From a guy named Hymie Rubenstein, what would we expect? If the ‘Rubenstein’ isn’t a dead giveaway, surely the ‘Hymie’ is the clincher. An accountant, probably, but certainly a nebbish, right?
Well, apparently not. As it happens Hymie Rubenstein is a retired professor of cultural anthropology from the University of Manitoba. And – if I’m allowed an editorial moment – an intellectual giant, second only to that equally obscure professor of philosophy at that other Canadian university two Provinces to the west.
To my shame, I have only recently discovered Hymie. But to my delight, he seems to belong to that growing cadre of – in every other wise left-leaning – Jewish intellectuals who find themselves liberated – in his case by retirement, in mine by tenure – to blow the whistle on what counts as progressivism in the academy, but is really just invertebrate and unthinking virtue-signaling.
I say we’re in every other wise left-leaning because, being Jewish, we’re not stupid. I’m even compelled to count Ben Shapiro among us, since his libertarianism, though philosophically juvenile, is as incompatible with conservatism as a stance can get.
So much for throat-clearing. Now to the particular:
Among Rubenstein’s beefs, as among mine, is the myth of indigenous exceptionalism. In our view indigenous Canadians, whether as persons or as a people, are – now whodathunkit? – as morally ‘variegated’ as the rest of us.
Question: They don’t pretend otherwise, so why do we?
Answer: Because we don’t give a shit about the burden of sainthood we might impose on others to service our need to virtue-signal.
For what little it’s worth, my own contribution to (what is clearly) Hymie’s and my racist agenda, is to observe that this exceptionalism does a crippling disservice – whether as persons or as a people – to indigenous Canadians. Exceptionalism doesn’t honour, it infantilizes. The 19th Century term for this being-mere-children was ‘nonage’. And what does John Stuart Mill say about nonage? That it’s a disqualifier for the liberties the rest of us (European adults) are entitled to.
The concept of reconciliation implies that there are two distinct peoples to be reconciled. But there aren’t, any more than there are Celts and Normans. There are only 21st Century Brits. And there are only 21st Century Canadians. Brits and Canadians and Italians and Poles all want the same thing. They want flush toilets and smartphones. Which, come to think of it, is precisely what all my indigenous students want.
In fact I offer the following as almost a tautology: A culture that no one wants anymore – a culture without flush toilets and smartphones – is not a culture worth preserving. Gosh, might that explain why it hasn’t been preserved?!
And the proof that there never was anything exceptional about the indigenous people of this continent is that five hundred years ago for our heresy, Hymie’s and mine, we’d have been burned at the stake as readily in Spain.
A couple of years back we were all outraged by the beheadings carried out by ISIS, notwithstanding that the French didn’t retire the guillotine until 1977. Either no one gets a moral pass or we all do. Indigenous people are people. The real racists are those who suppose otherwise.
Categories: Everything You Wanted to Know About What's Going On in the World But Were Afraid to Ask, Social and Political Philosophy
Paulosophical Vimplications 
The concept of reconciliation with First Nations reminds me of when my daughter was four years old and we were driving from Toronto to Montreal to visit my parents. This is a 5 hour drive. After about 30 minutes she asked “Daddy, are we nearly there yet?”. The same question arises with reconciliation: are we there yet? If not yet, how will we know when we are there?
Canada has some 600 First Nations. Do all of them, or any particular number of them have to announce that they feel reconciled with everyone else Canada? Why should any First Nation ever say that they are reconciled? There are strong economic incentives for any First Nation to refuse to say they are reconciled because then federal support may be diminished, along with media and public sympathy for the past. There are no benefits to saying they are reconciled.
LikeLike
First time reader, recent discoverer of Hymie Rubenstein. My conversations tell me that many Canadians are trying to wrap their minds around reconciliation with First Nations and what it means in the day to day. Typically, silence masks a tension felt equaling a loss for words in a world where any words used from ignorance or innocence are likely to provoke a heated retort.
Is it really as simple as “A culture that no one wants anymore – a culture without flush toilets and smartphones – is not a culture worth preserving.”?
In recent history was it not the ‘truth and reconciliation’ efforts emerging from the dismantling of the apartheid regime in South Africa that introduced us to the methods and language in use today? And how did that work out?
And exceptionalism – I think I understand the complaint in how it’s being used in reference to any identified disadvantaged group – but what I’m not hearing (yet) clearly is how to address the real problems that in fact contribute to the disadvantages. In reading Rubenstein I appreciate his emphasis on learning, or informing oneself of the facts. His references to the history of the lands known as Israel are good examples. ’I didn’t know all of that – now I know differently’.
What is culture worth preserving? Apart from those either exterminated (mentioned elsewhere) and those that are actively being prosecuted to extinction it seems that cultures can survive where they are practised and safeguarded, nourished or at least tolerated. Oh, and in the case of say Chinese or Indian culture(s) it probably doesn’t hurt to have a decent chunk of real estate, a nuclear arsenal and a billion or so people to back it up. Tibetans and Uyghurs not so lucky.
Throughout my life, as a fifth generation settler Canadian, this country has been trying to discover and define what it means to be Canadian. In this endeavour – the transition from colonial to post-colonial, Canada has taken various paths, good and bad, but generally is headed in a direction that embraces many cultures and by doing so that movement, in itself, provides a definition of Canadian culture. I think it’s possible to tolerate a number of mistaken, even delusional narratives, as long a we followup and pursue what is true and reveal what is false about those narratives. Both Rubenstein and you seem committed to doing just that and it’s appreciated. It’s a challenge to say what needs to be said and not get knackered in the process.
Columbus’ report to Queen Isabella’s court that the ‘discovered’ indigenous peoples might make good slaves could be interpreted as a useful bargaining chip for the funding of further adventures in the absence of gold, silk and spices as originally promised. The exuberance shown by later voyagers that led to the extermination of Inca and Aztec civilizations was perhaps understood to be collateral damage since cultural preservation was likely not high on the list of priorities for the invaders. And then when the locals died off during colonial expansion economies hit on the idea of capturing, transporting and enslaving Africans to bolster production. Once a culture is completely gone it’s a little late to debate the worthiness of preserving it.
More on this? I suppose so.
LikeLike
I’m no historian, but I’m told it took about 400 years before no one in England could remember whether she was among the Norman conquerors or the Saxon conquered. It’s only been about 150 years since the European ‘conquest’ of western Canada. So I suspect it’ll take another ten generations before the same, ceteris paribus, happens here. Of course apartheid slows the process down. But never in perpetuity. So maybe all we can do is be patient.
LikeLike