3 ms·

> 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. Ca

> 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.
- adriand 5y ago
  You’re conflating colonialism with modernization. They are not the same thing. Of the G7 only two countries are colonies, which shows that nations (and the indigenous peoples of North America were indeed nations - engaging in treaties, sending diplomats to Europe, etc.) are able to modernize with being subjected to colonialism. It is absurd to claim that indigenous nations would not have modernized without the “benefits” of colonialism. It is also absurd to claim that “aboriginals” lacked access to hot water until European settlers showed up. I think some reading about the accomplishments of the native societies of North America would be beneficial. There could have been a fruitful and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, technologies, ways of life, etc., between Western and indigenous nations when Europeans made contact with native Americans. Instead what took place was genocide.

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.

adriand 5y ago
You’re conflating colonialism with modernization. They are not the same thing. Of the G7 only two countries are colonies, which shows that nations (and the indigenous peoples of North America were indeed nations - engaging in treaties, sending diplomats to Europe, etc.) are able to modernize with being subjected to colonialism. It is absurd to claim that indigenous nations would not have modernized without the “benefits” of colonialism. It is also absurd to claim that “aboriginals” lacked access to hot water until European settlers showed up. I think some reading about the accomplishments of the native societies of North America would be beneficial. There could have been a fruitful and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, technologies, ways of life, etc., between Western and indigenous nations when Europeans made contact with native Americans. Instead what took place was genocide.