First nations patiences waning

[TimG]

The problem is that the only solution he wants to accept is forcing them to assimilate, despite generations of resistance to assimilation on the grounds that we're the visitors on their land.

Natives were a stone age culture when the Europeans arrived. They have hitched a ride on technological boom created by the European social and economic institutions and they want to share in the benefits that the modern society brings. The trouble is you cannot benefit from the modern, technological society without partial assimilation into that society. The idea that assimilation is bad is what is holding natives back. Natives that succeed are those that embrace the norms of the society around them without forgetting their native roots.

[cybercoma]

Indigenous Peoples will always get crumbs until they get off their asses and actually work for a living, and pay taxes to maintain the state that allows them to do so.

Now the boneheaded racist language comes out.

[cybercoma]

Natives were a stone age culture when the Europeans arrived. They have hitched a ride on technological boom created by the European social and economic institutions and they want to share in the benefits that the modern society brings. The trouble is you cannot benefit from the modern, technological society without partial assimilation into that society. The idea that assimilation is bad is what is holding natives back. Natives that succeed are those that embrace the norms of the society around them without forgetting their native roots.

Yes. This is exactly what the Native populations need. More white people to tell them how to live their lives and govern themselves.

[Canuckistani]

Now the boneheaded racist language comes out.

Really? If natives are working and paying taxes, they are integrated, exactly what you say they don't want. All the fuss is about them having special deals, such as being able to collect rent off their traditional lands without working for or paying taxes on that rent. Otherwise, there would be no discussion, they'd just get on with their lives as other Canadians do.

[TimG]

Yes. This is exactly what the Native populations need. More white people to tell them how to live their lives and govern themselves.

You completely ignored the point. People like you who peddle the 'assimilation is bad' nonsense are one of the reasons why natives are under performing as a group. Immigrants can come to this country with nothing and within a generation be part of the middle class - the main difference is because immigrants recognize the need to least partially assimilate into the society around them. Nothing will get better for natives until they accept this reality. Settling treaties or spending even more money will only enrich the chiefs and their families. Edited December 13, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Smallc means well. I don't think he has been racist in this thread at all. He's trying to think of ways to lift our Native communities out of poverty. The problem is that the only solution he wants to accept is forcing them to assimilate, despite generations of resistance to assimilation on the grounds that we're the visitors on their land. He and many others refuse to acknowledge this because there is absolutely no way for us to give their land back to them and leave. We've claimed it for ourselves and now we're telling them, "sorry about your luck, but you'll have to give up that last bit of autonomy and become just like every other Canadian."

Maybe you're right. To me it seems racist to think you know 'what's best' for Aboriginal people - assimilation - when they're clearly saying they need our respect for their legal rights.

The horrors of the residential schools were created and sustained by 'well-meaning' people who thought they knew 'what's best' for Aboriginal children, families and communities.

(Never again?)

In truth, it's never been about 'what's best' for Indigenous Peoples at all ... ever.

It's always been all about 'what's best' for us.

[Moonbox]

Not to worry cc.

Smallc's archaic delusions notwithstanding, nobody's changing the constitution.

Maybe not, but the Constitution is subject to limitations and reasonable limits clauses, which protects Canadians from unreasonable decisions despite what written Law or Treaties might say.

It's sickening to see the racism expressed here isn't it?

Not my understanding of what a Canadian is.

Are you denying the culture of dependency on the remote reserves? Call it racism if you want, but when I read the complaints about places like Attawapiskat, how can you call it anything but dependency? It's dependence on the band, which depends on the government. Throwing money at it isn't going to fix things either. With fertility rates at 2-3 times higher than the national average, and where buying a bag of apples is going to cost $15-20 because of how remote the place is, it's easy to see these are failed communities and won't be saved by more money. That's good money chasing after bad.

Not having basic property rights breeds a culture of defeatism. That's not unique to the First Nations. That's true everywhere.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/my-four-months-on-a-james-bay-reserve/article2294458/page2/

[jacee]

Now the boneheaded racist language comes out.

Ya ... the blatant stuff.

But it's the insidious 'well meaning' stuff that's really dangerous.

[Moonbox]

Maybe you're right. To me it seems racist to think you know 'what's best' for Aboriginal people - assimilation - when they're clearly saying they need our respect for their legal rights.

Perhaps, but there's a certain irony in demanding that respect and then at the same time pleading for/demanding money from the government because the communities they're living in can't support themselves and continue to grow far faster than populations in the RoC.

The horrors of the residential schools were created and sustained by 'well-meaning' people who thought they knew 'what's best' for Aboriginal children, families and communities.

(Never again?)

True, and this can't be forgiven easily. This does not, however, mean that communities with 60% unemployment, rapidly expanding populations and unnaffordable living expenses should be supported to the extent that they continue to grow, continue to be unsustainable and become more and more expensive for the government to maintain. Anywhere else in the world, communities grow where there is work to do. Communities like Attawapiskat are fairly unique in that there is no work, no real chance for an improvement of the economic situation because of the lack of work and the lack of property rights (incentive to work), yet they continue to grow, and only because of misdirected public funding.

In truth, it's never been about 'what's best' for Indigenous Peoples at all ... ever.

At this point it's more a question about why we continue to do/support something that we know isn't working and isn't going to work at any point in the future, and hasn't worked anywhere else in the past.

[Evening Star]

Destruction of a culture is genocide.

Forced assimilation is genocide.

You really should consider updating your approach, smallc, as you are dooming yourself to frustration on this tack.

I strongly disagree that the 1969 White Paper would have constituted genocide by the UN definition (below), to the point where I find this suggestion offensive:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

From:

http://web.archive.o.../b/p_genoci.htm

Edited December 13, 2012 by Evening Star

[jacee]

Maybe not, but the Constitution is subject to limitations and reasonable limits clauses, which protects Canadians from unreasonable decisions despite what written Law or Treaties might say.

Yes that's true, as it should be.

Do you have concerns about the way constitutional law has evolved thus far?

Are you denying the culture of dependency on the remote reserves? Call it racism if you want, but when I read the complaints about places like Attawapiskat, how can you call it anything but dependency? It's dependence on the band, which depends on the government. Throwing money at it isn't going to fix things either. With fertility rates at 2-3 times higher than the national average, and where buying a bag of apples is going to cost $15-20 because of how remote the place is, it's easy to see these are failed communities and won't be saved by more money. That's good money chasing after bad.

Not having basic property rights breeds a culture of defeatism. That's not unique to the First Nations. That's true everywhere.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/my-four-months-on-a-james-bay-reserve/article2294458/page2/

The culture of helplessness is more a result of six generations of residential school abuse than anything else. They 'broke' the children intentionally, to force them to adopt the new culture. You will notice that many more in the younger generations are managing to throw off that helplessness, and become activist.

Are you aware that there's a diamond mine in Attawapiskat's traditional territory? Under current law, they are entitled to a share in those revenues as which could lift them out of poverty and dependency.

However, the government refuses to facilitate the development of an agreement, though they're the only ones who can do that, according to the Supreme Court.

This is true in Aboriginal communities all across the country. That's what the "Idle No More" movement is about ... and Chief Spence's hunger strike.

Btw ... several houses in Attawapiakat were lost due to sewage overload from the mine.

Edited December 13, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

I strongly disagree that the 1969 White Paper would have constituted genocide by the UN definition (below)

The absurd definition of 'genocide' cooked up by a bunch of activists at the UN has no relevance. What matters is how speakers of the English language understand the term and the assimilation is NOT genocide by any reasonable definition of the word.

[Evening Star]

The absurd definition of 'genocide' cooked up by a bunch of activists at the UN has no relevance. What matters is how speakers of the English language understand the term and the assimilation is NOT genocide by any reasonable definition of the word.

Huh? I was quoting the UN definition to point out that the White Paper's recommendations do NOT constitute genocide. We're on the same side on this question.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

The UN definition makes it clear that "genocide" refers to the actual physical destruction of a group.

[TimG]

Huh? I was quoting the UN definition to point out that the White Paper does NOT constitute genocide. We're on the same side on this question.

Sorry - used to native activists claiming that it is genocide....

[Sleipnir]

What matters is how speakers of the English language understand the term and the assimilation is NOT genocide by any reasonable definition of the word.

The definition for genocide can be fuzzy at best.

"to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

-Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

[Evening Star]

The definition for genocide can be fuzzy at best.

"to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

-Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Source? My link was the same convention and gives quite a different (and very clear) definition. Was the convention modified?

[Sleipnir]

Source? My link was the same convention and gives quite a different (and very clear) definition. Was the convention modified?

It was from 1951, an example of how unclear the definition for genocide can be.

http://web.archive.o.../b/p_genoci.htm

Edited December 13, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Evening Star]

It was from 1951, an example of how unclear the definition for genocide can be.

http://web.archive.o.../b/p_genoci.htm

??? That's the same link I gave. I don't see your definition on that linked page. Mine is under Article 2: it's very clear that "genocide" refers to physical destruction of a group.

(edited for wording)

Edited December 13, 2012 by Evening Star

[g_bambino]

The treaties are between two nations. Canada doesn't own its land it is held by Canada in trust of the Crown. The natives hold their own title, but are at least brothers equal in status to the crown.

As soon as treaty is violated Canada looses its claim of right.

The idea of a modern Canada as nothing but something which rules by force doesn't promote legitimate rule though.

You can go that route but it is just occupation in that event. You can say so what but in blind ignorance or dishonour you will take it to your grave and be held accountable.

Your form of government is illegitimate.

I think charter.rights is here...

[g_bambino]

You are utterly ignorant of the past.

Says the person who evidently never heard of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, today still a part of the Canadian constitution.

First Nations are not sovereign apart from Canada; they are a separate "nation" (in the cultural sense) under the sovereignty of the Canadian Crown (which, as someone has already pointed out, is a synonym for "the Canadian state").

[jacee]

It's apparent to me that some here aren't familiar with the current context and the realities behind the current "Idle No More" movement - the loss of patience referred to in the thread title.

Maybe this helps ...

http://www.mediaindigena.com/hayden-king/issues-and-politics/ghosts-of-indigenous-activism-past-present-future-idlenomores-transformative-potential

This hash-tag movement known to some as #IdleNoMore (#NativeWinter to others) is challenging manifold issues in the Indigenous-Canadian relationship. Among the more critical:

- the move to strip environmental protections from most of this country’s waterways

- a lack of consultation on amendments to the Indian Act

- the chronic failure to maintain and uphold treaties the

- continued refusal to acknowledge the rights of those still without treaties

- repeated calls for a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women.

...

http://m.facebook.com/IdleNoMoreCommunity?id=117610195068827&_rdr#!/IdleNoMoreCommunity?v=info&expand=1&nearby&__user=1311501707

•Bill C-27: First Nations Financial Transparency Act

•Bill C-45: Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 [Omnibus Bill includes Indian Act amendments regarding voting on-reserve lands surrenders/designations]

• Bill S-2: Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

• Bill S-6: First Nations Elections Act

• Bill S-8: Safe Drinking Water for First Nations

• Bill C-428: Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act [Private Conservative MP’s Bill, but supported by Harper government]

Then there are the Senate Public Bills:

•Bill S-207: An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights)

• Bill S-212: First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill

Edited December 14, 2012 by jacee

[Evening Star]

My posts to this thread have not necessarily been in opposition to some of the current protests btw, to be clear.

[g_bambino]

his hash-tag movement known to some as #IdleNoMore (#NativeWinter to others) is challenging manifold issues in the Indigenous-Canadian relationship. Among the more critical:

- a lack of consultation on amendments to the Indian Act.

There was just recently a very large First Nations-Crown conference in Ottawa.

[Smallc]

There is truly only one long term solution.