Racism Discussion from "My Dad Was Mugged" Thread

[Stark]

Aren't most of those really poor villages mostly populated by generations of people who've been on the dole? If so, doesn't this just prove that handouts aren't effective if the people receiving them don't help themselves?

Do you believe scorn is effective social policy which creates positive outcomes for people?

[weemadando]

Aren't most of those really poor villages mostly populated by generations of people who've been on the dole? If so, doesn't this just prove that handouts aren't effective if the people receiving them don't help themselves?

Do you believe scorn is effective social policy which creates positive outcomes for people?

Hey lets be fair, he's seen how these horribly disadvantaged and socially maladjusted people are lazy and won't work, so if we just fucking tell them that there's no more handouts that'll fix it and they'll all move to Wall Street and start investment banks in order to support their alcoholism, right?

[Jub]

It's almost like you don't even try to understand the social problems that might make for a situation like that, but instead place all the blame on the victims!

Here's a question: In the US compared to whites, blacks score lower on tests, make less money, are more likely to be on food stamps/welfare, and disproportionately are convicted of crimes. Do you think it's because blacks are just inherently lazier, dumber, and more criminal than whites?

Poor people from a culture that encourages them top prove how much of a many they are will do poorly regardless of what race they are. You also missed the point of my question. The real question is, how much money can we put towards a problem when the people that we're giving the money too aren't willing to take the steps to deal with the issues they're causing for themselves?

These native communities aren't being given enough funding to make the changes needed because each community is too small to benefit from economy of scale and the percentage of money they are eligible for can't make enough of a change to solve the problems in a permanent way. They're also poor so the people in need have no money to help solve their own problems. So what should the government do in these cases?

We can keep on as we are, which frankly isn't working. We can give them a larger percentage of funds, though this takes away from services going to tax paying Canadians. We can try to get them to move to places that have jobs, but that would be taking away their land. We could encourage companies to develop that land, but then the companies will exploit these people. I ask what you would do not expecting much of an answer because there isn't an easy answer; as long as these people refuse to move from these small and remote communities it will be hard to improve things so that they can live as the rest of Canada does.

Aren't most of those really poor villages mostly populated by generations of people who've been on the dole? If so, doesn't this just prove that handouts aren't effective if the people receiving them don't help themselves?

Do you believe scorn is effective social policy which creates positive outcomes for people?

No, but giving them federal money each year isn't the way either. It needs to come from both groups, we give them money, but this money is just enough to patch the biggest leaks in a sinking ships. They need to find a way to earn money for themselves and improve their community beyond what is done with the handouts. Once they start to become self sufficient then they can use that money fro school trusts and other projects to further improve things.

[General Zod]

No, but giving them federal money each year isn't the way either. It needs to come from both groups, we give them money, but this money is just enough to patch the biggest leaks in a sinking ships. They need to find a way to earn money for themselves and improve their community beyond what is done with the handouts. Once they start to become self sufficient then they can use that money fro school trusts and other projects to further improve things.

What resources are they supposed to use to earn money for themselves? You don't really believe economies spring from nothing, do you?

[Jub]

No, but giving them federal money each year isn't the way either. It needs to come from both groups, we give them money, but this money is just enough to patch the biggest leaks in a sinking ships. They need to find a way to earn money for themselves and improve their community beyond what is done with the handouts. Once they start to become self sufficient then they can use that money fro school trusts and other projects to further improve things.

What resources are they supposed to use to earn money for themselves? You don't really believe economies spring from nothing, do you?

That's the rub. Are we supposed to give them more money from the tax pool now because they've been sitting there expecting us to care for them all these years? Or should we just keep spending the same because they should have made changes before things reached this point?

It's no shock that the nations of BC, who weren't depending on the federal dime, are doing better and are now negotiating equitable deals with the province and crown. This because they've had to fend for themselves up to this point and can now use that federal money to do even more for their people. Is it wrong to say that these people have done a better job of things than the people of nations who lack even the basics of modern life?

[General Zod]

Or just maybe the government is giving them money because the government owes a great deal of its current and future profits to the resources they stole from them?

[weemadando]

Or just maybe the government is giving them money because of the exponentially higher social and economics costs of NOT assisting them?

[Straha]

I think it's interesting to see how young a kneejerk defense of privilege can be inculcated. Jub has no direct interaction with the sheer amount of privilege he has, the sheer fantastic amount of work he doesn't have to do as a white (presumably) person in Canada, and certainly no way to contextualize this privilege but the second it's even question he kneejerks foaming at the mouth to defend it. I'd be tempted to say it's learned behaviour inherited from parents but I myself am rabidly anti-psychoanalytic and I think the phenomenon of teenagers gravitating towards the works of Ayn Rand despite the paucity of adult Randians seems to indicate that there's a secondary level at play here. Perhaps a realization of the intense dependence that teenagers have on others for their very existence and a selfish reaction against anyone else deserving the same sort of treatment, especially on a systemic scale? Again, this seems too first level, and overly selfish. Indeed, one would think that it'd be in the benefit of people like Jub to defend such handouts so as to defend his existence by association (one is reminded of 'the 47 percent' here)? But again, that doesn't appear to be the case.

I'm also interested in the historical blindness at play. The way that Jub immediately equates the legitimacy of the first nations to his own on Canadian soil, while not recognizing that his legitimacy is dependent not only on the treaties with the first nations, but on the coerced consent (hurhurhur) of the first nations. What, culturally, builds up this sense of entitlement and disrespect even in people so young that they haven't been able to fully appreciate their own privilege? I'm genuinely curious here. Thoughts?

[Jub]

Or just maybe the government is giving them money because the government owes a great deal of its current and future profits to the resources they stole from them?

You're missing the point. I'm asking if how much the government should pay these 3.6% of the population to ensure they can live comfortably and how much responsibility these people have in taking care of themselves. What's past is past and we can't change that. What we can do is ask questions and think about how to solve the problems as they stand now in a way that works for both sides.

Or just maybe the government is giving them money because of the exponentially higher social and economics costs of NOT assisting them?

Can you guys read? I support helping them with their issues, the same as I support helping any other person with their issues. I'm just looking and seeing that we already give them large sums of money to keep them alive and wondering how much they should be doing to make themselves more comfortable. Is it feasible to give them large sums to improve infrastructure when their lack of income and remote locations means that even building a nice new city from scratch won't solve things in the long term? Do we build them factories and logging mills so they can sue the resources they have to make money? Do we encourage business to move there and create jobs for them? Do we pay them until the end of time and replace each community as it crumbles because of hundreds of ancient treaties?

When does our responsibility to them end and their responsibility for themselves start?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok. Time for me to enter this thread. Jub, you are in fact a racist shitheel with no grasp of history. So here, let me give you the historical rundown, because you obviously have no fucking clue

1. Amerind Tribes (hereafter referred to as Amerinds) live as they had for 10k years. They have natural resources, distinct and interesting cultures, regional governments. Everything one might expect from a conglomeration of different cultural groups with a wide array of levels of development. Some were neolithic pastoralists or hunter/gatherers. Some were up there in Iron Age territory.

2. The White Man shows up, and for a few years, everything is cool. Amerind people's are a bit wary, but in many cases start to help out these new and interesting people.

3. Until it turns out that The White Man wants something from them other than teaching them that corn exists. It might be gold, or furs, or agricultural land, or timber. Hell, it might even be slaves, because that was a thing. Oh yes, so much slavery. So, The White Man Takes. Unburdened by any sort of moral stricture, because The White Man is christian, and does not accept the humanity of non-christians.

4. The White Man uses guns germs and steel to ethnically cleans the native people's from the east coast. This creates infighting as refugees go west, only to run into tribes that have enough issues just supporting themselves. The White Man signs treaties with these western tribes, using them to fight their wars (say, between the english and french) by proxy, and using them to help them ethnically cleanse the tribes who wont sign the treaties.

5. After that is done, and The White Man then discovers that their former allies have stuff they want. Abrogates the treaties.

6. Repeat steps 3-5.

7. There are still some Amerinds left. The Cherokee for example in Georgia. Andrew Jackson death-marches them from Georgia to Oklahoma in what is called the Trail of Tears. This sort of thing occurs for every remaining Amerind Tribe that is not living in the high arctic. The White Man even hunts the buffallo out from under the subsistence hunters of the western plains region--even from their own land prior to the (wait for it) abrogation of the treaties that guaranteed the territorial integrity of people like the Lakota.

8. Eventually, the only land remaining for the Amerind Peoples are the types of land no White Man wants. Land with no natural resources, that is difficult to farm, with few (if any) easy trade routes like navigable rivers.

9. When the Amerind People fight back, they are slaughtered and/or demonized by The White Man. Amerind children raised or educated in White society are taught that they are racially or culturally inferior to The White Man (this bit continues well into the 1900s). Even white children are indoctrinated with the belief that Amerind people are to be despised by way of classic childhood games like cowboys and indians and various media sources. Like the entire film genre called "Westerns". Major politicians chastise those in their ranks who might meet with Amerind leaders because "They killed General Custer and it is an insult to that Great American Hero to talk to them", ignoring the fact that the people who killed General Custer were defending themselves from genocide. Education and employment policy is only just recently such that Amerind peoples have a shot at making their lives better--but only if they leave their people and what ancient traditions they still have behind.

10. The White Man wonders why the remaining Amerind Peoples are so poor and economically undeveloped, and are bitter about how they dont pay taxes and get government subsidy. Said White Man proposes that we abrogate our treaties again and take the last thing we want from the Amerind people. Their cultural identity and autonomy. We have taken everything else. It is just that one last thing. Then everything will be solved.

Fuck You Jub. Fuck you and the caravel you sailed in on.

All bile and derision aside, you are committing the fundamental attribution error. You claim:

It's no shock that the nations of BC, who weren't depending on the federal dime, are doing better and are now negotiating equitable deals with the province and crown. This because they've had to fend for themselves up to this point and can now use that federal money to do even more for their people. Is it wrong to say that these people have done a better job of things than the people of nations who lack even the basics of modern life?

BC still has a coast line, Forests, and a climate that is not completely inhospitable. The tribes of BC are some of the only Amerind tribes who have this going for them. It is not about who the people are or what their attributes are. Historical contingency has permitted them to be better off than the vast majority of others.

You also missed the point of my question. The real question is, how much money can we put towards a problem when the people that we're giving the money too aren't willing to take the steps to deal with the issues they're causing for themselves?

You are mistaking cause for effect. Amerind peoples are not poor because they have drug addiction problems and are poorly educated. They are poorly educated and have drug addition problems because they are poor.

Here is how this works.

Cities and a high degree of wealth do not spring up ex nihlo. In order to not be poor, you have to have something someone else wants. As it turns out, Amerind people had those things. The difference is that instead of trading for them, the White Man simply stole them. The great cities of the world are where they are because one way or another they are hubs for some sort of economic activity. They are on a river, in the middle of an agricultural region, at a major trade junction. Something like that. In the US and Canada, those areas have become large cities with high levels of economic activity. They have become wealthy. The Amerind people could be the beneficiaries of this had The White Man not genocided and ethnically cleansed them. They are now (with a very few exceptions) relegated to the geographic dregs. The hinterlands with no trade routes, no resources. How the fuck are they supposed to develop economically under those conditions? Are they supposed to build a city to equal even a decent sized suburb on the unbridled economic power of traditional arts and crafts?

"Traditional Lakota Basket Weaving shall be our future!"

No.

So, these people are poor. You want to know what the best predictor of drug use and alcoholism happens to be? Pre-extant multigenerational poverty. We imposed poverty on Amerind peoples at the point of a gun. Then we gave them booze, and drugs. They did not create the problems they have now. We did. Us. The White Man. Not only did we create these problems, we benefited from doing so because we did it by way of taking rich economically productive land from its rightful owners. I can say "us" so as to include you, because even though your ancestors did not do any of these things, you owe your prosperity and relative wealth to the suffering of people who died from small pox, death marches, gun fire, and the bayonet in the history of our countries.

Both of our nations have a fucking debt to pay. So stop bitching, you shitheel.

[Jub]

Civilizations rise and fall, sometimes by the sword other times by internal collapse. Do we weep for what could have been if Rome hadn't taken Gaul? Or for what could have been in Britain if they never warred with the French? Should we find the descendants of Genghis Khan and make them pay for what their ancestors did? And what of the church paying reparations for the religions they stomped out? Why are the Amerinds more important than those other cultures that have suffered the same fate at the point of a sword?

You'll also note that I support helping them overcome alcoholism and I support educating them. I just think that we should do it the same resources we help poor communities of white or black or asian people with. I support funding to preserve their languages, cultures, and histories so they aren't lost to the world.

I don't support having two classes of people beholden to the same government. No nation can be whole with two classes of citizens that should otherwise be treated equally. All peoples were treated poorly in the past but asking Canadians to pay to support the natives until the end of time is like saying that Germany should be forced to pay an amount to Israel each year for eternity. Or like asking Italy to pay for any wrongs Rome may be accused of.

Eventually we have to say that enough time has passed and move on with things and solve the issues as they stand in the most effective way possible and not in the way outlined by two-hundred year old treaties.

[Stark]

Do you think this is a fair comparison?

Tbh I'm curious if you're aware of the source of the ideas you're repeating.

[Jub]

Do you think this is a fair comparison?

Tbh I'm curious if you're aware of the source of the ideas you're repeating.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't be fair. Did white people not fuck over other white people, steal their land, and crush their culture? Is it different because the Amerindians weren't able to fight back the way nations that developed next to us could?

No, but with the way you say it and the other sources in this thread it could range from the KKK to Hitler to something equally unsavory. The thing is, that I don't hate other races/peoples. I might not like or understand the way they act, but I think they're just as human and worthy of rights as you or I. I just think that Western Anglosphere culture, while terribly imperfect, is the best thing going right now as far as human rights and laws based on rationality and logic go.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Civilizations rise and fall, sometimes by the sword other times by internal collapse. Do we weep for what could have been if Rome hadn't taken Gaul?

Big difference. Here it is:

The various empires that rose and fell in the history of earth integrated the cultures they crushed. The Gauls became Romanized and after that became the French. They are no longer suffering on account what the Romans did to them. Amerind tribes are.

Why are the Amerinds more important than those other cultures that have suffered the same fate at the point of a sword?

Because they are still fucking around as a distinct people you idiot! The Anglo-Saxons and Norwegians integrated with Normans and Welsh to become modern English. The Angles, East Frisians, Saxons, Thuringes, Verni and Lombards integrated into what we now call germans. The Jutes and Danes into Danes. The Swedes, Geats and Goths became Swedes.

All of these groups have, over time, integrated. Why? Because racism as we know it today is a recent thing. Historically yes, white people killed eachother, but then they integrated their cultures. Institutional discrimination was only a thing when newly captured provinces rebelled. Once the border was gone, intermarriage happened, and languages melded the two cultures simply morphed into something new and continuous with both original starting cultures.

No nation can be whole with two classes of citizens that should otherwise be treated equally

That is the point. They are not in your nation. Amerinds effectively hold dual citizenship. One in their tribe, and one in Canada (or the US). The reservations are in effect Autonomous Regions or Protectorates, held as such by treaty obligation between two sovereign states.

They gave up their territorial claims to the vast majority of Canada (and in my case, the US) which were theirs by right of law, and in exchange they get paid for everything we took from them by force, including value added, and get benefits they cannot afford to provide for themselves because we took the land that would have permitted them to provide it to themselves. Given the history, you seriously want to ignore those treaties again?

It would be one thing to say "Hey guys, would you like to integrate?". It is another to simply ignore legal obligations--and historic debt--as you propose.

asking Canadians to pay to support the natives until the end of time is like saying that Germany should be forced to pay an amount to Israel each year for eternity

A) Jews were not a sovereign state.
B) The Germans did not take Israel from them and refuse to give it back. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I dont like the state of Israel overmuch because they have done exactly that to the palistinians
C) The Germans never signed a treaty with the state of israel that would obligate them to do this.

[DarkArk]

1. Amerind Tribes (hereafter referred to as Amerinds) live as they had for 10k years. They have natural resources, distinct and interesting cultures, regional governments. Everything one might expect from a conglomeration of different cultural groups with a wide array of levels of development. Some were neolithic pastoralists or hunter/gatherers. Some were up there in Iron Age territory.

2. The White Man shows up, and for a few years, everything is cool. Amerind people's are a bit wary, but in many cases start to help out these new and interesting people.

You missed the part where 90-95% of natives in North America were killed by disease without even seeing a European in the 1500s. It's the reason that they were mostly destroyed in the first place, and why we have no idea how many natives lived in the Americas pre-contact. Our whole idea of the natives living in commune with nature is a complete fabrication, because by 1600 the natives that were still around were already a post-apocalyptic people. The Spanish found empty cities along the Mississippi, to provide one example. There's geological evidence of this mass dying as well. In my own Northwest the natives had a habit of burning down the forest, which made fields where condors lived. In the mid-1500s this practice stopped, and the condors went away. Conquest as it happened would have been impossible without the diseases. Otherwise the colonies would have looked a lot more like India rather than

Oh yes, so much slavery.

Yet natives practiced slavery. Should we demonize them in your history as well? Because anyone who tries to generalize 400 years of history into a one-sided affair as you have just done is a propagandist. It ignores that many Europeans got along well with the natives, particularly in the first hundred years. That the Supreme Court ruled against Jackson in the Trail of Tears. He did it anyway, but really he was one of our worst presidents regardless. Or Bartholome de las Casas, who successfully argued for native rights before the Spanish king, and got him to end slavery of the natives (so there goes your "Christians don't recognize humanity of non-Christians").

But really this gets into an even bigger issue, which is moralizing history with our own morality. By judging people who would never have heard of it, you lose the objective stance that good history requires.

They are no longer suffering on account what the Romans did to them. Amerind tribes are.

Let's try something a little different then. When the Mongols invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, they destroyed the irrigation systems those peoples had built over generations. They destroyed their cities, killing, raping, and god knows what else to the people who lived there. When they reached Baghdad they threw the entire contents of its library into the Tigris. They then dispersed the cities moving most into the countryside. It can be argued that this conquest is a direct cause for why those regions are as poor as they are, even to this day. Further there was little in the way of cultural exchange, indeed it can be argued that the Mongols committed cultural genocide. Islamic intellectualism never recovered, neither did their agriculture. So, given this, why shouldn't the Mongols have to pay reparations?

[Stark]

Are you saying 'the mongols' have political or national continuity to the present day, or agreements with other political or national entities from that time?

Because otherwise that seems totally irrelevant. Regardless, the concept of 'reparations' is irrelevant to policies trying to create positive social outcomes.

[Jub]

Civilizations rise and fall, sometimes by the sword other times by internal collapse. Do we weep for what could have been if Rome hadn't taken Gaul?

Big difference. Here it is:

The various empires that rose and fell in the history of earth integrated the cultures they crushed. The Gauls became Romanized and after that became the French. They are no longer suffering on account what the Romans did to them. Amerind tribes are.

Didn't we try to integrate the natives? I know we did it in the worst way possible, but that's just because things didn't happen in the usual way. We didn't war with they back and forth they way we did with other nations, we crushed them because they weren't our equals in warfare and they couldn't resist our diseases. We were never forced to respect them as a foe the way we were with the rest of the people and cultures we have warred with.

Why are the Amerinds more important than those other cultures that have suffered the same fate at the point of a sword?

Because they are still fucking around as a distinct people you idiot! The Anglo-Saxons and Norwegians integrated with Normans and Welsh to become modern English. The Angles, East Frisians, Saxons, Thuringes, Verni and Lombards integrated into what we now call germans. The Jutes and Danes into Danes. The Swedes, Geats and Goths became Swedes.

All of these groups have, over time, integrated. Why? Because racism as we know it today is a recent thing. Historically yes, white people killed eachother, but then they integrated their cultures. Institutional discrimination was only a thing when newly captured provinces rebelled. Once the border was gone, intermarriage happened, and languages melded the two cultures simply morphed into something new and continuous with both original starting cultures.

So the Metis don't exist then? We have, to a limited extent, married some natives and some French together. The main issue is that the natives don't want to integrate and we just shrug and forget they exist most of the time.

No nation can be whole with two classes of citizens that should otherwise be treated equally

That is the point. They are not in your nation. Amerinds effectively hold dual citizenship. One in their tribe, and one in Canada (or the US). The reservations are in effect Autonomous Regions or Protectorates, held as such by treaty obligation between two sovereign states.

They gave up their territorial claims to the vast majority of Canada (and in my case, the US) which were theirs by right of law, and in exchange they get paid for everything we took from them by force, including value added, and get benefits they cannot afford to provide for themselves because we took the land that would have permitted them to provide it to themselves. Given the history, you seriously want to ignore those treaties again?

It would be one thing to say "Hey guys, would you like to integrate?". It is another to simply ignore legal obligations--and historic debt--as you propose.

It might not be coming through clearly, but I've softened my stance after doing some more reading. I thought more groups were like the ones in BC, rather than dirt poor and dirty. I still think the treaties aren't working for most of the people bound by them and think we should try new ways of fixing the issues.I just think that these new ways should seek to solve the underlying issues rather than just giving these people new houses, teach a man to fish and all that.

asking Canadians to pay to support the natives until the end of time is like saying that Germany should be forced to pay an amount to Israel each year for eternity

A) Jews were not a sovereign state.
B) The Germans did not take Israel from them and refuse to give it back. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I dont like the state of Israel overmuch because they have done exactly that to the palistinians
C) The Germans never signed a treaty with the state of israel that would obligate them to do this.

So if we had wiped them to the man or not signed treaties you would look on this situation differently?

[DarkArk]

Are you saying 'the mongols' have political or national continuity to the present day, or agreements with other political or national entities from that time?

I don't give a damn about the Canadian governments decision to hold on to its treaties with the natives. That's their call, and I'm not defending Jub on that count. Rather I was responding to the idea that the natives are somehow different in their suffering when compared to other conquered and brutalized peoples.

the concept of 'reparations' is irrelevant to policies trying to create positive social outcomes.

How so?

[Alyrium Denryle]

You missed the part where 90-95% of natives in North America were killed by disease without even seeing a European in the 1500s.

I did not miss it. It is A) Accounted for in another sub-heading and B) less relevant because most of those people are now dead and gone and thus irrelevant to the plight of the tribes who still exist.

Our whole idea of the natives living in commune with nature is a complete fabrication, because by 1600 the natives that were still around were already a post-apocalyptic people.

See where I mentioned this:

They have natural resources, distinct and interesting cultures, regional governments. Everything one might expect from a conglomeration of different cultural groups with a wide array of levels of development. Some were neolithic pastoralists or hunter/gatherers. Some were up there in Iron Age territory.

Yeah. I am not writing a comprehensive history here. I have to gloss over some of the detail.

Yet natives practiced slavery. Should we demonize them in your history as well?

I do not demonize slave holders before slavery was a "ripe" moral issue. I do however recognize that slavery is a fucked up thing, and should be counted in the list of injustices and wrongs committed by various peoples when certain accounting are made in retrospect. Say for example, when we are trying to decide on certain policies relating to still-extant social groups.

Let's try something a little different then. When the Mongols invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, they destroyed the irrigation systems those peoples had built over generations.

Irrelevant, because the Mongols are gone. They no longer exist as a distinct people, let alone a state.

Didn't we try to integrate the natives?

The fact that we attempted and failed miserably does not absolve us responsibility for the end result.

So the Metis don't exist then?

Forgive me, I am not familiar with every group mankind has ever seen. The formalized group called the Metis could be considered an exception. I am not up to speed on them. It would depend however on how they had been historically treated.

The main issue is that the natives don't want to integrate and we just shrug and forget they exist most of the time.

And they have every right to refuse integration. It is not as if they are immigrants who move into a country and live among its people, and are thus to be expected to live by the laws of their new home.

So if we had wiped them to the man or not signed treaties you would look on this situation differently?

Put it this way. Had integration succeeded back in the 1700s and the populations intermixed completely seemlessly as the europeans spread west, we would have a bunch of people claiming descent from native american tribes, but who history left off none the worse for wear. They would be the New World equivalent of the Welsh. Their descendants would still largely occupy their native lands, they would be fully economically socially, and probably genetically integrated. Cool.

The English do not pay reparations of any sort to the Welsh, because the Welsh became English. There is no lasting harm that exists to this day as a result of the conquest of wales.

Had the same thing happened with the Amerind tribes, we would not be having this conversation.

[Phantasee]

One of the reasons the First Nations of BC do better than the First Nations of Treaty lands is that they never gave up their lands. Other than the treaties covering the lower mainland and parts of BC covered by Treaty 8, the First Nations still claim most of the land in BC. Any time someone wants to do something, they have to fairly compensate the relevant First Nation for the use of their land. That's a lot of valuable land, there. If you think about it, you realize there would be much stronger First Nations communities across the Prairies if they were fairly compensated for all use of their traditional lands. As it is, they only get anything when someone does something on reserve lands (including the Fort MacKay community up north of Fort McMurray, in the oil sands).

Anyway Aly can you please explain where the term "Amerind" comes from and why you're using it? I've never heard it used before anywhere, and it's kinda useless considering Americans aren't Indians, unless they're descended from people actually from, y'know, India. Can we stick with Native Americans or better yet, First Nations?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Anyway Aly can you please explain where the term "Amerind" comes from and why you're using it? I've never heard it used before anywhere, and it's kinda useless considering Americans aren't Indians, unless they're descended from people actually from, y'know, India. Can we stick with Native Americans or better yet, First Nations?

A portmanteu of "American" and "Indigenous" (alternatively yes, American and Indian. That has shifted however), it is what is used by a good chunk of anthropologists (and was first coined by them) and also refers to a now-defunct proposed linguistic superfamily of indigenous languages in N. America.

[Channel72]

Jub has a point, however, that continuously supporting the First Nations isn't working. His argument seems to be that a strategy of integration would be better - and he's probably right. If Native populations had integrated more seamlessly into Canadian or US society, then, as Alyrium said, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But they haven't integrated, because they still maintain their identity as separate nations. (Even though their "autonomy" is mostly a joke - they are mostly dependent on the infrastructure of the surrounding nation.) So the question is, what is the best strategy, going forward? Continuously supporting them for all eternity seems to have the effect of perpetually maintaining an entire nation of impoverished, unproductive peoples - all in the name of "guilt" and "reparations". And I put the word "reparation" in quotes not because I think the Canadian/US governments don't owe anything to the peoples they've slaughtered, but because at this point, these "reparations" serve almost as a convenient "penance" that doesn't do anything other than maintain this shitty status-quo, while still technically fulfilling the legal obligations of the governments involved.

Regardless of the specific historical circumstances which led to the impoverished state of the First Nations, the de facto situation here is that they are basically remote ghettos which suffer from the same type of poverty and limited social mobility problems faced by US inner-city ghettos. In both cases race is also an exacerbating factor, but in the case of the First Nations, historical treaties provide a further complication that limits our options. Perhaps the best strategy here would be something like investing in their education, through special scholarship programs, so that the next generation of Native American children end up attending US/Canadian Universities, and ultimately integrate into Western society.

[amigocabal]

It's almost like you don't even try to understand the social problems that might make for a situation like that, but instead place all the blame on the victims!

Here's a question: In the US compared to whites, blacks score lower on tests, make less money, are more likely to be on food stamps/welfare, and disproportionately are convicted of crimes. Do you think it's because blacks are just inherently lazier, dumber, and more criminal than whites?

Of course not. Averages do not in themselves establish features inherent in groups.

Test scores are dependent on knowledge. If for example, there was a test on say, the commercial growing of pineapples, would it be surprising if Polynesians scored higher on average than Scandinavians? There may be reasons why, on average, black people have less knowledge than white people.

As for criminality, males are disproportionately convicted of crimes. Are males inherently more criminal than females?

The Germans did not take Israel from them and refuse to give it back. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I dont like the state of Israel overmuch because they have done exactly that to the palistinians

The land was not taken from the Palestinians. If anything, it was taken from the Turks.

I think it's interesting to see how young a kneejerk defense of privilege can be inculcated.

Defense of privilege is traditional. In fact, it can be explained by evolutionary psychology- by defending privileges against those who would take it away, we better our chances of surviving to breed to the next generation, and/or the chances of our children surviving to breed to the next generation. Those who felt guilty over having privileges had lesser chances of doing either.

Why would people abandon behavior that increased the odds of their ancestors surviving long enough to breed?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Regardless of the specific historical circumstances which led to the impoverished state of the First Nations, the de facto situation here is that they are basically remote ghettos which suffer from the same type of poverty and limited social mobility problems faced by US inner-city ghettos. In both cases race is also an exacerbating factor, but in the case of the First Nations, historical treaties provide a further complication that limits our options. Perhaps the best strategy here would be something like investing in their education, through special scholarship programs, so that the next generation of Native American children end up attending US/Canadian Universities, and ultimately integrate into Western society.

One way to go might be a similar approach to what ideally should be done in the developing world. Now, there are some major highways going through some reservations (in AZ for example, if you go north from Phoenix toward Utah, you will pass through some mountainous rocky desert that is a reservation. Talk about desolate). The problem is that these roads are not well trafficked. Moving from one relatively small population state to another relatively small population state.

Now, Solar Energy is one thing that no one can ever take away from these areas, and a set of large solar array can probably power most of the state (and then some). So, where do we put the huge solar arrays? Well we can negotiate with the Navajo et al to put them on reservation land. Not only would they need to be compensated for the use of their land (possibly via an energy royalty, or even tribal ownership of the array.), but there can be a provision in the contract that guarantees them that a certain percentage of the labor for building and maintaining the array comes from their populations, with training programs as necessary to get people qualified. The same can be done for wind power in some areas as well.

We get renewable energy, and we help Native Americans to help themselves, while at the same time not mandate that they give up their cultural identity.

[ArmorPierce]

Damn indians with all that land that they are not even productively using...

Wasn't that one of the justifications used for forcibly taking their land in the first place? I am pretty awe-strucked that people actually are still using it today and want to continue breaking treaties.