What Sinclair doesn’t seem to recognize is that he is basically a walking, talking advertisement for how to solve what’s always been called Canada’s “Indian problem”. His parents got off the reserve, saw to it that their son got a good education and raised him in a stable home. He then worked his way up the ladder. That success formula works for Indians as well as it does for any other group. What doesn’t work is to remain uneducated, dependent and angry in a hopeless community, and pass that life on to your children.
Forgive my rudeness, but every time that I hear or read anything that Sinclair has to say I get the staggers and jags. Manufacturing victimhood is his specialty and abrogating responsibility his calling card. We had a number of Indian families live in our small community during the 1950's and those that stayed integrated completely with an accepting community. Some of their descendants are still there. Those that make the effort to leave the reserve, with the right incentives and dedication will find success. Good article Michael, thanks.
For more on the White Paper/Red Paper impasse, see Peter Best’s review of Wanda Wuttunee’s edited volume *Still Ruffling Feathers – Let Us Put Our Minds Together* (2025): https://thereisnodifference.ca/?page_id=2604
Peter is the reason why I even know "Ruffled Feathers" exists. I was able to find a copy in a library here. It is a shame that Canada didn't heed Wuttunee's advice.
He has but the non-indigenous audience have been 'allies.' He will not engage with anyone that is critical of the aboriginal industry or disputes the IRS as genocide narrative. He is not at all an academic in that respect if academics are people who welcome critical debate
Thanks for the article, Michael. You're dead right in your analysis. Sinclair’s words and body language suggest a great ennui with having to continually prop up the IRS narrative, when that tent is collapsing around him. The kind of people he’s engaging with (i.e., is willing to engage with) KNOW the tent is collapsing, too, but they walk on through and say “good job, Niigaan, keep up the good work.” He has to make believe that reconciliation is “progressing” (– it’s just that the pace is slow –) even while everyone else can see it's disintegrating since Kamloops (and because of everything since). He has to manufacture optimism because his livelihood and his personal importance depend on keeping the notion of reconciliation alive.
Thank you. What I notice often now is a phrase like 'this is true reconciliation.' Language like that tells me that doubt and cynicism has crept into the big R mission. If there is a discernment that something is true reconciliation, it means there is a recognition that false reconciliation has happened. Personally, I think the TRC planted the rot in Reconciliation when Papa Sinclair decided to call it a cultural genocide.
There was an almost immediate backlash from activists/academics to call the IRS out-and-out genocide. If it is truth before reconciliation, which was true: cultural or actual genocide, if either? I have yet to meet a Sinclair that respects the word, 'genocide.' The 215 hoax has pretty much buried any chance of Reconciliation short of Casimir finally admitting she was completely wrong or lying. Add the Cowichan and Musqueam deals and Reconciliation becomes a word that people preface with profanity.
What Sinclair doesn’t seem to recognize is that he is basically a walking, talking advertisement for how to solve what’s always been called Canada’s “Indian problem”. His parents got off the reserve, saw to it that their son got a good education and raised him in a stable home. He then worked his way up the ladder. That success formula works for Indians as well as it does for any other group. What doesn’t work is to remain uneducated, dependent and angry in a hopeless community, and pass that life on to your children.
Forgive my rudeness, but every time that I hear or read anything that Sinclair has to say I get the staggers and jags. Manufacturing victimhood is his specialty and abrogating responsibility his calling card. We had a number of Indian families live in our small community during the 1950's and those that stayed integrated completely with an accepting community. Some of their descendants are still there. Those that make the effort to leave the reserve, with the right incentives and dedication will find success. Good article Michael, thanks.
For more on the White Paper/Red Paper impasse, see Peter Best’s review of Wanda Wuttunee’s edited volume *Still Ruffling Feathers – Let Us Put Our Minds Together* (2025): https://thereisnodifference.ca/?page_id=2604
Peter is the reason why I even know "Ruffled Feathers" exists. I was able to find a copy in a library here. It is a shame that Canada didn't heed Wuttunee's advice.
I am always interested in who Sinclair has been talking to. Has he done some town meeting with non indiginous? I doubt it.
He has but the non-indigenous audience have been 'allies.' He will not engage with anyone that is critical of the aboriginal industry or disputes the IRS as genocide narrative. He is not at all an academic in that respect if academics are people who welcome critical debate
Thanks for the article, Michael. You're dead right in your analysis. Sinclair’s words and body language suggest a great ennui with having to continually prop up the IRS narrative, when that tent is collapsing around him. The kind of people he’s engaging with (i.e., is willing to engage with) KNOW the tent is collapsing, too, but they walk on through and say “good job, Niigaan, keep up the good work.” He has to make believe that reconciliation is “progressing” (– it’s just that the pace is slow –) even while everyone else can see it's disintegrating since Kamloops (and because of everything since). He has to manufacture optimism because his livelihood and his personal importance depend on keeping the notion of reconciliation alive.
Thank you. What I notice often now is a phrase like 'this is true reconciliation.' Language like that tells me that doubt and cynicism has crept into the big R mission. If there is a discernment that something is true reconciliation, it means there is a recognition that false reconciliation has happened. Personally, I think the TRC planted the rot in Reconciliation when Papa Sinclair decided to call it a cultural genocide.
There was an almost immediate backlash from activists/academics to call the IRS out-and-out genocide. If it is truth before reconciliation, which was true: cultural or actual genocide, if either? I have yet to meet a Sinclair that respects the word, 'genocide.' The 215 hoax has pretty much buried any chance of Reconciliation short of Casimir finally admitting she was completely wrong or lying. Add the Cowichan and Musqueam deals and Reconciliation becomes a word that people preface with profanity.