A response to Shelagh Grant

In 1912, a missionary doctor, S. K. Hutton, writing about the Inuit of Labrador, commented, “To write of the Eskimos as they were in bygone days would be a fascinating thing, but it would mean building upon a slender foundation. No, the past of the Eskimo people must always remain something of a mystery.”

If that was the case in Labrador in 1912, it is even more the case in Nunavut almost a century later. And so we who choose to write about the events of northern and Inuit history must build upon the slenderest of foundations to tell the stories that excite us and, we hope, interest our readers.

I don’t write historical fiction. I write narrative non-fiction. Presumably Shelagh Grant knows the difference, although it is not apparent in her letter in the April 22 paper (“History versus historical fiction.”) In suggesting that my portrayal of the death of Robert Janes in 1920 is “seriously flawed” and that I have fictionalized it, Grant makes a serious charge that she fails to substantiate.

I’ve studied all the official documents in this case, as I know Grant also has. I’ve pored over 36 different statements taken by the RCMP from 27 Inuit during the years 1922 and 1923. These were taken by a police officer who knew very little Inuktitut, working with a Labrador interpreter new to North Baffin, who understood the dialect imperfectly.

As a result, some of these statements are difficult to reconcile and some of them are contradictory. But they are important because they were taken within a few years of the killing of Janes, and they are the basis – the slender foundation – of the information upon which Nuqallaq was convicted. I have also studied the interviews conducted for the Igloolik Oral History Project and the Pond Inlet History Project. Of course, Grant has used these same sources.

But I also conducted my own archival research. And I did interviews on the Janes killing, in Inuktitut, in the 1970s and 1980s in Arctic Bay and Pond Inlet. I began my research on this topic two decades before Grant did, and was therefore fortunate in being able to interview Inuit who had passed away before her interest in the story was sparked.

Of particular importance, I interviewed Ataguttiaq, the widow of Nuqallaq, Janes’s killer, a number of times. [I note that Grant dedicates her book to Ataguttiaq’s memory, without acknowledging that she never knew her.] I also interviewed Uujukuluk, son of the accused, Aatitaaq, and many other Inuit for whom these events had clear and personal meaning. And of course, among many others was the incomparable Jimmy Etuk, whose memory for historical detail was unequaled.

I must respond briefly to a few of Grant’s specific charges.

Grant states that, as Janes tried to get up after the second shot, “witnesses stated they could not see any blood.” In fact, most witnesses don’t mention whether they did or didn’t see any blood. Ivalaaq, however, stated that “I then saw Janes lying on the snow beside a komitik wounded and bleeding.”

Grant says that Nuqallaq shot him “from above and behind.” Certainly it was from above, but it cannot be proven that it was from behind. Ataguttaaluk said he was lying on his back, Ijjangiaq that he was lying on his belly, and in another statement that he was “lying partly on his side and leaning on his elbow.” Tupirngat says he was “lying on the snow… and resting on his hands.” A shot through the side of the head, from above, is consistent with the coroner’s report.

This is important because Grant states categorically, “At no time was there ever any eye contact between the killer and his victim.”

But Maniq reported that “Nuqallaq looked at Janes lying on the ground for a little while, then he shot him through the head.” And Naqitarvik said that “Janes was talking before Nuqallaq fired the shot into his head, but I could not understand what he was saying.” My conclusion is that Janes was lying on his back or side, and talking in English – to Nuqallaq – the only Inuk man present who could understand English.

Grant also emphasizes, “Nor did anyone state that Janes had ever called out to Nuqallaq.” Not so. After the first shot, Janes saw Nuqallaq but did not realize that it was he who had fired the shot. He called out, “Nuqallaq uvvaa – Nuqallaq, here!”

This is reported by Rachel Ujarasuk in an interview done by the Igloolik Oral History Project in 1989. This may be the report that Grant alludes to, and offhandedly dismisses as inaccurate because it doesn’t fit her convenient conclusion, although it is a narrative from a respected elder.

Shelagh Grant patronizingly suggests that I should “stick to the facts found in original primary sources.” That’s what I’ve done. I’ve built a narrative based on the slender foundation of facts at our disposal. I stand by my interpretation of those facts and the narrative I’ve constructed from them.

Kenn Harper
Iqaluit