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

[Neil]

I am not really sure what Berkut is proposing. 

Goes back to that bar fight he was in at Arizona with three Apaches over a game of pool until one of them called Ortege Jenkins a cocksucker.  Been hating on Injuns ever since.

I know who that is.

[Neil]

It was the stated policy of the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada for over a century to try and assimilate Indians and make them into regular, normal Canadian citizens.  It was only in the 60s that changed.

I think it's the policy of assimilation which has shown to not work.

That was their stated policy, but they also didn't try very hard.  They allowed the reservations to exist.

Should they have instituted prima noctae too?

No.  They should have closed the reservations and shipped the Indians into the cities.

[Malthus]

I have no doubt that some sort of self-government could work - but that's not the basic issue. The basic, fundamental issue is that the focus of identity for native americans is tied to living as a native american - that's what their rituals reference, that's how their societies are (or were) organized.

That isn't to say other ways of life aren't possible for them - obviously they are. But it requires change. People everywhere require self-respect to exist, and that is hard to come by where all of the indicia of self-respect are tied to a lifestyle you cannot actually practice because it is not sustainable.

The basic reason native societies are "broken" is not simply that they are poor and live isolated, it is that their lives lack the sort of affirmation that culture is supposed to provide. Native hunter-gatherers, prior to european invasion, were no doubt even poorer and more isolated, but their image of themselves was more meaningful.

This is why pumping money into reservations, however well-intentioned, will not "work" if by "working" you mean making the people there less "broken". Sure, eliminating povery is good in and of itself, but it can't provide a meaning where it is lacking. 

[Jacob]

No.  They should have closed the reservations and shipped the Indians into the cities.

How would that help anything?

I mean, other than give the reservation land to somebody or other?

[Jacob]

I have no doubt that some sort of self-government could work - but that's not the basic issue. The basic, fundamental issue is that the focus of identity for native americans is tied to living as a native american - that's what their rituals reference, that's how their societies are (or were) organized.

That isn't to say other ways of life aren't possible for them - obviously they are. But it requires change. People everywhere require self-respect to exist, and that is hard to come by where all of the indicia of self-respect are tied to a lifestyle you cannot actually practice because it is not sustainable.

The basic reason native societies are "broken" is not simply that they are poor and live isolated, it is that their lives lack the sort of affirmation that culture is supposed to provide. Native hunter-gatherers, prior to european invasion, were no doubt even poorer and more isolated, but their image of themselves was more meaningful.

This is why pumping money into reservations, however well-intentioned, will not "work" if by "working" you mean making the people there less "broken". Sure, eliminating povery is good in and of itself, but it can't provide a meaning where it is lacking.

What do you base this analysis on?

[Malthus]

I have no doubt that some sort of self-government could work - but that's not the basic issue. The basic, fundamental issue is that the focus of identity for native americans is tied to living as a native american - that's what their rituals reference, that's how their societies are (or were) organized.

That isn't to say other ways of life aren't possible for them - obviously they are. But it requires change. People everywhere require self-respect to exist, and that is hard to come by where all of the indicia of self-respect are tied to a lifestyle you cannot actually practice because it is not sustainable.

The basic reason native societies are "broken" is not simply that they are poor and live isolated, it is that their lives lack the sort of affirmation that culture is supposed to provide. Native hunter-gatherers, prior to european invasion, were no doubt even poorer and more isolated, but their image of themselves was more meaningful.

This is why pumping money into reservations, however well-intentioned, will not "work" if by "working" you mean making the people there less "broken". Sure, eliminating povery is good in and of itself, but it can't provide a meaning where it is lacking.

What do you base this analysis on?

Anthropology.

Specifically, discussions and reading on the meaning and purpose of culture, relative deprivation, and the like.

It also stands to make good sense. Culture invests life with purpose and meaning in various ways. Our culture is pretty materialistic - generally, self-worth is tied up in material goods, but not invariably so - an intelectual or artist can derive meaning and purpose (and validation) from their work, even if they are not paid much. A soldier may not be wealthy, but many find purpose and meaning from the validation of their comrades and a shared lifestyle of potential danger.   

Other cultures derive purpose and meaning in other ways. They are usually tied in some way to a particular lifestyle, together with appropriate rituals based on that lifestyle.

Remove the substance, however, and all you have left is the empty shell of culture. Be an artist who never does any art, or a soldier who is not part of a squad training to respond to real dangers, or a professor who doesn't do any research or teach any classes - give them uniforms, diplomas, medals, or whatever - and is it any wonder that they are not really happy? Money won't solve the problem necessarily - for example, in my experience trust fund babies who have money are not truly as happy as those who earned it.

Same with Native Canadians. They have the rituals of living a particular lifestyle, but not the substance. They may have head-dresses filled with feathers for ceremonial occasions, but those feathers do not refer to actual "coups" they have earned, and so confir no self-respect. They may do traditional dances, but those dances no longer refer to the hunting or agricultural pursuits they used to be linked with. In short, their culture is divorced from their actual lives.

[Barrister]

Malthus, I am confused by your argument.

Those of us who grew up in the typical European-Canadian home have all kinds of rituals and symbols that are long-removed from their original meaning.  Thanksgiving has ceased to be a celebration of the harvest.  Men's business suits are long departed from whatever original mean ing they had.  Christmas has very little meaning as a Christian holiday.  That doesn't mean they aren't important about our own cultural identity.

As for natives - they still have a number of very authentic cultural expressions.  Many of them do hunt quite a great deal, and they find it to be an important part of their culture (even if their diet is supplemented a great deal by the local grocery store).  The extended family is much more important.  They also have taken a number of items from Canadian culture and made it their own (the Yukon Native Hockey Tournament was a huge deal, and natives from all over the territory would gather for it).

So, I reject that Berkut and Malthus's contention that native communities are "broken".  They have substantial problems to be sure - rates of drug and alcohol abuse are much higher, suicide and domestic violence are higher, lfiespans are shorter.  But these are problems that exist in all societies - they just have a bigger problem with it.  They are still functioning communities.

[Neil]

No.  They should have closed the reservations and shipped the Indians into the cities.

How would that help anything?

I mean, other than give the reservation land to somebody or other?

It would end the isolation, destroy their backwards, inferior culture and get them into the business of owning property as individuals.

[Oexmelin]

Malthus:

You are confusing cultural relics with culture. We have tons of cultural relics as well, things which were elaborated during the Middle Ages and no longer make the sense they once made. We no longer live our agricultural lifestyle, yet a ton of our cultural references are derived from it. We have created new meaning for them. We have elaborated new cultural "things" to fit with it. People still believe in a Church or a Religion they relate to things which happened 2000 years ago. Certainly, we have our own share of people who search for meaning and feel their materialistic lives are empty and devoid of connection. Calling Native culture an empty shell strikes me then as inappropriate, especially considering critiques of our own cultural practices; or rather, it stems from a value-judgement which seems precisely to equate culture and meaning and prosperity.   

I fail to see why the complexity of Natives experience should be reduced to that aspect - and indeed, Natives will disagree on what is best fit to preserve - just like "we" do. But, just like "us", their sense of meaning is also derived from place, family, a complex cultural identity. What you describe, for instance, could be applicable to France, the US and Canada and few people are true internationalists arguing these entity should, for the common benefit, commit institutional suicide or be forcefully dismantled.

[Oexmelin]

I see BB made more or less the same answer.

[Jacob]

Same with Native Canadians. They have the rituals of living a particular lifestyle, but not the substance. They may have head-dresses filled with feathers for ceremonial occasions, but those feathers do not refer to actual "coups" they have earned, and so confir no self-respect. They may do traditional dances, but those dances no longer refer to the hunting or agricultural pursuits they used to be linked with. In short, their culture is divorced from their actual lives.

I'm not sure how well placed you are to deduce how significant Native American cultural practices are to the people who actually engage in them.

[alfred russel]

They also have taken a number of items from Canadian culture and made it their own

Don't you prosecute them for shoplifting when they do this?

[Barrister]

They also have taken a number of items from Canadian culture and made it their own

Don't you prosecute them for shoplifting when they do this?

Only when they steal timbits or toques.

[PDH]

It would be worthwhile for people to read about the cultural adaptations of American Indians during the initial reservation period - that might give a sense that even when uprooted, forced onto land not of their choosing, and facing immense social problems, the cultural values came through in new rituals, reinterpreted rites, and new affirmations of the social system.

It also puts a lie to the "fact" that there is little cultural continuity between today's Indians and those pre-reservation.

[Malthus]

Malthus, I am confused by your argument.

Those of us who grew up in the typical European-Canadian home have all kinds of rituals and symbols that are long-removed from their original meaning.  Thanksgiving has ceased to be a celebration of the harvest.  Men's business suits are long departed from whatever original mean ing they had.  Christmas has very little meaning as a Christian holiday.  That doesn't mean they aren't important about our own cultural identity.

As for natives - they still have a number of very authentic cultural expressions.  Many of them do hunt quite a great deal, and they find it to be an important part of their culture (even if their diet is supplemented a great deal by the local grocery store).  The extended family is much more important.  They also have taken a number of items from Canadian culture and made it their own (the Yukon Native Hockey Tournament was a huge deal, and natives from all over the territory would gather for it).

To be sure. The difference is that "we" have by and large assimilated into the larger culture, and have adopted its values.

You can see this, for example, in the Ukranian community. Ukranians may have festivals derived from peasant agriculture. But of course Ukranians in Canada by and large no longer practice peasant agriculture, but the very same occupations (incuding cultural bits providing meaning and validation) as the rest of "us".

Now, if we made Ukranians pretend to be peasant farmers, perhaps feeding themselves a little from peasant farming, as their "traditional lifestyle" (which of course cannot compete with modern farming techniques in any meaningful sense), while subsidizing them with government grants, I think you would find many of the same symptoms of uselessness and dispair breaking out among them, as you do in native communities here.

So the "solution" we see adopted is - assimilation in every meaningful sense.

So, I reject that Berkut and Malthus's contention that native communities are "broken".  They have substantial problems to be sure - rates of drug and alcohol abuse are much higher, suicide and domestic violence are higher, lfiespans are shorter.  But these are problems that exist in all societies - they just have a bigger problem with it.  They are still functioning communities.

I think you are operating from a different meaning of "broken". By "broken" I mean the persistance of third-world-like conditions within first-world countries, and the general apathy, hopelessness, drug and alcohol dependency, suicide etc. that characterize native communities - not, to be sure, all of them, but enough for it to be a national scandal.