Above is the coat of arms of Nunavut, the largest and the newest province of Canada. Enclosed by the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, this territory gained its independence from the North West Territories in 1999. It is sometimes referred to as the Northern dessert due to its lack of precipitation.¹ Although the credit for the coat of arms design goes to Andrew Qappik, the process of coming up with symbols that signified the heritage and spirit of this vast land and its people was a more complex and interesting one, involving hundreds of submissions and contributions of artists, leaders, elders and schools from various geographical locations within Nunavut.² Initially, I want to focus on deconstructing the symbols of this beautiful Inuit artifact to understand the territorial narrative of the Indigenous Inuit people. My next goal is to attempt to explain the double edged sword of an Inuit coat of arms, as it represents the strength, unity and pride of the Inuit and is simultaneously symbolical of their lack of power, independence and self-governance within Canada.

A lit up soapstone oil lamp

First, let’s take a closer look at the artifact and break it down into its individual components. The blue and yellow colors of the shield at the very center represent the land, the sea and the sky of Nunavut.³ The stone figure in the shape of a human figure, the inuksuk, was constructed out of stones and is found in various areas within Nunavut for the purpose of communication and navigation to ensure survival as well as marking locations where one can encounter a memorial site, a place of spirits and an area abundant in fish.⁴ The second symbol residing in the shield is the qulliq, the soapstone oil lamp that produces heat and light and can be found in traditional homes of the Inuit and stands for the “warmth of family and community”.⁵ The gold circles above show stages of the sun below and above horizon and the North Star is another navigational tool and it stands for the leadership of the elders within the community.⁶ The igloo is the home and the means of survival of the Inuit. The caribou and the narwhal are the wildlife of the territories of Nunavut, as are the flowers below. The message at  the bottom translates as “Nunavut, our strength”.⁷ Thus, it is quite clear that the intricate process of constructing the coat of arms supports territorial consciousness and spirit of the Inuit people who built this national artifact together. One can conclude that the public narrative that the Inuit people and the Canadian government want to put out is that the people of Nunavut are a strong, family oriented, collectivist, strategic, sociable, innovative and creative community.⁸ It also portrays Nunavut as almost a nation on its own, one that is primordial (emphasizing a common ancestry and collectivism) and postculturalist (shaped by culture and language).⁹

 

I present to you Saxifrage - the flower. Ah...lovely.

However, one cannot forget the remaining symbol – the Royal crown – that signifies ties to the Canadian government and its respect to the British monarchy. My readings on the history of the relationship between the Inuit and the state government confirmed my speculation in regards to this artifact being symbolic of Inuit people’s lack of power, independence and self-governance within Canada. The coat of arms is a clear display of the ongoing presence and influence of Canadian government in Nunavut.

 

Such royal. Much power. 

In the late 60s and early 70s, with the emergence of the oil boom, the Inuit had little control over their natural resources as the government and businesses began to establish possession and ownership of oil and gas in the Arctic.¹⁰ Since this period, Canadian government attempted to grant rights to Aboriginal groups living in this area. However, this only caused the Aboriginals disappointment because it outlined a clear and unequal power dynamic in which rights were granted by an outsider in power, rather than being inherent to the people.¹¹ The Inuit did not wish to separate themselves from the rest of the nation but to “preserve a sphere which they could control”.¹²

In the present day, governance of Nunavut works based off a “public government model” which involves the state control of Aboriginal people living in these territories. This grants them certain rights to self-governance, including rights over renewable resources and over their culture.¹³ However, the state government is capable of interfering by law and many federal and provincial laws still apply to the Inuit population.¹⁴ In modern Nunavut, unique problems emerge. Firstly, the language of the Inuit, who make up the majority of this province, is Inuktitut which is not an official Canadian language unlike English and French. This is problematic because it threatens the longevity and presence of the language of the people and enforces languages that stem from completely different cultures.¹⁵ Mackey argues that Canada pushes an image of itself as a nation that embraces multiculturalism and yet it celebrates these cultures unequally, as evidenced by the prevalent dominance of the English and French languages in a very ethnically and historically diverse country.¹⁶ Moreover, modern Western presence is evident in Nunavut, as the gender gap closes between men and women, with men losing their traditional roles as hunters and providers and a growing population of women outnumbering educated men. The current economy of Canada greatly influences the disappearance of hunting and of traditional family roles with women currently being the primary wage earners.¹⁷ This is a clear example supporting Mackey’s arguments over Canada being one of the numerous Western nations that aim to maintain control over populations by introducing Western “principles, ideas of progress, beliefs and Western liberty” to people who do not hold these principles, ideas and beliefs and have unique traditions and means of self-governance.¹⁸

---

1. Marecic, J. Charles. “Nunavut Territory: Aboriginal Governing in the Canadian Regime of Governance”. American Indian Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1999/2000), pp. 275-295
2. “Creation of the Coat of Arms and Flag of Nunavut” [Online]. Available: http://archive.gg.ca/heraldry/emb/02/index_e.asp [2009, April].
3. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. “The Coat of Arms of Nunavut”. [Online]. Available: http://www.assembly.nu.ca/about-legislative-assembly/coat-arms-nunavut
4. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
5. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
6. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
7. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
8. Dittmer, Jason. 2010. Chapter 4: “Narration of Nation in the Post WWII US”, in Popular Culture, Geopolitics, and Identity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 69-90.
9. Dittmer 72.
10. Marecic 276.
11. Marecic 276.
12. Marecic 285.
13. Marecic 288.
14. Marecic 289.
15. Marecic 290.
16. Mackey, Eva. House of Difference : Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1998. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 9 October 2014.
17. Marecic 290.
18. Mackey.