We define Canada

Is this some sort of personal fixation? No. This bothers me. Ibbitson returns to the subject of native education with another call for subjugating natives through education. Education becomes a weapon for continued conquest, consensus is a synonym for assimilation.

In State of the nation: It’s about consensus and accommodation (A4) Thursday, March 29, 2007, Ibbitson writes:

Where we don’t have consensus we must fight to achieve it. Canada’s Indian, Inuit, Métis and other aboriginal populations try to talk to the rest of us, but we don’t understand them and they don’t understand us. After almost five years of writing on this subject, I am convinced that only a national commitment to improving educational outcomes, while respecting Native control over key elements of the curriculum will make it possible for both sides to hear what the other is saying, which is the essential first step toward consensus.

Why do we need to “fight” for consensus? Why do we need consensus at all if the First Nations are self governing? If “we” don’t understand “them”, why is it only they need the education? What does “educational outcomes” mean if it leads to the “first step toward consensus“?

The way Ibbitson uses the word “Canada” to define the aboriginal populations exposes his bias. This is why the question : How Canadian are you? bothers me. Canada is not something that defines us. We define Canada.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: