Harper Government Ignoring Aboriginals

overthere · May 15, 2014

Aboriginal culture is part of Canadian culture. There is only one country, and the reality is very different than that put forward by many activist leaders.

Completely untrue.

Canada is officially multicultural. There is no single Canadian culture. Perhaps you've noticed some people in Quebec who have fought long and hard to preserve their culture. Ottawa has acknowledged the reality of the existence of First Nations people (recently) and permitted a large degree of autonomy and self governance. I know that cahps a lot of white asses, but oh well.

Perhaps you are thinking of the USA in regard to a monoculture. Of course, they also enbraced slavery and the eradication of Indians for a long time too. We do too with regard to First Nations, just a bit less brutally.

Please try to stay with the program and celebrate our national diversity. It applies to First Nations too.

Smallc · May 15, 2014

That's a complete mischaracterization of what I said. If Canada is multicultural and aboriginal culture is within Canada it is by definition part of Canadian culture.

overthere · May 15, 2014

That's a complete mischaracterization of what I said. If Canada is multicultural and aboriginal culture is within Canada it is by definition part of Canadian culture.

What do you think "first Natiosn ' means?

cindi · May 15, 2014

That's a complete mischaracterization of what I said. If Canada is multicultural and aboriginal culture is within Canada it is by definition part of Canadian culture.

Good point. Sometimes I think we or some people tend to hold the perception that aboriginal culture is somehow superior to others and that we should enshrine it forever in perpetuity based on racial ancestry. Why should anyone of us rely on a sparse recollection of a diminutive connection fo people dead for decades or centuries in order to claim special privileges. Seems to me this is all tribalism triumphant.

Having said that, I do not believe that the gov't has been 'ignoring' aboriginals', in fact I am sure I've read that this government has spent more on aboriginal funding and treaties than others.

Argus · May 15, 2014

The question is only as dumb as the comment I was responding to.

You were responding to my asserting that genocide is not the same as assimilation. You find that a dumb comment?

bush_cheney2004 · May 15, 2014

...Perhaps you are thinking of the USA in regard to a monoculture.

The USA is not a monoculture....this is a popular "melting pot" myth. There are arguably more languages and "cultures" in the USA than in Canada, including "aboriginals".

Edited May 15, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

Smallc · May 16, 2014

What do you think "first Natiosn ' means?

That's irrelevant. Canada exists. Edited May 16, 2014 by Smallc

PIK · May 16, 2014

Good point. Sometimes I think we or some people tend to hold the perception that aboriginal culture is somehow superior to others and that we should enshrine it forever in perpetuity based on racial ancestry. Why should anyone of us rely on a sparse recollection of a diminutive connection fo people dead for decades or centuries in order to claim special privileges. Seems to me this is all tribalism triumphant.

Having said that, I do not believe that the gov't has been 'ignoring' aboriginals', in fact I am sure I've read that this government has spent more on aboriginal funding and treaties than others.

Very ture and now we have then threatening to shut down canada's economy if the don't get thier way on the education issue. This is nothing but a indian mafia that has taken over. All the governmnet said was ,run the schools with provincial regs so some kid in grade 8 is not reading like a kid in grade 2 and show us where the money went and now they threaten the country. If they do I hope harper crushes them right into the ground. Time for ther natives that have been screwed over by thier own leaders to rise up and crush this mafia organization.

Argus · May 16, 2014

What do you think "first Natiosn ' means?

It sounds like a politically correct description for the descendants of a variety of tribes. Calling all but a few of them 'nations' seems vastly overgenerous.

cybercoma · May 16, 2014

The Québécois are a nation. Harper said so.

Edited May 16, 2014 by cybercoma

Smallc · May 16, 2014

In a totally sense than is being talked about here.

cybercoma · May 16, 2014

That's the problem with the word "nation"; it has different meanings. Politicians loosely switch between them to be shifty.

Argus · May 16, 2014

The Québécois are a nation. Harper said so.

Are there a few hundred Quebecois? Would he have called them a 'nation' if they consisted of three or four hundred people?

Smallc · May 16, 2014

That's the problem with the word "nation"; it has different meanings. Politicians loosely switch between them to be shifty.

There was nothing shifty about the Quebecois designation. It was very clear they it wasn't about countries.

jbg · May 17, 2014

Good point. Sometimes I think we or some people tend to hold the perception that aboriginal culture is somehow superior to others and that we should enshrine it forever in perpetuity based on racial ancestry. Why should anyone of us rely on a sparse recollection of a diminutive connection fo people dead for decades or centuries in order to claim special privileges. Seems to me this is all tribalism triumphant.

I would be hypocritical if I didn't somewhat support maintaining and preserving some aspects of FN culture. I support keeping Yiddish culture and language alive, so why should FN's be any different?

Keepitsimple · May 17, 2014

I would be hypocritical if I didn't somewhat support maintaining and preserving some aspects of FN culture. I support keeping Yiddish culture and language alive, so why should FN's be any different?

Some is the key word - but living on reservations in the middle of nowhere (Attawaspikat comes to mind) is a recipe for poverty and social disaster. A culture that has the will to survive - will survive. As you've pointed out - Jews....but look at Chinese, Ukrainians and on and on. What First Nations want is tantamount to reverse apartheid - to stay separate from mainstream Canada. Many on-reserve Band Chiefs want to maintain the status quo of fiefdoms, keep their bands in thrall and reap the benefits of Federal cash. Why are there good reservations where people thrive and poor ones where they do not? Leadership and proximity to jobs.

overthere · May 17, 2014

"Why are there good reservations where people thrive and poor ones where they do not? Leadership and proximity to jobs."

why are there shitty white governments and decent white governments?

Lots of jobs in Toronto, but look what can happen.

You may also have a clue to your question when you look at where the reserves are located.... In the West, they are generally found on the worst land in the region. Bad farmland, and 'given' to them(actually they have no title to the land) at a time when farmland quality and quantity was the definition of wealth.

The best land was reserved for white settlers. The Indians got the leftovers, and the Indian Act has told them ever since what they cannot do with it. Out of sight, out of mind, and perhaps they'll just all die and clear up this little problem by themselves.

Oh, and lets strip their communities of all their children for a few generations, send them to culture factories for their childhoods, then send them back and see how they do?

It's a fucking disgrace, our national disgrace.

The news get worse folks: they have survived that. Wounded and not in great shape, but they survived. Now what?

Hey, let's force them to become just like us!

Given the evidence, that's about the last thing any First Nations person would want for themselves or their kids.

Argus · May 17, 2014

I would be hypocritical if I didn't somewhat support maintaining and preserving some aspects of FN culture. I support keeping Yiddish culture and language alive, so why should FN's be any different?

Shouldn't you all go off into the woods and live on a er, reservation by yourselves, then? How else are you going to preserve your heritage? Surely you can't do it while living in the middle of cities full of non Jews!

Edited May 17, 2014 by Argus

cybercoma · May 17, 2014

Some is the key word - but living on reservations in the middle of nowhere (Attawaspikat comes to mind) is a recipe for poverty and social disaster.

Who put them on the reservations? Why are they located where they are?

TimG · May 17, 2014

Who put them on the reservations? Why are they located where they are?

No one forces them to stay and many do not.

cybercoma · May 17, 2014

No one forces them to stay and many do not.

If they want the benefits of their nation-to-nation agreement with the Crown, then they need to.

TimG · May 17, 2014

If they want the benefits of their nation-to-nation agreement with the Crown, then they need to.

Which either means life is not as bad as people claim or that these benefits cause more harm than good and getting rid of them would be best for everyone.

Smallc · May 17, 2014

Who put them on the reservations? Why are they located where they are?

If they want the benefits of their nation-to-nation agreement with the Crown, then they need to.

So which is it? Should reserves be gone, as you seem to imply with your first post, or should they remain, as you seem to imply with your second?

Which either means life is not as bad as people claim or that these benefits cause more harm than good and getting rid of them would be best for everyone

On most reserves, life isn't quite as bad as it's portrayed, but the social problems are horrendous. The sad reality is that you could put any group of people in the same situation, and it would turn out exactly the same. There is only one solution to the problems that afflict aboriginal people, and it's a very simple solution overall. The problem is, aboriginal leadership wants nothing to do with it, as they make too much money off of the current situation (for example, the reserve I work with every day has a population of about 500 and a membership close to 1000. The honorarium that the Chief receives for his services is $2500, 26 times a year. It's also worth noting that he concurrently holds the position of Councillor and Chief (he was elected to both) meaning he can vote on issues, and break the tie if there is one.

cybercoma · May 17, 2014

So which is it? Should reserves be gone, as you seem to imply with your first post, or should they remain, as you seem to imply with your second?

That's up to the aboriginal and first nation peoples.

jbg · May 17, 2014

Some is the key word - but living on reservations in the middle of nowhere (Attawaspikat comes to mind) is a recipe for poverty and social disaster.

I am certainly not advocating the squalor of Attawapiskat.

A culture that has the will to survive - will survive. As you've pointed out - Jews....but look at Chinese, Ukrainians and on and on.

All good examples. The Jews and Ukranians are better examples since, with a few exceptions (i.e. the Chasids, who I call rats on legs) they don't opt for apartheid. More Chinese do than don't.

What First Nations want is tantamount to reverse apartheid - to stay separate from mainstream Canada. Many on-reserve Band Chiefs want to maintain the status quo of fiefdoms, keep their bands in thrall and reap the benefits of Federal cash. Why are there good reservations where people thrive and poor ones where they do not? Leadership and proximity to jobs.

Attawapiskat has the dubious distinction of spending money on a zamboni rather than education. Edited May 17, 2014 by jbg