For a moment there, I was worried they were cutting off Fort MacMurray;
Ontario Provincial Police shut down Canada’s busiest highway early Friday morning west of Kingston due to native protesters in the area, who had earlier blockaded a section of secondary highway and a stretch of nearby railway track on the eve of the National Day of Action.
Friday morning, the Ontario Provincial Police closed Highway 401 both ways between Napanee and Belleville and were diverting traffic north onto Hwy 7 due to native protesters “being in the direct area, for safety reasons,” said Sergeant Kristine Rae of the Smith Falls detachment.
Mark my words – the moment is approaching when a bandana prowling these police protected barricades will end up in the crosshairs of someone’s high powered rifle.
And right after that, Dalton McGuinty will blame Americans.
h/t.
Update: At the BBC, forum comments that go horribly wrong.
Related: Speaking of stereotyping and double standards – note the photograph chosen to illustrate this post. Bigot, heal thyself.
Astonishingly, Dawg responds with this: “I’d say some folks do a pretty good job of stereotyping themselves.”
Stereotype? When I see a cowboy hat, I think “cattle industry”.
In Dawg’s “progressive” world, cowboy hat means “racist”. Because, as we all know, western rural culture is synonymous with intolerance.
ET: So, you are now saying that they need not be hunting/gathering but can be industrial
ET, take a look back at this thread. I never said they need to be a H/G economy. Others implied that I did, starting with your comments on June 29, 2007 at 9:47 AM (reiterated at 5:15 PM), as well as David Hand on June 29, 2007 5:45 PM and Kate on June 30, 2007 11:27 AM. In fact, I explicitly said that this wasn’t necessary (June 30, 2007 5:21 AM). At some point, you began assuming that this was my position, when it fact it was not. My (ill-advised, I admit, in light of the over-reaction here) comment was meant to end this mis-characterization of my position once and for all by making explicit the absurdity of what you (falsely) attribute to me.
Now – inform us exactly how. What is their capital?
Economic capital? Primarily natural resource assets, I should think, possibly supplemented by tourist revenues. You should ask them yourselves.
why must natives lives ‘as a group’? Why do you reject them as individuals and insist that they ‘choose’ to live ‘as a group’?
Again, a mis-characterization of what I said. Where did I say “must”? Where do i reject them as individuals? I believe it is you rather than I who is making this an either/or choice.
I know this: the AFN, as with their NCAI counterparts in the US, see indigenous self-determination as a central issue in Native politics. Self-determination does not imply that all Native members must then live on reserves, or even participate in this governance structure. But it gives Aboriginals/Natives actual sovereignty to determine their own issues, needs, and solutions. Achieving self-determination in itself will not solve all Aboriginal problems, but it is seen as a necessary step. You can read more about the Aboriginal/Native rationale behind this, in their own words (for whatever that’s worth), here (3w.afn.ca/article.asp?id=1542) and here (3w.ncai.org/Tribal_Governance.27.0.html) and here (3w.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddir.html).
Now, it’s a beautiful Sunday evening here in Amsterdam (which the locals sometimes abbreviate as…ohhhhhhhhhhh…) and I’m going to go enjoy it. ET, I doubt we will come to any agreement on these issues. But ask yourself these two questions: (1) Do you genuinely care about the future of Canada’s Aboriginal populations, both as individuals and as a distinct cultural group? If yes, then (2) to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past (e.g., assimilation policies, residential schools, etc.), shouldn’t the first step in assisting them be to listen and to open a dialogue, as their equals rather than as either their oppressors or paternalistic caretakers, to what they themselves claim their needs to be? And if yes, then (3) does your position allow for such a participatory, empowering space, or is it still predicated on “power over” rather than “power with”?
Again, adam, you haven’t taken responsiblity for your ‘fur traders’ response – that’s because you don’t acknowledge that a population has NO choice in its economic mode. You cannot in our global society, operate in any other than an industrial economic mode.
Then, you state that their capital resources would be based around ‘natural resources’. What planet are you living on? What natural resources? Do you mean they should cut all the timber down? Is there a river – and what do they do with it? And what else is there? Why should I ask them? You are the one making the suggestions about their future.
By the way – no-where do I see you suggest that they be engineers, scientists, ie, individual choices.
In many areas, the land is completely unsuited for agriculture – the soil in most of Canada is too thin; the temperature too cold, the growing season too short. So- what resources are you talking about?
Tourism? Why on earth would anyone go to visit a native reserve? Do you know that many of the reserves have no roads? Who would pay for the roads?
Your two current suggestions – using their ‘natural resources’ and ‘tourism’ are as naive as your ‘fur-trading’ suggestion.
What are their ‘own issues, needs, solutions’. You speak of them as if they were a separate species. They are the SAME as us; they don’t have separate ‘issues, needs, solutions’.
Nowhere do you acknowledge them as individuals – and I don’t mean just in words; I mean in actions. All your references to them treats them ‘en bloc’. As a group.
What they need to do – is get off the reserves, get rid of the communal ownership, get rid of the groupism, and move into individual self-responsibility.
And don’t try to turn this discussion into a fallacious argument ad misericordiam and appeal to whether/not I ‘care about’ natives. That’s not and cannot be the issue. What a condescending attitude to others – ‘do I ‘care about’ them as a group’ – as if they were some sort of exotic species. They aren’t – and your suggestion that they be kept that way is racist. Just as vitrivius has repeatedly pointed out to you.
I’d say that it’s you who is being paternalistic with your treatment of them as a distinct group, your absolutely naive economic suggestions, and your patronizing terms of ‘power over’ vs ‘power with’ and your condescending ‘generosity’ of ‘let them decide’.
Stop treating the natives as a ‘distinct species’ or race; they are the same as anyone else. Don’t expect them to live ‘en bloc’. No-one else does; why should they?
M’oron
Dawg updated his post to include Rightgirls polemic on Native Action Day- of course he used this as an excuse to label her a racist (as did many other lefties). It was pointed out that Rightgirl in fact qualifies as Native due to her Micmac heritage. She chose not pursue official status on principle. You have to read Dawgs spin on this revelation in the comments at his blog – hoist by his own petard.
Here’s a thought, can we start a collection for Rightgirl so she can sue those nasty white lefties for the horrid things they said about her?
A’dam,I am assuming that you live in Eurabia and do not know the geographical area of Canada. The natives do not live all together in one area. The reserves are all over the country.There may be one or two small reserves that could actually eke out a marginal existence from trapping and skinning SDAs,but for 99% of the native population that is ludricous. They would laugh harder than I did.Some could do well with the resources on thier land and some could get by by farming.I like that. The reality in Canada though is that,instead of actually farming,mining,or drilling,the natives prefer to lease thier resources.That way no actual discipline is required,but the maximum profit is not realized and the potential of the people is not necessary. I,and many others here,would love to see the cycle of poverty and abuses broken.For that to happen,significant changes have to happen and first and foremost,the coddling of the lazy child has to stop. PC talk perpetuates the cycle.One of my favourite people is native and EARNS 3 times the salary that I do.She was educated and raised by white parents who never bought into the”woe is me” saga.Unfortunately,in Canada,white folks are no longer allowed to raise native children because of politically correct morons.Unfortunately,in Canada,natives have been given a pass on responsibility because of politically correct morons. I strongly suggest you obtain a map of Canada that has the reserves marked off and think about how these 480 or so communities could function as a nation.If you can come up with an idea that may work,my hat is off to you,you are much smarter than I will ever be.
Oh yeah,Happy Canada day and by by.
wallyj – yes, adam obviously knows nothing about natives or reserves and lives within a ‘textual world’.
There are over 600 reserves in Canada; does this mean 600 ‘nations’ in Canada. Most are quite small. You can go to a site called First Nation Profiles (google it) and you’ll find every reserve listed, giving geographic location, road access (many don’t have year round roads) and population.
For example, there are 206 reserves in Ontario. Lake of the Woods – has 338 people. A ‘nation’ made up of 338 people! Bearskin lake – 828. Big Island – 338. One- Akwesasne – has 10,000 people. But most are small in size, and small in population. You can take a look at the educational statistics and find that most haven’t finished even high school. And, most are on welfare. Again – when you are not allowed to own property or mortgage personal goods – you can’t start a business or do anything!
Also,most of these nations despise each other. In Alberta,a gathering of Cree and Blackfoot,having fun and celebrating thier culture and tradition,invariably winds up in a call to 911. Please,I know, not every time,but the tension is always simmering.
wallyj: In Alberta, a gathering of Cree and Blackfoot….
First, please choose your words carefully, or else risk the (false?) impression of bigotry. “Invariably” can be defined as “in every case” or “every time.” You are in effect saying that, “In Alberta, a gathering of Cree and Blackfoot, having fun and celebrating their culture and tradition, every time winds up in a call to 911. Please, I know, not every time, but the tension is always simmering.”
I am assuming that you live in Eurabia and do not know the geographical area of Canada…
You assume wrong. I live in Canada, my work directly involves the health of Aboriginal populations, and I am well-versed in both Canadian geography and the spatial distribution of Native communities.
There may be one or two small reserves that could actually eke out a marginal existence from trapping and skinning SDAs,but for 99% of the native population that is ludricous…
For the last time, I’m aware it’s ludicrous — that was my point. Please refer to my earlier posts on July 1, 7:22AM and 12:28PM, for clarification.
For that to happen, significant changes have to happen…
On this narrow point that significant changes are required, I agree with you — and so would the AFN and many other Aboriginal rights advocates (to my understanding at least; I am not presuming to speak formally on their behalf). Like you, I’m not advocating the status quo — but neither are the AFN and many other Aboriginal rights advocates. Like you, I reject the paternalistic policies adopted by past and present federal governments that have effectively made Aboriginals dependent wards of the state — and so do the AFN and many other Aboriginal rights advocates.
But that may be all we agree on…
Unfortunately, in Canada, white folks are no longer allowed to raise native children…
Given the historical legacy of forced assimilation policies — the vestiges of which survived up until this current generation – can you really not understand why Native groups would be suspicious of adoption requests by “well-intentioned” white parents? That you contrast the Aboriginal cycle of poverty, “the coddling of the lazy child,” and the “‘woe is me’ saga” on the one hand, with adoption specifically by “white folks” on the other, suggests their suspicions are at least somewhat warranted. Your implication seems to be that any Aboriginal child graced with a “white” upbringing would somehow be better off. Please explain to me how, at a fundamental level, this is (a) NOT paternalistic in the extreme; and (b) different from the (now-universally condemned) assimilation policies of the past.
More broadly, you seem to equate the Aboriginal cycle of poverty with an Aboriginal culture of poverty. I would disagree that the former is “created” by the latter. I agree with ET when she says that Aboriginals are innately capable of becoming engineers, doctors, and scientists (and nothing that I, or the AFN, or other Aboriginal rights advocates, have proposed would prevent their doing so), but I see the barriers as primarily structural rather than cultural. Initiatives such as the Northern Ontario School of Medicine seek to overcome these barriers, and there are successful largely because they are predicated not on a rejection or abandoning of traditional Aboriginal cultures, but on an embrace and synthesis of them.
To be clear, I am not denying the importance of personal agency or responsibility. However, a structural perspective helps to highlight the fact that individual action is constrained by a myriad of external factors, and these factors must be addressed if real progress is to be achieved. A structural perspective also seeks to create the conditions that enable individual agency and responsibility to be maximally expressed, and so is not incompatible with individualism. But to propose that Aboriginals should be treated henceforth only as individuals, on the assumption that they are the same as any other Canadian, is to ignore these structural constraints, which have different impacts on different social demographics and strata. A purely individualist and meritocratic system may seem fair “on paper”, but is not in reality, since the playing field in reality is uneven, and those currently with power can manipulate the system so that it continues to operate in their favour.
And on a related note, the argument expressed here (not by you specifically) that humans have spent most of their history conquering others and thus the First Nations should “just accept it” may explain how we got to this point, but does not provide an ethical rationale for continuing to do so through present and future policies, particularly as modern democratic sensibilities no longer views “conquering other” as morally justifiable. By analogy, having committed the Holocaust in the past does not allow humanity to commit it again.
I strongly suggest you obtain a map of Canada…
It’s the Assembly of First Nations — plural — for a reason. Having said that, the choice is not a simplistic either/or between a single but highly dispersed nation or 600+ distinct “nations.” Again, that’s the whole point of self-determination – that First Nations (and more broadly, Aboriginals) have the right to decide for themselves on all matters internal to the community, including the organizational structure of own their tribal and inter-tribal governance.
Incidentally, one should not confuse “nation” with “state.”
ET: They are the SAME as us; they don’t have separate ‘issues, needs, solutions’.
Here is a simple and concrete example, only one of many: is access to clean drinking water an issue for you?
Nowhere do you acknowledge them as individuals – and I don’t mean just in words; I mean in actions. All your references to them treats them ‘en bloc’. As a group.
Inherent in the notion of self-government and self-determination is for the individuals who comprise First Nations to act for themselves, both as a self-identified group and, yes, as individuals.
Think of it this way:
(1) For all intents and purposes, Canada is a self-governing and self-determining entity (ignoring for the moment our membership in the Commonwealth). You are Canadian. Does the fact that Canada is self-governing mean that your individuality is unacknowledged and suppressed?
(2) Replace “Canada” and “Canadian” with “First Nations” in (1).
Incidentally, an honest question for you: How do you reconcile your view of human history, which seems to place heavy emphasis on external determinants — biome conditions, ecological and demographic inevitabilities, macro-economic positive feedback loops, etc. — all of which lie outside of any one individual’s control or responsibility, with your view of the present and future, in which individuality appears to trump all?
What they need to do – is get off the reserves, get rid of the communal ownership, get rid of the groupism, and move into individual self-responsibility.
So your notion of treating people as individuals involves you telling others “what they need to do”? Interesting. Kinda bossy, though, don’t you think? It’s almost as if you know what’s best for others, whether they say they want it or not.
With individualism like that, who need dictatorships?
A’damn fool said: “Here is a simple and concrete example, only one of many: is access to clean drinking water an issue for you?”
Well, A’damn, here is a simple and concrete response: Yes. Access to clean drinking water is vital. Why can’t they take care of this themselves? Call up a driller, drill a well, cap it and voila! They certainly get enough money from us…why can’t they take responsibility for their own lives? Why must “the government” make this happen? They want to be a nation, but want someone else to serve them. Do they have someone wipe their arse for them, too?
Your attitude seems to be that they must be taken care of like children. My attitude is that they should stand up on their own hind legs and take care of themselves. God knows, we’ve given them enough money to do so.
As every parent INVARIABLY tells their kids at some point in their life…”If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult.”
Your attitude is one of condescension. I view YOU as the bigot.
Eeyore: here is a simple and concrete response: Yes. Access to clean drinking water is vital. Why can’t they take care of this themselves?…Why must “the government” make this happen?
And how do you get access to your clean drinking water, Eeyore? I’m willing to bet from a government-constructed and government-maintained water management system. How often have you or anyone you know ever personally made that phone call to a driller?
And how many trillions of dollars worth of natural resources do you think the Government of Canada has extracted over the past century or so from land currently under a land-claim dispute?
And how many hundreds of billions of dollars do you think your provincial and federal governments have invested back over the past century or so in, say, water processing technologies and infrastructure and human resources, all so that you and I can take turning on a tap for granted?
And by how much do you think THOSE amounts would dwarf the total amount of money ever earmarked for reserve infrastructure development, of which water filtration is but one component?
adam – yet another fallacious tactic? Your telling me that I have no right to suggest what should be done about native affairs in Canada because that makes me a dictator – is another example of your fallacious tactics of argumentation. You tend to move into the diversionary – attacking the debaters.
I have every right to make a suggestion, and suggesting that they live as individuals rather than as a ‘bloc’ is a logical resolution to their problems.
Your solution (equally dictatorial?) that they live ‘en bloc’ as ‘nations’ within Canada is economically not feasible and ignores reality.
There are over 3,000 reserves in Canada (600 in Sask. alone – my previous post erred). Most have only a few hundred registered natives. Are there supposed to be 3,000 self-governing ‘nations’ within Canada? How would that help them?
The natives have to assimilate into the broader socioeconomic milieu; like others, they can define themselves as descended from a particular ancestral identity, but they certainly can’t live as isolate identities in our global world.
No, the biome, the ecology, etc are not external determinants; they are the basis of a group or individual’s capacity to ‘do work’. You can’t grow wheat in the arctic. You have to adapt to the realities of the env’t. And, if your population is too small for developing an industry – as it is on most reserves – then…
Clean water? Actually – my years in Quebec were heavy with notices to ‘boil water’. For months and months and months at a time.
You cannot compare Canada as self-governing and propose that the 3,000 reserives embedded within Canada should be self-governing. There is no such thing as a nation that has another nation embedded within it. And don’t compare alliances (commonwealth) with embedded nations. False analogy.
Your solution, again, which is to have ‘self-governing nations’ within Canada of natives – is politically and economically not feasible and treats them as ‘races’. There is no way a native could become a scientist or engineer etc within a self-governing native nation – because that nation doesn’t have the economic capital to start up its own scientific institute, put up an IBM plant etc. You have to be part of the entire industrial economy to work at those professions and doing it, isolate, on a reserve 100 km from a city – is ridiculous.
The only solution, in my view, is assimilation to the greater economy. Why you insist on them being kept separate is amazing.
ET, why do you waste time on this moron? He’s just another Lefty bigot who thinks Indians are too stupid to look after themselves.
A’Dumb, you know what I’d do if I didn’t have access to clean water in this country? Move. Pretty frickin’ simple solution to a problem that’s self inflicted in the first place. That’s because I try to live in reality, not some Leftist fairy land where facts are an unimportant side issue.
ET: Your solution (equally dictatorial?) that they live ‘en bloc’ as ‘nations’ within Canada is economically not feasible and ignores reality.
I take my cue from what First Nations people themselves say they want, so it can hardly be considered dictatorial. Where do you take your cue from, ET?
No, the biome, the ecology, etc are not external determinants.
But are they not external in the sense that they lie beyond the individual? To state your point in another way, the kind of “work” that a group or individual is capable of “doing” is limited to whatever is possible given the specific resources and conditions available within the particular biome in which they find themselves. Indeed, as you say, individuals must adapt to their environments — a clear indication that individual agency is constrained by external factors.
So why take the view that individual agency and responsibility must trump all, now, when they did not in the past? And, if biomes are an external factor that shapes the extent of individual activity, so too are legal and political systems, with at least one crucial difference: the former are largely impervious to human intervention, but the latter are not. We can rework the latter in whatever fashion we choose so that they are agreed upon as fair by both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals.
There is no such thing as a nation that has another nation embedded within it.
Tell that to Quebecers, or to PM Harper for that matter: 3w.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/22/harper-quebec.html
Your solution, again, which is to have ‘self-governing nations’ within Canada of natives – is politically and economically not feasible.
Never say never: 3w.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/index_e.html#Self-GovernmentAgreements
There is no way a native could become a scientist or engineer etc within a self-governing native nation – because that nation doesn’t have the economic capital to start up its own scientific institute, put up an IBM plant etc.
Are you perhaps mistakenly confusing “nation” with “state”? Or believing that Native definitions of “nation” are necessarily the same as yours? Or that a desire for self-government is necessarily concomitant with a desire for sovereign statehood?
This a’dam character is really, really boring. Just throwing up tired old meme after tired old meme.
In fact, he’s looking more and more like the proverbial jello nailed to a wall –
Are you perhaps mistakenly confusing “nation” with “state”? Or believing that Native definitions of “nation” are necessarily the same as yours? Or that a desire for self-government is necessarily concomitant with a desire for sovereign statehood?
This guy has got to be a professor of Native Studies somewhere. He’s as sleazy and as slippery as they come. Dodging, weaving, changing the goals posts with each and every comment he makes.
A’dam, I happen to now live in a city, but when I lived in the country, we’d call a driller and voila…water. Most natives on reserves, I strongly suspect, don’t live in cities…that’s why they’re not called cities.
And now you’re saying that they can’t look after themselves because they’ve been stolen from? You’re amazing.
A’dam or anyone ,just for a lark,give me the names of 6 native role models,Canadian only please.If you desire to give me more,please prioritize.Thank you.
Alive or dead Wally?
Preferably alive,present day heroes,if at all possible,Thank you.
I’ve got nuthin’.
wow all this ruckus over one person…and a few delays in traffic.Surround the reserve and shoot..lmao..by the way what is pst anyways.never payed it never will
Working on my list. In the meantime, this is a good read: Trapped in the aboriginal narrative
Two of my heroes are mentioned in this article. The dude from New Zealand ain’t bad, either.
Okay, here’s my list, all alive and kicking, but in no particular order:
Roberta Jamieson – lawyer
Olive Dickason – historian and university professor
Tom Jackson – performer (music and acting)
Tomson Highway – writer, playwrite
John Kim Bell – performing arts producer and promoter
Lorne Cardinal – actor (of Corner Gas fame)
Mike Cardinal – member of the Alberta legislature and of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party
Alwyn Morris – gold medal olympian (kayaking)
Wendy Bigcharles and Laurie Gaucher – mountain climbers
Clarence Louie, chief of the Osoyoos band in B.C
Calvin Helin, from the Tsimshian Nation in B.C.,
If I think of more, I’ll post them. Note what they all have in common. None of them are into the politics of whining and sucking tax payers money out of Ottawa and Regina and other capitals. Google them if you want to learn more.
Thanks Louise. The reason I was asking was to check on thier educational backgrounds and if they were raised on or off-reserve. I quickly went through the first 6 on the list. There is not a lot of info.What is not too surprising is that education played a huge role in all thier lives. A few were in the residential schools,a few were raised off-reserve,but the early details are sketchy. An interesting fact that I did come across was that Coon Come was educated in the residential schools,nothing on Fontaine’s early childhood. Thanks again and take care.
wallyj,
You piss me off with a question like that.
There are literally thousands of great positive native role models. You don’t have to be a celebrity to be a role model … in fact, celebrity status is a very shallow way to judge people.