6 ms·

Your comments are not at all sloppy; they are very well-written and well-taken, at least by this reader (and Canadian). I think you are correct in your analysis

Your comments are not at all sloppy; they are very well-written and well-taken, at least by this reader (and Canadian). I think you are correct in your analysis and your perspective. The fact is, as Canadians we ought to feel ashamed of this. I know I do. When I feel shame, I want to make it go away. Our entire society has become adept at turning away and ignoring our past. But our task as citizens right now is to not do that. It's to grapple with the reality of what is very clearly a horrific injustice. It's to stop claiming the past is the past. The legacy of colonialism is alive and well in Canada and it is still actively destroying many lives. There is no way to make this right. The only thing we can hope to do now is honour the dead, do our best to make amends to the living and carve out a new path forward.

jollybean 5y ago
" The legacy of colonialism is alive and well in Canada and it is still actively destroying many lives." Canada is, and continues to be a Colonial project. This is an objective reality, not an ideological statement. That's just what it is. It was put in motion a long time ago and continues to be that. While it may have some negative aspects, Canada is actually a beacon many positive ways - largely because of what the Colonialists have managed to create. It's also not really true at all to say 'Colonialism continues to hurt people', because it's mostly just the opposite. All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals. Canada is one the top destinations for immigrants, and Canada is probably hands down the #1 place for 'easy integration'. Swedes try to help Syrians but it's hard for them. Syrians and others, tend to do consistently well in Canada because integration is more manageable. People 'get along' in Canada probably more so than anywhere, which is firmly Colonial manifestation. Paradoxically, even for the aboriginals, of the 'solutions' ahead amount to ... 'more colonialism'. For example, the Federal government building for aboriginals their housing, and water facilities. The really successful hockey program that's getting young Quebec aboriginals to stay focused and in school. The extra effort on getting Aboriginal kids to finish school and the availability of post-secondary systems. Most of these measures look like they have the same intentions as the Canadian Government in 1900 - just not as draconian. They are all de-facto 'Colonialist' measures. The political situation on many reserves is more of a hindrance than not and will require reform, which will probably take the shape of falling more under the Canadian legal norms, i.e. 'Colonialist'. Many tribes have 'elders' who's positions are hereditary, and they lord over the tribes, sometimes against their will like literal Monarchs. There are problems with allocating land ownership and control to individuals making housing formation and especially small business formation very difficult. No tax base -> no ability to collect municipal taxes -> no water facilities etc.. The lack of transparency and inconsistent management has meant there's a 'more than comfortable' amount of corruption on some reserves, with Government money going into the pockets of a few. I should point out that it's very different in almost every situation. Different bands, reservations, locations - there's no specific pattern. Some 'non colonialist' aspects include opportunities for local, more traditional governance, which definitely should be experimented with, for example, the RCMP (i.e. justice system) can relinquish power in certain areas (i.e. Manitoba) in the hopes that local, more tradition forms of governance may work out at least on the criminal side of the issue. On the whole, for every 'traditional measure' of improvement, there will be a bunch of measures which are effectively Colonialist. It's fair to point out that there are aspects of Colonialism which haven't been very good, on the whole it's been totally the opposite. The groups trying to misrepresent the term 'Colonialism' I think have serious ideological underpinnings. I think they should find a different word.
- adriand 5y ago
  > While it may have some negative aspects, Canada is actually a beacon many positive ways - largely because of what the Colonialists have managed to create. Canada is a positive beacon in many ways in spite of its origins as a colony, not because of them. > All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals. What is "the Colonial umbrella" you are referring to here? Canada's standards of living are attributable to a number of factors, including an immense land area with plentiful natural resources, a highly industrialized economy, a robust system of law and government, etc. Like Japan, the UK, the US and the other G7 countries (only two of which were originally colonies). Secondly, I challenge your assertion that the native peoples of Canada would have lower standards of living were it not for colonialism. On the contrary, I think the evidence is clear that colonialism has been an unmitigated disaster for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately we will never know what standards of living the indigenous peoples of North America might have achieved in the 21st century had Europe respected their sovereignty. > Paradoxically, even for the aboriginals, of the 'solutions' ahead amount to ... 'more colonialism'. I take your point in the sense that many of these measures are "interventions" in a sense; they are initiatives imposed (or presented) by the federal government. I think they are fundamentally different from the original acts of colonialism, however, in that they seek to confer rights, status and resources as opposed to taking those things away. Where this goes beyond my understanding of the issues is in trying to determine who wants what, who speaks for whom, and so on...for instance you point out "problems with allocating land ownership and control to individuals". Of course that is problematic when, as I understand it, in many indigenous cultures the idea of owning land is considered absurd. It is, indeed, colonialist to insist on answers to questions like "who owns this land?" without considering that perhaps, no one does - and perhaps no one ought to.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "What is "the Colonial umbrella": "Canada's standards of living are attributable to a number of factors, including an immense land area with plentiful natural resources, a highly industrialized economy, a robust system of law and government, etc." <--- Yes. The imposition and expansion of this into North America is Colonialism. The expansion of education, language, justice, culture, industry, the economy, the political system, religion, and Enlightenment ideals - that is 'Colonialism'. i.e. civilization (as we understand it). The alternative, which was present before, is neolithic culture, which is how they would be living 'without colonialism'. If there is a 'paternalistic' view it's that Aboriginals somehow don't want at least the advantages of 'civilization' which they benefit from tremendously. Do you really think that Aboriginals would be happy and fruitful without hot water? Foraging for meals, living in tents and stick homes? No medicine, education, no effective social organization even at the tribal level? Aboriginals want warm homes, cars and Televisions just as much as anyone else - and the material benefits require all the supporting systems of 'Colonialism'. The 'situation' among Aboriginal communities is far better than it would be otherwise, they live at roughly the standards of the bottom 1/3 of Canadians. They have access to education, healthcare, homes, travel i.e. modernity in general - a relatively fair justice system - untold benefits - mostly provided to them for free (!!). Their 'problems' are almost entirely local: drugs, alcohol, violence among themselves, and an unwillingness to participate in many of the things they'll need to do (i.e. jobs) if they want the material benefits of the system. The current 'disequilibrium' is that they want access to modernity and all that comes along with it - without active participation in creating it.

jollybean 5y ago

" The legacy of colonialism is alive and well in Canada and it is still actively destroying many lives." Canada is, and continues to be a Colonial project. This is an objective reality, not an ideological statement. That's just what it is. It was put in motion a long time ago and continues to be that. While it may have some negative aspects, Canada is actually a beacon many positive ways - largely because of what the Colonialists have managed to create. It's also not really true at all to say 'Colonialism continues to hurt people', because it's mostly just the opposite. All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals. Canada is one the top destinations for immigrants, and Canada is probably hands down the #1 place for 'easy integration'. Swedes try to help Syrians but it's hard for them. Syrians and others, tend to do consistently well in Canada because integration is more manageable. People 'get along' in Canada probably more so than anywhere, which is firmly Colonial manifestation. Paradoxically, even for the aboriginals, of the 'solutions' ahead amount to ... 'more colonialism'. For example, the Federal government building for aboriginals their housing, and water facilities. The really successful hockey program that's getting young Quebec aboriginals to stay focused and in school. The extra effort on getting Aboriginal kids to finish school and the availability of post-secondary systems. Most of these measures look like they have the same intentions as the Canadian Government in 1900 - just not as draconian. They are all de-facto 'Colonialist' measures. The political situation on many reserves is more of a hindrance than not and will require reform, which will probably take the shape of falling more under the Canadian legal norms, i.e. 'Colonialist'. Many tribes have 'elders' who's positions are hereditary, and they lord over the tribes, sometimes against their will like literal Monarchs. There are problems with allocating land ownership and control to individuals making housing formation and especially small business formation very difficult. No tax base -> no ability to collect municipal taxes -> no water facilities etc.. The lack of transparency and inconsistent management has meant there's a 'more than comfortable' amount of corruption on some reserves, with Government money going into the pockets of a few. I should point out that it's very different in almost every situation. Different bands, reservations, locations - there's no specific pattern. Some 'non colonialist' aspects include opportunities for local, more traditional governance, which definitely should be experimented with, for example, the RCMP (i.e. justice system) can relinquish power in certain areas (i.e. Manitoba) in the hopes that local, more tradition forms of governance may work out at least on the criminal side of the issue. On the whole, for every 'traditional measure' of improvement, there will be a bunch of measures which are effectively Colonialist. It's fair to point out that there are aspects of Colonialism which haven't been very good, on the whole it's been totally the opposite. The groups trying to misrepresent the term 'Colonialism' I think have serious ideological underpinnings. I think they should find a different word.

adriand 5y ago
> While it may have some negative aspects, Canada is actually a beacon many positive ways - largely because of what the Colonialists have managed to create. Canada is a positive beacon in many ways in spite of its origins as a colony, not because of them. > All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals. What is "the Colonial umbrella" you are referring to here? Canada's standards of living are attributable to a number of factors, including an immense land area with plentiful natural resources, a highly industrialized economy, a robust system of law and government, etc. Like Japan, the UK, the US and the other G7 countries (only two of which were originally colonies). Secondly, I challenge your assertion that the native peoples of Canada would have lower standards of living were it not for colonialism. On the contrary, I think the evidence is clear that colonialism has been an unmitigated disaster for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately we will never know what standards of living the indigenous peoples of North America might have achieved in the 21st century had Europe respected their sovereignty. > Paradoxically, even for the aboriginals, of the 'solutions' ahead amount to ... 'more colonialism'. I take your point in the sense that many of these measures are "interventions" in a sense; they are initiatives imposed (or presented) by the federal government. I think they are fundamentally different from the original acts of colonialism, however, in that they seek to confer rights, status and resources as opposed to taking those things away. Where this goes beyond my understanding of the issues is in trying to determine who wants what, who speaks for whom, and so on...for instance you point out "problems with allocating land ownership and control to individuals". Of course that is problematic when, as I understand it, in many indigenous cultures the idea of owning land is considered absurd. It is, indeed, colonialist to insist on answers to questions like "who owns this land?" without considering that perhaps, no one does - and perhaps no one ought to.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "What is "the Colonial umbrella": "Canada's standards of living are attributable to a number of factors, including an immense land area with plentiful natural resources, a highly industrialized economy, a robust system of law and government, etc." <--- Yes. The imposition and expansion of this into North America is Colonialism. The expansion of education, language, justice, culture, industry, the economy, the political system, religion, and Enlightenment ideals - that is 'Colonialism'. i.e. civilization (as we understand it). The alternative, which was present before, is neolithic culture, which is how they would be living 'without colonialism'. If there is a 'paternalistic' view it's that Aboriginals somehow don't want at least the advantages of 'civilization' which they benefit from tremendously. Do you really think that Aboriginals would be happy and fruitful without hot water? Foraging for meals, living in tents and stick homes? No medicine, education, no effective social organization even at the tribal level? Aboriginals want warm homes, cars and Televisions just as much as anyone else - and the material benefits require all the supporting systems of 'Colonialism'. The 'situation' among Aboriginal communities is far better than it would be otherwise, they live at roughly the standards of the bottom 1/3 of Canadians. They have access to education, healthcare, homes, travel i.e. modernity in general - a relatively fair justice system - untold benefits - mostly provided to them for free (!!). Their 'problems' are almost entirely local: drugs, alcohol, violence among themselves, and an unwillingness to participate in many of the things they'll need to do (i.e. jobs) if they want the material benefits of the system. The current 'disequilibrium' is that they want access to modernity and all that comes along with it - without active participation in creating it.