I have never liked Margaret Wente’s work in the Globe and Mail. In fact, I find her on her best days to be stridently conservative, and on her worst days, simply boring. But today, she wrote something completely unacceptable. I’m sitting here in shock, reading it over. Her opinion piece in the Globe and Mail describes how high-profile Olympics official Dick Pound, who called the Canada of 400 years ago “a country of savages”, said something “dumb, but true.”
Excuse me? Is it that the white settlers of this country need to continue to believe that they are the only anthropological experts able to claim what is true and historical and powerful? The piece is most definitely an indictment of native studies, traditional knowledge and elders finally working in systems of Canadian education and government: the halls of power in this country on native land.
The romanticization of Aborginal peoples that she describes is part and parcel of infantilizing them. This paternalistic approach capitalized on taking away Aboriginal rights to self-determination, culture, language, environment, dignity and hope for the future.
This approach was, and is, the chosen path of the Canadian government in resolving land claims and sovereignty rights.
That such a blatantly racist thing can be printed in Canada’s supposedly most progressive newspapers completely angers me. And she names the current reality of life for Aboriginal peoples in Canada merely a “cultural divide” not (my words) “Western colonialism based on total annihilation” ?
I’m seriously shaken. Tell me how this could be possible. Does this woman really believe that native culture is what kills Aboriginals in this country? You only need look at the recent video on what’s going on in Barriere Lake (Northern Quebec) to see who is attempting to kill who.


Digg
15 comments
...Wow. The stupid, it burns. Where to start?
a) Evolution has no motherfucking teleology. 'Evolve' does not mean 'improve', or 'become more worthy' - it does mean 'become more complex' but only in the purely biological sense of involving more intricate structures. In fact, if you are using the word 'evolve' in a non-biological sense you are probably doin it rong.
b) Early 17th century Europeans were so civilised and non-savage that they practised slavery, genocide, endemic religious persecution - need I go on?
c) ...and their science mostly sucked, so hard that when Jesuit scientists were comparing notes with Chinese scientists at this time, the Jesuits ridiculed the Chinese concept of an infinite universe. They had some useful knowledge, but it wasn't until a hundred years later that experimental science was even first taught in a European university. (By a woman, in Italy, naturally).
d) Wente's so skewed by her whiteness and by the pecking order of the modern world that she doesn't even mention the two (arguably) most economically powerful nations of 500-400 years ago. I guess they weren't 'civilised' enough for her analysis. Hint: neither of them are white nations.
e) no, really, this isn't about rational thought at all: it's about establishing a pecking order with whiteness at the top.
f) who the hell ever says that Native Canadians didn't originate in Africa? Wtf? And even if someone, somewhere, holds that as a religious belief, is it manifestly different to the conservative Christian insistence that humans popped out of nowhere in the Middle East 6000 years ago? No? Then why aren't you slamming that belief, lady?
g) no, really, I can't go on, it's too much.
Posted by Thene
October 26, 2008, 1:25 AM
She also has some pretty hilarous takes on the environment. She can't possibly believe the crap she writes (poorly). They must pay her to cause a kerfuffle and draw in readers.
Posted by Angela
October 26, 2008, 9:02 AM
God she's worse than Barbara Amiel, which is something I never thought I would have to say.
--Early 17th century Europeans were so civilised and non-savage that they practised slavery, genocide, endemic religious persecution...--
...and still do.
Posted by Stark
October 26, 2008, 2:58 PM
Wente writes from a place of such ignorance, about structural oppression faced by First Nation peoples today, but also about the incredible diversity of Native societies in North America at European contact. She wouldn't have had to do more than 10 minutes of research in order to realize that no generalization could possibly hold true for a diverse continents' worth of people. Just the suggestion that the whole of North America was populated by hunter-gatherers is bizarre, as is the claim that hunter-gathering groups are "neolithic" and "savage". Just eww.
Posted by Allison
October 26, 2008, 3:47 PM
I am Native (from east coast of Canada baby!) and I was hesitant to read the article, knowing how it would make me feel sick to my stomache as many articles like that do. Almost as bad as the comments the CBC 'moderates'.
Posted by nonchalantnative
October 26, 2008, 5:39 PM
Thanks for posting Pike so I don't have to be the token one posting about the ongoing racism in my community all the time that is so blantant, and everywhere, everyday.
I think what is interesting about all of this is who is NOT reacting. Including so called "alternative" media, and other "feminist" writers.
You can read my friend Ben Powless's reaction here:
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/...
Y'all know I'm angry. And we aren't taking this one sitting down (but we never did anyways).
Posted by Jessica Yee
October 26, 2008, 9:41 PM
My chest actually tightens and burns when I read the article!!! It's full of such arrogance and ignorance! I’m disgusted that this was allowed to be published in a major newspaper.
Posted by D. Cole
October 26, 2008, 11:12 PM
Great post Pike, thanks!
Posted by Cecelia
October 27, 2008, 1:19 AM
OK, I have never seen a Facebook group so organized and powerfully connecting with its members as the Fire Margaret Wente (and Dick Pound) group! Join it if you are on Facebook! I love online mobilization!
Posted by piKe
October 28, 2008, 4:25 PM
Here is the rebuttal in the Globe and Mail today.. it's pretty good!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servl...
Posted by kiff
October 29, 2008, 8:51 PM
Thanks for posting the link to the rebuttal, Kiff. I'm glad Hayden came forward with such a well written (and accurate) response showing what a PIECE OF CRAP Wente's piece was.
Posted by D. Cole
October 29, 2008, 9:24 PM
But equal column space is not the solution. The newspaper must fire that woman from having a say as a public figure in the affairs of our people! Call the Globe and Mail and demand that Margaret Wente be dismissed.
Posted by piKe
October 29, 2008, 11:59 PM
I agree that equal column space is not enough and that Wente should be fired (no worries, I've already contacted the Globe and Mail voicing my opinion) -- but I think it was important that Hayden's piece was printed so that readers know why what she said was wrong and racist.
Posted by D. Cole
October 30, 2008, 12:52 AM
"The newspaper must fire that woman from having a say as a public figure in the affairs of our people!"
Doesn't that just mean she's taking the fall for a larger institution who saw the opinion fit to print? It's not as if she made the paper print her opinion - surely they were aware it was going to print. I think the discussion of media accountability is much more valuable than her unemployment. I suppose it depends very heavily on how you see the role of the mainstream media.
I feel like we've been here before:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/articl...
And here's the other side:
http://www.straight.com/article-16801...
Posted by Stacey May
October 30, 2008, 10:59 AM
I think Angela has a point that ties in with Stacey May's point. Wouldn't the Globe and Mail sell a lot of papers and get a lot of attention by stirring up controversy? There is a massive business component to newspapers. They aren't objective sources of free speech. They plan. They contrive. Especially considering the well-articulated response right after... It looks like free debate, but it smells like BS.
Posted by Erin E.
October 30, 2008, 12:57 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.