The High Artic Relocation of the 1950’s is a dark stain in Canadian history, it is one of many instances of systematic and institutionalized disenfranchisement by the Canadian government towards its Indigenous populations. Despite many positive strides by the Canadian government to make amends for its history of persecution and injustices, we have also continuously seen a deliberate attempt to downplay or cover-up many events that occurred. When analyzing primary sources 9.2 and 9.3 that deal with the High Artic Relocation, the glaring discrepancies between the two accounts are quite evident. I would argue, that the Canadian government’s extensive history of systematic abuse towards it indigenous populations, that the testimony of the Inuit
…show more content…
Bent Sivertz was a seaman with the Canadian Navy during the Artic relocation, although he was present during particular events and oversaw the transportation of some Inuit’s. He was not directly in the areas that the Inuit lived over the years and many of his testimonies are not firsthand accounts of the events, but his own assumptions on what the situation was and what he was told occurred either by his peers or the government. Mr. Sivertz is also evidently very ignorant of Inuit history and culture and consistently generalized indigenous groups, particularly northern indigenous groups and the Inuit. During the beginning of his interview with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Mr. Sivertz states: “No, because they were not from a different world. They were from the north, and they were presumably going to continue with a northern life.” And “the temperature was somewhat lower, and it did not seem to be important in the minds of the Inuit people anyway.” Clearly, Mr. Sivertz has no understanding of the differentiation between different indigenous groups, including Inuit natives. He also generally assumes that anything considered the geographic “north” (which is thousands of square kilometers) is the same in resources and climate, and therefore wrongly presumes that the Inuit should have had no problem adapting to it. This is …show more content…
Sivertz continues to downplay the devastating effects the Canadian government 's mismanagement had on the Inuit population that was relocated. When discussing how the Inuit people were forced to eat from the dumpster in order to survive, he instead focuses primarily on the issues of regulations surrounding the use of the dumpster, and how the constables in charge of the dumpster were very “gentle and effective”. He outright ignores the glaring issue that the Inuit, who were promised a better standard of living with plenty of food, were eating from a dumpster. Mr. Sivertz also disregards the complete lack of proper investigation and research conducted by the government prior to the relocation. First, Mr. Sivertz downplays how the government’s original “promise” to allow Inuit people to return was not properly conveyed to the Inuit people in Inukjuak by a translator who spoke broken Inuktitut. Furthermore, he attempts to downplay how their information about Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord relied on information they were told by fisherman and people who occasionally occupied the area. When confronted about the Canadian government 's end goal of cementing Canadian sovereignty in the north, he again attempted to change the narrative. To him, the end goal was sovereignty but “Canadianization”, what he described as having activities done by “Canadian universities and young Canadians.” Mr. Sivertz again completely disregards how these “Canadianization”
Bent Sivertz was a seaman with the Canadian Navy during the Artic relocation, although he was present during particular events and oversaw the transportation of some Inuit’s. He was not directly in the areas that the Inuit lived over the years and many of his testimonies are not firsthand accounts of the events, but his own assumptions on what the situation was and what he was told occurred either by his peers or the government. Mr. Sivertz is also evidently very ignorant of Inuit history and culture and consistently generalized indigenous groups, particularly northern indigenous groups and the Inuit. During the beginning of his interview with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Mr. Sivertz states: “No, because they were not from a different world. They were from the north, and they were presumably going to continue with a northern life.” And “the temperature was somewhat lower, and it did not seem to be important in the minds of the Inuit people anyway.” Clearly, Mr. Sivertz has no understanding of the differentiation between different indigenous groups, including Inuit natives. He also generally assumes that anything considered the geographic “north” (which is thousands of square kilometers) is the same in resources and climate, and therefore wrongly presumes that the Inuit should have had no problem adapting to it. This is …show more content…
Sivertz continues to downplay the devastating effects the Canadian government 's mismanagement had on the Inuit population that was relocated. When discussing how the Inuit people were forced to eat from the dumpster in order to survive, he instead focuses primarily on the issues of regulations surrounding the use of the dumpster, and how the constables in charge of the dumpster were very “gentle and effective”. He outright ignores the glaring issue that the Inuit, who were promised a better standard of living with plenty of food, were eating from a dumpster. Mr. Sivertz also disregards the complete lack of proper investigation and research conducted by the government prior to the relocation. First, Mr. Sivertz downplays how the government’s original “promise” to allow Inuit people to return was not properly conveyed to the Inuit people in Inukjuak by a translator who spoke broken Inuktitut. Furthermore, he attempts to downplay how their information about Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord relied on information they were told by fisherman and people who occasionally occupied the area. When confronted about the Canadian government 's end goal of cementing Canadian sovereignty in the north, he again attempted to change the narrative. To him, the end goal was sovereignty but “Canadianization”, what he described as having activities done by “Canadian universities and young Canadians.” Mr. Sivertz again completely disregards how these “Canadianization”