Reconciliation: where should the money come from?

Second-class Canadian · July 2, 2015

Given that the TRC has recommended that the Government of Canada spend as much money to revive indigenous languages and cultures as it spent on trying to destroy them (adjusted for inflation) in a systematic act of cultural genocide, where should all of that money come from?

I personally can see at least two possible sources: the separate school system and the English and French provisions of the Canadian Constitution.

According to one study referring to a merging of separate and secular schools in Ontario, "The total estimated annual savings due to merging have been calculated at between $1.269 billion and $1.594 billion."

Given that the Churches that are involved in the separate school system are by no accident of history the same ones that were involved in the residential school system (and that the UN has already criticized Canada for the separate school system violating the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights), it would seem appropriate to take the funds from the same source by abrogating the separate school system from the Constitution.

According to another study published by the Fraser Institute, fulfilling the English and French language requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms costs Canadian taxpayers an estimated 2.4 billion dollars a year.

Given that these are the same languages, again by no accident of history, to be imposed in the residential school system, it would seem appropriate again to get the funds from the same source by eliminating the English and French language provisions of the Constitution.

Of course extra-constitutional legislation might still protect some English and French language privileges and so fail to save the entire 2.4 billion a year, but even if it manages to save half of that money, that would still be 1.2 billion yearly. Considering that schools on reserves are underfunded from between 2,000 to 3,000 dollars yearly per child today compared to off-reserve schools in comparable circumstances, the savings could go towards funding public schools on reserves.

An additional advantage aside from reconciliation would be putting our religions and languages on a comparatively more equal footing in the Constitution.

Where would you propose we get the funding for reconciliation?

TimG · July 2, 2015

Given that the TRC has recommended that the Government of Canada spend as much money to revive indigenous languages and cultures as it spent on trying to destroy them

A waste of money. Any new money should be directed to addressing the actual problems faced by native communities such as education and business development. If natives want to preserve their cultures they need to pay for it themselves.

Second-class Canadian · July 2, 2015

A waste of money. Any new money should be directed to addressing the actual problems faced by native communities such as education and business development. If natives want to preserve their cultures they need to pay for it themselves.

So if I understand correctly, they should not be compensated in any way for a systematic act of cultural genocide that lasted over 100 years into the 1990s?

TimG · July 2, 2015

So if I understand correctly, they should not be compensated in any way for a systematic act of cultural genocide that lasted over 100 years into the 1990s?

As I said: assimilation is not wrong. Coercive assimilation is. "Cultural genocide" is a ridiculous term that implies that the objective of assimilation was wrong when the only problem is was the coercive means used to achieve the objective. If natives want to preserve their culture then they should be free to do so but no one else has any obligation to pay for it. Edited July 2, 2015 by TimG

-1=e^ipi · July 2, 2015

The educational system should be used to give people useful skills that will make them more productive citizens in the future, not to be used to impose cultural values on kids. If you want to teach kids Chinese, Korean, Japanese or Spanish, that is fine as they are useful languages. But trying to revive a dead language seems like a pointless waste of time and money.

PIK · July 2, 2015

It is time for the natives to join in. But we the people are not going to waste anymore money. Anyways just have a investigation and find out what swiss banks accounts hold all the stolen money that has been given to the chiefs.

On Guard for Thee · July 2, 2015

As I said: assimilation is not wrong. Coercive assimilation is. "Cultural genocide" is a ridiculous term that implies that the objective of assimilation was wrong when the only problem is was the coercive means used to achieve the objective. If natives want to preserve their culture then they should be free to do so but no one else has any obligation to pay for it.

And what exactly is the difference between coercive assimilation ad cultural genocide. What was doe in residential schools was certainly coercive. Seems to me you shot down your own point.

TimG · July 2, 2015

And what exactly is the difference between coercive assimilation ad cultural genocide.

"genocide" implies the the objective of assimilation is wrong. the objective of assimilation is not wrong but it must be voluntary.

Argus · July 2, 2015

I think it should be crowdfunding. All you people who cry every time you see some native should be putting that money into a big fund to pay the natives. Maybe they'll do their quaint little dances for you in their feathered headdresses and you can get selfies.

Leave the rest of us out of it. We don't share your bleeding heart guilt trip.

Argus · July 2, 2015

So if I understand correctly, they should not be compensated in any way for a systematic act of cultural genocide that lasted over 100 years into the 1990s?

They've already been compensated. Did you miss that?

Edited July 2, 2015 by Argus

Freddy · July 2, 2015

So if I understand correctly, they should not be compensated in any way for a systematic act of cultural genocide that lasted over 100 years into the 1990s?

They should look at life on the positive side and be happy we didn't wipe them all out.

Second-class Canadian · July 2, 2015

Reading some of the posts on here, I might have to agree with you. In fact, they should perhaps be more concerned with the reinstatement of the system.

Freddy · July 2, 2015

Reading some of the posts on here, I might have to agree with you. In fact, they should perhaps be more concerned with the reinstatement of the system.

Anywhere else on earth they would get wiped out the minute they would open their mouths to complain. Maybe they should look at life on the positive side and be happy they are in Canada and not anywhere else on this planet.

Let it be a reminder that, It's not in your interest to lose a war. Once you lose you are at their mercy.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Freddy

On Guard for Thee · July 2, 2015

Anywhere else on earth they would get wiped out the minute they would open their mouths to complain. Maybe they should look at life on the positive side and be happy they are in Canada and not anywhere else on this planet.

Let it be a reminder that, It's not in your interest to lose a war.

Wow, I think you are giving even Argus a pretty good run for his money.

Freddy · July 2, 2015

Wow, I think you are giving even Argus a pretty good run for his money.

It's true, I have the moral fibre of a soldier. The rest of you would roll over like little rainbow kitten's

Edited July 2, 2015 by Freddy

Second-class Canadian · July 2, 2015

Anywhere else on earth they would get wiped out the minute they would open their mouths to complain. Maybe they should look at life on the positive side and be happy they are in Canada and not anywhere else on this planet.

Let it be a reminder that, It's not in your interest to lose a war. Once you lose you are at their mercy.

What wars? Canada could not afford Indian wars, so it opted for treachery instead. It signed treaties it never intended to honour so the indigenous allies could let their guard down and then sent the RCMP in to sweep the children away before the they could organize a counter-attack. Even the government acknowledged that the indigenous peoples were not likely to rebel once the government had control of their children.

That would be the equivalent of Canada joining NATO, positioning itself strategically within it, and then springing the long knives before its allies know what hit them. I'd hardly call that a war. Treachery, yes, but not a war.

Now of course one could argue that the distinction between war and treachery is superfluous, that if the indigenous peoples were stupid enough to trust the British and the French, then they deserved what they got. But then what does that say about western values? Not very Christian, are they.

Second-class Canadian · July 2, 2015

It's true, I have the moral fibre of a soldier. The rest of you would roll over like little rainbow kitten's

What kind of soldier: Honourable or treacherous? Do you stab your comrades at arms in the back when they are not looking?

Accountability Now · July 2, 2015

It signed treaties it never intended to honour so the indigenous allies could let their guard down

Which part of which treaty has not been honored? Please be specific

On Guard for Thee · July 3, 2015

What kind of soldier: Honourable or treacherous? Do you stab your comrades at arms in the back when they are not looking?

The drugstore cowboy type by the sounds of it.

Topaz · July 3, 2015

What part, if any, should Britain be responsible, since it happened under their rule also.

Second-class Canadian · July 3, 2015

Possibly the best option is to shrink government maximally. Eliminate the separate school system and official bilingualism from the Constitution, cut media funding, Heritage Canada, and CIDA, and eliminate the language requirements from packaging and labelling. Consequently, we could pay the debt faster and enjoy lower-priced products. The sooner the debt is paid off, the sooner we could enjoy tax reductions. And the sooner we enjoy tax reductions, the sooner we could further increase our charitable contributions. I already give regularly to my local Native Friendship Centre through automatic bank withdrawals even though I am not indigenous myself.

But if the government insists on not helping indigenous cultures, then it should also cut help to English and French. Fair is fair, or do you need a hand out?

-1=e^ipi · July 3, 2015

But then what does that say about western values? Not very Christian, are they.

Not everyone is Christian, so why should Canada operate by 'Christian' values?

One of the main problems with respect to indigenous issues is the belief in the immoral concept of original sin.

Eve ate an magic fruit, therefore all of her descendants should be punished even though they didn't do anything; that is the morality of original sin.

Rather than treat people as individuals, original sin suggests people should be treated as groups and that people today are somehow responsible for what their ancestors did.

Guess what? When all this treaty nonsense was signed, I wasn't alive, you weren't alive, our parents weren't alive, etc. What gave some unelected British monarch from hundreds of years ago the right to impose racist laws that apply even to this day?

Second-class Canadian · July 3, 2015

So what's your view on maximally small government, no more hand outs for anyone?

-1=e^ipi · July 3, 2015

So what's your view on maximally small government, no more hand outs for anyone?

Please define what you mean by maximally small government and hand outs.

Second-class Canadian · July 3, 2015

Please define what you mean by maximally small government and hand outs.

As mentioned above: no more separate school system and official bilingualism, no more media funding and Heritage Canada. No more language requirements on packaging and labelling so as to increase product choice.