COGGINS: DEI and DRIPA are dividing society, not uniting it

James R. Coggins (www.coggins.ca) is an historian, writer, and editor based in Chilliwack, BC.Left-wing political parties in Canada (the Liberals and the NDP) are enamoured with acronyms. These acronyms underlie their entire social philosophy. Aside from the ever-evolving “LGBTQ++.” Here are two classic examples.Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has been described as a framework designed to ensure fair treatment, full participation, and equal opportunities for all people, particularly historically marginalized groups.The foundational principle of this is “diversity.” DEI assumes that people are divided into clearly defined groups, or silos, which are distinct and separate from one another. People are indigenous, white, Black, people of colour, etc. The “equity” principle means that some of these groups are disadvantaged or have been treated unjustly in the past or present, and therefore need government intervention to provide them with “inclusion” — justice, reparations, and extra assistance.The problem with this approach is the assumption that all people can be easily slotted into one of these categories. The fact is that no one actually has white skin or black skin, although some might come close. In Canada today, most people are some shade of brown. Who exactly are the “people of colour?” Are Filipinos people of colour? Are Italians people of colour? Are Jews people of colour? Are the Irish people of colour? Are Chinese people people of colour? Are all people, people of colour except Caucasians, that is, those of European descent, except not all people of European descent, because some of them are brown-skinned? In that case, how are people of colour a disadvantaged minority? They are the vast majority. I am aware that “white” people discriminated against “coloureds” in the past and some continue to do so today. (Some, not all. Certainly, the Caucasians who are the dominant leaders in the Liberal and NDP parties could not be guilty of this.) Such discrimination was unjust and also ill-informed back then, just as racism and discrimination are today. The fact is that racism is not solely the sin of Caucasians. It has been present in all societies in the past and present..The science of DNA (another acronym) should give us pause. Many people today have had their DNA profiled in order to determine their ancestry. Of the many millions who have done this, I have never heard of anyone being determined to be 100% anything. Most are an amalgam of multiple ethnicities, with few being even a majority of one thing. So, how then can we be divided into white, black, indigenous, and coloured camps? It is nonsense.I am one of the most “white” Canadians, being pure English on both sides of my family. This means that I likely have a pure Pict/Roman/Angle/Saxon/Jute/Viking/Norman heritage.The problem with DEI is that it divides people into rival ethnic groups and pits them against one another. It thus perpetuates the racism DEI purports to eliminate. Rather than achieve harmony and reconciliation, it inculcates a sense of grievance among some groups and discriminates against other groups, creating more grievances..Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIPA)A prime example of DEI is the idea that white people colonized North America and stole the land from the original indigenous inhabitants. Europeans (and others) indeed came to North America, but they did not always or even primarily attack the indigenous peoples. They traded with them, worked with them, and intermarried with them. Furthermore, the “original” indigenous peoples were not necessarily the original owners of the land. Indigenous people groups stole land from each other and are still arguing about which group has rights to which lands. Throughout history, invasion and immigration have been common in all eras and in all places, with varying levels of injustice.DRIPA was passed by the United Nations to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. This was made law in at least part of Canada when the British Columbia legislature passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in 2019. (Although it technically only applies to British Columbia, judges in other parts of the country have taken note of it.) There are two primary problems with this legislation. First, it did not define what indigenous people had a right to. Since few treaties were signed with indigenous people in British Columbia and since the indigenous claim that they were the original inhabitants of the whole land (even if they did not occupy large parts of it), indigenous people claim that they own virtually all of the land in the province. This would give them veto power over all construction, pipeline, mining, forestry, and industrial projects and entitle them to compensation for any land they do not occupy.The other problem is defining who is indigenous. This is not as simple as it seems because of intermarriage between indigenous and non-indigenous people. The arbitrary nature of the “silos” is illustrated by the convoluted system for determining who qualifies to have indigenous “status” under the Indian Act. Technically, you are eligible to be granted status if any of your parents or grandparents had status or were eligible to have status. Stated another way, a family line can lose status if two consecutive generations of parents have children with non-status individuals. That is, you can be granted status as an indigenous person if you are as little as a quarter indigenous. However, since the records on intermarrying in previous centuries are spotty, the percentage could be even less. On the other hand, since individuals must apply to have status, a person could be more than a quarter indigenous and not have status if that person or his/her ancestors did not make the application. To further complicate the matter, some First Nations manage their own membership lists using different rules than the Indian Act status.Not only is it difficult to define who is indigenous, but it is also problematic to define who the “colonizers" are who “stole” the land. Here are some examples..A man is one-quarter indigenous and has indigenous status. Another man is one-quarter indigenous and, for whatever reason, does not have status. Under the current NDP/Liberal policy, the second man must participate (through taxes) in paying compensation to the first man for invading and stealing his land.Consider another man who is half-indigenous. Do we consider that his non-indigenous half owes compensation to his indigenous half for stealing his land?Consider another man, a Filipino-Canadian, who immigrated to Canada five years ago and has been granted Canadian citizenship. As he is now part of mainstream society, he is required to participate (through his taxes) in paying compensation to indigenous peoples for land that was “stolen” by Europeans two to four centuries ago. Furthermore, should he be required to pay compensation to Canadians for coming here and stealing our land? How is he different from an Englishman who also immigrated to Canada five years ago and gained Canadian citizenship? How is he different from an Englishman who immigrated here a century ago or an Englishman who immigrated here two or three centuries ago? It might be argued that the Filipino man came legally by complying with Canadian immigration laws. But the same argument could be made for the Englishman. And Native groups imply that the Canadian government is illegitimate since it governs territory it has no right to, and so its immigration laws are illegitimate.Carrying the argument further, should modern indigenous people be held responsible for the injustices some of their ancestors perpetrated on some non-indigenous people? Crime and injustice are not limited to “white” people. All individuals and all people groups have been racist and unjust on occasion. What are the reasonable limits on collective guilt and responsibility?I recognize that injustices were perpetrated against indigenous people in the past, and that indigenous people have rights enshrined in the Canadian constitution and law. But many of those perpetrators are long dead. For how long and to what extent can their descendants be held responsible for historic injustices?You can’t unscramble history, and attempts to right historic wrongs often inflict injustices on current citizens. Too often, the call for “truth and reconciliation” turns into a push for “half-truths and revenge.” You cannot achieve unity and reconciliation by dividing people into groups which compete against each other.James R. Coggins (www.coggins.ca) is an historian, writer, and editor based in Chilliwack, BC.

COGGINS: DEI and DRIPA are dividing society, not uniting it

Related Stories

GROUP HUG: Poilievre says rest of Canada needs to embrace Alberta

Dinning, Toews launch new federalist group to fight independence

Ottawa cuts funding to activist group accused of anti-Catholic bias

Canadian Heritage moves to claw back $99,500 Palestinian grant over social media posts