I’m not entirely certain how much I can discuss in this second part. There have been some new developments since I had posted Part I, some of which I had decided not to mention at this present time. These are not bad developments — on the contrary they’re very good. But something big is on the horizon and I don’t want to jinx it, so to speak. As previously indicated, Saint Mary’s is going well. I have been cautious though, because these historians too use the term “objective”. They believe that as human beings, we cannot be objective in our research. However, they say, we must, as scholars, be as objective as possible. Given my previous year, I’m certain you would understand if I planted my red flag and approached the issue on tippy toes.
However, it seems that everything is alright. The historians here believe that history can be reinterpreted with different perspectives. I think they see me as perspective #39 or something. In any case, they respect me and they take me seriously. My thesis supervisor, whom I only learned recently is one of Canada’s leading scholars in history publishing multiple books, seems to take interest in my study and has not only offered me valid pointers, but asked me for advise for native history sources. In class, he is very much open to historical debate, as with another prof I have. So much so, that I am known as the argumentative student, not shying away from asserting my own opinion. Oddly, the students here respect me more for it too. It honestly feels as though UNB is ancient history (where it belongs, hahaha).
Two weeks ago, I had a class where we discussed a notable scholar’s editorial piece on why racism exists. The paper was… well, really stupid, quite honestly. It suggested that if Americans simply believed that everyone was one race then ‘racism’, being formulated from the word ‘race’, would cease to exist. How very convenient! The world is ruled by the European elite males; the world is colonized by those elite corporations to feed themselves and make a profit feeding the world; and indigenous peoples are shrugged aside in postage stamp sized reserves so that these nation states can get as rich as possible. But hey, there is no such thing as racism because we are all one race. It saddens me, because I once had this same stupid argument with a former friend who believed that racism did not exist, because there is only one race. It’s unfortunate too, because so many mutual friends believe that she’s really intelligent, but this comment and others just make me think that she doesn’t really know reality. It must be nice to live in her little box. And I have no doubt she’ll always live in that box. “Racism no longer exists” seems like another excuse for the elite stealing the resources of other peoples. In a way, it reminds me of the “Europeans were too sick in hot climates to do work, therefore they needed Africans to help” slavery theory. Both feels like propaganda to me. People should read Michael Parenti’s work.
Anyway, the class went well. I battled back and forth with the prof and eventually I had a few students take my side and joined in. This debate lasted a half hour. I had no idea I had it in me. I got all riled up and I actually enjoyed it. Weird. The prof enjoyed it too and I only realized later that he purposely gave us that reading to set us off. He’s actually a good guy. He just likes to push buttons. He found my red one. It was shiny.
That was just one example of what’s been happening at Saint Mary’s. I feel very comfortable in my classes and everyone is comfortable with me. So far everything is turning out really well, despite the word ‘objective’ being thrown around. I’m preparing an abstract for a history conference at Laval (hopefully they’ll let me present there) and I’m looking at PhD programs. Saint Mary’s Masters program is only one year, so I have to look up the PhD programs now. Its too bad Saint Mary’s doesn’t have a PhD program, I’d seriously consider staying for it.
Laval does have some good prospects. For those who don’t know, Laval is in Québec City. I would have to be fluent in French, but I figure by the time I defend my thesis, I would have spent a few years in the French city and would therefore be fluent in the language again. The conference might be a good way to look into the university from the inside. I was also told that people from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Columbia would be there. No pressure at all. But it goes to show just how big Laval is as a university to the world — the most prestigious in Canada. My deadline for the abstract is today. I have a decent research idea that doesn’t look like anyone has done before, so its just a matter of waking up and getting it down. It is so hard to wake up nowadays. So much reading… and I do get enough sleep, at least eight hours, honestly, but I’m just so mentally exhausted that my brain just says, “hey Mark, can you cover for me today? I need some more of this sleep thing you introduced me to. It feels good! Shiny.”
My first oral defence for my proposal is this coming Wednesday, which is for fellow students. This is followed a week later for the history department themselves. I did not get much feedback on my draft, other than the typical grammar fix and “Good job – full speed ahead.” The biggest concern was my historiography school of choice, using historical materialism. I think everyone had assummed that I would use cultural history in this thesis. I don’t like that thought. I’ve found that historians use cultural history as a means to say “well the European settlers did not know better because of that cultural barrier between them and indigenous peoples.” I don’t think it ever mattered what culture the indigenous people were when settlers and governments stole land away from the natives — it was stolen anyway. In a sense, this “cultural barrier” seems to give the idea that both peoples are at fault in this history. I do not see that in any of my evidence.
I’ve encountered this before when a national student association did a report as to why there are so few indigenous students in post-secondary education. It was determined that a cultural barrier frightened the natives away. I assure everyone, there is a difference between a so-called cultural barrier and a outright attack. How many times have we, as students, been told that native peoples were cannibals, uncivilized, deficient in population, agriculture, and just barely living before the Europeans came and saved our asses? These lies still happen today. I had it “taught” to me just last year. Indigenous peoples tend to drop out of schools because they know racism when they hear it. The “native peoples are inferior before European contact” assumes that the subsequent colonization of the Americas was a good thing. More propaganda? I find that some of my favourite authors, such as James Blaut and Frank Snowden, demonstrate that Europe was no more superior than anyone else before 1492. But so much history was written by those elites (see Franz Fanon and Edward Said) and as a result, there is a mainstream Eurocentric history.
Therefore, with the upcoming presentations, I will be vigorously defending my approach to history, using historical materialism, as discussed in my last entry (using authors such as Nikolai Bukharin and Sebastiano Timpanaro). I have taken out six books on the subject and I have a few days to become the expert. Also on the agenda is my first official class. I will be teaching the evolution of Indian Reserves in a class called “Canada before Confederation” on Thursday. Somehow I have to get other course readings done tomorrow. And after Thursday, I have two major papers due, the most important of which is an analysis of how historians treated indigenous history and treaty making. I’ve been sharpening my axe on that one since high school. The next time I have a break is the first week of December. I will try to update at some point before then.
