Callan Main

As I watched the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Olympics, I couldn’t help but be conflicted in condemning or condoning the spectacle. The ceremonies are supposed to draw on the ancestry and heritage of the country that is presenting the games to the rest of the world. They are an invitation to catch a glimpse into the host nation’s culture.
From the torch relay to the opening ceremonies to the Olympic logo, there has been a distinctive “Aboriginal brand” to these games. Alongside this, most of the Olympic venues are located on traditional lands of the Lil’Wat, Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh, who together make up the Four Host Nations Society. The society is an official partner of the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee (VANOC) in the hosting of the games. This partnership has been a component of the games since the bidding process began, and has generated millions of dollars for the four Aboriginal bands. Yet it’s worth asking what this branding and so-called partnership has done in regards to indigenous people within this country.     Native arts and culture were a prominent presence at this year’s games. The use of Aboriginal culture and symbolism was conveniently placed in the entertainment components of the Olympics. When it comes to actual Aboriginal participation, however, the games were largely lacking. Canada’s Olympic team had only one Aboriginal athlete: snowboarder Caroline Calvé from Quebec. Close to 4 percent of the Canadian population identify as Aboriginal; if the team were to truly reflect the face of Canada, we would have had 7 or 8 Aboriginal athletes on the 200+ Canadian team.
Thanks to the prominence of Aboriginal imagery at the games, Canada’s Indigenous peoples are experiencing unprecedented international exposure. The Vancouver 2010 Aboriginal Licensing and Merchandising Program marks the first time an Olympic organizing committee has partnered with Indigenous people in creating an official licensed merchandising program — a program that showcases excellence in Aboriginal arts, culture, and enterprise in Canada. Some say this will bring global attention to Aboriginal artists and businesses.
Chief Leah George-Wilson of the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation (TWFN) believed that, if the Olympics were going to occur in Aboriginal territory no matter what, a partnership with VANOC – which meant having a direct say in the implementation of the games - would have the greatest positive effect on their communities.
We only have to look as far as the controversy between the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) and the Cowichan tribe over the Olympic sweater to see the complexity of Aboriginal involvement in the games. HBC won the bid to produce Canada’s clothing line for the 2010 games. Their Olympic sweater, which features a design very similar to the iconic maple leaf and elk featured on the traditional Cowichan hand-knit sweater, has been one of the clothing line’s most popular items.
The Bay says it considered using Cowichan knitters to produce its sweaters, but felt they could not meet its strict standards. Cowichan Tribes general manager Ernest Elliott revealed in an interview that HBC wanted the knitters to produce 700 to 800 sweaters in a 10-month period. The job could have been done for less than $300 per sweater with about 25 knitters, he estimated. “I can’t describe what we would have felt if all the Canadian athletes walked into the opening ceremonies with genuine Cowichan sweaters,” Elliott said.
Instead, the Hudson Bay Company opted to make “contemporary sweaters” that bear a strong resemblance to the traditional Cowichan sweater, for a selling price of over $350. After much dispute, HBC finally came to an agreement with the Cowichan Tribes to sell genuine, hand-knit Cowichan sweaters - but only in the company’s flagship Olympic store.
It seems, then, that HBC stole the look of the Cowichan sweater, developed and produced a poorer quality garment – selling it for more than the genuine Cowichan sweater would have cost – and then tried to save face in response to protests and terrible publicity. Is that what you would view as a “partnership”?
In 1999, the International Olympic Committee adopted Agenda 21, a document that called for Olympic host nations to use the Games as a means for creating sustainable development for traditionally disadvantaged groups, including Indigenous peoples. The following year, the Sydney Olympics gave Australia’s Aborigines a role to play in the Games, highlighted by a memorable performance at the opening ceremony.
Though the world was exposed to Aboriginal culture, the scene was very different away from the media spotlight. Some of Australia’s Indigenous leaders called for protests during the Sydney Games because of long-simmering disputes over land rights and the lack of economic opportunities available to their people. Other games held since the adoption of Agenda 21 have had Indigenous participation but, like in Sydney, the role was limited to performance. When Canadian tribal representatives took part in the 2006 closing ceremony at the Torino Olympics, it seemed that the trend of following Agenda 21 on a purely cosmetic level would continue.
The four host First Nations were a visible presence in Vancouver this February, as was the culture of Indigenous people from other parts of Canada. The Aboriginal Pavilion, a structure built specifically for the Games, is the centerpiece of this cultural promotion. But it is the behind-the-scenes participation of the host First Nations that may truly set these Olympics apart in terms of sustainable economic and social development.
In recent years, the Olympics have been valued by the host nation for the economic opportunities created. VANOC supposedly focused on taking steps to include Aboriginal people, not just in those aspects of the Games that receive media coverage, but on a more grassroots economic and social level as well. Will all this talk turn into action on sustainable development for Aboriginal communities across Canada or is this too only a cosmetic partnership? Only time will tell.