Manitoba First Nations Want Cellphone Revenue

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by daveyboy

Exactly! I don't want your money, I just want the to live a normal life, the Flames to wn the cup and the Oilers to suck.

I think some of you would do well trying to be Native for a week, it's like wearing a red badge of shame just because some Native people around Ponoka were on drugs or one band in Manitoba is being crazy. If I were to judge White people by many of the posts in just this thread it wouldn't be a very positive outlook either.

You are taking this as a personal insult when it isn't. People bitch and complain about government employees.....I don't get insulted because I know there are people in the civil service that are useless and do nothing, a larger proportion than private industry.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Because that is what I said and others hae said!!!! Geshhh

I didn't mean to imply you in particular are saying. poor choice of words, sorry.

but others in this thread have admitted or implied that they will judge all natives the same and that's the "bashing" I was refering to in my first post.
You took issue with my post, so I assumed you were siding with them and justifying that approach.

[J pold]

I am with Windsor…there is a lot of generalizations in this thread, I for one know a lot of Native people who would think this is just as if not more ridiculous than the people in this thread do

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Regardless of your position on when their standard of living is/was better, the fact of the matter is that right now on most reserves the standard of living is significantly lower than the average Canadian, and as I've said a few times in this thread, I believe a large portion of this disparity is self inflicted, or caused by their own leadership who lack either the desire or ability to help their community change for the better. This newest claim may be an example of a chief who want's to help his community, but the way he is going about doing it is a clear example that he has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how to go about fixing the problems in his community.

I don't disagree with any of this.
The only problem for me with these types of disputes/requests from aboriginal people is that I think that enough has been done to help them live at a standard that equals the standard of living of the average Canadian. They have many more opportunities than white kids who grow up in a ghetto. I don't see the government going to low income communities an offering to pay their university tuition, or giving them any other special treatment.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I didn't mean to imply you in particular are saying. poor choice of words, sorry.

but others in this thread have admitted or implied that they will judge all natives the same and that's the "bashing" I was refering to in my first post.
You took issue with my post, so I assumed you were siding with them and justifying that approach.

I said that I would paint them, as a whole, with the same brush, but also give individuals the benefit of the doubt. It might sound contradictory, but I believe in giving individuals the opportunity to remove my stereotypical image of an Indian, which is based on my experiences.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

I don't disagree with any of this.
The only problem for me with these types of disputes/requests from aboriginal people is that I think that enough has been done to help them live at a standard that equals the standard of living of the average Canadian. They have many more opportunities than white kids who grow up in a ghetto. I don't see the government going to low income communities an offering to pay their university tuition, or giving them any other special treatment.

I agree 100%. That's what I'm getting at, that despite being given a lot of advantages and chances to better their lives a seeming majority of the native community do not take advantage of this. And when you see claims such as this one, it makes me think that the problem is the leadership who are more interested in getting more handouts than making sure the ones that exist are being properly used. It reall is a shame.

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Ya know, there are days when I REALLY want to get in to politics to do just that, committ political suicide. Someone in the goverment really needs to stand up and say this is f'ing stupid, go shove it where the sun don't shine. I, for one, would be VERY impressed with any politician who had the balls to do just that. That is the kind of politician we need, not the type that is worried about protecting their political butts and always saing "the right thing".

Give Ralphie a pint of scotch and let him go....
But really the governement needs to grow a backbone and learn to say enough is enough. These treaties were written up and signed by all parties so live with it. If you don't like it sTFU and leave.

Also back on topic, weird I know, but how could they even say what signals went through the reservation? And if thats the case put a relay tower in so that it goes around the reservation.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

I said that I would paint them, as a whole, with the same brush, but also give individuals the benefit of the doubt. It might sound contradictory, but I believe in giving individuals the opportunity to remove my stereotypical image of an Indian, which is based on my experiences.

So guilty until proven innocent?
why should people have to prove themselves to you before you can refer to them with any decency?
I've had bad experiences with some white people. Should every white person have to prove themselves to me before I respect them or think they're not racist?

It doesn't sound contradictory, it definately sounds descriminatory.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So guilty until proven innocent?
why should people have to prove themselves to you before you can refer to them with any decency?
I've had bad experiences with some white people. Should every white person have to prove themselves to me before I respect them or think they're not racist?

It doesn't sound contradictory, it definately sounds descriminatory.

Sure it's discriminatory, but everything is. As long as his discriminating behaviour is based on experience rather than ignorance and prejudice, it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[SaskaBushFire]

I want my neighbors to pay me for the air they breath that came from my property. I have a right to that air because it is on my land.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Should every white person have to prove themselves to me before I respect them or think they're not racist?

I suppose as a white person I find that happens to me a lot; that I have to prove I'm not racist. And of course that is often met with differing levels of success.

I think we can agree upon the fact that there is a significant number of natives who are not living a high quality of life. And then it's news articles like this one that serve to perpetuate some of the stereotypes we have about natives.

And I think we can all agree (native and non-native) that we would rather see all the money that is spent trying to help natives actually doing some good. And that's where my comments earlier about "when are we done paying reparations" come from; I would rather have twice as much federal money going to programs that will help to proverbally teach them how to fish, instead of what's been happening for the last 300 years of just giving them the fish.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Should every white person have to prove themselves to me before I respect them

yes. but the same should go to everyone of every race.
respect is earned, not given. i can treat someone decently that i don't respect.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I tend to agree with the idea though that at some point we should be done with paying the natives for what we took from them.

i'm not sure what 'we' took from 'them' because i sure wasn't alive when any of this went down. show me a native that claims that i stole his land and i'll show you a liar. so if i didn't do it, why should i be paying for it?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

yes. but the same should go to everyone of every race.
respect is earned, not given. i can treat someone decently that i don't respect.

That mustn't have come out right. So you are discriminatory to a race until the race earns your respect? Or is respect not given to any race because you cannot meet everyone of said race, and your respect is given out on a individual case by case basis?

What every happen to giving people/race the benefit of the doubt?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by lifer

Most Natives are infinately better off right now than they would have been if Europeans had never shown up in North America. I dont' see too many of them drinking untreated water, I've seen many getting medical treatment in clinics and hospitals, I've passed them onthe highway when they're driving cars rather than horses...the list goes on an on of what they have because of the European settlement, but all they do is want more. It's sickening, and their continued walking around demanding handouts isn't doing much to challenge the stereotypes around their people.

Ah, the ethnocentric armchair historian arises into the debate.

'Infinately better off'? I wish people were as shocked by this post as they were by my (hoped) obvious sarcasm. This is so catagorically false I really had to reread it to make sure I wasn't getting caught in my own sarcasm trap. But, as I now believe this to be a serious post, let me offer a rebuttal.

Your assertion that Natives are in 'infinately' better condition than they were 500 years ago can be interpreted on many levels. The tone of this post reflects primarily the perceived advantages of bringing natives from the 'stone age' to the 'iron age' as another poster so eloquently put it. What are the perceived advantages of such upward mobility of civliziation? Do they attain new economic advantages, types of education and strong governmental bodies founded on the begining ideals of democracy?

If that was the case, why did so many Europeans flee European colonies to join the neighbouring tribes? This isn't one or two people we're talking about here, we're talking thousands of settlers in a short period of time preceding the start of the American Indian Wars. In the words of Benjamin Franklin (who would later use the Iroquois Five Nations as the basis for a proposal for a Union, which became the America we know today), "No European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in our societies." 'Indianization' was so tempting, that various european societies made it punishable by death, including Pilgrim settlements.

Natives societies were so advanced, that captured tales of women tell of the envy for the equality native women enjoyed in their societies. Testimonials of Explorers (and the european societies that interacted with them for hundreds of years) tell of the non-hierarchical structure of native society. Though there were natives tribes where chiefdom was largely hereditary, the meritocracy and egalitarianism of their societies was far more advanced than European societies of the day, and one could argue with plenty of amunition, that they were more meritocratic and egalitarian than our present north american society. It was in the 1740s that the Iroquois nation even suggested to these selfish, bitter colonies to form a union so that trade and interaction would be easier. Congress even wrote, in a letter to the, at this point, Six nations, that, "The Six Nations are a wise people,"..."Let us harken to their council and teach our children to follow it."

I don't think it's even worth explaining the declining state of the health of natives physically or emotionally. Prior to European contact, North American natives were the healthiest humans had ever been up to that point, and the healthiest they've been since. That's not something that is up for debate. You're clearly wrong, and I really wish you would read up on north american native history. Read some Ward Churchill.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by lifer

Sure it's discriminatory, but everything is. As long as his discriminating behaviour is based on experience rather than ignorance and prejudice, it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But it is based on ignorance and prejudice.
He's using some experiences with some to judge others whom he has no experience with. That is textbook prejudice and ignorance.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That mustn't have come out right. So you are discriminatory to a race until the race earns your respect? Or is respect not given to any race because you cannot meet everyone of said race, and your respect is given out on a individual case by case basis?

What every happen to giving people/race the benefit of the doubt?

either didn't come out right or is being misread.... take 2:
i don't care what colour your skin is - i don't respect an individual until he or she earns it. that said, i can treat someone with decency even if i don't respect them, thus giving themselves the benefit of the doubt and the chance to prove themselves.

(the confusion might be coming from a differing definition of respect...)

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I suppose as a white person I find that happens to me a lot; that I have to prove I'm not racist. And of course that is often met with differing levels of success.

Sorry to hear that. I really don't think it should be that way for anyone based on things such as race.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

either didn't come out right or is being misread.... take 2:
i don't care what colour your skin is - i don't respect an individual until he or she earns it. that said, i can treat someone with decency even if i don't respect them, thus giving themselves the benefit of the doubt and the chance to prove themselves.

(the confusion might be coming from a differing definition of respect...)

The confusion is not coming from a differing definition of respect, but I was under the impression that since you quoted a post on discrimination and in a thread that is now largely about discrimination, I thought thats what you were referring too. But it appears you are merely talking of something else, something more focused I guess. Anyways I get what you are saying, and I'll drop it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ah, the ethnocentric armchair historian arises into the debate.

'Infinately better off'? I wish people were as shocked by this post as they were by my (hoped) obvious sarcasm. This is so catagorically false I really had to reread it to make sure I wasn't getting caught in my own sarcasm trap. But, as I now believe this to be a serious post, let me offer a rebuttal.

Your assertion that Natives are in 'infinately' better condition than they were 500 years ago can be interpreted on many levels. The tone of this post reflects primarily the perceived advantages of bringing natives from the 'stone age' to the 'iron age' as another poster so eloquently put it. What are the perceived advantages of such upward mobility of civliziation? Do they attain new economic advantages, types of education and strong governmental bodies founded on the begining ideals of democracy?

If that was the case, why did so many Europeans flee European colonies to join the neighbouring tribes? This isn't one or two people we're talking about here, we're talking thousands of settlers in a short period of time preceding the start of the American Indian Wars. In the words of Benjamin Franklin (who would later use the Iroquois Five Nations as the basis for a proposal for a Union, which became the America we know today), "No European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in our societies." 'Indianization' was so tempting, that various european societies made it punishable by death, including Pilgrim settlements.

Natives societies were so advanced, that captured tales of women tell of the envy for the equality native women enjoyed in their societies. Testimonials of Explorers (and the european societies that interacted with them for hundreds of years) tell of the non-hierarchical structure of native society. Though there were natives tribes where chiefdom was largely hereditary, the meritocracy and egalitarianism of their societies was far more advanced than European societies of the day, and one could argue with plenty of amunition, that they were more meritocratic and egalitarian than our present north american society. It was in the 1740s that the Iroquois nation even suggested to these selfish, bitter colonies to form a union so that trade and interaction would be easier. Congress even wrote, in a letter to the, at this point, Six nations, that, "The Six Nations are a wise people,"..."Let us harken to their council and teach our children to follow it."

I don't think it's even worth explaining the declining state of the health of natives physically or emotionally. Prior to European contact, North American natives were the healthiest humans had ever been up to that point, and the healthiest they've been since. That's not something that is up for debate. You're clearly wrong, and I really wish you would read up on north american native history. Read some Ward Churchill.

Do you have any data to support this claim of the most healthy group of their time? Not saying you are wrong....but to make a statement like that I would like to see some evidence.

As for the first part of your post, you cannot lump all those native groups together as per their social structure and how they treated other human beings. It has been estimated that the Aztecs slaughtered up to 20,000 people a year for their God. They had slaves just like the Europeans and suffered the negative effects of urbanization much like Europe. If the Europeans hadn't come, which they would have no matter what, but if they didn't, all the problems we had in europe would eventually take hold in the Americas. Thats what happens when societies grow and live closer and closer together. It would have happened.