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

[Oexmelin]

I know you mean that as a rhetorical question - but the answer should, I think, be obvious: the "political autonomy" of PEI is not having the same inimical effects on the lives of inhabitants of PEI. Were it to have the same effects on those inhabitants as I (and not only I) see the current system of "sovereignty" having on natives, I'd say - abolish away. 

But that answer is not the "obvious" one. You wouldn't hold the same opinion if we were discussing, say, the sovereignty of Ghana, or Lybia, or China - that the sovereignty of these states have a detrimental effect on the inhabitants of said country. Or, to take an example you often use, that of Jamaica, for instance. You have often commented upon the "broken" culture of Jamaica: should Jamaica's sovereignty be revoked, and the country revert back to Britain? Framing the question in such terms make more apparent the colonialist (or neo-con) undertone of your argument becomes much more apparent. The only reason you feel you can hold this opinion is precisely because of the status of the Natives as aboriginal people, that is: people with differenciated claims to sovereignty within a sovereign state.

How on earth can you take me to task for "implying" distasteful positions to you (surely a total straw-man - "perverse pleasure", really?), then in the very next paragraph you say ...

Might have misread the "aided by non-natives who feel like you do" as passive supporters of bantustans.

Our positions differ on how to achieve that, but there is no need to get all huffy and butt-hurt about the fact that we don't agree.

This is a topic close to me for personal reasons. I stand by what I wrote : imagine, for instance, an American describing Canadian culture, practices, systems and desireable reforms in a similar way as you did (and since you usually react when such comments are made on Languish, I would venture you are not so detached when it comes to Canadian identity). The patronizing tone, even if meant in the best intentions, would perhaps be more apparent, and I see nothing wrong in calling you out on it, as we did more directly on the case of the "broken culture" comment. A tone in argument also carries content.

[The Minsky Moment]

The sovereignty of native tribes is an artifact of history

I'll second Oexmelin here - sovereignty in general is a cultural artifact; and many actual soveregnties are historical detrius.  Europe for example is still littered with small sovereign states that have no rational raison d'etre other than to serve as tax havens or casino destinations (sound familiar?).  That doesn't change the fact that the people who live in these statelets have real legal rights and immunities vis-a-vis surrounding nations and thus extirpating their sovereign status involves eliminations of those rights and immunities.

That leaves you with having to argue that eliminating those rights and immunities -- those "bunch of entitlements" -- is really beneficial for them and so regardless of their view on it, they should just shut up and take it for their own good.

[Malthus]

But that answer is not the "obvious" one. You wouldn't hold the same opinion if we were discussing, say, the sovereignty of Ghana, or Lybia, or China - that the sovereignty of these states have a detrimental effect on the inhabitants of said country. Or, to take an example you often use, that of Jamaica, for instance. You have often commented upon the "broken" culture of Jamaica: should Jamaica's sovereignty be revoked, and the country revert back to Britain? Framing the question in such terms make more apparent the colonialist (or neo-con) undertone of your argument becomes much more apparent. The only reason you feel you can hold this opinion is precisely because of the status of the Natives as aboriginal people, that is: people with differenciated claims to sovereignty within a sovereign state.

Nonsense. You are moving the goalposts.

If I thought there was an viable alternative to nationalism, I'd be happy to abolish it wholesale - Canada included -  given the harm that national differences have historically caused.

Harm measured against benefits and reasonable alternatives. By that scale, "native sovereignty" is a game that hasn't been worth the candle - for natives.

Might have misread the "aided by non-natives who feel like you do" as passive supporters of bantustans.

Indeed you did.

What I actually said was:

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.

Nothing about "passive supporters of bantustans". Glad we could clear that up.

This is a topic close to me for personal reasons. I stand by what I wrote : imagine, for instance, an American describing Canadian culture, practices, systems and desireable reforms in a similar way as you did (and since you usually react when such comments are made on Languish, I would venture you are not so detached when it comes to Canadian identity). The patronizing tone, even if meant in the best intentions, would perhaps be more apparent, and I see nothing wrong in calling you out on it, as we did more directly on the case of the "broken culture" comment. A tone in argument also carries content.

I will not change my opinions because you find them emotionally upsetting or insulting, based on your subjective reading of their "tone". I will change my opinions if you convince me they are incorrect using logic and facts.

[Malthus]

I'll second Oexmelin here - sovereignty in general is a cultural artifact; and many actual soveregnties are historical detrius.  Europe for example is still littered with small sovereign states that have no rational raison d'etre other than to serve as tax havens or casino destinations (sound familiar?).  That doesn't change the fact that the people who live in these statelets have real legal rights and immunities vis-a-vis surrounding nations and thus extirpating their sovereign status involves eliminations of those rights and immunities.

The problem is partly that "sovereignty" in this case is a sham, lacking any of the usual indicia of "sovereignty" in the national sense, and partly that it is not in fact serving the best interests of those who are subject to it - for systemic reasons.

I see no good reason to preserve a system which has failed those who have to live under it in poverty, dependence and misery. I am also, contrary to what you have said, not claiming that the only solution would be to remove it regardless of the wishes of natives.

That leaves you with having to argue that eliminating those rights and immunities -- those "bunch of entitlements" -- is really beneficial for them and so regardless of their view on it, they should just shut up and take it for their own good.

I take it you have not read what I actually proposed above, then? My proposal would be to provide the "beneficiaries" of this system with the choice that they are presently lacking, not to remove it wholus-bolus.

[Oexmelin]

I will not change my opinions because you find them emotionally upsetting or insulting, based on your subjective reading of their "tone". I will change my opinions if you convince me they are incorrect using logic and facts.

My saying how an issue is dear to me has nothing to do with you changing your opinion, but it has one on explainaing to you way I might bring up style. Regardless, one can do a dispassionate semantic analysis of tone: I simply invited you to re-read, as a thought experiment, the manner in which you treated the topic. If you won't, tant pis.

As for "logic and facts" there are few ways in which one can disprove such blanket statements as "broken culture" and "I observe and I read anthropology" - unless one wants to start quoting stuff around. You start with a cluster of positions of principles (Natives are Canadians like others; Native sovereignty is an artefact) which need to be established; you then juxtapose them to personal understanding of Native identity as problematic (Native culture is an artificial relic; it attempts to recreate past lifestyle) and deduce individual behaviour based on those. Then, and only then (based on a certain common sociology of behaviour), you propose solutions in order to make things fit within the framework you established.

The problem is few of "us" have even begun to get to the "solution": we have questioned your framework. Each of these terms have been questioned: you have been asked to clarify what made Native culture broken, you were told sovereignty is an artefact in myriads of context and yet legitimate, you were told that your reading of Native culture was awfully narrow. Each of these has bounced off against a reiteration of a problem and a refusal to discuss the central issues of sovereignty or identity. So, what kinds of "facts" and "logic" would you actually value?

[Malthus]

My saying how an issue is dear to me has nothing to do with you changing your opinion, but it has one on explainaing to you way I might bring up style. Regardless, one can do a dispassionate semantic analysis of tone: I simply invited you to re-read, as a thought experiment, the manner in which you treated the topic. If you won't, tant pis.

You have given me no reason to do so.

As for "logic and facts" there are few ways in which one can disprove such blanket statements as "broken culture" and "I observe and I read anthropology" - unless one wants to start quoting stuff around. You start with a cluster of positions of principles (Natives are Canadians like others; Native sovereignty is an artefact) which need to be established; you then juxtapose them to personal understanding of Native identity as problematic (Native culture is an artificial relic; it attempts to recreate past lifestyle) and deduce individual behaviour based on those. Then, and only then (based on a certain common sociology of behaviour), you propose solutions in order to make things fit within the framework you established.

The problem is few of "us" have even begun to get to the "solution": we have questioned your framework. Each of these terms have been questioned: you have been asked to clarify what made Native culture broken, you were told sovereignty is an artefact in myriads of context and yet legitimate, you were told that your reading of Native culture was awfully narrow. Each of these has bounced off against a reiteration of a problem and a refusal to discuss the central issues of sovereignty or identity. So, what kinds of "facts" and "logic" would you actually value?

You mistake my starting position. My starting position is that there is, objectively speaking, a serious problem - that many people are living in poverty and misery with high levels of suicide, violence, and drug and alcohol dependency. I then proceed to wonder what could the cause of this problem be? I conclude that the [cause is a systemic one, and proceed from there.

Maybe I'm wrong in my analysis. I invite and welcome reasoned challenge to any or all of my ideas. This cherry-picking of stuff to be offended at gets old fast, though. 

As for a "refusal to discuss sovereignty or identity", I hardly think that my participation here has shown a "refusal" to discuss anything. Indeed, you have presumed to "call me out" (your words) for having the audactity to discuss these very things in a manner not to your liking!

As for "what kinds of "facts" and "logic" would you actually value?", what can I say? Produce some and find out. The onus surely is not on me to tell you what you should say.

[mongers]

Really these native people just need to pull up their socks, forget about the past and become good, clean living middle class people like the rest of us.

[Berkut]

Really these native people just need to pull up their socks, forget about the past and become good, clean living middle class people like the rest of us.

Yeah, that sure would suck for them.

[mongers]

Really these native people just need to pull up their socks, forget about the past and become good, clean living middle class people like the rest of us.

Yeah, that sure would suck for them.

Yeah, but who would you have to look down upon if they all did 'succeed' ? 

[Berkut]

Really these native people just need to pull up their socks, forget about the past and become good, clean living middle class people like the rest of us.

Yeah, that sure would suck for them.

Yeah, but who would you have to look down upon if they all did 'succeed' ? 

You would still be around, so I think I would be ok.

Besides, plenty already succeed. There are always some who don't though, not matter how much help they get. The world will always have people who are failures.

I don't know why some people insist on shoving entire ethnic groups into that role though. Can you enlighten us?

[mongers]

Really these native people just need to pull up their socks, forget about the past and become good, clean living middle class people like the rest of us.

Yeah, that sure would suck for them.

Yeah, but who would you have to look down upon if they all did 'succeed' ? 

You would still be around, so I think I would be ok.

Besides, plenty already succeed. There are always some who don't though, not matter how much help they get. The world will always have people who are failures.

I don't know why some people insist on shoving entire ethnic groups into that role though. Can you enlighten us?

You did that in your very first post in the thread:

I think the Gordian knot needs to be cut.

IMO, we should give up trying to even pretend that American Indian have some kind of distinctively valuable culture that can be protected. It cannot. It is gone, destroyed by history.

It does no favors to anyone to continue to pretend this is not the case, and great harm to many to leave them on "reservations" that amount to no more than irrelevant patches of land full of poverty and segregation.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest, probably the only working answers to some of the very real problems they face, are going to have to come from within the nations themselves; any 'ultimate solution' imposed on them from the outside is unlikely to succeed.

[Tonitrus]

What this thread/debate needs is an actual Indian. 

[Barrister]

So until and unless I hear native people say that reserves should be abolished, I won't support that position.

Wow, all this time you've been arguing with someone who wants to abolish reservations over the objections of Native Americans?

Who would that be? I have made no such proposal. I don't think anyone in this thread has.

What is your proposal then Berkut?

It seems to me though that Malthus does think that reservations need to be abolished.  Not that the communities themselves should be blown up of course, but that their special status as reservations should end.

[mongers]

What this thread/debate needs is an actual Indian. 

Come on that's just silly, they simply aren't educated enough to engage in the finer points of this debate about their future. 

[Berkut]

Really these native people just need to pull up their socks, forget about the past and become good, clean living middle class people like the rest of us.

Yeah, that sure would suck for them.

Yeah, but who would you have to look down upon if they all did 'succeed' ? 

You would still be around, so I think I would be ok.

Besides, plenty already succeed. There are always some who don't though, not matter how much help they get. The world will always have people who are failures.

I don't know why some people insist on shoving entire ethnic groups into that role though. Can you enlighten us?

You did that in your very first post in the thread:

I think the Gordian knot needs to be cut.

IMO, we should give up trying to even pretend that American Indian have some kind of distinctively valuable culture that can be protected. It cannot. It is gone, destroyed by history.

It does no favors to anyone to continue to pretend this is not the case, and great harm to many to leave them on "reservations" that amount to no more than irrelevant patches of land full of poverty and segregation.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest, probably the only working answers to some of the very real problems they face, are going to have to come from within the nations themselves; any 'ultimate solution' imposed on them from the outside is unlikely to succeed.

So somehow you get from my very first post that I think this particular ethnic group has gotten a shitty deal and needs to not have such a shitty deal that somehow I think they should...continue to have a shitty deal?

That is some impressive doublespeak right there mongers.

What is funny about your condescending little remarks is that you, of course, provide no actual solution yourself, or even any kind of theoretical solution.

My basic position that you so smugly denigrate is that yes, being "clean living middle class people like the rest of us" is in fact not such a terrible thing, especially compared to the alternative of being depressed, uneducated, and mired in poverty.

Yeah, I know, that is just so not cool to think that being a middle class people like the rest of us really isn't such a terrible fate.