The Whitewashing of Aboriginal

Identity with Michelle O'Bonsawin's

Appointment to the

Supreme Court of Canada

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: August 26, 2022

The Whitewashing of Aboriginal Identity in Canada

*This is going to be a touchy subject matter. If you're angry after reading the article, you're free to opine on social media. Just leave the death threats out.

*I've worked in Aboriginal communities in the Northwest Territories in the past.

*All request for comment recipients receive at least 72 hours of pre-publication notice.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced that Michelle O'Bonsawin will be the next judge on the Supreme Court of Canada. [1] Is she the first female judge on the high court in Canada? No, that honor belongs to Judge Bertha Wilson in 1982. So why is the CBC News, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, Aboriginal organizations and every liberal in Canada fawning over this woman? Because Michelle O'Bonsawin is Aboriginal, Indigenous or First Nation...at least supposedly. And I would bet money that many progressives are seeing what I'm seeing.

A White woman claiming to being Aboriginal, Indigenous or First Nation.

But they're not voicing their opinions out loud for fear of losing their jobs, being shamed on social media or being seen as insensitive. Many liberal institutions were assholes to Aboriginal people in the past and are desperate to make up for it. [2] [3] [4] [5] And that includes a lack of criticism.

With O'Bonsawin's appointment, liberal media outlets are claiming that Aboriginals can now be "represented on the highest rungs of the justice system." But if you look at any video of O'Bonsawin, you'll see that she looks like a regular White woman. If you passed her on the street today or a decade ago, you would classify her ethnicity (just from appearance) as White-European.

Look her up on YouTube and watch a few clips of her. There's even one eight years ago. [6] And she looks like a regular White woman.

I don't doubt the Prime Minister's office in claiming that O'Bonsawin is a member of the Odanak First Nation. According to the Government of Canada, Odanak is recognized as First Nation, Aboriginal or Indigenous. I took a look at their website and their elected officials and found that they have the same last name as her but with an "m" (Bom) instead of Bon.

Another thing I noticed when looking at the Odanak First Nation's elected leaders is that most of them would also pass for being White. I'm assuming that they all have Aboriginal, Indigenous or First Nation lineage. And yet...they still look White.

Are they to blame for looking like a White Western-European person instead of a visible minority? Of course not. But at the same time, you can't really call yourself a visible minority or say that you've experienced the racism that full-blooded Aboriginals (who look Aboriginal) have experienced. Oddly enough, I'm using racism as a qualification for Aboriginal identity. But this is true for all visible minorities.

Tell me, should a Black person who doesn't look Black claim that they're Black even if they haven't experienced the racism of being Black? What about the same for Indian or Asian?

In regards to Indian, if they were as dark as me, they'd probably commit suicide due to Bollywood's message that only light skin matters. [7] [8]

Yes, identity is a complex issue today (unlike the past with its simple checkmark boxes). And yes, many people feel a deep desire to cultivate an ethnic identity in order to move forward in life (I don't really care). And this generation is moving towards..."if you feel like ABC, then you should identify as ABC."

And while that's playing out through the lens of transgenderism, it would be very messy to apply it to race.

Aren't you a White man?
Yes, but I feel like a Black man.
Okay, then you should identify as a Black man and get the courts/govt to recognize that.

Throw in the transgender argument:

Aren't you a White man?
Yes, but I feel like a Black woman.
Okay, then you should identify as a Black woman and get the courts/govt to recognize that.

If you support transgenderism, you can't really be against people choosing their own race/ethnicity. At least not if you want your arguments to make sense. If gender is fluid and biology doesn't matter, there's no reason why race/ethnicity can't be fluid as well.

Of course, even mentioning the words "bloodlines" and "racism" leads to "race" and "race-mixing." All touchy subjects in Aboriginal communities that are bound to ruffle more than a few feathers. Just because someone's genetics are not being expressed on the surface (phenotype), doesn't mean that they're any less on the inside (genotype)...right?

Just to be clear, there's no such thing as First Nation genes or Black genes or White genes. Genes simply code for things passed down in your lineage. More so on your mother's side due to mitochondrial DNA inheritance. The facial characteristics common to a particular ethnic group is just coding. In a few decades or so (depending on the dominant ideology at the time), I'd say most people will be free to edit their genomes however they wish. I say a few decades even though we can do it now. It's just a question of the ethics, politics and the courts.

But the question of whether Michelle O'Bonsawin should identify as Aboriginal, Indigenous or First Nation is debatable depending on who you ask. In a request for comment, I ask a few people/organizations:

1) If a person looks White-European to the average person but is a member of a First Nation, do you believe that it's okay for them to identify as Aboriginal, First Nation or Indigenous (be it personally or for school or job applications)?

2) Do you believe that doing so takes away from the challenges that full-blooded Aboriginals (who look Aboriginal) face?

3) Do you believe that Michelle O'Bonsawin (the next Supreme Court of Canada Judge) "should" claim Aboriginal, First Nation or Indigenous identity?

Request for comment recipients:

Nick Boisvert (CBC journalist) - Doesn't respond.

Rhiannon Johnson (CBC journalist) - Doesn't respond.

Marie-Danielle Smith (Canadian Press) - Doesn't respond.

Mickey Djuric (Canadian Press) - Doesn't respond.

Geoff Leo (CBC investigative journalist) - Doesn't respond.

Jonathon Gatehouse (CBC investigative journalist) - Doesn't respond.

Jorge Barrera (CBC investigative journalist) - Doesn't respond.

Katie Swyers (CBC Investigative producer) - Doesn't respond.

Indigenous Screen Office - Doesn't respond.

Aboriginal People's Television Network - Doesn't respond.

I focused on CBC staff because they're more cognizant to Aboriginal issues and false claims of Aboriginal identity. [9] [10] [11] But as expected, none of the recipients responded. Why not? Because they're afraid. They have no incentive to answer questions on a touchy subject and risk their careers. The point of the request for comments was simply to get them talking about the issue, internally at first, and then out in the open...if they have the balls to do so.

I could have thrown in the question of whether they think that the 2003 and 2016 ruling in regards to Metis people being recognized as First Nation, Aboriginal or Indigenous was correct. But there are good arguments for and against. Metis people are Aboriginal people who were no longer considered Aboriginal because they had a European partner.

However, by having that European partner, the Aboriginal facial features have been diluted to the point of not having any Aboriginal facial features depending on how many generations have passed. Today, many Metis look like the average White person while claiming Aboriginal status.

I'm not saying that O'Bonsawin is making a false claim of Aboriginal identity. I'm saying that since she would pass for a White-European woman, it's unethical or in bad taste to identify as Aboriginal, First Nation or Indigenous. Why? Because she hasn't felt the racial discrimination that visible minorities and full-blooded Aboriginals (who look Aboriginal) face every day.

O'Bonsawin, like many Metis, would counter and say that they have faced racial discrimination. And that's probably true. But the discrimination that a Metis person (who looks White) experiences pales in comparison to a full blooded Aboriginal (who looks Aboriginal).

Of course, that claim is relative to one's perception of discrimination causing significant mental and emotional pain. There's no real point to argue which ethnic group has it the worst and to compare the different levels of discrimination for each group. Suffice it to say, Black and Aboriginal women (who look Black or Aboriginal) have it the worst.

In regards to my ethnicity, I'm mixed (Born in Canada. Black and Indian, but I look more Indian). Generally speaking, Guyanese people are a mix of Black, Indian, Portuguese or Chinese. I would say that I'm a quarter Black. My mother is half Black. My grandfather was completely Black (Barbados).

So...am I allowed to say that I'm part Black with my 25% level of Blackness? Will I get beat up by Black people for appropriating their culture? Will I get shamed by White progressives telling me to stay in my own lane? Am I not allowed to say the N word? How much Blackness is necessary to say the N word without consequences? 50%? 51%? What if the DNA tests show 50% Blackness but I don't look 50% Black?

It's a messy situation with no objective answers. All of the answers are highly subjective and relative to a particular time, place and the dominant ideology.

But just so we're clear, I don't believe in the cultural appropriation argument. Japan doesn't own karate. China doesn't own wing chun. Canada doesn't own hockey. India doesn't own yoga or meditation. America doesn't own any dance, sport or filmmaking process. Black people don't own rap or jazz. Indian people don't own curry. Italian people don't own pizza. Just because a group of people does something doesn't mean that they have exclusive ownership rights to it.

No one owns a particular culture, practice or tradition. People who aren't part of one culture don't need permission from others to use/do it. Liberal and progressive media outlets need to stop pretending that various ethnicities have perpetual copyright/patent protection on a cultural practice or ideology. No court of law believes that. Liberals and progressives are simply imposing their woke ideologies on others and then shaming those who don't fall into line.

Forgive me, I've digressed. Let's get back to the issue.

I believe that O'Bonsawin shouldn't call herself Aboriginal, First Nation or Indigenous. But that doesn't mean that she won't accomplish much as a Supreme Court judge. Her qualifications are impressive. The story is that she wanted to prove to her guidance counselor that she could make it as a lawyer/judge. Great. She's from Hanmer, Ontario? There isn't even a Wikipedia page on Hanmer. It's interesting because the First Nation she's registered with (Odanak First Nation) is in Quebec. But...whatever.

A small time rural girl rising to the highest position in Canada? Fabulous. I look forward to her taking some of the strain off the back of "real" Aboriginals in Canada.

But I would urge liberal Canadians and Aboriginal organizations to be cautious. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the rights of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs to supersede the rights of elected First Nation officials. [12] That means that bloodlines were more important than democracy in the minds of the Supreme Court of Canada. A good moment for the monarchy and Queen of Canada, but an incorrect ruling in my opinion. There's a love/hate relationship between Aboriginals in Canada and the Queen of Canada (UK Crown and her descendants).

I might as well throw in this question to liberals just to stump them. In an request for comment, I asked all of the above:

4) In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the rights of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs to supersede the rights of a democratically elected First Nation council. Do you believe that was the correct decision? Do you believe that bloodlines or traditions are more important than democratically elected officials?

This is a trick question. I don't actually believe in elected officials since I see it as a false democracy as opposed to a direct democracy. See Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Philosophy Reborn Part I.

Looking back at history, the first female Supreme Court judge in Canada, Judge Bertha Wilson, didn't really change anything. Her 4000 page report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, did little to change the laws/behavior of people towards Aboriginals in Canada. She even gave a speech titled "Will Women Judges Really Make a Difference?" in 1990.

If liberals today consider Meghan Markle and Michelle O'Bonsawin to be visible minorities, they've completely lost sight of who they're trying to help. But then again, maybe helping visible minorities was never a priority. Perhaps it was a side goal with influence and power being the real prize.

Liberal media outlets are praising O'Bonsawin as the first Indigenous judge on the Supreme Court of Canada. But all I see are rich White-controlled media outlets (Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Reuters and National Post) who love that another White person gets to be in charge. Even the New York Times recently endorsed a White millionaire instead of visible minorities for a congressional seat. [13] More evidence that White liberals really want White people to be in charge of visible minorities.

But you tell me...if a visible minority would pass for a White-European person (hence, they wouldn't experience the usual racism), do they have the right/privilege to claim that they're a visible minority? Does Michelle O'Bonsawin have the right to identify as Aboriginal, First Nation or Indigenous?

Maybe, maybe not.

But should she? In my opinion, no. But no one listens to conspiracy theorists. Especially not Guyanese-Canadian philosopher conspiracy theorists.

References:

[1] Boisvert, Nick. Michelle O'Bonsawin becomes 1st Indigenous person nominated to Supreme Court of Canada. CBC News. August 19, 2022.

[2] Lederman, Marsha. How three Canadian museums are reckoning with their past mishandlings of Indigenous history. Globe and Mail. February 4, 2022.

[3] David, Dan. Here's why media coverage of indigenous issues is so terrible, both in the U.S. and Canada. Salon. October 21, 2018.

[4] McCue, Duncan. What it takes for aboriginal people to make the news. CBC News. January 29, 2014.

[5] Houpt, Simon. CBC suspends online comments on indigenous stories. Globe and Mail. November 30, 2015.

[6] MICHELLE O'BONSAWIN, The Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Lexpert 2013 Rising Star. YouTube. Uploaded by: Lexpert, November 26, 2013.

[7] Abraham, Mary-Rose. The complicated ethics of being a dermatologist in a country where many people want whiter skin. Quartz India. September 8, 2017.

[8] Waheed, Alia. Glamour, glitz and artificially light skin: Bollywood stars in their own racism row. Guardian. June 28, 2020.

[9] Indigenous identity and the case of Joseph Boyden. CBC Radio. January 5, 2017.

[10] Barrera, Jorge. Michelle Latimer breaks silence, presents ancestry report following questions about Indigenous identity. CBC News. May 17, 2021.

[11] Leo, Geoff. Carrie Bourassa, who claimed to be Indigenous without evidence, has resigned from U of Sask. CBC News. June 1, 2022.

[12] Hernandez, Jon. 'We still have title': How a landmark B.C. court case set the stage for Wet'suwet'en protests. CBC News. February 13, 2020.

[13] Lanard, Noah. Dan Goldman Just Won His Primary Thanks to The New York Times and Self-Funding. Mother Jones. August 24, 2022.