We are in no way opposed to the idea that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada may have been the victims of an authentic genocide. Certainly, to mitigate the brutality of the Canadian colonial policy towards Aboriginal people (“Kill the Indian, but save the person”), it was often contrasted with that of the United States (“A dead Indian is a good Indian”). There would therefore have been ethnocide (or “cultural genocide”) on the one hand and genocide in the proper sense on the other.
However, the difference in favor of the Canadian policy is not so clear cut. How, over a long period, to snatch their children from parents without causing the implosion of entire generations and more generally of a society? We are talking here about cultural and physical violence, deaths without assistance, despair and suicides, tragedy. Add to this, for recent times, the significant overrepresentation of Aboriginal women who have disappeared or been murdered without leading to serious investigations. It is considerations of this kind that lead many observers or analysts to speak of genocide.
But the word is so heavily loaded (we immediately think of Jews and Armenians) that we feel the need to look closely at it, despite the words of Prime Minister Trudeau and Pope Francis. Recall that the thesis is also part of the findings of a major Canadian inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Leaving aside the question of their validity, we rather want to draw attention to the way in which these conclusions are likely to be used, particularly in the field of education.
Let’s start with an example: a presentation given by three Quebec university researchers (Sivane Hirsch, Sabrina Moisan, Karine Gélinas) as part of an international conference held recently at the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières. Note that only the first signatory of this text attended the presentation. The other two brought their expertise to the present reflection, one in the field of indigenous issues, the other in didactics. Our goal here is limited to submitting, very cordially, a few questions on the scientific approach as it has been presented and which interested parties may wish to answer.
Sabrina Moisan being absent, Sivane Hirsch took on most of the presentation. She first recalled that there are different definitions of the word genocide, hence the importance of clarifying this essential subject which can have a strong influence on what happens next. She did not say more, but we can understand that the team may not have decided on its position on this very complex question yet. It is less understandable, however, that later in the presentation, the researcher affirmed with confidence that there had been genocide, again without explanation.
Other questions remained unanswered. Thus, if there was genocide, does the word embrace all or part of the population, and in this case, which one and in what proportion? Similarly, current definitions of the word (including the UN’s) specify that there must be an intent to suppress a population. The speaker did not indicate how this condition will be verified in practice. Finally, a cultural genocide would be, according to the latter, as serious as a physical genocide – wouldn’t a short explanation have been welcome?
The presentation also addressed the didactic dimension (how to teach genocide?). The speaker first pointed out that, according to the rules in force, it would be unacceptable to impose on the students the idea of an indigenous genocide (even if the thesis, it should be remembered, is supported without reservation by the team) . Young people should therefore arrive on their own, very freely, at this conclusion in the light of the information made available to them. But on this point, the team would have no worries: the data transmitted would be so convincing that the students would inevitably adhere to the genocide thesis.
What would we think of a teacher, a militant sovereignist, who would proceed in the same spirit to “initiate” his students to the theme of Quebec independence?
It was also specified that the definition of a genocide (and by extension the approach of the project, perhaps?) should obtain the agreement of the Aboriginal peoples – a mention that was made quickly, in the course of a sentence and without comment, as if the thing were self-evident. Here, should we not worry about the independence necessary for scientific work and the principle of objectivity, without which ideology and even militancy risk inviting themselves into research? Consult the Aboriginals, hear their points of view and suggestions, fine. But ask for their consent?
It may be found that we attach great importance to a presentation at a congress. Here are the reasons. It was an international meeting whose resonance is still considerable. Moreover, given their recognized competence, the researchers enjoy great credibility. It should also be considered that this vision of the genocide thesis and the way in which it is presented are part of a growing current of ideas. Finally, the Ministry of Education asked the researchers to develop a proposal for an approach that could be used to teach about Aboriginal genocide in Quebec schools.
Those responsible for the project are pursuing indisputably laudable objectives to which we subscribe. It is difficult to work on a subject which is at the same time a reason for commitment. It is, however, common and unavoidable, sometimes necessary. But this kind of situation strains the investigation, doubly solicited by the legitimate desire to serve a cause and by the rules of the trade. Most of us have experienced it.