Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« At the risk of ruffling feathers in the high command . . . | Main | I'm back in Dumont apologist mode »

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Make that THREE solitudes

From today's Regina Leader-Post:  The community of Leask, Sask., "is polarized after graduation ceremonies broke down along racial lines -- one of non-aboriginal students and a second of mostly First Nations students."

Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 9, 2007 in Aboriginal Issues | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8353b5d0d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Make that THREE solitudes:

Comments

"non-aboriginal students" don't ya love it. First Nations is capitalised however white students do not even receive the same respect to name themselves as unique group in a diverse nation.

Sounds like a job for Resisting Defamation:

"Sensitivity Toward European Americans:
Diversity Within Diversity

To combat slurs, negative stereotypes, hate caricatures, and white-baiting canards expressed against Americans [Canadians] of indigenous European origins, especially young European Americans.

To provide the basis for lawsuits and criminal charges by degraded, endangered, and disparaged European Americans.

To inform European Americans about their right to name, label, and define themselves as is the right of the members of every other continental-origin group in America. "

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/

Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-09 3:52:26 PM


Issues that pertain to groups, break down at the level of the idividual.

This occurs where ever there are groups of under 30, and even more apparent with groups under twenty. As you approach twelve, it resounds even louder.

Why?

Well, groups tend to be more cohesive when there are fewer than sixteen. You see the average Click tends to be under twelve people. Small groups form easily, and disband as equally. There is a turn around cycle of usually 18 months maximum.

So, if there were 30 people in the graduating class, and another 30 people in the adult class, then splitting would not seem to be such a big deal. There would probably be a greater mix in both classes. But, because of the low numbers, people feel out of the group--because the group is not substantial on either side of the adult/regular class to have a divide. And, just because the majority of those who are retunrers to school are Aboriginal, means that the six who are part of the regular class, see the others as being more like them. They go with the other numbers, in an attempt to show solidarity--because being so few people, the divide looks uncomfortable. They see it as the others being cut, and they do not like being cut. Now, if the last ten had any amount of sense, they would go over to the other graduating class, and say they would rather do the graduation together, rather than split along racial lines.

Overall, the two groups are not large enough to divide for people to feel comfortable. It would have been far more intelligent to have the ceremony split yet held at the same time, so adults would have their recognition after the young people.

And, no one mentioned the gender equation in there. Bet there are also familial relationships. Also, I bet there was peer pressure from the adults, who did not want to feel left out. And, overall, there was a pressure to keep that circle going. So, in the end, the non-first nations were marginalized.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-09 4:47:55 PM


Plain and simple the lines are drawn along racial makeup. It's natural. Oil and water don't mix. Wake up! The Founding Nation people and the First Nation people should separate and go their own way.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-09 5:49:25 PM


Perhaps is suggesting that the Founding Nation people return to the lands of their ancestors? Lines are drawn along racial makeup could be difficult to determine, considering that almost all the "First Nations" people are of mixed blood. Anyone remember the good ole Indian Act where a White woman married to a Status Indian man became immediately a Status Indian?

I do however agree that revisionist history being taught whereby the White male founders are considered bad if not evil and that Western civilisation is bad while Native culture is good, does not help the matter.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-05-09 6:22:42 PM


"while Native culture is good"

. . . while overlooking or "understanding" child sacrifices of the Aztecs, and the warriors of the Iriquois who slew their fellow Indians from other tribes in the numerous wars between the natives.

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-09 7:07:38 PM



Canadian Natives are fat Neanderthals living of the WAPs (White Anglo Persons)

White Anglos must start organizing to fight for our rights. We are the down-trodden now.

Wake up. Between Quebec, the Indians, the Muslims and the Leftist haters, we are screwed. It's time to fight back!

Posted by: Yanni | 2007-05-09 7:21:36 PM


Its true that history is skewed in the public schools. However, let's not forget the greater responsibility for humane behavior belongs to those with a greater understanding. That would be the 'conquering' nations with a Christian heritage. Responsibility does not equal performance.
Where the history books fail, is in appreciating the sacrifices made to expand their horizons and explore their world. Some good resulted, even for the native populations.
This is the same lack of appreciation for human progress that enviro-nuts have. Man does not ONLY do evil. There is always some of both.

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-05-09 7:28:32 PM


Mind you, the history books I use with my kids do not have this problem.

Posted by: lwestin | 2007-05-09 7:30:30 PM


". Between Quebec, the Indians, the Muslims and the Leftist haters, we are screwed. It's time to fight back!"

The Free Republic of Alberta is our only hope, my friends.

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-09 8:05:19 PM


DJ,
A nod to you. Causasians have been defamed, discriminated against, belittled, and besmirched for far too long.

If they were any other group, the MSM and the leftists would be burning cars in protest.

One observation, if I may. If and when they are subsumed, upon whom will the "others" rely on for their ADVANCED subsistence?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-05-09 8:45:50 PM


Three solitudes and counting, thanks to multicultural propaganda and grievance mongering.

Posted by: Blackadder | 2007-05-09 9:34:28 PM


"Lines [are] drawn along racial makeup could be difficult to determine, considering that almost all the "First Nations" people are of mixed blood."

Self-identification is the solution. It's what happened at the school. First Nation students self-identified as aboriginals and chose of their own volition to separate from the Founding Nation students and join a First Nation group.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-09 10:30:12 PM


DJ I can agree with you at that point just not on it being a racial/blood thing.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-05-10 12:56:55 AM


"Self-identification is the solution."

Sure. I'm a Native now. Can I get casino royalties beginning on Friday?

Yours truly,
Kevin MacDonald

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-10 5:48:38 AM


obc, you would get a lot more benefits than casino royalties, which is why those on the receiving end fight tooth and nail to keep them. I have found it amazing how non-Native Canadians these days view welfare as a right, an entitlement. Anyone suggesting the able-bodied recipients do any kind of work to receive welfare benefits quickly gets run out of town.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-05-10 10:01:55 AM


You got to feel for the kids. In a tiny town such as Leask, most of the 16 would have been together from K to 12. Graduation ceremonies in these small towns are much more than simply gaining a diploma; they are rituals to celebrate growing up, from little children who have turned into adults.

Often these ceremonies have slide shows depicting the kids as 6 or 7 year olds, and parents are able to reminisce about the good old days and gain some confidence about the future.

Obviously, this would not have the same significance for kids whose parents moved from another town, but grad is still a ritual in bonding. It is a very special moment for the kids, their parents and their community.

Inserting adults into this scene, even though they had also finished their schooling, takes away from the grander significance of the event. Native or not, these people weren't a part of the lives of the kids or parents all those years. When one of the parents feels that the ceremony has shifted away from the kids to the adult learners, he acknowledges this point.

I hate to do it, but I got to lay the blame with the parents and leaders of the aboriginal kids, who are forcing their kids to side with members of their race rather than with the other children with whom they most likey have known their entire lives.

Posted by: Rob Huck | 2007-05-10 10:39:00 AM


DJ,

If you are going to play the race card, know the terminiology.

Although all First Nations in Canada are Aboriginals, not all Aboriginals are First Nations--self-identification or not.

That is not a riddle even if it sounds like one. I will leave you to fill in the blanks. I know, that is a tall order.

In relation to the law where the white woman married the Aboriginal man, that pertained to First Nations and the progeny. The children received status. The white woman never got status even if she was treated as badly as all the rest of the Aboriginals.

In the same law, when white man married First Nations woman, the woman lost her status. And so did her children. So, it was unequal. Although she lost her status, she was never treated as a white person.

Today, the Indian Act has been amended and the children of mixed marriages, where one parent has status, they are coverd under a law where if they marry non-Aboriginals, their children do not have status. If they marry status, their children have status.

In relation to self-identification, anyone can self-identify whatever they want. It really means nothing in relation to the law/ And, in terms of the founding people, most of the first Europeans who came over, married Aboriginal women. So, by virtue of this, most of the founding people of Canada are of mixed race--unless they came much later. Sure, there is denial--but more and more are opening up to the fact that grandma was cree, or Bobby-Joe, the great Uncle, was Dene.

And I have not even mentioned the adultry thing.

Unless, of course, they are recent immigrants, there is little way any of the people who have been here for generations can say they have no Aboriginal blood running through their veins.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-10 5:23:25 PM


Lady
"In relation to self-identification, anyone can self-identify whatever they want. It really means nothing in relation to the law/ And, in terms of the founding people, most of the first Europeans who came over, married Aboriginal women. So, by virtue of this, most of the founding people of Canada are of mixed race--unless they came much later. "

Does that mean the rest of us can now have tax free status? Or is this still one way?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-05-10 5:25:37 PM


The way I see this,is that it was not a racial issue at the beginning,as Mr.Huck points out in the above post. But it did turn into one when the older "students" felt slighted. Then pressure was applied to the other natives to join them ,dividing the grads by race. The whole thing is silly and immature.I hope they don't start blocking the roads leading to the party to make thier point and increase awareness of thier plight.

Posted by: wallyj | 2007-05-10 5:44:23 PM


wallyj
I regret to inform you that the race hustlers will do their best to disappoint you by claiming that "people are the same everywhere" and simultaneously claiming that "the white man is guilty".

Personally, intelligent aboriginals and I would get along quite well.

The leftist and the rest of the aboriginals will blame me for the rest of the problems.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-05-10 5:54:01 PM


Lady you are incorrect in believing that prior to the fairly recent amendment to the Indian Act, a White or any non-Native woman who married a Status Indian man did not also receive status. I once work for Indian Affairs and these women were the worst in demanding any and every entitlement. The Status Native women often got pushed aside by them.

I know this from personal experience not hear-say. And before anyone gets all upset with these facts, yes, there may well have been White Status Indians who were not so aggressive. I just never encountered them.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-05-10 6:21:30 PM


OK, I stand corrected Alain.

Do they still have status?

Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-10 9:30:09 PM


"In relation to self-identification, anyone can self-identify whatever they want. It really means nothing in relation to the law/ And, in terms of the founding people, most of the first Europeans who came over, married Aboriginal women. So, by virtue of this, most of the founding people of Canada are of mixed race--unless they came much later."

Even if your position is accepted, for argument sake, what difference does it make? If these people identify as European then so be it.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-10 10:13:45 PM


Lady, as far as I know they do, as I never heard or read anything stating their status was revoked. But the point I really wanted to make was that once "entitled" to all the benefits, they would not agree to give them up. It shows that the addiction to dependency is not a racial or cultural issue.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-05-11 11:50:19 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.