I'm probably going to upset somebody here - or I would if anyone were to read it - but another episode of Indigenous exceptionalism has annoyed me recently. Just a few years after the Joseph Boyden fiasco, Canadian filmmaker Michelle Latimer has been battling for her artistic and ethnic integrity, as she defends herself against claims that she is not Indigenous enough.
If you don't know her, Ms. Latimer is an internationally-renowned Canadian actress, director and filmmaker. She is also, to the best of her knowledge, Indigenous, which you'd think was a bonus these days, and she has produced several well-received documentaries and movies documenting the plight of Canada's Indigenous populations.
However, a CBC documentary in December of last year questioned her Indigenous heritage (why? why would they even think to check?), accusing her of exploitation and appropriation, very grave sins in today's artistic community. Ms. Latimer has always claimed to be of Algonquin, Métis and French Canadian background, based on stories her grandparents told of living in an Algonquin community in western Quebec (she has never claimed to be a "status" member of any First Nations community or people). Because of the uncertainty and controversy this documentary generated, she promptly resigned from the helm of CBC's high-profile Trickster series, and watched as the National Film Board of Canada withdraw her Inconvenient Indian documentary from distribution.
In short, Ms. Latimer's illustrious career is on hold, at least until she has proven ("verified") herself, and justified her existence. In fact, she went to the lengths of commissioning an official genealogical investigation by experts in Indigenous rights and Métis history, and it turns out - guess what? - that she does indeed have Indigenous ancestry through "two ancestral lines that run through her paternal and maternal grandparents". For what it's worth, she is also now suing the CBC.
The Globe and Mail article is a good read, partly to see the extent of Ms. Latimer's earnestness, humility and patience, but partly also to understand just how deep and how nasty this whole thing can get these days. It is no longer enough to base your heritage on hearsay from relatives: "verification" may be required before admittance to this exclusive club. There is an element of high-handedness and arrogance, almost of eugenic zeal, in this that leaves a very bad taste behind.
It should be noted that not all Indigenous commentators object to her story; she has received a lot of support and sympathy from some people, and I'm sure there are a lot of others just don't care that much either way (which would be my attitude, I have to say). But a vocal minority is clearly willing to continue to make a big deal of this, with some claiming that, even if she can prove Indigenous heritage, being Indigenous is really about "lived experience", cultural practices and worldview (although, from what I read, Ms. Latimer has that too). This seems just ridiculously restrictive and condescending to me, and would probably exclude a good percentage of official "status Indians".
Anyway, I'm not Indigenous, and I only have a vague idea of what that even means. But to reject a woman of Michelle Latimer's quality, a woman who (like Joseph Boyden) has done more than most to advocate for and represent Indigenous people, and to fight in their corner, just seems self-defeating and counter-productive to me. And to do so for such (to me) inconsequential and irrelevant reasons seems doubly unfortunate. Whether she is Indigenous or not, she has always been a friend, defender and ally of Indigenous people and does not deserve to be cancelled in this way.
End of sermon. Go ahead, tear me to pieces.
No comments:
Post a Comment