Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

Michael Hardner · June 3, 2015

you, and certainly not you alone, have studiously avoided the G word.

I entered the discussion today, and my point was that word debates take the energy and attention away from more important discussions. I posted my feelings on reconciliation to jacee, if you were following.

The detractors of genocide were a small group of individuals who refused to look at the definitions that the world has used for genocide for over half a century. You have done the same.

You are worse than the right wing, because you would rather spend your energy debating words like a university student than real changes to policy. I expect that it's because the latter is too dull, and not as good a stage for your moral cartwheels. If you have time, and I think you do, read the 22 page link I posted already.

I have described what I believe explains this pattern of disengiuous in another post in this thread and in another thread.

Presumptuous and wrong.

If you want to know something just PM me. I'm really not interested in divisive us-or-them loyalty tests.

Topaz · June 3, 2015

All the FN want is the same treatment for their kids as we have for ours.....an education, so they can go out and get jobs and create jobs and then all us non-FN can quit complaining about the money going to them! IF the Accord had gone forwarded that former PM Martin wanted, both, the FN and the rest of Canada would have been further ahead with dealing with this situation.

Smallc · June 3, 2015

All the FN want is the same treatment for their kids as we have for ours.

If that were true, there wouldn't be a discussion. It's not true, and to say that is very dishonest.

bush_cheney2004 · June 3, 2015

All the FN want is the same treatment for their kids as we have for ours.....an education, so they can go out and get jobs and create jobs and then all us non-FN can quit complaining about the money going to them!

I don't think so....if there is anything to be learned from this exercise it's that nobody else should speak for what "First Nations" want or need.

That is just more patronizing policy and not very different from the "Gradual Civilization Act" of 1857.

Scott Mayers · June 4, 2015

I think that the definitions of words are important to at least assure that people are on the right page prior to any attempt to resolve anything. (I was partially responding to Michael above who, among many, may believe that we need to move on to seeking better resolution in practice.

Only once everyone agrees to the same understanding of each other's meanings can you begin to communicate things with better effect (and affect).

As to potential solutions, I agree that certain compensations should be made to repair imbalances. But I think they should be based on logical and functional grounds external to culture. It is inappropriate to address the logical/functional concept of poverty by addressing the race(s) or minority racial groups that hold the majority plurality of that class. Treating real problems by addressing them through ethnicity is a dishonest attempt by the dominating established cultures to preserve their own status by granting (by their present political clout) relief to other particular groups that they believe they can appeal to conspiring to agree to segregate.

The Catholic and French, for example, desire to keep their legal status in law that allows funds that would normally go to non-biased secular public institutes to be redirected to them. This is literally favoring religions by law (against the American concept in their first Amendment) and would be considered criminal by most enlightened people. But the only way that this could be continued to be supported by a growing population is if these established groups conspire to share such benefits in an equally prejudiced and discriminatory way. As such, they created the concept of "Multi-culturalism" and paint it into a false but convincing appeal to a love for the diversity.

But diversity doesn't persist if people are allowed to segregate (with formal government support) in closed communities that are often more against the common cultures in a more intolerant way than the average secular individual.

This is what we NEED to address to make proper reparations to our system.

On Guard for Thee · June 4, 2015

That happened to many more people that weren't aboriginal. That's kind of been the point here - it was awful, just not genocide, and not even that unique. My own ancestors were a persecuted minority. No apology needed.

Somebody on here was claiming the term cultural genocide was not entertained by the UN. I was just setting them straight. Their definition clearly fits this scenario.

jacee · June 4, 2015

It doesn't sound to me that it goes far enough.

"How about Canada must invest significant resources towards new solutions that First Nations will design to edify their communities"

That's pretty all encompassing and ... vague.

This is fairly direct:

"Reconciliation must create a more equitable and inclusive society

by closing the gaps in social, health, and economic outcomes that

exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians."

And recently ...

Mr. Bellegarde said that if the indicators used for the human development index were applied to aboriginal Canadians, they would place 63rd on the list. Canada as a whole ranked eighth last year on the UN index.

There's a goal.

And I'm sure there are already clear accounts of where the gaps in funding are.

I know the per pupil funding in education is not equal, and that's not counting discrepancies in the condition of facilities.

.

Michael Hardner · June 4, 2015

That's pretty all encompassing and ... vague.

This is fairly direct:

"Reconciliation must create a more equitable and inclusive society

by closing the gaps in social, health, and economic outcomes that

exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians."

I disagree. I read that statement and IT is too vague. Closing the gaps ? How much ?

My statement indicates clearly that new funding should go to programs designed by first nations people, not by the Canadian government a la Residential Schools.

And I'm sure there are already clear accounts of where the gaps in funding are.

I know the per pupil funding in education is not equal, and that's not counting discrepancies in the condition of facilities.

.

You're sure ? But you don't know ? Yes. This is colloquially known as 'part of the problem'. Canadians everywhere have a sense that things are being done... Native people themselves should be given the ability to take care of things. They will fail, but they will succeed too.

They pay billions to companies and bureaucrats to mismanage affairs for First Nations people that they deem aren't able to do it themselves. Read the thread I posted earlier about Attawapiskat, we got into depth on that one.

TimG · June 4, 2015

They will fail, but they will succeed too.

This is the crux of the problem. Natives will always blame failures on outside forces. They never look at their own choices and consider how much of their circumstances are the result of their own bad choices. This puts the government in a bad situation. If it gives natives all the control they want and they fail to deliver they will just be back demanding even more. Edited June 4, 2015 by TimG

Michael Hardner · June 4, 2015

This is the crux of the problem. Natives will always blame failures on outside forces.

They never look at their own choices and consider how much of their circumstances are the result of their own bad choices. This puts the government in a bad situation. If it gives natives all the control they want and they fail to deliver they will just be back demanding even more.

So what do you suggest ?

poochy · June 4, 2015

Sounds like a dictation.

It is utterly pointless to enage you in any discussion, you seem to think you can be on all sides of every issue all of the time while beleiving you are somehow above it all.

Edited June 4, 2015 by poochy

Michael Hardner · June 4, 2015

It is utterly pointless to enage you in any discussion, you seem to think you can be on all sides of every issue all of the time while beleiving you are somehow above it all.

I guess that you're just upset that you proved my point. You pretty much said you don't think you can move forward with people unless they succumb to your demands with regards to the word genocide, and something about them preaching to you.

I think there is a real discussion to be had, for those who want to have it. There will be arguments, and disagreements but not over the definition of a word. And maybe something can be done to help.

TimG · June 4, 2015

I think there is a real discussion to be had, for those who want to have it. There will be arguments, and disagreements but not over the definition of a word. And maybe something can be done to help.

Words matter. By using the word "genocide" proponents seek to de-legitimatize any who disagree with their "solutions". This makes a rational discussion impossible. We see the same use of language to silence debate in about climate through the use of the word "denier" to describe anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the CO2 mitigation policies.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion you need to deal with the people trying to de-legitimatize those who disagree with them.

Edited June 4, 2015 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · June 4, 2015

I guess the same people who deny climate change is occurring would likely be the same ones denying cultural genocide did occur. Regardless of the evidence or the language.

jacee · June 4, 2015

I disagree. I read that statement and IT is too vague. Closing the gaps ? How much ?

Equalizing funding.

My statement indicates clearly that new funding should go to programs designed by first nations people, not by the Canadian government a la Residential Schools.

Agreed.

You're sure ? But you don't know ? Yes. This is colloquially known as 'part of the problem'. Canadians everywhere have a sense that things are being done... Native people themselves should be given the ability to take care of things. They will fail, but they will succeed too.

They pay billions to companies and bureaucrats to mismanage affairs for First Nations people that they deem aren't able to do it themselves. Read the thread I posted earlier about Attawapiskat, we got into depth on that one.

Definitely Indigenous communities should manage their own affairs.

I think if our municipal governments were put under the national spotlight as theirs are, they could easily be seen as pretty incompetent, but Ottawa doesn't send out people to take over, withhold funding, etc.

Local control is important and as you said, mistakes and failures will happen and successes and learning will happen too.

The 'custodial' model with all control in Ottawa, drowned in red tape, bureaucratic and political wrangling must end.

.

Michael Hardner · June 4, 2015

We see the same use of language to silence debate in about climate through the use of the word "denier" to describe anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the CO2 mitigation policies.

Very much so, however you and I are both rational people who can argue points and also vehemently disagree on certain things. We disagree on much about climate change, ie. the science, but are able to put that aside to talk about the economic approach.

Debating words is a form of entertainment for the chattering classes. Canada needs a new sub-public that can talk about action and details... not armchair politicians.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion you need to deal with the people trying to de-legitimatize those who disagree with them.

Right, but the real enemy isn't people who disagree with you politically, it's people who can't argue progressively. The me-stream media exists to publicize and blow up disagreements, so you will continue to tune in. Brokering a way forward that can take the best-of-breed options for all intelligent stakeholders used to happen more often in the days of the local townhall, sometimes with fist fights even.

Michael Hardner · June 4, 2015

Equalizing funding.

Agreed.

You realize that your language could easily be interpreted as a rationale to cut funding ?

Definitely Indigenous communities should manage their own affairs.

I think if our municipal governments were put under the national spotlight as theirs are, they could easily be seen as pretty incompetent, but Ottawa doesn't send out people to take over, withhold funding, etc.

Yes, we covered that in depth in the Attiwapiskat thread.

Topaz · June 4, 2015

On CBC, the Parl. Sec. to the PM was asked why the PM wouldn't admit that genocide happened and he just went all away around it with what they have promised to do or have done. So until a PM admit this, how can the country go forward?

Smallc · June 4, 2015

Equalizing funding.

Then it should be administered through provincial education authorities with provincial standards.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Smallc

Smallc · June 4, 2015

You realize that your language could easily be interpreted as a rationale to cut funding ?

Did you know that when reserve schools go on field trips, they have the ability of full cost recovery? That's something that provincial schools can't do. That's just one example. According to the people at Frontier School division in Manitoba, an organization that administers provincial and federal on reserve education funding, the gap in funding isn't as simple as some make it out. Reserve schools within Frontier also have, on average, a far younger infrastructure age.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Smallc

cybercoma · June 4, 2015

You realize that your language could easily be interpreted as a rationale to cut funding ?

Not even close. The federal government is responsible for funding municipal, provincial, and federal services for first nations. When you look at the per capita spending on people for all three levels of government it far exceeds what the federal government spends per capita on first nations.

TimG · June 4, 2015

Right, but the real enemy isn't people who disagree with you politically, it's people who can't argue progressively. The me-stream media exists to publicize and blow up disagreements, so you will continue to tune in.

You make a good point. If the media simply ignored the word it would not matter that it was in the report. The problem is the media gives credence to this blatant exercise in propaganda.

Keepitsimple · June 4, 2015

On CBC, the Parl. Sec. to the PM was asked why the PM wouldn't admit that genocide happened and he just went all away around it with what they have promised to do or have done. So until a PM admit this, how can the country go forward?

The CBC knows full well the answer to that question. The term "genocide" has legal implications that by definition, could lead to prosecutions. It's easy for people to throw that term around - but when as Prime Minister, you are speaking for the government of Canada - you have to recognize and acknowledge the implications of those words.

bush_cheney2004 · June 4, 2015

The CBC knows full well the answer to that question.

No doubt...the CBC has no problem tossing that word around for other nations and groups.

PIK · June 4, 2015

The PM is right in taking his time to read everything and hopefully have a answer. If anyone has been paying attention the last 10 yrs would know that. And he has to be very careful about the language he uses as a leader. He has done more them any other PM when it comes to this, and he will do more.