Tweet
National Post , Canada
September 16, 2011 Friday
National Edition
Coming to terms with genocide; A charge that Nova Scotia settlers
targeted Mi'kmaqs has historians debating terminology
by Kathryn Blaze Carlson, National Post
There is a Conspiracy of Silence hidden safely in the Archives of
Canada, a long denied fact: European settlers, inspired by White
Supremacism, sought the "out and out genocide" of the Mi'kmaq people
in Nova Scotia. Such, at least, is the claim - complete with
capitalization - of Halifax historian, Daniel Paul, published this
month in the Settler Colonial Studies journal.
"The dispossessing of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas by
Europeans, and the near extermination of them in the process, is the
greatest inhuman barbarity that this World has ever known," Mr. Paul,
who could not be reached on Thursday, wrote in his paper, The Hidden
History of the Americas.
But his use of the term has rankled fellow historians, and has
resurrected the debate over when, exactly, it is appropriate to deploy
such a powerful word. "Genocide" refers to the most vile of human
aggressions, defined explicitly by the United Nations as acts
"committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group."
"I believe [genocide] is essentially a 20th century term, and I'm not
sure that it's the best way to understand 18th century realities,"
said John Reid, a history professor at Saint Mary's University in
Halifax. "What happened in the 18th century is a process of imperial
expansion that was ruthless at times, that cost lives.... But to my
mind, you can't just transfer concepts between centuries."
Some human rights experts argue that there has been only one genocide
in modern history - against the Jews during the Holocaust. Some say
there have been three more: Against the Armenians by Ottoman Turks,
against the Hutus in Rwanda, and in Bosnia in 1995.
"It's a divisive term, and all you need to do is look at the Canadian
Human Rights Museum to see that that's true," said Kyle Matthews, the
lead researcher at the Montreal Institute For Genocide and Human
Rights Studies. "You can see differ-ent cultural communities in Canada
wanting their collective human suffering recognized with the same
weight as others."
In his 15-page paper, Mr. Paul, a Mi'kmaq elder, refers to
Lieutenant-General Edward Cornwallis' socalled Scalp Proclamation of
1749 as evidence that his people should be on the list - that the
British colonial authorities wanted to hunt every Mi'kmaq man, woman
and child in the province.
"His Majesty's Council do hereby authorize and command all Officers
Civil and Military, and all his Majesty's Subjects of others to annoy,
distress, take or destroy the Savage commonly called the Micmac,
wherever they are found," the proclamation read. "[And] promise a
reward of ten Guineas for ever Indian Micmac taken or killed, to be
paid upon producing such Savage taken or his scalp."
Mr. Matthews said those words may indicate "some genocidal intent,"
but said he, like Prof. Reid, would not deploy the term "genocide" for
both practical and profound reasons.
"From a legal perspective, it's bet-ter to use the term 'crimes
against humanity' because the scope of proof is far broader," he said.
Beyond that, though, is what he called the problematic "overuse" of
the word, which inevitably saps it of its power.
Mr. Paul's argument has riled emotions in Halifax, where Cornwallis
Junior High was just this summer stripped of its name - thanks, in
part, to the efforts of Mr. Paul himself, and to Kirk Arsenault, the
first Mi'kmaq representative on the Halifax Region School Board.
"Genocide is trying to wipe out a race of people, and that's what
Cornwallis tried to do," Mr. Arsenault said. "What other word are we
going to use? Should we sugar-coat it? I'm sure we could find a word
that's less severe than genocide. But should we?"
Mr. Arsenault acknowledged that the Mi'kmaq were at war with the
colonial forces, and that they, too, had issued bounties on English
scalps and wanted the enemy dead. But he said Cornwallis' proclamation
is different in one key, and damning, sense.
"If he had made a proclamation of 10 guinea for every Mi'kmaq warrior,
then that would be another thing," he said. "But if you're trying to
kill every man, woman and child, isn't that genocide?"
Despite opposing Mr. Paul's use of the term, Prof. Reid said he
supports his efforts to educate Canadians on a sullied past.
"I agree that we need to confront some very dark historical realities
- that empire in the 18th century was not a clean, peaceful process,"
he said.
[email protected]
September 16, 2011 Friday
National Edition
Coming to terms with genocide; A charge that Nova Scotia settlers
targeted Mi'kmaqs has historians debating terminology
by Kathryn Blaze Carlson, National Post
There is a Conspiracy of Silence hidden safely in the Archives of
Canada, a long denied fact: European settlers, inspired by White
Supremacism, sought the "out and out genocide" of the Mi'kmaq people
in Nova Scotia. Such, at least, is the claim - complete with
capitalization - of Halifax historian, Daniel Paul, published this
month in the Settler Colonial Studies journal.
"The dispossessing of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas by
Europeans, and the near extermination of them in the process, is the
greatest inhuman barbarity that this World has ever known," Mr. Paul,
who could not be reached on Thursday, wrote in his paper, The Hidden
History of the Americas.
But his use of the term has rankled fellow historians, and has
resurrected the debate over when, exactly, it is appropriate to deploy
such a powerful word. "Genocide" refers to the most vile of human
aggressions, defined explicitly by the United Nations as acts
"committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group."
"I believe [genocide] is essentially a 20th century term, and I'm not
sure that it's the best way to understand 18th century realities,"
said John Reid, a history professor at Saint Mary's University in
Halifax. "What happened in the 18th century is a process of imperial
expansion that was ruthless at times, that cost lives.... But to my
mind, you can't just transfer concepts between centuries."
Some human rights experts argue that there has been only one genocide
in modern history - against the Jews during the Holocaust. Some say
there have been three more: Against the Armenians by Ottoman Turks,
against the Hutus in Rwanda, and in Bosnia in 1995.
"It's a divisive term, and all you need to do is look at the Canadian
Human Rights Museum to see that that's true," said Kyle Matthews, the
lead researcher at the Montreal Institute For Genocide and Human
Rights Studies. "You can see differ-ent cultural communities in Canada
wanting their collective human suffering recognized with the same
weight as others."
In his 15-page paper, Mr. Paul, a Mi'kmaq elder, refers to
Lieutenant-General Edward Cornwallis' socalled Scalp Proclamation of
1749 as evidence that his people should be on the list - that the
British colonial authorities wanted to hunt every Mi'kmaq man, woman
and child in the province.
"His Majesty's Council do hereby authorize and command all Officers
Civil and Military, and all his Majesty's Subjects of others to annoy,
distress, take or destroy the Savage commonly called the Micmac,
wherever they are found," the proclamation read. "[And] promise a
reward of ten Guineas for ever Indian Micmac taken or killed, to be
paid upon producing such Savage taken or his scalp."
Mr. Matthews said those words may indicate "some genocidal intent,"
but said he, like Prof. Reid, would not deploy the term "genocide" for
both practical and profound reasons.
"From a legal perspective, it's bet-ter to use the term 'crimes
against humanity' because the scope of proof is far broader," he said.
Beyond that, though, is what he called the problematic "overuse" of
the word, which inevitably saps it of its power.
Mr. Paul's argument has riled emotions in Halifax, where Cornwallis
Junior High was just this summer stripped of its name - thanks, in
part, to the efforts of Mr. Paul himself, and to Kirk Arsenault, the
first Mi'kmaq representative on the Halifax Region School Board.
"Genocide is trying to wipe out a race of people, and that's what
Cornwallis tried to do," Mr. Arsenault said. "What other word are we
going to use? Should we sugar-coat it? I'm sure we could find a word
that's less severe than genocide. But should we?"
Mr. Arsenault acknowledged that the Mi'kmaq were at war with the
colonial forces, and that they, too, had issued bounties on English
scalps and wanted the enemy dead. But he said Cornwallis' proclamation
is different in one key, and damning, sense.
"If he had made a proclamation of 10 guinea for every Mi'kmaq warrior,
then that would be another thing," he said. "But if you're trying to
kill every man, woman and child, isn't that genocide?"
Despite opposing Mr. Paul's use of the term, Prof. Reid said he
supports his efforts to educate Canadians on a sullied past.
"I agree that we need to confront some very dark historical realities
- that empire in the 18th century was not a clean, peaceful process,"
he said.
[email protected]