Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

But living in the same places where most Canadians live today is an option that's fully available to them, on the same terms as anyone else, if they wish. I'm pretty sure I recall freeweed on SSP (departed, now) pointing out he would have qualified for native status and handouts, and the best choice he made in his life was to live outside a reserve. Now he earns a good living, pays taxes, owns a piece of Calgary (I think), just as any normal upper-middle-class Canadian would do in their own city.

You can't hope to combine non-assimilation + special status and vast collective lands + equal economic opportunity. It can't work. We have to pick and choose, and there will be people who won't like it, whatever is chosen.

Here's a mental exercise for you.

What if all of the goodies of modern Canadian society were available to the Québécois, but in exchange for them they'd basically have to become Anglo-Canadians?

It would be an attractive option that's fully available to them, on the same terms as anyone else, if they wished.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

But living in the same places where most Canadians live today is an option that's fully available to them, on the same terms as anyone else, if they wish. I'm pretty sure I recall freeweed on SSP (departed, now) pointing out he would have qualified for native status and handouts, and the best choice he made in his life was to live outside a reserve. Now he earns a good living, pays taxes, owns a piece of Calgary (I think), just as any normal upper-middle-class Canadian would do in their own city.

You can't hope to combine non-assimilation + special status and vast collective lands + equal economic opportunity. It can't work. We have to pick and choose, and there will be people who won't like it, whatever is chosen.

You can move somewhere but that is different from growing up and inheriting property and a social support structure there. Most people more or less end up where they started. There are some driven people who succeed marvelously against these odds, sure, but they're not the ones who will dominate at a demographic level. And they don't make up for claims of unfairness in terms of an uneven playing field. This is why people talk about equality of opportunity.

I don't think reserves have private real estate ownership. So even if you want to move away you can't sell your house on a reserve. I would guess that there are many other little issues like that that I'm unaware of.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here's a mental exercise for you.

What if all of the goodies of modern Canadian society were available to the Québécois, but in exchange for them they'd basically have to become Anglo-Canadians?

It would be an attractive option that's fully available to them, on the same terms as anyone else, if they wished.

As you know, that's not merely a thought experiment... and it's also still a valid reason for some to leave Quebec for better opportunities outside it, even nowadays.

~40 years ago we did make the choice to get the best odds in favor of continuing to exist collectively, accepting the steep economic price to pay for it. Factors were considered and weighed, it was acknowledged we couldn't have it all, sacrifices were made.

But I don't even see that kind of discussion being had yet in this case.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What if all of the goodies of modern Canadian society were available to the Québécois, but in exchange for them they'd basically have to become Anglo-Canadians?

It would be is an attractive option that's fully available to them, on the same terms as anyone else, if they wished.

????

Edit - Lio beat me to it, with a more eloquent response than my series of question marks

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

You can move somewhere but that is different from growing up and inheriting property and a social support structure there.

White Canadians growing up in remote areas have this exact same inequality of opportunity problem, though. It's inevitable, and it's caused by remoteness not race.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Me&You

????

It's actually a very good thought experiment to illustrate the natives' dilemma (in a slightly less extreme way).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

As you know, that's not merely a thought experiment... and it's also still a valid reason for some to leave Quebec for better opportunities outside it, even nowadays.

~40 years ago we did make the choice to get the best odds in favor of continuing to exist collectively, accepting the steep economic price to pay for it. Factors were considered and weighed, it was acknowledged we couldn't have it all, sacrifices were made.

But I don't even see that kind of discussion being had yet in this case.

Partly due to our own determination, and partly due to historical luck, we're in the relatively enviable position of being able to have maybe 90% of that "all", while at the same time being able to still live in an environment where our culture is fairly pervasive.

Even the largest most cohesive and viable aboriginal groups in Canada will likely never be able to obtain this.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's actually a very good thought experiment to illustrate the natives' dilemma (in a slightly less extreme way).

I attempted to strike through Acajack's "would be" and replace it with "is an", but the strike through didn't translate to my post.

Essentially you said the same thing that such opportunity does exist and some do choose to take advantage of it.

[ssiguy]

I am soooooo sick of these holier than thou school boards trying to set social policy.

Our history is a litany of violence, patriarchy, and bigotry so why try to hide it? It is simple reality to LEARN from and NOT to forget. Our problems will multiple not when we remember these events but rather when we forget them. History has a lot to teach us and ignorance has none.

Yes what happened to the Natives was horrid but conversely it's not like the Natives were enjoying "sunny days" before the Europeans arrived. They were just as violent, blood thirsty, and patriarchal as their soon to be conqerers. Perhaps we should erase all indications of their culture as well? Ya right, you sure as hell won't hear that coming out of someone's thin skinned mouth.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Partly due to our own determination, and partly due to historical luck, we're in the relatively enviable position of being able to have maybe 90% of that "all", while at the same time being able to still live in an environment where our culture is fairly pervasive.

Economic sacrifices were still fairly major when you consider that Montreal would be Canada's Paris or London right now had we assimilated correctly.

Even the largest most cohesive and viable aboriginal groups in Canada will likely never be able to obtain this.

They could, if they massively relocated to the same area as part of the proposed solution to ensure aboriginal culture could survive its combination with economic opportunity and integration into modern Canada.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

As you know, that's not merely a thought experiment... and it's also still a valid reason for some to leave Quebec for better opportunities outside it, even nowadays.

~40 years ago we did make the choice to get the best odds in favor of continuing to exist collectively, accepting the steep economic price to pay for it. Factors were considered and weighed, it was acknowledged we couldn't have it all, sacrifices were made.

But I don't even see that kind of discussion being had yet in this case.

Well, the Québécois had Montreal, Quebec City, a huge francophone province in which to find resources and areas with good access to markets, etc, etc.

Generally speaking, First Nations reserves reduced previously large-ranging territories to small, isolated pockets. The Indian Act (and various treaties) then incentivized reserve living.

Reducing First Nations outcomes to just remoteness is far too simplistic. There are clearly (in my opinion) other factors which include the damage to family structures, community institutions, and dignity which have been caused over the past few centuries (in large part due to the policies of consecutive Canadian governments).

Many people try to dismiss those factors as "SJW bullshit" but, from my personal and professional experiences with First Nations communities (which, admittedly, is not extensive), I'm convinced that these factors play a role and will have to be addressed (probably by granting of a significant measure of self-government) before any real reconciliation or improvement in outcomes is possible.

[drew]

Originally Posted by lio45

They could, if they massively relocated to the same area as part of the proposed solution to ensure aboriginal culture could survive its combination with economic opportunity and integration into modern Canada.

It's not that simple. Relocation is required, but on a much smaller scale. In terms of Manitoba (and likely Sask. and NWO) isolated communities in the north would be far better serviced if they moved closer to the economic advantages offered further south.

Long term, there is nothing to be gained keeping people housed in isolated communities with no realistic long or even short term economic prospects, supported wholly on government assistance. It's been demonstrated without exception to be a complete and absolute failure to the livelihood people in these communities.

Beyond language, there is really nothing tying modern reserves or their people (especially people under 50) to any kind of "old way" of life.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I am soooooo sick of these holier than thou school boards trying to set social policy.

Our history is a litany of violence, patriarchy, and bigotry so why try to hide it? It is simple reality to LEARN from and NOT to forget. Our problems will multiple not when we remember these events but rather when we forget them. History has a lot to teach us and ignorance has none.

Yes what happened to the Natives was horrid but conversely it's not like the Natives were enjoying "sunny days" before the Europeans arrived. They were just as violent, blood thirsty, and patriarchal as their soon to be conqerers. Perhaps we should erase all indications of their culture as well? Ya right, you sure as hell won't hear that coming out of someone's thin skinned mouth.

Sigh. Firstly, this issue has been raised by the teachers' union, not the "holier than thou school boards". As far as I know, no school board has taken any action in response to the union's request.

Secondly, as has already been pointed out in this thread, this is a straw man. No one is advocating for a white-washing of history. Most of the school boards have policies which restrict the naming of schools to commemorating people whose contributions to society are "renowned and valued across Canada" (to borrow from the Toronto school board's policy. Is MacDonald renowned across all of Canada? That seems a legitimate question.

No one is suggesting that Canadian students should not be taught about MacDonald. Indeed, hopefully this debate offers new, alternative perspectives on MacDonald's tenure as Prime Minister.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Economic sacrifices were still fairly major when you consider that Montreal would be Canada's Paris or London right now had we assimilated correctly.





They could, if they massively relocated to the same area as part of the proposed solution to ensure aboriginal culture could survive its combination with economic opportunity and integration into modern Canada.

I guess it's not impossible, but due to a whole series of factors, even if I agree there were sacrifices to be made we still had an easier time than they will ever have.

Just taking the idea of an aboriginal province vs. Quebec/French Canada.

We have a much greater commonality of culture across a much wider area. There are differences but even Acadians and Québécois are much more the same "people" than even the Hurons and the Mohawks are, even though the latter two both inhabit(ed) the St. Lawrence Valley.

Grouping together aboriginal Canadians in a single province is kind of like taking the French, Russians, Swedes and Spaniards, putting them in one country and saying: "finally, you guys are united with your own kind!"

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Well, the Québécois had Montreal, Quebec City, a huge francophone province in which to find resources and areas with good access to markets, etc, etc.

Generally speaking, First Nations reserves reduced previously large-ranging territories to small, isolated pockets. The Indian Act (and various treaties) then incentivized reserve living.

But you don't need a large amount of land to make a lot of money.

We tend to think of FN reserves as these destitute places up north, cut off from the rest of the world. That's certainly true of many places, unfortunately.

However, there are also a lot of FN reserves in more populated parts of Canada, where status Indians have access to the disposable incomes of millions of neighbouring Canadians.

Here in Metro Vancouver, the FN bands are collectively sitting on maybe a tens of billions of dollars of real estate. They have a very active economic development team and they rake in cash. They built a giant outlet mall, messing with years of regional planning, and clogging the main artery to Vancouver Island with traffic.

Elsewhere, FN reserves sell untaxed cigarettes, gasoline, and collect gaming revenue (handing over less to the province than a business with similar revenues would in corporate taxes).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Grouping together aboriginal Canadians in a single province is kind of like taking the French, Russians, Swedes and Spaniards, putting them in one country and saying: "finally, you guys are united with your own kind!"

That would probably be seen as perfectly reasonable from their POV if the alternative is to have them diluted in an alien culture - after all, they all have a shared cultural European background, and lots of similarities in their cultural norms, from food to religion.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We have a much greater commonality of culture across a much wider area. There are differences but even Acadians and Québécois are much more the same "people" than even the Hurons and the Mohawks are, even though the latter two both inhabit(ed) the St. Lawrence Valley.

They could conceivably have their own nations within that native province. For example, nations from far away (Cherokee, Seminole, etc.), relocated by force, still have their own governments within Oklahoma.

I think First Nations peoples are doing better in the U.S. than in Canada, on average. Based on my own observations (I'm by no means an expert), I'd venture a guess that Canada hasn't been handling the situation as well as we could have, all things considered.

We conquered them, but kept them separate from us rather than assimilating them, and made sure they were scattered in isolated groups rather than relocated to an Indian Territory that could become a province later.

Seems the worst possible approach of all - worst of all worlds basically.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Here in Metro Vancouver, the FN bands are collectively sitting on maybe a tens of billions of dollars of real estate. They have a very active economic development team and they rake in cash. They built a giant outlet mall, messing with years of regional planning, and clogging the main artery to Vancouver Island with traffic.

This raises some interesting questions: do these billionaire FNs consider themselves "reconciled"? If not, what more do they want?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Most of the school boards have policies which restrict the naming of schools to commemorating people whose contributions to society are "renowned and valued across Canada" (to borrow from the Toronto school board's policy. Is MacDonald renowned across all of Canada? That seems a legitimate question.

So you guys are seriously going to run every possible school name honoring a person through a randomly selected sample of Québécois off the streets, and if that person turns out to be mostly totally unknown here, their name will be disqualified?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

So you guys are seriously going to run every possible school name honoring a person through a randomly selected sample of Québécois off the streets, and if that person turns out to be mostly totally unknown here, their name will be disqualified?

No, that would be absurd. But if, for example, there was a significant and objectively reasonable resentment of a historical figure from one area or community in Canada, that would appear to disqualify someone. I don't think that is a crazy policy.