UN official: US must return control of sacred lands to Native Americans

[Oexmelin]

That legislation isn't the fault of the natives, but of the non-natives who created it. Naturally it creates winners and losers among the natives, and the "winners" are going to resist any change or reform - aided by those non-natives who feel as you do.

I don't think you could distort what I wrote much more.

My point is not that reform is not desireable - on the contrary (see above: there are lots of problems with native governance). My point is that the sort of reform you seem to be advocating, which is in the end the death of Native status in Canada, is *certainly* not desireable, and that, contrary to what you seem to think, it is *precisely* the sort of reform that will bring together both the corrupt band leaders, the uncorrupt band leaders, and the population on the reservations.

The whole attempt to divide the population into "us" and "them" is suspect, and I rather think the root of the problem. Rarely is institutional racism a really good idea

Again: if we hold the idea that a form of sovereignty, quasi-sovereignty, whatever sovereignty for Natives is desireable on the basis of them having had such status in the past, then your basis of comparison falls through. The distinction between Natives and Non-Natives becomes no more institutional racism than speaking of "Us" vs "Them" in the case of Canadian vs Americans, or German vs French. And again: if your objective is to put an end to the status of Natives in Canada, this makes sense to want to erase this sort of distinction. But Natives in Canada, in the US, aboriginals in Australia are precisely *not* like Ukrainians, Jews, who immigrated as individuals or as non-sovereign collective groups. Efforts to erase the distinction is bound to be met by resistance, as much as, say, the US dictating what the immigration policy of Canada should be.

So, of course, one could - and surely, one must - disagree with the whole idea of Canada being the entity which decides who gets to be a Native and who doesn't. Perhaps letting Natives decide would let to some unsavory practices which hurts my, or your, idea of citizenship. And surely there are places in the world where Canadians could easily disagree with the manner in which said places get to decide on who is a citizen and who isn't (i.e., Japan, Germany). So perhaps a more fruitful approach, rather than starting from positions of principles over the correct way to ascribe citizenship, the correct way to express one's culture, the correct way to exercise power, and the correct way to engage in economic activity - way removed from the complexity of aboriginal status - perhaps we could explore what type of quasi, or shared sovereignty might be attainable, or desireable. To invent something, rather than start from what we think we know of ourselves, our states, our sovereignty, our citizenship, and apply them to Natives wholesale.

[viper37]

On the other hand though, we will have to make the first move somehow and discuss it with them.  I'm pretty sure there are lots of Natives who are happy with the current system and don't want it changed, but there has to be some who have their own ideas that haven't reached us. 

I can assure you that many Natives are proposing all kinds of things; in some places, it goes relatively smoothly (Odanak, for instance). In some places, mired by factionalism, it is a more bumpy ride.

As to making the first move, lots of people are not patiently waiting, but proposing all sorts of very exciting things and trying them (Odanak's new Native Cegep) - but ultimately, big structural reform have to return to the Federal government, and it hasn't been a priority for many years now...

well, I had more in mind the really problematic reservations in northern Quebec & Ontario, among others, isolated places with lots of different problems.  Odanak is kinda near "civilization" as we know it, with access to healthcare, roads, internet, commerce, etc.

Look at the Hurons in Ancienne-Lorette, they ain't exactly poor, and though a part of their culutre has been extinct over time, another part is well alive.

But I'm not sure their solutions can be transposed to others in the north.  Making and selling snowshoes in Quebec city is easier done than in Davis Inlet.

[grumbler]

So no, the problems are not just "theirs". They are "ours" - native and non-native alike - because they are sustained by "our" government under "our" legislation that "we" drafted. The whole attempt to divide the population into "us" and "them" is suspect, and I rather think the root of the problem. Rarely is institutional racism a really good idea, even when enacted with the best will in the world. It is simply rife with unintended consequences - male chiefs telling women that they should not legally be indians based on a notion of traditional culture that was in fact created by non-native government bureaucrats is just a minor example of that sort of irony.

An excellent short summary of the issue.  I'm going to use this one in my class.

[Barrister]

The current system doesn't give "power" to natives per se, but to those able to work the system - chiefs, government bureaucrats, and lawyers.

Perhaps (and by that I mean there are definately some problem with governance of the natives).

But by that token, this is the same for people in our society: it gives power to those capable to work the system: government bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, business man. We do not have power per se, and I certainly do not consider the current government to represent me, or to really empower me in any way.

In other words, we are back where we started. Reservations have tons of problems, but, rightly or wrongly, it is theirs. People can already leave if they want to, yet obviously people are not always as mercenary as to cut off all ties and simply "follow the money", as PDH aleady reminded us. Some elect to live on the reservations, sometimes despite horrible conditions. I do not think the solution to governance problem is "us" telling Native people how corrupt they are and that, for their sake, we should rather dismantle whatever power they have and disperse them. Or, rather let whatever we imagine "market forces" disperse them without having to dirty our hands.

The difference of course is that natives live subject to a system of legislation that does not apply to the rest of us and that in effect hands power over them to said chiefs, bureaucrats and lawyers in a way that does not apply to the rest of society.

That legislation isn't the fault of the natives, but of the non-natives who created it. Naturally it creates winners and losers among the natives, and the "winners" are going to resist any change or reform - aided by those non-natives who feel as you do.

A good example of this, as related above, is the fight over women losing their status by marrying non-natives (while men did not). Changing that obvious injustice ran into lots of opposition from natives - or rather, the entrenched authorities among them - how dare anyone question native culture? (Never mind that in many cases native cultures were originally matrilineal ...).

So no, the problems are not just "theirs". They are "ours" - native and non-native alike - because they are sustained by "our" government under "our" legislation that "we" drafted. The whole attempt to divide the population into "us" and "them" is suspect, and I rather think the root of the problem. Rarely is institutional racism a really good idea, even when enacted with the best will in the world. It is simply rife with unintended consequences - male chiefs telling women that they should not legally be indians based on a notion of traditional culture that was in fact created by non-native government bureaucrats is just a minor example of that sort of irony.

The Malthus/Berkut answer has a certain simple charm.  It's all the fault of the government / Indian Act, so let's just abolish it, and any special status for indians.

It's posed as a simple solution.  But the effect would be anything but simple.

The effect on native people would be enormous.

[PDH]

I think I said this before, much of the rhetoric here is like the Dawes act of the 19th century.  I do not think anyone here is arguing that their are immense problems, both on the reservations themselves and the issue of sovereign treaties within a country, but I also think there is precious little understanding of the American Indian culture as well.

Simply decrying it as "broken" and not providing a greater understanding (including the parts that obviously are not broken), is why I make the comparison.

[Barrister]

I think I said this before, much of the rhetoric here is like the Dawes act of the 19th century.  I do not think anyone here is arguing that their are immense problems, both on the reservations themselves and the issue of sovereign treaties within a country, but I also think there is precious little understanding of the American Indian culture as well.

Simply decrying it as "broken" and not providing a greater understanding (including the parts that obviously are not broken), is why I make the comparison.

I'm finding this conversation very frustrating and a little upsetting, though I'm trying not to take it out on anyone.

I very much get the feeling that some people who seem to have strong opinions on the file have simply never been to a native community, or spent any significant amount of time with native people.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, or implying any kind of racism - in certain parts of north america you could very easily spend your life without knowing any native people (and most native communities are not exactly tourist destinations).

[Ed Anger]

in certain parts of north america you could very easily spend your life without knowing any native people

Thank God.

[The Minsky Moment]

So no, the problems are not just "theirs". They are "ours" - native and non-native alike - because they are sustained by "our" government under "our" legislation that "we" drafted. The whole attempt to divide the population into "us" and "them" is suspect, and I rather think the root of the problem.

The distinction you refer to one is not just a simple artifact of categorical Canadian federal legislation; it is inherent in the recognition of the tribes as having some kind of independent sovereign status.  Which means any "fix" involves not just removing what you see as offensive categorical distinctions in Canadian domestic legislation, but also exterminating whatever remains of the the sovereign status of the tribes.  Seems to me very problematic to do that against the wishes of the nation whose quasi-sovereign rights are to be extirpated on the grounds that it is for their own good.

[Berkut]

Beeb - I grew up in freaking Arizona. I might, maybe, once or twice, have run into one or two or a couple thousand Native Americans. Both those that live on the reservation(s) and off of them.

I find this conversation rather frustrating as well. There is no greater danger than someone who is willing to shaft over other people "for their own good".

[The Minsky Moment]

There is no greater danger than someone who is willing to shaft over other people "for their own good".

Quite true but an argument with two very sharp edges . . .

[Malthus]

I think I said this before, much of the rhetoric here is like the Dawes act of the 19th century.  I do not think anyone here is arguing that their are immense problems, both on the reservations themselves and the issue of sovereign treaties within a country, but I also think there is precious little understanding of the American Indian culture as well.

Simply decrying it as "broken" and not providing a greater understanding (including the parts that obviously are not broken), is why I make the comparison.

I'm finding this conversation very frustrating and a little upsetting, though I'm trying not to take it out on anyone.

I very much get the feeling that some people who seem to have strong opinions on the file have simply never been to a native community, or spent any significant amount of time with native people.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, or implying any kind of racism - in certain parts of north america you could very easily spend your life without knowing any native people (and most native communities are not exactly tourist destinations).

You are totally and completely wrong, in my case.

My family has a relationship with the native community of Temiskaming that goes back decades, and I have visited them many times & have been active in helping them with various issues (and vice versa). Indeed, this spring I'm going up again to visit them over an issue of mutual interest - the Parc national d'Opemican Project.

I count Chief Harry of the Wolf Lake Band as a personal friend (though he's more of my dad's vintage, and the two of them are obviously much closer), and he's been a friend of the family for many years. 

So that dog won't hunt.

[Barrister]

And have you ever shared the opinions you've expressed in this thread with Chief Harry?

[Admiral Yi]

Have you ever eaten pemican in Opemican Park?

[Berkut]

I think I said this before, much of the rhetoric here is like the Dawes act of the 19th century.  I do not think anyone here is arguing that their are immense problems, both on the reservations themselves and the issue of sovereign treaties within a country, but I also think there is precious little understanding of the American Indian culture as well.

I don't think you have to understand Native American culture (although I rather seriously wonder that apparently for the purposes of this discussion, if you agree with Beeb/Jake/Oex, you "understand", and if you do not, then you apparently don't understand) to recognize that the current "solution" is incredibly harmful to the people it is supposedly helping. And that the problems with the system are in fact systemic - they are the result of how the system is setup, NOT that the system is not managed as well as it could be.

Everyone keeps saying "Yeah, the current system doesn't work, but..." and then going on about all this "Gee golly wouldn't it be swell if only we could all respect and understand and do better" crap that doesn't actually do anything to solve the actual problems. No amount of understanding is going to make a giant patch of desert in the middle of Arizona become economically viable, or magically transform a bunch of people who have no education, future, or prospects into the exact same people in the exact same situation, except now with a life that is something other than deplorable.

It seriously seems like people would rather have a huge number of other people living in relative squalor as long as they can tell themselves how much they understand them and their culture and how sad it is that our terrible ancestors did such terrible things. What's that - they kill themselves at twice the national rate? Oh yes, so terribly sad, I understand them and their pain so well. Give me another latte while we contemplate our special empathy and how superior it makes us all feel.

[11B4V]

"We're in the spirit world asshole."

"Did you see the size of that chicken".