Truth and Reconciliation Commission

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is an odd statement.

I don't want to get into it, but when men have no incentive to take care of the women they freely impregnate, you are going to have a bit of a problem.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Here's why it won't work, the government would announce it, we're spending these mega millions on school initiatives, and health care and social structure. The first question comes out, who has oversight on how the money is spent?

The common sense answer would be the Federal Government, they would decide on where the money is spent and how.

The actual reaction would be, that's racist and imposing on our culture, just write us the cheques and we'll spend it as we see fit.

What will then happen is that we'll write checks to build schools and the well run reserves will get schools, with others the money will disappear into contracts for family members, and the schools will not be built or built properly or they'll spend it on something else.

The only way it would work is if it was imposed and managed by the government. The FN's won't allow that to happen.

Absolutely. There is almost no hope.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't want to get into it, but when men have no incentive to take care of the women they freely impregnate, you are going to have a bit of a problem.

Are you saying the lack of incentive is culturally-specific to indigenous peoples, or more prevalent anyways? Not trying to pin you in a corner, just trying to clarify.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is an odd statement.

Not really. The collapse of marriage as an institution has been economically devastating to the poor and now the working class. The very low marriage rates among the poorer half of the population,alongside relatively high rates among the affluent (along with assortive mating), is a tremendous magnifier of economic disparity.

We used to have:

Working class man making $40,000, wife no job. Family income $40,000.

Upper middle class man making $80,000, wife no job. Family income $80,000.

Now we have:

Working class woman making $30,000, father of kids not around. Family income $30,000.

Upper middle class man making $80,000, wife making $80,000. Family income $160,000.

Not to mention all the other negative outcomes associated with single-parent households.

[FlamesAddiction]

Here is a good read from a non-aboriginal doctor that lived and worked in remote reservations for 43 years. It's a little dated and doesn't get into specifics about his proposed solutions, but as someone who also spent substantial time working on and for reserves, I can relate to some of his experiences.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...e-for-43-years

The thing that always stood out for me was that I never met a FN person that felt the reserve system was good or beneficial, that is until people talk about changing it. The communities, many of which have internal feuds on how money is spent, quickly close ranks. I think the fear is that if you take it away, it has to be replaced with something good. I believe that native rights are inherent (the government affirms them, but doesn't give them), and they simply don't trust us enough to put that ball back in the government's court. I really can't say I blame most of them either as I don't trust the government to not screw it up again..

That is why these commissions are important. Favourable results for FNs are the only way to win their trust. I feel that the country has to be more generous at least until the next generation can be built up, but that simply can't happen without serious reform (which can't happen without trust). It's a conundrum to be sure.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Are you saying the lack of incentive is culturally-specific to indigenous peoples, or more prevalent anyways? Not trying to pin you in a corner, just trying to clarify.

Oh no, absolutely a phenomenon across the West.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Not really. The collapse of marriage as an institution has been economically devastating to the poor and now the working class. The very low marriage rates among the poorer half of the population,alongside relatively high rates among the affluent (along with assortive mating), is a tremendous magnifier of economic disparity.

We used to have:

Working class man making $40,000, wife no job. Family income $40,000.

Upper middle class man making $80,000, wife no job. Family income $80,000.

Now we have:

Working class woman making $30,000, father of kids not around. Family income $30,000.

Upper middle class man making $80,000, wife making $80,000. Family income $160,000.

Not to mention all the other negative outcomes associated with single-parent households.

That's a pretty simplistic take on things.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh no, absolutely a phenomenon across the West.

I can't really agree with this. Absentee parenting has always been pretty strongly linked to poverty. Blaming it on the sexual revolution, or using it to discredit the sexual revolution is some pretty hardcore revisionist history which, whether intentionally or not, serves a pretty sexist and racist political agenda.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's a pretty simplistic take on things.

It's illustrative of a very real issue.

• 86 per cent of Canadian families in the top quartile in income are married or common-law.
  
• 49 per cent (and dropping) of families in the middle quartile are married or common-law.
  
• 12 per cent of families in the bottom quartile are married or common-law.

http://www.imfcanada.org/sites/defau...olicymaker.pdf

When you combine this with the shift to assortive mating by income (lawyers don't marry their secretaries anymore - they marry other lawyers), the steep decline in marriage among the poor and working class plays a huge role in widening income disparity.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's illustrative of a very real issue.

• 86 per cent of Canadian families in the top quartile in income are married or common-law.
  
• 49 per cent (and dropping) of families in the middle quartile are married or common-law.
  
• 12 per cent of families in the bottom quartile are married or common-law.

http://www.imfcanada.org/sites/defau...olicymaker.pdf

When you combine this with the shift to assortive mating by income (lawyers don't marry their secretaries anymore - they marry other lawyers), the steep decline in marriage among the poor and working class plays a huge role in widening income disparity.

Okay, I get that, but I still don't see what it has to do with the sexual revolution. Maybe I'm too hungover today to be debating this.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, I get that, but I still don't see what it has to do with the sexual revolution. Maybe I'm too hungover today to be debating this.

The sexual revolution de-linked sex and marriage. For the better-off, it means they now usually have several sexual partners before they get married and have kids. For the poor, it means women tend to have several sexual partners during their child-bearing years, none of whom feels any particular need to stick around.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's illustrative of a very real issue.

• 86 per cent of Canadian families in the top quartile in income are married or common-law.
  
• 49 per cent (and dropping) of families in the middle quartile are married or common-law.
  
• 12 per cent of families in the bottom quartile are married or common-law.

http://www.imfcanada.org/sites/defau...olicymaker.pdf

When you combine this with the shift to assortive mating by income (lawyers don't marry their secretaries anymore - they marry other lawyers), the steep decline in marriage among the poor and working class plays a huge role in widening income disparity.

Yes, but attaching this to the current native issue we're discussing is simplistic. The collapse of marriage as an institution is a further consequence of the current native plight, not a cause

[RedMileDJ]

nm

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yes, but attaching this to the current native issue we're discussing is simplistic. The collapse of marriage as an institution is a further consequence of the current native plight, not a cause

Whether it is a symptom, consequence, or a cause, it is making things even more hellish and worse.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by RedMileDJ

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...reconciliation

which honours Hector-Louis Langevin — a father of confederation, but also a key player in the development of the residential school system the TRC report called an act of “cultural genocide.”

This seems like a pretty damn good reason to rename the bridge, no? I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning to not rename it.

You like the name, or just don't like things being renamed? What would be the main reason for keeping a name attached to a horrible black eye on our country?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by flameswin

This seems like a pretty damn good reason to rename the bridge, no? I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning to not rename it.

You like the name, or just don't like things being renamed? What would be the main reason for keeping a name attached to a horrible black eye on our country?

Do you think the people who set up the residential school system did so with malice in their hearts? And where do we stop with this stuff? Scratch out the names of Nellie McClung, Emily Murphy, Tommy Douglas, etc. because they supported eugenics?

There's hardly a historical person born before 1950 who would pass a modern litmus test of correct values and behaviours.

[rubecube]

B.C. is already going to implement education on the province's racist past into the curriculum. Nice first step.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06...ushpmg00000063

[icecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you think the people who set up the residential school system did so with malice in their hearts?And where do we stop with this stuff? Scratch out the names of Nellie McClung, Emily Murphy, Tommy Douglas, etc. because they supported eugenics?

There's hardly a historical person born before 1950 who would pass a modern litmus test of correct values and behaviours.

No, they just wanted to kidnap the children from their homes, assimilate them, rape them, starve them, treat them like slaves, etc., out of the kindness of their hearts

[GGG]

Originally Posted by icecube

No, they just wanted to kidnap the children from their homes, assimilate them, rape them, starve them, treat them like slaves, etc., out of the kindness of their hearts

They did do it out of the kindness of their hearts based on terrible assumptions

They were saving kids from savages and turning the next generation of Indians into functioning members of society. They were saving kids. With the benefit of history it looks horrific but based on the values at the time it was better than killing the savages.

I think that they continued into the eighties is more of an embarrassment then that they were started.

[icecube]

Pure horse #### narrative and anyone who believes that tripe is a moron. They did not have the best interest of indigenous peoples in mind for even one nano second. Every single racist government policy, from the residential school system to the indian act was meant to keep them in the gutter and give white settlers an advantage.

Numerous examples of malice in the indian act and residential schools. What you are saying is myth and an attempt to let Canada off the hook.