Social Studies/Native Studies (SS/NS) Department
|
Frontier School Division Social Studies/Native Studies (SS/NS) Department |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Return to Homepage |
Dances with Dependency: Reviews and Discussion
Calvin Helin’s book Dances with Dependency, has received high praise in some quarters, but it has also been attacked, although in a somewhat different fashion from that directed at Widdowson and Howard’s Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry. Two reviews, both of them online, have been critically analyzed below to provide a model of the kinds of questions that have to be asked of texts, if one wants to be well informed.
March 2007: “Review of Dances With Dependency (2006)”, by Morgan O’Neal, First Nation Drum: News from Canada’s Native Communities O’Neal noted at the outset of his review that the book was “being hailed as possibly the most important book ever written about how to improve the lives of impoverished indigenous people.” He provided background details on Helin, who is a member of the Tsimshian nation, son of a hereditary Chief, lawyer, President of the Native Investment and Trade Association, former Vice President of the National Aboriginal Business Association, and Founding Director of the newly formed B.C. Oil & Gas Association. He is also an instructor of Goju-Ryu Karate and had “pledged partial proceeds from sales of his book to a youth martial-arts school.” Based on his own experience, Helin’s book promoted “a business-oriented solution to the ongoing problem of impoverished aboriginal communities.” Critics alleged that his call for economic integration with the Canadian mainstream would result in “a corresponding loss of culture,” but Helin argued that “the lack of an economy is just as dangerous.” O’Neal summed up Helin’s argument as follows:
Helin wrote the book because he wanted to see a better life for “ordinary indigenous people” whose predicament is not just a Canadian, but a world issue. In O’Neal’s view, “The book’s overall goal is nothing less than a paradigm shift.” After briefly reviewing the history of “sophisticated economies, cultures, and socio-political structures” that developed long before Europeans arrived in North America, Helin described what has replaced it. “I’ve pulled back the shower curtain to show the naked problem,” he said, “Some of what I’ve talked about will make some people feel uncomfortable.” O’Neal noted that “even in this context, he had been guided by the “teachings of his ancestors.” As the elders have told us, “this time in life is a time of truth telling in order to meet the challenges that face us as Aboriginal people.” Helin argued “that entrenched reliance on externally provided programs – from housing to social assistance – has blocked the development of an independent Native economy.” This has to change because Canada’s aging population and growing Native population, which Helin called Canada’s “demographic tsunami” would put so much pressure on the economy that it could not be sustained. Things must change. O’Neal emphasized that Helin had no “kind words for the state – or the band councils created by and accountable to the federal government.” He wrote that part of the solution depended on Native communities taking ownership for their problems, not an easy task, as “a thriving industry of entrenched vested interests will do everything possible to keep the system in place.” However, change was not impossible. “With huge resource development occurring across Canada, especially in the North and the West, Helin thought that Native groups were well-positioned to participate and use that capital to move forward.” O’Neal was uncomfortable with Helin’s use of the Tsimshian expression wai wah (meaning “just do it”) because “a fine line separates the political slogan from the advertising jingle.” He thought it was simplistic. He argued, too, that “the personal success of a specific individual … cannot be generalized as a probable result for the population at large.” O’Neal expressed disbelief in “the American Dream” where “if everyone would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the fruits of their labours will be wealth and power rather than debt and exhaustion.” He explained as follows:
Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that O’Neal considered the book “flawed,” he felt it was worth reading because it was “clearly written,” based on “broad and meticulous” research, and its central argument was “intelligently articulated.” He ended his review with a quotation from the renowned writer Joy Kogawa, who said after reading Helin’s book:
Discussion: Although O’Neal’s review is a good summary of Helin’s book, his quibbles with it are a bit puzzling. Why is it that the success of a man like Helin can’t be a model for the entire Aboriginal community? Helin succeeded because he took ownership for his own economic welfare. Can that not be done by others? Consider Osoyoos for example. Chief Louie led a dependent, unemployed reserve in the creation of an economic powerhouse that now employs most of its band members and has many non-reserve people working for it as well. Is this the success of one individual, or is it the success of an entire community? O’Neal assumed that when one person succeeds economically, someone else has to fail. Is this necessarily so? Why can’t they both succeed together?
Spring 2008: “Review of Dances With Dependency (2006)”, by Ethan Baptiste in Indigenous Policy Journal, V. XVIV, No. 1 Baptiste’s lengthy and detailed critique of Helin’s book raises many questions for the critical reader, and these are interspersed throughout this summary of his review. Baptiste, a Ph.D student at the University of British Columbia – Okanagan, conceded that Helin provided “some excellent interpretations of the historical injustice, critique on current situations and political constrains [sic] of Aboriginal governance structures” as well as “instilled hope in the reader that there is an end, with valid solutions, to such unrelenting problems faced by all Aboriginal people.” However, he felt that Helin offered “nothing innovative or practical and simply mirrors and concedes to the will of the Canadian corporations and government’ wishes.” Baptiste felt it was “tragic” because Helin’s book was “so widely promoted throughout mainstream media as the answer to the problems facing Aboriginal people” and “Indigenous leadership” was “beginning to acknowledge and endorse Helin’s misguided solutions.” Discussion: Helin proposed that Aboriginal people take responsibility for their own futures rather than relying on the Canadian government to lead the way. Why was that not innovative and practical? Why was that proposal a concession to Canadian corporations? Suppose a band entered a partnership with an off-reserve corporation to provide jobs for people on the reserve? Why would that be a concession to the corporation? Why would it be a concession to the wishes of the Canadian government? Baptiste considered Helin’s interpretations contradictory. On the one hand, he exhibited “pride in his culture and traditions, but refused to “incorporate any Indigenous way of life or ideology” into his proposal, which was essentially “a facilitated Aboriginal migration to urban centers, forgetting of the past and individual private ownership on reserves.” Baptiste felt that Helin ignored “the implementation or realization of Aboriginal Title or real self-determination” in favour of “economic gains and the bottom line.” He disapproved of Helin’s call for “accommodation agreements and creation of business partnerships” involving the “resource extraction taking place on unceded traditional territory of Aboriginal Nations.” Discussion: There appears to be real philosophical differences between Baptiste and Helin concerning the nature of culture. Helin seems to be at ease in his own Aboriginal roots and willing to innovate. Baptiste appears unclear about what he means exactly by Aboriginal culture. He seems to want to hold on to an unspecified “indigenous way of life or ideology” that is rural, rooted in a knowledge of past, and communitarian. Increasingly, the cultural separatism that this implies is contradicted by Canada’s multi-cultural, and largely urban society. Why? Baptiste appears to think that traditional lands belong to Aboriginal people, but in fact that is a political stance. Many ordinary Canadians, some of whom have deep Aboriginal roots in this land, do not accept this position. In view of that reality, why are “negotiated agreements and business partnerships,” as Helin suggested, necessarily inappropriate courses for aboriginal people living on those traditional territories? In his review of Chapter 1, Baptiste took issue with Helin’s application of “sociological pathology theories of welfare trap, welfare syndrome, welfare dependency, dependency mindset, dependency theory, dependency course and other pathologies” to describe contemporary Aboriginal society and contrast it with the self-reliance of pre-contact Aboriginal societies. Baptiste rejected this psychological analysis as “fundamentally inaccurate” because it was based on “western scientific frameworks,” which separate mind and body, whereas “Indigenous knowledge understands that the mind and body are connected and that human activity was seen to be caused by factors outside the control of the individual.” The effect of seeing the plight of Aboriginal people “through a Western science lens” is to conclude that they “are on welfare (unemployed, addicted to alcohol, undereducated, etc.) because of internal or mental factors.” In other words, the focus is on the individual Aboriginal person rather than the “broader cultural, social, political and economic” problems that face Aboriginal people. Consequently, any solution proposed will simply “foster and recreate situations.” Discussion: The above is an attempt to make sense of Baptiste’s analysis, which is difficult to follow at times, and readers should look at his text to ensure that nothing has been left out. However, it seems that he rejected the label of dependency used by Helin because it was based on western ways of thinking that focused on individuals rather than society as a whole. Because of this, Baptiste felt that any solution proposed based on that model would fail to change anything. Some questions come to mind. Did Baptiste satisfactorily prove or simply assert the alleged dichotomy between Western scientific and aboriginal patterns of thinking concerning the root causes of Aboriginal problems? If "Indigenous knowledge" connects "mind and body", as Baptiste asserted, how does it follow that human activity is therefore "caused by factors outside the control of the individual?" Was he saying that "Indigenous knowledge" denies agency to Aboriginal people and therefore they have no responsibility for anything that involves them? Or, was his proposed dichotomy a strained Academic construction? Also, Baptiste criticised Helin's call for Aboriginal people to take responsibility for solving their problems on the grounds that such a call focused on individual solutions rather than addressing the "broader cultural, social, political and economic" factors involved. But, did Helin's call to individual solutions mean other options were denied? Was Baptiste being fair to Helin's argument? In chapters 2 and 3, Baptiste found Helin’s use of the Demographic Tsunami a “contemptuously toned theory … a fear mongering technique that is tirelessly reiterated, past the feeling of annoyance.” Helin argued “that aging baby boomers, a rapidly growing Aboriginal population and the elevated payments from potentially increasing Métis rights “will impact individual taxpayers in their wallets and will have serious long term repercussions to the well-being of Canada.” Discussion: Helin argued that (1) costs associated with an aging non-aboriginal population in need of increased medical care and (2) costs associated with a young, expanding, and dependant Aboriginal population would put serious financial pressure on government in the future and potentially increase the burdens of individual taxpayers. Because of a low birthrate among non-aboriginal Canadians, the government has relied in the past on immigration to fill jobs. A large number of aging baby boomers are about to retire, placing added pressure on the government to replace them in the workforce. Since the aboriginal population is young, Helin saw this as an opportunity to educate them to fill those jobs. Is this really a contemptuously toned theory, a fear-mongering technique, or is it a practical win-win proposal? Baptiste dismissed Helin’s “anthropological account of Aboriginal societies prior to contact” in Chapter 4 because there was “no legitimate analysis of Aboriginal ways of life or world view and the author’s bias towards non-Aboriginal academics and ‘experts’ knowledge is revealed, with no reference to genuine traditional knowledge.” Baptiste felt Chapter 5 was better because it analysed the effects of colonization and identified Canada’s “systematic process of assimilation” to fit Aboriginal populations “into the emerging industrial society and market economy.” Chapter 6 saw “more welfare dependency theory” and Baptiste noted Helin’s inference that Aboriginal social pathologies resulted from a “lack of productive employment” that “undermined traditional role and status relationships.” Baptiste was particularly unhappy with Chapters 7, 8, and 9.
Discussion: Up to this point, Baptiste had not explained what he meant by “Aboriginal ways of life” or “world view.” Why did this undermine the argument he was trying to make against Helin’s position? What is a lay person to make of a reference to a “psychological theory of pleasure and reward” that would make a number of named individuals, presumably academics, cringe”? What did he mean? Why should we care? Baptiste’s review was not completely negative on Helin’s work. He agreed that developing working economies was impossible until the “existing governance and structural impediments” were recognized. He also agreed that existing Aboriginal governments were alarmingly modelled on the pattern of the federal bureaucracy. However, he decried Helin’s call for private sector business as a means of change, arguing that Helin did not clarify “how a corporate entity, concerned only with maximization of profit,” would be able to “restructure existing governance systems beyond accommodation payoffs.” In Baptiste’s view, Helin only wanted change “as a means to entice business not underlying structural transformations” that would bring direct benefits to Aboriginal people as a whole. Discussion: Baptiste had an interesting observation here. How does one transfer a corporate entity onto a reserve, without a change in the dysfunctional governance system that presently exists? According to Baptiste, Helin had not explained how this could be done. However, was Baptiste going too far when he suggested that Helin was not interested in changing those "dysfunctional" governance systems? See below. Baptiste said that Helin also failed to recognize “the historical parallels in consultation procedures, of Aboriginal and Canadian governments, ‘where meaningful consultation doesn’t exist.’” He elaborated on this point. Band Councils complain about the lack of consultation to which they are subjected by federal and provincial governments, but model that lack of consultation with their own people. “An additional tactic” band councils have learned “is the control of the media, where censorship and information is highly regulated by the band.” This being said, Baptiste agreed with much of what Helin had written on the subject.
Discussion: Baptiste argued that Helin failed to recognize “the historical parallels in consultation procedures, of Aboriginal and Canadian governments, ‘where meaningful consultation doesn’t exist.’” However, in the previous paragraph, he said that he agreed with Helin’s statement that “‘one of the most alarming results of being entirely focused on the federal government for such a long period of time is that Aboriginal people tend to mould their behaviour, activities and community institutions on the model of the federal bureaucracy.’” Baptiste wrote that current Aboriginal governments had a “tendency to mirror” the federal model, which would presumably include consultation procedures, too. How then could he claim that Helin had failed to see the “historical parallels in consultation procedures”, when Helin had already said that their behaviours were so similar to those of the federal bureaucracy? There is a lesson for the critical reader here. A careless reading of Baptiste’s lengthy text could easily have missed this contradiction. However, once recognised, it makes the reader wary. What is going on here? Was Baptiste merely nitpicking an argument with which he essentially found little to fault? Or was he muddled in his thinking? However, if you conclude that he was muddled, be careful. Sometimes people don’t express their argument clearly, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t got a valid point. You may just have to dig for it! Baptiste claimed that in Chapter 10 Helin called on “Aboriginal people to forget the past (yes, this really is his advice!) and in order to move forward, fundamental principles are outlined … Only part of one principle (out of eight) is worth mentioning here [No. 7], ‘aboriginal problems can never be solved by money alone … real success will be measured by the well-being, health and happiness of community members’”. Discussion: Was Helin really saying that Aboriginal people should forget the past? Readers of Baptiste’s review may simply accept this judgment and not check Helin’s text. Critical readers, on the other hand, are already wary and may want to see the evidence, which Baptiste did not provide. Even a cursory review of Helin’s Chapter 10 provides solid evidence that Helin was saying nothing of the kind. What he decried was prolonging grieving, however justified, over the loss of “cultures, languages, self-reliance, and the precious societies from which they emerged,” and the inertia of “grievance” thinking, which is focussed on the question, “Who are we going to blame for this mess?” Citing the Omaha tribal orator, Big Elk, who said, “What is passed, and cannot be prevented should not be grieved for,” Helin added that “there is nothing we can do about what has already happened.” Instead, he wanted the focus on “positive, forward-looking solutions to a new polity, a new economy, a fresh outlook, rather than being anchored entirely in rancorous injustices of the past (no matter how justified such views are).” On the basis of those quotations from Helin’s book, was Baptiste’s dismissive response justified? Baptiste felt only one part of one principle from eight Helin cited for moving forward was “worth mentioning.” That one part seems blandly obvious, something with which nobody could argue, so why was it privileged over the others? A review of the eight principles may explain why. Helin wrote that Indigenous people must “want to change the course of their history” and become totally committed to “constructive change.” They have to “take ownership for the welfare trap,” even though they did not cause it, because “no third party (such as the federal government)” can rectify it. Indigenous people must also face their “real condition, no matter how unflattering or brutal the conclusions.” This includes the acknowledgement that “most indigenous governments and individuals are almost completely dependent on welfare and transfer payments for their survival,” “this circumstance has lead to the welfare trap and a host of damaging social and political pathologies,” and “simply asking the government for more money without addressing the fundamental causal issues will never lead to a solution.” Why did Baptiste not respond to these other principles? Baptiste was on page 4 of a 9 page review by this time, and he continued for two more pages, sometimes endorsing, sometimes criticising Helin’s position. However, as the above analysis shows, the critical reader needs to read what Baptiste had to say, then weigh it in the balance with a careful reading of Helin’s book. On page 6, Baptiste attempted to outline his own position. He began with education. Citing “Doug [sic – should be Don] Sandberg” on the “limited education and business experience” of many Aboriginal leaders, Baptiste agreed that there was a problem. What education such Aboriginal leaders received came from “non-native business experts” or from “trial and error,” which could be “detrimental to Aboriginal communities.” Why? First of all, the validity of the advice is not questioned, because the Aboriginal leader lacks the formal education to do so. Secondly, the “experts are limited to only one Eurocentric mechanistic world view and theories, such as capitalism, individuality, and exponential growth, which have been instilled through a Western education system.” Thirdly, the leaders begin to think “Indigenous knowledge is backward and primitive and that progress can only be achieved through Western frameworks.” Discussion: This negative view of “Western frameworks” has been promoted at universities across North America since the 1960s, so it is not surprising that Baptiste has been influenced by that line of thinking. Indeed, it permeates the environmental movement, which has seconded aboriginal people to its cause as the keepers of Mother Earth. It is also behind the current hype about global warming. Helin offered suggestions for economic development on reserves that seem to have worked in some aboriginal communities. Baptiste stated that Indigenous knowledge provided the solutions, but he did not clearly explain what that meant in the first six pages of his critique of Helin’s book. Why would it have been helpful if Baptiste had defined “Indigenous knowledge” at the outset? Baptiste finally explained Indigenous knowledge on page 7 of his critique, as follows:
Discussion: After criticising Helin for seven pages on the grounds that he has caved in to “Western Frameworks,” why would Baptiste propose the incorporation of those frameworks into an Aboriginal educational system? If they are as bad as he suggested previously, why not abandon them altogether? Or is “the dual system” an acknowledgement that the contradiction between “Western Frameworks” and “Indigenous Knowledge” is overdrawn? Hasn’t the Jewish community been incorporating both within its educational system for generations? Finally, how are indigenous concepts of “collective interest, community involvement, etc.," different from the same concepts in Western frameworks? In his last paragraphs, Baptiste provided further insights as to why he rejected Helin’s proposals for economic development. In his view, Helin violated “Indigenous concepts of sustainability” by suggesting Aboriginal people should develop the “oil, gas, diamonds, base metals, valuable forests and flowing rivers” that can be found in their traditional lands. “Unfortunately,” in Baptiste’s view, “Helin isn’t mentioning the flowing water for spiritual or natural beauty, it is because he sees a potential for hydro electricity.” He also rejected Helin’s ideas regarding help for aboriginal people to make the transition from the reserve to the city on the grounds that “Aboriginal people require a holistic connection” to the land, as their “whole identity, language, governance and knowledge systems” have been “tied to the actual land they sustained for millennia.” Discussion: Baptiste sounds very much like the Aboriginal “Keeper of Mother Earth,” a stereotype developed by non-aboriginals who were looking for a “poster culture” as a device to critique modern industrial destruction of the environment. While care of the environment is laudable, why must economic development automatically mean its destruction? Helin recommended economic development that would help Aboriginal people become independent and self-sustaining. Why is it not possible to do that and be truly sustainable as well? The term “holistic” was bandied around for a number of years as an explanation for the poor academic performance of Aboriginal students in non-aboriginal schools. The claim was made that aboriginal people were “holistic” thinkers as opposed to “linear” thinkers, a proposition that went largely unchallenged by Aboriginal people at the time, even though similar claims by William Shockley about the difference in brain function between African Americans and non-African Americans caused outrage right across the continent from all sides. [See Wikipedia's biography of William Shockley for a summary of his ideas on race. For the racist implications of Shockley's theories, see White Civil Rights.] Baptiste used the term “holistic connection” to the land, as if it were inherent to Aboriginal culture, and by implication absent in non-aboriginal culture. What are the assumptions behind and dangers of such thinking? The above analysis of Baptiste’s review is meant to illustrate what critical readers must do with texts. The questions raised cast doubt on many of Baptiste’s assertions and encourage people to read Helin’s book and judge his position for themselves.
Last updated:
September 10, 2009
| |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
