Oh so you like taking pictures? A lot of us northern bloggers do, and some of us are quite good at it. But are you good enough for NTI's photo contest? Well, the first question you have to ask is what color is your skin?
How do you define a "beneficiary"? I'm not sure, but the simple answer is "an inuk". But what about the other people who live in Nunavut? Like the southerners who came to Nunavut decades ago and have lived here ever since, or the southern children who were born and raised in Nunavut? To call them anything but Nunavummiut would be wrong. So how do they differ from the Inuk 3 doors down? The answer: their skin color.
Seeing blatant racism like this is a remider just how backwards it can be up here. How is this not illegal? How can NTI get away with this? If any corporation down south refused a service to someone based solely on their skin color, there would be outrage, lawsuits, firings, etc. So why is Nunavut different? I'm asking these questions because I don't know the answer. Is it just a matter of time before the minorities rise up and file a class action lawsuit against NTI and Nunavut for this kind of stuff?
54 comments:
I've found it interesting that the word "beneficiary" is always used as a euphemism for "inuk". It's a silent acknowledgement that they know racism is wrong, so the race is not mentioned, except in order to be a "beneficiary" you need to be of a certain race.
I'd have less of a problem with the discrimination if it wasn't couched in these euphemisms and was out in the open. The Tunngavik is a race-based organization, so it follows that their contests will be race-based as well. It doesn't particularly bother me, but call it what it is so that we all know what it's really about.
Well obviously all qablunaaqs are photographers so opening the contest up to them would be unfair.
Pfft...
(I'm being completely sarcastic if it isn't obvious.)
Whenever I see something like that ad,and start feeling a bit excluded or "deprived", there is one question I always ask myself; "Would I trade places with an Inuk". No way!
I can't think of anything much worse (on this continent at least) than being a "beneficiary". I wonder where I would be if I'd been born here, with an Inuit heritage. Statistically, as a male, I'd likely have no steady job, be poorly educated, probably have a criminal record, might have spent some time in jail, no prospects, no assets to speak of, no credit rating, an no hope.
The point of the ad is to exclude non-Inuit since, apparently, NTI thinks that Inuit aren't smart enough to compete with non-inuit photographers - and maybe they're right!
This is what they came up with? A photo contest? This is the best they can do? NTI certainly gets an "F" for imagination!
I wonder what would happen if we non-Inuit created our own "club", or published an ad for a photo-contest strictly for "non-beneficiaries.
I'd pay for the ad just to satisfy my curiousity.
I have mixed feelings about this. While on one hand I see it as unfair for a group to exclude another group based on race, on the other hand it is NTI's raison d'etre to look out and create opportunities for the NLCA's beneficiaries.
In other parts of Canada there are aboriginal groups dedicated to serving their band members. Oddly, I don't think it would bother me one iota to see this add for a contest directed at Ojibwa people.
I would also like to note that the add cleverly excludes the word "ONLY". It does not say that the contest is open to beneficiaries only. I would like to see a non-beneficiary enter this contest just to see what would happen.
Don't forget the I in NTI... Incorporated. It is a contest for their shareholders, the beneficiaries.
There are long time northern residents who were named beneficiaries when NTI and Nunavut were formed. Each community got to decide how long you had to live there to qualify. Saying "in order to be a "beneficiary" you need to be of a certain race" isn't true.
Racist.... ppfffttt. No one has a problem if the Elks of the Legion holds a contest for their members.
Like Bender on Futurama once astutely said, "This is the worst kind of discrimination, the kind against me."
You want to see racist? From the comments:
"The point of the ad is to exclude non-Inuit since, apparently, NTI thinks that Inuit aren't smart enough to compete with non-inuit photographers - and maybe they're right!"
That is racist -- while in the middle of a pile of thoughtful comments -- not a corporate contest for shareholders.
The point is this, and only this:
NTI can get away with something that the "others" in Nunavut would be severely chastised for, perhaps even dragged through the courts. That, and only that, is what's wrong with this ad.
I have no problem with NTI running a contest for their "shareholders", as long as the rest of us would be allowed to do the same, which we would not be, of course.
And it is NTI that implies that Inuit aren't smart enough to compete with non-Inuit photographers, not me. One would think that their own "shareholders" would take offence to being treated that way, wouldn't you?
I started out joking with friends and family that I was a Nunavut beneficiary because of the salary I draw. I think there is a lot of truth to it. I have definitely benefitted from the NLCA more than the average person in my community.....that's for darn sure. Thanks GN and NTI Its great working for ya! On behalf of my bank account, I thank you profusely.
Does anyone know where we can find info on being a beneficiary? I'm interested in what KOTN said about long-term residents being beneficiaries. I'm assuming Larry isn't one, and he's lived in the north a looooong time, so I am wondering what the criteria was in different communities, and if the children of those long-term resident categories also instantly become beneficiaries as do inuit children.
Arctic Agent, maybe that's an idea for a future post!
I've lived here 40-years and I've never heard of a non-Inuit getting beneficiary status. I'd sure like to hear if there's such an animal, but I doubt there is.
Maybe some 90-year old priest of his death-bed!
It is true. Each community has the right to decide who to include as a beneficiary, and many have exercised that right to include long term white folk... Kivalliq in particular, I know of a few specific examples in that region.
I know people who worked for NTI at the time of implementation, and their job was registering beneficiaries. You'd be surprised, no one really advertises it, but each community had their list.
Here in Iqaluit, I bet Rev. Mike is a beneficiary. I don't know for sure, but if he isn't, I don't know who else would qualify.
Check your NTI magazine in your mailbox, there is a letter to NTI about this very issue in the magazine.
The closest thing I could find in the NLCA is that a person who
"is an Inuk as determined in accordance with Inuit customs and usages"
can be enrolled.
Though it might be possible, until I hear some actual names, I still don't believe it ever happened, or ever will happen.
Some "white"-looking guy with a "white"-sounding name might be a beneficiary because his grandmother was Inuit. I know a few people like that, but if we're talking about a bona-fide non-Inuit, possibly born in the south - I don't think so!
The definition of "beneficiary" aside, NTI and the GN have policies that could be considered racist.I recently read a job description for a position with the GN that clearly stated it was only open for beneficiaries. The difference between being called a "beneficiary" and a member of the "Elk's", for example, is that anyone can be an "Elk" if the proper criteria are met. But that criteria does not include culture or heritage. That would be discriminatory.
"is an Inuk as determined in accordance with Inuit customs and usages"(taken from the NLCA), places cultural criteria on being included. I believe this is discriminatory. Not just because it is against me, as the ever-so clever T.V. robot states, which it is, but because it against everybody in Nunavut who does not come from a certain heritage or cultural background.
Just to add oxygen to the flames...
Let's be clear about our definitions of racist/racism and discriminatory/discrimination. Racism is when we distinguish one group as inferior or superior to another based on the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race. In other words we think we are better than someone because they/we are of a specific race. Discrimination is treating someone differently because they are of a different race. Racism is the belief, discrimination is the action, as far as my interpretation of things go.
NTI and the NCLA have discriminatory practices or policies. I think what we are mostly talking about here is discrimination.
Inuit can have light-coloured skin too...so it's not just about "skin colour."
Could be a story done on when explorers claimed the Canadian Arctic, about when missionaries came, when the government relocated people, etc. Would be interesting for views on these.
Have to point out the obvious:
NTI is an Inuit organization, governed by Inuit, with Inuit membership, providing service to Inuit. It was Inuit who gave up Aboriginal title, folks.
So, by extension, it would be okay for the "whites" to form a white-only organization, providing service only to whites, and exclude non-whites from mebership and services?
Do you really think that would be acceptable, and if not, why not?
"So, by extension, it would be okay for the "whites" to form a white-only organization, providing service only to whites, and exclude non-whites from mebership and services? Do you really think that would be acceptable, and if not, why not?"
I'm not sure you're clear on the nature and mandate of NTI. Let's take it step by step.
a) Inuit, as a people residing in the Nunavut Settlement Area, were recognized under Canadian law as having Aboriginal title to a chunk of land based on land use and occupancy. Good so far?
b) Inuit handed most of that land over the Crown, retained limited rights to some of it, and accepted the benefits described in the NLCA in exchange. Still good?
c) NTI is the organization that administers that agreement on behalf of Inuit. With me?
So to respond to your question: if Japan, the Catholic Church or the Smith family exchange land for benefits under a contract, I have no problem with Japan, the Catholic Church or the Smith family retaining and administering those benefits. I don't insist on being considered Japanese, Catholic, or a Smith: I didn't trade anything away to get those benefits.
NTI also offers a pension plan, funded out of the settlement they negotiated, for Inuit elders. Do you feel excluded because non-Inuit elders don't get that pension?
Larry - I feel sorry for you. Someone at your age just doesn't change, so the rest of us have to put up with you.
No one (except you) is suggesting Inuit cannot compete with non-Inuit in photography. You just aren't invited to the contest. Nothing personal, it's just that you aren't on the mailing list.
My God, the more of your tripe I read the less I like you.
I don't think Larry really gives a fuck whether you like him or not.
Disagree all you like, but personal attacks have no place here.
I agree on the impropriety of personal attacks.
I'm still curious, however, about a clarification why folks who gave up nothing in exchange for land claim benefits seem to feel entitled to partake in those benefits.
I think maybe the debate got a little off-track, if it was ever on-track.
The question I'd like answered is the one I asked before; is it okay for a special-interest group to limit membership to a certain race? I have no particular problem with either a yes or no answer.
I just don't see how one group can have that right and another can't.
I don't think I have a right to membership in the NTI but, by the same token, if a group were formed for non-beneficiaries, to protect their rights and interests, I guess it would be only fair that beneficiaries would be excluded from membership. No?
Let's give NTI a break.
They just like to play with themselves. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they realize they might go blind!
"I don't think I have a right to membership in the NTI."
Good. Then on the specific point raised by the original poster, you presumably have no problem with those who ARE members of NTI holding a little contest among themselves.
"If a group were formed for non-beneficiaries, to protect their rights and interests, I guess it would be only fair that beneficiaries would be excluded from membership. No?"
Well, of course. Presumably you would accept Inuit who were not registered under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement into the club?
Absolutely! Just as NTI accepts all the non-Inuit who are beneficiaries!
Absolutely. NTI would accept anyone who surrendered their Aboriginal title to land in the Nunavut Settlement Area.
So...now that we've agreed that the criterion is a legal surrender of title, rather than "race"...how do you suppose the red herring of "race" gets dragged in?
Now you're confusing me!
A person who surrendered aboriginal title would have to be aboriginal. Right?
So NTI only accepts aboriginals, correct?
So I guess "my" group would have to deny aboriginals and accept only whites or "others".
Wouldn't that be fair, or am I missing something here?
"Am I missing something here?"
You are, I'm afraid. But that's fine, I'm a patient guy.
The members of NTI are Inuit who surrendered their title to land in the Nunavut Settlement Area. Not "Inuit", the race: but a specific group who held title to a specific region of land, and negotiated its transfer to Canada.
"So I guess "my" group would have to deny aboriginals and accept only whites or "others".
Heck, you can set up any group you want. But if your group, as you previously suggested, is to "to protect the rights and interests of non beneficiaries", then it would have to include a rather large number of "Aboriginals", including First Nations, Métis, Inuit not covered by the Nunavut Claim, and of course everyone else in Nunavut. Boy, I hope you have potluck suppers, should be a great variety.
Boy, you had me worried for a minute. I thought you were just playing with semantics! (he said, tongue-in-cheek).
Okay, you convinced me.
Balbulican 1, Bo-Bo zip.
Now let's fight over something else.
Thanks. That was actually an interesting exercise for me: the issue of "reverse racism" is often raised in discussions about various Land Claims, and your probing helped me clarify in my own mind why that's a fallacious argument.
I guess you get to pick the next topic. And seriously, invite me to that pot luck dinner when you have your finding meeting.
Is this excluding Quebec in anyway?
So who are all these non-inuit beneficiaries that keep coming up? I'd really like to know more about that. I've been to around half the communities in Nunavut and have never heard of it before.
I made the comment about "all the non-Inuit beneficiaries" with tongue-in-cheek.
As far as I know, there aren't any!
Bo-Bo
I know the "beneficiary" ("Inuk" "non-white guy" or whatever term people wish to use) who won the contest and I must say he took a pretty good picture. So hats off to him.
Still, part of me wonders what wonderfully divisive, exclusionary-type contests NTI will dream up in the years to come.
"Still, part of me wonders what wonderfully divisive, exclusionary-type contests NTI will dream up in the years to come."
You mean, what contests they'll have for their membership? Dunno.
Well, duh,
Yes, what will they dream up next for their INUIT membership? (You seem to have left that word out......rather convenient for your arguement though I suppose.)
I guess you didn't read the rest of the thread. We've been through that. Try to keep up, eh?
Hello, I have read the rest of the thread. My point is this and only this - creating a contest based solely on race, has no place in a democracy.
NTI membership is race-based. You should stand up against ALL racism and not simply when it fits your own political views.
I suppose you have your views.....I have mine. Fair enough. Do not insult me through your commments. Its a nice sunny day out there old man, get out and enjoy it.
This is hilarious! Neo-cons attacking the system and Balbulican (who seems to lean to the left from what I can tell) defending the status quo...man oh man, only in Nunavut!
"NTI membership is race-based. You should stand up against ALL racism and not simply when it fits your own political views."
I see. So you insist on being allowed to join the Canadian Association of Japanese War Veterans, B'Nai Brith, and the Knights of Columbus, do you?
"Balbulican (who seems to lean to the left from what I can tell) defending the status quo..."
I don't know about "left"...ask me about regulation of broadcasting, nuclear power or firearms control and we'll see how "left" you think I am.
As for "defending the status quo"...I have lots of problems with the status quo. But as it happens, I don't have any problem with the folks who gave up their right to their land being allowed the benefits of that surrender.
lol....apparently not the way you've gone on and on. But I do and I'm sorry to inform you but my opinion is just as valid as yours
'But I do and I'm sorry to inform you but my opinion is just as valid as yours"
Heh. As an opinion, I suppose it is. I know a guy whose "opinion" is that Elvis is alive, and his opinion is just as valid as mine too. He's wrong, of course. But he's entitled to his "opinion".
So...will you feel "entitled" to a pension from the Nunavut Elders's Benefit Program? Do you feel "entitled" to all benefits negotiated under the Claim in return for surrender of Aboriginal title?
Breathe dude.
Just curious. Do you?
um........yeah.
"Uh...yeah."
Could you perhaps expand on that a bit?
Expand on the concept of breathing? It's called Wikipedia.org dude.
Ah, I get it. Cute.
Back to the question I thought you were answering: will you feel "entitled" to a pension from the Nunavut Elders's Benefit Program? Do you feel "entitled" to all benefits negotiated under the Claim in return for surrender of Aboriginal title?
Do you?
Nope. I wasn't one of the folks who traded away title to Nunavut.
Do you?
lol.....what you're not a beneficiary? Then what are you doing here? I hope you're not a GN worker....you're taking a job away from a beneficiary.
Funny how that question never gets a straight answer.
Yes, funny indeed.
Post a Comment