behalf. One criticism of the agreement is that there is no provision for individual compensation. Eddie Carvey, whose brother Irvine is president of AGS, has been actively raising the issue and protesting since 1994. Along with individual reparations (a word the Canadian press has decidedly avoided using, which I will not), Carvey is also seeking a public inquiry and for the city to return ownership of Africville to its former residents and descendants.

There are apologies and there are apologies

In the interest of reconciliation and restorative justice, formal apologies are more than just gestures; they are vital to building trust between those who have been harmed and those who committed the harm (including the descendants of both sides). They are not to be confused with the actual work to be done to achieve reconciliation and restorative justice, but they are important to begin with. After all, if you can’t start with “I’m sorry,” then what else can you really say that will have any meaning?

For an apology to be a catalyst, it needs to have weight; for an apology to have any weight, it needs to be sincere. But, what if it is incomplete? I do not wish to challenge the sincerity of anyone involved, but I do want to draw attention to the history I have outlined above and the content of the apology below. I want to ask: is it complete?

On behalf of the Halifax Regional Municipality, I apologize to the former Africville residents and their descendants for what they have endured for almost 50 years, ever since the loss of their community that had stood on the shores of Bedford Basin for more than 150 years.

You lost your houses, your church, all of the places where you gathered with family and friends to mark the milestones of your lives.

For all that, we apologize.

We apologize to the community elders, including those who did not live to see this day, for the pain and loss of dignity you experienced.

We apologize to the generations who followed, for the deep wounds you have inherited and the way your lives were disrupted by the disappearance of your community.

We apologize for the heartache experienced at the loss of the Seaview United Baptist Church, the spiritual heart of the community, removed in the middle of the night. We acknowledge the tremendous importance the church had, both for the congregation and the community as a whole.

We realize words cannot undo what has been done, but we are profoundly sorry and apologize to all the former residents and their descendants.

The repercussions of what happened in Africville linger to this day. They haunt us in the form of lost opportunities for young people who were never nurtured in the rich traditions, culture and heritage of Africville.

They play out in lingering feelings of hurt and distrust, emotions that this municipality continues to work hard with the African Nova Scotian community to overcome.

For all the distressing consequences, we apologize.

Our history cannot be rewritten but, thankfully, the future is a blank page and, starting today, we hold the pen with which we can write a shared tomorrow.

It is in that spirit of respect and reconciliation that we ask your forgiveness.

Amongst the recognition that people have suffered and continue to suffer due to wrongdoing on the part of the city council, what are the reasons being given in the formal apology? They acknowledge loss of their houses, loss of their church, and that repercussions “linger to this day”—and this is important to acknowledge. Their loss is tremendous and it is real, and the repercussions continue to manifest 50 years later. But two parts of the apology trouble me, leading me to believe that the greatest loss has been widely overlooked.

For what, exactly?

When they “apologize to the generations who followed” and lament the “lost opportunities for young people who were never nurtured in the rich traditions, culture and heritage of Africville,” flags go up. First question: the generations who followed what? The evictions and bulldozing of homes? Second question: which opportunities do Mayor Kelly, Halifax Regional Council and Halifax Regional Municipality think the young people living in Africville have lost? Their use of the words “nurtured” and “rich” have a certain ironic flair considering Africville was in shambles, with no health services, sewage or running water. Why no apology for that?

Failure by design

On April 26, 1965, the Mail-Star newspaper quoted the Welfare Director saying “the City has fallen down on its responsibility to Africville. Providing proper water and sewerage [sic] facilities for these people, when needed, would have enabled them to give as good an account of themselves as any other families in the area and would make relocation unnecessary.” It is important to keep in mind that Africville becoming a slum was not the making of its residents. External forces played an active role in forcing the community onto a path to destruction.

The high level of poverty and low levels of education were perpetuated by racism towards the African-Canadian community. Africville residents paid city taxes but were deprived of the basics that other communities enjoyed, which speaks to institutionalized racism. The slaughterhouse, infectious disease hospital and fecal waste depository were placed in the Africville area because white communities didn’t want them in theirs—and that speaks to environmental racism.

From the broken promises of the Crown to the city dump being placed at its doorstep, Africville was practically doomed from the beginning. Despite the unfair hardship its residents were subjected to, they still bonded together and made for themselves a community. When that community finally became an eyesore or an inconvenience—depending whose story you believe—to the Halifax city council, they capriciously tore it asunder.

I bring up the inconvenience aspect because there are a few facts that have slipped by many of the newspaper articles writing about the razing of Africville. The Civic Planning Commission recommended the removal of the residents of Africville to make way for development of a residential, park and shopping centre complex as early as 1945. Two years after that, the Halifax City Council approved the designation of Africville as industrial land. In 1948, the Council approved the borrowing of funds in order to provide water and sewer services, but these services were never installed—the residents were left to use well water that became contaminated by the railway and surrounding industrial waste.

Africville was a Black neighbourhood on waterfront property, and at least 17 years before the evictions started, the city of Halifax was looking to oust its residents and usurp their land. The Council’s avarice and willful disregard for the people of Africville are not at all, in my opinion, addressed in the words or spirit of this apology. It is very hard to work on restorative justice when the full weight of the offence has not been accounted.

A Canadian pathology

It’s not all that shocking that even while issuing a formal apology as an act towards reconciliation, a government body would avoid the larger and much uglier issues at the very heart of what it is they are apologizing for. It’s also not surprising that the government kept “individual compensation” off the table, because Canada doesn’t like “the R-word” any more than the US does. For Canada, the subject is even more intractable because a discussion about reparations can’t happen without a discussion about slavery, and we as a country do our best to avoid that topic altogether—unless it’s about slavery in the US and how Canada was part of the underground railroad; we love to talk about that slavery.

In the end, the apology as it stands is still a sign of modest progress. Many claim it isn’t enough, and I agree with them.The $3 million towards reconstruction of the Seaview United Baptist Church, the 2.5 acres of land to be provided to the Africville Heritage Trust Board, and the establishment of an African-Nova Scotian Affairs function within HRM is still a fair start, but the ball really needs to keep rolling. As a recent (though extremely rare) crossburning in Poplar Grove—a town about 65 km (40 mi) northwest from the Africville site—demonstrates, the province of Nova Scotia is still not without its own racial problems—even within the HRM itself.

I’m glad that Brenda Steed-Ross and others are finding some peace from the apology and agreement. I hope Eddie Carvey gets the public inquiry he is looking for. I also hope Mayor Kelly and the Halifax City Council wake up and realize that it is more than the “repercussions of what happened in Africville” that “linger to this day.” The deeper issues at the heart of the Africville affair—racism, both systemic and environmental—are still haunting them. And unless they decide to seriously address these issues, there will be no lessons learned from Africville.

The 2010 winter Olympics kicked off in Vancouver, British Columbia with its opening ceremonies on Friday, February 12, 2010. Being perhaps one of the least athletically-minded people on the planet, I wasn’t even aware the ceremonies were happening until comments started flooding my Twitter timeline. I would have ignored the tweets were it not for the praise people were giving for my country’s tribute to our indigenous peoples, which immediately started to give me the creeps. Let me explain…

The Aboriginal peoples of Canada are comprised of three groups: First Nations, which is actually comprised of hundreds of distinct nations or bands (such as the Mohawk Nation and the Algonquins, for example); the Inuit, who inhabit the Arctic and subarctic regions of Canada (no, they are not “Eskimos”); and the Métis, who are of mixed Aboriginal and European (mostly French) ancestry. According to the 2006 Canadian Census, the Aboriginal population of Canada is 1,172,790, which makes up 3.8% of Canada’s population of 31,612,897. The Census counted 698,025 First Nations people which is 59.5% of the Aboriginal population and only 2.2% of the overall Canadian population.

The opening ceremonies were indeed a beautifully choreographed and brilliantly executed event, and the inclusion of Canadian indigenous culture in the ceremony is not the only place where Aboriginal culture is being featured in the winter Olympics. The logo of the 2010 Olympics contains the Inuksuk, which has deep cultural roots for the Inuit people. With all this tribute to Canada’s first peoples, you would think Canadians in general have a deep respect and love for them and their culture. The truth is that all this “inclusion” is right in line with Canada’s theme of parading multiculturalism and Aboriginal heritage when it suites us to do so.

I might have been able to enjoy the exhibition if not for the fact that Canada has very serious issues when it comes to the treatment and attitude towards its Aboriginal people. According to Phil Fontaine, the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, “As far as Aboriginal people are concerned, racism in Canadian society continues to invade our lives institutionally, systematically, and individually.” For example, the First Nations peoples suffer disproportionately higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and incarceration; substance abuse and suicide rates in some areas, such as the northern coast of Labrador, are so high they qualify as epidemics. The general attitude of Canadians is classic blaming the victim; no consideration is given to the systemic abuse the Aboriginal community has historically been subjected to.

Whenever a group of Aboriginals engage in any non-violent action of protest to bring attention to their struggle, the op eds and letters to the editor more often than not express opinions ranging from mild disapproval—criticizing their “confrontational” tactics while being obtuse to the fact that more diplomatic or litigious tactics had already been tried and failed—to outright racist vitriol—typically characterizing Aboriginal people as drunk, lazy ingrates living off of welfare, etc. Even some of my more progressive, liberal-minded acquaintances have made blanket comments about Aboriginal people that left me both stunned and embarrassed for all involved.

In northern British Columbia, there is a 716-kilometer (445-mile) section of the Trans-Canada highway that runs between Prince George (near the Rocky Mountain Trench) and Prince Rupert (which is just south of the British Columbia-Alaska border) that has come to be known as the “Highway of Tears.” Since 1969, at least 32 women—many of whom are Aboriginal—have been killed or have suspiciously disappeared along this stretch of road. For decades, these deaths and disappearances have received minor if any interest from law enforcement. This is just one instance of the systemic absenteeism and institutionalized racism Canada’s Aboriginals have had to deal with for a very, very long time.

With all that in mind, you will have to forgive me for being a “party pooper” when it comes to this so-called tribute. While a beautiful spectacle it may be, it’s little more than lip service. The only time Canada really seems to care about the First Nations, Inuit and Métis is when it serves the national self-image. You may think me cynical, but this little dog and pony show is nothing more than a farce unless it can lead to serious consideration for the justice and needs of the Aboriginal people.

In the weeks leading up to the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), Tourism British Columbia released a new commercial it spent millions of dollars on in order to promote tourism in the province. The fact that most of the world already knew the 2010 winter Olympics were being held there apparently was not enough. The commercial features notable Canadians Michael J. Fox, Sarah McLachlan, Ryan Reynolds, Kim Cattrall, Steve Nash, and Erick McCormack; what it doesn’t feature is much ethnic diversity.

There are two versions: the 90-second and the 30-second version. The version most are likely familiar with is the 30-second version. I say that because it is the only version I have personally seen aired on Canadian TV; I wasn’t aware the 90-second version even existed until I came across it while searching for the commercial on YouTube. In either case, it is clear the intended target amongst potential tourists are only those as white as the snow featured in the many expensive aerial shots.

You Gotta Be Here (30-second version)

Never mind the fact that all the celebrities featured are White, in this version of the commercial there is not a single tourist with a discernible race other than White to be found. There is a token nod to Aboriginal culture for literally a second towards the end, but that’s about the only thing “ethnic” you’re going to see in this version of the promo.

You Gotta Be Here (90-second version)

I think I spot a people of color (PoC) tourist at 00:01:07 (not the Asian chef, but the “tourist”) but I have to admit, it could just be the lighting that makes his skintone appear darker. Oh, look… there’s an Asian child at 00:01:22. So other than a few flashes of Pacific Asian and Aboriginal culture, we have what could be two PoC amongst a sea of White faces.

What is Tourism British Columbia thinking? Is it that there are aren’t PoC out there with money that are worth marketing to as well? Surely, they’re not thinking that the only good tourist dollar is a White tourist’s dollar, are they? We can’t really know what their intention—conscious or subconscious—was in making obviously Caucasian-centric tourism ads, but the result is promo that exclusively targets Whites. Perhaps they didn’t feel the need to tout BC’s multiculturalism because they didn’t feel it was in their interest to do so.

Canada is fairly well known for its multiculturalism; in fact, multiculturalism is protected in section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” And while Canada does often do well by this declaration, it often has moments where it fails to truly live up to its reputation.

Despite the cultural diversity in urban centers such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, it is still a country where White is considered the norm and this attitude is systematically reflected in our institutions, our culture, our history, and our national self-image. In other words, we like to think of ourselves as a country that is very divers and multicultural, but the truth is we are more ethnocentric than we want to admit. Canada usually jumps at the chance to put our multiculturalism on parade when the world is looking, but the rest of the time—as this Tourism British Columbia ad exemplifies—it’s “White as usual.”

Engaging with issues regarding race and racism are critical in the fight for social justice. Due to the inherent complexities of such discussions, they easily become minefields for those who would casually wander such terrain. Two salient examples of such dilettantism from this past week are Lisa Solod Warren and MTV News (Canada).

Lisa Solod Warren (www.lisasolodwarren.com)

On December 16th, 2009, an article posted on The Huffington Post by Virginia-based author Lisa Solod Warren stirred up a whole lot of justifiable anger from the public. Both people of color and whites were expressing offense to Warren’s article titled Two Black Role Models Done in by Hubris (removed from HuffPost posted in a forum here) in which the author draws racialized parallels between US President Barack Obama’s waning public support and Tiger Woods’s sex scandal. The article—which has been overwhelmingly panned throughout Internet blogs, forums and Twitter as both condescending and racist—was removed from both The Huffington Post and Salon.com within two days of its publication. I managed to find the first paragraph still online:

“In the past few weeks, the two most famous and arguably most successful black men in America have taken a huge fall. It has become clear that both pro golfer Tiger Woods, just named Athlete of the Year by the Associated Press, and the American president, Barack Obama, the first black person to lead the country, suffer from a surfeit of hubris which has finally caught up with them. If both men somehow thought they were untouchable, they have been put to right. Both have crashed to earth and it may well be true that they can never recover their earlier status again.”

I’m not going to spend time here picking apart each erroneous statement; that’s beyond the scope of my article (though I do strongly recommend reading Sister Toldja’s visceral commentary and response “Put To Right”: Lisa Warren and the Liberal White Hood). What I want to discuss is Warren’s first mistake in writing the article, which is what many white authors tend to do when broaching the subject of race: neglecting to check her privilege.

For white people wanting to become sincere allies in the fight for racial justice, they need to acknowledge the white privilege that underscores their position in our racially stratified society. It’s not an easy process, and to be honest it is a life-long one; but constant mindfulness of white privilege is fundamental in order that white journalists become allies. In order for a white person to write about race with any credibility or competency, they need to go through the same personal confrontation. Otherwise, they are setting themselves up to repeat the same racist attitudes with which they’ve been programmed throughout a lifetime of privilege.

I and many others don’t believe that Warren was being intentionally offensive in her writing, but then again racist thought, or a racist perspective, is seldom intentional. Part of the definition of white privilege is color-blindness. It could have been in the most well-meaning of spirits that Warren set forth to write the article, but the consequences of her words were hurtful and offensive. Intentions can be good and sincere, but they don’t mean a thing if the resulting work leads to exacerbating the situation instead of helping it, which brings us to MTV News.

I’m not a fan of MTV by any stretch of the imagination (I don’t even get cable). I only became aware of MTV host Aliya Jasmine when she posted this on Twitter back in late November:

“Speaking @ Diversity conference for high school students in Toronto this morning. Canada is multi-cultural, but does RACISM still exist?”

I find the very framing of the question extremely troubling. To me, and dare I say most adult Canadians not living inside a bubble, the existence of racism in Canada is not open to debate at all. Racism’s existence in Canadian society is an absolute fact. Though it doesn’t get reported nearly as often as it occurs, racist violence in Canada does get occasional newspaper coverage. While they ostensibly aren’t as prevalent as they were back in the early 90’s, Canadian white supremacist and neo-Nazi skinhead groups are still around. Stories of racism amongst members of our military and first responders still creep up in the media. In fact, a 2007 Canadian study found that “fifty-nine per cent of Quebecers admit to being racist to some degree [while] only 47 per cent of those outside Quebec say they are racist to some degree.” The very idea that racism’s existence in Canada is up for grabs is as offensive and ignorant as if asking “did Nazi concentration camps really exist?” The answer to both questions is an overwhelming and document-supported YES.

On its December 14, 2009 Canadian edition, MTV News broadcast the footage from the November 17th conference Jasmine mentioned in her tweet. It was sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Diversity and had a panel of young adults, including Jasmine, talking to a group of high school students in Toronto about prejudice. For its newscast, MTV News aired some of the students responding to the question “does racism still exist in Canada?” (Watch the newscast online — it’s the fourth segment.) Engaging students on issues of racial justice is critical, and while MTV News may have had good intentions with this piece, they ended up doing more harm than good.

The first student’s response to the question is “wherever there are a lot of cultures and races, there’s going to be discrimination.” On the surface that appears to make sense. But research has shown that differences in skin color itself does not logically lead to racism. Diversity trainer Jane Elliot’s “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes” exercise demonstrated that “prejudice and bigotry [are] an irrational class system based upon purely arbitrary factors.” While the young student can’t be faulted for her answer, the people at MTV News didn’t help at all by repeating the falsehood, thereby perpetuating the myth that racism is a natural consequence of diversity.

MTV News’s naiveté is not surprising considering the source. Let’s be real: the network which brings us “Jersey Shore” is not going to engage complex racial issues with any degree of competency. Regardless, their dilettantish attempt at discussing racism gave nothing to their young viewers to actually think about. Worse, their “shucks, ain’t it a shame racism is still around?” puff piece reinforced the misconception of racism as something natural, prompting viewers to conclude that it’s human nature to be racist — which in turn makes them less inspired to fight back against racism and more likely to embrace it. This is clearly not helping.

The young students can’t be blamed for their naiveté because they’re not being given the tools needed in order to think critically about racism. Their minds are being hamstrung from identifying or understanding racism in the present because they are not being taught racism’s roots in the past.

As I mentioned in my last article, I am currently working on a documentary film titled A Past, Denied: The Invisible History of Slavery in Canada. One of the recurring themes in Canadian life my film sets out to confront is the general denial about our (Canadians, that is) slave past. During its first 200 years, Canada—like the US—relied on slave labour; and like in the United States, it was a prevalent part of our society. Yet despite its pivotal role in the establishment of the first colonies in Nouvelle France (now Québec) in the late 1600’s and ubiquitousness in day-to-day Canadian life until its abolishment in the 1830’s, Canada’s role in the transatlantic slave trade and its slavery of Aboriginal and African people completely escapes mention in our history textbooks and classrooms.

The result of this is slavery’s total absence from our national historical narrative and our collective social conscience—except, of course, for the bits that make us look and feel good vis-a-vis the American Civil War and the fight to abolish slavery there. Canadians, for the most part, are kept ignorant about the roots of racism and white privilege in our own country.

If we’re going to be serious about ending racism, we have to get serious about educating young minds about the various forms of racism and how they manifest. We also need to talk openly about white privilege and how it persists. Through teaching a more complete (and less biased) history, we arm students with the tools and knowledge to better engage complex issues like systemic racism and white privilege and to hopefully solve them rather than contribute to their insidiousness.

These past two interviews have been two years in the making. It was late November 2007 when I initially contacted Dr. James Loewen and Dr. Raymond Winbush about being in my documentary. At the time, I figured that finding support for a project such as this one would be relatively easy. I assumed that either the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) or the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) would be eager to participate in the production of a documentary taking aim at confronting the lie in our historical narrative that we are a country free of the racial past that embroils our southern neighbours even to this day. I assumed that I would be ready to begin photography as early as Summer 2008. How naive was I!

So here we are, winter 2009. Progress is being made, slowly but surely. Back in March 2009 I was able, with the great help of Randal Martin, to shoot an interview with Dr. Dorothy Williams (who is featured in the first teaser) in Montreal. These two most recent shoots were made with the help of Adam Reuter (camera op) and Michelle Farrell (Absolute Independent Pictures equipment rental) of the Baltimore area. The world of independent filmmaking is built and sustained by the spirit of co-operation and giving and all three of these individual embody this spirit.

Thursday (3 December, 2009), was my shoot with sociologist and historian James W. Loewen. Dr. Loewen is the author of such great books as “ Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong,” “Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong,” and “Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism” (all three of which I consider to be required reading for anyone and everyone interested in social justice issues or just history in general). Scheduling issues resulted in an interview that was shorter than I would have liked—about 25 minutes total of recorded footage—but I am still thrilled to have had the opportunity to sit down with Loewen and get what I did.

On Saturday (5 December, 2009), was my interview with scholar/activist Raymond Winbush. Dr. Winbush is Director of the Institute for Urban Research at Morgan State University, editor of  ”Should America Pay?: Slavery and the Raging Debate on Reparations” and author of “Belinda’s Petition: A Concise History of Reparations for the Transatlantic Slave Trade” and “The Warrior Method: A Parent’s Guide to Rearing Healthy Black Boys”. We sat down for about an hour and a quarter for a fantastic and inspiring interview.

I’m going through the interview material over a very large cafe mocha, drinking in every word along with the coffee-choclate blended goodness. The road ahead is still long. Without any real  financial support at the moment, I rely on my own financial health (for what it is) to keep things going. I will spend some time over the next few weeks cutting something together to present to the Canadian film industry powers-that-be and hope that it will entice them out of their complacency and inaction. Stay tuned.

Brandon Huntley

Last week the story emerged that a white man from South Africa was granted refugee status by the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. The claimant is Brandon Huntley, a 31 year-old former carnival worker who now lives in Ottawa. Huntly alleges that “whites are targeted by black criminals in South Africa and that the government does nothing to protect them.” He said he was “attacked six or seven times by black South Africans and that those beatings left him with scars on his stomach, right eye, right side of the body and hands.”

William Davis, the chair of the tribunal—which operates independently at an arm’s length from the federal government—says that he believes Huntley would “stand out like a ‘sore thumb’ due to his colour in any part of (South Africa)” and that he finds “the claimant was a victim because of his race (white South African) rather than a victim of criminality.” The African National Congress, the current majority party in the South African government, has denounced the ruling as a “racist move.”

I had been holding off on commenting on the situation because I don’t really know enough about the situation in South Africa to make a competent, informed comment and wanted to wait until some other South African citizens (white and black) weighed in to give their perspectives on life in SA and the claims made by Brandon Huntley. The general consensus among the Tweets, blogs and news interviews is that Hurley’s claims are nothing more than race baiting rubbish. To wit:

If white and black South Africans can share prison cells without us hearing reports that whites are being attacked because of their colour, then what makes this guy think he is being targeted because of his skin colour? – Mathapelo Mgodini, 24

One thing aside from the racial issue is that Huntley was in Canada illegally for more than a year before he made his refugee claim. That alone makes the veracity of his claim of persecution a bit suspect in my mind. If he truly felt that persecuted, wouldn’t he have made his claim as soon as he hit Canadian soil?

Invoking the Black “Boogieman”

There is no shortage of incidences where white “victims” have made false allegations against black men (some of which are made up). In the US media, the generic African-American male is the standard go-to fall guy.

Bonnie Sweeten

Take the recent case of Bonnie Sweeten: a 38-year-old white paralegal from Feasterville, a town north-east of Philadelphia, who claimed she and her 9-year-old daughter Julia had been kidnapped by two black men. 100% of the story was a fabrication. A few hours after making her cell phone calls to 9-1-1, claiming she was locked in the trunk of a Cadillac, both were captured on security cameras at Philadelphia International Airport en route to Florida (where she was later arrested). Sweeten was apparently under investigation for stealing $300,000 (USD) from her former employer, an attorney in suburban Philadelphia.

Ashley Todd

Then there is Ashley Todd, a 20-year-old college student from College Station, Texas. While working as a McCain-Palin campaign volunteer, Todd cooked up a politically motivated (not to mention racist) hoax about being robbed by a 6-foot black man, pinned to the ground and having the letter “B” (for Barack) scratched on her face with a knife. The fact that the “B” was backwards was a dead give-away and she soon admitted to making the entire ordeal up.

Charles Stuart of Boston shot and killed his wife, blamed a fictitious black man. Susan Smith drowned her kids, blamed a fictitious black man. The list goes on.

The generic African-American male is the default red herring when someone wants to redirect attention from their own mischief. What Brandon Huntley  is doing here is the moral equivalent: he is invoking the specter of the Black Boogieman in the form of a nation. It is a cynical ploy to exploit the misconceptions (at best) or racial bias (at worst) of the members of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board’s tribunal. The really sad thing about this is that it appears to have worked! But then again, perhaps not.

On Thursday, September 3, the Canadian federal government said that they will challenge the ruling in the Federal Court. What good this will do is uncertain. No new evidence will be presented. All that will go before the court is what evidence was presented in the initial tribunal, which means additional facts and context will not be introduced. Is anyone else feeling skeptical?

No one is going to claim that South Africa is without problems. It certainly has issues with violence and crime, but as the South African Institute of Race Relations says, “the vast majority of victims of crime are black.” Furthermore, they find “no evidence that there is a general pattern of racial attacks” where violent crime is concerned. White South Africans are speaking out saying that Huntly’s allegations are false and baseless. Clearly, I’m not the only one that smells a rat.

A History Lesson, Forgotten

The previous examples of race baiting are occurrences within recent history; one more example, from the 1930′s, demands to be brought up.

Scottsboro Boys and Samuel Leibowitz, 1932

1931 Scottsboro, Alabama: nine African-American boys (ages ranging 12-19) were falsely accused of raping two white women. Eight of the nine were convicted and sentenced to death by electrocution, their sentences later commuted by the Supreme Court. The dire lessons of the case of the Scottsboro Boys is obviously lost on those who would callously engage in race baiting, but the injustice and consequences should be remembered by the judicial system when it comes to dealing with those who would so easily perpetrate it.

It’s been a bit of a frustrating time getting this thing out the door. Just when you think it’s all finished, you spot a detail that takes you back a number of steps in order to correct. Was it Lucas or was it Speilberg that said “Movies are never finsied; they are abandoned”?¹ Well, this is only a teaser—a minute and a halfpseudo trailer, if you will—to give you a little taste of what’s going on with this thing. I’m very happy with it and am excited to share it with you.

The teaser is available in four sizes: HD (50 MB), Large (19 MB), Medium (9 MB) and Small (5 MB). QuickTime Player or something else that supports playback of H.264 mp4 files is required.

Download, enjoy and pass it along to your friends. Please spread this video around and help get the word out. In this economy, independent productions—documentaries especially—need all the support they can get!

¹Whoever it was, they were actually riffing off Leonardo da Vinci who originally said “Art is never finished, only abandoned.”

Eric Schweig talks to CTV News. August 15, 2009. (CTV)

Erick Schweig told CTV News that when the first responders arrived, the firefighters started making racist comments. According to Schweig, one firefighter said “That’s what you get for drinking Lysol all day.” A paramedic on the scene pointed to a crowed of aboriginal children that had gather and told Schweig to get “his children out of the way.” Needless to say, it was a stunning display of the opposite values one would want in a first responder. Here we have a firefighter who jumps to a conclusion based on racist stereotypical (that Aboriginal people are all lazy drunks) and a paramedic that in a group of Aboriginal people either a) they all know each other or b) they’re all related. No need to make inquiry, no need to bother with finding out the facts. These two sure don’t have time to waste empathy on some drunken indian. Fuck you Ira Hayes, we’ve got white people to save.

Anthony O'Brien "Dudley" George (March 17, 1957 – September 7, 1995)

You know who else was overheard making racist comments about Aboriginal people before one died? The OPP at Ipperwash, and by “one” I mean an unarmed Dudley George, and by “died” I mean shot by police, while unarmed. The exchange of the two OPP officers went a little something like this:

Cop #1:  Is there still a lot of press down there?

Cop #2:  No, there’s no one down there. Just a great big fat fuck Indian

Cop #1: The camera’s rolling, eh?

Cop #2: Yeah.

Cop #1: We had this plan, you know. We thought if we could get five or six cases of Labatt’s 50, we could bait them.

Cop #2: Yeah.

Cop #1: Then we’d have this big net at a pit.

Cop #2: Creative thinking

Cop #1: Works in the (U.S.) South with watermelon.

(You see, all them injuns loooove beer and all them negros loooove watermelon… get it?)

Racism in this line of work is, unfortunatly, not that uncommon. A quick Google search will easily bring you stories of racist attitudes and incidents found among nurses, firefighters, and police. And until the people involved in overseeing these public services gets serious and treats it as the systematic problem that it is, we will continue to hear the same stories of the same bullshit for a long, long time.