Just a couple of points on Thomas Lunde's response to Keith Hudson: Point
one is that one should not romanticize American aboriginal people. Prior to
contact, they were enormously diverse, many peaceable, many warlike, some
with very advanced cultures, others comparatively backward. In many cases,
they did not like each other. Warfare, exacting tribute and the taking of
slaves was not at all uncommon. The conquest of Mexico by Cortez was as
much a rebellion against the Aztecs by tributary states as a military
victory by the Spaniards.
Point two is that Nunavut is a territory defined by legislation. If it were
a province, it would have to be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, a
much more difficult thing to do. Moreover, the Government of Nunavut is a
public government, not an ethnic one. That it will be dominated by Inuit
arises from the fact that some 80% of the population is Inuit. There is
nothing preventing non-Inuit from becoming members of the legislative
assembly if they can get enough votes. Much of the bureaucracy will, for
some time to come, consist of non-Inuit, though Inuit will no doubt become
more representative as they develop management and professional skills.
Personally, I'm skeptical about Nunavut's future. It does not have much of
a resource base, though there are potential diamond mines. Its population
of some 20,000 is not very well educated by Canadian standards and there are
many social problems. For quite some time, the major industry will be
government, and the major source of government revenue will be transfers
from the Government of Canada, and we know that he who pays the piper calls
the tune even if he pretends not to do so. Anyhow, that is my take on the
situation.
Ed Weick
