Toxic Multiculturalism

[Jacob]

Nope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me. 

I think it's that you're a white guy and authority figure speaking for Native people and saying that they don't want "white guys and authority figures speaking for them", more or less.

Which I didn't take it to be, to be honest.  I figured it was more of you repeating what you've been told by Native people, rather than telling Native people what's best for them.

[Barrister]

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.

Hey G, remember when I said you were a poor salesman for the concept of collective rights?

It's an attack on you as a person, rather it's an attack on the things you say.  Like this.  Comments such as "cloth prison", "moongod death cult", and "people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy" make it hard to take you seriously.

[Fate]

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.

Hey G, remember when I said you were a poor salesman for the concept of collective rights?

It's an attack on you as a person, rather it's an attack on the things you say.  Like this.  Comments such as "cloth prison", "moongod death cult", and "people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy" make it hard to take you seriously.

Figures, right wing Xianists are starting to take up the battle standard of the moon god death cult.

[grumbler]

To use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.   

I don't think I have seen this done quite so blatantly on Languish before.

I almost think that you did it as a joke, Beeb, but I know better - you doesn't see the irony at all, I bet.

Nope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me. 

I knew you wouldn't see it, and am not sure I have the vocabulary to explain it o that you are able to understand it, but here goes my best shot at it:  look at what you are accusing Malthus of, and then look at what you did immediately thereafter - setting up for attack an argument which no one was making, about native peoples not wanting to live exactly as their ancestors did.  The funny element here is that you are falsely accusing Malthus of creating a strawman, and then creating a strawman as your proof.

If that is too complex for you, then just skip it.  I cannot make it any simpler.  I think everyone else gets it.

[Jaron]

[grumbler]

It's encouraging to know that there's at least some parts where it's working out.  Hopefully the Nisga'a can serve as a useful example for other bands and spur positive change.

I look at all of Canada's social policies (where they differ from the US's) in that regard.  Different policies and outcomes are good, so long as we distinguish between the outcomes that are worth recreating and those that are not.

[Barrister]

To use that most hoary of Languish memes, you are arguing against a strawman, Malthus.

Native people do not want to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They do not wish their cultures to be trapped in some kind of metaphysical amber.   

I don't think I have seen this done quite so blatantly on Languish before.

I almost think that you did it as a joke, Beeb, but I know better - you doesn't see the irony at all, I bet.

Nope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me. 

I knew you wouldn't see it, and am not sure I have the vocabulary to explain it o that you are able to understand it, but here goes my best shot at it:  look at what you are accusing Malthus of, and then look at what you did immediately thereafter - setting up for attack an argument which no one was making, about native peoples not wanting to live exactly as their ancestors did.  The funny element here is that you are falsely accusing Malthus of creating a strawman, and then creating a strawman as your proof.

If that is too complex for you, then just skip it.  I cannot make it any simpler.  I think everyone else gets it.

Yeah.  Hilarious.

[Martinus]

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

[grumbler]

Nope, I don't see any irony at all.  Please go ahead and point it out for me. 

I think it's that you're a white guy and authority figure speaking for Native people and saying that they don't want "white guys and authority figures speaking for them", more or less.

Which I didn't take it to be, to be honest.  I figured it was more of you repeating what you've been told by Native people, rather than telling Native people what's best for them.

Nice try, but much simpler than that.  I don't have a dog in this race at all; I was just amused by the accusation of strawmanning followed immediately by a strawman.

[Razgovory]

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

You realize there would be no issue here if that woman had removed her cloth prison as she was repeatadly asked yes?  Instead she dares demand to have her moongod death cult adhered to in all its particulars.  Why?  Because the vile canadian brand of multiculturalism tells her she can expect as much.  And I'm telling you, once we start creating precedents we'll never see the end of this. 

Bahh this only confirms that admitting as immigrants people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy can only generate unecessary social tensions.

Hey G, remember when I said you were a poor salesman for the concept of collective rights?

It's an attack on you as a person, rather it's an attack on the things you say.  Like this.  Comments such as "cloth prison", "moongod death cult", and "people whose background is incompatible with the customs and values of an advanced 21st century democracy" make it hard to take you seriously.

Also the pedophilia.

[Martinus]

the funniest part of this story is that she couldn't wear the veil in Egypt, she didn't wear the veil when she first arrived here, only once she sat in her French class.

That's some side splitting humor.

Yeah. The nerve of some people. Coming to the Western democracies from third-world human-rights-violating dictatorial shitholes and demanding to be given the same rights as the whites. 

[Queequeg]

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

And you could have a great time in the Mormon Church as long as you don't try to fuck any men, and give up smoking and drinking.   

[Malthus]

Serious question for BB and Jacob etc. - do you see Canada's First Canadian policy as successful?

"successful" is a rather binary term for a social policy.  It's better to ask if it is more or less successful than other potential policies.

Oex points out that our current federal government policy of accomodation and respect is only about, oh, 35 years old (from the mid 70s and the White Paper).  Before that the policy was out-and-out assimilation.  And we have pretty good evidence that policy was quite unsuccessful.

Is the current policy better than the old one?  Yes, I think it is.  We have several examples of bands that are doing quite well, and many more examples of bands where outcomes seem to be improving.  And yes, we have examples where things are going quite poorly.  I disagree with CC when he says that "the problem of Native poverty, alcoholism, crime etc. continues to get worse."  Just as an example I looked at Nunavut, which has the largest % of First Nations people in Canada, and thus stats for Nunavut are a good proxy for state for First Nations people.  According to one survey, crime rates in Nunavut peaks in 2004, and have been dropping (only goes to 2007):  http://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/stats/StatsData/Crime/Nunavut%20Crime%20Statistics%20Profile,%202007%20(by%20Statistics%20Canada).pdf

UNemployment rates have been dropping:  http://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/stats/StatsData/Crime/Nunavut%20Crime%20Statistics%20Profile,%202007%20(by%20Statistics%20Canada).pdf

As an aside, I do agree with CC that talking about First Nations as a monolithic entity is a mistake.  There are several hundred individual bands and groups, with greatly varying conditions.  That being said I think my original statement is correct - it is one thing all Natives would agree with that they do not wish to live exactly as their ancestors did.  They all agree they want to adapt their culture to modern society (it is how exactlly to do that that they disagree with).

There are plenty of things that can be done differently, or better, in our dealing with aboriginal people in Canada.  However my objection is merely to the blanket statement that 'collective rights are unknown/alien to western legal tradition', or the simplistic assertion that the answer to our native 'problem' is to abolish any special treatment aboriginal people receive.

I don't think anyone would seriously argue that Canada should go back to the old policies of forcible assimilation - the residence schools and so on.

The current policies are the flipside of that, and not as obviously offensive - indeed have been designed I assume with the best of intentions - but they are rooted in a concept of 'top-down' social policy that has, in my opinion, not delivered good results.

The alternative is not a choice between 'positive' group rights (the current position) and 'negative' group liabilities (or forced assimilation - the old policy). There also exists the alternative of not engaging in legally discriminating between Canadian citizens in the first place, positive or negative, which has not been tried.

The benefit? Well, this policy appears to have been reasonably successful in other contexts: treating citizens without discrimination may be a bold step, but it accords well with Western constitutional traditions. So far, the departure from these traditions has always had unhappy results, and I think the burden on those supporting current First Nations policies is to demonstrate that in this case the departure has been justified.   

[Jaron]

Disfavored persons only need to assimilate to stop being disfavored. 

And you could have a great time in the Mormon Church as long as you don't try to fuck any men, and give up smoking and drinking.   

No worries there. Grallon doesn't fuck men.

[Jacob]

I think, Malthus, the problem is that some Native people would see this as the final step in cultural genocide against their people:

"You come here, take our land and kill our people; now you take away the last vestiges of our rights and break the last promises you made to us.  All in the name of equality and progress?"

Something like that.

That said, if the various special status situations can be discarded in a way that is positive for Native people (and I believe that's what the Nisga'a and Maa-Nulth' treaties are doing) then yeah, let's do it.  However, I think that the most important thing at this point is that any changes in the status of Native people and how they interact with the government should have serious if not complete buy in from the peoples most affected.  We don't just get to say "yeah, so we've decided to take away your various privileges and status because that's better for you.  You're equal now, see?  Good luck!" by fiat and without consultation and buy-in.

So yeah, equality is great.  Changes to the social order based on what those who are uninvolved and unaffected by the outcomes and based on abstract ideals, often less great.