4 ms·
> All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals. I mean, that
by reggieband 5y ago
> All citizens of Canada live immensely higher standards of living than they would otherwise under the Colonial umbrella - including aboriginals.
I mean, that was a typical argument in favour of slavery. After the apartheid ended in South Africa there was a pretty large movement of former slaves protesting about their lower quality of life and demanding a return to the previous status quo. We don't only consider standard of living when making moral judgements about structures of government.
It is the standard paternalistic European attitude. And the last vestige of justification remaining for residential schools so I'm not so quick to just let it slip. It's the analogy to a parent soothingly telling a child in tantrum: "You'll understand why I'm doing this when you're older". As if they should thank us for raising them out of their savagery.
I also reject your comparison to immigrants, like Syrians literally running for their lives from a civil war in their country of origin, to aboriginals who were living within their own land of origin and had this life thrust on them unrequested. The circumstances couldn't be any different. Immigrants make a choice of self-determination while aboriginals are being deprived of self-determination.
> 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
On this we agree and it fits into the complexity of the situation. One area that most Canadians would find hard to stomach is that some traditional tribe hierarchies are patriarchal. It is a difficult balance to allow self-determination while also upholding concepts like universal human rights.
We've gone a bit deep here and I admit I'm pretty far out of my depth. In fact, the only real thing I'm confident on is that this issue is too complex to fix with money alone.
- jollybean 5y ago"I mean, that was a typical argument in favour of slavery. " This isn't even anywhere near true. First - Canadian colonialists did not, and do not, benefit from the labour inputs of aboriginal citizens. They were never some kind of advantage to Canadian development. Second - that Canadians of Aboriginal descent live at considerably higher standards that the neolithic people they were, and would be otherwise - is unambiguously factual. "aboriginals who were living within their own land of origin and had this life thrust on them unrequested" They are living in homes, have cars and TV 'unrequested'? We are 'forcing' them to do this? They couldn't just go ahead and live in huts and tents if they so chose? How 'paternalistic' is it to contemplate that somehow Aboriginals really want to live as their ancients did, in skin tents and huts, with no hot water, no medicine, education or any of the advantages of material advancement? In reality - they want all the same thing we do: homes, heating, hot water, grocery stores, cars, food, entertainment. They're just not organized enough to 'trade' services or labour to the point where we care to give them anything for it. They want the material benefits of Colonialism for the same reasons we do. So we end up mostly giving it to them.