Introduction

From Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic and Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers in 1970 to Shelby Steele's A Dream Deferred: A Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America in 1998, 1 there is a growing body of American literature questioning White motives for approving measures ostensibly designed to improve the lives of Blacks. Steele, who is Black himself, argues that Whites too often approve such measures not because they have sound reason to suppose they will work but because they are anxious to assuage their own guilt and to appear virtuous. The result of this "redemptive liberalism" and failure to apply rigorous standards of assessment has been an array of programs that benefit the leaders and employees of Black "grievance groups" but harm ordinary Blacks who are not on the payrolls of these groups. These programs encourage ordinary Blacks to think they are less than capable of living up to standards demanded of other Americans, so they become and remain dependent on financial assistance and other favours bestowed (sometimes capriciously) by their own leaders and the redemption-seeking White majority.

Jim Sleeper, who has worked as a social activist and journalist in Black neighbourhoods in New York, argues that it is not just guilt and a desire to appear virtuous that motivate Whites: many disapprove of materialism and other aspects of mainstream American society and think of Blacks and Natives as the bearers not only of similar disapproval but also of "redemptive social wisdom." Though there may be some element of truth in this, he says, "it damages and limits people more often than it ennobles them." 2

Randall Kennedy, a Black and a law professor at Harvard, rejects the notion of racial kinship entirely "in order to avoid its burdens and to be free to claim `the unencumbered self.' " 3 Having rejected the notion of racial kinship, he rejects the idea of special programs based on race but supports efforts to help young Blacks acquire the values, skills and education necessary for their success in American society.

You do not have to agree with everything Steele, Sleeper, Kennedy, and others of like mind say to recognize that they raise legitimate concerns. They add notes of caution to the continuing public debate that gives shape to government policy in a democracy.

I mention the American debate for two reasons. First, we Canadians have yet to have a similarly honest and lively debate about our motives and policies for addressing Native issues. Second, if we were to have such a debate, we would find many parallels with the American situation.

During a conversation a few years back, a Native Canadian colleague and I came up with the phrase "noble savage racism" to refer to the same phenomenon that Sleeper refers to as "liberal racism." We had both observed that some Whites dearly wish to believe that Natives, if uncorrupted by Whites, would be living in more perfect societies--perhaps collectivist societies where everyone cooperated and shared the benefits equally or environmentally responsible societies where every effort is made to live in harmony with nature. They do not know--or prefer to ignore the fact--that many Native societies were more feudal (with hierarchies descending from rich and powerful chiefs down to poor and powerless slaves) than collectivist and did little in the way of teaching what many Canadians today might consider egalitarian and environmental values.

They also do not know--or choose to ignore the fact--that more than a few Native Canadians would prefer to think of themselves as individuals, unencumbered by anyone's notion of what it means to be Native. My Native colleague told me that she thought it unfair to put such an encumbrance on her own children and grandchildren, and so discourage them from making the same career and lifestyle choices open to other Canadians. Pointing to another problem with such an encumbrance, a young Native artist once told me that, because he graduated from Emily Carr College of Art with the terrible feeling that less had been demanded of him because he was Native, he registered at Ryerson Polytechnic. There he was treated as any other student would be and he graduated feeling confident and proud that he had lived up to the standards required of all.

The equivalent of radical chic in Canada today is automatically favouring the Nisga'a agreement, while giving little serious thought to the rationale behind it, its actual contents, its likely consequences, and alternatives that might be better. The equivalent of "mau-mauing" 4 the flak catchers in Canada today is the campaign of the Nisga'a, the government of British Columbia, and the federal government promoting the agreement. This campaign appeals, often in intimidating ways, to people's sense of guilt and desire to do (or appear to do) the right thing, while not giving them the information they need to assess its true merits.

The British Columbia government's advertisements, in particular, have not been designed to inform but to sell. They select and spin information, putting the agreement in the most flattering light. They appeal to emotion (feeling bad about past wrongs and feeling good about making up for those wrongs) rather than reason (weighing the pros and cons of the agreement and looking at possible alternatives, with all the facts at hand.)

Even more disturbing than the deceptive ads is the effort to discredit anyone who would raise a question or a doubt. When he signed the draft in New Aiyansh on August 4, 1998, Nisga'a Chief Joe Gosnell fired a warning shot across the bows of past and potential critics. He said, "Our detractors do not understand or, practising a wilful ignorance, choose not to understand. Or worse, using carefully coded language, they are updating a venomous attitude so familiar to the First Nations of the world." 5 Since then, proponents of the agreement take every opportunity to remind us, the public, of the "third-world conditions" in Native communities and the "cultural genocide" that created those conditions. In effect, they tell us that the problems are so terrible and non-Natives are so guilty of creating them that we must accept, on faith, whatever solutions our leaders propose. Those who, with the best of intentions, would question the merits of those solutions are discouraged from voicing their concerns for fear of being branded racist and ignorant. This hardly establishes an atmosphere conducive to civil debate.

Since the promotional campaign began, many colleagues, friends, and acquaintances have told me that they feel they are not being given the information they need to make up their own minds about the Nisga'a agreement and they deeply resent the efforts to shame or intimidate them into uninformed compliance. Generally intelligent and well-informed people, they especially resent being told by federal and provincial ministers that the agreement is too complicated for ordinary folks to understand. With them in mind, I began drafting this paper in August.

On October 28, 1998, I sent an earlier version of it, with covering letters, to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Premier Glen Clark plus copies to a number of people I thought might be interested. One of these was Gordon Gibson, who frequently comments on Native issues in his weekly column in The Globe and Mail and is also Senior Fellow in Canadian Studies at the Fraser Institute. On his recommendation, the Institute has agreed to publish this slightly revised version as one of their occasional papers. The revisions respond to suggestions offered by readers of the earlier version. For those suggestions, I thank them all but leave them nameless and blameless.

I have a lifetime of personal association with Native people and their communities plus 20 years of experience working as a consultant on Native issues for Native groups and the government agencies and private corporations that do business with them. This paper outlines some things I believe all Canadians, Native and otherwise, should consider before making up their minds about the Nisga'a agreement. It raises serious concerns about the agreement and suggests alternatives that could provide real choices for individual Native Canadians. I hope readers will find it a constructive contribution to the debate, one that helps them form their own views.