Yet more of the attitude that money itself should have solved all their troubles. It hasn’t worked for over a hundred years; why should it work now?
It’s so easy to think money will magically transform them, and for us to say “Just become one of us, that’s all you have to do”. They don’t wake up every morning and make a conscious decision to live in squalor, as if they have another option. Try thinking about why money and a condescending attitude hasn’t turned them into model urban citizens, instead of blaming them when they don’t.
You’re totally right about that, but you’re just focusing on the money itself as if that’s the answer. The Kelowna Accord was an attempt to change how the money was spent. It recognized that just giving money to the reserves wasn’t enabling them to become self-sufficient. It was an attempt to change a method that hadn’t worked since the 1800s.
I agree money isn’t the answer. That’s why we should stop sending it. But then the last people who would agree to that would be the Attawapiskat.
No one is forcing them to become one of us (whatever ‘us’ is). They can choose to live in the woods if they want to. Now they might starve by doing so, but that is their choice. People should be allowed to make that choice. Notice I say ‘people’ and not ‘natives’? Because anyone placed in a similar position is likely to end up in a similar situation.
There were 90million+ reasons why they should not have to wake up every morning in squalor. I’m not sure why it is continuously up to the rest of us to rescue them from their decisions.
I know exactly why money given to people doesn’t work. I know that the reason they haven’t adapted to the modern world is because they are continually given money. They have no incentive to change.
The condescending attitude is free, btw. And a simple solution to avoid it is to not act like babies and blame others for problems they had more than a hand in avoiding.
Interesting that you’re the kind of person who only supports honoring your word only when it’s convient for you, Uzi. Which is what you’re proposing amounts to.
Is he or is he not advocating the Canadian government breaking its word? If he’s advocating a new treaty, how does he plan to get them to give up the old one for his (from the native’s perspective) harsher terms? I gave him the benefit of the doubt on critical thinking.
Further if that’s an insult, why is the needling term “babies” okay? Why didn’t you call him on that?
But that’s just the problem - way I’ve been reading it, the reason given why the $90 million or so didn’t translate into actual housing is that the money was controlled from long distance by spending allocations in Ottawa, far far away from the community, right?
Now, either that is true, or it is not. The possibilities are:
(1) The problem is that Ottawa spending allocations, made by bureaucrats thousands of miles from the reserve, did not allocate money wisely, causing the disaster.
(2) The money was simply insufficient. No matter how it was spent, $90 million would still have resulted in the disaster; or
(3) The books were cooked. The money went into someone’s pocket - the reserve’s leadership, most likely.
Any I am overlooking?
If not, the point being that in every one of these possibilities the government ought, as a matter of prudence, send someone in to check with ‘boots on the ground’ what is actually going on.
That’s your problem, not his. He can advocate the terms be changed all he wants. You can raise the issues you want. Don’t go mischaracterizing his post because of that disagreement.
I only say it’s insulting because I’m not allowed to say what it really is around here. Or perhaps saying it’s an “insult” would be preferable?
Well you know you’re right. I jumped the gun a bit. Maybe instead of advocating the Canadian governments words turned into lies, he was advocating something that has no chance of happening.
Again, why do my posts fit whatever you’re hinting at, but his condecension and insults don’t? Nice double standard.
As I see it, the question is: can you live a 1st-World lifestyle in a remote place that lacks any significant resources?
I would say, NO.
Face it, if you want a warm (heated house) you have to be in a place that has energy supplies (electricity, coal, oil, gas, etc.). Trying to make a remote place into a nice easy place is expensive. And what is there for these people to do? You can only trap game and harvest some local berrys, etc.-is this going to afford you a comfortable life?
Take Greenland: the majority of the Greenlanders now live as western europeans-in heated houses and buying their food in stores. True, they suffer a lot of ills-but it is a better life than that afforded by hunting seals.
If you drag the little man in the upper left hand corner of the screen over the town, there’s little blue dots that you can place him to see pictures.
I don’t see a shanty town. There’s a hospital, schools, houses with garages and cars. It’s no paradise, but it doesn’t look like people living in huts.
Meanwhile, one shack displays its (admittedly small) LCD TV. Huh, what could you do with that couple hundred dollars? Put some insulation in your shanty shack? Nah, government’s my landlord, I’ll freeze in my tent while watching TV instead.
In exchange for paying for the reserve’s health care, education and so forth, the tax payers got rights to use large, valuable tracts of land. Isn’t that a fair exchange?
I agree that communities like Attawapiskat aren’t really sustainable and something should be done about it, but complaining that Canada got ripped off in her treaties with the various First Nations is laughable.
One issue which crops up in American reservations is the non-private ownership of land. We might mock at the family living with an LCD TV in the shack, but the thing is, they own the TV. They do not and cannot, own the shack.
As to how the finances break down, I do not know. I should suppose that we ought to change things so that they own their own land, even if that’s limited to known descendants of the tribe, and that any mining rights be divided a la Alaska’s. Oftentimes, people would rather be less well off but control their own fate than be fat and happy while powerless. As to whether that is an effective solution here, I do not know. I am only a far-of observer of a few news stories.
Interestingly, the community’s financial statements are available on the Web (PDFs). Perhaps someone knowledgeable in accounting could interpret these for us–maybe even answer the question of where the community went wrong financially.
Exactly. Instead of goverment payments maybe they should be getting payments for mineral rights on tribal land. This could be a carrot for negotiating a new treaty.
He himself suggested negotiations and a possible path forward. It might or might not be unrealistic. That’s a matter for reasoned debate and people can reasonable disagree. You went way overboard, as well as doing something I’m not allowed to state here.
He may or may not be a jerk. You, however, are “deliberately mischaracterizing” his posts in a blatant and offensive way. You were being a jerk, and more. I’ll consider it closed unless you wish to cointine, in which case we could take it to the Pit, or whatever, to avoid draggint this thread in.
I realize the Kelowna Accord had a lot of happy, flowery language in it, but the absolute fact of the matter than in terms of substantive, real, binding changes, it was just more money. It included very little else of substance.
No, I’m sorry, but it just wasn’t. Nothing about the basic setup was going to change. In fact, there isn’t even an actual agreement; it was essentially a document saying “We’ve held a meeting and here are some nice things we want to do by spending five billion dollars, and here are some specific things we hope will get better as a result.” There was no commitment to change the Indian Act. No commitment to change the structure of Indian Affairs.
The accord contains a lot of promises to hold more meetings, though.
If you don’t believe me, here it is:
It’s 30 pages long and 28 of them are simply fluff - general statements of intent, wishes, and promises to hold meetings. Rad the document as if it’s a contract, and you’ll see there are almost no promises of substance.
Above quoted to demonstrate you don’t take your own medicine. with your post below.
And what’s that? What am I doing? You seem to have quite a problem. His “suggestion” was basically telling the natives to assimilate or starve, and then calling them a bunch of babies.
Do reasonable folks resort to slurs such as “babies”?
Again you demonstrate quite the double standard.
If I misinterpreted his slured posts against the natives I’m open to correction however I find name calling a group trying to preserve it’s culture very offensive.
Further I deliberately mischaracterized nothing so unless you want to call me a liar anymore directly than you already did the matter is indeed closed.