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

[Malthus]

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.

Same answer. Yes, our rituals developed within the context of a previously-existing mode of life are now meaningless in that sense. That doesn't matter, because modern society has other means of self-validation. 

Unfortunately, living isolated on a reservation on social assistance, in "our" society, isn't a highly regarded activity and provides little in the way of self-validation.

Now, you may want to argue that there exist other ways - that natives are in fact already self-validated, by family, place, culture. You state as follows:

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.

The problem with this is that, to the extent you are suggesting that the sense of meaning is not problematic, it does not accord with observed reality. People who are content with themselves and their lives do not display the symptoms of social dissolution that are on display in native communities - particularly in the realms of place (isolation of youth is a common and serious complaint leading to high rates of suicide), family (family violence and dissolution rates are extremely high in native communities) and culture (already covered). Keeping them as they are will, one would assume, lead to more of the same.

[Malthus]

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.

I am merely an observer. I observe that the system is disfunctional. Do you agree? And if it is disfunctional, why?

My answer is that, over and above the history of being screwed by various governments, individuals within native societies are not well-served by attempting to artificially prevent assimilation, because it traps them in a system in which no self-validation derives from their traditional lifestyle (which is more or less gone) and none from the larger community.

What's your opinon?

[Barrister]

The problem with this is that, to the extent you are suggesting that the sense of meaning is not problematic, it does not accord with observed reality. People who are content with themselves and their lives do not display the symptoms of social dissolution that are on display in native communities - particularly in the realms of place (isolation of youth is a common and serious complaint leading to high rates of suicide), family (family violence and dissolution rates are extremely high in native communities) and culture (already covered). Keeping them as they are will, one would assume, lead to more of the same.

I'm not sure I agree that drug abuse, domestic violence and teen suicide can be linked to "contentment with oneself".

[Malthus]

I'm not sure I agree that drug abuse, domestic violence and teen suicide can be linked to "contentment with oneself".

If someone commits suicide, isn't that a pretty good clue they are not "content"?

Suicide is not usually a sign of high self-esteem and contentment, is it?

Similarly with other self-destuctive behaviour. Smoking the occasional joint as a teen is one thing. Sniffing gas until you get brain damage is quite another.

[crazy canuck]

I am merely an observer. I observe that the system is disfunctional. Do you agree? And if it is disfunctional, why?

My answer is that, over and above the history of being screwed by various governments, individuals within native societies are not well-served by attempting to artificially prevent assimilation, because it traps them in a system in which no self-validation derives from their traditional lifestyle (which is more or less gone) and none from the larger community.

What's your opinon?

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that both you and Berkut are making the same fundamental error.  You see people living in poverty on Indian Reservations and you jump to the conclusion that the cause of that poverty is Indians trying to cling to a culture that no longer has any relevance and that they would be better of assimilating into the wider society - although Berkut objects to characterizing his argument as one of assimiliation.  I think his arugment is a bit more nuanced in that he says they can keep their beliefs so long as they act in other ways like everyone else.

But you are both missing the point that it is not Native culture that is broken.  It is the fact that the reserve system took away the land base and property rights would have allowed native culture to flourish.

I ask that you read my post about that earlier today so I dont have to repeat everything here again.

Also, in my opinion, the native cultures I have encountered (and lived in at a young age) are for more preferable to the one you think they should assimilate to.  They have a much stronger sense of community as just one example.

[Malthus]

I am merely an observer. I observe that the system is disfunctional. Do you agree? And if it is disfunctional, why?

My answer is that, over and above the history of being screwed by various governments, individuals within native societies are not well-served by attempting to artificially prevent assimilation, because it traps them in a system in which no self-validation derives from their traditional lifestyle (which is more or less gone) and none from the larger community.

What's your opinon?

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that both you and Berkut are making the same fundamental error.  You see people living in poverty on Indian Reservations and you jump to the conclusion that the cause of that poverty is Indians trying to cling to a culture that no longer has any relevance and that they would be better of assimilating into the wider society - although Berkut objects to characterizing his argument as one of assimiliation.  I think his arugment is a bit more nuanced in that he says they can keep their beliefs so long as they act in other ways like everyone else.

But you are both missing the point that it is not Native culture that is broken.  It is the fact that the reserve system took away the land base and property rights would have allowed native culture to flourish.

I ask that you read my post about that earlier today so I dont have to repeat everything here again.

Also, in my opinion, the native cultures I have encountered (and lived in at a young age) are for more preferable to the one you think they should assimilate to.  They have a much stronger sense of community as just one example.

You may well be 100% right. If natives had ther land base to exist as natives, perhaps there would not be the problems we see.

The whole problem started with europeans invading their lands and taking all the good bits for themselves. Now, all those good bits are covered with cities and farms and stuff.

In BC, the basic stable of the rich costal indian culture - the salmon run - is endangered, by modern pollution, overfishing, etc. That's the fault of the europeans, too.

Thing is, clock can't really be turned back. We cannot feasably remove the cities and farms from the best bits of land. We can compensate natives with money, but money by itself cannot recreate a way of life that is gone.

[crazy canuck]

Thing is, clock can't really be turned back. We cannot feasably remove the cities and farms from the best bits of land. We can compensate natives with money, but money by itself cannot recreate a way of life that is gone.

I think you are wrong about that.  The Nisga'a are a good example of the best bits not already being taken.  They have a modern treaty which allows a form of self government in what many would consider some of the best parts of BC.


Now you might say, sure they are in the middle of nowhere and so its easy to agree on a land settlement.  But then I ask you to consider the Musqueam.  There reservation is in the middle of Greater Vancouver and much of their claimed lands are already urbanized.  Too late you say?  Nope.  They have been very good at adapting their cultural practices to the modern reality through leasehold and land use agreements regarding their own reservation land and they have been very effective at obtaining economic benefits whenever the Provincial or Federal crown wish to use land claimed by the Musqueam for other purposes.


The mistake I think you making is thinking that native culture only works if they can revert back to hunter gatherers.  I agree completely with Oex and BB when they point out that analysis is flawed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that our own society functions differently then it did in 1492 and yet that is acceptable.

[Razgovory]

The Federal government has tons of good land.

[crazy canuck]

The Federal government has tons of good land.

So the trick is whether any of the various native groups have a good claim to any of it.

[Jacob]

I am merely an observer. I observe that the system is disfunctional. Do you agree? And if it is disfunctional, why?

I think that saying that the system is dysfunctional is all well and good. I'm not particularly invested in the word, and would rather identify specific problems and their possible solution (though there is of course value in placing those problems in a larger framework).

That, however, is very different from saying that Native culture is broken, that it's practices confer no self-respect and they are divorced from actual life.

My answer is that, over and above the history of being screwed by various governments, individuals within native societies are not well-served by attempting to artificially prevent assimilation, because it traps them in a system in which no self-validation derives from their traditional lifestyle (which is more or less gone) and none from the larger community.

How does one attempt to artificially prevent assimilation?

What's your opinon?

My opinion is that there is not one "Native problem" but a variety of problems. It is also my opinion that any attempt at a solution that starts with "if the Natives were only better assimilated" is bound to fail.

I think any attempt at fixing the problems facing the problems faced by Natives need to primarily address the concerns identified by the Natives themselves. I'm pretty sure that "our cultures are busted, we should just assimilate," is quite low on the list of such concerns.

From where I sit, Native culture is pretty vibrant, but different bands and nations are facing a number of problems of varying severity.

I do believe band governance is an issue in many cases, but any solutions that relies on paternalistic interference is fraught with difficulty. Obviously, poverty and alcoholism are significant issues for many bands. I'm sure there are others as well. As CC pointed out earlier, I think land and treaty rights are issues that underpin a lot of these problems as well.

Ultimately, I think that to successfully address the problems it requires a lot of hard work, intelligent funding and sensitivity. Most importantly, however, it requires specific solutions tailored to the specific bands and their problems; the Uchucklesaht First Nation in BC may have different priorities than the Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia. Broad sweeping solutions dreamt up by people with no particular insight into the specifics of the problems and the aspirations of the people affected are not going to make anything less broken.

If there's anything we as non-Natives can do to help it has to do with concrete practical issues like infrastructure, health, the economic viability of reserves, education; that and dealing with them in good faith (starting with the process of settling land claims where applicable). It certainly has nothing to do with trying to fix or assimilate cultures as the starting point.

[Jacob]

Were I as a non-Native asked to formulate a general program to address the problems facing Natives in Canada, it would probably look like this:

- Continue the process of settling all outstanding Native land claims and formalize their rights through negotiation (the process in BC has proven this can work).

- Create a (or enhance existing) well funded and well managed set of programs and resources available to First Nations to draw on at their discretion to help them with economic development, education, governance, substance abuse and any other issues identified by the First Nations themselves as being something they would like help with.

Ultimately, I think a large part of the problems facing the various First Nations are economically rooted.

[Ed Anger]

I'd smash thier puny tribal governments, steal the good looking women and sell the land to oil companies.

[Barrister]

I'd smash thier puny tribal governments, steal the good looking women and sell the land to oil companies.

Thats your answer to everything.

[Ed Anger]

I'd smash thier puny tribal governments, steal the good looking women and sell the land to oil companies.

Thats your answer to everything.

My avatar has seized control of my posts.

[Barrister]

I'd smash thier puny tribal governments, steal the good looking women and sell the land to oil companies.

Thats your answer to everything.

My avatar has seized control of my posts.

If my avatar seized control of my post I'd start demanding to go outside, then alternate between growling at people and laughing uncontrollably.