The Canary Effect (2006)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Canary Effect is a documentary film which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2006.

 

The purpose of this film is to explore the past and present conditions of Native Americans in the US.

 

Here are some basic facts about it:

 

** Directed by Robin Davey and Yellow Thunder Woman

** Written by Robin Davey

** Released on DVD in 2008

** Run time: 63 minutes

 

Several persons are interviewed for the film.

 

Here are the names of the participants:

 

The first group

** Troy Johnson, professor, Long Beach University

** Ward Churchill, professor, Colorado University

** Charles Abourezk, Supreme Court Justice for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe

** Debra Peebles, Bureau of Indian Affairs

 

The second group

** Leon Little Moon

** Jason R. Lonehill

** Lea Fast Horse

** Jesse Beauvais, Senior

** Carl and Paul Denoyer

** James Abourezk

 

Part one

The title, which may seem odd, is explained in the beginning of the film where a quotation by Felix S. Cohen appears on the screen:

 

“Like the miner’s canary, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere, and our treatment of the Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall of our democratic faith.”

 

But we are not told who Felix S. Cohen is or was.

 

Here is the answer: Felix S. Cohen (1907-1953) was an American lawyer, who worked on Indian affairs for most of his short life and career.

 

The film opens with a video statement by Daniel Inouye in which he talks about the sad conditions of the Native Americans, past and present.

 

But we are not told who Daniel Inouye is or was. 

 

Nor are we told when he made this statement.

 

Here is the answer: Daniel Inouye (1924-2012) was a Japanese American soldier in World War II during which he was wounded and lost one arm. He was a US Senator for more than forty years (from 1963 until his death in 2012). I think the statement presented here was made around 2004.

 

The term “Native Americans” is relatively new. For many years, this group of people was known as Indians or sometimes American Indians in order to distinguish them from people from India.

 

As explained in the beginning of the film, the term “Indians” is based on a mistake, which happened more than 500 years ago, when Columbus arrived at one of the islands in the Caribbean Sea.

 

Columbus thought he had come to India. And when he saw the people who lived there, he called them Indians. In fact, he had not come to India at all. He had come to an island in the Caribbean Sea. 

 

Although he crossed the Atlantic Ocean four times, he never visited the part of the world which is known today as the United States.

 

Part two

This film is divided into two chapters.

 

The first chapter is about the past, the history of the Native Americans in the US, i.e. the 18th and 19th century.

 

The second chapter is about the present, the current situation of the Native Americans, i.e. the 20th and the 21st century.

 

Four participants (the first group) mainly talk about the past, while seven participants (the second group) mainly talk about the present.

 

The four participants are identified by their affiliation at the time when the film was made, even though the identification is very brief.

 

I think the people behind the film could and should have offered more information about them. Here is what I discovered when I tried to google their names:

 

** Troy Johnson was born in 1940. He has written several books and articles about Native Americans. He died in 2013. Obviously, the information about his death could not be given in the film, because it happened several years after it was released to the public.

 

** Ward Churchill was born in 1947. He has written several books and articles about Native Americans and related issues. He was hired as an associate professor by Colorado University in 1990 and became a full professor in 1997. In 2006, he was investigated by the university, because he was accused of plagiarism. In 2007 he was fired from the university, even though he was a professor with tenure.

 

Obviously, the information that he was fired could not be given in the film, because it happened after it was released to the public, but the filmmakers could and should have told us that Ward Churchill is a highly controversial person.

 

I am not saying this in order to discredit his statements in the film. I merely think the viewer should know who this person is.

 

** I was not able to find any additional information about Charles Abourezk and Debra Peebles.

 

I was able to find some information about one of the seven participants: 

 

James Abourezk was born in 1931 and he represented South Dakota in the US senate for one term (1973-1979). 

 

He has the same last name as Charles Abourezk. It is a very special name. I assume they must be related, but I do not know how.

 

Once again, I think it would be good to know more about the persons who are speaking to me in this film.

 

Part three

Archive footage is used between the talking heads. There is a cartoon about Columbus from the 1960s. There are some clips which appear to come from public hearings in Congressional committees.

 

But there is no information about when or where these clips were recorded. And the people who are seen in them are not identified. I think this is a shame, because this film covers a serious issue: the past and present treatment of Native Americans in the US.

 

The message of this film is alarming and disturbing. 

 

I wonder why the filmmakers are not doing everything they can to support their case with solid evidence. 

 

Why don't they make sure that the evidence, which is offered, is clearly identified?

 

I have mixed feelings about this film. The topic is important. The charges against the US authorities are serious. The word “genocide” is mentioned several times. 

 

I sympathize with the people behind the film and the message that they have. I want to believe what I am told. But I feel the filmmakers are their own worst enemy, because they make so many elementary mistakes regarding evidence and documentation.

 

It is not enough to say “Government reports say that…” You need to offer a specific reference. 

 

It does not happen.

 

It is not enough to show us a clip where someone is speaking at some kind of hearing. You need to tell us the circumstances: who is speaking here? When was this? Why do you think this is credible? 

 

It does not happen.

 

I must remain skeptical, because the message of the film is not really supported by adequate documentation.

 

Another objection I have against the film is that it is mostly a catalogue of horrible events and facts. I would like to see some constructive thinking as well.

 

What can be done in order to solve some of the political, social and economic problems that are described in the film? How can Native Americans find a way out of the misery that we see in the film? Nobody talks about this question.

 

Conclusion

What do reviewers say about this film?

 

On IMDb it has a rating of 81 per cent which corresponds to a rating of four stars on Amazon.

 

On Amazon there are at the moment 21 ratings of this product, 14 with reviews.

 

The average rating is 4.5 stars which corresponds to a rating of 90 percent.

 

If you ask me, both ratings are too high.

 

As you can see, this film has some flaws, which cannot be ignored, just because I think many of the claims made in the film are true. I have to remove two stars because of these flaws. This is why I think this product deserves a rating of three stars (60 percent).

 

PS. While I was watching The Canary Effect, I began to think about the US historian Richard Drinnon (1925-2012), who was almost as controversial as Ward Churchill.

 

Drinnon is the author of a biography about Emma Goldman – Rebel in Paradise (1961) (1983) - and of two books about American Indians:

 

** Keeper of Concentration Camps: Dillon S. Myer and American Racism (1992)

** Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire-Building (1997)

 

Drinnon is not interviewed in this film, even though he was still alive when it was being made. He is not even mentioned. This is a shame. A missed opportunity.

 

REFERENCES

 

# 1. A documentary film

 

Reel Injun:

On the Trail of the Hollywood Indian

Run time: 88 minutes

(2009)

 

# 2. Books

 

Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret War Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement

By Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall

(1988)

 

The COINTELPRO Papers: 

Documents from the FBI’s Secret War Against Dissent

By Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall

(1990)

 

A Little Matter of Genocide

By Ward Churchill

(1998) (2001)

 

Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and 

the Founding of American Legal Pluralism

By Dalia Tsuk Mitchell

(2007)

 

*****