Handing Down of Culture | Chapter 6 | Frits Pannekoek

Chapter 6 | Frits Pannekoek

(continued)

Say I lived in B.C., had done my genealogy complete, over 1 500 names, of which, 8 of the 127 of my ancestors going back 7 generations can be documented as being of native American ancestry, I had my DNA test done, stating both my genotypes are of North American origins, but I came from the east coast, wanted to join your Métis group, would I qualify? NO! ... According to the BC chapter of the MNC, we cannot meet your membership requirements, nor can we meet those of any other MNC affiliate, yet, it was our ancestors who created the first Métis child in Canada! It as our Native American grandmother who was the very first Métis mother in Canada, it is our grandmothers who must be crying in shame to see what her children must endure just to be allowed to come home. Shame! (Wiskipkpaqtism, 2001)

The degree to which these chat rooms are causing the formation of new identities, or placing “political” pressures to allow new identities to be recognized is as yet unclear. However, experience elsewhere indicates that one of the impacts of the web can be the creation of new virtual communities. The impact of the web in the Métis fight for a national “inclusive” identity, rather than an exclusive one controlled by Red River descendants will be worth watching. It might yet be that the 1982 Constitution recognized the Métis, but the web will make their nation a reality.

Aboriginal governments’ e-sites are probably doing the most to project and protect culture. At Ouje-Bougoumou, a Cree United Nations award winning community, science and computer camps were started in 1997 with considerable success.15 These “camp kids” developed their own web pages which reflected an incredible sense of local and international community.16 The sense of pride and ownership of these pages and the heritage they exhibited was palpable.

The museum, archives and library community which are largely controlled by EuroCanadians have been key to the creation of Canada’s understanding of Aboriginal culture. The new cyber or virtual museums that are springing up continue the perpetuation of Euro Canadian views. The situation is of course more complex than the previous statement suggests. Moira McLoughlin for example observes that museums are “borderlands: spaces of coexistence, negotiation, and transformation which do not assume given centres of power” (McLoughlin, 1993). Jane M. Jacobs’ work on Aboriginal tourist sites in Australia on the other hand argues that in this “borderland” both communities’ understanding of any particular heritage site is forever transformed (Townsend-Gault, 1998). The “myth” of negotiation, or the “myth” of appropriation are all being re-negotiated at the same time. A new understanding then does begin to emerge. As the dialogue continues a consensus may be articulated in which both histories and both pasts no longer exist.

But for the majority of Canadians whether Aboriginal or Euro-Canadian, often the museum appears to dictate, not to negotiate, the modern discourse which determines stereotypes. The new virtual museums tend to reinforce the past. That this “museum gaze” is further perpetuated through the internet can be seen through an examination of Canada’s senior museums: the Glenbow, the National Museum of Civilization, the National Museum of Art, the National Museum of Science and Technology, the National Museum of Nature, the Provincial Museum of Alberta, the British Columbia Provincial Museum, the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature, and the Virtual Museum of Canada.

Most Aboriginal sites indicate the value that native people give to environment and nature and particularly their lives in it. What is interesting is that the National Museum of Nature makes no reference to that inextricable connection.17 As far as Nature is concerned Aboriginal peoples do not exist. The Canadian Museum of Science and Technology is equally deficient. Any review of technologies tends to ignore Aboriginal interests other than the occasional tip-of-the-hat to the science of archaeology. The technologies of flint napping, of buffalo jumps, of fishing do not make it on the net version of the museum, although canoes do. From June 21, 2000 – Oct. 21, 2002 Technology is hosting an exhibit presented by “Canoe.ca.” The key “hook” “What do M. Atwood, P.E. Trudeau. P. Johnson and Grey Owl have in common”? The answer is not that except for Pauline Johnson, who is of mixed European Mohawk ancestry, all were Euro-Canadians. No “they were all avid canoeists.”

The exhibit “explores the history of the commercial canoe in Canada, and how the success of this enterprise has helped make the canoe a universally recognized symbol of Canada.” The implication is that the National Museum of Science and Technology is for “modern” progressive people, not Aboriginal peoples.18 This contrasts with the Royal British Columbia Museum whose technology site includes a research report by Shelley E. Reid, “The Beauty of Technology” on Aboriginal fishing techniques. The Virtual Museum of Canada’s exhibit on science and technology “Athena’s Heirs” also marginalizes Native wisdom by including it at the beginning of the exhibition in a linear fashion — rather finding relationships throughout the discourse. Here native peoples are again seen, albeit unintentionally, as “anti modern.”19

Chapter 6, continued >