The Conflict of Canadian Unity: A Literary Analysis of “Letter to Sir John A. MacDonald”

April 4, 2016

While the discovery of the New World allowed for the expansion of European culture, much of it was enabled by the exploitation of Indigenous peoples. Though Canada now touts an image of acceptance and multiculturalism, the country’s founders were complicit in this history of oppression, working to silence Native voices and slowly degrade their culture. This essay will examine the poem “Letter to Sir John A. MacDonald,” in which Marilyn Dumont speaks directly to the country’s first Prime Minister, admonishing his role within the colonial project. I argue that Dumont contrasts early Canadian history with the modern era to challenge the futile pursuit of national unity at the cost of Native lives. As she explains, the oppression faced by Natives was rooted primarily in the belief that they were unable to cope with the might of European progress, and were thus destined to die out. In her poem this is symbolized through MacDonald’s construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which attempted to bridge the country and foster a sense of national unity - casting aside any group who stood against that goal. Dumont ultimately asserts that both these historical efforts were in vain, as the reality of the modern world reveals that the Indian is not vanishing, and that the Pacific Railway brought about more discord than it did unity.

To expose the futility of MacDonald’s project, Dumont first examines the ideals behind it - most notably the European belief in the Vanishing Indian. By the mid-nineteenth century, the Americas had seen a dramatic decline in its Indigenous population. It was thus the opinion of academics that the Indian race – or at least the Indian way of life – was doomed. In “The Myth of the Vanishing Indian,” Brewton Berry examines the resulting views of European settlers, asking, “What is to become of the Indian? The answer: He will disappear. His only salvation lay in his becoming ‘civilized,’ but it was only visionaries who really believed him capable of that… right or wrong, for good or ill, the Indian was doomed. There was no doubt about that” (Berry 52). This idea - that Natives were inherently inferior and would soon vanish - reveals the inherent goal of European colonialism, which was to invade already occupied lands. Settlers counted on the disappearance of Native people to justify their expansionism and reinforce their own sense of superiority. They rationalized their actions by convincing themselves that Native people, in their savageness, would never be able to adapt to the conditions colonialism had forced upon them. Thus, their only recourse would be to assimilate themselves into European culture. In her poem, Dumont challenges this historical belief by simply examining the reality of the present day. She writes, “Dear John: I’m still here and halfbreed, / after all these years” (Dumont 1-2). The myth of the Vanishing Indian is proven to be false simply due to the fact that Indian people still survive today. At the end of the first stanza, Dumont marks herself as a Métis – a “halfbreed” of mixed Native and European heritage - as they symbolized the supposed disappearance of Native culture. Métis children were whiter than their Native parents, not simply in their culture but in their blood. Despite this, the Métis have held on to their heritage. Dumont asserts that they have not crumbled beneath the weight of European culture and progress, nor have they succumbed to it. By repeating that they are “still here” at the beginning and end of every stanza, Dumont effectively conveys the importance of that reality. She rallies against the colonialist project – one which sought to eliminate all vestiges of foreign culture beneath the banner of European superiority – by forcing those Europeans to plainly acknowledge that they were wrong. The fact that Native people still maintain their culture demonstrates that Western civilization is not inherently superior, and their pursuit of cultural unity was false. As Dumont now has a voice to challenge these beliefs, after centuries of oppression, she is able to empower Native people everywhere who for so long were silenced.

The principal metaphor used by Dumont to convey the futility of national unity is that of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). It was constructed in the late nineteenth century as a promise to British Columbia upon its entrance into confederation. As Canada was and still is a very large country with many divergent communities, it was no doubt difficult for Canadians to picture themselves as belonging to a greater nation. The railway was one answer to this problem. As Dumont describes, John A. MacDonald was obsessed with the creation of a railway which stretched from “sea to shining sea” (9). He wished to unite the country by any means necessary, regardless of those who might be negatively impacted as a result – namely, the Métis people. She tells MacDonald, “you know as well as I / that we were railroaded / by some steel tracks that didn’t last /and some settlers who wouldn’t settle” (25-28). For the few surviving Native groups, the railway was in many respects the end of their traditional way of life. The transcontinental railway was yet another tool for the colonization of Native lands, as it brought homesteads and communities owned by European settlers, often usurping the rights of Native people. As a result, many Métis were forced to move onto reservations. Those who did stay were subject to the railroad itself, as it was the only means of cross-country transportation; it thus determined which communities would thrive and which would fade away (Wilson). Dumont discusses this specific instance of Native oppression, as it serves as a microcosm of colonialism as a whole. John A. MacDonald is the embodiment of supposed European superiority, and his railway was yet another example of European settlers attempting to push aside Native people in the name of greater national unity. This example also helps to convey Dumont’s overall message, as she explains to John, “you’re dead, funny thing, / that railway you wanted so badly, / there was talk a year ago / of shutting it down / and part of it was shut down” (Dumont 3-7). By saying that the railway failed, Dumont effectively says that the colonial project has failed - at least in its destruction of Native culture. More than a hundred years later, MacDonald is dead and his railroad is falling apart, but the Métis still stand strong. This reveals the European ideal to be something inherently flawed and unachievable. By comparing Canadian history to the reality of the modern world, Dumont effectively shows how MacDonald’s coveted union was doomed to fail.

While the importance of the railway is seen the immediate effects of Métis displacement, it is also significant due to the violence it enabled, resulting in widespread disunity which survives to the present day. Dumont so heavily references the railway and its negative effects on the Metis people, as she actually has an ancestral connection to those who suffered as a result. She is related to Gabriel Dumont, a Metis commander whose actions brought about the return of Louis Riel (a Canadian hero revered by both Native and Francophone people alike) to Canada. In response to the previously discussed displacement and oppression of Metis people, Riel chose to fight for Metis rights not through diplomacy, but through armed conflict. This rebellion (now known as the North-West Rebellion of 1885) was ultimately short lived, however, as John A. MacDonald answered it in his usual fashion; he did not give into or accept Metis demands, but simply brushed them aside. The CPR allowed the Canadian government to transport troops to the prairies in only nine days, as opposed to the weeks or months it would take to for them to move by foot (The Canadian Encyclopedia). In doing so, MacDonald used the railway as a tool to enforce unity through violence. While the North-West Rebellion was small in scale, it allowed the Anglophone Canadian government to wrest control of the Prairie Provinces away from French and Metis natives. MacDonald’s choice to execute Riel only exacerbated this mistake, as it further aggravated both Native and Francophone groups, destroying any future possibility of unity between them. This is what Dumont means when she says, “this country is still quarreling over unity, / and Riel is dead / but he just keeps coming back / in all the Bill Wilsons yet to speak out of turn or favour” (Dumont 21-24). Her claim that Riel “keeps coming back” proves her central thesis: that the conflicts which existed during MacDonald’s time have not and will not go away. There will always be disunity within Canada, be it Francophone desire for Quebec’s independence (referenced earlier in the poem with the Meech Lake Accord), or the fight against Canada’s oppression of Native people (carried out by such activists as Bill Wilson). The poem’s focus on the Canadian Pacific Railway reveals that much of the conflict in Canada has been the result of MacDonald’s actions. While he spoke of unity, he did nothing to unite the actual people of Canada, instead choosing to continue the tradition of oppression and murder carried out by all those within the colonialist project.

By comparing the discord of John A. MacDonald’s time to the discord of contemporary Canada, Dumont ultimately shows that nothing has changed. She reveals the European pursuit of cultural unity to be both futile and flawed, as all historical attempts to achieve it have resulted in either hostility or outright abuse. This is most evident in the fact that Native people and culture still survive, despite centuries of oppression and colonial rhetoric insisting that they would die out. The inability of European civilization to silence Native peoples is further demonstrated through the failures of John A. MacDonald and his railroad system – both of which failed to create a sense of unity within Canada. Instead, they exacerbated the divisions between cultural groups. In the end, it is Dumont’s argument that unification is pointless and to the detriment of all of us. Rather than shave off differences in an attempt to create a forced unity, the Canadian government must instead try to embrace the disparate cultural identities of its peoples.

Works Cited

Berry, Brewton. "The Myth of the Vanishing Indian." Phylon 21.1 (1960): 51-57. JSTOR. Web.

Dumont, Marilyn. "Letter to Sir John A. MacDonald.” A Really Good Brown Girl. London, ON: Brick Books, 1995. Print

"North-West Rebellion." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.

Wilson, Keith. Railways in Canada: The Iron Link. Toronto: Grolier, 1982. Print.