by Raynald Rouleau

inuit relocation

If Nuremberg Trial standards were to be applied to the case of what the British oligarchy did to the Inuit people of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Elizabeth II, would be in serious trouble. In 1953, the Canadian government deported several families of Inuits from Inukjuak, Quebec to the High Arctic, in order “to restore the Inuit to what was considered their proper state.” It was called “a rehabilitation project.”

In 1994, an explosive report was issued by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples called The High Arctic Relocation: A Report on the 1953-55 Relocation. The contents of this report shed light on a key policy doctrine of the British Empire in regards to the manipulation of native populations within Canada. This policy involves destroying continental development by cultivating identities conducive to technological backwardness, yet wearing the mask of `natural purity`. This mask hides an insidious program of scientific and technological apartheid on a vast scale.

This technological apartheid which the contents of this report shed light upon, directly challenge the popular doctrine that native people exist as a fixed part of their `ecology`. Such a doctrine has been cultivated by the likes of Maurice Strong, The Club of Rome, The World Wildlife Fund, The Munk School of Global Affairs, and The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation headed by Thomas Axworthy. [This racist assumption underlies the passage of such `natural protection legislation` such as Bill C-383 to prohibit all trans-boundary water development across Canada and the USA and threatens to destroy the long fought for JFK-era project NAWAPA. –editorial]

In the 1994 report, Canadian military serviceman stationed at Resolute Bay who witnessed the experiment, said that “he didn’t understand why the Inuit were not given quarters at the base to live in and why the ample food which was available at the base was not made available to them.” The report continued, “The servicemen were told that the Inuit were there to rehabilitate themselves . . . to learn how to survive on their own and go back to their old way of living. The project was to see if they could survive in that High Arctic environment where Inuit had lived in earlier times. . . . Temperatures of -55°F were common in the winter.” The servicemen were told that in no way were they to associate with the Inuits or give them anything unless escorted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which was running the project.

This insane situation recalls the “Do Not Feed The Animals ” sign at the London Zoo. In this case, the zookeeper was the RCMP. The Inuit were even tagged, and forced to wear a metal disk with a chain around the neck. Many official government documents show the name of an Inuit followed by their tag number.

The ‘High North Relocation Project’

The Canadian government in power during the period of this relocation policy was applied knew or should have known that the program was brutalizing and inhuman. But, as were the black slaves who were trained to pick cotton by the British Confederate slave-masters in the southern United States, Inuit were “tamed,” to do the trapping for the British Empire’s Hudson Bay Company. The living conditions of the Inuit around the Hudson Bay Company-run trading post, were very bad. One could rightfully label these posts as “Arctic plantations.”

According to the report,” In 1930, Canada’s western Arctic population was estimated to have fallen to about 200 from the 2,000 who had inhabited the region a century earlier ….  The reality was that during the, 1920s and 1930s the healthcare of Inuit, particularly in the eastern Arctic, was in shambles…. Medical care was not given to the dying-they were turned away if they could get to a medical center or were turned out to die in a snow house or tent if already in one of the few treatment centers. . . . Canada was embarrassed by public criticism flowing back through U.S. military personnel entering the Arctic during the Second World War, and it has been said that if the whole truth had been made public, the Canadian government, already stinging from embarrassment, would have had much to answer for.”

In 1945, because of international pressure, the “Eskimos were for the first time . . . publicly recognized as citizens by receiving family allowances,” which are for “maintenance, care, training, education and advancement of the child.” (These allowances were later classified as “savings,” and in effect denied to the children of the families who were part of the “relocation experiment.”)

During the World War II mobilization in the 1940s, many Eskimos were employed in the building of military and related facilities in northern Canada, including the Arctic,

and some were later retained, for example, to help with the maintenance of weather stations. “The effect of improved health care introduced after the Second World War was that the mortality rate began to decline and the Inuit population, by the mid- to late-1950s began gradually to increase.”

Elizabeth II ascends the throne

Soon after Elizabeth II ascended the throne, the Eskimo deportation projects started. Inukjuak, a major Inuit settlement in northern Quebec; was said to be becoming “overpopulated ” (about 500 people lived in the area). But the evil reasoning behind the so-called need for the relocation was that the Eskimos were becoming more and more like the white man, i.e., too civilized:· “In Inukjuak, there was a health facility, a church, a schooI, a fur trading post, a store, a port, etc …. So, slowly, the Eskimos were becoming a part of the whole society. Even if most people were still hunting, it wasn’t their main Source of food. Many were getting some kind of benefits, either as salary, family allowance, or old age security payments, like all other Canadians who benefit from the universal social safety net.”

But, under the top down British Empire policy towards native peoples, the Inuit are not supposed to be the beneficiary of the civilizing effect that modern science and technology bring about. Eskimos, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, live in igloos and hunt seal, walrus, and polar bear somewhere near the North Pole. Therefore, the Canadian government-enacted a policy to “correct ” the problem. The government deported several families, specially those judged to be more in need of “rehabilitation,” e.g., those who had taken “the white man’s way of life.” The report stated: “It was recognized in the department that the cyclical nature of hunting could and did lead to periodic famine and starvation. This was considered the natural state for the Inuit. The goal of the relocation was to restore the Inuit to what was considered their proper state.”

In the Arctic, the RCMP was the government. “For decades, continuing into the 1950s, the RCMP were the embodiment and custodians of Canadian government policy and carried out almost every government function, from handing out family allowances to enforcing the law in the Arctic,” the report said. “The RCMP were seen as having extraordinary legal power and an extraordinary reputation for being able to deliver the results of this legal power.” One thing that shows the insanity of the whole project, and also has the hallmark of the royal family, is that the RCMP, aside from having been directed “to keep the Eskimos self-supporting and independent,” were also directed to enforce the “wildlife laws.” The Inuits were prohibited from killing musk ox or hunting caribou, the skins of which are a must for blankets and other warm clothing.

Maj. Gen. Hugh Andrew Young, the deputy Minister of Resources and Development, pushed the “rehabilitation project” down the chain of command, with the help of his partner in crime, Lt. Cmdr. Bent Gestur Sivertz, an avowed Freemason and former head of the King’s officer training establishment of the Canadian Navy in Halifax, who was made Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1945.

On Feb. 20, 1953, Young wrote to RCMP Commissioner Nicholson: “As you are aware, we have been giving consideration to the possibility of transferring a few Eskimo families from overpopulated areas to places in the High Arctic …. It would be possible to establish these small settlements only with your cooperation as there is no one else at these places who could assist these people in adjusting themselves to new conditions …. We could not consider placing Eskimos at Resolute Bay unless we had someone to look after them and direct their activities …. I would be interested to hear, therefore, if you propose to open a detachment at that point this year.” The RCMP commissioner replied: “I would be quite willing to select a good man and have him stationed there with the specific job of taking care of the natives. He might even be able to encourage some hunting and trapping on their part and handle their furs for them.”

Opposition Arose

There were people in the government who opposed this insane idea. A memorandum on May 2, 1952 by a senior official of RCMP, Mr. Carlson, who had 30 years of Arctic experience, said: “If the living standards of the Eskimos are ever to be raised they will require education, and education will interfere with their so-called “nomadic life”, but their life has, to a large extent, already been eliminated by changing them from hunters of meat to fur rappers. Fur trapping keeps them comparatively close to the trading post to which they go often with their fur, and, of course, the traders encourage them to do as much trapping as possible. If the Eskimos were living their true nomadic way of life, they would, to a large extent, be living hundreds of miles away from the trading posts, following caribou herds or fishing some good lakes or streams or camping at good sealing and walrus grounds. . . .

There is really no valid reason why the Eskimos should be made or encouraged to continue as hunters or trappers in the Arctic, especially if they don’t want to …. The more employment that is found for Eskimos other than hunters and trappers, the better. I think it is useless to talk of them resuming the native way of life.”

The Sovereignty Issue

The deportation coincided with a “worry ” of the British vis-a-vis the United States concerning the High Arctic Islands. The report said, “By 1946, the U.S. presence in the north had declined substantially, but within a few years it would increase again. The Cold War led to several large projects in the Arctic, this time involving the High Arctic Islands. First came the joint Arctic weather stations, followed by the radar stations of the Distant Early Warning (DEW line). A large number of U.S. vessels were involved in the sea supply of these operations. Over time, Canada’s claim to Arctic waters became the predominant concern, and one that remains today.”

The report stated: “Mr. Denhez observed that the creation of the Arctic Islands Game Preserve involved the exercise of Canadian sovereignty and was designed to reinforce Canadian control over the Arctic. The stated purpose of the game preserve was to preserve the game for the benefit of the Canadian Native people. However, there was no aboriginal population in the High Arctic Islands at the time. The question that then arose was the significance of populating the High Arctic Islands with aboriginal people as the logistical consequence of the adoption of such measure. Mr. Denhez asserted that the 1953-55 relocation must be seen against the background of many years of government efforts to assert a Canadian presence in the Arctic and that there were those who saw the relocation in terms of further assertion of Canadian sovereignty.” A 1929 Canadian government memorandum was quoted in the report: “The creation of this preserve and its appearance on our maps serves to notify the world that the area between the 60th and 141st meridians right up to the Pole is under Canadian sovereignty.”

As shown in EIR’s 1997 Special Report “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor”, the British monarchy’s World Wildlife Fund for Nature’s creation of “wildlife reserves” all over the world is only a pretext for strategic control over specific areas, for the purpose of irregular warfare.

According to the Royal Commission report, “A Dec. 29, 1952 memorandum to J.W. Pickersgill, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary of the Cabinet, situates the opening of RCMP posts in the Arctic in the context of a discussion about the importance of maintaining Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. The memorandum states that ‘About a year ago Mr. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) remarked in private that he wondered how good our claim was to some areas of the Arctic… Probably of much greater concern is the sort of de facto U.S. sovereignty which has caused so much trouble in the last war and which might be exercised again.”

A spokesman for the Royal Commission told EIR that “there have been hundreds of such rehabilitation projects” over the years, in which a substantial number of human lives were lost. He said that such projects are still going on.