Food security of Indigenous Peoples in Canada

[TimG]

Living as we want.

Living the way they that is required to maintain a society which can produce the technologies that they enjoy. If they want the benefits of a large industrialized society they need to be part of it.

[jacee]

jacee - thanks for posting this.

I'm regretting it.

I guess it was expecting too much of some posters here to have a civil conversation, even one with some sensitivity.

Thanks for trying Michael.

[TimG]

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.

But that is my point - what you call the 'death' of native cultures is actually a response to technological change. Even if the Europeans were nicer when they got here native culture still would have had to under go many of the same changes (i.e. become an urban society). There is no way to have a modern society with the benefits of technology unless that society is urban and industrial.

[Michael Hardner]

But that is my point - what you call the 'death' of native cultures is actually a response to technological change.

What I 'call' the death of cultures is actually ... death. Tribes, languages and peoples are gone now. Technological change does not need to do this to cultures, so no it's not a necessity.

Even if the Europeans were nicer when they got here native culture still would have had to under go many of the same changes (i.e. become an urban society).

There is no way to have a modern society with the benefits of technology unless that society is urban and industrial.

There are societies that survive, that keep their cultures ... some of which are modern, partially modern...

Who made this rule that you're quoting ?

[TimG]

What I 'call' the death of cultures is actually ... death. Tribes, languages and peoples are gone now. Technological change does not need to do this to cultures, so no it's not a necessity.

You are moving the goalposts. Many native cultures have survived. So your general statement that native culture has been destroyed is false. Smaller ones have disappeared but do you really believe that same thing did not happen before Europeans arrived? Do you think the natives never fought and never "absorbed" their neighbors? No matter what happened the smaller populations would have had to give up their cultures to merge with other culture until there is a critical mass. This is required to create a modern state and we see it happening everywhere. The only difference is the character of the cultures that is doing the absorbing.

You also assume that attributes like language are essential to culture. Do the Scots and the Irish lack a distinct culture simply because they speak English? Language can be a vehicle to convey culture but so can other things like religion so a culture can survive the death of language. Culture and language are not the same thing.

Who made this rule that you're quoting?

Please explain how any society can enjoy the benefits of industrialization without industrializing? Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You are moving the goalposts. Many native cultures have survived. So your general statement that native culture has been destroyed is false.

I see your point, but it's still not the same thing as either the arrival of Europeans, or the decline of family farming in North America.

You also assume that attributes like language are essential to culture. Do the Scots and the Irish lack a distinct culture simply because they speak English? Language can be a vehicle to convey culture but so can other things like religion so a culture can survive the death of language. Culture and language are not the same thing.

Another point, but again....

Please explain how any society can enjoy the benefits of industrialization without industrializing?

There are communities within North America that thrive, even though they aren't industrial areas. This includes native communities, and religious communities that I can think of.

[TimG]

I see your point, but it's still not the same thing as either the arrival of Europeans, or the decline of family farming in North America.

Well that really depends on what you call a culture. I see culture as a collection of shared history, traditions and values. I picked the example of family farms because I grew up in it and know many people who see its passing as a loss. If you look at the textbooks it appears that culture is defined largely based on the art produced. This is not how I see culture so maybe culture is the wrong word for the concepts we are talking about.

There are communities within North America that thrive, even though they aren't industrial areas. This includes native communities, and religious communities that I can think of.

They don't live in a vacuum. They depend on a larger industrialized society to provide them the goods and services they need (you could call them parasites that depend on a host for survival but that connotation is more negative than I intend). A self sustaining society (i.e. one that survives on trade with others and not subsidies) must be industrialized to support a modern lifestyle. If you looked hard you could probably find a few that are sitting on top of valuable resource that can be exploited with a minimum amount of industrialization but the industrialization is still required to exploit that resource. Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Well that really depends on what you call a culture. I see culture as a collection of shared history, traditions and values. I picked the example of family farms because I grew up in it and know many people who see its passing as a loss. If you look at the textbooks it appears that culture is defined largely based on the art produced. This is not how I see culture so maybe culture is the wrong word for the concepts we are talking about.

I would define Family Farm as a culture, as I would heavy metal music but it's not the same thing as what happened with FN.

They don't live in a vacuum. They depend on a larger industrialized society to provide them the goods and services they need (you could call them parasites that depend on a host for survival but that connotation is more negative than I intend). A self sustaining society (i.e. one that survives on trade with others and not subsidies) must be industrialized to support a modern lifestyle.

I ask again where you get your ideas.

How did the Farm Family culture 'industrialize' ? If you're going to say "they started using tractors" or somesuch, then really this conversation is just about the elasticity of meaning.

[TimG]

I would define Family Farm as a culture, as I would heavy metal music but it's not the same thing as what happened with FN.

What exactly makes it different?

Language? Race?

I ask again where you get your ideas.

I read a lot and create my own opinions based on ideas I read and what logically follows from that.

How did the Farm Family culture 'industrialize' ? If you're going to say "they started using tractors" or somesuch, then really this conversation is just about the elasticity of meaning.

I said urbanization and industrialization destroyed the family farm culture. Most of the land base in the prairies today is controlled by large agri-businesses which are run like any other large corporation. This has increased farm productivity so farm employment dropped and people moved to urban centers. This means fewer and fewer people relate to farm culture.

Similar processes that affects FNs. i.e. their home communities cannot generate the wealth required to support a modern lifestyle so they move to the cities and lose that connection to their culture. These processes would exist no matter how nice the Europeans were when they arrived.

Edited May 16, 2012 by TimG

[PIK]

The whiteman's guilt is still alive and well . Sure we made mistakes but so have the natives. The regular natives should start protesting their own leadership, the money is there, but it seems very little gets past the chiefs. Does the UN report the the amount that is given to the natives, and the auther of this is questionable.

[Michael Hardner]

What exactly makes it different?

Language? Race?

Among other things... history, length of time they've been around, population, distinctiveness from othe r peoples. You can say that the Japanese are a culture just like Norwegian Death Metal fans, which is true, but they are different things.

I read a lot and create my own opinions based on ideas I read and what logically follows from that.

If we're batting around our respective thoughts, then that's fine. These are more likely to be interesting opinions, though, than bought-into theories. Again, that's ok but I just wanted to know the context.

I said urbanization and industrialization destroyed the family farm culture. Most of the land base in the prairies today is controlled by large agri-businesses which are run like any other large corporation. This has increased farm productivity so farm employment dropped and people moved to urban centers. This means fewer and fewer people relate to farm culture.

Similar processes that affects FNs. i.e. their home communities cannot generate the wealth required to support a modern lifestyle so they move to the cities and lose that connection to their culture. These processes would exist no matter how nice the Europeans were when they arrived.

Similar, but not at all similar. There was physical war, disease, loss of all ability to cope with their environment are things they had to deal with. There are plenty of people who don't live in cities, and further to that there are native towns with modern conveniences and few social problems so it is indeed possible that they could have done better in some areas.

[Topaz]

Today, the UN Special Rapporteur,Oliver De Schutter, says Canada has a problem with food insecurity or many Canadians don't have enough food. The Tories blew him off, of course, they don't care for the UN to begin with, but De Schutter has a point of both First Nation and non-natives don't have enough food. Just look at the number of Food Banks and how much food is taken out by Canadians who need help. The more this government cuts social programs the longer these lines will get and it seems the only ones getting fat are.....the MP's. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/food%2Benvoy%2Bdecries%2Bshocking%2Bconditions%2BCanada/6626850/story.html

[Smallc]

I watch people needlessly waste money on things ranging from tobacco to junk food. People buy entertainment before food. People are idiots. That's the problem.

[g_bambino]

I don't agree with his insinuation that the opinions of those who're elected are of more worth than those who aren't; but, otherwise, an interesting take on the matter here.

[jacee]

It may seem that wealthy Canada shouldn't have hunger/malnourishment, but allocation/distribution is the key:

“Canada has redistributed to the rich. Maybe it’s now time for Canada to redistribute to the poor,” he said. When asked whether all this didn’t smack a little of discredited bureaucratic socialist welfare systems that are currently crumbling all over Europe, he replied that it is the countries with generous social welfare programs that have proven most robust. When Canada’s own fiscal constraints were raised, he said “the deficit is a pretext used for limiting social benefits.”

Isn't it the ultimate in greed and hubris to contaminate First Nations local food sources for private profit, and then blame them for being short of food?

Edited May 17, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

I watch people needlessly waste money on things ranging from tobacco to junk food. People buy entertainment before food. People are idiots. That's the problem.

It's pretty easy to ignore problems if you just blame the victims.

[Smallc]

It's pretty easy to ignore problems if you just blame the victims.

I didn't say that there isn't a problem, but people often have to make choices, and they often make the wrong ones. Give them more money, more access, even more education, and many of them will still make the wrong choices. Why? Because people, even those on social assistance, want to have all of the things they desire, and food is simply an afterthought.

Studies show that when people start buying, food is the thing that gets cut back. So does my own experience in this are. Don't you think that consumer goods would be the place to cut back, instead?

It's easy to see everyone is a victim when you don't believe that anyone should ever take responsibility for their own lives. This by the way, is not a critique of those living in the far north with food prices that are out of this world, but rather those living here, in the south, that don't take the initiative to get their own lives in order. There are too many people like that.