Attawapiskat chief wants more cash? You don't say!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I would agree if the government was demonstrating that they could be trusted. Again, how do you sell these people on assimilation when they've been boned so many times before and continue to be boned? What do you say "I know the other 1000 times we said we wouldn't screw you over we did, but this time we REALLY mean it?"

We have no credibility.

Assimilation is such an extreme way of looking at it. Inclusion doesn't have to equal assimilation.

There is a lot of middle ground between segregation and assimilation. At any rate, there should be a choice among individuals on what level of inclusion/assimilation they personally want for themselves. Any native person should have the right to access everything this country has to offer, and as things stand right now, the current system does not facilitate inclusion and perpetuates a cycle of poverty (which probably does more to destroy "culture" than any amount of inclusion could).

There are many examples of cultures in the old world that were occupied and/or unified by larger powers for longer than First Nations have been in Canada, and who have had to put up with more blatant and belligerent attempts of assimilation, yet those cultures still persist today. Much of which occurred in times when the world wasn't watching and human rights were not something that was valued. Cultures are amazingly resilient.

[GGG]

I think the key to starting to fix the issues and treat them as equal people. The language of the Indian Act treats them essentially as wards of the Indian affairs minister.

Give them the legal right to with their reserves as they see fit. Start with ownership rights on reserve land for all bands that want it. If the Tsu Tina want to build an outlet mall next to the ring road it should need federal government approval. If the Tsu Tina want to negotiate utility and transportation services with the City of Calgary or the Province it shouldn't require federal government approval.

Let the native groups govern themselves how they want, give the native groups what is specified in the treaties that were signed and give them access to the same safety net as the rest of us. I think part of the problem is thinking that the white man can fix the problem. We need to instead empower each tribe to fix their own issues and support them when they ask for help.

I think one problem that is ignored or at least merged incorrectly into the reserve issue is the poverty of non-status Indians living off reserve. They end up with very similar benefits to other poor people and make up a disproportionate % of the homeless and poor population. This issue needs to be addressed separately from the reserve issue and since many of these people are non-status they don't have any political representation when the cash is being faught over.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So what is/are the options then? We appear to be in a stand off.

I would hope that the leaders of both sides would realize that reconciliation requires trust/forgiveness. As it sits, your post are very pessimistic on finding a resolution.

I don't think I'm being pessimistic at all. When you speak of reconciliation and forgiveness, you're making the assumption that we're speaking entirely of past deeds. We're not. The government continues to this very day to not honour treaties and to discriminate and abuse First Nations peoples. There have been recent instances where land disputes have gone to court solely because the government refuses to sit at the table. How can healing begin unless the abuse stops?

The option, in my opinion, is that we as the white majority and the colonizers start holding the government accountable for these things.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Assimilation is such an extreme way of looking at it. Inclusion doesn't have to equal assimilation.

There is a lot of middle ground between segregation and assimilation. At any rate, there should be a choice among individuals on what level of inclusion/assimilation they personally want for themselves. Any native person should have the right to access everything this country has to offer, and as things stand right now, the current system does not facilitate inclusion and perpetuates a cycle of poverty (which probably does more to destroy "culture" than any amount of inclusion could).

Does this choice not exist now? I realize that financial situations might make leaving the reserve impossible for some, but there are many who do so on their own accord.

There are many examples of cultures in the old world that were occupied and/or unified by larger powers for longer than First Nations have been in Canada, and who have had to put up with more blatant and belligerent attempts of assimilation, yet those cultures still persist today. Much of which occurred in times when the world wasn't watching and human rights were not something that was valued. Cultures are amazingly resilient.

And there are many more that have been extinguished. I would suggest you do a little more anthropology if you don't believe me.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think I'm being pessimistic at all. When you speak of reconciliation and forgiveness, you're making the assumption that we're speaking entirely of past deeds. We're not. The government continues to this very day to not honour treaties and to discriminate and abuse First Nations peoples. There have been recent instances where land disputes have gone to court solely because the government refuses to sit at the table. How can healing begin unless the abuse stops?

The option, in my opinion, is that we as the white majority and the colonizers start holding the government accountable for these things.

"Holding the government accountable" is a vague and meaningless statement that accomplishes nothing.

Making real changes to improve the lives of modern Canadian First Nations is more important, and based on the success of so many other cultural groups within Canada assimilation is the best option we have.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really? That might be one of the most ignorant statements posted in this thread. To compare the fraud committed by a small number of people to nearly three centuries of systematic genocide and abuse is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Congratulations.

Never even did that. The subject matter is Chief Spence. AND it isn't a one way street - which if i understand correctly is basically what you are saying. Sometimes you need to look forward and not back. The entire setup is unsustainable for all parties.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Does this choice not exist now? I realize that financial situations might make leaving the reserve impossible for some, but there are many who do so on their own accord.

I would say that the choice exists for some, but not for all. Aside from the economic burden and the imposed dependence on Indian Affairs, there is the internal pressure many get to not seek better conditions. If it is a choice, it is too difficult for many to make.

And there are many more that have been extinguished. I would suggest you do a little more anthropology if you don't believe me.

This statement is meaningless without any context. That is like saying that more animal species have become extinct than have survived. Almost all extinctions are natural (including the extinction of cultures and societies). Melting pot types of assimilation happen all the time and aren't the result of some sinister attempt at genocide. People adopt ways of living (probably the root of any culture) that give them the best chance of survival and security.

Some examples:

Bulgars didn't disappear in Bulgaria because they were purposely subverted. It was because their nomadic lifestyle no longer gave them an advantage, birth rates dropped, and the last impoverished tribes eventually abandoned their culture to the dominant Slavs that settled the land (and became known as Bulgarians).

Viking culture become obsolete as technology and agriculture improved, and was replaced with more modern and European Scandinavian culture.

With First Nations, their former way of life is gone and will never come back, and let's be honest, not too many are clamoring to become nomadic hunters or gatherers again any time soon. Once their way of life was changed, I would argue that the culture has changed to the point that they have way more commonalities with mainstream Canada than differences. Canada's responsibility now is helping to make sure that First Nations are equipped to steer it in the most positive and autonomous direction possible. The reservation system has been a huge failure in that regard.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

"Holding the government accountable" is a vague and meaningless statement that accomplishes nothing.

How is holding the government accountable by demanding they honour existing treaties vague and meaningless?

Making real changes to improve the lives of modern Canadian First Nations is more important, and based on the success of so many other cultural groups within Canada assimilation is the best option we have.

Other cultural groups that for the most part chose to assimilate and haven't been subjected to even remotely as much discrimination as the indigenous. On a pragmatic note, how do you intend to accomplish assimilation? Do you think you're just going to be able to strip them of their lands without awarding any property or compensation in return?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This statement is meaningless without any context. That is like saying that more animal species have become extinct than have survived. Almost all extinctions are natural (including the extinction of cultures and societies). Melting pot types of assimilation happen all the time and aren't the result of some sinister attempt at genocide. People adopt ways of living (probably the root of any culture) that give them the best chance of survival and security.

Okay, here's an example of an indigenous population due in large part to colonization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines

There are also numerous reports of entire African tribes wiped out during the genocide in the Belgian Congo.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Never even did that. The subject matter is Chief Spence. AND it isn't a one way street - which if i understand correctly is basically what you are saying. Sometimes you need to look forward and not back. The entire setup is unsustainable for all parties.

Where did I say it was a one-way street? In any situation there are culpable parties on both sides but I would argue the scale of destruction at the hands of the government massively outweighs the fraudulent behaviour committed by a small number of indigenous peoples.

I agree that looking forward is the way to go, but how come most of the suggestions I've seen on here seem to be the types that drastically favour white people?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How is holding the government accountable by demanding they honour existing treaties vague and meaningless?

Because the government claims they already are doing this and you're merely going to perpetuate the status quo simply arguing about the specifics of your statement.

Other cultural groups that for the most part chose to assimilate and haven't been subjected to even remotely as much discrimination as the indigenous. On a pragmatic note, how do you intend to accomplish assimilation? Do you think you're just going to be able to strip them of their lands without awarding any property or compensation in return?

Your opinion regarding degrees of discrimination is subjective in nature and totally unprovable. Was Holodomor really that much better?

Regardless, of course we can't strip their lands without awarding some kind of compensation. But that's a matter that can be solved and should be, ending this terrible reservation and segregation system that has done nothing but further damage the future of First Nations people and culture.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Because the government claims they already are doing this and you're merely going to perpetuate the status quo simply arguing about the specifics of your statement.

Would you apply that same logic to a government abdicating its responsibilities to other legislation?