Settlers and other Canadians

Wild Stinkweed (sweet-smelling variety)

(Note: Please pardon the blotched formatting. BlogSpot did it to me and I don't know how to fix it!)

On its surface, the application of the word, settlers, to distinguish non-indigenous populations from indigenous is probably a question of simple, arbitrary choice. We non-indigenous could call ourselves crackers or neo-americans and have the same conversations we’re having now. Somewhere, lists exist that could be headed “indigenous persons,” and anyone not eligible to be on those lists needs to be called something if we’re to talk about the politics of indigenous/non-indigenous relations in Canada. “Canadian” vs Indigenous doesn’t work since the indigenous are also Canadians. Indian vs white fails for obvious reasons.

Perhaps we could argue with Juliet that the applied words are simply placeholders, really, and that whatever name is applied to a person changes nothing in the character or the substance of that person:

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other word would smell as sweet.” Romeo & Juliet, (II, 2)

I get that point, but any student of linguistics will acknowledge that words have both denotations (objective meanings) and connotations (subjective or suggested meanings.) If the person who first assigned rose to the flower had decided to call it stinkweed, well . . . you get my drift.

The German word for indigenous person is Ureinwohner, a compound word directly translated as “original resident.” Ansiedler, is an “in-settler,” or “immigrant.” I suspect that the distinctions in every language suffer from the clinging connotations, not denotations of words being used.

Objection to being called settlers is being raised by persons who may well be third, fourth or even tenth-generation citizens of Canada. I work in a museum; used in that context, the word settlers has always referred to pioneering immigrants. The question seems to rise logically: how can the word settler not connote a not-yet-citizen, an immigrant? How can it not connote a questionable claim to first-class citizenship?

I have two warnings: First, let’s not push the use of the word settler to the point where it becomes the fulcrum around which our conversation turns. Shakespeare’s point made through Juliet is an education in human rights all by itself. Persons are not defined by the name by which we call them. And secondly, let’s be aware that when we quarrel over whether or not the use of a word is appropriate or not, such strife can constitute little more than a handy excuse to avoid dealing with the real subject.

And the real subject is this: In Canada today, there are pockets of population living in poverty, often under abject, hopeless conditions. Their problems are clearly endemic to remnants of colonization that persist in our time. One category of Canadians is benefiting from colonialism while another category has been plundered by it. We can choose either to ignore the inequity of opportunity or join in the grand project for equal status, opportunity and human rights for everyone.

I’m no settler by the museum definition of the word. I am a settler, however in the sense that Canada’s welcoming of my grandparents expanded the options for them and their descendants (me included) by limiting the options for the Ureinwohner, the aborigines whose tenure in this place went back ages and ages.

Call me whatever you like, except late for dinner!