No recognition in Canada of pre-Columbian history

Page 9

In the August 1980 issue of National Geographic there is an article entitled "Man's 80 Centuries in Veracruz." The article says archeological evidence such as broken tools around campsites and fire pits dates from 5600 BC. It is significant that 75 of these centuries are pre-Columbian.

Could this story have been titled Eighty Centuries of Man in Vancouver or Regina?

This story could only have been written about Mexico - and not Canada - because Mexico acknowledges its pre-Columbian history and calls it that. Mexico does not call the time before Columbus' landfall pre-history. As a result, Mexico has history like Spain and Europe have history; there is no history/pre-history division.

In Mexico it is clearly stated, history did not begin with Columbus. Spanish and Indian histories have merged into Mexican history. According to the Mexican government, and Mexicans agree, their country is thousands of years old. The country advertises for tourists with the slogan "Thirty Centuries of Splendor," which means there is no sharp break before and after Columbus - there is continuity here.

That's in stark contrast to Canada where the government declares, and it is generally agreed, that Canada is 132 years old dating from Confederation in 1867. This is why the National Geographic Society could not do a similar article on a Canadian city because Canada is seen as a young country. History is given a starting point here and not there, and there it is long and here it is short.

A federal department of Indian Affairs spokesman said that while history is longer in the east because western provinces joined Confederation later, Canada has different policies than Mexico. The official said Indian oral history is now being accepted in the courts and there is change occurring as a result of the Delgamuukw decision.

But First Nation leaders would say that change is happening at an unacceptably slow rate.

Why did the Spanish colonizers - who, of course are Europeans - acknowledge the New World's earlier centuries of historic settlement by First Nations peoples, while further north, the English in Canada - who are also Europeans - did not?

Mexico accommodates its pre-Columbian history, despite the repression in Chiapas province where the Mexican government has used the army to wipe out villages in operations against them as it has done to other Natives in other instances within its borders. The Mexican government unfortunately uses harsh methods at times but Indians are not denied their place in the history of Mexico.

What does this say about Canada?

Sometimes a hint of the age of Indian culture emerges in the mainstream media in this country. In The Globe and Mail an item on June 4, 1998, under the headline, 'Ancient cultures' where Tourism Saskatchewan advertised, "Saskatchewan is a young province whose roots go way back - echoes of history are everywhere. You thought King Tut's tomb was ancient? Visit a place twice as old: Wanuskewin, a park near Saskatoon which sensitively interprets 6,000 years of Indian heritage and culture."

It seems difficult to understand why only one part of Saskatchewan is 6,000 years old and the rest of the province and country is not.

Canada is a young country in the "'New' World," yet Mexico is old and so are First Nations within Canada. There are questions here that need to be looked at to reconcile some apparent contradictions.