The Shotgun Blog
« Calgary's Best Restaurant - Right Now | Main | Understanding protectionism »
Thursday, July 30, 2009
"Go Home Stupid"
"Go Home Stupid"; these words were uttered to me today as I was walking through Portage Place Mall in downtown Winnipeg on my way home after work. I didn't know the man that said these words to me, I don't think I've talked to him before, but he knew me. You see, by looking at my skin and facial features, many people would assume that I am descended from Western Europeans, and those people would be right; my ancestors were from Scotland, Germany and France, and I most identify with my Scottish heritage.
I'm going to speculate and assume that these words were said to me for 3 reasons;
- I look white
- I was wearing a shirt that said "Made in Canada"
- The man who said it was aboriginal
It makes me wonder, where was this man born? Likely in Manitoba Canada, just as I was. We may be from different towns, but likely the same province. Perhaps he doesn't recognize Manitoba or even Canada as legitimate concepts; OK, then I will point out that I was born on the same geographical land mass as he was. So, when he tells me to go home, where do I go? Aren't I already home? Aren't we from the same land?
I am being somewhat coy here, because I know what he meant by that statement. He saw my "Made in Canada" shirt, saw that I am Caucasian, and decided to put me in my place as a decedent of Europeans by telling me to "go home", or back to the land of my ancestors.
By doing this, he put me into the collective of "white man"; the oppressor of his people, the invader of his land. Of course, I didn't oppress him, I didn't invade his land, some Europeans hundreds of years ago oppressed his ancestors, I had nothing to do with it. In fact, my ancestors had nothing to do with it either; my great-grandparents came to Canada in the early 1900's and moved to Manitoba farms. And even if my ancestors were early Canadians that oppressed the aboriginals, that doesn't mean I am personally accountable for their actions. How can I be? They took place before I was born!
That is part of the problem with collectivism, it put people into groups without taking into account their individual natures; both many aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are guilty of doing this. It assumes incorrect facts which lead to faulty conclusions. This person didn't take into account that I have worked for an Aboriginal organization for nearly a decade, that I value and respect much of Aboriginal culture, that I am a supporter of Aboriginal sovereignty and denounce the Canadian government for the harm they have done to the Aboriginal people; none of that mattered to him because in his eyes I am a colonist.
Another fallacy of this collectivism is assuming that since one race of people occupied a land before another race of people that the later race of people don't have a "right" to be there. When you start seeing people as individuals then you can see that we have rights because we are people, not because we belong to a particular race.
In fact, by this mans own logic, he should be going home to Mongolia, where today's first nations people originate from, because before they came over there was another race of people inhabiting North America, the Clovis people. The human race emerged from East Africa about 200,000 years ago, so perhaps we should all move back there if we are to "go home".
Of course, that is not something I would advocate, we can all co-exist peacefully here, and that would be much easier to achieve if we would quit looking at people in the collective, as white or aboriginal, and just see individual people, each with unique thoughts, desires and histories.
Racist comments may be deleted.
Posted by Freedom Manitoba on July 30, 2009 in Aboriginal Issues | Permalink
Comments
So. I take it you didn't stand up to the guy?
You can ponder the philosophical implications endlessly, but the proper way to deal with a comment like that, is to reply "I am home". Put the ball in the other guy's court. Let him explain his comment. You might even get some respect.
I suppose you might also be assaulted. I'd imagine the guy sized you up, before saying what he said.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-30 7:06:29 PM
He was walking by me as he made the comment. I would have welcomed a chance to have a frank discussion with someone but I don't think that is what he was looking for.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-30 7:10:53 PM
BigCityLib and Scott, Homo sapiens is not indigenous to America. All humans who have ever lived here are the descendants of migrants.
If the Indians want Canada back, they may as well take it. Given the incredible lack of enthusiasm the authorities have developed for enforcing the law against groups of two or more, they could take Ontario in a walk.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-30 7:24:58 PM
First, let me make it clear that I am not defending what this guy said to you, but consider this: Suppose my grandfather owned a very nice and expensive pocket watch until it was stolen from him. Suppose that if the watch had not been stolen it is reasonable to think it eventually would have been handed down to my father and then, in turn, to me. Suppose that the man who stole it handed it down to his son who, in turn, handed it down to his son. Now suppose that the grandson of the thief sold the watch to someone else. Also suppose that the son, grandson, and the buyer of the watch all knew or could reasonably be expected to know that the watch had been stolen from my grandfather. Were I to come across the man who bought the watch from the grandson of the man who stole it from my grandfather and see him holding the watch, would it not be reasonable for me to think, "that watch belongs to me"?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-07-30 7:25:23 PM
I'm heartened to see this post, and while I might quibble with a few issues, it's pretty good, all things considered, under the circumstances, as we Canadians are wont to say. What Eric Holder said to Americans applies here too, though I wish he'd phrased it differently: we're not terribly courageous when it comes to discussing race. It's time to talk about it.
He wouldn't have talked to you like that twenty years ago Scott, which is to say that relations have gotten massively worse in a very short time period, a period in which we have made much greater efforts to get along with Indians.
Honestly, as I said elsewhere: if we tore up every treaty and canceled every dime of spending on Indians I don't think they could possibly hate us more than they do at the moment. Lesson: the more you *try* to get along with people the more they will hate you for it.
"Racist comments may be deleted."
Unless you are a non-white, or a female, or a homosexualist, in which case you can pretty much say anything and the WS staff will let it slide.
But it's true! Furthermore, why not consider deleting race hustling posts too? They serve little purpose.
Posted by: 742421465 | 2009-07-30 7:39:44 PM
It was a drive-by remark? It doesn't sound like the guy was worth worrying about.
I've spent a fair amount of time in the company of Aboriginal people. I try to keep in mind, they were overwhelmed by my culture. I wouldn't go so far as to say we should give it all back, but I try to empathize with their situation. It tends to strengthen my resolve to fight against the seemingly unstoppable cultural genocide we're facing in Canada.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-30 7:50:06 PM
Fact Check, interesting take on the topic, but it is not quite right. I am white and I don't feel like I own any of Canada except the small piece of land I bought and paid for by my hard work. All crown land is not owned by any individual, native or non native. And as a white man, I have no more ownership in it or say in the matter than they do.
If we just gave all the land back to the natives today, they would need to sell much of it right away. Within 10 or 20 years, all the money would be back in the hands of the same people who had it before.
Posted by: TM | 2009-07-30 7:59:31 PM
"Were I to come across the man who bought the watch from the grandson of the man who stole it from my grandfather and see him holding the watch, would it not be reasonable for me to think, "that watch belongs to me"?"
No. It was never in your possession.
Nobody is responsible for the acts of his antecedents. If he listened to your story and decided to return it, that would be a credit to him, but not a requirement. It's also a bit different when the possession being discussed is not jewellery, but land, and also when there is no blood relation between the aggrieved person and someone living 100 years later who simply happens to be of the same race.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-30 8:02:29 PM
"BigCityLib and Scott, Homo sapiens is not indigenous to America. "
I point that out near the end of the post.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-30 8:16:09 PM
Fact Check, how far do we go back?
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-30 8:16:58 PM
Fact Check:
Suppose my uncle had boobs. And wings. And a red Barchetta, a hardboiled egg, a purple umbrella and a fifty cent hat. And came from Planet Claire (but, interestingly, had a maternal grandmother from the planet Vulcan). Would he still be my uncle? Or a Ferengi?
Just deal with the matter at hand and lose the crappy analogies. We didn't steal anything; no wonder they hate us so much when clowns like you perpetuate that nonsense.
Even if we had, I'll start concerning myself with it when they show some empathy for the ten billion dollars a year they "steal" from us, and the sky high crime rates that they commit against us.
Posted by: 742421465 | 2009-07-30 8:22:29 PM
The intent of this post was mainly to show the fallicy in collectivism.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-30 9:47:15 PM
Nice to see Shane refuses to let his absolute ignorance of a subject stand in the way of offering an opinion, however wrong that opinion might be.
In FC's example, the heir of the watch owner would have every right to recover the watch from the heir of thief, for the simple reason that the thief cannot transfer rights he does not have. Contrary to Shane's musing, the mere passage of time does not legitimize the thief's claim to the watch, unless the heir of the legitimate owner knows the thief has it, but does nothing. In that case, the law requires that the heir of the owner take action within a certain period of time.
In the case of aboriginal land claims, the matter is complicated by the fact that the "thief" is the Crown, whose occupation of the land has been been open and notorious for decades, despite the aboriginal interest in the land. While the Crown's claim might be legitimized if it had in fact conquered the original inhabitants, that is not the case. Rather, the Crown has, since 1763, taken the position that it would enter into treaties to obtain land in the New World. In some cases (in B.C. for example) it failed to do so. in others, the validity of the treaties is open to challenge.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that for much of that period, the law effectively barred those who claimed aboriginal title from suing to recover the land they say was stolen.
Of course, this could all be beside the point. Seems to me the most likely reason that the guy uttered the words he did is that he's read Scott's posts.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-07-30 9:54:01 PM
Scott,
"Fact Check, how far do we go back?"
Well, it would be good if we could go back right to the start. John Locke might have us accept that whoever claimed the land first was a legitimate owner provided that enough and as good land was left for others. So when the first folks came to the Americas from Mongolia across Alaska and down into what is now Winnipeg, they became legitimate owners of that land. Insofar as descendents of those people can be determined and since a case can be made that the current "owners" of that land knew or should have known they were buying or inhereting stolen property when they acquired it, one could argue that the land could be returned to its legitimate owners.
Logistically difficult? Certainly. A practical impossibility? For sure. A just solution? Probably so. Insofar as someone has good reason to believe that he is a descendent of one of the legitimate owners of the land and walking past someone who is not, would it seem reasonable for the first person to think that the second one is trespassing on his land. Yes?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-07-30 9:55:36 PM
"Insofar as someone has good reason to believe that he is a descendent of one of the legitimate owners of the land and walking past someone who is not, would it seem reasonable for the first person to think that the second one is trespassing on his land. Yes?"
No. That's collectivism, putting people into 2 big categories that lead to false assumptions. I know a few aboriginals who look very white, both first nations and Métis people, and they would have as much "claim" as this fellow did.
Fun fact, aboriginals didn't necessarily "own" the land before Europeans, they were stewards. Prior to incorporating agriculture, they were nomadic and followed the herds to hunt for food.
Many of them still don't consider land to be own able, the concept doesn't make sense to them.
Besides, this fellow is the decedent of someone who lived on a piece of land that other people settled, he wasn't personally wronged, and he has no claim. It is an assumption that the property may have been passed onto him, in both the watch and the land analogy.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-30 10:07:11 PM
Here's a clip from a Penn & Teller:Bullshit episode about Reperations, somewhat related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7B9QZlr8YQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZ1yJSR1KI
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-30 10:11:24 PM
"Nice to see Shane refuses to let his absolute ignorance of a subject stand in the way of offering an opinion, however wrong that opinion might be."
Not like you to post on a blog that has nothing to do with your beloved HRCs, TrueWest. Of course, all those Indians are mighty interested in suing for damages, so...
"In FC's example, the heir of the watch owner would have every right to recover the watch from the heir of thief, for the simple reason that the thief cannot transfer rights he does not have."
Only if you actually read FC's post, you'll see that the heir of the thief no longer has the watch. Nor does the heir of the heir of the thief have the watch. He sold it to someone else, under the almost unimaginably unlikely scenario of his whispering to the buyer, "It's hot; it was stolen nearly 100 years ago. Don't tell anybody." Right!
"Contrary to Shane's musing, the mere passage of time does not legitimize the thief's claim to the watch, unless the heir of the legitimate owner knows the thief has it, but does nothing. In that case, the law requires that the heir of the owner take action within a certain period of time."
And that is exactly what happened in FC's example, wasn't it? The son of the thief made no effort to recover the watch. And all of this, of course, assumes that he can prove the watch ever belonged to his father in the first place. If the thief was dumb enough to steal an engraved watch, then maybe. But most watch owners don't write down their serial numbers.
"In the case of aboriginal land claims, the matter is complicated by the fact that the "thief" is the Crown, whose occupation of the land has been been open and notorious for decades, despite the aboriginal interest in the land."
The spoils of wars fought over 100 years ago are not obliged to be returned. Otherwise the map of the world would have to be completely redrawn. Good luck with that.
"While the Crown's claim might be legitimized if it had in fact conquered the original inhabitants, that is not the case. Rather, the Crown has, since 1763, taken the position that it would enter into treaties to obtain land in the New World. In some cases (in B.C. for example) it failed to do so. in others, the validity of the treaties is open to challenge."
And you'll be right there to charge them $400 an hour and 50 percent of the take, right, TrueWest? Those treaties are, in fact, hopelessly obsolete, written to accommodate 18th-century political and economic realities; if the battle were not so one-sided, and sympathy for the "downtrodden" Indians not so fashionable, courts would probably have a hard time upholding them. Moreover, the Crown has, on numerous occasions, put down armed Indian insurrections, Louis Riel's abortive coup being but one. Which begs the question: If an Indian breaks a treaty, is that as bad as a white man breaking it? And if land is ceded in a treaty, and taken back by force of arms, only to be re-conquered by force of arms, does it then count as a spoil of war?
"The situation is further complicated by the fact that for much of that period, the law effectively barred those who claimed aboriginal title from suing to recover the land they say was stolen."
I wonder if the fact that they did not own the land in the sense that the law of that time recognized ownership had anything to do with it? The land was not apportioned among individual holders; it was held in common by Stone-Age to Early-Bronze-Age hunter-gatherers.
"Of course, this could all be beside the point. Seems to me the most likely reason that the guy uttered the words he did is that he's read Scott's posts."
And, of course, having read someone's posts is all you need to recognize them on the street. Do tell.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-30 11:25:32 PM
"Insofar as someone has good reason to believe that he is a descendent of one of the legitimate owners of the land and walking past someone who is not, would it seem reasonable for the first person to think that the second one is trespassing on his land. Yes?"
Even theoretically, only if the person is a direct descendant, that is to say, an heir, would he be justified in making that claim. Merely being a member of the same race is not good enough. In any case, all of this is hopelessly academic. Conquests have occurred throughout history, and none of us is guiltless of sharing the booty. These treaties create two classes of people--essentially apartheid--and that only perpetuates the situation.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-30 11:29:53 PM
Shane,
There was no conquest of aboriginal people in
Canada, for the simple reason when land ownership was at issue, the settler would have had their asses kicked. As a result, from 1763 on, the practice was to enter into treaties. If the Crown failed to live up to its obligations under those treaties, or if the treaties were unconscionable or flawee to begin (i.e. set out in the language of one party, but not the other; involving entirely incompatable concepts of land-holding or on different understandings of what was being given by the existing landholders) then what are the consequences? Does the Crown keep the land, despite the breach? Or is its title tainted and compromised? And what about BC, where there are no treaties? On what legal basis does Crown title rest?
Posted by: truewest | 2009-07-30 11:43:14 PM
Scott,
You did make a good point about the absurdity of collectivism. It encourages people to think in terms of stereotypes, which actually leads to increased racism and bigotry. Another reason to support individualism.
It's not only the natives who cannot seem to understand individual rights, most Canadians don't grasp the concept either.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-31 5:58:58 AM
"It's not only the natives who cannot seem to understand individual rights, most Canadians don't grasp the concept either."
A lot of native culture is collective in thought, they think in terms of what is good for the community over the individual. I don't necessarily disagree with that when used in terms of their cultural community life until that collectivism is used to justify or perpetuate racism, judging people based on their race and stereotypes rather than their individual natures.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-31 6:09:14 AM
"A lot of native culture is collective in thought, they think in terms of what is good for the community over the individual."
Agreed. I just tend to think that what is good for the individual is also good for the community.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-31 7:46:18 AM
"I didn't oppress him, I didn't invade his land"
We ALL, today, continue to benefit from resources taken from Indigenous land without their consent and without compensation. Canada's economy is entirely dependent on that.
Do you know whether Indigenous People were fairly compensated for the land your ancestors settled?
We are all part of the problem so long as we allow our governments to continue the rape and destruction of traditional Indigenous territories.
Posted by: granny | 2009-07-31 7:49:35 AM
"We ALL, today, continue to benefit from resources taken from Indigenous land without their consent and without compensation"
If we ALL benefit, then so do they, so we're even :)
Things change folks, land is settled, people's rights are violated, it happened. Those people are long since dead. I was born here the same as them, what should be done about it?
"Do you know whether Indigenous People were fairly compensated for the land your ancestors settled?"
No I don't, ask them. Oh wait, they're dead too.
The reason I point this out is that what is important is looking to what can be done today to improve lives. You can't make reparations for mistakes of the past when all of the parties involved are dead.
"We are all part of the problem"
Don't include me in that thanks, I pay my own way in life.
"so long as we allow our governments to continue the rape and destruction of traditional Indigenous territories."
I don't allow them to do anything. This is more of the fallacies of collectivist thinking and speech.
Under the current government paradigm, if the First Nations communities can have true private property and independence then the Canadian government will be less able to oppress aboriginal people that choose to live on their traditional lands.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-31 9:04:32 AM
I just tend to think that what is good for the individual is also good for the community.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-31 7:46:18 AM
Agreed.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-31 9:05:05 AM
It all depends how far we go back. If you look further back, the Native Canadian's ancestors of today had conquered previous groups that they were not part of. The problem is certain people look into history only far enough to serve their purposes, and no further.
It serves no advantage looking back to the past. What we must do now is deal with the reality of the present, and do it fairly.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-31 10:36:59 AM
What we must do now is deal with the reality of the present, and do it fairly.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-31 10:36:59 AM
Agreed! If there are people still alive that were wronged, like the Japanse interned in WW2 and people abused at residential school, yes, they should be compensated in some way. But once they're gone, move forward.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-31 11:03:55 AM
@Shane"If the Indians want Canada back, they may as well take it. Given the incredible lack of enthusiasm the authorities have developed for enforcing the law against groups of two or more, they could take Ontario in a walk."
This thought sure goes a long way in solving the problem.
@Shane""Nice to see Shane refuses to let his absolute ignorance of a subject stand in the way of offering an opinion, however wrong that opinion might be."
Not like you to post on a blog that has nothing to do with your beloved HRCs, TrueWest. Of course, all those Indians are mighty interested in suing for damages, so..."
Dr. Matthews can't come up with a valid argument so he resorts to personal attacks.
@Shane""Contrary to Shane's musing, the mere passage of time does not legitimize the thief's claim to the watch, unless the heir of the legitimate owner knows the thief has it, but does nothing. In that case, the law requires that the heir of the owner take action within a certain period of time."
And that is exactly what happened in FC's example, wasn't it? The son of the thief made no effort to recover the watch. And all of this, of course, assumes that he can prove the watch ever belonged to his father in the first place. If the thief was dumb enough to steal an engraved watch, then maybe. But most watch owners don't write down their serial numbers.
The only Dr. Matthews considers spirit of the law is when it is to his advantage. What a hypocrite.
@Shane""While the Crown's claim might be legitimized if it had in fact conquered the original inhabitants, that is not the case. Rather, the Crown has, since 1763, taken the position that it would enter into treaties to obtain land in the New World. In some cases (in B.C. for example) it failed to do so. in others, the validity of the treaties is open to challenge."
And you'll be right there to charge them $400 an hour and 50 percent of the take, right, TrueWest? Those treaties are, in fact, hopelessly obsolete, written to accommodate 18th-century political and economic realities; if the battle were not so one-sided, and sympathy for the "downtrodden" Indians not so fashionable, courts would probably have a hard time upholding them. Moreover, the Crown has, on numerous occasions, put down armed Indian insurrections, Louis Riel's abortive coup being but one. Which begs the question: If an Indian breaks a treaty, is that as bad as a white man breaking it? And if land is ceded in a treaty, and taken back by force of arms, only to be re-conquered by force of arms, does it then count as a spoil of war?"
Now Dr. Matthews is expert in treaty law.
@Shane"Of course, this could all be beside the point. Seems to me the most likely reason that the guy uttered the words he did is that he's read Scott's posts."
And, of course, having read someone's posts is all you need to recognize them on the street. Do tell.
What the hell does this mean?
@Shane""Insofar as someone has good reason to believe that he is a descendent of one of the legitimate owners of the land and walking past someone who is not, would it seem reasonable for the first person to think that the second one is trespassing on his land. Yes?"
Even theoretically, only if the person is a direct descendant, that is to say, an heir, would he be justified in making that claim. Merely being a member of the same race is not good enough. In any case, all of this is hopelessly academic. Conquests have occurred throughout history, and none of us is guiltless of sharing the booty. These treaties create two classes of people--essentially apartheid--and that only perpetuates the situation.
However, I don't consider myself guilty for what my ancestors did. And what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-31 11:05:40 AM
there is a lot of discussion here...some nit picking...I wonder how much of you have thought of this subject with a clear mind with a clear conscience. When I see anger I see people speaking from a guilty conscience. My uncle once was asked by an RCMP officer about what he thought about stealing...my uncle replied "I don't know...what do you think about the land your )&*^^&ing walking on". The RCMP officer had no comment. No matter which way you paint the situation, you took land and resources you were not entitled to. As for ancestors, you are benefitting from what was done over 100 years ago...and we as Indian people are suffering from what was done over 100 years ago. The rapist always tries to belittle what occurred to the victim and wonders why they just can't get on with life. The victim doesn't see it the same way. The treaties are a sacred covenant entered into to benefit both sides of the agreement. The newcomers got use of the land for certain things. The Indian people were to live their life as they have always done, but shortly after the treaties were signed, your nation got stronger and ours got weaker. It was at this point where you could have chosen to act justly and fairly instead your gov't made prisons out of the reserves and kidnapped the children and physically and sexually abused them and cut them off from their sacred teachings which had always guided them. So from all this you sit back and enjoy this stolen watch and feel guilty and angry when you look at the descendants of the person who got the watch stolen...I am sorry but we Indians ain't going away so you don't have to feel guilty and angry, we are here to stay. The Indian people will someday get back on their feet after all this devastation, lets see first it was the European diseases of small pox, and tuberculosis (which wiped out a huge portion of the population) than it was famine after the buffalo herds were ravaged (many more died), than it was prison system of reserves, than it was kidnapping and raping of children during the residential school system and than during the 60's when they took kids into foster homes. It took over 100 years of association with the newcomers to get us here, it may take that long or longer for us to get back on our feet but we will no matter what. Why don't you all petition your gov't to be fair and just with the Indian people, give us a portion of our resources, just a small share our fair share, no need for welfare or for us to go ask for assistance from your gov't. We would have plenty enough to fund our own economic development and education and training. But no your gov't has never been fair it would be crazy to expect them to be fair now.
Posted by: Kamao | 2009-07-31 11:45:34 AM
That Indian's ancestors didn't have the concept of "owning" the land.
The land was just there and they lived over it and off of it.
It therefore wasn't theirs because they didn't have the concept of it being theirs.
The premise behind the Treaties and the preambles at the beginning of each Treaty has the Crown assuming ownership of the Land stating that the Indians didn't "own" the Land itself because they didn't use it or develop it.
The Indians were hunter gatherers.
They harvested the animals which wandered the Land and picked the wild things that grew upon the Land and roved the Land themselves.
They were on the Land but didn't own it.
The Treaties state that the Indians claims to the Land are "extinguished".
That is the actual word. Extinguished.
The Treaties give them the "Aboriginal Right" to hunt, fish, and gather on some of the Land, but that is all.
The exception is B.C. where Shane lives.
There aren't many Treaties there, 2 maybe, and there are land claims from the Indians that lay claim to 110% of B.C.
As a whiteman, I wouldn't want to "own" real estate in B.C.
Posted by: Speller | 2009-07-31 11:58:40 AM
Kamao,
I think that's pretty much what Scott has been arguing.
So I'm curious. What is your idea of a "fair share" of resources? What would a fair agreement look like?
Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-31 12:02:04 PM
"The intent of this post was mainly to show the fallicy in collectivism."
If you were struck by lighting I think you'd blame collectivism, Scott.
Kamao says: "I hate white people and they stole our land."
The feeling is becoming mutual and we didn't steal anything. If you want war, just say so, we can be persuaded.
I for one am not bound by Christian morality. I don't love my enemies, those who hate me and would destroy me and my people - I attack them as viciously as I can.
Seriously, is there a single Indian in Canada who is NOT consumed with hatred of white people? If there is, I haven't seen him. It bears repeating: they couldn't possibly hate us more if we tore up every treaty and canceled every thin dime of the ten billion dollars a year we give them.
We've bent over backwards to try to get along with your people Kamao, and the more we try, the more you hate us.
I hear you Kamao: you hate us, you really, really hate us. Well guess what: I and others are becoming less fond of you too. Want a war? Just say so. The RCMP protect you from us, not the other way around, remember that. The government protects you from us, not the other way around, remember that too.
Say a thank you the next time you see a cop or a member of the government. And thank a priest the next time you see him too: you have no idea how much that damned Christian morality which says love your enemy saves your hide, now, and in the past.
Posted by: 742421465 | 2009-07-31 12:09:21 PM
Very well said, Kamao.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-31 12:34:38 PM
Seriously, is there a single Indian in Canada who is NOT consumed with hatred of white people?
Darcey from Dust My Broom?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-31 1:31:54 PM
"Darcey from Dust My Broom? "
He's Metis, I believe his DNA is more white than Indian, so that's a problem. Scratch a little, in any case, and there is a palpable hatred lurking underneath. His co-blogger Rasky, for whose writing I had some time, gave the impression he was on our side, then he flamed out in a burst of anti-white hate.
When Darcey's brother got tasered 4 times, Darcey went into straight race hustling mode and suggested that it was because he was Indian. Subsequent events at Vancouver International Airport and other places put paid to that theory.
Now, is that your only contribution to this thread Mike? Will you concede at least the spectacularly obvious fact that there is a tsunami of hatred toward whites that consumes Indians, and that it is somewhat problematic to say the least? Just kidding, of course you won't, you've scarcely uttered a politically incorrect thought in your life and you're not likely to start now.
Very Christian of you Mike, I nominate you for the next Pope; I've rarely seen anyone who loves his enemy so much. And yes, they are your enemy; they hate you, regardless of what you or I think of them.
Posted by: 742421465 | 2009-07-31 1:50:40 PM
@Mike Brock"Seriously, is there a single Indian in Canada who is NOT consumed with hatred of white people?
Darcey from Dust My Broom?"
I see where you're going Mike. However, a lot of these responses are coming from "white people" with hatred toward "Indians".
I really detest using labels on anyone, but it has to be done to make a point. The problem is hatred, not where it is coming from.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-31 1:57:33 PM
Hate? We're talking about hate?
Let's ask Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel about hate:
"There is a time to love and a time to hate; whoever does not hate when he should does not deserve to love when he should, does not deserve to love when he is able.
Perhaps, had we learned to hate more during the years of ordeal, fate itself would have taken fright. The Germans did their best to teach us, but we were poor pupils in the discipline of hate....Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."
Elie Wiesel 'Legends of Our Time' (1968), pp.177-78
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitzscrapbook/history/Articles/HungarianJews4.html
My own view is that those who deny that they hate, and deny hatred as being valid, are lying to themselves and others.
Being consumed by hate is a bad thing, for sure, but a little hate now and again isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm no Trotskyist, I don't aspire to be a New Man, I do not hate man, I do not deny man, and hate is fundamental to man, always has been, always will be. It's debilitating to be consumed by it, as Indians and so-called libertarians are, but a little hate serves Darwinian purposes, fueling the will to survive when threatened by one's enemies being one of them.
Barry Goldwater's words apply particularly well here: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Indians have the highest birthrate among all ethnic groups in Canada, my people have the lowest. My people are discriminated against in the workplace, Indians are favoured.
If they feel hatred because of near-genocidal experiences in the past, I can understand it, because my people are living it at the very moment.
Nevertheless, many of the reasons given to justify their hatred are just false or at least greatly exaggerated; that we stole their land, that we raped and enslaved them, that residential schools constituted concentration camps and genocide, that we put smallpox on blankets, that they were kind to us when we first came to North America, these are either just plain false or greatly exaggerated.
I see no solution other than deconfederation, the carving up of Canada into ethno-states, as Scott has suggested in part. We cannot get along; we can say we tried, but it's time to call a spade a spade here. They hate us, and I'm frankly less fond of them than I once was. Let them have their land, we'll have ours, and each nation can live in peace. This should not be a problem; compelling a people to be part of a union against their will is tyranny.
Posted by: 742421465 | 2009-07-31 2:23:40 PM
"They hate us, "
I work with plenty of aboriginals who neither hate whites or anyone else and don't have the "this is my land" mentality.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-31 2:26:25 PM
Kamao,
You make some excellent points. I have what might be a little different view though.
I used to spend some time riding and guiding in the foothills west of Calgary. Occasionally I would go with some of my neighbors from the reserve across the hiway. You can learn a lot about native thinking when you are the only white guy riding with 3 or 4 natives all day.
I was shown a neglected and mostly forgotten grave yard that held about 400 native souls who died of TB in the 50's. There was a cure for TB in the 50's but I was told that no Doctor would come to help them. One fellow pointed at the graveyard and said..."do you see why we hate them"?
I have to tell you, in that moment I shared their hatred of the injustice before me. Some aspects of the cultural divide and some straight up racism are within living memory of a great many natives And its going to take a long time for this kind of thing to be forgiven, if ever. Till then, perhaps the more enlightened of us can try and get above it.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-31 2:29:18 PM
"We ALL, today, continue to benefit from resources taken from Indigenous land without their consent and without compensation. Canada's economy is entirely dependent on that."
Everyone alive today benefits from a conquest at some date in history. It is the old, old story: To the victor belong the spoils. Moreover, you cannot apply modern ethics to historical laws.
"Do you know whether Indigenous People were fairly compensated for the land your ancestors settled?"
No. And since it is not my responsibility to right any wrongs that may have taken place, I do not care, either.
"We are all part of the problem so long as we allow our governments to continue the rape and destruction of traditional Indigenous territories."
96 percent of the people in this country are not Indians. They are not going anywhere. Nor are they required to pay you for something you, personally, have never owned.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-31 3:12:00 PM
"It serves no advantage looking back to the past. What we must do now is deal with the reality of the present, and do it fairly."
FWACK! Into the window goes a flying pig. Doug, I'm in complete agreement.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-31 3:13:08 PM
Just for the record...I don't hate white people. I have many friends who are white, some of them are my dearest friends. I for one have more than one occassion put myself on the line personally and otherwise to help a white person. I have even gone against Indian people to assist a white man when I thought there was an injustice happening. I don't hate white people I hate injustice whether it be perpetrated by Indians or white people. I wonder why when an Indian person asks for fairness and justice he/she is branded as a racist, trouble maker, or white hater. Another point requiring attention is hunter/gatherer. The point about the whole situation is the land was occupied and the resources were being utilized. Today Indian people are even prohibited from selling their own resources such as fish, deer and other wildlife. The trees on our traditional territory we cannot use as our own anymore. We can't make our living off of our traditional resources and believe me as long as our people could we did the very best we could with our resources. It was our law to take care of it and respect it the best that we could. Indian people have never been known to be a greedy people we have always shared and cared for others and we continue to share our land and resources with the newcomers. It is true some of our people hate white people but that isn't everyone. Please remember we have always shared and we took good care of your people when they first came. We Indian people still invite more people to come and live with us. I for one wish there were more Phillipino's, Chinese, African, Irish and many more people to come and enjoy the beauty and wealth of the America's and especially Canada. An example of the fair share of the resources for Indian people might be just in proportion to our population. If thats 5 or 10 percent than thats still plenty enough for everyone. As to exaggeration of the small pox, prison system of reserves, residential schools and physical and sexual abuse, I either lived through it myself or my ancestors did and told us about it, so its a reality that we have to live with. When people make treaties they should try to live up to them. Indian people are slowly beginning to find their way again, its a long slow painful process but we will get there, don't doubt it for a minute...I have more to say, but I will wait for responses. Thank you
Posted by: kamao | 2009-07-31 3:16:33 PM
"This thought sure goes a long way in solving the problem."
Well, no, it doesn't. But there is evidence that the Mohawks and Six Nations are beginning to come to that conclusion, and the government has done nothing to make them consider otherwise.
"The only Dr. Matthews considers spirit of the law is when it is to his advantage. What a hypocrite."
The "only" Dr. Matthews? Is there another Matthews on this board I'm not aware of? And tell me, what is the spirit of a law whose letters state that the heir to the aggrieved party must take action within a reasonable amount of time or forfeit all future claim? And how am I ignoring it?
"Now Dr. Matthews is expert in treaty law."
So?
"What the hell does this mean?"
TrueWest suggested that the Indian who made the remarks to Scott did so because he's read Scott's post. Unless the Indian has seen him before, his only link with Scott is that post. I think this statement was offered more as a flip jest than anything else.
"However, I don't consider myself guilty for what my ancestors did. And what does this have to do with the subject at hand?"
Neither do I; that's my point. As to what is has to do with the subject at hand, read Fact Check's post for the watch analogy. It's a rather unconvincing one, filled with implausible provisos and conditions, but it was his post, not mine, so if you have issue with it, ask him.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-31 3:23:34 PM
".I don't hate white people. I have many friends who are white, some of them are my dearest friends."
kamao, when we white people say this ('some of my best friends are black'), we get laughed at. If we can't say it, neither can you. Try again.
Don't tell me what you believe, do your thing and I'll tell you what you believe. And after watching you do your thing, I'm telling you: you hate white people.
So does virtually every other Indian. What I happen to think of you is almost secondary, I have to deal with the matter at hand, nearly a million Indians who hate me because of the colour of my skin.
So where does that leave us kamao? You want something from me...and yet you are my sworn enemy. Do you think I am going to give it to you? I am to care deeply about the feelings of those who hate me? Errr, no. You hate me, you hate my people, and you will get nothing from me.
You tell lies. Your people did not take care of us when we arrived, you enslaved us when you could, you tortured, you raped, you stole, you massacred, you murdered.
Your people had no written language, few technologies - that's why you were sent to residential schools, so you could get up to speed with the rest of the world.
Your people get paid more money in the Residential School Inquiry the worse story they tell - they have a financial motive to tell lies about abuse.
Indians fought one another viciously, they did not share the land. The land that belonged to one band belonged to another band once, who took it from another band, and so on.
You were not stewards of the land. You wiped out the Equus and the giant sloth and the woolly mammoth. You practiced slash and burn agriculture, burning down vast tracts of forest.
You practiced slavery, human sacrifice, and torture - we ended all three. The only reason you didn't enslave us or wipe us out was because of our guns, otherwise you would have.
Today, your people prosper and are bountiful, it is white people in danger of extinction, and you don't care. The crime you commit against us today - rape, theft, murder, assault - is much higher than what we do to you.
I say you have your land, give us ours, and we go our separate ways. We're ready to go it alone, we don't need your help, we don't want to deal with your hate. Let's carve this country up so we can all live in peace.
Posted by: 742421465 | 2009-07-31 3:45:27 PM
"I wonder how much of you have thought of this subject with a clear mind with a clear conscience."
I, for one. Why should I feel guilty for something someone else did? I don't go for that "sins of the father" crap. And neither, for that matter, does our system of law. We do not have blood feuds or vendettas in Canada.
"When I see anger I see people speaking from a guilty conscience."
Look harder. You may in fact see people angered at having been slandered.
"No matter which way you paint the situation, you took land and resources you were not entitled to."
And what effort did your ancestors make to get it back?
"As for ancestors, you are benefitting from what was done over 100 years ago...and we as Indian people are suffering from what was done over 100 years ago."
I am also benefiting from English culture, which is the product of the invasion of Celtic Britain by the Saxons in the 7th century AD. Most of the world today benefits from the Roman system of justice, and Rome was a bloody empire indeed. As the suffering of Indians today...please tell me how you can be said to "suffer" from a life in which you receive for free what white people have to work for?
"The rapist always tries to belittle what occurred to the victim and wonders why they just can't get on with life. The victim doesn't see it the same way."
It's a worthwhile question. Life throws knocks at you. It doesn't excuse the rapist's actions, but neither does it excuse the victim's response of curling up in a ball on the ground and waiting to die.
"The treaties are a sacred covenant entered into to benefit both sides of the agreement."
No, they were legal agreements that are in today's world hopelessly obsolete. In practically no other place in the world are 300-year-old documents still in force; too much has changed to make them valid.
"It was at this point where you could have chosen to act justly and fairly instead your gov't made prisons out of the reserves and kidnapped the children and physically and sexually abused them and cut them off from their sacred teachings which had always guided them."
If memory serves, many of the children sent to residential schools were there at the behest of their parents. From what I have read, giving Indian children a "western" education was actually stipulated in some treaties, at the tribes' insistence. They believed such an education would give their children more opportunity in a changing world, and that is a language any parent understands.
"So from all this you sit back and enjoy this stolen watch and feel guilty and angry when you look at the descendants of the person who got the watch stolen..."
We don't feel guilty. We do, however, feel a little disgusted when we see so many of your people looking bedraggled, unkempt, and living with the dregs of society. Famous role models for your culture are almost unknown, except a few successful artisans and businessmen. That's not Whitey's fault. Your ancestors would weep indeed if they could see you now.
"I am sorry but we Indians ain't going away so you don't have to feel guilty and angry, we are here to stay."
As are we. We outnumber you 25 to 1. And we are running out of patience.
"The Indian people will someday get back on their feet after all this devastation, lets see first it was the European diseases of small pox, and tuberculosis (which wiped out a huge portion of the population) than it was famine after the buffalo herds were ravaged (many more died), than it was prison system of reserves, than it was kidnapping and raping of children during the residential school system and than during the 60's when they took kids into foster homes."
The epidemics brought by the Europeans were an accident of natural evolution and not a deliberate attempt at genocide. (Europeans in general did not enjoy getting smallpox either.) The destruction of the bison herds was largely an American phenomenon, and the fact is that prior to the introduction of the horse by Europeans, bison hunts were rare; the Plains tribes subsisted mostly on agriculture. The residential schools I have already dealt with; it was nowhere near as one-sided as you depict.
"It took over 100 years of association with the newcomers to get us here, it may take that long or longer for us to get back on our feet but we will no matter what."
Probably. But that won't happen until you let go of a past none of us can do anything about.
"Why don't you all petition your gov't to be fair and just with the Indian people, give us a portion of our resources, just a small share our fair share, no need for welfare or for us to go ask for assistance from your gov't."
I have a better idea: Why don't you let go of the past and integrate with the rest of society? Other immigrants from all lands fled pitiable conditions, and came here and prospered by integrating with mainstream society. The process wasn't smooth but they got there, in time. There is no reason your people can't do the same. But you won't. You find it more rewarding to hate us, and stay poor.
"We would have plenty enough to fund our own economic development and education and training."
It would make far more sense for Indian children to go to regular schools, with optional extra courses to teach them their traditional languages, history, and culture. Adding to an existing infrastructure is far cheaper and more certain of success than building an entirely new one.
"But no your gov't has never been fair it would be crazy to expect them to be fair now."
And by pissing off the citizenry who vote for those governments, you play right into the government's hands. Instead of dejectedly filing past Parliament with your hands out, bring some practical solutions to the table. Quit dwelling in the past and look to the future. It's worked for every other race of Man. There's no reason it wouldn't work for you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-31 3:49:45 PM
"I work with plenty of aboriginals who neither hate whites or anyone else and don't have the "this is my land" mentality."
The successful ones generally don't, Scott. They have found that work is generally better at filling the belly than hate.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-31 3:51:10 PM
"There was a cure for TB in the 50's but I was told that no Doctor would come to help them. One fellow pointed at the graveyard and said..."do you see why we hate them"?"
Health care was not free in the 50s, JC. Is it possible the doctor would not come simply because he would not have gotten paid? That EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR in the community hated Indians to the point that he would break the Hippocratic Oath and let them all die is difficult to believe.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-31 3:55:55 PM
"I don't hate white people. I have many friends who are white, some of them are my dearest friends. I for one have more than one occassion put myself on the line personally and otherwise to help a white person. I have even gone against Indian people to assist a white man when I thought there was an injustice happening."
A man of justice. Admirable.
"Today Indian people are even prohibited from selling their own resources such as fish, deer and other wildlife. The trees on our traditional territory we cannot use as our own anymore."
The same government that is "controlling" us is controlling you. To them we are all the same.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-31 3:56:17 PM
Health care was not free in the 50s, JC. Is it possible the doctor would not come simply because he would not have gotten paid? That EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR in the community hated Indians to the point that he would break the Hippocratic Oath and let them all die is difficult to believe.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-31 3:55:55 PM
I don't care what you believe. It happened.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-31 4:09:15 PM
At least your people weren't enslaved, kamao, mine were and so were the ancestors of many white people who comment here. As one with Irish blood and who has read about the history of our enslavement YOU WILL GET NO SYMPATHY FROM ME AND NEITHER WILL THE BLACKS!
Do this for me: read this, read the whole thing, you will have a very different perspective on white people after you are done, I promise you:
*******************************************
White Slavery: The Slaves That Time Forgot
They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.
Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.
We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?
King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.
The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well."
http://afgen.com/forgotten_slaves.html
SLAVES! DO YOU GET THAT KAMAO? AND YOU WANT SYMPATHY FROM ME? NEVER!
We managed to get over it, to become productive, to prosper, to even become Prime Minister. Trudeau's ancestors came over as indentured servants, he got over it.
We have all suffered. The Romans were fond of English slaves. The word slave comes from Slav, because so many slaves taken by the North Africans came from there. Why do you think the Slavey of the Mackenzie river, who I know well, are called that? Enslaved by the Stone Indians, their beautiful women raped. Maybe it was your ancestors who did that.
Like many white Canadians, I am of mixed blood, Irish, but also other nationalities. Racist? Which race? I have so many, each with a history of brutality against the other. You don't even know white people.
Posted by: 742421465 | 2009-07-31 4:25:23 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.