While I am flattered that Donald B. Smith and J. R. Miller reviewed my book, they have made numerous errors which suggest a cursory reading of The Sleeping Giant Awakens.
First, genocide as defined by Raphael Lemkin has always included far more than mass killing, as I note from the onset: “Lemkin was clear that ‘the machine gun’ was often ‘a last resort’ instead of the primary means of destruction.” The UN definition from 1948 identifies five aspects of genocide, including forcible transfer, which constitutes my book’s central focus. Kidnapping children, Lemkin averred, was a form of biological genocide, in that “there is little difference between direct killings and such techniques which, like a time-bomb, destroy by delayed action.”
Second, Miller and Smith are simply wrong when they suggest that I am “depreciating” the legalist or legal definition of genocide. My book is based primarily on understanding and then applying the legal definition, and I devote a technical and potentially dry chapter to precisely this issue. The reviewers argue that the legalist definition is “the only definition that permits productive debate,” and then ironically proceed to deny that this was genocide, presumably in the interests of “productive debate.”
Third, I am at a loss as to what Miller and Smith’s scattergun approach is critiquing. Is it my book or claims of cultural genocide and genocide by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? The acceptance of these terms by the Trudeau government? Why not address the larger movement toward reinterpreting Canadian history as a history of genocide?
Fourth, the review’s lengthy discussion of John A. Macdonald seems gratuitous. Miller and Smith don’t deny his crimes but relativize them with personal details about the prime minister’s friendly relations with select Indigenous leaders. I struggle to see the relevance of (presumably) Smith’s intervention. Does the fact that a Haudenosaunee physician named a child after the prime minister tell us anything about Macdonald’s role in clearing the plains of Indigenous peoples, deploying starvation tactics, or other machinations?
Fifth, while I am not a historian, I extensively consulted archives in Saskatchewan and Ottawa, and had a cordial time with Miller during one such visit. I made ample use of the TRC’s Library and Archives Canada databases when I worked for them, and I worked closely with the TRC’s official historian, who helped shape my analysis. An overwhelming amount of information exists on the Indian Residential School system and the intentions behind it. Smoking guns pointing to both genocidal crimes and intentions behind them can be found throughout histories, survivor memoirs, and historical documentation.
Sixth, I highlighted several errors in fact and interpretation in Miller’s 2017 book, Residential Schools and Reconciliation, and was disappointed that these were not addressed. Miller argued that the TRC could have claimed genocide in its final report but chose not to, the implication being that the evidence was not sufficient. He also suggested that Senator Murray Sinclair vacillated over whether genocide had occurred in the IRS system. Interviews with Sinclair, TRC commissioner Marie Wilson, and other staff suggest otherwise: the commission’s post-judicial mandate prevented any official conclusion of genocide, and as a private person Sinclair has consistently interpreted the IRS system as genocide.
Seventh, all books of political science are ahistorical, because we invariably judge the past by present standards. I don’t understand the philosophical or moral objection. When it comes to politics, the past is constantly being reinterpreted. Of the seven genocides officially recognized by the Canadian government, for example, three happened before the UN convention came into effect (the Armenian genocide, the Holodomor, and the Holocaust). Are we judging Stalin or Mehmed Talaat anachronistically if we name their actions as genocide?
Eighth, Miller and Smith certainly have a rosy view of government actions, which they write were “never undertaken with the intent to destroy an Indigenous group.” Government policies were designed to “control Indigenous people but not to eradicate them.” Forcible assimilation proves there was no intention to “destroy them.” Really? Statements such as these could appear to whitewash history, especially if one is situated at the pointy end of settler colonialism.
Finally, in 1996, Miller described Indian Residential Schools as “attempted cultural genocide.” Ironically, the more Miller seems to learn of the past and its legacies, the softer his language becomes. What terms, then, would Miller and Smith prefer if “genocide” is off the table? In the interests of reconciliation, perhaps they can go beyond descriptors such as “terribly destructive” and “horrific.” These tepid and imprecise terms are not going to bring about the sort of reconciliation that we are all looking forward to seeing.
