A couple years have passed since I heard CNN (2013) reporting that the Chinese authorities have published new regulations that banned dishes containing shark fins and other delicacies (bird nests and wild animal products) at official banquets. A refresher for readers, shark finning refers to the removal and retention of shark fins which are used for medicinal purposes and traditional soups, a prestigious dish served during special occasions (weddings, banquets) or as a luxury. This act is heavily criticized because of the world’s diminishing shark populations and for ethical reasons, since some fishermen, after harvesting the fin, discard the carcass back into the ocean whether the shark is dead or alive.
When the news was on, I was with a friend who happened to be visiting from Japan. We were at our house lounging in front of the T.V. when my friend idly muttered “…Thank God it wasn’t Japan.” This phrase ends up being stuck in my head until today. Sure, it might be a relief to hear that your country didn’t take part in such cruel acts. Especially in contemporary society where the voices animal activists’ are gaining more power than ever (this is just my personal opinion, but these days there seem to be more people who seem to be unable to stand the fact that humans are omnivores). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for animal conservation and environmental protection. But is the fishing industry the only groups of people who benefit from these so-called evil acts? There are countless Chinese restaurants in Japan and some have shark fin soup on their menu. They are on the menu so obviously that means there are customers who order it. They will pay the price for it and that becomes a part of the restaurant’s profit and fuels the economy. But I do not know the route nor the processes that have been taken to obtain those fins. Neither I nor my friend have ever had the opportunity to eat this dish and it is likely that we never will but we do live in a country where the tourism/hospitality industry offer these kind of food. We are a part of that economy that is supported by these industries and indirectly, we benefit from that shark fin. Borrowing Bishop’s (1994) phrase, this is where “personal becomes political.”
Personal decisions and political consequences are not mutually exclusive. Individuals’ decisions collect and shape political views and decisions, which again, have impact our personal decisions. Accordingly, attitudes towards the Indigenous peoples of non-Indigenous individuals gather to create a flow or political trend that can manifest as preconceptions towards Indigenous peoples. The thank-god-it-wasn’t-us attitude my friend took is the denial of personal = political and can contribute to the oppression of Indigenous communities. Bishop (1994, p.112) states that “when learning to see yourself as an oppressor, the experience is by definition hidden from you, because part of an oppressor group is to be cut off from the ability to identify with the experience of the oppressed.” Unfortunately, the Canadian federal government seem to fall under this definition of an oppressor group.
The current state of contemporary Indigenous affairs is in a vicious cycle of personal-is-political. Policies implemented by the government, whether deliberately or not, has resulted in endangering of Indigenous culture and heritages. A Report on Tribal Preservation Funding Needs Submitted to Congress (Parker, 1990) states that the traditional knowledge and Western policy have irreconcilable differences, since traditional lores and knowledge lack scientific basis (such as categorical distinctions) which makes it difficult to translate into individualist and democratic culture of white America. However, Warner and Grint (2012) states that Western cultures has attempted to replace Indigenous leadership with western governance system. This one-sided implementation of policy comes from the myths of “noble savage.” The original pre-civilized state of the Indigenous peoples is deemed inadequate to fend for themselves against the “civilized” societies, providing the basis for protection. This stereotype is an underlying factor of cultural appropriation and serves as a justification for commodification of knowledge by non-Indigenous population.
Indigenous peoples are all fitted into this “noble savage” stereotype and are seen as a single collective entity. This stereotype is held within Canadian policy-makers and are reflected in policies today. In summary, modern contexts of individualism and Eurocentrism are seriously endangering the Indigenous peoples (Battiste & Henderson, 2000) both at societal level and structural level. Reconciliation discussions must include substantive transformation in these areas that deal with power inequalities and imbalance in land and resources (Napoleon, 2004).
And so, if the truth is to be believed in this country, it must perhaps be
written by those who bear the consequences of the past.
– Antjie Krog, Country of My Skull: Guilt, Sorrow, and the Limits of Forgiveness in the New South Africa
Rather than replacing Indigenous leadership with irreconcilable policies that are based on Eurocentric values of Western governance, the Canadian federal government must make approaches for Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. It is also important for the individual members of the oppressor group to reflect on one’s personal attitudes towards the oppressed group in order to diverge from the vicious cycle of at an interpersonal level.