Socialist Project - home

The   B u l l e t

Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 768
January 31, 2013

Socialist Project - home

Choosing Not to Look Away:
Confronting Colonialism in Canada

Monique Woroniak and David Camfield

Canada has “no history of colonialism.” So said Stephen Harper in 2009. Today the Idle No More movement is shouting down this lie through actions both creative and courageous. In its place, it is telling Canadians at large what some of us have always known: that the country we live in was founded as – and continues to be – a colonial-settler state.

Colonialism involves one society seeking to conquer another and then rule over it. European countries worked to conquer the Americas, Africa and most of Asia between the end of the 1400s and the 1800s. In the beginning, the goal was usually to gain access to resources – including gold, silver, furs and fish – that could give a boost to the feudal societies that existed in most of Europe at that time.

As capitalism developed, it spread a new way of organizing how goods and services were produced which focused on profit at all costs. The needs of humans and of the natural world with its land, air and water, were given little to no consideration under this new system. In a short amount of time Europe's appetite for the natural resources found in the lands it would colonize grew enormously.

Colonialism After Capitalism

“Land. If you understand nothing else about the history of Indians in North America, you need to understand that the question that really matters is the question of land.” Thomas King (Cherokee), The Inconvenient Indian (2012)

Two main types of colonialism grew out of capitalism's hunger for profit: colonialism based on exploitation of labour, and settler colonialism.

In most colonies, a small number of Europeans ruled over much larger Indigenous populations. In order to make profits from a colony, Europeans needed the labour of the people they had conquered. In these kinds of situations, the goal of the colonizers was to take wealth produced by the work of miners, farmers and, as time went on, sometimes factory workers. One good example of this was the work that farmers in India in the 1800s did to grow cotton, which was then shipped to Britain to be processed in factories and sold at a large profit.

Colonialism in Canada was different. Here it took the form of settler colonialism (other states with this type of colonialism include the USA, Australia and Israel). Settler colonialism took place where European settlers settled permanently on Indigenous lands, aggressively seized those lands from Indigenous peoples and eventually greatly outnumbered Indigenous populations.

The Land Grab: Settler-Colonialism in Canada

Unlike the kind of colonialism experienced in places such as India, the main goal of settler colonialism was not to take advantage of the labour of Indigenous peoples. Instead, it was to displace Indigenous peoples from their lands, break and bury the cultures that grew out of relationships with those lands, and, ultimately, eliminate Indigenous societies so that settlers could establish themselves.

In Canada, the society that settlers established became capitalist and created an economy that continues to exploit people for their labour and the land for its many resources. Respect for life and the relationships between living beings and the natural world is not important to the capitalist Canadian colonial-settler state. Under this system the land is treated not as something that humans should live in a respectful relationship with, but simply as a resource to exploit (much like the owner of a company demanding workers produce as much wealth for him as possible).

Canadian colonial capitalism would not survive without access to Indigenous peoples' lands. This was true in 1867 when Canada was founded, and it is still true today.

Choosing Not to Look Away

The amazing energy, organization and assertions of Indigenous sovereignty that have recently taken place within Canada have shone a light on the truth of how the country was founded and how it is still run. Every week there are new and more actions – flash mob round dances, railway blockades, consumer boycotts, hunger strikes – that are working to force non-Indigenous people to see the reality of the country they live in and the ways that it continues to disrespect and abuse the original keepers of the land and exploit the land itself.

Bright lights are often described as harsh, but illuminating truth is an act of respect. Since its founding 146 years ago, the Canadian state has walked arrogantly, cruelly and carelessly forward, refusing to look back, and working to make non-Indigenous people believe they shouldn't either. The respect – even love – for the land and all of our relationships with it, and with each other, that has been expressed in recent weeks has challenged non-Indigenous people to take another look.

Now that the light has been shone, non-Indigenous Canadians have a responsibility to take a look at the truth of the country's past and present. A responsibility exists to look at the founding documents of our colonial-settler state and sources that help to explain their meaning and impact. A responsibility exists to look at the history of the lands we each live on and to learn who lived there before us and what treaties, if any, were signed in the course of taking the land. And we have a responsibility to look at and learn about past and recent acts of Indigenous resistance.

Each non-Indigenous person will have to choose what to do after all that looking. One important teaching offered by Indigenous cultures is that knowledge is most powerful when shared, that stories are meant for storytelling. Having learned more of the true story of the Canadian state, another duty of non-Indigenous people is to tell that story, to insist on it travelling through all our circles.

Asking “Where could the story go next?”

One of the many gifts that the Idle No More movement is giving to non-Indigenous people is the opportunity to look at this country, the way it treats the people living in it and the way it treats the land and water we all depend on for survival and to ask, “Where should we go from here, together?”

We could, for example, ask what would it take to uproot Canadian colonialism? In his book Wasáse, Taiaiake Alfred (Mohawk) argues that “the most basic changes in colonial states required to create a just relationship and to set the foundations for lasting peaceful coexistence” are “the return of unceded lands, reforms to state constitutions to reflect the principle of indigenous nationhood and to bring into effect a nation-to-nation relationship between indigenous peoples and Settler society, and restitution.”[1]

We agree. We also believe another question needs to be asked: who in the Canadian colonial-settler state would have the most to lose by giving up control over Indigenous lands? There is no doubt that the people who own and run corporations (the capitalist class) will fiercely oppose any strong movement demanding changes like the ones mentioned above.

We believe that as Indigenous peoples continue to assert their right to determine their own futures and the right to their lands, it will become more and more important for all of us to talk about the ways in which the struggles against colonialism and capitalism are connected.

In this moment, Indigenous peoples are loudly raising their voices to remind us about the need for respectful relationships between individuals, nations and, above all, with the land. Increasingly, they are demanding that we listen. But they are also asking us to join them – to look in their faces, dance holding their hands, and to stand with them as they stand for the land. For all of us. •

Monique Woroniak is a librarian who works, writes and does Indigenous solidarity work in Winnipeg. David Camfield is one of the editors of New Socialist Webzine where this article first appeared. Both authors acknowledge that they reside on Treaty One territory and the traditional lands of the Red River Métis.

For further reading:

A lot of good writing exists about the oppression of Indigenous peoples and their resistance to the colonialism of the Canadian state. Here are a few we recommend:

  • Howard Adams, Prison of Grass: Canada from a Native Point of View
  • Taiaiake Alfred, Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom
  • Todd Gordon, Imperialist Canada, Chapter 2.
  • Thomas King, The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America
  • Leanne Simpson and Kiera L. Ladner (editors), This is an Honour Song: Twenty Years Since the Blockades
  • Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996)
  • Citizens Plus (the 1970 Red Paper)


1. Alfred's case that what's needed is restitution, not reconciliation, can also be found online in his contribution to Response, Responsibility, and Renewal.


#4 Lynda Lange 2013-02-07 14:48 EST
Indigenous movement part of global movement
In Canada there is a tendency to view indigenous issues and activism as "a problem" for "Canadians". In my opinion, indigenous movement should be understood as part of world-wide anti-colonial movement by indigenous peoples and other peoples. This changes the ethical perspective. Instead of being a problem, indigenous movement is a call to rectify injustice.

#3 Marc Bonhomme 2013-02-01 07:53 EST
Où est la nation québécoise
Comme presque toujours quand la gauche anticapitaliste canadienne anglaise traite de la question nationale aborigène, elle ignore totalement la question nationale québécoise alors qu'il s'agit bien de traiter les rapports entre nations au sein du Canada. On a l'impression que la contradiction stratégique canadienne soit celle entre peuples aborigènes et l'ensemble des autres peuples. Pourtant une analyse de la formation de l'État canadien démontre que, stratégiquement parlant, la question de la lutte pour l'indépendance du Québec en est, d'un point de vu anticapitaliste, le maillon faible (voir mon essai, Class and the nation – A Québécois perspective, ESSF, 12/09/04).

À lire cet article, on a plutôt l'impression que le Canada est assimilé à l'Afrique du Sud, ce qui est vrai à bien des égards -- les réserves ont servi de modèles pour les ex-bantoustans -- mais fondamentalement faux en ce que ce dernier pays était une "colonie pure" combinant, pour employer les termes de cet article, l'exploitation du travail des peuples conquis et l'accaparement des leurs terres pour l'établissement des envahisseurs.

Le non-dit de cette comparaison réside en l'identification des anglophones blancs sud-africains, soi-disant plutôt libéraux, avec le peuple canadien-anglais et des Afrikaners, carrément racistes, avec le peuple québécois. Malheureusement, ce préjugé est aussi fort répandu chez plusieurs militants aborigènes dont la langue première ou seconde est l'anglais, et qui connaissent pas ou peu le français,y compris au Québec, ce qui s'explique à la fois historiquement mais aussi par la politique d'assimilation du Indian Act, entre autre pour les Algonquins et Mohawks vivant au Québec.

Quand j'ai intensivement milité avec les Algonquins du Lac Barrière (Rapid Lake) il y a une vingtaine d'années j'ai eu à faire face à ce paradoxe d'un groupe que le fédéral tentait d'assimiler en anglais vivant au milieu d'une population francophone et en plus encadré par des conseillers anglophones, s'étant débarrassé des conseillers francophones, dont certains me considéraient comme un Afrikaner.

On voit l'implication stratégique caché et honteuse de cet imbroglio : l'unité des peuples dit "progressistes" contre la lutte pour l'indépendance du peuple réputé "raciste". Plusieurs courants progressistes canadiens anglais, par alleurs acquis au maintien de l'unité de l'État canadien, en voient la nécessité d'une transformation de la politique fédérale pour laquelle les Libéraux fédéraux étaient ouverts (entente avortée de Kelowna) dans le cadre de leur politique dominante anti-Québec mais pas du tout les Conservateurs pour qui leur politique envers le Québec est secondaire... et plus porté sur le bâton que la carotte d'où l'impopularité de ce parti au Québec.

On peut certes reprocher à la gauche québécoise d'être sur la défensive contre cette sourde alliance, en particulier vis-à-vis la question de l'intégrité territoriale de la province fédérale du Québec. C'est là cependant là la réaction d'un nationalisme faible à un nationalisme fort. Mais la perception d'une telle alliance repose sur la réalité. La gauche canadienne anglaise me paraît peu sensible, peut-être par naïveté "wanabe" mais peut-être aussi par minimisation de l'oppression nationale québécoise jugée relativement douce dans ses conséquences économiques alors que l'oppression nationale est essentiellement de nature politique. La constitution rapatriée de 1982 et ses suites ignore complètement le Québec pour qui on ne reconnaît ni droit inhérent ni statut distinct.

La relation du peuple québécois aux peuples aborigènes trouvent ses racines dans la politique commerciale du trafic des fourrures de la Nouvelle-France. Celle-ci, en comparaison de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, n'était que marginalement "a settler colony" mais considérait les très nombreux peuples autochtones de ce vaste territoire comme des partenaires commerciaux même si c'était dans la cadre d'un échange inégal. D'où, par exemple, la grande paix de 1701 avec les Iroquois (Haudenosaunee). D'où aujourd'hui la Convention de la Baie James et la "paix des braves" certes des traités inégaux obtenus suite à de rudes batailles mais qui ne se comparent pas aux traités à numéro de l'Ontario et des Prairies, d'où aussi la reconnaissance de statut de nation aux peuples aborigènes en 1985 par le gouvernement du PQ si formelle soit cette reconnaissance.

Plutôt une stratégie d'unité du prolétariat canadien avec les nations et nationalités opprimées centrée sur le point faible de la domination de la bourgeoisie canadienne, soit l'aspiration du peuple québécois à l'indépendance. L'envahissement du Québec par l'armée canadienne en octobre 1970, mais aussi par l'intermédiaire de la crise d'Oka durant l'été 1990 suite à la provocation du gouvernement fédéraliste du Québec, tout comme l'envahissement pacifique (et illégal eu égard à la loi électoral du Québec) du "love-in" lors du référendum de 1995 démontrent plus qu'il ne le faut que la lutte pour l'indépendance est le maillon faible à rompre pour aboutir à des nouvelles entités territoriales anticapitalistes harmonisant les rapports nationaux.

#2 Richard Fidler 2013-01-31 12:22 EST
Further reading
Excellent article. Since you recommend Citizens Plus in your "further reading" list, you might also add Harold Cardinal's reply to it, The Unjust Society. I reviewed it in 1970:

#1 Michael Lardner 2013-01-31 10:42 EST
Colonial settler nations of North America
Nearly all of us in the Americas reside on lands where treaties have been broken, with prospect of capital about to break multiple agreements that appeased our working class potential for insurgency. How do we do outreach in the US to assist in internationalizing this in the US and Mexico and beyond? The indigenous actions in Canada that we get glimpses of are inspiring.

Comments are now closed.
Join the debate on Facebook

« Previous
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( The   B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• ISSN 1923-7871 •
Next »

Share: Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Google bookmark  MySpace  Pinterest  Reddit  StumbleUpon  Twitter  RSS

^ Back to Top ^