The Inuit: Can They Fight? Term Paper Example

The history of the many generations of Inuit is replete with accounts of fighting with other indigenous peoples including fellow Inuit, and of retaliating in response to attacks.  These tales have been passed down from generation to generation, but it is unclear how accurate they are, factually.  In any case, there is certainly a past that contains animosities and violence both against outsiders as well as fellow Inuit.  According to Inuit legends, engaging in wrongdoing to another Inuit provoked revenge and possibly murder against both outsiders and within the group, and was considered justifiable revenge as a reaction to, for example, stealing from one’s neighbors.  Ironically, however when it came to fighting against European and North American governments and others who wished to exploit the Inuit, the response was one of passivity, compliance and stoicism, to their great detriment (McGrath, 2007).

As described in her book, The Long Exile: A Tale of Inuit Betrayal and Survival in the Arctic, Melanie McGrath explains how both European and North American colonialism forced the displacement of Inuit families from their native Arctic homeland to Ellesmere Island.

This uprooted them more than 1200 miles into completely unfamiliar terrain.  The purpose of this: to establish a United States military base on their former homeland, and to populate the new island in order to accompany a new weather station that had been built there.  The Inuit were completely miserable in these foreign surroundings because they were out of their element regarding how to survive: the harsh terrain and climate, the inability to obtain food in ways that were familiar to them, the months of darkness that made it impossible to hunt and fish—the Canadian and other governments refused to move them back home, forcing them to comply and to remain silent.

This is one of the most disgraceful human rights violations in the history of Canada (Royte, 2007).  When the details of that terrible crime became known to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Canadians were appalled by the exploitation and cruelty of its government.  Eventually, financial reparations of $10,000,000 were made to Inuit families and their survivors.  Nonetheless, the contempt or embarrassment which was felt by the government becomes evident when one considers the fact that no apology to the Inuit people has been made to this day.

Exploitation of the Inuit by Europeans has been documented since the 19^th century, when British explorers were looking for a northern passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.  The British utilized them as guides as well as to help them to hunt and consult on how to survive physically in the frigid climate of the Arctic.  Several Inuit accompanied Robert Peary in his expedition to the North Pole in 1909.

The Europeans viewed the Inuit as inferior to them since they had no written language and no apparent technological expertise.  In fact, the ways that the Inuit adapted to the cold, for example their ability to protect themselves with fur clothing and animal skins, reflected intelligence and technology of a different degree.

People from the West also observed the Inuit’s silent and passive behavior.  Because they were not inclined to engage in what today would be considered “small talk”, people from the West were not used to the social behavior of the Inuit.  In fact, it is speculated that these behaviors were responses to the situation of being in long periods in darkness, crowded traditional igloos, and other behaviors that were perceived as strange and foreign.

Just as the situation when Europeans arrived in the United States, exposing the Native Americans to all sorts of diseases and germs which killed them, the same was true of the Westerners that arrived in Canada, exposing the Inuit to life-threatening illness.  In addition, they brought Christianity to the Inuit, completely invalidating the fact that the indigenous peoples had their own set of spiritual beliefs.  Still, however, many anthropologists believe that the factor that truly and finally destroyed the Inuit culture was the idea of “planned communities”.  The Canadian government, using coercive tactics, forced the Inuit to leave their small nomadic groups behind and relocated them to areas with which the indigenous peoples had no familiarity.

This paper will examine a hypothetical situation, namely that in the event that the Inuit were able to return to their home in Canada as citizens with equal rights, how they might achieve that goal and empower themselves so that their futures would be full of promise, success, and fulfillment, one that also takes into account their unique history, with all its failures and achievements.  Using the real life models of Genghis Khan and Nelson Mandela, the fate of the Inuit will be put into perspective in an effort to outline the ways in which they could finally achieve true equality and all its potential, considering all the possible ways in which to empower themselves.

When one looks at the traits utilized by Genghis Khan as a leader, while he believed in a nomadic form of life, he knew that treasure was the goal and winning was the most important aspect of engaging in battle.  This fighting spirit is completely counter to the history of the Inuit in that they were quite compliant in response to the tremendous unfairness inflicted upon them by foreign governments (Leadership Development, 2010).  He did not emphasize the accumulation of significant wealth, since he shared all his winnings with his supporters and was considered to be an extremely generous emperor.

Genghis Khan was a strong and powerful leader who encouraged his followers to speak out openly and informally, so that clearly he did not rule as a dictator who inspired fear from his kingdom but rather, was seen as a sensible and approachable leader.  If the Inuit were to follow this framework for leadership, they would convey a sense of being in charge in a reasonable way so that they could prevail over their enemies without involving a war- like approach.

Another value exhibited by Genghis Khan, which would also benefit the Inuit society, was a tolerant view of others’ opinions, including religious differences, so that people had the freedom to worship in the ways that they saw fit, rather than engaging in wars based on the religious beliefs that have been experienced both in past and present societies.  Strategically, this became very useful for Genghis Khan because when he was engaged in conflicts with other cultures, different leaders around the world did not fight against him because the conflict was not seen as a holy war.  Instead, the feuds were seen as differences between people who were in opposition to each other based on secular issues.

The Inuit language is divided up over such a large area of land, between different countries and political groups and originally reached by Europeans from different places at different periods of time; there was no consistent way of expressing the language in writing.  As a contrast, although Genghis Khan was illiterate himself, he was able to envision how one could spread powerful ideas through reading and writing.  He was responsible for encouraging the use of a common Mongolian alphabet, and he himself was continually learning from other cultures whenever possible.  If the newly repatriated Inuit were able to express themselves by writing in a uniform language, they would be able to maintain a more cohesive and free flowing exchange of ideas, solidifying themselves as a people through communication, both oral and written.  Instead, a vast variety of alphabets are utilized throughout the territories inhabited by the various groups, which does not lend itself to forming any united core for its people.

One aspect of the history of Genghis Khan that would not be useful for the Inuit in their relocation back to Canada is Khan’s penchant for revenge, which was part of his Mongolian heritage but which resulted in the killing of massive amounts of people.  One of the features he utilized as a weapon in war was terrorizing the citizenry; when people resisted him he was likely to destroy them completely. He was more peaceful towards people who accepted his rule.

Genghis Khan had a great mind when it came to understanding people, politics, and the psychology of individuals which allowed him to defeat his enemies based on his understanding of their psyches.  The Inuit, who appeared to simply fight with their enemies who had stolen from them without asking any questions, would be empowered if they were able to form some psychological understanding of those that were trying to harm them.  Genghis Khan had a certain code which rewarded loyalty and punished disloyalty.  His history describes that he respected and honored loyalty in both his own fighters and the enemies’, and conversely, was likely to execute soldiers who betrayed their own commanders, even if it was to benefit him (Leadership Development, 2010).

The concept of empowerment was visibly practiced by Genghis Khan, if the word “empowerment” is seen as an agreement between a leader and his subjects for mutual trust and responsibility.  That was a key tenet to his leadership approach; this would also be extremely beneficial to the Inuit if they were to be repatriated back to Canada, because it would foster the concept of a strong leader and loyal followers, creating strong cohesion for the Inuit.  Unlike their past history, when they simply went along with the imperialist agenda of the European and Canadian nations, a solid formation of citizenry with an identifiable leader would empower them to prevail.

Another concept practiced by Genghis Khan was the use of merit in selecting those who would lead his troops, He tended to use upper class people as commanders, but proven success was the factor he used to select his most valuable generals.  In this way, people were motivated to do their best because there was always the possibility that they could be promoted based on their excellence.  This merit-based system would also be a valuable asset to empower the Inuit, since those people most competent to perform one task would be placed in these positions rather than simply utilizing all people for all things.  For Genghis Khan, this resulted in an extremely loyal pool of fighters, who sought his approval and would die for him, more evidence of his use of empowerment to motivate his troops.

As a leader, Genghis Khan was able to identify with the people and understand their need to improve their personal circumstance rather than simply to win wars.  Although he was motivated by expanding his own power, he knew the importance of providing incentives for his fighters to win.  He was well known for sharing virtually everything with his people, from clothing to food to treasure, regardless of their social class.

Nelson Mandela, a renowned leader of the African National Congress and a key figure in the dismantlement of the apartheid regime in South Africa, also serves as a model for empowerment for the Inuit.  In the 1950s, he traveled around the country promoting resistance to segregationist policies in his country.  His strategy was always to achieve his goals by following a peaceful course of action and to avoid violent confrontations.

Mandela was committed to pursuing democracy, equality and education for all citizens.  He was trained to be a lawyer, and he pursued correcting the injustices he experienced as a black man in South Africa through legal means.  Because he posed a threat to the status quo of South African Society, he was arrested in 1964 and sentenced to life imprisonment.  He spent from 1964 to 1990 in various prisons, and during this time, he became identified as the most prominent black leader in his country.  He also came to signify a strong symbol of resistance to apartheid, and was a major force in helping the anti-apartheid movement increase in prominence and strength.  He brought to the international spotlight the issue of apartheid when it was not a global cause prior to that.

In the 1980s, the international movement to free Nelson Mandela continued to gain momentum, involve massive demonstrations worldwide, and eventually led to his release from prison in 1990, at the age of 71 after serving 27 years of his sentence.

Nelson Mandela had many enemies, and was confronted by pervasive racism on all levels of the South African Society.  Despite that, he never responded by using the tactics of his opponents: he has represented civil disobedience and peaceful protest throughout his life.  As a role model for the Inuit, he has always demonstrated that one could be a force for vital change while never resorting to aggression or the sort of violence that was perpetuated against him.  He could serve as an inspiration for the Inuit, a people who suffered from oppression and deprivation, as someone who has prevailed and come out the other end the better for it.  His life has represented the victory of goodness over evil, culminating in his receipt of the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, which he shared with South Africa’s president F. W. De Klerk for their joint and nonviolent efforts to bring an end to apartheid in South Africa, replacing it with a nonracial democracy.  For the first time, black South Africans were able to vote in 1994, electing Nelson Mandela to the presidency.

Nelson Mandela presents the evolving Inuit with many inspirational traits that would assist them in returning to Canada as full citizens, with all the rights that that would entail.  He was a model for civil disobedience and peaceful protest to achieve goals that should be the birthright of all free people, such as voting, the right to make a living and to pursue one’s personal goals leading to a fulfilling life.

If the Inuit returned to Canada, they would be able to empower themselves by using various methods and lessons learned from the examples of Genghis Khan and Nelson Mandela. While it would not be realistic or useful for them to engage in actual warfare, they would increase their chances of being restored to the proud and resilient people that they once were if they engaged in very vocal but peaceful protest.  Unlike the Inuit tendency to react to government exploitation and discrimination against them with compliance and passivity, Nelson Mandela is a model for the success of peaceful protest in achieving equality and long-ignored human rights.

For example, they could assemble in public places and stage loud protests, with signs and chants expressing their demands for rights.  In order to gain attention, they could notify the press, both print and other media, of their planned demonstrations so that there would be coverage of these activities.  Additionally, they could appear on serious network television shows to present themselves in a way that would be both nonthreatening and effective in educating other Canadians about their history and their needs for the future.  This would bring attention to their cause to the public, who are likely unaware of the injustices suffered by the Inuit.  Such methods were of the nature used by Nelson Mandela, who engaged in peaceful but very public protest to alert the population to the injustices occurring in their own country.  Public outrage is a strong incentive for politicians and other people in positions of power to respond with concrete measures, since if they are hoping to be re-elected, it would serve them significantly to respond to their constituents.

In addition, it would be a powerful step towards asserting their rights if Inuits ran for public office, since that would put the Inuit cause in the forefront of the political structure that is the most direct vehicle to enact changes.  Maintaining a high profile as politicians, community organizers, and other spokespeople for the cause would empower the Inuit to help to pass legislation, reinforce their rights, and have more direct access to the powers that make decisions about the citizenry.

Like Genghis Khan, if the Inuit were able to achieve leadership positions in the Canadian government, they could present themselves as tolerant of others’ religious and other views, as well as open to negotiating with those with whom they disagreed, including former enemies.  This would allow the rest of the Canadian population to familiarize themselves with the Inuit philosophy and in so doing, would help the Inuit to gain popular support from those outside their group.  There could be a significant increase in their power and their ability to advocate for themselves if the rest of the Canadian population viewed them as in a sympathetic manner, and as fair and worthy of living a dignified existence.

The Inuit could also benefit by emulating Genghis Khan if they used a merit-based system for advancement under their leadership; that way, they would be motivated to do their best both in order to help their people as well as to improve their own lot in life.

In conclusion, in the fictional situation whereby the Inuit could return to Canada and receive the full civil rights to which they are entitled as the original people as from that region, there are many sources of empowerment that they would be able to derive from studying the lives and values of Genghis Khan and Nelson Mandela.

References

African national congress. (2010, May 28). Retrieved May 30, 2010 from http://www.anc.org.za/index.html

Brent, P. (1976). The Mongol empire: Genghis Khan: his triumph and his legacy. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

McGrath, Melanie. (2007). The Long Exile. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.

Royte, E. (2007, April 18). Trail of tears. The New York Times, B6.

Yates, M. (2010). Leadervalues . Retrieved May 31, 2010 from http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=799