Toxic Multiculturalism

[Malthus]

Not an argument likely to appeal to a Jew. 

funny you'd say that
There was an open letter, this morning I think, by the Canadian Jewish Congress (actually, the Quebec Jewish Congress, but that's the same) in most newspaper complaining about our "obsession for laicity".  I guess some people aren't that integrated after all

It's not an argument likely to appeal to Jews, because if it appealed to their ancestors, there would be no Jews. 

[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.

[Malthus]

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.  Indeed they want to do exactly  what you have described - keep their unique culture and adapt it to the modern age, just as many other cultures have done.

They are engaged in exactly the same discussion as many other minority cultures - what does it mean to be a Jew/Muslim/Cree/Mohawk in the 21st century?  How can we hold on to that culture yet participate in the wider society?

However unlike Muslims/Jews/Ukrainians, they do not have some homeland 'over there' from which to draw inspiration.  They are unique in that effect, and so some degree of recognition of that uniqueness through recognizing certain special group rights can be justified.

Well put Barrister.  That matches my understanding, but I'm sure you're a lot closer to these sort of issues by virtue of your location.

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

[Malthus]

I'd like gay self-government with access to the stream of the federal penis.

I'd think a little experience with government-assigned penis would convince you otherwise. 

[garbon]

I'd think a little experience with government-assigned penis would convince you otherwise. 

I'm willing to take one for the team.

[crazy canuck]

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.  Indeed they want to do exactly  what you have described - keep their unique culture and adapt it to the modern age, just as many other cultures have done.

Stating what "Native people" want and dont want is not very productive.  Even less productive then politicians pontificating about what "Canadians" want.

One of the biggest difficulties in dealing with Native issues is that Natives have many and varied ideas about what should be done both within and across bands.  Added to this problem is that there is a significant difference in both education and sophistication across bands.  There is no such thing as a one policy fits all.  We have all screwed this up too much for that.  Mathlus' analysis is quite correct.  Creating a system of residential schools and government policies expressly designed to destroy Native culture and then creating a highly paternalistic system to try to save that same culture (although in many cases too late) has created a complete mess.

Added to all that the enshrinement of the protection of Aboriginal Title protection (as now interpreted in the Courts) has added another layer of disfunction to the relationship which creates huge uncertainty over land use issues for foreseeable generations.

[crazy canuck]

BB,

As a concrete example, about 10 years ago there was a serious movement among the Native National leadership to lobby the Federal Gov't to completely abolish the Indian Act.  There was a lot of concern in the Native communities that such a move would be too hard on the Natives because many of the benefits of being a ward of the State under the Indian Act would be lost.  The leadership argued that Natives had to get back on their feet.  That the road ahead could only be taken once the Indian Act was abolished.

Now where are we.  Not only is the Indian Act still in place but it was reported last week that Ottawa has decided to increase the number of people who can now qualify under the Act.

There is no clear policy, no one know what the hell they are doing (either Federally, Provincially or in the Native communities) and the problem of Native poverty, alcoholism, crime etc. continues to get worse.

Chief Joe Mathius was right when he said it all stems from the Indian Act.  Giving people a specially protected status is the wrong way to go.  History teaches us that the group becomes dependant on the status rather then growing beyond it.

[Oexmelin]

You are mixing up "purpose" with "result". I am not saying that native people *wish* to be 'preserved in amber', merely that this is the inevitable *result* of the very policies designed, well-meaning and mostly by non-natives, to reverse the mistakes of the past and to "recognize their uniqueness" while enabling them to adapt at their own pace and under "self government".

I think you are mixing your chronology here. What, exactly, do you see as the result of the recent federal policies ?

What we see today, I would argue, is far from being the result of recent policies - it is rather the result of years and years of policies designed, not to emancipate, but rather to infantilize, with little regard to a tradition that was only deemed worthy of eradication. I mean, the kidnapping of Indian children to send them in various religious pensions is recent enough that people who lived it are still alive and relatively young!

You can argue that the recent monetary compensations given to band councils are not helping; you are quite possibly right, but band councils in themselves, are a creation of 1876. Every attempt to reform the Indian act is always complicated by the fact that even "Native" identity is somewhat recent (what exactly unites a Nuxalk and a Huron ?) and that, in the end, proclaiming the end of the reserve is always proclaiming the end of any attempt at self-government and self-definition.

[Oexmelin]

Creating a system of residential schools and government policies expressly designed to destroy Native culture and then creating a highly paternalistic system to try to save that same culture (although in many cases too late) has created a complete mess.

See above. The whole "paternalistic system" came about many, many years before the residential school policy was enacted.

[Jacob]

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

I couldn't rightly say.  I think what CC says, and what Joe Mathius said, has a lot of merit.  But I don't have enough knowledge or exposure to really say whether it is working, where it is breaking down and how to fix it.

I do have reasonably favourable impression of the Nisga'a and Maa-'Nulth treaties, but again, I don't know enough to say for sure.  I did speak to one guy, an elected band council member for one of the Maa-'Nulth treaty signatories and he did suggest that a fair amount of the kvetching, arguing and grumbling is just par for the course for any sort of democratic decision making and not some specific "native problem" (just witness unions, congresses, knitting clubs and any other group of people discussing things and making decisions - it can get messy).

The main point of Barrister's which I was agreeing with is that starting from the point that natives ought to try to live like they did 200 years ago to preserve their culture, and to negotiate with native groups and try to help solve the problems their communities face starting with that point of view is not productive.

[crazy canuck]

Creating a system of residential schools and government policies expressly designed to destroy Native culture and then creating a highly paternalistic system to try to save that same culture (although in many cases too late) has created a complete mess.

See above. The whole "paternalistic system" came about many, many years before the residential school policy was enacted.

You are correct but the earlier form of paternalism was directed at assimilation.  The subsequent form of paternalism directed at "protecting" them may have been worse.

[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. 

[crazy canuck]

I do have reasonably favourable impression of the Nisga'a and Maa-'Nulth treaties

If all bands were like the Nisga'a we would not have any issues to talk about.  There you have a people who's culture and language stayed relatively intact, who have land, educated and able leadership and a very bright future.  If all bands were like them we could abolish the Indian Act tommorrow and nobody would care or notice.

[Jacob]

If all bands were like the Nisga'a we would not have any issues to talk about.  There you have a people who's culture and language stayed relatively intact, who have land, educated and able leadership and a very bright future.  If all bands were like them we could abolish the Indian Act tommorrow and nobody would care or notice.

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.

[Barrister]

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.