Manitoba First Nations Want Cellphone Revenue

[moncton golden flames]

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.

No, not guilty til proven innocent. I'm judging them as a whole, by how their leadership makes them appear. When leadership represents them with absurd claims such as the latest one, how are we not to judge them by their leader. Americans, for the most part, are great people, and a lot of the world hates the Americans because of the way they are represented by their leaders. Is that so wrong to believe a groups representation is reflective of their majority?

I treat individuals as that, individuals. But when talking about a group of people, how can I not generalize? There has to be differences within the group, but when they are represented as a whole, they must viewed as a group, hence the 'paint brush' effect.

White people, me included, can be some of the most annoying, greedy, ignorant s on the planet...but, those attributes do not contain themselves to a particular race. It's not so much 'guilty until proven innocent', as much as it is 'show me you are not what your leader makes me think you are'

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

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.

No it isn't.
From Dictionary.com:
Prejudice: an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed before hand without knowledge, thought or reason.

His opinion is based on knowlege, such as the knowledge of all of the programs designed for natives and the knowledge of his past experiences.
It may be based on stats, and if he doesn't know the stats he lives in the culture that they are from, so he knows the trends. I do not want to write these stats down here, because i know people will attack me over it, but they do not paint aboriginals in a positive light. The type of experience that people have form their opinions and attitudes, and there are a higher proportions of negative experiences involving aboriginals than other groups in Canadian society.

It may be a poor attitude, but it's not baseless. The key is that he says he will give individuals the benefit of the doubt, and judge them as people.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Burninator

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.

yea... coulda made my point slightly clearer - after a day in the sun i'm pretty lazy.
what i was trying to get at was for example... me not giving complete trust and respect to a minority, in this case lets say a first nations man, when i first meet him could (and sometimes is) misconstrued as racism when its simply the case that i don't give out my trust or respect to anyone i just meet - those things have to be earned.

[Resolute 14]

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.

The biggest problem is that most natives have shuttered themselves into their reservations, allowing their leaders to squander what their band gets. The vast majority of the native people I have encountered have been those that have ventured into town to get drunk, high or both - often on my dime. Very, very, very few natives enter the real world with the goal of improving their lives, and that of their children. The few of such that I have met have worked hard enough to vastly improve their lives, that of their families, and have helped re-shape the opinion of the ability of native people for those around them.

You say that we would do well to be native for a week? I would suggest that most natives would do well to be like everyone else for a week: where nothing is given to you. Where you have to earn your lot in life. Frankly, I find native people in general to be the most narrow minded, and narrow viewed people I have ever encountered - aside from those few notable individuals who have stepped beyond the reservation.

[lifer]

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.

Ahh the arrogant prick who argues points that were never made so that he can feel like he is winning a debate has something to say. Many European settlers moved to native colonies and admired certain things about them? I don't care. I didn't compare those 2 societies. I said the natives are better off now than they were then. But just so you feel like you didn't waste you energy typing that stuff, I will respond. Obviously there were things the natives admired about European colonies, or else they woudln't have traded for European goods.
I'm sorry I said infinately though. I mean they are better off by a factor or 14.87. I'm sure you can interpret this on many levels, but why don't you consider it in terms of the things that you use in your daily life that make it easier.
Do you have a car? Do you take the bus? Have you ever flown anywhere? Do you buy your food from a grocery store? Are you using a computer? Is your home heated? Do you utilize electricity? Do you have access to hospitals? Did you go to grade school? University? Do you have running water? Can you communicate with people all over the world in real time? Must I continue?
Does anything mentioned above make your life easier?


If they were the healthiest people ever, why do they live longer now? Last I checked, death was the ultimate indicator of lack of health. It certianly isn't worth explaining the state of health of natives emotionally or physically, because that is their own fault. Many native people are perfectly healthy, some are not. Most of the time it's their own choices they've made one way or another. Live a healthy lifestyle or don't. Nobody forces the ones who eat right and excersise to do so, and nobody forces the ones who eat like crap, drink, huff gasoline and destroy their bodies either.

[Flames09]

Maybe if they had used the money that was given to them for the past however many years you would think that the typical stereotype of natives would no longer be here. The money in alot of cases isn't being put to good use, my personal opinion on this is stop giving them cash, pay for their post secondary and that's only if they have a minimum average, take care of housing and other issues to a certain age, but enough of this 'milk you at every opportunity crap'.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by lifer

Ahh the arrogant prick who argues points that were never made so that he can feel like he is winning a debate has something to say. Many European settlers moved to native colonies and admired certain things about them? I don't care. I didn't compare those 2 societies. I said the natives are better off now than they were then. But just so you feel like you didn't waste you energy typing that stuff, I will respond. Obviously there were things the natives admired about European colonies, or else they woudln't have traded for European goods.
I'm sorry I said infinately though. I mean they are better off by a factor or 14.87. I'm sure you can interpret this on many levels, but why don't you consider it in terms of the things that you use in your daily life that make it easier.
Do you have a car? Do you take the bus? Have you ever flown anywhere? Do you buy your food from a grocery store? Are you using a computer? Is your home heated? Do you utilize electricity? Do you have access to hospitals? Did you go to grade school? University? Do you have running water? Can you communicate with people all over the world in real time? Must I continue?
Does anything mentioned above make your life easier?

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.

[Phaneuf3]

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.

now that we're well into the assumption and prediction game.... if europeans hadn't come over to north america, what do you think europe would be like now? what do you think north america would be like now?

[octothorp]

It's really too bad that the Inkameep reserve - the ones who set up various tourism initiatives and a winery and have made their reserve into a profitable business venture - isn't a more influential model. I sure there are other reserves that are trying similar honest endeavours with various degrees of success, but with many of the reserves there seems to be a tendency to confuse assertive business ventures with a strategy of entitlement. I have mixed feelings about native claims that they should be compensated for changes forced upon them that affect their way of life... but cell-phone signals are well outside that: you can't hear them, you can't see them, you really have no way of knowing that they're there. They don't affect the migration patterns of geese and they don't increase violent behaviour in reservation youth. This claim simply reflects poorly on all natives, and I'm sure these Inkameep reserve guys are pissed that the unmotivated, free-loading native stereotype (regardless of whether it's true or not) is front and center in the media again.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It's really too bad that the Inkameep reserve - the ones who set up various tourism initiatives and a winery and have made their reserve into a profitable business venture - isn't a more influential model. I sure there are other reserves that are trying similar honest endeavours with various degrees of success, but with many of the reserves there seems to be a tendency to confuse assertive business ventures with a strategy of entitlement. I have mixed feelings about native claims that they should be compensated for changes forced upon them that affect their way of life... but cell-phone signals are well outside that: you can't hear them, you can't see them, you really have no way of knowing that they're there. They don't affect the migration patterns of geese and they don't increase violent behaviour in reservation youth. This claim simply reflects poorly on all natives, and I'm sure these Inkameep reserve guys are pissed that the unmotivated, free-loading native stereotype (regardless of whether it's true or not) is front and center in the media again.

Well there is theories that cell phone signals are having an effect on European honey bees....oh wait, they are from Europe...so they have no claim to that.

You made some good points.

[lifer]

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.