Black and white and red all over: A review

Seeing Red is a first-of-its-kind work of media and literary history that analyzes Canadian English-language newspapers as a colonial enterprise. Mark Cronlund Anderson and Carmen L. Robertson, both professors at the University of Regina at the time of the book’s publication in 2011, examine pivotal experiences in the history of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Each chapter scrutinizes select publications’ reporting on each of these experiences from the notorious purchase of Rupert’s Land, the White Paper and the Oka crisis, to the potentially lesser known, but equally as important, deaths of Archie Blaney and Pauline Johnson.

Previous reviewers have castigated the work for a lack of clarity in analysis. While there could have been a more in-depth explanation of methodology, each chapter lays out which newspapers are investigated, the dates of publication, and the key search terms (ex. “squaw”, “drunkard”, etc.). What the work lacks in expressing its approach, it makes up for in the breadth of primary source analyses. While for some chapters where the topic of study is very localized (ex. The Anicinabe Park Standoff, 1974, Kenora) there is only one newspaper driving the analysis, in other chapters there are as many as 18 papers under study. The authors also considered both news reporting and editorials that expose the attitudes of the media as well as the general population.

One qualm regarding the content covered is the lack of discussion devoted to the residential school system and the Sixties Scoop. While residential schools are mentioned in passing in various chapters, there is no individual chapter focusing on its portrayal in the media and there is no mention of the Sixties Scoop at all. My theory is that this is because these experiences span decades; however, I do not think it is suitable to neglect the experiences entirely.

A key guideline in any sort of reportage is “nothing about us without us”. Thus, it is crucial to look at who it is constructing this analysis of the Indigenous Canadian narrative. Mark Anderson was born in Kenora, Ont., and is a professor of history at Carleton University. Although a young child at the time, Anderson would have been living in Kenora at the time of the Anicinabe Park Standoff. Nonetheless, Anderson is a settler. Carmen Robertson was born in Fort Qu’Appelle, Sask. and is of Lakota and Scottish decent. She is a professor of art history at Carleton University and sits on the editorial board of The Australian Journal for Indigenous Education and RACAR. While Robertson does have an Indigenous blood line, and the proceeding fact may not necessarily affect the integrity of the analysis, it is important to recognize that different groups of Indigenous people have different experiences throughout their histories.

Anderson and Robertson assert that newspapers aided the creation of Canada as an “imagined community”. The term “imagined community” was coined by historian and political scientist Benedict Anderson. He used the term as a representation of nationalism to attest that communities are socially constructed by the people who perceive themselves to be a part of them. Anderson and Robertson maintain this concept in the construction of Canada by white settlers – the same people who were reporting in the newspapers – as well as the identification of Canada being non-American. The authors identify a “rule of three” illustrating three characteristics that, according to the newspapers, embody Indigenous people when compared to whites: depravity, innate inferiority and a stubborn resistance to progress.

Anderson and Robertson conclude that while there have been changes, colonialism is still represented through print news. For example, the rejection of the terms “squaw”, “pagan” and “heathen” represent a change in socially accepted language but it does not prove that actions and ideals of the “imaginary Indian” have changed. In addition, one might argue that including editorials written by Indigenous peoples show a balance of reporting; however, these are greatly outnumbered by pieces written by settlers and editors always have the ability to edit at their discretion.

More recent coverage of Indigenous peoples follows this trend as well. Take the Mi’kmaq fisheries for example. A short piece entitled “Fire destroys Mi’kmaq lobster boat” was published in the Toronto Star on Oct. 6, 2020. The piece cites the Marshall decision which allows First Nations peoples in Eastern Canada to fish for a “moderate livelihood”; however, the clincher to the article states that the treaty right is still subject to federal regulation. Looking back to Anderson and Robertson, they ask the question, “how will more of the same lead to a different result?” The Canadian government has refused to recognise that current issues affecting Indigenous peoples are a direct result of colonial and assimilationist policies dating back to the 19th century.

And so, where do we go from here? Journalism is an essential service of a democratic society, but how can it be deemed essential and objective if it is built on a foundation that has negatively targeted Indigenous peoples? How can journalism serve the public when it has for so long perpetuated harm? These are the questions that this work brings to light. Anderson and Robertson declare that there was no significant difference in colonial representation between individually owned newspapers and those controlled by media conglomerates. This work then begs a similar study of other news mediums – audio, video and multimedia. While these mediums are not as old as the newspaper, Anderson and Robertson have made it clear that colonial imagery has endured.

Anderson and Robertson have opened up a conversation. A few small-scale studies have been done since the publication of Seeing Red in 2011, but this text continues to serve as the basis for Canadian news representation of Indigenous peoples. The authors quote a letter to the editor by Chief Harold Sappier published in the Fredericton Daily-Gleaner in 1969 that said, “other Canadians do not understand the Indian way of life and a lot of them do not really care”. Anderson and Robertson have released this study into a society that hopes to have people who do care to reconcile the foes of the past, and who are willing to adjust the faulty power structures.

Through the work’s strengths and weaknesses there is one lesson that rings true for all journalism: the audience must be critical of all reporting because the basis of objectivity was not developed in an equitable society.