Frye Writes: Indigenous people – as a distinct people, is never brought to light. In 1924, in his role as the most powerful bureaucrat in the department of Indian Affairs, Scott wrote:

The policy of the Dominion has always been to protect Indians, to guard their identity as a race and at the same time to apply methods, which will destroy that identity and lead eventually to their disappearance as a separate division of the population

For this blog assignment, I would like you to explain why it is that Scott’s highly active role in the purposeful destruction of Indigenous people’s culture is not relevant for Frye in his observations above?

*************************************************************************************************

There are a few reasons that Scott is not relevant to Frye’s observations. The most prominent I would say, is Frye’s focus on distinct people. He thinks there is a difference between unity and identity. Frye tells us that unity is something national and identity is local. The idea here is that these two are not the same and cannot be treated as such. With identity comes perspective, something that is subjective. In The Bush Gardens Frye explains how we often think that our Canadian perspective is unique to us – this is an ignorant thought (236). In reality, most of perspective is one that aligns with North America or even the West as a whole. Scott’s, on the other hand, from what I can understand speaks about methods being implemented on a national scale – this would lean more towards unity. With that in mind, I do not think that Frye is disregarding the issues discusses, but rather focusing on a different area.

Later on in the book Frye explains the “white civility” and how it is definitive of Canadian identity. He goes on to describe how its use illustrates nations of diverse people are represented in both the past and the future as if they are a natural community.  Again, looking at perspective, some may view this as a positive outcome. White Civility is a term that I have never heard before and it intrigued me, so I did some further research on it. Coleman (22) white civility observes that these claims for comparative civility are particularly shrill in Canada; Canadians, conscious of being citizens of a “younger” nation than their competitors, make up for feeling belated in the race between nations for recognition as the most progressive civilization by insisting, more forcefully than others, on the signs of our own civility. With a greater understanding of this term – I gained a greater understanding of the difference in Scott and Frye. Scott refers more to the carrying out of acts like white civility, while Frye discusses, again – perspective and how Aboriginal people should be viewed and treated, not so much the actual treatment.

In addition, Frye discusses national consciousness (identity and unity). I know when he discusses it, it is in reference to Aboriginal people, however it is a topic that I think the entire country is struggling with. I bring ti up because unity is a national concern, and so is consciousness, so in some ways it is relevant to Frye’s theories. As mentioned above, Scott discusses disbanding and carrying out physical actions, Frye discusses more theories and observations. National consciousness is something that has been on Canada’s radar for a while now, as a country we struggle with this. Our ignorance about people in our country who do not fit in our ‘box’ is embarrassing. It took a national state of emergency to get any decent media attention on current crisis’s with our Aboriginal people (The Guardian, 5). There is no better, current example of lack of unity in our country.

Looking at my classmates blogs as well as the Professors, I can see that I have gathered different information than others. I think this is the perfect example of perspective. Everyone reads things with a different tone and focus, without the ability to sit in lecture and hear the narrative desired when this assignment was created, I am more free to interpret. When I did this autonomously, I did not get to the desired destination. With that in mind, I thought that my take still highlighted why Scott’s narrative was not relevant for Frye on this specific topic.

Works Cited

Coleman, Daniel. “”From Contented Civility to Contending Civilities: Alternatives to Canadian White Civility”” Daniel Coleman 38 (2008): 221-42. Erduit Editing. 2008. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

Frye, Northrop. “The Bush Garden.” Google Books. House of Anansi, n.d. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

Sutherland, Rory. “Perspective Is Everything.” TED. N.p., Dec. 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.

“We Need a Shift in Our National Consciousness.” The Guardian. N.p., 15 Apr. 2016. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.