Native neolithic culture vs western culture

[White Doors]

Sorry. I thought the important issue outlined in your original post was about wether one culture is superior or better to another and why we can/cannot discuss that.

If your intent was to discuss the indian act then how does the original post relate to it?

No apologies needed.

The Indian act presupposes that the Natives are an inferior people which I do not think they are. They are people just like everyone else and I think it would be progressive of us to recognize this in our constitution - don't you?

How the original post related to it? Ok, I'll bite that you don't 'get it'..

If the dominate PC consensus is that the Natives are different and special today then we will not be able to 'right' this wrong and allow Natives to move on as people like all the rest of us.

How do you think the Asian-Canadian fishermen on the Fraser River feel having to watch people that look very similar to them being able to go out and fish at a time they are not allowed to, merely because of their DNA? Is that fair? Does that do a service or dis-service to the 'Native'?

I'd argue that over the long term it does a terrible dis-service to the Natives.

Land claims should be settled where possible and the Indian act needs to be scrapped.

poste haste. Until then, the 'Native' issue will only get worse and worse no matter how much money is thrown at it.

Edited October 29, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

No. We are a product of an evolved civilization - one that includes native people. At the time of contact we were no better suited to this country than native people would have been to our stinking and septic European cities.

One can easily argue that the development of this land that came as a result of the use of the wheel was a devolution to the advancement of the human race. In reality one does not need the wheel to farm and hunt. The wheel has become necessary only because people are too lazy to harvest their own food.

And in the early days of post contact there was little need for commerce. Our dependence on commercial enterprise could very well be the end of our civilization as we know it. The recent problems in the stock market may be the beginning of that end.....

Native people also did some very nice metal and ceramic work as well.

Ahh.. so they knew about the wheel but decided that they would get lazy and fat if they used it?

hahahahahaha

awesome

You remind me of the Iraqi 'Information' Minister in 2003. You are good for a chuckle.

[M.Dancer]

Native people also did some very nice metal and ceramic work as well.

Shame they couldn't make the leap from hammered gold ornaments to bronze tools....

[stignasty]

Is it Racist to call one culture superior to another?

racist

noun

1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=raci...p;search=search

A person who makes the claim that one race is superior to others is by definition a racist. The answer to your question therefore is, yes.

The bigger question is why you feel compelled to make the statement in the first place. It seems pretty clear that you're trying to rationalize something...

[Peter F]

The Indian act presupposes that the Natives are an inferior people which I do not think they are. They are people just like everyone else and I think it would be progressive of us to recognize this in our constitution - don't you?

I do not think natives are inferior either. I agree that they are people just like everyone else is people too. I disagree that the Indian Act pre-supposes Natives are inferior and by extension there is no requirement to have the constitution to be modified to do what it already does.

If the dominate PC consensus is that the Natives are different and special today then we will not be able to 'right' this wrong and allow Natives to move on as people like all the rest of us.

Natives are culturally different than us non-natives though, less so now than in the past to be sure.

'right' what wrong? Are we moving on? Is there a requirement to move on? Are they required to 'move on'?

How do you think the Asian-Canadian fishermen on the Fraser River feel having to watch people that look very similar to them being able to go out and fish at a time they are not allowed to, merely because of their DNA? Is that fair? Does that do a service or dis-service to the 'Native'?

I think the Asian-Canadian fishermen on the Fraser River don't like seeing others legally able to fish where they are not. The same probably applies to non-Asian-Canadians on the Fraser River or any other river for that matter.

So what? Did the Crown sign Treaty's with Asian-Canadians on the Fraser River?

I'd argue that over the long term it does a terrible dis-service to the Natives.

That the Indian Act does a dis-service to Natives? Thats fine with me. I will let the Natives who disagree argue otherwise.

Land claims should be settled where possible and the Indian act needs to be scrapped.

poste haste. Until then, the 'Native' issue will only get worse and worse no matter how much money is thrown at it.

and I still don't see what the question of 'Superior' culture has to do with anything you've mentioned here.

[charter.rights]

Ahh.. so they knew about the wheel but decided that they would get lazy and fat if they used it?

hahahahahaha

awesome

You remind me of the Iraqi 'Information' Minister in 2003. You are good for a chuckle.

That is a foolish premise - no doubt coming from simplistic point of view.

Sure they knew about the wheel post contact. But in traversing rivers and lakes, rocky, marshy and densely forested terrain it was nearly useless in the first hundred years or so in getting around, Instead the Europeans adapted to the "superior" native mode of travel - the canoe - to get around from place to place. So in reality the wheel was an inferior and most useless tool in NA.

I happened to be listening to a number of archeologists speak recently about the use of stone tools. In their discussion they talked about the uncertainty surrounding the use of certain artifacts. Mostly their belief is limited to comparisons of more modern tools we have today. But they are finding that the assumptions that were made 20 years ago are being disqualified for new understandings today. The discussed how advancements in stone technology were assumed to have come about and how important the skill set in manufacturing them was - apparently lost in today's world.

There discussion also drove home some very important points about stone technology versus modern technology. In essence many modern tools may very well have set us back in terms of the human capacity to do work. Some examples:

For an experienced knapper an arrow point could be fashioned in about 10 minutes. Making an arrow from the point might take another 10 minutes. An efficient and strong bow can be made in about a hour. Adding the time to collect the materials we could add in about another 20 minutes. The gross amount of work used for producing a bow and arrow using a simple (albeit primitive) skillset would be about 1 1/2 hours.

A gun on the other hand might cost $300-$500. Bullets another 20 bucks or so. For the average hunter that would represent about 10 to 15 hours of human work that would be required to obtain a tool for hunting. That is 10 to 15 hours less time spent hunting.

If the gun breaks down during the hunt time would be lost obtaining the necessary tools (at another cost) to make the repairs or alternatively send the rifle to a shop that specializes in repairs. Once the bullets are used up then more work is required to pay for more. However, if a stone point arrow is used to take game it use is not done. It can be reused a few more times before the point or the shaft would have to be replaced. If the bow failed in the middle of the hunt then the resources were often readily available at no monetary cost to make the repairs.

The point is, in a world searching for efficiencies the most technologically advanced tool is not always the best choice. Simple technologies are very often equally effective and less expensive to implement. In older days the simple technologies could be shared among many people, meaning that the manufacturing process was not only widely available but was easily innovated and adapted to the use of different materials available in a region.

Today we have traded all that general knowledge (and it is ever so true in farming practices) for specialists and dependence on imports and commercial greed. All the while that knowledge is being lost. I don't know about you but I hardly see that as a superior form of culture. I would say that doing more work for less effect and benefit is a regression and devolution.

[charter.rights]

Shame they couldn't make the leap from hammered gold ornaments to bronze tools....

When you can frolic around in the woods enjoying life to its fullest, why would anyone living in a society that is based on the good will of the individual and the community waste their time smelting metals and enslaving themselves to greedy masters, especially when simple stone, ceramic, copper and bone tools produced the same efficiency? The advancement of technology in early Europe did not benefit the average citizen. It benefited the land and industry barons and used the efforts of enslaved workers to line their pockets.

Again, it was such an inferior way of thinking.

[White Doors]

racist

noun

1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=raci...p;search=search

A person who makes the claim that one race is superior to others is by definition a racist. The answer to your question therefore is, yes.

The bigger question is why you feel compelled to make the statement in the first place. It seems pretty clear that you're trying to rationalize something...

oh boys, do you know the difference between race and culture?

You have provided yet another example of someone peeking their head in the door, hearing a bit of the conversation, yells 'racist!' shuts the door and smugly walks away with their head held high knowing that they have done 'their bit' for the day and can be proud that they are advancing the interests of the 'Natives'.

In fact, you obviously don't give a crap about the Natives or else obviously you would have spent some time on the issue and actually read some of the posts. Your attitude is the exact reason that Canada's Natives are in the mess they are in now.

Thanks for coming out though. I hope you were able to sleep soundly last night because you are so progressive and such a cutie-pie.

*Pinches Stig's cheeks*

Edited October 30, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

Natives are culturally different than us non-natives though, less so now than in the past to be sure.

'right' what wrong? Are we moving on? Is there a requirement to move on? Are they required to 'move on'?

Asians are culturally different from Italians too. So what?

I think the Asian-Canadian fishermen on the Fraser River don't like seeing others legally able to fish where they are not. The same probably applies to non-Asian-Canadians on the Fraser River or any other river for that matter.

So what? Did the Crown sign Treaty's with Asian-Canadians on the Fraser River?

So you have no issue with one 'race' being able to do something else from another 'race' solely because of their DNA?

What if it were white people that were allowed to fish and the negroes were not? Is that still kosher?

Thought so.

and I still don't see what the question of 'Superior' culture has to do with anything you've mentioned here.

The Indian act perpetuates the myth that Natives can still go about being 1491 Natives in this post 1492 world.

We need to all agree that those times are not coming back and Natives have just as much right to participate in the modern world as anyone else. The provisions in our Indian act pretend it's 1491.

If we cannot even talk about which time period and culture is the superior one, how can we ever move on from this racism?

[White Doors]

That is a foolish premise - no doubt coming from simplistic point of view.

Sure they knew about the wheel post contact. But in traversing rivers and lakes, rocky, marshy and densely forested terrain it was nearly useless in the first hundred years or so in getting around, Instead the Europeans adapted to the "superior" native mode of travel - the canoe - to get around from place to place. So in reality the wheel was an inferior and most useless tool in NA.

I happened to be listening to a number of archeologists speak recently about the use of stone tools. In their discussion they talked about the uncertainty surrounding the use of certain artifacts. Mostly their belief is limited to comparisons of more modern tools we have today. But they are finding that the assumptions that were made 20 years ago are being disqualified for new understandings today. The discussed how advancements in stone technology were assumed to have come about and how important the skill set in manufacturing them was - apparently lost in today's world.

There discussion also drove home some very important points about stone technology versus modern technology. In essence many modern tools may very well have set us back in terms of the human capacity to do work. Some examples:

For an experienced knapper an arrow point could be fashioned in about 10 minutes. Making an arrow from the point might take another 10 minutes. An efficient and strong bow can be made in about a hour. Adding the time to collect the materials we could add in about another 20 minutes. The gross amount of work used for producing a bow and arrow using a simple (albeit primitive) skillset would be about 1 1/2 hours.

A gun on the other hand might cost $300-$500. Bullets another 20 bucks or so. For the average hunter that would represent about 10 to 15 hours of human work that would be required to obtain a tool for hunting. That is 10 to 15 hours less time spent hunting.

If the gun breaks down during the hunt time would be lost obtaining the necessary tools (at another cost) to make the repairs or alternatively send the rifle to a shop that specializes in repairs. Once the bullets are used up then more work is required to pay for more. However, if a stone point arrow is used to take game it use is not done. It can be reused a few more times before the point or the shaft would have to be replaced. If the bow failed in the middle of the hunt then the resources were often readily available at no monetary cost to make the repairs.

The point is, in a world searching for efficiencies the most technologically advanced tool is not always the best choice. Simple technologies are very often equally effective and less expensive to implement. In older days the simple technologies could be shared among many people, meaning that the manufacturing process was not only widely available but was easily innovated and adapted to the use of different materials available in a region.

Today we have traded all that general knowledge (and it is ever so true in farming practices) for specialists and dependence on imports and commercial greed. All the while that knowledge is being lost. I don't know about you but I hardly see that as a superior form of culture. I would say that doing more work for less effect and benefit is a regression and devolution.

It's called the efficiency of Labour and it is the by-product of improved agricultural practices which the Natives of NA did not seem to master (unlike some mastery demonstrated by the Maya and Aztecs). When you don't have to spend 12 hours a day, everyday looking for sustenance it allows for specialization and the division of labour. So the dude who was the best arrow maker? He made them for the whole tribe etc, etc.

This is not unique to 'Natives', it was practiced by every stone age culture that started to advance it's agricultural practises. They did it because seemingly, they thought it was a superior way to do things and the Natives themselves were starting to do this just as contact was made.

[charter.rights]

oh boys, do you know the difference between race and culture?

You have provided yet another example of someone peeking their head in the door, hearing a bit of the conversation, yells 'racist' and shuts the door and smugly walks away with their head held high knowing that they have done 'their bit' for the day and can be proud that they are advancing the interests of the 'Natives'.

In fact, you obviously don't give a crap about the Natives or else obviously you would have spent some time on the issue and actually read some of the posts. Your attitude is the exact reason that Canada's Natives are in the mess they are in now.

Thanks for coming out though. I hope you were able to sleep soundly last night because you are so progressive and such a cutie-pie.

*Pinches Stig's cheeks*

To your point on laws according to race: its a false premise.

First Nations are exempted from some of the restriction we are subjected to under the Charter because of a pre-history nation to nation relationship and the treaties made during that time that guaranteed they would not be restricted "as long as the sun shall shine and the grass shall grow". During the Trudeau era when the Charter was being fashioned Section 25 was left out and those historic relationships were ignored. Apparently before the Queen would sign it She insisted that natives be included specifically in order to protect the honour of the Crown.

Although the details are sketchy at this time in Kahentinetha & Katenies v. THE QUEEN dated October 23, 2008, Madame Mireille Tabib of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Akwesasne and Kanehsetake are not part of Canada. If this report is accurate then it confirms what I have understood that Six Nations, Tyendinaga, Kanehsetake, Kahnawake, Akwesasne and Wahta, all being part of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy are separate nations under a different set of laws and not subject to our Charter or the laws of Canada, its provinces and territories. I'm sure the ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court but if it stands it should make for an interesting resolution since most of Southern Ontario was never ceded by the Confederacy and they would still hold legal jurisdiction over it.

On another note:

As well, I heard last night that apparently the 1844 surrender that was purported to surrender the major part of the Haldimand Tract never received approval from the federal government by way of an Order in Council and the surrender was never registered in the Indian Land Registry. There were accusations that then Superintendent William Jarvis had forged the signatures of 42 Chiefs (when more than half of them were in New York at the time of the signing), that Six Nations never agreed to surrender the land and only agreed to lease it.

As I see it the courts are confirming that we are in a pickle where it concerns Six Nations and other Mohawk communities and these recent findings go a long way to counter your argument that rights entrenched in the Charter are race based but instead define what we cannot do to natives. Just like the Royal Proclamation 1763 (which defines our legal relationship with First Nations) the Charter prevents US from forcing native people to sell off their land and resources to satisfy our greedy developments. And finally, every land claim we make to territory that was acquired after 1763 is null and void unless we can prove that it was conducted under the requirements of that proclamation.

[charter.rights]

It's called the efficiency of Labour and it is the by-product of improved agricultural practices which the Natives of NA did not seem to master (unlike some mastery demonstrated by the Maya and Aztecs). When you don't have to spend 12 hours a day, everyday looking for sustenance it allows for specialization and the division of labour. So the dude who was the best arrow maker? He made them for the whole tribe etc, etc.

This is not unique to 'Natives', it was practiced by every stone age culture that started to advance it's agricultural practises. They did it because seemingly, they thought it was a superior way to do things and the Natives themselves were starting to do this just as contact was made.

No you have it wrong.

First the Iroquois practiced farming in ways far superior to the European methods. They taught our colonial ancestors about companion planting, rotating crops, and no till methods that only today are beginning to resonate with organic farmers. And back then Iroquois farmers only spent about 1 day a week working the fields with 6 days for leisure and craft activities. 150 years ago our local farmers spent about 3 days tending their crops and herds and had about 4 days in a week for leisure and craft activities. Today a farmer must tend to his farm on a daily basis and still in many case work outside the farm. Modern equipment, methods and practices actually mean MORE work for farmers, not less. We could draw the same analogy using the introduction of computers into the workplace - we work far more hours doing the same work towards profits then our mothers and fathers did one generation ago. Computers - the newer technology - cause us more work today.

The best arrow makers taught everyone else - he didn't take on the task for the whole community. That is just another of your absurdities. Everyone knew how to make arrows and like knitting taught to our grandmothers, it was a basic skill taught to everyone. Only some were just better at it than others.

[AngusThermopyle]

For an experienced knapper an arrow point could be fashioned in about 10 minutes. Making an arrow from the point might take another 10 minutes. An efficient and strong bow can be made in about a hour. Adding the time to collect the materials we could add in about another 20 minutes. The gross amount of work used for producing a bow and arrow using a simple (albeit primitive) skillset would be about 1 1/2 hours.

Hi Charter, its me again. Where should we start with this list of absurdities and false information you present? I know, lets look at how patently false this statement is, thats a good place to start.

Obviously you know nothing about how tools and bows were made, for instance, the bow string. This was generally fashioned from strands of sinew twisted and glued to each other until the desired thikness was achieved, this produced a strong waterproof string, the glue was made from a variety of natural substances, West Coast Natives were known for making this glue from the Sturgeon. A good bow string could take days or even weeks to fashion, not mere minutes or even an hour or two as you claim.

The bow itself was made from very carefully selected wood, just initially finding a suitable peice of wood could take days. Then came the shaping and treatment of the wood to provide durability and power for the bow, first the wood had to be cured, a lengthy and time consuming process. After curing came the shaping, being limited to the most primitive tools this could also be very time consuming. The most common treatment for North American bows was to glue thick sinew to the inside face of the bow thus providing strength and elasticity, even so the effective range of these bows was in the 50 to 60 yard range, not very impressive at all.

Lets move on to the arrows shall we. Ironically the tips were the easiest part of the arrow to make, these were most commonly formed from either flint or bone. Flint arrow heads could be crudely fashioned in minutes, true, but a good arrow head, depending on the technique used could take hours to fashion. Selecting the wood for the arrows was another tedious process, after the wood was selected came the curing, they didn't just fire green twigs from bows made out of a bit of a branch with a string tied to it. So after all that came the fletching, another time consuming process without which the arrow would be useless.

Given this quick run down of the process it becomes obvious once more that you are just making up more crap and trying to pass it off as truth. If you want I can point you towards some good resources dealing with this very subject, at least that way you could actually discuss the subject without having to resort to falsities and guessing.

Right now I'm in a bit of a rush so I don't have time to address the rest of your false claims but when I do have time I'll try to remember to do so. For someone who spends so much time insulting and patronizing others you appear to be woefully ignorant of many of the subjects you accuse others of being ignorant about. Or will you now claim that NA Natives had some wonderfull magical skill that allowed them to disregard the laws of Physics and do the impossible with objects that were common on a world wide scale? That would be amusing, especially since the brief process I've described is actually based around NA bows fashioned by NA Natives.

[White Doors]

No you have it wrong.

First the Iroquois practiced farming in ways far superior to the European methods. They taught our colonial ancestors about companion planting, rotating crops, and no till methods that only today are beginning to resonate with organic farmers. And back then Iroquois farmers only spent about 1 day a week working the fields with 6 days for leisure and craft activities. 150 years ago our local farmers spent about 3 days tending their crops and herds and had about 4 days in a week for leisure and craft activities. Today a farmer must tend to his farm on a daily basis and still in many case work outside the farm. Modern equipment, methods and practices actually mean MORE work for farmers, not less. We could draw the same analogy using the introduction of computers into the workplace - we work far more hours doing the same work towards profits then our mothers and fathers did one generation ago. Computers - the newer technology - cause us more work today.

The best arrow makers taught everyone else - he didn't take on the task for the whole community. That is just another of your absurdities. Everyone knew how to make arrows and like knitting taught to our grandmothers, it was a basic skill taught to everyone. Only some were just better at it than others.

So in your opinion, computerization has added work? Really? Have you ever heard of the term 'efficiency of scale'? That was computerization does. Also modern farmers can produce exponentially more food than a stone age farmer can. They can work and produce food for thousands of people as opposed to about 10 people a stone-age farmer working the same amount of time.

And what is this 'tending herds' nonsense? The Natives had no 'herds' to tend. That was another thing they missed, you know, the whole domestication thing? Not that it was their fault, there was nothing here to domesticate as they went extinct about 13,000 years ago.. (oops). Think the NA horse for one.

This is also the same reason that they died by the millions after first contact, they had no immunity to animal-borne diseases like small-pox, flu, dysentary etc.

They died because they had no 'herds to tend'.

[M.Dancer]

For an experienced knapper an arrow point could be fashioned in about 10 minutes. Making an arrow from the point might take another 10 minutes. An efficient and strong bow can be made in about a hour. Adding the time to collect the materials we could add in about another 20 minutes. The gross amount of work used for producing a bow and arrow using a simple (albeit primitive) skillset would be about 1 1/2 hours.

Such an idyl...forget the flint trade had to be conducted over vast distances using canoes and such capable of only carying what a man could carry because they had not figured out the "road" or the wheel....and you obviously don;t know how a bow is made. Sinew had to be collected and prepared...you got to kill the animal first...aside from finding the right wood, the bow must be shaped (using stone tools which have to be reknapped often)....shaped in fire... strengthened in fire...The bows would need to be reinforced with wet sinew then allowed to dry...

and then years to actually learn to use it properly.

[M.Dancer]

Hi Charter, its me again. Where should we start with this list of absurdities and false information you present? I know, lets look at how patently false this statement is, thats a good place to start.

Obviously you know nothing about how tools and bows were made, for instance,

I should have read on before I bothered...

[AngusThermopyle]

The discussed how advancements in stone technology were assumed to have come about and how important the skill set in manufacturing them was - apparently lost in today's world.

Well look at that, it appears that I have a little more time than I thought. Lets look at this statement shall we? For the most part this is an indisputable statement. Except for the part about the skill sets being lost. There are still indigenous tribes who utilize stone tools, one notable example would be certain more removed of the Mauri tribes of New Zealand. Further to that, stone knapping is quite popular as a hobby with quite a few people, the techniques are thouroughly understood and practised to this day, once again I can point you toward some very good resources dealing with this.

I don't know which "Archeologists" you were listening to but if they made claims as absurd as the ones you posted then all I can say is that these people should get their asses back into school and actually learn some factual information rather than spreading garbage such as the skill sets being lost.

As an interesting aside, the finest stone tools that have been found originate in Scandanavia and Northern Germany. I've seen pictures of stone daggers and they were actually beautifull pieces of work.

[Peter F]

Asians are culturally different from Italians too. So what?

Well if they have different cultures, then it could very well be that one of those groups has a superior culture to the other. Are we not to determine which of the two has the inferior culture, then for the sake of progress and equality, and for thier own good; have them abandon the inferior culture and assume the superior? We should be doing the same to Natives - why not them?

So you have no issue with one 'race' being able to do something else from another 'race' solely because of their DNA?

What treaty was signed with Asian-Canadians?

What if it were white people that were allowed to fish and the negroes were not? Is that still kosher?

Thought so.

If there was a legally binding agreement between the two party's - then yes. Didn't think that, did ya?

The Indian act perpetuates the myth that Natives can still go about being 1491 Natives in this post 1492 world.

We need to all agree that those times are not coming back and Natives have just as much right to participate in the modern world as anyone else. The provisions in our Indian act pretend it's 1491.

If we cannot even talk about which time period and culture is the superior one, how can we ever move on from this racism?

Bullshit. Natives are not living neolithically anywhere. Your assumption about natives living neolithically is entirely wrong.

There is no point in discussing who's culture is superior to whose when it comes to determining public policy.

The indian act oversee's treatly obligations. To dump the indian act you must dump the treaty's. Whose culture is inferior or superior has no bearing on the matter.

[White Doors]

Well if they have different cultures, then it could very well be that one of those groups has a superior culture to the other. Are we not to determine which of the two has the inferior culture, then for the sake of progress and equality, and for thier own good; have them abandon the inferior culture and assume the superior? We should be doing the same to Natives - why not them?

I realize you enjoy trying to twist yourself up in PC speak, but we already do. No other culture has special 'rights' in the Charter or the BNA act in Canada as far as I am aware. Please do correct me if you have information otherwise. If not, then I can assume that you agree with me.

What treaty was signed with Asian-Canadians?

None - that is my point.

If there was a legally binding agreement between the two party's - then yes. Didn't think that, did ya?

That is your perogative, but I would be against that as well.

Keep twisting.

Bullshit. Natives are not living neolithically anywhere. Your assumption about natives living neolithically is entirely wrong.

There is no point in discussing who's culture is superior to whose when it comes to determining public policy.

The indian act oversee's treatly obligations. To dump the indian act you must dump the treaty's. Whose culture is inferior or superior has no bearing on the matter.

Au contraire, some tribes have moved on. They are a few exmaples in BC that are very successfull.

The vast majority of Tribal leaders have become paid members of the victim society however, which does a vast dis-service to the actual Natives. They are not living neolithically, but they are attempting to live for 'free' for grievences they have against the 'white man' both perceived and real. I advocate removing the stick that they carry with a nice fat carrot so that they, as a culture, can move on and better themselves - in anyway that they choose but using the same rules as everyone else.

If you were a true progressive, you would agree.

[jdobbin]

They are people just like everyone else and I think it would be progressive of us to recognize this in our constitution - don't you?

Conservatives constantly want to re-open the constitution it seems and then watch the process spin out of control. Sure, there might be changes worth pursuing but if Conservatives simply want to strip out stuff that they don't like, I expect they will run into the same trouble they got into last time.

Moreover, once the constitution is open, it will hardly make for good PR if Tories are stripping away things related to First Nations while entrenching things for Quebecers.

In relation to the question of superiority:

Europeans were more developed without doubt. Was it superior? I guess that depends on whether you ascribe a moral value to it or are just describing the level of development. What is that you find superior?

From the perspective of Europeans who arrived in Canada, they treated the aboriginal population as a people to negotiate a relationship with. It is those treaties that exist in law now that many Conservatives seem to want to strip away.

[DogOnPorch]

cr: Sure they knew about the wheel post contact. But in traversing rivers and lakes, rocky, marshy and densely forested terrain it was nearly useless in the first hundred years or so in getting around, Instead the Europeans adapted to the "superior" native mode of travel - the canoe - to get around from place to place. So in reality the wheel was an inferior and most useless tool in NA.

Yeah...those wagon trains then real trains...and then cars...were sure inferior to walking or riding a pony sans saddle.

------------------------------------

Mustang! The original. Three new ways to answer the call of Mustang!

---

Edited October 30, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[charter.rights]

Hi Charter, its me again. Where should we start with this list of absurdities and false information you present? I know, lets look at how patently false this statement is, thats a good place to start.

Obviously you know nothing about how tools and bows were made, for instance, the bow string. This was generally fashioned from strands of sinew twisted and glued to each other until the desired thikness was achieved, this produced a strong waterproof string, the glue was made from a variety of natural substances, West Coast Natives were known for making this glue from the Sturgeon. A good bow string could take days or even weeks to fashion, not mere minutes or even an hour or two as you claim.

The bow itself was made from very carefully selected wood, just initially finding a suitable peice of wood could take days. Then came the shaping and treatment of the wood to provide durability and power for the bow, first the wood had to be cured, a lengthy and time consuming process. After curing came the shaping, being limited to the most primitive tools this could also be very time consuming. The most common treatment for North American bows was to glue thick sinew to the inside face of the bow thus providing strength and elasticity, even so the effective range of these bows was in the 50 to 60 yard range, not very impressive at all.

Lets move on to the arrows shall we. Ironically the tips were the easiest part of the arrow to make, these were most commonly formed from either flint or bone. Flint arrow heads could be crudely fashioned in minutes, true, but a good arrow head, depending on the technique used could take hours to fashion. Selecting the wood for the arrows was another tedious process, after the wood was selected came the curing, they didn't just fire green twigs from bows made out of a bit of a branch with a string tied to it. So after all that came the fletching, another time consuming process without which the arrow would be useless.

Given this quick run down of the process it becomes obvious once more that you are just making up more crap and trying to pass it off as truth. If you want I can point you towards some good resources dealing with this very subject, at least that way you could actually discuss the subject without having to resort to falsities and guessing.

Right now I'm in a bit of a rush so I don't have time to address the rest of your false claims but when I do have time I'll try to remember to do so. For someone who spends so much time insulting and patronizing others you appear to be woefully ignorant of many of the subjects you accuse others of being ignorant about. Or will you now claim that NA Natives had some wonderfull magical skill that allowed them to disregard the laws of Physics and do the impossible with objects that were common on a world wide scale? That would be amusing, especially since the brief process I've described is actually based around NA bows fashioned by NA Natives.

Ah your pan-indiansim rears its ugly head, again....

The BEST bows were made from ash and sinew, its true. But they could be fashioned out of a number of materials readily available if need.Spruce roots, nettle and Joe Pye weed have fibrous stalks that would service forest bows quite nicely. And no, the wood did not have to be cured. It was fashioned green and then dried out with fire and any number of woods such as ash, oak, maple, hickory or even spruce would hold up when needed. Same thing with arrows. As I said an experience knapper could fashion a point in about 10 minutes. We're not talking about the process of modern day craftsmanship. We're talking about survival tools using stone tools. I would hate to be in a survival situation with you because I would leave you alone in the first 10 minutes. Someone without even this basic knowledge wouldn't live too long.

Oh and BTW I get the information straight from the source, not from some Wikipedia site or Johnny's Cowboys and Indians Crafts book. I talk to elders and native folk who have preserved the crafts.

So take you insults and superior attitudes and shove 'em dude. Your panties are showing.

[charter.rights]

Yeah...those wagon trains then real trains...and then cars...were sure inferior to walking or riding a pony sans saddle.

------------------------------------

Mustang! The original. Three new ways to answer the call of Mustang!

---

Of course, few people use ponies for main transportation today in this part of the world. But we are talking about comparatives, and comparatively speaking post contact, the canoe was a far superior mode of transportation for North America than the wheel.

[Peter F]

Au contraire, some tribes have moved on. They are a few exmaples in BC that are very successfull.

The vast majority of Tribal leaders have become paid members of the victim society however, which does a vast dis-service to the actual Natives. They are not living neolithically, but they are attempting to live for 'free' for grievences they have against the 'white man' both perceived and real. I advocate removing the stick that they carry with a nice fat carrot so that they, as a culture, can move on and better themselves - in anyway that they choose but using the same rules as everyone else.

If you were a true progressive, you would agree.

They are not attempting to live for free. They have legitimate grievances against us white men and are allowed to persue them to resolution.

No matter what their culture is.

What stick do they carry? They have a little bit of political power? Is that what you mean by 'stick'?

We'd need quite a few pretty fat carrots to buy them into dropping the Treaty rights they have. As a white man doing his very best to live for free, I am ok with that.

Take note that in order to make that fat offer there is no requirement to first determine whose culture is superior to whose. Such a buyout will result in the extinguishment of treaty rights making the Indian Act moot.

We can do that no matter whose culture is superior to whose. So you have, yet again, failed to justify the need to determine that Natives have an inferior culture, or why - if they do - it is necessary to point that out to them.

As for this allowing natives to 'move on and better themselves', I can only say Who-Died-and-Made-You-Kingshit? You're just another guppy in the pond like the rest of us, hotshot.

[DogOnPorch]

...and again...the train...the car...the aircraft all use wheels. Not ponies or canoes.

-----------------------------

See my thumb?

---Animal House