Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
This is the ethnocentrism I'm talking about. Did europeans have running water, cars, computers, a grocery store etc. when they landed in the 'new' world? Assuming that if left to their own devices, natives would be running around calgary with bows and arrows is insultingly white-supremacist.
Maybe the 1 percent of Natives left in Canada have a better standard of living than 500 years ago (which I would disagree with strongly, but if we're going to dispense with reality...). How does that benefit the 99 percent who are all dead?
If you need evidence, I can give it to you, but it should be pretty logical that a society with a plentiful, predictable, renewable source of nourishment, no native diseases and a democratic social structure would be healthy. I mean, if that doesn't make sense to you, ok, I feel bad for you, but ok.
|
White Supremicist?
Don't be such a drama queen. What culture was more technologically advanced when the Europeans arrived? Don't be a hippy about it when you answer, just be honest. Currently, which are the most techonlogically advanced countries? Most are European, or ancestorally European I bet. Luckily, since you wont believe a bigot like me, the United Nations actually release rankings of these countries every year. It's called the U.N Developmental ranking; it claims to rank the countries as "best place to live". Guess who was at the top in 2005.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/...velopment.html
Norway, Iceland, Australia, Ireland, Sweden, Canada, Japan, and U.S.A. were ranked #1-8. So the U.N tends to agree with me about European culture being a better place to live in.
As for the 99% that don't exist, if our ancestors didn't conquer this land, 99% of us wouldn't exist. What good would it do that 99% that the natives were left undisturbed. That's the way the world works. It's natural. Colonies do whatever they can to survive.
Regarding your last paragraph, I will have to request that evidence. I do not argue your logic that a colony with a plentiful, and predictable source of nourishment would be healthy. I would argue that currently, food is more easily, and predictably accessable currently than in a 500 year old aboriginal culture. I would also agree that a culture with no native disease would tend to be a healthy one. However, I bet they had a higher infant mortality rate 5 centuries ago than they do now. I would also bet that they had diseases. Maybe similar and maybe completely different than the European ones, but the natives didn't consider them all diseases. They are very spiritual you know, often times in cultures like that they blame physical symptoms (such as disease) on the person falling into disfavour with the spirits or gods. I would also assume that the technological advancemant, which I have already explained that the Europeans were primarily responsible for, has aided in the ability to identify diseases. Thus, people are very much more likely to be officially diagnosed with a disease. I'm not sure how a democratic structure would effect health, but don't we live in a democracy anyway? None of our leaders inherit that right, and you have already conceded that some aboriginal ones did. We are even more democratic.
Anyway, the above, combnined with a stronger ability to treat illnesses, and injuries now, that it is quite likely that a technologically advanced country would be healthier than a 500 year old aboriginal one.
The past is the past. None of use commited those acts, yet we are responsible for our fathers actions. That's fine with me, but only to a reasonable point. Some native groups have used the compensation, special programs, and super-citizen rights to create profitable businesses and contribute positively to society. Others have not. The fact that so many have done well though causes me to believe that we have paid enough of a price. They all should be successful by now, and the ones who are not have themselves to blame.