No Canadian should argue that we have a good record of interaction with First Nations, but a lot of important steps forward have occurred in the last couple decades that do a lot towards correcting historical injustices. Nunavut boy can testify to one. For myself, I was at the signing of the Tsawwassen First Nation’s treaty on April 3rd of this year that granted them self-government within the framework of the Canadian constitution, and includes a small land grant and significant cash payments over the next few years to get them established. I’m not aware of any similarly large steps in the rest of the Commonwealth. Other negotiations with First Nation bands are underway with similar aims.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but there are a LOT of places were, bad as the US treatment of the NA population, others got it much much worse.
For example, there wasn’t a lot of government sanctioned kidnapping of NA children in the US, so they could be raised in gov’t affiliated schools “correctly”. I understand that this happened in New Zealand as recently as the 1960’s? I am going off memory here, so of course that is highly suspect.
I have a baised viewpoint on the issue, as my grandmother was a strong proponent of NA rights and what-not in Montana, so I’ll bow out here.
Even “best” ain’t that good. May as well rank from least worst to most worst.
Bryan Ekers writes:
> Even “best” ain’t that good. May as well rank from least worst to most worst.
I agree.
Well…‘better’ is a matter of perspective. It does not equate to ‘good’. But bad as the US was (and I don’t think anyone would claim we weren’t really REALLY bad), I think we are pretty far down the list of most egregious offenders.
And it gets worse when you look further back in time. Read the bible some time, or look at some of the other ancient civilizations and see how THEY handled aboriginal peoples in territory they conquered. It wasn’t unheard of for entire regions to be deliberately and brutally depopulated. I seem to recall the story of the Mongols (or perhaps it was the Huns) taking a city and basically having each soldier take 10 citizens and butcher them. An army of 10,000 could basically slaughter an entire city in a few minutes that way.
We are a pretty bloody, nasty species, all things said…and even the ‘better’ examples don’t exactly cover the host nations in glory.
-XT
Govt. sanctioned kidnapping of Maori children in NZ into the '60s? I don’t think so. Perhaps my google-fu is weak today, and if someone can offer a cite or site I’d be interested to have a look.
Aboriginal kids were taken in Australia (though I don’t know the time period of that).
That’s the subject matter of the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence, set in 1931.
There are (probably) no full-bloods left, but there are certainly Tasmanian aboriginals alive.
Ya, usually. But, in many cases, people who are American Indians do not know what exactly their tribal background is. And, of course, sometimes we have to refer to all American Indian peoples for various reasons. As you can see, I prefer “American Indian”. As a side note, Dakota and Sioux are the same thing. Sorta. All Dakotas are Sioux, but so are Nakota and Lakota(largest tribe).
You’re not serious right? If you would really rank in that order I suggest that you do a LOT more reading.
My history is not strong, but a few pointers that should be considered here for the NZ experience
- Maori had the vote from the beginning of the Treaty of Waitangi (although voting rights were based on land ownership so it was not a global fanchise, no group was disbarred based on their race)
- New Zealands parliament has for the longest time had seats seat aside specifically for Maori representation
- To the best of my knowledge, there has NEVER been any practise of formal / dliberate discrimination. Of course I am over simplifying here. BUT, we never had anything even approaching segregation in schools.
These are just a few of the top of my head…to put the US above New Zealand in such a discussion is to me patently ridiculous.
BTW - I klnow the meaning of Aboriginal, but am a bit uncomfortable with the term, as it does specifically also refer to Australian Aborigines, maybe a better term might be indiginous peoples?
Umm, you guys are way off topic. The OP asked(and he was quite demonstrative of the point) about the CURRENT situation. Not 50 years ago, and definitely not 100+.
I’m still waiting for the OP to say how we (South Africa) are a “whole other mess”. Other than being the Anglophone former colony where the aboriginals rule, that is.
The Tasmanian Aboriginal population was reduced from around 5,000 to around 300 by disease and ill-treatment at the hands of the British. The last full-blooded Tasmanian Aboriginals died in the 19th century, however there are still people of mixed European/Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestry alive today.
A work of fiction taken by too many (not necessarily including you) as gospel.
google “stolen generation”. Australia’s practise of removing aboriginal children from their birth mothers and placing them with white christian families only ended in the 1970’s and there was only a formal apology by the Federal government in 2008
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23206140-2,00.html
Some land has been returned to aborignal people’s but as far as I know there is no actual autonomy of aboriginal lands… so based on this I place Australia last.
(I’m australian BTW, and not particularly proud of that aspect of our society…)