Bob

So if Aboriginals are a part of the Canadian nation, why do they need special recognition? If they do need special recognition, why not give special recognition to all other distinct and unique cultures within Canada? It just doesn't make sense.

Well, first of all I don't think it's a good idea to segregate aboriginals and place them on reservations. They should live among other Canadians just like the rest of us do. Go to public schools, get and education, and succeed. If they wish to, they can preserve their culture on their own as many other cultures in Canada have done and continue to do. It's not easy, but it's doable. It's also a far better idea than this segregation and life-support system where they are removed from most of the Canadian population and most opportunities. As far as nationhood goes, you clearly have some problems grasping that concept. There is nothing insulting to any nation by bringing to attention the commonalities among members of subcultures in Canada that are compatible with nationhood. From a personal perspective, as much as I am a part of the Canadian nation, I am also part of the Jewish nation. Many people, like myself, have multifaceted identities. Aboriginals can do the same, and although I don't want to speak on their behalf, I think they would benefit from doing the same.

When I recommended integration, did you seriously think I wanted to put them into schools that would abuse them and strip them of their culture? There are appropriate ways to integrate people where they become a part of Canada while preserving their culture. It's a difficult balancing act but it's done all the time. I can give you a personal account. My parents emigrated to Canada from Russia two years before I was born, as refugees. I was later enrolled into a private Jewish school (which wasn't cheap, but which still was available to less wealthy Jewish children whose parents could demonstrate that they could not afford the education) in order to preserve and strengthen my connection to my heritage and culture. I also learned the language of my parents by enrolling in a weekend school that my father founded. We celebrated Jewish holidays with the Jewish community and stayed in touch with other Jewish families in order to preserve and strengthen our connection to our heritage. All the while, I received a strong practical education and graduated from a good program in a good Canadian university. Why am I sharing this story? Because it is just one story among million demonstrating that one can successfully integrate into Canadian culture while preserving one's way of life. Of course sacrifices have to made, compromises here and there, but nobody said it would be easy. This is the integration I'm talking about. Natives can do this, as well. What's so hard to understand about that?

That's what you're trying to imply, that somehow the persecution of other groups such as the Roma was equal to that of my people. It's untrue, and it is creepy how vigorously you are trying to advance this falsehood. So far, we've seen an irrelevant link to identity armbands warn by prisoners within concentration camps (when I was talking about identifiers such as the yellow star being worn by Jews across Nazi-occupied Europe), and a link to the USHMM which you yourself misunderstood. Get real.

Read your own link, for heaven's sake. The last paragraph specifically states that only the marriage component of the Nuremberg laws were extended to other persecuted groups. Why are you so obstinate in your pursuit of this disinformation campaign to equate the focus of the Holocaust's persecution of my people to other groups, when it is so obviously untrue? Anyone with the screen-name TrueMetis certainly has no connection to the Holocaust. Your comments, beyond that, make me more than comfortable in my assumptions. I stand by my statement that my knowledge of the Holocaust, which is directly the result of my personal connection to it, eclipses yours.

Just because it cannot be measured with a thermometer doesn't mean we can't use honest judgement to assess it. Don't pretend to a robot. Just because something requires some heart and honesty to gauge doesn't make it illegitimate. If we measure the guilt of criminals based on context, we can do the same here. Don't be so obtuse.

Aboriginals are free to succeed in Canada. If you can't make it in Canada, you can't make it anywhere. Don't Natives have access to free university education (provided they get accepted, of course)? There's the ultimate ladder for social mobility. As far as the existence of other nations within Canada, I will not be presumptuous and speak on behalf of other groups of people. I can tell you this, though, that there are many large sub-cultures within Canada that have virtually all of the components of a nation. What this means is that the members of these subcultures share a distinct sense of unity rooted in one or more of the following: a shared sense of history and/or destiny, shared language(s), a common faith/religion, similar foods, common values and perspectives unique to them, special arts (music, singing, paintings, sculptures, dance, etc), or ethnicity/race. They only become a nation once they declare themselves to be one, I guess. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of these subcultures still identify themselves primarily as Canadian. Do Aboriginals do the same? My view is that Aboriginals should join Canada just as all other communities have joined the mosaic of Canada's society.

Your romanticization of the Aboriginals and description of them as living at one with nature (a la Avatar and Dances With Wolves) is entirely inaccurate, as is your suggestion that Canada is destroying its own environment recklessly where the Aboriginals kept it all pure and clean. Clearly contemporary Canadian culture has little (or nothing) to learn from traditional Aboriginal culture. If anything, the teaching would go the opposite way. Look, charter.rights, I'll be completely straight-up with you. I don't really want to waste much of my time with your posts as I find you ideological and uninformed. That's as nice and polite as I can be.

Let's go along with your supposition that Aboriginal desires for self-determination and independence do not require statehood. Then what are we still debating over? Why don't we just integrate them into Canada and give them the same freedoms and opportunities that all other cultures receive in Canada via multiculturalism? Just as the Muslim community takes it upon itself to open and run Islamic schools, and the Chinese community to open up video rental locations, food stores, libraries, and organize Chinese cultural events in order to preserve their culture, why don't Aboriginals do the same? Why are their cultural interests not their own responsibility just as they are for the wide range of other sub-cultures within Canada (Muslim, Lebanese, Catholic, Chinese, Italian, Indian, etc)? This UN declaration clearly aims to legitimize preferential treatment (which I am not inherently opposed to). Let's be honest about this.

If Aboriginals are Canadians, then they are certainly being afforded special status above and beyond other Canadians, specifically above other Canadian groups (Catholic Canadians, French Canadians, Muslim Canadians, Chinese Canadians, etc). It seems to me that there is this middle ground being sat on, with Aboriginals enjoying the blessings of being Canadians while on the other hand requesting special rights and privileges based on them being "indigenous" to Canada (with 95% of Canadians not being "indigenous"). If Aboriginals are a part of the Canadian nation (aren't they?), then they are entitled to the same protections, opportunities, responsibilities, and liberties as all other Canadians: no more, no less. The sceptic in me feels like this whole Aboriginal dilemma is just a large and self-perpetuating cottage industry designed to funnel Canadian taxpayer dollars towards unworthy interests.

I'm sure you've all seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsJNrJlvhRM&feature=related I think he's a got a point and completely understand where he's coming from.

It's borderline to make not-so-subtle generalizations about Jewish people in America being privileged. I've been attacked three time in Canada as a youth because I was Jewish, once having my nose broken and another time having my teeth broken. Anti-semitism is very real in many places in North America. Jewish success doesn't change this reality. Sanchez made some simplistic statements implying that somehow it's a grind to grow up as a Hispanic, and not as a Jew. As if ignorance of non-Hispanics towards Hispanics doesn't also come from non-Jews towards Jews (as Sanchez ironically illustrates). The interview with Rick Sanchez, however, really displayed a lot of his insecurity. Why get all worked up over a moron like Jon Stewart harassing you on his show that targets teenagers? Still, as an anchor, I found Sanchez to be alright. He may not be the brightest candle on the menorah, but he's just a television news anchor: what'd you expect? I think Jon Stewart sucks. Here's the full interview:

It was not the same intensity, though. You need to let go of your illusions of equal targeting and persecution of Jews and other groups during the Holocaust. It was not the same.

What I'm rejecting is your continued assertion that the persecution of Jewish people in the Holocaust was not at a significantly higher, more intense, more vicious, and more intricate level than the persecution of other groups. I am well aware and personally connected to the suffering of non-Jews (both those who were specifically targeted and those who weren't) via both non-Jewish family and friends and their stories. Still, it is not the same as the intensity of the persecution against Jews. I don't need to prove anything. I know what I know, and it is irrelevant to me what someone thinks who has absolutely no connection to the Holocaust or the events of WWII, and whose knowledge of the Holocaust begins and ends with excerpts from Wikipedia.

Thanks for the links. And no, I am certainly not familiar with these treaties to any degree. I never studied them at any level, academically or casually.

Let's get right down to basics. Does Aboriginal independence and self-determination depend on statehood? Can their desires be actualized within the existing Canadian framework? We have many sub-communities who are distinct from the rest of Canadians living within Canada. Although not necessarily important, many of these sub-communities are significantly larger than the Aboriginal populations of Canada. Do French-Canadians deserve the same independence and autonomy? What about Canadians who identify themselves as Chinese? If not, you are affording special recognition, rights, and entitlements to Aboriginals over other Canadians (not that that is inherently bad, by the way). Let's at least be open and honest about it. It just seems to me that the primary objective of independence and self-determination for a population is the preservation and continued development of a culture. Can this not be realized by Aboriginals within Canada as it is? In my view, I just can't see why anyone would want independence from Canada, a beautiful, wealthy, and free country. If it isn't beautiful, wealthy, or free enough for Aboriginals to realize their needs, however, that is something entirely different. I am not being sarcastic with that last statement, by the way.

Although this is ethnocentric, Jewish children should focus on our own history. Of course, the more knowledge the better, but if time, resources, and attention are limited resources (and they are), the educational focus from Jewish children should be their own history. Do you really think the history of early French and English pioneers in Canada is going to resonate with Jewish Canadian children whose parents emigrated from Europe in the 1970s or 1980s? It's not their history, but the history of the country in which they now live.

The badges you're listing of were worn in concentration camps. Jews, on the other hand, had to wear such badges in occupied countries outside of concentration camps. That's what I was talking about. Do you really think someone like yourself is in a position to educate me about the Holocaust? Get real. I grew up with this and have a deeply personal stake in it. You, on the other hand, run to Wikipedia to look for debate ammo to waste time on something that's trivial to you. You're just trying to marginalize the unique Jewish component of the Holocaust, it's so transparent and pathetic.

Just because Harper deferred to it doesn't mean it isn't a leftist document. You say that Canada does not control "indigenous" people, does Canada control non-indigenous people? If indigenous people are distinct and independent, then they do not belong to the Canadian nation, right? Are they both Canadian and Aboriginal? Are non-indigenous Canadians, such as myself and 95% of Canadians, not entitled to sub-independence? Can the Chinese people of Canada become independent? What about the French? Do you not see how it is silly to afford special protections and entitlements to "indigenous peoples" in a free country like Canada? Canada is virtually the freest country on earth, what could "indigenous people" possibly want emancipation from? Without they own country, which I'm quite certain we can all agree will never happen, the days of running around as savage nomads a la Dances With Wolves are over. Why not simply take part in Canada, as they currently are able to, and thrive as so many other communities in beautiful Canada?

Are you trying to suggest that those who you define as indigenous people (Aboriginals) in Canada have a right to independence and statehood? Are they entitled to autonomy within Canada? Are these indigenous people distinct from the vast majority of Canadians legally, do they have special rights separate from other Canadians (many of whom who are born here and have roots in this country going back many generations, who you have labelled as non-indigenous)?

No problem, it's always nice to see people taking the moral positions, even if they are unpopular in the sea of ignorance. Somewhere I did read that you are Jewish (one of your posts, perhaps?) as well as the fact that your a middle-aged lawyer. By virtue of that, I assumed that you naturally are more familiar with the Holocaust than the Johnnie-come-latelys whose knowledge of the Holocaust is exclusively rooted in Wikipedia.

No, the difference is the degree to which demonization and persecution took place. The Nuremberg laws, as one of the most well-known examples, specifically targeted Jews. Jews alone were forced to wear identification stars on their arms in public. The targeting of Jews was particularly more widespread and vicious than the targeting of any other group. You are marginalizing the specific focus of the Holocaust towards my people by overstating the parallels in persecution with other groups such as gays and disabled people. Again, homosexuals and disabled people are unified in one dimension. The Jewish people, on the other hand, are connected by far more than simply genetic inheritance. We share a history, a way of life, a language, a faith, a culture (music, food, art, dance, etc). Homosexuals and disabled people are not a nation, they are groups of people with a common denominator. I will not continue this discussion as it's quite obvious what road you are trying to take this thread towards. I am more than confident that you are in no position to educate me about the Holocaust, and I'll leave it at that.

I have a few Jewish friends who recently made Aliyah to Israel from Venezuela, all of them cite the current political situation in their country of origin (i.e. ultra-communist dictator-wannabe Chavez) as at least part of the reason for their returning to their true home. It should be noted that a democratic process doesn't inherently ensure moral decisions. Simply because Chavez may have legitimately won elections (which I have heard arguments against, given his increasing degree of control over the media and sharing of information and ideas), and passed laws through Venezuela's political process doesn't ensure that the decisions are moral or acceptable. An extreme hypothetical example can illustrate this point. If 51% of a population wants to murder the remaining 49% of the population, is this acceptable simply because it was democratic? We have historical examples of democracy still not protecting us from tyranny. To support changes and leadership in Venezuela because of "democracy" isn't in and of itself a very strong argument.

Who are indigenous people in the European context? What about non-indigenous people? Who are they?

First of all, who is and who is not indigenous? I have a friend, for example, his parents are Russian immigrants, yet he was born in Canada. Is he an indigenous person? How about another friend of mine, whose mother's family goes back to the 1800s, with an immigrant father from Algeria. Is she an indigenous person? The point I'm making here is that all people are already protected by the CCRF. There is something very strange about seeking to set a separate distinction for "indigenous people" (who are they, exactly?), when Canadian protections are already extended to all Canadians. Let's assume we can clearly define "indigenous persons", what about "non-indigenous persons"? Are they also to be afforded special and unique rights and protections and entitlements? Should they receive a fancier title that "non-indigenous persons"? Do you see what I'm getting at? It was stupid of Canada and every other free and prosperous and moral country to join on with the political-leftist garbage. It is very strange, and suspicious, to have such an elaborate declaration for the rights of such an ambiguous collection of peoples. Who is indigenous? Who isn't?