The UN can go to hell.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/05/11551618-un-official-us-must-return-control-of-sacred-lands-to-native-americans?lite
QuoteUN official: US must return control of sacred lands to Native Americans
Ed Menard, Park Ranger
A United Nations official says sacred lands -- like the Black Hills of Dakota, which includes Mount Rushmore -- should be returned to Native American control.
By Reuters
The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous peoples caused by more than a century of oppression, including restoring control over lands Native Americans consider to be sacred, according to a U.N. human rights investigator.
James Anaya, the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, just completed a 12-day visit to the United States where he met with representatives of indigenous peoples in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. He also met with U.S. government officials.
"I have heard stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel because of the history of oppression they have faced," Anaya said in a statement issued by the U.N. human rights office in Geneva Friday.
That oppression, he said, has included the seizure of lands and resources, the removal of children from their families and communities, the loss of languages, violation of treaties, and brutality, all grounded in racial discrimination.
Anaya welcomed the U.S. decision to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and other steps the government has taken, but said more was needed.
'History of oppression'
His findings will be included in a final report submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council. While not binding, the recommendations carry moral weight that can influence governments.
"It is clear that this history does not just blemish the past, but translates into present day disadvantage for indigenous peoples in the country," Anaya said.
"There have still not been adequate measures of reconciliation to overcome the persistent legacies of the history of oppression, and that there is still much healing that needs to be done," he said.
Game hunt for sacred white buffaloes riles Native groups
In Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, where some Native Americans depend on hunting and fishing, Anaya said tribes face "ever-greater threats ... due to a growing surge of competing interests, and in some cases incompatible extractive activities, over these lands and resources."
"In Alaska, indigenous peoples complain about a complex and overly restrictive state regulatory apparatus that impedes their access to subsistence resources (fish and wildlife)," he said.
Native American tribe gets permit to kill bald eagles
Mining for natural resources in parts of the country has also caused serious problems for indigenous peoples.
"Past uncontrolled and irresponsible extractive activities, including uranium mining in the Southwest, have resulted in the contamination of indigenous peoples' water sources and other resources, and in numerous documented negative health effects among Native Americans," he said.
Mount Rushmore
He said indigenous peoples feel they have too little control over geographic regions considered sacred to them, like the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona and the Black Hills in South Dakota. Anaya suggested such lands should be returned to Native peoples.
"Securing the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands is of central importance to indigenous peoples' socioeconomic development, self-determination, and cultural integrity," Anaya said.
"Continued efforts to resolve, clarify, and strengthen the protection of indigenous lands, resources, and sacred sites should be made," he added.
How genocide wiped out a Native American population
Mount Rushmore, a popular tourist attraction, is located in the Black Hills, which the Sioux tribe consider to be sacred and have territorial claims to based on an 1868 treaty. Shortly after that treaty was signed, gold was discovered in the region. U.S. Congress eventually passed a law taking over the land.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that the seizure of the land was illegal and ordered the government to pay compensation. But the Sioux rejected the money and has continued to demand the return of the now public lands.
Anaya said he will make specific recommendations on these and other issues in a full report later this year.
By all means, please deploy Bangladeshi peacekeepers to enforce it.
Are these the same people who are jobless drunks?
I await Mart's report on who owns it and the impact on seasonal fruit crops.
We took it fair and square. Fuck off UN :angry:
Quote from: The Brain on May 05, 2012, 07:49:26 AM
Are these the same people who are jobless drunks?
The people at the UN Human Rights Office? Yes.
When applying for permits to drill in australia one of the steps in the procedure is to ensure that the land being drilled on is not sacred to the local aboriginals. Unfortunately the only way to find that out is to point to the map and ask if that bit of land is sacred. Invariably the answer is yes, that land is sacred but if you make a contribution to <insert tribal chief's favorite "charity" here> then we can com to an arrangement.
Eventually the practice was changed and rather than applying on a well by well basis the companies applied in bulk, proposing 20 or even 40 possible well sites in advance in a region and asking the local aborigies where in that area their sacred lands were, naturally the well sites overlapped pretty precisely with the aboriginal sacred lands. The farse of this was pretty much exposed when SANTOS (South Australia and Northern Territories Oil Services) applied for drilling permits in a region and found the application blocked by the local abos who claimed the sites coincidently overlapped with all their local sites in the region, SANTOS re-applied for the permit, only this time using the locations where they originally intended to drill rather than the dummy sites they initially proposed.
The law still applies but the mining and oil and gas companies operating on land in australia have delivered the local aboriginies one big fuck you with the support of the australian tax payers.
If this is actually implemented this will have none of the intended consequences and only create corruption within indian tribes.
The problem with savages is that they aren't very likable.
Quote from: The Brain on May 05, 2012, 11:21:26 AM
The problem with savages is that they aren't very likable.
:huh: I like you.
I don't see why you guys get so worked up, it's not set instone.
I mean the headline even stresses that it's UNofficial.
Whichever presidential candidate were to agree to the UN's requests would surely enjoy a surge in the polls.
I mean it is not like the Native Americans are forbidden to travel and do whatever sacred stuff they want at those places. Why do they need political control?
I have a lot of sympathy for the plight of our Native American communities, but alas, there is not a lot to be done about it.
I think our outdated reservation system could stand to be reformed...but even that is fraught with a lot of problems. For example, the Navajo nation makes up a good chunk of Arizona and New Mexico (and some of Utah/Colorado), and could easily be (in size) its own state. But that also would require a significant abrogation of the Constitution (I am sure none of those states would give up the land), and would also instantly become the least populous state, and likely the poorest. They have access to mineral resources, sure, but not the kind that would make them wealthy. The problem with most Native lands, from the Southwest to Alaska, is they are places that no one (besides them) wants to live, and are basically economically nonviable to support a modern lifestyle that people would demand. They might do fine if they still wore furs and ran dogsleds, but throw in our modern crap (and probably the greatest scourge alcohol), then things go to pot. Maybe it's a curse of our modern society...I wonder if it is just boredom...in no longer having to spend one's entire day trying to get food to survive, that spawns all the problems in, not just Native communities, but in other poor areas of well (urban ghettos, trailer parks).
And my home state, Washington, is littered with dozens of tiny reservations, most of which host a casino as the chief source of sustenance (besides seasonally selling fireworks, illegal everywhere else)...and their population is so tiny, it's amazing to think they could ever survive as a distinct society.
Giving back sacred lands might sound like a great idea, and might soothe their souls (and our bleeding hearts)...but in a practical sense, it does absolutely nothing for anybody, and doesn't solve any existing problems.
They already own it. They're American citizens.
I like the way the Indian tribes were treated here in Ohio. BITCH, GTFO. NO YOU CAN'T COME BACK AND BUILD CASINOS.
I piss on Tecumseh's birthplace.
The US courts ruled in the 70s that the Black Hills were illegally taken, and while there was no attempt (other than monetary compensation) to right this, the seizure of the region has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.
I worked for a time as a consultant with sacred lands in the Powder River Basin. Ten years ago there was a huge boom in gas wells there, and the government had to do land surveys in order to guarantee that no sacred lands were disturbed. While I was doing my research (and finding that quite a bit was not sacred in a way to block drilling), the BLM handed out 10,000 drilling permits - later deemed illegal, but oh well - and the lands were divided up. As you might guess, I was basically out of job as my contacts would no longer talk with me.
There is a reason, in part, why there is so much reticence to allowing permits for such things among tribes.
Oh, and for the record...the UN involvement with the Lakota dates back to the 1980 ruling that the Black Hills were illegally taken.
Quote from: PDH on May 05, 2012, 03:37:09 PM
Oh, and for the record...the UN involvement with the Lakota dates back to the 1980 ruling that the Black Hills were illegally taken.
What was the basis? Signed under duress? Not signed by a representative group?
I think it was illegal seizure (5th Amendment?).
Typical of PDH to just barge in and rain facts on everyone else's parade. :rolleyes:
It's hard to argue with Anaya. He wrote the book on indigenous peoples' rights. In Norway the question of remedying the dispossession of lands, resources and territories of the sami people has been partially solved by particular legislature. In the northernmost county of Finnmark land formerly owned by the State forest administration was passed to a new company created by a statute. Board of the company has members appointed by both the sami and the county boards of representatives. The law also regulates fishing and hunting in the area concerned.
Quote from: PDH on May 05, 2012, 03:28:28 PM
The US courts ruled in the 70s that the Black Hills were illegally taken, and while there was no attempt (other than monetary compensation) to right this, the seizure of the region has been ruled on by the Supreme Court.
I worked for a time as a consultant with sacred lands in the Powder River Basin. Ten years ago there was a huge boom in gas wells there, and the government had to do land surveys in order to guarantee that no sacred lands were disturbed. While I was doing my research (and finding that quite a bit was not sacred in a way to block drilling), the BLM handed out 10,000 drilling permits - later deemed illegal, but oh well - and the lands were divided up. As you might guess, I was basically out of job as my contacts would no longer talk with me.
There is a reason, in part, why there is so much reticence to allowing permits for such things among tribes.
Wait so they went ahead and divided the land before the required land surveys had happened? And who is the BLM?
I have a question: Why is one group of people more "native" or "indigenous" then another? I mean, I was born in this country, as was my father and his father before him.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2012, 04:16:29 PM
I have a question: Why is one group of people more "native" or "indigenous" then another? I mean, I was born in this country, as was my father and his father before him.
And here you have the reason nationalism and all that is so dangerous. Why indeed? Fortunately not a dangerous question in the US since the native American types are rather reasonable people.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2012, 04:16:29 PM
I have a question: Why is one group of people more "native" or "indigenous" then another? I mean, I was born in this country, as was my father and his father before him.
Martinez Cobo is the author of the unofficial definition that is said to have great practical meaning when indigenous peoples are defined. You can see more here
http://www.humanrights.is/the-human-rights-project/humanrightscasesandmaterials/humanrightsconceptsideasandfora/Undirflokkur/indigenouspeoples/
It is the link to pre-colonization era, non-dominance in relation to other populations and distinct culture and the will to maintain the way of life that are relevant factors.
Quote from: Brezel on May 05, 2012, 04:09:39 PM
It's hard to argue with Anaya. He wrote the book on indigenous peoples' rights. In Norway the question of remedying the dispossession of lands, resources and territories of the sami people has been partially solved by particular legislature. In the northernmost county of Finnmark land formerly owned by the State forest administration was passed to a new company created by a statute. Board of the company has members appointed by both the sami and the county boards of representatives. The law also regulates fishing and hunting in the area concerned.
It's easy to argue with Anaya. He's a Yavapai Indian from New Mexico from a tribe with 200 members, two casinos and a hotel.
His arguments are basically because of a history of oppression, imperialism, racism etc.etc. and them getting access to their special priveleges is disrupted by oppresive laws and regulations. I just don't think that problems caused by segregation from society will be solved by creating more segregation.
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2012, 04:33:15 PM
His arguments are basically because of a history of oppression, imperialism, racism etc.etc. and them getting access to their special priveleges is disrupted by oppresive laws and regulations. I just don't think that problems caused by segregation from society will be solved by creating more segregation.
The argument is that the history of oppression should lead to a remedy in the world today. The special privileges they claim are therefore grounded in rights that pre-existed the "western" civilizations.
Quote from: Brezel on May 05, 2012, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2012, 04:33:15 PM
His arguments are basically because of a history of oppression, imperialism, racism etc.etc. and them getting access to their special priveleges is disrupted by oppresive laws and regulations. I just don't think that problems caused by segregation from society will be solved by creating more segregation.
The argument is that the history of oppression should lead to a remedy in the world today. The special privileges they claim are therefore grounded in rights that pre-existed the "western" civilizations.
Yes, a post-modern blood-feud based on a principle of original sin is almost certainly the best way to create a well adjusted society and individual.
The thing is that constant harping about ancient insults has never produced peace and harmony in a society. Ignoring historical oppression is a universal in all cases of reconciliation in world history.
Quote from: Brezel on May 05, 2012, 04:40:26 PM
The argument is that the history of oppression should lead to a remedy in the world today. The special privileges they claim are therefore grounded in rights that pre-existed the "western" civilizations.
While I am certainly up for respecting any current arrangements with current existing native American tribes and trying to be as reasonable to them as we can this smells a bit like nationaist nonsense to me.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2012, 05:20:21 PM
While I am certainly up for respecting any current arrangements with current existing native American tribes and trying to be as reasonable to them as we can this smells a bit like nationaist nonsense to me.
Is American nationalism nonsense?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2012, 04:28:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2012, 04:15:59 PM
And who is the BLM?
Bureau of Land Management.
So the government ignored its own regulations? Was there corruption going on here?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 05, 2012, 05:21:04 PM
Is American nationalism nonsense?
Are you really asking me this? Of course it is. The principles we are supposed to be embracing are universal. But our nationalists think they only apply to Americans.
Quote from: Brezel on May 05, 2012, 04:23:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2012, 04:16:29 PM
I have a question: Why is one group of people more "native" or "indigenous" then another? I mean, I was born in this country, as was my father and his father before him.
Martinez Cobo is the author of the unofficial definition that is said to have great practical meaning when indigenous peoples are defined. You can see more here
http://www.humanrights.is/the-human-rights-project/humanrightscasesandmaterials/humanrightsconceptsideasandfora/Undirflokkur/indigenouspeoples/
It is the link to pre-colonization era, non-dominance in relation to other populations and distinct culture and the will to maintain the way of life that are relevant factors.
This definition has some problems. The natives usually took the land they were living on from someone else. Take for example the Indians who lived where I live now, the Osage. They didn't always live where here in Missouri. They used to live further East, but migrated West into Missouri and Kansas displacing the people who used to live here. I think this should count as an "Invasion" and "Colonization". Or the Inuit living in Southern Greenland. They moved into the area after the Europeans did and may have played a part in the destruction of the European settlements there. Later on Europeans recolonized this land. Who are the natives? The Europeans or the Inuit?
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2012, 05:21:14 PM
So the government ignored its own regulations? Was there corruption going on here?
Yes, the administration said sorry. Whoops.
Just three Native American reservations in Massacusetts. I think all are pretty small, one being just a few acres. One on Cape Cod and two in central Mass.
In 1675 there was a pretty brutal war in Massachusetts Colony, King Phillip's War it was called after the English name for a main Native Chief. Some Mass towns were detroyed, economy was ravaged, taking a long time to recover. The Natives were thoroughly defeated, though never to be a threat again. But it was a very nasty war, doing a lot of damage to the Massachusetts Colony.
Quote from: KRonn on May 05, 2012, 08:21:18 PM
Just three Native American reservations in Massacusetts. I think all are pretty small, one being just a few acres. One on Cape Cod and two in central Mass.
In 1675 there was a pretty brutal war in Massachusetts Colony, King Phillip's War it was called after the English name for a main Native Chief. Some Mass towns were detroyed, economy was ravaged, taking a long time to recover. The Natives were thoroughly defeated, though never to be a threat again. But it was a very nasty war, doing a lot of damage to the Massachusetts Colony.
There was a lot of fighting in Connecticut and Rhode Island as well.
Quote from: KRonn on May 05, 2012, 08:21:18 PM
Just three Native American reservations in Massacusetts. I think all are pretty small, one being just a few acres. One on Cape Cod and two in central Mass.
In 1675 there was a pretty brutal war in Massachusetts Colony, King Phillip's War it was called after the English name for a main Native Chief. Some Mass towns were detroyed, economy was ravaged, taking a long time to recover. The Natives were thoroughly defeated, though never to be a threat again. But it was a very nasty war, doing a lot of damage to the Massachusetts Colony.
Yeah, one of those tribes here in Mass has a lot of members, most of whom have no Indian blood. But because the laws say the tribe can decide how much of a connection their members need to qualify anybody with a great-great-great-grandparent who was half Native American can claim membership in a tribe and try to get a piece of the casino pie. Or use it to get Affirmative Action help in the job hunt like Liz Warren.
Darth, I'm not sure but I think that's the tibes of the Mashpee reservation on the Cape that has all the members. They've been trying to open a casino too. Not sure if they'll be able to, once the State govt decides whether to allow casinos or not.
A sacred white buffalo of the Lakota Sioux was mutilated :(
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/06/11560167-white-buffalo-sacred-to-lakota-sioux-found-mutilated?lite
:(
Also: It's a bison, not a buffalo.
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
Quote from: Brezel on May 05, 2012, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2012, 04:33:15 PM
His arguments are basically because of a history of oppression, imperialism, racism etc.etc. and them getting access to their special priveleges is disrupted by oppresive laws and regulations. I just don't think that problems caused by segregation from society will be solved by creating more segregation.
The argument is that the history of oppression should lead to a remedy in the world today. The special privileges they claim are therefore grounded in rights that pre-existed the "western" civilizations.
Yes, a post-modern blood-feud based on a principle of original sin is almost certainly the best way to create a well adjusted society and individual.
The thing is that constant harping about ancient insults has never produced peace and harmony in a society. Ignoring historical oppression is a universal in all cases of reconciliation in world history.
The trouble is we're not talking about ancient history. Aboriginal land theft has occurred within the last hundred years. What PDH describes is within the last 30 years.
I'm not first nations. I understand the frustration that certain oil and gas / mining companies have dealing with very unclear first nations title to the land. Their frustration is not without some merit.
However - simply saying that first nations should just "suck it up" and dismiss it as "ancient history" is just not right either.
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 01:16:30 AM
The trouble is we're not talking about ancient history. Aboriginal land theft has occurred within the last hundred years. What PDH describes is within the last 30 years.
Yes, and that can be dealt with by the law without giving indian tribes magical rights to real estate that is not their property.
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 01:16:30 AM
I'm not first nations. I understand the frustration that certain oil and gas / mining companies have dealing with very unclear first nations title to the land. Their frustration is not without some merit.
It is unclear because of the magical claim to spiritual rights (yes rights not rites) over land. These are rights claimed by heredity, that is just wrong imho.
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 01:16:30 AM
However - simply saying that first nations should just "suck it up" and dismiss it as "ancient history" is just not right either.
I think they should suck it up behave as citizens and sue on the merits of their case; not claim that becuase great great granddaddy was at little big horn I get a say in what farmer bob does with his land.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2012, 05:20:21 PM
While I am certainly up for respecting any current arrangements with current existing native American tribes and trying to be as reasonable to them as we can this smells a bit like nationaist nonsense to me.
It is hardly nonsense that the indigenous peoples as "peoples" are nowadays recognized to be subjects of self-determination. Land rights are actual not only because of the historical background and regardless who one thinks should have the current title to the land under domestic law. Native culture is often linked to certain land and its utilization in traditional ways. It is in order to protect the development of these cultures that such rights should be recognized. Property rights can be a tool to this. The remedy ought to be a context-specific. I understand the monetary compensation offered in case of Black Hills is contentious, especially as these lands are fairly recently taken and
the amount awarded remains to be claimed.
QuoteThis definition has some problems. The natives usually took the land they were living on from someone else. Take for example the Indians who lived where I live now, the Osage. They didn't always live where here in Missouri. They used to live further East, but migrated West into Missouri and Kansas displacing the people who used to live here. I think this should count as an "Invasion" and "Colonization". Or the Inuit living in Southern Greenland. They moved into the area after the Europeans did and may have played a part in the destruction of the European settlements there. Later on Europeans recolonized this land. Who are the natives? The Europeans or the Inuit?
This argument has some weight, no doubt. Often it is the native cultures that nowadays are under threat and have faced greater burden.
By the way, are you new Brezel?
He has posts that are three years old.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 06, 2012, 05:59:13 AM
By the way, are you new Brezel?
No I have been around since the discussion moved here from paradox forums in what 2006, I still lurk on weekly basis.
Always nice to meet a fan. :)
Quote from: Viking on May 06, 2012, 05:19:14 AM
Yes, and that can be dealt with by the law without giving indian tribes magical rights to real estate that is not their property.
But often the land is theirs through treaty rights. Nothing magical about it. The size of this land was (often unilaterally) reduced - as the case of the Black Hills - and the courts have often recognized that this was illegal. Following this recognition of prior legal basis to the land that was taken (and neither compensated nor returned), at least some involvement is allowed with sacred sites.
It is all within the legal systems of the last 150 years, it was just later recognized as not entirely constitutional in the case of the American Indian tribes.
Quote from: PDH on May 06, 2012, 07:28:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 06, 2012, 05:19:14 AM
Yes, and that can be dealt with by the law without giving indian tribes magical rights to real estate that is not their property.
But often the land is theirs through treaty rights. Nothing magical about it. The size of this land was (often unilaterally) reduced - as the case of the Black Hills - and the courts have often recognized that this was illegal. Following this recognition of prior legal basis to the land that was taken (and neither compensated nor returned), at least some involvement is allowed with sacred sites.
It is all within the legal systems of the last 150 years, it was just later recognized as not entirely constitutional in the case of the American Indian tribes.
And that is fine. If the US government breaks the treaty bully to the tribe to get their pound of flesh. Just as it is unfair for the government to usurp powers the same applies to the tribe.
Just order some more blankets. FFS.
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 think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.
But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PMBut I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".
I'm sure most non-Native Americans in the US would agree. Not sure about how Native Americans will feel about it, however.
Oddly enough, Berk, that is about the language behind the Dawes Act supporters.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
I think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.
But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".
Ooooh, I don't know about that... :unsure: :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".
Why do you hate organized crime? :(
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
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 think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.
But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".
The thing is - that would of course be the most convenient thing for everyone who isn't an Indian.
Strange the Indians themselves think differently. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 06:32:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
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 think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.
But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".
The thing is - that would of course be the most convenient thing for everyone who isn't an Indian.
Strange the Indians themselves think differently. :hmm:
Actually, the reason *I* think that way is 100% because I think the current system screws the current Indians as individuals.
Indians living on reservations are consistently poorer, less well educated, and with a lower standard of living than the average American.
They are not better off because their "leaders" want them to pretend to preserve a culture that no longer exists.
Hmm, I would argue that their culture exists in the same way that Amish culture manages to persist.
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2012, 02:02:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PMBut I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".
I'm sure most non-Native Americans in the US would agree. Not sure about how Native Americans will feel about it, however.
Two things:
1. I get your point - but so what? I am sure if I asked most any group if they would like "special" privileges, the majority would say "Sure, that would be great!". That doesn't make it a good idea though.
2. The US political ideal is based on equality, and specifically NOT on the establishment of privileged minorities, no matter what the justification for that privilege. I get that Native Americans feel a special claim on land, and recognize the historical validity of those claims. But that is the thing - the validity is completely historical, and means very little in the current context of modern society.
3. Finally, I argue that in fact the practical result of these special arrangement have had a significant net harmful effect on the people they are supposed to help, and that is not primarily the result of not giving them enough special privileges, it is because by creating a separate society within the context of the overall US society, it has created a second class citizen in many Native Americans. We are not doing them any favors.
I think the primary motivation at this point is mostly about pride - the demand that they continue to be recognized as "special". That is understandable, but overall harmful, and in a directly measurable manner.
Native American culture is gone. It cannot be preserved. There is no American outback where they can go and pretend like they are living in a pre-industrialzied society, nor would they want to if there was - so what is the point of these "sovereign nations"? What are they getting out of it, other than the facade of an independent culture, or the fake independent political identity that is 100% dependent on the US?
None of this will happen of course, at least not anymore so than it has already (and is continuing on the individual level as those with ambition simply leave the reservation system and integrate themselves), because our own culture has this persistent myth that we can somehow feel less guilty about our historical sins if we try to pay off the descendants of those our descendants wronged.
Some native American cultures are gone, some are not. The Navajo, Zuni, and Hopi cultures are alive and well, though numerous members of those tribes have moved away and integrated into general American culture. Not sure about others.
Having said that, your idea could still be implemented, in a modified form: the reservations could, indeed, be divided, and those who want to donate their land to a "homeland" and essentially join a commune of sorts could do so. Others would take their land and live as individuals. In any case, the commune would exist as any other commune, with no special political or legal powers.
There would have to be some transition funding to pay for the transaction costs, and these would still be impoverished communities, but at least you'd get the fucking tribal politics out of the way.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 06:48:35 PM
What are they getting out of it, other than the facade of an independent culture, or the fake independent political identity that is 100% dependent on the US?
They are getting some local self-government out of it. Of course, they could have that without having special privileges that let them do things that other local governments can't do.
Quote from: dps on May 06, 2012, 07:37:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 06:48:35 PM
What are they getting out of it, other than the facade of an independent culture, or the fake independent political identity that is 100% dependent on the US?
They are getting some local self-government out of it. Of course, they could have that without having special privileges that let them do things that other local governments can't do.
And lots and lots of casino money.
It would be interesting to know if casino money had any impact on drunkenness.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
Hmm, I would argue that their culture exists in the same way that Amish culture manages to persist.
I would not agree with that at all - Amish culture works. Does Native American culture?
The Amish have a perfectly viable and working social, poltiical, and economic system that functions quite well within the overall US culture. How is that comparable to Native American culture, which is clearly NOT functional in any meaningful sense?
The Amish farm, produce goods, engage in commerce, vote, raise families, work, are productive, etc., etc.
The Native Americans who live on reservations do not engage in activities that are culturally meaningful in the sense that it is preserving some distinct culture that is actually functional separate from the overall culture they exist in, or even as a subset of that culture.
I don't think the US should pass any laws taking away reservations or anything like that, but I do think it the right direction is to convince as many Native Americans as possible that their best option is to integrate into US society as a distinct cultural and ethnic group that functions as a part of the whole, like any other ethnic group in America.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
Hmm, I would argue that their culture exists in the same way that Amish culture manages to persist.
This is an interesting comparison. I never thought about it. Of course the Amish don't live on lousy land.
These days, having sovereign Indian lands in US is like having sovereign Babylonian lands in Iraq.
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2012, 07:28:13 PM
Some native American cultures are gone, some are not. The Navajo, Zuni, and Hopi cultures are alive and well, though numerous members of those tribes have moved away and integrated into general American culture. Not sure about others.
I think this is true to the extent that there is a Jewish American culture, or a Hispanic culture within America, or whatever. They are certainly their, have great value, but they don't pretend to exist independent of the more generic US culture - rather they are a unique part of the whole. Even the Amish, as someone else mentioned, while being very distinct, make no pretensions to being culturally independent.
What I mean by a dead culture that they are simply pretending to perpetuate is this idea that Native American culture exists within the geographical and political bounds of the US, but is somehow not actually a part of US culture, but rather is independent of it - like if only the US would do right by the Native Americans, they could go back to hunting buffalo and living their pre-colonization culture, or some facimile thereof that is independent of the US political/economic/social/cultural system.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 06:35:46 PM
Actually, the reason *I* think that way is 100% because I think the current system screws the current Indians as individuals.
Indians living on reservations are consistently poorer, less well educated, and with a lower standard of living than the average American.
They are not better off because their "leaders" want them to pretend to preserve a culture that no longer exists.
Sometimes nationalism causes people to make bad decisions.
Not all reservations are Pine Ridge.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 06:35:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 06:32:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
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 think the goal at this point should be complete political integration with the US. I don't mind if there is a one time monetary compensation or even land grants to individuals to happen as part of that integration. In other words, if the way forward is to take reservation X currently held by some tribe with Y members, then divide X into Y parcels and give each member ownership over it as private individuals to do with as they please. If they want to keep it in their family, they are free to do so.
But I don't think it serves any greater purpose to continue the charade of "sovereign nations".
The thing is - that would of course be the most convenient thing for everyone who isn't an Indian.
Strange the Indians themselves think differently. :hmm:
Actually, the reason *I* think that way is 100% because I think the current system screws the current Indians as individuals.
Indians living on reservations are consistently poorer, less well educated, and with a lower standard of living than the average American.
They are not better off because their "leaders" want them to pretend to preserve a culture that no longer exists.
Indians are well aware of this.
Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.
:hmm:
Look - I do not want to pretend I have all the answers. I most certainly do not.
Yet, having spent a decade dealing with first nations I can tell you that saying "well the answer to the Indian problem is we should turn them into non-Indians" is the same, failed, answer that we as white Europeans have been saying for literally centuries. And it didn't work for all those centuries, and completely ignores what Indian themselves want.
The answer of "we should treat them honestly, listen to their asperations, and try to live up to our promises to them" is a pretty novel one, having only been tried for the last 30 years or so. And clearly it doesn't have all the answers either, given the continuing problems in Indian communities. But al least it doesn't have the guaranteed track record of futility that assimilation does.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 06:48:35 PM
Native American culture is gone. It cannot be preserved. There is no American outback where they can go and pretend like they are living in a pre-industrialzied society, nor would they want to if there was - so what is the point of these "sovereign nations"? What are they getting out of it, other than the facade of an independent culture, or the fake independent political identity that is 100% dependent on the US?
None of this will happen of course, at least not anymore so than it has already (and is continuing on the individual level as those with ambition simply leave the reservation system and integrate themselves), because our own culture has this persistent myth that we can somehow feel less guilty about our historical sins if we try to pay off the descendants of those our descendants wronged.
In what way is Native American culture "gone"? I'll give you that there are certain reservations, particularily on the east coast, where you'd have a hard time finding any difference between the on-reserve and off-reserve populations.
But in Alberta, Manitoba and Yukon (the places I've lived) I can tell you that even when you have side-by-side aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities, the culture is completely different between them. To be a Cree-Canadian is substantially different than being a Ukrainian-Canadian.
No Native wants to live their life as if trapped in some cultural amber - never changing. They want to adapt their culture to change with the times. Much as it has changed in what it means to be English, or Swedish, or Japanese has changed over the centuries while still maintaining an ongoing cultural identity, they want to feel the same.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 08:17:19 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
Hmm, I would argue that their culture exists in the same way that Amish culture manages to persist.
I would not agree with that at all - Amish culture works. Does Native American culture?
Is there some mutually recognizable definition on what a "working" culture means?
We could test Berkut or Grumbler's ideas on another historical anachronism, like Rhode Island. If it works, it should convince Indians to get on with the scheme.
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.
Fine. All I ask is that the government stop subsidizing their separateness.
Some of the way Canada has dealt with the First Nations, notably in B.C, the Nisga'a for example, seem to work cordially for both sides...and that agreement was only concluded in 2000. But that is also an area that hadn't really been trampled by white settlers.
There are some tribes/reservations in the U.S. that I think could persist(even if not too well), the Navajo for example...but there are also countless tiny reservations that are simply not viable/sustainable, in terms of economics and (probably) population. But also, our history was ignoring the treaties we signed, and shoving/squeezing them onto nonviable lands. Also, some of the local tribal politics approach a criminal level that would not be tolerated anywhere else...I thank casinos for this, in large part...but then, I also recognize that without the casinos, most of these tribes would already be gone, or far worse off.
Interestingly, when I traveled through the Navajo lands, there were no casinos(granted it would be rather remote to capture that market), and alcohol was officially illegal (not sure how successful that law really is though).
But on the other hand, doing what would be the "just" thing in most of these cases would simply be bad for the U.S. as a whole. But, being that treaties that the U.S. signs are supposed to have Constitutional force, is doing the right thing just saying "fuck 'em"?
I don't now if Berkut's solution would be the right one...but then I think all that exist are a myriad of bad (for somebody) options.
Also, interesting, as far as I am aware, there are no reservations in Alaska (with one of the largest native populations)...but there is a confusing system of Native Corporations that seem to control a series of economic interests in the Alaska bush.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 06, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.
Fine. All I ask is that the government stop subsidizing their separateness.
I would tend to agree, except that in many cases in the U.S., I believe subsidies are actually spelled out in the treaties we signed with them.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 06, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.
Fine. All I ask is that the government stop subsidizing their separateness.
Except that, in certain circumstances, we promised them we would subsidize them (health and education come to mind).
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
I can tell you that saying "well the answer to the Indian problem is we should turn them into non-Indians" is the same, failed, answer that we as white Europeans have been saying for literally centuries. And it didn't work for all those centuries, and completely ignores what Indian themselves want.
Stands With Legal Gowns speaks the truth. Berkut talks of crazy talk, he has no medicine.
Quote from: PDH on May 06, 2012, 07:28:24 AM
But often the land is theirs through treaty rights. Nothing magical about it. The size of this land was (often unilaterally) reduced - as the case of the Black Hills - and the courts have often recognized that this was illegal. Following this recognition of prior legal basis to the land that was taken (and neither compensated nor returned), at least some involvement is allowed with sacred sites.
It is all within the legal systems of the last 150 years, it was just later recognized as not entirely constitutional in the case of the American Indian tribes.
Yeah I do not think it is too much to ask to abide by our treaty obligations.
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 06, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.
Fine. All I ask is that the government stop subsidizing their separateness.
Except that, in certain circumstances, we promised them we would subsidize them (health and education come to mind).
Like it would be the first time we broke our promises :rolleyes:
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2012, 10:45:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 06, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.
Fine. All I ask is that the government stop subsidizing their separateness.
Except that, in certain circumstances, we promised them we would subsidize them (health and education come to mind).
Like it would be the first time we broke our promises :rolleyes:
"And the red man is right, to expect a little from you
Promise and then follow through, America" :mad:
LULZ, I GOT IT IN FIRST
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_gZQ442MKawo%2FSm_b4HGWQHI%2FAAAAAAAAEg4%2FFNwBwNVaSvo%2Fs400%2Fcryingindian.jpg&hash=e6703d05f27e96d0299a31a729562bff0de639c4)
Him out of Firewater.
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
The thing is that constant harping about ancient insults has never produced peace and harmony in a society. Ignoring historical oppression is a universal in all cases of reconciliation in world history.
but something has to be given in return. The Jews ignored Germany's oppression after several payments to Israel and after the international community sorta agreed to let them occupy Palestine and create their own Jewish state.
just like the Allies forgave Germany after the Nazis were hanged. Or just like we started talking with Russia once it became Russia again.
But would you suggest we should make peace right now with Iran and North Korea, let North Korea reunite with South Korea (even if the South doesn't want to)?
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 06, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.
Fine. All I ask is that the government stop subsidizing their separateness.
Except that, in certain circumstances, we promised them we would subsidize them (health and education come to mind).
And I am not arguing that we should stop doing so - far from it.
I am arguing that the system as it stands now in the US (and I should note that I am speaking generally, I am sure there are viable exceptions (Eskimos? for example) to the general observation) sucks for the very people it is supposed to be "protecting".
I don't think we should abrgate any treaties - I do think the general policy goal should be one that recognizes that the long term solution is to continue to integrate Native Americans into US society directly. I disagree that this has not worked - that is patently false, I would suspect that the majority of Native Americans in the US do not live on reservations, for example, and are in fact just typical Americans, like Chinese Americans, or German Americans, or whatever. I am not entirely sure about that, but I supect it is the case. The idea that integration does not work is demonstrably not true.
Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2012, 09:08:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 05, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
The thing is that constant harping about ancient insults has never produced peace and harmony in a society. Ignoring historical oppression is a universal in all cases of reconciliation in world history.
but something has to be given in return. The Jews ignored Germany's oppression after several payments to Israel and after the international community sorta agreed to let them occupy Palestine and create their own Jewish state.
just like the Allies forgave Germany after the Nazis were hanged. Or just like we started talking with Russia once it became Russia again.
But would you suggest we should make peace right now with Iran and North Korea, let North Korea reunite with South Korea (even if the South doesn't want to)?
I'm by no mean suggesting that present oppression should be ignored but rather that focussing on previous oppression rather than todays conditions when dealing with the issues of today will only be harmful. You first end the conflict and then you stop letting the dead conflict rule your life. Remember and forgive if you will.
As long as any action is predicated on "we've figured out how to solve your problems, here's what we're going to do..." without legitimate consultation with and popular support from the various Native American Nations, then it is bound to fail and cause misery IMO.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 06, 2012, 09:55:23 PM
We could test Berkut or Grumbler's ideas on another historical anachronism, like Rhode Island. If it works, it should convince Indians to get on with the scheme.
I didn't think RI was a historical anachronism?
And that is the crux of my point as well - current conditions for Native Americans in the USA are a mess *because* we insist on looking at them in the context of a history that is gone.
Current Native Americans are not oppressed...except in the practical sense that they are poor, poorly educated, and stuck on reservations that do not work to provide them with an equivalent lifestyle of other Americans because of this insistence that we should maintain this fiction of "sovereign nations".
My entire point is that the "solution" those that say "Hey, we don't want to be integrated into American society! We want our own, Native American society and culture that is independent of the US, and should be created as a result of the treaties you guys kept making and breaking!" are looking for is not possible. It cannot happen.
Continuing to pretend that it can happen when it cannot is the reason we still have Native Americans living on crappy reservations. Note that there are also plenty of Native Americans in the US who are living off the reservations as US citizens. I would argue that they are not terribly oppressed such that having them live on reservations is a needed solution to their dire circumstances.
I get the objection - what about the people who do NOT want to be just another American citizen?
My answer: Sorry. But the alternative you are looking for is simply not possible in the continental US. Maybe it is in Canada, or Australia, or Alaska. But it isn't possible here, even if the US government would stop screwing them over by not honoring old treaties.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2012, 10:08:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
I can tell you that saying "well the answer to the Indian problem is we should turn them into non-Indians" is the same, failed, answer that we as white Europeans have been saying for literally centuries. And it didn't work for all those centuries, and completely ignores what Indian themselves want.
Stands With Legal Gowns speaks the truth. Berkut talks of crazy talk, he has no medicine.
Typically Berkut is all for individualism. I guess just not for other people.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2012, 10:00:41 AM
As long as any action is predicated on "we've figured out how to solve your problems, here's what we're going to do..." without legitimate consultation with and popular support from the various Native American Nations, then it is bound to fail and cause misery IMO.
Yes, this is most certainly true.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2012, 10:13:52 AM
Current Native Americans are not oppressed...except in the practical sense that they are poor, poorly educated, and stuck on reservations that do not work to provide them with an equivalent lifestyle of other Americans because of this insistence that we should maintain this fiction of "sovereign nations".
but how did they came to that? This is what matters, if you want to correct the situation. Ignoring how you arrive at a particular situation today is asking for disaster while trying to find a solution.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2012, 10:00:41 AM
As long as any action is predicated on "we've figured out how to solve your problems, here's what we're going to do..." without legitimate consultation with and popular support from the various Native American Nations, then it is bound to fail and cause misery IMO.
True. That's been one of the big problems in the past; tribal leadership that lacks legitimate consultation with, and popular support from, their various Native American Nations, and thus was (and is) bound to fail and has caused misery.
The myth that Native American Nations still exist per se is also the problem, as is the better-known and quite shameful problem that the BIA has traditionally been the most corrupt and inefficient US government agency, even when the US was honestly trying to meet its treaty obligations.
Well except for the Navy.
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2012, 02:14:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2012, 10:00:41 AM
As long as any action is predicated on "we've figured out how to solve your problems, here's what we're going to do..." without legitimate consultation with and popular support from the various Native American Nations, then it is bound to fail and cause misery IMO.
True. That's been one of the big problems in the past; tribal leadership that lacks legitimate consultation with, and popular support from, their various Native American Nations, and thus was (and is) bound to fail and has caused misery.
The myth that Native American Nations still exist per se is also the problem, as is the better-known and quite shameful problem that the BIA has traditionally been the most corrupt and inefficient US government agency, even when the US was honestly trying to meet its treaty obligations.
Doesn't help that BIA falls under the DOI, consistently stuffed with political appointees.
Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2012, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2012, 10:13:52 AM
Current Native Americans are not oppressed...except in the practical sense that they are poor, poorly educated, and stuck on reservations that do not work to provide them with an equivalent lifestyle of other Americans because of this insistence that we should maintain this fiction of "sovereign nations".
but how did they came to that? This is what matters, if you want to correct the situation. Ignoring how you arrive at a particular situation today is asking for disaster while trying to find a solution.
I disagree, in this case.
We all know how "they" came to that - what is the better question is how to get them out of it.
And the answer is pretty obvious - the same way all the Native Americans who are NOT living in poverty on a reservation got out of it.
If there is an answer that can actually preserve their "culture" in some meaningful fashion while keeping them living on reservations, I am all ears, but what *relevant* history tells us is that that has been an abject failure at providing Native Americans with a decent standard of living.
How did we come to the understanding that their culture is a "failure"?
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2012, 10:00:33 PM
Interestingly, when I traveled through the Navajo lands, there were no casinos
Not sure how it is now, but as I understand it, traditionally the Navajo economy was based on stealing stuff from the Hopi.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:47:56 PM
How did we come to the understanding that their culture is a "failure"?
That's not what he said. He said preserving the reservations system has been a failure. Unless Indian culture = reservations, you misread him.
Not that I would really argue with the contention that American Indian culture is a failure.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2012, 10:13:52 AM
And that is the crux of my point as well - current conditions for Native Americans in the USA are a mess *because* we insist on looking at them in the context of a history that is gone.
Current Native Americans are not oppressed...except in the practical sense that they are poor, poorly educated, and stuck on reservations that do not work to provide them with an equivalent lifestyle of other Americans because of this insistence that we should maintain this fiction of "sovereign nations".
My entire point is that the "solution" those that say "Hey, we don't want to be integrated into American society! We want our own, Native American society and culture that is independent of the US, and should be created as a result of the treaties you guys kept making and breaking!" are looking for is not possible. It cannot happen.
What is the basis of your belief that having self-governing first nation communities "cannot happen"?
Berkut is a "pick themselves up by their own moccasins" kind of guy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 04:12:58 PM
Berkut is a "pick themselves up by their own moccasins" kind of guy.
I don't think you could have more thoroughly missed my point if you had tried.
Of course, I am also pretty sure you did in fact try...
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2012, 09:12:38 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 06, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
Yet they do not wish to be assimilated into the wider American (or Canadian) culture, even if that means they are poorer and have a lower standard of living.
Fine. All I ask is that the government stop subsidizing their separateness.
Except that, in certain circumstances, we promised them we would subsidize them (health and education come to mind).
And I am not arguing that we should stop doing so - far from it.
I am arguing that the system as it stands now in the US (and I should note that I am speaking generally, I am sure there are viable exceptions (Eskimos? for example) to the general observation) sucks for the very people it is supposed to be "protecting".
I don't think we should abrgate any treaties - I do think the general policy goal should be one that recognizes that the long term solution is to continue to integrate Native Americans into US society directly. I disagree that this has not worked - that is patently false, I would suspect that the majority of Native Americans in the US do not live on reservations, for example, and are in fact just typical Americans, like Chinese Americans, or German Americans, or whatever. I am not entirely sure about that, but I supect it is the case. The idea that integration does not work is demonstrably not true.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2012, 04:50:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2012, 04:32:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 04:12:58 PM
Berkut is a "pick themselves up by their own moccasins" kind of guy.
I don't think you could have more thoroughly missed my point if you had tried.
Of course, I am also pretty sure you did in fact try...
QuoteWe all know how "they" came to that - what is the better question is how to get them out of it.
And the answer is pretty obvious - the same way all the Native Americans who are NOT living in poverty on a reservation got out of it.
Sounds to me you're equating them with ghetto-marooned Dazzling Urbanites, Clarence. If only they
applied themselves, etc.
If the gubbermint is gonna give out land, I want to pick which piece I get.
Nope, not the case at all - for them, or for the your dazzling urbanites.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 02:27:17 PM
Doesn't help that BIA falls under the DOI, consistently stuffed with political appointees.
I imagine it also doesn't help much that Indians get a hiring preference at BIA.
Does this mean the UN will now endorse the Zionist claim to the Solomonic Kingdom?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2012, 05:55:56 PM
Does this mean the UN will now endorse the Zionist claim to the Solomonic Kingdom?
Nah, the UN votes down anything Jew-related.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 02:27:17 PM
Doesn't help that BIA falls under the DOI, consistently stuffed with political appointees.
I imagine it also doesn't help much that Indians get a hiring preference at BIA.
Not real Indians, though. Liberal ivy league elitist Indians. Probably Muslims, too. With no birth certificates.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2012, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:47:56 PM
How did we come to the understanding that their culture is a "failure"?
That's not what he said. He said preserving the reservations system has been a failure. Unless Indian culture = reservations, you misread him.
Not that I would really argue with the contention that American Indian culture is a failure.
QuoteI would not agree with that at all - Amish culture works. Does Native American culture?
The Amish have a perfectly viable and working social, poltiical, and economic system that functions quite well within the overall US culture. How is that comparable to Native American culture, which is clearly NOT functional in any meaningful sense?
The Amish farm, produce goods, engage in commerce, vote, raise families, work, are productive, etc., etc.
The Native Americans who live on reservations do not engage in activities that are culturally meaningful in the sense that it is preserving some distinct culture that is actually functional separate from the overall culture they exist in, or even as a subset of that culture.
I don't think the US should pass any laws taking away reservations or anything like that, but I do think it the right direction is to convince as many Native Americans as possible that their best option is to integrate into US society as a distinct cultural and ethnic group that functions as a part of the whole, like any other ethnic group in America.
I'm getting the impression he's saying their culture has been a failure.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2012, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:47:56 PM
How did we come to the understanding that their culture is a "failure"?
That's not what he said. He said preserving the reservations system has been a failure. Unless Indian culture = reservations, you misread him.
Not that I would really argue with the contention that American Indian culture is a failure.
QuoteI would not agree with that at all - Amish culture works. Does Native American culture?
The Amish have a perfectly viable and working social, poltiical, and economic system that functions quite well within the overall US culture. How is that comparable to Native American culture, which is clearly NOT functional in any meaningful sense?
The Amish farm, produce goods, engage in commerce, vote, raise families, work, are productive, etc., etc.
The Native Americans who live on reservations do not engage in activities that are culturally meaningful in the sense that it is preserving some distinct culture that is actually functional separate from the overall culture they exist in, or even as a subset of that culture.
I don't think the US should pass any laws taking away reservations or anything like that, but I do think it the right direction is to convince as many Native Americans as possible that their best option is to integrate into US society as a distinct cultural and ethnic group that functions as a part of the whole, like any other ethnic group in America.
I'm getting the impression he's saying their culture has been a failure.
Sure it does..... :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommonsenseconspiracy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fnative-american-poverty.jpg&hash=1a18ca3a85bb9dc401f58d7564d161bec4e00b3e)
Berkut thinks if only they applied themselves, they wouldn't have to live like that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:47:10 PM
Berkut thinks if only they applied themselves, they wouldn't have to live like that.
If they didn't live on a reservation, they wouldn't have to live like that.
So that is where my dell boxes go to.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:47:56 PM
How did we come to the understanding that their culture is a "failure"?
Any civilization that doesn't have horseback riding researched by 1500 AD has to rank as a failure.
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:47:10 PM
Berkut thinks if only they applied themselves, they wouldn't have to live like that.
If they didn't live on a reservation, they wouldn't have to live like that.
Yes, it's not like they were, you know, ever forced to live there.
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2012, 09:51:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2012, 02:47:56 PM
How did we come to the understanding that their culture is a "failure"?
Any civilization that doesn't have horseback riding researched by 1500 AD has to rank as a failure.
Their continent didn't have the resource available. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:51:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:47:10 PM
Berkut thinks if only they applied themselves, they wouldn't have to live like that.
If they didn't live on a reservation, they wouldn't have to live like that.
Yes, it's not like they were, you know, ever forced to live there.
No, they probably weren't. Are your reservations still run like concentration camps?
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 09:55:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:51:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:47:10 PM
Berkut thinks if only they applied themselves, they wouldn't have to live like that.
If they didn't live on a reservation, they wouldn't have to live like that.
Yes, it's not like they were, you know, ever forced to live there.
No, they probably weren't. Are your reservations still run like concentration camps?
More like Vietnamese POW camps; no fences, because you'll die out in the surrounding wilderness.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 06, 2012, 09:55:23 PM
We could test Berkut or Grumbler's ideas on another historical anachronism, like Rhode Island. If it works, it should convince Indians to get on with the scheme.
What the fuck is this bullshit!?
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 09:55:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:51:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:47:10 PM
Berkut thinks if only they applied themselves, they wouldn't have to live like that.
If they didn't live on a reservation, they wouldn't have to live like that.
Yes, it's not like they were, you know, ever forced to live there.
No, they probably weren't. Are your reservations still run like concentration camps?
Naw, wait a minute now. I dont remember reading that Dachau had a Casino and Resort. Let alone firework stands.
Lets be fair. The Redskins are preying on poor white folk with gambling issues.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:51:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:47:10 PM
Berkut thinks if only they applied themselves, they wouldn't have to live like that.
If they didn't live on a reservation, they wouldn't have to live like that.
Yes, it's not like they were, you know, ever forced to live there.
None of them are forced to live there in fact. Not a single one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2012, 09:47:10 PM
Berkut thinks if only they applied themselves, they wouldn't have to live like that.
Go fuck yourself Seedy. You know I don't think anything of the kind.
Poverty rates of Native Americans living on reservations is higher than the average for Americans, and higher than the average for Native Americans who do not live on reservations.
Educational achievement is lower, life expectancy is lower, drug use is higher, homeless rates are higher. For those who do have homes, 15% do not have electricity - ten times the national average. Most homes on reservations do not have a telephone. Education sucks, and high school graduation rates are lower than the national average by a vast margin, and high school graduation rates among Native Americans who live on reservations is half that of Native Americans who do not live on a reservation.
I don't know what metric you need to conclude that this is broken.
What I do notice is that the Seedys and the Barristers are displaying *exactly* the attitude that leads to this going on and on and on - the refusal to acknowledge that the system is broken because of some bizarre notion that by doing so somehow betrays the poor noble savages who are apparently better off in abject poverty as long as we can pretend like we are protecting their "culture".
We are not. The current system does not work. Wishing it did work will not make it work, and insisting that recognizing that it doesn't work is tantamount to some kind of betrayal is exactly why it won't get better for those who have bought into the lie that they are somehow better off on a reservation than as a US citizen who happens to have be a Native American.
:cry:
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2012, 10:52:18 PM
Poverty rates of Native Americans living on reservations is higher than the average for Americans, and higher than the average for Native Americans who do not live on reservations.
Educational achievement is lower, life expectancy is lower, drug use is higher, homeless rates are higher. For those who do have homes, 15% do not have electricity - ten times the national average. Most homes on reservations do not have a telephone. Education sucks, and high school graduation rates are lower than the national average by a vast margin, and high school graduation rates among Native Americans who live on reservations is half that of Native Americans who do not live on a reservation.
I don't know what metric you need to conclude that this is broken.
What I do notice is that the Seedys and the Barristers are displaying *exactly* the attitude that leads to this going on and on and on - the refusal to acknowledge that the system is broken because of some bizarre notion that by doing so somehow betrays the poor noble savages who are apparently better off in abject poverty as long as we can pretend like we are protecting their "culture".
We are not. The current system does not work. Wishing it did work will not make it work, and insisting that recognizing that it doesn't work is tantamount to some kind of betrayal is exactly why it won't get better for those who have bought into the lie that they are somehow better off on a reservation than as a US citizen who happens to have be a Native American.
The problem is your solution happens to be the exact same one that has been proposed for literally centuries on how to deal with "the Indian problem" - we must make them assimilate. That has not worked - because they have in fact not assimilated. They don't want to assimilate.
I'm all for new ideas, and I don't think the solution is to funnel ever-larger amounts of dollars to native communities.
But the answer of "we should just abolish reserves and make them like us" Just. Hasn't. Worked.
It has the added disadvantage of running contrary to several very much legally binding documents that we have signed (and frequently ignored).
I wonder. If poverty rates are higher in the US then they are in Canada does that mean US culture has failed?
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2012, 11:25:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2012, 10:52:18 PM
Poverty rates of Native Americans living on reservations is higher than the average for Americans, and higher than the average for Native Americans who do not live on reservations.
Educational achievement is lower, life expectancy is lower, drug use is higher, homeless rates are higher. For those who do have homes, 15% do not have electricity - ten times the national average. Most homes on reservations do not have a telephone. Education sucks, and high school graduation rates are lower than the national average by a vast margin, and high school graduation rates among Native Americans who live on reservations is half that of Native Americans who do not live on a reservation.
I don't know what metric you need to conclude that this is broken.
What I do notice is that the Seedys and the Barristers are displaying *exactly* the attitude that leads to this going on and on and on - the refusal to acknowledge that the system is broken because of some bizarre notion that by doing so somehow betrays the poor noble savages who are apparently better off in abject poverty as long as we can pretend like we are protecting their "culture".
We are not. The current system does not work. Wishing it did work will not make it work, and insisting that recognizing that it doesn't work is tantamount to some kind of betrayal is exactly why it won't get better for those who have bought into the lie that they are somehow better off on a reservation than as a US citizen who happens to have be a Native American.
The problem is your solution happens to be the exact same one that has been proposed for literally centuries on how to deal with "the Indian problem" - we must make them assimilate.
Funny, since that isn't my solution at all. I challenge you to find some post of mine that includes anything like "we must make them" do anything.
Quote
That has not worked - because they have in fact not assimilated. They don't want to assimilate.
Again, patently untrue - plenty have in fact assimilated. Believe it or not Beebs, down here in the US, there are lots of Native Americans who do not live on reservations, and go to the same schools, go off to college, get jobs, etc., etc.
You keep repeating this mantra that no Native Americans want to "assimilate", yet it is clearly just not true.
Quote
I'm all for new ideas, and I don't think the solution is to funnel ever-larger amounts of dollars to native communities.
But the answer of "we should just abolish reserves and make them like us" Just. Hasn't. Worked.
Keep that in mind if someone shows up peddling that solution.
Quote
It has the added disadvantage of running contrary to several very much legally binding documents that we have signed (and frequently ignored).
Nothing I have proposed or discussed is in violation of any legal documents that have been signed by the US.
Yep, the reservation system is just working out great!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F28%2FReservation_Education_Levels.png&hash=bbade93119980898bd7cf178060bb7e6132e948d)
And why would any Native American ever want to leave?
edit: Damn, some cursory internet searches for data is even more depressing than I thought:
Leading cause of death among young people on US Indian Reservations: suicide.
Yep - you guys are right - they love it on the reservation, and would not trade it for anything! We should certainly not encourage them to leave!
I don't know about the US, but in Canada it will be a loooong time before any politician brings up the assimilation question for Natives again. The previous attempts at assimilation (including cases in the not so distant past) were thoroughly fraught with failures, abuses and long-lasting resentment. So consequently anything that smacks of encouraging assimilation is a dirty word up here, even though most non-Native Canadians are aware the current reservation system is full of problems like the kind Berkut describes.
Aside from just not wanting to touch it, the other problem is just practical. What realistic solution is there to solving the problem of abysmal standard of life for Natives on reservations? There are already soft inducements like affirmative action, Aboriginal scholarships and grants (and even IIRC tuition exemption in some cases), tax exemptions, etc. and AFAIK they aren't succeeding in improving conditions at all. More forceful approaches in the past have failed, and people are not just scared to suggest ideas - they're also just pretty much out of ideas at all.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 12:45:35 AM
statistics
Being that most of those reservations are in bum-fuck parts of the U.S., I wonder how the local neighboring white trash population compares, as opposed to against the entire U.S.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 02:29:33 AM
Aside from just not wanting to touch it, the other problem is just practical. What realistic solution is there to solving the problem of abysmal standard of life for Natives on reservations? There are already soft inducements like affirmative action, Aboriginal scholarships and grants (and even IIRC tuition exemption in some cases), tax exemptions, etc. and AFAIK they aren't succeeding in improving conditions at all. More forceful approaches in the past have failed, and people are not just scared to suggest ideas - they're also just pretty much out of ideas at all.
Well, I think there is almost certainly a selection process going on which masks the success of the programs you are talking about though.
If we are just talking about conditions on reservations, then if a given program to encourage education actually succeeds, and some individual goes off to college and gets a good job, has the typical middle class life one might expect, then are they likely to go back and live on the reservation and raise their kids in a high crime, screwed up situation like that? Not really, I suspect - most who "make it" bail for some nice suburb somewhere.
Which of course leaves those living on the reservation still statistically way behind, even though in that particular case, the system to encourage them "assimilating" has worked.
I think the same thing happens when you look at inner city poverty, rural US poverty, etc., etc. Those who break free of the geographic mess don't go back.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 08, 2012, 02:50:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 12:45:35 AM
statistics
Being that most of those reservations are in bum-fuck parts of the U.S., I wonder how the local neighboring white trash population compares, as opposed to against the entire U.S.
You can tell in the Wal-Mart parking lot; the white trash drive in the dust-covered trucks, the Indians pile everybody in the back.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 07:03:03 AM
If we are just talking about conditions on reservations, then if a given program to encourage education actually succeeds, and some individual goes off to college and gets a good job, has the typical middle class life one might expect, then are they likely to go back and live on the reservation and raise their kids in a high crime, screwed up situation like that? Not really, I suspect - most who "make it" bail for some nice suburb somewhere.
Actually, this isn't true with American Indians. College educated Indians return to the reservation in fairly large numbers, at least in the western/plains reservations. Your escape is often renouncing the very culture that is "broken" in some posts here. I believe it comes down to misinterpretations of spirituality and kinship, things often devalued on a forum like this but still key to the life patterns on the reservations I have experienced.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 08, 2012, 02:50:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 12:45:35 AM
statistics
Being that most of those reservations are in bum-fuck parts of the U.S., I wonder how the local neighboring white trash population compares, as opposed to against the entire U.S.
To be quite fair, I can think of several places in both Alberta and Yukon where you have separate native and white communities living in close proximity to each other. I have no access to statistics for income, but the white communities look dramatically more wealthy than the native community.
Berkut, I've mentioned a few tiems that it was explicit government policy to assimilate natives into the overall culture and encourage them to leave the reserves.
I'll give examples of how that was done.
If you were native you were not allowed to drink. Or vote. But you could do both if you would renounce your indian status. Even though this policy was in place for decades, extremely few natives renounced their status.
It was also government policy to take children from their homes and educate them in large boarding schools, called residential schools. The very well-meaning thinking of this was to ensure they had quality educations and to educate them on white/european culture and customs. But despite this almost all graduates would return to their homes.
So after decades of such rather extreme measures we couldn't assimilate natives, perhaps we can conclude that assimilation is not a viable policy.
No measures are necessary, or advisable, to assimilate people in the US. We are an assimilating machine it is what we do and I suspect efforts to assimilate would be counter-productive. And if they choose not to that is their business.
I am not really sure what Berkut is proposing. The reservations may not be the greatest things evah but so long as the Native Americans want them we are duty bound to preserve the system.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:44:16 AM
No measures are necessary, or advisable, to assimilate people in the US. We are an assimilating machine it is what we do and I suspect efforts to assimilate would be counter-productive. And if they choose not to that is their business.
Tell that to the other group we didn't have much success assimilating.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:45:51 AM
Tell that to the other group we didn't have much success assimilating.
Sometimes our douchebaggery gets in the way.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 12:45:35 AM
Stats
Given how close the performance of the nation wide population of Native Americans is to the whole population despite more than a few reservations in the 30%~ range, it seems that the vast majority of the nation's Native Americans have been successfully assimilated.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 08, 2012, 08:47:47 AM
Given how close the performance of the nation wide population of Native Americans is to the whole population despite more than a few reservations in the 30%~ range, it seems that the vast majority of the nation's Native Americans have been successfully assimilated.
Yep. Overwhelmingly so. But that is not really the point.
Though to be fair the vast majority of the assimilated native americans are probably mixed race to some extent but that is pretty inevitable.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:44:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 08:39:27 AM
Berkut, I've mentioned a few tiems that it was explicit government policy to assimilate natives into the overall culture and encourage them to leave the reserves.
I'll give examples of how that was done.
If you were native you were not allowed to drink. Or vote. But you could do both if you would renounce your indian status. Even though this policy was in place for decades, extremely few natives renounced their status.
It was also government policy to take children from their homes and educate them in large boarding schools, called residential schools. The very well-meaning thinking of this was to ensure they had quality educations and to educate them on white/european culture and customs. But despite this almost all graduates would return to their homes.
So after decades of such rather extreme measures we couldn't assimilate natives, perhaps we can conclude that assimilation is not a viable policy.
Wow. That is really what you are getting from my posts?
That I think we should cart kids off against their will to boarding schools and deny basic rights to others?
There really is no point in the discussion if you've somehow managed to turn what I've said into...that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:44:16 AM
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.
Reference obscurity : 8 out of 10.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:44:16 AM
No measures are necessary, or advisable, to assimilate people in the US. We are an assimilating machine it is what we do and I suspect efforts to assimilate would be counter-productive. And if they choose not to that is their business.
I am not really sure what Berkut is proposing. The reservations may not be the greatest things evah but so long as the Native Americans want them we are duty bound to preserve the system.
I think this is a good point, and speaks to my point in general. I am not really "proposing" anything - just observing that the reservation system is an abject failure, and the best thing for Native Americans is to not live on them. The statistics are pretty clear on this.
My argument isn't even aimed at government policy (although I think there are things we can and should do to encourage more integration far short of rounding up INdian kids and carting them off to boarding school) so much as it is aimed at those like Beeb and likely cultural leaders within the reservations who insist that they really can create a working and viable separate political and cultural entity on reservations.
The track record is one of nearly unmitigated failure. It is sad that so many are so interested in assuaging their own guilt rather than actually helping people.
I agree that we cannot really just shut the reservations down. What I would like to see is a point at which they simply are not necessary, needed, or wanted anymore.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:19:03 AM
What I would like to see is a point at which they simply are not necessary, needed, or wanted anymore.
That would require a shitload of government money, certainly more than the $2.4B budget the BIA gets. And we know how well that would go over.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:19:03 AM
What I would like to see is a point at which they simply are not necessary, needed, or wanted anymore.
That would require a shitload of government money, certainly more than the $2.4B budget the BIA gets. And we know how well that would go over.
Atually, I think shitloads of government money will make the problem even worse.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:37:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:19:03 AM
What I would like to see is a point at which they simply are not necessary, needed, or wanted anymore.
That would require a shitload of government money, certainly more than the $2.4B budget the BIA gets. And we know how well that would go over.
Atually, I think shitloads of government money will make the problem even worse.
And we're back to the "pulling themselves up by their own moccasins" again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:37:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:19:03 AM
What I would like to see is a point at which they simply are not necessary, needed, or wanted anymore.
That would require a shitload of government money, certainly more than the $2.4B budget the BIA gets. And we know how well that would go over.
Atually, I think shitloads of government money will make the problem even worse.
And we're back to the "pulling themselves up by their own moccasins" again.
No, we aren't back there because we were never there to begin with, nor are we there now.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 11:13:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:37:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:19:03 AM
What I would like to see is a point at which they simply are not necessary, needed, or wanted anymore.
That would require a shitload of government money, certainly more than the $2.4B budget the BIA gets. And we know how well that would go over.
Atually, I think shitloads of government money will make the problem even worse.
And we're back to the "pulling themselves up by their own moccasins" again.
No, we aren't back there because we were never there to begin with, nor are we there now.
OK, tough guy; you want the Native Americans to improve their lot in life, but you don't want them to have the assistance they need after generations of impoverished isolation. So what the fuck is anybody going to infer anything from that, other than Clarence Thomism?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:37:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 10:19:03 AM
What I would like to see is a point at which they simply are not necessary, needed, or wanted anymore.
That would require a shitload of government money, certainly more than the $2.4B budget the BIA gets. And we know how well that would go over.
Atually, I think shitloads of government money will make the problem even worse.
And we're back to the "pulling themselves up by their own moccasins" again.
No, we are back to Berkut's usual theme. "I don't want my money going to other people".
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2012, 04:50:17 PM
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?
I dont know a lot about how US reservations work and so my observations are made on the assumption that they have the same characteristics as those in Canada.
The main reason why reservations have the kind of statistics ot which Berk refers boils down to one problem - property rights. In the rest of society much of an individuals weath is based on Real Property. On a reservation that kind of wealth and access to capital (by obtaining loans secured by Real Property) is not possible because the residents of the reserves dont own the land on which they live as an individual.
Various Native bands in Canada and particularly in the Western Provinces have for a few decades been making progress to solve this fundamental problem of poverty caused by a lack of access to property rights. Much of the work in this area has centered on two main areas - asserting land claims and working with business to commercialize land with is undisputedly theirs - ie the reserve lands themselves.
The assertion of land claims has forced businesses and governments wishing to develop areas which are claimed to consult with the bands who assert the claim. Forward thinking businesses wish to have certainty reach agreements with those bands to let the bands in question benefit from the economic development on the lands they assert are theirs. Obviously the stronger the potential claim is the more incentive a business as to consult and reach agreement with the band.
Commericialization of reserve land is a much more straight forward propostion akin to a developer negotiating with any other property owner. The only wrinkle is that in this case it is the band not an individual and it has taken some time for the law and the parties to adapt to that new kind of legal relationship.
The elephant in the room however is band managment. With bands enjoying new sources of revenue - sometimes substantial - there is a question of accountability. Some groups do this very well but even the best run bands can have difficulty. Take for example the Nisga'a people. Perhaps, along with the Musqueam, the most sophisticated and best led peoples who literally locked out the band administrator who had initially agreed to a pipeline crossing their territory. That episode shows that to obtain certainty businesses dealing with native groups have to make sure the whole community (or at least a good majority) supports the deal. Which in theory is a good thing but how is an outside business to really be sure of such a thing?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 11:16:17 AM
OK, tough guy; you want the Native Americans to improve their lot in life, but you don't want them to have the assistance they need after generations of impoverished isolation. So what the fuck is anybody going to infer anything from that, other than Clarence Thomism?
You are going to have to address your question to someone else, since I never said I "...don't want them to have the assistance they need after generations of impoverished isolation.".
Find someone else to prop up your strawman.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 11:28:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 11:16:17 AM
OK, tough guy; you want the Native Americans to improve their lot in life, but you don't want them to have the assistance they need after generations of impoverished isolation. So what the fuck is anybody going to infer anything from that, other than Clarence Thomism?
You are going to have to address your question to someone else, since I never said I "...don't want them to have the assistance they need after generations of impoverished isolation.".
Find someone else to prop up your strawman.
Honestly, B, where are you going with this whole thing with the Native Americans, anyway?
You say their culture is a dead end, but you say that's not what you're saying.
You say you want them to get out of their lot in life, but you say that's not what you're saying.
Et al.
How about you start a new thread with your premise to the Indian Problem(tm), because right now, as is often your wont in typical Berkutian blizzard posting style, they're all over the place.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 08, 2012, 11:23:22 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2012, 04:50:17 PM
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?
Yeah Neil doesnt know what he is talking about. Generations of native children were forceably removed from their homes to attend residential schools where there attempts were made to literally beat the "Indian" out of them.
Canada and the religious orders who operated those schools are now paying out the largest class action claim in Canadian history to the survivors of that system.
And why did the reserves still exist? The goal of those residential schools was that after assimilation occurred the government could do away with the Indian Act and use the land for other purposes.
Yeah, Berkut, it's not quite clear to me where you're going with this. Here's what I've gotten from you:
- You think Native culture on reservations is a failure (looking at poverty and education statistics, amongst other).
- You think the ideal state for Native Americans includes: reservations no longer existing, and Native Americans having similar levels of education, wealth and lifestyle as Americans in general.
- You believe that increased funding is not likely to improve the situation.
- You agreed with me that any solutions to these problems imposed unilaterally (or with insufficient buy-in) by outsiders are bound to fail.
Is there anything I missed?
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 11:59:58 AM
Yeah, Berkut, it's not quite clear to me where you're going with this. Here's what I've gotten from you:
- You think Native culture on reservations is a failure (looking at poverty and education statistics, amongst other).
- You think the ideal state for Native Americans includes: reservations no longer existing, and Native Americans having similar levels of education, wealth and lifestyle as Americans in general.
Hmmm, I don't know if I would say that is an ideal state - ideal is a pretty subjective term. I imagine a lot of Native Americans would say their ideal state would be very different.
My point is more that this is ideal state (Which I think it in theory some kind of sovereign and politically independent viable nation within the US) is not attainable. That may be a tragedy, it may even be historically unjust.
But here is the thing - it's not like being an American (Native) is such a damn terrible thing. You don't have to give up your culture (at least no more so than you have already), you don't really have to give up anything that you actually have right now, except this unattainable myth that there could really be a working reservation system that doesn't completely suck for the actual people who have to live there.
Quote
- You believe that increased funding is not likely to improve the situation.
No, the problem is systemic. More money is just going to bandaid the problem while providing more reason for the corrupt to maintain the system.
By this I mean more money to maintain reservations - I would have no problem with more money to provide better opportunity, better schooling, better health care, etc., etc.
Quote
- You agreed with me that any solutions to these problems imposed unilaterally (or with insufficient buy-in) by outsiders are bound to fail.
Is there anything I missed?
I think the thing that is generally being missed (or rather ignored) is that I am not claiming that I think the government should really do much of anything, at least not in a direct sense. In fact, what I am talking about has been ongoing for a long time, and most Native Americans today are not living in shitty reservations, but rather just going about their lives like the rest of us.
What I am saying is that those that ARE still living on reservations in failed pseudo-states would be better off getting the hell out of there, and simply going about their lives integrated into American society in the same manner many other ethnic cultures integrate into American society.
What I am also saying is that part of the problem with that happening is this notion amongst people that "Native American culture" is somehow still around in the sense that it exists separate from American culture, that it must be protected and restored, and that we should actually spend money, resources, and effort preserving a failed reservation system in order to protect that culture (or even restore it) because we somehow owe it to a bunch of people today as a result of screwing over their ancestors.
But that attitude, IMO, actually just screws over the current people instead, since it has resulted in incredible poverty. It is the triumph of what we wish to be true over what is actually true. We appear to be willing to throw the current generation under the bus in order to make us feel better about what was done to the last 10 generations.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 12:17:42 PM
But here is the thing - it's not like being an American (Native) is such a damn terrible thing. You don't have to give up your culture (at least no more so than you have already), you don't really have to give up anything that you actually have right now, except this unattainable myth that there could really be a working reservation system that doesn't completely suck for the actual people who have to live there.
Why is it unobtainable. And why, in your view, is a model of self government unobtainable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 12:21:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2012, 12:17:42 PM
But here is the thing - it's not like being an American (Native) is such a damn terrible thing. You don't have to give up your culture (at least no more so than you have already), you don't really have to give up anything that you actually have right now, except this unattainable myth that there could really be a working reservation system that doesn't completely suck for the actual people who have to live there.
Why is it unobtainable. And why, in your view, is a model of self government unobtainable.
Given that the current system is such a disaster, I would think the burden of proof is on those who claim that it can be fixed, and hence the people living their in poverty should just stick it out until it is fixed.
I don't claim to be an expert on Indian affairs - I am sure there are lots and lots of resources out there discussing how to improve the reservation system.Notably however, the results have been consistent and systemic failure. The only exceptions being very particular cases that are not scalable to the overall problem.
I just note that the results are disastrous - and while I would need to be an aeronautical engineer to tell you how to fix an airplane (or in this case whether it can be fixed, or why it cannot), I don't have to be one to note that the one in question has crashed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 08:44:16 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 08, 2012, 11:23:22 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2012, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2012, 04:50:17 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2012, 01:08:31 PMNo. 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?
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 01:10:53 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 01:33:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 01:10:53 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 01:32:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2012, 01:08:31 PMNo. 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.
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.
I see BB made more or less the same answer.
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 02:01:18 PMSame 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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:24:31 PM
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 08, 2012, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:24:31 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:24:31 PM
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.
QuoteSo, 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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 08, 2012, 02:26:13 PM
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:
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 02:39:22 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 04:41:12 PM
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".
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:52:49 PM
I'm not sure I agree that drug abuse, domestic violence and teen suicide can be linked to "contentment with oneself".
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 04:46:52 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 05:06:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 04:46:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 05:19:50 PM
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.
The Federal government has tons of good land.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2012, 06:19:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 04:46:52 PMI 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.
QuoteMy 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?
QuoteWhat'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.
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.
I'd smash thier puny tribal governments, steal the good looking women and sell the land to oil companies.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2012, 09:28:46 PM
I'd smash thier puny tribal governments, steal the good looking women and sell the land to oil companies.
Thats your answer to everything.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2012, 09:28:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2012, 09:28:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2012, 09:28:46 PM
I'd smash thier puny tribal governments, steal the good looking women and sell the land to oil companies.
Where is Steven Seagal when we need him. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.fanpop.com%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2F5800000%2FOn-Deadly-Ground-Screencap-michael-caine-5847909-550-310.jpg&hash=e2f3d712f6480c9f9a19a82247b4df80e7978461)
Eating the endless pancakes at Denny's.
If my avatar took over my posts, I'd alternate between being sad at the state that the Republican Party has fallen to and being the greatest success story in the history of US politics.
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2012, 10:24:27 PM
If my avatar took over my posts, I'd alternate between being sad at the state that the Republican Party has fallen to and being the greatest success story in the history of US politics.
Your avatar would wonder why the fuck he's looking at them from the wrong side of the border. Furriner.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2012, 10:04:42 PM
Eating the endless pancakes at Denny's.
Do they have Denny is eastern europe or where ever the fuck he's making all these direct to DVD movies.
Quote from: katmai on May 08, 2012, 11:27:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2012, 10:04:42 PM
Eating the endless pancakes at Denny's.
Do they have Denny is eastern europe or where ever the fuck he's making all these direct to DVD movies.
I thought he was riding around with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and running over puppies with armored vehicles.
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2012, 04:59:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 04:52:49 PM
I'm not sure I agree that drug abuse, domestic violence and teen suicide can be linked to "contentment with oneself".
:huh:
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.
But I very much doubt that they are committing suicide or sniffing glue because they are not "content". Or, it is not the lack of contentedness that is the root cause of the suicide.
It's probably more to do with the fact that your dad beats your mom and gets drunk every night, you have no education because nobody every made you go to school, because three of your friends have committed suicide in the last year.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:48:06 AM
But I very much doubt that they are committing suicide or sniffing glue because they are not "content". Or, it is not the lack of contentedness that is the root cause of the suicide.
It's probably more to do with the fact that your dad beats your mom and gets drunk every night, you have no education because nobody every made you go to school, because three of your friends have committed suicide in the last year.
You are looking down the chain of causation. The question you haven't asked is *why* there is nothing for dad to do, other than get drunk and beat on mom, *why* no-one is educating the kid, *why* other kids are committing suicide.
Perhaps part of the issue is that the family is stuck in what amounts to an isolated rural ghetto with no meaningful way of life to follow?
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 08:44:27 PM
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.
So what you are objecting to is not the analysis of the reality, but the form of words used to describe it.
Quote
How does one attempt to artificially prevent assimilation?
By creating a system of laws and policies (with the best will in the world no doubt) that creates a legal distinction based on "race", and provides financial incentives for those of the favoured "race" to remain on isolated reservations and not to intermarry with those who are not?
Quote
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.
Well of course, we are back to your form of words again.
Yes, if you put it like that, no-one on earth is going to say "my culture is disfunctional". Given a chance, they, being human beings, are going to see that as insulting and patronizing - particularly comming from the majority culture, right?
Your mistake is mixing up an objective analysis of the problem with the impossibility of imposing a solution from outside. It may surprise you to know I quite agree that imposing solutions from outside is not going to work ... but of course, what we have now is not working, either.
QuoteFrom 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.
In other words, do more of what we are already doing, only do it better and with greater goodwill.
I'm not proposing any particular solution - I'm merely pointing out the problem: creating a two-tier system for natives has proved a dismal failure and indeed a disgrace. Proposing more of the same seems to me a simple inability to learn from failure.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
By creating a system of laws and policies (with the best will in the world no doubt) that creates a legal distinction based on "race", and provides financial incentives for those of the favoured "race" to remain on isolated reservations and not to intermarry with those who are not?
Which policies and laws are these?
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
By creating a system of laws and policies (with the best will in the world no doubt) that creates a legal distinction based on "race", and provides financial incentives for those of the favoured "race" to remain on isolated reservations and not to intermarry with those who are not?
:wacko:
There are absolutely no restrictions on intermarriage. Any children of such a mixed-marriage get Indian status.
There are no financial incentives to live on a reserve, other than the fact the individual band will provide free housing. But given the quality of said housing many prefer to live off-reserve.
Approximately 50% of native people live off-reserve.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:10:58 AM
:wacko:
There are absolutely no restrictions on intermarriage. Any children of such a mixed-marriage get Indian status.
legally, yes. Socially... some indians will expelle the "whites" from their reservations, those that inter-marry, or those born of mixed marriage. See the Mohawk reservations near Montreal.
Quote
There are no financial incentives to live on a reserve, other than the fact the individual band will provide free housing. But given the quality of said housing many prefer to live off-reserve.
I believe they don't pay any taxes so long as they live on a reservation, except for special cases like the indian tribe(s?) in northern BC?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2012, 10:07:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
By creating a system of laws and policies (with the best will in the world no doubt) that creates a legal distinction based on "race", and provides financial incentives for those of the favoured "race" to remain on isolated reservations and not to intermarry with those who are not?
Which policies and laws are these?
In Canada, under the Indian Act, people who meet the criteria for indian-ness are considered legally different from non-indians - they have "indian status".
This gives them certain rights.
Prior to 1985 revisions, indian women who married non-indian men automatically lost "status". There is some formula for limited re-admission to "status" for those who have lost rights due to intermarriage in the past.
Bands have rights to determine self-membership, meaning that after 1985, some have chosen to eject persons who have intermarried - so while they may have "status" they are not "band members" and not entitled to certain legal rights.
Having "status" and/or "band membership" entitles one to a bag of legal and financial entitlements dealing with land ownership, taxes, etc.
Here's a link to the Indian Act:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/
Courts find in spite of 1985 amendments, Indian Act continues to discriminate against women re determining "status":
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032433/1100100032434
Effect of amendments - to ensure that "status" declines with intermarriage for men & women equally:
QuoteBill C-31 was passed in response to a formal censure by the United Nations, which decried the old law's practice of discriminating against Indian women: Women lost their status when they married a non-status person. Men did not.
But instead of opening the doors to the non-status partners of aboriginal women – a move that would have hugely increased Ottawa's financial obligations – the amendments ensured that men and women suffered equal losses.
The new law extended Indian status and its accompanying rights, benefits and services – such as tax immunity, health benefits and reserve housing – to just one more generation by creating two classes of "status Indians": the 6(1) Indian who has two status parents, and the 6(2), who was born in a union of a status person with a non-status person. If a 6(2) marries a non-status spouse, their children are deemed to be non-status.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/631974--status-indians-face-threat-of-extinction
I dunno why BB is protesting, far as I know this isn't controversial.
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2012, 10:17:49 AM
I believe they don't pay any taxes so long as they live on a reservation, except for special cases like the indian tribe(s?) in northern BC?
Not exactly. You don't pay taxes on any income earned on a reservation. It doesn't matter where you live.
You're right that in modern land claims agreements the federal government has been pretty insistent on ending that exception.
I had a young woman working for me in Tucson. College age.
She told me that her tribe would buy her a house and a truck if she married within the tribe and lived on the reservation.
I don't know what system was in place such that this incentive made financial sense to the tribe, but *something* was in place that created the desire for such an incentive.
I thought even then that whatever system encouraged an authority power to engage in that kind of "incentives" was broken. Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
I had a young woman working for me in Tucson. College age.
She told me that her tribe would buy her a house and a truck if she married within the tribe and lived on the reservation.
I don't know what system was in place such that this incentive made financial sense to the tribe, but *something* was in place that created the desire for such an incentive.
I thought even then that whatever system encouraged an authority power to engage in that kind of "incentives" was broken. Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
Is it any different from what generations of Jewish parents have been doing?
Are there incentives in place by certain bands to encourage marriage within the community? Sure (though I haven't heard of any in AB/YT).
But nobody is prohibited from marrying anyone that they wish.
While I have to agree that the reservation system is mostly dysfunctional, I don't think that the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among young people there is useful evidence, given that it's either 2nd or 3rd among young people in the US as a whole (motor vechicle accidents are still #1).
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
I had a young woman working for me in Tucson. College age.
She told me that her tribe would buy her a house and a truck if she married within the tribe and lived on the reservation.
I don't know what system was in place such that this incentive made financial sense to the tribe, but *something* was in place that created the desire for such an incentive.
I thought even then that whatever system encouraged an authority power to engage in that kind of "incentives" was broken. Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
Is it any different from what generations of Jewish parents have been doing?
Yes, it is VERY different. Because this was not her parents making the offer, this was the tribal government.
Quote
Are there incentives in place by certain bands to encourage marriage within the community? Sure (though I haven't heard of any in AB/YT).
But nobody is prohibited from marrying anyone that they wish.
Of course not - that doesn't mean much of anything to the point though.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:10:58 AM
:wacko:
There are absolutely no restrictions on intermarriage. Any children of such a mixed-marriage get Indian status.
But their children do not - if they intermarry. See above.
QuoteThere are no financial incentives to live on a reserve, other than the fact the individual band will provide free housing. But given the quality of said housing many prefer to live off-reserve.
Untrue. See above.
QuoteApproximately 50% of native people live off-reserve.
Status, or non-status?
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:38:20 AM
While I have to agree that the reservation system is mostly dysfunctional, I don't think that the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among young people there is useful evidence, given that it's either 2nd or 3rd among young people in the US as a whole (motor vechicle accidents are still #1).
It is certainly useful in the context of a lot of other evidence.
Hell, the fact that it is first instead of second compared to the norm is pretty useful evidence.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:36:58 AM
Is it any different from what generations of Jewish parents have been doing?
The government doesn't change your legal rights for your kids if you "marry Jewish".
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
I can think of a lot of societies, social groups and families who put financial pressure by way of both penalties and rewards to marry the right kind of person.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 10:41:40 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:36:58 AM
Is it any different from what generations of Jewish parents have been doing?
The government doesn't change your legal rights for your kids if you "marry Jewish".
The government doesnt but the Jewish family sure does - if one wishes to compare apples with apples. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
I can think of a lot of societies, social groups and families who put financial pressure by way of both penalties and rewards to marry the right kind of person.
Good for you.
Can you think of any government agencies that provide financial pressure on people to marry "the right kind of person" and fund said incentives with public money?
I can't - at least not in the US.
Yes. People of the opposite sex.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:46:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
I can think of a lot of societies, social groups and families who put financial pressure by way of both penalties and rewards to marry the right kind of person.
Good for you.
Can you think of any government agencies that provide financial pressure on people to marry "the right kind of person" and fund said incentives with public money?
I can't - at least not in the US.
You are missing the point. You said it was evidence of a "disease" of some sort for a social group to provide incentive for someone to marry within the group. That is nonsense. Many social groups provide incentives and punishments for that matter if people marry outside the group.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:40:31 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:38:20 AM
While I have to agree that the reservation system is mostly dysfunctional, I don't think that the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among young people there is useful evidence, given that it's either 2nd or 3rd among young people in the US as a whole (motor vechicle accidents are still #1).
It is certainly useful in the context of a lot of other evidence.
Hell, the fact that it is first instead of second compared to the norm is pretty useful evidence.
Well, my guess (which might well be wrong) was that kids on the reservations have less access to motor vechicles, which kept that out of the number one spot for them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 10:53:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:46:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
I can think of a lot of societies, social groups and families who put financial pressure by way of both penalties and rewards to marry the right kind of person.
Good for you.
Can you think of any government agencies that provide financial pressure on people to marry "the right kind of person" and fund said incentives with public money?
I can't - at least not in the US.
You are missing the point. You said it was evidence of a "disease" of some sort for a social group to provide incentive for someone to marry within the group. That is nonsense. Many social groups provide incentives and punishments for that matter if people marry outside the group.
NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.
This is not a "social group", this is the actual government of these supposedly sovereign nations resorting to blatant bribery to entice people to marry within the tribe and live on the reservation.
But whatever - you won't be convinced no matter what, I get that. Everything is fine on the reservations, continue with business as usual. Except, of course, "do it better". Lets balance the budget by "eliminating government waste" while we are at it.
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:57:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:40:31 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:38:20 AM
While I have to agree that the reservation system is mostly dysfunctional, I don't think that the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among young people there is useful evidence, given that it's either 2nd or 3rd among young people in the US as a whole (motor vechicle accidents are still #1).
It is certainly useful in the context of a lot of other evidence.
Hell, the fact that it is first instead of second compared to the norm is pretty useful evidence.
Well, my guess (which might well be wrong) was that kids on the reservations have less access to motor vechicles, which kept that out of the number one spot for them.
Could be...on the other hand, the rampant alcoholism and drug use would tend to drive up vehicular death rates as well, since that is what often drives youth vehicular fatality rates.
In any case, if your contention is accurate, then we would see that the suicide fatality rate amongst reservation youths is actually not higher than the norm, it is just that vehicular fatality rates are lower. Lets check, shall we?
First result from a google search on native american suicide rates:
http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2010/11/21/a-tribal-tragedy-state%E2%80%99s-native-peoples-have-alarmingly-high-suicide-rates/
QuoteDespite 40 years of insight and ongoing prevention efforts, many native communities still struggle with keeping members from taking their own lives. Between 1999 and 2008, at least 86 Native Americans in Wisconsin have died by suicide — a figure that is likely lower than the actual toll, given that experts believe suicides are sometimes mislabeled as accidental overdoses, shootings and car crashes.
An analysis of Wisconsin suicide data from 1999 to 2008 by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism found:
The overall suicide rate among Native Americans was 16 deaths per 100,000 people — at least 25 percent higher than Wisconsin's overall rate of about 12 deaths per 100,000.
The suicide rate among native people was significantly higher than rates for the other ethnic and racial groups — including about 12 per 100,000 for whites, 9 for Asians, 7 for blacks, and 6 for Hispanics.
Menominee County, dominated by the Menominee Indian Reservation with a majority Native American population, had the highest suicide rate of any Wisconsin county with nearly 30 deaths per 100,000 — two times higher than the national rate for non-Hispanic Native Americans.
Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that suicide death rates among non-Hispanic Native Americans, such as those living in Wisconsin, have remained consistently higher than the general population over the past two decades.
From the second result:
QuoteYouth Statistics
•Among American Indian/Alaska Native youth attending Bureau of Indian Affairs schools in 2001, 16% had attempted suicide in the 12 months preceding the Youth Risk Behavior Survey.2
•From 1999 to 2004, American Indian/Alaska Native males in the 15 to 24 year old age group had the highest suicide rate, 27.99 per 100,000, compared to white (17.54 per 100,000), black (12.80 per 100,000), and Asian/Pacific Islander (8.96 per 100,000) males of the same age.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:57:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:40:31 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:38:20 AM
While I have to agree that the reservation system is mostly dysfunctional, I don't think that the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among young people there is useful evidence, given that it's either 2nd or 3rd among young people in the US as a whole (motor vechicle accidents are still #1).
It is certainly useful in the context of a lot of other evidence.
Hell, the fact that it is first instead of second compared to the norm is pretty useful evidence.
Well, my guess (which might well be wrong) was that kids on the reservations have less access to motor vechicles, which kept that out of the number one spot for them.
Could be...on the other hand, the rampant alcoholism and drug use would tend to drive up vehicular death rates as well, since that is what often drives youth vehicular fatality rates.
In any case, if your contention is accurate, then we would see that the suicide fatality rate amongst reservation youths is actually not higher than the norm, it is just that vehicular fatality rates are lower. Lets check, shall we?
First result from a google search on native american suicide rates:
http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2010/11/21/a-tribal-tragedy-state%E2%80%99s-native-peoples-have-alarmingly-high-suicide-rates/
QuoteDespite 40 years of insight and ongoing prevention efforts, many native communities still struggle with keeping members from taking their own lives. Between 1999 and 2008, at least 86 Native Americans in Wisconsin have died by suicide — a figure that is likely lower than the actual toll, given that experts believe suicides are sometimes mislabeled as accidental overdoses, shootings and car crashes.
An analysis of Wisconsin suicide data from 1999 to 2008 by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism found:
The overall suicide rate among Native Americans was 16 deaths per 100,000 people — at least 25 percent higher than Wisconsin’s overall rate of about 12 deaths per 100,000.
The suicide rate among native people was significantly higher than rates for the other ethnic and racial groups — including about 12 per 100,000 for whites, 9 for Asians, 7 for blacks, and 6 for Hispanics.
Menominee County, dominated by the Menominee Indian Reservation with a majority Native American population, had the highest suicide rate of any Wisconsin county with nearly 30 deaths per 100,000 — two times higher than the national rate for non-Hispanic Native Americans.
Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that suicide death rates among non-Hispanic Native Americans, such as those living in Wisconsin, have remained consistently higher than the general population over the past two decades.
Bah, you're right. I was just pointing out that the teen suicide rate, in and of itself, isn't really that much of an indicator, given how common it is among all American teens, since many of the teens who kill them selves (I'm talking about in society as a whole, not on the reservation) actually seem to have it pretty good.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
I can think of a lot of societies, social groups and families who put financial pressure by way of both penalties and rewards to marry the right kind of person.
What we are dealing with is BB's incredulity (complete with :wacko: ) that the government legally, with the use of incentives (in this case, "status" for one's kids) discourages intermarriage.
I take it that the cites I have provided at least establish that this is happening and that BB is incorrect?
This is not really comparable to families encouraging their kids to marry within the faith.
Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership. There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.
Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:57:52 AM
NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.
YES EXACTLY, you were conflating the actions of the band with government.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:57:52 AM
NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.
YES EXACTLY, you were conflating the actions of the band with government.
:huh:
Are the native bands not sovereign governments?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:57:52 AM
NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.
YES EXACTLY, you were conflating the actions of the band with government.
Uhhh, I thought the band was in fact a sovereign government on the reservation. Wasn't that the entire point of the discussion, was that they were in fact sovereign?
The leadership of the band IS the government.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership. There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.
Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.
Status and band membership are two different things.
I've posted the links demonstrating the concern about kids losing status through intermarriage.
The problem is this, in a nutshell: Canada was embarrassed into removing the provision of the Indian Act that stripped indian women of status if they intermarried. This happened in 1985 (incredibly late, IMO).
The gov't then said, "okay, everyone who intermarries gets status, but their kids can no longer intermarry and have status - and this applies to everyone, too. No more gender discrimination!".
So it is perfectly possible to know someone who is 1/4 indian and has status - if they were born before 1985.
The problem of course remains that having unequal legal status based on race creates inherent injustices - the government's method of limiting the otherwise-potentially-infinite spread of "status" throughout the population demonstrates this.
Without anyone wanting to, it creates financial incentives not to intermarry - thus, a legal system that creates government-imposed barriers based on race. These "barriers" are of course not prohibitions. Anyone can marry anyone. But if you marry the wrong person, your children are stripped of rights.
Edit: this is caused by the application of ss. 6(2) of the Indian Act.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/page-3.html#h-6
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 11:19:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 11:17:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:57:52 AM
NO, what I said was that the fact that the *government* needed to bribe people to marry and stay on the reservation was evidence that there was a disease.
YES EXACTLY, you were conflating the actions of the band with government.
:huh:
Are the native bands not sovereign governments?
No, that is the point isnt it.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership. There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.
Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.
I have no idea about Canada, but in the States, individual tribes do have some discretion about membership. According to Wikipedia, "The tribal government, in the absence of some legal obligation which stipulates otherwise, has final jurisdiction over who is a member of the tribe."
That can't be right dps, CC assures us that the tribes have no governments, only "bands".
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 11:27:31 AM
That can't be right dps, CC assures us that the tribes have no governments, only "bands".
For someone who cries when their point is misrepresented I find this highly ironic coming form you.
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership. There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.
Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.
I have no idea about Canada, but in the States, individual tribes do have some discretion about membership. According to Wikipedia, "The tribal government, in the absence of some legal obligation which stipulates otherwise, has final jurisdiction over who is a member of the tribe."
This is true in Canada as well.
S. 10 of the Indian Act:
Quote10. (1) A band may assume control of its own membership if it establishes membership rules for itself in writing in accordance with this section and if, after the band has given appropriate notice of its intention to assume control of its own membership, a majority of the electors of the band gives its consent to the band's control of its own membership.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership. There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.
Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.
Status and band membership are two different things.
I've posted the links demonstrating the concern about kids losing status through intermarriage.
The problem is this, in a nutshell: Canada was embarrassed into removing the provision of the Indian Act that stripped indian women of status if they intermarried. This happened in 1985 (incredibly late, IMO).
The gov't then said, "okay, everyone who intermarries gets status, but their kids can no longer intermarry and have status - and this applies to everyone, too. No more gender discrimination!".
So it is perfectly possible to know someone who is 1/4 indian and has status - if they were born before 1985.
The problem of course remains that having unequal legal status based on race creates inherent injustices - the government's method of limiting the otherwise-potentially-infinite spread of "status" throughout the population demonstrates this.
Without anyone wanting to, it creates financial incentives not to intermarry - thus, a legal system that creates government-imposed barriers based on race. These "barriers" are of course not prohibitions. Anyone can marry anyone. But if you marry the wrong person, your children are stripped of rights.
Edit: this is caused by the application of ss. 6(2) of the Indian Act.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/page-3.html#h-6
Nope - I can think of a few kids who are definitely mixed heritage who have status.
I think you are mistaken.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership. There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.
Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.
Status and band membership are two different things.
I've posted the links demonstrating the concern about kids losing status through intermarriage.
The problem is this, in a nutshell: Canada was embarrassed into removing the provision of the Indian Act that stripped indian women of status if they intermarried. This happened in 1985 (incredibly late, IMO).
The gov't then said, "okay, everyone who intermarries gets status, but their kids can no longer intermarry and have status - and this applies to everyone, too. No more gender discrimination!".
So it is perfectly possible to know someone who is 1/4 indian and has status - if they were born before 1985.
The problem of course remains that having unequal legal status based on race creates inherent injustices - the government's method of limiting the otherwise-potentially-infinite spread of "status" throughout the population demonstrates this.
Without anyone wanting to, it creates financial incentives not to intermarry - thus, a legal system that creates government-imposed barriers based on race. These "barriers" are of course not prohibitions. Anyone can marry anyone. But if you marry the wrong person, your children are stripped of rights.
Edit: this is caused by the application of ss. 6(2) of the Indian Act.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/page-3.html#h-6
Nope - I can think of a few kids who are definitely mixed heritage who have status.
I think you are mistaken.
Your anecdote trumps my quoting the relevant statutory law directly on point? :hmm:
I mean, just read the thing. A s. 6(2) indian
cannot confer status if he or she marries a non-indian.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 10:00:57 AMSo what you are objecting to is not the analysis of the reality, but the form of words used to describe it.
No, I object to your analysis. Primarily, I don't think you have enough exposure to the facts to conclude that Native culture is broken. I'm not claiming that I have better exposure to the facts, which is why I limit myself to acknowledging specific individual problems with the caveat that I don't have a thorough understanding.
QuoteQuote
How does one attempt to artificially prevent assimilation?
By creating a system of laws and policies (with the best will in the world no doubt) that creates a legal distinction based on "race", and provides financial incentives for those of the favoured "race" to remain on isolated reservations and not to intermarry with those who are not?
I don't see how that's "artificial".
QuoteWell of course, we are back to your form of words again.
Yes, if you put it like that, no-one on earth is going to say "my culture is disfunctional". Given a chance, they, being human beings, are going to see that as insulting and patronizing - particularly comming from the majority culture, right?
Your mistake is mixing up an objective analysis of the problem with the impossibility of imposing a solution from outside. It may surprise you to know I quite agree that imposing solutions from outside is not going to work ... but of course, what we have now is not working, either.
I'm not surprised that you believe that imposing outside solutions will not work based on what I know of you, you're decent and intelligent fellow. What I am surprised about is that given that you don't believe imposing outside solutions will work, you revert to proposing solutions which, in your own words, are based on an insulting and patronizing premise and which are imposed from the outside.
QuoteIn other words, do more of what we are already doing, only do it better and with greater goodwill.
Yes, I think the BC treaty negotiation process - as exemplified by the Musquam and Nisga'a treaty processes - is the way forward. More of that will certainly help, and more goodwill will certainly help.
QuoteI'm not proposing any particular solution - I'm merely pointing out the problem: creating a two-tier system for natives has proved a dismal failure and indeed a disgrace. Proposing more of the same seems to me a simple inability to learn from failure.
This is the first time you've mentioned any two-tiered system. Previously your assertion was that Native culture is broken and assimilation was the solution.
Look again:
Quote(2) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if that person is a person one of whose parents is or, if no longer living, was at the time of death entitled to be registered under subsection (1).
You have status if one of your parents have status.
I'm happy to concede that there are all sorts of problems - theoretical, potential and real - related to the system of having "status" and "non-status" Natives and how such status is determined.
I don't see how that relates to the assertion that Native culture is "broken" and the best way to fix it is to assimilate them.
Nor do I see how the problems arising from status vs non-status is anywhere near the top of the list of priorities facing the various First Nations.
I do, however, see that one solution to those offended by distinction between "status" and "non-status" is the removal of status and assimilation, but I'm not sure how that's necessarily in the interest of the First Nations, nor of how you'd implement such a change except as a unilateral imposition contravening previous agreements.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:56:30 AM
Look again:
Quote(2) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if that person is a person one of whose parents is or, if no longer living, was at the time of death entitled to be registered under subsection (1).
You have status if one of your parents have status.
*Sigh*
You have status if you meet either the 6(1) criteria or the 6(2) criteria.
However, if a person who meets the 6(2) criteria themselves has a child with a non-status person,
they (thaty is, the child) do not have status.
A person who meets the 6(2) criteria (that is, has one parent who meets the 6(1) criteria) cannot, by themselves, pass that status on to their child.
In order to have 6(1) status, you have to either have two parents who are status indians, or otherwise meet the 6(1) criteria. Hence paragraph 6(1)(f) states as follows:
Quote(f) that person is a person both of whose parents are or, if no longer living, were at the time of death entitled to be registered under this section.
[emphasis added]
Contrast with 6(2), which states as follows:
Quote(2) Subject to section 7, a person is entitled to be registered if that person is a person one of whose parents is or, if no longer living, was at the time of death entitled to be registered under subsection (1).
[Emphasis added]
Hence the article I posted above, which I assume you didn't read, which said as follows:
QuoteBill C-31 was passed in response to a formal censure by the United Nations, which decried the old law's practice of discriminating against Indian women: Women lost their status when they married a non-status person. Men did not.
But instead of opening the doors to the non-status partners of aboriginal women – a move that would have hugely increased Ottawa's financial obligations – the amendments ensured that men and women suffered equal losses.
The new law extended Indian status and its accompanying rights, benefits and services – such as tax immunity, health benefits and reserve housing – to just one more generation by creating two classes of "status Indians": the 6(1) Indian who has two status parents, and the 6(2), who was born in a union of a status person with a non-status person. If a 6(2) marries a non-status spouse, their children are deemed to be non-status.
[Emphasis added]
It's a matter of reading the statute, which admittedly isn't exactly clear to the untrained eye. No doubt many natives are as confused as you are. ;)
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 11:53:00 AM
No, I object to your analysis. Primarily, I don't think you have enough exposure to the facts to conclude that Native culture is broken. I'm not claiming that I have better exposure to the facts, which is why I limit myself to acknowledging specific individual problems with the caveat that I don't have a thorough understanding.
I have enough "exposure to the facts", which after all are not really in dispute - the suicides, the crime, the drug and alcohol dependency. None of these are exactly secrets, are they?
QuoteI don't see how that's "artificial".
To use some of your patented passive-aggressive condesention, 'based on what I know of you, you're decent and intelligent fellow - I'm surprised that, not only are you not offended by a racist system of discrimination which has had the effect of keeping a whole government-defined caste in poverty and misery, but you don't even think it is "artificial" - evidently to you, racist discrimination is natural. '. ;)
But more seriously - this is a perfect example of good intentions gone horribly wrong. Nobody today wants to see the Indian Act as "racist discrimination" (although it is, quite literally) because the "discrimination" is intended to confer
benefits on "status" indians. Surely confirring benefits on people can't be bad for them, right? Particularly where they want those benefits, and those benefits were granted to them (well, to their ancestors) by treaty?
Well, in fact it can and it is. The reason is that it is retarding change.
QuoteI'm not surprised that you believe that imposing outside solutions will not work based on what I know of you, you're decent and intelligent fellow. What I am surprised about is that given that you don't believe imposing outside solutions will work, you revert to proposing solutions which, in your own words, are based on an insulting and patronizing premise and which are imposed from the outside.
The "insulting and patronizing" part comes from the dialoge. It has nothing to do with an objective look at the reality.
The Indian Act is already an "imposition from the outside".
QuoteThis is the first time you've mentioned any two-tiered system. Previously your assertion was that Native culture is broken and assimilation was the solution.
You are mistaking 'removing our current policies which artificially prevent assimilation by handing out benefits for those who marry and live as the government dictates' for 'I think assimilation is the solution'.
I think treating Indians legally like everyone else (perhaps whith a huge insertion of cash to prime the pump, given the sorry state many are reduced to through benign paternalism) would be at least a start to the solution. Then, they can decide on their own whether to "assimilate" or not.
You seem to have some nightmare, residency school, imposed from outside "assimilation" in mind.
Quote
You seem to have some nightmare, residency school, imposed from outside "assimilation" in mind.
I think maybe this is the basic disconnect in this discussion.
Perhaps the historical baggage of "assimilation" is causing Beebs and such to assume that any use of the term now is intended to imply at some level a return to this idea of the state forcing assimilation via some ham handed means of coercion.
But that is not at all what I am talking about - indeed, I do not in any way condone the idea that the state should try to force much of anything.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AMI thought even then that whatever system encouraged an authority power to engage in that kind of "incentives" was broken. Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
This is the problem: if we treat Natives as sovereign, as deserving a sovereign government, or should we consider seriously the idea that we should build together a quasi-sovereign status, we need to come up with a different level of analogies to put them in perspective. For instance, few people would regard the kind of protection the United States affords its citizen, the legal or fiscal system it puts in place as "bribery" for inviting its citizens to remain within its borders. (i could remark that, since corporations are now people, there are now tons of bribes to allow for corporations to remain with the US border...) For better or for worse, the type of political leverage reservations have succeeded in building, basically investing what little they could, are now overwhelmingly financial in nature. Denigrating this use is good and well, but the result is removing yet another form of self-government in favour of what? Soft power? Natives should forego all means of power except for the might and appeal of their entertainment industry?
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 02:13:56 PM
Quote
You seem to have some nightmare, residency school, imposed from outside "assimilation" in mind.
I think maybe this is the basic disconnect in this discussion.
Perhaps the historical baggage of "assimilation" is causing Beebs and such to assume that any use of the term now is intended to imply at some level a return to this idea of the state forcing assimilation via some ham handed means of coercion.
But that is not at all what I am talking about - indeed, I do not in any way condone the idea that the state should try to force much of anything.
Indeed.
In point of fact, my position is that the state should do
less "outside intervention", not
more - the whole
Indian Act setup in Canada (and I assume the US is similar) is, of course, "outside intervention".
Not that we, as a nation, don't have a responsibility to fix what we broke. It is just that I have serious doubts that it can be done by tweaking the current system of incentives, as in my opinion, the current system is part of the reason why the problem exists in the first place.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 02:13:56 PM
Perhaps the historical baggage of "assimilation" is causing Beebs and such to assume that any use of the term now is intended to imply at some level a return to this idea of the state forcing assimilation via some ham handed means of coercion.
But that is not at all what I am talking about - indeed, I do not in any way condone the idea that the state should try to force much of anything.
First, it isn't like this kind of assimilationist policy is so far removed in the past that we can safely bracket it away as irrelevant.
Second, I refer you to my post above. For better or for worse, there is a multitude of Native identity, under the umbrella of generic "Native" identity, and sometimes intersecting with Canadian / US identity. For better or for worse, Native identity has been made, recognized, and maintained both by Natives themselves and by their interlocutors, as
existing - for the Natives, as a matter of positive identity, for the others, as a default identity which we really should try to erase if we could (there were doubts - hence the desire to "whiten" oneself on the East coast for non-recognized groups). And, lastly, for better or for worse, Native groups were recognized as
different from any other groups which might have self-identified within the US. There were no treaties with the Amish.
Thus, any policy are bound, rightly, to be read against this backdrop. Renouncing treaties; abolishing reservations; stopping payments are all examples of the State doing
something: the "free market of identity" is therefore an aggressive position as it would a) involve either a de facto
coup de force in abolishing the institutions of native self-government, or b) start from a de facto position of widely unequal power.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2012, 10:31:32 AMI thought even then that whatever system encouraged an authority power to engage in that kind of "incentives" was broken. Both the existence of such perverse incentives, and the disease that must be present such that it takes that kind of incentive to maintain whatever tribal identity they were struggling to sustain via bribery.
This is the problem: if we treat Natives as sovereign, as deserving a sovereign government, or should we consider seriously the idea that we should build together a quasi-sovereign status, we need to come up with a different level of analogies to put them in perspective. For instance, few people would regard the kind of protection the United States affords its citizen, the legal or fiscal system it puts in place as "bribery" for inviting its citizens to remain within its borders. (i could remark that, since corporations are now people, there are now tons of bribes to allow for corporations to remain with the US border...) For better or for worse, the type of political leverage reservations have succeeded in building, basically investing what little they could, are now overwhelmingly financial in nature. Denigrating this use is good and well, but the result is removing yet another form of self-government in favour of what? Soft power? Natives should forego all means of power except for the might and appeal of their entertainment industry?
The current system doesn't give "power" to natives
per se, but to those able to work the system - chiefs, government bureaucrats, and lawyers.
Now have nothing against the Aboriginal Bar - a nice bunch, generally very earnest (and of course impeccably middle class :D ), but I have my doubts whether keeping them in gainful employment is
really worth maintaining the majority of natives who live on reservations in miserable, third-world-like conditions, and keeping unchanged (in Canada at least) a system of of racial discrimination which has proven a failure on every level in terms of actually improving their condition.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
Malthus - I really question the notion that individual bands can determine their own criteria for membership. There's a reason many individuals have gone to court to get back their indian status.
Plus, I know several people who have status that are only 1/4 native.
http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/125335/dispatch-from-a-lost-tribe-quebec-mohawks-expel-i/
I do not know if/how that affects "indian" status though.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2012, 04:40:17 PM
and I certainly do not consider the current government to represent me,
Really? I always figured your for a Stephen Harper fan. Must have mixed you with someone else.... ;) :P
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2012, 04:40:17 PM
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.
I agree with that. The Native's problem is simple. It's the solution wich is complex, and they must be involved in whatever solution we find.
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. It's not like what people outside of the big cities think get reported everyday in the national media. Wathever Claude Dubois says is far more important to the media :roll:
But I've seen a couple of op-ed piece from natives wich were interesting, as a basis to begin to understand them, if nothing else.
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2012, 05:05:33 PM
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...
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2012, 04:40:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 05:38:50 PMThat 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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2012, 05:34:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 09, 2012, 05:05:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 05:38:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 05:38:50 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2012, 04:40:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: PDH on May 10, 2012, 08:49:32 AM
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).
Quotein certain parts of north america you could very easily spend your life without knowing any native people
Thank God.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 05:38:50 PM
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.
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".
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 09:00:08 AM
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 . . .
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 08:54:04 AM
Quote from: PDH on May 10, 2012, 08:49:32 AM
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.
And have you ever shared the opinions you've expressed in this thread with Chief Harry?
Have you ever eaten pemican in Opemican Park?
Quote from: PDH on May 10, 2012, 08:49:32 AM
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.
"We're in the spirit world asshole."
"Did you see the size of that chicken".
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:07:24 AM
And have you ever shared the opinions you've expressed in this thread with Chief Harry?
:lol:
Beeb: Man, these people have probably never seen an Indian, they don't understand them like I do! What a bunch of ignorant dumbasses!
Berkut: Dude, I grew up in an areas with lots and lots of Native Americans around. As I stated before, I've employed them, I've had friends who were Native Americans, both on and off reservation.
Malthus: Actually, I know quite a few of them, and even work with them professionally. I am personal friends with someone who is a Native American band chief.
Beeb: YEAH BUT HAVE YOU TOLD THEM WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT RESERVATIONS ZOMG!
It would be better to just say "Oh, I guess I was wrong...sorry, maybe you aren't a bunch of ignorant fucks after all..."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 10, 2012, 08:59:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 05:38:50 PM
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.
Obviously there would be enormous problems attempting to dismantle a centuries-old system with all sorts of deeply vested interests at stake. Doing so would be neither painless nor without pilitical costs, which is exactly why I predict nothing whatsoever is going to be done - other than perhaps the sort of goodwill-tinkering-at-the-edges that is proposed.
The fact that the problem is deep, intractible and potentially unsolvable - because the misery it is causing challenges no vested interests and is more or less politically invisible - is one issue; an accurate and objective analysis as to *what the problem in fact is*, is another.
The sovereignty of native tribes is an artifact of history - it recognizes a reality that, in fact, no longer exists. It has become an excuse for creating (again with the very best will in the world) a system of third-world-like bantustans within first-world countries. Of course natives who have "status" do not want to give it up - who wants to give up a bunch of entitlements?
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:07:24 AM
And have you ever shared the opinions you've expressed in this thread with Chief Harry?
:lol:
Beeb: Man, these people have probably never seen an Indian, they don't understand them like I do! What a bunch of ignorant dumbasses!
Berkut: Dude, I grew up in an areas with lots and lots of Native Americans around. As I stated before, I've employed them, I've had friends who were Native Americans, both on and off reservation.
Malthus: Actually, I know quite a few of them, and even work with them professionally. I am personal friends with someone who is a Native American band chief.
Beeb: YEAH BUT HAVE YOU TOLD THEM WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT RESERVATIONS ZOMG!
It would be better to just say "Oh, I guess I was wrong...sorry, maybe you aren't a bunch of ignorant fucks after all..."
Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly. I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:07:24 AM
And have you ever shared the opinions you've expressed in this thread with Chief Harry?
:lol:
As a point of fact, no.
He is by no means living the stereotype of the despondent Native American living on the government dole - he's more of an entrepreneur.
He's willing to work any angle that gets him, or his band, some advantage, and he's very good at it.
To give an anecdotal example - last year we were discussing the park project. He wanted a greater role on one of the committees set up to outline the ambit of the park's rules. My dad mentioned that he had a slide of my grandfather taken in the 1950s, looking at a trail sign in what would now be the park - and it was written in three languages: English, French and Algonkian.
Chief Harry got my dad to send him a print, which he then used to prove to the Quebec officals that the government had, by tradition, included native language (and thus taken into consideration native presence) in its deliberations over land-use policies -- more in the 1950s than now! Today, no signs at all have Algonkian on them! So, naturally, Chief Harry should have a role on the committee, to redress this lack.
The kicker is this. When we went to Chief Harry's office, we asked him if he could read the Algonkian on the sign. He answered with a bit of a laugh "No, nobody at all reads that now - maybe some really elderly person might, but here, it has almost totally died out. But the government doesn't have to know that".
QuoteThe sovereignty of native tribes is an artifact of history - it recognizes a reality that, in fact, no longer exists. It has become an excuse for creating (again with the very best will in the world) a system of third-world-like bantustans within first-world countries. Of course natives who have "status" do not want to give it up - who wants to give up a bunch of entitlements?
What is bizarre about this is when you look at Native Americans who live off of reservation.
I've sat around shooting the shit with friends in college whose parents bailed on the reservation long ago, and their kids are now going to college, and are pretty much just normal Americans. Some are more into their culture, others not so much.
And they would never, ever, EVER consider moving back onto the reservation - at least not the ones that I knew. They still have family there, still visit obviously, but simply cannot understand why anyone would choose to live in such conditions in return for some shitty stipend and food stamps.
For those living on reservation, there is almost this perverse pride in their plight sometimes - like they are the "true" Native Americans, because they aren't going to let poverty, despair, and misery stop them from living as their culture intended. At least, that is the impression I got at times.
The one young lady who worked for me who was talking about the bribe to marry another NA and stay on the reservation was very conflicted. She wanted to go to college and get the fuck out of there, but there was a lot of pressure from some members of her family to stay true to her heritage, which apparently meant marrying some guy who was willing to live on the reservation without a job but with a house, a truck, and a stipend. Of course, that isn't how it was presented to her, but that is certainly how she saw that option.
Are those kinds of pressures placed on others? Of course. Jewish moms want their boy to marry a nice Jewish girl, etc., etc.
But here is the difference:
1. It isn't the government placing those pressures, and providing financial incentive to do so in the case of Jewish mom.
2. Jewish mom isn't shafting their son really by trying to get him to marry a nice Jewish girl - at least not in a demographic/statistical sense. Presumably nice Jewish girls have the same or better chance of making nice Jewish boys happy and such as anyone else. To the extent that social pressures being palced on people to conform that result in a clear reduction in the standard of living and happiness of those who are pressured to conform, then I would find that objectionable as well. And when it is state sanctioned and supported, that objection would rise to the level of supporting actual legislative intervention to stop it.
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:27:23 AM
Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly. I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not. :mellow:
There are two ends to that stick. I'd say that the "fucking over" is going on
right now, and ask how anyone with a heart could justify it.
Whether any proposed solution would "fuck over" people
even more, is unknown.
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:27:23 AM
Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly. I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not. :mellow:
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Of course, the difference is that my opinion is 100% predicated on nothing more than the desire to NOT fuck over people who are in fact being fucked over right now by the system you so vehemently support.
So yeah - you make no sense Beeb. YOU are the one demanding that nothing really change, and we continue to leave this minority in poverty and despair, because to not do so is "ignorance". Is very nice!
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 09:36:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:27:23 AM
Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly. I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not. :mellow:
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Of course, the difference is that my opinion is 100% predicated on nothing more than the desire to NOT fuck over people who are in fact being fucked over right now by the system you so vehemently support.
So yeah - you make no sense Beeb. YOU are the one demanding that nothing really change, and we continue to leave this minority in poverty and despair, because to not do so is "ignorance". Is very nice!
Well, no. I have some sympathy for the "abolish reservations" opinion.
But the fact of the matter is that native people do not want to do so.
It is their system, and their rights. It is their culture and their way of life. If we are going to finally stop treating natives as children, and extend to them true "self-government" then it is up to them how they wish to organize their affairs.
So until and unless I hear native people say that reserves should be abolished, I won't support that position.
QuoteWell, no. I have some sympathy for the "abolish reservations" opinion.
You do? Wow.
I don't. I think doing so would be a terrible idea.
Quote
But the fact of the matter is that native people do not want to do so.
Well, actually the fact of the matter is that some care about the reservations, and plenty do not. I don't know how many might be in favor of abolishing them though - I've never even heard it proposed seriously.
Enough have voted with their feet to make it clear that your apparent belief that all native Americans share this monolithic affection and passion for living in a ghetto in the middle of nowhere is somewhat, well, simplistic.
Quote
It is their system, and their rights. It is their culture and their way of life. If we are going to finally stop treating natives as children, and extend to them true "self-government" then it is up to them how they wish to organize their affairs.
Well, sort of. If you are serious about that as some kind of foundational principle, then do you also think they should be truly sovereign and independent? Should they get to vote in US elections? Should the US government support them financially in any way?
Here is the thing - when you say you want them to be "truly self-governing" you don't really mean it. You don't really mean they should be a completely separate political and cultural entity, because they cannot be - with a few particular exceptions, reservations are not economically self sufficient and likely never will be.
So while it is easy to say they should get to make their own decisions, the reality is that there is an interdependence that exists, and hence they cannot make their own decisions because they are not actually a separate nation or culture. So we have to make decisions as well, like how much we should support a failed economic structure, how much we should support keeping people in poverty and misery in order to make ourselves feel like we "understand" them.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:41:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 09:36:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:27:23 AM
Well the thing is I'm having a real problem understanding how you can hold an opinion that would fuck over hundreds of thousands of people so profoundly. I thought I could chalk it up to ignorance, but I guess not. :mellow:
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Of course, the difference is that my opinion is 100% predicated on nothing more than the desire to NOT fuck over people who are in fact being fucked over right now by the system you so vehemently support.
So yeah - you make no sense Beeb. YOU are the one demanding that nothing really change, and we continue to leave this minority in poverty and despair, because to not do so is "ignorance". Is very nice!
Well, no. I have some sympathy for the "abolish reservations" opinion.
But the fact of the matter is that native people do not want to do so.
It is their system, and their rights. It is their culture and their way of life. If we are going to finally stop treating natives as children, and extend to them true "self-government" then it is up to them how they wish to organize their affairs.
So until and unless I hear native people say that reserves should be abolished, I won't support that position.
Then how about this for a "solution".
There must be billions of dollars in unresolved land claims out there. Resolve them all. Take that money, and add to it *all* the cash that is going to be handed over in various ways to keep the reservation system going, add current land values and rights held by native self-governments, make it into a big pool of cash, and offer each and every adult native person a *choice* - you can have your "share" (whatever pro-rata figure that may be)
right now - but you have to give up "status". Or, you can have your "share" administered for you on your behalf, under the current set-up - by the government, and by your band chiefs and councils, on your reservations.
Obviously some formula for changing one's mind has to be worked out. Point is, this would offer people an actual choice. Naturally under the current system few would be willing to abandon the system - how many living in poverty want to give up entitlement to welfare?
:huh: They'll be lazier.
Quotehow many living in poverty want to give up entitlement to welfare?
Bingo.
And it is even worse than that - you are dealing not just with poor people, but largely badly educated poor people.
The system keeps them poor, AND keeps them ignorant so they are susceptible to their leaders who are telling them that being poor, miserable, and uneducated is simply part of their culture and heritage, and rejecting the hand outs and screwed up system is tantamount to rejecting their "culture". To the extent that there is any problem, why, it is not a problem of the system, but a problem of the overall society that has screwed their people over in the past (true) and continues to screw them over today (mostly false), and if only that society would do the right things (which of course inevitably involves fighting poverty by increasing handouts...all of which must flow through the "sovereign government" of course) then those problems would go away.
But they won't. You cannot buy your way out of poverty. We could double the budget for the BIA, and it would not make high school dropouts employable in the middle of nowhere.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 09:16:30 AMThe sovereignty of native tribes is an artifact of history - it recognizes a reality that, in fact, no longer exists. It has become an excuse for creating (again with the very best will in the world) a system of third-world-like bantustans within first-world countries. Of course natives who have "status" do not want to give it up - who wants to give up a bunch of entitlements?
Everything is potentially an artefact of history (hence why I evoked Rhode Island earlier): heck, the very notion of sovereignty might be treated this way (recognizing a reality which no longer exists (if it ever truly existed). The difference is on what we treat as "irrelevant" and what we treat as something to salvage / uphold. For some reason, the political autonomy of P.E.I. is maintained, and Native sovereignty should be dead?
I thought the point was obvious - but it seems it is not so I'll repeat it here: I don't think BB, PDH, Jake, JR, or I are making the point that we must change nothing, that the reservation system is the best thing since sliced bread, that definition of band membership is swell, and that we take perverse pleasure in seeing the worst examples of reservations in Canada. (Why you feel the need to imply these things is distasteful).
What all of us have been reacting
against, however, is what we perceived as a tendency, in your proposed answers and solutions to "the Native problem" to do away with any form of institutional anchors to Native political and cultural identity,, coupled with what surely sounded like a belittling of both, reducing them to the clinging of entitlements by misguided fools, blind to their own self-interest or to enlightened conceptions of what proper citizenship, identity, culture should be, and should be expressed. PDH underlined that such discourse are modern echoes of much earlier 19th c. colonialist discourse. BB pointed to the fact that these discourses had been tried using varied methods and failed to stamp out Native identity. I tried to remind you (a point remade by Minsky) that your categories of analysis are unevenly applied.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 10, 2012, 10:07:54 AM
Everything is potentially an artefact of history (hence why I evoked Rhode Island earlier): heck, the very notion of sovereignty might be treated this way (recognizing a reality which no longer exists (if it ever truly existed). The difference is on what we treat as "irrelevant" and what we treat as something to salvage / uphold. For some reason, the political autonomy of P.E.I. is maintained, and Native sovereignty should be dead?
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.
QuoteI thought the point was obvious - but it seems it is not so I'll repeat it here: I don't think BB, PDH, Jake, JR, or I are making the point that we must change nothing, that the reservation system is the best thing since sliced bread, that definition of band membership is swell, and that we take perverse pleasure in seeing the worst examples of reservations in Canada. (Why you feel the need to imply these things is distasteful).
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 ...
QuoteWhat all of us have been reacting against, however, is what we perceived as a tendency, in your proposed answers and solutions to "the Native problem" to do away with any form of institutional anchors to Native political and cultural identity,, coupled with what surely sounded like a belittling of both, reducing them to the clinging of entitlements by misguided fools, blind to their own self-interest or to enlightened conceptions of what proper citizenship, identity, culture should be, and should be expressed. PDH underlined that such discourse are modern echoes of much earlier 19th c. colonialist discourse. BB pointed to the fact that these discourses had been tried using varied methods and failed to stamp out Native identity. I tried to remind you (a point remade by Minsky) that your categories of analysis are unevenly applied.
[Emphasis added]
???
Hell, I don't think *anyone* in this thread is arguing in bad faith, and *everyone* wants what is best for native americans. 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.
What we are mostly seeing from *your* side is stuff like BB's 'I'm not calling you racists, only ignorant - you don't actually know any', and the above 'you belittle native culture and think natives are all misguided fools', or earlier, Jacob's 'how can a nice guy like you hold such opinions?'.
At least land and territory is one area where Europeans treated everyone the same: black, white, yellow, brown, red... if you weren't strong enough to defend your territory it got taken from you. In Europe white peoples had to fight, fight and fight some more just to keep their neighbors from grabbing their land.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 10:25:47 AM
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.
QuoteHow 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.
QuoteOur 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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 09:16:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 10, 2012, 11:10:07 AM
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.
QuoteMight 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:
QuoteThat 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.
QuoteThis 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 10, 2012, 11:30:30 AM
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.
QuoteThat 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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 11:37:43 AM
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?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 10, 2012, 12:06:58 PM
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.
QuoteAs 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! :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 01:41:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
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' ?
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 01:41:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 01:47:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 01:41:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
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:
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
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.
What this thread/debate needs is an actual Indian. :P
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 09:45:01 AM
Quote from: BarristerBoy
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 10, 2012, 02:09:52 PM
What this thread/debate needs is an actual Indian. :P
Come on that's just silly, they simply aren't educated enough to engage in the finer points of this debate about their future. ;)
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 01:47:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 01:41:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:39:18 PM
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:
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2012, 01:29:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 12:54:34 PM
You have given me no reason to do so.
Of course. :D
QuoteI 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.
Talk about reframing... *Everyone* agrees the cause is a systemic one (what's the alternative? coincidence?). People in this thread have disagreed as to what you have put in the system (Native culture is broken) and what you refuse to put in the solution (Native sovereignty), the first out of a highly debatable analysis, the second out of principle (other than reiterating that it is an artifact, thereby accepting status quo for European sovereigns but refusing it for Natives).
QuoteThis cherry-picking of stuff to be offended at gets old fast, though.
For it to be cherry-picking, it would have to be about the periphery of your argument, rather than its essential components. It is not so much being offended as denouncing a rhetoric which is the simple reactivation of colonialist thought. Feel free to embrace it, though.
QuoteIndeed, 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! :lol:
No: BB and Jacob have called you out on the whole "broken" thing, and hinted at the flawed premises hidden in them (i.e., a sort of wholesale judgement of Native realities which can fit your narrative). PDH has basically already stated that what you propose is the equivalent in spirit to Dawes in both origin and purpose (and therefore didn't work and lead to the exact same situation you denounce). I simply aggregated the argument - you might not like the end result, and I confess I do not have such great fondness for colonialist thought, but it is not about your audacity - simply the puzzling conclusion it leads one to.
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.
[/quote]
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 02:13:26 PM
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.
Again, I'll refer you to my post above which is I believe the only one in which I've actually spelled out a possible "solution".
Note that it's simply a trial balloon, not some sort of detailed and thought-out plan. However, you will see its key points are:
(1)
actual choice for native americans; and
(2) full compensation for any existing entitlements, should individual native americans choose to forgo them.
I dunno why you and Minsky keep saying my "side", or me particularly, must of necessity simply want to turf native americans out. We all know that won't work, and would be inequitable even if it would work.
For convenience, I reproduce my earlier post here:
QuoteThen how about this for a "solution".
There must be billions of dollars in unresolved land claims out there. Resolve them all. Take that money, and add to it *all* the cash that is going to be handed over in various ways to keep the reservation system going, add current land values and rights held by native self-governments, make it into a big pool of cash, and offer each and every adult native person a *choice* - you can have your "share" (whatever pro-rata figure that may be) right now - but you have to give up "status". Or, you can have your "share" administered for you on your behalf, under the current set-up - by the government, and by your band chiefs and councils, on your reservations.
Obviously some formula for changing one's mind has to be worked out. Point is, this would offer people an actual choice. Naturally under the current system few would be willing to abandon the system - how many living in poverty want to give up entitlement to welfare?
I used to be an Indian but then I took a wound to the knee.
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 02:13:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 09:45:01 AM
Quote from: BarristerBoy
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?
I've stated it several times. It is so far removed from what you keep repeating is my proposal even after I state that I have no such views that at this point, if you don't know it, I am sure stating it again won't help. You guys can continue to feel smug and superior arguing with your fake people, I am kind of tired of the entire thing.
You have the advantage that your proposal to do nothing because doing anything would be disrespectful to Native Americans is what will actually be done, so 30 years from now when nothing has changed, and another generation has been squandered, you will be able to smugly drink your latte and feel proud of your understanding of native cultures.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 10, 2012, 02:21:06 PM
Talk about reframing... *Everyone* agrees the cause is a systemic one (what's the alternative? coincidence?). People in this thread have disagreed as to what you have put in the system (Native culture is broken) and what you refuse to put in the solution (Native sovereignty), the first out of a highly debatable analysis, the second out of principle (other than reiterating that it is an artifact, thereby accepting status quo for European sovereigns but refusing it for Natives).
Your position makes nop sense at all. Of *course* culture is going to be "part of the system" in a systemic problem dealing with people! Are you of the opinion that culture exists serenely outside of people's lives, in some sort of Platonic place?
Culture, the system of legislation, the government, sovereignty - these are *all* aspects of the problem.
You have it 100% wrong if you think my position is that natives are somehow responsible for their own misery beacuse their culture is somehow not as good as European culture. *Any* culture that existed as this one does in a system of perverse incentives would create the same problems. The basic problem, as I identified in my first posts, is that living an existence in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do cannot be made "meaningful", no matter what you do and no matter what culture you have. So natives suffer (as anyone would, native or non-native alike) from the very typical symptoms of that - suicide, hopelessness, turning to drugs, booze and violence.
You are looking at this through the wrong end of the microscope.
QuoteFor it to be cherry-picking, it would have to be about the periphery of your argument, rather than its essential components. It is not so much being offended as denouncing a rhetoric which is the simple reactivation of colonialist thought. Feel free to embrace it, though.
Thank you for putting me neatly into a label. That'll learn me! :lol:
QuoteNo: BB and Jacob have called you out on the whole "broken" thing, and hinted at the flawed premises hidden in them (i.e., a sort of wholesale judgement of Native realities which can fit your narrative). PDH has basically already stated that what you propose is the equivalent in spirit to Dawes in both origin and purpose (and therefore didn't work and lead to the exact same situation you denounce). I simply aggregated the argument - you might not like the end result, and I confess I do not have such great fondness for colonialist thought, but it is not about your audacity - simply the puzzling conclusion it leads one to.
Again with the label. How neatly a label stifles thought.
I take it that my challenge to produce facts and arguments has produced the result I expected - nothing.
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 02:31:05 PM
I've stated it several times. It is so far removed from what you keep repeating is my proposal even after I state that I have no such views that at this point, if you don't know it, I am sure stating it again won't help. You guys can continue to feel smug and superior arguing with your fake people, I am kind of tired of the entire thing.
You have the advantage that your proposal to do nothing because doing anything would be disrespectful to Native Americans is what will actually be done, so 30 years from now when nothing has changed, and another generation has been squandered, you will be able to smugly drink your latte and feel proud of your understanding of native cultures.
I gotta agree, I'm getting kind of tired of this.
I had no idea people still called each other carriers of"colonialist thought" with a straight face. Seems very mid-80s to me.
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 02:17:36 PM
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.
I'll ignore your too common ad hominem and bluster and refer you to the very post of mine you've quote and ignored, here it is again:
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
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.
I kind of doubt that Malth's and Berk's Strategic Hamlet Program would work.
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
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.
I take it your solution is to - wait for them to come up with their own solution?
It has the virtue of not requiring the rest of us to do anything. But what if they don't come up with anything, and conditions continue to deteriorate?
I like the idea that if just left alone, Native Americans can figure out how to squeeze blood out of rocks.
The more I think about it, the more amazed I am at this level of ridiculous idiocy.
What mongers is basically saying is that we came in, stole all their land, shoved them onto shitty reservations where they have no ability to sustain themselves without turning into welfare recipients, then once the situation had become so bad that suicide is the leading cause of death among young adults, we should..."leave it to them to come up with a solution...".
The hubris is just...amazing.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
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.
I take it your solution is to - wait for them to come up with their own solution?
It has the virtue of not requiring the rest of us to do anything. But what if they don't come up with anything, and conditions continue to deteriorate?
Yes, that's pretty much all we can do then. The "answer" has to come from native communities themselves. Attempting to impose anything from the outside has a very long history of failure.
If conditions continue to deteriorate individuals will continue to leave those communities in ever increasing numbers (they're already doing so at a pretty good clip anyways).
It's obviously not a quick fix. But I don't think there is a quick fix to be found.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
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.
I take it your solution is to - wait for them to come up with their own solution?
It has the virtue of not requiring the rest of us to do anything. But what if they don't come up with anything, and conditions continue to deteriorate?
No, maybe they could do with some outside help, perhaps you should sign up to one of the first nation forums and posit this question there ?
Perhaps you could bring some practical law-speaking skills to the table, I think it's worth a go on your part.
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
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.
I take it your solution is to - wait for them to come up with their own solution?
It has the virtue of not requiring the rest of us to do anything. But what if they don't come up with anything, and conditions continue to deteriorate?
Yes, that's pretty much all we can do then. The "answer" has to come from native communities themselves. Attempting to impose anything from the outside has a very long history of failure.
If conditions continue to deteriorate individuals will continue to leave those communities in ever increasing numbers (they're already doing so at a pretty good clip anyways).
It's obviously not a quick fix. But I don't think there is a quick fix to be found.
Gah, that's a pretty ruthless form of assimilation.
Why is this better than the solution I proposed above (and which no-one commented on)?
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 02:47:12 PM
I like the idea that if just left alone, Native Americans can figure out how to squeeze blood out of rocks.
The more I think about it, the more amazed I am at this level of ridiculous idiocy.
What mongers is basically saying is that we came in, stole all their land, shoved them onto shitty reservations where they have no ability to sustain themselves without turning into welfare recipients, then once the situation had become so bad that suicide is the leading cause of death among young adults, we should..."leave it to them to come up with a solution...".
The hubris is just...amazing.
Oh look more ad hominem, bluster and mischaracterisation from Berkut, colour me surprised.
If you feel so passionate about solving this thing for them, maybe you should do some outreach within their communities ?
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
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.
I take it your solution is to - wait for them to come up with their own solution?
It has the virtue of not requiring the rest of us to do anything. But what if they don't come up with anything, and conditions continue to deteriorate?
No, maybe they could do with some outside help, perhaps you should sign up to one of the first nation forums and posit this question there ?
Perhaps you could bring some practical law-speaking skills to the table, I think it's worth a go on your part.
I might give it a shot. If you've read the thread you will know I already have some involvement.
But I doubt my pro bono skills, no doubt awesome as they are, will amount to a full solution. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
If conditions continue to deteriorate individuals will continue to leave those communities in ever increasing numbers (they're already doing so at a pretty good clip anyways).
Jesus Christ Beebs, you are basically saying that we are terrible human beings for saying that further assimilation should be encouraged via enticemetns and/or simply removing dis-incentives to do so, yet your solution is to cause further assmiliation through making living conditions so miserable they are forced to leave?
And lets be clear here - this misery is the kind of misery that causes Native Americans to kill themselves at a rate roughly double the national average. So we are talking about people dieing, and many, many more people living in what amounts to third world conditions inside one of the richest countries in the world.
And WE are the bad guys here? :boggle:
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 03:00:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
If conditions continue to deteriorate individuals will continue to leave those communities in ever increasing numbers (they're already doing so at a pretty good clip anyways).
Jesus Christ Beebs, you are basically saying that we are terrible human beings for saying that further assimilation should be encouraged via enticemetns and/or simply removing dis-incentives to do so, yet your solution is to cause further assmiliation through making living conditions so miserable they are forced to leave?
And lets be clear here - this misery is the kind of misery that causes Native Americans to kill themselves at a rate roughly double the national average. So we are talking about people dieing, and many, many more people living in what amounts to third world conditions inside one of the richest countries in the world.
And WE are the bad guys here? :boggle:
They may be living in poverty or dying ... but at least no-one is guilty of "colonialist thought".
Gotta keep matters in perspective and focus on the truly important, Berk! :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 02:34:21 PM
Your position makes nop sense at all. Of *course* culture is going to be "part of the system" in a systemic problem dealing with people! Are you of the opinion that culture exists serenely outside of people's lives, in some sort of Platonic place?
*sigh*. I'll try to spell it out again. Your description of Native culture is flawed. They do not ascribe to their old ways the kind of power you think they ascribe to them. They do not live in the past anymore than we do. "Native culture" is a misnomer. There are tons of very different nations. Inuits are different from Indians. Ergo, while it is very possible that unspecified elements in "Native culture" play a role in their sorry situation, the type of solution you propose,
and which relies on the desireability of getting rid of Native culture such as you have defined it, is misguided.
QuoteYou have it 100% wrong if you think my position is that natives are somehow responsible for their own misery beacuse their culture is somehow not as good as European culture.
It is partly what it amounts to (you cast judgements as to what is desireable, out of criteria for which you fail to appreciate the asumptions), and partly - as I say again - an argument which is the exact same as those of the past: it is not that their culture is inferior (many late 19th c. - 20th c. people thought it admirable), it is just that it is no longer possible in the modern world... (hence, let us help their transition into modernity...).
Quoteliving an existence in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do cannot be made "meaningful", no matter what you do and no matter what culture you have.
Perhaps, though it also has a lot to do with a) portraying the place where they live as "the middle of nowhere", thereby contributing to the problem, b) "having nothing to do", can, and could, be solved in a great many ways, especially these days with wireless communications, or even -
for the sake of argument, need I spell out - not be solved at all. After all, we are quite content with leaving other communities die a slow economic death in the name of changing times. In this case, we rarely evoke "culture".
QuoteThank you for putting me neatly into a label. That'll learn me! :lol:
We all use labels. They are useful tools of analysis; they can stiffle thought, but they can also provoke it by searching for analogies and reconfiguring arguments. I am not saying you are a blood-thirsty imperialist who rails against dirty savages. I am pointing out that your argument, at its very core, is identical to what was put forth a hundred and fifty years ago, and that it should perhaps give you food for thought.
QuoteI take it that my challenge to produce facts and arguments has produced the result I expected - nothing.
I have provided many arguments. You simply have chosen to disregard them. Then again, if you already expect nothing there isn't quite much to discuss, is there? The main mode of argument on Languish is analogy and easily digestible facts. In this case, the issue is so simplified, and uses such grand terms of analysis ("Natives"; "culture", "sovereignty") that the next step would require detailed examples and analysis of scholarship. Maybe when I have time, I will answer
your challenge. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
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.
I take it your solution is to - wait for them to come up with their own solution?
It has the virtue of not requiring the rest of us to do anything. But what if they don't come up with anything, and conditions continue to deteriorate?
No, maybe they could do with some outside help, perhaps you should sign up to one of the first nation forums and posit this question there ?
Perhaps you could bring some practical law-speaking skills to the table, I think it's worth a go on your part.
I might give it a shot. If you've read the thread you will know I already have some involvement.
But I doubt my pro bono skills, no doubt awesome as they are, will amount to a full solution. ;)
:thumbsup:
Then perhaps you should, it would be pretty impressive is a discussion/argument on languish actually led to some real world change or more active participation from a Languishite, rather than the usual armchair 'putting the world to rights' that most of us just engage in. :)
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 03:03:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 03:00:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
If conditions continue to deteriorate individuals will continue to leave those communities in ever increasing numbers (they're already doing so at a pretty good clip anyways).
Jesus Christ Beebs, you are basically saying that we are terrible human beings for saying that further assimilation should be encouraged via enticemetns and/or simply removing dis-incentives to do so, yet your solution is to cause further assmiliation through making living conditions so miserable they are forced to leave?
And lets be clear here - this misery is the kind of misery that causes Native Americans to kill themselves at a rate roughly double the national average. So we are talking about people dieing, and many, many more people living in what amounts to third world conditions inside one of the richest countries in the world.
And WE are the bad guys here? :boggle:
They may be living in poverty or dying ... but at least no-one is guilty of "colonialist thought".
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Hmm, so it seems like we should just ignore the problems that Native Americans are facing as they aren't our problems. :)
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 10, 2012, 03:03:58 PM
*sigh*. I'll try to spell it out again. Your description of Native culture is flawed. They do not ascribe to their old ways the kind of power you think they ascribe to them. They do not live in the past anymore than we do. "Native culture" is a misnomer. There are tons of very different nations. Inuits are different from Indians. Ergo, while it is very possible that unspecified elements in "Native culture" play a role in their sorry situation, the type of solution you propose, and which relies on the desireability of getting rid of Native culture such as you have defined it, is misguided.
I love what you have italicized for emphasis! :lol:
Here's an easily fulfilled challenge (since you do not like my other): find
anywhere where I have recommended "getting rid of Native culture".
This is an easy one, since all you have to do is read this thread.
You will I predict not be able to do so - because I never said it. I have no intention of, nor do I think it is in any way, shape or form a good idea to, "get rid of native culture".
Quote
It is partly what it amounts to (you cast judgements as to what is desireable, out of criteria for which you fail to appreciate the asumptions), and partly - as I say again - an argument which is the exact same as those of the past: it is not that their culture is inferior (many late 19th c. - 20th c. people thought it admirable), it is just that it is no longer possible in the modern world... (hence, let us help their transition into modernity...).
Oh what's the use. I tell you I did not say something, and don't mean something, and you just blithely ignore me.
You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with some construct of your own.
Quote
Perhaps, though it also has a lot to do with a) portraying the place where they live as "the middle of nowhere", thereby contributing to the problem, b) "having nothing to do", can, and could, be solved in a great many ways, especially these days with wireless communications, or even - for the sake of argument, need I spell out - not be solved at all. After all, we are quite content with leaving other communities die a slow economic death in the name of changing times. In this case, we rarely evoke "culture".
That's your solution - let them die a slow economic death?
Need I point out that other communities don't, in general, receive positive *incentives* to exist in places where they have "died a slow economic death"?
There are exceptions of course. This reminds me of an anecdote.
When I was a dewy-eyed law student, I worked with a (semi) famous Law and Economics Professor named Professor Trebilcock - I was a research assistant (not that I know anything about economics, mind).
He told me that one of his projects way back when he started out was working as a government consultant. There was a community in Nova Scotia or somewhere like that which relied on a coal mine that was failing, economically. The government asked the prof to come up with a solution.
He worked out that, given reports by geologists and certain economic assumptions concerning the coal industry, the mine would lose money at a certain predictable rate. The amount necessary to subsidize it for the next 20 years would be $X - after which it would invariably play out, putting everyone on the dole (I simplify here).
The prof's proposed solution was to take $X, divide it by the number of people working on the mine *now*, and simply let them do what they wanted with it within reason - start other businesses, move elsewhere, etc. It turned out to be a very large sum of money for the time - something like half a million each.
The government totally rejected this solution as politically unfeasable. Instead, they kept subsidizing the mine, and as predicted it failed twenty years later, putting everyone on the dole - having cost $X. The difference of course is that, in return for the money, instead of choices, the inhabitants were forced to work at dangerous labour in a mine, producing subsidized coal. The beneficiaries were users of coal, not the people.
QuoteWe all use labels. They are useful tools of analysis; they can stiffle thought, but they can also provoke it by searching for analogies and reconfiguring arguments. I am not saying you are a blood-thirsty imperialist who rails against dirty savages. I am pointing out that your argument, at its very core, is identical to what was put forth a hundred and fifty years ago, and that it should perhaps give you food for thought.
I have provided many arguments. You simply have chosen to disregard them. Then again, if you already expect nothing there isn't quite much to discuss, is there? The main mode of argument on Languish is analogy and easily digestible facts. In this case, the issue is so simplified, and uses such grand terms of analysis ("Natives"; "culture", "sovereignty") that the next step would require detailed examples and analysis of scholarship. Maybe when I have time, I will answer your challenge. :lol:
I've given you an easier one - to back up your (mis) characterization of my arguments made in this very thread.
Should not prove a great strain on your scholarship.
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 03:18:58 PM
Hmm, so it seems like we should just ignore the problems that Native Americans are facing as they aren't our problems. :)
Apparently, suggesting that anything should be done about the problems makes you a "colonialist".
Indeed, I suppose I should re-think Monger's suggestion I help natives out with some
pro bono work. I might be guilty of making the insulting and patronizing assumption that they need my help, for free. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 03:13:31 PM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 03:45:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 03:18:58 PM
Hmm, so it seems like we should just ignore the problems that Native Americans are facing as they aren't our problems. :)
Apparently, suggesting that anything should be done about the problems makes you a "colonialist".
Indeed, I suppose I should re-think Monger's suggestion I help natives out with some pro bono work. I might be guilty of making the insulting and patronizing assumption that they need my help, for free. :hmm:
Yes, I was thinking that same thing. An outsider thinking he could volunteer to help out? Typical.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 03:37:33 PM
Here's an easily fulfilled challenge (since you do not like my other): find anywhere where I have recommended "getting rid of Native culture".
I do not have to dance to your tune. :mellow:
Isn't your ideal stated goal assimilation? (as in:)
QuoteSo the "solution" we see adopted is - assimilation in every meaningful sense.
And wasn't your ideal of assimilation for Natives to get rid of the "meaningless", "broken" parts of their culture - or, as I wrote above "getting rid of Native culture
as you have defined it".
Perhaps you meant something else.
QuoteThat's your solution - let them die a slow economic death?
QuotePerhaps, though it also has a lot to do with a) portraying the place where they live as "the middle of nowhere", thereby contributing to the problem, b) "having nothing to do", can, and could, be solved in a great many ways, especially these days with wireless communications, or even - for the sake of argument, need I spell out - not be solved at all. After all, we are quite content with leaving other communities die a slow economic death in the name of changing times. In this case, we rarely evoke "culture".
Obviously, it turns out I really needed to spell it out...
My point was that situations similar to that of the Natives with regards to unemployment, and the woes associated with it, exist out there, and yet in these situations, a) the culture of the affected communities is not especially singled out as a cause, and b) in your "brilliant plan", once you get rid of Native status, and you are stuck with exactly the same type of communities, with exactly the same type of problems, you have essentially supplied the excuse of consent for the rest of society to turn its back to them.
As of now, I venture that we can much more powerfully fight against racism than we can against the all-powerful motive of consent, and that there are much more chances of arriving at a solution by treating this as a problem of Natives, to be solved
with Natives and a form of political entity, than as a future municipal problem of the exact same communities.
snip the anecdote.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 10, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
I do not have to dance to your tune. :mellow:
Obviously not - but if you are going to impute bad motives to me, I think a reasonable person would expect you to have cause, no?
QuoteIsn't your ideal stated goal assimilation? (as in:)
QuoteSo the "solution" we see adopted is - assimilation in every meaningful sense.
And wasn't your ideal of assimilation for Natives to get rid of the "meaningless", "broken" parts of their culture - or, as I wrote above "getting rid of Native culture as you have defined it".
Perhaps you meant something else.
Indeed I did mean something else. My "solution" was never to make natives to discard their culture. :)
Now that you have been disabused of that, perhaps we can move forward.
Quote
Obviously, it turns out I really needed to spell it out...
My point was that situations similar to that of the Natives with regards to unemployment, and the woes associated with it, exist out there, and yet in these situations, a) the culture of the affected communities is not especially singled out as a cause, and b) in your "brilliant plan", once you get rid of Native status, and you are stuck with exactly the same type of communities, with exactly the same type of problems, you have essentially supplied the excuse of consent for the rest of society to turn its back to them.
I'm confused.
By "brilliant plan", do you mean the one I actually posted? The one where natives are given the
choice - one choice being, to follow the "plan" basically what you want all natives to follow?
How is this a problem for you? Those natives who want to live life under the Indian Act and all the rest of it can. Those who don't, don't have to.
All that changes from now is the incentives - which are imposed "from outside" in any case.
QuoteAs of now, I venture that we can much more powerfully fight against racism than we can against the all-powerful motive of consent, and that there are much more chances of arriving at a solution by treating this as a problem of Natives, to be solved with Natives and a form of political entity, than as a future municipal problem of the exact same communities.
I literally do not know what you mean by " As of now, I venture that we can much more powerfully fight against racism than we can against the all-powerful motive of consent ...".
So, are we any closer to figuring out the "Indian Question"?
Can someone recap the ideas here. A poll would due.
All i know is Berkut and Malthus hate Indians as much as Neil.
Quote from: katmai on May 10, 2012, 07:11:50 PM
All i know is Berkut and Malthus hate Indians as much as Neil.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it all up. :lol:
And BB is an Uncle Tonto.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 11:46:04 AM
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.
Sovereignty often fails to serve the best interests who are subject to it - in fact that historically and even presently is more typically the case then not, and for systemic reasons as well.
As for the "sham" argument - I am less familiar with the Canadian set up but in the US, Tribal sovereignty, although limited in certain respects, is quite real and not a sham. The tribal jurisdictions may not have many classical incidents of sovereignty, like an independent foreign policy or currency, but they do have extensive powers of self-government and broad immunities against the implementation of laws of competing jurisdictions. It doesn't seem clear to me that tribal sovereignty is any more a sham that the sovereignty of Monaco, Andorra, or the Channel Islands.
QuoteI 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.
Is that the proposal to offer to pay people a big lump sum to give up their claims to sovereignty?
I agree that gives a choice, but what happens if some refuse the offer? Then the problem as you see it still remains, only the state is out a bunch of cash for their trouble.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 04:28:58 PMIndeed I did mean something else. My "solution" was never to make natives to discard their culture. :)
Now that you have been disabused of that, perhaps we can move forward.
Well, you've been pretty obtuse in stating that so far :)
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 03:03:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2012, 03:00:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
If conditions continue to deteriorate individuals will continue to leave those communities in ever increasing numbers (they're already doing so at a pretty good clip anyways).
Jesus Christ Beebs, you are basically saying that we are terrible human beings for saying that further assimilation should be encouraged via enticemetns and/or simply removing dis-incentives to do so, yet your solution is to cause further assmiliation through making living conditions so miserable they are forced to leave?
And lets be clear here - this misery is the kind of misery that causes Native Americans to kill themselves at a rate roughly double the national average. So we are talking about people dieing, and many, many more people living in what amounts to third world conditions inside one of the richest countries in the world.
And WE are the bad guys here? :boggle:
They may be living in poverty or dying ... but at least no-one is guilty of "colonialist thought".
Gotta keep matters in perspective and focus on the truly important, Berk! :D
I'm more than a little offended at the notion I don't care about conditions in first nations communities. I mean - I've only spent years and years fighting and prosecuting in northern Canada to ry and make first nations communities better places.
But last year I upped and moved. I now prosecute in a large city. Not one single reserve within city limits.
But guess what - first nations people are still grossly over-represented in my courtroom.
But no, they aren't just visiting. They live here. Many have grown up here. Whatever their problems, it wasn't directly caused by their Indian Status.
And you know what? Some first nations communities are doing pretty darn good. I've talked about some of the Yukon communities I prosecuted in. They were rough. They gave me some of the roughest towns to deal with. But those aren't all the towns. Once (and just once) I went and prosecuted in Teslin. It's a T'lingit community. Houses are well-kept. Crime was low. It's a town I enjoyed visiting, and would purposely stop in.
I said I have some sympathy for the "close the reserves" sentiment, but I'm not convinced that the "reserves" are what are causing these problems. Problems of domestic violence, suicide, substance abuse - they exist on and off reserve.
So what I suggest is pretty simple. Certainly not to ignore the situation - but to go to native communities as a sibling, not a parent. To say "I see you're hurting - what can I do to help", and not to say "I know what's best for you".
Malthus, re: your plan to end any special Indian status in exchange for a one-time cash payment:
You know in university I thought something like that was the way to go.
But I don't think you'd get universal acceptance. Native culture is (yes still!) funny when it comes to money.
Have you heard of a reserve called Hobbema? It's a reserve (actually several reserves) in Alberta that sit on some very rich oil wealth. Until fairly recently they dispersed that oil wealth by giving each citizen a very large cheque (approx $100k) when they turned 18. Sounds great, right? Maybe they'll turn into dickhead trustafarians, but they should be able to set themselves up in life.
Unfortunately what typically would happen is the 18 year old would buy themselves a brand new pickup, but then send the rest on parties and gifts for family and friends, and typically the money is gone in a couple of years.
The sense of community, of sharing, which to me seems like a bad idea when taken to that level, is central to native culture.
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
It's the Audacity of Beebs.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 07:00:22 PM
So, are we any closer to figuring out the "Indian Question"?
Can someone recap the ideas here. A poll would due.
I did that recently. We won't do anything as it'd be paternalistic. :)
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:48:43 PM
I'm more than a little offended at the notion I don't care about conditions in first nations communities. I mean - I've only spent years and years fighting and prosecuting in northern Canada to ry and make first nations communities better places.
I guess one could say a community is better when you've locked them all up. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:48:43 PM
I'm more than a little offended at the notion I don't care about conditions in first nations communities. I mean - I've only spent years and years fighting and prosecuting in northern Canada to ry and make first nations communities better places.
I guess one could say a community is better when you've locked them all up. :hmm:
A community is indeed better when you've locked up the worst offenders. -_-
I remember a time when the local RCMP commented - it's been really quiet in town. It must be because X, Y and Z are in jail.
It really is a small minority of individuals who cause the majority of problems - in any community.
And incarceration is only one tool.
I've sat in on a sentencing circle. I've done restorative justice meetings. I've put many, many people on community supervision. I've sent many people to residential treatment facilities.
Oh you were deciding what was best for them?
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 10:49:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:48:43 PM
I'm more than a little offended at the notion I don't care about conditions in first nations communities. I mean - I've only spent years and years fighting and prosecuting in northern Canada to ry and make first nations communities better places.
I guess one could say a community is better when you've locked them all up. :hmm:
A community is indeed better when you've locked up the worst offenders. -_-
I remember a time when the local RCMP commented - it's been really quiet in town. It must be because X, Y and Z are in jail.
It really is a small minority of individuals who cause the majority of problems - in any community.
America is a better place because we lock up all our black people. :)
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
America is a better place because we lock up all our black people. :)
Yet you are free :ultra:
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 10:54:14 PM
Oh you were deciding what was best for them?
Not really.
I mentioned doing court in Teslin. It was a fascinating experience. The judge presides, of course. But the local clan elders sit in on court, and feel quite, quite free to share their opinion with the judge on what the judge should do in the end.
Even in other communities - I've had plenty of meetings with Chiefs, native court workers, and of course lots and lots of victims to get their input. The most usual response of course was "we want X to get help" - which was also my goal.
And don't get me wrong - most communities know who the real problem-makers are, and while they might be reluctant or scared to come forward to give evidence, they had no objection to that person going to jail.
Quote from: katmai on May 10, 2012, 11:00:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
America is a better place because we lock up all our black people. :)
Yet you are free :ultra:
Desi, baby.
Why are people arguing with Oex?
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.
Some people find it hard to think in terms of individuals when there is a handy "Native nation" tag to lump them under. The problem is a difficult one, though, and probably the best we can do is solve it on a small scale repeatedly, rather than as one big problem with one big solution.
I've went to Little Creek Casino a couple of time for chow. Great food. Problem is, I havent seen one worker that even looks native american. There white folk and colored folk. And no I'm not talking dressed in a Indian getup.
After the last episode of The Killing, I'm considering withdrawing my support of Injuns. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2012, 08:26:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 04:28:58 PMIndeed I did mean something else. My "solution" was never to make natives to discard their culture. :)
Now that you have been disabused of that, perhaps we can move forward.
Well, you've been pretty obtuse in stating that so far :)
Considering I never said I wanted them to discard their culture in the first place, and have instead repeatedly stated the opposite, exactly who is being "obtuse" here? :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 10, 2012, 07:27:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 11:46:04 AM
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.
Sovereignty often fails to serve the best interests who are subject to it - in fact that historically and even presently is more typically the case then not, and for systemic reasons as well.
As for the "sham" argument - I am less familiar with the Canadian set up but in the US, Tribal sovereignty, although limited in certain respects, is quite real and not a sham. The tribal jurisdictions may not have many classical incidents of sovereignty, like an independent foreign policy or currency, but they do have extensive powers of self-government and broad immunities against the implementation of laws of competing jurisdictions. It doesn't seem clear to me that tribal sovereignty is any more a sham that the sovereignty of Monaco, Andorra, or the Channel Islands.
It's a sham. The natives don't control even the most basic indicia of sovereignty - namely, who is a member of the "sovereign" group.
This (in Canada) is decided on racial lines by federal legislation. As I've pointed out before in educating BB on the subject, the federal plan appears to be to gradually restrict native "sovereignty" by makinfg the children of those who intermarry not part of the "sovereign" group.
I cannot immediately think of any truly "sovereign" group identified on racial lines whose membership is controlled by another, which attempts to gradually eliminate it.
QuoteIs that the proposal to offer to pay people a big lump sum to give up their claims to sovereignty?
I agree that gives a choice, but what happens if some refuse the offer? Then the problem as you see it still remains, only the state is out a bunch of cash for their trouble.
The "problem" has been reduced by the number who accept the offer, which would be ongoing, because the incentives have been reallocated. There would no longer remain a purely *financial* incentive to remain dependent on a raft of entitlements. If people valued the sense of community they get from living on reservations, they may have that - if they wish. If they do not, they are compensated for giving up their rights to it.
It is surely more humane and less offensive that the present situation, in which our federal gov't apparently seeks to reduce the "problem" by cutting-off entitlements on racial lines.
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Malthus, re: your plan to end any special Indian status in exchange for a one-time cash payment:
You know in university I thought something like that was the way to go.
But I don't think you'd get universal acceptance. Native culture is (yes still!) funny when it comes to money.
Have you heard of a reserve called Hobbema? It's a reserve (actually several reserves) in Alberta that sit on some very rich oil wealth. Until fairly recently they dispersed that oil wealth by giving each citizen a very large cheque (approx $100k) when they turned 18. Sounds great, right? Maybe they'll turn into dickhead trustafarians, but they should be able to set themselves up in life.
Unfortunately what typically would happen is the 18 year old would buy themselves a brand new pickup, but then send the rest on parties and gifts for family and friends, and typically the money is gone in a couple of years.
The sense of community, of sharing, which to me seems like a bad idea when taken to that level, is central to native culture.
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
I don't get your position. On the one hand, you are against paternalism for natives - "go in a sibling, not a parent" - yet in your
very next post, you are telling us that natives can't be trusted with having their own money, for "cultural" reasons.
Somehow I was the one taking all the heat for having the temerity to mention culture, and people are calling my position "paternalistic", and my arguments "obtuse". Yet my position all along was to give natives the choice, and to trust them with making it.
As for the objection that not all will take the choice the same way - I say, that's not a flaw, that's a feature. Some natives may well value the sense of native community above becomming part of the larger community. As you point out, some native communities are actually good places. Those will remain as such, because people have the *choice* to stay there. Just as they will have the *choice* to leave the shitholes.
How is that not a good thing?
Colonialist!
I bet you support Newt's plan to place a colony on the moon, don't you?!
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Colonialist!
Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.
Have fun.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
I bet you support Newt's plan to place a colony on the moon, don't you?!
I do! :wub:
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 11, 2012, 08:51:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Colonialist!
Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.
Have fun.
It is nice to see you have a use, even if it is just as an extreme cariacature of an academic.
Did he stomp off? :o
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2012, 08:33:57 AM
It's a sham. The natives don't control even the most basic indicia of sovereignty - namely, who is a member of the "sovereign" group.
This (in Canada) is decided on racial lines by federal legislation. As I've pointed out before in educating BB on the subject, the federal plan appears to be to gradually restrict native "sovereignty" by makinfg the children of those who intermarry not part of the "sovereign" group.
As I stated, I can't speak to how things work in Canada; I'll leave that to BB or Oex. I had some vague understanding that at least Nunavut had a more advanced sovereign status then what you are saying, but I really don't know.
In the US, matters are quite different. The legal status of the tribes from the POV of the US government is that the tribes are sovereigns and their governmental relations with the US are conducted on a sovereign to sovereign basis. US tribes do hold the power to determine their own membership; they have expansive civil, criminal and regulatory jurisdiction, and their own tribal organizations and police forces to carry out their laws and enforce their immunities.
The main exceptions are as I mentioned: war powers, independent foreign policy outside of the US, and currency. But there are other sovereigns who de jure and/or de facto lack those powers as well.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 11, 2012, 10:06:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2012, 08:33:57 AM
It's a sham. The natives don't control even the most basic indicia of sovereignty - namely, who is a member of the "sovereign" group.
This (in Canada) is decided on racial lines by federal legislation. As I've pointed out before in educating BB on the subject, the federal plan appears to be to gradually restrict native "sovereignty" by makinfg the children of those who intermarry not part of the "sovereign" group.
As I stated, I can't speak to how things work in Canada; I'll leave that to BB or Oex. I had some vague understanding that at least Nunavut had a more advanced sovereign status then what you are saying, but I really don't know.
In the US, matters are quite different. The legal status of the tribes from the POV of the US government is that the tribes are sovereigns and their governmental relations with the US are conducted on a sovereign to sovereign basis. US tribes do hold the power to determine their own membership; they have expansive civil, criminal and regulatory jurisdiction, and their own tribal organizations and police forces to carry out their laws and enforce their immunities.
The main exceptions are as I mentioned: war powers, independent foreign policy outside of the US, and currency. But there are other sovereigns who de jure and/or de facto lack those powers as well.
Nunavut is a territory of Canada, which is analogous to (if having lesser powers than) a provence. The issue of Indian "status" is quite seperate. You can be a resident of Nunavut without being a native.
In Canada, as I've said, "status" is not determined by the natives themselves (though in some cases, band membership may be). It is determined by federal law. This isn't a controversial point - I've posted a link to the statute in question.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 07:08:30 AM
I've went to Little Creek Casino a couple of time for chow. Great food. Problem is, I havent seen one worker that even looks native american. There white folk and colored folk. And no I'm not talking dressed in a Indian getup.
Maybe the casino does well enough that they don't have to work? :P
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2012, 08:43:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Malthus, re: your plan to end any special Indian status in exchange for a one-time cash payment:
You know in university I thought something like that was the way to go.
But I don't think you'd get universal acceptance. Native culture is (yes still!) funny when it comes to money.
Have you heard of a reserve called Hobbema? It's a reserve (actually several reserves) in Alberta that sit on some very rich oil wealth. Until fairly recently they dispersed that oil wealth by giving each citizen a very large cheque (approx $100k) when they turned 18. Sounds great, right? Maybe they'll turn into dickhead trustafarians, but they should be able to set themselves up in life.
Unfortunately what typically would happen is the 18 year old would buy themselves a brand new pickup, but then send the rest on parties and gifts for family and friends, and typically the money is gone in a couple of years.
The sense of community, of sharing, which to me seems like a bad idea when taken to that level, is central to native culture.
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
I don't get your position. On the one hand, you are against paternalism for natives - "go in a sibling, not a parent" - yet in your very next post, you are telling us that natives can't be trusted with having their own money, for "cultural" reasons.
Somehow I was the one taking all the heat for having the temerity to mention culture, and people are calling my position "paternalistic", and my arguments "obtuse". Yet my position all along was to give natives the choice, and to trust them with making it.
As for the objection that not all will take the choice the same way - I say, that's not a flaw, that's a feature. Some natives may well value the sense of native community above becomming part of the larger community. As you point out, some native communities are actually good places. Those will remain as such, because people have the *choice* to stay there. Just as they will have the *choice* to leave the shitholes.
How is that not a good thing?
My point was not to say that "they can't be trusted".
It's that they, generally, put a different value on money. So the notion of getting some huge cheque from the government may not exactly thrill them.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.
Because you haven't done a damn thing to "save" them. They are still the same people, with the same problems as before. They just have more money now.
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2012, 08:24:43 AMConsidering I never said I wanted them to discard their culture in the first place, and have instead repeatedly stated the opposite, exactly who is being "obtuse" here? :)
You.
You started by saying Native culture was broken because it was divorced from substance (posts 167 and 170). Then you went on to say that the solution was assimilation in every meaningful sense (post 179).
I think that's a pretty obtuse way to indicate your opposition to the discarding of First Nations culture.
I also think your lengthy discussion on plans for how to make Natives give up their limited sovereignty and their First Nations status, and your identification of the problems around status vs non-status and how that's determined as one of the biggest causes of the problems facing Natives today, is a pretty obtuse way to indicate your opposition to the discarding of First Nations culture.
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2012, 04:06:55 PM
My point was not to say that "they can't be trusted".
It's that they, generally, put a different value on money. So the notion of getting some huge cheque from the government may not exactly thrill them.
That's the beauty of giving them the choice. If they value the sense of community over the money, they can choose so.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:57:54 AMIt is nice to see you have a use, even if it is just as an extreme cariacature of an academic.
How rude.
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2012, 04:09:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2012, 08:24:43 AMConsidering I never said I wanted them to discard their culture in the first place, and have instead repeatedly stated the opposite, exactly who is being "obtuse" here? :)
You.
You started by saying Native culture was broken because it was divorced from substance (posts 167 and 170). Then you went on to say that the solution was assimilation in every meaningful sense (post 179).
I think that's a pretty obtuse way to indicate your opposition to the discarding of First Nations culture.
I also think your lengthy discussion on plans for how to make Natives give up their limited sovereignty and their First Nations status, and your identification of the problems around status vs non-status and how that's determined as one of the biggest causes of the problems facing Natives today, is a pretty obtuse way to indicate your opposition to the discarding of First Nations culture.
This is similar to the old "so, have you stopped beating your wife yet"? Followed by "your discussion of violence in the family is a damn bad way of indicating you have stopped beating your wife".
No-where have I ever, not once, advocated natives "giving up their culture" or "discarding their culture". That's a pure invention on the part of you and Oex. The fact that you have repeated it so many times has confused you.
Look at the examples you are claiming. Just look at them in context.
QuoteNow, 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.
Are you claiming I'm advocating Ukranians "giving up their culture"? Is that a fair-minded reading of that?
Bullshit. It is saying that Ukranians should be "assimilated" in the sense of
not attempting to remain peasant farmers.
I have no need to "indicate [my] opposition to the discarding of First Nations culture" because I never advocated that in the first place. As I said, that's a pure invention by you, and you are clinging to it like a monkey to its mother no matter how many times I repeat that it is not what I meant.
Edit: you seem to be claiming "sovereignty" and "status" are cultural matters, so that arguing about changing these things is insulting native culture. No wonder any sort of change or reform is so difficult, if this view is widely shared.
Well, that's how it came across to me.
Is the right, august and proper UN also making the same claims towards Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Peru and others? Wow, there were much larger populations in Central and South America; those nations would giving more land back than the US, I'd think. :hmm:
Quote from: KRonn on May 11, 2012, 07:51:42 PM
Is the right, august and proper UN also making the same claims towards Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Peru and others? Wow, there were much larger populations in Central and South America; those nations would giving more land back than the US, I'd think. :hmm:
That reminded me to look up our good friend Evo. Apparently for May Day he nationalized Bolivia's electricity grid.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 07:56:52 PM
Quote from: KRonn on May 11, 2012, 07:51:42 PM
Is the right, august and proper UN also making the same claims towards Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Peru and others? Wow, there were much larger populations in Central and South America; those nations would giving more land back than the US, I'd think. :hmm:
That reminded me to look up our good friend Evo. Apparently for May Day he nationalized Bolivia's electricity grid.
Hmm, I wonder if any Natives of Bolivia have any sacred lands on parts of that energy grid. ;)
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:56:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
I bet you support Newt's plan to place a colony on the moon, don't you?!
I do! :wub:
:hug:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbasvanoerle.com%2Fzooi%2FNewt2012small.jpg&hash=40ad8fb42cc845914fe5235182eb34073ccc2370)
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2012, 04:08:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.
Because you haven't done a damn thing to "save" them. They are still the same people, with the same problems as before. They just have more money now.
They're off the reservation, starting a new life in a town or city where they have better life prospects. How is that not a huge improvement?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 09:47:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2012, 04:08:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.
Because you haven't done a damn thing to "save" them. They are still the same people, with the same problems as before. They just have more money now.
They're off the reservation, starting a new life in a town or city where they have better life prospects. How is that not a huge improvement?
For those individuals, sure, though I'm not sure how great the prospects of an under-educated hick with money in his pocket moving to the big city are--might simply have a great prospect of being taken for all that money by a city slicker.
And as BB points out, you still have the same number of dysfunctional communities, but with half the population. And what he didn't point out is that it would be mostly the less ambitious, enterprising half.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 09:47:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2012, 04:08:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.
Because you haven't done a damn thing to "save" them. They are still the same people, with the same problems as before. They just have more money now.
They're off the reservation, starting a new life in a town or city where they have better life prospects. How is that not a huge improvement?
To pick the worst-case scenario (because there are in fact some people living on reserves who are doing just fine):
-because the person in question is still un-educated, learning-disabled, has never been employed, and is addicted to various substances. They live in a city now, but you've actually just cut them off from a number of programd run through DIAND (Dep't of Indian and Northern Affairs) that were designed to help such people.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:57:54 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 11, 2012, 08:51:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Colonialist!
Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.
Have fun.
It is nice to see you have a use, even if it is just as an extreme cariacature of an academic.
Oex's work adds a little stone to the ever growing pyramid that is the human experience.
Your life does not and your work is pointless. One would think the polite thing to do would be for mouthbreathers like you to be quiet when your betters are talking.
And it's spelled caricature, by the way.
Hey, cheerleader, nice to see ya. :hug:
Quote from: Jaron on May 13, 2012, 11:20:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 13, 2012, 11:16:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:57:54 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 11, 2012, 08:51:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Colonialist!
Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.
Have fun.
It is nice to see you have a use, even if it is just as an extreme cariacature of an academic.
Oex's work adds a little stone to the ever growing pyramid that is the human experience.
Your life does not and your work is pointless. One would think the polite thing to do would be for mouthbreathers like you to be quiet when your betters are talking.
And it's spelled caricature, by the way.
Ooh, garbiedoll got Zoupowned.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 13, 2012, 11:16:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:57:54 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 11, 2012, 08:51:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Colonialist!
Well, if anything, at last I will have provided you with a little toy to play with.
Have fun.
It is nice to see you have a use, even if it is just as an extreme cariacature of an academic.
Oex's work adds a little stone to the ever growing pyramid that is the human experience.
Your life does not and your work is pointless. One would think the polite thing to do would be for mouthbreathers like you to be quiet when your betters are talking.
And it's spelled caricature, by the way.
:wacko:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.organicpurewool.co.uk%2Fimagesjpg%2Fleicesterlongwool.jpg&hash=498c9d500ff5f5c063b11ed4cfa79b77360d8443)
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2012, 09:54:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 09:47:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 11, 2012, 04:08:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 11, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Which is a long way of saying - I don't think you'd get an overwhelming number of natives to accept your bargain. And then what? Maybe you reduce by half the number of status indians, but you still have all the same number of disfunctional communities, just with half the population (and a sudden influx of the other half to the cities).
I don't understand this objection. If you can only save half of the population it would be better to save no one? I think saving half the population would be an enormous success.
Because you haven't done a damn thing to "save" them. They are still the same people, with the same problems as before. They just have more money now.
They're off the reservation, starting a new life in a town or city where they have better life prospects. How is that not a huge improvement?
To pick the worst-case scenario (because there are in fact some people living on reserves who are doing just fine):
-because the person in question is still un-educated, learning-disabled, has never been employed, and is addicted to various substances. They live in a city now, but you've actually just cut them off from a number of programd run through DIAND (Dep't of Indian and Northern Affairs) that were designed to help such people.
Again, I can't help but think that helpful paternalism is part of the problem. The natives have had those DIAND programs "designed to help such people" for years - and they are, you say, "un-educated, learning-disabled, [have] never been employed, and [are] addicted to various substances". How is keeping them where they are ever going to improve things for them?
But all you're saying is that any change must surely be better than the status quo.
I am unconvinced that is true.
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2012, 08:45:56 AM
But all you're saying is that any change must surely be better than the status quo.
I am unconvinced that is true.
Of course you don't. That's not a trait of cultural paternalism.
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2012, 04:11:31 PM
That's the beauty of giving them the choice. If they value the sense of community over the money, they can choose so.
Not necessarily. Let's say a majority value community but a decent sized minority take the money. That might leave the remainder non-viable as an independent settlement.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2012, 08:53:53 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2012, 04:11:31 PM
That's the beauty of giving them the choice. If they value the sense of community over the money, they can choose so.
Not necessarily. Let's say a majority value community but a decent sized minority take the money. That might leave the remainder non-viable as an independent settlement.
Seems to me that what you would get is a certain amount of flux. Surely those settlements which were really unpleasant, more would take the money ... and there would be some consolidation, where those who do not wish to take the money in the settlements where most do, move to the well-run settlements.
Point being, such a plan would allow for a certain amount of organic
change, by making the choice less driven by what can be seen as perverse incentives.
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2012, 08:45:56 AM
But all you're saying is that any change must surely be better than the status quo.
I am unconvinced that is true.
You may well be right.
By offering them the choice, one that they can make, rather that you deciding whether you are right on that point, they will decide whether you are right on that point.
This is no panacea, because some are going to make bad choices and end up worse off than before ... of course, that goes for anyone who makes choices about their own destiny.
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2012, 09:13:35 AM
This is no panacea, because some are going to make bad choices and end up worse off than before ... of course, that goes for anyone who makes choices about their own destiny.
Which is why people do not really buy into that entire "liberty" thing, really. People are better off letting the state make such important decisions for them, because they might make the wrong one and all...and we can't have that.