Let me start by asking you this: When a political leader suggests using a term that a marginalized community has explicitly rejected as degrading, what does that say about their priorities? In British Columbia, the debate over whether to call Indigenous peoples 'Indians' has become more than a semantic squabble—it’s a window into the soul of a political movement. And honestly, it’s hard not to see the absurdity in the situation. Here we are, in 2023, arguing about a word that carries the weight of colonial history, while people are struggling with healthcare, housing, and climate crises. But that’s the thing about culture wars: they’re rarely about the issues that actually matter. They’re about power, identity, and who gets to define the narrative.
The BC Conservative Party’s leader, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, has sparked outrage by suggesting First Nations people should be referred to as 'Indians,' 'Indigenous,' or 'Aboriginals.' To her critics, this isn’t just a misstep—it’s a calculated provocation. Hugh Braker, a member of the First Nations Leadership Council, called it 'degrading,' which is a fair assessment. But here’s what really grates: this isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a pattern. Right-wing politicians across North America have been weaponizing language to stoke division, and Findlay’s comments fit squarely into that playbook. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it reveals the base she’s appealing to. If her supporters are energized by debates over terminology rather than actual policy, that says volumes about where the party’s priorities lie.
Now, I’m not naive enough to think that language doesn’t matter. Words carry history, and 'Indian' is a term steeped in colonial violence. But what’s even more telling is how some Conservatives have reacted. Take Brennan Day, a MLA who criticized the focus on 'language policing' and redirected attention to economic and safety issues. His stance is refreshing, but it also highlights a schism within the party. Are they genuinely concerned about real problems, or are they just trying to outflank the NDP on cultural issues? It’s a delicate dance, and I suspect the answer lies in the intersection of ideology and electoral strategy. After all, if your base is hungry for conflict, you’ll find ways to feed it—even if it means ignoring the actual needs of the people you claim to represent.
Premier David Eby’s response was sharp, framing the Conservatives as a party that prioritizes 'American-style culture wars' over tangible progress. That’s a strong critique, but it also raises a deeper question: Why are these culture wars so potent in the first place? It’s not just about semantics; it’s about control. By forcing debates over identity, politicians can distract from systemic failures and reframe the conversation around who is 'right' rather than what works. And let’s be honest—this isn’t new. The right has long understood that cultural issues are easier to mobilize around than complex policy solutions. It’s a shortcut, and one that’s been incredibly effective in polarizing societies.
David Black, a political commentator, points out that Findlay’s leadership was secured by a base that craves cultural combat. That’s both a warning and a revelation. If the Conservatives are betting their future on identity politics, they’re playing a high-stakes game. The problem is, identity politics can be a double-edged sword. It can galvanize a base, but it can also alienate the very people they claim to want to appeal to. And in a province as diverse as B.C., that’s a risky move. What I find especially interesting is how this mirrors trends in other parts of the world. From Europe to the U.S., right-wing movements are increasingly focused on cultural identity as a rallying cry. But the danger is that they conflate identity with ideology, forgetting that people’s lives are shaped by more than just how they’re labeled.
So, where does this leave us? The immediate issue is the use of the term 'Indian,' but the broader implication is that we’re witnessing a shift in political discourse. The focus on language isn’t just about respect—it’s about power. And when a party chooses to fight over words rather than solutions, it says a lot about their values. Personally, I think this moment is a litmus test for the BC Conservatives. Will they pivot back to addressing real issues, or will they double down on the culture war playbook? The answer might determine not just their future, but the future of B.C. itself. Because at the end of the day, if you’re more interested in provoking than in solving, you’re not building a province—you’re tearing it down.
