Food security of Indigenous Peoples in Canada

Smallc · May 15, 2012

Depends. Is he furry and huggable ?

For the purposes of ridiculous question lines, yes.

Michael Hardner · May 15, 2012

For the purposes of ridiculous question lines, yes.

Then yes. Are you going to answer my question now ?

Smallc · May 15, 2012

Then yes. Are you going to answer my question now ?

No, because it's equally ridiculous, and not at all analogous. 21st century Canada is not a jail for anyone that lives here (other than those in jail, and if it is, there's no reason for it.

Michael Hardner · May 15, 2012

Do you defend honour killings? If not why not since they are a part of some people's cultural heritage?

No, I don't. It's a bad analogy. I'm the owner of my own values. You're trying to say that others are better off by following your value system.

It is my opinion that whining about lost culture is counter productive and defeatist.

Keep stating your opinion, then, and not facts as to people being better off under enslavement...

Michael Hardner · May 15, 2012

No, because it's equally ridiculous, and not at all analogous.

That's so sad to me, as I answered yours.

21st century Canada is not a jail for anyone that lives here (other than those in jail, and if it is, there's no reason for it.

The analogy is that you're imposing your values on another culture and telling them that they're better off, because you think so.

"Live Free or Die" is the example I brought up above. Do you think that's ridiculous too ?

Smallc · May 15, 2012

That's so sad to me, as I answered yours.

I would probably say yes, as long as I can have a computer.

The analogy is that you're imposing your values on another culture and telling them that they're better off, because you think so.

No, I'm not. They're part of our culture - their culture.

dre · May 15, 2012

Ok - let's try again. What am I not getting ? That they are better off in terms of life expectancy, material comfort and so on ? I think I acknowledged that I got that, what else ?

Nobody is suggesting that. What I am saying is that flippant suggestions that "they are better off" are not sensitive to the great loss that they experience when our cultures clashed. If you want them to stop lamenting the past, then you should stop bringing their past into it too by saying "they're better off".

Ok - let's try again. What am I not getting ? That they are better off in terms of life expectancy, material comfort and so on ? I think I acknowledged that I got that, what else ?

Actually even this claim is debatable because technology and goods are portable. Remember that human development video by Hans Rosling that I showed you? Life expectancy and wealth are up nearly universally... not just in countries colonized by Europeans. The whole idea that if we hadnt taken all their land and resources and herded them into ghettos that they would still be eating roots and berries is pretty silly.

TimG · May 15, 2012

Life expectancy and wealth are up nearly universally... not just in countries colonized by Europeans.

Due to technology developed exclusively by and for the advanced industrial societies. There is no plausible scenario where 'native culture' from 200 years would exist today. Gaining the benefits of industrialization requires an urban society they would have had to become like other mass urban societies whether they like it or not. Edited May 15, 2012 by TimG

Michael Hardner · May 16, 2012

No, I'm not. They're part of our culture - their culture.

So why call them 'they' even ? You're imposing your values on them by saying the loss of their culture is not significant compared to whatever they have gained.

Michael Hardner · May 16, 2012

There is no plausible scenario where 'native culture' from 200 years would exist today.

I guess that includes western settlers respecting their ways and making efforts to help them preserve their culture...

TimG · May 16, 2012

I guess that includes western settlers respecting their ways and making efforts to help them preserve their culture...

Well I suppose if settlers treated them like creatures in a zoo that needed to be preserved. But if natives want to actually participate in the economic life of society there is only one path: an urban and industrialized culture which would effectively destroy whatever culture existed before. Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

Smallc · May 16, 2012

So why call them 'they' even ?

I didn't start it.

Michael Hardner · May 16, 2012

Well I suppose if settlers treated them like creatures in a zoo that needed to be preserved. But if natives want to actually participate in the economic life of society there is only one path: an urban and industrialized culture which would effectively destroy whatever culture existed before.

Does every culture need to die when it encounters another ? Every technologically disadvantaged society ? How does it work ?

Do you really need to preserve other cultures as in a zoo ?

TimG · May 16, 2012

Does every culture need to die when it encounters another ?

Cultures are always dying. It is fact of life. The family farm culture that was central to the Canadian identity 100 years ago is dead and gone. Is that problem? Why is the loss of that culture any less of a problem then the loss of native cultures.

Do you really need to preserve other cultures as in a zoo ?

That is what you are asking for. Cultures cannot stay still. They must adapt and, in most cases, the adaptation kills the old culture and replaces it with a new one. If you think that a certain culture needs to be preserved for all time then you need a zoo. Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

Moonlight Graham · May 16, 2012

It's not just material well being. You're failing to see the entire picture. Modern society, medicine, etc. is about far more than material goods, it's about living as we want for far longer. Even though aboriginal people tend to live shorter lives than others, they are still doing far better than they were in the past.

But are they any happier? Are they as fulfilled in their longer lives? I don't know the answer, but that's something technological/industrial advancement doesn't bring automatically. Western countries have seen so many advancements ie: rights, tech, standard of living - but there's so many people on anti-depressants it's ridiculous.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

Michael Hardner · May 16, 2012

That is what you are asking for. Cultures cannot stay still. They must adapt and, in most cases, the adaptation kills the old culture and replaces it with a new one. If you think that a certain culture needs to be preserved for all time then you need a zoo.

There are more than a few cultures that survive culture clashes, so I don't buy this

But if natives want to actually participate in the economic life of society there is only one path: an urban and industrialized culture which would effectively destroy whatever culture existed before.

dre · May 16, 2012

Does every culture need to die when it encounters another ? Every technologically disadvantaged society ? How does it work ?

Do you really need to preserve other cultures as in a zoo ?

Does every culture need to die when it encounters another ? Every technologically disadvantaged society ? How does it work ?

No no... Just cultures besides white Europeans Hell white Canadians already cry a god damn river every time we let a few immigrants in.

Its good when youre the conquerer, just not so great when youre the conqueree.

Edited May 16, 2012 by dre

TimG · May 16, 2012

There are more than a few cultures that survive culture clashes, so I don't buy this

Buy what? You appear to be missing my entire point. I have given the example of the family farm culture that is now dead and gone. Please answer the question I ask and demonstrate that you actually understand the point I am making: is it wrong that technology has destroyed the family farm culture?

My point is all cultures are destroyed by technology including the white European culture. When cultures interact they will change each other. This is unavoidable.

TimG · May 16, 2012

Hell white Canadians already cry a god damn river every time we let a few immigrants in.

Yet the people in favour of unrestricted immigration whinge about native cultures being destroyed by immigration. Lots of hypocrisy to go around - kind of silly to pick on one side.

Michael Hardner · May 16, 2012

Buy what? You appear to be missing my entire point. I have given the example of the family farm culture that is now dead and gone.

TimG, that's a stretch at best.

Please answer the question I ask and demonstrate that you actually understand the point I am making: is it wrong that technology has destroyed the family farm culture?

Yes, it is wrong.

My point is all cultures are destroyed by technology including the white European culture. When cultures interact they will change each other. This is unavoidable.

Your point is a lot more tepid than the one you were making, where FN people are better off now. Anyway, I can accept this one.

TimG · May 16, 2012

TimG, that's a stretch at best.

A stretch? Please present a logical argument that shows why the family farm culture is not in worse shape than native cultures? Keep in mind that in 1900 40% of population was employed on these farms. Today only 2% and many of the farms are run as large corporations.

Yes, it is wrong.

Why? Because you don't like change? What possible benefit is there to maintaining an culture centered on an inefficient mode of production? Times change. Cultures evolve. Why is this problem?

Smallc · May 16, 2012

But are they any happier? Are they as fulfilled in their longer lives?

Like the rest of society, some are and some aren't. They aren't my problem.

cybercoma · May 16, 2012

It's not just material well being. You're failing to see the entire picture. Modern society, medicine, etc. is about far more than material goods, it's about living as we want for far longer.

Living as we want.

Smallc · May 16, 2012

Living as we want.

We, as in human beings. We're all human beings. This modern society is one in which cultures become blurred, and that really isn't a bad thing.

Michael Hardner · May 16, 2012

A stretch? Please present a logical argument that shows why the family farm culture is not in worse shape than native cultures?

The Family Farm and First Nations are two completely different situations. You can't compare them and you know this.

Why? Because you don't like change?

No, because the culture isn't destroyed. You're oversimplifying this far too much, and trying to equate iterative technological change to the outright death of cultures. If you can't understand why they're different things, I can't explain that to you.