Long Live The Queen: Priscilla Returns to Campus

Fear no more, fellow Xaverians! Priscilla: Queen of the Highlands lives on. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Chris Frazer has been working diligently with X-Pride to ensure that the beloved Priscilla will grace the StFX stage for its sixteenth consecutive year. Having grown its fan base and interest significantly since the first show back in February 2005, which hosted an audience of only 100 people, the show has been known to sell-out the Mackay Room of the Students’ Union Building, hosting around four-hundred viewers from across the province.

This widespread show of support for the 2SLGBTQ+ community in our small, rural town began as the entertainment portion of a workshop titled “Centering the Periphery: The Experience of Rural Life for LGBTQ Youth,” which was hosted on the StFX campus in 2005. The workshop was organized by Dr. Frazer (History) in tandem with Dr. Nancy Forestell (Women and Gender Studies) and Claire Fawcett (Anthropology). Dr. Frazer had recently been appointed as faculty advocate for 2SLGBTQ+ students following a number of homophobic assaults on the University’s campus. In an effort to support Dr. Frazer’s new role, and following the success of the first-of-many Priscilla shows, X-Pride decided to continue producing the show on an annual basis.

Photo by Addy Strickland

On Friday, February 20, we will all be able to enjoy a socially distanced show featuring many favourite local and regional performers. Dr. Frazer notes that among this year’s performers, we can expect fan favourite Rouge Fatale from Halifax, who will host the show. Other performers will include Elle Noir, more local Kings, and Dr. Frazer’s own Joni Cash and C. Leah Cruise, along with some other Halifax regulars. Viewers can expect dynamic performances which will include a range of queens, kings, genderf*ck, and non-binary performers. The show will be hosted on Zoom, and tickets will be sold online. More information will be released closer to the show.

To stay up to date as more information becomes available, follow @xpridesociety and @xgsdsa on Facebook and Instagram!

Nova Scotia Kitchen Party

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have all been experiencing the fatigue of social distancing, being away from those we enjoy spending time with. Though restrictions have opened to what we now refer to as a ‘bubble,’ large gatherings are still not permitted. This has inevitably caused much-loved events to be postponed or cancelled. Traditions of gathering with large, at-times rowdy groups of friends, family, and strangers, have all been put on pause. The spirit of such traditions, however, has remained alive for many here in Nova Scotia since the very start of quarantine in March 2020.

The Ultimate Online Nova Scotia Kitchen Party COVID-19 Edition Facebook group (UONSKP) has been steadily gaining momentum since it was first created on March 19, 2020. Following the shutdown of many businesses, and a mandate by the government regarding safe distancing, the group served as a space to highlight the resiliency of many Nova Scotians and offered a place to support each other from afar. As an online recreation of the classic East Coast kitchen party, the videos of music shared amongst the group quickly became a hit with those who hold Nova Scotia near and dear to their hearts.

Videos of families playing music, with some playing instruments like guitar, fiddle and even spoons, breathed life and hope into many of our lives once again. Given the uncertainty of the pandemic, many felt it was nice to keep this tradition alive, albeit looking a little different from usual. If anything, the online format has given the traditional gatherings a broader audience, and has allowed more people to enjoy them. Some who have moved away from home have said that seeing so many people become involved has cured their homesickness, and allowed them to connect with their East Coast roots again.

As the description promises, the idea of the Kitchen Party did indeed clear up some of the pandemic fatigue we are all surely experiencing. The Facebook group is poised to clear up some of the “doom and gloom” on all of our Facebook feeds, and wished to flood them with kindhearted music and fun. No matter your musical abilities, the UONSKP offers a space to connect, and enjoy some long overdue party vibes from the comfort of your own home. Grab your bubble, grab some food, and sit down to enjoy – or dance it out – to performances from some friendly faces around Nova Scotia, or abroad.

RBG's Mixed Record

Following the death of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Badger Ginsburg and the online praise she was receiving, I became aware of a number of articles suggesting that Ginsburg in fact did not have a favourable record when it came to issues of Indigenous rights. The proposed ‘champion for all’, though instrumental in the assertion of women’s rights in America, had what some would call a ‘mixed record’ when it came to more intersectional feminist views.

I felt that it was important to look into the cases that make Justice Ginsburg’s record on Indigenous cases less than the caliber of judicial excellence that much of the public remembers. A quick search yielded results that I had not previously thought to look into given the widely publicized image of Ginsburg as the ‘Notorious RBG,’ the fierce fighter of women’s rights.

During Ginsburg’s tenure as Supreme Court Justice the opinions she wrote for the court regarding what are referred to as “Indian Law” cases were comparatively less favourable towards groups of Indigenous people than had been written in previous years. Ginsburg’s record upholds the opinion that she was unreceptive to indigenous claims. In hindsight, it can be inferred that the Supreme Court itself has shown preferential treatment to those enforcing state rights, rather than Indigenous rights or what is referred to in Carole Goldberg’s analysis of past Indigenous cases involving Ginsburg as ‘tribal rights’.

Ginsburg’s record is particularly interesting as it is her opinions that are the bigger issue, not necessarily how she voted in these individual cases, where scholars take issue. One such opinion which she wrote in regard to the City of Sherill V. Oneida Indian Nation frequently pops up as one of the more problematic. The case itself dates back hundreds of years, to the American Revolution. The Oneida had broken ranks with the other Iroquois Nations to support the US, providing the army with corn that was considered a much-needed resource at the time. Following the Revolution, in acknowledgement of their efforts, the US signed a treaty with the Oneida to provide 300 000 acres of land in what is now New York. Later, in 1970, New York pressured the Oneida into signing all but 5000 acres of their land away. The US never intervened, despite a 1790 law stating land could not be allocated without express permission of the US. By 1838, after more pressure from the state, the Oneida only owned 32 of the original 300 000 acres.

By the nineteenth and twentieth centuries numerous attempts to reclaim Oneida land were made. When the Oneida finally managed to reclaim a small part of their ancestral land, however, another issue occurred. Though Oneida was understood to be a sovereign nation, as the treaties that were signed outline, the City of Sherill was still imposing a tax on their land. When brought to the Supreme Court, the decision was rendered in favor of the City of Sherill, which lower courts have suggested acts as an invitation to deny Indigenous claims in the future. In Ginsburg’s opinion to the court, she consistently references the Oneida’s dispossession of land as ‘ancient’ rather than recognizing that their rights were being dismissed in the present. The struggle that the Oneida were currently facing was disregarded. As a historian, I find fault in the lack of understanding about the depth to which these issues persist, and the past in which they are connected to.

In more recent years, Ginsburg’s voting had been more favorable towards the affirmation of Indigenous Sovereignty. In one of her last votes, Ginsburg voted 5-4 in McGirt V. Oklahoma. This ruling affirmed that the eastern half of Oklahoma was considered Native American Territory. If anything, these facts point to a need to grapple with dissenting stories opposing a common public storyline. Ginsburg’s opinions to the court also outline a distinct gap in the law more generally when it comes to the understanding of

Indigenous traditions, law, and ways of understanding the world. Nearly nobody is untouched by an ingrained history of colonialist views. Ginsburg, though the pinnacle of women’s independence, lacked the capacity to understand the Indigenous perspective for much of her law career.