We Are Not You: First Nations and Canadian Modernity

David Mardiros is a lawyer and anthropological consultant in Kars,
Ontario.

Ostensibly an analysis of a civil court case involving the alleged
forced participation of a Coast Salish man in a ritual healing or
initiation ceremony, this book ranges over many facets of the
relationship between indigenous and nonindigenous peoples in Canadian
society.

In the book’s introductory chapters, Denis discusses the historical
and cultural framework of nationalism and colonialism within which First
Nations are seeking an accommodation in their quest for some measure of
autonomy. He provides a useful analysis of one of the most cherished
tenets of liberal democratic society—the primacy of the rights of the
individual. The application of that principle, conditioned by the
Euro-Canadian historical experience, can operate to repress societies
with their own traditions and values that seek to balance the rights of
the individual against the rights of the collectivity. One of the most
telling sections relates to another sacred tenet, freedom of the press.
Denis provides a scathing analysis of press conduct in the case, and
demonstrates that lack of knowledge about indigenous traditions is the
inevitable result of restrictions placed on reporters by the social and
business considerations that drive the production of newspaper stories.

In examining how the clash of worldviews in the specific court case
could have been resolved more effectively and satisfactorily, the book
is less successful. It is important to remember that the court case in
question was a civil dispute, brought by one member of an aboriginal
community against others of that community who were alleged to have
caused him injury. Based on secondary sources, court transcripts, and
newspaper reports, the book is largely an illustration of the values of
Native societies being repeatedly ignored, devalued, or misunderstood by
what Denis calls the “whitestream.” In this respect, he does not
really reach beyond the level of what

he call the “grand narratives”—the generalities of public
discourse—in examining how the

different interests of the parties in the dispute could be better
accommodated in practice. While Denis raises many legitimate concerns
about the failures of the Euro-Canadian court system in adjudicating
disputes involving Native people, his argument for its replacement by a
different system embodying different values would have been strengthened
by discussing more specifically how indigenous dispute-resolution
mechanisms could produce a better result.