Immigration and Multiculturalism in Canada

[Melanie_]

I'm Just curious, who chose deport all nonwhites?

Deporting all nonwhites is laughable. You don't need to be white to be Canadian, or name your first born Dougie, or stay home Saturday night until Don Cherry has spoken. Leafless' view of Canada reminds me of the wild eyed Imams we sometimes see on TV - they may believe what they are saying, but they don't speak for everyone.

[Rue]

No...the term's origin is the play -- "The Melting Pot" -- written by Israel Zangwill in 1908.

I knew Israel would get blamed for it sooner or later.

[Melanie_]

I was thinking about this thread this morning as I read about the settlement awarded to residential school survivors. Residential schools were an attempt at forced assimilation, with disastrous results. While I doubt anyone would advocate using this strategy again (although I could be wrong), 7 people voted for forced assimilation in this poll. What new strategies can be used to carry this out, without committing the mistakes of the past? How can forced assimilation occur without trampling the rights of the minorities it is being forced upon? I’m not trying to trick or trap anyone, I’m just really curious about how people see this being accomplished.

[charter.rights]

I was thinking about this thread this morning as I read about the settlement awarded to residential school survivors. Residential schools were an attempt at forced assimilation, with disastrous results. While I doubt anyone would advocate using this strategy again (although I could be wrong), 7 people voted for forced assimilation in this poll. What new strategies can be used to carry this out, without committing the mistakes of the past? How can forced assimilation occur without trampling the rights of the minorities it is being forced upon? I’m not trying to trick or trap anyone, I’m just really curious about how people see this being accomplished.

Forced assimilation is genocide.

[kengs333]

I was thinking about this thread this morning as I read about the settlement awarded to residential school survivors. Residential schools were an attempt at forced assimilation, with disastrous results. While I doubt anyone would advocate using this strategy again (although I could be wrong), 7 people voted for forced assimilation in this poll. What new strategies can be used to carry this out, without committing the mistakes of the past? How can forced assimilation occur without trampling the rights of the minorities it is being forced upon? I’m not trying to trick or trap anyone, I’m just really curious about how people see this being accomplished.

When you think about it, though, many people who are productive, hardworking Canadians have ancestors who came to this country expecting to pick up where they left off in the Old World but were forced to assimilate into English-Canadian society. I'm not sure that this was a bad thing considering that there are several examples in history in which large nations/kingdom/empires fragmented due to cultural and ethnic differences, and these fragmentations usually resulted in much hardship and dispair for those who had to live through them. The vision that was Canada was a good idea; to have a large, unified landmass NOT divided by strife and petty differences contributing to the betterment of the world is a noble thing. Sadly, this vision appears to be rapidly dying. If you look at first-hand accounts from the 18th and 19th century, there were many people who felt that the Indians could be fully included in this Canada, but it eventually became apparent that many stubbornly clung to their old ways and were thus keeping themselves down. This "forced assimilation" through "residential schools" only came about well after it was realized that the Indians were not going to doing anything for themselves. The fact that you can often deal with Indians in a rational and civilized manner is because they were "assimilated". My guess is that were you to be able to go back in time and interact with pre-assimilated Indians, you wouldn't be all that impressed by them.

[charter.rights]

When you think about it, though, many people who are productive, hardworking Canadians have ancestors who came to this country expecting to pick up where they left off in the Old World but were forced to assimilate into English-Canadian society. I'm not sure that this was a bad thing considering that there are several examples in history in which large nations/kingdom/empires fragmented due to cultural and ethnic differences, and these fragmentations usually resulted in much hardship and dispair for those who had to live through them. The vision that was Canada was a good idea; to have a large, unified landmass NOT divided by strife and petty differences contributing to the betterment of the world is a noble thing. Sadly, this vision appears to be rapidly dying. If you look at first-hand accounts from the 18th and 19th century, there were many people who felt that the Indians could be fully included in this Canada, but it eventually became apparent that many stubbornly clung to their old ways and were thus keeping themselves down. This "forced assimilation" through "residential schools" only came about well after it was realized that the Indians were not going to doing anything for themselves. The fact that you can often deal with Indians in a rational and civilized manner is because they were "assimilated". My guess is that were you to be able to go back in time and interact with pre-assimilated Indians, you wouldn't be all that impressed by them.

Again, you are hardly an expert and just advancing some ignorant viewpoint.

[Wild Bill]

When you think about it, though, many people who are productive, hardworking Canadians have ancestors who came to this country expecting to pick up where they left off in the Old World but were forced to assimilate into English-Canadian society. I'm not sure that this was a bad thing considering that there are several examples in history in which large nations/kingdom/empires fragmented due to cultural and ethnic differences, and these fragmentations usually resulted in much hardship and dispair for those who had to live through them. The vision that was Canada was a good idea; to have a large, unified landmass NOT divided by strife and petty differences contributing to the betterment of the world is a noble thing. Sadly, this vision appears to be rapidly dying. If you look at first-hand accounts from the 18th and 19th century, there were many people who felt that the Indians could be fully included in this Canada, but it eventually became apparent that many stubbornly clung to their old ways and were thus keeping themselves down. This "forced assimilation" through "residential schools" only came about well after it was realized that the Indians were not going to doing anything for themselves. The fact that you can often deal with Indians in a rational and civilized manner is because they were "assimilated". My guess is that were you to be able to go back in time and interact with pre-assimilated Indians, you wouldn't be all that impressed by them.

Here we see a BIG difference in what we consider ethical! While I might agree with you that assimilation would have been far better for many natives than the reserve system the idea of forcing anyone because YOU believe what's good for them is absolutely abhorrent to me!

Who's life is it anyway?

No, it would be much better to let those who wish to fend for themselves do so. With one caveat: -with their OWN resources!

At the same time, treat all natives as full citizens, no different from any other, but only when they live OFF the reserve!

If you take away a human being's right to live his own life as he chooses then that is a cure far worse than any disease, IMHO. Didn't a previous generation about 60 or 70 years ago fight a world war against this kind of thinking?

[Rue]

Keng you stated:

"..but it eventually became apparent that many (aboriginals) stubbornly clung to their old ways and were thus keeping themselves down."

Your above comment reflects your own bias that your cultural and religious values are superior and if a people were not willing to abandon their own and follow yours, it necessarily was a negative decision. Did it ever occur to you Keng, that your cultural and religions values are flawed and not superior and what caused aboriginals problems was not as you say because they "stubbornly clung to their old ways" but because people like you stubbornly cling to your assumption that your ways are superior and you should be able to impose them on others who you see as inferior? Maybe Keng the problem is not with aboriginals but with people like you who assume their superiority and want to force it on everyone? Tell me Keng, is it possible you could respect aboriginal customs and traditions as valid as yours? To date you have made it clear you tolerate no one's right to have values if they are different then yours.

You stated;

" This "forced assimilation" through "residential schools" only came about well after it was realized that the Indians were not going to doing anything for themselves."

Again you express a subjective opinion predicated on your racist assumption that aboriginals were inferior to you and unless they were forced to be like you they would continue to be inferior.

The residential schools came about because there was no seperation between church and state and Christians used the government and school system as an attempt to force religious conversion on aboriginals. Plain and simple it was a deliberate, premeditated attempt to impose Christianity on aboriginals because the people at that time like you still do today, felt they were morally superior to aboriginals and like you refer to them in a patronizing manner which assumes negative characteristics. Its precisely that kind of smug moral superiority that leads to genocides. Its precisely your kind of belief process that assumes you are superior and others are inferior that caused the residential school fiasco.

Tell me Keng, how would you feel if suddenly your children were taken from you and placed in non-Christian schools 11 months a year where they were sodomized, raped, beaten, starved, and deliberately exposed to tuberculosis in the name of God?

You stated;

"The fact that you can often deal with Indians in a rational and civilized manner is because they were "assimilated".

You again make a blatantly racist statement that assumes aboriginals are uncivilized unless they adapt your cultural and religious values. The fact you keep using the word "Indian" simply reinforces that contempt and ignorance of a people you make no effort to understand just label with negative characteristics based on your subjective feelings that you are superior and everyone should have your beliefs.

You stated;

"My guess is that were you to be able to go back in time and interact with pre-assimilated Indians, you wouldn't be all that impressed by them."

The above remark again is intended to insult aboriginal customs and beliefs and show you disrespect them and have contempt for them-so what else is new. You have yet to come on this post and say anything positive about anyone. It is what you do Keng, express hatred for anyone you think is different from you and its why I challenge you each and every time you make such statements.

You "guess"? The word "guess" is simply another word for you speaking without any objective reference, i.e., you once again being subjective based on your feelings that you are better then who you think you refer to.

Here is the point Keng-your guessing is meaningless. What you guess in the entire scheme of life is meaningless. what is meaningful is the fact that all of us of all cultures and beliefs have positive things we offer and some of us choose to dwell on that and ask what others can teach us.

Your constant need to deconstruct and put down anything you do not understand proves what Keng?

You want me to guess, I would say, many of us do not need to go back in time to an era where many more hold your kind of value system and we are not impressed with such past events nor you continuing to try promulgate this intolerance today.

Imagine that Keng. Some people may not be impressed with your views either.

[Oleg Bach]

Keng you stated:

"..but it eventually became apparent that many (aboriginals) stubbornly clung to their old ways and were thus keeping themselves down."

Your above comment reflects your own bias that your cultural and religious values are superior and if a people were not willing to abandon their own and follow yours, it necessarily was a negative decision. Did it ever occur to you Keng, that your cultural and religions values are flawed and not superior and what caused aboriginals problems was not as you say because they "stubbornly clung to their old ways" but because people like you stubbornly cling to your assumption that your ways are superior and you should be able to impose them on others who you see as inferior? Maybe Keng the problem is not with aboriginals but with people like you who assume their superiority and want to force it on everyone? Tell me Keng, is it possible you could respect aboriginal customs and traditions as valid as yours? To date you have made it clear you tolerate no one's right to have values if they are different then yours.

You stated;

" This "forced assimilation" through "residential schools" only came about well after it was realized that the Indians were not going to doing anything for themselves."

Again you express a subjective opinion predicated on your racist assumption that aboriginals were inferior to you and unless they were forced to be like you they would continue to be inferior.

The residential schools came about because there was no seperation between church and state and Christians used the government and school system as an attempt to force religious conversion on aboriginals. Plain and simple it was a deliberate, premeditated attempt to impose Christianity on aboriginals because the people at that time like you still do today, felt they were morally superior to aboriginals and like you refer to them in a patronizing manner which assumes negative characteristics. Its precisely that kind of smug moral superiority that leads to genocides. Its precisely your kind of belief process that assumes you are superior and others are inferior that caused the residential school fiasco.

Tell me Keng, how would you feel if suddenly your children were taken from you and placed in non-Christian schools 11 months a year where they were sodomized, raped, beaten, starved, and deliberately exposed to tuberculosis in the name of God?

You stated;

"The fact that you can often deal with Indians in a rational and civilized manner is because they were "assimilated".

You again make a blatantly racist statement that assumes aboriginals are uncivilized unless they adapt your cultural and religious values. The fact you keep using the word "Indian" simply reinforces that contempt and ignorance of a people you make no effort to understand just label with negative characteristics based on your subjective feelings that you are superior and everyone should have your beliefs.

You stated;

"My guess is that were you to be able to go back in time and interact with pre-assimilated Indians, you wouldn't be all that impressed by them."

The above remark again is intended to insult aboriginal customs and beliefs and show you disrespect them and have contempt for them-so what else is new. You have yet to come on this post and say anything positive about anyone. It is what you do Keng, express hatred for anyone you think is different from you and its why I challenge you each and every time you make such statements.

You "guess"? The word "guess" is simply another word for you speaking without any objective reference, i.e., you once again being subjective based on your feelings that you are better then who you think you refer to.

Here is the point Keng-your guessing is meaningless. What you guess in the entire scheme of life is meaningless. what is meaningful is the fact that all of us of all cultures and beliefs have positive things we offer and some of us choose to dwell on that and ask what others can teach us.

Your constant need to deconstruct and put down anything you do not understand proves what Keng?

You want me to guess, I would say, many of us do not need to go back in time to an era where many more hold your kind of value system and we are not impressed with such past events nor you continuing to try promulgate this intolerance today.

Imagine that Keng. Some people may not be impressed with your views either.

Maybe a gentler version of "the final solution" would be helpfull in building a better nation - SURPRESS AND PERSECUTE THE WHITE ANLGO ELITE... this heartless bunch of aging old farts have no hearts....at least the immigrants have culture - and feelings. The average white anglo rich dude - hates art - hates music - hates woman - hates the poor - and hates the idea of goodness and God - I just can't wait for them to fade away into history - what a cold germanic bunch of terds. I would rather see not one white anglo face in Canada - if you are going to have real mulit-culturalism - better get rid of the ones that abandoned their culture and religion for money and power - the dumb over privledge haughty eyed elitist retards - They are pathetic - I mean look at you! Look at how you run things - NOW your own young are stabing each other to death in the streets - maybe there is devine retribution for the sins of this elite and their Judiac henchmen - who confuse the world on behalf of the white guys - who quietly threaten the Jews if they DO NOT DO THE BIDDING - of germanic colonialist we call the Bay Street boys.

[Melanie_]

Wow. Just..... wow. I'm speechless reading the remarks of Keng and OB. I'll just echo everything Rue said - thanks for expressing it so well. Oleg Bach.... a "gentler version of the final solution".... this is repulsive.

[Drea]

Rue Rocks!

[g_bambino]

If you look at first-hand accounts from the 18th and 19th century, there were many people who felt that the Indians could be fully included in this Canada, but it eventually became apparent that many stubbornly clung to their old ways and were thus keeping themselves down. This "forced assimilation" through "residential schools" only came about well after it was realized that the Indians were not going to doing anything for themselves.

I think the best solution, as seems to often be the case, lies somewhere in the middle. On one hand, total assimilation can be detrimental, leaving the absorbed rootless and without a cultural foundation. On the other side, the supporters of "live and let live" abandon a people who did not have two centuries of the Industrial Revolution behind them to live in a drastically different environment; and, let's face it, as much as I'm sure First Nations love their culture and traditions, they also love running water and central heating as much as the rest of us.

So, some give and take has to happen on both sides; every non-aboriginal can't expect all First Nations to completely discard their heritage and merge into the pack, but, then, nor can First Nations expect to keep all their traditions and culture in unadulterated form and still expect the luxuries of modern life to be dropped into their laps for free.

I think this meeting in the middle notion applies to all people of a minority culture who find themselves living within a larger community's paradigms. They need not give up all they've known, nor should the majority expect them to, but it is necessary for them to know how to build bridges with their new neighbours via adopting the more prominent customs and language; the ghettoisation of ethno-cultural minorities can no longer be encouraged and empowered with the policies and funding of the mainstream.

[Oleg Bach]

I think the best solution, as seems to often be the case, lies somewhere in the middle. On one hand, total assimilation can be detrimental, leaving the absorbed rootless and without a cultural foundation. On the other side, the supporters of "live and let live" abandon a people who did not have two centuries of the Industrial Revolution behind them to live in a drastically different environment; and, let's face it, as much as I'm sure First Nations love their culture and traditions, they also love running water and central heating as much as the rest of us.

So, some give and take has to happen on both sides; every non-aboriginal can't expect all First Nations to completely discard their heritage and merge into the pack, but, then, nor can First Nations expect to keep all their traditions and culture in unadulterated form and still expect the luxuries of modern life to be dropped into their laps for free.

I think this meeting in the middle notion applies to all people of a minority culture who find themselves living within a larger community's paradigms. They need not give up all they've known, nor should the majority expect them to, but it is necessary for them to know how to build bridges with their new neighbours via adopting the more prominent customs and language; the ghettoisation of ethno-cultural minorities can no longer be encouraged and empowered with the policies and funding of the mainstream.

Multi-culturalism is a fraud. The sooner we reveal that it's a plan to destroy all other cultures including our own in hope of creating a grey utlitiatian corporate hell the better off we will be - let the cultures flourish and stop pretending you are doing so as you wipe them out - people are not stupid. They know that Canada is about the destruction of the family and of all culture...the people in control hate culture and family - makes people smart and happy and happy slaves are hard to control.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think the whole multiculti thing had it's appeal for awhile. But that was back when immigrants (and some of their whacked out, backward, mysoginistic or just plain midievil ideas) were drowned out by the majority of people who believed in basic anglo / euro democratic ideals. In other words, they kept quiet or blended in for the most part - and often contributde to some great restaurants / festivals etc. celebrating the - ahem - more palatable parts of their culture.

Things have changed.

Demographically some groups are becoming ever larger chunks of society. Some of their ass backward opinions are becoming emboldened. It's not overly apparent (yet) in Canada because they're still minorities, but just look at what's happening in Europe to see where Canada is headed is we continue to pursue a policy of "mosaic" versus "melting pot".

We as Canadians need to - quite soon - decide what our core values are and what we will and will not tolerate in our society.

Intergration is going to become a bigger and bigger issue in this country as people of euro-descent become an ever smaller and smaller portion of society.

Is the anglo/euro/american model of democracy and tolerance going to end up as a very short 300 year blip on mankind's otherwise miserable existence of dictatorial societies?

It certainly could be given our "tolerance" of some ideals we have inadvertantly imported with our immigrants.

[Oleg Bach]

I think the whole multiculti thing had it's appeal for awhile. But that was back when immigrants (and some of their whacked out, backward, mysoginistic or just plain midievil ideas) were drowned out by the majority of people who believed in basic anglo / euro democratic ideals. In other words, they kept quiet or blended in for the most part - and often contributde to some great restaurants / festivals etc. celebrating the - ahem - more palatable parts of their culture.

Things have changed.

Demographically some groups are becoming ever larger chunks of society. Some of their ass backward opinions are becoming emboldened. It's not overly apparent (yet) in Canada because they're still minorities, but just look at what's happening in Europe to see where Canada is headed is we continue to pursue a policy of "mosaic" versus "melting pot".

We as Canadians need to - quite soon - decide what our core values are and what we will and will not tolerate in our society.

Intergration is going to become a bigger and bigger issue in this country as people of euro-descent become an ever smaller and smaller portion of society.

Is the anglo/euro/american model of democracy and tolerance going to end up as a very short 300 year blip on mankind's otherwise miserable existence of dictatorial societies?

It certainly could be given our "tolerance" of some ideals we have inadvertantly imported with our immigrants.

Maybe I as an immigrant of over 57 years have been faking it and "blending in". I still don't approve of abortion and being taxed to faciltiate it. I still don't agree with the propogation of the idea that homosexual behaviour is equal to hetro-sexual conduct - I belief that it is inferiour in the scheme of things...I still do not believe that a man should have to pay tax when he works with his back and hands building shelter - while someone privledged pays no tax or donates to charity in order to turn a profit to avoid contributing...I believe in family - in man and woman united forming a power base - In Canada that power base is de-based. I don't believe in giving dope to welfare types so big pharma can enrich themselves while the guy in the factory has to pay for the pharma dope....I suppose I have not really fit in to the scheme of things in Canada - and I will not and refuse to take a job the entails harming other so I can live well - I am so UN-Canadian - wish they would deport me - once I figure out where I am truely from.

[charter.rights]

I'm sure First Nations love their culture and traditions, they also love running water and central heating as much as the rest of us.

You've added a red herring to the discussion because having running water, central heating, computers or cars have nothing to do with culture or language and they certainly were not invented exclusively to one culture or race. These are simple tools of technology that we all have adapted to our own lives. It takes nothing away from our Scottish, or Italian cultural heritage to own and use a car.

I've heard this assertion many times over - that natives have to give up luxuries, or assimilate to use them. The need to do nothing of the sort, since these are not inventions own by Canadians, or Europeans but are just "things" we can use if we can afford them. It has nothing to do with forced assimilation - even a little forced assimilation is genocide.

[g_bambino]

You've added a red herring to the discussion because having running water, central heating, computers or cars have nothing to do with culture or language and they certainly were not invented exclusively to one culture or race. These are simple tools of technology that we all have adapted to our own lives. It takes nothing away from our Scottish, or Italian cultural heritage to own and use a car.

I've heard this assertion many times over - that natives have to give up luxuries, or assimilate to use them. The need to do nothing of the sort, since these are not inventions own by Canadians, or Europeans but are just "things" we can use if we can afford them. It has nothing to do with forced assimilation - even a little forced assimilation is genocide.

I think you just fished out a red herring where there was none.

I spoke of isolation. If walls are built up around ethno-cultural communities then the ethno-cultural community evolves in isolation. Had there been an absolute separation between First Nations, with their agrarian and nomadic societies, and European settlers, with the technology of the Industrial Revolution behind them, what do you think the two "nations" would look like in comparison to each other today?

Of course, such a scenario is impossible; peoples and cultures flow and merge. Yet, why is it that, generally speaking, the FNs who have steadfastly clung to the "old ways" live in poor, undeveloped communities? There, they seemingly can't afford the computers, cars, or even water, electricity, and schools; those things must be given to them.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is nobody can have it both ways. Self-imposed rigid segregation to protect one's ways and culture goes against that natural flow I mentioned above. Thus, one can't do that and still expect to get what the "other side" has. I do not believe in 100% assimilation, as I'm sure my words in my last post made clear. But I did say bridges need to be built, and, in order to do so, some things will have to be sacrificed so as to get that which is seen as desirable from those who have it. People must pick and choose wisely that which is to be kept and that which is to be disposed of in favour of bringing in the new.

I think that too much over the past three or four decades the state-imposed ethos of multiculturalism has fostered those who, with a cry of victimisation and oppression, self-impose ethno-cultural seclusion while still holding their hands out to the victimisers and oppressors for funds to empower themselves. It's a ridiculous scenario that does nothing to cultivate a cohesive national community. In fact, it works counter-intuitively to the existent Canadian society which was, for the most part, built on exactly the type of compromise and bridge-building I spoke of.

[charter.rights]

I think you just fished out a red herring where there was none.

I spoke of isolation. If walls are built up around ethno-cultural communities then the ethno-cultural community evolves in isolation. Had there been an absolute separation between First Nations, with their agrarian and nomadic societies, and European settlers, with the technology of the Industrial Revolution behind them, what do you think the two "nations" would look like in comparison to each other today?

Of course, such a scenario is impossible; peoples and cultures flow and merge. Yet, why is it that, generally speaking, the FNs who have steadfastly clung to the "old ways" live in poor, undeveloped communities? There, they seemingly can't afford the computers, cars, or even water, electricity, and schools; those things must be given to them.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is nobody can have it both ways. Self-imposed rigid segregation to protect one's ways and culture goes against that natural flow I mentioned above. Thus, one can't do that and still expect to get what the "other side" has. I do not believe in 100% assimilation, as I'm sure my words in my last post made clear. But I did say bridges need to be built, and, in order to do so, some things will have to be sacrificed so as to get that which is seen as desirable from those who have it. People must pick and choose wisely that which is to be kept and that which is to be disposed of in favour of bringing in the new.

I think that too much over the past three or four decades the state-imposed ethos of multiculturalism has fostered those who, with a cry of victimisation and oppression, self-impose ethno-cultural seclusion while still holding their hands out to the victimisers and oppressors for funds to empower themselves. It's a ridiculous scenario that does nothing to cultivate a cohesive national community. In fact, it works counter-intuitively to the existent Canadian society which was, for the most part, built on exactly the type of compromise and bridge-building I spoke of.

First of all you have to understand how technology advances. You continue to insist that technology is an entitlement of Europeans, or settlers yet fail to recognize that had it not been for Chinese, Japanese or German ingenuity Canada would not be like it is today. Technology is share and adapted and reinvented over and over again. There is no doubt that First Nations have adapted (and would have adapted) available technologies to suit their culture and beliefs. Just like the Europeans did when they borrowed those technologies from other cultures and civilizations.

Poverty is relative to the excesses of society it participates in. In some households in Canada not having a Nintendo - even a used one could be a measure of that poverty, since most households not only have new Nintendos, but X-Boxes and now Wii, even though few of them are ever used simultaneously. However, judging another culture by using our society icons is incorrect. Of you were smart about it you would be comparing their icons of wealth within their own cultural block, in order to determine what constitutes poverty or wealth. If you did that you would find that their egalitarian societies put emphasis in different places and personal possessions are way down on the list. Instead they ensure that every individual within the collective have their basic needs met by the community as a whole and the "rich" person is one who gives more of himself, without expectation of a reward. The sad mistake made by those harbouring colonial world views is that we are somehow better than others because we have two of everything, despite the fact that we leave our kids home alone after school without parental interaction, just so we can pay for those excesses.

First Nations have proven adaptable, albeit not without a tremendous symptomatic cost demonstrated in social disease and dysfunction. There desire for isolation isn't to get away from the technologies that make all our lives easier but to get away from that colonial imposed thinking that causes them so much grief. By decolonizing they revert back to indigenous thinking patterns that help them realize that material wealth really is nothing more than a disease, and spiritual wealth represents simplicity and focus on more concern for others.

So yes your argument is a red herring without relevance to the issue of selective cultural participation in a modern society. It is still possible to speak Italian, play voce and enjoy pasta WITHOUT having to justify the technology that brought that stuff to Italy, or now to Canada as a immigrant. Cultural purification has nothing to do with technology but rather involves a way of different thinking and approaching life. Who cares if one chooses to recite the Rosery, even if the beads are made from plastic?

Edited January 8, 2008 by charter.rights

[White Doors]

You got to admit, the plains Indians picked up on the horse riding and rifle skills of the Europeans pretty quickly.

[g_bambino]

You continue to insist that technology is an entitlement of Europeans, or settlers yet fail to recognize that had it not been for Chinese, Japanese or German ingenuity Canada would not be like it is today. Technology is share and adapted and reinvented over and over again. There is no doubt that First Nations have adapted (and would have adapted) available technologies to suit their culture and beliefs. Just like the Europeans did when they borrowed those technologies from other cultures and civilizations.

Actually, no I didn't. Again, you miss the point I'm making about isolation. Your examples of China and Japan (Germany, last time I checked, was part of Europe) actually serve to illustrate what I'm talking about; these countries had open trade with the West for many centuries, allowing technologies, goods, and cultures to flow back and forth between the two regions. In fact, now that I think of it, Japan is actually a very good example to raise: during the Edo period the country's shores were closed to foreigners and their trade in order to preserve Japanese culture from contamination by Western culture and religion - in essence, the nation imposed isolation on itself. For two hundred years the walls remained up, until the Americans steamed into Tokyo harbour, humiliating the Japanese Shogun with their technological advancement.

The point is: one cannot share if there is no contact with others to share with. Isolating oneself in an ethno-cultural ghetto does not encourage one to participate in the larger community, and certainly does not foster any sharing beyond the boundaries of your own "territory."

However, judging another culture by using our society icons is incorrect.

First off, I did not judge a culture. Secondly, it is not I who judges the wealth and standard of living for many First Nations, it is they who claim, some very loudly, that they do not have the luxuries that others have. They blame this on racism, while all the while segregating themselves in isolation so as to protect their culture and traditional ways with almost fanatical fervor - as the Shoguns of Edo Japan did. Look, again, at what happened to them.

It is still possible to speak Italian, play voce and enjoy pasta WITHOUT having to justify the technology that brought that stuff to Italy, or now to Canada as a immigrant.

It seems you're still debating an argument that simply isn't there.