Angry in the Great White North

Dick Pound got into trouble for speaking disparagingly of a society that is not European in origin:

VANOC board member Dick Pound has apologized for remarks that some interpreted as meaning First Nations people were "savages" 400 years ago. The comments, given to a newspaper earlier this year, sparked a public outcry.

"I apologize for any unintentional harm that was caused, absolutely," he said. "That was not my intention in any way, shape or form."

Pound, former head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, made his remarks while defending the decision to hold the 2008 Olympics in China, despite the country's questionable human rights record.

He said: "We must not forget that 400 years ago, Canada was a land of savages, with scarcely 10,000 inhabitants of European descent, while in China, we're talking about a 5,000-year-old civilization."

Margaret Wente pointed out that there is an underlying truth to what Dick Pound said:

Mr. Pound's choice of words was inflammatory, to say the least. But what about the underlying thought? Is it fair to say that the Canada of 1600 was not as “civilized” as China?

Yes, says Frances Widdowson, who, along with Albert Howard, is the author of an impressive new book on aboriginal policy and culture. Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (to be published next month) knocks the stuffing out of the prevailing mythology that surrounds the history of first peoples. That mythology holds that aboriginal culture was equal or superior to European culture. At the time of contact, North America was occupied by a race of gentle pastoralists with their own science, their own medicine and their own oral history that was every bit as rich as Europe's.

The truth is different. North American native peoples had a neolithic culture based on subsistence living and small kinship groups. They had not developed broader laws or institutions, a written language, evidence-based science, mathematics or advanced technologies. The kinship groups in which they lived were very small, simply organized and not very productive. Other kinship groups were regarded as enemies, and the homicide rate was probably rather high. Until about 30 years ago, the anthropological term for this developmental stage was “savagery.”

Margaret Wente got into trouble for not immediately calling for Dick Pound to be savaged for what he said:

Margaret Wente should not be allowed to keep her position at the Globe and Mail, publishing such virulent lies, while Mr. Pound should resign his Olympic Committee position and McGill Chancellorship. The newspaper should distance itself from her remarks and work instead to build understanding of different cultures.

So of course, Margaret Wente has become a lightning rod, attracting people who make it their business to adopt any cause if it means (1) scoring points with liberals and radicals who hate the West and (2) getting in the news.  It happened at a conference concerning freedom of the press:

Ms. Wente said journalists might not speak or write freely because of a concern with human rights tribunal complaints.

"People in the real world are intimidated by the threat of prosecution and investigation," she said. "You can’t enjoy free speech or the government is going to come after you for perfectly legitimate activity."

Before Ms. Wente spoke, an audience member, Asaf Rashid, loudly called her a racist before leaving the room.

Asaf Rashid has no particular interest in the media's right to offend, the subject of the symposium.  He just likes to protest stuff:

York graduate Asaf Rashid (MES ‘03) is a man in search of justice. The 30-year-old Fredericton resident, whose allegation of racism against the Fredericton Police Force last month sparked an external investigation, said he wants a society that treats everyone fairly. "That's what it is about for me," Rashid said in an interview with The Daily Gleaner (Fredericton) June 13. "Whether it is through the courtroom or through getting public attention on issues, I think there's a lot of tools out there. "It's ensuring that those people whose voices are marginalized, who are poor and have other (things) against them, that they somehow are given a voice."

Rashid was one of four people taken into custody and ticketed May 27 after police cracked down on a group of 20-plus marchers who had made their way from Queens Square to City Hall. He said he believes the fact he is of Pakistani descent played a role in his arrest. A few days later, Fredericton police Chief Barry MacKnight announced that allegations of racism against his department would be investigated by police from Saint John and by another outside agency.

Rashid said it is unfair to categorize him as a professional protester, as some people have done since last month's incident. He said the idea that he protests for a living is untrue and is not the way he wants to be described. "I only stand up for what I believe in." Rashid said he wants society to be sustainable – one that features strong local economies and one where people are in control of what happens.

Strong local economies.  Sounds great.  And Margaret Wente's column on Dick Pound influences the strength of a local economy how?

Right.

Here's what Asif Rashid wrote about the incident:

My mind was made up that I could not let her go on without interjecting a preamble to add some more substance to the controversy over her now infamous article, "What Dick Pound said was really dumb -- and also true" (Oct. 24, 2008). I was not going to wait for the question period to give her racist views an air of legitimacy.

I loudly informed everyone that I was concerned about Margaret Wente speaking without first providing some more context about the justification that people had for calling on the Globe and Mail to fire her.

The audience needed to be made aware that her article contained information that is completely false, upon which she based her justification for assimilation of native peoples' i.e. cultural genocide. Particularly, I was referring to her comments: "Claims about aboriginal contributions to civilization are also vastly overstated. Did the Iroquois Confederacy really influence the Declaration of Independence? Sorry, no. Do native medicinal herbs play an important role in modern drugs? No."

I explained to the audience that if they were to read Ronald Wright's "Stolen Continents" (1992), they would be informed that writers of the U.S. Constitution / Declaration of Independence were in fact heavily influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy. Both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin made comments to this effect. Benjamin Franklin was so impressed by the Iroquois Confederacy that he championed it as a model to unite the new colonies and urged that each colony become a state with control over internal affairs and with a federal council responsible for external matters. This became the basis of the Articles of Confederation. "Stolen Continents" contains quotes from Benjamin Franklin detailing the very direct influence. For the record, Wright's book also has comments from a native elder explaining that although the U.S Constitution was influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy, originally, U.S. Administrators didn't exactly get the basic ideas right along the way, to say the least.

As for Wente's denial that native medicines had any effect on the development of modern medicines, she completely whitewashes an entire history of native peoples providing medical care to Europeans. Who was it that actually cured Europeans of scurvy again? I emphatically stated this point. The historical note is well known, but she is still attempting to (white) paint the picture that the "modern world" arose without any help from native peoples along the way.

Wow.  They really let him go on, didn't they.  Talking on and on, quoting from Stolen Continents and so on and so forth.  Except that this is what he wanted to say.   Here's what he actually said:

Actually, I barely got to say most of what I refer to above. I scarcely mentioned the word "Iroquois" before some people began booing. This kept going on for the few minutes that I was talking. When I started speaking about the Wente's Islam bashing, many people started clapping as one or more people told me to shut up. I commented that it was an interesting reaction from a room that was almost entirely white (Over 150 people in attendance and no more than five people of colour, including myself).

So the audience was racist too.  Probably a bunch of white supremacists.  Margaret Wente should feel right at home, according to Asif Rashad:

I didn't have the chance to let people know that Wente is actually a champion for white supremicists because she writes what they want to hear.

That's a harsh thing to say.  What is the proof?

Do a search for "Margaret Wente" and "white pride" and see what you find.

See what you find?  Here's what you find:

• Top ranked hit on Google is Asif Rashad's Facebook post I've quoted above.  That is funny on so many levels.
• Then there are blog posts and blog comments in which Margaret Wente's article about the slippery slope of child welfare officials removing the children of white supremacists from their home is quoted.
• And then several references to an editorial by Wente's colleague at the National Post, Jonathan Kay, in which Wente's name came up during his attendance at an anti-racism conference (in which Kay was labeled a white supremacist).
• And then more blogs in which Margaret Wente is called a white supremacist by friends of Asif Rashad.

This is proof that Margaret Wente is a champion for white supremacists?  When you follow Asif Rashad's instructions to Google "Margaret Wente" and "white pride", you get a bunch of hits from Asif Rashad and his buddies calling Margaret Wente a champion for white supremacists.

I'm not sure what Asif Rashad was trying to prove with that point.  Perhaps search engines are the new "they".   You know what I mean.  Before the Internet, we'd say "They say Margarent Wente is a white supremacist" without actually saying who "they" are.  Now we Google the terms on interest.  The occurrence of hits is proof that "they" are right.

Asif Rashad is a card-carrying member of the chronically offended, who justifies his slander by quoting himself.  Absurd.