6 ms·
I think you are absolutely right - but the continuation of these structures and conditions that make violence against women ripe, easy and prevalent are due to
by vivekd 7y ago
I think you are absolutely right - but the continuation of these structures and conditions that make violence against women ripe, easy and prevalent are due to structures that the government set in place. If natives actually owned the land - they would be able to sell and mortgage it - and use the money to move off reserve or start a business or whatever.
If tribal counsels weren't just puppet governments, people might actually trust them and they might have competence to fix the situation.
Right now Natives are almost under government stewardship - that condition doesn't seem like it will change any time soon and their situation seems to degarde the longer it continues - which will lead to more deaths and victimizations.
I think to connect our points simply, we could say
1. Yes many of these women are victimized at the hands of men from their communities
2. Many of their communities are impoverished and under 3rd world conditions
3. Abuse and victimization are more likely under such conditions
4. Women are less able to escape victimization under such conditions
5. The government created these conditions and propagates these conditions
- wolco 7y ago5. The government created these conditions and propagates these conditions Native leaders and the population demand a different kind self government hands off approach. The government propagates these condition by listening. The self governing model is failing here but no one will speak up.
- sonnyblarney 7y agoNo, I disagree on so many levels. A) the land ownership issue is existential and could blow up the entire country. Every treaty is also different. B) This is not a money problem. If aboriginal communities were given the land to sell, it would be sold to outside interests and the money would be gone in a generation. C) The 'system' that they are pointing at are the residential schools - they were ended a long time ago. D) Many reserves have a high degree of self governance. Self governance requires responsibility. The last government forced transparency among local aboriginal communities and it showed widespread corruption. That said - many communities were managed very well i.e. 'as diverse as the country itself'. E) The government does not create or propagate anything: 35 million Canadians live very well in Canada, there's no reason most Aboriginals could not live off reserve and do the same things that the rest of Canadians do. Obviously, not an option for some, but for most - absolutely. We need pragmatic studies, pragmatic programs, oversight, accountability - but in the end, there is no way that anyone else can lift the aboriginal communities out of whatever conditions. They have to do it themselves. Today we could hand them money, education, jobs - and it still wouldn't work, so there are underlying issues to work on.
- vivekd 7y agoIm going to respond in a limited way because I think this is leading to a big fruitless debate. But notions like limiting native ability to sell the land b/c quote "it would be gone in a generation" is paternalism and I would characterize it as racist perternalism because it assumes natives are not rational actors who can decide their fates. It assumes they need government to keep them from squandering their land. And its this kind of paternalism that has characterized the governments policy towards natives and has led to the current sad state of affairs. Second its one or the other -either you are paternalistic and take responsibilty for the state of many Natives or you give them autonomy and they take responsibility for themselves. Wanting control because you think they cant responsibily manage their land and resourses but still blaming them for their shortcomings like tribal corruption is an inconsistent position you are taking.