10 ms·

> a “fix” for the victims or descendants of victims would require massive wealth transfers My take on this, as a child of white immigrants, is that the Native

> a “fix” for the victims or descendants of victims would require massive wealth transfers My take on this, as a child of white immigrants, is that the Native Indian population would prefer something other than money. I think this kind of easy solution, just give them some money, is the type of solution that has been tried over and over without success. Even worse, we'll carve out some land and tell a tribe "this is yours" only to steal it back as soon as some commercial opportunity makes it valuable. In the medium sized town I live nearby, large tracts of native land sit unused as undeveloped trash pits surrounded by condo and townhouse developments. How are natives expected to live a traditional life off the land when on one side there are supermarkets and strip malls and on the other side suburbs? Eventually many bands cave in and throw up their own gated communities which they lease to rich white retirees. One corner of the remaining land gets to stand for a local band community centre and maybe a small section of housing for a few lucky band members. My own perception is that corruption within the bands is rife, with chiefs and their family/friends benefiting from the rent-seeking and pretty much everyone else in the band losing out. I think the harsh reality is that the kind of society and life that Native Indians dream of cannot be lived alongside modern industrial capitalism. It isn't just forestry, mining, oil and gas pipelines ruining their habitat. It is the very root of capitalist consumerist culture that is incompatible with the very conception of life they wish to maintain. You can't make that go away with money or by temporarily relocating them. It would require a cultural shift that would alter every aspect of Canadian life. The funny thing is, we're all just jumping on to the global warming bandwagon. But the only communities I see taking environmental stewardship seriously are the Native Indians. They've been literally screaming at the top of their lungs about the destruction we are wreaking to this planet for decades. And instead of listening to them we just pressure them until they give in and accept whatever bribe we muster alongside a weak apology for past transgressions. And then they retreat into depression and alcoholism. It's a heart-breaking cycle and more money (or "wealth transfer") isn't the solution.

908B64B197 5y ago
> the Native Indian population would prefer something other than money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_and_Northern_Quebec_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_and_Northern_Quebec_... > My own perception is that corruption within the bands is rife, with chiefs and their family/friends benefiting from the rent-seeking and pretty much everyone else in the band losing out. Look far north. The village doesn't have clean water, but the local chief has two hummers and brand new ATVs on the front lawn. Guess where your tax money went...
- munk-a 5y ago
  The Mayor of Vancouver currently earns 171k annual - that appears to be enough for about 7 hummers, 4 after taxes[1]. Purchasing two hummers would cost you about 50k which is a very nice nest egg to have in the bank but, considering they may get a lot of use, probably not unreasonable. Most reservations have extremely poor roads and these cars might be shared in the community - I don't know if that's the specific case here but it's pretty common... lastly, cars aren't cheap and while hummers are expensive cars they aren't unreasonably priced, maybe having a hummer is this chief's personal luxury - we all want to have nice things, even when our lives aren't glamorous. I think that the Mayor of Vancouver's salary is pretty fair considering the job they're doing, I can't speak on the specifics of this village but I am extremely suspicious of anyone who demands that people live in visible poverty to receive aide. The concept of "the welfare queen" originated with Reagan and was entirely born to utilize as a political tool - we can stop playing into stereotypes. 1. I am 100% not a car person - if anyone else knows a better assumed value than 24k please feel free to revise or correct numbers
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    What I meant was, a lot of tribal finance is opaque. A check is given but how it's spent is 100% decided by the local chief.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      That can be a real problem for tribes, I agree. In my youth I worked with an organization for Haudenosaunee cultural preservation in the US and while the politics are a lot different there the status of tribes as nations means that there are a lot of weird power dynamics. In particular this organization was opposing considerations of the Mohawk People to invite in outside investors that wanted to build casinos on reservation land - that's a hard decision to make and even harder when there is a single ultimate tribal representative that you can throw ten million dollars at without serious impacting long term financial expectations. The Mohawk Council of Chiefs in Akwesasne[1] represents a tribe with enough members, and historical precedent, that they benefit from and enjoy an actual government body, but many of these tribes are small enough or remote enough that a single member is vested with a lot of power and this will often go poorly. I don't think there's a really clear good solution here - it'd probably make sense to consolidate tribes into fewer regional bands but Natives are obviously pretty skittish about surrendering any of what little power of self-governance they have. 1. http://www.akwesasne.ca/about/ http://www.akwesasne.ca/about/
jollybean 5y ago
"How are natives expected to live a traditional life off the land " People of aboriginal heritage in Canada do not 'live off the land' as their ancestors did in neolithic conditions. Other than for some very specific activities like seal hunting etc. "the kind of society and life that Native Indians dream of" ?? They definitely are not dreaming of this. Or not in any different way that we often dream of maybe 'going fully organic / off the grid' - but we don't because we have regular jobs.. 'What they want' is complicated. Definitely they want 'treaty rights' respected, but those are vague. They want certain municipal services (i.e. water) but it's really spotty - some places, water facilities are made for them, but they won't do the upkeep. In other very remote communities, it's exceedingly expensive. In others, private mining companies have polluted the water (the answer here should be easy though - the mining companies pay to fix the dam problem they created). There's also the problem of taxation and cost - my father pays $180/month for water for his tiny little flat in a small town because they live in a remote area. Municipalities, via taxes, pay for water treatment. So the question arises as to 'who the Federal/Provincial Government' will pay for, and who they will not. There are very complicated band structures where by some band leadership positions are inherited and come with legal powers. Some hereditary band leaders in BC who've maintained their 'titles' for centuries and who hold all of the power but have no support from the band members, and there's no democratic input, may decide to be 'against' a pipeline or some such thing - even as basically entire band/community themselves is 'for' it. The Canadian government is in a weird position they are forced to recognized the hereditary titles of the chiefs - which is democratically anathemic of course. And it goes on like this. It's complicated.
- reggieband 5y ago
  I think I was sloppy in my comment and you linked two ideas that I didn't necessarily want to link. That is, I don't want to imply: "a traditional life off the land" and "the kind of society and life that Native Indians dream of" were the exact same thing. Nor would it be fair to suggest that everyone wants the same thing based on their heritage. I meant those ideas distinctly. That is, a traditional life off the land does not seem possible given the circumstances regardless of whether or not that is the kind of life some might desire. What I wanted to combat was the assumption that the kind of "western values" that are represented by consumerism is what those communities are failing to achieve. It is the exact same kind of thinking that lead to residential schools in the first place. As if we give them enough money, give them education and health care then they'll finally integrate into our society. But if they don't want that life, if it isn't their dream to be successful western capitalists, it is hard to imagine how they can live alongside the western capitalists without constant tension. And accommodating any other alternative communities alongside our own isn't simply a matter of financing. That problem is distinct from any particular formulation of "alternative communities" including but not exclusive to "living off the land". Basically, how can we allow Native Indians to form a distinct culture and identity when we constantly encroach on them and disrupt them. You can't pay that problem away.

908B64B197 5y ago

> the Native Indian population would prefer something other than money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_and_Northern_Quebec_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_and_Northern_Quebec_... > My own perception is that corruption within the bands is rife, with chiefs and their family/friends benefiting from the rent-seeking and pretty much everyone else in the band losing out. Look far north. The village doesn't have clean water, but the local chief has two hummers and brand new ATVs on the front lawn. Guess where your tax money went...

munk-a 5y ago
The Mayor of Vancouver currently earns 171k annual - that appears to be enough for about 7 hummers, 4 after taxes[1]. Purchasing two hummers would cost you about 50k which is a very nice nest egg to have in the bank but, considering they may get a lot of use, probably not unreasonable. Most reservations have extremely poor roads and these cars might be shared in the community - I don't know if that's the specific case here but it's pretty common... lastly, cars aren't cheap and while hummers are expensive cars they aren't unreasonably priced, maybe having a hummer is this chief's personal luxury - we all want to have nice things, even when our lives aren't glamorous. I think that the Mayor of Vancouver's salary is pretty fair considering the job they're doing, I can't speak on the specifics of this village but I am extremely suspicious of anyone who demands that people live in visible poverty to receive aide. The concept of "the welfare queen" originated with Reagan and was entirely born to utilize as a political tool - we can stop playing into stereotypes. 1. I am 100% not a car person - if anyone else knows a better assumed value than 24k please feel free to revise or correct numbers
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  What I meant was, a lot of tribal finance is opaque. A check is given but how it's spent is 100% decided by the local chief.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    That can be a real problem for tribes, I agree. In my youth I worked with an organization for Haudenosaunee cultural preservation in the US and while the politics are a lot different there the status of tribes as nations means that there are a lot of weird power dynamics. In particular this organization was opposing considerations of the Mohawk People to invite in outside investors that wanted to build casinos on reservation land - that's a hard decision to make and even harder when there is a single ultimate tribal representative that you can throw ten million dollars at without serious impacting long term financial expectations. The Mohawk Council of Chiefs in Akwesasne[1] represents a tribe with enough members, and historical precedent, that they benefit from and enjoy an actual government body, but many of these tribes are small enough or remote enough that a single member is vested with a lot of power and this will often go poorly. I don't think there's a really clear good solution here - it'd probably make sense to consolidate tribes into fewer regional bands but Natives are obviously pretty skittish about surrendering any of what little power of self-governance they have. 1. http://www.akwesasne.ca/about/ http://www.akwesasne.ca/about/

jollybean 5y ago

"How are natives expected to live a traditional life off the land " People of aboriginal heritage in Canada do not 'live off the land' as their ancestors did in neolithic conditions. Other than for some very specific activities like seal hunting etc. "the kind of society and life that Native Indians dream of" ?? They definitely are not dreaming of this. Or not in any different way that we often dream of maybe 'going fully organic / off the grid' - but we don't because we have regular jobs.. 'What they want' is complicated. Definitely they want 'treaty rights' respected, but those are vague. They want certain municipal services (i.e. water) but it's really spotty - some places, water facilities are made for them, but they won't do the upkeep. In other very remote communities, it's exceedingly expensive. In others, private mining companies have polluted the water (the answer here should be easy though - the mining companies pay to fix the dam problem they created). There's also the problem of taxation and cost - my father pays $180/month for water for his tiny little flat in a small town because they live in a remote area. Municipalities, via taxes, pay for water treatment. So the question arises as to 'who the Federal/Provincial Government' will pay for, and who they will not. There are very complicated band structures where by some band leadership positions are inherited and come with legal powers. Some hereditary band leaders in BC who've maintained their 'titles' for centuries and who hold all of the power but have no support from the band members, and there's no democratic input, may decide to be 'against' a pipeline or some such thing - even as basically entire band/community themselves is 'for' it. The Canadian government is in a weird position they are forced to recognized the hereditary titles of the chiefs - which is democratically anathemic of course. And it goes on like this. It's complicated.

reggieband 5y ago
I think I was sloppy in my comment and you linked two ideas that I didn't necessarily want to link. That is, I don't want to imply: "a traditional life off the land" and "the kind of society and life that Native Indians dream of" were the exact same thing. Nor would it be fair to suggest that everyone wants the same thing based on their heritage. I meant those ideas distinctly. That is, a traditional life off the land does not seem possible given the circumstances regardless of whether or not that is the kind of life some might desire. What I wanted to combat was the assumption that the kind of "western values" that are represented by consumerism is what those communities are failing to achieve. It is the exact same kind of thinking that lead to residential schools in the first place. As if we give them enough money, give them education and health care then they'll finally integrate into our society. But if they don't want that life, if it isn't their dream to be successful western capitalists, it is hard to imagine how they can live alongside the western capitalists without constant tension. And accommodating any other alternative communities alongside our own isn't simply a matter of financing. That problem is distinct from any particular formulation of "alternative communities" including but not exclusive to "living off the land". Basically, how can we allow Native Indians to form a distinct culture and identity when we constantly encroach on them and disrupt them. You can't pay that problem away.