Abstract
Like myself, Jeffrey Denis is a white sociologist who studies white attitudes, ideologies, behaviors, practices, and social structures that impact Indigenous Peoples. For this book, Denis employed observation, interviews, questionnaires, and a photovoice project to study interpersonal and community Indigenous-white relations in a small town, a nearby reserve, and to a lesser degree the region, in Treaty 3 Territory in Ontario. Throughout, Denis provides helpful background information, as well as quotations from participants to illustrate various points.
Although Denis discusses a variety of sociological concepts and theories, he makes a case for the explanatory power of group position theory in particular, contextualized in settler colonialism. Scholars who employ group position theory begin with the premise of group identification, and then examine perceived interests associated with groups. According to this theory, the dominant group feels entitled to their dominant group position, which is legitimated by perceived superiority. Prejudice against other groups is believed to arise in reaction to perceived threat to dominant group position. Denis describes the rise of perceived threat in the community he studied, due to demographic changes, a decline in economic security for non-Indigenous people, and progress for Indigenous Nations. Denis also illustrates how white attitudes in this community reflect paternalistic, colorblind, and laissez-faire racist perspectives.
Denis begins his book by providing a brief historical account of settler colonialism in the region of his study. Then, he describes statistical differences between Indigenous (i.e., First Nation and Métis) and white community members in regard to how they frame Indigenous-white relations. Denis describes group differences in perceptions of boundaries and bridges, prejudice and discrimination, and a controversy over the location of a group home. Many whites do not consider the settler colonial processes that generated their privileged position, blame Indigenous Peoples for their lower position in the stratification system, reject policies aimed to improve Indigenous lives, and perceive Indigenous Nation sovereignty and treaty rights as unfair “special privileges.” Meanwhile, Indigenous people see these rights as positive and essential. Overall, most whites use a frame that assumes Canadian nation-state prerogative over Indigenous Peoples, while exhibiting a sense of group superiority and defending structural inequality. Most Indigenous people challenged these premises.
In my view, the most valuable part of this book is the discussion of findings that run counter to the contact hypothesis: Although close interpersonal contact is common in the focal-community (e.g., friends, marriage, school, church) and seems to reduce old-fashioned racism (e.g., the belief Indigenous people are “bad”), this contact does not have a similar impact on prejudice associated with group position. Whites retain a sense of entitlement, blame Indigenous Peoples’ higher rates of poverty on their alleged deficient morality, and perceive treaty rights, land claims and Indigenous Nation sovereignty as problematic. And, despite this contact, many Indigenous participants reported interpersonal and systemic oppression, while many white participants claimed that “reverse racism” was evident. Denis does an admirable job of explaining why interpersonal contact does not significantly reduce bias related to group position. Community members avoid discussion of political topics; white contact with Indigenous people tends to be with those who have similar beliefs about “race”; and subtyping occurs, which entails perceptions that there are two types of Indigenous Peoples: “good Indians” who can be used to justify the status quo (because they downplay their Indigenous status and conform to the dominant culture) and other Indigenous people who are blamed for their lower socioeconomic position.
The final section of this book is focused on four proposed strategies to address the oppression Indigenous Peoples face: education, interpersonal contact, government apology, and collective action. Denis concludes that current forms of education, interpersonal contact, and apologies are inadequate. He therefore emphasizes the need for political action aimed at structural changes, including returning land, recognition of Indigenous Nation sovereignty, and transformations of institutions of socialization.
Although Denis is attentive to settler colonialism throughout, he primarily uses a race frame and concepts that have been developed by scholars focused on racial inequality. Yet, many of the biases white settler community members articulated are related to Indigenous political status rather than racial status. Racialization of Indigenous Peoples in the United States and Canada is a primary barrier to non-Indigenous understanding of Indigenous Nation status, perspectives, and goals. In my view, scholars should continue to rethink the concepts and theory we use to make sense of prejudice against Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the United States, increasing our focus on political status. Also, Denis’s analysis would have been strengthened by integration of macro-level survey data, as this would have helped to contextualize the specific community Denis studied. Relatedly, I think analysis of regional and national mass media might help inform our understanding of white perspectives in this context.
Despite these caveats, Denis has written a coherent and valuable book about Indigenous-white group positions and associated belief systems in one region of Ontario. Canada at a Crossroads is essential reading for those utilizing group position theory and those concerned with understanding Indigenous-white relations in North America.