First nations patiences waning

[Merlin]

BOOM! obvious stereotype. am I not dark enough to be native? tell me..wth are we supposed to look like? All the same?

I knew you were native right away even if I just saw your pic without the name. Your cheekbone structure gives it away. I lived in Prairies for a spell and many reserves out there. Many natives everywhere. I've seen and been around my share of Natives. There isn't a favorable view in general of Natives out there and they still call them Indians. They are basically the blacks of the Prairies in the view of many whites out there. In terms of crime and violence. This isn't my view but the view of many western people.

I personally have never had any problems with any of them, ever and have always gotten along well with Natives. I have had a native girlfriend out there and a few in Toronto in my younger days.

[Argus]

I call your bullshit. and even if so, thats like insinuating all our hunters are wasteful, just like you assumed all our leaders are corrupt. If youre gonna highlight our behaviour, then examine yours.

He didn't say "all". I'm sure there are natives who care deeply about the environment and would never do what he described. But there are those who would and do and don't give a second thought to the environment or sustainability. Gee, kind of sounds like the rest of the community, eh? In other words there are non-natives who are very close to the land, too. Natives, as a whole, do not have any kind of unique connection to the land. That's stereotyping based on historical myths. Your sense of the environment doesn't depend on your genetic makeup. It depends on how you are raised. And while some natives are raised with that respect, others are raised in violent environments by glue sniffing mothers and absent fathers. Their concern for the environment is largely focused on the cold wind coming through the holes in their walls and the water they drink which is polluted because the guys who were supposed to maintain the water treatment facility got drunk again.

Its your stupid harper govt that is giving insane, illegal, immoral rights and countless financial benefits to the greedy corporations. They get more tax breaks, hand outs, bail outs and backroom deals and for what?

In theory, so that they prosper and hire many people in order for the economy to thrive and those people to pay taxes and buy stuff which results in more jobs and more taxes. The $250 million loan they just gave the automakers is to help offset all the money being offered to them by US states to try to lure them south.

Native people share a responsibility to live up to the sacrifices of our ancestors, to the duty we have as guardians of the earth, and to the expectations that our children and grandchildren have of us to protect them. That is part of our culture, our history, our roots and our way of life. Does not matter if you believe or disagree. It is not your culture, why would you understand it?

So you mean those native gangbangers shooting each other on the streets of Calgary and Edmonton are guardians of the earth? The drunken welfare bums shuffling along the streets of Winnipeg are sharing responsibility with their ancestors for keeping the land pure?

You can start by admitting that not all natives give a damn about the earth or the environment, not when compared to caring about themselves and how much money they can make. Yes, that's right. They're human. How bout that... You don't have a monopoly on purity.

[Bryan]

Native people share a responsibility to live up to the sacrifices of our ancestors, to the duty we have as guardians of the earth

Which one are you?

So you mean those native gangbangers shooting each other on the streets of Calgary and Edmonton are guardians of the earth? The drunken welfare bums shuffling along the streets of Winnipeg are sharing responsibility with their ancestors for keeping the land pure?

That's the part I think many of the protesters don't understand. Most Canadians do have a lot of experience with aboriginal people, and very little of it has anything to do with them being stewards of anything. Precious little of the experience is positive either. It honestly seems like most of the aboriginals you see in the city go out of their way to try to reinforce as many negative stereotypes as possible.

There are a lot of aboriginals on my wife's side of the family, and family gatherings are little more than catching up on which one is in jail, which one is in a gang, which one is an addict, which teen is pregnant, etc. It pisses me off, because they can't even see how much of the negativity they experience is self-inflicted.

[Smallc]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/youtube-elk-slaughter-video-sparks-investigation-in-manitoba-1.1100397

Like I said, ethnicity does not determine your attachment to the land.

[Sleipnir]

I'm failing to see where the direction of this conversation is heading, looks like an endless circular loop.

[Canuckistani]

The earth doesn't need guardians it takes care of itself if we leave it alone. Native people's are no more guardians than others. The native people of Easter Island denuded it of trees, eventually causing their own demise. The reason the south Island of New Zealand is treeless in large areas is because the Maoris would set the forest on fire to flush out game - a common practice among many primitive people. The only reason Canadian natives didn't cause as much damage to the environment as the Europeans who came after is because there were a lot less natives and they didn't have the technology to really make a mess. The same technology they all want to make us of now.

The noble savage, guardian of the earth idea is just another form of racism.

[TimG]

The noble savage, guardian of the earth idea is just another form of racism.

I find it quite ridiculous that Native Charm gets her knickers in a knot if someone uses a stereotype of natives that she dislikes but constantly stereotypes natives with her own words. Stereotypes are racist whether they are perceived as good or bad because stereotypes encourage people to view the target as a member of an ethnically defined group rather than as an individual. Edited January 5, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

I find it quite ridiculous that Native Charm gets her knickers in a knot if someone uses a stereotype of natives that she dislikes but constantly stereotypes natives with her own words. Stereotypes are racist whether they are perceived as good or bad because stereotypes encourage people to view the target as a member of an ethnically defined group rather than as an individual.

Sure works on the white romantics tho. They see the chiefs all dressed up in their feathers and funny hats and button blankets and they think "look at those happy, innocent people. I wish I could live like that."

[Michael Hardner]

I'm failing to see where the direction of this conversation is heading, looks like an endless circular loop.

I'm trying to follow it and, like you, am failing. I think it's like the national debate in a lot of ways.

[Argus]

BOOM! obvious stereotype. am I not dark enough to be native? tell me..wth are we supposed to look like? All the same?

White is not an ethnicity. It is a colour, a description. If you meant to say caucasian or european...

[Canuckistani]

White is not an ethnicity. It is a colour, a description. If you meant to say caucasian or european...

I think you're splitting hairs here. But if she looks white, it's likely because she is in part white, as so many "aboriginals" are. Many people claim aboriginal status because it pays ore feeds into their romanticism.

[NativeCharm]

How are my knickers in a knot? So, im not allowed to express or share here? You want to condition that too?Thats fine. I feel i've been quite cordial about your views and I am pretty much done here anyway. Anything I've said seems to fall on deaf ears, gets ripped apart and twisted out of context.

Very few "non-native canadians" live off the land (except fishermen and farmers). Oh I am aware of the people out in cottage country that like to be "one with earth' once in a while, but lets face it chances are good that pretty little plot of land was expropriated somewhere along the line. Ya, I said it.

I know you dont want to see things from our side, hell, you wont even try...but the reality IS- MANY (not all) native people live off the land. The land is our culture and many of the native people DO NOT want to be whitewashed/assimilated/integrated or whatever you kids call it these days. Its just not gonna happen. Didnt happen in the past couple hundred years, it wont happen now. Yes some of us, live in 'modern society' - but are also connected to the 'old ways'. Like it or not, the movement to protect natural ways of life (natural law) is in full effect and is just warming up. Its the miiddle of dead winter and look at how much action we have taken and are gaining an incredible amount of global support. Many of the major unions in Canada are also behind us...it is growing inspite of any 'internal issues' that people think we may have. Do not even attempt to understand our positions and politics, when you refuse to understand our people.

For the average "canadian" that cares about fresh water, and a sustainable way of life, they can either get INvolved or get out of the way.

In reality, the posters here are just a few voices that are stuck in their eurocentric way of thinking. I know for a fact that all Canadians DO NOT share your view. Over 50% of the people at the Toronto round dances were non-native. Over half the class at the Teach INS, are non Native, academics, scholars and everyday citizens. They are educatng themselves and are in solidarity with us. We ARE native people indigenous to this land and no matter how hard you try to convince, persuade or force us to be 'white', it wont happen. Legislation has tried to "kill the indian in the child' before but heres a newsflash, we survived and are embracing our cultural revolution.Your opinions and desires mean nothing unless it is to live in harmony with us. Not convert us. From what I've learned in this forum, many of you feel that natives should just forget the past which is impossible, given the nature of the legal injustices that continue today ---and telling people to simply stop living in 3rd and 4th world conditions is a disgraceful attitude as a member of this country. How many of you been to numerous Native communites and shared a meal with anyone there? ( dont even answer, i wont be returning to this thread to engage in dialogue). It is beyond disappointing that most of you couldnt say anything positive (let alone respectful) about the Native people, in spite of their valuable contributions to a country that gives you much luxury and freedom. We agreed to share our lands with the settlers and now we are the poorest living in our own country...and DONT YOU DARE blame it all on our leadership when INAC controls (us) our funds, infrastructure ( less than other 'non native' towns/municialities get), health, even profits ( if you dont believe me, do your research).

The corporations have monopolized the land and natural resources and this affects all canadians. WE ARE ASSERTING OUR LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL CANADIANS...You bitch about the cost of gas now, wait till you see what you will soon be paying for water, which is a basic HUMAN RIGHT. Better recycle that bathtub water soon, because your choices will be limited. HEY...where are all our water scientists anyway? oh yaaaa..harper govt got rid of them too. Life in this country is gonna change fast once China moves in and all the 'new' people take all the jobs. It will NOT be the "canada" you take for granted now.

Heaven forbid, should any Natives have any leadership in this country, right? Let alone a voice. I do not believe that the newer generations of citizens have the right to impose their beliefs on how this country should run. So much of the benefits of this country are because of the historical contributions of the first and second citizens. You should be grateful and respectful for the things that make this a great country but the fact that you are not, is one of the many reasons why the First nations patience is waning.

For those of you that you that have offered interesting concepts and dialogue, I appreciate your engagement regardless of your opinion. I may return from time to time to share articles of interest.

Thanks again to those who invited me here and allowing me to share my views. If anyone has anything to say directly to me, feel free to contact me via private message.

Best Wishes to all.

PS: For those that think we dont have any legal rights...read this, because its only beginning. http://business.financialpost.com/2012/12/14/170-legal-victories-empower-first-nations-in-fight-over-resource-development/

Perhaps you should decolonize yourselves, Its probably healthier for you

[Smallc]

I will respond, even if you're not coming back. I feel it's important to point on where you're wrong.

How are my knickers in a knot? So, im not allowed to express or share here?

Yes, and people are allowed to disagree.

You want to condition that too?Thats fine. I feel i've been quite cordial about your views and I am pretty much done here anyway. Anything I've said seems to fall on deaf ears, gets ripped apart and twisted out of context.

We understand what you're saying, we (or at least I) simply believe that you're wrong.

Very few "non-native canadians" live off the land (except fishermen and farmers).

You are greatly mistaken. We all live off of and benefit from this land.

Oh I am aware of the people out in cottage country that like to be "one with earth' once in a while, but lets face it chances are good that pretty little plot of land was expropriated somewhere along the line. Ya, I said it.

Of course you said it, it's all you can see.

I know you dont want to see things from our side, hell, you wont even try

There shouldn't be sides. That's the point you keep missing. You are no different from me or any non native person.

...but the reality IS- MANY (not all) native people live off the land. The land is our culture and many of the native people DO NOT want to be whitewashed/assimilated/integrated or whatever you kids call it these days.

No one is asking for them to be assimilated. There are hundreds, thousands of different cultures within Canada, within the Canadian society.

Do not even attempt to understand our positions and politics, when you refuse to understand our people.

They aren't your people! We're all the same people. Get your head out of the past and your narrow views.

For the average "canadian" that cares about fresh water, and a sustainable way of life, they can either get INvolved or get out of the way.

So either do what you say, or shut up, right?

In reality, the posters here are just a few voices that are stuck in their eurocentric way of thinking.

I'm not from Europe. I was born here, I am a Canadian, and so are you.

I know for a fact that all Canadians DO NOT share your view.

There is no view that all Canadians share.

Over 50% of the people at the Toronto round dances were non-native. Over half the class at the Teach INS, are non Native, academics, scholars and everyday citizens. They are educatng themselves and are in solidarity with us. We ARE native people indigenous to this land and no matter how hard you try to convince, persuade or force us to be 'white', it wont happen.

Canada is not a white country, and never has been.

Legislation has tried to "kill the indian in the child' before but heres a newsflash, we survived and are embracing our cultural revolution.Your opinions and desires mean nothing unless it is to live in harmony with us. Not convert us. From what I've learned in this forum, many of you feel that natives should just forget the past which is impossible, given the nature of the legal injustices that continue today ---and telling people to simply stop living in 3rd and 4th world conditions is a disgraceful attitude as a member of this country.

Oh give it a break. There are very few people living in third world conditions in this country, and those that are helped to create their own situation.

How many of you been to numerous Native communites and shared a meal with anyone there? ( dont even answer, i wont be returning to this thread to engage in dialogue). It is beyond disappointing that most of you couldnt say anything positive (let alone respectful) about the Native people, in spite of their valuable contributions to a country that gives you much luxury and freedom.

Individuals make valuable contributions, not groups. We are not collectives.

We agreed to share our lands with the settlers and now we are the poorest living in our own country...and DONT YOU DARE blame it all on our leadership when INAC controls (us) our funds, infrastructure ( less than other 'non native' towns/municialities get), health, even profits ( if you dont believe me, do your research).

Aboriginal reserves most certainly do not get less funding than other places. Other places have to have their own taxation to top up provincial (and yes, reserves at least in Manitoba get provincial grants) and federal transfers.

Life in this country is gonna change fast once China moves in and all the 'new' people take all the jobs. It will NOT be the "canada" you take for granted now.

Heaven forbid, should any Natives have any leadership in this country, right? Let alone a voice.

You are obviously the one with deaf ears.

Perhaps you should decolonize yourselves, Its probably healthier for you

Perhaps you should get out of the past.

[TimG]

Anything I've said seems to fall on deaf ears, gets ripped apart and twisted out of context.

All I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy that fills your arguments. It is not my fault you are not self aware enough to see it.

but the reality IS- MANY (not all) native people live off the land. The land is our culture and many of the native people DO NOT want to be whitewashed/assimilated/integrated or whatever you kids call it these days.

So statistics are a justification for stereotypes? Then it should be perfectly OK to use statistics about crime and drug use to promote less flattering stereotypes of natives? I suspect you would complain. Why is it so hard to understand that stereotypes - whether good or bad - are racist and that you are spreading racism by using them constantly?

I want to live in a society that is colour blind. Where the ethnic background has no bearing on whether someone succeeds or fails. Where everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on their own abilities. I realize we are a long way from that ideal but I think it is an ideal worth striving for. But people like you that insist on stereotyping people based on the ethnicity are the problem. People like you allow racism to flourish and undermine the egalitarian dream.

Edited January 5, 2013 by TimG

[Smallc]

I want to live in a society that is colour blind. Where the ethnic background has no bearing on whether someone succeeds or fails. Where everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on their own abilities. I realize we are a long way from that ideal but I think it is an ideal worth striving for. But people like you that insist on stereotyping people based on the ethnicity are the problem. People like you allow racism to flourish and undermine the egalitarian dream.

Perfectly said.

[Sleipnir]

dude, you just told me to call myself white and said i looked white ( or not native enough). Whatever, its a weak comment comeback, again. If your gonna spew stupid remarks at least be creative and provide some level of enertainment for making up for your shortcomings at a producitve dialogue.

You lack the ability to think critically, white and Caucasian are two different things. You were thinking of caucasian.

There are three common types of ethnic based on the early human migration pattern - African (Negroid) (200,000 ya) being the primary origin and when the humans moved out of Africa they split giving rise to European (Caucasoid) (43,000 ya) and Asian (Mongoloid) (30,000 ya). Of course the looks differ in each group due to blending.

A man can be white and be Asian, Caucasian or African. Vice-versa for being black instead of white. Now natives (Canada and Australia), not going to be racist, but their early origin lies with Asian ethnic not Caucasian. But like I said earlier, appearances looks different due to blending.

We may be able to perceive the small differences among ethnics. That is a common thing among species - to identify minuscule differences between individuals of the same species, while species B cannot distinguish such detailed differences between individuals of species A.

It is long overdue to take Thor's hammer and smash it through the racial attitude perpetrated by both natives and non-natives.

Anything I've said seems to fall on deaf ears, gets ripped apart and twisted out of context.

You seem to have been doing that quite a bit.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Canuckistani]

You seem to have been doing that quite a bit.

She's mad because she doesn't just get the adoring reception that Indigenous People's get from the white guilters and romantics. And a lot of the media. Somebody said that reporters turn into stenographers when they cover IP speeches. (Ie they challenge 2nd Nation politicians, but not First Nations.)

[Argus]

I think she's simply upset that her dream palace was challenged..

Large elements of aboriginal Canada live intellectually in a dream palace, a more comfortable place than where they actually reside.

Inside the dream palace, there are self-reliant, self-sustaining communities – “nations,” indeed – with the full panoply of sovereign capacities and the “rights” that go with sovereignty. These “nations” are the descendants of proud ancestors who, centuries ago, spread across certain territories before and, for some period, after the “settlers” arrived.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/too-many-first-nations-people-live-in-a-dream-palace/article6929035/

[Smallc]

An awesome article. I don't give Jeffery Simpson enough credit.

[WIP]

One can raise the issue; but, raising the issue doesn't make the issue true. Where's the proof that Aboriginals have been "robbed" by the government and companies? They are entitled to negotiate the terms of a sale as much as any other landowner.

Except that these aren't regular landowners. Back when Canada was young, sparsely settled aside from a few isolated pockets, and still had vast reserves of untapped resources, past governments freely gave sovereign rights to many native bands living in the north. Now that things are a little more crowded down here, and many natural resources were used up in unexpectedly short timeframes, now, according to the Government and the corporations they take orders from, it's time to move them off the land, or just start developing treaty lands anyway, and declare the operations perfectly safe....even if it means creating giant tar sands tailing ponds.

I wish I could remember the details off hand, but on The Current, a couple of weeks back, there was a show segment about a mining company which has sent geologists on a reserve twice already to do exploratory work, without any permits, or notifying anyone on the reserve......just plain trespassing, and seeing how promising a few secret test sites were. The mining company may have sent their people to sneak onto the territory other times, but during the two occasions when they discovered the company trucks. And what would have happened if they found billions of dollars worth of ores underground? We would see how fast the Government would be leaning on local chiefs, and making veiled threats, if not overt threats, to reduce services, or do whatever it takes to get deal signed, and the natives are handed a few trinkets as compensation! Worth noting, that the people living in this isolated territory have declared several times that they did not want this kind of development, and did not want any exploration for minerals. But the Government and the mining companies don't seem to take no for an answer.

[Michael Hardner]

We would see how fast the Government would be leaning on local chiefs, and making veiled threats, if not overt threats, to reduce services, or do whatever it takes to get deal signed, and the natives are handed a few trinkets as compensation!

Wait - are you saying that the chiefs are unable to negotiate for what is best for them ? If that's the case, what are they doing right now ?

I'm still wondering why the native people are not protesting against their own leadership, or alternately why their leadership isn't bringing these issues forward. It says to me that the system of representation isn't bought into. That makes it almost impossible to find a solution to poverty and social problems, while trying to give the individual nations sovereignty.

[WIP]

The earth doesn't need guardians it takes care of itself if we leave it alone.

Yeah, who's leaving it alone? Right now, 40% of the Earth's productive land surface is exploited by human development of some sort -- agriculture, cities, roads etc. - a big part of the reason why half of the world's land animal species face extinction over the next 40 years.

Native people's are no more guardians than others. The native people of Easter Island denuded it of trees, eventually causing their own demise. The reason the south Island of New Zealand is treeless in large areas is because the Maoris would set the forest on fire to flush out game - a common practice among many primitive people. The only reason Canadian natives didn't cause as much damage to the environment as the Europeans who came after is because there were a lot less natives and they didn't have the technology to really make a mess. The same technology they all want to make us of now.

STFU! We have no idea who the original inhabitants of Easter Island were, and new evidence from biologists and geologists reveals that the conclusion you are referring to - mostly closely linked to the writings of Jared Diamond...who is not a scientist btw are wrong! The primary reason for the loss of the forests was because of vermin and diseases that started killing trees:

Hunt and Lipo argue that the trees were killed off mostly by rats, which ate their seeds and shoots faster than they could regenerate. Humans surely cut down plenty, but fossil palm nuts are invariably punctured by rat teeth and could never germinate. Diamond also cites the rodent factor. But Hunt and Lipo bring a wider range of evidence to the table, including studies from Hawaii showing how rats can multiply into the millions in a few years and have profound effects on ecosystems.

Next they question the moai argument. There is no evidence, they say, that islanders ever transported the statues horizontally, and thus that they used timber sleds. The moai, they assert, were moved vertically with ropes and muscle, rocked and pivoted like refrigerators along roads radiating out from the quarry where they were hewn. Those roads can still be seen today, and all along them are moai that have plainly fallen and broken into two or more pieces on impact. If they were sliding horizontally, it is hard to see how this could have happened. Oral traditions speak of the statues “walking” upright to their ritual sites.

Far from being the source of Rapa Nui’s downfall, moai construction, in the view of Hunt and Lipo, had the effect of keeping the population down. Citing studies of other societies in extremely resource-challenged environments, such as the Inuit, they view the making of moai as a classic “bet-hedging” strategy by which people channel the reproductive urge into something else – in this case, statues. It may not be a conscious decision, they explain, but people in many societies will forgo having children in favour of engaging in massive civic projects. To argue that they preferred carving to sex is not an easy argument to sustain. The authors maintain that the population did indeed stand at a manageable 3,000 when the first Europeans arrived, not the 15,000 or more suggested in previous accounts.

Hunt and Lipo see flabby assumptions everywhere in the traditional story of Easter Island. They challenge the thesis that statue-erecting shows the island had some kind of central authority to organize it all. Variations in moai style from village to village suggest independent traditions, they write, and anyway dispersed and small-scale societies from Stonehenge to Ohio mound-builders have been capable of monumental art.

The whole notion that culture is a product of surplus resources, or that high art can be made only by centralized, “highly evolved” societies is bunk,

they assert.

Next comes the war that supposedly followed the islanders’ depletion of natural resources. The island shows none of the hilltop fortifications or defensive earthworks seen elsewhere in Polynesia, Hunt and Lipo note, and the “trench” on the island’s eastern side that tour guides explain was dug by one faction to bury the other alive is a natural formation caused by the confluence of two lava streams.

Collapse followed the introduction of European disease

, the authors argue. The Dutch explorer Jacob Roggeveen arrived on Easter Sunday, 1722, and described well-tended gardens, hundreds of standing statues, and, in his words, “whole tracts of woodland” – remnants of the native forest. He stayed a few hours, just long enough, Hunt and Lipo believe, for his men to introduce venereal diseases to the trusting, curious islanders. On this point, Hunt and Lipo ironically echo Diamond’s own Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997), which dramatically showed the power of exotic disease to transform societies. It is also the most speculative part of their argument. As Diamond, Charles Mann and others have shown, we have ample evidence for the implosion of aboriginal populations in the Americas in eyewitness accounts of abandoned towns, colonial death records and mass graves. Hunt and Lipo have none of this, at least not for the forty-eight years that followed Roggeveen’s visit. They say the Dutch visit “likely” caused the population to plunge to a few hundred, recovering to 800 or so by the time the next Europeans arrived – a Spanish party in 1770. The party stayed six days, long enough to land plenty of microbes. Warmly received, the Spaniards remarked on the island’s liberal sexual mores and how the native men did not object when the women offered the visitors their favours.

More traumas followed. In one of the best chapters, the authors explain how the arrival of European goods led to the collapse of moai traditions. Islanders continued to venerate the moai as late as 1770, yet they were entranced by the jaunty hats, jackets, tools and weapons brought by the outsiders, and brazenly stole them. With these new symbols of prestige, the old ways lost their value and the neglected moai toppled over – not levelled in the iconoclastic frenzy that previous authors have posited.

Curiously, it was not until 1845 that claims of cannibalism appeared

, in a French account of a sailor who returned to ship covered in teeth marks and alleging the islanders tried to eat him alive. It was probably a hoax, say Hunt and Lipo, but the cannibal label stuck, and was embellished with similarly lurid tales that reinforced colonial stereotypes about the heathen past just as missionaries were settling in to save souls.

The final, nearly fatal blow arrived in the form of Peruvian slave-raiders in 1862, who rounded up over 1,400 islanders and shipped them to Peru to dig guano. Many were by then Christian converts, and the forcible “blackbirding”, as the practice was known, drew international condemnation. It came too late. The few, pustuled islanders who straggled home brought a new wave of smallpox, and by 1877 the population was down to 110. Centuries of folklore and knowledge were lost, and in its place a melodramatic pseudo-history of man-eaters and selfinduced catastrophe arose.

Fresh, revisionist, multidisciplinary – The Statues that Walked makes for bracing reading. For those who saw Easter Island as a parable of apocalypse, its conclusions will come as something of a let-down.

It was not civil war that ended Easter Island’s cultural golden age, but the inadvertent introduction of European germs. It was not human excess that killed its forests, but escaped rats. “History is the witness that Rapa Nui suffered near genocide, not self-inflicted ‘ecocide’”,

the authors write. There are plenty of lessons for today’s world in this story, just not the ones we may have imagined.

http://www.the-tls.c...ticle802176.ece

But, like they say, never let evidence get in the way of a good argument! So, keep the bullshit coming that they are savages who devoured their resources and turned to cannibalism until civilized Christians arrived to teach them right!

The noble savage, guardian of the earth idea is just another form of racism.

This is not about noble savages or ignoble savages! My elevator speech of why our world is so F@#$%& UP today is because we took all that Great Enlightenment crap seriously a few centuries ago, and started believing that the progression of history is linear and progress will be endless as long as we keep inventing and making use of new inventions. The real story is that pre-agricultural peoples (and by agriculture, I'm speaking specifically of those who rely more heavily on animal husbandry, not growing grains) are people who have to live sustainably, because they have no choice other than to live sustainably! It doesn't matter what your race is or where you live, if you are a hunter/gatherer....even if you also grow a few grains and other plants, you are s.o.l. if you overconsume your local environment. Your life depends on allowing hunting grounds to recover, as well as the places where you fish, forage for berries, nuts and other important plants. Even after the Age of Agriculture arrived, we did not make a clean break from nature either! We were aware of natural cycles, because we had to rotate crops and allow fields to lie fallow so topsoil to recover.

And all of this completely ended when we discovered oil....and thought oil could be pumped out of the ground forever! Oil and mined phosphates all of a sudden meant that you could just dump fertilizers on the land and keep growing high yields on the same land, year after year. Problem is that topsoil is still essential for growing, and topsoil is being depleted in every major agricultural zone around the world. But, what about the rise of the Industrial Era? Well, industry is dependent on farming to provide low-cost raw materials that can be “value-added,” and industry needs a place to externalize pollution and other costs, and a source of cheap labor. No surprise that industrial societies have large ecological footprints.

And, along with our complete detachment from nature, we adopted new technologies and an economic system that can't maintain a steady state economy, but must increase constantly, or the monetary and banking system will collapse. And, this is where we are today -- facing a convergence of crises that are going to shut down civilization as we know it. So, instead of demanding that indians and other groups trying to hold on to traditional ways of living, change and get with the program; you think it might have been smarter if our ancestors came here with as much of a desire to learn as to promote their own religions and ways of doing things?

Edited January 6, 2013 by WIP

[Smallc]

Yes, we're all going to die.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh dear...how will the poor Earth survive for the next 4 billion years after all the dirt scratching by mankind ?

[WIP]

Wait - are you saying that the chiefs are unable to negotiate for what is best for them ? If that's the case, what are they doing right now ?

I have no idea on the specifics, and that's why I was happy to see someone from the other side of the propaganda line that exists on these forums come in and make a case that's different than the usual BS here on native issues. I think I mentioned previously, native issues have not been a major area of focus for me, and the only reason why I started to wade in here was because I seen a need for some sort of pushback against the majority at MLW who are constantly bashing natives, and usually don't have a clue about the issues at stake. And, it's worth noting that the band councils are not all the same and not all organized along the same lines. Some, may be better than others. But, even if the BS from Sun Media was true, that is still no excuse for allowing people to get sick and freeze in inadequate housing. If there was an honest interest in solving the problems in Attawapiskat by Harper and co., I think they could easily help.

I'm still wondering why the native people are not protesting against their own leadership, or alternately why their leadership isn't bringing these issues forward. It says to me that the system of representation isn't bought into. That makes it almost impossible to find a solution to poverty and social problems, while trying to give the individual nations sovereignty.

Did I miss something! It seems to me that many of the Idle No More protests are against band councils as well as the Federal Government.