Peter Dinsdale’s review gives qualified approval to Marie Wadden’s Where the Pavement Ends: Canada’s Aboriginal Recovery Movement and the Urgent Need for Reconciliation. Dinsdale commends Wadden for approaching reconciliation “in a number of ways that resonate well with the aboriginal community.” More specifically, he applauds the book for conceptualizing reconciliation in terms of a “full commitment to the spirit of the treaties,” “attempting to find a meaningful relationship between aboriginal spiritual fullness of the past and the hopeless addictions so many find themselves enslaved to in the present” and highlighting the efforts of those “doing really good work in the communities.” The most significant aspect of the book for Dinsdale, however, is that “it is about hope.”
Although this support for Wadden’s book will be appreciated by those who agree that answers to the aboriginal question lie in increasing funds and devolving responsibility to Native-controlled organizations such as Dinsdale’s own interest group, the National Association of Friendship Centres, it is important not to let political sympathies cloud one’s reasoning. The appeal of Where the Pavement Ends, in fact, stems not from its rigorous analysis of aboriginal circumstances, but because its proposals seem to be consistent with what aboriginal leaders “want.” Contrary to Dinsdale’s claims, Wadden does not approach aboriginal problems “as a journalist”; her arguments are those of a sentimental advocate plagued by wishful thinking. She accepts at face value all the claims about the “successes” of the plethora of “healing” initiatives in existence, even though these testimonies come from the very people who are benefitting from the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been (and undoubtedly will continue to be) disbursed.
Even more disturbing than the acceptance of this maudlin credulity is Dinsdale’s agreement with Wadden’s main arguments about how reconciliation can be achieved. Respecting the “spirit of the treaties” is merely a demand to access “royalties from the use of water, minerals, the land and the air”—more bribes to the leadership that will do nothing to facilitate Native participation in the wider society. Condescending references to the “spiritual fullness of the past” also will not address the root causes of aboriginal dependency and social dysfunction. This merely justifies aboriginal segregation from the mainstream by putting a positive spin on the difficulties many Native people are having, because of the encouragement of archaic cultural features, in adapting to modern requirements.
Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard
Authors, Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The deception behind indigenous cultural preservation
Calgary, Alberta
