In search of my 'Siberian' roots

Page 6

Commentary

I am looking for my long lost cousin on the Mongolian plains. I know he's out there, even though we may be separated by 10,000 to 40,000 years of history. I'm sure we have a lot in common, aside from a prehistoric ancestor.

Once we overcome our cultural and language barriers, we can look over the family tree and wonder what happened to old Auntie Whats-her-name, who crossed the Bering Strait all those years ago.

Was it a family dispute that drove her so far east? Was it a pioneering spirit that lured her over that ice bridge? Was she chasing a woolly mammoth and just got lost?

Maybe my cousin will be able to tell me. Then again, he'll probably be as stumped as I am. But once I find my long, lost cousin, I'll finally know where I come from. I'll be back on the old sod of Siberia, soaking up my cultural heritage, looking longingly at the land, and wondering why my old Auntie left in the first place.

If you think I'm joking, then please see a column written in the Dec. 4 issue of the Globe and Mail. It's on page A25, and written by Tom Flanagan, who is described as a professor of political science at the University of Calgary and a former director of research for the Reform Party. His column was about self government, taxation and political responsibility on reserves.

It's really a rehashing of the taxpayer propaganda that insists on-reserve Indians are welfare cheats. Of course, he's full of righteous indignation when he's being "cheated." But that same righteous wind doesn't blow for the historical wrongs committed against Indians.

But I digress. My "search" for a Siberian relative is inspired by a little comment that probably seemed insignificant to him, but has some important implications. Flanagan wonders if we are First Nations or First immigrants - Siberian-Canadians, as it were.

First immigrants, huh?

The theory that, 10,000 years ago, Aboriginal people originated from Siberia has been commonly accepted by the scientific community. It doesn't really bother me to "know" that maybe Aboriginal people descended from Siberian ancestors. But recent archeological discoveries have pushed back the date of the great migration.

Even if I accept the 10,000 year mark, it makes me wonder just how long a people have to live somewhere to be considered Aboriginal?

Flanagan's trite comment is intended to deny our status as Aboriginal people. To consider us "immigrants" means we're no different than someone whose family came here 10, 50 or 100 years ago. But there's an incredible difference: we came to this land when there was no country here.

Aboriginal people have always been treated differently than other Canadians. But now that those differences are supposedly in our favor, people like Flanagan are suddenly egalitarian.

Another disturbing comment in his column is that living under the tutelage of Indian Affairs "was historically necessary to allow Indians to survive, but is now obsolete."

Interesting that he would phrase it that way. For one thing, the Department of Indian Affairs was not asked for by the Indians, but imposed upon them.

The Indian Act was not a guardianship, but a means to control and confine Indians. If the treaties had simply been honored from the beginning, then who knows how the Canada-First Nations relationship would have evolved.

If Indians had become welfare dependent after that, then Flanagan could question our desire for self government, but all we've known is government interference through unilateral changes to the Indian Act, and the day-to-day control of reserve life through the Department of Indian Affairs.

If my ancestral Auntie could've seen this, maybe she would've stayed in Siberia.