[station]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But isn't a paradox that European cultures attract more condemnation because we hold them to higher standards?

Only if I accept either side of that statement as true. Who is doing the condemning and standard holding in your view? The political far left? The UN?

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's the heart of a dilemma that nobody really wants to face: How can we ensure modern standards of living for people living in isolated communities without access to economic opportunity?

We tell young people in rural Newfoundland and Saskatchewan that they need to pick up stakes, move to cities, get training and education, and participate in the modern economy. Why do we expect indigenous Canadians who want to improve their lives and the lives of their children to behave differently?

Absolutely. Isolation and geography is a core issue not easily fixable. But given the complexities and varying notions of belonging and nationhood, it will require tools of inclusion and recruitment rather than forced assimilation. And there are lagging outcomes on reserves situated right next to major urban centres so there is more at work. There are myriad other issues that need attention such as education, reclamation of culture and heritage, cultural behavioural tendencies, cleaning up the legal morass of status, an honest discussion of history, etc.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Christian values are so deeply rooted in our culture that they form the foundation of many secular institutions and values. Among those are the notion that the weak have the moral high ground over the strong.That's a value found in Christian culture, but not elsewhere.

Can you corroborate this statement? I can’t square this idea with the absolute conviction of rightness required to be a Christian, or even the moral duty and righteousness aka ‘white man’s burden’ felt by European colonizers.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Western guilt is rooted in Christian notions of guilt and atonement, even if the people who passionately express Western guilt today aren't Christian.

There are also psychological notions of guilt which are more related to remorse or responsibility than atonement. Some healthy measure of guilt can lead to positive behavioural change. Guilt may even have evolutionary purpose.

If we are strictly discussing negative aspects of guilt cultures though, I’m pretty sure notions of guilt are also present in Islam and both are inherited from Judaism, so it’s not exclusively Christian. And other cultures tend to be rooted in fear or shame which are just different but equal measures of control.

And I even if accept your statement as true, it would require me to also accept that collective guilt manifesting as identity politics is the driving force behind truth and reconciliation for it to have any relevance to this thread. Is that your contention?

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Much of the public dialog around native issues in Canada are about these airy sentiments. Statues and names and who can write a novel or write a play. Addressing them will do little to materially change the lives of people in desperate need of a better way forward. It just gives the chattering classes and the people in the grievance industry something to wrangle over in the media. It can, and likely will, go on indefinitely. Because tackling the real issue is hard and doesn't make for emotionally-simplistic narratives of heroes and villains, oppressors and oppressed.

But what does complaining about the airy sentiments accomplish? I already agreed that much of what will be done in the name of reconciliation will be fruitless, but is it possible that hard work by sensible people could yield some positive? And if so, musn’t we try? I see clearly what you are against, but I want to know what you are for.