Toxic Multiculturalism

[Malthus]

They are relevant because it is all the difference, which you play with yourself, between entitlement and help. It is the difference between Canadian citizen like all the others, but who happened to be the recipient of special help, and Canadians citizen who are *not* like the others, as per status recognized through historical vicissitudes.

Oh, I'm well aware of the latter issue: the existance of a class of "special" citizens, defined by race and entitled to special privileges, is the anomaly under our laws that I am attacking.

As I said before, no-one would for a moment support the existence of a special, racially-defined caste in Canadian society unless membership was defined as a privilege rather than a penalty (as it was for a long time). If for example I was to say that Blacks were not "real" citizens, but rather some inferior species of citizen, who are not entitled to the full protection of Canadian laws no matter where they were born or how long they have lived here, no-one would support that whether the social policy reason for it was good or bad, and no matter what historical imperatives created that situation.

Cast it as a privilege complete with financial benefits and of course the situation changes - to outward appearances. However, many of the "privileges" are actually penalties in disguise (for example, more lenient sentences for aboriginal offenders can act to the detriment of their victims - most often, aboriginal women and children); and, somewhat counter-intuitively, the provision of many of the privileges has the perverse effect, described above, of actually making the situation of the supposed beneficiaries worse.

Racial discrimination has proved to be not a good policy even when that discrimination is perceived by its objects as wholly positive and justified by history.

The issue therefore is whether the Canadian government is abiding by what might deem its responsibility and what is essentially a grace. You use the word incentives as if it was part of a policy to do something *for* Natives, for their own good (again, regardless of what their own wish might be). Natives might see it as something which is owed to them, regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. Hence the need to re-open treaties and not simply to decide by fiat what is supposed to be good for them.

Well, in point of fact many natives are comming to the conclusion that the Indian Act and the whole apparatus is part of their problem - and IMO they are of course right.

But that being said, assume all native people think that they are owed special racial status. Even if that were true, it does not justify continuing special racial status for them. That goes ten-fold where to do so is to actively harm their interests, in effect trapping them in a cycle of dependance and poverty. It is poor in terms of basic ethics and morality to treat racial groups (a wholly ficticious and arbitrary catagorization, as the current battle over defining "who is a status Indian" makes obvious) as legally different. It is also bad policy, because it doesn't help the objects of this government largesse - rather, it harms them.

About the only thing going for it is that some people believe that they are "owed" it due to treaties signed by "their" ancestors (I use "scare quotes" because, as noted above, the same people are also likely to deny that *other* Canadians, who trace their "racial" ancestry differently, are "owed" anything!)   

[grumbler]

Well-put, Malthus.  I agree 100%.  There cannot be a resolution to the problem, though, so long as people don't recognize that this is a problem.

[dps]

If for example I was to say that Blacks were not "real" citizens, but rather some inferior species of citizen, who are not entitled to the full protection of Canadian laws no matter where they were born or how long they have lived here, no-one would support that whether the social policy reason for it was good or bad, and no matter what historical imperatives created that situation.

Change "Blacks" to "Muslims" and it seems pretty close to what Grallon argues.  Granted, "Muslim" isn't a race or ethnicity.

[Jacob]

What identity did becoming status under that Act give him?

It didn't give him identity, it gave him formal recognition of his identity.  Since he lives off the reserve, it means he could move back to live there if he so chose (which I don't think he will, but the option remains) and it means that he has a ready and easy answer for those who tell him "you're not a real Indian"; he can say "yeah I am, I got the status to prove it."

That said, we didn't speak super in depth about it, and it is some years back, so I don't want to overstate it.  It could, perhaps, all have been about access to benefits, I don't know, but when we spoke about it it was never in those terms.  But I recall that when it happened, he went back to has band and spent some time with them as well; so I think it's more of a matter of being recognized by his people as one of them, rather than being recognized by the government; the "status card" was a bureaucratic mark of the recognition, not the end goal.

For myself, dealing with Denmark's rules on citizenship and how that works with my Canadian life, I can say that my decision not to become a citizen (at least) has more to do with identity issues than cold calculations of benefits (though they're part of it too).  Thus it's fairly easy for me to believe that there are similar issues in play for someone Native; and to be frank I think it's more intense given the history around it all.  The fact that there are priviliges and benefits involved does, of course affect it too.

On a practical level, they're nice to have, but on an identity and emotional level being repeatedly denied something that someone else gets for being something you consider yourself to be has an impact.  Going to the store to buy something, and your buddy doesn't have to pay GST because he's Native but you do because you're not is a constant reminder; knowing that you can't move in with your mom to take care of her when she gets old, because you're not allowed to live on the reserve, while your buddy growing up can move in and take care of his dad because he is allowed means something beyond the concrete practical situation.  At least it would to me.

[Malthus]

Gah, what a mess.

http://www.owjn.org/owjn_2009/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=235&Itemid=107

Reading this article makes *my* head hurt, and I'm a lawyer. How is the average Aboriginal woman supposed to know what her legal rights *are*?

Naturally, I have always been of the opinion that it was contrary to the basic notion of the rule of law for different folks to have different legal rights depending on their ancestry.

The end result of violating this basic notion - displayed in spades in this article - appears to be utter incoherence, where the individual cannot determine with any sort of predictability and certainty what their rights even are, let alone seek to enforce them.

Three or more different sets of laws may apply to Aboriginal women: Matrimonial property on reserve as an example

The ongoing controversy over matrimonial property on reserves provides a good illustration of the complex web of laws that govern different groups of Aboriginal women in different ways.

Women living on reserves (whether they have Status or not) do not have access to the protection of provincial family laws about the "matrimonial home." If a woman shares a home with an abusive partner and that home is on a reserve, she cannot bring a claim for exclusive possession under the provincial Family Law Act.

Why not? Because reserves are lands that are governed by federal legislation, namely the Indian Act. The Indian Act does not say anything about family property (known as "matrimonial property") and, in 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that provincial laws (including the Family Law Act) do not apply to reserve land.

In addition, the First Nation or Band Council may have passed laws about matrimonial property on reserves. These laws are different from Band to Band and Nation to Nation.

I knew the situation was bad, but not that it was this bad.

[Jacob]

About the only thing going for it is that some people believe that they are "owed" it due to treaties signed by "their" ancestors (I use "scare quotes" because, as noted above, the same people are also likely to deny that *other* Canadians, who trace their "racial" ancestry differently, are "owed" anything!)

So the white man breaks his word once again; once again he justifies it with nice words, and once again the Native people get screwed.

This time, of course, it's in the name of equality so that's why it's okay?  I don't know.  I mean, I see your point; there are problems and quite possibly the current system are not helping, but I don't think unilateral action by people who are unaffected by the situation is legitimate nor likely to be successful.

Well-put, Malthus.  I agree 100%.  There cannot be a resolution to the problem, though, so long as people don't recognize that this is a problem.

I don't think anyone denies there's a problem.  I think the difference lies in whether you believe drastic changes should be applied for "their own good" or whether you think a solution is only viable if the various Native people affected by it buy into the solution.

To be honest, I think Malthus' arguments are fairly solid, but they should be made to the various Native groups because they're the ones who need to be convinced (or not).  It's when the argument is made to the rest of society, in the context of "here's how we should change the system for Native people" that I have a problem.

[Martinus]

It's arguable whether they were multicultural or simply had several cultural groups, as you say. I think colonial empires were the opposite of multiculturalism, at least in principle - the point was to transplant the dominant white culture to the uncivilized colony.

India is a prime example of this.

No, it wasn't.  I suspect that transplanting "white culture" would have been a fairly foreign concept to the Portuguese and British at the time.

Errr, I didn't say they had represented some single universal "white culture", only that each of these white countries had its own dominant culture that it imposed.

[Barrister]

So the white man breaks his word once again; once again he justifies it with nice words, and once again the Native people get screwed.

This time, of course, it's in the name of equality so that's why it's okay?  I don't know.  I mean, I see your point; there are problems and quite possibly the current system are not helping, but I don't think unilateral action by people who are unaffected by the situation is legitimate nor likely to be successful.

Yeah, that's what sticks in my craw about Malthus' or Grumbler's argument.  We *did* sign treaties, that very explicitly were meant to apply to the descendents of those people.  First Nations people are amongst our poorest.  Yet we're going to take away rights and break those treaties in the name of helping these people?

[Razgovory]

Well at least Grumbler agrees with you.

[crazy canuck]

It didn't give him identity, it gave him formal recognition of his identity.  Since he lives off the reserve, it means he could move back to live there if he so chose (which I don't think he will, but the option remains) and it means that he has a ready and easy answer for those who tell him "you're not a real Indian"; he can say "yeah I am, I got the status to prove it."

I dont think we are saying anything different.  He wanted his status confirmed so that he could live on reserve - one of the main benefits and pitfalls of the Act.

It is important to understand the "not real Indian" slur in context.  It was probably said by people who were enjoying the full dole given by the Act and a comment on his inability to take advantage us such benefits.

It is actually a sad comment on aboriginal culture that someone feels they need to obtain a stamp of approval by the government to be accepted by their community.  This is likely one of the reasons many Native leaders wish to have the whole thing abolished so that they can have greater autonomy within their own communities.

[grumbler]

So the white man breaks his word once again; once again he justifies it with nice words, and once again the Native people get screwed.

"The white man?"  "the Native people?"

Tell me that you said this in jest, because if you can seriously use hyperbolic terms like "the white man" then there isn't much that you can discuss rationally.

This time, of course, it's in the name of equality so that's why it's okay?  I don't know.  I mean, I see your point; there are problems and quite possibly the current system are not helping, but I don't think unilateral action by people who are unaffected by the situation is legitimate nor likely to be successful.

Which unilateral action do you object to?  No one is arguing for a unilateral action that i know of.

I don't think anyone denies there's a problem.  I think the difference lies in whether you believe drastic changes should be applied for "their own good" or whether you think a solution is only viable if the various Native people affected by it buy into the solution.

The problem is that there is not a thing called "the Native people" - as you note, there are various native peoples involved, some descended from various "First nation" people in some regard, and some not.  The problem isn't one about "the White Man versus the Red Man," it is about Canadians and how they view each other.  The US suffers from the same problem, though to a much lesser extent.

The bottom line, though, is that  every Canadian has a voice in this.  It isn't the preserve of just some people based on their ancestry.  The problem has to acknowledge that privileges were created by treaty, and that compensation must be offered for the abandonment of those privileges, but unless the privileges themselves are acknowledged as part of the problem, it won't be solved.

To be honest, I think Malthus' arguments are fairly solid, but they should be made to the various Native groups because they're the ones who need to be convinced (or not).  It's when the argument is made to the rest of society, in the context of "here's how we should change the system for Native people" that I have a problem.

My problem is that I see this as an issue that is within the purview of society at large.  The contract isn't between some abstract concept of government and what you call "Native people," it is between the government acting on behalf of all Canadian citizens and some chiefs acting on behalf of their various tribes/bands/nations.  That contract is what has to go.  Canadian people should just be Canadian people under the law, and any identities, culture, etc should be maintained of their own free will and not by virtue of some small group's determination of what it means to be an Algonquin, or whatever.

[crazy canuck]

So the white man breaks his word once again; once again he justifies it with nice words, and once again the Native people get screwed.

This time, of course, it's in the name of equality so that's why it's okay?  I don't know.  I mean, I see your point; there are problems and quite possibly the current system are not helping, but I don't think unilateral action by people who are unaffected by the situation is legitimate nor likely to be successful.

Yeah, that's what sticks in my craw about Malthus' or Grumbler's argument.  We *did* sign treaties, that very explicitly were meant to apply to the descendents of those people.  First Nations people are amongst our poorest.  Yet we're going to take away rights and break those treaties in the name of helping these people?

I think there is a very large middle ground.  The Indian Act can be abolished while at the same time honouring treaties.  The difficult part is upholding the honour of the Crown (as that term has been defined in the jurisprudence) by negotiating treaties where they currently do not exist.

However, as I said before, I dont have a great degree of confidence that this kind of treaty making will actually occur.  So we are again faced with the moral question.

[Martinus]

On a practical level, they're nice to have, but on an identity and emotional level being repeatedly denied something that someone else gets for being something you consider yourself to be has an impact.  Going to the store to buy something, and your buddy doesn't have to pay GST because he's Native but you do because you're not is a constant reminder; knowing that you can't move in with your mom to take care of her when she gets old, because you're not allowed to live on the reserve, while your buddy growing up can move in and take care of his dad because he is allowed means something beyond the concrete practical situation.  At least it would to me.

Incidentally, this is exactly how gay people feel about not being able to marry their loved ones.

[grumbler]

Yeah, that's what sticks in my craw about Malthus' or Grumbler's argument.  We *did* sign treaties, that very explicitly were meant to apply to the descendents of those people.  First Nations people are amongst our poorest.  Yet we're going to take away rights and break those treaties in the name of helping these people?

I don't favor taking away anyone's "rights," but I don't think that privileges granted under a treaty really create "rights" in the sense we normally use the term, anyway.  Nothing is sacred about a treaty, any more than any other kind of contract.  Obviously, if you are going to scrap the treaty, you have to offer compensation.

I guess what stick in my craw about barrister or Jacob's argument is the idea that, because people once upon a time thought that the "Native people" or "First Nations" (or whatever term you choose) were not ever going to be Canadians, that idea should still be granted credence today, simply because it was decided once upon a time that the non-Canadian status "very explicitly w[as] meant to apply to the descendents [sic] of those people." It is the legacy of that policy which has left the FN people who have stayed out of the mainstream so poor.  Time to accept them as fully equal Canadians, and to phase out laws that say or imply they are not.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's an interesting debate going on in Ontario.  One Mohawk reserve is taking steps to kick out any non-status person living on the reserve, whether they are married to someone with status or not.  They are also drawing a line at 1/8th Mohawk blood (might be 1/4 or 1/16th).  These are not rules from the Indian Act, but they argue they need to do so to preserve their culture.

Fortunately there is a well-established body of precedent for drawing these kinds of lines ("octoroons") and implementing these kinds of restrictions: the southern American states in the era of Jim Crow.