The Purity of Aboriginal Blood? Who cares?

[Guest]

To that individual due to her upbringing, yes, to another not so much. Me? If I thought my heritage was near extinction, possibly, as it stands...no. A racial survivalist is a different beast than a racial supremist. If the view was "I need to keep my culinary culture of Kraft Dinner alive so I think marrying white is important" is different than, "I can't get Kraft Dinner at my grocery store b/c of all these other cultures.....We need to marry white so I can displace that vindaloo on the shelf at my local store." Now we have a problem.

I'm white, and I much prefer curry to Kraft Dinner.

But then, I did grow up in the curry capital of Britain.

[Smallc]

There's more to this too, now that I think of it. According to one poster, it's none of my business what she does and why...that was true...until she decided to advertise by putting her opinion on the CBC. If she wants to spread her drivel, I'm going to challenge it in any way I can.

[Boges]

I think this is the first time I've ever heard the term "scarce" race.

People of a "First Nations" racial group are found all over North, Central and South America. And their racial make-up has an ancient heritage in Northern parts of Asia.

Go to Mexico you find people of a similar racial make-up of First Nations people in Canada, of course they speak Spanish.

But then again I seem to remember a certain Apiwapiskat Chief that looked pretty white to me. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/theresa-spence/

If we're talking about specific tribes, I'll repeat my claim that they may find their cultural group would be more "successful" if they weren't bound to reserves.

Would we resist certain other "non-white" cultural groups from trying to preserve their heritage? for example Arabs, East Asians, East Indians, Africans or West Indians.

Or what about caucasian culture groups? Italians, Irish, Ukrainian, Jewish well all of Europe basically. Are we to resist their attempt to preserve their heritage and/or culture, In this country? Their racial make-up may not be "scarce" but in this nation their cultural group may be.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Boges

[Boges]

I'm white, and I much prefer curry to Kraft Dinner.

But then, I did grow up in the curry capital of Britain.

I've never been to India but I would imagine Curry seasoned food would be as common as Cheese-like products such as Kraft Dinner here in Canada.

[eyeball]

I think this is the first time I've ever heard the term "scarce" race.

You want to see scarce? Walk a mile in an Earthling's gumboots. I can get my head around the desire to preserve something scarce but via an inverse manner...I'm still just trying to get one off the ground see.

I get the sense First Nations will wrinkle their noses up at the concept of an aboriginal Earthling as much as anyone else. Perhaps time will tell. Probably a long long time.

[Remiel]

I think the real deficiency with her argument is that she is not discriminating enough. If you have any familiarity with native activists at all, you know that for most of them indigenous cultures are not completely interchangeable. Using the criterion of being an "indigenous person" says virtually nothing about whether your children will identify foremost with your own indigenous culture or your significant others indigenous culture: which are not the same culture. It would be like saying I plan to preserve my Scottish culture by marrying someone who is at least 1/4 white. It. Just. Makes. No. Sense.

[cybercoma]

Until recently, I didn't understand how much people in the left hold back the post racial reality we're all supposed to want. This thread brings it all into perspective.

The problem is that you want to think that post-racial "reality" is today. It's neither a reality nor is it here today. It's simple for someone not from an oppressed group to say, "can't we all just get over it" because you have the option of getting away from it. You don't have to see it or experience. For those from these groups, they don't have that option. They don't have that privilege.

[cybercoma]

I think we need to step back a second and see what this is really about. It's about a native woman who wants to have a family with a native man to preserve her cultural, and yes, aboriginal blood lines. If a white woman wants to have her children fathered by a white man, she has that choice as well. I don't think anyone is dismissing white people who want to preserve their race. This native woman wrote a column about it because it is a thought provoking article.

Exactly this.

[cybercoma]

To that individual due to her upbringing, yes, to another not so much. Me? If I thought my heritage was near extinction, possibly, as it stands...no. A racial survivalist is a different beast than a racial supremist. If the view was "I need to keep my culinary culture of Kraft Dinner alive so I think marrying white is important" is different than, "I can't get Kraft Dinner at my grocery store b/c of all these other cultures.....We need to marry white so I can displace that vindaloo on the shelf at my local store." Now we have a problem.

The major point is that you don't have to go out of your way at all to find a white person to marry.

[cybercoma]

I think this is the first time I've ever heard the term "scarce" race.

People of a "First Nations" racial group are found all over North, Central and South America. And their racial make-up has an ancient heritage in Northern parts of Asia.

Go to Mexico you find people of a similar racial make-up of First Nations people in Canada, of course they speak Spanish.

But then again I seem to remember a certain Apiwapiskat Chief that looked pretty white to me. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/theresa-spence/

If we're talking about specific tribes, I'll repeat my claim that they may find their cultural group would be more "successful" if they weren't bound to reserves.

Would we resist certain other "non-white" cultural groups from trying to preserve their heritage? for example Arabs, East Asians, East Indians, Africans or West Indians.

Or what about caucasian culture groups? Italians, Irish, Ukrainian, Jewish well all of Europe basically. Are we to resist their attempt to preserve their heritage and/or culture, In this country? Their racial make-up may not be "scarce" but in this nation their cultural group may be.

They're so populous that many of the indigenous languages have died off or are close to dying. Is English threatened in such a way in this country? Do you have a hard time finding English speaking romantic partners? These questions are absurd because these are worries that the dominant culture doesn't have. We don't think of things like this because we don't have to. That's part of the 'privilege' of being in the dominant culture.

[cybercoma]

I think the real deficiency with her argument is that she is not discriminating enough. If you have any familiarity with native activists at all, you know that for most of them indigenous cultures are not completely interchangeable. Using the criterion of being an "indigenous person" says virtually nothing about whether your children will identify foremost with your own indigenous culture or your significant others indigenous culture: which are not the same culture. It would be like saying I plan to preserve my Scottish culture by marrying someone who is at least 1/4 white. It. Just. Makes. No. Sense.

An excellent point. Most white people don't even consider the fact that there are numerous distinct indigenous peoples in Canada each with their own heritage, culture, tradition and language.

Edited April 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[Boges]

They're so populous that many of the indigenous languages have died off or are close to dying. Is English threatened in such a way in this country? Do you have a hard time finding English speaking romantic partners? These questions are absurd because these are worries that the dominant culture doesn't have. We don't think of things like this because we don't have to. That's part of the 'privilege' of being in the dominant culture.

Should Canadians feel apologetic for having a distinct culture? BTW it's not about race, Canadian culture is supposed to cross racial lines. Canada is the dominant culture because we live in Canada. Through hundreds of years Canadians have crafted a distinct culture influenced by many things and many other cultures. There are also regional cultures.

I guess First Nations are at a distinct disadvantage because they largely choose to live a part from the rest of us. Languages die off because they don't spread. French is diminishing because a part from a handful of countries and in Quebec, not a lot of people speak it.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Boges

[Smallc]

The problem is that you want to think that post-racial "reality" is today. It's neither a reality nor is it here today. It's simple for someone not from an oppressed group to say, "can't we all just get over it" because you have the option of getting away from it. You don't have to see it or experience. For those from these groups, they don't have that option. They don't have that privilege.

I don't live in a majority white community, so I'm not sure how I can 'get away from it.' If people don't start trying, it'll never happen. Race should have no meaning, yet you seem to want it to.

[cybercoma]

Should Canadians feel apologetic for having a distinct culture?

If that's what you take away from what I said, then I'm not willing to have any kind of discussion with you about this.

[cybercoma]

I don't live in a majority white community

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

[Boges]

If that's what you take away from what I said, then I'm not willing to have any kind of discussion with you about this.

So it seems you're position is that because First Nations aren't the dominant culture, it's perfectly alright that they have a philosophy of ensuring their cultural protection by not marrying people of other racial or cultural groups.

Because as pointed out by Kimmy, people who hold this philosophy from your "dominant" cultural group would be pilloried as a racist, and rightly so.

I ask the question, why is it that First Nations are "scarce" group. Is it the "White Man's" fault? Other racial and cultural groups do very well in Canada.

I also wonder if you'd approve of that philosophy being enforced by family members. If they don't marry "one of their own" they get dis-owned. I'm not saying this happens in the First Nations community, but there are other cultures that often require their offspring to marry within their racial or culture group.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Boges

[Smallc]

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

No, you don't get it. You're trying to separate something along a line that we shouldn't.

[cybercoma]

So it seems you're position is that because First Nations aren't the dominant culture, it's perfectly alright that they have a philosophy of ensuring their cultural protection by not marrying people of other racial or cultural groups.

Jesus. Do you even read? They have a philosophy? Really?

Because as pointed out by Kimmy, people who hold this philosophy from your "dominant" cultural group would be pilloried as a racist, and rightly so.

Not exactly. People who are white marry white people all the time, prefer to date white people all the time, and whatever. That's not the issue with these white people. The issue are the batshit crazy white supremacists that try to frame their racism as preserving their white heritage and culture. It's laughable to even argue that whites are oppressed or in need of preserving at this point. If they want to marry other whites and not date or marry other races, that's their prerogative. The problem is the people who take it a hell of a lot further than that.

I ask the question, why is it that First Nations are "scarce" group. Is it the "White Man's" fault? Other racial and cultural groups do very well in Canada.

It's a valuable question. Don't stop looking for answers.

I also wonder if you'd approve of that philosophy being enforced by family members. If they don't marry "one of their own" they get dis-owned. I'm not saying this happens in the First Nations community, but there are other cultures that often require their offspring to marry within their racial or culture group.

Nope. I sure don't. But we're not talking about others determining who a person should or should not marry. We're talking about an individual woman who has made the choice to marry someone from her own race and culture in order to preserve it. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, that's her prerogative and those that would criticize her for it are tilting at windmills. Smallc is disgusted, but he doesn't even know what about.

[cybercoma]

No, you don't get it. You're trying to separate something along a line that we shouldn't.

What is that something and how am I separating it?

[Smallc]

Racial division is not a good justification for anything, no matter who is doing it. That's been my point all along.

And no I'm not tilting at windmills. I see what racial division causes. In either direction, her line of thinking is very dangerous.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Smallc

[Boges]

I think when people talk about bloodlines, it makes a lot of people uneasy. From reading the article it almost sounds like she's talking about breeding dogs.

Dogs are defined similarly to how she's trying to discuss how she can ensure that her children are Status Indians.

[Accountability Now]

I think when people talk about bloodlines, it makes a lot of people uneasy. From reading the article it almost sounds like she's talking about breeding dogs.

Dogs are defined similarly to how she's trying to discuss how she can ensure that her children are Status Indians.

Exactly. She cares much more about the Status then the bloodline.

[cybercoma]

Racial division is not a good justification for anything, no matter who is doing it. That's been my point all along.

And no I'm not tilting at windmills. I see what racial division causes. In either direction, her line of thinking is very dangerous.

So you want to force people to marry outside of their race for the sake of breaking down racial division? What is the point you're trying to make here? Nobody's arguing that racial division is a good thing. What's also not a good thing is annihilating other people's cultures and forcing them into your own, whilst calling it progressive or claiming it ends racial division.

[cybercoma]

I think when people talk about bloodlines, it makes a lot of people uneasy. From reading the article it almost sounds like she's talking about breeding dogs.

It's a privilege not having to worry about finding someone that shares the same culture, ethnicity, race, and heritage as you. It's something I didn't have to think about because I wasn't the Other in society. She is. So of course it makes people feel uncomfortable when they're confronted with the fact that she lives a very different reality than they do. Edited April 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

It isn't other people's cultures, it's part of the Canadian fabric, and it adds to that fabric and will always.

I don't want to force anyone to do anything, but the ideas in this article are rather outdated. I can't let such thinking go un countered.