Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer
Very good post, but I had a question and a comment on the above bits.
Do I take it that you reject the idea of First Nations communities as "sovereign", who can deal with the Government of Canada on a "nation to nation" basis, as the PM espouses? I would have thought that at least some segments of the indigenous community would have problems with that. If one does not recognize a First Nation as "sovereign", it would seem to call into question the status of any "treaties" that they have entered into, although that's academic as the courts have repeatedly upheld their validity.
|
I don't disagree with their sovereignty (I've argued many times for them to hold more sovereignty over the land), but I believe that they can better exercise their sovereignty if they were less fractured. If instead of having ~90 First Nations in Northern Ontario, we had a dozen of them with 90 communities between them, they would hold more political weight and be on at least a less uneven footing when it comes time to negotiate with the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Perhaps not but in the leadership they've obviously spread the word recently that a more aggressive militancy is the way to go.
I am hearing a lot about it in my entourage. Living where I do I have lots of friends who are public servants - both at INAC and in other departments who deal with aboriginal issues. These days when the feds approach indigenous communities with (what the feds think is) good news they are received with lots of defiance and hostility.
|
That's because the things First Nations communities are asking for and the things INAC is giving them are not the same things. If INAC were giving them money for education, housing, and mental health and additions programmes, they'd probably be met with better reception. But there is also a lot of resistance to literally anything the government might suggest, simply because after 150 years of government suggesting things, they don't feel that their situation has improved very much.
The hostility is largely a symptom of frustration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
There has been and still is a lot of tragedy in indigenous communities all over the new world, but sad to say most of it in terms of violence comes from aboriginal people inflicting it on themselves or on other aboriginal people.
|
Yes, and colonized people have a term for this: lateral violence. It's a problem that affects colonized peoples, a result of having their traditional social structures taken down by colonizers, and it's made worse when the affected people are segregated from society or when society is hostile toward them.
Most of Thunder Bay's crime, for example, is lateral violence involving indigenous people who are descendent from residential school survivors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
"White" (sic) people by and large don't go out and physically harm indigenous people in Canada. Or at least, the direct physical harm inflicted by "white" people (Robert Pickton, those SQ cops in Val-d'Or, etc.) is just a tiny fraction compared to what goes on intra-muros in the communities themselves.
Obviously the power imbalance you refer to and other forms of injustice do play huge roles in creating the conditions that make aboriginal people hurt *themselves* way more than other groups in our society do.
|
While lateral violence is the most common form of violence, it's the racially motivated crimes that fan the flames of that fire. Every time an incident like you've described happens, it reinforces to indigenous people that they've been victimized for decades, whether they want to feel that way or not. It isn't necessarily hateful actions either: some residential schools survivors suffered after receiving compensation cheques from the government several years ago, since the reason for the cheque they received brought back memories of the abuses they suffered. Something that was meant as a gesture of good faith, while it helped most, still hurt many people. There are a lot of catch-22s in this debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
BTW, I sincerely hope you don't think I am anti-indigenous.
|
I don't know you well, I know you better than to think that about you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
If we discussed what is needed in terms of investment and autonomy for indigenous Canadians regarding education, health care, infrastructure, accommodation, culture, etc., you'd probably find we're in agreement on almost everything.
|
I believe that
most Canadians agree with us. The problem is, it's not something most Canadians are particularly passionate about. Similar to how it's most likely that most Canadians think famine in Africa is a crisis that needs to be solved but they're not protesting the government to do anything about it.
Ontario is kind of changing that by giving the far north it's own seat (or two) in the legislature, but that's still not going to make this a serious election issue or party platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Oh, I am not saying I don't understand the reaction.
It's just a very noticeable change, and quite different from the attitude even when the less "aboriginal-friendly" Harpercons were in power, vs. the Trudeau Liberals who are way more conciliatory and obviously looking to make amends.
|
Indigenous people knew not to expect much from Harper. (Even though if you look back to 2007 I argued on this very forum that he could be the one whole solved a lot of the problems indigenous people had—not would, but could.)
But Trudeau? It's 2015!
He's different.
Indigenous people feel let down by Trudeau. It isn't exactly right of them to do so (since most of the government is still the same as when Harper was in power; it's half a million employees, it can't turn on a dime) but a lot of them expected things to change almost instantly after October 19th, 2015. He says nice words but his actions don't match them, and he's proven that he is just as able to break a promise as Harper and Chretien before him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begratto
Maybe, but in this case we're talking about the well-meaning great-grandson of the abusive husband.
Should he be held responsible for things that happened generations ago?
|
This is a common misconception people have about how indigenous people view the government.
Canada's federal government turned 150 years old last week. That's the great-grandfather you're talking about. He's still alive and well. Changed a little, but still there. And in the eyes of many indigenous people in this country, if Canada's federal government turns 250 in 2117, that great-grandfather will turn 250 too.
There is no great-grandson. The lifespan of countries is far greater than a single generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Incognito
Imagine if we all agreed to drop the labels?
|
We won't. Culture is a cornerstone of our identities. Even those of us who think we have "no" culture as Canadians (despite no less than 54 "Great Canadian" threads) still use dozens of labels to identify each other. If everyone were the same, life would be pretty boring. Proof? One of the largest festivals in my city is basically just a convention hall filled with booths where people and organizations show off the food and dance of their ancestors. Society
needs labels, even if they sometimes get in the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rousseau
I'm genuinely curious what these spokespersons would say at an event in Brampton or Markham. Would they rant about "white people" to a room full of non-white people whose ancestors very clearly had nothing to do with how North America was settled?
|
As far as I can tell, this argument doesn't leave the confines of white vs. native. I do know that a lot of people from their home countries, particularly stateless people like Palestinians, Kurds and Tibetans, sympathize with Canada's indigenous communities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN
I would have been comfortable with the term "Settler" to describe my family (mom's side settled in the Red River Valley directly from the Russian Empire around 1871, dad's side came to Westman from the Georgian Bay (via Scotland 1840's) area of Ontario in 1910) but the term seems to be loaded with sneering venom by the advocates of indigenous rights that it has turned me off from it.
|
That's why they've changed it to "settler-colonialist".
I think we need to find a way to accept that it was wrong and commit to making things right, without getting so offended at the accusation that we give up and allow the problems to continue. If someone calling you a settler is going to make you give up on the issue then you're not very committed to it. I've been called racist and settler by native people but that doesn't change my commitment to advocate for them. We see this in the gay community a lot: straight people saying shit like "we let you get married and you call us cishets?? We're not supporting you anymore!" and it's both sad and funny at the same time. As if the commitments you've made to an issue that affects your friends can be undone by a single word or tone of voice that they use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN
Yes it does. Especially when it comes from non indigenous Canadians.
|
There are a few people in my city's social media scene who say and do some pretty bizarre things, including openly "admitting" to being racist simply because they're white men living in North America. The irony of their arguments against settler colonialism is that they have a habit of speaking over and calling down indigenous people who disagree with them, perpetuating the problem of white men ordering natives around. But they're the kind of men who will have "moniyaw" tattooed on their forehead and put "Social Justice Warrior" on their resume because they're
that proud of their opinions, no matter how fucked up they look while they do it.
There are native people who disagree with what I'm saying, or what they're saying. There are native people who vote Conservative. There are native people who want reserves abolished (though I've never met one that actually supports assimilation). There was a fairly racist woman running in Thunder Bay's municipal election in 2014 who had a very vocal native man campaign for her at several events because he opposed the Indian Act and the concept of Indian Status, though if it was for the same reason as her, that's unclear. I think he just felt the ends satisfied the means. I didn't like her and vocally opposed her but sometimes I think maybe things would be different if she were elected, since the issue would have been more in our face since native people were essentially the only thing she ever talked about.
Name calling doesn't help but be grateful that the name calling from indigenous people isn't attached to the violence that name calling
towards indigenous people is attached to. It's one thing to be called "settler", it's another to be afraid to send your kids to high school because half a dozen kids have died while attending it in the past decade.
Prev
Linear Mode
