The Shotgun Blog
Monday, August 20, 2007
Poverty equals violence?
There's something deeply disturbing about this particular story, which tells of a six-year-old aboriginal boy who was drowned by three other aboriginal youngsters at the Pauingassi reserve in Manitoba. And it's not just the tragic tale which is at the heart of the story.
The problem is evident in this paragraph: "We allow kids to grow up in extreme poverty," says Elsie Flett, head of the First Nations of Southern Manitoba Child and Family Services Authority. "Why are we then surprised when these kids become violent? Society has really been very violent towards them."
Not so fast, Ms. Flett. First, there's your disheartening and demeaning assumption that a life of poverty will automatically lead to a life of violence. This is determinist claptrap. Second, there's your assertion that "society" is inflicting violence on the children, presumably by keeping them impoverished.
This is such an ill-defined accusation that it's difficult to examine. Does she mean society as represented by the band structure? By the reserve system? By aboriginal society in general? Or, perhaps, by the outside world? Regardless of which entity she is blaming, she is stretching the definition of violence in the same way that Marxist class warriors, for example, do in asserting that capitalism inflicts violence on the working class.
So what is Flett's solution? More personal responsibility? Better parenting? Fewer one-parent families? Band-governance reform? An end to the welfare mentality that has so many reserves in its thrall? Tougher controls on drugs and alcohol? Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. Flett's answer is, not surprisingly, to shirk personal responsibility and to look to Ottawa for all the answers: "Who is interviewing Stephen Harper and his government?" Flett asked in an interview. "Who is saying, 'What are you doing about Pauingassi'?"
I say: Who is interviewing band leaders and asking them, "What are you doing about Pauingassi?"
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Poverty equals violence?:
If poverty means children naturally want to kill each other than half of Africa, South and Central America, China's etc children would have already been murdered by the other half.
Before the White Man came to North America ALL INDIANS lived in poverty. They had to live in tents, burn wood, catch and kill game for food. They were forced to wear the pelts of animals ... they had no health care, not bus passes, no Caribbean vacations, yet they didn't kill each other off. Why is that?
Indians have never had more opportunity to have a quality life. They simply refuse to rise to it. That is clearly the fault of their own Indian leaders.
Posted by: John | 2007-08-20 10:41:30 AM
The Great Depression of the 1930's spawned much greater poverty than what we see today in Canada. These evil actions were not at all common then. Just ask your grandparents about that era.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 10:52:57 AM
The fundamental issue is in the equation.
Flett says that money is morality.
If this were so, then the wealthy are by far the most pacifistic of us all--clearly something she would refute in less than a second.
She has proven that issues such as poverty, sexism, racism, and health care, plus more, are merely tools for the leftists, to manipulate at will--for their own power.
No matter what she has said, there is no refuting, that the boys killed a child.
There is no refuting that they violated a commandment, to not murder--something that applies to all humanity.
If I hear her corrrectly, for some reason beyond us, poor people are exempt, due to their poverty, moral obligations.
If we were to take this a stap farther, then every single other crime that the poor might do, would be explained as a result of their poverty, and they would be immuned to any form of obligation to behave morally. They would then be free to commit whatever crimes their hearts desired, all the while knowing, that they could blame their actions, on the fact that they are poor.
So, this would mean they could be racists, sexists, and prejudice anyone and everyone, just because they are poor.
What she is and has done, is create a category of people, who are exempt resp[ecting other peoples' human rights. She has created a category of people, who have no obligation to anyone, but themselves, by virtue of their economic classifications. She has created a category of people, who could do anything they wanted, without any expectation that they would have responsibility to the lives of other people.
This is totally sickening, and yet it is what I have learned to expect, from leftists.
Once upon a time, they trumpeted human rights for all.
And now that human rights have been trumpeted, they seek new ways in which to squeal their snouts.
The fundamental problem is that even those whom they draw their theories from, well they had a basic education that included the fundamentals of morality--including the commandment that you will not murder. What has happenned, is that over the decades since socialism was written down, they learned only about money--they lacked any education on morality. In fact, they not only did not learn morality--they learned to disrespect morality, and even argue for the removal of moral teaching, from throughout society.
She is pure evidence, that if a people do not believe in something--they WILL believe in nothing, or worse, something that is lower than nothing.
With a simple education of the ten commandments, we know that murder is wrong. It is wrong no matter how wealthy or how poor a person is, who commits murder. And we learn that it is wrong, no matter how wealthy, or how poor the person is who is murdered. We learn that it is wrong, no matter what the gender of the person, no matter what their race, and no matter what their religion, ethnicity, political aspirations or total lack thereof.
And we know, that leftists no longer believe in that. We know that leftists teach that others, those who consider themselves not a part of society, that they are exempt that which applies to all humanity.
Who was it who said that even rape, in the north, is not rape? Who was it who said that you see a pair of hips, and simply help yourself? That was a leftist. That was a leftist using the race and location as a means of exempting themself of moral obligation. That was wrong then, and this Flett is an utter disgrace, that she uses this murder, as a portion to herself, in her seeking of power! And it is why she, and all her are near that taliban jack, should be kept away from power!
Someone tell Elsie, that no amount of money could teach a person that to murder is wrong. It is free to know this, and a moral obligation of all elders, including herself, to teach morality, to all people--and especially the children. The responsibility to do that belongs to the parents, (no matter what their history, and no matter what they economic situation) and includes the grandparents, and all the people of their community, regardless of their economic situation.
No amount of money could have intervened in the situation, so that the children would have learned what all ought to know by the age that they are walking around, and playing together. The really tragic thing, is that with the mouth of that woman, these children may grow up still not knowing that they did something fundamentally wrong, and worse, they will have learned that just because they are poor, that they have the right to murder, and are exempt all that applies to all humanity.
And we know, that when people do something once, that they will do it again.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 10:53:18 AM
This is for you:
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 10:55:40 AM
Hate to tell you this, but there were wars in NA before Eurpopeans settled.
And even after Eurpeans settled, they continued to war. The Beothuks were destroyed by the Micmacs. And the Haida laas used to plunder and pilage the west coast--killing and taking women back to Haida Gwai (The Queen Charlottes). The story that there was paradise before Europeans immigrated is a myth.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 10:56:37 AM
Thanks for asking the proper questions Terry. Too bad the MSM wouldn't do that!
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-08-20 11:02:59 AM
This is for you.
It is typical leftist trashy statements, that call for the punnishement of a people, for defending themselves, while doing nothing to condemn Sudan for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
The UN Human Rights COuncil has made a mockery of themselves.
They think they were not in the position to thank the presentation, well, they should thank me for calling them all a bunch of houris from gehanna!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 11:04:53 AM
The Iriquois were noted for their savage wars against the Erie tribe - amongst others - long before Europeans settled here. Ever heard of scalping?
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 11:05:21 AM
"The UN Human Rights COuncil"
. . . with members like Iran and Libya? It's a joke, as is the entire UN.
The Oil for Food Scandal, run by the UN, exceeded the crimes of Enron by a multiple of five!
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 11:08:40 AM
And what is he doing about global warming on Mars?
It has gotten hotter on Mars, and that is warming the air around the Pauingassi (read that part real fast), and the kids went swimming, and ...
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-08-20 11:17:02 AM
The UN Human Rights Council is changeing their name, to the human rights gropecuntsil, (pronounced with emphasis on "sil") while tapping their heals together, and marching around to the tune of "The Producers" "Springtime for Hitler in Germany"!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 12:03:57 PM
I know that indians have continued to war and squable before and after we all got here, but I am commenting on a post not providing long and boring comments that ramble on and on like you do.
No one bothers to read all that text. Probably the first and last paragraphs at most. I for one, don't want speeches from you, just thoughts and comments will do thank you.
If you want to write essays and in depth historical and anthropological reports get a blog of your own.
Posted by: John | 2007-08-20 12:17:46 PM
What a total Lefty statement, "poverty equals violence"!
Other stuff they puke up like "child poverty", yadda, yadda, is about as inane as it gets.
There are poor people now, there always have been and always will be poor people. The difference today is it's much more talked about by the Socialist hordes who make a living from it.
Back in the early 1930's, when so many lived in poverty, they survived without any fanfare and it made them stronger without help from governments.
On top of that they raised very fine, responsible people. The population was of a different demographic than we have today, much of our poverty is due in some degree to immigration coming from non-European countries and they take longer to adapt, if ever.
We have to give free housing, medical care and education for close to a decade in some cases, especially when they have children while dependent.
Even at that, they are much better off than where they came from.
If the Reserve Indians are figured in with the numbers, it's bogus. Millions of dollars are tossed at the First Nations Chiefs and Elders and mismanaged resulting in so-called poverty when it's just plain not reaching the ordinary Indians on Reserves where it was intended to go.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-08-20 12:37:15 PM
Here is a short post just for you.
You are not a gentleman, that is very very clear!
Plus, you have an attention span issue, which is not my problem. Get yourself into the Dr and get some ritalin--you know, it is not too late to get treatment!
And as for whether you ever read posts that are longer than yours, well I could not give a damn!
And as for your recommendation on a blog, I recommend you take your own medicine, and fly away on the very same fluff you came in on! Either that or stop flapping around here, because you are terribly boring.
There you go, I have perspired!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 12:53:13 PM
"it's just plain not reaching the ordinary Indians on Reserves where it was intended to go."
. . . but it is going into the pockets of their leaders and the bureaucracy that lives off this money.
And why is it that these funds cannot be audited? Might it reveal the theft of money that has been going on for decades? And how much of it was directed into Lieberal coffers when Chretien & his gang were in charge?
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 1:07:35 PM
The hot weather radiating from Mars is raising the temperature and tempers on this blog too, except that we don't have a river to go jump into.
Both Lady and John rank very high on my small list of blog friends. I hope a little silliness can calm the waters. : - )
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-08-20 2:07:31 PM
May I heartily second my Heroine's comments with a robust "Here, here!"
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-08-20 2:42:03 PM
"And why is it that these funds cannot be audited?"
It can so be audited. In fact every last government dollar can be audited.
The thing is, the money goes into the system, that pays for all the auditing, and all the officers, and everyone else, all the way from the treasury board down to each on of the little reserves, until what ends up at the grass roots, is not worth auditing in the first place.
I have heard some say that about 90% disapears along the pipeline, and I have no idea whether that is true or not true.
Fact is, no amount of money can teach morality, as the people wither have it, or they do not have it. It is something peope do, for eachother, in their families, and extended families, and definately through their spiritual leaders. If their spiritual leaders are not teaching it, and the parents are not teaching it, then the children are not getting it, because the schools are sure not teaching it either.
And the schools are getting the funding for the teachers already. I bet an audit on what they are teaching will probably show that most of their moral dollars goes to green issues, and nothing, if anything at all, goes to teaching manners and morality.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 2:57:31 PM
"It can so be audited."
Sorry - Auditor-General Sheila was not given this authority when the law came into effect, taking billions from us over the years and handing them over to Native leaders to distribute - after the bureaucracy skimmed their share off the top.
She herself complained about her hands being tied in this sphere.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 3:05:43 PM
And you are no lady!
Posted by: John | 2007-08-20 3:07:01 PM
The issue is in the failure to apply the same rules to all government monies.
It is government monies, therefore it can be audited. That we have failed to permit the auditing of government monies, is the problem, andn not whether or not it can actually be done.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 3:10:57 PM
No gentleman would behave in the manner to which you have.
You are not qualified, through your lack of obsequious actions to be qualified as a gentleman--and furthermore, no gentleman would speak to a Lady in the manner to which you INDEED have.
So go. You have business to attend to, which includes flagelating yourself while begging yourself and your gd for forgiveness--a custom your ancestors forgot to keep going, but which I see through your lack of gentlemanly behaviour, needs renewed reinforcement. I would say "strong" reinforcement, but that you MIGHT get IF you begin to demonstrate gentlemanly behaviours, forthwith!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 3:17:41 PM
Point taken, Lady - except all other areas of auditing are required by law - except for Native money. Of course the Government can demand an audit, but they have not for decades.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 3:18:30 PM
I thoroughly enjoy Lady's comments, John. I find them to be well thought out and thorough. You certainly don't speak for me nor, I suspect, a majority of the readers on this site.
Perhaps you should take the time to read what she has to say. You just may be enlightened.
Your comment was rude and uncalled for. Be a man and apologize.
Posted by: atric | 2007-08-20 3:34:53 PM
Excellent comments Terry. Until our society is still to raise such questions, the so-called Indian issue will never be resolved.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-08-20 3:40:05 PM
And good leadership, both native and non-native, would get themselves re-occustomed to audits of those monies, in the manner to which all other Canadians have been occustomed to. Equality goes both ways.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 3:41:27 PM
Thank you atric.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 3:42:25 PM
Funny how phantom leaders like Phil Fontaine get a free pass on all these Indian reserve tragedies.
Isn't he paid handsomely to run his reserves system properly? So that the kids can safely grow up.
I really don't remember Stephen Harper being asked to raise any kids other than his own.
And it is not in his job description as PM.
Maybe some other people should try raising their own kids sometime.
I'm sure that the results would astound the 'gimme more money whiners' like Ms Flett.
Posted by: rockyt | 2007-08-20 3:56:18 PM
I When I worked for the Feds some time ago, I was temporarily assigned to a federal building in Toronto. It housed many departments, one being Indian Affairs. We were NOT allowed to go to the floor where it was housed, because it had been "sacredly blessed" or something of the sort.
In other words, no Whites allowed.It was an older building and there were not washrooms on every floor. The people from the IA floor would use the one on ours. One could not go into it on paydays because all the native employees from the IA office were smoking weed in it.
We were told to keep our mouths shut about it if we valued our careers.
Just another anecdote but an exemplification of what goes on in government.
Posted by: atric | 2007-08-20 4:00:15 PM
Lady you sure did it! It was worthwile reading.
I would require a serious inquiry with help from pastors and psychologists to examine the education of these children.
I suspect they have no education at all and sniff drugs. It is most likely that their teachers believe in evolution and we can expect the results. Since evolution says you define your own morality, they defined theirs and it was OK to kill. So the strongest will survive. It was the philosophy of the nazis and Hitler.
The interesting part is that these events should point out to the necessity to have the indians accountable for their own actions.
We all know the huge amount of money thrown at them is a huge amount of taxpayer's money thrown to the river. We badly need a comprehensive reform for indians.
The output of such a process is that they will be the first ones to be much better and happier citizens from this reform. Right now the structure only encourages some persons to pocket most of the money and keep the rest of their people in third world condition.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-08-20 4:28:56 PM
If you read history, reserves were designed in order to preserve some areas--and yet that was not the only reason reserves were created.
The other reason, was to take people, who were nomadic by nature, and tie them to one location, so when you wanted to find them, you could. Or, they could.
Then, by tieing them to a single location, you could do whatever to the rest, by saying that that one point, is where those people live. And then on top of all that, make it so that they cannot sell the lands they have to live on--as that all other people can have capitalist system, except those people who are relgated to the reserve.
Sure, they can leave, but they can never borrow with the lands they are said to own, as the lands are in fact awarded to the State, as they are wards of the state themselves.
In all other lands where reserve system has been used, it has been called racism--but not in Canada.
Here in Canada, somehow, it is not racism.
And we say we do not, as Canadians, value racism--and that is reiterated as part of our Consitution--our fundamental make-up.
And then we go ahead, and support this racist policy, that keeps people separate and treats people separately, with rules for the majority that do not apply to all.
Now, I can understand a racist, wanting to design a system that is racist, because that is in the nature of the racist, to design systems that are racist, and that keep people apart. This is why we call them racists. It has nothing to do with the virtue of the colour of their skin, or anything else for that matter.
But I cannot understand people, who consider themselves not to be racists, to argue for the preservation of the reserve system, and all that that entails, when it is in fact a racist system.
So, we have on the one hand, people who argue for equal treatment of all peoples, and equal rights and so on and so forth, and then on the other hand, we have people who argue that only these people are required to accept the rules of Canada, while those people over there, are exempt the rules and regulations.
What this means is that because they are exempt auditing, that we cannot know what they do with the monies that we give them. And, at the same time, when things go bad, as they so often do, they claim we do not give them enough monies. And, just because there is this claim that we cannot audit, we cannot know whether it is because we are not giving them enough monies, or whether they are spending the monies we give them, on things that ought to go for food, clothing and shelter, but what are going to make one or two people, here or there, fat, while everyone else starves.
Meanwhile, too many people sit around saying that their lives would be different, if they had more and more and more, all the while forgetting, that there is no moral difference between people who are rich and people who are poor. And when they advocate that they ought to be treated differently, and not audited, they place themselves outside the very system from whence benefits come. And so they then do not include in their arguement any evidence, other than their word, that they are not given enough monies, unless they volunteer for audit.
If they do, then that is a good reflection on them, and a means they can move foreward.
If they do not, and monies are allocated, and we cannot tell where it has gone, then there is no point in throwing more, as there is no way we can tell whether it will go where we want it to go--or just make fat cats fatter.
Perhaps the solution is not in the monies, but in going back to material trades.
If they need new rooves, and we allocate new rooves, then perhaps we should give them the materials, and they can put it on their rooves. We can see by satelite, that they replace their rooves, and then everyone is happy.
We are not talking about rocket science here.
Or perhaps we could get companies to adopt a reserve, or something like that.
That way they can do what government fails to do, in its antiquated racist system.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 4:29:29 PM
Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-20 4:39:21 PM
Things haven't change much since John Smith landed in Virginia.
"In the winter of 1607, he set out with a handful of men to explore. On the way, his party was ambushed by Indians. These supposedly innocent creatures subjected one of his men, George Cassen, to a grim fate.
The natives prepared a large fire behind the bound and naked body. Then a man grasped his hands and used mussel shells to cut off joint after joint, making his way through Cassen’s fingers, tossing the pieces into the flames. That accomplished, the man used shells and reeds to detach the skin from Cassen’s face and the rest of his head. Cassen’s belly was next, as the man sliced it open, pulled out his bowels, and cast those onto the fire. Finally the natives burned Cassen at the stake through to the bones."
Herrnstein and Murray, in their epic tale, the Bell Curve, showed time and again that criminality, poverty and illegitimacy correlate strongly with low IQ. The Native population is ~3% of the total population yet ~16% of the prison population.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-08-20 4:57:07 PM
Again, you equate one thing with another.
And lest we forget, you know who killed 12,000,000 people in death camps and concentration camps, in the last Centrury, just to make the very same point you do?
And let us not forget, this is just a shadow of the horrors that they afflicted.
Women, in their late pregnancies, had their legs bound together, in one of their experiments, just to see whether they could give birth that way.
And women were also denied their nutrition, while they were pregnant, just to see what effect the lack of nutrition had on the unborn, at various terms, and what this did to them when they became adults. These are just a few of the horrors that people did under the notions of 14/88--the very ones you ascribe to.
Now, let us say the French beat the Italians at a soccer match, would you say that if the Italians beat the Brits, that by virtue of the fact that they are close in geographic nature, that it would mean the French were also beaten?
When one man, or many men, do something horrible, it may well be a reflection of humanity, but it does not mean that all nations are to blame, unless they facilitated the actual acts, or stood back and let it all happen without objection. We all know that two wrongs do not make a right. And yet you do not seem to know that what was done four Centuries ago, means nothing in terms of all Aboriginal peoples, their IQs, and what their populations have the potential of doing--should they so choose to do so.
Although this article deals with one particular action, a horrific act, committed by those young people, on that poor defenceless child, it has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence, also, has nothing to do with morality. You teach a mentally retarded pc mentally challenged person morality, and they can know the difference. Those butchers, the NAZIS, they knew what morality was. They knew that what they were doing was wrong, and yet they persisted in doing so--and that in spite of the fact that they had what they claimed to be, the highest intelligence in the world.
Since the Holocaust, Germany has failed to rise to the level of intellectual contribution, in the manner to which they did prior to WWII. Why? because retards got into power, and destroyed their intelligencia--not unlike the Komer Rhouge!
Poverty is no excuse for lack of morality. Even poor people can be clean, when they place their minds to it. You, on the other hand, appear to have much, and yet you stoop to loathsome disgusting behaviour.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 5:31:28 PM
If poverty = violence, how does that explain Toronto, where poverty does not exist? (heck it cannot exist there!).
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-20 5:38:43 PM
Was the construction of Montebello started with Nazis dollars?
Of course, maudit de claisse de ta-BAR-nac, you will get offended without finding out?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-20 5:40:59 PM
Take my cup of coffee and I will hurt you.
What is your point????
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-20 5:56:38 PM
What ? What "Nazis dollars" ?
The Seigniory Club was a Nazi organisation ?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-20 5:58:23 PM
Marc, be kind, they're from Alberta and have no idea.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-20 6:41:51 PM
So marilyn - now that you've been proven a fabricator & liar once again, how dare you show your face here?!?
Did you miss the radio interview on CKNW? Or are you to ashamed to admit you were wrong or lying?
marilyn is not man enough to admit he was wrong, nor man enough to apologize either. Typical Leftoid behaviour!
BEGONE, UNION THUG SCOUNDREL!
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 6:44:54 PM
Hate to think like that...but that's maybe why there's no direct answer to my simple questions.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-08-20 7:30:28 PM
I just love stories like this one:
"Break-in suspect met by Friendsville man's rifle"
By Jessica Stith
of The Daily Times Staff (Tennessee)
A suspect who broke into a Friendsville residence with a crowbar was greeted by a rifle on Sunday evening.
A man who lives on West Vinegar Valley Road, Friendsville, reported to officers at 7:15 p.m. that he was asleep on his couch when he heard a knock at the door, Blount County Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer Marian O’Briant said.
The man did not answer the knock at the door, O’Briant said.
“The next thing he knew, somebody was trying to break in with a crowbar,” O’Briant said.
The Friendsville man retrieved his .22-caliber rifle. As the suspect began to enter the residence, he was greeted by the Friendsville man who was armed with the rifle.
The guy “took off” and jumped into a car with another male, O’Briant said. They were described as white males who were both in their mid-20s.
The two men left the scene in a blue 80’s model Ford Escort. As they fled, the resident fired three shots at the suspect vehicle — possibly hitting a taillight, O’Briant said.
Blount County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the area of Miser Station Road to search for the two suspects.
ONE DAY, you may read such an article about me when violent Muslims take to our streets.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 8:16:06 PM
He didn't try to convince any Albertan about the global warming swindle or that oil is good. Albertans already know that.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-08-20 8:24:55 PM
This is what happens when you have competent judges on the bench, unlike in Canada:
"Vehicle doesn't have to be occupied to be carjacked, court"
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A defendant who accosted a woman soon after she got out of her car, took her keys and then drove off is guilty of carjacking, not just robbery, the state Supreme Court ruled. Defendant Henry A. Edmondson Jr. had argued that his conviction in Nashville for carjacking was improper because the victim wasn't in the car when it was stolen.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 8:28:29 PM
Sorry Ali, you are proving your ignorance as obc was referring to his self defense rights. Try to read what is written.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-08-20 8:28:55 PM
It matters not, Mark. The webmaster assured me today that the bile of the vile poster will be removed each a.m.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 8:30:32 PM
I'd refer him to your post, but it will be gone in a few hours, Loser.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 8:32:24 PM
Does poverty beget violence. I don't know but I have seen what a lack of parental leadership and responsibility does. When we ask why so many aboriginals are incarcerated, we might also ask why so many suffer from foetal alcohol effects. If one is incapable of forming a conscience then how can one control his/her behaviour? I have also seen what poor management of band funds does and I have also seen what good management of band funds has done. The Sawridge band in Alberta is a good example of the latter.
Lady you mentioned the fact that members on the reserve are not allowed to own and dispose of property. The effect of that is profound. We might also look at the massive legal system that has built up around the complaints of the aboriginals. The cult of victimhood is pervasive.
To an earlier post- look at the battles between the Iroquois and the Huron, resulting in the destruction of the Huron. I think that you will find that scalping was an invention of the white man but that is a non-sequitor and only for incidental information.
Posted by: DML | 2007-08-20 8:37:08 PM
"I think that you will find that scalping was an invention of the white man but that is a non-sequitor and only for incidental information."
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-20 8:39:48 PM
Don't know obc- I was going from memory and history courses from 40 years ago. It seems to me that it was to collect bounties.
Posted by: DML | 2007-08-20 9:29:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.